ML021140216
| ML021140216 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/2002 |
| From: | Kennedy K NRC/RGN-IV/DRP |
| To: | Denise Wilson Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) |
| References | |
| Download: ML021140216 (26) | |
Text
1"j RE'U
%, "o UNITED STATES
- 0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS7SION REGION IV 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 400 ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76011-8064 April 23, 2002 David L. Wilson, Vice President of Nuclear Energy Nebraska Public Power District P.O. Box 98 Brownville, Nebraska 68321
SUBJECT:
MEETING
SUMMARY
FOR END-OF-CYCLE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
Dear Mr. Wilson:
This refers to the end-of-cycle performance assessment meeting conducted at the Brownville Concert Hall, Brownville, Nebraska, on April 2, 2002. The purpose of this meeting between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) was to present and discuss the NRC's assessment of performance at Cooper Nuclear Station for the period of April 1 through December 31, 2001. In addition, the meeting included a presentation on the NRC's oversight process and NRC activities in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Prior to adjourning the meeting, the NRC staff, and officials from the Nebraska Public Power District, answered questions from the audience.
The meeting attendance list and a copy of the slides presented during the meeting are included as Enclosures 1 and 2. Enclosure 3 is a copy of Chairman Meserve's January 17, 2002, speech that was distributed at the meeting.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC's Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/index.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
Sincerely, Kriss M. Kennedy, Chief Project Branch F Division of Reactor Projects Docket: 50-298 License: DPR-46
Nebraska Public Power District
Enclosures:
- 1. Attendance List
- 2. Presentation Slides
- 3. "Nuclear Security in the Post-September 11 Environment" speech by Dr. Richard A. Meserve, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission cc w/enclosures:
Michael T. Coyle Site Vice President Nebraska Public Power District P.O. Box 98 Brownville, Nebraska 68321 John R. McPhail, General Counsel Nebraska Public Power District P.O. Box 499 Columbus, Nebraska 68602-0499 D. F. Kunsemiller, Risk and Regulatory Affairs Manager Nebraska Public Power District P.O. Box 98 Brownville, Nebraska 68321 Dr. William D. Leech Manager - Nuclear MidAmerican Energy 907 Walnut Street P.O. Box 657 Des Moines, Iowa 50303-0657 Ron Stoddard Lincoln Electric System 1040 0 Street P.O. Box 80869 Lincoln, Nebraska 68501-0869 Michael J. Linder, Director Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 98922 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-8922
Nebraska Public Power District Chairman Nemaha County Board of Commissioners Nemaha County Courthouse 1824 N Street Auburn, Nebraska 68305 Sue Semerena, Section Administrator Nebraska Health and Human Services System Division of Public Health Assurance Consumer Services Section 301 Centennial Mall, South P.O. Box 95007 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-5007 Ronald A. Kucera, Deputy Director for Public Policy Department of Natural Resources 205 Jefferson Street Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Jerry Uhlmann, Director State Emergency Management Agency P.O. Box 116 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Vick L. Cooper, Chief Radiation Control Program, RCP Kansas Department of Health and Environment Bureau of Air and Radiation 1000 SW Jackson, Suite 310 Topeka, Kansas 66612-1366 Daniel K. McGhee Bureau of Radiological Health Iowa Department of Public Health 401 SW 7th Street, Suite D Des Moines, Iowa 50309 William R. Mayben, President and Chief Executive Officer Nebraska Public Power District 1414 15th Street Columbus, Nebraska 68601
Nebraska Public Power District Marlin Logan Presiding Commissioner Atchison County P.O. Box 280 Rock Port, Missouri 64482 Dennis Martin, Sheriff Atchison County Sheriff's Office 511 West Clay Rock Port, Missouri 64482 Loras Baumhover, Sheriff 1805 N Street Auburn, Nebraska 68305 Dick Hainje, Regional Director Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VII 2323 Grand Blvd., Suite 900 Kansas City, Missouri 64108-2670 Daniel K. McGhee Bureau of Radiological Health Iowa Department of Public Health Lucas State Office Building 321 12th Street Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0075 Gary McNutt, Director, Radiation Control Program Section for Environmental Public Health P.O. Box 570 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0570 Robert Leopold, State Liaison Officer Nebraska Health and Human Services Department of Regulation and Licensure Assurance 301 Centennial Mall, South P.O. Box 95007 Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-5007
Nebraska Public Power District Electronic distribution by RIV:
Regional Administrator (EWM)
DRP Director (KEB)
DRS Director (ATH)
Senior Resident Inspector (MCH2)
Branch Chief, DRP/C (KMK)
Senior Project Engineer, DRP/C (vacant)
Staff Chief, DRPITSS (PHH)
RITS Coordinator (NBH)
Jim Isom, Pilot Plant Program (JAI)
RidsNrrDipmLipb S:\DRP\DRPDIR\EOC 2002\Summaries\CNS 4-2-02 EOC MS.wpd KM4Kennedy;df __
4OFIIL REODCP/02ieenn ~tFlI -d OFFICIAL RECORD COPY I = Ielepnone E=.= :=-mall r-.r-ax
ENCLOSURE 1 ATTENDANCE LIST
END-OF-CYCLE MEETING ATTENDANCE LICENSEE/FACILITY Nebraska Public Power District / Cooper Nuclear Station DATE/TIME April 2, 2002; 7:00 p.m.
