Text

Summary of 981201-02 Workshop with Entergy Operations,Inc in Taft,La Re Licensing Processes,Licensing Submittals & Other Topics That May Affect Licensing Processes & Submittals. Copy of Slides Presented During Workshop Encl
	ML20198G550
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf, Arkansas Nuclear, River Bend, Waterford
Issue date:	12/18/1998
From:	Robert Fretz; NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	; NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
	NUDOCS 9812290101
	Download: ML20198G550 (149)
	v • d • e

December 180 1998 LICENSEE: ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INCORPORATED FACILITIES: ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNITS 1 AND 2 GRAND GULF NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1 RIVER BEND STATION, UNIT 1 WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3

SUBJECT:

ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INCORPORATED (EOI) LICENSING PERSONNEL MEETING

SUMMARY

DECEMBER 1 - 2,1998 l A joint workshop for licensing personnel from Entergy Operations, Inc. and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Project Directorate IV-1, was held between December 1 - 2,1998. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss licensing processes, licensing submittals, and other topics tnat may affect licensing processes and submittals. The goal of the workshop, conducted at Entergy Operations' Training Facility at the Waterford 3 site, Taft, Louisiana, was to improve effectiveness and efficiency in processing licensing submittals.

Major topics of discussion included an overview of regulatory processes, project manager and i licensing engineer responsibilities, license change processes, license submittal breakout discussions, and an overview of current regulatory issues. A copy of the workshop schedule is j provided as Enclosure 1, and a copy of slides presented during the workshop is included as Enclosure 2 to this memorandum. A list of attendees is also provided as Enclosure 3. In :

addition, workshop attendees developed an outline of those qualities which constitute a " good" license submittal. It is provided as Enclosure 4.

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY: N. Hilton for Robert J. Fretz, Project Manager 9812290101 981218 .

PDR ADOCK 05000313 Division of Reactor Projects Ill/IV P PDR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No(s). 50-313,50-368,50-382, 50-416, 50-458 1

Enclosures:

1. Workshop Agenda and Schedule

2. Workshop Presentation Overheads / Slides

3. List of Attendees

4. Qualities of a " Good" License Submittal cc w/encls: See next page pn

,;vj' ,

DISTRIBUTION: I' MJ C.Hawes PUBLIC R. Fretz PD4-1 r/f T. Gwynn, RIV J. Hannon D Wigginton G. Dick N. Hilton ACRS OGC (15B18) E. Adensam (EGA1) C. Patel C. Nolan Document Name: RBFINAL\RBMA3901.MTS ,/

OFC PM/PD4-1 PD4-/ PD/b-1 NAME RFretzY CHah JHannon DATE p / lo /98 /[/k k /98 COPY YES/NO ES/NO \ [EShO '

[/A NI OFFICIATRECORD COPY

,,3Qd9 g hhiN

fd%q t

g k UNITED STATES l g j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20065-0001 )

\, +/ December 18, 1998

? l LICENSEE: ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INCORPORATED '

FACILITIES: ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNITS 1 AND 2 GRAND GULF NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1 l

! RIVER BEND STATION, UNIT 1 WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3

SUBJECT:

ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INCORPORATED (EOI) LICENSING PERSONNEL MEETING

SUMMARY

DECEMBER 1 - 2,1998 A joint workshop for licensing personnel from Entergy Operations, Inc. and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Project Directorate IV-1, was held between December 1 - 2,1998. The purpose of the workshop was to discues licensing processes, licensing submittals, and other topics that may affect licensing processes and submittals. The goal of the workshop, conducted at Entergy Operations' Training Facility at the Waterford 3 site, Taft, Louisiana, was to improve l effectiveness and efficiency in processing licensing submittals. )

1 i Major topics of discussion included an overview of regulatory processes, project manager and licensing engineer responsibilities, license change processes, license submittal breakout discussions, and an overview of current regulatory issues. A copy of the workshop schedule is provided as Enclosure 1, and a copy of slides presented during the workshop is included as l Enclosure 2 to this memorandum. A list of attendees is also provided as Enclosure 3. In

- addition, workshop attendees developed an outline of those qualities which constitute a " good" license submittal. it is provided as Enclosure 4.

n , d%//e /

4<.

Robert J. Fretz, Project Manager Project Directorate IV-1 ]

Division of Reactor Projects Ill/IV l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l Docket No(s). 50-313,50-368, 50-382, 50-416, 50-458 l

Enclosures:

1. Workshop Agenda and Schedule

2. Workshop Presentation Overheads / Slides

3. List of Attendees !

i 4. Qualities of a " Good" License Submittal L

I cc w/encis: See next page I l

l l'

I

Entergy Operations, Inc. Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 & 2 cc:

Executive Vice President Vice President, Operations Support

& Chief Operating Officer Entergy Operations, Inc.

Entergy Operations, Inc. P. O. Box 31995 P. O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Jacsson, MS 39286-1995 Director, Division of Radiation Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway Control and Emergency Management P. O. Box 651 Arkansas Department of Health Jackson, MS 39205 4815 West Markham Street, Slot 30 Little Pock, AR 72205-3867 Mr. C. Randy Hutchinson Vice President Operations, ANO Entergy Operations, Inc.

Winston & Strawn 1448 S. R. 333 1400 L Street, N.W. Russellville, AR 72801 Washington, DC 20005-3502 Manager, Rockville Nuclear Licensing Framatone Technologies 1700 Rockville Pike, Suite 525 Rockville, MD 20852 Senior Resident inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 310 London, AR 72847

, Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011-8064 County Judge of Pope County Pope County Courthouse Russellville, AR 72801 f.

Entergy Operations, Inc. River Bend Station f

cc: t Winston & Strawn Executivo Vice President and 1400 L Street, N.W. Chief Operating Officer Washington, DC 20005-3502 Entergy Operations, Inc.

P. O. Box 31995 Manager- Licensing Jackson, MS 39236 Entergy Operations, Inc.

River Bend Station . General Manager - Plant Operations P. O. Box 220 Entergy Operations, Inc.

St. Francisville, LA 70775 River Bend Station P. O. Box 220 Senior Resident inspector St. Francisville, LA 70775 P. O. Box 1050 St. Francisville, LA 70775 Director - Nuclear Safety Entergy Operations, Inc.

President of West Feliciana River Bend Station Police Jury P. O. Box 220 P. O. Box 1921 St. Francisville, LA 70775 St. Francisville, LA 70775 Vice President - Operations Support Regional Ad.ninistrator, Region IV Entergy Operations, Inc.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 31995 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 ,

Arlington, TX 76011 l Attorney General Ms. H. Anne Plettinger State of Louisiana 3456 Villa Rose Drive P. O. Box 94095 Baton Rouge, LA 70806 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9095 Administrator Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway 1 Louisiana Radiation Protection Division P. O. Box 651 P. O. Box 82135 Jackson, MS 39205 Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2135 l

Mr. Randall K. Edington Vice President - Operations Entergy Operations, Inc.

River Bend Station P.O. Box 220 l St. Francisville, LA 70775 1

4 l

l 1

a

1 Entergy Operations, Inc. Grand Gulf Nuclear Station cc:

Executive Vice President General Manager, GGNS

& Chief Operating Officer Entergy Operations, Inc.

Entergy Operations, Inc. P. O. Box 756 P. O. Box 31995 Port Gibson, MS 39150 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Attorney General Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway Department of Justice P. O. Box 651 State of Louisiana Jackson, MS 39205 P. O. Box 94005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9005 Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W. - 12th Floor State Health Officer Washington, DC 20005-3502 State Board of Health P. O. Box 1700 Director Jackson, MS 39205 Division of Solid Waste Management Mississippi Department of Natural Office of the Governor Resources State of Mississippi P O. Box 10385 Jackson, MS 39201 JL:kson, MS 39209 Attorney General President, Asst. Attorney General Claiborne County Board of Supervisors State of Mississippi P. O. Box 339 P. O. Box 22947 Port Gibson, MS 39150 Jackson, MS 39225 Regional Administrator, Region IV Vice President, Operations Support U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Entergy Operations, Inc.

611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 P.O. Box 31995 Arlington, TX 76011 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Senior Resident inspector Director, Nuclear Safety U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Regulatory Affairs P. O. Box 399 Entergy Operations, Inc.

Port Gibson, MS 39150 P.O. Box 756 Port Gibson, MS 39150 Mr. W:lliam A. Eaton Vice President, Operations GGNS Entergy Operations, Inc.

P. O. Box 756 Port Gibson, MS 39150

Entergy Operations, Inc. Waterford 3 ,

cc:

Administrator Regional Administrator, Region IV Louisiana Radiation Protection Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 82135 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2135 Arlington, TX 76011 Vice President, Operations Resident inspector /Waterford NPS Support Post Office Box 822 Entergy Operations, Inc. Killona, LA 70066 P. O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286 Parish President Council St. Charles Parish ,

Director P. O. Box 302 '

Nuclear Safety & Regulatory Affairs Hahnville, LA 70057 Entergy Operations, Inc. l P. O. Box B Executive Vice-President Killona, LA 70066 and Chief Operating Officer i Entergy Operations, Inc. !

Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway P. O. Box 31995 P. O. Box 651 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Jackson, MS 39205 Chairman General Manager Plant Operations Louisiana Public Service Commission Entergy Operations, Inc. One American Place, Suite 1630 P. O. Box B - Baton Rouge, LA 70825-1697 Killona, LA 70066 Licensing Manager Vice President Operations Entergy Operations, Inc. Entergy Operations, Inc.

P. O. Box B P. O. Box B Killona, LA 70066 Killona, LA 70066 Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005-3502

? M

t i

e i

1 3

i l

I

. 1 l

l Enclosure 1 Workshop Agenda

EOl/NRC Licensing Workshop Dec.1,1998-Ilme Subiect Leaders 8:00- 8:45 Int oduction Early Ewing, John Hannon 8:45-10:00 Regulatory Processes Dale James, Dave Wigginton, George Dick 10:00-10:15 Break 10:15-11:15 Regulatory Processes (cont.)

