ML20203C395
| ML20203C395 | |
| 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 9802250176 | |
| Download: ML20203C395 (29) | |
Text
-
!{
uo y*
UNITED STATES g
.j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.s o
f WASHINGTON. D.C. 20566-0001
'4
]
9*****,e February 4, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Thomas H. Essig. Acting Chief Generic issues and Environmental Projecte Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Stewart L. Magruder, Project Manager.MLM % bd Generic Issues and Environmental Projects Branch h
Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF JANUARY 23,1998, MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI) REGARDING EMERGENCY Pl.AN CHANGES 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 prov! des 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 wnite paper (draft dated April 22, 1996) on a methodology for licensees to assess the acceptability of emergency plan changes 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 was made to 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 licensing actions taken and experience l
gained by the industry during the intervening period, t
The NEl task force provided a brief discussion of the clarification of NRC regulations that was included in its white paper and the criteria NEl recommends that licensees use in determining I).hr) whether there is a decrease in effectiveness resulting from a change in emergency plans. The i
task force identified drivers (comments from senior NRC officials and generic communications dealing with analogous regulatory language in the security arena) that provided the impetus for gc licensees to seek changes to emergency plans. The task force provided examples of licensee experience in using the guidance and highlighted its concern that there may be inconsistent 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 considered a decrease at another.
0}'D)iMr 9002250176 980204 PDR REVGP ERGNUMRC
\\
~
up.
g3.m.~ ~ y gm
. lllil1llll.llll[llllll g
~ a c.
T. Essig 2
February 4, 1998 The NRC staff stated that there are numelous opportunities for licensees to refiset on their own emerency planning and incidert response programs and makte changes without prior Commission approval. The staff expects that licensees will carefully review and otjectively 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 change can be made may be different from facility to facility. The staff indicated that the licenree will need to apply to the Commiss!on and seek approval for certain types of changes. The determination 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.
The plan, as implemented by the licensee to conform to each of the planning standards snd regulatory requirements, and approved by the NRC, is the one that provides the basis for the staffs reasonable assurance finding.
The NRC staff indicated that it recognized that there was a significant difference in the level of i
detailin regulatory guldance 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) conRhs in isolation from the ongoing 150.59 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 assurance,' are not in the regulations. The NEl task force suggested that the NRC offer a markup 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
T. Essig 2
February 4, 1998 The NRC staff stated that there are numerous 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 conditions of the rule; however, the bases for determining whether a change can be made may be different f;om 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 determination 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.
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 staff's reasonable assurance finding.
The NRC staff indicated that it recognized that there was a significant difference in the level of detail in regulatory guidance and enteria 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. Tho 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 assurance,' are not in the regulations. The NEl task force suggested that the NRC offer a markup 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:PGEB NAME SMagruderfsI BZal d FAkstulewlcz DATE 2/ 3/98 2/ 4 /98 2/ ij/98 OFFICAL OFFICE COPY
40 I
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 RZimmerman JRoe DMatthews TEssig CMiiier FAkstulewicz l
BZaleman l
JO'Brien EFox FCantor DBarss LCohen GTracey, EDO
NRC/NEl MEETING ON EMERGENCY PLAN CHANGES LIST OF ATTENDEES January 23,1998 NAME ORGANIZATION Alan Nelson NEl Williem P,orit Virginia Power it MN6il Maddox Southern Nuclear Naimae Hood TU Electric Don Woodlaw (U Electric Cyrus Anderson Southern California Edison Martin Vonk Commonwealth Edison Michael I. arson Entergy. Grand Gulf David Ellis Entergy. Grand Gulf Kenneth Hughley Entergy. Grand Gulf Randy Gresham Enterg". ANO Milan Straka NUS Information Services i
Nana Chapman SERCH/Bechtel Tom Essig NRC/NRR Charlie Miller NRC/NRR Barry Zaleman NRC/NRR Jim O'Brien NRC/NRR Ed Fox NRC/NRR Falk Kantor NRC/NRR Dan Barss NRC/NRR Lawrence Cohen NRC/NRR
l-4 NEl/NRC MEETING ON EMERGENCY PLANNING ISSUES 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 guldance 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 "overall" effectiveness of the plan Basis for conclusion regarding elimination of commitments Reasonable assurance standard Plans and status of implementation of guidance by licensees Licensee experience
- Regional acceptance i
10:30 NRC staff assessment of NEl proposed position i
Key issues Plans and status 10:50 Concluding remarks 11:00 Adjoum
l l
Assessment of Acceptability of Plan l
Change Per 10 CFR 50.54(q) l
\\
White Flint January 23,1998 Nuclear Energy Institute NEI w
i i
w i
Background - Development of l
Screening Criteria i
= XEIIssues Task Force I
Presentation to NRC - April 23,1996
=
Roll out at 1996 NEI Meeting
=
Panel Discussion 1997 NEI Meeting l
=
Existing screening criteria
=
Letter to NRC, September 25,1997
=
l Requesting Formal Review j
NEI 4
l
Nuclear Energy Institute Issue Task Force Nonnan 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 Martin J. Vonk N. Merrill Maddox Comed Southern Nucicar Operating Company Cyrus K. Anderson David R. Seebart Southern California Edison Co.
Wisconsin Public Service Corp.
David Young North Atlantic Energy NEI w
- ~ ~ ~
D
j Assessment of Acceptability of Plan l
Change Per 10CFR50.54(q) l l
Industry Goals
= Effective use and application of 10CFR50.54(q) i i
= Clarify definition of:
l
" decreasing the effectiveness" i
)
= Consistent review process
= Timely implementation l
NEI g
i
^
-4 Assessment of Acceptability of Plan Change Per 10CFR50.54(q) i Need fo Clarification i
= Changes to emergency plans accommodate reevaluation of commitments that exceed i
regulatory requirements l
= Experience with the current process has caused l
confusion about implementing 50.54(q) effectively i
j
= There is a need to clarify the:
"testfor deciding if a change has decreased the l
effectiveness of the phin" NEI k
1 l
l i
NEI Screening Criteria for Assessment of Acceptability of Emergency Plan Changes
= No decrease in effectiveness of reasonable assurance l
l
= No loss of ability to meet planning standards l
= Does not contradict any regulatory i
requirement L
NEI w
i e
industry Experience With Emergency Plan Changes
= Common Practice: Seek prior approval
= Recognition of need for clarification
= Inspectors caught in the middle NEI
=
.l-A
~
Regulatory Reform Burden Reduction in Reactor Licensing Activities, March 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 don't reduce effectiveness, but if somebody has I
more security than is necessary, they should be l
able to get down to some standard without having to apologize for having over performed l
in the past."
