ML20210P234

Summary of 990727 Meeting with NEI in Rockville,Md Re Industry Licensing Action Task & Varity of Issues.List of Attendees Encl

ML20210P234
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/10/1999
From:	Black S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Zwolinski J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
Shared Package
ML20210P241	List: ML20210P234 ML20210P255 ML20210P263
References
PROJECT-689 NUDOCS 9908120122
Download: ML20210P234 (18)

Text

]

7 y

1. a at49k UNITED STATES g

g j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066 4001 August 10, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO:

John A. Zwolinski, Director Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l

O' FROM:

Suzanne C. Black, Deputy Director e

Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I

SUMMARY

OF MEETING HELD ON JULY 27,1999, BETWEEN NRC STAFF AND INDUSTRY LICENSING ACTION TASK FORCE Members of the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held a meeting with representatives of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and licensees comprising the Licensing Action Task Force (LATF) on July 27,1999, at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. A list of those attending the meeting is provided as Attachment 1. A variety of subjects were discussed during the meeting. A summary of each discussion is provided below:

(1) Industry Comments on NRR Office Letter 803. " License Amendment Review Procedure" The LATF provided the staff with comments on the latest revision of Office Letter 803 (Attachment 2). The LATF is sponsoring a survey of licensees to determine how the office letter is being implemented by the staff. The results of the survey will likely be provided to the staff in September 1999. The staff mentioned that a recent meeting with TVA (see meeting summary; accession number 9907280022) in which the licensee and staff discussed the NRC resources (billed hours) associated with the review of various license amendments. The staff noted that the information compiled by the licensee was useful and stated that similar information from other licensees would be appreciated if it could be easily generated.

(2) Minor Technical Soecification (TS) Discreoancies or Unintended TS Actions By letter dated June 22,1999 (accession number 9907090283), NEl/LATF provided the staff with preliminary language for a new TS that would control situations involving discrepancies between the wording of TS requirements and the technicalintent or underlying purposes of the requirement (e.g., editorial or other errors in the TS). In preparation for the July 27 meeting, the staff held a conference call on July 22,1999, with some members of the LATF. To facilitate discussions during the conference call and meeting, the staff provided an alternate proposal which called the subject situations unintended TS actions. The alternate proposal provided to l

the LATF prior to the conference call is provided as Attachment 3. Internal staff discussions

/

following the conference call resulted in some changes to the staff's suggested alternative. The staff's revised TS wording was distributed at the meeting (Attachment 4) with appropriate warnings regarding its being only a tool to facilitate discussions. Also mentioned was the o3 f

possibility that the staff will solicit public comment on this concept in a forum other than the g

routine noticing of the expected license amendment requests. The LATF members stated that V

9908120122 990810 PDR REVGP ERGNUMRC E

f(Qp} [/

sg 139 R GW$ fRa3 68,9

T r

s

- J. A. Zwolinski the first amendment request would likely be from TVA and could be submitted as early as August or September 1999. The staff committed to review examples of situations for which the proposed provision might have been applied (Attachmenu,; and provide the LATF with comments resulting from that review.

(3) Consolidated TS chanaes (streamlined orocess for aeneric chanaes)

The LATF presented a preliminary proposal for the consolidated processing of line item TS improvements. The NRC staff issued a series of generic letters during the development and initial implementation of the improved standard technical specifications (late-80's to mid-90's) advising licensees that specific revisions of existing TSs could be pursued (these changes were called line-item improvements) by each licensee submitting an amendment request. After considering the increasing number of licensees that were fully converting to the improved standard TSs and the resources required to develop and issue generic letters, the staff stopped issuing line item improvements in the mid-90's. The staff is, however, continuing to work with industry, through the LATF and the Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF), to make improvements to TSs. The LATF proposal involves the NRC staff and licensees identifying improvements that would be applicable to multiple licensees and the NRC staff subsequently preparing a generic communication (likely to be a Regulatory issue Summary) providing the justification for the change and soliciting public comment and licensees' interest (in the form of simplified license amendment requests). After the initial notice, the LATF proposal calls for the NRC staff to resolve public comments, issue required notifications in the Federal Register, and finally to issue amendments to those licensees requesting the changes. The discussion and process are summarized in Attachment 6. The LATF stated that they would work with their counterparts in the TSTF to identify possible candidate TS changes for the new process. The staff committed to evaluate the proposal and to arrange for additional discussions with the LATF about developing and possibly implementing a process for handling improvements to TSs.

