ML17249A100

NEI Response to NRC Comment Set 1

ML17249A100
Person / Time
Site:	Nuclear Energy Institute
Issue date:	09/30/2017
From:	Nuclear Energy Institute
To:	Office of New Reactors
Shared Package
ML17249A097	List: ML17249A098 ML17249A099 ML17249A100
References
Download: ML17249A100 (12)

Text

Attachment 2 NEI Response to NRC Comment Set 1 Page 1 of 12 Comment Number Location NRC Comment on draft NEI 98-03, Rev. 2 NEI Response NEI Action 1

Foreword 10 CFR 50.71(e), referenced in the foreword, speaks to annual updates of the final safety analysis report (FSAR) submittal of a Part 52 Combined License (COL) applicant.

Updating COL application FSARs is also discussed in various sections of the draft revision of NEI 98-03 (e.g. sections 6.1 and 7). The foreword, the introduction and other sections speak in terms of Licensee which would not include the Part 52 applicants still under licensing review. Does this mean that those FSARs are not to be updated in a manner laid out in NEI 98-03? Is this document only meant for licensees and not also Part 52 applicants? Consider adding clarification to this matter in the foreword, introduction, and later sections.

In addition, the title is misspelled. "Foreward" should be "Foreword".

It is not intended that NEI 98-03 be applied to applicants for a Combined License under Part 52 since the FSAR updates during the period from filing an application until the issuance of the COL are the result of NRC review issues and the regulation is clear on the update requirements and no additional guidance is required. The purpose of this guidance document is already stated in the introduction as to provide licensees with guidance Spelling corrected.

The following was added to the Foreword:

This guidance does not apply to FSAR update requirements for applicants for a Combined License under 10 CFR Part 52.

2 General, All The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) should ensure that when a specific subsection of a regulation is stated that it has all of the necessary wording (e.g., citing 10 CFR 50.47(a) vs 10 CFR 50.47). [sic]

Incorporated 52.47 was replaced with 52.47(a) throughout the document as appropriate 3

Section 2, paragraph 2 Recommend adding "originally" or other qualifying statement so that 3rd sentence reads "The industry originally developed this guidance...." to give the right historical context. As written, this states the updated final safety report (UFSAR) needs to comply with 10 CFR 50.71(e) update requirements but does not mention other requirements such as specific reporting requirements for nuclear plants licensed under 10 CFR Part 52 contained in Section X of the referenced design certification rule as applied to the plant specific design control document (DCD). The guidance should be comprehensive and reference other requirements either specifically or generally.

Incorporated, originally.

In this Background section, the focus is on 10 CFR 50.71(e)

FSAR update/report requirements. The third paragraph already mentions specific reporting requirements for Part 52 licensees contained in Section X of an applicable referenced design certification rule as applied to the plant specific DCD. The relationship to separate change process requirements for reporting (e.g., 10CFR 50.59(d)(2)

Added the word originally as suggested.

Restructured existing sentence on specific reporting requirements in the third paragraph and added pointer to additional guidance in Section 10.

NEI Response to NRC Comment Set 1 Page 2 of 12 Comment Number Location NRC Comment on draft NEI 98-03, Rev. 2 NEI Response NEI Action and/or Section X of an applicable design certification rule) is discussed in later sections.

4 Section 2, paragraph 3 Suggest only referencing FSAR requirements related to COLs one time in the document, but again (as in comment

21) break down for the reader via a list or other method each time an update to the FSAR is required via the 10 CFR Part 52 process.

We believe this is unnecessary as the document does not provide this level of detail for Part 50 licensees. The referenced discussion is provided as background. The document provides appropriate detail for both Part 50 and Part 52 licensees in Section 6.

None 5

Section 2, paragraph 3 Specific reporting requirements contained in Section X of the referenced design certification are referenced. Consider discussing also change requirements in Section VIII.