NEI w
I
NRC Generic Letter 95-08: 10CFR50.54(p?
Process for Changes to Security Plans Without Prior NRC Approval l
Change the current practices to enable licensees to make changes to their security plans without prior NRC approval.
)
l A change in any of the three security plans is deemed not to l
decrease the effectiveness of the plan if the change does not decrease the ability of the onsite physical protection system and security organi7ation, as described in paragraphs (b) through (h) of 10 CFR73.55, or equivalent measures approved under 10CFR73.55(a), to protect with high assurance against j
the design basis threat as stated in 10CFR73.l(a).
NEI i
1
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 when screening changes, particularly regarding specific guidance issues. The original intent of 10CFR50.54(p) was to screen changes in terms of their overall impact on the security program.
NEI v
NRC Generic Letter 95-08: 10CFR50.54(p)
Process for Changes to Security Plans Without Prior NRC Approval (cont'd) i 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 l
criteria necessary for determining the acceptability of a change made pursuant to 10CFR50.54(p). NUREG-0908, j
" Acceptance Criteria for the Evaluation of Nuclear Power j
Reactor Security Plans," is an example of a document that j
should not be used verbatim to make individual acceptability determinations.
NEI w
l
- J
/\\
A
~
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 been inactive to allow the staff to gain experience with the security plan 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 n
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 W
s 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 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."
NEI 4
DRAFT. 04/2N94 SCREENING CRITERIA OUTLINE I
ASSESSMENT OF ACCEPTABILITY OF PLAN CHANGE PER 10 CFR 50.54(q) l SECTION/rITLE:
i List the plan section and title where the chc.nge is proposed.
DESCRIPTION OF CRANGE. :
Provide a detailed dueription 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 supports a "no" responses, the change may be implemented without prior NRC approval under the provisions of 10 CFR 50 54(q)
I
- 1. Yes_ No_ DOES THE CHANGE DECREASE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PLANRESULTING IN THE LOSS OF REASONABLE ASSURANCE i
THAT ADEQUATE PROTECTION CAN AND WILL BE TAKENIN l
THE EVENT OF A RADIOLOGICAL EhERGENCY AS REQUIRED BY 10 CFR 50.47 (a)?
i 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, n review of applicable plans, procedures, and resources, or by demonstration of the affected capabilities in a drill or exercise. Consideraton should be given to any applicable site. specific plannmg needs.
- 2. Yes_ No_ DOES THE CHANGE RESULT IN THE LOSS OF ABILITY TO ME ANY OF THE STANDARDS OR APPLICABLE REQUIREhENTS DESCRIBED IN 10 CFR 50.47 (b) AND (d) OR ANY NRC APPROVED i
ALTERNATIVES TO THOSE STANDARDS AND REQUIREhEN"'!
Rationale: Explain any change that reasonably brings into question the ability to meet 4
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 thou requirementa.
- 3. Yes No_ DOES THIS CHANGE DELETE OR CONTRADICT ANY OTHER REGULATORY REQUIREhENT?
4 1
4 Page1of1 1
DR AFP. 04/22/96 Industry White Paper ASSESSMENT OF ACCEPTABILITY OF PLAN CHANGE PER 10 CFR 50.54(q)
Purnose The nuclear industty is providing this white paper to clanfy the methods p'ermitted to be used by licensees to process changes to emergency plans in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q).
Discussion Some confusion and inconsister:ies have occurred in the past regarding the process fo implementation of 10 CFR 50.54(q) for emergency plan changes. The ensmal criterion f judging the whether of changes made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(q) decreased the effectiveness of the plan wns wheth er the overall effectiveness of the plan was decrense This white paper clan 5es the language in 10 CFR 50.54(q) that licensees "may make changes to these plans u:ithout Commission approval only if the changes do not decrea effectiveness of the plans and the plans, as changed, continue to meet the standard paragraph 50.47(b) and the requirements ofAppendix E to this part.'
The following is a clari5 cation of this language. Changes that meet the following cr 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 abilMes of the emergency response organization, and/or supportmg emergency 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 protection of public health and safety i the event of a radiological emergency as stated in 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1). The chan 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, ehmmation of commitments that have exceeded regulatory requirements. 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 regarding 10 CF 50.54(q) changes and implement those changes permitted by the regulations. With the us of the above clariScation, licensees should implement changes made pursuant to 10 CIR 50.54(q) without prior NRC approval.
Page 1 of 2
Some of the emergency prepandness related regulatory guidance is dated and has become superseded in recent years. Caution should be exercised by licensees when semening changes, particularly regarding specific guidance issues. The guidance given in NRC publications are not requirements and should not be interpnted as the only possible methods for satisfying ngulatory nquinments. NUREG 0654," Criteria for the Pnparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Paparedness I
in Support of Nuclear Power Plants,"is an example of a document that should not be used verbatim to make individual acceptability determinations.
t The original intent of 10 CFR 50.54(q) was to senen changes in terms of their overall impact on the emergency preparedness program. The screening criteria contained herein i
an the fundamental criteria necessary for determintag the acceptability of a change made pursuant tu 10 CFR 50.54(g).
The criterion contained in the clanEcation presented henin is not applicable to plan changes that would ehnunate or replace emergency plan commitments to speciEc response measures stated in 10 CFR 50.47 (b) and (d). Requests for NRC approval of such changes j
may need to be pursued under 10 CFR 50.90 as license amendment requests and would require NRC approval prior to implementation, t
A suggested outline for applying the clarified criterion for the evaluation of a proposed i
emergency plan change is in Attachment 1. Evaluation of a propcsed emergency plan j
change using the suggested outline should lead to a deternunation as to whether or not the j
change can be made without prior NRC approval. Changes made pursuant to 10 CFR l
50.54(q) and consistent with the critarion in this white paper may be made to emergency plans. Licensees that successfully satisfy the senening 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 beensee's determination of no decrease in c/fectitieness of the plan in acccrdance with 10 CFR 50.54(q).