11:15-12:30 Lunch 12:30-1:30 Regulatory Proccscs Breakout Daie James, Early Ewing, Session Patricia Campbell, Ron Byrd 1:30 - 2:00 Feedback from Breakout Session Dale James 2:00 - 2:15 Break 2:15 - 3:00 PM Responsibilities & License Submittals Chandu Patel, Tim Polich, Chris Nolan 3:00- 3:10 Break 3:10 - 3:50 GGNS TS Process and Guidance Byrd 3:50 - 4:20 ANO, W3, RB Process and Guidance ANO, W3, RB (Differences from GGNS) 4:20-4:30 Instructions for home reading Byrd Dec. 2,1998 8:00 - 8:30 Review Previous Activities Ewing 8:30- 9:30 License Submittats Breakout Session 1 EOl (W3 Appendix J submittal) 9:30- 9:45 Break 9:45-10:30 Feedback from Breakout Session 1 EOl 10:30 -11:30 License Submittals Breakout Session 2 EOl (GG Safety Relief Valve submittal) 11:30 -12:30 Lunch 12:30-1:15 Feedback from Breakout Session 2 EOl 1:15-1:30 Break 1:30 - 3:00 Current Regulatory Issues Bob Fretz, Nick Hilton, Patricia Campbell 3:00- 3:15 Break 3:15 -4:00 Closing Breakout Session / Feedback Early Ewing, John Hannon

Enclosure 2 Workshop Slides and Overheads

?!! ; l, ;!ll !!!!!;I> r !!l i !,

p o

hs kr ~

I o

O K

W e

- c n

C .

a n

r R .

r o

N .

f r

t .

e n

P i g o

J i

n s

n e

i c

T s l - i '

i' -

EOI/SRC LICENSING WORKSHOP 4

8:00 - 8:45 Introduction Ewing, Hannon 8:45 -10:00 Regulatory Processes James, Dick Wigginton 10:00 - 10:15 Break 10:15 - 11:15 Regulatory Processes (cont.)

11:15 - 12:30 Lunch

EOI/SRC LICENSISU WORKSHOP 12:30 -1:30 Regulatory Processes Breakout Session James 1:30 - 2:00 Breakout Feedback James 2:00 - 2:15 Break 2:15 - 3:00 PM Responsibilities & License Submittals Patel, Polich, Nolan 3:00 - 3:10 Break 3:10 - 3:50 GGNS TS Process and Guidance Byrd 3:50 - 4:20 ANO, W3, RB Process and Guidance (Differences from GGNS) 4:20 -4:30 Homework Instructions Byrd I

i

?

EOI/NRC LICENSING WORKSHOP (DAY 2]

i 8:00 - 8:30 Review Previous Activities Ewing 8:30 - 9:30 License Submittals Breakout 1 EOl :

(W3 Appendix J submittal) 9:30 - 9:45 Break 9:45 -10:30 Feedback from Breakout 1 EOl 10:30 -11:30 License Submittals Breakout 2 EOI (GG Safety Relief Valve submittal) ,

i 11:30 -12:30 Lunch

EOI/NRC LICENSING WORKSHOP (DAY 2]

12:30-1:15 Feedback from Breakout 2 EOl 1:15 -1:30 Break 1:30 - 3:00 Current Regulatory Issues Fretz, Hilton, Campbell 3:00 - 3:15 Break 3:15 - 4:00 Wrap-up/ Feedback Ewing, Hannon 1

!.I ! : ! !I t!!! l ;:! !l :r l? !;I!ti f II,!tI r!I f-_

_ p _

o

_ hs kr I

o O

_ E W

_ e

- c n

_ C a m

R r o

N f r

t e i

n P g

o n J i s

n e

i c

I

Why do we need to improve &

regulatory performance?

f

XRC Perspective Budget and Resource Constraints 4 -

Operating Plan Goals Changing Priorities - use of Risk / Performance .

Information Emphasis on Predictability, Consistency and ,

Timeliness

EOIPerspective EOI Budget and Resource Constraints 1 Strategic Direction of Company Industry and Public Perception

1 XRR Reorganization Goals

,. _ , . . . _ . . ~ . _ . . , _ . _ . _ . . . . _ _ _ . - . _ .

1

Operating Plan Goals: l 1,500 Licensing Actions in FY1999 ADPR Write 30% of SERs t

Median Age s; 7 Months by End of FY1999 95% with < 1 Year Residence Time in FY2000 1 i

i NRR Reorganization Objectives -

t s .-.;....,,.......tg.... .

l

[

t

Reduce Supervisor / Employee Ratio to 1/8

Improve Accountability

Stakeholder Considerations Improve Predictability, Timeliness and Efficiency Minimize Regulatory Burden Use Risk Information Smarter j

Improve Public Confidence

EOI- Why do we need to improve regulatoryperformance?

1 !

EOI Resource Constraints Project demands, headcount reductions

RENEWAL !

Road Map 98 Power Up-rate, Dry Cask, SG replacements, Re-rack, ISTS, FSAR l updates, DBD, . . . . . . . . . .

f EOI- Why do we need to improve i regulatoryperformance?

. 1 t

EOI Resource Constraints Project demands, headcount reductions Budgets are shrinking - NRC fees and EOI manpower @ayroll) are controllable costs!

ll;!I ij ii i ; iI.! . j ,Ii ! :i ii ! , !,t! \i S

K -

_ K -

i=a oM u c.cA

_ F -

_ C --

_ R so8 ,&

Ns ro t !d

_ u !.

_ b i

t r

n l i .eM o

C t

e

. g Ex UMZ d

u

_ B ,

_ lg

/ ? xMA 0

0 0

- 6 5 4 3 2 1 l

i' : ,l 1':i. - 4' 4 . ' ' ; ;

4 % N,g sj \ Nw,, *%, h, %. 's Ng N. N

/

i s,

s g @

R V n

C.) 69 /

/

l l

Q

/

l %"

l l A N

! V l

l ks

/

l

EOI- Why do we need to improve regulatoryperformance?

EOI Resource Constraints Project demands, headcount reductions Budgets are shrinking - NRC fees and EOI manpower are controllable costs ENI is selling a track record of regulatory performance t

t I

i ENIMarketing Consistently excellent performance in operation of reactors. Individually ,

and collectively, the sites are among the best performing :

A successful track record of dramatically improving plant performance We foster and maintain a high performance culture, and have successfully ,

transferred this culture to a new plant.

A proven ability to put effective operating companies in place that deliver focused management of nuclear assets, resulting in improved safety, ,

operations, and cost performance. Our experience includes the successful i interface with state and federal regulators and utility boards of directors.

- A history of open, candid, and positive relationships with industry regulators.

EOI- Why do we need to improve regulatoryperformance?

EOI Resource Constraints l Project demands, headcount reductions l

l Budgets are shrinking - NRC fees and EOI !

manpower are controllable costs l

ENI is selling a track record of regulatory

, performance The public (our customers) demand excellent performance l

l

Overview ofNRC/EOI Processes ,

f i

+ VRC Perspective Discovered Conditions i 1

Planned Changes Timing Considerations

EOI Perspective .

Discovered Conditions l Planned Changes Timing Considerations s

Numberof Supplements Required To Complete Licensing Actions 60 F,.ya.w w s g ,E[h<w.:Ty.w>vw^:

A,s w a. wufw%RVW w MVWiRWN i

sts.s u .. ,m. e e .,

n %ghy4p ~ ma m%mm snes 9g..um

.,s%4 e ..

M Wd

"4]I . ,'

50 n.&., '- ry, .y s,

e 7,h[.[. g .,

., s:s,~ _:

%,.]9 F N % Yih M@ .

m -z}.g.--

f: .n ed~s'%y; t >

go yQ; 4 ;t<g %. -'

v r sr n y,, t.y;%*,

v .. 4 .,%it4. .*\.98.gr's...

W s M. .t y.~-: i.?. s J.r.s' ;XN

. . : v - *, ' . :% -< pry &w-

>n g'f'v vg[* v '% ' 'A Np;p%J .

w.Wps <

WN N M @~~ W %.

5<0 e Tit n @

.M

,N,9YtlN[-n 8P.ug Vp#

+i

- ma @ N M % [ n..NM.A w,h, h %. n.

.9 ?%yh.: M p r$

' y:veNett

. ; p' =*>. it i

4 .s .

~ w< r

+J*N->f1

'in 4M -*

.J J'.c;Oyy

% " i' N &' Upy:n.

E _ 4;4d A

, .1

i '.f W(O*WHi.~ ; r.y$jt .+ :*p.-

< 30 V

,e a M.c%d'.D n i

.y. - r./l.,(,.4.5...

=.

, m.L*

~i tt,i,+ r.[!1

'y m x W m % ,u p/ @ 3. ,ie.w n .;.c.%c.(m.. W ; g s3.,i). . 0

&..nr ,W.WM, nw. 0,

w. 4g,.%.g b %styt ;& ~ n zn S .r r;< v %" * *' w:". mp 4 % -

. .w. ~+e. r.. m a % s - .

k.

M k,m;.'[

. , 4?;'4* Wl2./,.1^

, a-n:v m, f. 9..- vsM :'T C4Y.^; Le~..De M ;ch..w

.E m 20 -

hY

+ 1 5.$

N W'A

bA $'b : Y *:W

'Es $, .Y y '

a w: .m:

s'.. NA C

E .tp .'s 7.: rpy.g3Q's u t w .:

~

Wh.f.h&

% A4 C -? Y Y ' N M' ~^ h;h W "vw e Q,eg - ,

.a n. m. . ~. e. se .,

-N 1 A *^WC

% "W p beq .'44 &,

o a t. m.

w.., . * . -

n1

'. A, -

w.

.-m7h. _;.s . m w,- < % A'a'W A 4

e .9 4 76 ?- e "4;. ~, I VM.'

