ML18008A305

NCP-2017-16 Non-Concurrence Associated with Vegp, Units 1 and 2 - Staff Review of Seismic PRA Associated with NTTF Recommendation 2.1

ML18008A305
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	12/20/2017
From:	Markley M Division of Operating Reactor Licensing
To:	Casto G, Lund A Division of Licensing Projects, NRC/NRR/DRA
Sebrosky J
References
NCP-2017-16
Download: ML18008A305 (19)

Text

NON-CONCURRENCE PROCESS COVER PAGE The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) strives to establish and maintain an environment that encourages all employees to promptly raise concerns and differing views without fear of reprisal

and to promote methods for raising concerns that will enhance a strong safety culture and support

the agency's mission.

Employees are expected to discuss their views and concerns with their immediate supervisors on a regular, ongoing basis. If informal discussions do not resolve concerns, employees have various

mechanisms for expressing and having their concerns and differing views heard and considered by

management.

Management Directive, MD 10.158, "NRC Non-Concurrence Process," describes the Non-

Concurrence Process (NCP), http://nrcweb.nrc.gov:8600/policy/directives/catalog/md10.158.pdf

.The NCP allows employees to document their differing views and concerns early in the decision-

making process, have them responded to (if requested), and attach them to proposed documents

moving through the management approval chain to support the decision-making process.

NRC Form 757, "Non-Concurrence Process" is used to document the process.

Section A of the form includes the personal opinions, views, and concerns of a non-concurring NRC employee.Section B of the form includes the personal opinions and views of the non-concurring employee's immediate supervisor.

Section C of the form includes the agency's evaluation of the concerns and the agency's final position and outcome.

NOTE: Content in Sections A and B reflects personal opinions and views and does not represent official factual representation of the issues, nor official rationale for the agency decision. Section C

includes the agency's official position on the facts, issues, and rationale for the final decision.

At the end of the process, the non-concurring employee(s):

Concurred Continued to non-concur Agreed with some of the changes to the subject document, but continued to non-concur Requested that the process be discontinued The non-concurring employee(s) requested that the record be non-public.

The non-concurring employee(s) requested that the record be public.

This record is non-public and for official use only.

This record has been reviewed and approved for public dissemination.

1 Non-Concurrence Process Documentation NCP-2017-017; Section C (Document Sponsor)

Summary of Issues Section A of the non

-concurrence provides a summary discussion of the concern and provides the following three supporting documents:

Vogtle Senior Management Review Panel Briefing Sheet dated September 25, 2017 Email chain from Mike Markley to Greg Casto dated December 7, 2017, 11:54 AM, titled, "Path forward for Vogtle SPRA" Email chain from Mike Markley to Kathryn Brock dated November 21, 2017,4:30 PM, titled, "RE:INFO: NTTF Rec 2.1/50.54(f) Vogtle SPRA Response Letter - ML17293A427"

The supporting documents contain highlighted text. Based on the text in Section A of the non

-concurrence and the attached supporting documents the non

-concurring individual makes the following assertions:

1) The regulations in 10 CFR 50.54(f) state, in part, that licensees shall submit, as specified in Section 50.4, written statements, signed under oath or affirmation, to enable the Commission to determine whether or not the license should be modified, suspended, or revoked. By letter dated March 12, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12053A340), the NRC issued a letter to Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units I and 2, pursuant to

10 CFR 50.54(f). The licensee responded to the NRC in a letter dated March 27, 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17088A130). The 21 clarification questions the staff gave to the licensee were not docketed for public availability. The "clarifications" were, in fact, detailed requests for additional information (RAIs) for which licensee responses are required to be submitted under oath or affirmation in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(f).

2) The generic audit process used by the staff did not follow NRR Office Instruction LIC-111. 3) The entire technical review was conducted under the auspices of an audit which bypassed the opportunity for public engagement, and no audit report was issued.

4) There is substantial overlap in the 10 CFR 50.54(f) clarifying questions with draft RAIs for the ongoing seismic probabilistic risk assessment (SPRA) licensing review indicating the clarifying questions remain unresolved for determining the quality and completeness of the SPRA, its peer review, and the sufficiency for regulatory decision making.