4 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.
i i
i j
t 5
Page 2 of 2 i
j
Review of Submittal Process I
= All submittals to Document Control Desk
= Copy to inspector
= Changes that decrease effectiveness are reviewed by NRR.
= Changes that do not decrease effectiveness are reviewed by Region NEI W
.l
Application of Screening Criteria Addition of planning standards
= Example
. Emergency Plan change NEI
SCREENING CRITERIA OUTLINE Page 1 of 3 ASSESSMENT 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 RESULTINO 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:
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 STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS 7 Check each of the planning standards 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(by.1)
Prim uy responsibilities of SONGS, state, or local organizations.
X YES NO Responsibilities of supporting organizations.
YES
_X_NO initial staffing or sugmentation.
YES
_X_NO
$0.54Q 020 Revmon 0 6S6
SCREENING CRITERIA OUTLINE Page 2 of 3 ASSESSMENT OF ACCEPTABILITY OF PLAN CR\\NGE PER 10 CFR 50.54(q) 50.47(b)(2)
On shift responsibilities for emergency response.
_X_YES NO Staf6ng for initial accident response.
YES
_X_NO Timely augmentation.
YES X NO Interfaces among onsite and offsite response activities.
YES
_X_NO 50.47(b)(3)
Arrangements for requesting and using assistance resources.
YES
_X_NO Accommodations at the EOF for state and local staff.
YES
_X_NO 50 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 noti 0 cation of emergency personnel.
YES
_X_NO The procedure for initial and followup messages.
YES X NO The process ofinstructing the populace within the 10 mile EPZ.
YES
_X_NO 50.47(b)(6)
The provisions for prompt communication among principal response organzation to emergency personnel and to the public.
YES
_X_NO 50.47(b)(7)
Public information process, principal points of contact, or procedures for coordinated dissemination ofinformation to the public.
YES
_X_NO 50.47(b)(8)
An emergency response facility, equipment, or maintenance of each.
YES
_X_NO
$0.47(b)(9)
Methods, sy stems, or equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or 50.47(b)(10) potential offsite consequences.
YES
_X_NO 50.47(b)(I !)
Protective 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 50.47(b)(13)
The arrangements for medical service for contaminated 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 1
50.47(b)(17)
Responsibilities for plan development, review, or distribution of emergency piens or training of planners.
YES
_X_NO 50 54Q 020 Revtsion 0 6S6
SCREENING CRITEIUA OUTLINE Page 3 of 3 ASSESSMENT OF 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 estimates 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 nonherly evacuation times are used in EPIPs since SCE's PARS are implemented for the entire EPZ and the nonherly times are highest and are therefore limiting. Here 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 <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> release, the public would spend up to 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> under the plume within the EPZ where they would have only spent up to 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> 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 <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> at night because of this change. The increased likelihood of a shelter PAR is because SCE's EPIPs allow recommending shelter if the radioactive release duration is projected to be shorter than the evacuation time. This PAR prc, vision 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 incrases 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 <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> plume), the increase is bounded by the adverse weather case.
Under the previous study, the adverse weather condition could have resulted in sheltering the pubhc for up to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />. Therefore the public could be subjected to the plume passing overhead for up to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />. 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 applicable 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 OTHER 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 Revmon 0 6,96
e 6
NELSON, Alan From:
NELSON, Alan Sent:
Friday, January 09.199810:27 AM To:
Subject:
RE: Proposed agenda for 1 N meeting These are the potential attendees 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 Wisconsin Public Service Corp From:
5'ewo" Mog voe45MrP SiMla nr: ged Sent:
Thursocy.Jonuory 09,1998 8 33 AM To:
NELSON. Alan Subject.
Proposeo agenco for 1/23 meeting
- 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 PL ANNING ISSUES 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
- Altemative 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 "overair effectiveness of the plan Basis for conclusion regarding elimination of commitments Page 1
s
- Reasonable assurance standard
' Plans aM status of implementation of guidance by licensees Licensee experience
- Regional acceptance 10:30 NRC staff assessment of NEl proposed pos' ion n
- Key issues
' Plans and status 10:50 Concluding remarks 11:00 Adpum Pags 2
6*E88g g"
t UNITED STATES g
., j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
f WASHINGTON, D.C. 30665 4 001 m y 15, 1996 ORGANIZATION:
NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI)
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC MEETING OF APRIL ?.3, 1996 TO HEAR INDUSTRY VIEWS ON 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 NEI to discuss industry-developed guidelines for accision criteria relative to when an emergency plan change may constitute a decrease in the effectiveness of the plan in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q). to this report is the agenda used by NEI for this meeting.
NEI provided a brief discussion of its efforts with regard to assisting licensees in reviewing emergency plan changes in order to determine if the change has resulted in a decrease in effectiveness of the plan.
to this report is a copy of the slides used during this presentation. Also, during the meeting, representatives of the NEl task force reviewing this issue presented three plan changes 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 discussions, 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 NEI task force reviewing this issue (Attachment 5).
NRC representatives provided general comments regarding the methodology and the examples; however, no attempt was made to reach consensus re arding NEI's proposed methodology or the three examples.
