ML072410573: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES* NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 March 2, 2001 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Tennessee Valley Authority Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant ATTN: Mr. T. E. Abney, Manager of Licensing and Industry Affairs P.O. Box 2000 Decatur, Alabama 35609 | {{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES | ||
* NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 March 2, 2001 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Tennessee Valley Authority Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant ATTN: Mr. T. E. Abney, Manager of Licensing and Industry Affairs P.O. Box 2000 Decatur, Alabama 35609 | |||
==Dear Mr. Abney:== | ==Dear Mr. Abney:== | ||
Your October 23, 1998, and April 23, 1999, applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested approval to use risk-informed inservice inspection (RI-ISI) as an alternative for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant's (BFN) American Society of Mechanical Engineering (ASME)Section XI Code class piping and austenitic stainless steel piping for BFN Units 2 and 3. The letters also requested that the submittals be exempted from the Part 170 fee requirements. | |||
In an April 7, 2000, letter you provided additional information to support your fee exemption requests. | Your October 23, 1998, and April 23, 1999, applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested approval to use risk-informed inservice inspection (RI-ISI) as an alternative for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant's (BFN) American Society of Mechanical Engineering (ASME) | ||
As explained below, the NRC is denying your request for a full exemption from the V/Part 170 fees for the submittals, and is granting a partial fee waiver of $109,697.A. TVA's Bases for Requesting an Exemption as a Pilot Plant and NRC's Response: 1. Your October 23, 1998, and April 7, 2000, letters stated that NRC encouraged licensees to submit applications for RI-ISI pilot programs in an effort to provide the permanent approach to RI-ISI. NRC plans to utilize the experience gained through pilot applications in a proposed rulemaking process to modify 10 CFR 50.55a to explicitly endorse RI-ISI methodology. | Section XI Code class piping and austenitic stainless steel piping for BFN Units 2 and 3. The letters also requested that the submittals be exempted from the Part 170 fee requirements. In an April 7, 2000, letter you provided additional information to support your fee exemption requests. As explained below, the NRC is denying your request for a full exemption from the V/ | ||
Response: | Part 170 fees for the submittals, and is granting a partial fee waiver of $109,697. | ||
NRC's development of the review and approval criteria for RI-ISI was accomplished in accordance with a Task Action Plan which identified the use of pilot plants to support generic regulatory improvement efforts under the PRA Implementation Plan. The pilot plants for this effort, Surry 1, Arkansas Nuclear 1 and 2, and Vermont Yankee, were selected in agreement with industry representatives from Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG). BFN Units 2 and 3 were not included in this agreement and therefore cannot be considered as pilot plants for the RI-ISI program.2. You stated that the BFN Unit 2 RI-ISI program represented new and unique information since it was a full scope RI-ISI program that contained ASME Section XI Code Class 1, 2, and 3 piping and the program included an alternative to Generic Letter 88-01 augmented inspection requirements for intergrannular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) associated hwith categories A through G welds. | A. TVA's Bases for Requesting an Exemption as a Pilot Plant and NRC's Response: | ||
T. E. Abney Response: | : 1. Your October 23, 1998, and April 7, 2000, letters stated that NRC encouraged licensees to submit applications for RI-ISI pilot programs in an effort to provide the permanent approach to RI-ISI. NRC plans to utilize the experience gained through pilot applications in a proposed rulemaking process to modify 10 CFR 50.55a to explicitly endorse RI-ISI methodology. | ||
The NRC staff performed only an acceptance review of the BFN Unit 2 submittal and requested that TVA withdraw its application because industry initiatives were underway to reduce the scope of GL 88-01 IGSCC augmented inspections. | Response: NRC's development of the review and approval criteria for RI-ISI was accomplished in accordance with a Task Action Plan which identified the use of pilot plants to support generic regulatory improvement efforts under the PRA Implementation Plan. The pilot plants for this effort, Surry 1, Arkansas Nuclear 1 and 2, and Vermont Yankee, were selected in agreement with industry representatives from Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG). BFN Units 2 and 3 were not included in this agreement and therefore cannot be considered as pilot plants for the RI-ISI program. | ||