(4) Task interface Aareement (TIA) Process Some concerns expressed by the LATF about the TIA process are listed in Attachment 7. The NRC staff provided a draft revision to Office Letter 1201," Control of Task Interface Agreements," and referred to those portions of the office letter that dealt with issues mentioned by the LATF. Revision 2 Of Office Letter 1201 is dated July 26,1999, but a final version of the document was not available for distribution at the meeting. Thers are no differences between

- the " draft" version distributed at the meeting and the final document issued as Revision 2 (provided as Attachment 8). The discussion of TIAs led to a discussion of the NRC's use of the "predecisional" designation for some documents. Some information on this subject was distributed by the staff during the meeting and is provided as Attachment 9.

(5) NRC Workshoos The staff and LATF representatives discussed the recent workshop on the role of the division of licensing project management (DLPM) and a series of workshops being planned between small groups of licensees and DLPM counterparts. The LATF gave a generally positive response to the DLPM workshop held on July 23,1999, but stated that it had been organized and announced without giving many licensees adequate lead time. Regarding the series of smaller workshops, there was some confusion regarding their purpose (some on the LATF were under

g.p4 J. A. Zwolinski

-3 August 10, 1999 the opinion that the primary focus was on defining expectations for licensees'submittals to the NRC). Upon explanation from the staff that the agenda for each workshop was being tailored for each group of participating licensees and that the overall purpose of the workshops was to ensure mutual understanding of licensees' and NRC's processes, the LATF representatives were more receptive to the staff's plans. The staff stated that a goal has been established to complete the series of workshops by June 2000.

{6) Miscellaneous items (Draft safety evaluations and use of telecons)

Some comments from the LATF on maintaining or improving communications and the efficiency of licensing processes are provided in Attachment 7. The topics dealt with continuing efforts to limit requests for additional information during reviews and to generally improve the interface between NRR project managers and licensees.

The staff and LATF agreed to meet again in September 1999. The possibility of a smaller meeting between the staff and those LATF members working on the process for irnproving the issuance of generic TS changes was discussed but a schedule was not established.

Project No. 689 Attachments: As stated (9) cc w/atts: See next page DISTRIBUTION Hard Copy (w/att)

E-mail iCentral File

• S. Collins /R. Zimmerman.

M. Tschiltz PUBLIC B. Sheron B. Wetzel DLPM R/F J. Zwolinski J. Zimmerman OGC R. Dennig S. Peterson ACRS C. Marco L. Olshan W. Reckley W. Beckner J. Birmingham S. Black C. Jamerson DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\latf_mtgsum_727.wpd OFFICE PM/DLPM LA/PDIV DD:DLPM

,.k SBlack %

NAME WReckley UJ NT_---

CJamerson DATE 9 / $/ 99 8 / 7 /99

[

S'//d /99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 1

s N

J. A. Zwolinski the opinion that the primary focus was on defining expectations for licensees'submittals to the NRC). Upon explanation from the staff that the agenda for each workshop was being tailored for each group of participating licensees and that the overall purpose of the workshops was to ensure mutual understanding of licensees' and NRC's processes, the LATF representatives were more receptive to the staff's plans. The staff stated that a goal has been established to j

complete the series of workshops by June 2000.

(6) Miscellaneous items (Draft safety evaluations and use of telecons)

Some comments from the LATF on maintaining or improving communications and the efficiency of licensing processes are provided in Attachment 7. The topics dealt with continuing e,fforts to limit requests for additional information during reviews and to generally improve the interface between NRR project managers and licensees.

The sta'f and LATF agreed to meet again in September 1999. The possibility of a smaller j

meeting between the staff and those LATF members working on the process for improving the issuance of generic TS changes was discussed but a schedule was not established.

Project No. 689 Attachments: As stated (9) cc w/atts: See next page 1

o he.

e I

L.