LOCATION Brownville Concert Hall NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ORGANIZATION 026i62* ~Lid
___________IIRP
/A: j$7 / LJ zl.-ý ý&
A.6uL)L4ASAgAfAY 1(2L 1 t z' ~ IV p__
PageI of I
END-OF-CYCLE MEETING ATTENDANCE LICENSEE/FACILITY Nebraska Public Power District / Cooper Nuclear Station DATE/TIME April 2, 2002; 7:00 p.m.
LOCATION Brownville Concert Hall NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ORGANIZATION Page _Jof Page 2-of ?
END-OF-CYCLE MEETING ATTENDANCE LICENSEE/FACILITY Nebraska Public Power District / Cooper Nuclear Station DATE/TIME April 2, 2002; 7:00 p.m.
LOCATION Brownville Concert Hall
[NAME (PLEASE PRINT) ORGANIZATION
~ \(Yg ~~Nc~ STA7(0,/J rIlai
- i.f,1 4 4
'(_J Y 4 4 Page AP~ 1,k,\a h~ ~~c Page -3fci/
END-OF-CYCLE MEETING ATTENDANCE LICENSEE/FACILITY Nebraska Public Power District / Cooper Nuclear Station DATE/IIME April 2, 2002; 7:00 p.m.
LOCATION Brownville Concert Hall NAME (PLEASE PRINT) I ORGANIZATION
-;*bi t4 wj12,7 ltl& -
- GroOS 9/L L S~.~,~
fA/ca- c e-4,M /\/* 6iW S"
, ,ju,% 4-c.! /1-S JL')A4N <611HAN 6 4j ýýfi4T# Ai4i)Q
{ Af I."- j/1 JA14iAL
/
Page -t of -
ENCLOSURE 2 PRESENTATION SLIDES
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT NRC Personnel MEETING WITH COOPER NUCLEAR STATION Elmo Collins Deputy Director Division of Reactor Projects Kriss Kennedy Chief, Branch F Division of Reactor Projects Mike Hay Senior Resident Inspector Cooper Nuclear Station Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV Meetinq Guidelines NPPD Introduction " Meeting with Licensee
" Inform Public of Plant Performance NRC Meeting Guidelines . Meeting Agenda
"* Registration Table
- Regulatory Oversight
"* Questions and Answers
- Findings and Assessments
"* Handouts
- Additional Focus Areas
- Questions and Answers
"*Feedback Forms I
.NRC Performance Goals .. NRC Oversight Activities
"*Provide assurance plants are:
" Maintain safety and protect environment - Operating safely
- Complying with regulations
" Enhance public confidence
"*Based on a logical and sound framework
" Improve:
- effectiveness
- efficiency
"*Objective indicators of performance
- realism of processes and decision makinE
"*Assessment program triggers regulatory
" Reduce unnecessary regulatory burden actions
- Crosscutting Areas PUBLIC HEALTH AND NRC'S SAFETY Overall AS A RESULT OF CIVILIAN NUCLEAR REACTOR Safety OPERATION Mission Strategic Performance REAT RIION SC I Areas SFT Crosscutting Areas Human Performance Corrective Action Safety Conscious Work Environment
.. Reactor Oversight Process SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE SN - very low
- low to moderate
- substantial
- high 2
Baseline Inspection Program
"*Gathers objective evidence of plant safety
"*Conducted at all plants
"*Focuses on safety-significant:
- Systems
- Components
- Activities
- Events Event Follow-Up and *.. Resident Inspectors Supplemental Inspections
- Live in Community
- Review events for significance
- Stationed at Plant
- Follow-up significant inspection findings
- Prompt Response Capability
- Determine causes of performance declines
- Provide for graduated response
- i Regional Inspectors ,) Inspection Program
- Specialized "*Inspection reports describe more than minor findings and non-compliance
- Team Inspections
"*Inspection reports are publicly accessible
- Reactive Inspections www.NRC.gov/reading-rm/adams.html 3
!, Performance Indicators ... ) Performance Indicators Unplanned Scrams per 7000 critical hours 20/01 3Q0)1 40/01 0 Thresholds