Since the generic information in the BFN Unit 2 submittal was not utilized by the NRC it does not qualify for pilot plant status.3. Your letters stated that BFN Units 2 and 3 represented the initial utilization of the WinPRAISE code to calculate failure probabilities. | : 2. You stated that the BFN Unit 2 RI-ISI program represented new and unique information since it was a full scope RI-ISI program that contained ASME Section XI Code Class 1, 2, and 3 piping and the program included an alternative to Generic Letter 88-01 augmented inspection requirements for intergrannular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) associated hwith categories A through G welds. | ||
Response: | |||
While we recognize that BFN represented the initial use of WinPRAISE code, it is similar to the SRRA code utilized in the generic Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) Topical Report, WCAP-14574, Revision 1-NP-A, "WOG Application of Risk-Informed Methods to Piping Inservice Inspection TR," February 1999, and the use of WinPRAISE does not provide additional generic benefit when equivalent codes are available to calculate piping failure probabilities. | T. E. Abney Response: The NRC staff performed only an acceptance review of the BFN Unit 2 submittal and requested that TVA withdraw its application because industry initiatives were underway to reduce the scope of GL 88-01 IGSCC augmented inspections. Since the generic information in the BFN Unit 2 submittal was not utilized by the NRC it does not qualify for pilot plant status. | ||
: 4. Your April 7, 2000, letter stated that BFN Unit 3 is the first plant to utilize NEI submittal template. | : 3. Your letters stated that BFN Units 2 and 3 represented the initial utilization of the WinPRAISE code to calculate failure probabilities. | ||
As you stated in your letter, this technique was developed in an attempt to expedite NRC review of RI-ISI programs in accordance with previously approved methods.Response: | Response: While we recognize that BFN represented the initial use of WinPRAISE code, it is similar to the SRRA code utilized in the generic Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) Topical Report, WCAP-14574, Revision 1-NP-A, "WOG Application of Risk-Informed Methods to Piping Inservice Inspection TR," February 1999, and the use of WinPRAISE does not provide additional generic benefit when equivalent codes are available to calculate piping failure probabilities. | ||
During the review of your BFN Unit 3 submittal, the staff determined that there were a number of deviations between your methodology and the generic methodology previously approved by the staff in the WOG topical. Although some of these deviations can be attributed to the application of the methodology to a boiling water reactor (BWR), as recognized by the partial fee waiver granted below, most of the deviations were simply differences in selected methods. Because of the number of deviations from the previously approved methods, your submittal was not a pilot application of a template submittal and review.Based on the above, your request for exemption from the Part 170 fee requirements as a pilot plant is denied.B. TVA's Bases for Requesting an Exemption Under 10 CFR 170.21, Footnote 4, and NRC's Response: 1. Your April 7, 2000, letter referred to 10 CFR 170.21, Footnote 4, criterion 3, which provides that fees will not be assessed for requests or reports submitted to the NRC as a means of exchanging information between industry organizations and the NRC for the purpose of supporting generic regulatory improvements or efforts.Response: | : 4. Your April 7, 2000, letter stated that BFN Unit 3 is the first plant to utilize NEI submittal template. As you stated in your letter, this technique was developed in an attempt to expedite NRC review of RI-ISI programs in accordance with previously approved methods. | ||
Footnote 4 to 10 CFR 170.21 applies only to Special Projects, 10 CFR Part 170.21, fee Category J. As defined in 10 CFR Part 170.3, Special Projects are those requests submitted to the Commission for review for which fees are not otherwise specified in 10 CFR 170. Fees for amendments for nuclear power reactors are specified in 10 CFR Part 170.21, fee Category A. Therefore, Footnote 4 does not apply to either the October 23, 1998, application for BNF Unit 2 or the April 23, 1999, application for BNF Unit 3. | Response: During the review of your BFN Unit 3 submittal, the staff determined that there were a number of deviations between your methodology and the generic methodology previously approved by the staff in the WOG topical. Although some of these deviations can be attributed to the application of the methodology to a boiling water reactor (BWR), | ||