Nuclear Energy institute Project No. 689 l~

cc:

Mr. Ralph Beedle Ms. Lynnette Hendricks, Director Senior Vice President Plant Support i

and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Energy institute Suite 400 Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Alex Marion, Director Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Director Programs Washington Operations

' Nuclear Energy Institute ABB-Combustion Engineering, Inc. -

Suite 400 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 1776 i Street, NW Rockville, Maryland 20852 Washington, DC 20006-3708 l

Mr. David Modeen, Director Mr. Jim Fisicaro, Manager Engineering Nuclear Assessment and issues Nuclear Energy institute Duke Energy Corporation Suite 400 526 South Church Street i

1776 l Street, NW Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006 Washington, DC 20006-3708-Mr. Anthony Pietrangelo, Director Licensing Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Nicholas J. Liparuto, Manager Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activities Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Mr. Jim Davis, Director Operations Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 l

1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 l

l l

j LICENSING ACTION TASK FORCE MEETING JULY 27.1999 LIST OF ATTENDEES i

NAME ORGANIZATION Suzanne Black NRC/DLPM William Beckner NRC/ DRIP /RTSB Sheri Peterson NRC/DLPM Bob Dennig NRC/ DRIP /RTSB Bill Reckley NRC/DLPM Jake Zimmerman NRC/DLPM Carole Jamerson NRC/DLPM Catherine Marco NRC/OGC Alex Marion NEl Mike Schoppman NEl Al Passwater Ameren UE Pedro Salas TVA Pete Kokolakis NYPA A. K. Krainik APS James Fisicaro Duke Energy Jim Kenny PP&L Roger Huston LSS Nancy Chapman SERCH/Bechtel Perry Robinson Winston&Strawn Gary Vine EPRI Brian McIntyre Westinghouse Melvin Frank Scientech/NUSIS Joe Kelly FTl Jenny Weil McGraw-Hill

{

t b

DRAFT NEI Comments on NRR Office Letter 803, Revision 2

" License Amendment Review Procedures" ENCLOSURE 1 i

i A. General Comments

1. Feedback from licensees indicates that, in general, Revision 2 to Office Letter 803 is a useful document that provides important insights into the license amendment review process. PMs appear to be using the Office Letter, and there have been several examples of submittals being clarified through early telephone communications. Feedback has been positive ori PM (and NR,R j

management) commitment to improve the efficiency of the review / approval process.

2. The Office Letter should be expanded to include guidance on the processing of other types of" licensing actions" (e.g., relief requests, exemption requests, topical reports, generic communications. etc.).

3. Minor administrative or non-safety changes to the Technical Specifications (i.e., " cleanup" changos) receive a relatively low review priority. A simplified administrative process for reviewing " minor Tech Spec changes" should be

)

incorporated into the Office Letter. Minor changes need not be subjected to

)

the same degree of process control as safety / risk related changes.

)

4. NEI supports the scheduling of NRC workshops for relatively small groups of licensees where attendees can discuss issues pertaining to submittal quality.

NRC staff can describe the criteria used to determine the completeness of a proposed submittal, and licensee staff can comment on the quality of the NRC review process. The cumulative effect of the workshops should be the documentation of consistent guidance usable by the entire licensee community, perhaps through subsequent revisions of Office Letter 803.

5. The Office Letter should include guidance on electronic transfer of information. Some PMs typically request electronic copies oflicensee "no j

significant hazards consideration" (NSHC) evaluations to expedite the posting of proposed amendments in the Federal Register. PMs should also be encouraged to provide electronic copies of approved amendments to licensees.

6. The Office Letter does not address changes to the Technical Specification Bases. Guidance for processing Bases changes may be useful, especially for i

plants with non standard Technical Specifications. The Bases are an j

important source ofinformation, and both licensees and NRC staff should maintain consistent, up to date versions.

i 7/27/99 1

1

F 8,

s DRAFT l

7. When possible, references to internal NRC memoranda should be avoided.

Relevant portions of a memo should be incorporated into the body of the Office latter, or the memo should be attached to the Office Letter.

i

8. Additional guidance is recommended throughout the Office Letter to assist the PM in contractor management and oversight.

l B. Comments on the Office Letter

1. Section C, " Preparation of the Safety Evaluation," states that project managers are resjionsible for determining," with assistance from techhical branch personnel, who willperform the safety review (the PMor technical branc'h staff)."

It seems more appropriate to make this guidance part of Section A,

" Preparation of the Work Plan."

