ML20205M678
| ML20205M678 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/09/1999 |
| From: | Stewart Magruder NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Carpenter C NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| PROJECT-689 NUDOCS 9904160009 | |
| Download: ML20205M678 (12) | |
Text
b April 9 1999 MEMORA;dUM TO: Cynthb A. Crrpent;r, Ch::!f Generic issues, Enviror.m:ntil, Finrnciil and Rulemaking Branch Division of Regulatory improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Stewart L. Magruder, Project Manager Original Signed By:
Generic issues, Environmental, Financial and Rulemaking Branch Division of Regulatory improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI) REGARDING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ISSUES DATE & TIME:
April 22,1999 1:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
LOCATION:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Room O-13B9 PURPOSE:
To discuss the attached proposed revision to Emergency Preparedness Position (EPPOS) No. 4 regarding emergency plan and implementing procedure changes.
- PARTICIPANTS:
NRC NEl T. Essig L. Hendricks J. O'Brien A. Nelson, et al.
E. Fox F. Kantor, et al.
Project No. 689 cc: See next page
Attachment:
As stated
- Meetings between NRC technical staff and applicants or licensees are open for interested members of the public, petitioners, interveners, or other parties to attend as observers pursuant to
- Commission Policy Statement on Staff Meetings Open to the Public" 59 Federal Reoister 48340,9/20/94. Members of the public who wish to attend should contact James O'Brien at
)
(301) 415-2919 or jbo@nrc. gov.
t 160g4Q
([~
)
Distribution: See next page j
DOCUMENT: G:\\stm1\\mtg0422.wpd (yh b OFFICE RGEB IOHB (A)SC:PGEB NAME SMagrudeYyw JO'Brierhh TBergmaM DATE 04/ 7 /99 04/ f b9 04/ 9 /99 occic' AL RECORD COPY 9904160009 990 W
"" " '" N
- nd CEffE f!DPY 964PBof fM7o
7;
~-
g j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. m o
s.,....../
April 9,1999 MEMORANDUM TO: Cynthia A. Carpenter, Chief Generic lasues, Environmental, Financial and Rulemaking Branch Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Stewart L. Magruder, Project Manager 9+>.M1 A
Generic issues, Environmental, Financial and Rulemaking Branch Division of Regulatory improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI) REGARDING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ISSUES DATE & TIME:
' April 22,1999 1:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
LOCATION:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Room O-1389 PURPOSE:
To discuss the attached proposed revision to Emergency Preparedness Position (EPPOS) No. 4 regarding emergency plan and implementing procedure changes.
- PARTICIPANTS:
NRQ
.N_El T. Essig L. Hendricks J. O'Brien A. Nelson, et al.
E. Fox F. Kantor, et al.
Project No. 689 cc: See next page
Attachment:
As stated
- Meetings between NRC technical staff and applicants or licensees are open for interested members of the public, petitioners, interveners, or other parties to attend as observers pursuant to " Commission Policy Statement on Staff Meetings Open to the Public" 59 Federal Reaister 48340,9/20/94. Members of the public who wish to attend should contact James O'Brien at (301) 415-2919 or jbo@nrc. gov.
J
F
(
==.y UNITED STATES
\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION g
DIVISION OF REACTOR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RADIATION PROTECTION BRANCH
SUBJECT:
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS POSITION (EPPOS ) ON EMERGENCY PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURE CHANGES PURPOSE
- 1. To provide guidance to the staff for the deterr: ! nation of whether a change to an emergency plan (1) constitutes a decrease in effectiveness or (2) results in the plan, as changed, no longer meeting either the planning standards of @50.47(b) or the requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 for the facility.
- 2. To provide guidance to the staff for the review of changes to procedures that implement a licensee's emergency plan.
- 3. To provide guidance to the staff for the review of changes to licensee's emergency action levels.
i BACKGROUND The NRC expects licensees to carefully review changes to their emergency plans and objectively determine whether the changes can be made under the provisions of @50.54(q) without prior NRC approval.