T. E. Abney | as recognized by the partial fee waiver granted below, most of the deviations were simply differences in selected methods. Because of the number of deviations from the previously approved methods, your submittal was not a pilot application of a template submittal and review. | ||
Regulations already authorized the staff to grant ASME Code "relief' and the staff has already implemented RI-ISI programs through the relief process. However, the staff acknowledges that the RI-ISI methodology that you have developed, and the staff approved for BNF Unit 3 on February 11, 2000, has generic applicability and expands the scope of risk-informed regulation. | Based on the above, your request for exemption from the Part 170 fee requirements as a pilot plant is denied. | ||
The BNF Unit 3 review encompassed inspection of materials degradation mechanisms that were not addressed by previous RI-ISI methodology. | B. TVA's Bases for Requesting an Exemption Under 10 CFR 170.21, Footnote 4, and NRC's | ||
More specifically, through reviews such as this, the scope of relief being granted is being expanded to include additional classes of piping and piping degradation mechanisms. | |||
Based on the foregoing, I have determined that a partial exemption from the 10 CFR Part 170 fee requirement is appropriate for that portion of the BFN Unit 3 submittal that the staff determined has generic applicability. | ===Response=== | ||
The exemption is authorized by law and is granted in accordance with 10 CFR 170.11 (b)(1). The recently completed Turkey Point RI-ISI review is used as a "typical review" (i.e., a review performed for another facility/licensee in which the scope was consistent with use of the WCAP-14572 methodology) to compare total costs to be invoiced for the plant-specific portion of the BNF Unit 3 review. A total of $166,379 was billed for the BFN Unit 3 RI-ISI review and a total of $60,233 was billed for the similar Turkey Point review.Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 170.11 (b)(1), I am waiving $106,146, the difference between the BFN Unit 3 review and the Turkey Point review. A refund will be sent to you within 30 days of the date of this letter.If you have any questions, please contact Ellen Poteat, of my staff, at 301-415-6392. | : 1. Your April 7, 2000, letter referred to 10 CFR 170.21, Footnote 4, criterion 3, which provides that fees will not be assessed for requests or reports submitted to the NRC as a means of exchanging information between industry organizations and the NRC for the purpose of supporting generic regulatory improvements or efforts. | ||
Sincerely, Jesse L. Funches Chief Financial Officer Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, 50-296 cc: See next page T. E. Abney | Response: Footnote 4 to 10 CFR 170.21 applies only to Special Projects, 10 CFR Part 170.21, fee Category J. As defined in 10 CFR Part 170.3, Special Projects are those requests submitted to the Commission for review for which fees are not otherwise specified in 10 CFR 170. Fees for amendments for nuclear power reactors are specified in 10 CFR Part 170.21, fee Category A. Therefore, Footnote 4 does not apply to either the October 23, 1998, application for BNF Unit 2 or the April 23, 1999, application for BNF Unit 3. | ||
Regulations already authorized the staff to grant ASME Code "relief' and the staff has already implemented RI-ISI programs through the relief process. However, the staff acknowledges that the RI-ISI methodology that you have developed, and the staff approved for BNF Unit 3 on February 11, 2000, has generic applicability and expands the scope of risk-informed regulation. | |||
The BNF Unit 3 review encompassed inspection of materials degradation mechanisms that were not addressed by previous RI-ISI methodology. | T. E. Abney 2. Your April 7, 2000, letter stated that BFN Unit 3 is the first full scope BWR to use the WOG methodology and it includes augmented ISI program elements in the analysis. | ||
More specifically, through reviews such as this, the scope of relief being granted is being expanded to include additional classes of piping and piping degradation mechanisms. | Response: Regulations already authorized the staff to grant ASME Code "relief' and the staff has already implemented RI-ISI programs through the relief process. However, the staff acknowledges that the RI-ISI methodology that you have developed, and the staff approved for BNF Unit 3 on February 11, 2000, has generic applicability and expands the scope of risk-informed regulation. The BNF Unit 3 review encompassed inspection of materials degradation mechanisms that were not addressed by previous RI-ISI methodology. More specifically, through reviews such as this, the scope of relief being granted is being expanded to include additional classes of piping and piping degradation mechanisms. | ||
