ML23151A575

PRM-050-059 - 59FR23641 - Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by Virginia Power

ML23151A575
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/06/1994
From:	Hoyle J NRC/SECY
To:
References
PRM-050-059, 59FR23641
Download: ML23151A575 (1)

Text

DOCUMENT DATE:

TITLE:

CASE

REFERENCE:

KEYWORD:

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 05/06/1994 PRM-050-059 - 59FR23641 - PETITION FOR RULEMAKING SUBMITTED BY VIRGINIA POWER PRM-050-059 59FR23641 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

DOCKET NO. PRM-050-059

{59FR23641)

In the Matter of PETITION FOR RULEMAKING SUBMITTED BY VIRGINIA POWER DATE DOCKETED DATE OF DOCUMENT TITLE OR DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT

01/19/94 12/30/93 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING SUBMITTED BY W. L. STEWART ON BEHALF OF VIRGINIA POWER 06/07/94 05/02/94 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING 07/01/94 06/27/94 COMMENT OF PACIFIC GAS l ELECTRIC COMPANY (GREGORY M. RUEGER, SR. VICE PRES.} (

l}

07 /11/94 07/06/94 COMMENT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC l GAS COMPANY (JOHN L. SKOLDS, SR. VICE PRESIDENT} (

2}

07/15/94 07/12/94 COMMENT OF GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION (J.C. FORNICOLA} (

3}

07/18/94 07/13/94 COMMENT OF DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY (J.D. SIEBER, SR. VICE PRES. l CNO} (

4}

07/19/94 07/19/94 COMMENT OF NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (THOMAS E. TIPTON, VICE PRESIDENT} (

5}

07/25/94 07/21/94 COMMENT OF ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY (RICHARD F. PHARES} (

6}

07/26/94 07/18/94 COMMENT OF OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT (W. G. GATES} (

7}

07/27/94 07/19/94 COMMENT OF DETROIT EDISON (ROBERT MCKEON} (

8}

07/29/94 07/25/94 COMMENT OF VIRGINIA POWER (JAMES P. O'HANLON, SR. V. P.} (

9}

JAMES P. O'HANLON Senior vke President July 25, 1994 DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PR q

( ~q FR 2.3(,

• 94 Jl 29 P6 :01 OFFICE OF SECRET RY DOCKETING & SERV ICE BRANCH Innsbrook 'Jechnical Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 804*273*3551 VIRGINIA POWER Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555 Serial No. GL 94-006 NL&P/GSS RO

Dear Sir:

COMMENTS ON PETITION FOR RULEMAKING TO AMEND INDEPENDENT REVIEW FREQUENCY FOR SECURITY PROGRAM In the May 6, 1994 Federal Register, the NRC requested comments on a petition for rulemaking filed by Virginia Power. The petition requested that the Commission amend its regulations in 1 0 CFR Parts 50 and 73. The proposed amendment would require each licensee to conduct independent reviews and audits of their safeguards contingency plan and their security program from an annual to a biennial frequency.

We strongly support regulatory efforts which facilitate a graded approach to quality assurance recognizing safety significance and performance. The proposed rulemaking specifically permits licensees to more effectively direct their audit resources by conducting performance-based audits in areas of safety significance.

While the proposal would relax the existing mandatory audit frequency, it does not preclude the performance of special audits if trends warrant additional management attention. Given the available objective criteria that industry performance is commendable in these areas, aggressive overview activities do not seem to be warranted.

We appreciate the opportunity to make comments on the petition for rulemaking. If you have any questions, please contact us.

Very truly yours,

~?OJI~

James P. O'Hanlon SEP 2 8 1994.

J-\\Cl'JlO ledged by card................. -...... _

U.$. t*,_:...

!., i*,:_:,, Y COMMISSION DOC Kc,. *-*- : *.:itRVICE SECTION OFFIG::: OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISS~ON Document Statistics Postmar1< D2te 7 b-b /7,._,/

Copies Recoived __ ~ '------

Add'I Ccpies f1eproduced J_

Special Distribution f1I ti;, ~

L~,;..o

cc:

Mr. William Rasin Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 Eye Street Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006-3706 Mr. Ray Ng Nuclear Energy Institute 1 n6 Eye Street Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006-3706

Detroit Edison Douglas R. Gipson Senior Vice President Nuclear Generation Fermi 2 DOCKETED SARC 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 (313) 586-5249

• 94 JUL 27 P 4 : 16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn:

Document Control Desk Washington, D. C.

20555

References:

1) Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341 NRC License No. NPF-43 DOCKET NUMBER SI) ::J q PETlilON RULE PRM !)

(£1FI0- 3(,'/I July 19, 1994 NRC-94-0070

2)

Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 87, PRM-50-59, dated May 6, 1994

Subject:

Comments on Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking on Security Program and Safeguards Contingency Plan Independent Review and Audit Frequency Detroit Edison agrees with the ideas expressed in Virginia Power's petition for rulemaking, but believes additional changes are warranted. This letter provides comments on auditing of security programs and safeguards contingency plans and also includes a discussion of audits of other areas.

The information provided by Virginia Power provides a strong rationale to decrease auditing in an area of strong performance such as security. Additionally, the drills performed by security personnel provide assessment information that can be utilized to improve performance in any weakening areas.

A performance-based audit program requiring that periodic audits be scheduled based on performance provides for the most effective use of auditing resources. Poor performing areas are audited more often, areas of superior performance less often. Also, audit schedules should be flexible so audits can be scheduled when activities are in progress. For these reasons, Detroit Edison believes the rule should require periodic review of the security program and safeguards contingency plan rather than a review every 12 or 24 months.

The description of the performance-based auditing program should be included in each licensee's Quality Assurance Program.

Additionally, the same philosophy applies to other audit frequencies specified by rule. These include audits of Access Authorization, Fitness for Duty Program, Fitness for Duty laboratory and other contractors, Environmental Protection, Radiation Protection, and Emergency Preparedness.

The rules governing these audits should also SEP 2 8 1994 A l{I: v, tW e by card.........................

u.~.1 -,1,,,.1 _.,

, - v1111Ylh.J ::'.> IUf DOCl<::Ti:\\!G & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF TH£ COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Dcte ________ _

Copies Received __ __. ____ _

Add'I Copies Reproduced ~J ____ _

Special Distrib'Jtion a-oy (!Q/2 e.: ~

USNRC July 19, 1994 NRC-94-0070 Page 2 be revised to require periodic audits versus 12 or 24 month audits or to eliminate covering audits so all audits could be addressed in the Quality Assurance Program rather than have requirements scattered across many rules and guidelines. Since licensees cannot reduce commitments in the Quality Assurance Program without prior NRC review, the NRC would retain mandatory oversight over changes to the audit program that would reduce audit frequency.

This idea of providing flexibility to the audit program to better focus the efforts of audit and surveillance personnel on how to improve weak or declining performance areas was presented during the 1993 Public Workshop on NRC's Program for Elimination of Requirements Marginal to safety. Attached is an excerpt from that meeting's proceedings, published as NUREG/CP-0129.

In summary, Detroit Edison agrees with Virginia Power's request that the audit requirements for security programs and safeguards contingency plans be revised, but believes further rule changes should be made so that no audit frequencies are specified by rules and auditing can be based on performance. This change would enable development of an improved audit program responsive to plant performance.

If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Ms. Lynne S. Goodman at (313) 586-4097.

Attachment cc: T. B. Colburn J. B. Martin M. P. Phillips K. R. Riemer NEI Sincerely,

9. Quality Assurance Requirements 9.1 Ernie Rossi Nuclear Regulatory Commission The purpose of this session is to obtain input from the panelists and audience on proposed modifications to the NRC' s requirements and practices in the area of quality assurance. We are also interested in supporting justification and bases for any proposed modifications that people may have..

Particular issues for consideration include the nature and extent of the regulatory burden, including the cost impact of the NRC's quality assurance requirements and practices, and arguments that any specific requirement or practice is marginal to safety.

We would like participants' input on the definition and use of performance-based quality assurance requirements, the risk significance of quality assurance requirements, and actual Appendix B requirements versus the NRC staff's interpretation of the requirements.