' 10 - * > A "@TNf.T^i d'*[^th :.i f*d o d.5(ip . ,3 ,WV.a .

The *Y $ !,

H,o![ v,[ h;

.~,

!qs.?.

k..W"?'W e :q

%. . ',' ,- $': ."h. a $.$$$

t Q,y y m ; 1 x

x x tE42 ._ $$>,.w$%e%w,:.q.

%,.h%+)y .

r

"'A,'.%"W*k*f.&:&

MW l' 'WWi&.

c. wam gq.,3 . o, g .. p ,.g,

.m. .z

*. 3 7 s b..~.y.,q v9. ,y ..

t. 4d ; .. - k , . .. , .wm .%. n

, tm .~,y w)#r 0- g, a,. 3.. p;;n g ;

g:

.n, p .,. - a7;gp ;,,,P@,. : + . s- -

.r mfg.y q -g

.g;a Iyt. 4.g. . wwq,b,p, .y.:gfg.p.L w . A s. sp .Wg..

,g'g%w.n-:b..n. .;

. , .~

y n y m: .- ,. s

n. p x w lx o AW w

v. 3m- w- %w =u; w u -

~ ,, ~ + 4Nw w o i

2

,,. -.mg... a. s N.yM., 4w< 4. 7.cm..%e.e,p

v. . q..;p,.g

' y :L %. ...m % yl g d%. ..:.4,:%glr u +pp% W., pqw 3

pg Q4] INN g % ylg 5 '==u 7- -

G + M-a% As -

M.Q g!.

'N3E}y;rSM Number of Supplements 6 7 ' V.

8 y ~

g g g ,,' q ge yc

^"N vm K %g 9

>10 Grand Gulf River Bend 3 ANO

Waterford 3

t Overview ofNRC/EOIProcesses Current State Processes vary in practice from site to site i

Responsibilities vary from site to site History and licensing experience are fading as plants and workforce age Regulatory environment is changing

\

Training for new people is limited I

f i

i

Overview ofEOIProcesses

+

Planned Changes One process for all of EOI Common templates for licensing action More common submittals t Site to Site alignmen1: of responsibilities

Comparison ofXRC Project Manager and EOI Licensing Personnel Functions l

~

Higher quality submittals would...

t

NRC Perspective P M typically reviews % of EOI submittals (with T/S concurrence)

Allow P M to increase to = %

More complicated submittals still go to T/S Reduce problematic submittals which result in l RAIs and extended review times outside 1 l

control of P M

EOILicensing Personnel Contribution ;

i High quality submittals > quick response from NRC & better response to operations Reducing number and complexity of reviews > reduced NRC fees and our Operating Costs Reduced RAIs > reduced EOI workload Quality submittals increase the regulator's confidence in our ability to protect safety

a What are the barriers to improvmg the quality of EOI submittals to NRC?

XRC Perspective Standardization '

Communication Knowledgeable / Experienced Staff Questioning Attitude

EOI Perspective Standardization Communication Understanding Regulatory Needs Culture

i How can we judge whether this workshop was successful?

XRC Perspective Shorter Review Times !

Fewer RAIs Increase Percentage-of Work Done By P Ms 8

EOI Perspective Shorter Review Times Fewer RAIs Positive vs. Negative comments on NRC Cover Letter and PIM u Billed Review Costs

i l

Joint NRC EOI -

Licensing Performance Workshop l 4

Regulatory Process Overview 2

Regulatory Processsa For Change R eguidory I Discovered M atter No Prior NRC NRC Prior Submit To y

That Could Affed operation

- GL 91-18 Approval Approval NRC:

3oiscovere Planned M atter Update of Q A Plan The Cculd Change Business Quality No Change in Commtm erts (and Section of The Regulatory or Sense Plan Change Licensing Basis 5054(aX3) FSAR if DWet) 5011(e)

Update of C A Plan

" Cha e in Comm merts I"

U" "I 5054(aX3) FSAR if Differert) 5054(aX3)

Securty No Decrease h Report brInb Plan Change E ffectiveness 2 Months Ater 5054(bX2) Change 50.54(pX2)

D ecreese in E frectiveness License Mend ggS REC 5054(pX1) Per 50.90 0 Em ergency No Decreasein

. - Plan Change E frecttwness Commis i thin O o 5054(q) 5054(q) 30 D ays of C hange 9 o 5054(q)

E 5

, y Decrease h Update of

, os E flectiveness E m ergency Plan nf 5054(q) 5054(q)

d- A 4 tat C hange to Facity as No U nreviewed FSAR Update and D d Safety Question 50.59 Report

, 50.59 5011(e),50.59(bX2)

U nreWewed Safety Question License Amend 59.59 Per 50.90 C hange to C hange to Request for License License Proceeding to

-~

- C ondtions - C onditions Suspend, R evolk,

- Tech Specs Tech Specs or ModifyLicense ,

2.206 '

R eflef for Change to E dtion, R elef Request ISIOrIST At Risk Addenda, 5055a or Code Case E xemption Request C hange to Change of 50.12 H equirements" D --

R eqdrem ert .

Pettloc for R ulem sking 2.802 Viher" Planned "9" '

Ncmemter.1GQ9

, Guiding Principals:

Regulatory Change Processes .

eNever dismiss an " idea" for change, outright.

eNever accept a change without using " business sense."

eAlways choose the approval path from the lowest approval required to the highest.

eWhen approval is required, get all you reasonably can.

Shde 1

Guiding Principals Regulatory Change Processes There is no such thing as an easy technical specification change Every licensing question has been previously asked and answered - the only problem is the answer is not always the same i

A good technical understanding of the issues associated with the conditionis critical Peer review is critical 1

1 You're not a lawyer but...

( 3 Business Related Thoughts

( J Type of Optional is this No change? [37"aSe

?

Required

,, , ,y ,,

No COST Cost No Beneficial

a Beneficial v 7 7 i

Perform Risk Yes Yes Informed Review? No ' 37 ,

j No Retum Retum No Yes Risk informed Investmen Investmen revew

? ?

l ir Yes Yes '

u Yesp " Yes p,g g High Risk?

High Risk? : change and approvais No "

Request to

" drop" issue Drop the issue shde 3

Cost Magnitudes > .

Return on Licensee NRC Investment Safety Assessment e s) p s) a

+

Cost Beneficial $ 0 Risk Informed ( 5

% ( 5

%# %/

h The Bottom Line 2S 1%S i

Slide 4

-_j

" Discovered" Condition eGL 91-18: Operability

- Business Sense does not apply to corrective action where repair / restoration / replace in kind is applied; should apply where change to the regulatory / licensing basis is used as the corrective action.

- Regulatory change processes, when used as part of j corrective actidn, are subject to all the normal requirements and restraints, plus...

- Scheduler restraints of Appendix B, Section XVI:

("promptly identify and correct" 1

(timing commensurate with the safety significance of the issue Side 5

License Amendment: @50.90 m.-mm._ __ m,._ _ - - -

erCriteria:

- Submittal as specfied in @50.4

( Address to Document Control Desk (1 copy to Region; 1 copy to Resident inspector i

- Fully describing changes; form of original application (@50.90)

- No Significant Hazards Consideration - @50.92(c)

(Would not involve a significant increase in the probability cr consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Sbde 6

License Amendment @50.90

m. .

.. m . .. . . -

meContent:

- Deterministic safety assessment supported (optional) by risk-informed information

- No Significant Hazards Consideration

- Environmental input (especially for irreversible consequences [@50.92(b)])

(To support impact statement per @51.20, or (To support environmental assessment per @51.21, or

( None, if categorical exclusion applies per 51.22(c) l

~ Revised Tech Specs or License Condition (mark-ups optional). None for USQ or @50.59(c)

Skde 7

L n.n~,

License Amendment @50.90

.; = v. . . .

. . . . : . x . u . ., : :

= .ca ,c r

ar Content (con t>

New or revised Commitments identified

- New or revised Design Basis (@50.2) and Licensing Basis identified i

- Reference to Current Licensing Basis

- Cost Beneficial Licensing Actions (Admin. Ltr. 95-02) and total lifetime savings identified

~ Need date and basis identified

- Implementation schedule swes

- - - - - _ - - - - - -- _ --- n

9 License Amendment @50.90 5eTiming:

Reload Submittals with changes in methodology are requested one year in advance of need.

l

- For emergencies, see NOEDs, Emergency / Exigency License Amendments.

day Notice for Comments, per @50.91(a)(2)(ii) are issued bi-weekly; minimum of 45 days before amendment can be issued.

- Review time; 45 days to 1 year (goal)

Note: After receipt, amendment can be converted to Emergency at any time for just cause.

Shde 9 i

1 Emergency License Amendment @50.91 0

- criteria:

Must meet all License Amendment criteria from $50.91 and @50.92

- Failure to act would result in:

(Nuclear Power Plant shutdown (Prevention of resumption of operation or increase in power up to licensed level.

@50.91(a)(5)

- Issue without prior notice an opportunity for hearing or public comment only if change would not involve significant hazards considerations. @50.91(a)(5)

Stide 10

Emergency License Amendment (con,t) ;

I eContent !

~

In addition to License Amendment @50.90 and @50.91 Content:

Explanation of why emergency situation occurred (@50.91(a)(5)) !

Explanation of why situation could not be avoided ( 50.91(a)(5))

~

If NOED issued, facts must match those in request and the published NOED (NRC will publish notice for opportunity for a hearing and for public comment after issuance, per @2.106, in lieu of proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration) l eTiming

- Application must be timely: no issuance if failure to be timely created the emergency (@50.90(a)(5))

- If NOED is issued, amendment request must be submitted within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months Side 11

Notice of Enforcement Discretion { Policy >

erCriteria

- Applicable to NPP if compliance with TS or license condition would involve: .