Based on the foregoing, I have determined that a partial exemption from the 10 CFR Part 170 fee requirement is appropriate for that portion of the BFN Unit 3 submittal that the staff determined has generic applicability. | Based on the foregoing, I have determined that a partial exemption from the 10 CFR Part 170 fee requirement is appropriate for that portion of the BFN Unit 3 submittal that the staff determined has generic applicability. The exemption is authorized by law and is granted in accordance with 10 CFR 170.11 (b)(1). The recently completed Turkey Point RI-ISI review is used as a "typical review" (i.e., a review performed for another facility/licensee in which the scope was consistent with use of the WCAP-14572 methodology) to compare total costs to be invoiced for the plant-specific portion of the BNF Unit 3 review. A total of $166,379 was billed for the BFN Unit 3 RI-ISI review and a total of $60,233 was billed for the similar Turkey Point review. | ||
The exemption is authorized by law and is granted in accordance with 10 CFR 170.11 (b)(1). The recently completed Turkey Point RI-ISI review is used as a "typical review" (i.e., a review performed for another facility/licensee in which the scope was consistent with use of the WCAP-14572 methodology) to compare total costs to be invoiced for the plant-specific portion of the BNF Unit 3 review. A total of $166,379 was billed for the BFN Unit 3 RI-ISI review and a total of $60,233 wasbilled for the similar Turkey Point review.Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 170.11(b)(1), I am waiving $106,146, the difference between the BFN Unit 3 review and the Turkey Point review. A refund will be sent to you within 30 days of the date of this letter.If you have any questions, please contact Ellen Poteat, of my staff, at 301-415-6392. | Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 170.11 (b)(1), I am waiving $106,146, the difference between the BFN Unit 3 review and the Turkey Point review. A refund will be sent to you within 30 days of the date of this letter. | ||
Sincerely, signe0db, ter Jo Rabldsau Deptiy Chlef FifarOW Officer Jesse L. Funches Chief Financial Officer Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, 50-296 cc: See next page Distribution: (See attached) | If you have any questions, please contact Ellen Poteat, of my staff, at 301-415-6392. | ||
*See previous concurrence Document Name: G:\DAF\LFARB\DAF9-182B.wpd ADAMS -Yes/No SENSITIVE/NON-SENSITIVE PUBLIC/NON-PUBLIC Initials: | Sincerely, Jesse L. Funches Chief Financial Officer Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, 50-296 cc: See next page | ||
MEP (To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box:"C" =Copy without attachmentlenclosure "E" =Copy with attachment/enclosure"N" = No conv I Tennessee Valley Authority BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT cc: Mr. Karl W. Singer, Senior Vice President Nuclear Operations Tennessee Valley Authority 6A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Mr. | |||
& Technical Services Tennessee Valley Authority 6A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Mr. John T. Herron, Site Vice President Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority P.O. Box 2000 Decatur, AL 35609 General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority ET 10H 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902 Mr. N. C. Kazanas, General Manager Nuclear Assurance Tennessee Valley Authority 5M Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Mr. Robert G. Jones, Plant Manager Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority P.O. Box 2000 Decatur, AL 35609 | T. E. Abney 2. Your April 7, 2000, Ietter stated that BFN Unit 3 is the first full scope BWR to use the WOG methodology and it includes augmented ISI program elements in the analysis. | ||
Response: Regulations already authorized the staff to grant ASME Code "relief' and the staff has already implemented RI-ISI programs through the relief process. However, the staff acknowledges that the RI-ISI methodology that you have developed, and the staff approved for BNF Unit 3 on February 11, 2000, has generic applicability and expands the scope of risk-informed regulation. The BNF Unit 3 review encompassed inspection of materials degradation mechanisms that were not addressed by previous RI-ISI methodology. More specifically, through reviews such as this, the scope of relief being granted is being expanded to include additional classes of piping and piping degradation mechanisms. | |||