2. Section D, " Review and Concurrence of the Amendment Package," states: "The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) shall review all amendment packages for legal adequacy and defensibility, unless a memorandum of agreement is developed stating that specific amendments do not require OGC concurrence."

(Also see footnote 4 on page 5.3 of the attachment to the Office Letter.)

OGC review of amendment packages should be the exception, not the rule.

To improve administrative efficiency, Project Directors and Project Managers in the NRR Division of Licensing Project Management should play a role in determining when OGC input is needed. Criteria for obtaining OGC review should reside in an internal NRC memorandum of understanding between the General Counsel and the NRR Office Director. Written guidance is needed on the role of OGC in the amendment process.

C. Comments on the " Guide for Processine License Amendments"

1. Section 2.0, " Work Planning," describes the steps that should be addressed by PMs in developing an amendment review work plan.

Although this section contains timeliness goals for the overall process, NRC should consider adding individual timelinees expectations for the key administrative steps necessary to process a proposed license amendment, for example, Federal Register notifications.

7/27/99 2

DRAFT

2. Section 2.3, " Search for Precedent Licensing Actions," describes the use of precedent in the review process.

This section of the OfHee Letter should emphasize the importance of PM communication with the appropriate technical branch (es) early in the review phase. Early agreement on use of precedent between the PM and technical reviewers will help expedite the review process. See Enclosure 2 for additional comments on the use of precedent.

3. Section 2.4, " Develop a Work Plan," states: "PMs should give special attention to those reviews that involve multiple TB or PM reviewers. The work plans for such amendment requests need to ensure that the scope and schedule for each reviewer are well defined and understood."

One of the main objectives of Office Letter 803 is the consistent and timely processing oflicense amendments. A work plan, as described above, is necessary to accomplish this objective. For example, the work plan should consolidate RAIs from different Branches into a single set of RAIs. The work plan should screen out duplicate questions from different branches, screen out questions solely informational in nature, eliminate questions that are not relevant to the proposed amendment, and minimize the number of technical reviewers. PM work planning should establish appropriate constraints on the scope of Branch reviews. The OfEce Letter should contain supplemental guidance or refer to internal work planning procedures to assist PMs in defining the appropriate technical review scope.

4. Section 2.4.1, " Scope and Depth of Review," states: "A memorandum to the staff... dated October 30,1998, provides guidance for the review of applications classified as risk informed licensing actions."

The role of the PSA Branch of the NRR Division of Systems Safety &

Analysis (DSSA) in the review of proposed license amendments, whether

" risk-informed" or " deterministic," has become an important issue. The Office Letter should be revised to include additional guidance on "groundrules" for the role of the PSA Branch in establishing the scope and duration of the overall NRC staff review.

Additional guidance is needed to specify how staff will accept the " burden of proof" when deciding to undertake a risk-informed review of a purely deterministic submittal. The outcome should be an objective, scrutable, decision making process subject to response and rebuttal from the licensee.

The PM should be a part of the process and be able to explain the staffs decision to the licensee.

7/27/99 3

y s

DRAFT l

S. Section 2.4.3, " Licensing Action Timeliness Goals," specifies timeliness goals to be used as performance measures to monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of NRC staff completion of licensing actions.

l The Office Letter should make clear that timeliness goals should never be l

used as a basis for denying a proposed amendment or for encouraging a licensee to withdraw a proposed amendment. NRC management oversight l

will help ensure the integrity of the timeliness goals.

6. Section 3.0, "Public Notification."

Section 3 should include guidance on hybrid hearing proce' ures for d

expansion of spent fuel storage capacity (10 CFR 2.1107 requires partic'ular wording in the Federal Register notice). Section 3 should also include l

guidance on environmental assessments. Processing can be delayed if PMs are not aware of special administrative steps associated with certain amendments (such as spent fuel pool expansions).

7. Section 3.1, " Normal (30. day) Public Notification," states: " Project Managers are expected to prepare the notice as soon as convenient following receipt of an incoming amendment request."

It is not clear whether this occurs before or after the initial acceptance i

review. In any case, a target time period (e.g., one week) should be specified for preparation of public notification to ensure prompt initiation of the review process.

8. Section 3.1, " Normal (30 day) Public Notification," states: "All applications and supplements to an application should be sent under O&A (50.30). (Oath

& Affirmation]

It would be helpfulif the Office Letter included examples of when an O&A is, or is not, required.