(Operating Plant

- unnecessary plant transient -

- performance of testing, inspection, or realignment inappropriate for plant conditions (Shutdown Plant t

- testing, inspection or system realignment inappropriate for plant conditions; does not provide !

overall safety benefit or may be detrimental to safety i

(Plant Starting Up

- unnecessary delays in startup w/o corresponding health and safety benefit

- for inoperable or degraded equipment or systems i

o no safety function in operation mode, or i o safety function marginal; increased transient likely, or o test, inspection or realignment inappropriate

- Does not apply to nonconformances with regulations or codes

~ Must be warranted: public health and safety

- LER for noncompliance Shde 12 ,

NOED (con't) 5eContent:

- Tech Spec or License Condition that will be violated Description of events leading to request, root causes, historical events...

- Safety basis; evaluation of significance and potential consequences

- Basis that noncompliance will not be detriment to public health and safety, and does not involve USQ or significant hazard consideration

- Basis that noncompliance will not involve adverse consequences to environment

- identify compensatory measures, actions taken to avoid noncompliance and to avert / alleviate the emergency

- Justification for duration of noncompliance

- Approval of appropriate review committee

- For plant startup, must meet at least one of 3 " Criteria" If fo!!owup license amendment, include Tech Spec markup

-- DISCONTINUED - Statement that line item improvement to TS or ITS would not have obviated the need for NOED Shde 13

- . - - . = . . . . - - ~ . . . _ _

- . ~ - . .

NOED (con't) .

eRegional NOED

~ A noncompliance:

(of short duration from the limits of function specified in LCO (with an action statement time limit (with a surveillance interval or a one time deviation from surveillance requirement (time to short to process an emergency amendment) eNRR NOED

- A noncompliance:

(with LCO until the LCO can be revised by the license amendment (with action statement time limit until license amendment to make it temporary or permanent (with surveillance interval or change to surveillance requirement by license amendment .!

(NOTE: policy being revised to allow NRR to issue weather related or natural event NOEDs) i Slide 14

_ - - - - - -- . _ _ . - - - _ . - - _ _ _ - - - - - - _ - - - . - _ - - - - - t

..m.,...... -

NOED (con't>

eTiming:

- Must meet timely requirements of @50.91(a)(5)

- Oral request must be followed with written request within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months

- NOED approval letter to be issued within 2 working days

- Regional NOED not to exceed 14 days (usual)

- Exigency TS amendment request, if appropriate, within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days 0.0133 hours 7.936508e-5 weeks 1.8264e-5 months

- Exigency amendment to be issued within 4 weeks (Note: NRC use of recorded discussions with oral requests: written request must match the oral) eReferences

- NRC Administrative Letter 95-05, Dated November 7,1995

- Part 9900, NRC Inspection Manual,11/2/95 (update about 12/98)

- NUREG-1600, NRC Enforcement Policy Shde1$

Relief Requests: @50.55a v .....a *_ , sy n , .

. Si G a' -

,a .. .a. r_

f ,_ , . . . ;_ . _ , - . . . , ,;__ , , _ _ __ ;

y; _3 ; .; . ,; , ,.

_ _, _ gy,_ g, .

5eCriteria:

- Alternatives - would provide acceptable level of quality and safety

(@50.55a(a)(3)(l)

- Hardship or unusual difficulty - without compensating increase in level of quality or safety (@50.55a(3)(ii))

- Impractical - design, materials, access limitations (IST: @50.55a(f)(6)(l); ISI:

50.55a(g)(6)(1))

l

- Augmented - may be required, in conjunction with " impractical" relief if:

(added assurance of operational readiness is needed (IST: @50.55a(f)(6)(ii))

(added assurance of structural reliability is needed (ISI: @50.55a(g)(6)(ii))

Shde 16

P Relief Requests -

(con >c -

eContent:

- Must accurately cite the specific Code requirement (edition, addenda i (Section, Subsection, and Paragraph

- Must accurately cite the specific provision of the regulations

( Alternatives, Hardship, or impractical s

~

Identify or list the applicable components, systems, structures, welds

- Clear, concise basis for each relief or alternative.

~ Describe hardship in detail. Fully explain impracticalities.

Drawings where clarity in request is helpful

~ References to any earlier submittal for the current 10-year interval s, ,,

__-------__----__---.-------_--------_-----------_-_------------j

i Relief Requests <: con't>

EJLi Y'F *tc 1 M M M Y. E.W h iX E E W + W k 4 6 '%AEY ?dT*U i

i eTiming: ,

ISI and IST program submittals in accordance with @50.55a i

- Relief requests, to the extent possible,3-6 months in advance of need. l e

References:

- NUREG 1428 " Guidelines for Inservice Testing at Nuclear Power Plants,"

April 1995 (P. Campbell) i Shde 18 l t

i

10 CFR 50.59 er Purpose

- To determine if prior NRC review and approval is necessary before a licensee:

(makes changes in the facility as described I the safety analysis report (makes changes in procedures as described I the safety analysis report (conducts tests or experiments not described in the safety analysis report Prior Commission review and approval is required when the proposed change, test, or experiment involves:

(an unreviewed safety question (a change in the technical specifications

- If prior Commission approval is required, the licensee shall submit an application for amendment to the license pursuant to @50.90.

SMe 19

- . = . _ _ _ . _ _ _.

Unreviewed Safety Question rwp- : xgt ;' n . >> r w., a + + - '.: : 7. g g;;. ,., - : .

. . - - rg: : . -

f- .- . . , - , 7 w. er e ,-. .

3

?

I 5eA proposed change, test, or experiment involves an unreviewed safety question-

- if the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the ,

safety analysis report may be increased t t

- if a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than evaluated <

previously in the safety analysis report may be created

- if the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification is reduced 1

Sbde 20

i Exemptions: @50.12

-criteria :

~ Must meet one or more from @50.12(a)(2): !

(application of the regulation in the particular circumstances conflicts with other rules or requirements of the Commission; or i (application of the regulations in the particular circumstances would not serve the i underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule; or '

l (compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in i excess of those incurred by others similarly situated; or (the exemption would result in benefit to the public health and safety that compensates for any decrease in safety that may result from the grant of the exemption; or l

(the exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith effons to comply with the regulation; or (there is present any other material circumstances not considered when the regulation was adopted for which it would be in the public interest to grant an exemption i sw a l

l f

Exemptions: @50.12 <<' con't) eContent

- Deterministic safety assessment supported (optional) by risk informed. (Risk informed assessment may indicate rule change ( 2.802)is more appropriate).

Environmental considerations (Categorical exclusion overlooked in

@51.22(c)(1))

- Significant Hazards Determination not required. Exemptions not in $50.91.

- Must specifically address one or more of criteria and show how met.

eTiming

- Prior approval by NRC following EA notice in Federal Register

- NRR review time: ~ 10 days to 1 year (goal) eProblem Areas

- NRC policy: great hesitancy to change " rules" by " exemptions" Shde 22

[

, Request to "... Modify...." License

(@2.206) -

arCriteria

- Generally meant for public use and imposing civil penalties

- Addressed to Executive Director for Operations

- Deliver to either PDR at 2120 L St. NW, Wash DC or by mail or telegram to EDO, NRC, Wash. DC 20555

- Specify action requested and set forth facts

- If not submitted by licensee, any licensee input at NRR request or by

@50.54(f). Licensee may also be party to any hearing.

Shde 23 ;

i !

s

________.________.__..._______________________m.______ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

@2.206

_ _ _ _ , = - - -_

(con't)

__=__ _ _ _ _ ,

eContent If by licensee:

(Safety analysis to support action requested and to set forth facts (TS, license conditions, etc. to be modified or added (Environmental Analysis (Information to initiate a hearing and support a subsequent Order. -

eTiming NRC acknowledge of receipt of @2.206 petition within 30 days '

Director's Decision to NRC Secy within 25 days of issuance; Commission may review. -

i Side 24

2 Petition for Rulemaking a..; . . , ne.*- ., , - _ - +

(92.802 erCriteria Addressed to SECY USNRC. Attention Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.

(@2.802(a))

- Limits on staff assistance in preparing petition (@2.802(b)(1) and (2))

~ Petitioner may request suspension of any licensing proceeding to which he is a party, pending decision on rulemaking (@2.802(d))

Shde 25

- a.--n. ._m.

@2.802 (con't>

arContent

- General solution to problem or substance or text of proposed regulation or amendment, or specify regulation to amend cr revoke (@2.802(c)(1))

- Grounds for and interest in action requested (@2.802(c)(2))

~ Statement of specific issues involved, views or arguments on those issues, relevant data involved, and other pertinent information (@2.208(c)(3))

- Specific cases where current rule is unduly burdensome, deficient, or needs strengthened (@2.802(c)(3)) .

Slide 26 i

,t l'

@2.802 (con't>

9 4

wTiming

- Submittal deficiency letter from NRC within 30 days of receipt (@2.802(f)) '

i Petitioner response to deficiency letter within 90 days I

Shde 27

)

I P

Joint NRC-EOI

._m. . M , C . *- :.~, 4 't ' . : . - . .

Licensing Performance Workshop License Submittals 1

i

?

Introduction i

~ .

i

Project Manager Responsibilities

Initial Processing

Priority System

Sholley Processing

Reviewer Assignments

Review Process & Documents Preparation -

Project Manager Responsibilities i

u wpp. ;w . .... .. . .

Headquarters focal point for information and communication

Licensee performance and evaluation to focus NRC regulatory programs

Project management and administration

Documents - Preparation / Coordination

Technical Evaluations and Special Assignments a

Coordinate, Participate, and Manage Meetings, Hearings and Briefings Shde 2

TAC NO.

TECHNICAL ASSIGNMENT CONTROL MA9999

-~ .4 - - ~ . . _ . -. . _ _ . - _ . _ - - _ .