dw
., Senior Health Physcist rgency Preparednass and Radiation Protection Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 689 Attachments: As stated cc w/o Attachments: See next page C]dOffM&~~
cc:
Mr. Alan Nelson, Project Manager RadiolCgical Protection, Emergency Preparedness and Waste Regulation Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Washington, 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. G. Box 128, Blvd N-49 San Clemente, CA 92674 Mr. N. Merrill Madoox, Coordinator Emergency Ph ning Technical SENices Department Southern Nuclear Generating Company P. O. Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201 Mr. Norman Hood, Manager Emergency Planning Texas Utility Electric Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station P. O. Box 1002 Glen Rose, TX 76043 Mr. Martin Vonk, Supervisor Emergency Preparedness o
Commonwealth Edison Company 1400 Opus Place, ETW III 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 20878
M{ETING ATTENDEES NRC/NEI DATE 4/22f.El HABE ORGANIZATION IILEPHONE Edwin Fox, Jr NRC/NRR (301)-415-2908 Bill Rentz Virginia Power (804)-273-0142 Jun Yu NRC/NRR (301)-415-3924 Falk Kantor NRC/NRR (301)-415-2907 Cyrus Anderson So. Cal. Edison (San Onofre)
(714)-368-6635 N. Merrill Maddox Southern Nuclear / Tech Sves (205)-870-6399 Norman Hood Texas Utility Electric (817)-897-5889 (Comanche Peak)
Alan Nelson Nuclear Energy 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
J NEI
~
k 4
hU(llAP thli0V l h 51:1 V 11 Aisn P. Nelson i
i' " "'
.$$"Oisiwas
,xas a September 25,1997 4
Dr. Charles L. Miller, Chief Emergency Preparedness and Radiation Protection Branch I
Office ofNuclear Reactor Regulations i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l
SUBJECT:
Assessment of Acceptability Of Plan Change Per 10 CFR 50.54(q) t
Dear Dr. Miller:
4 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.
+
Backrround 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. NEI 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).
4 After the industry presentation the following NRC staff points of view were offered:
The staffis aware of the differing views within 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 view.
t
,.-ee.
4
Dr. Charles L. Miller September 25,1997 Page 2 A few of the regions believe that an emergency plan as approved is the " basic plan," any change to this approved pit.n would therefore constitute a decrease in effectiveness, despite the fact that the plan may contain over-commitments.
At the meeting the NRC noted that the staffis still at the decision stage regarding how to communicate what constitutes a " decrease in effectiveness" to the regions and the industry. NEI suggested that the staff consider endorsing the NEl white paper.
Curmnt Status Since the April 23,1996, meeting, NEI 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 for consistent implementation of the white paper. NEI encourages NRC to endorse the white paper as an acceptable approach to 10 CFR 50.54(q).
Ifyou have any questions regarding this request please contact me at (202) 739 8110 or by e mail (apn@nei.org).
Sincerely, y
Alan Nelson APN/tnb Enclosures
a DJQE.T - 04/22/96 i
Industry White Paper
- ASSESSMENT OF ACCEPTABILITY OF PLAN CHANGE PER 10 CFR 50.54(q) t 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 Y
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 4
judgmg 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 was decreased.
This white paper clariSes the language in 10 CFR 50.54(q) that licensees "may make changes to theseplans without Commission approval only if the changes do not decrease the elfectiveness of theplans and theplans, as changed, continue to meet the standards of paragraph 50.47(b) and the requirements of Appendix E to this part."
The following is a clari6 cation of this language. Changes that meet the following criterion j
should be permitted without prict hTC approval.
A change to an emergency plan will not decrease the effectiveness of the plan if the 4
change will not decrease the abilities of the emergency response organization, and/or supporting emergency response facilities and equipment, as requited by paragraphs CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E, or equivalent measures approved under 10 CFR 50.47(c), to reasonably assure the 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 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.
i s
Use of this criterion allows, for example, elimination of commitments that have exceeded regulatory requirements. 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 i
of the above clari6 cation. licensees should implement changes made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(q) without prior NRC approval.
Page 1 of 2 1
I j
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 speciSc 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 i
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 determinations.
The originalintent of 10 CFR 50.54(q) was to screen changes in terms of their overall I
impact on the emergency preparedness 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 clariScation presented herein is not applicable to plan changes that would eliminate or replace emergency plan commitments to speciSc response measures stated in 10 CFR 50.47 (b) and (d). Requests for NRC approv ' of such changes may need to be pursued under 10 CFR 50.90 as license amendrnent regt. 4ts 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 suggested outline should lead to a detcrmination 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 I 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 4
the licensee's determination of no decrease in effectiveness of theplan 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 sitet. The licensee bears the responsibility for changes made without prior NRC approval.
i Page 2 of 2
DR AFT - 04/22/96 SCREENING CRITERIA OUTLINE ASSESSMENT OF ACCEPTABILITY OF PLAN CHANGE PER 10 CFR 50.54(q)
SECTIONTITLE:
List the pla.: section and title where the change is proposed.
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE:
i Provide a detailed description of the change.
4 EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW:
l Review the program change against the following questions. If the response to all these questions is "no" and the rationale supports 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 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PLAN RESULTING IN THE LOSS OF REASONABLE ASSURANCE THAT ADEQUATE PROTECTION CAN AND WILL BE TAKEN IN THE EVEhT 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 speciSc planning needs.
- 2. Yes_ No_ DOES THE CHANGE RESULT IN THE LOSS OF ABILITY TO MEET ANY OF THE STANDARDS OR APPLICABLE REQUIREMEhTS 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 CHA?"'" DELETE OR CONTRADICT ANY OTHER REGULATORY Ri
..REMENT?
i Page1of1 i
- - - - - - - - - - - ^ ^ ^ - -
- ' ^ - ~ -^^
RCVhbvhEl i 4-22-96 : 6:26 i 301 415 286lk to : b\\w Ne%;e1 NE g
S.
UNif50 STATER NUOLEAR REQULATORY COMMISSION b'*'
T'" N, WAeMNGTON D.C. Str.A4 40tM Artil 10, 1996 MEMORANDUM 70s Charles L. Miller, Branch Chief
/
/
//
Radiation Protection Branch office of Nuclear Reactor Regulatici
/g i
FRON:
Thomas H. Essig, Chief 1
Emergency Preparedness and Envi salth n
Phys es Section teer ency Preparedness and Radi tion Protection Branch i
Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear 'leactor Regulaticn
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH NEI TO HEAR INDUSTRY VIEWS ON EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ISSUES j
DATE & TIMI:
April 23, 1996 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
LOCATION:
One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Ntryland 0WFN Conference Room 04-8 13 PURPOSE:
This meeting is being held at the request of NE! to present industry-dev61oped guidelines for decision criteria relative to when an emergency plan change may constitute a decrease in the effectiventst of the plan ' n accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(q).
j PARTICIPANTS *:
Mi,(
ICUSTRY T. Essig, NRR A. Nelson, NEI F. Kantor, NRR et. al.