9. Section 4.1.1, " Project Manager Review," discusses project manager (PM) feedback on submittal quality as input to the plant issues matrix (PIM).

It is important for PMs to put negative input on a single submittal in the context of all submittals. Similarly, balanced input should be made for all types oflicensee submittals, not just proposed license amendments. If only negative feedback reaches the PIM, a single sub. par submittal could outweigh numerous quality submittals. This could adversely and erroneously impact the plant performance review (PPR).

7/27/99 4

c v

DRAFT

10. Section 4.1.2, " Technical Staff Review," discusses technical branch (TB) input l

to the PM regarding licensee performance.

Similar to the previous comment, TB reviewers should put negative feedback about a single submittalin a broader context.

11. The second sub bullet of Section 4.2, "Use of Precedent Safety Evaluations,"

l states: " ensure that theprecedent meets current expectations for format, findings, internal NRR guidance for the item, NRR guidance to industry, and technical content.

The discussion of what constitutes appropriate precedent should be expanded. More explicit guidelines will help licensees and the NRC staff cite i

precedent safety evaluations with greater confidence.

12. Section 4.3, " Requests for AdditionalInformation,"contains guidance on the l

content and timing of RAls.

RAI guidance should apply to all NRC requests, not just proposed license amendments.

l This section should state that the number and nature of RAIs are not indicators of the quality of staff review. The long term objective is to improve the communication of mutual expectations such that the need for RAIs decreases over time. A goal of"zero RAIs" is not unreasonable.

If the first paragraph of Section 4.3 were reformatted as a list, it would better emphasize the importance of ensuring that each RAI question is warranted.

With respect to item 1 on page 4.3, technical branch reviewers should be l

sure to include the regulatory basis for their questions so the PM can ihclude it in RAI telecons and letters to licensees.

With respect to item 3 regarding communications prior to issuing an RAI (page 4.3) and item 6 regarding communications after issuing an RAI l

(page 4.4), a PM/TB/ Licensee conference call would be usefulin both i

cases. Technical branch participation in conference calls will help ensure that technical questions are clearly communicated and understood by all parties. The conversation may obviate the need for at least some of the questions.

RAIs should not be used as generalinformation requests, or as a means to encourage commitments from licensees.

7/27/99 5

DRAFT s

s, See Enclosure 3 for previous NEI LATF comments on RAIs.

e

13. Section 4.4, " Regulatory Commitments," discusses the potential for escalation of commitments into license conditions.

The NRC should discontinue the practice of escalating commitments into license conditions.. If a licensee has submitted a license amendment application under oath and affirmation, and the NRC stdr has approved the amendment, associated commitments should be nunaged through a formal commitment management program. If commitinents are not being satisfied, the NRC has sufficient authority to take erforcement action when warranted.

14. Section 4.5, " Safety Evaluation Formn," discusses various technical and

\\

format considerations associated with NRC staff safety evaluation reports (SERs).

Section 4.5 does not discuss differenets between licensee submittals and NRC staff SERs. The Office Letter should.nclude guidance for citing the differences, including the reasons for the differences. This would allow all parties to verify that the SER satisfies the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109).

15. Section 5.0, " Review and Concurrente," discusses the process by which the quality and consistency of an amendmenqackage is verified.

The discussion in this section should include Tech Spec Bases changes. If Bases changes are part of an amendment package, the NRC SER and transmittalletter should explicitly state that the Bases changes are part of the NRC staffs approval. Otherwise licensees are left to assume that proposed Bases changes have been approved by the NRC staffs review.

16. Section 5.0, " Review and Concurrence," discusses the attributes of a completed amendment package.

If final NRC concurrence cannot be reached to approve the amendment package, the licensee should have the opportunity to communicate with cognizant NRC staff to provide additional clarification or information in support of the proposed amendment. Any meeting or conference call should occur before NRC takes final written action.

