ML17265A049

Comment (1) of Katherine Austgen Regarding Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

ML17265A049
Person / Time
Site:	Nuclear Energy Institute
Issue date:	09/18/2017
From:	Austgen K Nuclear Energy Institute
To:	Cindy Bladey Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch
References
82FR28101 00001, NRC-2017-0145
Download: ML17265A049 (30)

Text

too PUBLIC SUBMISSiaNP 19 PM 12* l~

2 Docket: NRC-2017-0145 Applications for Nuclear Power Plants Comment On: NRC-2017-0145-0001 As of: 9/19/17 12:30 PM Received: September 18, 2017 Status: Pending_Post Page 1of1 Tracking No. lkl-8yql-sup3 Comments Due: September 18, 2017 Submission Type: Web Applications for Nuclear Power Plants; Request for Comment on Draft Regulatory Guide Document: NRC-2017-0145-DRAFT-0002 Comment on FR Doc # 2017-12837 Submitter Information Name: Katherine Austgen Submitter's Representative: Anya Barry Organization: Nuclear Energy Institute General Comment See attached file( s)

Attachments 09-18-17 NRC NEI Comments on DG-1325 09-18-17 NRC NEI Comments on DG-1325 Attachment SUNSI Review Complete Template = ADM - 013 E-RIDS= ADM-03

'\\

Add= H ;1h ft (/h 011> ;/) )

f#/6017 c?'o21~~ o2 C?JO/

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectld=0900006482b4b630&format=xml&showorig=false 09/19/2017

MICHAEL D. TSCHIL TZ Senior Director, New Plant, SMRs and Advanced Reactors 1201 F Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004 P: 202.739.8083 mdt@nei.org

. nei.org September 18, 2017 Ms. Cindy K. Bladey Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch (RADB)

Office of Administration Submitted via Regulations.gov

~I NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE

Subject:

NEI Comments on Draft Regulatory Guide (DG) DG-1325, Applications for Nuclear Power Plants, 82 Fed. Reg. 28101; Docket ID NRC-2017-0145 Project Number: 689

Dear Ms. Bladey:

On behalf of the nuclear energy industry, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)1 appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the subject DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants," proposed Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.206 as requested in the subject Federal Register Notice.

We believe DG-1325 is a worthwhile effort to provide revised guidance for prospective applicants regarding the format and content of applications for new nuclear power plants. As noted in the attached comments, we recommend several changes to improve the clarity of the guidance and to better reflect several key lessons learned regarding the review of nuclear power plant applications since 2007. Some highlighted comments that are detailed in the attachment are as follows.

The industry supports the migration of appropriate detailed technical.information on the format and content of a safety analysis report from this revision to NUREG-0800, "Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition," (SRP). A major lesson learned from recent licensing experience is that as a result of the SRP, requests for additional information (RAis), and less formal processes, applications have grown to include more information than is necessary to support the required reasonable assurance findings by the staff. In connection with the migration of RG 1.206 technical guidance into the SRP, the NRC should re-evaluate the Review Areas and Review Criteria in each SRP 1 The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is the organization responsible for establishing unified industry policy on matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEI's members include all entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect/engineering firms, fuel cycle facilities, nuclear materials licensees, and other organizations and entities involved in the nuclear energy industry.

NUCLEAR. CLEAN AIR ENERGY

Ms. Cindy K. Bladey September 18, 2017 Page 2 section and revise, consolidate, or eliminate those that seek information beyond that necessary to support required reasonable assurance findings by the staff. We expect the NRC will seek extensive stakeholder participation in the migration effort and we look forward providing further input.

The update to RG 1.206 does not reflect recent experience indicating challenges with the acceptance review process. Industry suggests additional discussion around the issue of increased predictability in acceptance reviews without the significant increase in regulatory burden that recent implementation of NRO-REG-100 has created.

The industry continues to believe that specific guidance on first principles for establishing Tier 1 information and development of standardized inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) as proposed in NEI 15-02, "Industry Guideline for the Development of Tier 1 and ITAAC under 10 CFR Part 52," presents the best opportunity for regulatory efficiency in this area. We look forward to re-engaging with NRC staff on NEI 15-02 at an appropriate time and anticipate this would lead to subsequent updates of RG 1.206 and the SRP.

The industry's ongoing 10 CFR Part 52 lessons learned activities reaffirm that the use of Tier 2*

designations in design certification information adds cost, burden and complexity, without commensurate safety benefit. The update to RG 1.206 should state the staff position announced at a recent public meeting with Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power to the effect that going forward, Tier 2* designations will be at the discretion of design certification applicants and that the NRC staff will not impose Tier 2* on applicants.

We believe that incorporation of the comments provided in the attachment to this letter will improve the DG and we appreciate the NRC staff's consideration of these comments. If you have any questions concerning these industry comments, please contact me or Kati Austgen (202.739.8068; kra@nei.org).

Sincerely,

~4t:r Michael D. Tschiltz Attachment c:

• Mr. Joseph Colaccino, NRO/ DNRL/LB3, NRC Dr. Barbara Hayes, NRO/DNRL/LB3, NRC Mr. Mark D. Notich, NRO/ DNRL/LB3, NRC.

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

1. Title The title of the regulatory guide (RG) should reflect its Revise title to: "Applications for Nuclear Power focus as described in under Purpose and Applicability.

-Plants Under 10 CFR Part 52"

2. General The industry supports the migration of appropriate RG In connection with the migration of RG 1.206 1.206 technical guidance into the standard review plan technical guidance into the SRP, the NRC should (SRP). A major lesson learned from recent licensing re-evaluate the Review Areas and Review Criteria experience is that as a result of the SRP, requests for in each SRP section and revise, consolidate, or additional information (RAis), and less formal processes, eliminate those that seek information beyond that applications have grown to include more information than necessary to support required reasonable is necessary to support the required reasonable assurance assurance findings by the staff. The NRC should findings by the staff.

seek extensive stakeholder participation in the migration effort.

3. General

[Editorial]

Fix numerous punctuation problems, including frequent double punctuations such as,, ;; ););

4. A. Introduction, Given recent work on Advanced Reactor Design Criteria Add a note or parenthetical statement regarding Related Regulations (ARDC), it would be worthwhile to mention that principal ARDCs.

and Guidance, bullet design criteria for non-light water reactors (non-LWRs) on Appendix A, pg. 3 are informed by ARDCs.

