ML20210Q934

Submits Draft Minutes of 990721 Meeting with NEI Re Rulemaking Task (10CFR73.55) Assigned to NRC in SECY-99-024, Recommendations of Safeguards Performance Assessment Task Force. List of Attendees Encl

ML20210Q934
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/09/1999
From:	Gallo R NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Boger B NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
SECY-99-024-C, NUDOCS 9908160159
Download: ML20210Q934 (7)

Text

-

carrg y

UNITED STATES g

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20085 4 001

%,,,*f August 9, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO:

Bruce A. Boger, Director Division of Inspection Program Management FROM:

Robert M. Gallo, Chief Operator Licensing, Human Performance j

and Plant Support Branch Division of Inspection Program Management

SUBJECT:

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC MEETING ON JULY 21,1999, WITH THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE CONCERNING 10 CFR 73.55 RULEMAKING j

On July 21,1999, the NRC staff held a public meeting with representatives from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). The subject of the meeting was the rulemaking task (10 CFR 73.55) assigned to the NRC staff in Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM), " Staff Requirements -

SECY-99-024 - Recommendations of the Safeguards Performance Assessment Task Force,"

June 29,1999. Attachment 1 contains a list of attendees.

The information herein summarizes the discussions that occurred between the NRC staff and NEl representativos and is not intended as a verbatim record of this meeting.

TOPIC OF DISCUSSION: STAFF REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM The NRC staff reviewed the directives in the Commission's SRM dated June 29,1999 (Attachment 2). Copies of the SRM were distributed to the attendees.

An NEl spokesperson raised concerns and questions about the 10 CFR 73.55 rulemaking as follows: what is the security force protecting against, what ground rules apply, what is effectiveness, how to keep security managers from wanting the newest technology, impediments to the workforce (i.e., having to walk around things), how to define success in force on force exercises, and the views of NRC and NEl on needs.

The NRC staff noted that NEl's input on the 10 CFR 73.55 rulemakirj cffort is desired. The NRC staff emphasized the need to have a common understanding of what the Commission

)

wants and noted that the rulemaking plan and schedule are due to the Commission on September 17,1999.

Contact:

Ronald J. Albert, NRR (0) 301-415-3216 Laf_l(T73 b e R # ^ $

O 4 q. 6 M ;' 4,

4 c,s 9908160159 990909 PDR REVQP ER C

y,7_./g)

M

l B. Boger The NRC staff encouraged NEl to develop guidance on physical protection programs for the NRC consider. The NRC staff stated that perhaps two guidance documents are needed: one on how to conduct exercises and another on how to grade exercises. The NRC staff noted a decision will be maci a how often exercises are warranted.

An NEl representative stated that NEl will think about the he documents after the meeting. In addition, the NEl representative responded that NEl has already established a high4evel working group to assess what changes are needed in security programs. This group has held a couple of meetings and has developed a framework for involvement.

The NRC staff pointed out that the rulemaking effort must consider how changing 10 CFR 73.55 affects other rules. Further, the NRC staff indicated that NRC needs to make incremental progress. NRC needs to develop an approach on how it can incrementally move on items; the Line item Technical Specification improvement Program is a model.

TOPIC OF DISCUSSION: TARGET SETS The NRC staff noted that there is a need for guidance on target sets. The NRC staff also noted that protection of a target set may involve grad?g both the success of the adversary against the target and the security system. However, the final outcome must be integrated. Additionally, the NRC staff indicated that considerable resources would be needed to properly evaluate an integrated response. The NRC staff raised the following questions:

Does the licensee of the plant understand target sets?

la there a strategy to protect the target sets?

is there a trained force to implement that strategy?

An NEl representative expressed the opinion that a taget set is a surrogate for the vulnerability of the plant and gave a brief historical perspective on target sets, in the past, target sets were only lie the vital area. Now, target sets are in nonvital areas.

Questions raised during the discussi?n included the following:

What does " target set" mean?

Do wa need to expand the Operational Safeguards Response Evaluation (OSRE) on target sets?

What equipment must be protected?

Should security and operations activities be integrated?

What is the relationship between operations actions and security issues?

What criteria are available on target sets and initiating events?

