ML043290201

11/10/2004 Summary of Meeting with NEI to Discuss Applicability of 10 CFR Part 21 to ESP Applicants and Holders, EP Aspects of ESP Reviews, Inclusion of Plant Parameters in Esps, and Esp/Col Interface Issues

ML043290201
Person / Time
Site:	Nuclear Energy Institute
Issue date:	12/28/2004
From:	Anand R NRC/NRR/DRIP/RNRP
To:	Nuclear Energy Institute
ANAND R NRR/DRIP/RNRP, 415-1146
Shared Package
ML043290195	List: ML043290201 ML043290240 ML043290243
References
Download: ML043290201 (12)

Text

December 28, 2004ORGANIZATION:Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)

SUMMARY

OF NOVEMBER 10, 2004, MEETING WITH THE NUCLEARENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI) TO DISCUSS APPLICABILITY OF 10 CFR PART 21 TO ESP APPLICANTS AND HOLDERS, EMERGENCY PLANNING (EP) ASPECTS OF EARLY SITE PERMIT (ESP) REVIEWS, INCLUSION OF PLANT PARAMETERS IN ESPs, AND ESP/COMBINED LICENSE (COL) INTERFACE ISSUES On November 10, 2004, a meeting was held between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and NEI at NRC Headquarters inRockville, MD. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss issues related to the applicability of10 CFR Part 21 to ESP holders and applicants, industry issues related to major features of emergency plans submitted by ESP applicants, issues related to inclusion of plant design parameters in early site permits, and ESP/COL interface issues. A list of meeting attendees is included as Attachment 1. The meeting agenda is provided as Attachment 2. A copy of the NEI handouts provided during the meeting is Attachment 3. This meeting was a follow-up to anNRC/NEI meeting held on September 9, 2004 (meeting summary ADAMS Accession No.ML042610277).Highlights of the Part 21 Portion of the MeetingTo begin the discussion of applicability of 10 CFR Part 21 to ESP holders, the staff referred NEIto the staff's June 22, 2004, letter (ML040430041) providing the staff's position that Part 21 does apply to ESP holders. The staff also made the following points:1.ESP applicants must have a Part 21 program implemented before an ESP is issued. Inpractical terms, this means the program should be in place before the NRC's final safetyevaluation report is issued.2.The staff agrees with NEI that language in the draft ESP template regarding Part 21 canbe simplified as discussed in NEI's letter of September 27, 2004.3.Item 4 of the NEI September 27, 2004, letter stated that Part 21 applies only tosafety-related activities, as defined in the regulation, and that determination of whichESP related activities are safety-related will be made on an applicant-specific basis. The staff stated that the determination of which ESP activities are safety-related shouldbe consistent from one ESP to the next, and that the staff cannot envision a situation inwhich a particular ESP activity would be considered safety-related for one ESP application but not for another. Industry representatives pointed out that differentreactor designs may identify different equipment as being safety-related. This fact could result in two ESP applicants identifying different safety-related activities if they werereferencing different designs. The staff acknowledged that such a situation could lead to different safety-related activities for ESP applicants.4.NEI stated that further discussion was needed on the extent to which Part 21implementation is to be addressed in ESP applications. As the NRC stated in itsJune 22, 2004, letter to NEI on this subject, an ESP applicant needs to demonstrate in its application that there is reasonable assurance that Part 21 obligations, bothretrospectively and prospectively, will be met. The staff also stated in the September 9,2004 meeting with NEI that the staff expects ESP applications to state that applicantshave implemented a Part 21 program and to describe how it has been implemented (e.g., in procedures and procurement specifications). The staff expects to update the NRC's ESP Review Standard (RS-002) to reflect this information. The staffacknowledged that an ESP applicant is not required to include information relating to its Part 21 program in its ESP application. However, it is the staff's preference that such information be provided in the ESP application. If such information is not provided by an ESP applicant, the NRC staff will obtain the necessary information thr ough theinspection process.5.NEI stated in its September 27, 2004, letter that further discussion was needed on theneed for a separate item in the ESP template on Part 21 applicability. The staff agreeswith NEI that no separate item on Part 21 applicability is necessary. The ESP templatewill reflect a single item stating that the applicant has demonstrated compliance withPart 21.Highlights of the Emergency Planning Portion of the MeetingOn November 9, 2004, the staff issued a letter to NEI regarding emergency planning (EP)issues that NEI had identified with regard to ESPs. In the letter, the staff discussed its positions regarding (1) finality of EP-related determinations made at the ESP stage, (2) review criteria forESP applications that seek acceptance of "major features" of emergency plans (an option provided in 10 CFR Part 52), and (3) staff review of previously filed EP information referenced in an ESP application. This letter (ML042870262) formed the basis for some of the discussions in the meeting with NEI held on November 10, 2004, and the staff began the discussion on thissubject by reiterating the major points made in the letter.NEI stated that they need more time to review the staff's letter. NEI also suggested that afurther discussion on major features of the ESP would be more beneficial after the issuance of the staff's first ESP draft safety evaluation report (DSER) in December, 2004. NEI requested a meeting with the staff in January 2005. The following points were made by the participants:

1.A discussion was held regarding "significant impediments" reviews. NEI stated that theindustry believes that such a review for a site adjacent to an operating reactor with an existing emergency plan should be very simple. The staff agreed that an existing plan in place in such a case is convincing evidence of the lack of impediments to development of emergency plans, and the staff agreed to consider this question further. 2.NEI asked for clarification regarding the need to project data such as population figuresforward, and for how long. The staff agreed to consider this question further.3.NEI stated a concern that potential applicants for greenfield sites might find thebusiness risk unacceptable regarding the lack of finality at the ESP stage for major features of emergency plans.4.NEI sought clarification relating to the need for a new 44 CFR 350 certification inassociation with an ESP for an existing site. FEMA representatives agreed to provide the clarification to the NRC staff by December 2004.5.NEI asked when the staff expects to revise Supplement 2 to NUREG-0654 to addresslessons learned from the ESP reviews. The staff agreed to discuss this question internally and to inform NEI of conclusions reached.Highlights of the Plant Parameter Portion of the MeetingThis discussion was a follow-up to a discussion in the September 9, 2004, NRC/NEI meeting onthe subject of inclusion of plant design parameters in ESPs. The staff made the following points:1.The staff believes that an early site permit should specify both the site characteristicsand the design parameters that the staff used in evaluating the suitability of the site. Asstated in the NRC's February 5, 2003, letter on Generic Issue ESP-6, a combination ofsite characteristics and PPE values will comprise the ESP bases that will be the focusfor comparison with the design of an actual plant proposed in a COL application for the site.2.The staff agrees with NEI that it is important to clearly distinguish between sitecharacteristics and postulated design parameters in the ESP and the EIS.3.Nature of site characteristics: The staff agrees with NEI's characterization of sitecharacteristics as "hard and fast" numbers that completely and accurately describe the site and that upon the filing of a COL application, the site parameters postulated for thedesign of the facility must fall within the actual site characteristics if there is to be issue preclusion under 10 CFR 52.39. Where this is not the case, the site characteristics may be revised (based on additionaldata) to bound those postulated for design, the design may be modified to account forthe existing characteristics, or the licensee may provide additional analysis to demonstrate that the proposed plant would nonetheless comply with NRC requirementsconcerning site suitability. These matters would be subject to NRC review and adjudication in the COL proceeding.4.Nature of design parameters: Design parameters, as used by an ESP applicant takingthe Plant Parameter Envelope (PPE) approach, are surrogates for actual facility designinformation used to support the NRC's safety and environmental reviews. 5.In the situation where actual design characteristics proposed in a COL application arenot bounded by design parameters assumed in the ESP, the staff disagrees with NEI that further analysis and NRC approval is not always needed. If actual designcharacteristics proposed in a COL application are not bounded by the design parameters in the ESP, the NRC must evaluate the effect of the difference on theenvironmental impact of the actual proposed action. Because this evaluation willcomprise part of the agency's decision regarding the COL application, the evaluation ofthe difference would be subject to litigation.6.The participants discussed the requirements in 10 CFR 52.79 which states, " . . .if theapplication references an early site permit, the application need not contain information or analyses submitted to the Commission in connection with the early site permit, but must contain, in addition to the information and analyses otherwise required, information sufficient to demonstrate that the design of the facility falls within the parameters specified in the early site permit, . . ." There was considerable discussion about the interpretation of this requirement as it relates to an ESP applicant that references a PPE. The staff stated that this issue would be addressed further in the upcoming proposed rule on 10 CFR Part 52, expected to be issued in mid-2005.7.The NRC staff will only list PPE values (design parameters) in the permit that wereconsidered by the staff in its safety or environmental review. PPE values that were not considered by the NRC staff in its review of the ESP application will not be listed in thepermit.Finally, the staff stated that it was not prepared to address Item 6 from the NEI'sSeptember 27, 2004 letter which requested the staff interpretation of the use of the phrase "one or more elements of the permit" in 10 CFR 52.39(b). The staff stated that it would follow up with the Office of the General Counsel on this item prior to next meeting with NEI. Highlight of the ESP/COL Interface IssuesNEI led a discussion with the NRC staff concerning the evaluation of new or c hangedinformation included in a COL application that references an ESP. NEI stated that they haveconcerns about the nature of the staff review of this information in the COL application.

