Text

Summary of 980123 Meeting W/Nuclear Energy Inst in Rockville,Md Re Emergency Plan Changes.List of Attendees & Agenda Used for Meeting Encl
	ML20203C321
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/04/1998
From:	Stewart Magruder; NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Essig T; NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
	PROJECT-689 NUDOCS 9802250146
	Download: ML20203C321 (54)
	v • d • e

, .

'4 UNITED STATES -

g }

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, o.C. 20666 4 001 -

o% *s***/ February 4, 1998 l

i MEMORANDUM TO: Thomas H. Essig, Acting Chief- _

j Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Dison of Reactor Program Management -

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Stewart L. Magruder, Project Manager Rd 1- b Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuctaar Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

OF JANUARY 23,1998, MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR

' ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI) REGARDING EMERGENCY PLAN CHANGES l

On January 23,1998, a public meeting was held at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) offices in Rockville, Maryland, between representatives of the NRC, NEl and other interested parties. Attachment 1 provides a list of attendees at the meeting. Attachment 2 is the agenda that was used for the meeting. Attachment 3 is the presentation material provided by NEl for the meeting and a compilation of background information that was referenced in NEl's presentation On April 23,1996, NEl met with the staff to present a task force white paper (draf" d April 22, 1996) on a methodology for licensee 3 to assess the acceptability of emergency pe .nenges under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50.54(q); the summary of that meeting was published on May 15,1996. At that meeting the staff offered general comments on NEl's presentation; no

. attempt wat made tc reach consensus or agreement on NEl's white paper. NEl circulated the April 22,1996, white paper to licensees. On September 25,1997, NEl formally requested that the NRC review and endorse the April 22,1996, draft white paper. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the NEl task force position in light of licens!ng actions taken and experience gained by the industry during the intervening period.

The NEl task force provided a brief discussion of the clarification of NRC regulations that was lacluded in its white paper and the criteria NEl recommends that licensees use in determining whetner there is a decreose in effectiveness resulting from a change in emergency plans. The task force identified drivers (comments from senior NRC officials and generic communicatir s dealing with analogous regulatory language in the security arena) that provided the impetus for licensees to seek changes to emergency plans. The task force provided examples of licensee experience in using the guidance and highlighted its concem that there may be inconsistent cN g determinations on the part of NRC staff where licensees may be implementing NEl guidance; i.e., a specific change may not be considered a decrease in effectveness at one facility and may be cons.dered a decrease at another, 9802250146 900204 POR 1D p REVGP ERCNUMRC '

PDR ~

{} ' Cs u L W W"

] hh. h g[ [p m u,axr

\

T. Essig 4 February 4, 1998 The NRC staff stated that there are numercus opportunities for licensees to reflect on their own emerency planning and incident response programs and make changes without prior Commission approval. The staff expects that licensees will carefully review and objectively

~]

~

determine that changes can be made to take advantage of experience and improvements, for example, in information technology. The licensee has latitude to make changes under 50.54 when it meets the cond;tions of the rule; however, the bases for determining whether a chango can be made may be different from facility to facility. The staff indicated that the licensee will need to apply to the Commission and seek approval for certain types of changes. The determine

ion for how the change can be implemented, with or without prior Commission approval, is based on a comparison with the latest plan approved for the facility by the NRC.

g The plan, as implemented by the licensee to conform to each of the planning standards and regulatory requirements, and approved by tha NRC, is the one that provides the basis for the staff's reasonable assurance finding.

Tne NRC staff indicated that it recognized that there was a significant difference in the level of detailin regulatory guidance an) criteria between the emergency planning and security provisions; consequently, implementation of 50.54(p) and 50.54(q) are expected to be different even though the regulatory language may be similar. The staff suggested that the ongoing regulatory issues associated with 50.59 were similar to those of 50.54(q) and the staff will not resolve 50.54(q) concerns in isolation from the ongoing 50.59 action plan.

The NRC staff indicated that it was in the latter stages of providing draft guidance to the staff in the form of an emergency planning position paper for assessing changes to emergency plans and implementing procedures. The staff indicated that it was not planning to issue generic communications on this matter at this time.

The NRC staff indicated that certain language in the NEl white paper, for example, "overall effectiveness,"" equivalent measures,"" reasonably assure the adequate protection," and "overall reasonable assur".nce," are not in the regulations. The NEl task force suggested that the NRC offer a markup of its while paper. The NRC staff indicated that it was willing to continue the Miogue on this matter in the future.

Project No. 689 Attachments: As stated cc w/att: See next page

9 T. Essig February 4, 1993 The NRC staff stated that there are numerous opportunities for licensees to reflect on their own emerency planning and incideelt response programs and make changes without prior Commission apprJval. The staff expects that licensees will carefully review and objectively determine that changes can be made to take advantage of experience and improvements, for example, in information technology. The licensee has latitude to make changes under 50.54 when it meets the conditions of the rule; however, the bases for determining whether a change can be made may be different from facility to facility. The staff indicated that the licensee will need to apply to the Commission and seek approval for certain types of changes. The i determination for how the change can be implemented, with or without prior Commission approval, is based on a comparison with the latest plcn approved for the facility by the NRC.

The plan, as implemented by the licensee to conform to each of the planning standards and regulatory requirements, and approved by the NRC, is the one that provides the basis for the s'aff's reasonable assurance finding.

The NRC staff indicated that it recognized that there was a significant difference in the level of detailin regulatory guidance and criteria between the emergency planning and security provisions; consequently, implementation of 50.54(p) and 50.54(q) are expected to be different even though the regulatory language may be similar. The staff suggested that the ongoing regulatory issues associated with 50.59 were similar to those of 50.54(q) and the staff will not resolve 50.54(q) concerns in isolation from the ongoing 50.59 action plan.

The NRC staff indicated that it was in the latter stages of providing draft guidance to the staff in the form of an emergency planning position paper for assessing changes to emergency plans and implementing p,acedures. The staff indicated that it was not planning to issue generic communications on this matter at this time.

The NRC staff indicated that certain language in the NEl white paper, for example, "overall effectiveness," " equivalent measures," " reasonably assure the adequate protection," and "overall reasonable assurance," are not in the regulations. The NEl task force suggested that the NRC offer a rr,arkup of its white paper. The NRC staff indicated that it was willing to continue the dialogue on this matter in the future.

Project No. 689 Attachments: As stated cc w/att: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See attached page OFFICE PM:PGEB SC:PERB __

SC:PGEBM NAME DATE SMagruderN BZal M FAkstuidwfcz 2'/ 3/98 2/ (/98 2/ 4/98 OFFICAL OFFICE COPY

NRC/NEl MEETING ON EMERGENCY PLAN CHANGES LIST OF ATTENDEES January 23,1998 1

NAME ORGANIZATION Alan Nelson NEl William Renz Virginia Power l N. Merrill Maddox Southem Nuclear Norman Hood TU Electric Don Woodlaw TU Elcetric Cyrus Anderson Southern Califomia Edison Martin Vonk Commonwealth Edison Michael Larson Entergy - Grand Gulf David Ellis Entergy - Grand Gulf Kenneth Hughley Entergy - Grand Gulf Randy Gresham Entergy - ANO Milan Straka NUS Information Services Nancy Chapman SERCH/Bechtel Tom Essig MRC/NRR Charlie Miller NRC/NRR Barry Zalcman NRC/NRR Jim O'Brien NRC/NRR Ed Fox NRC/NRR Falk Kantor NRC/NRR Dan Barss NRC/NRR Lawrence Cohen NRC/NRR Attachment 1

s NEl/NRC FMTING ON EMERGENCY PLANNING lSSUES PROPOSED AGENDA January 23,1998 9:00 Introductory remarks 9:10 Presentation by NEl on the White Paper titled " Assessment of Acceptability of Plan Change per 10 CFR 50.54(q)"

Purpose and need for guidance-

- Regulatory requirements that NEl proposes to clarify

Regulatory guidance that is dated and superseded

- Alternative approaches for satisfying regulatory requirements

. Objectives of guidance to licensees Screening criteria to determine whether proposed changes can be made l without prior NRC review and approval l Examples of " decrease in effectiveness"

- Basis for concluf:on regarding "overall" effectiveness of the plan

- Basis for conclusion regarding elimination of commitments

- Reasonable assurance standard Pians and status of implementation of guidance by licensees

- Licensee experience

- Regional acceptance i 10:30 NRC staff assessment of NEl proposed position

. Key issues Plans and status 10:50 Concluding remarks 11:00 Adjoum--

Attachment 2

Assessment of Acceptability of Plan Change Per 10 CFR 50.54(q)

White Flint January 23,1998 Nuclear Energy Institute NEI

_ __ Attachment 3

. + * ,

., ,s a Background - Development of Screening Criteria l

l = NEIIssues Task Force

= Presentation to NRC - April 23,1996 l = Roll out at 1996 NEI Meeting

= Panel Discussion 1997 NEI Meeting

= Existing screening criteria l

= Letter to NRC, September 25,1997 Requesting Formal Review l

d j NEI W

~

Nuclear Energy Institute issue Task Force Norman Hood Mike Larson TU Electric Entergy Nuclear, Inc.

Alan Nelson Donna J. Miller Nuclear Energy Institute Public Service Electric & Gas Co.

James D. Jones William F. Renz Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. Virginia Power l

Martin J. Vonk N. Merrill Maddox Comed Southern Nuclear Operating Company Cyrus K. Anderson David R. Seebart Southern California Edison Co. Wisconsin Public Service Corp.

David Young North Atlantic Energy NEI .