The panel session has been organized in the following sequence. Each panelist will make a 10-minute presentation from the podium, using overhead slides if they wish. Members of the audience who had previously indicated their intention to speak will provide their remarks, taking no more than 10 minutes. We have only one member of the audience who has asked to make formal remarks at this session.

After the formal presentations have been made, the session will be open for other members of the audience to provide remarks, ask questions, and participate in discussions with the panelists or other members of the audience. I ask that anyone speaking provide his or her name and organization/affiliation very clearly, so that our transcriber can take that down.

I would like to emphasize that the purpose ot this workshop is not for. the NRC to present positions, def end pos'itions, or answer Seplember 1993 Quality Assurance Requirements questions. The durpose is to receive input from industry an any members of the public in attendance.

Appendix B to 1 OCFR Part 50 establishes quality assurance requirements for the design, construction, and operation of structures, systems, and components that prevent or mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents that could cause undue risk to the health and safety of the public. There are a number of perceived problems with NRC quality assurance requirements and with our practices in implementing them.

I will mention several of the moi:~ important ones for you to think about during this session.

1. As implemented, quality assurance programs may emphasize documentation over performance.

2. Responsibility for quality is often perceived to lie 1n the quality assurance organization rather than the line organization.

3. The list of items to which quality assurance requirements are applied is far larger than was originally contemplated.

Having stated these possible problems with the NRC' s approach to quality assurance-and I'm sure there are many other problems that may come up during this session-we will now ask our panelists to make their presentations.

.;r 9.2 Lynne Goodman Detroit Edison 119 Improving Effectiveness of Performance-Based Audit Programs by Reducing the Regulatory Burden I'm going to be talking about how to improve-not reduce, but improve-the effectiveness of performance-based audit programs by eliminating some of the regulatory burden.

I'm going to be talking about the audit program. An audit is a look at how the organization is.Performing its activities, how those activities are being accomplished, and comparing them to established requirements and also to our management expectations.

NUREOICP-0129

Quality, Assurance Requirements Audit A formal independent examination with intent to verily conformance with established requirements (ANSI N18.7)

We have a performance-based audit program.

That means we watch people's performance at work as opposed to just looking at paper.

I'd like to tell you about an audit of our emergency planning organization that we performed in February. We spent 220 hours0.00255 days <br />0.0611 hours <br />3.637566e-4 weeks <br />8.371e-5 months <br /> auditing our emergency preparedness.

We determined we did quite well. We did a lousy audit.

We did our audit in February of this year because the regulations require that we audit every 12 months. We could not wait until March, when we had a scheduled drill, because then we would have been out of compliance with the regulations. So we did an audit, we got results, we met every regulatory requirement there was. But as I said, we did a lousy audit.

Requirements for Performance of Audits Technical Speciflcationl Section 8 Environmental Protection Plan 10CFR50 Appendix B 10CFR73.58 (g) (1)

• Acceu Authorization 10CFR50.54 (t)

• Emergency PreparednNI 10CFR71.137

• Envirorvnental Protection* Radioactive Material*

10CFR26

• FilnNI for Duty 10CFR26.BO

• Fltnesa for Duty Testing Lab 10CFR20.1101

• Radiological Protection 10CFR50.54 (p)

• Safeguardl Contingency Plan 10CFRn.40 (d) - Sateguardl Contingency Plan L)ffl Gooct,wi ! lllla I In March, we did a surveillance during the scheduled drill. That's the type of thing I want to talk about-how we can make our September 1993 120 audit program more effective so that we're actually looking at things at the time it makes sense to look at them.

There are a number of requirements for audit programs. I am going to go over just a couple of them. One of the key ones is Section 6 of our tech specs. We have an environmental protection plan, Appendix B, and a number of other requirements for audit.

Requirements for Performance Audits (continued) 10CFR73.55 (g) (4)

• Security Program NUREG CR-4640

• Simulator Reg Gulde 1.155

• Station Blackout Reg Gulde 1.21

• Environmental Protection

• Radioactive Effluenta Reg Guide 4.1

• Environmental Protection

• Environmental Monitoring Reg Gulde 1.33 Reg Gulde 1.144 ANSI N18.7 ANSI/ASME N45.2.12 QA program as contained In updated Final Safety Analysis Report or QA Topical Report L)ffl Goodrnln

• llil:le 3 The Ii.st goes on and on, including regulatory guides and NUREGs. There are a number of places that have audit requirements.

Some have frequency requirements, some have just topic requirements.

Our other governing document is our QA program. For us. that' s in our Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. For some plants, it's in a topical report.

The frequency of audits ranges from 6 months to 36 months, depending on the audit topic.

With very few exceptions, there is no flexibility permitted for schedule extension. That leads to resource waste, as I mentioned with our emergency planning audit; we got very little benefit from that audit other than meeting our technical specification regulatory requirement.

NUREG/CP-0129 CC i_S.. #

l!i

Frequency of Audits per Requirement* and Guidance 6 months

• 36 months With few exceptions, no flexibility permitted for schedule ext8nalon. leads to resource waste with no benefit.

Perfonn 1udltl when due regardless of 1ctivltie1 In progress can Ind &o muningleaa audits can lead to ext,a audlta, e.g., to avoid refueling or to catch refueling Can lead to auditing prior to correc:tlYI action completion when waiting a ahon time could have acheduled audit to measure 1ffectlVeneu of correc:tiYI action Can claim resources for non-problem areas that would be better used In monitoring and assessing weak areaa We have to perform audits-regardless of what activities are in progress-based on when, the audits are due. So we can have a meaningless audit by looking at an activity when there is no work in progress.

We can perform extra audits. For example, if we want to take a look at in-service inspection.

it makes sense to do that during a refueling outage. when we are actually doing in-service inspection. However, if the audit is due when we're not in a refueling outage, we might have to do an extra audit.

That means we are double auditing.

On the other hand, we might want to avoid a refueling outage.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to do an emergency planning audit during a refueling outage; it makes a lot more sense to use our resources to look at the work we're doing during the refueling outage.

The frequency requirement also can lead to audits being performed before expected corrective action is complete. For example, we have an audit that's not required by regulation scheduled for June of this year. Corrective action is going to be done in June. Therefore, it makes more sense to audit in August to see how effective the corrective action is. That's what we are going to do. If that were an audit required by technical specifications or a regulatory audit, we would not have that flexibility, and we would be auditing at a time when we know our program is not yet corrected.

September 1993 121 Quality Assurance Requirements The frequency requirement can take resources from non-problem areas.

If you have a problem developing, it would make a lot more sense to look at the problem area.

For example, if we have a weakness in our maintenance organization that we* d like to explore, we have to balance the need to look at the maintenance organization with any required audit and determine where to put our resources-toward the required audit, so we can do a good audit. or toward an audit of th~

problem area. Currently. we usually have to choose to do our required audit. and maybe put limited resources in the problem area. I think our problem areas should get more attention-more audits and surveillance's.

That is what an effective performance-based audit program would do.

My proposal is that the licensees control the audit program, with NRC providing oversight instead of control.

The Great Lakes QA Managers also suppon this proposal.

Propoaal Ucenana control audit program with NRC oversight Instead of NRC control Lynn Goodman* uda 5 This proposal would involve several actions. It would require technical specification changes.

regulation changes, regulatory guidance changes, and QA program changes.

Action*

Tech Spec Changes Regulation Changes Regulatory Guidance Changes QA Program Changes Lynn Goocrnln

• licl98 We're looking at three options. We prefer the first one, but we are willing to pursue any option that would be easier to license, and anything the NRC would be interested in approving.

NUREG/CP-0129

Quality Assurance Requirements Tech Spec Changes Three options (Option 1 preferable)

Want to pursue option with greatest chance of timely success Lynn Goodman. llida 7 Option one is to remove the audits from Section 6 of the Technical Specifications. We would have the audits listed in the QA program. The frequency of core audits. such as maintenance. engineering. operations. rad protection. design change. and so forth. would also be listed in the QA program.

Tech Spec Changes (continued)

Option 1

• Remove Audits from Section 6 Audits list In QA Program Frequency or core audits list In QA Program, e.g.