Because Section X of each design certification rule appendix to Part 52, e.g., Appendix D, references 10 CFR 50.71(e), it is appropriate to reference Section X in NEI 98-

03.Section VIII of each design certification rule appendix to Part 52 contains requirements related to changes and departures beyond the scope of NEI 98-03.

Throughout NEI 98-03, where the relationship to 10 CFR 50.59 was already discussed,Section VIII or 10 CFR 52.98(c) were included as appropriate for Part 52 licensees.

None NEI Response to NRC Comment Set 1 Page 3 of 12 Comment Number Location NRC Comment on draft NEI 98-03, Rev. 2 NEI Response NEI Action 6

Section 2, paragraph 3 Consider deletion or modification of the following text related to requirements for UFSAR updates to reduce repetitiveness in the sentence structure: "Nuclear power plants licensed under 10 CFR Part 52 are also subject to 10 CFR 50.71(e).

10 CFR 50.71(e) contains unique FSAR updating requirements for COL applicants and for holders of a COL until the Commission makes its finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g). Subsequent to the 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding, the provisions of 10 CFR 50.71(e) are identical for nuclear plants licensed under 10 CFR Part 52 and nuclear plants licensed under 10 CFR Part 50."

This revision takes previously endorsed guidance for 10 CFR Part 50 nuclear power reactor licensees and updates it to add guidance for 10 CFR Part 52 licensees. Thus, the background was updated in the proposed draft to acknowledge the manner in which 10 CFR 50.71(e) applies to plants under Part 52.

See minor editorial changes to improve flow.

7 Section 2 For Part 52 COL Holders, this guidance for UFSAR updates should include guidance regarding the particular case of an entity who is updating their UFSAR following receipt of the NRCs 52.103(g) finding. Where a plant has a FSAR/UFSAR that combines more than 1 reactor unit into 1 FSAR/UFSAR document for convenience, issues will be created by the issuance of NRCs 52.103(g) finding (such as the expiration of certain Tier 2* requirements) for the first unit. This example is a very specific one that can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the applicable regulatory authorities. In addition, for cases where a COL Holder has a Tier 1 FSAR/UFSAR and a Tier 2 FSAR/UFSAR, this guidance applies to the latter only.

Additional guidance has been added to Section 10.

Added a statement to Section 2 that additional guidance is contained in Section 10.

8 Section 3 Additional terms that may be worth adding in Section 3 or discussing elsewhere include Tier 1 and Tier 2 FSARs (e.g.,

as seen on South Texas Project), as well as mid-cycle UFSAR updates or "interim" updates. Since the document focuses on long term operations, the pre-52.103(g) is quite important in the near term. It may be best to separate discussion of pre-52.103(g) COLs by adding more information in Section 10 and adding any appropriate additional terms to Section 3. Consider adding more discussion on COL updating during before the 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding and qualifying any new terms associated with pre-52.103(g) COLs in Section 3.

Since the regulations do not introduce new terms such as interim or mid-cycle it does not seem appropriate to introduce new terms in this document.

The frequency of updates prior to the 103(g) finding is discussed in Section 7.

None NEI Response to NRC Comment Set 1 Page 4 of 12 Comment Number Location NRC Comment on draft NEI 98-03, Rev. 2 NEI Response NEI Action 9

Section 3.3, paragraph 1 Is it appropriate to cite 52.47 since that provision addresses requirements for design certification (DC) applications and not COL applications? Shouldnt the citation with respect to COLs only be to 52.79?

Since FSAR content required for a design certification is typically incorporated by reference into an UFSAR as required by 10 CFR 52.79, we believe it is appropriate to retain the reference.

None 10 Section 3.4 Recommend greater discussion differentiating expectations for obsolete information for COLs vs operating licenses, e.g.,

including that obsolete Information for COL Holders (Part 52 license holders) may also include information in text, tables, and figures showing information which expired on the issuance of NRCs 52.103(g) finding such as Appendix C, Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria.