W

Assessment of Acceptability of Plan Change Per 10CFR50.54(q)

Industry Goals

= Effective use and application of 10CFR50.54(q)

= Clarify definition of:

" decreasing the effectiveness"

= Consistent review process

= Timely implementation N{El

Assessment of Acceptability of Plan Change Per 10CFR50.54(q)

Need for Clarification

= Changes to emergency plans accommodate reevaluation of commitments that exceed regulatory requirements

= Experience with the current process has caused confusion about implementing 50.54(q) effectively

. There is a need to clarify the:

"testfor deciding if a change has decreased the e[fectiveness of the plan" NEI w

'l

, e NEl Screening Criteria for Assessment of Acceptability of Emergency Plan Changes

= No decrease in effectiveness of reasonable assurance

= No loss of ability to meet planning standards

= Does not contradict any regulatory requirement

?

NEI b

-__.__..___m_ __

( . .

g , ;.

industry Experience With Emergency Plan Changes

= Common Practice: Seek prior approval l

= Recognition of need for clarification l

l

= Inspectors caught in the middle NEI W

9 ,

q Regulatory Reform Burden Reduction in Reactor Licensing Activities, Maren 28,1996 Chairman Selin: "I really hope that security is not like some other things where more is .

necessarily better. There is no reason to have any more security than you need. So I would hope that we would go not only to steps that l don't reduce effectiveness, but if somebody has l more security than is necessary, they should be able to get down to some standard without having to apologize for having over performed in the past."

NEI b

NRC Generic Letter 95-08: 10CFR50.54(p)

Process for Changes to Security Plans Without Prior NRC Approval Change the current practices to enable licensees to make changes to their security plans without prior NRC approval. !

A change in any of the three security plans is deemed not to decrease the effectiveness of the plan if the change does not decrease the ability of the onsite physical protection system and security organization, as described in paragraphs (b) through (h) of 10 CFR73.55, or equivalent measures approved under 10CFR73.55(a), to protect with high assurance again.st the design basis threat as stated in 10CFR73.l(a). .

NEI '

tw-

r '

NRC Generic Letter 95-08: 10CFR50.54(p)

Process for Changes to Security Plans Without Prior NRC Approval (cont'd)

The change cannot delete or replace any of the regulatory capabilities, as described in paragraphs (b) through (h) or in Appendixes B and C to 10CFR Part 73.

Licensees should note that some of the safeguards-related regulatory guidance is dated and has become superseded in recent years, and caution should be exercised by licensees I

when screening changes, particularly regarding specific guidance issues. The original intent of 10CFR50.54(p) was to screen changes in temas of their overall impact on the security program. ,

NEI k

s -

NRC Generic Letter 95-08: 10CFR50.54(p)

Process for Changes to Security Plans Without Prior NRC Approval (cont'd)

The guidance given in NRC publications is not a requirement and should not be interpreted as the only possible method for satisfying regulatory requirements.

The screening criteria contained herein are the fundamental criteria necessary for determining the acceptability of a change made pursuant to 10CFR50.54(p). NUREG-0908,

" Acceptance Criteria for the Evaluation of Nuclear Power Reactor Security Plans,"is an example of a document that l should not be used verbatim to make individual acceptability determinanns.

NEI es-

~

.. 1 Semiannual Status Report On the Implementation of Regulatory Review Group Recommendations 10CFR50.54(q), Emergency Preparedness Plan Changes (Topic Area 5) - ,

COMPLETED The activities to prepare guidance or revise 10CFR50.54(q) were scheduled for completion by June 1996. This topic area has 'oeen inactive to allow the staff to gain experience with the security plan i

change process described earlier for Topic Area 13.

Utilizing the experience gained to complete Topic Area 13, the staff has assessed the need to prepare guidance to help licensees identify the types of changes they may make to emergency preparedness plans without prior NRC approval, and determined that this guidance is not warranted. -

NEI w

Semiannual Status Report On the Implementation of Regulatory Review Group Recommendations (cont'd)

The staff routinely reviews licensees' implementation of 10CFR50.54(q) as part of its inspection program and has not noted generic weaknesses in licensees' implementation. Also, no problems with implementing 10CFR50.54(q) have been expressed by the industry or the public. Taking into consideration the resources that would be required both on the part of the NRC and extemally to develop this guidance, and based on the low potential for significantly reducing regulatory burden associated with changing emergency preparedness plans, the staff has determined that preparation of this .

guidance is not a wise expenditure of resources and is discontinuing work in this area. Based on this determination, Topic Area 5 has been completed.

NEI

i, .

3 Economic Deregulation of the Electric Utility Industry: Ensuring Nuclear Safety in An Era of Changing Operational and Financial Perspectives June 17,1997 Chairman Jackson: "These recommendations include expedited review of cost-beneficial licensing actioris, as well as the development of guidelines that would permit licensees to implement changes to their quality assurance programs, emergency preparedness plans, and security plans without prior NRC review and approval, as long as the underlying regulations are met."

NEI W

DRAPT o 04/2$96 Attachment I s

SCREENING CRITERLA OUTLIST ASSESSMENT OF ACCEPTABILITY OF PLAN CHANGE PER 10 CFR 50.54(q)

SECTION/ TITLE:

List the plan section and title where the change is proposed.

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE:

Provide a detailed description of the change.

EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW:

. !: Review the program change against the following questions. If the response to all these

' quesnons is "no" and the rationale supports a "no" responses, the change may be t=plemented without prior NRC approval under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(q).

1. Yes. No DOES THE CHANGE DECREASE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PLAN RESULTING IN THE LOSS OF REASONABLE ASSURANCE THAT ADEQUATE PROTECTION CAN AND WILL BE TAKEN IN THE BY 10 CFR 50.47 (a)?

EVENT OF A RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY AS REQUIRED Ranonale. Explain how the change maintains reasonable assurance of adequate protecuve actions. An explanation may be based on an assessment ofits effects on public health and safety, a review of applicable plans, procedures, and resources, or by demonstranon of the afected capabilities in a drill or exercise. Consideranon should be gwen to any applicable site speciSc pinnmng needs.

2. Yes_ No_ DOES THE CILANGE RESULT IN THE LOSS OF ABILITY TO M AN7 OF THE STANDARDS OR APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED IN 10 CFR 50.47 (b) AND (d) OR ANY NRC-APPROVED ALTERNATIVES TO THOSE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS?

Rationale:

Explain any change that reasonably brings into question the ability to meet any of the sixteen standards described in 10 CFR 50.47 (b), and any applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 (d) or any NRC approved alternatives to those requirements.

3. Yes_ No_ DOES THIS CHANGE DELETE OR CONTRADICT ANY OTHER REGULATORY REQUIREMENT?

Page 1 of 1 l

. DRAET .04/22/96 Industry White Paper ~

ASSESSMENT OF ACCEPTABILITY OF PLAN CHANGE PER 10 CFR 50.54(q)

Purnosa The nuclear industry is providing this white paper to clarify the methods e p' rmitted to be und by 50.54(q).

licensees to process changes to emergency plans in accordance with 10 CFR Discussion Some confusion and inconsistencies have occurred in the past regarding the process for implementation of 10 CFR 50.54(q) for emergency plan changes. The original criterion for judging the whether of changes made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(q) decreased the elfectiveness of the plan was whether the overall effectiveness of the plan wns decreased.

This white paper clarifies the language in 10 CFR 50.54(q) that licensees "may make changes to these plans without Commission approval only if the changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the plans and the plans, as changed, continue to meet the standards of l paragraph 50.47(b) and the requirements of Appendix E to this part.'

The following is a clarification of this language. Changes that meet the following criterion should be pettted without pior NRC approval.

A change to a3 emergency plan will not decrease the effectivenen of the plan if the change will not decrease the abilities of the emergevcy response organization, and/or supporting emergency response facilities and equipment, as required by paragraphs CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E, or equivalent measuns approved under 10 CFR 50.47(c), to reasonably assure Se adequate protection of public health and safety in the event of a radiological emergency as stated in 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1). The change cannec delete or replace any of the capabilitie. described in 10 CFR 50.47 (b) and (d),

or in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.

Use of this criterion allows, for example, elimmation of commitments that have exceeded regulatory requinments. Plan commitments may not be reduced to levels less than the overall reasonable assurance objective stated in 10 CFR 50.47(a).

It is expected that licensees would judiciously make determmations tegarding 10 CFR 50.54(q) changes and implement those changes permitted by the regulations. With the use of the above clar Ecation, licensees should implement changes made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(q) without prior NT.C approval.

Page 1 of 2

Some of the emergency preparedness related regulatory guidance is dated and has become '

! superseded in recent years. Caution should be exercised by licensees when screening changes, particularly regarding speci5c ruidance issues. The guidance givea in NRC ublications are not nquinmenta and should not be interpreted as the only possible methods for satisfying regulatory nquinments. NUREG 0654, " Criteria for the Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," is an example of a document that should not be used verbatim to make individual acceptability detsrmmations.

The originalintent of 10 CFR 50.54(q) was to senen changes in terms of their overall impact ou the emergency preparedness program. The screening criteria contained herein an the fundamental criteria necessary* for determining the acceptability of a change made pursuant to.10 CFR 50.54(g).

The criterion contained in the clariEcation presented herein is not applicable to plan changes that would ehminate or nplace emergency plan commitments to speciEc response measuns stated in 10 CFR 50.47 (b) and (d). Requests for NRC approval of such changes may need to be pursued under 10 CFR 50.90 as license amendment requests and would requin NRC approval prior to implementation.