Ooeratlons, Maintenance, RadiatiOn Protection, Design Change, Corrective Action Changes In Audit Coverage specified In QA Program treated per 10CFRS0.54 (a)

Reductlon In audit coverage requires NRC review Audits required by rules conducted at specified frequency (unless rule changn or exemption granted)

Provides more control to QA Management on audit and other oversight activities,

Permits greater flexibility based on performance and plant activities Allows licensees to better focus QA efforts on how to Improve weak or paor performance areas Consistent with draft Standard Review Plan 17.3 Lynn Goodman* lldl I Changes in audit coverage would be handled like any other change in our QA program: It would be reviewed to determine whether it reduces the commitments in the audit program and whether it still meets Appendix B. NRC approval would still be needed for any changes that resulted in a reduction in commitments.

We would conduct audits required by rules at the frequency required by the rules. at least until we had a rule change or an exemption. There are a lot of frequency requirements in some of the rules.

September 1993 122 What this would do is provide more control to QA management on audit and other oversight activities-such as surveillances. special examinations. or inspections-in terms of applying the resources toward the activity where we feel we have the problems and whc~

we could really get more bang for the buck. It would provide greater flexibility based on the plant performance and plant activities. and allow us to better improve our weak areas.

This is also consistent with draft Standard Review Plan 17.3.

Tech Spec Changes (continued)

Option 2

• Tech Specs retain requirement to audit QA organization activities under Offeite Review CommlttN cognizance (otherwise same as option 1)

Allures Olfslta Review Committee retalna oversight of QA activities and this Is not changeable by QA program change Lynn Goodman* slide 8 The second option is very similar to the first.

except we would leave one audit in the technical specifications-the audit that audits the QA organization. That would mean the Offsitc Review Committee would continue to have control over that audit.

Tech Spec Changes (continued)

Option 3

• Remove audit frequenclee only from Tech Spece Audited areas not affected Provides soma flexlbllity to adjust frequency baled on performance and plant actlvltlea Consistent With approach In revised Standard Tech Specs to remove audit frequencies LynnGcmT..-llidl10 The third option is to remove only the audit frequencies from the technical specifications, but leave the audits in. This would give us a little flexibility to change the frequency of our schedule. but it would not really give us as much flexibility as we would like. This is NUREG/CP-0129

consistent with the new standard technical specifications.

Regulation and Regulatory Guidance Change Currently raqui,.menta for aucltl are contained In multiple locations Consolidate Into ona raqunrnant for Audit Program Rev!M Regulatory Guldea Conttol over Audit Program In QA Program lymGcodman*liril11 Currently. audit requirements are contained in multiple locations. We think they should be contained in one location in the regulation.

We should also look at the regulatory guides and determine whether we could revise and consolidate them. and put control of the audits in the QA program.

QA Program Changea QA Program reviaed to Include Mating of audited an1U and frequenciaa of core auditl QA Program change Implementing lhla major l9Ylalon to receive NRC review In parallel with Tach Spac:

change '9vieW lymGcodman*llldl 12 The QA program would be revised to include a listing of the audited activities and frequencies. and that first QA program change would

• be reviewed at the same time the technical specification change would be reviewed.

Licensee Action Meet with NRR to discuaa Tech Spec change optlona Submll first Tech Spec change and QA Program change Other licenseea aubmit Tech Spec change&

Submit further QA Program changes as appropriate following Nie changes and Regulatory Guide changes Lynn Gcodman

• lld913 September 1993 123 Quality Assurance Requirements Actions that we would need to take as licensees include meeting with NRR to discuss the technical specification change options, submitting the first technical specification change and QA program change. and following up with the rest of us submitting technical specification changes. We would then submit additional technical specification changes as the rules or regulatory guidance allowed us to change.

NRC Actions Maal with llcenaN on Tac:tl Spec changaa Revtaw and appl'OV9 IUbmltted Tech Spec and QA Program changN Pertonn review of all Nlea and regulatory guidance on audita Prcpoae Nia conaolidating NIH into ona. May ba juat revlaion to 10CFR Appendix B Propoaa changaa to Regulatory Guidea Approve revtaed Nie Approve revlaad Regulatory Guldaa l,m GaamnM

• 11111114 We arc asking the NRC to do the following:

1. Meet with us to discuss ' this QA program change and the technical specification change;

2. Review and approve our submittals;

3. Review the rules and regulations that cover the audit program; and

4. Determine the best rule change and regulatory guidance changes to better consolidate the requirements. making them more usable and more flexible so licensees could have better. more effective QA audit programs.

I'm talking about how to improve. not reduce.

but how to improve the effectiveness of performance-based audit programs by eliminating some of the regulatory burden.

NUREO/CP-0129

July 18, 1994 LIC-94-0137 DOCKET NUMBER q

PETITION RULE PRM 5 tJ - >

t_ ~Cf FR 23641)

Omaha Public Power District 444 South 16th Street Mall Omaha, Nebraska 68102-2247 402/636-2000 Secretary, Docketing and Service Branch U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

References:

1.

Docket No. 50-285 DOCKETED

~

• . 1~f-~.'

\\~

2.

Federal Register Volume 59, No. 87, dated May 6, 1994

SUBJECT:

Comments from Omaha Public Power District {OPPD) on Proposed Changes to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 73 Regarding Frequency for Conducting Independent Reviews and Audits of Safeguards Contingency Plan and Security Program In Reference 2, the NRC solicited comments for proposed changes to 10 CFR 50 and 73 that would change the frequency at which each licensee conducts independent reviews and audits of its safeguards contingency plan and security program from annually to biennially.

OPPD supports these proposed changes.

In addition, OPPD offers two other comments in support of the proposed rule changes.

First, nuclear plants periodically conduct security drills which provide a performance-based method of verifying the implementation and effectiveness of the security program.

Secondly, by reducing the required frequency for independent audits, licensees would have more resources available to conduct self-assessments. This change would be in A

line with the NRC philosophy of supporting self-assessments over independent reviews W

as a better method of determining the effectiveness of licensee programs.

OPPD also supports further rulemaking as mentioned in the Supplementary Information Background section of the Federal Register.

The additional NRC rulemaking would extend the audit frequency for several program areas to a maximum 36-month interval.

This proposal would be consistent with OPPD's current practice of conducting Quality Assurance audits on a 36-month frequency.

If you should have any questions, please contact me.

Sincerely,

~-~-PJ:l:--=>

\\M W. G. Gates ff... Vice President 45-5124 c:

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae L. J. Callan, NRC Regional Administrator, Region IV S. D. Bloom, NRC Project Manager R. P. Mullikin, NRC Senior Resident Inspector NRC Document Control Desk Employment with Equal Opportunity SEP 2 8 1994.,

A 11,., eaged by card... -",.. "nmffll,nm*mnt

U.b. 1-.; u1.,...,.-..,

-'-.J-", vi. Y t;OMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics stmar1< Date -

~----'---

!Copies Received __ __....._ ___ _

Add'! Copies Reproduced......_ ___ _

Special Distribution /B ;r;n.51 etJ&

LL p,.,r-

ILLIN915 PflWER DOCKETE US~RC Illinois Power Company Clinton Power Station P.O. Box 678 Clinton, IL 61727 Tel 217 935-8881

• 94 JUL 25 p 2lIS,l)2315 Ll0-94(07 - 21 )LP 8G. 120 July 21, 1994 OFFICE OF SECRETA.RY Docket No. 50-461 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555 DOCKETING & SERVICE BRANCH

Subject:

Illinois Power's Concurrence with Virginia Power's Filing of Petition for Rulemaking

Dear Sir:

/

As discussed in the Federal Register, %fume 59, No. 87, Pages 23641 and 23642, Virginia Power (VP) submitted a filing of petition for rulemaking. This petition requested that the Commission amend its regulations to change 10 CFR Parts 50 and 73 for the frequency with which each licensee conducts independent reviews and audits of its safeguards contingency plan and security programs from at least every 12 months (annually) to nominally every 24 months (biennially). Illinois Power (IP) agrees with VP's conclusion that an annual review is not necessary to ensure an adequate safeguards contingency plan and security program, and that it is not appropriate considering the high standard of industry performance in this area.