"*Provide objective measures 5s White > 3.0
"*Indicators for all Strategic Areas 10 Yellow > 6.0 15
- NRC verifies through inspections 20 Red > 25.0 251 Unplanned scram per 7000 critcal hours 2Q/01 3Q/01 4I01 Actual scras 0 0 0 Critical hours 2183.0 2208.0 83,0 Indicator value 0.8 0. .0 V Performance Indicators Assessment Program
"*Objective review of licensee performance Performance indicator results and other assessment information available on the "*"Action Matrix" to determine agency NRC's public web site response in three areas:
- Inspection
- Management Involvement
- Regulatory Actions www.NRC.govINRR/OVERSIGHTIASSESSICNS/¢ns-charLhtml
"* Plant specific assessment letters
"* Information on NRC public web site ACTION MATRIX Plant Safety Performance Summary
-_ - ~ ~A_
4
Ist White Finding I) Inspection Results
"*NRC inspection activities identified four "*Emergency Preparedness Cornerstone WHITE findings
"*Ineffective corrective actions to prevent recurrence of dose assessment weakness
"* Findings were of low to moderate safety significance
"*Low to moderate safety significance
.49)2nd & 3rd White Findings
"*Emergency Preparedness Cornerstone
"*Failure to perform timely offsite NPPD RESPONSE notifications
"*Failure to activate the emergency response facilities within an hour
"*Low to moderate safety significance
- t} 4th White Finding
- Mitigating Systems Cornerstone Failure to take immediate compensatory NPPD RESPONSE actions following identification of a compromise of the biennial requalification written exams Low to moderate safety significance 5
- ) Crosscutting Issues NRC identified adverse trends NPPD RESPONSE - Problem Identification and Resolution
- Human Performance Problem Identification and Resolution
- General lack of understanding and ownership of programs and procedures NPPD RESPONSE
- Examples of ineffective corrective actions
- Program implementation problems
- CNS quality assurance audits and assessments critical of program
,_. Human Performance Personnel Performance issues and errors contributed to a number of White findings
"*Failure to perform timely offsite NPPD RESPONSE notifications
"*Failure to activate emergency response facilities within the time required
"*Failure to take immediate compensatory actions following identification of a compromise of the biennial requalification exams 6
Assessment Results
.; Performance Indicators .0/
"*CNS began assessment period in Regulatory Response Column
- White finding in Emergency Preparedness All performance indicators within the "*Ended assessment period in Degraded Licensee Response Band Cornerstone Column
- 2nd white finding in Emergency Preparedness
"*Supplemental inspections (95002)
- Completed one inspection
- Second planned Assessment Results *; Assessment Results
"*Licensee entered Repetitive
- Public Health and Safety Assured Degraded Cornerstone Column of the Action Matrix on April 1, 2002
- Strategic Area Objectives Met
"*Supplemental inspection planned ° Significant Performance Issues (95003) Warrant Further Inspection Cooper Action Matrix NPPD RESPONSE I I 7
,} Additional Focus Areas *,; Nuclear Industry Issue
- NRC Responds As-Needed Security at Nuclear Power Plants
- Mandated Licensee Actions - Substantial security measures in place prior to terrorist attacks
- Implemented Emergency Response - Federal, State, Local and Licensee integrated response to terrorist threat t, Contacting the NRC .) Summary
"* Report an Emerqencv.