A suggested outline for applying the clari5ed criterion for the evaluation of a proposed emergency plan change is in Attachment 1. Evaluation of a proposed emergency plan change usir. +e suggested cutline should lead to a determination as to whether or not the change ca - be Lade without prior NRC approval. Changes made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(q) and consistent with the criterion in this white paper may be made to emergency plans. Licensees that successfully satisfy the screening questions in Attachment 1 may conclude tha particular change would be acceptable without prior NRC approval. Use of the screening questions format of Attachment 1, while strictly voluntary, could document the licensee's determmation of no decrease in effectiveness of the plan in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q).

Changes must be appropriate for particular site programs; using the screening criteria does not guarantee acceptance by the NRC or applicability to all sites. The licensee bents the responsibility for chac 'as made without prior NRC approval.

Page 2 of 2

t Review of Submittal Process

= All submittals to Document Control Desk

= Copy to inspector

= Changes that decrease effectiveness are l

reviewed by NRR.

= Changes that do not decrease effectiveness are reviewed by Region NEl g

~

Application of Screening Criteria

= Addition of planning standards

= Example

. Emergency Plan change l

NEI

_-_______._-_mm____m__

SCREENING CRITERIA OUTLINE Page 1 of 3 ASSESShtENT OF ACCEPTABILITY OF PLAN CHANGE PER 10 CFR 50.54(q)

SECTION/ TITLE:

Emergency Plan Appendix G, Evacuation Time Estimates, Emergency Plan Table 6-4, Recommended Protective Actions to Reduce Exposure To a Radioactive Plume, EPIP SO123-Vill-10.3, Protective Action Recommendations Revision 2.

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE:

Update the evacuation time study with the June 1997 version in the Emergency Plan. Incorporate the revised results from the evacuation time study into the body of the Emergency Plan and into EPIPs.

EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW:

Review the program change against the following questions. If the response to all these questions is "no" and the rationale supports a "no" response, the change may be implemented without prior NRC approval under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54 (q).

1. Yes No_X_ DOES THE CHANGE DECREASE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PLAN RESULTING IN THE LOSS OF REASONABLE ASSURANCE THAT ADEQUATE PROTECTION CAN AND WILL BE TAKEN IN THE EVENT OF A RADIOLOGICAL ENIERGENCY AS REQUIRED BY 10 CFR 50.47(A)?

Rationale:

The revised evacuation time study does not result in any reduction in the actions taken by Edison in response to a radiological emergency. Additionally, the changes do not involve increases in the evacuation durations beyond the longest evacuation time estimate in the previous study.

2. Yes No_X_ DOES THE CHANGE RESULT IN THE LOSS OF ABILITY TO MEET ANY OF THE STANDARDS OR APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED IN 10 CFR 50.47(B) AND (D) OR ANY NRC-APPROVED ALTERNATIVES TO THOSE .3TANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS?

Check each of the planning stanceds in 10CFR50.47(b) and indicate below if the change impacts the paraphrased standard. If a change impacts one of the standards, then perform an assessment to answer question 2.

50.47(b)(1) Primary responsibilities of SONGS, state, or local organizations. X iES MO Responsibilities of supporting organiutions. YES X NO Initial staffing or augmentation. . YES X NO 50,54Q 020 Revmon 0 6S6 I

~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --

SCREENING CRITERIA OUTLINE Page 2 of 3 ASSESSMENT OF ACCEPTABILITY OF PLAN CHANGE PER 10 CFR 50.54(q) 50.47(b)(2) On shift responsibilities for emergency response. X YES NO Staffing for initial accident response. YES Timely augmentation. _X_NO YES X NO Interfaces among onsite and offsite response activities. YES _X_NO 50.47(bX3) Arrangements for requesting and using assistance resources. YES X NO Accommodations at the EOF for state and local staff. YES _X_NO

$0.47(b)(4) The emergency classification and action level scheme.

YES _X_NO 50.47(b)(5) The process for notification of state and local response organizations. YES X NO The process for notification of emergency personnel. YES X NO The procedure for initial and followup messages. YES The process ofinstructing the populace within the 10 mile EPZ.

_X_NO YES X NO 50.47(bX6) The provisions for prompt communication among principal response organzation to emergency personnel and to the public. YES X NO

$0.47(b)(7) Public information process, principal points of contact, or procedures for coordinated dissemination of information to the public. YES X NO 50 47(b)(8) An emergency response facility, equipment, or maintenance of each. YES .( NO 50.47(b)(9) Methods, systems, or equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or 50.47(b)(10) potential offsite consequences. YES _X_NO 50.47(b)(l l) Protectise actions for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for emergency workers or the public.

X YES NO 50.47(b)(12) The means for controlling radiological exposures for emergency workers.

YES X NO 50 4?(b)(13) The arrangements for medical service for c ntaminated injured individuals.

YES X NO 50.47(b)(14) The general plans for recovery and reentry. YES X NO 50.47(b)(15) Exercise or drill conduct or corrective action system. YES _X_NO 50.47(b)(16) Radiological emergency response training. YES _X_NO 50.47(b)(17) Responsibilities for plan development, review, or distribution of emergency plans or training of planners.

YES X NO 50_54Q 020 Revision 0 646

e SCREENING CRITERIA OUTLINE Page 3 of 3 ASSESSMENTOF ACCEPTABILITY OF PLAN CHANGE PER 10 CFR 50.54(q)

Rationale: The planning standards identified above as being impacted are impacted only because the revised time estimates are used in the decision to shelter or evacuate the public. The southerly evacuation estimates increased; however the southerly evacuation c::timates remained below the northerly times in all cases. The estimate for a nighttime evacuation increased by 45 minutes but did not increase beyond the eight hour value which previously existed for an evacuation during adverse weather.

Only the northerly evacuation times are used in EPIPs since SCE's PARS are implemented for the entire EPZ and the northerly times are highest and are therefore limiting. There are two effects of a longer nighttime northerly evacuation time. The first is that if an evacuation is ordered during a 6 hour6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months release, the public would spend up to 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months undei the plume within the EPZ where they would have only spent up to 5 hours5.787037e-5 days 0.00139 hours 8.267196e-6 weeks 1.9025e-6 months 15 minutes before until they exited the EPZ. Secondly, it is more likely that SCE would issue a shelter recommendation for a release duration of up to 6 hours6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months at night because of this change. The increased likelihood of a shelter PAR is because SCE's EPIPs alls. recommending shelter if the radioactive release duration is projected to be shorter than the evacuation time. Tnis PAR >

provision reduces the total time that the public would be exposed to the plume because when the public evacuates north during a northerly plume they in effect track the plume to some degree which increases their exposure time. For releases greater than six hours there is no change in SCE's nighttime PAR based on the change in evacuation times. Although there is a slight increase under one case (6 hour6.944444e-5 days 0.00167 hours 9.920635e-6 weeks 2.283e-6 months plume), the increase is bounded by the adverse weather case.

Under the previous study, the adverse weather condition could have resulted in sheltering the public for up to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months . Therefore the public could be subjected to the plume passing overhead for up to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days 0.00222 hours 1.322751e-5 weeks 3.044e-6 months . The adverse weather case could subject the public to plume conditions for longer periods of time that the nighttime evacuation. Therefore, the ability to meet the appli:able standards is maintained because the effects of the nighttime evacuation estimate are bounded by the adverse weather case.

Yes No_X DOES THIS CHANGE DELETE OR CONTRADICT ANY UTHER REGULATORY REQUIREMENT?

Rationale: Completion of this evacuation time study also fulfills the recommendations of NUREG-0654.

PREPARED BY: Date: / /

APPROVED BY: Date: / /

50.54Q 020 Roman 0 6S6

_ ____ J

i

.]

NELSON, Alan From: NELSON, Alan Sent: Friday, January 09,199810:27 AM Tc: ' Stewart Magruder'

Subject:

RE: Proposed agercia for 1/23 meeting These are the potentialattendees:

Alan Nelson NEl Norman Hood TU Electric Cyrus Anderson SCE Martin Vonk Com Ed Merrill Maddox S. Nuclear William Renz - VA Power Jim Jones Niagara Mohawk Donna Miller PSE&G Dave Seebart Wsconsin Publu:: Service Corp Frorrt Stewod Mog uce45MS SLMIC*v: govl 5ent: Thursday.Januo*y 08.1999 8 33 AM To; NELSON. Alan Subject. Prcoosed ogendo for 1/23 meehng Alan, Please review the enclosed proposed agenda and provide me with feedback on it. The agenda was developed by the EP folks based on their perception of the purpose of the meeting. Thanks-Stu

- NEl/NRC MEETING ON EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES PROPOSED AGENDA January 23,1998 9:00 Introductory remarks 9.10 Presentaton by NEl on the White Paper trtled " Assessment of Acceptability of Plan Change per 10 CFR 50.54(q)"

Purpose and need for guidance

- Regulatory requirements that NEl proposes to clarify Regulatory guidance that is dated and superseded

- Attemative approaches for satisfying regulatory requirements

Objectives of guidance to licensees

Screening criteria to determine whether proposed changes can be made without prior NRC review and approval

- Examples of " decrease in effectiveness"

- Basis for conclusion regarding "overalr effectiveness of the plan

- Basis for conclusion regarding elimination of commitments Page1

! 6 Reasonab'e assurance standard *

' Plans and status of implementation of guidance by licensees Ucensee erperience

. Regbnal acceptance 10.30 NRC statt assessment of ND proposed position

Key issues

' Plans and status 10.50 Concluding remarks 11.00 Adpum Page 2

~.