5. A. Introduction, The discussion of application for a construction permit Change discussion to reflect Part 52 licensing Related Regulations and associated preliminary safety analysis report are processes.

and Guidance, bullet inappropriate for this document.

on Appendix B, pg. 3

6. A. Introduction, Given the staff's announced plans to transition RG 1.206 Clarify that this RG and changes to NUREG-0800 Related Regulations and NUREG-0800 toward replacing RG 1.70, the citation will eventually replace RG 1.70.

and Guidance, bullet here (with no clarification) is confusing.

• on RG 1.70 oa. 4

7. A. Introduction,

[Editorial] Several of the documents listed appear to be Correct formatting.

Related Regulations incorrectly formatted (indented) making them appear as and Guidance, pq. 4 sub-tier documents.

8. A. Introduction, There is no discussion here of the pending plan to Make at least parenthetical note of the fact that Related Regulations supersede these documents as discussed later in these are being superseded.

and Guidance, bullets document.

on COL/ESP-ISG-026 and 027, oa. 4 Page 1of27

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

9.

B. Discussion,

[Editorial] After "NUREG-0800", there are redundant Correct editorial error.

Background, pg. 8, 2nd paraqraph references to "SAR" and "Safety Analysis Reports."

10. B. Discussion, "First, the staff creates an interim application guidance The NRC should highlight changes to RG 1.206 Background, pg. 8, document (IAG) that is referenced in the SRP introduction technical guidance to be migrated into the IAG on 3rd paragraph section" is not very clear. Is there a document number?

its way to the SRP, provide additional clarification How does the timing compare to the RG and SRP on timing and construct of IAG, and provide revisions?

opportunity for stakeholder comment.

The text says that the IAG will include "lessons learned since the issuance of RG 1.206, Rev. O." Stakeholders should be provided an opportunity to comment on this new information.

11. B. Discussion, The use of "regulatory positions" here is a bit confusing.

Replace "positions" with "guidance."

Background, pg. 8, last paraqraph

12. B. Discussion,

[Editorial] The appendices referred to for Section C.2. 7 Correct terminology by replacing Background, pg. 9, and C.2.18 are actually "supplements."

"appendices/appendix" with last paragraph In the last sentence, C.2.8 should be C.2.18.

"supplements/supplement." Change "C.2.8" in the last sentence to "C.2.18."

13. B. Discussion, The first paragraph of this section leaves the impression Clarify that use of ESP and DC are options, or Background on that an early site permit (ESP) and design certification rearrange discussion to make this point clearer.

License, Certification, (DC) are required. This is clarified later but could be Perhaps a simple edit such as "The regulations in and Approval confusing as written.

Title 10 CFR, Part 52 provide options for early Processes under 10 resolution of safety and environmental issues CFR Part 52, pg. 9, before authorizing construction" would suffice.

first paragraph

14. B. Discussion, The paragraph that begins, "A holder of a COL issued Clarify that these materials licenses are typically Background on under 10 CFR 52 obtains materials licenses issued under applied for.

License, Certification, 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70... " could be confusing.

and Approval Processes under 10 CFR Part 52, pg. 10, 2nd paragraph Page 2 of27

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

15. B. Discussion, This section is ambiguous with regard to the extent to Clarify whether the staff inten.ds to endorse or Harmonization with which the staff acknowledges or uses international accept use of international standards or delete International standards.

section.

Standards, pg. 10

16. C.1 Application The last sentence of the first paragraph states, Clarify that this variability is acceptable.

Format and Content, "Furthermore, each application should adhere to the pg. 12, first standard format and content identified herein."

paragraph Certain aspects of applications have been subject to variation in the past, e.g., different "Parts" used for same or similar content.

This comment also applies to the subsection "Application Parts," on page 13 and various other plates in document; e.g., C.1.X, "Part X of the application under Part 52 includes... " implies that this structure is mandatory under the rec:iulation.

17. C.1 Application Clarify "The NRC staff consider$ the guidance in Section Suggest an edit along the lines of: "The NRC staff Format and Content, C.1 on application format and content is applicable to any considers the guidance in Section C.1 on pg. 12, 3rd paragraph type of reactor (i.e., nonlight-water reactors (non-

• application format and content to be generally LWRs))." While purely editorial, use of "i.e." implies non-

. applicable to other reactor types (§..9.:., non-light-LWRs are the only "other" type of reactor. Yet, not all water reactors [non-LWRs])."

aspects of content will be applicable.

18. C.1 Application Application transmittal letter, item e does not include Consider additional discussion/guidance on Format and Content, discussion of Export Control Information (ECI)..

applicant submittal of ECI, particularly applicant Application obligations under ECI regulations and what Transmittal Letter, responsibility NRC staff accepts regarding control of item e. oa. 12 ECI once received.

19. C.1 Application Part 8 of the application should be expanded to include Expand the Table 1 title of application Part 8 to be:

Format and Content, Tier 1 information.

License Conditions; Tier 1 Information; ITAAC.

Application Parts, Table ~, pg. 14 In addition, Section C.1.8 should be expanded to address the inclusion in Part 8 of Tier 1 information, as applicable (i.e., if a design Page 3of27

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation.

certification is referenced).

20. C.1.2 SAR, pg. 16, Correct typos in "... COLA in10in CFR 52.79... "

Correct editorial error.

first paragraph

21. C.1.2 SAR, Combined The discussion of a combined license application (COLA)

Mention these additional options for completeness.

License Application, that incorporates by reference (IBRs) a DC, and of COLA pg. 16-18 that IBRs a DC and ari ESP, imply that a COLA that IBRs an ESP but not a DC is not an option. There is also no discussion of a COLA that incorporates neither a DC nor an ESP.

22. C.1.2 SAR, Design A sentence in the paragraph states "... The DCR We recommend that this guidance be corrected Certification appendices to 10 CFR Part 52 are similarly structured and and clarify that 1) Tier 2 of the DCD is analogous Application, pg. 18, contain a common set of definitions and terminology that to FSAR information required by 10 CFR 52.47(a),

first paragraph includes defining the DCD for a DC as being analogous to and 2) Tier 1 is separate from the FSAR and the FSAR required by 10 CFR 52.47, "Contents of includes ITMC required.by 10 CFR 52.47(b).

Applications; Technical Information. Additionally, the DCRs establish a two-tier hierarchy of design-related information (Tier 1 and Tier 2)."

The sentence misstates the design certification definition of design control document (DCD). Moreover, the DCD is not analogous to the FSAR.