During the last three years, the IP Nuclear Assessment Department has issued only one audit finding in the area of security. The change from annual to biennial independent reviews would allow more time for more urgent tasks that may not be required by regulations. The frequency of audits and reviews can always be increased if warranted by indications of declining performance, management requests, or significant program changes.

The filing of petition for rulemaking should be considered. IP supports their petition and believes that this is a valid cost beneficial licensing action (CBLA). This CBLA does not decrease the safe operation of a facility, but would increase a plant's safe operation as more resources could be applied to areas which could need additional attention.

Director, Licensing JSP/csm 1

SEP 2 8 -l994-.._

Ac now edged by card.................

" on.. >>

• • ~

..,,.. vvMMISSION DOC!, :.. l"!f,G & SERVICE SECTION OFFiCt: OF THE SECRETARY or THE COMMISSION Document Statistics strr.ar~ Date Copies R-!ceived __ __;/:__ ___ _

Ad<rl Cop:es Reproduced __..__ ____ _

Special Distribulion__._;t;f

=-...,,.fJ~'5~ fi...;~...,'l(_

.J...e.

cc:

NRC Clinton Licensing Project Manager NRC Resident Office, V-690 Regional Administrator, Region III, USNRC Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety Donald M. Olson, Virginia Power Company U-602315 Page2

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary I

NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE July 19, 1994 DOCKETED USPJRC

• 94 JUL 19 Pl2 :34 (f)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET NUMBER PFTITION RULE PRM S 0-.> Cf ATTENTION:

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Docketing and Services Branch

( S 1 FR 2 '!,{,L/ I)

Virginia Power; Filing of Petition for Rulemaking 59 Fed. Reg. 23641, May 6, 1994 Request for Comments The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 1 submits these comments on behalf of the nuclear power industry. We have reviewed Virginia Power's petition to amend security program review activities; 10 CFR 50.54(p)(3); 10 CFR 73.55(g)(4); and 10 CFR 73, Appendix C, (59 Fed. Reg. 23642, May 6, 1994). The proposed petition amends the requirement for each licensee to conduct an independent review of its security program from annual to a nominal 24-month periodicity. The enclosure provides additional amplification of the industry's position on audit frequency. Our comments on a related Virginia Power petition concerning emergency preparedness program review periodicity were provided by NEI letter dated June 24, 1994.

NEI supports the general performance-based philosophy of this petition for rulemaking. It reflects the general concepts of a performance-based regulatory and quality regime in which audit and review frequencies are appropriately adjusted based on performance. In such a regime, a fixed periodicity for review is not mandated. We believe that the rule should be amended and it is appropriate for licensees to be provided an option for basing audit frequency required by 10 CFR 50.54(p)(3);

1 NEI is the successor organization to the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC). NUMARC was the organization of the nuclear industry responsible for coordinating the efforts of all utilities licensed by the NRC to construct or operate nuclear power plants, and of other nuclear industry organizations, in all matters involving generic regulatory policy issues and the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues affecting the nuclear industry. NEI's members include every utility licensed to operate a commercial nuclear power plant in the United States, the major nuclear steam supply system vendors, major architect/engineering firms, fuel fabrication facilities, materials licensees and other holders ofNRC licenses, and other individuals and organizations involved in the nuclear energy industry.

1776 I STREET, NW SUITE 400 WASHINGTON, DC 20006-3708 PHONE 20 2.7 39.8000 FAX 202.785.4019 SEP 2 8 1 99..._4 _

/\\..,: 'iow odqea ov card............... -.".... :=:

..,..:i.::>1\\JN u..

, 11.,c StCTION 0 :-1

_ 11

,-1 r:: SECRETARY Ot-THC,,vMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark D:te /--4A-...,.J... h /1,u.~

Copies Received ___ _.../ ____ _

Add'I Copies Reproduced --"----e-----

Special Distribution 12 :r::. JJ<., fl)ll, * *

• L<l 6<-

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 19, 1994 Page2 10 CFR 73.55(g)(4); and 10 CFR 73, Appendix Con meeting a set of predetermined, licensee established performance criteria, or performing audits at a nominal, 24-month interval.

A performance-based regulatory approach allows licensee and NRC resources to be allocated and focused on the structures, systems, components and activities based on safety significance. Such an approach improves the efficiency and effectiveness of implementing the regulations and ultimately results in enhanced public health and safety.

Changing the frequency currently prescribed in the regulations to reflect a performance-based approach will assist in realizing these benefits.

In the area of security, there are already established and scheduled activities that could serve as indicators of satisfactory or degrading performance. It is considered appropriate for the industry to identify some of these activities to become the benchmarks by which licensees and NRC inspectors can assess compliance with the security requirements. Licensees could determine whether to increase or reduce audit frequency based on performance and feedback from their own security drills, NRC's Operational Safeguards Response Evaluations, actual security events, or other exercises and activities within the facility, several of which include participation by local law enforcement organizations. These are valid measures of performance which could be used for assessing security effectiveness and assist in determining the need to adjust the review/audit frequency.

We believe further discussions are necessary to develop the appropriate performance criteria before a performance-based quality regime can be implemented for security. As demonstrated in the development of the Maintenance Rule implementation, the specifics of implementation, including the establishment of performance criteria for security, can be pursued as a parallel activity to rulemaking activities.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue and would welcome the opportunity to discuss our comments further with appropriate NRC personnel.

TET /REE/ljw Enclosure s*

ely, c41{u-.u t -~

as E. Tipton c}~

Vice President, Operations and Engineering Division

Enclosure Performance-Based Audits of Security Programs The proposed petition would amend the security program review requirements for conducting independent reviews of its security program from annually to a nominal, 24-month periodicity.

NEI supports the performance-based justification for the rulemaking petition to amend 10 CFR 50.54(p)(3); 10 CFR 73.55(g)(4); and 10 CFR 73, Appendix C. It reflects the general momentum towards an improved, more efficient and effective regulatory regime, justified by licensees' performance. Industry believes that in a performance-based regulatory and quality regime it is more appropriate for equipment and organizational performance to be the determining factor for audit frequency, not rigid periodicity requirements. Licensees would determine whether to increase or reduce audit frequency based on performance and feedback from their own security drills, NRC Operational Safeguards Response Evaluations, actual security events, or other exercises and activities within the facility, several of which include participation by local law enforcement organizations.

In the time frame that the NRC's quality assurance requirements (10 CFR 50, Appendix B) were originally issued, a number of other regulated industries, including defense and aerospace were also implementing similar quality programs. The quality implementation practices for these industries were very similar to those established for the commercial nuclear industry. In the 1990s, driven by global commercial competitiveness, and customer demands and requirements for improved quality, the broad spectrum of US industry is moving towards a more efficient quality regime, one that is performance-based. In such a regime, the emphasis is on output and results, not necessarily processes or procedures. The structured processes are important and necessary, but more important is that performance and output meet the requirements of the specified activity, function or product.

Developing a more effective and efficient regulatory regime is the goal of a number of current activities. The NRC's Regulatory Review Group Report, licensees' cost beneficial licensing activities and, on a broader front, Vice President Gore's Report on Reinventing Government, support changing the regulatory regime to one that is based on performance and results to improve regulatory effectiveness and efficiencies. In addition, ASME NQA-1 (1989), Appendix 18A-l, Non-mandatory Guidance on Audits, Section 2.3, recommends:

1

"Frequency of regularly scheduled internal and external audits should be based upon evaluation of all applicable and active elements of the quality assurance programs. These evaluations should include an assessment of the effectiveness of the applicable and active elements of the program based upon such information as the following:

(a) previous audit results and corrective actions; (b) non-conformance reports; and

( c) independent information ( e.g., from other sources, such as generic experience of the nuclear industry, ASME, peer organizations, regulating bodies, etc.)."

The movement towards a performance-based regulatory regime started with the issuance of the Maintenance Rule (10 CFR Part 50.65; July 10, 1991). There are also active discussions associated with implementing performance-based concepts in the area of quality assurance (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B) and reactor containment leakage testing (10 CFR 50, Appendix J). The industry believes that security is yet another area where performance-based concepts can be applied to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of implementing the regulatory requirements.