TOPIC OF DISCUSSION: OBJECTIVE OF THE PHYSICAL PROTECTION PROGRAM The NRC staff discussed a proposed " Draft Objective" for the physical protection program

~ (Attachment 3). Copies of the objective were distributed to the attendees. The NRC staff L

B. Bogar,

indicated that to meet the proposed objective such a physical protection program should ensure that the facility retains the capability to remove decay heat and retain fission products within the j

facility so a significant release will not occur. Also, the NRC staff indicated that the program should have target sets, be risk informed, have reliable criteria, and reflect the ability of security and operations to protect the plant. In response to a question from an NEl representative, the NRC staff indicated that the draft objective might be placed at the beginning of 10 CFR 73.55.

In addition, the NRC staff discussed a " Risk Significance Estimation Matrix" for security (n..achment 4). Copies of the matrix were distributed to the attendees. An NEl representative indicated that a nuclear power plant should be designed to provide a fission product barrier but questioned what was being protected against in the matrix. An NEl representative said that the I

approach described in paragraph one and Note 3 of the matrix was a struggle for NEl to accept because NEl believes the approach should be based on an accident class. The NEl representative emphasized the need for guidance on a design bounding threat and criticized evaluations that report "weaknessee" because the term is unclear as to what action should be taken.

TOPIC OF DISCUSSION: OPERATIONAL SAFEGUARDS RESPONSE EVALUATION The NRC staff summarized the changes in the OSRE program. Anticipated OSRE changes included the following Holding a final exit meeting 24 weeks after the OSRE to allow further evaluation of results by both the NRC and the licensee Integrating operator actions "after the fact" Preparing postexercise evaluations Evaluating the impact of cperator actions (e.g., will core damage frequency change?)

)

Restmeturing the program TOPIC OF DISCUSSION: COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC Comments were solicited and received from members of the public who attended the meeting.

- A spokesperson for the Nuclear Control Institute stated that the OSRE is not broken and does i

not need to be fixed. He noted that the use of 10 CFR Part 100 release limits is a departure from the total denial of access approach - now we must assume multiple failures. He also noted that prior NRC guidance (e.g., WASH 1400, and the Lewis Report) did not evaluate the j

consequences of sabotage. He questioned whether the NRC is fully enforcing the design basis threat and allowing full credit for the adversary (e.g., false alarms, killing operators, etc.). He asked why the active insider is not being tested and whether this issue will be included in the modified OSRE program. He asked why operators are evaluated after the fact rather than through a real-time session on the simulator, whether OSREs for the remaining eight plants will be conducted in the same manner as the original ones, whether the published statement on OSREs will change force on force and use of contractors, and why the NRC does not just continue the OSRE cycle.

The NRC staff acknowledged that there is a need for a transition plan, which is being developed.

The NRC staff noted that the 10 CFR 73.55 rulemaking would consider the use of the simulator and address the active insider. In addition, the NRC staff pointed out that the modified OSRE is more structured, the handout at the Commission brief describes tN. ase of force on force and

s.

B.Boger

• contractors, and the contingency exercises will be incorporated in the Baseline inspection Program.

TOPIC OF DISCUSSION: NEXT MEETING The next meeting will be held on August 11,1999, at 9:30 a.m., in Poom O-10 B4 of One White Flint North,11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The NRC stat." suggested the following topics for the next meeting:

Wording of the objective of a physical protection program Specifying NEl's participation in the rulemaking effort Defining the schedule of the rulemaking e%t Using lessons leamed to write the rule

=

Considering the issues we are protecting against Clarifying the transition from the current OSRE program to a revised performance assessment it was agreed that Dick Rosano (NRC staff) and Jim Davis (NEl representative) would work on a definitive agenda for the next meeting.

Attachments: As stated cc: R. Beedle, NEl R. Enkelboll, NEl J. Brons, NEl DISTRIBUTION:

Ref. File-Mtg. Summaries File Center IRSS r/f PUBLIC OGC ACRS S. Collins /R. Zimmerman B. Boger/F. Gillespie, DIPM R. Gallo, IOLB/DIPM R. Rosano,IRSS/lOLB/DIPM NRC Participants J. Wnite, Region i K. Barr, Region ll J. Creed, Region lil/DRS G. Good, Region IV D.Lange G. Tracy DOCUMENT NAME: G:WESTi7_21_99_1D_CFR_73.55WPD.WPD OFFICE IRSS:lOLB:DIPM SC:lRSS:lQLILQLP,,M BC:lOLB:DIPM g NAME GWest W RRosano R RGallo F DATE 08/3/99 08/y /99 08/ %/99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

B. Boger.

contractors, and the contingency exercises will be incorporated in the Baseline Inspection Program.