23. C.1.2 SAR, Early Site The term "design information" should be used to describe In the 2n° sentence, change "design information" to Permit Application, the content of applications (ESP and others), rather than "design details."

pg. 19 "design details" as found in the first full paragraph on paqe 19.

24. C.1.2 SAR, Early Site The first full paragraph on page 19 defines PPE as "plant Revise to state, "... plant periA'leter parameter Permit Application, perimeter envelope." "Perimeter" should be "parameter" envelope (PPE)... "

pg. 19 as used in item b. of the list following the paragraph.

25. C.1.2 SAR, Early Site The first full paragraph on page 19 would benefit from Further illustrate what a "controlling PPE value" is Permit Application, clarification on two points related to "controlling PPE and clarify that a COLA may reflect a design that pg. 19 value, or bounding parameter value."

exceeds the plant parameter envelope, but that the COLA must explain/justify any such variance and that the ESP "finality" would be at risk.

Page 4 of 27

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation Revise the paragraph to state, "... one that necessarily controls the value of a site characteristic in the context of site suitabili)}i' (e.g.,

site meteorology XLQ values established within the PPE for the guq~oses of evaluating the gostulated design gerformance). As the PPE is intended...

bounding parameter values. Following selection of a design, if a design value exceeds the PPE bounding value, such variances must be exglained in a COL annlication. As illustrated in... "

26. C.1.5 Emergency The list of application parts is prefaced with, "Part 5 of Provide additional clarification on when the content Plans, pg. 23 the COLA, or as applicable in an ESP application... " It is that follows is applicable for an ESP.

not clear which items are/are not applicable in an ESP application.

27. C.1.7 Exemptions, The guidance provided in Sections b and c is, in part, not Revise the guidance for Part 7 to read as follows:

Departures, and clear and redundant, and, in part, requesting information "In accordance with Section X of 10 CFR 52 Variances, pg. 25-26 that is beyond the scope of the design certification appendices, a COL applicant who references a rulemakings.

certified design shall prepare and maintain written evaluations which provide the bases for making plant-specific departures under Section VIII of the certification appendix. These evaluations must be retained throughout the period of application and for the term of the license (including any period of renewal).Section X also requires each COL applicant to provide in its initial application submittal a report that contains a brief description of any plant-specific departures from the referenced DCD, including a summary of the evaluation of each. These summary reports should be similar in format and level of detail as reports submitted by operating reactors as required by 10 CFR 50.59. This report should be included in Part 7.

For departures that do not require prior NRC Page 5 of27

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants" Affected Section Comment/Basis.

Recommendation approval per Section VIII, no additional departure description information needs to be included in Part

7.

For a COLA that is a "subsequent" COLA (or s-COLA), it is anticipated that previous COL applicants (i.e., a reference COLA, or R-COLA) or COL holders referencing the same *design certification will have developed these reports for "standard" departures approved per Section VIII C'standard" departures are presumably applicable to all applications that reference the same design).

A COL applicant may incorporate by reference these reports in lieu of repeating the information in Part 7, provided that each departure evaluation is reviewed and found applicable to the COL applicant's site/plant. If, because of plant-specific

• considerations, additional evaluation of the departure is necessary, the COL applicant should supplement the referenced reports with a summary of the plant-specific evaluation.

For departures/exemptions requiring prior NRC approval, Part 7 should include the following information:

a) The scope and summary of the request; b) Justification relative to the specific application with cross-references to applicable regulatory guidance and/or requirements; c) A technical and regulatory evaluation relative to safety significance and regulatory acceptance criteria (e.g., 50.12,Section VIII of referenced DC rule);

d) For exemptions, an evaluation against the exemption criteria; and Page 6 of27

Affected Section

28. C.1.8 License Conditions and Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and.

Acceptance Criteria, Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria, pg. 26, 3rd paraqraph

29. C.2 Application Regulatory Topics, pq. 29 2nd oaragraph

30. C.2 Application Regulatory Topics, pg. 29, 2nd paragraph Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

Comment/Basis The last sentence states, "The applicant may (1) include the entirety of Tier 1 information in Part 8 of the application or, (2) include the Tier 1 design descriptions, significant interface requirements, and significant site parameters in Part 2 of the application and provide the ITAAC in Part 8."

This paragraph confuses the issue of whether Tier 1 is part of the FSAR. See comment #19.

The first sentence should be clarified.

The last sentence states, "However, the guidance on specific regulatory and technical issues (e.g., 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 material licenses for COLs and design-specific review standards (DSRS) for SMRs) focuses on Page 7 of27 Recommendation e) A statement identifying the need for NRC approval or need for an exemption.

However, if a COL holder referencing the same /

design certification has obtained NRC approval for the same departures or exemptions, the S-COL applicant may incorporate by reference into Part 7 the evaluations submitted in those license amendment/exemption requests, in lieu of repeating this information in Part 7, and also reference the NRC letter enclosing the applicable safety evaluation. This information will aid the NRC staff in determining that no additional staff review of these changes is necessary.

With respect to requests for variances, Part 7 should include the following information:

a) A description of the variance b) A justification for the variance To avoid confusion, the guidance should make clear that Tier 1 is not part of the FSAR and thus should be included in Part 8 of the application.

Revise to read "... generally apply to both LWR and other types of power reactors."

Replace "has limited applicability" with "may have limited applicability."

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation LWR technology and has limited applicability to non-LWR applicants."

Certain such topics do have applicability.

31. C.2.1 Preapplication This section does not reflect recent discussions within the Enhance this discussion to reflect recent Activities, pg. 29 et Advanced Reactor community regarding the use of discussions between the staff and the Advanced seq.

Regulatory Engagement Plans or the various regulatory Reactor community.

tools available to reduce licensing risk through more systematic NRC staff feedback. As an alternative to "staged" application reviews and approvals (e.g.,

development of so-called conceptual design assessments), the staff has suggested that existing tools, such as those used for PRISM's PSER, are available for new reactor developers to seek early staff feedback on specific topics. Prior pre-:application interactions have suffered at times from inconsistent levels of staff engagement and lack of feedback to multiple submittals, such as technical reports, and these sorts of tools can r

help enhance pre-aoolication enqaqement.