(301) 816-5100 (collect) "* Comprehensive Oversight Program
"* Report a Safety Concern: "*Cooper Nuclear Station maintained (800) 695-7403 or Allegation@nrc.gov public health and safety
"* General Information or questions:
- Capability and resources to respond www.nrc.gov and impose additional requirements Select "What we do" for Public Affairs NPPD CLOSING REMARKS S
ENCLOSURE 3 "NUCLEAR SECURITY IN THE POST-SEPTEMBER 11 ENVIRONMENT" SPEECH BY DR. RICHARD A. MESERVE, CHAIRMAN, U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
RL RL NRC NEWS U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov Web Site: %w-w.nrc.nov S-02-001 NUCLEAR SECURITY IN THE POST-SEPTEMBER 11 ENVIRONMENT Dr. Richard A. Meserve Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission National Press Club Washington, DC January 17, 2002 Good afternoon. I am pleased to have this opportunity to address you.
I suspect that you have a strong interest in security at nuclear power plants. I hope to provide you with a summary of how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approaches security matters, with a description of some of the actions taken in the aftermath of the September 11t attacks, and with a survey of some of the major challenges ahead.
Let me make a few general points at the outset.
First, and perhaps most important, since September 1 I' there have been no specific credible threats of a terrorist attack on nuclear power plants. Of course, there is information that al Qaeda considers nuclear facilities as potential terrorist targets. In light of the high general threat environment, we and our licensees have maintained our highest security posture.
Second, the physical protection at nuclear power plants is very strong. I know that there has been a lot of discussion conceming the adequacy of security in light of the sensitivity of these facilities. But let me assure you that nuclear plants are not "soft' targets. For decades, security against sabotage has been an important part of the NRC's regulatory activities and our licensees' responsibilities. The plants are among the most formidable structures in existence and they are guarded by well trained and well armed security forces.
The security at nuclear plants is and has always been far more substantial than that at other civilian facilities.
And it has been augmented since September 11.
Third, I want to assure you that the NRC is responding to the terrorist threat in a comprehensive fashion. September 11 has served to alert America to the need for re-examination of past practices. As a result, the NRC is undertaking a top-to-bottom review of our security program to ensure that we have the right protections in place for the long term.
I. The Existing Security System Let me start by providing you with a more detailed description of our security requirements.
Each licensee has a responsibility to defend its nuclear power plant, subject to regulatory scrutiny by the NRC. Under our existing regulatory system, we require that our licensees demonstrate a high assurance that they can defend their facilities against a so-called "design-basis threat" Although the details of that threat are classified, it basically involves a commando attack by several skilled attackers, armed with automatic weapons, with hand-carried explosives and incapacitating agents, and with assistance by an insider, the use of a 4-wheel drive vehicle, and a vehicle bomb. Our licensees defend against such a threat by the establishment of a fenced perimeter (usually a double fence topped with concertina wire), intrusion detection devices, layers of access barriers, heavily armed and carefully trained guard forces, armored defensive positions, and a comprehensive defensive strategy. The adequacy of the defenses is subject to detailed inspection by the NRC, including periodic force-on-force exercises designed to probe for weaknesses so that corrections can be made.
The design basis threat does not include an aircraft attack. In the aftermath of September 11, many have asked about the consequences if a large airliner, fully loaded with jet fuel, had crashed into a nuclear power plant. We had to say candidly that we were not sure. We know that reactor containments are extremely robust, typically being constructed with two to five feet of reinforced concrete with an interior steel lining. The plants benefit from redundant and diverse safety equipment so that if any active component were unavailable, there is another means to satisfy its function. The operators are trained to respond to unusual events. And carefully designed emergency plans are in place. Nuclear power plants are certainly far more capable to respond to an aircraft attack than other civilian facilities. But the NRC has never previously had reason to perform a detailed engineering analysis of the consequences of a deliberate attack by a large airliner.
We are performing those analyses now.
I am sometimes asked whether a terrorist might be able to gain employment at a nuclear plant Let me describe some of the regulatory requirements that bear on this issue. At the time of employment, every potential employee who will have access to safety equipment is required to pass various background checks, including examination of past employment, references, credit history, and an FBI criminal record check, as well as to undergo psychological testing. During the course of employment, each employee is also subject to fitness-for-duty requirements, which include random drug and alcohol testing. Behavioral monitoring of employees is also required so as to ensure that any aberrant actions receive appropriate attention. Of course, access to the plants is controlled and there are portal detectors for metals and explosives. We are examining
whether these requirements should be supplemented in the course of our top-to-bottom review.