3 ,

9

[p* *84 \

UNITED STATES

T_.l =

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION w AsHINoToN. D.C. 306NW001

, o,,,,, thy 15, 1996 ORGANIZATION: NUCLEARENERGYINSTITUTE(NEI) i

SUBJECT:

PUBLIC MEETING Of APRIL 23, 1996 TO HEAR INDUSTRY VIEWS ON 4

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Issues On April 23, 1996, a public meeting was held at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission's (NRC) offices in Rockville, Maryland, between representatives of the NRC, NEl, and other interested parties. Attachment I to this report provides a list of attendees.

The meeting was requested by NEl to discuss industry-developed guidelines for cecision criteria relative to when an errergency plan change may constitute a decrease in the effectiveness of the plan in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q).

Attachment 2 to this report is the agenda used by NEI for this meeting.

NEI provided a brief discustion of its efforts with regard to assisting licensees in reviewing emergency plan changes in order to determine if the enange has resulted in a decrease in effectiveness of the plan. Attachment 3 to this report is a copy of the slides used during this presentation. Also, during the meeting, representatives of the NEI task force reviewing this issue presented three plan c1anges as examples wherein NEI's proposed methodology was used in determining that no decrease in effectiveness of the plan occurred as a result of those changes (Attachment 4a, 4b, and 4c). At the conclusion of these ducussions, NEI presented a " draft" copy of an industry white paper, entitled ' Assessment of Acceptability of Plan Changes per 10 CFR 50.54(q),*

which summarizes the efforts of the NE! task force reviewi.'g this issue (Attachment 5).

NRC .apresentatives provided general comments regarding the methodology and the wamples; however, no attempt was made to reach consensus re arding NEl's proposed methodology or the three examples, dw . , ., Senior Health Physcist iLrgency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Froject No. 689 Attachments: As ctated cc w/o Attachments: See next page

G53/0/A q#

'p cc: Mr. Alan Nelson, Project Manager

, Radiological Protection, Emergency Prep. redness and Waste Regulation Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Wasnington, DC 2005-37000

' Mr. William F. Renz Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Staff Virginia Electric Power Company 5000 Dominion Blvd Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 Mr. Cyrus Anderson, Supervisor Emergency Planning San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station Southern California Edison Company P. O. Box 128, Blvd N-49 San Clemente, CA 92674 Mr. N. Herrill hadoox, Coordinator Emergency Planning Technical Services Department Southern Nuclear Generating Company P. O. Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 15201 Mr. Norman Hood, Manager Emergency Planning Texas Utility Electric Comanche Peak Steam Electric Sta ion P. O. Box 1002 Glen Rose, TX 76043 Mr. Martin Vonk, Supervisor Emergency Preparedness Commonwealth Edison Company 1400 0 pus Place, ETW 111 Downers Grove, IL 60515-5701 Ms. Theresa Sutter, Licensing Engineer Bechtel 9801 Washingtonian Blvd Gaithersburg, MD 20878 Ms. Donna J. Miller, Senior Program Manager Emergency Preparedness Institute for Nuclear Power Operations 700 Galleria Parkway Atlanta, GA 30339-5957 Mr. Steve Mixon NUS 910 Clopper Road Gaithersburg, MD 20P78 w v + , ,

_; = - . _ _ _ . . - _

MEETfNG A1TENDEES NRC/NEl DATE 4/23/96 88H[ QRGAN12Q10N TELEPHONE Edwin Fox, Jr NRC/NRR 301 -415-2908 f

8111 Rentz Virginia Po--* 804 -273-3142 Jun Yu NRC/NRR 301 -415-3924 Falk Kantor NRC/NRR 301 -415-2907 Cyrus Anderson So. Cal. Edison (SanOnofre) 714 -368 6635 N. Merrill Maddox Southern Nuclear /T6ch Sves 205 -870-6399 Norman Hood Texas Utility Electric 817 -897-5889 (Comanche Peak Alan Nelson NuclearEnergy) Institute 202 -739-8110 Thomas Essig NRC/NRR 301 -415-2910 Martin Vonk Commonwealth Edison 708 -663-6535 Theresa Sutter Bechtel 301)-417-4244 S. eve Mixon Nuclear Utility Services 301 -258-8618 Donna Miller INPO 770 -644-8646 4

Attachment 1 1

m._ _ _ . _., ..-. _._ _ , _ _ . - - _ _ - _

'.' NEI

',. k Av(t!At IhitG$ insli1uil

' *^N'38' 44dAE GE NI AA*CN September 25,1997 Dr. Charles L. Miller, Chief Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

Assessment of Acceptability Of Plan Change Per 10 CFR 50.54(q)

Dear Dr. Miller:

The purpose of this correspondence is to request that the NRC staff review and endorse the enclosed industry white paper provided to the Staff on April 23,1996.

Backuround On April 23,1996, a public meeting was held at the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) offices is Rockville, MD, between representatives of the NRC, NEl, and other interested parties. NET requested the meeting to discuss an

. industry developed white paper regarding criteria for determining when emergency plan change may constitute a decrease in the effectiveness of the plan per 10 CFR 50.54(q).

After the industry presentation the follov,ing NRC staff points of view were offered:

The staffis aware of the differing views withiu the regions on the role of an approved emergency plan.

Some recognize that plans do contain over. commitments and thus some degree of change can be allowed without decreasing the effectiveness, others take an opposite siew.

...,e._ .c . . . - . . . , ,_

O

'. Dr. Charles L. Miller September 25,1997

', Page 2 l

l A few of the regions believe that an emergency plan as approved is the " basic plan," any change to this approved plan would therefore constitute a decrease in effectiveness, dupite the fact that the plan may contain over commitments.

At the meeting the NRC noted that the staffis still a; the decision stage regarding how to communicate what constitutes a

decrease in effectiveness" to the regions and the industry. NEI suggested that the stafTconsider endorsing the NEI white l- paper.

Current Status Since the April 23,1996, meeting, NEl distributed the white paper for industry use as appropriate. Regional acceptance of the white paper has been inconsistent.

Some licensees have implemented the recommendations in the paper with success while other regional inspectors have challenged the methodology.

Sufficient time has passed for the staff to gain implementation experience. We believe some NRC action is needed at this time fc: consistent implementation of the white paper. NEI encourages NRC to endorse the white paper as an acceptable approach to 10 CFR 50.54(qh Ifyou have any questions regarding this request please contact me at (202) 739 8110 or by e mail (apn@nei.org).

Sincerely,

/

Alan Nelson APN/tnh Enclosures ws

. DR AFT . 04/22/96 Industry White Paper ASSESSMENT OF ACCEPTABILITT OF PLAN CHANGE PER 10 CFR 50.54(q)

Purnose The nuclear industry is providing this white paper to clarify the methods permitted to be used by licensees to process changes to emergency plans in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q).

Discussion Some confusion and inconsistencies have occurred in the past regarding the process for implementation of 10 CFR 50.54(q) for emergency plan changes. The original criterion for judgmg the whether of changes made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(q) decreased the elfectiveness of theplan was whether the overall elfectiveness of the plan was decreased.

This white paper clarines the language in 10 CFR 50.54(q) that licensees "may make changes to these plans without Commis< ion approval only if the char. tes do not decrease the effe.tiveness of theplans and theplans, as changed, continue to meet the standards of paragraph 50.47(b) and the requirements of.4ppendi.; E to this part "

The following ir, a clariScation of this hnguage. Changes that meet the following criterion should be permitted without prior NRC approval.

A change to an emergency plan will not decrease the effectiveness of the plan if the change will not decrease the abilities of the emergency response organization, and/or supporting emercency response facilities and equipment. as required by paragraphs CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E, or equivalent measures approved under 10 CFR 50.47(c), to reasonably assure the adequate protectic.n of public health and safety in the event of a radiological emergency as stats.1in 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1). The change cannot delete or replace any of the capabilities described in 10 CFR 50.47 (b) and (d),

or in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.

Use of this criterion allows, for example, elimination of commitments that have exceeded regulatory requirementa. Plan commitments may not be reduced to levels less than the overall reasonable assurance objective stated in 10 CFR 50.47(a).

It is expected that licensees would judiciously make determinations regarding 10 CFR 50.54(q) changes and implement those changes permitted by the regulations. With the use of the above clariScation, licensees should implement changes made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(q) without prior NRC approval.

Page 1 of 2

Sone of the emergency preparedness related regulatory guidance is dated and has become superseded in recent years. Caution should be exercised by licensees when screening changes, particularly regarding specific guidance issues. The guidance given in NRC publications are not requirements and should not be interpreted as the only possible methods for satisfying regulatory requirements. NUREG 0654," Criteria for the Preparation and Evaluation of Rcdiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants,"is an example of a document that should not be used verbatim to make individual acceptability determinations.

The originalintent of 10 CFR 50.54(q) was to screen ch:nges in terms of their overall impact on the emergency preparednest program. The screening criteria contained herein are the fundamental criteria necessary for determining the acceptability of a change made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(q'.

The criterion contained in the clarification presented herein is not applicable to plan changes that would eliminate or replace emergency plan commitments to specific response measures stated in 10 CFR 50.47 (b) and (d). Requests for NRC approval of such changes may need to be pursued under 10 CFR 50.90 as license amendment requests and would require NRC approval prior to implementation.

A suggested outline for applying the clariSed criterion for the evaluation of a proposed emergency plan change is in Attachment 1. Evaluation of a proposed emergency plan change using the st.ggested outline should lead to a determination as to whether or not the change can be made without prior NRC approval. Changes made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(q) and consistent with the criterion in this white paper may be made to emergency plans. Licensees that successfully satisfy the screening questions in Attachment 1 may conclude that a particular change would be acceptable without prior NRC approval. Use of the screening questions format of Attachment 1, while strictly voluntary, could document the licensee's determination of no decrease in c//cctiveness of the plan in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54 T).