The criteria defining obsolete information in 3.4 are suitable for both Part 50 and Part 52 licensees. The ITAAC in Appendix C are part of the COL and as such it is not clear that they could be administratively controlled as described in NEI 98-03. Guidance in Section 10 clearly states our intent that, Due to special change control requirements under Part 52, guidance in this document, including Appendix A guidance on making voluntary modifications to UFSARs, applies only to the Tier 2 and plant-specific FSAR content.

None 11 Section 3.5, paragraph 2 Text refers to all nuclear power plants (NPP) licensed under Part 52 but discussion is only for those that reference a certified design. A FSAR for a COL not referencing a certified design would not have a plant-specific DCD.

Inserted text to ensure consideration of the plant-specific DCD as applicable.

Revised to state including the plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD),

as applicable and confirmed that the paragraph in question already indicates applicable Part 52 design certification appendix.

NEI Response to NRC Comment Set 1 Page 5 of 12 Comment Number Location NRC Comment on draft NEI 98-03, Rev. 2 NEI Response NEI Action 12 Section 3.5, paragraph 2 Text should also mention that a COL referencing a certified design may incorporate departures and exemptions from the certified design that must be evaluated under Section VIII of the DC rule.

Added phrase to Section 3.5 as recommended.

Inserted as amended and supplemented (e.g.,

by departures under Section VIII of the applicable Part 52 design certification rule), and as updated per 13 Section 3.7, paragraph 1 Text should discuss the role of Tier 1 information in the UFSAR.

The definition as written is suitable for both Part 50 and Part 52 licensees. Acknowledgement that the UFSAR includes a plant-specific DCD, if applicable, is covered in 3.5, Original FSAR.

Section 10 provides guidance for unique Part 52 considerations including the introduction of Tier 1 information.

None 14 Section 3.8, paragraph 1 Why not cite Section VIII of the applicable design certification rule for nuclear plants licensed under 10 CFR Part 52 as well?

Section VIII is the change process

- 10 CFR 50.59 is not cited for Part 50 plants so it does not seem appropriate to cite the change process for Part 52 plants.

None 15 Section 5, footnote 2 Adding "respectively" to the end of the footnote would improve clarity.

Incorporated 16 Section 7, paragraph 2 Consider moving the second paragraph to become the first paragraph in Section 7, since 10 CFR 50.71(e)(3)(iii) comes before 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4).

Incorporated NEI Response to NRC Comment Set 1 Page 6 of 12 Comment Number Location NRC Comment on draft NEI 98-03, Rev. 2 NEI Response NEI Action 17 Section 7 Suggestion: NEI should address the industry practice of creating interim or "mid-cycle" updates, that is, UFSAR versions between those annual updates required by the regulations. Those interim updates should be addressed by NEI including their role as working documents, their level of internal review and whether they are shared with NRC.

While we support the noted industry practice, we recognize that it is at the licensees discretion and pertains to both Part 50 and Part 52 licensees.

The purpose of this revision is to add only that information necessary to enable Part 52 licensees to apply the existing NEI 98-03 guidance consistent with regulatory requirements.

None 18 Section 9, paragraph 3 Similar to comment 11, text refers to all NPP licensed under Part 52 but discussion is only for those that incorporate by reference a certified design and for material that is within the scope of that certified design. Please either qualify the statement appropriately or add additional information on COL that do not incorporate by reference a certified design.

Statement qualified as suggested.

Inserted For nuclear power plants licensed under 10 CFR Part 52 referencing a certified design, 19 Section 10, paragraph 2 Does this include Tier 1? By the reasoning presented here - it does. DCD (as supplemented by departures and exemptions) becomes plant-specific DCD (as supplemented by site specific information, etc.) becomes the FSAR. Tier 1 is part of all of these.

The specific paragraph cited is limiting applicability and excluding Tier 1. Changes to Tier 1 information require a license amendment request and an exemption.

None 20 Section 10, Title Please consider an alternate title: Treatment of FSAR Information Unique to Combined Licenses Under Part 52 that Reference a Design Certification Rule. Note this guidance is only for COLs that reference a DCR.