TOPIC OF DISCUSSION: NEXT MEETING The next meeting will be held on August 11,199h, at 9:30 a.m., in Room O-10 B4 of One White Flint North,11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The NRC staff suggested the following topics for the next meeting:

Wording of the objective of a physical protection program Specifying NEl's participation in the rulemaking effort Defining the schedule of the rulemaking effort Using lessons teamSd to write the rule Considering the issues we are protecting against Clarifying the transition from the current OSRE program to a revised performance assessment it was agreed that Dick Rosano (NRC staff) and Jim Davis (NEl representative) would work on a definitive agenda for the next meeting.

Attachments: As stated cc: R. Beedle, NEl R. Enkelboll, NEl J. Brons, NEl

.v.

Oc :#.

f

, ; NRC and NEl Meeting.

' July' 21,1999 -

On July 21,1999, the following individuals attended the public meeting between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear Energy Institute held in Room O-10 B4 of One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.

NAME ORGANIZATION TELEPHONE NUMBER William Kana NRC, NRR 301-415-1284 Bruce Boger NRC, NRR 301-415-1004 Frank Gillespie NRC, NRR 301-415-1267 Robert Gallo NRC,NRR 301-415-1031 Dick Rosano NRC, NRR 301-415-3282 Jesse Arildsen NRC,NRR 301-415-1026 Ron Albert NRC, NRR 301-415-3216 David Orrik NRC,NRR 301-415-3213 Ray Hsu NRC, NRR 301-415-3212 Garmon West NRC,NRR 301-415-1044 Robert Skelton NRC,NRR 301-415-3309 Dennis Gordon NRC, NRR 301-415-1162 Mohan Thadani NRC,NRR 301-415-1476 Barry Manili NRC, NRR 301-415-2912 Armando Masciantonio NRC,NRR 301-415-1290 Mike Warren NRC, NMSS 301-415-8098 Richard E. Enkeboll NEl 202-739-8102

)

John C. Brons NEl 202-739-8121 j

Jim Davis NEl 202-739-8105 l

Ralph Beedle NEl 202-739-8088 Wayne Barber McGraw Hill 202-383-2164 Paul Leventhal Nuclear Control Institute 202-822-8444 M. Callahan GSI 301-526-7606 ATTACHMENT 1 Minutes of NRC and NEl Meeting, July 21,1999 I

i

\\

1 STAFF REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM DATED JUNE 29,1999

\\

1 ATTACHMENT 2 Minutes of NRC and NEl Meeting, July 21,1999

Action: Collins,NRR/

Lieberman,OE/

Paperiello, NMSS UNITED 8TATEs.

Cys: Travers NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Knapp n

wasanom,o.c. nosmoom Miraglia Norry June 29, 1999 i

on, CIO secasu s Meyer, ADM yRmn9MRRm, y MEMORANDUM TO:

William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations FROM:

Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-99-024 -

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SAFEGUARDS PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE The Commission has approved the staff's recommendations to modify the regulations to require power reactor licensees to identify target sets, develop protective strategies and exercise these strategies on a periodic basis. The exercises should be subject to NRC inspection and observation. As requested in the Staff Requirements Memorandum - Briefing on Safeguards Performance Assessment on May 5,1999, dated June 2,1999, the staff proposal on the baseline reactor inspection program should include a specific recommendation on the baseline frequency of NRC inspector observation of drills and exercises.*The rulemaking should also

• NRR consider regulatory changes necessary to require licensees to maintain the effectiveness of 199900068 their contingency plans and to upgrade their security plan commitments whenever these exercises reveal weaknesses in their ability to protect against the design basis threat. In addition, the Commissinn has approved development of associated regulatory guides, inspection program changes, revisions to the Enforcement Manual, and necessary training for NRC inspectors. The staff shculd provide the Commission a rulemaking plan and schedule for these cctivities.

(E99) (NRR/0E)

(SECY Suspense:

-9/iiM/99) 199800188 9/17/99 As part of the staff's semiannual threat environment review and report to the Commission, the staff should brief the Commission in a closed meeting on events that occurred since the last semiannual review and the continued validity of the NRC's design basis threats, or recommend the need to change the current requirements.

teDO/SECY)

(SECY Suspense:

8/30/99 and every 6 199900076 NMSS/NRR/

months thereafter)

The claff should ensure that the safeguards program is revised in a manner compatible with the ongoing changes to the overall NRC inspection and assessment program (i.e., with criteria for measu.wnent, thresholds for action, and a focus on outcomes).