9 XYZ NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1 i

Priority:

l/1 020304 Fee Recoverable: ldYes 0 No Review Method: !/ Project Manager O Technical Staff O Region Staff 0 Other

Licensing Actions Review Priorities

Priority 1 -

t> Highly risk significant safety concerns t> Prevent or require plant shutdown, restart t> Statutory requirements t> Commission /EDO directive

Priority 2 t> Risk informed licensing actions t> Significant safety issues t> Operating event significance determination t> Support continued plant operation t> Topical reports with extensive application short to mid term or significant safety benefit

Priority 3 t> Moderate to low safety significance t> Generic issue or multiplant action resolutions t> plant specific and topical reports with limited safety benefit or operational / economic benefit

Priority 4 t> Does not fit in other categories c> Deferred or closed out without further review Sude 4

Cat Yes '

Denial 1[

Wl P .

No, ,

r m ( h Cant Yes Proposed 2[

NSHC M <

No, , k )

Cat 3 Sig Next Hazcd Slide u

Issue Amendment ,,

" No Hearing Environmental

Publish individual Assessment Requested ,

notice of opportunity 7 i for hearing (30 days) u Yes u i Bi-weekly Notice of issuance Hearing Individual Notice of issuance t No issue Yes PM = Amendment Bi-weekly Notice

? of issuance !

Shde 5 i

F ' '

Publish proposed NSHC for .

comment and opportunity for Notice for Public Comment ; .

hearing (30 days) ( ,

I 3 7 1f I State Public comment . comment ,

I +

u if Hearing Yes requested

? " NRC 6nal ,

determination Yes that SHC is ,

No involved u u u Issue issue Amendment Hearing Amendment u

.f Hearing issue Amendment u

Individual OR periodic Notice of issuance Individual Notice of issuance Individual Notice of issuance Notice of NSHC Notice of NSHC Shde 6

Project Manager Reviews n+ Technical Expertise n+ Conform to Improved Standard TS n+ Conform to prior precedent n+ Technical staff cannot support priority n+ No new policy involved Side 7

t NRR Work Request

' PD Signature: Branch Signature:

Background information ;

Plant:

Project Director:

Project Manager Phone: Email:

TAC No:

Licensee Proposed Action / Submittal date:

Assistance Requested Technical Branch:

Other tbs Providing input / Concurrence:

Scope of Review / Product Requested: :

Possible Precedents: ,

PM Signature: ,

Technical Branch Response TB Product:

Assigned Reviewer: ;

Phone: Email: ,

Comments:

Any change in targer date, prionty or staff-br estimate should be negotiated with the PM before revising. In addition, please infonn the PM of any ;

additional Tbs required, that are not identified above, for the review.

Return to PM within 5 working days of receipt ,

Shde 8 i

Amendment Request ,

Like an approved Yes line-item '

improvement

?

,, No Yes

( h Like iSTS

= Pf0COSS .

?

(Amendmentjj j

- _= n---,

(

Review as plant specific

))p No Generic

{ Process Amendment lead plant or approve as 1 a

? a generic change with

\_ amendment

_ __~_ y OTSB approval Y -_ - , = ,___,,,

b

( h . .

Assign lowest ! Signifi ant Yes N enough to : TSTF priority and send i y letter to is.2nsee '"$$',"

c ,

SE Preparation ,

PM PM reviews TS submittal ,

u Licensee TS reviews I

Response submittal More . Yes a Licensee information RAI Response Required "

y y

?

"oN PM Yes More Forwards information No Denial RAI Required Acceptable letter to 7 7 Licensee No Yes Denial No PM writes SE RAI Letter to : Acceptable 7

a Licensee y No Yes TS No PM issue Concurrence : despite TS TS writes SE 7 non-concu

? PM Finish .

su. ,o '" , ,,

O

r. X w

Processing Spent Fuel Pool Rerack Application , .

i Project Manager !

prepare work request v

u + u t i

Reactor Plant Civil Engineering Emergency Preparedness Mechanical .

Systems Systems and Geoscience and Radiation Protection Engineering

Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch n 4* v if h !

Safety Evaluation to .

Project Manager 5

u-r Prepare Amendment : ;

Package i i

u LA review and comment u

OGC review i t

t .

Project Manager LA/PD signatures

issue sm ii Final Changes i

. - - - .-.. _ . - . _ _ . _ . - - _ . _ _ . _ - - . _ _ - _ - . _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ - _ _ - . _. . _ _ _ _ _ . - - - .__n

i

/ l

'x i

'\_

's !

\_ !

/ i

/ l h

r GGNS Guidance on NRR ,

Submittals ,

l s [

i

/ t The roles and responsibilities of the ,

/

Licensing sngineer for an NRR / .

submittal g ,

/ .

~

/

's ',

\ ,/

s '

j !

N ,

x ,/ ;

3

/

/ 'N x :

/ \ i

/

/ 'N i Guidancs x on NRR Submittals

,/

/ l

( l

. Tfie xLicensing Engineer's role x ;

N

. Genersl performance expectations s

l

. Submittal dreparation and development ,/

N /

' I

. Post-submittalIFole x's ,/

/

= Summary '

s z 8 /

\ /

s '-

\\ p

/

/ '

i

\/

s t

.;anm 4 w es a awa,-me m # m.A-#.a e-,am. -.du44ee,..a. a.m .a s a 4. A c..44m.p.d,,,A.., a a.md-.a._Ad-m2.A4 ..e.md...,A4& A- e44- ,4..me._.Jan.a.A, A

i

! \

x

, /'

. / N

/,

/ \,

N s x

N\

i N

i q) :x x

\

1 xs x

! y) '

x

, r ~

k ,/

~

Q) /

q) i f

1 .-

c ,

/

l ,

l l C /

l I

LLJ

/

l 'N

' /

j N C u / u x .-

(f) o -

o x / >

u z l

'N C m O

@/ u s>

o w

c/ w

! VN %u - a --

cn m E u l

x

/

a E o o x

c n

o u o -

g .!a

, u E m u

Q. O >

v c u .- u V

[ b -4 b @ b

! }- . . e e e e i

i 4

3 I

t

, 'N i g

\

General Psrformance Expectations p

Mbintain a conservative approach to safety.

N

. Balance cost or operational impact with -

safety bene' fit. /

N .-

. Attain technical' competence on the issue.

s -

\

. Know the regulatory ' process. x'

'x /

. Comrnunicate professionslly. / s / .

g kj t

./ x !

,/ \ !

/ \

SubmittaIPreParation and Develehment

. Understand the issue or request.

N

. Determine viability.

. Develop a Iresolution or justification. z' x

x

/

x 1

Prepare the subnaittal. /

/

\ p

/

N /

\s ,.

'N /

xj ;

x,- ;

i

, 'N

/ \.

- x f' \

s Understand. i ng the Issue

. Technical competence is essential.

Research existing licensing bas.is.

l u

- discuss with the experts.

i N t l - Compare with similar plants .

x

- Identify pertinent safety issues to be '

z i addressed. '\ f s s '

7

. Be familiar enough to make judgmentsx on the quality of the' resolution or , .

justification .

/ .

j k

\ .

I N,/

t l -_____.___ __ ___._._____.______.__.___.______.____ _ ____.__ _ _______ ____ _ ___ _ .____ _._______ _____.___ _ _____.__.. ___ _ ____ _ !

z' j

xx l

/ \ (

\ [

Determirie Viability r

Does the request or issue resolution maintain a conservative approach to safety -

is de'fense-in-depth maintained?

x

. Has this spproach been previously rejected /acdepted by the staff for other -

plants? x f'

z

. How will implementation of the proposed '

change or resolution sffect operational 4r financial factors? 'x x j

/

'x /

i

/

j \ t x [

N

'N '

Developinh resolution / justification

/

Develop a logical thought process that leads to appropriate conclusions.

x

. Approach with a questioning attitude, ask the hard 2luestions. -

\

l

. Identify neede(support (analyses, calculations, etc.}'s /

/

l x x

Determine if joint lice'nsee or OG effort is

'x desirable. -

x x N/

i f *

,/ .

/ x !

,- N ,'

/

Preparir(g the Submittal ;

/

= Writs to the audience (a technically kfiowledgeable reviewer, not an expert on plant or physical phenomenal.

'N N

. Be complete - the reviewer should have enough inf640 duplicate the thought / ;

x process & reachx an independent -

/

conclusion. 'N /

's N ,/

. Address priority /need ' clearly.

x j

/

N /'

\ '

Preparing -

the Submittal

Provids sufficient background to place the res61ution or request in context.

s

- design, operation, licensing basis x

- regulatory requirements, guidance, staff precedents x '

- plant, regul'atory, or industry history x -

. NSHC N /

x ,-

- Address all safety aspects, explicitly but' briefly ( provide forma't'that minimizes PM changes for FR). x /

. 'x /

s Post Subfbittal

. Trackhogress with PM.

. Respond to questions /RAIs commensurate withgriority.

N i . Avoid ekpending unnecessary resources on preliminarysquestions.

q j

. Determine if NRR proposed changes are /

suggestions or co'nditions of acceptance. 7 N ,- ;

. If conditional, determine if valid or a backfit l and resolve with managsnlent as appr6priate. l s

x j 7 ,

i

/ i

, x

,i

/

Summ,ar/y

/

. A/' hood" NRR submittal requires:

x

- a' thorough understanding of the technical basiynd all regulatory aspects.

- a compi'ete and logical presentation that '

addressesa ll safety issues so that the j reviewer can ' duplicate the thought process

/

and reach an in' dependent conclusion. j s /

- effective communication before submittal, during review and afte'r resolution. j '

'\ j

'x /

- u-%.,d.e m.mdia._4 .a e aa.d.m.4 e.e-,.e,,,e r dj.m en s4a e e_-42E_44_, &;,,4Jaa.4,._..u..g445.ea_-44e awdd 4 A A_4 #.h m.d41,44lL,..M m A . me. A w4 AC M _. A,_a_ m % e e _4.32_saJ.s_...,m.4A.w,.4eme.44mmA4 m x g .