Specifically, they questioned whether the COL review is merely to confirm site characteristics or whether there will be a review of new meteorological information. NEI stated that the issue of providing new meteorological information also raises concerns with the level of finality of the ESP. NEI noted that this information impacted both the environmental and safety reviews.After significant discussion, the following action items were noted:

1)Both NRC and NEI staff will consider the finality of the meteorological information at thetime of the COL application and comment on whether the COL applicant needs to updatethe site data that was reviewed for the ESP.2)NEI requested that the NRC consider where the environmental protection plan fits into the10 CFR Part 52 process, i.e., at the ESP stage or at the COL stage. Both NRC and NEI staff agreed to discuss ESP/COL interface issues and address these actionitems during their next public meeting.Raj K. Anand, Project ManagerNew Reactors Section New, Research and Test Reactors Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationProject No. 689 Attachments:1.List of attendees2.Agenda 3.Handoutscc w/atts: See next page

Package: ML043290195 Memo: ML043290201Att. 1&2: ML043290240 Att. 3: ML043290243OFFICERNRP:PMRNRP:PM*EPPO:SCOGCRNRP:SCNAMERAnandMScott w/commentsEWeissRweismanLDudes DATE12/7/200412/7/2004 12/ 9/2004 12/17/200412/28/2004 Distribution for November 10, 2004, Meeting Summary dated December 28, 2004 Hard CopyRNRP Rdg.LDudes RAnandE-mailPUBLICDMatthews/FGillespie RNRP Group DE Branch Chiefs DE Section Chiefs

OGC ACRS/ACNW WBeckner TMensah JStarefos NPKadambi JJolicoeur, EDO STingen PPrescott BZalcman BMusico DJohnson DBarss TKenyon GBagchi JDanna FEltawila GRAND GULF EARLY SITE PERMIT SERVICE LISTGrand GulfMr. George A. ZinkeManager, Project Management Nuclear Business Development Entergy Nuclear, M-ECH-683 1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213Mr. Michael A. KrupaActing Director, Nuclear Safety Assurance Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Bald Hill Road - Waterloo RoadPort Gibson, MS 39150Mr. William A. EatonVice President System Energy Resources Inc.

Entergy Operations, M-ECH-38 1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213Ms. Patricia L. CampbellWinston & Strawn 1400 L. Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005-3502Mr. Michael D. BourgeoisManager, Project Management Nuclear Business Development Entergy Nuclear, M-ECH-683 1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213Ms. Frances G. BufordActing Director, Nuclear Safety Assurance Entergy Nuclear South, M-ECH-414 1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213Mr. William K. H ugheySr. Manager, Business Development Entergy Nuclear, M-ECH-683 1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213Mr. Bob EvansEnercon Services Inc.

12850 Middlebrook Road, Suite 108 Germantown, MD 20874Mr. George A. WilliamsSite Vice President Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Bald Hill Road - Waterloo RoadPort Gibson, MS 39150 Federal, State and localAttorney GeneralDepartment of Justice State of Louisiana P. O. Box 94005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9005Attorney General Asst. Attorney General State of Mississippi

P. O. Box 220 Jackson, MS 39205-0220Mr. Robert W. Goff, Program DirectorDivision of Radiological Health Mississippi State Dept. of Health P.O. Box 1700 Jackson, MS 39215-1700Mr. Phil Bass, DirectorOffice of Pollution Control Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 10385 Jackson, MS 39289Mr. Jerry Cain, ChiefEnvironmental Permits Division Department of Environmental Quality P. O. Box 10385 Jackson, MS 39289Ms. Kathleen B. BlancoOffice of the Governor P.O. Box 94004, State of Louisiana Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9004Governor Haley BarbourOffice of the Governor P.O. Box 139, State of Mississippi Jackson, MS 39205Mr. Rick Foster, DirectorEmergency Management for Tensas Parish P.O. Box 768 St. Joseph, LA 71366 GRAND GULF EARLY SITE PERMIT SERVICE LIST-2-Military DepartmentLouisiana Dept. of Homeland Security/Emergency Preparedness Col. Mike Brown, Asst. Director 7667 Independence Boulevard Baton Rouge, LA 70806Mr. Robert R. Latham, Jr., DirectorMississippi Emergency Management Agency P.O. Box 4501, Fondren Station Jackson, Mississippi 39296-4501Ms. Bobbie Young, DirectorClaiborne County Emergency Management Agency P. O. Box 558 Port Gibson, MS 39150Mr. Thomas E. ReynoldsCo-RAC Chair FEMA Region IV 3003 Chamblee-Tucker Road Atlanta, GA 30341Ms. Prosanta Chowdhury, Project LeaderLouisiana Department of Environmental Quality Office of Environmental Compliance Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Preparedness P. O. Box 4312 Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4312Ms. Lisa HammondChief, Technological Services Branch FEMA Region VI 800 N. Loop 288 Denton, TX 76209-3606Ms. Vanessa E. Quinn, ChiefRadiological Emergency Preparedness Section Department of Homeland Security/FEMA 500 C Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20472Mr. Thomas P. MillerU.S. Department of Energy Headquarters - Germantown 19901 Germantown Road Germantown, MD 20874-1290Mr. Gary Wright, ManagerDivision of Nuclear Safety Illinois Emergency Management Agency 1035 Outer Park Drive Springfield, IL 62704Ms. Nancy Butler, DirectorHarriette Person Memorial Library 606 Main St.