In a performance-based quality regime, audits and reviews are undertaken based on monitoring performance of a structure, system, component or activity against predetermined, licensee established criteria (goals). Failure to meet the performance criteria, would result in a licensee taking action through a corrective action program to resolve the issue, and where necessary, revise and adjust applicable practices to provide reasonable assurance that future performance will be satisfactory, as demonstrated by meeting the appropriate performance criteria. Self assessments, or audits and assessments by other organizations, including company quality teams, assist in the review of performance evaluations and often provide the objective focus necessary to resolve issues, correct deficiencies and deviations, and identify areas for potential improvement.

Failure to meet the performance criteria also results in increased licensee management involvement. The degree and extent of management involvement is dependent upon the safety significance and the issue under review.

In the area of security, there are already established and scheduled activities that could serve as indicators of satisfactory or degrading performance. It may be appropriate for some of these activities to become the benchmarks by which to assess compliance with the security requirements.

Additional intra-industry discussions are required to develop potential performance criteria for security to support a performance-based security regulation. However, as demonstrated in the development of the Maintenance Rule implementation, we believe 2

that the specifics of implementation, including the establishment of the performance criteria for security, can be pursued as a parallel activity to the rulemaking activities.

Once the industry has reached a consensus on performance criteria that would be appropriate for monitoring to assure compliance with the security requirements, discussions with the NRC should take place, with an objective of reaching a mutual understanding on the specifics of implementation as soon as possible.

3

DOCKET NUMBER PETTI N RULE PAM 5[)-Sq Beaver Valley Power Station j q f /<..,2.. 3 b lo( i)

Duquesne Lig1t Company JOHN D. SIEBER Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Power Division P.O. Box 4 OQCKE £0 Shippingport PA 15077-0004 USNRC OFFICE Of SECRETARY OOCKETI G & SERVICE Secretary, U. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 BRANCH

Subject:

Virginia Power; Petition for Rulemaking (412) 393-5255 Fax (412) 643-8069 Duquesne Light Company (DLC) is submitting the following comments for consideration in response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) request.

A notice of receipt of petition for rulemaking dated December 30, 1993, which was filed with the NRC by Virginia Power was published in the May 6,

1994 Federal Register (59 FR 23641).

The petitioner has requested that the NRC amend its regulations to change the frequency with which each licensee conducts independent reviews and audits of its safeguards contingency plan and security program from annually to biennially.

DLC concurs with the Virginia Power submittal.

The proposed audit frequency provides a greater degree of flexibility in applying resources, thereby permitting a

licensee to implement a

more performance-based audit program.

The resources presently used for audits of the safeguards contingency plan and security program could be reallocated, if justified by performance, to address more safety-significant concerns that might be identified.

Regulatory Guide 1.33, Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Operation),

prescribes a

two-year audit frequency for most operational phase activities commensurate with the activity's operational safety significance.

The proposed rule would be consistent with this previously defined regulatory position.

The industry Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance average rating for the security category was 1.27 as of October 15, 1993.

Clearly, this represents a

commendable overall performance in this area and supports the move to biennial audits which can be supplemented if performance warrants.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue.

Sincerely, DELIVERING QUALITY E N E R G Y Aci,;n: lod si:p 2 s 1994--

b *card... -.......................

.::>. i'<Ul.,L.

-* *. - *.. ----- ***,......,1J, DOCKL; c! 1'....i ~ SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmar1< Date

--z/ 1~111"-/

Copies Received __ ---1-------

Md'I Copies Reproduced _.J _ __,,..,.---,,---

Special Distribution /?.X JO 5" 1 fJ/J /2 J

.I.

Nuclear Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary DOCKETED USHRC

• 94 JUL 15 P 4 : 1 4 (j)

GPU Nuclear Corporation One Upper Pond Road Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 201-316-7000 TELEX 136-482 Writer's Direct Dial Number.

OFFiCE Oi SECJl,_ET~RY OOCKETI ;G 8-. '..:t.P\\, ICE DR A NCH DOCKET NUMBER' PETITION RULE PRM S° 0 -SCJ (sq FR 236'1!) -

July 12, 1994 C300-94-2178 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washi ngton, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Services Branch

Subject:

Virginia Power; Filing of Petition for Rulemaking 59 Federal Register 23641, May 6, 1994 Request for Comments These comments reflect the position of GPU Nuclear Corporation.

GPU Nuclear has reviewed Virginia Power's petition to amend security program review activities 10 CFR 50.54(p)(3), 10 CFR 73.55 (g)(4) and 10 CFR 73 (59 Fed. Reg.

23641, May 6, 1994).

The proposed petition amends the security program requirements to conduct independent reviews of its security program from annual to a nominal 24-month periodicity.

GPU Nuclear supports the petition for rulemaking associated with 10 CFR 50.54(p)(3), 10 CFR 73.55 (g)(4) and 10 CFR 73 because it reflects an improvement in the current regulatory framework and is warranted by licensee performance.

GPU Nuclear believes, however, that the actual audit frequencies implemented should be based on performance in the subject area with the licensee's commitment reflecting the maximum interval between audits.

Any audit program is established to ensure that plans, procedures and instructions are sufficient and effectively implemented.

In addition, audits verify compliance with Regulations, Operating License and Technical Specification requirements and other regulatory requirements and commitments.

The effectiveness of such a program is not contingent upon a particular schedule but rather the thoroughness and scope of the audits and the comprehensiveness of the follow up to findings and recommendations.

The proposed change concerns only the audit schedule.

SEP 2 8 1994 Acknowledged by car...

GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of General Public Utilities Corporation

U.S. l~u1.... _,...

__ _ __,.... vn, \\,,OM MISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmar1< Date

-; / /i '-/

Copies Received __

~-----

~d'I Copies Reproduced _ ___

~ecial Distribution tlZ>Zj PfJ/4

..e_

,r

CJ00-94-2178 Page 2 In the area of security, there are established and scheduled activities which are active indicators of satisfactory or degrading performance capabilities.

Feedback from actual security events or drills, NRC Operational Safeguards Response Evaluations, non-compliance reports and self-evaluations provide sufficient bases to assess performance when compared to predetermined licensee established criteria. The drills and exercises also test the adequacy of the interface between the licensee and local law enforcement organizations.

As with the current audit program, unsatisfactory performance would be handled through the licensee's corrective action program to resolve the issue and assure satisfactory future performance.

Should you require additional information regarding GPU Nuclear's position on this petition for rulemaking, please contact me.

.. Fornicola icensing & Regulatory Affairs Director

/plp cc:

A. P. Heymer, NEI

6 SCE&G South Carolina Electric & Gas Company P.O. Box 88 Jenkinsville, SC 29065 (803) 345-4001 July 6, 1994 John L. Skolds Senior Vice President Nuclear Operations DOCKETED US, RC Refer to:

RC-94-0173

'94 JUL 11 PS :04 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

Subject:

VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION DOCKET NO. 50/395 OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-12 OFFICE Of SECRE ff;,RY DOCKETING & SERVICE BRANCH COMMENTS ON VIRGINIA POWER COMPANY'S PETITION FOR RULEMAKING TO CHANGE THE FREQUENCY OF INDEPENDENT REVIEWS AND AUDITS OF SAFEGUARDS CONTINGENCY PLAN AND SECURITY PROGRAM This letter provides comments on Virginia Power Company's petition for rulemaking to change the frequency with which each licensee conducts independent reviews and audits of its safeguards contingency plan and security program from annually to biennially.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) agrees that the frequency of independent reviews and audits should be more performance-based than schedule-driven.

SCE&G recommends that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission establish a common frequency requirement for all nuclear programs requiring an independent review and audit, to include safeguards contingency plan and security program. The frequency, scope, and depth of all independent reviews should be based on program performance indicators and include a provision that all aspects of a program are audited within a 36 month interval.

SCE&G appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comment on this petition for rulemaking.