We intend for NEI 98-03 to apply to all Part 52 licensees. We have verified that discussions of referencing a design certification rule are qualified by, as applicable. We have added a new opening sentence to further reinforce the broad applicability to all Part 52 licensees.

No change to title.

Opening sentence added as follows, Nuclear power plants licensed under 10 CFR Part 52 that do not reference a certified design are no different from Part 50 licensees in terms of UFSAR update requirements and guidance.

NEI Response to NRC Comment Set 1 Page 7 of 12 Comment Number Location NRC Comment on draft NEI 98-03, Rev. 2 NEI Response NEI Action 21 Section 1 (general)

Would recommend that document be updated to support and provide information that explains to the reader each of the circumstances under 10 CFR Part 52 in which the FSAR must be updated.

We believe this is unnecessary as the document provides appropriate detail for both Part 50 and Part 52 licensees in Section

6.

None 22 Section 10 revised (ML16166A258)

At the public meeting on 5/10/16, NEI suggested adding an additional paragraph to section 10 via handout (ML16166A258) as follows: "10 CFR Part 52, Design Certification Rules, e.g., Appendix D,Section VIII.B.6.c, define certain Tier 2* information that will revert to Tier 2 information after the plant achieves full power for the first time. After the plant achieves power for the first time, the UFSAR should be modified to remove brackets, remove asterisk, and change the font of the affected information. This type of reformatting change does not require a formal simplified evaluation (screening) to be performed because the change in information classification is prescribed by the design certification rule. Licensees have the flexibility to not make these changes to the UFSAR until the last unit of a multi-unit site achieves full power."

Comment: The potential for delaying FSAR updates for units entering operations and achieving of full power while other units have yet to receive the Commissions 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding has implications on inspections for the operating plants. Staff recommends further detailed discussions related to licensing, exemptions, and ability to inspect operating plants if NEI wishes to include a discussion on multi-unit phasing of Tier 2* retirement.

We look forward to discussing the inspection implications the NRC staff see at a future public meeting.

None at this time 23 Section 10&A2 Section 10 of the proposed 98-03 revision states, As discussed in Section A6, voluntary modifications to Tier 2 that improve focus, clarity and maintainability of the plant-specific DCD [which is the stated purpose of Appendix A] are considered departures from the generic DCD and should be reported to NRC in accordance with Section X of the design certification rule. However, Appendix A2 states, UFSAR modifications discussed in Sections A3 through A5 that are not the result of changes to the plant or procedures do not The referenced paragraph in Section 10 is essentially repeating the requirement stated in A6. The paragraph in A6 regarding Part 52 plants is consistent with the preceding paragraph regarding Part 50 plants. The modification to A2 allows applicable changes to be made without applying Section None NEI Response to NRC Comment Set 1 Page 8 of 12 Comment Number Location NRC Comment on draft NEI 98-03, Rev. 2 NEI Response NEI Action require evaluation under 10 CFR 50.59 or Section VIII.B.5.b of the applicable design certification rule These statements seem at tension and possibly inconsistent. NEI should better explain what it intends.

VIII.B.5.b just as similar changes may be made to a Part 50 UFSAR without applying 10 CFR 50.59.

Although these changes do not require evaluation, they are administratively controlled (see A2) and reported (see A6).

24 Section 6.1.1 The guidance on updating UFSARs to reflect new regulations focuses on general UFSAR requirements, such as 52.79(a)

(Intro) and 52.79(a)(2). However, new regulations often include specific FSAR requirements in 52.47 and 52.79 that must also be considered. For example, NEI 98-03 Revision 1 states that fitness for duty (FFD) does not need to be described in the FSAR and the proposed revision leaves this unchanged. However, 10 CFR 52.79(a)(44) specifically requires the FSAR to include A description of the fitness-for-duty program required by 10 CFR Part 26 and its implementation. NEI should augment the document to provide that the information to be included in the FSAR on a topic may be governed by a specific provision in the regulations, for example, 10 CFR 52.79. Further the discussion of the FFD example should be modified to reflect the different treatment for Part 50 and Part 52 plants.