5) The use of "clarifications" in lieu of RAls, calls that were not publicly noticed under the auspices of LIC

-111, and gathering of information in an extended audit protocol that bypasses 10 CFR 50.54(f) oath or affirmation requirements may also be a defect in review design common to NRC 10 CFR 50.54(f) reviews completed for mitigating strategies and flooding. The non-concurring individual agreed to the above summary of issues on February, 2, 2018.

2 Disposition of Concerns/Actions T aken Introduction When NRC management and staff implemented the audit process to assist in completing evaluations of licensee submittals in response to the NRC's March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) information request, they carefully considered the audit requirements in NRR Office Instruction LIC-111 and the regulations governing licensee responses to 50.54(f) requests

. As discussed in further detail below, the underlying process the NRC staff used to arrive at the conclusion documented in "Vog tle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 - Staff Review of Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Associated with Reevaluated Seismic Hazard Implementation of the Near-Term Task Force Recommendation [NTTF] 2.1: Seismic," (ADAMS Accession No. ML17293A427), meets applicable NRC regulations and followed the applicable guidance. The issues raised by the non-concurrence are not supported for the following reasons:

The staff's conclusion is based on the detailed docketed information that was submitted under oath by the licensee. This docketed information met NRC endorsed guidance. The clarification questions discussed during an audit call were used to verify information in the licensee's submittal. Because the clarification questions did not serve as a basis for the staff's conclusion, there is no requirement for responses to these questions to be submitted under oath or affirmation.

In accordance with Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) NRR Office Instruction LIC

-111, "Regulatory Audits," an audit plan dated July 6, 2017, (ADAMS Accession No.

ML17177A446) was issued to support the staff's review.

The audit summary was prepared and is provided as an enclosure to the Vogtle SPRA staff assessment associated with NTTF Recommendation 2.1.

The development of guidance was based on extensive and thorough public interactions with various stakeholders including licensees, industry trade groups, members of the public, and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). The Vogtle SPRA staff assessment associated with NTTF Recommendation 2.1 states that the assessment of the SPRA for use in other licensing applications (e.g., 10 CFR 50.69)

will warrant additional review depending on its proposed use.

The use of the audit process by the staff to support reviews of the docketed information provided by licensees as a result of Fukushima lessons learned is consistent with LIC

-111 and focused on supporting information to verify the docketed information. Regulatory Requirements and Guidance

The underlying regulatory requirement for issuing and responding to the March 12, 2012, request for information is title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50, Section 50.54(f).

Enclosure 1, Item 8 of the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) letter requested that certain licensees complete a seismic probabilistic risk assess (SPRA) to determine if plant enhancements are warranted due to the change in the reevaluated seismic hazard compared to the site's design

-basis seismic hazard.

The requirement found in 10 CFR 50.54(f) is as follows: The licensee shall at any time before expiration of the license, upon request of the Commission, submit, as specified in § 50.4, written statements, signed under oath or affirmation, to enable the Commission to determine whether or not the license should be modified, suspended, or revoked. Except for information sought to verify licensee compliance with the current licensing basis for that facility, the NRC must prepare the 3 reason or reasons for each information request prior to issuance to ensure that the burden to be imposed on respondents is justified in view of the potential safety significance of the issue to be addressed in the requested information. Each such justification provided for an evaluation performed by the NRC staff must be approved by the Executive Director for Operations or his or her designee prior to issuance of the request. The March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) Enclosure 1 seismic hazard reevaluation is considered beyond the current design and licensing basis for operating power plants as described in a memo to all licensees dated February 20, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14030A046). Therefore, the requirement found in 10 CFR 50.54(f) applies in that the NRC is obligated to prepare reason or reasons for each information request prior to issuance to ensure the burden to be imposed on respondents is justified in view of the potential safety significance of the issue to be addressed in the requested information.

In addition to the regulatory requirements found in 10 CFR 50.54(f) the staff's processes were informed by the guidance found in the following documents and guidance: NRR Office Instruction LIC-202, "Procedures for Managing Plant

-Specific Backfits and 50.54(f)," ADAMS Accession No. ML092010045. NRC Management Directive 8.4, "Management of Facility

-Specific Backfitting and Information Collection," dated October 9, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12059A460).

NRR Office Instruction LIC

-111, "Regulatory Audits," ADAMS Accession No. ML082900195.

