ML20202B582
| ML20202B582 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/26/1999 |
| From: | Fox E NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Chris Miller NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| PROJECT-689 NUDOCS 9901290126 | |
| Download: ML20202B582 (11) | |
Text
- - -.
p teoug 4
UNITED STATES e
(
j
,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAsMINGToN, D.C. 20006-4001 January 26, 1999 L
i MEMORANDUM TO: Charles L. Miller, Chief i
Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Edwin F. Fox, Jr., Sr. Emergency Preparedness Speci rst Emergency Preparedness and i
Environmental Health Physics Section Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Branch Division of Reactor Program Managemert Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC MEETING OF JANUARY 11,1999 TO HEAR INDUSTRY VIEWS ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POSITION REGARDING EMERGENCY PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURE CHANGES On January 11,1999, a public meeting was held at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's j
(NRC) offices in Rockville, Maryland, between representatives of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), NRC, and other interested parties. Attachment 1 is list of attendees.
The meeting was requested by NEl to discuss the NRC's Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch's emergency preparedness position," Emergency Preparedness Position (EPPOS) on Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedure Changes," (EPPOS #4 issued on November 19,1998). Representatives from the NRC's Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch stated that they issue EPPOSs to provide programmatic guidance to NRC regional staff in order to ensure consistent implementation of the emergency
//
preparedness program at each of the NRC Regions. EPPOS #4 was developed to provide
//
guidance for emergency plan reviews and was initiated, in part, in response to concerns identified by the industry of inconsistent inspections of emergency plan changes by different regional staff.
NEl stated that the industry considered that EPPOS #4 would not allow for any emergency plan changes without prior NRC approval, that changes in the staff position regarding emergency action level reviews would unnecessarily burden the industry, and that some provisions in the EPPOS constitute backfits. NEl stated that it had collated a list of concerns from the industry, but requested additional time to prepare them for presentation to NRC. Attachment 2 contains this list of concems which NEl provided to the NRC on January 19,1998; this was included for the record but was not discussed with the staff. In closing NEl stated that it believed the EPPOS should be withdrawn until its concems are addressed.
The staff stated that it believed that withdrawing the EPPOS would not be appropriate because it would resurrect the original industry and NRC concern, i.e., inconsistent review of emergency plan changes. The staff stated that would consider NEl comments and then determine whether 9901290126 990126 i
/
N f - dfg
l revisions to the EPPOS are necessary. In regards to concerns on EAL reviews, the staff stated that the intent of the EPPOS was to inform the Regions that the staff guidance on the EAL review process was revisited and the staff was considering issuing generic communication to inform the industry of changes to the process if changes were dsemed to be necessary. The staff stated that until this generic communication is issued, tne current EAL review process is to remain in effect. The staff was concerned that the EPPOS may not have clearly articulated this and stated it would ensure its Regions were aware that the current EAL review process is to i
remain in effect.
Project No. 689 Attachments: as stated l
MEETING ATTENDEES NRC/NEl DATE 1/11/99 N_A.ME ORGANIZATION TELEPHONE Dave Matthews D:DRPM/NRR/NRC (301)-415-1199 Lynnette Hendricks Nuclear Energy Institute (202)-739-8109 Alan Nelson Nuclear Energy institute (202)-739-8110 Charles Miller BC:PERB/DRPM/NRR/NRC (301)-415-1086 Barry Zalcman (A)SC:PERB/DRPM/NRR/NRC (301)-415-3467 Sherwin Turk OGC/NRC (301)-415-1575 Edwin Fox, Jr PERB/DRPM/NRR/NRC (301)-415-2908 Falk Kantor PERB/DRPM/NRR/NRC (301)-415-2907 Daniel Barss PERB/DRPM/NRR/NRC (301)-415-2922 Jim O'Brien PERB/DRPM/NRR/NRC (301)-415-2919 Lawerence Cohen PERB/DRPM/NRR/NRC (301)-415-2923 Thomas Essig (A)BC:PERB/DRPM/NRR/NRC (301)-415-2910 Altheia Wyche SERC Licensing-Bechtel (301)-417-4458 Donald Palmrose Nuclear Utility Services (301)-255-2277 a
' -' =--
l l
l l
Specine Comments on New Staff Positions Emergency Preparedness Position (EPPOS No.4)
Emergency Plan and Implementing Procedure Changes November 19,1998 New Staff Position Definine What Constitutes a Chanee to Emereency Plans A. The new staff position makes the plan's contents the de facto minimum standards, to which any changes are potential decreases in effectiveness. This is inconsistent with the regulatory requirements governing security guard training and qualification, and safeguards contingency plans (10CFR50.54(p)). It should be noted that in Generic Letter 95-8,10 CFR 50.54(p) Process for Changes to Security Plans Without Prior NRC Approval, dated October 31,1995, the NRC clearly addressed allowing " licensees to reduce certain commitments that have exceeded regulatory requirements or published guidance if the overall effectiveness of the plan is not reduced" as opposed to making the current approved version of the plan the commitment.