This EPPOS does not provide guidance for review of emergency plan changes which are submitted for approval prior to implementation. In accordance with 50.54(q) licensees may make changes which decrease the effectiveness of the emergency plan but must submit these to the NRC for approval prior to implementing the changes. NRR will review plans submitted g eneose,oc s
$ s,. generated by NRR's EPARP Branch (PERB)In response to,equests for guidance from the Regional Offices or to otherwlae address emergent e
t,"".'n'."%::"."b.so,.::M",2',:',,"."%';"L"'n'R?'"R7L:,"",L'o"ttn%."~c":"",'::::l ':ia ":,'""" o",'::':'
on a c nkm su$.,st$,,.".5"i$nSot5"c?n$n$,ran o$ntsmebe ceo"$d on en?st?n'g51 osYr$N$c st$tt trou o$t?de o$d$od ats or o,g April 9,1999 1
EPPOS No. 4 Proposed Revision 1
(
~
for approval to ensure that they meet the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.
Revision 1 to this EPPOS is a substantial revision which was prompted by comments on Revision 0 provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute (in a letter dated January 19,1999),
Winston and Strawn (in a letter dated February 9,1999), and by NRC regionalinspectors.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS With regard to any change to emergency plans,10 CFR 50.54(q) states, in part:
"A licensee authorized to possess and operate a nuclear power recctor shall follow and maintain in effect emergency plans which meet the standards in $50.47(b) and the requirements in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50... The nuclear power reactor licensee may make changes to these plans without Commission approval only if the changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the plan. and the plan, as chanaed. coatinues to meet the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the reauirements of ADDendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. (Emphasis added)... Proposed changes that decrease the effectiveness of the approved emergency plans may not be implemented without application to and approval by the Commission."
Specifically, with regard to changes involving emergency action levels,Section IV.B.
Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 states, in part:
... These emergency action levels shall be discussed and agreed on by the applicant and State and local governmental authorities and approved by NRC." (Emphasis added)
APPLICABLE GUIDANCE Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.101, " Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Nuclear Power Reactors," Revisions 2 and 3.
Revision 2, dated October 1981, endorsed NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1,
" Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," published November 1980, to provide specific acceptance criteria for complying with the standards of 50.47.
1 Revision 3, dated August 1992, endorsed NUMARC/NESP-007 (Revision 2, January 1992), " Methodology for Development of Emergency Action Levels," as an acceptable alternative method to that described in Appendix 1 to NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 for de reloping emergency action levels (EALs) required in 650.47(b)(4) and Section IV.B of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.
April 9,1999 2
EPPOS No. 4 Proposed Revision 1
f
]
1 J
DISCUSSION
- 1. Chanaes to Emeraency Plans The licensee is to follow and maintain in effect emergency plans which meet the standards in
$50.47 and the requirements in Appendix E of 10 CFR Part 50. The requirements concerning emergency plan changes are found in 650.54(q). This regulation allows a licensee to make 1
changes to its emergency plan without Commission approval provided that the changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the plan.
Emergency plan changes made unilaterally by the licensee without Commission approval under 650.54(q) must meet two provisions of the rule. First, the change mest not decrease the effectiveness of the plan. Second, the plan, as changed, must continue to meet the planning standards in 50.47(b) and the requirements in Appendix E.
j When a licensee submits an emergency plan change to the NRC under @50.54(q) indicating i
that there is no decrease in effectiveness and that the plan, as changed, continues to meet the planning standards of @50.47(b) and requirements of Appendix E, NRC approvalis noj required. NRC inspectors review emergency plan changes to assess whether the change has j
decreased the effectiveness of the emergency plan and whether the plan, as changed, meets the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements in Appendix E. Licensees should be requested to make avaliable, either through the inspection process or in accordance with 950.4, the supporting documentation and analyses for plan changes whenever questions arise j
regarding decrease in effectiveness.
2 The inspector should review the change against the previous revision of the emergency plan.
The inspector should document the scope and findings of his/her review in an inspection report or a letter to the licensee (see example in Attachment 1). These findingt do not constitute NRC approval of the revised emergency plan unless the NRC explicitly states in the letter that it is approving the emergency plan. The purpose of the inspection is not to approve emergency plans, but rather, to audit the emergency plan changes to identify any violations of the requirements of 50.54(q). Any approvals of licensee's emergency plans must be processed as a licensing action by NRR.