RAM/J LS/nkk c:

0. W. Dixon R.R. Mahan R. J. White H. L. O'Quinn S. R. Hunt Very truly yours,

~~

John L. Skolds NSRC RTS (PR 940014)

Central File System File (811.02, 50.072)

SEP 2 8 1994 -

Acknowledged by card............... ---

NUCLEAR EXCELLENCE -A SUMMER TRADITION!

tJ.::>. I I -

• '-",....,...,;..., 1..;1

• DOCK!: 1.;,u 6 SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date 2 / 6 /1L/

\\Apies Re::eived ___

l ____ _

Add'I Copies Reproduced ----___,----

Special Distribution }z 1;.? ~ fJ rJ/l.,

Le...rA...r

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 1451 P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 415/973-4684 Fax 415/973-2313 DOCKET NUMBER June 27, 1994 PETITION RULE PRM SCJ-J q

( r;q FR 236 1/!}

PG&E Letter DCL-94-1 35 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Docket No. 50-275, OL-DPR-80 Docket No. 50-323, OL-DPR-82 Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 Gregory M. Rueger Senior ~

• ~.1e'1 Genera r.-.... ',

Nuclear Po

~ ~lion

• 94 JUL -1 P 4 : 1 5 OFFICE OF SECRETARY DOCKETING & S:RVICE 5kAHCH Virginia Electric and Power Company: Petit ion for Rulemaking, Safeguards Contingency Plan and Security Program Gentlemen:

PG&E is submitting comments in response to the notice in the Federal Register (59 FR 23641 ), dated May 6, 1994, and invitation to comment on Virginia Electric and Power Company's (VEPCO's) petition for rulemaking to amend 10 CFR 50.54(p), 10 CFR 73.55(9) and Part 73, Appendix C by changing the frequency with which each licensee conducts independent reviews of its security programs and safeguards contingency plan. PG&E supports the petition and believes that the proposed revisions to the regulations are warranted.

Power reactor licensee proficiency and effectiveness in security and safeguards contingency planning has improved steadily to the point where annual audits no longer provide a significant benefit, let alone a benefit commensurate with the cost in dollars and diverted resources. PG&E agrees with VEPCO that a biennial audit frequency would more than adequately provide the requisite feedback and assurance regarding the effectiveness of licensee safeguards contingency plans and security programs. Furthermore, adequate safeguards exist to ensure that changing the audit frequency to two years will have no adverse impact on implementation of nuclear security programs and contingency plans.

PG&E also agrees with VEPCO that an annual audit frequency is not necessary to ensure an adequate safeguards plan and security program, nor is it commensurate with present industry performance and enhancements in this area. Biennial audits would allow licensees to concentrate available audit AcKncwledged b

<!)

,ti '"'..,.

~ - *** -.It.) COMMISSION D0(.1--L 11,~C & SERVICE SECTION Off ICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics l'ostmark Date -

-G>-LC:.~

....!.-'~---

'Copies Rcceiv c __ ~ '--------

1.dd'I Copies A1.:-P'/"l('iC~ ______

~;:J ~s*1'1-.,.; Jt;r:,O~ RtJl2; e:JAIT: ______ _

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk PG&E Letter DCL-94-135 June 27, 1994 resources in areas of observed weakness based on performance. Because the costs associated with the annual audit requirements are not commensurate with the safety benefits, amending the existing regulations to permit biennial audits could provide a net safety benefit.

Sincerely,

'~iv--

Gregory M. Rueger cc:

L. J. Callan Mary H. Miller Kenneth E. Perkins Sheri R. Peterson Diablo Distribution 6492S/EMG/1438

AGENCY:

ACTION:

SUMMARY

DOCKET NUMBER 5()-So/

PL T\\T!C ~ U' F PR~;;;..---~

(sq FR 236'1lj DOCKETED USNRC "94 JUN -7 AlO :30 (7590-01-P]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONOFFICE OF S CR::T~.RY DOCK *r ti.C:: & ;,ERV!rf:

r ":.

'!."°

10 CFR Parts 50 and 73

. "

• J *,

[Docket No. PRM-50-59]

Virginia Power; Filing of Petition for Rulemaking Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Notice of receipt of petition for rulemaking.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is publishing for public comment a notice of receipt of petition for rulemaking dated December 30, 1993, which was filed with the Commission by Virginia Power.

The petition was assigned Docket No. PRM-50-59 on January 19, 1994.

The petitioner requests that the Commission amend its regulations to change the frequency with which each licensee conducts independent ~~views and audits of its safeguards contingency plan and security program from dnr.ually to biennially.

DATES:

7 l:i.o I ff tf Submit comments (75 days after publication in the Federal Register).

Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESS: Submit comments to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, Washington DC 20555.

For a copy of the petition, write to the Rules Review Section, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

1

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules Review Section, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: 301-415-7163 or Toll Free: 800-368-5642.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Comission's regulations currently require that independent reviews and audits of each licensee's safeguards contingency plan and security program be conducted every 12 months by personnel who have no direct responsibility for the subject areas.

The NRC is considering rulemaking in several program areas that would modify audit requirements so that the frequency, scope, and depth of auditing activities would be based on review of program performance indicators but would not exceed a 36-month interval to accomplish an audit of all program elements.

Final NRC action on this petition would be consistent with actions taken on modifications to other program audit requirements.

Petitioner's Request Virginia Power requests that the NRC amend its regulations in 10 CFR Parts 50 and 73 to change the requirements that each licensee provide for a review at least every 12 months (annually} of its safeguards contingency plan and security programs to nominally every 24 months (biennially). The petitioner also requests that Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 73 be amended to 2

change the requirement that each licensee provide for a review and audit of its safeguards contingency plan at intervals not to exceed 12 months to a frequency of 24 months.

The petitioner states that the proposed amendments would require each licensee to conduct independent reviews and audits of its safeguards contingency plan and security program at least biennially. The petitioner states that the resources presently used for audits in each area could be reallocated if justified by performance to address more safety-significant concerns that might be identified. The petitioner also states that the proposed audit frequency provides a greater degree of flexibility in applying resources, thereby permitting a licensee to implement a more performance-based audit program.

Grounds for Request The petitioner states that the changes requested are identified as present requirements that are resource intensive b~t of marginal importance to safety. The petitioner offers the following reasons for the request.

1.

The underlying purpose of the requirements is to overview and ensure effective implementation of security programs.

Given the available objective criteria that industry perfonriance is coR111endable in this area, aggressive overview activities do not seem to be warranted. Resources, which previously would have been strictly dedicated to the conduct of mandatory audits, could now be more effectively used to address performance issues having safety significance. Biennial audits are sufficient to provide an acceptable, formal confirmation of security program implementation.

The underlying purpose of the existing requirement will continue to be met by the proposed rule.

2.

The current industry Systematic Assessment of licensee Performance (SALP} average for the security category is 1.27 as of October 15, 1993. Clearly, this represents a commendable overall performance in this area and supports the move to biennial audits which can be supplemented as performance warrants. Based on the overall industry SALP ratings concerning safeguards contingency plan and security program effectiveness, Virginia Power concludes that changing the audit frequency to two years 3

will have no adverse impact on implementation of the plan and program.

3.

A two-year audit schedule would permit the licensee an increased degree of flexibility to concentrate available audit resources in areas of observed weakness based on performance rather than conducting a mandatory annual audit of marginal safety significance. Thus, personnel resources would be allowed to address and resolve issues having greater safety significance.

4.

Regulatory Guide 1.33, Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Operation), prescribes a two-year audit frequency for most operational phase activities commensurate with the activity's operational safety significance. The proposed rule would be consistent with this previously defined regulatory position and the present safety significance as evidenced by industry performance.

5.

The requirements to conduct annual audits are not of themselves necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.54(p} and 10 CFR Part 73.

Biennial audits are sufficient to provide an acceptable formal confirmation of program effectiveness.

Supporting Information The petitioner states that the regulations that require licensees to implement safeguards contingency plans and security programs are essential to ensure operation of the facilities in an environment free from external threats.

The petitioner notes that independent audits of these programs are required to overview their effectiveness. Furthermore, the petitioner believes that the frequency or extent of overview of these plans and programs by mandatory audits is not providing a corrmensurate performance in security programs.