E. Fox et. al, NRR CONTACT: Thomas H. Essig. NRR 415-2910
- Meetings between NRC technical staff and applicants or licensees are open for interested members of the pubile, petitioners, intervonors, or other parties to attend as observers sursuant to 'Constission Policy Statement on Staff Meetings Open to the Pu)11c' 59 Federal Racister 48344. 9/20/94.
.! P. P N I..
.....i.J-tety I am :
. 0 7:1757 m
.g;: 3
[ l " *:
. v...
s w__
SERVICE FOR EVALUATING REGULATORY CHANGES Vs MEETING:
NRC Staff Meeting with NEI to Discais What Consutures a " Decrease in Effectiver.ess' DATE:
Apnl 23,1996 APPLICABILrTY:
BWR/PWR NUMBER:
MS%n KEY
SUBJECT:
Emergency Preparednces Licensing VRC Star Remsectarios:
Tom Essig, Emergency Preparetiness and Radiation Protection Bruch (PERB), Office of Nu:' ear Rea:'er Regulation (NRR)
Ed Fou h., PERS, NR.R Talk Kantor, PERB, NRR Indusw Reesenutives:
Alari Nelson, NE!
Cyrus Andmon, Southern Califomia Edison Company Nman Hood, TU Electric N. Memil Maddox. Southern Suclear Bill Renz, Virstnia Power Marna Vonk, Commonwealth Edison Company On April 23,1996, the NRC 5taff met with NE! to discuss the atuernent of acceptability of emergenc) plan changes per 10 CFR 50.84(q). N1'.1 has developed a draft industry white paper clanfying the language in 10 CFR 50.54(q) on what consrirutas a
- decrease in e5sedveneas.' Section 50.54:q) states that licensees 'may make changes to those plans without Comrnission appreval only if the changes de not decrease the effectivencu of the plans and the plans, as changed 9octeue to tnest the standarcs of paragraph 50.47(b) and the requiremems of Append!x E to this part."
NEI suggested that changes winch meet the following criterion should be pertnitted without prior NRC approval: A change to an emq~ency plan will not decrease the effectnancss of the ple if the changes mil not decrease the abilities of the etDergency r*sponse organization, and'or supponing emergency response facilities and equipment, as required by paragraphs CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E, er equivalent measures approved under 10 CFR 50.47(c), to r*asonably assure the adequate protection of public health and safety in the tvent of 6 rad.% logical emergency as stated in 10 CFR 50.47(aXI). The change canact delete or replace any of itn.npabilities described in 10 CFR 50.47 (b) and (d), or in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. Use of this criterion allows, for esarr.ple, the elimination cf commitrnents that have exceedet regulatory requiremems. Plan commitments may not be reduced to levels less than the everall reasonable assurance objective stated in 10 CFR 50.47(a).
BECHTE. POWER CORP:: RATION 9801 Washirgtonia9 BNd.. Gaatnersbu*g. Marylan: 20878-5356 Phone. (301) 4*7 3771 Fax. (301) 925 7036 e
_#2
.,; *he
-* 6
D.B92L....
....... !.NkE.:.l: 3W i 33?ll?5?15 My' 3 r
jage.,s Tom Enig commented that the Staffis aware of the difering views within th*, Regions on the role of an approved emergency plart While some argue that plans do coetain overcommitmers and thus some degree of change is allowed without decreasing the cNectiveneu, others take the opposite view. A few of the regions believe that an emergency plan as approved is the " basic plan"; any change to this appmved plan would therefore consnrute a decrease in effectiveness, despite the fact that the plan may contain oveitornmicnents.
Enig noted that the Staffis still at the decision stage regarding how to comrnunicate what,onstitutes a
- decrease in efectivenes5' to the regions and the industry. He does not believe that the genenc !ctter approach taken in the seevnty area, 50.54(p), would be appro, riste. Essig stated that the mechanism should be has formal. NEl suggested that the StaE consider endorsing the NEI document.
Essig committed to discussing the options with the StaN.
The NET paper provides threr screening criteria, if the res beensee pmvides a rationale that supports the "no' response,ponse to all the questions is "no" and the the change may be impicmented without prior NRC approval. The draft screening criteria are:
(1)
Does the change decrease the c1Tectiveness of tse plan resulting in the loss of ressenable assurance that adequate protection can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency as required by 10 CFR 50.47(a)?
~
Explain how tbc change maintams reasonable amnance of adeq9are protective actions.
An explanation may be based on an assessment ofits effsets on public heahh and safety; a eview of applicable plans, procedurm, and rescursest or by dersonstration of the afected capabilities m a drill or exercise. Consideration should be given to any appikable site specific planning needs.
(2)
Does the change resah in the loss of ability to most any of t+te standanis or appli:able requirernents described in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and (d) or any NRC appr6ved alternatives to.bose
- tandards and requirements?
Explain any change that reasonably brings into question the abilfry to meet any of the sixteen standartis desenbed in 10 CFR 50.4"t(b), and any applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(d) or any NRC-approved altamstnes to those reg.tirements.
I Q)
Does this change delete or contradict any other regula:ory requirement?
Falk Kantor noted that a good technical analysis and rationale must support the "no" answer to the screening questions. Essig added that thisjustification must provide infonnation on "what's new"(e g.,
automation, technology dwvelopment, etc.) since the emergency plan committment was put m place.
This "what's new" would help to justify why it is now acceptable to remove the requirernent from the plan.
s
)
a
)
Bb.P.:hE;.,,,,,
.....u-24-0,j,.Q:ltu
,lj?tl?l?1i-
. ht;:s 4 Page3
.l Copa ef the following documsets e available upon request from the SERCH Staff:
i (a) 10 page NE! handout, "Ameasment of Acceptability of Plan Change per 10 CFR 50.54(q)*
(b) 3.page Drsts Industry White Paper 1
(c) 14.pnge handout. "E.xample. Core. Thermal Hydraulles Function. by B. Reru (d) 3.page handout, "Easmple. Respiratory Protection Equipment Storage." by N. Hood (e) 12.page handout, "Exa.aple. Radiation Protection Techniciarts," by M. Vonk Fer Parther infomation. please contact the SERCH Author.