Changes must be appropriate for particular site programs; using the screening criteria does not guarantee acceptance by the NRC or applicability to all sites. The licensee bears the responsibility for changes made without prior NRC approval.

Page 2 of 2

. . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . = . -

l DR AFT - 04/22/96

.' Attachment 1 SCREENING CRITERIA OUTLINE ASSESSMENT OF ACCEPTABILITY OF PLAN CHANGE PER 10 CFR 50.54(q)

SECTIONrrITLE:

List the plan section and title where the change is proposed.

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE:

Provide a detailed desetiption of the change.

EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW:

Review the program change against the following questions. If the response to all these questions is "no" and the rationale 7upports a "no" responses, the change may be implemented without prior NRC approval under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(q).

1. Yes_ No_ DOES THE CHANGE DECREASE THE EFFECTIT"i, NESS CF THE PLAN RESULTING IN THE LOSS OF REASONABLE ASSURANCE THAT ADEQUATE PROTECTION CAN AND WILL BE TAKEN IN THE EVENT OF A RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY AS REQUIRED BY 10 CFR 50.47 (a)?

Rationale: Explain how the change maintains reasonable assurance of adequate protective actions. An explanation may be based on an assessment ofits effects on public health and safety, a review of applicable plans, procedures, and resources, or by demonstration of the affected capabilities in a drill or exercise. Consideration should be given to any applicable site specific planning needs.

2. Yes_ No_ DOES THE CHANGE RESULT IN THE LOSS OF ABILITY TO MEET ANY OF THE STANDARDS OR APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED IN 10 CFR 50.47 (b) AND (d) OR ANY NRC APPROTTD ALTERNATIVES TO THOSE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS?

Rationale: Explain any change that reasonably brings into question the ability to meet any of the sixteen standards described in 10 CFR 50.47 (b), and any applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 (d) or any NRC approved alternatives to those i requirements.

3. Yes_ No_ DOES THIS CHANGE DELETE OR CONTRADICT ANY OTHER REGULATORY REQUIREMENT?

Page1of1 l

l

nce NE1 i 4-22-16 : t:;6 Hi 415 tifl-

,jgs 1 UNifSO STATES

[ 1

' NUCLEAR REQULATORY Commission b *'"

WAe>'INGT04, D c. 300eWOM T* N

% ,, April 10, 1996 MEM04ANDUM 70: Charles L. Miller, tranch Chilif Energency Preparedness and f Radiation Protection tranch /g Offict of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i FROM: Thomas H. Essig, Chief .

Enargency Preparedness and Envi n salth Phys cs Section Ener ency Preparedress and Rodi tion Protection Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

MEETING WITH NEI TO HEAR INDUSTRY VIEWS ON EMERGENr.V PREPAREDNESS ISSUES DATE & TIMI: April 23, 1995 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.

LOCATION! One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 0WFN Conference Room 04-8 13 PURPOSE:

This meeting is being held at the request of NE! to present iridustry-dev61oped guidelines for decision criteria relative to when an energency plan change may constitute a decrease in the effectiveness of the plan in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q).

PARTICIPANTS *: jg ICUSTRY T. Essig. NRR A. Nelson, NE! .

F. Kantor NRR et. 41.

E. Fox N,RR et. al,.

CONTACT: Thomas H. Essig. NRR 415-2910

Meetinqs between NRC technical staff and applicants or licensees are open for interes".ed members of the public, petitioners, intervenors, or other parties to attend as observers pursuant to "Constission Policy State: tent on Staff Hettings Open to the Pu)11c' 59 fidani Register 48344, 9/20/94, t bbM L

.5W.P!M L. . . . . .......i.9-2MU .I a m : 61?!i?!?1h

. %::s 2

\ .

~

V .' h SERVICE FOR EVALUATING REGULATORY CHANGES MEETTNG: NRC Staff Mening with NE! to Discass What Cortstitutes a "Decraase in Effectn eness' DATli: Apnl 23,1996 APPLICABlum BWR7WR STMBER: MS 964: KEY SUDIECT: Emergency Preparedness Licensing VRC 5. aft Remiertatives:

Tom Etsig. Emergency Preparedness and RaSation Prctection Branch (PERB), Office cf Nu:: car Rewer Regulation (NRR)

Ed Fox. Jr., PERB, NRR FaA Kantor. PERD tGR Industm Renmmmives:

Ale Nelson, NE!

CsTus Andcreca, Southern Califom;a Edison Compan.v Nrrr.an Hood. TU Electric N. Meml] Maifot Southern St; clear Bill Renz, Virgmin Power Marna VorJ:, Commonwealth Edison Company On Apnl 23.1996. the NRC Staff met with NE! to discuu the atmsment of acceptability of emergen:)

plan char.ges per 10 CFR 50.5a(q). NF.! has devtloped a draft industry white paper clanf>ing the language in 10 CTR 50.54(q) oc what cemeirutas a 'dectuse in e5setiveness." Section 50.54(q) states that liuensees 'may make che to these plans without Comrniasion appren) only if the change, de riot dccrea.se the effscrivencu c# the plans and the plans, u chacged, Scoteue to inoet the standarcs of paragraph 50 47(b) and the requirrtents of Append!x E to this part."

NEl suggested that changes whkh roset the following criterion v. di be permitted without prior SRC appros at: A change to an emergency plan will rm decrease the effectiveness of the plan if the changes will not decrease the abilities of the etnergency response organization, and/or supooning emergency response facilities and equipment, as required by paragraphs CFR 50.47(b) and Appcr) dix E, er equivalent rnessures approved undar 10 CFR 50.47(e), to rsasonably assurt the adequare protection of public health and safecy it' the event of a radiological emergency as stated in 10 CFR 50.47(s)(1). The change cannot delete or replacs any of the capabilities describsd in 10 CFR $0.47 (b) and (d), or m Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. U64 of this enserion allows, for eaarnple, the eliminarien cf commitments shar have exceeded re6ulatory requirernects. Plan commitments may not be redu:ed to lesels less than the everall reasonable apurance objective stated in 10 CFR 50.47(a).

B!!OMTE. POWER CORPORATION 9801 WasNngtonia'i Eve.. Ga the'sbe'g. Mayane 20878 5356 sho,*e. (3J1) 4*7 3771 e Far (3:1) 926 7036 *

..: rmw -m

. - a

.5%.PBE;...... .......L M kil ;.idlM i ..U?O?5?il; 3-Os3

.Page: \

Tom Enig commented that the Staff is awua of the difering views within the Region on the role of an approved emergency plart M.lle some argue that plans do contain overcommitments and thus some destee of change is allowed without decteuing the efectiveneu, others take the opposite view. A few of the regions believe that an emergency plan at appresed ts the " basic plan *t any change to this appmved plan would therefore constitute e decrease in effectiveness, despite the fact that the plan may contain oversomrnittents.

Essig noted that the Staff is uill at the decisien stage regarding how to communicate what constitu:es a *dec' ease in effectiveness

to the regions and the mdustry. He does not betin e that the genenc !ctter approach taken in the seevrity area. 50.54(p), would be appropritis. Essig stated that the mechanista shouid be less formal. NEl suggested that the Stas consider endorsing the NEl document. Essig commmed to discains the options with the Staff, ne NEl paper provides three screen;ng criteria. If the res beensee pmvides a rationale that suppens the "no" the change .espona,ponse to all the may be implemented cuestions is 'no" and the without prior NRC approval. Tbc drs.i screening criteria are: ,

(1) Does the change decreue tne effectiveness of t$e plan resulting in the lon of reasonable usurance that 6dequate protection can and will be taken in the event of a radiologica!

1 emerpacy as required by 10 CFR 50.47(a)? '

Eglain how the change maintams reasonable assuran:e of adequare protective adions. An explanation may be based on an usassment ofits effects on public herhh and safery; a eview of applicable plans, procedures, and rescurces; or by dernonstmtion of the afected capabilities m a dnll or exercise. Comideration should be gtven to any applicable site speel*e planning needs.

(2)

Docs the change reset in the loss of ability to eneet any of the nandar(s or appil:able requirements described in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and (d) or any NRC appe6ved ahernadves to . hose standards and r%uirements?

Explain any change that reasonably brings into quesnon the ability to meet any of the sixteen standards desenbed in 10 CFR 50.4'(b), and any applienble requirements of 10 CFR 50A*(d) cr any NRC-approved altematnes to these requirernents.

(3) Does this change delete or sentradict any other regula:ory requirement?

Falk Kantor noted that a good technical analysis and rationale must support the "no" answer to the servening questions. Essig added that thisjustification must preside information on "what's nea"(e p.,

tuttenation, technology doelopment, etc.) sinos '.he emergency plan cornmitttner.t us put in place-his "what's new' would help tojustify why 11 is now acceptaate to remove the regulisment from the plan.

.L'W.PihE;,, ,, ,,,,,,,1. $- 2 4- 3.,1, j ,, g :3go,; ,

.41789?5?i$~ . y;:s 4 4 Page 3 Copas of the following documents us available upon request fmm the SERCH Staff-i (a) 10 pep hTJ handout, " Assessment of Acceptabilit/ of Plan Chany per 10 CFR 50.54(q)"

(b) 3 page Drah Industry %%e Paper (c) 14.page handout " Example . Cors~nennal Hydraulics Function." by B. Renz (d) 8 page handout, " Example . Respiratory Protection Equipment Storage." by N. Hood (e) 12 page handout, "Exarnple . Radiation Protection Technietant," by M. Vonk Fct further information, please contact the SERCH Author.