The NRC's Principles of Good Regulations found at https://www.nrc.gov/about

-nrc/values.html

. These principles focus on ensuring safety and security while appropriately balancing the interests of NRC's stakeholders, including the public and licensees. The principles include: independence, openness, efficiency, clarity, and reliability

. Discussion

As discussed in the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) letter, the seismic reevaluation request for information and the subsequent NRC evaluations were divided into two phases:

Phase 1: Issue 10 CFR 50.54(f) letters to all licensees to request that they reevaluate the seismic and flooding hazards at their sites using updated seismic and flooding hazard information and present

-day regulatory guidance and methodologies and, if necessary, to request they perform a risk evaluation. The evaluations associated with the requested information in this letter do not revise the design basis of the plant. This letter implements Phase 1. Phase 2: Based upon the results of Phase 1, the NRC staff will determine whether additional regulatory actions are necessary (e.g., update the design basis and SSCs important to safety) to provide additional protection against the updated hazards.

The purpose of the letter found at ADAMS Accession No. ML17293A427, which is the subject of the non-concurrence, is to document the results of the NRC's decision related to the Vogtle SPRA. That is, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(f), the NRC decision of whether or not the Vogtle Units 1 and 2 license s should be modified, suspended, or revoked. As documented in the letter found at ADAMS Accession No. ML17293A427, the NRC used the information found 4 in the licensee's March 27, 2017, SPRA report (ADAMS Accession No. ML17088A130), submitted under oath, as the underlying basis for the NRC staff's Phase 2 determination. The process that the NRC used for reaching its Phase 2 decision is described in an August 29, 2017, staff memorandum titled, "Guidance for Determination of Appropriate Regulatory Action Based on Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Submittals in Response to Near Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic" (ADAMS Accession No. ML17146A200).

The development of the March 12, 2012, request for information and the detailed guidance related to the information that licensees were expected to provide in response to this request included extensive public interactions in accordance with the openness principle found in NRC's Principles of Good Regulation. These public interactions includ ed: Twenty six public meetings leading up to the issuance of the March 12, 2012, 50(f) letter.

A partial listing of the Fukushima lessons

-learned public meetings can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops

-experience/japan/japan

-meeting-briefing.html Over 15 public meetings related to guidance for performing and submitting the results for those plants required to submit an SPRA. These SPRA submittals were prepa red according to the guidance in the Electric Power Research Institute - Nuclear Energy Institute (EPRI

-NEI) Screening, Prioritizations, and Implementation Details (SPID) document (ADAMS Accession No. ML123330282), which was endorsed by the staff for the purpose of responding to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) letter. The staff's endorsement of the SPID can be found in a letter dated February 15, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12319A074).

A public meeting on December 7, 2016, in which the staff discussed a detailed checklist that it intended to use to document the results of its SPRA review. The summary of the meeting can be found at ADAMS Accession No. ML16350A181.

The purpose of such extensive public interactions was to ensure that licensees and other interested stakeholders were provided detailed guidance such that when information was submitted in response to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) letter the NRC would have the necessary information to support the Phase 2 decision making process described in the March 12, 2012, letter. Providing detailed guidance on what information the licensee was required to submit under oath or affirmation in response to the March 12, 2012, letter also helped to fulfill the requirement that the NRC prepare reason or reasons for each information request prior to issuance to ensure the burden to be imposed on respondents is justified in view of the potential safety significance of the issue to be addressed in the requested information. The detailed reasons for the information request are described in the March 12, 2012, request for information as required by 10 CFR 50.54(f) and in accordance with the guidance found in LIC

-202. In addition, providing such detailed guidance to licensees is consistent with the clarity principle found in NRC's Principle of Good Regulations.

As documented in the Vogtle SPRA staff assessment associated with NTTF Recommendation 2.1 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17293A427), the licensee's submittal complied with the NRC's endorsed guidance. After reviewing the submission, the staff conducted an audit to verify information provided in the licensee's submittal and to determine if any additional information was necessary to be submitted on the docket to support its decision to modify, suspend, or revoke the Vogtle Units 1 and 2 licenses. As a result of the audit process, and reflected in the audit summary enclosed with the letter, the staff determined that the response from the licensee on the docket was sufficient to support its decision and no

further actions were required in response to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) letter. The staff concluded that no action to modify, suspend, or revoke the Vogtle Units 1 and 2 licenses with 5 respect to the SPRA was necessary. The staff has been clear that the use of the SPRA to support licensing actions in other settings could require additional review and modifications and that acceptance for the purpose of resolving issues associated with the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) letter would not imply acceptance for any other purpose.