Added clarifying language to the first paragraph in Section 5.

Added a footnote in Section 6.3, Case 4, to exclude the specific FFD example from consideration for Part 52 plants.

Clarified as follows,10 CFR 52.47(a) and 10 CFR 52.79 provide the common baseline for plants licensed under 10 CFR Part 52 and contain requirements for FSAR content not required by 10 CFR 50.34(b).

Excluded the specific FFD example from consideration for Part 52 plants via footnote, as follows, This specific example does not apply to plants licensed under 10 CFR Part 52 because 10 CFR 52.79(a)(44) requires that a description of the fitness-for-duty program required by 10 CFR Part 26 and its implementation be included in the FSAR.

25 Section 6.1.2, paragraph 1 The text references various reasons that would require changes to the UFSAR. Isnt citation of 52.98(c) appropriate?

Added reference to 10 CFR 52.98 (c) and deleted reference to Section VIII since 10 CFR 52.98(c) requires that changes be made in accordance with the applicable change requirements Added reference as follows, The UFSAR must be updated to reflect the following effects, as applicable, of changes implemented under 10 NEI Response to NRC Comment Set 1 Page 9 of 12 Comment Number Location NRC Comment on draft NEI 98-03, Rev. 2 NEI Response NEI Action per the design certification rule, if referenced.

CFR 50.12, 10 CFR 50.90, or 10 CFR 50.59, or 10 CFR 52.98(c) including supporting safety evaluations:

26 Section 6.1.2 This section should include changes associated with the Part 52.103(g) finding and start up (e.g., cite Part 52 and add bullet such as "A change in the licensing status of a facility, such as the receipt of a 52.103(g) finding, that results in the need to document the expiration of license conditions, ITAAC, and Tier 2* information in the UFSAR).

We believe this is adequately addressed in the first bullet.

None 27 Appendix A, in general Consider stating that whatever changes, modifications, removals as presented in Appendix A are still applicable to 10 CFR Part 52 requirements - especially when handling Tier 1, Tier 2*, and Tier 2 information. A Licensee cannot just remove Tier 1 information from a 10 CFR Part 52 USFAR because Appendix A allowed it.

Consider adding clarification to this matter.

Added to the Appendix A introduction, reinforcing guidance in Section 10.

Reiterated and emphasized, Due to special change control requirements under Part 52, Appendix A guidance on making voluntary modifications to UFSARs applies only to the Tier 2 and plant-specific FSAR content. For plants licensed under 10 CFR 52, Appendix A does not apply to plant-specific Tier 1 DCD information or plant-specific Tier 2* DCD information.

28 Section A1, paragraph 2 The text refers to "reformatting, simplifying and removing existing UFSAR information. For a COL application referencing a DCR, there is a requirement in the DCR to (Section IV.2.a) on the organization, numbering, etc. So there are format requirements for COLAs.

Clarified in earlier sections, throughout, that NEI 98-03 does not apply to applicants or applications, only licensees.

None 29 Section A2, paragraph 1 Shouldnt this refer to the entire Section VIII of the DCR since Tier 1 is part of the FSAR? Or make it more clear that this is applicable to Tier 2 changes that do not involve changes to Tier 1 or Tier 2*?

See comment 27 response NEI Response to NRC Comment Set 1 Page 10 of 12 Comment Number Location NRC Comment on draft NEI 98-03, Rev. 2 NEI Response NEI Action 30 Section A2, 1st bullet The guidance says that there are no formatting requirements for UFSARs, but Section IV.A.2.a of the DCRs requires DC applications to include [a] plant-specific DCD containing the same type of information and using the same organization and numbering as the generic DCD for the AP1000 design, as modified and supplemented by the applicant's exemptions and departures. Several COL applicants have requested and received exemptions from this regulation to change the organization of COL applications. NEI should explain how it has considered the Section IV.A.2.a requirement. See also comment 28 on format for COLAs referencing a DCR.