1.a. Decrease in Effectiveness in performing @50.54(q) reviews, the inspector should determine whether the change in the emergency plan involves a change in a commitment by the licensee. The following definition for an emergency planning commitment should be used:
2Revision 0 of EPPOS discussed review of emergency plan changes against the latest approved plan. The latest approved plan was indicated to be the plan the NRC approved as documented in a letter to the licensee, a safety evaluation report, or an inspection report. However, since review of emergency plan changes by regional inspectors are audits, it is sufficient to review the changes against the latest revision to make the determination that the effectiveness of the plan has not decreased, if concems are identified in this audit, the inspector can, if he or she deems necessary, refer back to the latest approved plan to evaluate all the changes made in an integrated manne April 9,1999 3
EPPOS No. 4 Proposed Revision 1
Emergency planning commitment: A statement made by the licensee in the emergency plan that specifies the licensee's capability or resources (e.g., personnel, equipment) for responding to an emergency.
If the change involves a commitment, then the inspector should compare the change to the commitment in the previous revision of the plan. If the revised plan involves a reduction in a commitment by the licensee, the inspector should review the rationale for the change. The licensee may have documented the basis for the original emergency plan commitment and the rationale for its determination that the change did not decrease the effectiveness of the plan.
This documentation should be reviewed if available if the licensee has not documented the basis for the original commitment, then the inspector should make inquires to the licensee to determine the basis for the original commitment. If the basis for the original commitment cannot be determined, then the inspector should make inquires to the licensee to determine the basis for the new commitment.
A reduction in a commitment made in the emccgency plan does not necessarily constitute a decrease in effectiveness of the plan. If the basis for the commitment has changed, then the emergency plan commitment may be changed to be consistent with the new basis. If the change involves a reduction in an emergen; y plan commitment without a corresponding reduction in the bases for that commitment, then the emergency plan change is a decrease in effectiveness of the plan. If the original basis for the commitment is not documented, then i
professional judgement should be used to ascertain whether the new commitment provides a level of emergency preparedness at least comparable to the previous commitment. The basis for the new commitment should be considered in making this determination. Examples of emergency plan changes which reduced commitments but were determined to not be a decrease in effectiveness are described in Appendix 1.
Note: In some cases the licensee may cite the use of alternative methods or new analytical technics as the basis for changing emergency plan commitments. If the inspector does not have the accessary expertise to evaluate the adequacy of the use of alternative methods or new analytical techniques, then NRR should be contacted for assistance. In addition, the inspector should consider whether there may be generic implications related to the use of the new methods or techniques.
1.b. Plannina Standards and Reauirement in Appendix E in performing this e Muation, the inspector should determine whether the plan continues to meet the planning s andards in 10 CFR 50.47 and requirements in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. F71.101 cites NUREG-0654 which contains criteria by which emergency plans were reviewei to determine whether they met these standards and requirements.
- 2. Chanaes to Procedures Which Imolement the Emeraency Plan Appendix E prescribes the information required to be contained in the emergency plan. The
%0.C %q) process refers to changes it may be made to the emergency plan, not to orocedures which implement the emeroency olan. Emergency plan implementing procedures (EPIPs) are not part of the emergency plan and, therefore, changes to these procedures are not subject to Q50.54(q) review. The inspector should review emergency plan changes to determine whether prescribed information or lice 1see commitments have been removed from April 9,1999 4
EPPOS No. 4 Proposed Revision 1
{
O the plan and relocated to implementing procedures that may be outside the licensee's 650.54(q) review process. If this has occurred, then the plan, as modified, no longer meets the requirements in Appendix E or the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b). NRR should be contacted for assistance when concerns in this area are identified. The purpose of NRR's involvernent is to ensure uniform disposition of these concerns and to identify whether there is a need for generic communication to licensees in this area.
- 3. Review of Chanaes to Emeraency Action Levels (EALs)
Changes made to the EALs are considered to be a special case. Appendix E,Section IV.B.
" Assessment Actions," states, in part: "... These emergency action levels shall be discussed and agreed on by the applicant and State and local governmental authorities and approved by NRC... "
However, it is the NRC's practice to permit licensees to make changes to EALs prior to NRC approvalif the licensee determines that the change does not decrease the effectiveness of the emergency plan under 10 CFR 50.54(q). The inspector should review EAL changes (excluding purely administrative changes such as corre ; tion of typographical errors) to determine whether the change has decreased the effectivenesu and whether the EALs meet the standards in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. Guiuance on acceptable methods for meeting these requirements is contained in Regulatory Guide 1.101 which references NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 and NUMARC/NESP-007. The inspector should determine whether the licensee discussed and obtained agreement on the changed EALs with State and local governmental authorities prior to implementing the change. Contrary to the NRC's practice to allow EAL changes without prior NRC approval, it is the NRC's practice to require licensee to discuss and obtain agreement on the changed EALs with State and local governmental authorities prior to implementing the change. The inspector's review should be documented in an inspection report or letter to the licensee (see example in Attachment 2). The example letter in Attachment 1 is not appropriate for reporting EAL reviews because: (1) the statement in Appendix E regarding EAL approval and (2) the possibility that the EAL changes under review are in EPIPs and not in the emergency plan. NRR assistance should be requested to review EAL changes which irvolve a significant portion of the EAL scheme or incorporate a unique methodology, i.e., outside the guidance provided in NURG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 or NUMARC/NESP-007.