Therna Suner . (301) 417 4:44 email: tasutter@bechtel.com l

l e

e Q

j'.

i; !

I h

i Assessment of Acceptability of Plan Change Per 10 CFR 50.54(q) l White Flint April 23,1996 l

Nuclear Energy Institute J

Assessment of Acceptability of Plan Change Per 10 CFR 50.54'q)

Welcome Purpose of the Meeting Need for C ari"ication Anlica': ion o"10 CFR 50.5L(c)

Inc ustry White Pa aer Screening Criteria Discussion Inc us':ry E'fectiveness Review -

Exam a es Discussion Summary anc Follow-U3 Activities 4

.s;.

Industry Goals Effective use anc apalication of 10 CFR 50.54(c }

C arify cefinition of:

" decreasing the effectiveness" Consistent review process Timely ima ementation 2

g,

j .,

j Use of 10 CFR 50.54{q?

l l

The intent of 10 CFR 50.5L(c) is l to screen changes in terms of their i overall impact on the effectiveness of the emergency areaarecness program.

Exaerience with tie current 3rocess has causec confusion a aout im a ementing 50.54(c }

effectively.

l ll j

2

.s;.

l. Use of 10 CFR 50.54[q) -

j [ Continued)

! i l

Changes to emergency plans

accommoc ate reevaluation of l commitments tha<: exceec l regulatory rec uirements. -

i t

j Tiere is a neec to c arify tie:

" test for deciding if a change has decreased the effectiveness of the

! plan. " -

I i

I

e Industry Draft White Paper The wiite paper provides structure to the language in 10 CFR 50.54(q) that licensees:

"mey make changes to the plans without Commission approval only if the changes do not decrease the <

effectiveness of the plans and the plans, as changed, continue to meet the standards ofparagraph 50.47(b) and the requirements of Appendix E to this part."

A change that meets the following criteria should be permittecl:

- The change does not decrease the ability of the emergency rei conse organization, and/or supporting emergency response facilities and equipment to adequately protect with reasonable assurance in the event of a radiological emergency; and 1

- A change does not involve failure to meet any other regulatory requirement.

e

.s;;.

o

Industry Draft White Paper (Continued)

The guidance given in N RC au alications are not requirements and shoulc not ae interaretec as the only possiale metlocs for satisfying regulatory rec uirements.

T7ese pro 30 sed screening criteria wou d not allow plan changes that woulc eliminate or alter saecific resource commitments in the emergency pin statec in 10 CFR

50. 47(b) anc (d), and Apaencix E.

s g,

Screening Criteria Discussion Use of these criteria shoulc permit effective ceterminations as to whether or not a change can be mace wi:hout arior NRC aaorova .

Use of tie cri':eria wou d document the licensee's de':ermina': ion o'on decrease in effectiveness as rec uirec by 10 CFR 50.54(c).

Changes must ae approariate for particular site programs:

- The screening criteria do not guarantee acceptance or applicability to all sites, and '

- The licensee bears the responsibility for changes made.

J.

\

Screening Criteria Outline Assessment of Acceptability of Plan i

, Change Per 10 CFR 50.54(q)

EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW: Review the program change against the following questions.

If the response to each question is "no" and the rationale supports a "no" response, the change ;

may be implemented without prior NRC approval under the provisions of 10 CFR

50.54(q). The questions are

1. Does the change decrease the effectiveness of the plan resulting in the loss of reasonable assurance that i adequate protection can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency as required by 10 CFR 50.47(a)?

YES NO 1

RATIONALE: Explain how the change maintains i reasonable assurance of adequate protective actions.

An explanation may be based on an assessment of its effects on public health and safety, a review of l applicable plans, procedures, and resources, or by demonstration of the affected capabilities in a drill or exercise. Consideration should be given to any l

app!icable site-specific planning needs.

. 4,

.. Screening Criteria Outline Assessment of Acceptability of Plan -

Change Per 10 CFR 50.54(q)

2. Does the change result in the loss of ability to meet any of the standards or applicable requirements described in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and (d) or any NRC-approved alternatives to those standards and requirements?

YES NO RATIONALE: Explain any change that reasonably brings into question the ability to meet any of the sixteen standards described in 10 CFR 50.47(b), and any applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(d) or any NRC-approved alternatives to those requirements.

3. Does this change delete or contradict any regulatory requirement?

YES _

NO 8

g o

Nuclear Regulatory Commission OfUce of Public Affairs Washington DC 2055$

Telephone. 301/415 8200 E mail: opagnrc. gov No. S 9716 June 26,1997

ECONOMIC DEREGULATION OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY:

ENSURING NUCLEAR SAFETY IN AN ERA OF CliANGING OPERATIONAL AND FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVES" BY DR. StilRLEY ANN JACKSON, CHAIRhiAN U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COhihilSSION KEYNOTE ADDRESS TO TiiE /.NNUAL hiEETING OF NUCLEAR ELECTRIC INSURANCE, LTD June 17,1997 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen I am pleased to be here today to address this annual meeting of Nuclear Electric insurance, Limited.

1. INTRODUCTION I plan to focus today on Electric Utility Restructuring and the Nuclear Regulatory l

Commission (NRC) in the past year, I have addressed a number of audiences on this topic. I find the occasion today panicularly meaningful because your arnual meeting brings together the Chief Financial Officers a. '%f Executive Officers from a large number of companies that have NRC licenses. I W that, as economic deregulation of the electric utility industry and the resulting corporate restructuring proceed, the relationship of the financial decision maker to safe operation, and to the assurance of nuclear power plant decommissioning funding, will become more imponant. As the basis for your corporate financial results shifts from base rate cost recovery to market driven competition, you will be called upon to make financial decisions of a differer.t--and, in some cases, a mor: difficult--character.

liow does the role of the financial decision maker--a term which, in my view, includes both the CFO and the CEO- interact with the issues of greatest imponance to the NRC?

To respond to that question, I will discuss today several critical aspects of electric utility restructuring as they intersect with the NRC mission and fall within NRC jurisdiction. For each area, I will share with you the actions the NRC is taking to ensure that we understand the changes being brought about by restructuring, and to ensure that we are positioned for an appropriate respo .ce to those changes.

4 As you know, the NRC is not an economic or rate regulator. Our mission is to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, the common defense and security, and the emironment in the use of nuclear materials in the United States However, as the govemment agency responsible for regulating nuclear safety at power reactor facilities, the NRC has an important function during this transition to a competitive market. As organizations restructure internally, as ownership changes, as mergers occur, and as electric utilities work to control and reduce costs, the NRC must understand the effects of the changing business environment on nuclear safety. The NRC will not dictate how j

changes occur to the rules or statutory mandates underuirding economic deregulation, not i will we prescribe how the electric power industry restrucures. It is, however, our responsibility to ensure snat, as the business environment changes, the challenges facing the industry do not adversely impact nuclear safety. Equally important, it is our responsibility to ensure that any changes we make to our regulaton approach are well grounded and balanced I have grouped the challenges facing the industry under three l general headings: (1) the availability of funds for decommissioning and stranded costs;(!)

electrical grid reliability, and (3) safe nuclear operations

11. DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING AND STRANDED COSTS A. Existing Regulatory Framework Under Section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the NRC has general

! authority to regulate the decommissioning of the nuclear facilities and materials that it licenses When the NRC promulgated its decommissioning regulations in 1988. the agency had determined that decommissioning funding assurance requirements were necessary to protect public health and safety. As a result, the NRC required its power reactor licensees to set aside funds periodically in external trust fund accounts (or to provide third pany guarantees for estimated decommissioning costs)in order to accumulate over time an amount at least equal to the amounts provided by formula in 10 CFR 50.75. As such, by the time a licensee was expected to permanently cease operations, the total amount of funds estimated as needed to complete decommissioning would be available.

Within this framework, which makes up existing decommissioning funding provisions, the NRC does not specify the percentages or schedules of funds collection. In 10 CFR 50.75, the NRC shares responsibility for decommissioning funding regulation with ra:e regulators- that is, with the State Public Utility Commissions (PUCs) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Traditionally, the NRC has relied on the FERC and the PUCs for such decisions as the sources of decommissioning funds (whether rate-payers or licensee stockholders), the timing of funds collection (questions of intergenerational eq sity), and the investment in trust funds. This practice is consistent with earlier NRC determinations that traditional cost of service rate regulation prosides seasonable assurance offunds for operations and decommissioning.

Current regulations allow only those licensees that meet the NRC definition of" electric utility" to use the external " sinking fund" method of decommissioning funding assurance.

Electric utility means any entity that generates or distributes electricity, and w hich recovers the cost of this electricity, either directly or indirectly, through rates established by the entity itself or by a separate regulatory authority (i e., the FERC and the PUCst included within this defmition of" electric utility" are investor owned utilities, including j generation or distribution subsidiaries, public utility districts, municipalities, rural electric

{

cooperatives, and State and Federal agencies including associations of any of the '

foregoing.

The NRC also has explicit requirements in 10 CFR 50 82 concerning the release of decommissioning funds from trust accounts The NRC has regulatory authority to stop l any unwarrar.ted withdrawals, and to require reimbursement of the tn'st fund for unwarranted withdrawals already made. Based on the broad authority given under the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC also could order trust fund disbursements for a particular decommissioning related activity, based on the presence c'a threat to public health and safety if this actisity did not occur.