The use of the audit process to verify information that licensees provided in their response to the March 12, 2012, letter, instead of using multiple rounds of requests for information, is a more efficient process and is consistent with NRC regulations and guidance. The adoption of the audit process is consistent with the efficiency principle found in NRC's Principles of Good Regulations in that where several effective alternatives are available, the option which minimizes the use of resources should be adopted.

The NRC's staff determination on whether to modify, suspend, or revoke the Vogtle 1 and 2 licensees included consideration of the seismic core damage frequency (SCDF) and seismic large early release frequency (SLERF) in relationship to the thresholds of the backfit screening process described in Management Directive 8.4. The March 27, 2017, SPRA report included information that the SCDF and SLERF were below the thresholds for which NRC would consider a backfit (i.e., modify, suspend, or revoke the license). As documented in the letter that is the subject of the non

-concurrence (ADAMS Accession No. ML17293A427), the staff performed an audit of the supporting information to the SPRA provided by the licensee in its March 27, 2017, letter. The NRC staff's conclusion, however, is based on the information provided under oath by the licensee. The staff concluded that additional regulatory actions are not warranted (i.e., the staff does not have a basis for modifying, suspending, or revoking the Vogtle 1 and 2 licenses based on the information submitted by the licensee in response to of the March 12, 2012, letter).

The non-concurrence does not challenge the staff's determination that no additional action is warranted. Description of Development and Changes to Vogtle Phase 2 Documentation

The document that is the subject of the non

-concurrence (ADAMS Accession No. ML17293A427), is the first proposed letter to document the NRC's Phase 2 decision related to

an SPRA report. Throughout the process of developing the letter extensive interactions were held with NRC management and technical staff. As a result of these interactions several changes to the document were made. These changes included:

Adding the individual to concurrence such that the issues identified in the December 20, 2017 non-concurrence are addressed Adding the Division Directors for Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, and Division of Risk Assessment of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) to concurrence on the document.

Changing the signature of the document to the Division Director for the Division of Licensing Projects of NRR.

Adding a detailed audit summary report as an enclosure to the document

6 Specific Responses to Five Non

-Concurring Assertions Assertion 1:

The clarification questions discussed during an audit should have been issued as request for additional information (RAIs) and the licensee's responses should have been submitted under oath or affirmation.

Response

The March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) letter provides a detailed list of the SPRA information requested to be submitted to the NRC under oath or affirmation. The Vogtle SPRA submittal provided the information request ed in the 50.54(f) letter under oath.

LIC-202 and 10 CFR 50.54(f) state that except for information sought to verify licensee compliance with the current licensing basis for the facility, the reason for each information request such as these must be documented and approved by the EDO or designee

.1 The staff used the audit process to verify and confirm its understanding of the information submitted under oath or affirmation.

Gaining an understanding and verifying portions of the detailed docketed information was both the purpose and the outcome of the clarification call with the licensee. Based on the audit call, the staff determined that no additional information was needed on the docket to supplement Vogtle's docketed SPRA report because the information provided by the licensee on the docket was complete and sufficient for the purpose of the 50.54(f) letter and the staff's ultimate decision that no additional actions are warranted. As such, no additional response information requests were needed in order to support Phase 2 of the process outlined in the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) letter. Phase 2 of the process is based on the information provided by the licensee in Phase 1 (i.e., 50.54(f) responses). Phase 2 of the process consists of the NRC staff determining if additional regulatory actions are necessary, which is the underlying purpose of the 50.54(f) process (i.e., determine if a license should be modified, suspended, or revoked). The clarification questions were made publicly available. Assertion 2:

The generic audit process used by the staff did not follow NRR Office Instruction LIC 111. Response

The staff's position is that LIC

-111 was followed in that an audit can be used to review non

-docketed material, and the staff will make a decision if any of that material must be docketed by the licensee in order to support the staff's regulatory decision. The staff's decision was that the material discussed during the call did not need to be docketed. As allowed by staff guidance, an audit summary was prepared and integrated with the staff's response letter to the licensee. In response to the concern and to enhance documentation clarity, the staff segregated the audit summary report in a separate enclosure to the response letter and addressed each of the pertinent elements of an audit summary as described in Section 4.5 of LIC-111.

Assertion 3: The entire technical review was conducted under the auspices of an audit which bypassed the opportunity for public engagement, and no audit report was issued.