Thertsa Sutter. (301) 417 4:44 email: tasuner3bethiel. corn 4
l l
,y+
^^
Assessment of Acceptability of Plan Change Per 10 CFR 50.541,qs' White Flint April 23,1996 Nuclear Energy nsti:ute t
E
Assessment of Acceptability of Plan Change Per 10 CFR 50.54'q)
\\Nelcome Puraose of the Meeting Neec for C arification Aaa ica': ion of 10 CFR 50.5L(c)
Inc ustry White Pa'aer Screening Criteria Discussion inc ustry Effec':iveness Review -
Exam a es
- Discussion Summary and Follow-Ua Activi':ies 4
s.
o
s Industry Goals 4
ETective use anc a33 ication o' 10 CFR 50.54(q)
C ari"y cefinition of:
" decreasing the effectiveness" Consistent review arocess Timely im a ementation 2
Use of 10 CFR 50.541,q)
The intent of ' O CFR 50.54(c) is to screen clanges in terms of their overa imaact on the eTectiveness o' t7e emergency pre aarec ness arogram.
Exaerience wit 1 the current 3roCess las CauseC Con #Usion a 30ut im a ementing 50.5L(q) e'Tective y.
4
s Use of 10 CFR 50.54[q?
' Continued) i Changes to emergency plans I
accommoc ate reeva uation of i
commitments t1at exceed 1
l regulatory rec uirements.
i l
There is a neec to clarify the:
" test for deciding if a change has l
decreased the effectiveness of the plan. "
e i
l gs 4
I:-
Industry Draft White Paper l
l The waite pa aer provides structure to the anguage in 10 CFR 50.54(q) that licensees:
l "may make changes to the plans without Commission approval only i
if the changes do not decrease the l
effectiveness of the plans and the l
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 fo lowing criteria should be permitted:
- The change does not decrease the ability of the emergency response organization, and/or supporting emergency response facilities and
)
equipment to adequately protect with reasonable assurance in the event of a radiological l
emergency; and
- A change does not involve failure to meet any l
other regulatory requirement.
.s;.
Industry Draft White Paper
[ Continued)
I The guicance given in NRC au alications are not rec uirements anc shoulc not be interpretec as the only possiale methocs for satisfying regu atory rec uirements.
T7ese pro 30sec screening criteria wou c not al ow p an changes that woulc e iminate or alter saecific resource commitments in the emergency plan statec in 10 CFR
- 50. 47(3} and (c), anc A33encix E.
I i
6,
l Screening Criteria Discussion l
Use of these criteria should aermi:
1 ef'ective c etermina': ions as to l
w1 ether or not a change can be mac e wi":1ou": prior NRC a a arova i
i j
Use o' tie criteria wou c cocument l
the licensee's de:ermination of na l
decrease in effectiveness as rec uirec by ' O C:R 50.54(c).
4 Changes must be ap aroariate for l
par:icular si':e programs:
- The screening criteria do not guarantee i
j acceptance or applicability to all sites, and 1
- The licensee bears the responsibility for changes made.
I I
i
s Screening Criteria Outline Assessment of Acceptability of Plan Chance 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 adequate protection can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency as required by 10 CFR 50.47(a)?
YES NO RATIONALE:
Explain how the change maintains 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 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, g,
a
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 i
those standards and requirements?
YES NO RATIONALE:
Explain any change that reasonably brings into question the ability to i
i meet any of the sixteen standards described i
in 10 CFR 50.47(b), and any applicable i
requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(d) or any NRC-approved alternatives to those i
l requirements.
- 3. Does this change delete or contradict any regulatory requirement?
I YES NO 9
+- - -
r----
m.
---n----s----m m -
r-m-----
= -------se-
--m
-t--
mi---r a---*
- we--rwwa-
- ww wi me---w--sree-*-
C'-'e-*v r-e+Tm-e-v
t
- j Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Public Affairs i
Washington DC 20555 Telephone; 301/41$ 8200 E mail: opagnre gov i
No. S 9716 June 26,1997 j
' ECONOMIC DEREGULATION OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY:
i ENSURING NUCLEAR SAFETY IN AN ERA OF l
CHANGING OPERATIONAL AND FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVES" l
+
BY DR. SHIRLEY ANN JACKSON, CHAIRMAN U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION KEYNOTE ADDRESS TO THE ANNUAL MEETING OF NUCLEAR ELECTRIC INSURANCE, LTD.
j June 17,1997 1
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen 1 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 Nuclcar Regulatory 1
j Commission (NRC). In the past year, I have addressed a number of audiences on this topic. I fmd the occasion today particularly meaningful because your annual meeting brings together the Chief Financial Officers and Chief Executive Officers from a large number of companies that have NRC licenses I believe that, as economic deregulation of the electric utility industry and the resulting corporate restructuring proceed, the j
relationship of the financial decision maker to safe operation, and to the assurance of nuclear power plant decommissioning funding, will become more important. As the basis for your corporate financial results shifts from base rate cost recovery to market driven 4
competition, you will be called upon to make financial decisions of a different--and, in some cases, a more difficult--character, How 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 h1C?
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 h%C jurisdiction. For each area, I will share with you the actions the NRC is taking to ensure that we l'
understand the changes being brought about by restructuring, and to ensure that we are positioned for an appropriate response to those changes.
- ~, -, _. _ _.
s 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 government 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 intemally, 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 ch nges occur to the rules or statutory mandates undergirding economic deregulation, nor will we prescribe how the electric power industry restructures. It is, however, our responsibility to ensure that, as the business emironment 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 regulatory approach are well grounded and balanced I have grouped the challenges facing the industry under three general headings (1) the availability of funds for decommissioning and stranded costs,(2) electrical grid reliability, and (3) safe nuclear operations
- 11. DECOhiMISSIONING 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 trurd p:.rty 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 l
funds estimated as needed to complete decommissioning would be available.
l Y'ithin 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 reFulation with rate 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 equity), and the investment in trust funds. This practice is consistent l
I with earlier NRC determinations that traditional cost of service rate regulation prosides reasonable assurance of funds 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
r O
Electric utility means any entity that generates or distnbutes electricity, and which 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 PUCs) included within this dermition of
- electric utility" are investor owned utilities, including 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 any unwarranted withdrawals, and to require reimbursement of the trust fund for unwananted 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 of a threat to public health and safety if this actisity did not occur.