Ahhough the FERC and the PUCs typically do not become too closely involved in the release of decommissioning funds, some states, such as California, are more proactive in this area and have their own requirements for funds release B. Changes Due ,o Deregulation When the Energy Policy Act of 1992 was passed, with provisions that enabled wholesale competition in electricity generation, few cf us would have predicted the speed with which the shift to both wholesale and retail competition would occur Orders 888 and 8S9 issued by the FERC, together with the FERC merger policies, were major enabling actions for the economic deregulation of wholesale markets As these changes began to take shape, the NRC found it to be critical that we understand the changes, identify any safety concerns, and forward those concerns to the agencies responsible for economic regulatory decisions. or take regulatory action, as appropriate, for issues within our direct statutory pur iew.

Some of the most significant changes involve new ownership arrangements. For example generation, transmission, and distribution assets may be spun offinto subsidiaries or fully separate companies (called "GENCOs," "TRANSCOs," and " DISCOS") We expect to see a variety of hybrid ownership arrangements that go beyond current structures, which typically are defmed gecgraphically and integrated venically.

Another focus area is the problem of above-market or " stranded" costs, including some wc) car plant capital and decommissioning costs States and the FERC are considering vyicus remedies, including exit fees for customers leaving a company's system, transmission access fees for new bulk electricity suppliers, and other transmission or

" wires' charges In some States. nuclear plant owners have been allowed to accelerate the depreciatign of their plants, so that by the time full retail competition arrives, the capital

costs of certain nuclear piants will have been amortized fully. States also are exploring securitization as a method for providing recovery of stranded costs The NRC does not have the responsibility of determining how ownership arrangements may be structured, nor how nuclear " stranded" costs tor assets) should be addressed by State PUCs or State and Federal legislatuies. liowever, we are responsible for making ,

l clear that power reactor licensees must continue to have sufficient resources both to

{

operate and to decommission their plants safely, That responsibility includes taking l appropriate regulatory action for issues within NRC jurisdiction. Where warranted, it also includes weighing in on legislative initiatives under consideration by the Congress.

l

! C. NRC Actions to Address Deregulation What has the NRC done to respond to deregulation and emerging utility restructuring scenarios? In the Fall of 1995, the NRC initiated a broad review ofits policies and regulations- including a re evaluation of our decommissiqrag funding policies to ensure that the existing regulatory frarnework was sufficient to cope with any potential safety impacts on NRC power reactor licensees in February 1996, the agency issued an Action Plan that described a framework and schedule for specific actions needed, based on our understanding of the likely future shape and strumre of nuclear electricity generation. To date, these actions have included the issuance of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the formulation of a Proposed Rule, and the development of a draR Policy Statement and draft Standard Review Plans, with due consideration of public comments at the various stages I will discuss each of these actions briefly.

In April 1996, the NRC issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking stakeholder input on a series of questions related to electric utility restructuring and the potential need for NRC actions. The Adunce Notice requested public comment on a specific proposed change to NRC regulations which would revise the definition of

" electric utility," and would i npact those power reactor licensees no longer subject to rate regulation by the FERC or the State PUCs As proposed in the Advance Notice, this change would not affect the current requirement that non electric utility licensees must provide some other means of assurance- such as a letter of credit or surety bond for any unfunded kdance of decommissioning costs.

The staff reviewed a wide range of public comments submitted in response to the Advance Notice. One area of comment concerned " benchmarking " or specifying the amount of decommissioning funding that a licensee should possess at given points in the projected operational life of a nuclear power plant. For example, benchmarking might require licensees to accumulate 25 percent of their decommissioning funds by the end of the loth year of a projected 40 years of the nuclear plant's operation.

As I have already stated, the NRC traditionally has relied on rate regulators--the FERC and the State PUCs- for responsibilities such as setting the amortization schedu!e under which decommissioning funds are collected. Although 10 CFR 50.75 requires licensees to

resise annually the estimate of total decommissioning fimds needed,it does not require licensees to adjust immediately the amount of funds set aside based on changes in these estimates Those commenters who advocate " benchmarking" believe that the NRC should i take a stronger role in requiring, at periodic junctures, that licensees evaluate the status of the'. Jecommissioning funds relevant to current economic factors and the projected remainder of operational life, and to make adjustments in funds set aside, as necessary.

Considering the existing approaches to econorrac deregulation and the responsible actions of State PUCs, the NRC continues to believe that reliance on and coordination with the PUCs is well founded liowever, we will continue to monitor changes stemming from economic deregulation, to ensure that our responsibilities are met with regard to ensuring the availability of decommissioning funding.

l Based on a rigorous review of these and other public comments, as well as ongoing analysis of emerging industry developments, the staff has draned a proposed rule, which currently is undergoing Commission review and should be released shortly for public comment. As draned, the proposed rule would modify NRC decommissioning regulations in three areas. First,it would additionally refine the proposal given in the Advance Notice concerning the revised definition of" electric utility," and the need for additional funding assurance for power reactor licensees not covered under the new definition This refinement would clarify that, for entities within the definition of electri: utility, rates must be established by a regulatory authority, either directly through traditional " cost of service" regulation, or indirectly through another non bypassable charge mechanism.

Distinctions would also be made for those entities whose rate related costs are only partially covered by existing regulatory mechanisms Second, under the current dran of the proposed rule, we are considering the allowance of credit on camings on the decommissioning trust funds Third, to keep the NRC informed oflicensee decommissioning funding assurance, the proposed rule would require licensee reporting of the status of decommissioning funding and any changes to trust agreements. While the proposed rule does not contain any benchmarking requirements, this reporting requirement would provide the NRC the information needed to assess whether limsee contributions to their decommissioning funds are adequate relative to the life of their plants Following a review ofinitiallicensee reports in this ma, it may be prudent to consider agaia the appropriateness of a benchmarking requirement. I encourage you to review the proposed rule, and to take this opportunity to proside us your insights.

The NRC also is finalizing its policy statement on the Restructuring and Economic Deregulation of the Elemic Utility Industry. The policy guidance provides a framework for our approach to future reviews. Under this approach, the NRC will continue to conduct financial qualifications, decommissioning funding, and antitrust resiews. Under the approach outlined in the dran policy statement, the NRC will also continue to identify all owners, indirect as well as direct, of nuclear pow er plants; to evaluate the relative a

r -

e responsibilities of pov er plant co-owners and co-licensees; and to re-evaluate our regulations for their adequacy in addresng the changes caused by rate deregulation.

r On December 27 oflast year, the NRC issued for public comment the dran Standard Resiew Plans on Antitrust and Iinancial Qualifications and Decommissioning Funding Assurance. These plans are intended to ensure that the NRC clearly cernmunicates its expxtations concerning existing requiremerts and relevant owner / operator responsibilities in these areas The NRC staffis currently is finalizing these documents, with Jue consideration ofpublic c .nments, and expects to issue the final Standard Rmew Plans later this summer.

111. ELECTRICAL GRID RELIABILITY An equally important area of NRC focus has been electrical grid reliability s- ,

many of you know, the terra '%uion Blackout" is used, in the nuclear po -

9, to refer to an event in which a loss of offsite power is coupled with the inabil. , s. the onsite emergency diesel generators to provide vital power to plant safety equipment. In recent years, NRC prooabilistic risk assecsments have made it clear Mt a Station Blackout at a L nuclear power station is a major contributor to a parthlo tsure of risk known as rea:'.or " core damage frequency" (that is, the probability pei jear per reactor that core damage will occur). Although Station Blackouts have been extremely rare to date, there have been a number of dmes when offsite power was lost, and there have been separate instances in which facility diesel generators have not been operable for sustained periods.

Therefore, the possibility of e. Station Blackout continues to be an area of NRC focus.

In 19%, within a 5-week period, two electrical dis;arbances on the United States' Western Grid caused 190 pov.er generating plants to trip off-hne, including several nuclear units This set of occuaences illustrated an interesting two-sided coin. On the one side, nuclear plants are designed to withstand unexpected trips. However, events of this type cause unnecessary challenges to plant safety systems. On the other siue of the coin, the nuclear plants themselves are .n important element of maintaining electrical network stability.

In reviewing the electrical disturbances, the Western Systems Coordinating Council listed the following contributing factors: high Northwest transnussion loads; equipment out of service; madequate maintenance of righ:-of-way; operation in a condition in which a single failure would overload parallel lines, triggering cascading outages; communication failure, to neighboring utilities, prior to the disuai,ances; and the lack of response to earlier events.

At about th: time these events were occurring last year, I reviewed a status report on the NRC accident sequena precursor program. This program was established in 1979 to 7 review operaticaal events and to provide a reasonable estimate of their significance. The program assesses the extent to which a given event is a potential contributor to a serious accident sequence. It uses pr ,babilis'ic risk assesoaca techniques to provide quantitative estimates of the cperating event significance in tenas of the potential for reactor core L

m-- - =

. \

i damage. The report indicated that, in 1995, six of the ten precursor events involved

{

pron. ms with electrical equipment.

{

These events and studies tell us that, while nuclear generating stations are robut; in design and operational standards, they also are vulnerable to grid disturbances, and especially to !

Loss-of-Offsite Power events.

Let me add a practical perspective. The North American Electnc Reliability Council l (NERC) has prepared an independent assessment of the reliability of electric supply in l North America for this summer. The peak summer demand for electricity in the United States is projected to increase by 5.3% from the actual 1996 summer peak. E!cctric utilities in Illinois, Wisconsin, arai the New England area anticipate that electrical supply shortages may occur due to the prolon3ed unavailabili:y of several thousand megawatts of nucler.r capacity. The different geographic areas have made extensive preparr to mitigate these problems However, such shortages, if realized, could require controlled interruption (or " rotating blackouts") to customer facilities for shon periods.