7/27/99 6

b DRAFT NEI Comments on NRR Office Letter 803, Revision 2

" License Amendment Review Procedures" ENCLOSURE 2 i

L Understanding of Current NRC Practice in Using Precedent in Processing License Amendments A. Stated Obiectives Guidelines for Staff review of license amendment requests are set forth in Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ("NRR") Office Letter No. 803, Rev. 2, " License i

Amendment Review Procedures,"

Attachment:

Guide for Processing License

~

Amendments ("OL-803"). OL-803 is intended to provide to the NRC Staff the basic framework for processing license amendment applications. Stated objectives of OL-803 include, among others: (1) reducing the inconsistency in processing license amendments, and (2) increasing technical consistency for similar license amendments. An important part in meeting the stated objectives is the appropriate l

use of precedent set by prior similar licensing actions.

B. Search for Precedent The NRC recognizes that there are significant efficiencies to be gained by using precedent. Accordingly, the first substantive step in the planning stage of processing a license amendment is for the Staff to " identify, assess, and review" precedent. OL-803 directs the Staff to continue to search for precedent untilit is satisfied that either one or more precedents have been identified or that no appropriate precedent exists. The mechanisms that OL-803 suggests that the Staff use in its search for precedent include:

License amendment application or licensee's response to Project Manager's request for information on precedent Informal discussions among Staff Relevant Staff guidance An internal NRC homepage (i.e., http://nrr10.nrc. gov / projects /sersrch.htm)

Designated software applications (i.e., NUDOCS and WISP)

Standard Technical Specifications Federal Register notices e

C. Use of Precedent in Preparine Work Plan and Performine Safety Evaluation The precedent identified as a result of the Staffs search is then to be used in preparing the amendment review work plan and in performing the Safety Evaluation. In the planning stage, the availability of precedent is a factor to be 7/27/99 1

)

I

s DRAFT considered in allocating the responsibility of developing the license amendment i

processing work plan between the Project Manager and Technical Branch Staff. In addition, estimations of Staff resources required for amendment review are based on the degree of similarity between the amendment request and any precedent. In performing the Safety Evaluation, the availability of precedent determines who is l

the appropriate individual to act as lead reviewer. Ob803 specifically directs the Staff to give proper consideration to precedent when developing requests for additionalinformation ("RAls") to avoid unnecessary requests.

D. Anolving Precedent Ob803 provides that precedent must be reviewed for accurac'y, applicability, and completeness against the details of a license amendment submittal and tlie particular plant. The responsible reviewer must ensure that the precedent: (1) is appropriate for use with the intended amendment, and (2) meets current expectations for format, findings, internal NRR guidance for the item, NRR guidance to industry, and technical content. The diagram in Figure 1 relates the OL803 guidance for using precedent to applicable administrative law principles.

II.

Reconunendations for Improving Current NRC Approach While the NRC recognizes that proper use of precedent (1) increases efficiency in

- the reviewing process, and (2) increases the " accuracy" of the outcome (i.e., approval or disapproval of the amendment), the NRC's current approach could be modified in order to maximize potential benefits. We have identified several aspects of the current approach which could be improved upon, including a substantive change as well as changes to the process itself.

Definitions (Substantive Change): OL-803 does not contain a formal definition of" precedent." The nearest to a definition is the following: " Precedent license amendments are those with a similar proposed change and regulatory basis for the SE [ Safety Evaluation]." Ob803 also provides that the Staff must ensure that the precedent is appropriate for use with the intended amendment. However, no further guidance is available to licensees or to the Staff for identifying precedent licensing actions which may be usefulin reviewing a license amendment. Thus, precedent is a somewhat elusive concept and could be subject to inconsistent application. As a consequence, potentially applicable precedent may be overlooked by both the Staff and licensees, or even ifidentified, may be inappropriately discounted by the responsible reviewer.

Possible Solution: Revise OL803 to include several specific criteria which would be considered in determining the suitability of precedent. While we recognize that

-the determination necessarily will have a subjective component, to ensure 7/27/99 2

1 b

S DRAFT consistency it would be beneficial if the definition contained some objective parameters to guide that determination. For example, NRC guidance could specify factors to be considered such as similarities / differences of physical characteristics of plant systems or components or the plants' licensing bases. In addition, another possible objective criterion might be risk significance or probabilistic risk assessment ("PRA") values. With some objective criteria in place licensees will have a better understanding of Staff expectations and, therefore, will be more likely to -

present an application with a successful position concerning precedent. In turn, this can lead to reduced requests for additional information ("RAIs") and more efficient use of NRC and licensee resources.

Feedback Mechanism (Process Change): In general, following submittal 6f a license application, there is minimalinvolvement of the licensee beyond its identification of precedent.