Based on the foregoing, I have determined that a partial exemption from the 10 CFR Part 170 fee requirement is appropriate for that portion of the BFN Unit 3 submittal that the staff determined has generic applicability. The exemption is authorized by law and is granted in accordance with 10 CFR 170.11 (b)(1). The recently completed Turkey Point RI-ISI review is used as a "typical review" (i.e., a review performed for another facility/licensee in which the scope was consistent with use of the WCAP-14572 methodology) to compare total costs to be invoiced for the plant-specific portion of the BNF Unit 3 review. A total of $166,379 was billed for the BFN Unit 3 RI-ISI review and a total of $60,233 wasbilled for the similar Turkey Point review. | |||
Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 170.11(b)(1), I am waiving $106,146, the difference between the BFN Unit 3 review and the Turkey Point review. A refund will be sent to you within 30 days of the date of this letter. | |||
If you have any questions, please contact Ellen Poteat, of my staff, at 301-415-6392. | |||
Sincerely, tw1)0ra*;*1rn signe0db, ter Jo Rabldsau Deptiy Chlef FifarOW Officer Jesse L. Funches Chief Financial Officer Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, 50-296 cc: See next page Distribution: (See attached) *See previous concurrence Document Name: G:\DAF\LFARB\DAF9-182B.wpd ADAMS - Yes/No SENSITIVE/NON-SENSITIVE PUBLIC/NON-PUBLIC Initials: MEP (To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box:"C" =Copy without attachmentlenclosure "E" =Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No conv | |||
I Tennessee Valley Authority BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT cc: | |||
Mr. Mark J. Burzynski, Manager Mr. Karl W. Singer, Senior Vice President Nuclear Licensing Nuclear Operations Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee Valley Authority 4X Blue Ridge. | |||
6A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Mr. J. A. Scalice, Chief Nuclear Mr. Jack A. Bailey, Vice President Officer and Executive Vice President Engineering & Technical Services Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee Valley Authority 6A Lookout Place 6A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Senior Resident Inspector Mr. John T. Herron, Site Vice President U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority 10833 Shaw Road P.O. Box 2000 Athens, AL 35611 Decatur, AL 35609 State Health Officer General Counsel Alabama Dept. of Public Health Tennessee Valley Authority RSA Tower - Administration ET 10H Suite 1552 400 West Summit Hill Drive P.O. Box 303017 Knoxville, TN 37902 Montgomery, AL 36130-3017 Mr. N. C. Kazanas, General Manager Chairman Nuclear Assurance Limestone County Commission Tennessee Valley Authority 310 West Washington Street 5M Lookout Place Athens, AL 35611 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Mr. Robert G. Jones, Plant Manager Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority P.O. Box 2000 Decatur, AL 35609}} | |||
Latest revision as of 04:08, 23 November 2019
| ML072410573 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 03/02/2001 |
| From: | Funches J NRC/OCFO |
| To: | Abney T Tennessee Valley Authority |
| Renu Suri | |
| References | |
| Download: ML072410573 (5) | |
Text
UNITED STATES
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 March 2, 2001 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Tennessee Valley Authority Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant ATTN: Mr. T. E. Abney, Manager of Licensing and Industry Affairs P.O. Box 2000 Decatur, Alabama 35609
Dear Mr. Abney:
Your October 23, 1998, and April 23, 1999, applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested approval to use risk-informed inservice inspection (RI-ISI) as an alternative for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant's (BFN) American Society of Mechanical Engineering (ASME)
Section XI Code class piping and austenitic stainless steel piping for BFN Units 2 and 3. The letters also requested that the submittals be exempted from the Part 170 fee requirements. In an April 7, 2000, letter you provided additional information to support your fee exemption requests. As explained below, the NRC is denying your request for a full exemption from the V/
Part 170 fees for the submittals, and is granting a partial fee waiver of $109,697.
A. TVA's Bases for Requesting an Exemption as a Pilot Plant and NRC's Response:
- 1. Your October 23, 1998, and April 7, 2000, letters stated that NRC encouraged licensees to submit applications for RI-ISI pilot programs in an effort to provide the permanent approach to RI-ISI. NRC plans to utilize the experience gained through pilot applications in a proposed rulemaking process to modify 10 CFR 50.55a to explicitly endorse RI-ISI methodology.