Response

Throughout the implementation of the post

-Fukushima actions, the staff conducted extensive interactions with internal and external stakeholders, including the public.

Pertinent to the SPRA review, the March 12, 2012, 50.54 (f) letter and the associated guidance were developed

1 The seismic hazard reevaluation is considered beyond the current design and licensing basis for operating power plants as described in a memo to all licensees dated February 20, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14030A046).

7 through comprehensive public interactions including numerous public meetings with the ACRS (e.g., see SECY-12-0025). These interactions and the associated guidance resulted in clear expectations regarding the detailed information that licensees needed to provide on the docket under oath or affirmation in response to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) letter. The audit proces s used by the staff to support reviews of licensees' submittals is consistent with LIC

-111 in that it focused on non

-docketed, supporting information to verify docketed information.

The staff used the docketed information to form the basis of the staff decision. As discussed in response to assertion 2 above, the staff segregated the audit summary report in a separate enclosure to the response letter and addressed each of the pertinent elements of an audit summary as described in Section 4.5 of LIC-111 Assertion 4: There is substantial overlap in the 10 CFR 50.54(f) clarifying questions with draft RAIs for the ongoing SPRA licensing review indicating the clarifying questions remain unresolved for determining the quality and completeness of the SPRA, its peer review, and the sufficiency for regulatory decision making.

Response

The NRR Division of Licensing Projects is aware that the licensee relied on the results of the same SPRA in support of a license amendment request that the NRR Division of Operating Reactor Licensing is currently processing. However, the regulatory reviews of the SPRA are different based on the regulatory decision being made for each submittal. In conducting the SPRA reviews, the staff requests the appropriate information to support the associated regulatory decision, namely the 50.54(f) letter response or the license amendment request.

In the context of the 50.54(f) letter response, based on its review of the docketed SPRA submittal, the staff concluded that the SPRA is of sufficient technical adequacy to support a regulatory decision associated with the 50.54(f) letter request for information, which is a decision for the staff to require that the licenses be modified, suspend ed, or revoke

d. No additional information beyond the docketed submittal was necessary to support that decision for Vogtle. The outcome of this review was that no change to the license was warranted.

The licensing review of the Vogtle SPRA to support the license amendment request by the licensee is inherently different in that, if approved, this review would result in modifying the current facility's operating license. In such a review with the potential to change the license, the staff is drafting RAIs in accordance with LIC

-101, "License Amendment Review Procedures," (ADAMS Accession No. ML16061A451) to request the necessary information on the docket to support th e potential license amendment decision. The staff has consistently indicated that the SPRA acceptability for the 50.54(f) response does not indicate that the SPRA or its associated documentation would be acceptable for use in support of a license amendmen

t. This has been stressed from the beginning of the process, as such the following statement was included in the original version of the document:

Application of this review is limited to the review of the 10 CFR 50.54(f) response associated with NTTF Recommendation 2.1, "Seismic" review. The staff notes that assessment of the SPRA for use in other licensing applications would warrant reviewing the SPRA for its intended application.

Assertion 5:

The use of "clarifications" in lieu of RAls, calls that were not publicly noticed under the auspices of LIC

-111, and gathering of information in an extended audit protocol that bypasses 10 CFR 50.54(f) oath or affirmation requirements may also be a defect in review design common to NRC 10 CFR 50.54(f) reviews completed for mitigating strategies and flooding.

8 Response The staff used audits to support the reviews of licensees' responses to various post

-Fukushima actions including 50.54(f) responses and preliminary reviews of steps lic ensees' planned on implementing in order to comply with post

-Fukushima Orders. The audit process used by the staff to support these reviews of licensees' submittals is consistent with LIC

-111, focusing on non-docketed, supporting information to verify docketed information.

The audit activities were captured in audit summaries consistent with the office instruction. The use of the audit process to support the reviews was communicated extensively internally.

In addition, robust and extensive public interaction s, including public interactions with the ACRS, were held to communicate to interested stakeholders expectations for licensee submittals in response to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) letter, and how such information would be reviewed by the NRC. Conclusion

The document that is the subject of the non

-concurrence found at ADAMS Accession No. (ADAMS Accession No. ML17293A427) was enhanced as a result of the interactions and issues identified in this non

-concurrence. The underlying process the NRC staff used to arrive at the conclusion found in this document meets all applicable NRC requirements and guidance.