Further, the guidance on how to detemiine which change would constitute a decrease in effectiveness leads one to conclude any change needs prior NRC approval. EPPOS No.4 states that a reduction in commitment without a commensurate reduction in the bases for the commitment constitutes a decrease in effectiveness of the plan. NRC never required a bases for commitments in the plan. For example, some emergency plans contain explicit lists of emergency kit contents. The governing planning standard 10CFR50.54(b)(8) reads " Adequate emergency facilities and equipment to support the emergency response are provided and maintained." NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 Evaluation Criterion H.11 provides one of several specific acceptance criteria for complying with this standard, "Each plan shall, in an appendix, include identification of emergency kits by general category (protective equipment, communications equipment, radiological monitoring equipment and emergency supplies)."
At some point in time, a licensee may have established a kit inventory item for ten 100-ml bottles. No rule or guidance requires that there even be bottles, let alone bottles of a certain size or number. But once that line item is established, there never having been a requirement to document the rationale for choosing that item or its specifications, any l
=.
l l
\\.
1 l
change to the line item is subject to an adverse determination upon NRC review. It does not j
matter what rationale is developed for changing the specifications. Absent a rationale for its initial establishment an NRC inspector is likely to conclude under the EPPOS that any l
change is a reduction in effectiveness. This runs contrary to established guidance in the Security area which considers " regulatory requirements or published guidance" as the bases for commitments versus the current approved version of the plan (Generic Letter 95-8).
B. Section 1.a of EPPOS No. 4 Decrease in Effectiveness, second paragraph, defines
" decrease in effectiveness" as a change which involves a reduction in commitment by the l
licensee without a commensurate redection in the bases for that commitment (i.e., change in the regulation). This definition appears to disallow adoption of new, equally effective alternative approaches to meeting emergency plan commitments without prior approval.
For example, a plan may contain a commitment that the minimum staff for activating a facility include a communicator to maintain communications with another facility. In practice, this individual tells the facility manager when someone in the other facility wants to converse. Removing the communicator and compensating by having the facility manager answer the phone when it rings would be an equally effective alternative.
i The rationale for determining a decrease in effectiveness exposited in the third paragraph of Section 1.a should be revised to permit those changes that do not constitute a decrease in effectiveness of the plan. We recommend the following wording: "A modification to l
an emergency planning commitment does not constitute a decrease in effectiveness of the plan if the licensee provides a basis for the modification that demonstrates adequate preparedness in the context of their plan."
i C. The last paragraph of Section 1.a even more explicitly disallows any deviation from NUREG 0654/ FEMA-REP-1 planning guidance without prior approval. This paragraph says that any alternative approach that "has not been endorsed [by] the NRC" should be referred to the NRR for review and disposition. Other than the NUMARC EALs, no other alternative approaches to NUREG 0654/ FEMA-REP-1 guidance have received explicit, documented NRC endorsement. Practically every unique or innovative feature oflicensees' emergency plans involves an alternative approach to specific NUREG 0654/ FEMA-REP-1 guidance. In spite of the fact that these alternatives can provide equally or more effective means of meeting regulatory requirements, under the new staff position they can no longer be made without prior NRC approval. This provision of the EPPOS imposes a severe chilling effect on licensees' ability to improve their emergency plans going forward. Licensees will not implement alternatives until NRR has reviewed i
and documented explicit agreement with the approach.
D. The last paragraph of Section 1.a and Section 1.b, Plannine Standards and Reauirements, mistakenly equates the force of planning guidance (e.g., RG 1.101, NUREG 0654/ FEMA-REP-1, NUREG 0696) with regulatory requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E. These paragraphs further make the point that any deviation from planning guidance requires prior approval. Section 1.b even broadens the criteria for seeking prior approval by saying: " alternative methods or solutions that were neither
- - _ = _ - _ - -
endorsed previously by the NRC for that facility nor endorsed generically should be referred to NRR." Explicit NRC approval of every alternative approach adopted by licensees to date will not be found in prior inspections reports, SERs or docketed correspondence. Licensees may find themselves liable for enforcement action for alternatives that were adopted years ago with tacit NRC agreement. If a plan change does not decrease the effectiveness of the plan and the plan, as changed, continues to meet the standards of 10 CFR 50.54(q) and the requirements of Appendix E, prior approval snould not be required.