1 D

U N l 0

u O '

.i a O m 0 D '

s .C _

p cr 0

g .O "D $- !

a

/ 1 y (,,9 /

D f E

y C

D E

i s' ,

l GGNS Tech Spec Change Request l Process Need identified to Lic. Supv./ Lead TS Eng.

u Assign priority / due j date Determine affected departments &

departments to l provide input or assistance Start work? No-*

[A I lOng range [

j plan on website Meet with affected y,, depts. & suppliers for planning & buy-I"-

Assign Project Lic.

Eng.

u _

is it sog6casty

\ s LE prepares '98' ems a cieerty written?

LE identifies scope N chanoe?

Any otwoous

, rwstakes or LE gets sanity ormds8ons?

heck from peer or issue a TSTF or is this a GGNS process w/ joint ""E#~

w ific submhtal plant (s) 1r _

^"*C'"'

Route for Y.* certification and $* supt.

LE researches concurrence ops.Mgr.

GGNS lices: sing $g"c

\ SRC basis, industry precendence, &

bnd electronically ' --

VPNO determines tech and hard copy to assistance needed staff.

, /

> mW sm J

Amendment Request .

Gu.i del..ines -

/

m

. Lover Letter ,

i N i

~

. Affirmstions x

's

. Format & Content s of Proposal .

1 x i I

x ,

N '

s

'x , l

'x s ,

,/

/

/ q

/ ;

~r ,

/ :

,' i

/

/ ,

/ )

r I

Y

. ~ . _ -

Cover Lstter l

. Use NS&RA shell.

x

'N

. Summhrize request and NSH conclusion. s

\

. State when8t why the change is needed. -

'N

. Review & acceptance by PSRC & SRC.

. Request exemption'from disclosure for proprietary info.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .-__-_t

s

/ t i -' !

Affirmations '

/

t i

i

. Provide affirmation per 50.30(b)

N '

N

. Attach' affirmation per 2.790 if needed.

's N /h

' s.

\

x /

x N

\

's , /

~

/

,/

Format 8t Content

/

. Affected Tech Specs 4

. Background

. Descripfion of proposed changes

. Justification for the change x . ,

. NSHC

. Markups & Revised psges /

x .

/

.em

Background

. Explain how the SSC or program works and what it does (use UFSAR/ Bases info}.

x ,

. Detail the proposed change and affect.

i x ,

. Explain the reason for the request.

'x,

. Reference to any previous .

communication on this subject.

l

/'

Justification for the Change

. Discuss the bases for the SSC or program &

how the change will affect the bases.

. Discuss any analyses, commitments, or data that provides technical justification.

. Discuss any previous approvals for other .

plants.

. If a generic topical report is used to support the justification, confirm plant applicability &

identify any differences. -

s No Significant Hazards 'i Considerations (NSHC)

/

Include a summary of the proposed change suitable for FR notice.

. State that the following analysis of NSHC is provided 'IA 10CFR50.91(a).

. Include a 3 pdrt discussion to address 50.92. -

N -

- Each part should~be complete, but brief with a ,

conclusion to help prepare FR notice. ,

- The Justification sectiort may provide needed detail. ' '

/ ;

. /

/

j

l l

i s

l Joint :5RC EOI -

Licensing Performance Workshop RegulatoryIssues i

1 Licensing Performance Workshop Regulatory Issues Overview ofRisk-InformedRegulation t

^

Use of PRA in NRC Activities

. . . ....,,,..........,c...-- ,... .

u . . .. .. . e s ,.u- . . . . , , 3 , .u- ,,:. . . . . , , . . . . u. . . .. . m ,, . , , j i

What is Risk-informed Regulation?

What is the NRC's Policy on the use of PRA?

t l

Where does the NRC plan on using Risk-informed approaches? .

t I

s i f

_ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _____________._____.___________.__________..______.__..______________I

What is " Risk-Informed Regulation?"

~ .

Risk-Informed Regulation means using the l results and insights from PRA in ,

combination with traditional design-basis systems and engineering analysis to focus licensee and regulatory attention on issues commensurate with their importance to ,

safety.

t

Objectives for Risk-Informed .

Regulation I

,..,.4... w e. .o e , .

..........,........,,+.3.o.,.. -

.% .. v... s.. .

,- .. . -s - u..---,-. . .s .#

Enhance safety decisions (e.g. configuration control, accident management, Maintenance Rule,

Tech Spec AOTs...)

More efficient use ofNRC resources Licensing Inspection .

Enforcement Performance Assessment i

Reduce unnecessary industry burdens (e.g. Graded QA, Risk-informed IST...)

What is the NRC's Policy on the Use of PRA?

Em .aw-me.wwA,assamummum.a.tA .mw-wassaw.sm-asusamummu,E n.g.mu ,

Use of PRA technology should be increased in all regulatory matters....

Complements deterministic approach

Supports NRC's traditional defense-in-depth

Where practical and within the state-of-the-art of the application

Supporting data should be publicly available for

)

review

What Guidance is available?

i

RG 1.174 - Licensing Basis Changes

RG 1.175 - Risk-informed IST .

RG 1.176 - Graded Quality Assurance (GQA)

RG 1.177 - Risk-informed T/S

RG 1 178 - Risk-informed ISI i

r i

Key Principles for Evaluating Risk-Informed Changes l

t i

i

2. Change is consistent

1. Change meets with defense-in- -

current regulations depth philosophy 3. Maintain sufficient unless it is explicitly safety margins related to a requested exemption u

Integrated Decisionmaking t

i

5. Use performance- 4. Proposed increase in CDF measurement strategies to or risk are small and are monitor the change consistent with the Commission's Safety Goal

, Policy Statement

I i

Where does the NRC plan on using Risk-Informed Approaches? .

Risk-Informed Rulemaking:

Part 50, 50.59, 50.72, 50.73 ....

Revised Source Term

Reactor Licensing:

Risk-informed T/S, ISI, IST, GQA Risk-informed Post-Accident H2 Monitoring & Control

Inspection

Enforcement

Performance Assessment

Research Program & Priorities

h How do you know that your actions are " Risk-Informed?"

. ...........,..,_....,.~..;,,,,........u..,...,.a.

Are you addressing both traditional Design Basis and Severe Accident issues in a balanced manner?

Are you using both Design Basis and PRA insights to assure Defense-in-Depth?

Are you using good engineering judgement?

(Using PRA is not an excuse to get " sloppy")

How do you know that your actions are " Risk-Informed?" (continued)

You-are using PRA Results or Insights?

ACDF > 10-5/RY '* Think about Backfits/ Compliance ACDF ~ 10-5/RY '* Review Thoroughly ACDF ~10 4 /RY i* Simple Review ACDF < 10-7/RYi* Not Important ALERF ~< 1/10 x ACDF i* OK

>You are focusing your own and the licensee's attention on the most important aspects of an issue (i.e., issues that directly affect CDF, LERF, or engineering barriers)? l

NRC's Overall Safety Mission: Public Health and Safety as a Result of Civilan Nuclear Reactor Operation

- . _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ . ._ _ __ __ J l l Strategic 3 Reactor Safety Performance Radiation Safety Safeguards Areas .l 3 - - - - - -

j Cornerstones:

Initiating , Mitigation % Barrier Emergency Occupational hysical Public Events Systems Integrity -

Preparedness Protect,on i Esemesseni . r :s+:: . ' w z.; I "EBBBBIBBB l - - - - - + -

.-- - _ w e

. + . ..

Human Performance Safety Conscience Work Problem Identification Environment and Resolution ePerformance Indicator eInspection eOtherInformation Sources eDecision Thresholds 1

Risk Informed Performance i

Based Inspection _

I

Mitigation Systems I

Pl1 Pl2 Pl3 Pl4 Pl5 IA1 IA2 IA3 i G

e E! a E E E h6 ;

=

l ll

= .

Inspect to Validate Pl '

Pl: Performance Indicator IA: Inspection Area (for areas not measured by Pis) .

i DRAFT Act. ion Matn.x DRAFT Performance .

Increasing Safety Significance

?

E 1 .. 1 g 4g % bputs (Pis and; MpWhitegjagh r .- (

e M : vn , inspectionN;i Winspectio i

@ym ;

4 np wn ymp gPerfomance' f

- s 2 ',- r*2

" Areas) Green? n g;I M y $n breast ( $5pmn Mv: N W E , W inpdte '~ n k' : "RW~

~

~'"

i 4.s a . m.c Routine Resident DDIRA Meet with Commission i Management EDO Meet with meeting with Senior inspector SRIIBC Meet Licenss Senior Licensee

,1 Meeting 3 Interaction with Licensee Licensee i Management Management D . .O ?i f Management Licensee Licensee Corrective Licensee Self Licensee E

k..C Adion '

T%k G7 Corrective Action Action with NRC Oversight Assessment with NRC Oversight Performance improvement Plan

[

j o ' - '

with NRC Oversight i

n. !