II. Response to the September 11 Events Let me turn now to the events on September 11 and the NRC's subsequent actions.
Shortly after the second crash into the World Trade Center, the NRC activated its Headquarters Emergency Operations Center and the parallel Incident Response Centers in each of NRC's four regional offices. We immediately called for our major licensees to go to the highest level of security, which we have maintained since that time and augmented as circumstances warranted. This heightened security stance generally includes, among other resources, increased patrols, augmented security forces and weapons, additional security posts, heightened coordination with law enforcement and military authorities, and additional limitations on access of personnel and vehicles to the site.
The NRC's safeguards analysts have worked continually with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies to assess the general threat environment, as well as information about specific targets. In order to assess whether terrorists may have been conducting surveillance of nuclear facilities, we, with assistance from Federal, State and local law enforcement, have carefully examined unusual incidents, such as fly-overs, threats, or the possible probing of defenses. NRC investigators have also examined incidents over the past two years that might have seemed innocent or odd at the time, but that in retrospect might suggest a pattern that should be referred to the FBI for follow-up.
As you might expect, there have been extensive interactions with other governmental agencies. We have worked closely with the new Office of Homeland Security, the FBI, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Federal Aviation Administration, the military, and the Department of Energy, among others. And I have communicated with the governors of 40 states so as to ensure that any state defensive assets (National Guard or state police) are used as needed to augment our licensees' defensive strategies.
IU. Fundamental Challenges Let me turn now to some longer-term challenges. The Commission has not yet had the opportunity to complete its consideration of some of these issues, so these comments should be seen as my own.
A. The Need for a Comprehensive Security Strategy I shall first discuss the context for examining the security of nuclear plants.
As you know, there have been numerous discussions about the potential vulnerability of nuclear power plants to terrorist attack. Some argue that the only acceptable response to the risk is to shut down the Nation's reactors. Others contend we can continue with nuclear power - which provides about 20 percent of the Nation's electricity -- so long as appropriate security measures are in place.
The crimes of September 11 were designed to shock the American people in part by the very fact that they involved such large and imposing targets. In the effort to ensure that no such horror ever occurs again, there is a danger of drawing the wrong lesson from the attacks: of blaming the victim, so to speak. The destruction of a skyscraper does not suggest it was a mistake to build skyscrapers, any more than the dissemination of anthrax spores through the mails proves that it is an error to operate a postal service. If we allow the threats of terrorists to determine what we build and what we operate, we would be headed into the past -- back to an era without suspension bridges, harbor tunnels, stadiums, or hydroelectric dams, let alone skyscrapers, liquid natural gas terminals, chemical factories, or nuclear power plants.
The problem is not the terrorists' targets, but the terrorists themselves. It is they who need to be eliminated, not the creations of a modem industrial society. It is thus my view that a strategy of risk avoidance -- the elimination of the threat by the elimination of potential targets - does not reflect a sound response. Rather, the evaluation of the terrorist threat to infrastructure, including nuclear plants, should include a careful and realistic examination of risks and benefits and the development of appropriate defenses in light of those risks and benefits.
September 11 has made clear that our society must increase the vigilance with which we defend ourselves from terrorist attack. But the reality is that, as a society, we do not have infinite funds to spend for this purpose. Accordingly, we must allocate our defensive resources in a fashion that serves to minimize the total risk. As a result, any policy regarding the defense of nuclear facilities should be integrated in the overall response to the threat to infrastructure of all kinds.
Clearly this is not a task that the NRC can undertake alone. We have sought, and will continue to seek, appropriate security at facilities subject to our jurisdiction. We look forward to working with the Office of Homeland Security and others to ensure that our strategy is coordinated with the Nation's overall defensive posture. I see this as a great challenge, however, because the task is large and the defense of infrastructure involves government at all levels.
B. Public and Private Roles.
The second policy issue that I would like to discuss relates to public and private roles in the defense against terrorism. This is an issue that the events of September 11 have brought clearly to the fore.
As I have explained, the NRC licensees must defend nuclear power plants against the "design-basis threat." September 11 obviously revealed a type of attack - a suicidal assault using a large commercial aircraft -- that has not been part of the NRC's planning (or that of any other agency with similar responsibilities). Moreover, the event has demanded that the NRC and its licensees reevaluate the scope of potential assaults of all types.