32. C.2.1 Preapplication Section C.2.1, Preapplication Activities, is disappointing Public and Non-public meetings (Page 30) - The Activities, pg. 29 et with regard to the expectation [importance] for NRC to RG should establish an expectation for staff to seq.

provide meaningful feedback during the pre-application issue meaningful minutes identifying and process. As written this looks like a one way information documenting any issues identified that NRC flow from the applicant to the staff with no expectation on believes would benefit from resolution prior to the staff to provide any meaningful feedback. While it is submittal of an application.

clear that pre-application engagement is generally not binding, the staff should be expected to provide Plans and Schedules (page 31) - The RG should meaningful written feedback that will help the applicant require NRC staff to provide meaningful feedback address any potential technical issues prior to submitting on plans and schedules submitted so that the an application. There has to be some meaningful applicant can adjust accordingly or work to align on documented feedback from NRC to make pre-application schedules.

activities worthwhile and improve the efficiency of the rec:iulatorv process.

33. C.2.1 Preaoolication This section does not discuss or delineate any need for, or The RG should establish a clear expectation that Page 8 of27

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation Activities, venue for, formal staff feedback during or after these pre-the NRC staff provide meaningful meeting minutes

GUIDANCE, application meetings are conducted.

that clearly identify any potential technical or Meetings, Subseguen process issues that would benefit from further t Meetings, pg. 33 dialogue and resolution prior to submittal. In addition the guidance should reflect that the NRC licensing PM, with input from NRC staff and management attendees, should document a detailed meeting summary that provides clear feedback from the staff on the subjects discussed along with any decisions or significant staff comments.

34. C.2.1 Preapplication All documents submitted by the applicant should receive The RG should state that NRC provides written Activities, some level of written feedback.

feedback on documents submitted - not just

GUIDANCE, Topical Reports.

Documents, pg. 33-This section does not include letters from the prospective 35 applicant to the NRC.

A fourth type of document, letters, should be added to this section after white papers. A letter formally documents key regulatory subjects and should be responded to by the NRC in a letter within a reasonable time frame of no more than 90 calendar days.

35. C.2.1 Preapplication The criteria for a topical report should include the fourth Revise the criteria for a topical report to include the Activities, criteria regarding licensing efficiency. In addition the RG fourth criteria regarding licensing efficiency and to

GUIDANCE, should expand on improving regulatory efficiency for new expand on improving regulatory efficiency for new

. Documents, Topical reactors or novel designs such that a Topical Report can reactors or novel designs such that a Topical Reports, pg.34 and should be used to improve the application review Report can and should be used to improve the process for singular but very important technical issues application review process for singular but very regardless of whether it can be used by multiple important technical issues regardless of whether it applicants. This should obviate the need for exhaustive can be used by multiple applicants.

justification from the applicant as to why the topical report is appropriate. If Staff believes this requires a change to LIC-500, that should be pursued in concert with the RG revision. This comment is based on experience where staff has been resistant to a Topical Report for a Page 9 of 27

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation "one-off" critical technical issue.

36. C.2.1 Preapplication Reiterating comment #31, "The staff may issue RAis, but Reflect a more flexible approach to providing Activities, will not publish issue-specific SE reports; instead, the staff meaningful staff feedback to technical reports and

GUIDANCE, will incorporate the technical reports and its associated

• white papers.

Documents, Technica evaluation into the overall review/evaluation of the I Reports and White application" reflects what can become a one-way.

Expand the Technical Reports section to state that, Papers, pg.34 and 35 exchange that does not benefit the prospective applicant Technical Reports are a legitimate vehicle for early or reflect sufficient value for what can be a significant staff feedback and review prior to an application.

expenditure of time and resources to try to secure early While this early review would not result in and SER, feedback for technical topics. Lack of any commitment to staff will be expected to provide meaningful provide NRC staff feedback on white papers beyond the documented feedback. Additionally, if the NRC option to "informally request clarification or supplemental provides RAis, staff will document their acceptance information" similarly results in limited benefit for of RAI responses and will document clarification significant investment of time and resources.

meetings on the technical report in a detailed and meaningful summary letter.

Both sections should specify some expectation for typical review schedules and documented feedback mechanisms.

The RG should require staff to provide written feedback on white papers with identification of issues that would benefit from further dialogue or resolution prior to submittal of an application.

Expand the White Papers section to state that the NRC will document clarification or supplemental information meetings on the white paper in a detailed and meaninqful summary letter.

37. C.2.1 Preapplication Under Documents, it does not appear to be correct that Clarify/revise the last paragraph text under White Activities, White Papers, including those submitted via NEI, do not Papers regarding the use/handling of white papers

GUIDANCE,

. receive a formal review and evaluation by the staff.

bythe NRC staff to reflect that, depending on the Documents; White paper content, the staff may perform a formal Paners pq.35 review and evaluation of white papers.

38. C.2.1 Preapplication The last sentence before the bullets should be more Revise to state,"..., to support required safety and Activities, precise with respect to the level of detail to be sought environmental findings its anticipated reviews on GUIDANCE, Safety from applicants.

such issues as....

and Environmental Issues, oa.35, 2nd Page 10 of27

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants' Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation paragraph

39. C.2.1 Preapplication DG-1325 states that an NRC site tour should be

• These pages should be revised to site explicitly that

. Activities, completed early in the pre-application process, and that NRC's tours are up to the discretion of the pre-GUIDANCE; the NRC may request a tour of alternative sites. Some applicant and may deferred until after submission Environmental applicants may not desire a site tour or a tour of of the application.

Preapplication alternative sites during the pre-application review.

Activities, pq. 36-37

40. C.2.1 Preapplication DG-1325 states that during the pre-application review, This page should be revised to site explicitly that Activities, the NRC may seek information on a number of different the scope of NRC's pre-application environmental

GUIDANCE, topics, including historical site information, alternative review is up to the discretion of the pre-applicant Environmental sites, and socioeconomics. Some applicants may not and that the pre-applicant does not need to submit Preapplication desire the NRC to review such information during the pre-the listed information.

Activities, oa. 36 aoolication review.

41. C.2.1 Preapplication The sentence before the bullets should be more precise Revise to read"... NRC staff will seek information,.

Activities, with respect to the level of detail to be sought from in sufficient level of detail, to support required

GUIDANCE, applicants.

environmental findings its anticipated reviews on Environmental such issues as...

II Preapplication Activities, pg. 36, 2nd paraaraph

42. C.2.2 Pre-application This section does not reflect recent significant challenges Amend guidance or reflect in this RG the Readiness with pre-application assessments that indicated no clarifications needed to address improvements in Assessment, pg. 37 significant issues associated with a draft application, only expectations, communications, and predictable et seq.

to be changed after the assessment was conducted, outcomes for readiness assessments.

followed by an acceptance review that took several months. The readiness assessment process still cites 2014 procedural guidance that apparently has not been updated to reflect lessons from these experiences.