-% Risk-informed Inspection Focused Team inspection m -

NRCA Baseline Regional Initiative Focused on Cause of on Cause of j

, Inspection, inspection inspection Overall Degradation Degredation ;

.- Program j m

.v' ,K7pF7.ag~N i; None + Document Response LRegulat C to Degrading Area in Docket response to + 10 CFR 50.54(f) Order to Modify-(Consider N+1 Letter Suspend,or A Exemption for 2 Inspection Report degrading condition f Consecutive Cycles + Remove Performance + CAL / Order Revoke Licensed l if in this range) Mitigating Factorfrom Activites l h

,. . v Enforcement [

t g ," p DD review / sign DD review / sign RA review / sign RA review / sign RA review / sign a assessment assessment report assessment report assessment report assessment report p> RW W, report (w/ (w/ inspection p!an) l

,E h.et@rr jd. (w/ inspection plan (w/ inspection plan (w/ inspection plan i c .e y inspection plan) a E SRI or Branch SRI or Branch RA Discuss EDO discuss Commission Meeting E %ssl$li@.$

A essmer t Chief Meet with Chief Meet with Performance with performance with Senior Licensee with Senior Licensee Management to Discuss O .j{g2t ,g(t L,icensee Licensee Licensee Management Ltcensee Performance t

i i

., . . l l

l l

o .

c -

l m

l M

w Q -

R .

e% g .

l g ,

~

0 o

l 2 % %~

l O 's m . O. D l m

~

W % :g w O D N y o- M SO em 3w Ei o

% o k %.-

W R%-

q yk a

.M C

^ '

o O

~

v=4 G

- - w --r,. n=w--~ , s - = = -- ,-.----.,r - = - - - - - . ------.-.-,s. .w w - - - ,. - -. = , -r ,

., w

! l 1

l t

! I i

i l l

i i l i NEI Licensing Issues Workshop i l l Coming Changes in NRC Oversight 1

! Steve Floyd, NEI Ellen Ginsberg, NEI i New Orleans, LA l

! October 20,1998 !

l

, V' '

l i

)

i

! NRC OVERSIGHT PROCESS l

l = Oversight process summary l = Comerstone chart l = Fundamentalissues agreement

e Comerstone objectives and performance

! indicators i

! . Enforcement policy revisions

. Next steps i . Schedule

, V' 1

A NEW REGULATORY OVERSIGHT PROCESS Risk informed, Performance-Based Assessment, Inspection and Enforcement Regulatory Oversight Model Licensee Provide Licensee Provide SelfAssessmenu ui

^"d"*"

Develop r

Resuis m -

Inspecnons A Licensee Assess ucensee Pnmde Safety Performance & Correct '

Indicaers Deficiencies 3

A NEW REGULATORY OVERSIGHT PROCESS Risk. Informed, Prrformance Based Assessment, inspection and Enforcement Perforssaece Response Beeds maad nm vene.

Regaleese Response bees I ,,-

Unseenpenble Porto Time ; ,

e '1F '

2

~

.) .

A NEW REGULATORY OVERSIGHT PROCESS Risk. Informed, Performance Based Assessment, inspecdon and Enforcement Regulatory Action Model n

Nac meanerimmesmem/n eemed inspession g Desumentr"-- devisease is Regelsesty Im6same Vaase N'

amen mes larveneens W

f imayaneen

seM8F ***'"7 sessey neshold

W m reresemanes Time :

CORNERSTONE CHART NC8 PUSUC HEALTH AND SAFETY AS A RESULT OF CMUAN NUCLEAR m REACTOR OPERATION I I REACTOR NN SAFEGUARDS

- S m rv S e rv

\ \gE*,, \\ gm "M " + "T*"

."M PUsue occura m Comerssones

hut 44M .... OUS g ,,,,, ,,,,,

m oREsoutnoN

.PERFORIMMCE INDICATOR

+#CPECTION CTHER evFCstefl0N SOURCES 0ECl310N THRE SHOLDS 6 1

l l

l 9

FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES AGREEMENT

= General Policy Issues

. There is a level of safety performance which could warrant decreased NRC interaction.

. Thresholds should be established to trigger early intervention to arrest declining performance.

. NRC can place more emphasis on licensee assessment results provided they validate data. j

. Validate accuracy of performance data to be used to assess araas not covered by Pls. l 1

4 4

FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES AGREEMENT

= Use of Risk insights

. Pls and other measures should be as risk-informed as practicable.

. Conclusions should be drawn from a broad set of indicators of need to perform more ir depth inspections.

. Site-specific risk analyses should be used a necessary to develop peer-group Pls and thresholds.

4

FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES AGREEMENT

= Use of Performance Indicators

. Pls should form a rebuttable presumption of licensee performance. A preponderance of other data is necessary to override them.

. Pls may be generic across industry but have plant-specific thresholds.

. Baseline inspection program should cover risk-importan' areas not covered by Pls.

. Pls should be the primary indicator of acceptable performance. Need an approach I to integrate inspection results.

. Voluntary submittal of data is preferable to ,

rulemaking. l FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES AGREEMENT

= Role of Enforcement / Communications

. Role of escalated enforcement is to address safety significant violations. No specife Pls needed.

. Assestunent outputs should encourage timely corrective actions through a graded appreach.

. Writtsn assessment reports and public meetings should be used to clearly communicate assessment results, io 5

, ~ . .

CORNERSTONE OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

= Initiating Events

. Objective - Limit the frequency of events which upset plant equilibrium and challenge critical safety functions.

4

. Performance indicators

. Total Scrams

. Safety System Actuations

. Shutdown Operating Margins

. Unplanned Transients > 20% Power rn

_.' . ).'g CORNERSTONE OBJECTIVES AND j PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

. Mitigation Systems 4 . Objective - Ensure that those systems required to prevent and/or mitigate core

, damage perform at a level commensurate

with their safety significance bcth a power and during shutdown.

. Performance Indicators

. Reliability and availability of SSPI systems

. 4 PWR systems

. 5 BWR systems 4

k 6

3 l

l CORNERSTONE OBJECTIVES AND i PERFORMANCE INDICATORS f a Barrier Integrity

. Objective - Assure that the physical design 1 ,

barriers (fuel, RCS, containment) protect the I

public from radionuclide releases due to accidents or events.

l

. Performance Indicators j . RCS Activity

. RCS Leakage l

. Containment Leakage

. n i.

! CORNERSTONE OBJECTIVES AND i PERFORMANCE INDICATORS j = Emergency Preparedness

. Objective - Ensure that the licensee capability is maintained to take adequate i protective measures in the event of a j radiological emergency.

l = Performance Indicators

! . Will focus on demonstrated performance during events / graded exercise:

. Event classification

! . Notification i . Protective action recommendations i u i

~

i I 7 s

4 i

i J

( ,

^

i 1 l CORNERSTONE OBJECTIVES AND l

! PERFORMANCE INDICATORS i i l l = Public Exposure l . Objective - Assure adequate protection of l j public health and safety from radiation j exposure. l l

l . Performance Indicators l . Substantial loss of radiation safety barriers

! . Unplanned / unintended significant radiation dose (individual or collective) i j is t

l 1

2 i

! CORNERSTONE OBJECTIVES AND i PERFORMANCE INDICATORS i

j = Occupational Exposure l . Objectwo - Assure adequate protection of j worker hesith and safety from radiation j exposure.

! . Performance Indicators

. Substantial loss of radiation safety bamers i . Unplanr.ed/ unintended significant i radiation dose (individual or collective) se O

8

! i l

1

l CORNERSTONE OBJECTIVES AND l l, PERFORMANCE INDICATORS j = Physical Protection j . Objective - Still under development, but l would include the diversion of special nuclear material.

l

. Performance Indicators

! . Under development i

,l j

l ,, V' 4

i i .

. NEXT STEPS 4

= PerformanceIndicators

} . Develop clear, concise definitions l . Determine collection and reporting needs

! . Define thresholds i

j = Inspection Program i . Risk-inform core baseline inspection program

. Determine areas for reduced inspection l

based on performance indicators

]

l

= Performance Assessment

. Develop criteria for integrating inspection

{

j results with performance indicators g i se i

i

! 9 l

4 SCHEDULE !

. October - November 1998: Complete !

development of proposal for assessment j process improvements !

. January 1999: Present proposal to tPublic. br.efa Commissioners j

. March 1999: Commission approval

. June 1999: Start phase-in of revised process j . June 2000: Complete phase-in of revised process

. June 2001: Complete evaluation of ;

effectiveness of revised process ,,

, ,. V' Erank bidespie - OWrd i ied i NRc a 6%ff Lea .

b0oanaue duessmu+ - 4 k e Xhem 10

e NEI 98-03

" Guidelines for Updating Safety Analysis Reports" Guy Davant i

Nuclear Safety & Licensing

l

N EI 98-03 ;

" Guidelines for Updating FSARs" Extensive review and comment cyc e wit: 1 industry and NRC Comments successfully resolved Revision 0 published and issued to industry 11/12/98 i

Expect NRC endorsement mid-1999 i

NEI 98-03 :;

" Guidelines for Updating FSARs" t

Points of m. terest .

- Addressing long-term temporary modifications ,

1

- Removm.g mformation l Redundant information .

Commitments .

Excessive detail

- Using simplified schematic drawings

t i

i i

}

Licensing Performance Workshop . a t

Regulatory Issues Commitments to the NRC .

I i

[

1 l

4 r ;

i i

Commitment Management 1

>,, 's. s .- ey . es -. , ...,.s, l

, . . . s y -w s . g .- _ _ <

. . . . . s. . ., , . ,_ . .< . . . . . , , y.p s mmm

Pilot Program & Interim Guidance

Audits of Licensee Commitment Management Programs

Report & Provide Recommendations to the ;

Commission

Guidance Documents

Control of Licensing Basis for Operating Reactors

l Managing Commitments made to the hRC !

. ....~..s.,-.

. ,w- s x. < . . , . , r ;

l A Proposed Regulatory Hierarchy:

1 1

1. Obligations

2. Mandated Licensing Basis Documents .

3. Regulatory Commitments

4. Non-Licensing-Basis Information i

l I

i i

i Cominitment Management i

i N -

I Bill Fountain Nuclear Safety & Licensing ;

I i

i

>s

Commitment Management

- Background -

NRC endorsed NEI's 1995 Guidelinefor Managing NRC Commitments

- CLB issue in 1992

- Internal NRC recommendations in 1994 Eight audits conducted earlier this year

- Follow-up of Licensee CM implementation

- Millstone / Maine Yankee lessons learned

Status of CM Guideline SECY-98-224 provides NRC staff recommendations to Commission on close-out of CM issues within one year Enhancements proposed on NEI CM guideline based on audits NEI drafting proposed revisions to CM guideline for industry and NRC review

. - - - - . - . - - - _ . .-- - _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ . - - - - - - . - _ . . _ - . - - . . _ . ~ . . - . . . . _ - _ _ . --- ,.w...

i NRC-Proposed Enhancements Clarify that not all " commitments" need to be tracked via CM programs Provide examples of non-licensing basis t

commitments Ensure " traceability" in commitment change process Allow (encourage) removal of certain commitments from existing CM programs i

l l

I i

i

50.59 Rule Perspective Guy Davant Nuclear Safety & Licensing i

k i

Historical Perspective ,

XEI 96-07 Guidance was developed based .

on best industry practice ,

Reflects significant NRC input EOI sites currently meet industry guide Most 50.59 issues inadequate screenings, not inadequate 50.59s. ;

NRC Proposed 50.59 Rule Overall, NRC has proposed positive rule language Recognized 50.59 is not well suited for risk-informed. .

s

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ .-

Positive Rule Efforts .