There are limits, however, as to what should be expected from a private guard force, even as assisted by local law enforcement. For example, if it were determined that nuclear plants should be defended against aircraft attack, I cannot conceive that the NRC would expect licensees or local law enforcement to acquire and operate anti-aircraft weaponry. Rather, this obligation would be one for the military. Similarly, there
might be other types of attacks which should properly involve governmental response because of the size of the assumed attacking force or the equipment that must be employed in defense. As a result, in its development of policy, the NRC must be prepared to differentiate the defensive obligation that is borne by licensees from that which must be undertaken by the government.
As part of the top-to-bottom review that I mentioned earlier, the NRC is examining the new threat environment in coordination with various other agencies of Government There may also have to be an additional discussion with the military, the States, and local law enforcement about the provision of governmental assets at appropriate times. I do not expect that defining the appropriate boundary between the public and private sector in the defense of nuclear facilities will be easy.
C. The Balance Between Security and Openness.
The third issue relates to the balance between security and openness. The NRC has sought to achieve public confidence through a variety of means, but perhaps the most effective tool has been a policy of transparency. We recognize that decisions made behind closed doors may be viewed with suspicion. We have therefore sought to assure open decision processes that would enable the public to be fully informed of the issues before us. We cannot aspire to a world in which all will be satisfied by our decisions, but we have hoped that all would see that our decisions were reached through fair processes.
September 11 has made clear that we need to rethink just how open we can and should be with respect to physical security issues. In this process we must give due regard to two vital but competing interests. The first is the public's right to know, a right that is grounded in law and that is one of the most cherished principles of our democracy. The other is the need to keep sensitive information away from those whose purpose is to destroy that democracy. We are striving to strike an appropriate balance between openness and security.
D. Achieving Progress In Other Agency Business.
The final challenge I would like to mention is the need to accomplish security reform at a time of major transition in the energy sector.
Over the past year or two, we have seen a quiet Renaissance in the nuclear business. The nuclear generating companies have become "leaner and meaner": more efficiently run, with far fewer outages and greater reliability. In the past decade, the average capacity factor, which is a measure of plant utilization, has jumped from 70 percent to nearly 90 percent. Not surprisingly, as the electrical production of the average plant has increased, the cost of the electricity has declined. As a result, the production cost of electricity from nuclear plants is less than that from its principal competitors - coal and natural gas. And nuclear is not burdened with the emissions constraints and concerns about global warming that attend fossil fuels.
Most importantly, by all objective measures, the safety performance of nuclear plants has improved in parallel with economic performance. The NRC tracks "significant events" - safety system failures, unanticipated plant responses, degradation of key systems or components, and operator errors. The number of significant events has declined 99 percent in 15 years. It is not an accident that safety performance and
improved economic performance should be linked to each other: both are furthered by preventive maintenance, better training of operators, and the fostering of a safety culture.
Just a few years ago, some pundits claimed that restructuring in the electricity business would lead to the premature shutdown of nuclear plants. But, as a result of this strong economic and safety performance, we are instead seeing interest among our licensees in expanding their activities. Generating companies are seeking the renewal of the licenses of existing plants so as to allow operation beyond the initial 40-year license term. And some are even contemplating new plant construction.
License renewal involves a careful examination of the systems of the plant that are subject to aging so as to ensure that safety margins are maintained over an extended operating period. We have renewed the licenses for eight plants at four sites already, and either have applications or expect applications from literally the entirety of the remaining 95 plants. We are committed to a thorough, expeditious review of each application.
New construction offers the promise of improvements in both safety and in economics. But new construction presents a significant challenge for many reasons, including that new construction might involve designs that are completely different from existing facilities. For example, there are discussions of reactors that are cooled by helium, rather than water. We have started to prepare for the possibility of new applications so as to ensure that we have the appropriate regulatory and analytical tools in place.
I mention these developments because, even before September 11, the NRC was an agency that was confronting significant challenges. Fortunately, we have used the past quarter century to good advantage, improving our processes and preparing to accommodate technological and economic developments. If society decides to expand reliance on the nuclear option, the NRC is prepared to perform its role of protecting public health and safety.
Conclusion Let me note in conclusion that we live in very uncertain times and it is difficult at this juncture to predict how the security and other challenges I have mentioned will be finally resolved. I hope that I have left you with the awareness that the NRC takes its obligations very seriously.
Thank you for allowing me to join you. I would be happy to respond to questions.