- 1. New Staff Position Incorporatine Procedures into the Emernency Plan A. Section 2, broadens the requirements of 10 CFR 50.4(b)(5)(iii) and Appendix E,Section V. Appendix E,Section V, refers to a licensee's implementing procedures as " detailed implementing procedures for its emergency plan." This language would seem to be limited to a licensee's emergency response procedures intended specifically for implementing the emergency plan. However, the last sentence of Section 2 of the EPPOS identifies implementing procedures falling under the requirements of Appendix E,Section V, and 10 CFR 50.4 as "Any procedure, regardless ofits title, e.g.,
Administrative Procedure, Training Procedure, Chemistry Procedure, that implements the emergency plan....". This language of Section 2 does not distinguish between emergency response procedures and administrative program procedures or other station depanment procedures that may support the emergency plan or that may be referenced in an emergency plan or implementing procedure. There is no limit to what could be subsumed under this language. A clear boundary is needed to define what the licensee is required to submit within the 30-day requirement of Appendix E,Section V. Industry recommends the boundary be the emergency response procedures which are specifically written to implement the emergency plan.
B. Licensees will not be able to determine which procedures are incorporated into the emergency plan or are a necessary part of the plan to comply with the requirements of Appendix E versus merely referenced by the emergency plan as required by EPPOS No.
- 4. Some emergency plans define EPIPs as " emergency response procedures that implement the Emergency Plan." However, Appendix E covers training, equipment checks, arrangements for treatment of individuals injured in support of licenses activities on the site at treatment facilities outside the site boundary, etc. These activities may be addressed in licensee technical procedures at some plants rather than in EPIPs.
Consequently, by this new interpretation, some procedures in what had previously been considered the EPIP procedure set might not require a 50.54(q) determination and some non-EPIPs may require a documented review. Definition of the terms incorporated, necessary part and merely referenced is needed to determine the scope of how this new interpretation affects each licensee.
l
- 2. New Staff Position Prohibitine any Chanoes to E=saa.cv Action Levels MALs) r without Prior NRC Annroval A. The industry takes issue with the staff's interpretation of Appendix E,Section IV.B.
l EPPOS No. 4 Section 3 states, "NRC's previous practice permitted licensees to make changes to EALs.... under '50.54(q) prior to NRC approval." The position then goes on to state that based on legal advice from the NRC Office of General Counsel, the '50.54(q) process, which allows licensees to make certain changes without prior Commission l
approval, no longer extends to EALs. We believe this section requires the NRC to approve Emergency Action levels (EALs) submitted by an aoolicant for an operating license for a nuclear power reactor prior to making a reasonable assurance finding. Once l
the applicant becomes the licensee, contrary to the staff's position, this section no longer requires the NRC to approve changes to a licensee's EALs prior to their implementation.
In other words, this section does not specify that NRC must review and approve EAL-changes made by a licensee.
t The NRC's role and responsibilities for reviewing EAL changes are defined in 10 CFR 50.54(q) and a re the same as that involved for any change made by a licensee to their emergency pl m. The holder of a full power operating license may make EAL changes pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q). If a licensee determines that an EAL I
change does not decrease the effectiveness of their plans and the plans, as changed, would continue to meet the standards of $50.47(b) and the requirements of 10 CFR appendix E, then there is no regulatory requirement to seek NRC approval prior to change i
iraplementation.
This conclusion is based on a review of the relevant paragraphs and sections from 10 CFR Part 50 Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities as explained below.
- 1. 550.47 Emergency plans, (a)(1), states, " Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no initial operating license for a nuclear power reactor will be issued unless a finding is made by the NRC that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
No finding under this section is necessary for issuance of a renewed nuclear power reactor operating license."
Comment - This paragraph sets the contextfor 10 CFR 50.47(b) and (d), as well as Appendix E; the information presented in these paragraphs and sections concern requirements in support ofissuing the initial operating license.
- 2. Appendix E to Part 50 is referenced in 650.47(d). This paragraph discusses when and to what extent a reasonable assurance finding is required when issuing or amending a license in support of plant startup activities (i.e., fuel loading, low power testing, and full power operations). The NRC is to base its finding "that the state of onsite emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency" on "its i
4 assessment of the applicant's onsite emergency plans against the pertinent standards in paragraph (b) of this section and appendix E."
Comment -In other words, Appendix Eprovides the standardsfor making a reasonable assurancefinding in support ofissuing a license to an applicant.
- 3. The introduction to Appendix E to Part 30, Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Production and Utilization Facilities, discusses how the " applicant" for a construction permit or an operating license is required by 150.34(a) and (b),
respectively, to include plans for coping with emergencies in both their preliminary and final safety analysis reports. The introduction then states, "This appendix establishes minimum requirements for emergency plans for use in attaining an acceptable state of emergency preparedness."
Comme n - The standards ofAppendix E are to be usedfor ensuring that emergency plans have attained an acceptable state and thus support nnking a reasonable assurancefinding in support ofissuing an operating license to an applicant.