Page 11 of27

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

43. C.2.2 Pre-application Discussion of planned exemption requests at the Include specific pre-application engagement on Readiness readiness assessment 6-months before application will not planned exemption requests in meetings and white Assessment, support an efficient and timely review of the DCA if this is papers in Section C.2.1, before the readiness OVERVIEW, pg. 38 the first time this subject is addressed with the NRC.

assessment in C.2.2. Interaction on this subject at six-months before application does not allow sufficient time for staff and NRC management evaluation and feedback to the prospective applicant.

44. C.2.2 Pre-application The statement that, "the readiness assessment neither Revise the statement as follows, "Although not part Readiness conforms to nor is part of the NRC's acceptance review of the NRC acceptance review, the NRC uses Assessment, process," is incorrect and misleading. The staff does use results from the readiness assessment to focus on GUIDANCE, pg. 38, the readiness assessment in its acceptance review identified topics, evaluate if changes have been

• 3rd paragraph because issues identified during the assessment are re-made to specific sections of the DCA, and confirm visited and focused on during acceptance review. One of the identified topics from the readiness assessment the key criteria used by the staff during acceptance have been adequately addressed for purposes of review is the examination of topics identified during the the acceptance review."

readiness assessment. A recent example is the NRC readiness assessment of the NuScale DCA. In this case, general and detailed readiness assessment comments were reiterated in the subsequent NRC DCA review schedule letter to NuScale.

45. C.2.4 Application Consistent with comment #42 regarding readiness Industry respectfully suggests additional discussion Acceptance Review, assessments, this guidance does not reflect recent around the issue of increased predictability in

GUIDANCE, experience indicating a dramatic failure of the acceptance acceptance reviews without the significant increase Acceptance Review review process. The level of assurance being required by in regulatory burden that recent implementation of Process, pg. 43 the staff has resulted in effectively the first round of RAis NRO-REG-100 has created.

occurring during the a~ceptance review. The escalation in NRO-REG-100 from "commence the review" to "conduct the review" has not been sufficiently vetted with industry or with the staff to ensure a consistent understanding of the change in acceptance threshold. The use of "high level of certainty that the staff can complete the detailed technical review within a predictable timeframe," while potentially acknowledqinq industry requests for improved Page 12 of 27

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

Affected Section Comment/Basis

~ecommendation schedule adherence, appears to elevate the desire for schedule certainty above the level of "reasonable assurance" required for public health and safety. This was never the industry's intent.

Additionally, recent experience has led to the implication that providing copies of certain references cited in the application is a prerequisite to acceptance of the application, thereby indicating an increase in regulatory burden with no regulatory basis.

46. C.2.4 Application The first paragraph includes "For the environmental There should be a single set of review criteria.

Acceptance Review, review, the staff has developed the "Office of New

GUIDANCE, Reactors Environmental Report Acceptance Review Completeness and Tables" (Ref.58) as an aid in performing the acceptance Sufficiency, pg. 44 review." We understand that the tables "provide the NRC with a deliverable for the Environmental Report Acceptance Review that will assist them in implementing Office Instruction NRO-REG-100." The memo transmitting the tables in March 2016 states that "[a]pplicants can use these tables to perform their own review of their application before submitting it to the NRC which should result in fewer acceptance review items being identified by the NRC staff." However, the tables themselves say that "[t]he PNNL version of Table 1 [presumably this version of the table] varies somewhat from Table 1 of Attachment D found in the office instruction."

47. C.2.4 Application With respect to docketing acceptance reviews, DG-1325 The second paragraph should be revised to delete Acceptance Review, defines technical deficiency in the application as including the references to "improper, inadequate, or

GUIDANCE, "improper, inadequate, or incorrect technical information." incorrect technical information." Instead, DG-1325 Completeness and Such a definition has the tendency to convert the should state that a technical deficiency exists if the Sl:Jfficiency, pg. 44 acceptance review into a review of the merits of the application does not provide the information application.

specified in applicable NRC guidance, such as the SRP or DSRS.

48. C.2.5 Aoolication The last sentence should be clarified to reflect current Revise to read "... or within such other time as mav Page 13of27

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation Review and Requests practice when RAis cannot be responded to in 30 days.

be agreed ugon between the NRC staff and the for Additional agglicant specified by the NR-G."

information, OVERVIEW, pg. 45,.

first paragraph

49. C.2.5 Application The stated intent of RAis to obtain "all relevant"

1) Delete "all relevant" from the 3rd sentence.

Review and Requests information needed to make a regulatory decision is too

2) Expand the last sentence of paragraph 2 to read for Additional broad and potentially confusing.

"RAis may address varied regulatory and technical Information, subject matter as needed to make regulatoiy OVERVIEW, pg. 45, decisions on the agglication.

2nd oaraqraph

50. C.2.5 Application While providing courtesy copies of certain references for Clarify and replace the last sentence of the first Review and Requests the NRC staff's convenience might enhance efficiency, paragraph as follows: "The applicant may consider for Additional industry does not agree that failure to provide what may providing to the staff courtesy copies of certain Information, amount to hundreds or thousands of supporting references cited in the application, but not readily

GUIDANCE, references constitutes a lack of "transparency." The available. Such courtesy copies are not considered Application Review proposed language in the last sentence also seems to set part of the docketed application; The applicant and RAIS, pg. 46, an expectation on the part of the staff, as opposed to a should be mindful of requirements and limitations first paragraph recommendation for improved efficiency.

on providing such copies, such as copyright restrictions, etc."

51. C.2.6 Combined The section on referenced material (i.e., secondary This section should be expanded to include a third License Application references) in an application only discusses material category of referenced material; i.e., references to Referencing a Design incorporated by reference, and references for information information that, in context, are intended to be Certification or Early only. It does not address other types of references in requirements. In particular, an applicant may not Site Permit, or Both, applications.

desire to incorporate by reference an entire GUIDANCE, Material document or section of a document, but instead to Referenced, pg. 51 treat as a requirement only a particular issue or aspect discussed in a referenced document. This may be particularly true with respect to some referenced NRC documents. The context of the discussion of the reference in.the application will indicate whether the information in the reference is intended to be a requirement or for information only. If a document is merely listed without any Page 14 of 27

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation discussion in the application or designation as incorporated by reference, the document should be construed as beinq for information only.