See comment 28 response 31 Section A3, paragraph 1 The use of the terms neither and nor are used for a comparison of two objects. Now that other CFR citations have been added, The neither, nor phraseology does not work properly.

Rewrote the first sentence to remove the neither/nor phraseology.

Clarified as follows,10 CFR 50.34(b), 10 CFR 52.4752.47(a), 10 CFR 52.79, and 10 CFR 50.71(e) do not contain requirements on the format of FSARs.

32 Section A3, I34 Title The DCR has format requirements for COLAs referencing that rule. See comments 28 and 30. These statements are not true to COLAs referencing a DCR.

See comment 28 response 33 Section A4, general Are these statements applicable to COL FSARs? This section should address differences, both historical and regulatory, between plants licensed under Part 50 and Part 52.

It is intended that the statements are applicable to plants licensed under either Part 52 or Part 50.

Differences are explained in other sections as applicable and certain plant-specific DCD information is excluded, i.e., Tier 1 and Tier 2*

information.

None 34 Section A4.1, paragraph 1 and in general The text states that "More recent FSARs grew to be 20 to 30+ volumes and may include more detail in certain respects than was absolutely necessary to support NRC safety and licensing reviews." This statement does not ring true for COLs in that the COLs were only recently issued and it should be understood that the information in the FSAR was considered necessary for the NRC to make its safety findings. There is much discussion of removing information We have deleted the sentence cited in the staff comment.

However, the industry does not believe that recent design certifications and COLs are immune from having excessive FSAR information. Thus, we have retained the basic point that Guidance modified as follows, For a variety of reasons, UFSARs may include more detail in certain respects than was absolutely necessary to support NRC safety and licensing reviews.

NEI Response to NRC Comment Set 1 Page 11 of 12 Comment Number Location NRC Comment on draft NEI 98-03, Rev. 2 NEI Response NEI Action from the UFSAR that is seen as excessive, but this appears to be based on history for the operating fleet and NEI does not present a justification for applying this history to Part 52 plants. For Part 52 plants, the Commission gave direction on the level of detail in the SRM on SECY-90-377. As subsequent SECY papers show, this was an area of particular focus for the first DC reviews, and the staff and applicants have occasionally had to resolve disagreements on level of detail. Also, COL FSARs were approved by the staff for a particular plant, while DCDs have been approved by Commission in a rulemaking, and the regulation requires that the DCD be incorporated by reference. Given the lack of evidence that the Commission expected COL applicants to revisit the level of detail issue for approved DCDs, the discussion should clarify its relevance to Part 52 licensed plants.

FSARs may include more detail in certain respects than was absolutely necessary to support NRC safety and licensing reviews.

35 Section A4.3, "Incorporation By Reference" 2nd bullet point (page 7)

Should this paragraph also reference "Section X of the applicable design certification rule" since it is talking about record requirements?

Reference to Section X added as well as a reference to Section VIII to be consistent.

References added.

36 Section A4.3, "Incorporation By Reference" 2nd paragraph (after first set of bullet points, page 7)

Should this bullet point also reference "Section VIII of the applicable design certification rule since it is talking about change processes?

See comment 35 response 37 Section A4.3, bullet point 2 and following paragraph Should NEI also reference 10 CFR 52.63?

Not necessary - 52.63 applies to design certifications, but the design certification information is included in the FSAR (plant-specific DCD information) and as such it would be redundant to reference 52.63 None NEI Response to NRC Comment Set 1 Page 12 of 12 Comment Number Location NRC Comment on draft NEI 98-03, Rev. 2 NEI Response NEI Action 38 Section A6, paragraph 2 Departure reports are required periodically from the moment a COLA is submitted until the Commission makes its finding as required by 10 CFR Part 52.103(g). Similar to comment #

8, consider including a special subsection on COL updating prior to 10 CFR 52.103(g) finding.

Clarified in earlier sections, throughout, that NEI 98-03 applies to licensees only - not applicants.

None