According to the petitioner, safeguards contingency plans and security programs have been in place in the industry for an extended period and that despite recent reconsideration of the design basis threat, nuclear security is otherwise being adequately addressed and implemented by the plans and programs as they are presently configured.

The petitioner believes that a biennial audit frequency would more than adequately provide the requisite feedback and assurance regarding the effectiveness of each licensee's 4

safeguards contingency plan and security program.

The petitioner further states that technological advancements and applications have resulted in and will continue to generate improvements to security equipment and facilities. The petitioner asserts that industry-wide programmatic enhancements continue to be made available to improve the effective utilization of security staff as well as equipment and that the results of the improvements to equipment and facilities and progranmatic enhancements within nuclear safeguards and security programs over the past decade have elevated plan effectiveness throughout the industry. The petitioner notes that the improvement is evidenced, in part, through the SALP program which is used to assess security indicators.

Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 The petitioner proposed that in §50.54, paragraph (p)(3} be revised to read as follows:

§ 50.54 Conditions of licenses.

(p}

(3) The licensee shall provide for the development, revision, implementation, and maintenance of its safeguards contingency plan.

To this end, the licensee shall provide for a review nominally every 24 months of the safeguards contingency plan by individuals independent of both security program management and personnel who have direct responsibility for implementation of the security program.

The review must include a review and audit of safeguards contingency procedures and practices, an audit of the security system testing and maintenance program, and a test of the safeguards systems, along with commitments established for response by local law 5

enforcement authorities. The results of the review and audit, along with recorrmendations for improvements, must be documented, reported to the licensee's corporate and plant management, and kept available at the plant for inspection for a period of three years.

Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Part 73 The petitioner proposes that in §73.55, paragraph (g)(4) be revised to read as follows:

§ 73.55 Requirements for physical protection of licensed activities in nuclear power reactors against radiological sabotage.

(g)

(4)

The security program must be reviewed nominally every 24 months by individuals independent of both security program management and personnel who have direct responsibility for implementation of the security program.

The security program review must include an audit of security procedures and practices, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the physical protection system, an audit of the physical protection system testing and maintenance program, and an audit of commitments established for response by local law enforcement authorities. The results and reconvnendations of the security program review, management's findings on whether the security program is currently effective, and any actions taken as a result of recommendations from prior program reviews must be documented in a report to the licensee's plant manager and to corporate management at least one level higher than that having responsibility for the day-to-day plant operation. These reports must

be maintained in an auditable form, available for inspection, for a period of three years.

The petitioner proposes that the text of Appendix C to Part 73 following the Audit and Review heading be revised to read as follows:

Appendix C-Licensee Safeguards Contingency Plans Audit and Review Nominally every 24 months, the licensee shall provide for a review of the safeguards contingency plan by individuals independent of both security program management and personnel who have direct responsibility for implementation of the security program.

The review must include an audit of safeguards contingency procedures and*practices, and an audit of conrnitments established for response by local law enforcement authorities. The licensee shall document the results and the reco11111endations of the safeguards contingency plan review, management findings on whether the safeguards contingency plan is currently effective, and any actions taken as a result of recommendations from prior reviews in a report to the licensee's plant manager and to corporate management at least one level higher than that having responsibility for the day-to-day plant operation.

The report must be maintained in an auditable form, available for inspection for a period of three years.

Conclusion The petitioner states that this petition for rulemaking merely allows successful, existing functions to continue without formal review at a frequency of nominally every two years rather than once per 12 months.

The 7

petitioner states that the annual audit frequency is not necessary to ensure an adequate safeguards contingency plan and security program, nor is it convnensurate with present industry performance in this area. Further, the petitioner states that it 1s not required to support NRC evaluation of program adequacy.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1 ~/day of May 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ry of the Commission.

8

~l.LJAM L. STEWART Senior Vice President DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM ~- °I (sq FRt:J&l/1 December 30, 1993 Secretary D0CKETEO JAN 19 1994 DOCKETING &

SERVICE BRANCH SECY-NAC

.,.,'/,

E:I United States Nudear Regulatory Commission Attention: Chief, Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D. C. 20555 Gentlemen:

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING 10 CFR 26, 10 CFR 50,54 & 10 CFR 73.55 v-°~h-t.Ft1~ f'J Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen AJJen, Vi,gi11ia 23060 804-273-3551 VIRGINIA POWER Serial No.93-707 Nl/RPC R1 FITNESS FOR DUTY, SECURITY & EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Pursuant to 1 0 CFR 2.802, Virginia Power requests rulemaking to change 1 0 CFR 26.80, 10 CFR 50.54(p)(3), 10 CFR 50.54(t), and 10 CFR 73.55(g)(4). The proposed rulemaking would relax the existing mandatory audit frequency specified for Fitness for Duty, Security, and Emergency Preparedness programs and plans from annual to biennial, but does not preclude additional audits if performance warrants. Conversely, based on continued good performance, *. this proposed rulemaking would permit licensees to more effectively dired and utilize their audit resources in areas of safety significance. In this regard, the proposed rulemaking is consistent with and represents a continuation of other related industry activities, induding Virginia Power's, to modify audit requirements in the QA Topical Report and Technical Specifications to be more performance-based.

This proposed rulemaking is also consistent with the NRC Regulatory Review Group findings and represents a significant Cost-Beneficial Licensing Action (CBLA) for the industry.

Attachments 1, 2, and 3 present the specific petitions for rulemaking and supporting discussion of the proposed changes. If you have any questions, please contact us.

Very truly yours,

{)PCW~

f.,- W. L. Stewart Attachments

1. Petition for Rulemaking - Fitness for Duty

2. Petition for Rulemaking - Security

3. Petition for Rulemaking - Emergency Preparedness

NOTE:

-The three ~etitions submitted under this cover letter have b~en.docketed serarately.

The docket numbers and titles of the three petitions are as follows:

PRM-26-1 Fitness-for-Duty Audit Frequency PRM-50-59 Security Audit Frequency PRM-50-60 Emergency Preparedness Audit Frequency

. ~: !

I.*

L~: l lll v l N\\tr v6.

cc:

Dr. T. E. Murtey Office of Nudear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. M. W. Branch NRC Senior Resident Inspector Surry Power Station Mr. A. D. McWhorter NRC Senior Resident Inspector North Anna Power Station Mr. J. F. Colvin Nuclear Management and Resources Council 1n6 Eye Street, N. W.

Suite 300 Washington, D. C. 20006-2496 Mr. G. O'N. Urquhart Department of Emergency Services 310 Turner Road Richmond, Virginia 23225

Introduction ATTACHMENT2 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING PROPOSED CHANGE TO 10 CFR 50.54(p)(3),

73.55(gX4) & APPENDIX C TO PART 73 SECURITY AUDIT FREQUENCY The Code of Federal Regulations citations concerning Safeguards Contingency Plans, and Security Programs, specifically 10 CFR 50.54{p)(3) and 10 CFR 73.55(g)(4),

contain requirements for 12 month (annual), Independent reviews and audits of each program or plan to be conducted by personnel who have no direct responsibility for the subject areas. The subject regulations are given below:

• so.54(p)(3) The licensee shall provide for the development, revision, implementation, and maintenance of Its safeguards contingency plan. To this end, the licensee shall provide for a review at least every 12 months of the safeguards contingency plan by individuals independent of both security program management and personnel who have direct responsibility for implementation of the security program. The review must Include a review and audit of safeguards contingency procedures and practices, an audit of the security system testing and maintenance program, and a test of the safeguards systems along with commitments established for response by local law enforcement authorities.

The results of the review and audit, along with recommendations for Improvements, must be documented, reported to the licensee's corporate and plant management, and kept available at the plant for inspection for a period of two years:

'73.55(g)(4) The security program must be reviewed at least every 12 months by individuals independent of both security program management and personnel who have direct responsibility for implementation of the security program. The security program review must Include an audit of security procedures and practices, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the physical protection system, an audit of the physical protection system testing and maintenance program, and an audit of commitments established for response by local law enforcement authorities. The results and recommendations of the security program review, management's findings on whether the security program is currently effective, and any actions taken as a result of recommendations from prior program reviews must be documented in a report to the licensee's plant manager and to corporate management at least one level higher than that having responsibility for the day-to--day plant operation. These reports must be maintained In an auditable form, available for inspection, for a period of 3 years."