- 4. Appendix E to Part 50,Section III, The Final Safety Analysis Repon, contains general requirements for emergency plans submitted as part of the Final Safety Analysis Report. The section al'so states, "The plans submitted must include a description of the elements set out in Section IV for the Emergency Planning Zones (EPZs) to an extent sufficient to demonstrate that the plans provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of an emergency."
Comment - Section W ofAppendix Eprovides the standardsfor making a reasonable assurancefinding in support ofissuing an operating license to an applicant.
- 5. Appendix E to Part 50,Section IV, Content of Emergency Plans, discusses content requirements for the " applicant's emergency plans". These requirements are contained in both 550.47(b) and Appendix E. Of panicular note are the last two sentences. "In addition, the emergency response plans submitted by an applicantfor a nuclearpower reactor operating license shall contain information needed to demonstrate compliance with the standards described in 650.47(b), and they will be evaluated against those standards. The nuclearpower reactor operating license applicant shall also provide an analysis of the time required to evacuate and for i
taking other protective actions for various sectors and distances within the plume exposure pathway EPZ for transient and permanent populations."
Comment - Again, Section W ofAppendix Eprovides the standardsfor making a reasonable assurancefinding in support ofissuing an operating license to an applicant.
-=
)
- 6. Appendix E to Part 50,Section IV, B, Assessment Actions, discusses requirements l
for EALs. In particular,it states "These emergency action levels shall be discussed l
and agreed on by the applicant and State and local governmental authorities and l
approved by NRC. They shall also be reviewed with the State and local j
governmental authorities en an annual basis."
l Comment - Note that "the applicant"for a operating licensefor a nuclearpower reactor must obtain State agreement and NRC approval ofEALs. This requirement ensures that an initial agreement is reached between the applicant, the NRC, and State and local agencies conceming the emergency classification scheme. The regulation does require an annual review of the EAL scheme with State and local governmental authorities - this review is an ongoing requirement once thefullpower operating license has been issued, and ensures that these authorities are periodically made aware of any changes to EALs.
This section is silent with respect to (and does not require) any reviews and/or approvals by the NRC ofsubsequent changes to EALs because it was expected that these changes, as are all otherplan changes, would be made pursuant to the requirements of f50.54(q). The provisions off50.54(q) ensure that the NRC is informed of an EAL change either before or after implementation depending upon the licensee's assessment of the change impact.
i l
I i
revisions to the EPPOS are necessary. In regards to concerns on EAL reviews, the staff stated that the intent of the EPPOS was to inform the Regions that the staff guidance on the EAL review process was revisited and the staff was considering issuing generic communication to inform the industry of changes to the process if changes were deemed to be necessary. The staff stated that until this generic communication is issued, the current EAL review process is to remain in effect. The staff was concemed that the EPPOS may not have clearly articulated this
- and stated it would ensure its Regions were aware that the current EAL review process is to remain in effect.
Project No. 689 Attachments: as stated p
DISTRIBUTION w/ attachments PUBLIC Central Files PERB R/F CMiller ANelson, NEl.
EP&EHP
. DISK / DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\MTGSMR1.WPD
. Ta receive a copy of this document, indicate in the bor "C" = Copy w/o attachment, "E" = Copy w/attamment, *N" = No copy OFC PERB:NSR7 h
PERS:NSR' h PERB:NRR h NAME'
'EFox' B
~Fn CMillerrd DATE 01/7b' 01/tk9 01 / /99
//
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
.I'.
.ii.i...
l; e l
i
'g revisions to the EPPOS are necessary, in regards to concerns on EAL reviews, the staff stated 1
l that the intent of the EPPOS was to inform the Regions that the staff guidance on the EAL l
review process was revisited and the staff was considering issuing generic communication to
{
inform the industry of changes to the process if changes were deemed to be necessary. The l
staff stated that until this generic communication is issued, the current EAL review process is to remain in effect. The staff was concerned that the EPPOS may not have clearly articulated this j
and stated it would ensure its Regions were aware that the current EAL review process is to l
l remain in effect.
l Project No. 689 l
.j Attachments: as stated i
i 1
l DISTRIBUTION w/ attachments PUBLIC Central Files l
PERB R/F CMiller ANelson, NEl EP&EHP DISK / DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\MTGSMR1.WPD Ta recohm a copy of this document, indicate in the box: *C' = Copy w/o attachment, *E' = Copy w/ attachment. 'N' = No copy l
OFC PERB:Nf3R7 h
PERB:NSR h h
PERB:NRR l
CMillerrd NAME EFox B
n.
010b9 01/f 9 01 / I /99
//
DATE OFFICIAL RECORD COPY