52. C.2.6 Combined The second paragraph states, "Applicants should note Provide this note earlier in the RG upon the first License Application that the terms "COL action item" and "COL information mention of "COL action item," e.g., in C.1.2.

I Referencing a Design item" have been used interchangeably; however, this RG Change the Appendix A example TOC or include a Certification or Early uses the term "COL action item" for consistency note reiterating the use of "COL action item" for Site Permit, or Both, throughout the document." This should be stated earlier, consistency in the RG despite the label used in the

GUIDANCE, where "COL action item" is used several times. Also "COL actual example.

Combined License information item" is used in the Appendix A example table Action Items, pg. 53, 2nd paragraph of contents (TOC).

53. C.2.6 Combined

[Editorial] Sentence fragment at the end of the first Correct sentence fragment.

License Application paragraph.

Referencing a Design Certification or Early Site Permit, or Both,

GUIDANCE, Departures from the Design Certification, pg. 54, first oaraqraoh

54. C.2.6 Combined There are two different SRPs referenced in this section.

In the 3rd paragraph, insert "environmental" in License Application front of SRP to differentiate from NUREG-0800.

Referencing a Design Certification or Early Site Permit, or Both,

GUIDANCE, Evaluation against the Standard Review Plan and Regulatory Guides, Standard Review Plari, pg. 56, 3rd oaraqraoh Page 15 of27

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants" Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

55. C.2.7 Design Center The discussion implies the convention used in AP1000 Augment the discussion to indicate that specific Review Approach, constitutes a de facto standard. Other design centered choice of annotation is up to the DCWG, i.e., may GUIDANCE, Left working groups (DCWGs) may have an equally effective, vary from examples shown, but should be clear and Margin Annotation in but different approach.

consistent between R-COLA and S-COLAs.

Combine License Aoolications, pg. 60

56. C.2.8 Design Availability of design information is not a sufficient basis Delete sentence.

Acceptance Criteria, to include the information in the DCD.

GUIDANCE, Design Certification Applications, pg. 66, sentence after first bullet c.

57. C.2.9 Inspections, The guidance should indicate that based on lessons Include reference to ongoing review and Tests, Analyses, and learned to date, the industry and NRC are engaged in an development of NEI 15-02, "Industry Guideline for Acceptance Criteria, effort to develop First Principles for the scope of Tier the Development of Tier 1 and ITAAC under 10 pg. 67 et seq.

1/ITAAC, as well as standardized ITAAC for use by future CFR Part 52."

applicants. It is expected that completion of that effort will lead to an update of RG 1.206 and the applicable sections of the SRP.

58. C.2.9 Inspections, The first full sentence on the page contains awkward and Revise to state, "... and analyses are not currently Tests, Analyses, and atypical language on the focus of the ITAAC hearing.

met or will oot be met."

Acceptance Criteria, OVERVIEW, oa. 68

59. C.2.9 Inspections, The DCD is not the same as a design certification FSAR.

Revise the 5th sentence to state, "... instead submit Tests, Analyses, and an FSAR with all the information required under Acceptance Criteria, 50.47(a), glus a Tier 1 document of certified design

GUIDANCE, material, including ITAAC reguired b)'. 50.47(b)(l)."

Requirements for Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria, Design Certification oa. 72 Page 16 of 27

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation first oaraqraoh

60. C.2. 9 Inspections, The last sentence could be revised to illustrate its point Revise to read, "For example, a single ITAAC that Tests, Analyses, and more clearly.

requires verification of the design functions Acceptance Criteria, of multiple motor-operated valves may refer to a

GUIDANCE, specific table listing them."

Requirements for Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria, Design Certification, pg. 72, 2nd paragraph

61. C.2.9 Inspections, The last sentence states, "The applicant may (1) include To ayoid confusion, the guidance should make Tests, Analyses, and the entirety of Tier 1 information in Part 8 of the clear that Tier 1 is not part of the FSAR and thus Acceptance Criteria, application or, (2) include the Tier 1 design descriptions, should be included in Part 8 of the application.

GUIDANCE, significant interface requirements, and significant site Requirements for parameters in Part 2 of the application and provide the Inspections, Tests, ITAAC in Part 8."

Analyses, and Acceptance This paragraph confuses the issue of whether Tier 1 is Criteria, Combined part of the FSAR. See comment #28.

License, pg. 73, last paragraph Page 17of27

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

62. C.2.9 Inspections, Clarification of second sentence.

Delete "Therefore."

Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria, GUIDANCE, Basis; Format and Content; and Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria Design Descriptions, Inspecti ons, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria Basis, pg. 74, 3rd paraqraph

63. C.2.9 Inspections, DG-1325 states that in situ testing, where possible, is the At a minimum, revise the second sentence to state, Tests, Analyses, and preferred means of ITAAC verification. This statement "In situ testing of the as-built SSCs is the preferred Acceptance Criteria, does not account for testing of modules or components at method of ITAAC verification, but is not required or GUIDANCE, Basis; the location of manufacture.

expected in all cases.

Format and Content; and Inspections, This should be clarified to make sure that applicants This page should be revised to discuss ITAAC Tests, Analyses, and understand that other forms of ITAAC, including.

verification of modules or components at the Acceptance Criteria inspection, analyses, type-testing and factory testing are location of manufacturing, and should indicate that Design also acceptable when used appropriately.

such testing is acceptable provided that subsequent Descriptions, Inspecti fabrication, handling, installation, and testing do ons, Tests, Analyses, not alter the properties of the module or and Acceptance component.

Criteria Format and Content, pg. 75 Page 18 of 27

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications fot Nuclear Power Plants

Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

64. C.2.9 Inspections, The paragraph following bullet d. should be clarified.

Revise the third sentence to state, "... failure to Tests, Analyses, and properly implement the design commitment."

Acceptance Criteria, GUIDANCE, Basis; Format and Content; and Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria Design Descriptions, Inspecti ons, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria Format and Content, pg. 75; 6th paraqraph

65. C.2.9 Inspections, DG-1325 states that ITAAC should address the resolutions These statements should be deleted. Instead, NRC Tests, Analyses, and of unresolved safety issues, generic safety issues, NRC should adopt NEI's first principles for Tier 1 and Acceptance Criteria, generic correspondence, TMI action plan items, and ITAAC, which are based upon safety and risk GUIDANCE, Basis; relevant industry operating experience. However, not all significance and conformance to NRC regulations.