As I stated in January,in a spe:ch to the National Association of Reguk ory Utility Commissioners (NARUC): from the perspective of a nuclear safety regu.stor--the NRC--

l economic deregulation must proceed with a sensitivity to, and an understanding of, the i

vulnerability of nuclear plants to Lass-of-Offsite Power events Tids 'neans that transmission tietwork governance structures must redect that standards of performance, operational criteria, and training of personnel are critical oversight issues, which must be considered and addressed as deregulation proceeds. Whatever form network governance l structures assume, their authority must be strong enough to ensure that these factors are addressed.

Although grid reliability is a voluntary function ander the North American Elec+ric Reliability Council (NERC) and the regional councils, Federal oversight currently is handled by the FERC and at the Department of Energy (DOE). The DOE has created a working advisory committee on the reliability of the U.S. electric system. The NRC has been coordinating with DOE, and will remain abreast of this effort, participating as appropriate. We know that under discussion is the question of whether a Federal entity, such as the FERC, should be vested with more authcrity to police grid reliability, or whether a voluntary organization such as the North American Electric Reliability Council should be given erforceability teeth. What is important to the NRC is that grid reliability is not left to chance,i >t is explicitly addressed as electric industry restructuring unfolds.

In April, at my request, the Commission held two public meetings on aspects of electric power industry restructuring. The fi st meeting focused on grid performance and reliability, and the second meeting addressed electric utility restructuring, with a significant amount of discussion on independent system cperators (ISOs). These meetings brought tcBether representatives of the nuclear power industry, as well as economic regulators, from both the Federal and State governments. The meetings were intended to improve both NRC and public understanding of the progress of economic deregulation and ind'istry i

.- (

restructuring, to explore related safety questions, and to ensure that we are taking the right actions, at the right time, in the appropriate manner.

Based on the insights gained at those meetings, the Commission has asked the NRC staff to give greater urgency to ensuring that health and safety issues within NRC jurisdiction are addressed--particularly in reviewing terms of the licensing basis for nuclear power licensees, and in niidating gnd reliability assumptions. The staff was asked specifically to inform the Commission of actions by Federal and State economic regulators in establishing membership requirements for the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC).

The Commission is especially interested in the efitetiveness of such requirements and enforcement policies as they relate to grid reliability. Firially, the Commission asked that appropriate NRC regional staff visit a power pool and a relitbility council within their jurisdiction--to improve NRC understanding of regional grid reliability issues.

W. SAFE NUCLEAR OPERATIONS My third topic of discussion today is safe nuclear operations. The NRC traditionally has relied on inspection and plant assessment programs to identify any adverse trends in safety performance. Based on inspection program resuhs, pbat performance reviews, and other evaluative mechanisms, the NRC takes the action it dams appropriate to protect puclic health and safety.

While the overall safety performance of the U.S. nuclar power industry continues to improve, we have seen events that may signal a need for heightened concern. NRC safety assessments at several reacar facilities have identified deficiencies stemming from common root causes--both of which are receiving inen. awl NRC focus. The first root cause is the economic pressure on a licensee to be a low-cost energy producer, which has limited the resources available for corrective actione end plant improvements. The second is the licensee failure to identify and correct promp .ly problems arising in areas that licensee management has viewed--not always cor ectly--as having low safety significance.

The Commission has taken certain actions m response to these kinds of sipals. To ensure that the NRC can detect safety degradations at licensee facilities, we are developing measura that would identify plar.ts where economic stress may be adversely impaciing safety. The NRC evaluates the safe +y performarce of nuclear power plant; esing licensing information, inspection results, operating experience, performance indicators, enforcement actions, and assessments oflicensee effectiveness in identifying and correcting problems.

Semi-annually, these various measures and assessments are integrated imo an overall review at NRC Senior Management Meetings. These meetings help to ensure that NRC resources a- focused properly on facilities that most need regulatory attention. The result of these meetings is a proposed list of facilities that have demonstrated weaknesses and warrant increased NRC attention.

To improve the effectiveness of the Serior Management Meeting process, the NRC is developing objective, meaningful, " leading" performance indicators of nuclear plant m - _ __

d perfonnance, as well as an enhanced approach for monitoring and assessing licensee corrective actions. In the Summer of 1996, we commissioned an outside study by Anhur Andersen to evaluate the Senior Management Meeting process, to suggest improvements to the timeliness and thoroughness of plant safety assessments, to recommend performance indicators based on objective data, and to define a methodology for assessing management and operational effectiveness.

The resulting Anhur Andersen report proposed a detailed methodology for using existing performance indicators in reaching Senior Management Meeting decisions. The l Commission has endorsed significant ponions of the repon and its recommendations, and l has asked the NRC staffto evaluate critically the Anhur Andersen approach, considering the assumptions, the weighting and the periodicity of data, and the need for appropriate validation. In addition, the methodology being developed will more effectively use existing performance indicators in NRC decision making processes, and will phase in new risk-based indicators as they are developed.

l While NRC regulatory and safety decisions must not be influenced by a perceived need to l

' lower nuclear plant operating costs, we feel keenly our responsibility to persue our health and safety ndssion within the most efficient and effective regulatory framework possible--

for both the NRC and the nuclear energy industry. We have been working with the nuclear energy industry to remove unnecessary regulatory requirements through conversion to improvd Standard Technical Specifications, changes to rules that are marginal to safety, and the implementation of the NRC Regulatory Review Group recommendations. These recommendations include expedited review of cost-beneficial licensing actions, as well as the development of guidelines that would permit licensees to implement changes to their quality assurance programs, emergency preparedness plans, and security plans without prior NRC review and approval, as long as the underlying regulations are met. We have continued the movement toward risk-informed, performance based regulation through the development of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (or PRA) guidance in the form of a Regulatory Guide and Standard Review Plan, as well as through pilot processes for risk-informed regulation, out of which application-specific egulatory guides will be developed.

These efforts will assist the NRC and nuclear licensees i.: focusing their resources on the most safety-significant aspects of nuclear operations, while maintaining defense-in depth--

which in turn should both enhance safety ar.d improve cost-compet!tiveness.

V. INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE This overall topic-trends in electric generation and their effect on nuclear safety--is not only an issue k the U.S. Just last month, the International Nuclear Regulators Associatit ur created, a new body designed to enhance nuclear safety worldwide. I am pleased to wve as the nrst Chairman of this group. During our tw sday meeting in Paris, the issue of trends in electrical generation was one of two broad topics discussed at length.

Each country has seen, or foresees, potential impact from changes in electric utility structure or markets.

4 VI. CONCLUSION In closing, let me reiterate that the NRC will continue to take s,..ously its responsibility as a safety regulator. I firmly believe that ensuring safety is in no way inconsistent with economic deregulation and competition. A focus on the bottom line is not, in itself, a bad thing, so long as our vision 4 not narrowly focused on short-term returns.

As the Chairman of the NRC, I have the ( .tief Financial Officer (CFO) reporting directly to me. Working with 'he CFO and the Executive Director for Operations, I have the responsibility of 6cioping the NRC budget for Commission consideration. Right now the NRC, like all government agencies, is in the final planning stages for the Fiscal Year 1999 budget. I know how difficult it is to take a long-term view when many needs are competing for resources today. Making judgments based on cost-benefit analyses can be difficult, especially when the pay-offis far in the future. But understanding and valuing long-term returns is an important part of the planning process.

My own siew is that adequate protection of public health and safety is entirely compatible with a deregulated environment, provided ' hat the economic restructuring of the electric power industry addresses the elements t'.. . -e necessary for that protection. As I have outlined this morning, those entities respo..able for economic deregulation must recognize the safety implications of change and those of you in the nuclear energy industry must recognize that there are no economic short cuts to safely operated, economically siable nuclear power facilities The many players who have a role in the interesting and challenging emironment of electric power industry restructuring must work together--

includirm the NRC as safety regulator, the FERC and the State rr gulatory commissions as rate regulators, and industry underwriters, owners, operator.c, and licensees. Each must

, understand the concerns of the other parties involved in order to ensure that we will f continue to enjuy the benefit of safely operated, soundly regulated nuclear-generated electricity, together with the economic benefits of deregulation.

Thank you for the opportunity to address you. I wish you a very successful annual meeting I do appreciate your interest in the NRC perspective, and I would be happy to mspond to your cluestions at this time.

4 :

Nuclear Energy Institute Project No. 689 cc: - Mr. Ralph Deedle Ms. Lynnette Hendricks, Director Senior Vice President Plant Support and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW .

1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Alex Marion Director Programs Nuclear Energy Institute Sune 400 1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. David Modeen Director Engineering Nuclear Energy Institute l Suite 400 i 1776 l Street, A"N Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Anthony Pietrangelo, Director Licensing Nuclear Energy institute Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW

- Washington, DC 20006-3708 <

Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Mant.ger-Nuclear Safety ano Regulatory Activities Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Mc Jirn Davis, Director Operations Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW f

Washington, DC 20006-3708 L .

a 9, -

Distribution: Mtg. Summary w/ NEl Re Emergency Plan Changes Dated February 4, 1998 Hard Copy Docket File '

PUBLIC PGEB R/F OGC ACRS SMagruder BZaleman EMail SCollins/FMiraglia BSheron RZimmerms.n JRoe DMatthews TEssig CMiller FAkstulewicz BZaleman JO'Brien EFox FCantor DBarss LCohen GTracey, EDO 3

.

ML20203C321

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

Subject:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Dear Dr. Miller:

SUBJECT:

Navigation menu

ML20203C321

Text

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

Subject:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Dear Dr. Miller:

SUBJECT:

Navigation menu

Search