SUMMARY
This EPPOS provides guidance to the staff for the determination of whether a change to an emergency plan (1) constitutes a decrease in effectiveness or (2) results in the plan, as changed, no longer meeting either the planning standards of Q50.47(b) or the requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 for the facility.
ATTACHMENTS: As Stated April 9,1999 5
EPPOS No. 4 Proposed Revision 1
F l
EPPOS No 4 Sample letter for Emergency Plan changes which do not appear to result in a decrease effectiveness and the plan, as changed, continue to meet regulatory requirements.
SUBJECT:
EMERGENCY PLAN CHANGES i
This letter acknowledges receipt of your letter dated
. which transmitted changes to the Emergency Plan for the submitted under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(q).
Based on your determinations that the changes do not decrease the effectiveness of your
)
emergency plan, and that the plan, as changed, continues to meet the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements of Appendix E to Part 50, NRC approvalis not required. A review of these changes did not identify any violations of 10 CFR 50.54(q).
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter will be
]
placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
l Sincerely, Docket No.:
April 9,1999 6
EPPOS No. 4 Proposed Revision 1 L
r-e Attachmen! 2 EPPOS No 4 Sample letter for Emergency Action Level changes that the licensee has determined to be acceptable.
SUBJECT:
EMERGENCY ACTION LEVEL CHANGES This letter acknowledges receipt of your letter dated
. which transmitted changes to the Emergency Plan for the submitted under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(q). These changes included revisions to the Emergency Action Levels.
A review of these changes did not identify any violations of 10 CFR 50.54(q). In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Sincerely,
Attachment:
As stated Docket No.:
April 9,1999 7
EPPOS No. 4 Proposed Revision 1
o Appendix 1 EXAMPLE EMERGENCY PLAN CHANGES Examoles of Chanaes Which Are Not Decreases in the Effectiveness of the Plan Examole 1:
Licensee had previously committed in its plan to hold two off hours exercises per six years, one conducted between 1800 hrs and 2359 hrs, another between 0000 hrs and 0600 hrs. This commitment is changed to one off hours exercise per six years, to be conducted between 1800 hrs and 0400 hrs [the following day]. This is not a decrease in effectiveness because it implemented changes to guidance contained in NUREG-0654 jointly made by the NRC and FEMA.
Example 2:
Licensee had previously committed in its plan to hold a full exercise with offsite participation, conducted annually. This commitment is changed to a full exercise with offsite participation biennially, with an annual drill in alternate years which tests a portion of the emergency plan. This is not a decrease in effectiveness because it implemented a regulatory change approved by the Commission.
Examole 3:
Licensee proposed to delete two sirens from its current offsite notification system. A sound study is conducted by the licensee which shows that areas served by the sirens to be deleted are adequately covered by the remaining sirens. An independent FEMA study finds that the licensee study underestimated siren coverage, and that the actual coverage is better than described. FEMA issues a report accepting the siren deletion, and all affected offsite agencies agree. This is not a decrease in effectiveness since both the licensee and FEMA wera able to show that an equivalent level of public protection was being maintained in the areas near the affected sirens.
i
)
l April 9,1999 8
EPPOS No. 4 I
Proposed Revision 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 Nuclear 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 Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Director Programs Washington Operations Nuclear Energy Institute ABB-Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Suite 400 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 1776 l Street, NW Rockville, Maryland 20852 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. Jim Davis, Director Operations Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708
Distribution: Mtg. Notice w/NEl Re Emergency Preparedness Dated April 9,1999 Hard Cooy Central FIIes PUBLIC PGEB R/F
{
OGC ACRS SMagruder JO'Brien OWFN Receptionist EMail SCollins/RZimmerman BSheron WKane DMatthews 1
SNewberry l
SMagruder GTracy, OEDO PMNS
{