Removing " safety" terminology from rule (i.e.

USQ and safety evaluation)*

Definitions clarify intent of rule

Splitting of criteria into 6 or 7 questions

Relaxing previous NRC policy on areas such as probability, consequences, and margin of safety

~

must not detract from major purpose of rule change - stability of ;

criteria

i i

i t

Concerns

" Change" i

- Definition too limiting Does not provide screening flexibility

- Needs to be expanded Allow equivalent and inconsequential changes to be screened without a full evaluation r

n -- . - . . - - - .

Concerns

" Consequences"

- Does not allow much flexibility in doses that are well below Part 100 -

- Offsite doses below 30 Rem G.0% of Part 100) should be acceptable

" Margin of Safety"

- Not well defined

- XRC does not have a strong position

- Entergy supports deleting criterion

Bottom Line '

t Need to gain stability in 50.59 application Focus on performing 50.59 Reviews when needed and changing SAR Reduce burden for performing 50.59 Evaluations that cannot result in a license amendment

-- - - -- 9

! ! :jl!lt i i: i ,!; f, l ,Iil.![ i ;! .. ':'ie ii v

p

_ o hs kr o

_ I

_ O W K e "

c p n

a U

_ C -

R .

m r p o a

_ N ;

f r t

r e W i

n .

P "

o .._

g J

i n

s n

e i

c I

l l

3 Workshop Wrap-up a+ Effectiveness O Was the workshop effective?

O What areas were most beneficial? i a+ Challenges O Types of continuing challenges?

O Barriers?

i a+ Measurable Success O Potential performance indicators .

/ tangible ;

/ intangible !

O Other measures? i a+ Future Activities O Should there be a followup?

O What improvements should be made?

O How do we improve communication?

t i

Summary comments from Wrap-up critique

Feedback

1. Effectiveness?

e Theme identified e Draft deliverable

. Accomplished Objective Benefits? - Meet staff and EOl e Recognize common goals / differences ,

e Need to standardize become more obvious

Critical need for communication

. Surprised on similar roles and responsibilities of PM and L.E.

2. Challenges? ;

Standardization (open to change) i e Expansion of workshop knowledge to other L.E.s e Policy issues (e.g. 50.59, etc.)

l e Keep pace w/ changes ongoing !

Barriers? l e Complacency and competing priorities

3. Metrics? i e Improved quality and efficiency I e No denials or withdrawal e Average manhours / license amendment requirements (excluding >1 j year) i e Survey of customers

. Number of LARs reviewed by PM (%)

4. Followup? l e Intemal EOl workshop of other L.E.s e Region workshop?

e Annual workshop to check and adjust e Meeting w/NRC proj. org. to ID plant demands

l l

! l

! CLOSING ACTIVITY l

1. Good presentation on processes

. License change mechanisms

. Regulatory processes

NEEDED WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES AHEAD OF TIME

l

2. Eliminated barriers to communication l

3. Should be a good start on improving submittals l

l 4. Good interplay site-site-NRC l L 5. Good leaming opportunity for L.E.'s (both new and experienced) l l 6. WE LER's appreciated deer review I l

Continuing Challenges:

. 1. Geographic, site-site communication (could apply to several products)

2. Process efficiencies (RArs, submittal quality, tumaround) ,

3. L.E. development l Measures of Success:

1. Minimized RAls

2. Improved tumaround

3. Minimized supplements

4. Site is writing complete SER's Followup???

1. Will differentiate the utility a

y -

-W .

l l

1. Effectiveness-It was l . Good discussion of Amendment process l . NRC process and perspective e Good honest feedback from NRR e Good use of real-life examples for exercises l . Bad -W3/ANO/GGNS examples. Use generic.

l . Good breakout sessions. (Ours was W3-heavy)

2. Challenges

. Standardization of processes e Communication

. Site-to-site

. EOl-to-NRR e Many issues in state of flux e 50.59 e SAR content

. Reportability

. CLB l- . Bringing staffs up to acceptable level of competence

. Leam from each other

Resources

3. Measurable Success

# of RAls/ Revised Submittals e Categorize e Feedback from PM e PIM entries Timeliness (normalized?)

Submittal e NRC approval e Planning activities w/PM - Review performance to plan

! 4. Future Activities

. Another workshop e Name Tags l

. Early reading material l '

Expanded scope i

. Integrate NRC/EOl people in seating

. Cookies

l

1. Effectiveness l

. Yes

. Beneficial to review / discuss real amendments I l

. We learned:

i

. Need to be consistent in applying good ideas (attention to detail all the j time) l

[ . What the " good things" are l

. EOl aren't communicating effectively

2. Challenges i l

. Intersite communication and intrasite too

. Early communication w/NRR e In-house scheduling

. Technical knowledge

. Industry awareness I

3. Success

. Fewer" multiple submittal" issues

. Positive comments about licensing in PIM/PPR e Quicker tumaround time - PM's doing 50% SERs

4. Workshop F/U e issue " good stuff" checklist

. Develop standard process / procedure / template

. F/U training on process

. T.S. peer group??

. Develop EOl L.E. expectations

. Periodic (6 mo??) review with NRR on progress. (Peer Group call PM's) l l

l

- -. . _ _ . - ~- .

NRC - EOl Licensing Workshop l December 1 - 2,1998 l

The following persons attended the workshop:

WATERFORD 3 RIVER BEND STATION Tina Manzella Danny Williamson Ramona Kliebert Gregory Norris Everett P. Perkins Rick King Chip Garbe Patricia Campbell Stacey Fey Bill Fountain David Young Alyson Lacey Curtis Taylor Brian Thumm t

Charles Dedeaux Barry Burmeister Michael Brandon Ronald Williams Curtley Hayes NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI)

Robert Murillo Edward Lemke Mike Schoppman Atanya Lewis Roy Prados Oscar Pipkins Brion Randolph USNRC/NRR Early Ewing Greg Scott John Hannon David Wigginton GRAND GULF George Dick Chandu Patel Hamilton Bishop Chris Nolan i Kenneth Hughey Nicholas Hilton Lonnie Daughtery Robert Fretz Ron Byrd ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE Jim Vandergrift Clinton Szabo Glenn Ashley Dale James ECHELON (EOl HEADQUARTERS) l l Steve Bethay Guy Davant ENCLOSURE 3

! l L ;

4 4

i l

l i

I i

i l i

l Enclosure 4 h l l

Qualities of a " Good" License Submittal i

1 i

j i

1 1

1 4

'i s

f f

Process

,

Define the Problem

. Research

=> Understand specific plant / design / licensing basis - Regulatory Requirements SRP/RGs

=> What accidents are affected?

=> Know and use industry Standards /Model TS

=> Confer w/onsite technical experts, other EOl sites, SERCH, NEl, Excel services TSTFs, similar plants

=> Identify all affected areas (scope / impact)

(Where do tentacles of change reach?)

3

. Preliminary Discussion with Project Manager

. Get Peer Review

. Submit Timely >6 months t

l l

Format & Content A. Coverletter(brief)

Descriptive title.

Clearly summarize what you want (why you want it?) & when you want it.

References to prior correspondence, meetings, telephone calls?

Clear statement of proprietary information (if applicable).

Briefly describe safety / technical basis?

Clear description of regulatory process for change (50.90,50.55a, etc.)

Discuss risk-informed (if applicable).

If multiple process, provide clear roadmap.

If exigent / emergency, indicate and cite applicable regulation.

A. Attachments Format

> General Logically ordered headings / subheadings. I Organized thought process to tell "the whole story". l Break out sections into distinct pieces (e.g. Historical, Technical, etc.).

Define / explain technical terms. i NSHC sections should redefine technical terms (acronyms). !

Anticipate questions and address in letter.

Write Background and Basis for Change sections for use in SER.

Consider drawings for clarification.

Supplements to original submittal need to stand alone.

> Description of Change Identify affected TS sections and describe changes (make sure change reflects what you think it does).

> Background System description (regulatory / design basis).

industry reference (including other licensee approvals.)

Previous discussions, correspondence.

Current requirements.

State conditions to be resolved.

Applicable FSAR sections for reference.

History of topic.

L _ _

> Basis for Change Avoid false sense of security based upon industry precedent.

Describe analytical methods, data, and results.

Describe how you conform to applicable standard (i.e. NEl, SRP, Reg.

Guide, etc.)

Don't make broad commitments (be specific or don't commitment).

Be complete in Justification For Change.

Discuss impact on accident analysis / risk.

> Justification For Exigent / Emergency Consideration

> NSHC Stand alone section for Federal Register Notice.

Reflect previous discussion.

Brief summary of change.

Answer each question fully.

Clear; understandable; concise, yet sufficiently detailed.

- (Audience public).

Should be specific to the plant (especially if generic change used as justification).

> Environmental Statements

> TS Pages .

Marked up pages.

Revised pages.

> Commitments

?

_

ML20198G550

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

Enclosures:

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

Enclosures:

References:

. Background

Background

Navigation menu

ML20198G550

Text

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

Enclosures:

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

Enclosures:

References:

. Background

Background

Navigation menu

Search