ML24142A538
| ML24142A538 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Electric Power Research Institute |
| Issue date: | 05/21/2024 |
| From: | Lois James Licensing Processes Branch |
| To: | Long E Electric Power Research Institute |
| References | |
| MRP-484, MRP-484, Rev 0, MRP-484, Revision 0, EPID L-2024-TOP-0002 (pre-fee) | |
| Download: ML24142A538 (1) | |
Text
1 Lois James From:
Lois James Sent:
Tuesday, May 21, 2024 4:10 PM To:
Long, Elliot; McGill, Robert Cc:
Gerond George; Demetrius Murray
Subject:
RE: RE: RE: request public meeting to discuss purpose and NRC actions wrt MRP-484 Attachments:
bottom line on MRP-484; MRP-484 Summary Presentation_FINAL.pptx
- Elliot, Let me first say, that the objective of this email is to ensure that we have a productive public meeting on May 23, 2024, and provide the NRC staff with appropriate and sufficient information to move forward on the acceptance process for MRP-484.
On May 8, 2024, I provided examples and questions about MRP-484 for explanation, discussion, and preparation for this weeks public meeting. Based on my initial read of your slides send today, I do not see my examples and questions addressed. I would restate the examples below:
Plant #1 Example - immediate TS (less than 12 months)
Plant #1 had capsule results that would require them to submit an immediate TS change in order to stay in compliance with TS and Appendix G/ (<12 months). It seems that you are proposing in MRP-484 that Plant #1 would not need to submit the TS change until year 5 or 60 months. This could be seen as allowing Plant #1 to operate with nonconservative TSs and not in compliance with Appendix G/H for 48 months when using the CLB methods for addressing surveillance data.
Operating with nonconservative TS would essentially be a Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) and the NRC staff does not approve generic NOEDs in topical report (TR) safety evaluations (SEs).
Operating not in compliance Appendix G/H would essentially be an Exemption in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, Specific exemptions, and the NRC staff does not approve generic exemptions in TR SEs. Normally in TR SEs, the NRC staff approves a method for licensees to use in future licensing actions. The NRC staff does not approve generic licensing actions to be implemented without prior NRC review and approval.
If a desired result of MRP-484 is for the NRC approval that plants do not need to meet Appendix G/H for a specific period of time, then MRP-484 is proposing a rule change and the TR process is not the correct regulatory process.
Plant #2 Example - routine TS (between 12 and 60 months)
Plant #2 had capsule results that would require them to submit a routine TS change in order to stay in compliance with TS and Appendix G (between 12 and 60 months). It seems that you are proposing in MRP-484 that Plant #2 would not need to submit the TS change until year 5 or 60 months. This could be seen as allowing Plant #2 to operate with nonconservative TSs and not in compliance with Appendix G/H for 12-48 months when using the CLB methods for addressing surveillance data.
Again, operating with nonconservative TS would essentially be a Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) and the NRC staff does not approve generic NOEDs in TR SEs.
Again, operating not in compliance Appendix G/H would essentially be an Exemption in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, Specific exemptions, and and the NRC staff does not approve generic exemptions in TR SEs. Normally in TR SEs, the NRC staff approves a method for licensees to use in future
2 licensing actions. The NRC staff does not approve generic licensing actions to be implemented without prior NRC review and approval.
Again, if a desired result of MRP-484 is for the NRC approval that plants do not need to meet Appendix G/H for a specific period of time, then MRP-484 is proposing a rule change and the TR process is not the correct regulatory process.
Plant #3 Example - long term TS (greater than 60 months)
Plant #3 had capsule results that would require them to submit a long-term TS change in order to stay in compliance with TS and Appendix G/H (greater than 60 months). It seems that you are proposing in MRP-484 that Plant #3 would be required to submit a schedule change request to the NRC for review and approval if the plant would like to use their time greater than 5 years.
This new MRP-484 requirement is more restrictive and beyond the current requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendices G and H.
Industry can develop and impose industry guidance that is more restrictive than regulation and NRC does not need to review and approve. The NRC staff would not approve more restrictive requirements in a TR SE. The process for requiring more restrictive regulation would require rulemaking and is beyond the TR process.
Also, in my May 8, 2024, I asked if NRC staff was the entity providing pressure to submit early TS changes. If it is NRC staff that is providing the pressure, then we could address this by developing and issuing a Regulation Issues Summary (RIS) which again is outside of the TR process.
The bottom line is I dont understand what EPRI is asking, therefore, I do not know what NRC regulatory process would be the most appropriate process. Your slides appear to be a summary/overview of the MRP-484 report and not an attempt to address my questions.