Response: NRC's development of the review and approval criteria for RI-ISI was accomplished in accordance with a Task Action Plan which identified the use of pilot plants to support generic regulatory improvement efforts under the PRA Implementation Plan. The pilot plants for this effort, Surry 1, Arkansas Nuclear 1 and 2, and Vermont Yankee, were selected in agreement with industry representatives from Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG). BFN Units 2 and 3 were not included in this agreement and therefore cannot be considered as pilot plants for the RI-ISI program.
- 2. You stated that the BFN Unit 2 RI-ISI program represented new and unique information since it was a full scope RI-ISI program that contained ASME Section XI Code Class 1, 2, and 3 piping and the program included an alternative to Generic Letter 88-01 augmented inspection requirements for intergrannular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) associated hwith categories A through G welds.
T. E. Abney Response: The NRC staff performed only an acceptance review of the BFN Unit 2 submittal and requested that TVA withdraw its application because industry initiatives were underway to reduce the scope of GL 88-01 IGSCC augmented inspections. Since the generic information in the BFN Unit 2 submittal was not utilized by the NRC it does not qualify for pilot plant status.
- 3. Your letters stated that BFN Units 2 and 3 represented the initial utilization of the WinPRAISE code to calculate failure probabilities.
Response: While we recognize that BFN represented the initial use of WinPRAISE code, it is similar to the SRRA code utilized in the generic Westinghouse Owners Group (WOG) Topical Report, WCAP-14574, Revision 1-NP-A, "WOG Application of Risk-Informed Methods to Piping Inservice Inspection TR," February 1999, and the use of WinPRAISE does not provide additional generic benefit when equivalent codes are available to calculate piping failure probabilities.
- 4. Your April 7, 2000, letter stated that BFN Unit 3 is the first plant to utilize NEI submittal template. As you stated in your letter, this technique was developed in an attempt to expedite NRC review of RI-ISI programs in accordance with previously approved methods.
Response: During the review of your BFN Unit 3 submittal, the staff determined that there were a number of deviations between your methodology and the generic methodology previously approved by the staff in the WOG topical. Although some of these deviations can be attributed to the application of the methodology to a boiling water reactor (BWR),
as recognized by the partial fee waiver granted below, most of the deviations were simply differences in selected methods. Because of the number of deviations from the previously approved methods, your submittal was not a pilot application of a template submittal and review.
Based on the above, your request for exemption from the Part 170 fee requirements as a pilot plant is denied.
B. TVA's Bases for Requesting an Exemption Under 10 CFR 170.21, Footnote 4, and NRC's
Response
- 1. Your April 7, 2000, letter referred to 10 CFR 170.21, Footnote 4, criterion 3, which provides that fees will not be assessed for requests or reports submitted to the NRC as a means of exchanging information between industry organizations and the NRC for the purpose of supporting generic regulatory improvements or efforts.
Response: Footnote 4 to 10 CFR 170.21 applies only to Special Projects, 10 CFR Part 170.21, fee Category J. As defined in 10 CFR Part 170.3, Special Projects are those requests submitted to the Commission for review for which fees are not otherwise specified in 10 CFR 170. Fees for amendments for nuclear power reactors are specified in 10 CFR Part 170.21, fee Category A. Therefore, Footnote 4 does not apply to either the October 23, 1998, application for BNF Unit 2 or the April 23, 1999, application for BNF Unit 3.
T. E. Abney 2. Your April 7, 2000, letter stated that BFN Unit 3 is the first full scope BWR to use the WOG methodology and it includes augmented ISI program elements in the analysis.
Response: Regulations already authorized the staff to grant ASME Code "relief' and the staff has already implemented RI-ISI programs through the relief process. However, the staff acknowledges that the RI-ISI methodology that you have developed, and the staff approved for BNF Unit 3 on February 11, 2000, has generic applicability and expands the scope of risk-informed regulation. The BNF Unit 3 review encompassed inspection of materials degradation mechanisms that were not addressed by previous RI-ISI methodology. More specifically, through reviews such as this, the scope of relief being granted is being expanded to include additional classes of piping and piping degradation mechanisms.
