ML20058N693
| ML20058N693 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/13/1993 |
| From: | Russell W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Scroggins R NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR21116, RULE-PR-170 GL-87-02, GL-87-2, TAC-M80522, NUDOCS 9312220215 | |
| Download: ML20058N693 (5) | |
Text
p aRkuvq e
p Ig UNITED STATES i Y 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ra E
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 December 13, 1993
]
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Ronald M. Scroggins Deputy Chief Financial Officer / Controller Office of the Controller FROM:
William T. Russell Associate Director for Inspection and Technical Assessment Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM 10 CFR PART 170 FEES FOR THE REVIEW 0F THE GENERIC IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURE, REVISION 2, FOR THE SEISMIC QUALIFICATION UTILITY GROUP (TAC NO. M80522)
INTRODUCTION In response to a request from the Seismic Qualification Utility Group (SQUG),
in a 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.
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 addressed this purpose, as well as considerations related to past interactions between SQUG and the 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 to be an inconsistency with the Commission's Fee Policy (58 FR 21116).
Specifically, the NRC has billed SQUG for the staff review of GIP-2 which was characterized by the NRC Controller's Office as a topical report, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 170.
SQUG indicated its belief that the review should be billed pursuant to 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 i
November 17, 1993, meeting, a discussion (Enclosure 1) supporting its above-stated contention that the GIP should be treated as a required response to a l
generic letter and not as a topical report. At the conclusion of the meeting, the NRC staff informed SQUG that it would evaluate SQUG's request based on current NRC practices and respond to SQUG in writing with the Agency's fee billing decision.
BACKGROUND 170011 In a letter of February 7,1992, SQUG applied for exemption from Part 170 billing for the staff's review of GIP-2. The NRC Office of the Controller, in i
a letter of September 29, 1992, denied that request based on its consideration l
of the GIP-2 as a topical report.
In a letter dated October 21, 1992, SQUG petitioned for reconsideration of the denial.
Following reconsideration, the staff again denied the exemption in a letter dated February 8, 1993, which o3 i reaffirmed that the GIP-2 was being considered a topical report.
In a letter I
dated April 7, 1993, SQUG petitioned for a reconsideration of the February 8, lljg m (bfu h b W L ' yg
- 4',i fj'M! hub //WA&t >
ggf 9312220215 931213 QP W
~
Id dJ f M C(uri-2
", 2 '
4. [ i j ['
4 6
(
l Ronald M. Scroggins 2
1993, denial. On August 31, 1993, the staff issued the " Commission's final determination" denying the exemption.
DISCUSSION After the meeting of November 17, 1993, the staff reviewed the billing history of the industry's responses to GL 87-02. Most affected utilities joined the t
SQUG and worked with the NRC staff to develop an acceptable methodology for addressing the seismic adequacy of equipment in their plants. This effort resulted in the GIP-2. Florida Power & Light Corporation (FP&L), the licensee.
for St. Lucie and Turkey Point, developed its own methodology independently and submitted it on the dockets for those plants. While the GIP-2 was treated as a topical report with the review being billed pursuant to Part 170, the FP&L methodology has been treated as a required response to GL 87-02 with the review being billed pursuant to Part 171. The staff found that if the members of SQUG had submitted the GIP-2 separately on their individual dockets or had developed their own methodologies individually, the reviews would have been billed pursuant to Part 171 like FP&L's.
The staff feels that the utilities working together in developing a generic procedure has been significantly in the public interest in two ways.
- First, the cost of developing procedures applicable to dozens of plants is mitigated i
by the utilities working together to develop one procedure. This cost savings can be passed on to the public through lower rates, or transferred to other safety programs resulting in a safety benefit.
Second, the NRC staff expended i
less review time for the one generic procedure than would have been expended reviewing multiple plant-specific procedures. This staff time saved is then applied to other safety issues.resulting in a net safety benefit to the public. This initiative by the SQUG member utilities was encouraged by the staff. Therefore, the staff feels that there is sufficient justification to support an exemption from Part 170 billing pursuant to 10 CFR 170.11(b)(1).
Therefore, I request that you review this case, grant the.SQUG request for exemption, and bill the staff's review efforts for the Generic Implementation Procedure pursuant to Part 171.
I have enclosed a proposed letter to SQUG informing them of such a decision (Enclosure 2).
g y.
.g g7 W. i. ilUG3EL i
William T. Russell, Associate Director for Inspection and Technical Assessment
- Previously concurred Of "
Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
Enclosures:
Distribution: hntral Files NRC PDR DE RF EMEB RF As stated KManoly/CHRON PTChen -~
MMcBrearty RWessman KBohrer -
EMEB:DE*
EMEB:DE*
AD:DE*
Ad KManoly;eh JNorberg JWiggins WRussell 12/7/93 12/7/93 12/08/93 fy/r3 /93 G:\\Manoly\\Scroggins 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY i
4y q
}tG'I,8 0
M i
e 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, especial'y during the time period preceding and immediately following issuance of Generic Letter 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).V 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 oth-r words, the Staff intended that a single generic plan (the GI9) 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.
e 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 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 Murley acknowledged receipt of the April 10 SQUG 1etter, 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 han the signed original of this letter in its files.
PROPOSED LETTER TO SEISMIC QUALIFICATION UTILITY GROUP Mr. Neil P. Smith, Chairman Seismic Qualification Utility Group Commonwealth Edison Co.
1400 Opus NED - 4th Floor Downer's Grove, IL 60515
Dear Mr. Smith:
By letters dated February 7, 1992, October 21, 1992, and April 7, 1993, you requested exemption from Part 170 billing for NRC staff services provided for review of your Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP). This procedure provides a generic basis for member utilities to address the issues raised in Generic Letter (GL) 87-02.
In a meeting with representatives of the NRC staff on November 17, 1993, you noted an apparent inconsistency with the Commission's Fee Policy (58 FR 21116) in the NRC's determination to bill review of the GIP pursuant to Part 170 as a topical report rather than pursuant to Part 171 (generic billing).
Specifically, you noted that the review of Florida Power & Light Corporation (FP&L) responses to GL 87-02, which were independent from the SQUG efforts, are being billed pursuant to Part 171 as required responses to a generic communication. During that meeting, the NRC's plans for recovering costs associated with reviewing materials to be submitted in the future by SQUG in response to GL 87-02 were also discussed.
The staff has reviewed your request for exemption from Part 170 fees and has determined that the development of the GIP by a group of utilities provided significant manpower savings for both the member utilities and the NRC staff.
These manpower savings were then available for other safety programs, resulting in a net benefit for the general public.
Billing for staff review pursuant to Part 170 could have a deterrent effect for licensees considering similarly beneficial group efforts in the future. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that exemption of the GIP from Part 170 pursuant to 10 CFR 170.11(b)(1) is justified because it is in the public interest.
Future i
submittals from SQUG which have been requested by the NRC and are related to resolution of GL 87-02 and GL 87-02, Supplement 1, will be covered by this exemption, and associated NRC staff review efforts will be billed pursuant to Part 171.
1 Ronald M. Scroggins Deputy Chief Financial Officer / Controller Office of the Controller i
J