Although 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 to Deregulation When the Energy Policy Act of 1992 was passed, with provisions that enabled wholesale competition in electricity generation, few of us would have predicted the speed with w hich the shift to both wholesale and retail competition would occur Orders 888 and 889 issued by the FERC, together with the FERC merger policiet we major enabling actions for the economic deregulation of wholesale markets As tm: 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 regulaton-decisions, or take regulatory action, as appropriate, for issues within our direct statutory puniew.
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 geographically and integrated vertically.
Another focus area is the problem of above market or " stranded" costs, including some wckar plant capital and decommissioning costs States and the FERC are considering vvious 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 depreciation of their plants, so that by the time full retail competition arrives, the capital
s costs of certain nuclear plants 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 (or assets) should be addressed by State PUCs or State and Federallegislatures liowever, we are responsible for making clear that power reactor licensees must continue to have sufDeient resources both to operate and to decommiss;on their plants safely. That responsibility includes taking appropriate regulatory action for issues within NRC jurisdiction. Where warranted, it also includes weighing in on legislative initiatives under consideration by the Congress.
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 decommissioning funding policies to ensure that the existing regulatory framework was sufDeient to cope with any potential safety impacts on NRC power reactor licensees in Februsry 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 structure of nuclear electricity generation. To I
date, these actions have included the issuance of an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the formulation of e Proposed Rule, and the development of a draf Policy Statement and drafi Standard Review Plans, with due consideration of public comments at the various stages I will discuss each of these actions briefly, l
l 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 Advance Notice requested public comment on a specific proposed change to NRC regulations which would revise the definition of
- electric utility," and would impact 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 balan:e of decommissioning costs.
The staff reviewed a wide range of public comments submitted in response to the Advance Notice. One area of comment concemed " 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 10th year of a projected 40 years of the nuclear plant's operation.
i As I have already stated, the NRC traditionally has relied on rate regulators-the FERC j
and the State PUCs-for responsibilities such as setting the amortization schedule under which decommissioning funds tre collected. Although 10 CFR 50.75 requires licensees to j
/
s revis; annually the estimate of total decommissioning funds 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 take a stronger role in requiring, at periodic junctures, that licensees evaluate the status of their decommissioning 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 economic deregulation and the responsible actions of State PUCs, the NRC continues to believe that reliance on and coordination with the PUCs is well founded However, we will continue to monitor changes stemming from economic deregulation, to ensure that our respransibilities are met wi:h regard to ensuring the availability of decommissioning funding.
Based on a rigorous review of these and other public comments, as well as ongoing analysis of emerging industry developments, the staff has draRed a proposed rule, which currently is undergoing Commission review and should be released shonly for public comment. As drahed, the proposed rule would modify NRC decommissioning regulations in three areas First, it would additionally refme the proposal given in the Advance Notice concerning the revised defmition of"clectric utility," and the need for additional funding assurance for power reactor licensees not covered under the new dermition This refmement would clarify that, for entities within the defmition of electric utility, rates must be established by a regulatory authority, either directly through traditional
- cost of senice" regulation, or indirectly through another non bypassable charge mechanism Distinctions would also be made for those entities whose rate related sts are only panially covered by existing regulatory mechanisms Second, under the current dran of the proposed rule, we are considering the allowance of credit on earnings on the decommissioning trust funds.
Third, to keep the NRC informed oflicensee decommissioning funding assurance, the proposed rule would require licensee reponing of the status of decommissioning funding and any changes to trust agreements. While the proposed rule does not contain any benchmarking requirements, this reponing requirement would provide the NRC the information needed to assess whether licensee contributions to their decommissioning funds are adequate relative to the life of their plants Following a review ofinitiallicensee reports in this area, it may be prudent to consider again the appropriateness of a benchmarking requirement. I encourage you to review the proposed rule, and to take this opponunity to provide us your insights The NRC also is finalizing its policy statement on the Restructuring and Economic Deregulation of the Electric 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 identifv all owners. indirect as well as direct, of nuclear power plants; to evaluate the relative
s tesponsibilities of power plant co owners and co licensees; and to re evaluate our regulations for their adequacy in addressing the changes caused by rate deregulation On December 27 oflast year, the NRC issued for public comment the drafl Standard Review Plans on Antitrust and Financial Qualifications nd Decommissioning Funding Assurance. These plans are intended to ensure that the NRC clearly communicates its expectations concerning existing requirements and relevant owner / operator responsibilities in these areas. The NRC staffis cunently is finalizing these documents, with due consideration of public comments, and expects to issue the final Standard Resiew Plans later this summer.
Ill. ELECTRICAL GRID RELIABILITY An equally imponant area of NRC focus has been electrical pid reliability, or security. As many of you know, the term " Station Blackout" is used, in 'ne nuclear power industry, to refer to an event in which a loss of offsite power is coupled with the inability of the onsite emergency diesel generators to provide vital pow er to plant safety equipment. In recent years, NRC probabilistic risk assessments have made it clear that a Station Blackout at a nuclear power station is a major contributor to a panicular measure of risk known as reactor " core damage frequency" (that is, the probability per year per reactor that core damage will occur). Although Station Blackouts have been extremely rare to date, there have been a number of times 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 a Station Blackout continues to be an area of NRC focus.
In 1996, within a 5.w eek period, two electrical disturbances on the United States' Western Grid caused 190 power generating plants to trip offline, including several nuclear units This set of occurrences 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 side of the coin, the nuclear plants themselves are an imponant element of maintaining electrical ne' work stability.
In resiewing the electrical disturbances, the Western Systems Coordinating Council listed the following contributing factors: high Nonhwest transmission loads; equipment out of service; inadequate mamtenance of right of way, operation in a condition in which a single failure would overload parallel lines, triggering cascading outages, communication failures to neighboring utilities, prior to the disturbances, and the lack of response to earlier events.
At about the time these events were occuning last year, I reviewed a status report on the NRC accident sequence precursor pr9 gram. This program was established in 1979 to review operational events and to preside 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 probabilistic risk assessment techniques to proside quantitative estimates of the operating event significance in terms of the potential for reactor core
t 9
damage The report indicated that, in 1995, six of the ten precursor events involved problems with electrical equipment.