As the staff develops the rule and associated guid::r,ce and uses the remaining OSREs to pilot concepts for the revised safeguards inspection and assessment program, the staff should interact with stakeholders in an open process, while ensuring the protection of safeguards information.

guaceezr

- The s'aff should address the following questions in the rulemaking package to satisfy f

/-

recom.nendation 1 of the Safeguards Pe:Tormance Assessment Task Force:

{

u.

Why were the OSREs allowed to be conducted with security measures well above the licensing commitments without, at loast, evafuating if the minimum I

licensing conditions are adequate?

b.

Why is requiring a plant to meet its original licensing basis a back-fit?

1 c.

Why are the NRC inspectors not inspecting compliance for all of 10 CFR Part 73.55?.

The staff should consider and propose, as appropriate, any additional rulemaking (beyond the

)

rulemaking proposed in SECY-99-024) identified as a result of the pilot program.

(NRR) 199900077 cc:

Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield OGC ClO

'CFO OCA

.OlG OPA Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)

PDR DCS

\\

n,

i

• e i

1

\\

l DRAFT OBJECTIVE FOR THE PHYSICAL PROTECTION PROGRAM 1

4 ATTACHMENT 3 Minutes of NRC and NEl Meeting, July 21,1999

DRAFT OBJECTIVE The physical guinction program shall be designed to provide high assurance that a significant radiological release,a Part 100 defined release will not occur based on a design basis adversary shall. To accomplish this the program must ensure the facility retains the capability to remove decay heat and retain fission products within the facility such that a significant release will not occur.

This capability shall be demonstrated biannu' ally with an exercise that include force on fccce simulation. The schedule for this exercise will be reported 90 days in advance to the NRC to allow for observation. The exercise will be evaluated and any inconsistencies either with meeting regulatory requirements including the design objective corrected in the facility security plan and through compensatory actions.

NOTES:

1. The reference to capability relates to target sets and risk informed evaluation potential.

2. Capability can be stated by individual plants as specific set of equipment and be the design object of the physical protection program.

3. This sets the criteria by which an exercise can be judged in a consistent and repeatable way which accounts for the integration of operations and physical protection.

I

n-l l

i l

i RISK SIGNIFICANCE ESTIMATION MATRIX 1

i l

l ATTACHMENT 4 l

Minutes of NRC and NEl Meeting, July 21,1999 i

a

7 e

en D

o E

n R

yrdee n vii l

oaa cf r t ef Ro n

o it n

a e )s i

mtumt a

n n

r cit e i

t i

- e a

R t t a rr i

r O

sl et l

t uyads 1

msu n n n u o 1

a c

Y m

T

(

x U

i i

r B

t a

A c

+d M

P d

)

i l

r s

a ot a e )s le e

t A

l n

nn inudt n

i m

i C

a na r a a nnif o

i i

f a o or r

L

+f auaf r

i t t m nt oin t

t t

A non R

r uns R

a i

i i

i V

aya O

(

aon O

osya t

t u(i o uminr m

l l

r O

rr r mmiac mteaoet t

t t et M

i 1 v uc v t

E o

et e st o

s i

1t 1

R c

snm yc e c E

same e

yi i

T r

s it t

r e

A c

E n

H c

+d ac i

Y s

ta o )s le i

A n

n nt f

C a

i m i

i i

t r

ina n

r E

r a o oaf f

D e

R unt oin g

t t r

i it a o sya S

s O

lu(i nr r r

mmaoet k

t ev i cv s

et o

id 1 sn e c iR i

t 2

yime s i rt

+ in f

n e+oi a m s

ya r

r r

nte R

e swt ii t n

alt s

O viwd i

r uy draoe t ms l

ci t

1 2

ea 1

rf n

f n

e sh oin ia+ya i

e a

mile

+

s r

s+r m N

t r

s s

p r

r t

iv n R ewin R

nt mr e

e et R

es-e E

t ii ivnt E

i a

O shl i O al t t

t t

y a

vd O

i s

i l dr t

l dauy R

s c ur r usoe 3

amt msyci ms G

t r

2 2e 1

a 2t trf 1

1 r

e s

e t

t o vl o r

i c

c t

i r

a s as t

c e

r ia st r

t r ciei r

t r sl r

e a

ni ne e

i re a e ab a

n B

ir i

r iot r

er riaeu B

O t

o P

c a

e a rd l

a aMe o

a wB rB T

h B R R

N tn T

i

-