At this point, I will be
- 1. Adding my May 8th email to you to ADAMS and make it publicly available.
- 3. Adding this email to ADAMS and make it publicly available.
- 4. Discussing internally whether we should proceed with Thursdays public meeting.
If we continue with our scheduled meeting on Thursday, May 23rd, I would be leading the discussion, and it would be based on the above examples and information to better understand EPRIs request so the NRC staff can identify the appropriate regulatory process.
Respectfully, Lois James From: Long, Elliot <elong@epri.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 11:33 AM To: Lois James <Lois.James@nrc.gov>; McGill, Robert <RMcGill@epri.com>
Cc: Gerond George <Gerond.George@nrc.gov>; Demetrius Murray <Demetrius.Murray@nrc.gov>
Subject:
[External_Sender] RE: RE: request public meeting to discuss purpose and NRC actions wrt MRP-484 Good morning, Lois, Please find attached an overview presentation of MRP-484.
3 These slides can be used during our meeting for discussion/explanation purposes, as needed. I am prepared to answer your questions as well during the meeting.
Thank you again - see you Thursday!
Elliot J. Long Senior Principal Technical Leader IV Electric Power Research Institute Tel: (412)-495-6659 Email: elong@epri.com www.epri.com TogetherShaping the Future of Energy' From: Lois James <Lois.James@nrc.gov>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 9:07 AM To: Long, Elliot <elong@epri.com>; McGill, Robert <RMcGill@epri.com>
Cc: Gerond George <Gerond.George@nrc.gov>; Demetrius Murray <Demetrius.Murray@nrc.gov>
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] RE: RE: request public meeting to discuss purpose and NRC actions wrt MRP-484 Thank you, Elliot. Thursday between 9-12 for one hour. Since we requested the meeting, I would like to focus on the sta ffs questions w hich I alrea dy shared with you and I w ould like to put the question out and EPRI ca n respond. I will Thank you, Elliot. Thursday between 9-12 for one hour.
Since we requested the meeting, I would like to focus on the staffs questions which I already shared with you and I would like to put the question out and EPRI can respond.
I will send you the schedular today and then update the schedular when the notice is issued (also hopefully today)
From: Long, Elliot <elong@epri.com>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 8:35 AM To: Lois James <Lois.James@nrc.gov>; McGill, Robert <RMcGill@epri.com>
Cc: Gerond George <Gerond.George@nrc.gov>; Demetrius Murray <Demetrius.Murray@nrc.gov>
Subject:
[External_Sender] RE: request public meeting to discuss purpose and NRC actions wrt MRP-484 Good morning, Lois, I am available the week of May 20th on M-T-W from 9 - 3; I can also be available Th. from 9 - noon. Bob has a full month and is okay with my handling things myself if he is unavailable.
This assumes a virtual meeting. Are you thinking about one hour? I have the beginnings of a presentation which summarizes the report. It is about ~25-30 slides.
Sorry for the delay in responding - we have been attending our biannual meeting utility meetings this week. We can discuss further next week as needed.
Thank you!
Elliot J. Long
4 Senior Principal Technical Leader IV Electric Power Research Institute Tel: (412)-495-6659 Email: elong@epri.com www.epri.com TogetherShaping the Future of Energy' From: Lois James <Lois.James@nrc.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 7:54 AM To: McGill, Robert <RMcGill@epri.com>; Long, Elliot <elong@epri.com>
Cc: Gerond George <Gerond.George@nrc.gov>; Demetrius Murray <Demetrius.Murray@nrc.gov>
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] request public meeting to discuss purpose and NRC actions wrt MRP-484 Importance: High Good mor ning! We are thinking that we would like to discuss the pur poses for submitting the TR a nd what they are seeking from the NRC. I was w ondering what your availability is the week of May 20, 2024 Lois James, Senior Pr oject Manager Division Good morning!
We are thinking that we would like to discuss the purposes for subming the TR and what they are seeking from the NRC. I was wondering what your availability is the week of May 20, 2024 Lois James, Senior Project Manager Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unless otherwise expressed in this message by the sender or except as may be allowed by separate written agreement between EPRI and recipient or recipients employer, any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others of this message is prohibited and this message is not intended to be an electronic signature, instrument or anything that may form a legally binding agreement with EPRI. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and permanently delete all copies of this message. Please be advised that the message and its contents may be disclosed, accessed and reviewed by the sender's email system administrator and/or provider. ***