• APPENDIX C TO PART 73 *.. AUDIT AND REVIEW *.. At intervals not to exceed 12 months, the licensee shall provide for a review of the safeguards contingency plan by indMduals independent of both security program management and personnel who have direct responsibility for implementation of the security program. The review must Include an audit of safeguards contingency procedures and practices, and an audit of commitments Page 1 of 5

established for response by local law enforcement authorities. The licensee shall document the results and the recommendations of the safeguards contingency plan review, management findings on whether the safeguards contingency plan is currently effective, and any actions taken as a result of recommendations from prior reviews in a report to the licensee's plant manager and to corporate management at least one level higher than that having responsibility for the day-to-day plant operation. The report must be maintained in an auditable form, available for inspection for a period of 3 years.ff eei1t1on Pursuant to 1 O CFR 2.802, Virginia Power requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission amend 1 o CFR 50.54(p)(3) to change the requirement that each licensee shall provide for a review at least every 12 months (annually) of the safeguards contingency plan to nominally every 24 months (biennially). Specifically, it Is requested that 1 o CFR 50.54(p)(3) be amended to read:

"The licensee shall provide for the development, revision, implementation, and maintenance of its safeguards contingency plan. To this end, the licensee shall provide for a review nominally every 24 months of the safeguards contingency plan by Individuals independent of both security program management and personnel who have direct responsibility for implementation of the security program. The review must include a review and audit of safeguards contingency procedures and practices, an audit of the security system testing and maintenance program, and a test, of the safeguards systems along with commitments established for response by local law enforcement authorities. The results of the review and audit, along with recommendations for improvements, must be documented, reported to the licensee's corporate and plant management, and kept available at the plant for inspection for a period of three years.ff Furthermore, Virginia Power requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission amend 1 O CFR 73.55(g)(4) to change the requirement that each licensee shall provide for a review of its security program at least every 12 months to nominally every two years.

Specifically, it is requested that 10 CFR 73.55(g){4) be amended to read:

"The security program must be reviewed nominally every 24 months by individuals independent of both security program manager:nent and personnel who have direct responsibility for implementation of the security program. The security program review must Include an audit of security procedures and practices, an evaluation of the effediveness of the physical protection system, an audit of the physical protection system testing and maintenance program, and an audit of commitments established for response by local law enforcement authorities. The results and recommendations of the security program review, management's findings on whether the security program is currently effective, and any actions taken as a result of recommendations from prior program reviews must be documented In a report to the licensee's plant manager and to corporate management at least one level higher than that having responsibility Page 2 of 5

for the day-to-day plant operation. These reports must be maintained in an auditable form, available for inspection, for a period of three years.

Virginia Power also requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission amend 1 O CFR 73 APPENDIX C to change the requirement that each licensee shall provide for a review of its safeguards contingency plan at intervals not to exceed 12 months to nominally every 24 months. Specifically, it is requested that 10 CFR 73 APPENDIX C AUDIT AND REVIEW be amended to read:

"Nominally every 24 months, the licensee shall provide for a review of the

_safeguards contingency plan by individuals independent of both security program management and personnel who have direct responsibility for implementation of the security program.

The review must include an audit of safeguards contingency procedures and practices, and an audit of commitments established for response by locaJ law enforcement authorities. The licensee shall document the results and the recommendations of the safeguards contingency plan review, management findings on whether the safeguards contingency plan is currently effective, and any actions taken as a result of recommendations from prior reviews In a report to the licensee's plant manager and to corporate management at least one level higher than that having responsibility for the day-to-day plant operation. The report must be maintained In an auditable form, available for inspection for a period of three years."

The proposed amendments would require each licensee to conduct independent reviews and audits of the above-referenced plans and programs at least biennially. As such, the resources presently used for audits in each area could be reallocated if justified by performance to address more safety significant concerns which might be identified. Thus, the proposed audit frequency of the subject area provides a greater degree of flexibility in applying resources, which permits a licensee to Implement a more performance-based audit program.

Grounds for Change These changes are requested based on the present requirements being identified as items which are resource intensive but of marginal importance to safety. The grounds for these changes are as follows:

1.

The under1ying purpose of the requirement is to overview and ensure effective implementation of security programs. Given the available objective criteria that industry performance is commendable In this area. aggressive overview activities do not seem to be warranted. Resources, which previously would have been strictly dedicated to the conduct of mandatory audits, could now be more effectively used to address performance issues having safety significance.

Biennial audits are sufficient to provide an acceptable, formal confirmation of security program Implementation. The underlying purpose of the existing requirement will continue to be met by the proposed rule.

2.

The current industry SALP average for the security category is 1.27 as of Page 3 of 5

October 15, 1993. Clearly, this represents a commendable overall performance in this area and supports the move to biennial audits which can be supplemented as performance warrants.

Based on the overall industry SALP ratings concerning safeguards contingency plan and security program effectiveness, Virginia Power concludes that changing the audit frequency to two years will have no adverse impact on implementation of the plan and program.

3.

A two-year audit schedule would permit the licensee an increased degree of flexibility to concentrate available audit resources In areas of observed weakness based on performance rather than conducting a mandatory annuai audit of marginal safety_significance._Thus, personneLresources would be allowed to address and resolve issues having greater safety significance.

4.

Regulatory Guide 1.33, Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Operation),

prescribes a two-year audit frequency for most operational phase activities commensurate with the activity's operational safety significance. The proposed rule is consistent with this previously defined regulatory position and the present safety significance as evidenced by industry performance.

5.

The existing requirements to conduct annual audits are not of themselves necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of 1 o CFR 50.54(p) and 1 o CFR 73.

Biennial audits are sufficient to provide an acceptable formal confirmation of program effectiveness.

6.

The proposed rulemaking is philosophically consistent with the recommendations concerning audits of programs such as Fitness for Duty included in the NRC Regulatory Review Group Summary and Overview (Final) issued in August 1993.

Statement 10 sum,ort of eem1on The regulations which require licensee implementation of safeguards contingency plans and security programs are essential to ensure operation of the facilities in an environment free from external threats. Independent audits of these programs are required to overview their effectiveness. Furthermore, the frequency or extent of overview of these plans and programs by mandatory audits is not providing a commensurate performance in security programs. Safeguards contingency plans and security programs have been in place in the industry for an extended period. Despite recent reconsideration of the design basis threat, nuclear security is otherwise being adequately addressed and implemented by the plans and programs as they are presently configured. Thus, a biennial audit frequency would more than adequately provide the requisite feedback and assurance regarding the effectiveness of each licensee's safeguards contingency plan and security program.

It should be noted that technological advancements and applications have resulted in, and will continue to generate, improvements to security equipment and facilities.

Industry-wide programmatic enhancements continue to be made available to improve the effective utilization of security staff as well as equipment.

The results of improvements to equipment and facilities and programmatic enhancements within Page 4 of 5

,* I It 1- -,

nuclear safeguards and security programs over the past decade have elevated plan effectiveness throughout the industry. This is evidenced, in part, through a mechanism employed by the NRC to assess security indicators through the use of Its Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) program. It Is noted that during the period between 1981 and 1993 the Industry averaged SALP rating for security has improved from 2.20 to 1.27. The overall average for security SALP ratings for this thirteen year period has been 1.60.

This petition merely allows successful, existing functions to continue without formal review at a frequency of nominally every two years rather than once per 12 months.

Furthermore, the proposed rule does not preclude conducting more frequent audits if performance trends indicate that additional overview is needed.

The proposed rule continues to require adequate provisions for program evaluation which result In enhancement and corrective action. Any changes to individual licensee plans or programs are required to be submitted to the NRC. Those changes which decrease the effectiveness of a plan or program must be approved by the NRC prior to Implementation.

In conclusion, the annual audit frequency is not necessary to ensure an adequate safeguards contingency plan and security program, nor is it commensurate with present industry performance in this area Further, it is not required to support NRC evaluation of program adequacy.

Page 5 of 5