Format and Content; of that information is safety or risk significant and The resolutions of unresolved safety issues, generic and Inspections, therefore does not warrant treatment in an ITAAC.

safety issues, NRC generic correspondence, and Tests, Analyses, and relevant industry operating experience may, but do Acceptance Criteria not necessarily, relate to any matter that is safety Design or risk significant or pertinent to NRC regulations.

Descriptions, Inspecti ons, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria Design Descriptions, pg. 76-77 Page 19 of 27

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

66. C.2.9 Inspections, This portion of DG-1325 provides a description of the Modify bullet g. on page 77 to reflect that ITAAC Tests, Analyses, and scope of the design that is considered top-level design are not required on all regulations in Parts 20, 73 Acceptance Criteria, information and should be selected for verification by the and 100, unless they specify requirements related

. GUIDANCE, Basis; ITAAC. However, not all of the criteria are consistent with to performance of safety-related or risk significant Format and Content; NRC policy established through several NRC SECY papers functions.

and Inspections, published since the early 1990s. There are also several Tests, Analyses, and criteria for establishing ITAAC that are not included in the Acceptance Criteria draft regulatory guide. For example, there does not need Design to be an ITAAC for every regulation in 10 CFR Part 20.

Descriptions, Inspecti NRC SECYs have discussed that regulations such as 10 ons, Tests, Analyses, CFR.20.1406 on minimization of contamination that do and Acceptance not specify requirements related to performance of Criteria Design safety-related or risk significant functions do not require Descriptions, pg. 76-an ITAAC, which is reinforced by t.he fact that previously 77, 2nct paragraph, approved DCDs do not include an ITAAC for this list, and following requirement.

paragraph

67. C.2.9 Inspections, ITAAC may be inspection, analyses, type-testing and Delete item f.

Tests, Analyses, and factory testing and therefore saying that applicants should Acceptance Criteria, "Ensure that ITAAC emphasize testing of the as-built GUIDANCE, Basis; facility" is incorrect or at least misleading.

Format and Content; and Iilspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria Design Descriptions, Inspecti ons, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria Design Descriptions, pg. 77, item f.

Page 20 of 27.

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants' Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

68. C.2.9 Inspections, Item i. is SRP Section 14.3.10, Emergency Planning An additional discussion related to site specific Tests, Analyses, and ITAAC. Generic emergency planning ITAAC do not follow ITAAC should be provided in this section of the RG.

Acceptance Criteria, the format guidance provided above. An additional GUIDANCE, Basis; discussion related to site specific ITAAC should be Format and Content; provided in the RG.

and Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and i

Acceptance Criteria Design Descriptions, Inspecti ons, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria Design Descriptions, pg. 78, item i.

69. C.2.11 COL Action

[Editorial]

"Postlicense" should be hyphenated, i.e., "post-Items and license" throughout.

Postlicense Commitments, pg. 79 et seq.

70. C.2.11 COL Action

[Editorial]

Delete double use of "Successful completion of' in Items and the last sentence of second paragraph.

Postlicense Commitments,

GUIDANCE, Combined License Action Items that Cannot Be Resolved before Issuance of a License, Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria, oa.82 Page 21 of27

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants" Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

71. C.2.11 COL Action

[Editorial]

Correct "2424" to "24" in the 3ra sentence.

Items and Postlicense Commitments,

GUIDANCE, Combined License Action Items that Cannot Be Resolved before Issuance of a License, Final Safety Analysis ReRort Commitments, Anal Safety Analysis Report Information Commitment Included in a License Condition, pg. 83

72. C.2.11 COL Action The paragraph following the bullets seems to suggest the Delete paragraph.

Items and expectation for one or more FSAR updates outside of the Postlicense annual FSAR update requirement of 50.71(e)(3)(iii), i.e.,

Commitments,

• prior to "fuel load, initial criticality, and exceedance of 5%

GUIDANCE, power." This paragraph is unnecessary, conflicts with Combined License FSAR update requirements, and should be deleted.

Action Items that Cannot Be Resolved before Issuance of a License, Final Safety Analysis ReRort Commitments, Final Safety Analysis Report Information Commitment Included in a License Condition, pg. 84 Page 22 of 27

Affected Section

73. C.2.11 COL Action Items and Postlicense Commitments,

GUIDANCE, Combined License Action Items that Cannot Be Resolved before Issuance of a License, Final Safety Analysis Report Commitments, Final SAR Information Commitments Included in a Routine Final SAR Update, pq, 85

74. C.2.12 Operational Programs for Combined Licenses, OVERVIEW, pq, 85

75. C.2.12 Operational Programs for Combined Licenses, OVERVIEW, pg. 85, bullet c.

76. C.2.12 Operational Programs for Combined Licenses, GUIDANCE, License Conditions, Operation al Program Options, pg.87 Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

Comment/Basis The last paragraph of C.2.11 concerns use of a license condition and belongs in the previous subsection.

[Editorial]

NRC does not inspect operational programs before issuing a license.

The guidance in the first two sentences seems to be at odds. The first sentence acknowledges that "COL applicants may incorporate by reference a generic operational program...," but the next sentences seems to defeat the purpose of referencing the generic operational program because then the applicant "would" (not man "submit to the NRC the plant-specific operational program... "

Page 23 of 27 Recommendation Relocate the last paragraph of C.2.11 to the end of the subsection titled, FSAR Information Commitment Included in a License Condition.

Add punctuation to the first paragraph.

Revise bullet c to state, "The NRC staff inspects these programs prior to operation before issuing a HeAse.... "

Revise the guidance to be clear that when incorporating by reference a generic operational program, the COL applicant adds some plant-specific details as appropriate in addition to implementation milestones. Language similar to that in the second paragraph would be clearer, e.g., the expectation to "fully describe the program" would met by a COL aoolicant that

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation references an approved generic operational program description and adds plant-specific details as appropriate.

77. C.2.13 10 CFR Parts These discussions cite requirements for inclusion from Clarify areas where information is needed for 30, 40, and 70 NUREGs-1520 and 1556, but do not acknowledge that the materials licenses that has not already been Materials Licenses for vast majority of this information is also required for a provided in the COLA.

Combined Licenses, COLA under Parts 52 and 50.

GUIDANCE, Application Information for a 10 CFR Part 70 and Parts 30 and 40 Licenses

78. C.2.14 Information This section uses the term "changes" when it should use Correct references to changes to DC information Change Processes for the term "departures." Applicants can depart from a and changes to Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 2*.

Combined License design certification but cannot change a DC.