Based on the foregoing, I have determined that a partial exemption from the 10 CFR Part 170 fee requirement is appropriate for that portion of the BFN Unit 3 submittal that the staff determined has generic applicability. The exemption is authorized by law and is granted in accordance with 10 CFR 170.11 (b)(1). The recently completed Turkey Point RI-ISI review is used as a "typical review" (i.e., a review performed for another facility/licensee in which the scope was consistent with use of the WCAP-14572 methodology) to compare total costs to be invoiced for the plant-specific portion of the BNF Unit 3 review. A total of $166,379 was billed for the BFN Unit 3 RI-ISI review and a total of $60,233 was billed for the similar Turkey Point review.
Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 170.11 (b)(1), I am waiving $106,146, the difference between the BFN Unit 3 review and the Turkey Point review. A refund will be sent to you within 30 days of the date of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact Ellen Poteat, of my staff, at 301-415-6392.
Sincerely, Jesse L. Funches Chief Financial Officer Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, 50-296 cc: See next page
T. E. Abney 2. Your April 7, 2000, Ietter stated that BFN Unit 3 is the first full scope BWR to use the WOG methodology and it includes augmented ISI program elements in the analysis.
Response: Regulations already authorized the staff to grant ASME Code "relief' and the staff has already implemented RI-ISI programs through the relief process. However, the staff acknowledges that the RI-ISI methodology that you have developed, and the staff approved for BNF Unit 3 on February 11, 2000, has generic applicability and expands the scope of risk-informed regulation. The BNF Unit 3 review encompassed inspection of materials degradation mechanisms that were not addressed by previous RI-ISI methodology. More specifically, through reviews such as this, the scope of relief being granted is being expanded to include additional classes of piping and piping degradation mechanisms.
Based on the foregoing, I have determined that a partial exemption from the 10 CFR Part 170 fee requirement is appropriate for that portion of the BFN Unit 3 submittal that the staff determined has generic applicability. The exemption is authorized by law and is granted in accordance with 10 CFR 170.11 (b)(1). The recently completed Turkey Point RI-ISI review is used as a "typical review" (i.e., a review performed for another facility/licensee in which the scope was consistent with use of the WCAP-14572 methodology) to compare total costs to be invoiced for the plant-specific portion of the BNF Unit 3 review. A total of $166,379 was billed for the BFN Unit 3 RI-ISI review and a total of $60,233 wasbilled for the similar Turkey Point review.
Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 170.11(b)(1), I am waiving $106,146, the difference between the BFN Unit 3 review and the Turkey Point review. A refund will be sent to you within 30 days of the date of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact Ellen Poteat, of my staff, at 301-415-6392.
Sincerely, tw1)0ra*;*1rn signe0db, ter Jo Rabldsau Deptiy Chlef FifarOW Officer Jesse L. Funches Chief Financial Officer Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, 50-296 cc: See next page Distribution: (See attached) *See previous concurrence Document Name: G:\DAF\LFARB\DAF9-182B.wpd ADAMS - Yes/No SENSITIVE/NON-SENSITIVE PUBLIC/NON-PUBLIC Initials: MEP (To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box:"C" =Copy without attachmentlenclosure "E" =Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No conv
I Tennessee Valley Authority BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT cc:
Mr. Mark J. Burzynski, Manager Mr. Karl W. Singer, Senior Vice President Nuclear Licensing Nuclear Operations Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee Valley Authority 4X Blue Ridge.
6A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Mr. J. A. Scalice, Chief Nuclear Mr. Jack A. Bailey, Vice President Officer and Executive Vice President Engineering & Technical Services Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee Valley Authority 6A Lookout Place 6A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Senior Resident Inspector Mr. John T. Herron, Site Vice President U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority 10833 Shaw Road P.O. Box 2000 Athens, AL 35611 Decatur, AL 35609 State Health Officer General Counsel Alabama Dept. of Public Health Tennessee Valley Authority RSA Tower - Administration ET 10H Suite 1552 400 West Summit Hill Drive P.O. Box 303017 Knoxville, TN 37902 Montgomery, AL 36130-3017 Mr. N. C. Kazanas, General Manager Chairman Nuclear Assurance Limestone County Commission Tennessee Valley Authority 310 West Washington Street 5M Lookout Place Athens, AL 35611 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Mr. Robert G. Jones, Plant Manager Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority P.O. Box 2000 Decatur, AL 35609