Possible Solution: Adopt an intermediate step that would require the NRC Staff to communicate to the hcensee the results of their precedent search and preliminary evaluation of any relevant precedent, be it supporting or non supporting. Early notification in the review process would allow the licensee to take appropriate action which may include performing another search, withdrawing the request, challenging the Staffs stated rationale for distinguishing or not applying precedent, or attempting to resolve specific Staff concerns.

Documentation ofBases:

To provide effective and fair use of precedent, two approaches may be utilized. First, objective criteria setting generic parameters for what constitutes precedent can be established. Alllicensees can then use such criteria to guide their original submittals. This " front-end" approach was mentioned above under the heading " Definitions (Substantive Charge)." On the "back-end" of the amendment process, specific precedent may be created from NRC's approval or disapproval of a licensee's submittal. NRC's final action on specific licensing submittals provides important direction to licensees and complements the generic criteria for what constitutes precedent. Together, the " front end" and "back-end" direction on precedent can make handling amendments more efficient.

Possible Solution:

Figure 1 shows that the current approach embodied in OL 803 does not require the staff to memorialize the underlying rationale supporting its use to precedent. Therefore, staff correspondence approving or disapproving an amendment should document the staffs rationale for using precedent. At a minimum, the staffs bases for its use of precedent should address the generic criteria and any other plant specific parameters that were deemed important to the staffs decision.

7/27/99 3

l

• .e

's FIGURE 1 l

Carrent NRC (OL 803)Guldance Legal Requjrennett I

i

• No SpectAs snisna a Way be squad to bb p baseses

'"i'" iI' I*'

• Not sqund a na N

l licsous of coactuswa unilar es i

linesses esase idseased u ssdsatt l

1 Y

1P

= Dirsca list!lo sesers president

• Need to idsetafy ths l

Has km bass essa surrsat espectatmas for rule /guidancs that is relud d

a shnage is gsidancs to indestry*

es to make determinarios Deuess W em l

. g,,,,q,;,,4,,,,g,,, g,,,,,

n b***'"""

ofdenrainatica g,e.,

JL betweae ne desmisest 1

N V

l

\\

a Descu Se casen

. Must anzWals est it a Is WRC esang Y

, p. tiny,sh

' Passedsat"seau somet delibseniely changing i

is decisies se espectatiets forietsteal polwy with tbs decisma the pomet NRR guidants' lissesse a Notisquired to inform gg lisseest ofdoestamaties o

N i

l V

l Deuseas sheeld be em i

i

1 DRAFT NEI Comments on NRR Office Letter 803, Revision 2

" License Amendment Review Procedures" ENCLOSURE 3 NEI/LATF Talking Points (11/98)

SHORT TERM IMPROVEMENTS l

RAIs:

i 1.

Establish early and frequent communications Discuss all questions informally prior to formal letter / docketing Phone calls early in the process - PM to LM Later on, fax and/or e mail draft questions for final round ofinformal e

communications prior to docketing 2.

Eliminated unnecessary questions:

Eliminate questions already answered in submittal Ensure all reviewers have access to full submittal NRC management better manage reviewers / review process (e.g., scope of l

allowed questions, meet established review schedules NRC management review RAIs prior to sending to utility to screen out l

unnecessary or inappropriate RAIs NRC management establish periodic internal review process (post RAI critique) at Director level License Amendments:

l 1.

Prioritization NRC/ licensees l

l Tech specs, generic communications, 50.54(f) threshold screening criteria for safety significant, risk signi6 cant, e

administrative changes l

2.

Early and frequent communications i

3.

Accept commitments vs. license conditions 7/27/99 1

b

DRAFT LONGER TERM CHANGES Rale:

1. How deal with generic RAIs (e.g., GLs) that don't apply to specific plants?

2. Develop consistent internal rules and procedures at NRC'

3. Consider process for individual NRC staff reviewers to contact utilities directly

4. Establish Ombudsman? Need more info.

5. Communicate progress /results to industry

6. "one bite at the apple"

7. Could RAIs be eliminated completely? (e.g., via meet and confer in public meeting?)

License Amendments:

1. Streamline and issue generic license changes

2. Literal compliance change

3. Threshold Screening I

l 7/27/99 2

I 1

i