Applicants, pg. 93 et sea.

79. C.2.14 Information It is fortunate that the update of RG 1.206 spans the Revise the guidance to clarify that going forward Change Processes for period during which the NRC has revisited the use of Tier the focus will be on clearly determining the scope Combined License 2* in _design certifications. As discussed in a letter dated of Tier 1 information versus Tier 2 and that NRC Applicants, 12/19/14, the industry recommends discontinuing the use staff will no longer identify certain Tier 2

GUIDANCE, of Tier 2* for current and future design certifications.

information to be designated Tier 2*. Rather, the Combined License While the staff has indicated that they are not prepared to applicant will be given the option to self-designate Application go that far, we recommend that RG 1.206 reflect the certain information as Tier 2* that otherwise may Referencing a Design current NRC staff position on the use of Tier 2*

have been included in Tier 1.

Certification, pg. 94-announced at a public meeting on August 16, 2017.

97 Page 24 of 27

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants' Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

80. C.2.14 Information It would be helpful to provide an example of an Provide an example of an operational program that Change Processes for operational program that is fully described and approved is fully described and approved in the generic DCD.

Combined License in the generic DCD.

• Applicants,

GUIDANCE, Combined License Application Referencing a Design Certification, Change s to Ogerational Reauirements. Da. 97

81. C.2.15 Environmental Good discussion on "new and significant," but no Provide guidance indicating that, in the absence of Issue Finality for information regarding the staff's view of the "shelf life" of new and significant information or other influencing Combined License site characterization information.

factors, site characterization information in an ESP Applicants, can be considered valid to a COLA submitted prior GUIDANCE, Finality to the expiration of the ESP.

of Environmental Issues Associated with an Early Site Permit, Do. 99 et seq.

82. C.2.16 Finalizing The first full paragraph contains a sentence that should Revise to read "... or within such other time as may Licensing-Basis be clarified to reflect current practice when RAis cannot be agreed ugon between the NRC staff and the Information, be responded to in 30 days.

agglicant specified by the NRC."

GUIDANCE, General Guidance Do. 102

83. C.2.16 Finalizing COL applicants and licensees and DC vendors will use Delete "the majority of" from sentence 4.

Licensing-Basis established change control processes to manage fill Information, changes identified after the freeze point.

GUIDANCE, General Guidance, pg. 102, last full paragraph

84. C.2.16 Finalizing Clarification Revise sentence 2 to read, "... unless they are Licensing-Basis proposed bt a license agglicant or licensee as Information, departures....

II Page 25 of 27

Affected Section GUIDANCE, Finalizing Licensing-Basis Information for Design Certifications, pq, 103

85. C.2.16 Finalizing Licensing-Basis Information, GUIDANCE, Finalizing Licensing-Basis Information for Design Certifications, pg, 103

86. C.2.16 Finalizing Licensing-Basis Information, GUIDANCE, Finalizing Licensing-Basis Information for Design Certifications, pg. 104

87. C.2.16 Finalizing Licensing-Basis Information, GUIDANCE, Errors in Design Certifications Referenced by Combined License Applications, pg. 104-105 Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

Comment/Basis

[Editorial]

The first paragraph under Finalizing Licensing-Basis Information for Design Certifications (on pg. 103) is adequate and the two following paragraphs are unnecessary and potentially confusing with respect to DC renewal. The top paragraph on p. 104 could be misinterpreted to suggest that the renewed DC has an impact on a COL applicant that incorporated by reference a prior revision of the DC. Unlike a DC amendment, DC renewal does not impact existing applicants or licensees that incorporate by reference a prior revision of the DC. It is unnecessary and confusing to discuss renewal in connection with freeze point.

DG-1325 states that significant DCD errors must be corrected prior to issuance of a COL. That position has resulted and could continue to result in significant delays in issuance of COLs. Further, it is premature to address this issue in the pending revision of RG 1.206 while the industry and NRC are still in discussions to resolve the issue. Reference NEI's letter to NRC dated August 4, 2017, Avoiding Delays in Issuance of NRC Combined Licenses due to Design Certification Errors.

Page 26 of 27 Recommendation Revise sentence 3 to state, "... an update to a COLA, or in a periodic report.... "

Delete the top two paragraphs on page 104.

This section of C.2.16 should be deleted because it is premature to address this issue in the pending revision of RG 1.206 while the industry and NRC are still in discussions to resolve it. C.2.16 should later be revised to reflect the outcome of ongoing discussions, e.g., other alternatives that assure safety without unduly delaying issuance of a COL.

J

Attachment NEI Comments on DG-1325, "Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

88. C.2.17 Small Modular The discussion here implies a DSRS is somehow unique to. Clarify DSRSs may be used for other types of Reactors and Design-an SMR, when in fact the use of DSRSs for SMRs was reactor designs as well and is strictly optional.

Specific Review largely a matter of timing of applications.

Standards, pg. 105 et seq.

Also, the use of DSRSs for mPower and NuScale is Inform the discussion based on staff and industry thought to have had mixed results; has this discussion assessment of the questionable efficacy of prior been informed by a review of those outcomes?

DSRS development and use.

89. C.2.17 Small Modular

[Editorial]

Revise the first sentence to state, "... approaches Reactors and Design-that the staff finds has found acceptable....,,

Specific Review Standards, Revise first sentence of 2nd paragraph to state, OVERVIEW, Standard "Each DSRS... has the same objectives as tAat: the Review Plan and SRP has foF non SMR application reviews.

Design-Specific Review Standards, pg. 106

90. C.2.18 Limited Work

[Editorial] For longevity of this RG 1.206 revision, strike Revise first sentence of paragraph 4 to state, Authorization, "recently" in the first sentence of the 4th paragraph.

"... The NRt Fecently issued an LWA.... "

OVERVIEW, pg. 110, 4th oaragraph

91. C.2.18 Limited Work The requirements for COL ITAAC are covered outside of Delete item c on p. 111.

Authorization, 10 CFR 50.10 and should not be included in the first list

GUIDANCE, on page 111.

Applications, pg. 111

92. Appendix A, pg. A-1 The title of this appendix states:

Revise the title so it is clear that Tier 1 of the DCD EXAMPLE TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR DESIGN is not considered part of the FSAR.

CERTIFICATION APPLICATION FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT The title conflicts with the requirements for contents of a FSAR as specified in Part 52. Per 10 CFR 52.47(a), Tier 1 information is not required to be included in the FSAR.

Page 27 of 27