Thest events and studies tell us that, while nuclear generating stations are robust in design and operational riandards, they also are vulnerable to grid disturbances, and especially to Loss of-Offsite Power events.
Let me add a practical perspective. The Nonh American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) has prepared an independent assessment of the reliability of electric supply in Nonh America for this summer. The peak summer demand for electricity in the United States is projected to increase by S.3% from the actual 1996 summer peak. Electric utilities in Illinois, Wisconsin, and the New England area anticipate that electrical supply shortages may occur due to the prolonged unavailability of several thour,and megawatts of nucicar capacity. The different geographic areas have made extensive preparations to mitigate these problems liowever, such shortages, irrealized, could require controlled interruption (or
- rotating blackouts") to customer facilities for shon periods.
As I stated in January, in a speech to the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). from the perspective of a nuclear safety regulator the NRC -
economic deregulatiun must proceed with a sensitivity to, and an understanding of, the vulnerability of nuclear plants to Loss of Offsite Power events. This means that transmission network governance structores must reflect 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 structures assume, their authority must be strong enough to ensure that these factors are addressed Although grid reliability is a voluntary function under the Nonh American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) and the regional councils, Federal oversight currently is handled by the FERC and at the Depanment of Energy (DOE) The DOE has created a working advisory committee on the reliability of the U.S. electric system. The b%C has been coordinating with DOE, and will remain abreast of this effon, panicipating as appropriate We know that under discussion is the question of whether a Federal entity, such as the FERC, should be vestet with more authority to police grid reliability, or whether a voluntary organization such as the Nonh American Electric Reliability Council should be given enforceability teeth. What is important to the NRC is that grid reliability is not left to chance, but is explicitly addressed as electric industry restructuring unfolds.
In April, at my request, the Commission held two public meetings on aspects of electric power indunty restructuring. The first meeting focused on grid performance and reliability, and the second meeting addressed electric utility restructuring, with a significant amount of discussion on independent system operators (ISOs). These meetings brought together 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 industry
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 validiting grid 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 (hTRC)-
The Commission is especially interested in the effectiveness of such requirements and enforcement policies as they relate to grid reliability. Finally, the Commission asked that appropriate NRC regional staffvisit a power pool and a reliability council within their jurisdiction to improve h%C understanding of regional grid reliability issues IV. 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 results, plant performance reviews, and other evaluative mechanisms, the NRC takes the action it deems appropriate to protect public heahh and safety.
While the overall safety performance of the U.S. nuclear power industry continaes to improve, we have seen events that may signal a need for heightened concern NRC safety assessments at several reactor facilities have identified deficiencies stemming from common root causes-both of which are receiving increased 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 actions and plant improvements. The second is the licensee failure to identify and correct promptly problems arising in areas that licensee management has viewed not always correctly-as having low safety significance The Commission has taken certain actions in response to these kinds of signals. To ensure that the NRC can detect safety degradations at licensee facilities, we are developing measures that would identify plants where economic stress may be adversely impacting safety. The NRC evaluates the safety performance of nuclear power plants using licensing information, inspection results, operating experience, performance indicators, enforcement actions, and assessments oflicensee effectiveness in identifying and correcting problems.
Semi annually, there various measures and assessments are integrated into an overall review at NRC Senior hianagement hieetings. These meetings help to ensure that NRC resources are tocused 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 Senior hianagement hieeting process, the NRC is developing objective, meaningful, " leading" performance indicators of nuclear plant
.=.
c
?
performance, as well as an enhanced approach for monitoring and assessing licensee conective actions In the Summer of1996, we commissioned an outside study by Anhur Andersen to evaluate the Senior hianagement hiecting 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 Arthur Andersen repon proposed a detailed methodology for using existing performance indicators in reaching Senior hianagement hiee2g decisions. The Commission has endorsed significant portions of the repon aral its recommendations, and has asked the NRC staff to 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.
While NRC regulatory and safety decisions must not be influenced by a perceived need to lower nuclear plant operating costs, we feel keenly our responsibility to pursue our health and safety mission 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 improved 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 resiew of cost beneficiallicensing 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 regulatory guides will be developed These effons will assist the NRC and nuclear licensees in focusing their resources on th; most safety significant aspects of nuclear operations, while maintaining defense in-depth -
which in tum should both enhance safety and improve cost-competitiveness.
V. INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE This overall topic-trends in electric generation and their effect on nuclear safety-is not only an issue for the U.S. Just last month, the International Nuclear Regulators Association was created, a new body designed to enhance nuclear safety worldwide. I am pleased to serve as the first Chairman of this group. During our two-day 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 4
VI. CONCLUSION in closing, let me reiterate that the NRC will continue to take seriously its responsibility as 4
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 is not narrowly focused on shon term returns.
As the Chairman of the NRC, I have the Chief Financial OfIicer (CFO) reponing directly to me. Working with the CFO and the Executive Director for Operations, I have the responsibility of developing the NRC budget for Commission consideration. Right now the NRC, like all govemment agencies, is in the final planning stages for the Fiscal Year 1999 budget. I know how difIicuh 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 impo.7 ant pan of the planning process My own view is that a.dequate protection of p olic health and safety is entirely compatible with a deregulated environment, provided that the economic restructuring of the electric power industry addresses the elements that are necessary for that protection. As I have outlined this morning, those entities responsible for economic jeregulation must recognize the safety implications of change, and those of you in the nuclear enerFy industry must recognize that there are no economic shon cuts to safely operated, economically siable nuclear power facilities The many players who have a role in the interesting and challenging environment of electric power industry restructuring must work together--
including the NRC as sr.fety regulator, the FERC and the State regulatory commissions as rate regulators, and industry underwriters, owners, operators, and licensees Eacn must j
understand the concerns of the other panies involved in order to ensure that we will continue to enjoy the benefh 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 respond to your questions at this time.
1 Nuclear Energy Institute Project No. 689 cc:
Mr. Ralph Beedle Ms. Lynnette Hendricks, Director Senior Vice President Plant Support and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute Ne:: lear Energy Institute Suite 400 Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 3708 Washington, DC 20006 3708 Mr. Alex Marion, Director Programs Nuclear Energy institute Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 3708 Mr. David Modeen, Director Engineering Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW 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, Manager Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activities Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Mr. Jirn Davis, Director Operations Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708
>