Port Gibson, MS 39150Mr. David LochbaumUnion of Concerned Scientists 1707 H Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006-3919Mr. Paul GunterDirector of the Reactor Watchdog Project Nuclear Information & Resource Service

1424 16 th Street, NW, Suite 404Washington, DC 20036Mr. James RiccioGreenpeace 702 H Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20001Mr. Brendan HoffmanResearch Associate on Nuclear Energy Public Citizens Critical Mass Energy and Environmental Program 215 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20003Mr. Marvin FertelSenior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708Mr. Adrian HeymerNuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708Mr. Russell BellNuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 GRAND GULF EARLY SITE PERMIT SERVICE LIST-3-Mr. Ernie H. KennedyVice President New Plants Nuclear Plant Projects Westinghouse Electric Company 2000 Day Hill RoadWindsor, CT 06095-0500Dr. Regis A. MatzieSenior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer Westinghouse Electric Company 2000 Day Hill RoadWindsor, CT 06095-0500Mr. Glenn H. Archinoff5275 Westview Drive ACR Suite Frederick, MD. 21703-8306Mr. Ed Wallace, General ManagerProjects PBMR Pty LTD PO Box 9396 Centurion 0046 Republic of South AfricaMr. Tom Clements6703 Guide Avenue Takoma Park, MD 20912Mr. Paul LeventhalNuclear Control Institute 1000 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 410 Washington, DC 20036Dr. Jack W. RoeVice President Advanced Technologies & Laboratories International, Inc.

20010 Century Boulevard, Suite 500 Germantown, MD 20874Mr. Charles BrinkmanWestinghouse Electric Co.

Washington Operations 12300 Twinbrook Pkwy., Suite 330 Rockville, MD 20852Dr. Glenn R. GeorgePA Consulting Group 130 Potter Street Haddonfield, NJ 08033Mr. Joseph D. HegnerLead Engineer - Licensing Dominion Generation Early Site Permitting Project 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060Mr. Thomas MundyDirector, Project Development Exelon Generation 200 Exelon Way, KSA3-N Kennett Square, PA 19348External Emailjim.mallay@framatome-anp.comgzinke@entergy.com eddie.grant@exeloncorp.com RNRP COVER PAGEDOCUMENT NAME:E:\Filenet\ML043290201.wpd

SUMMARY

OF NOVEMBER 10, 2004, MEETING WITH THENUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI) TO DISCUSS APPLICABILITY OF 10 CFR PART 21 TO ESP APPLICANTS AND HOLDERS, EMERGENCY PLANNING (EP) ASPECTS OF EARLY SITE PERMIT (ESP) REVIEWS, INCLUSION OF PLANT PARAMETERS IN ESPs, AND ESP/COMBINED LICENSE (COL)

INTERFACE ISSUES ORIGINATOR:R. Anand SECRETARY:C. Nagel DATE:January 10, 2005

!!! ROUTING LIST

!!!NAMEDATE1.R. Anand / /042.M. Scott / /04 3.E. Weiss / /04 4.A. Kugler / /04 5.OGC / /04 6.L. Dudes / /04

7. / /04

8. / /04

9. / /04DOCUMENT DISPATCHED:

____ / ____ / ____ADAMS ACCESSION #ML043290195 TEMPLATE #: DRAFT or FINALFolder: NRR/FLO Copy to ADAMS DPC Processing Folder

Immediate Normal PackagingSecurity Rights: Viewer = NRC Users Restricted to Owner = Originator

Others as appropriate Document Type:

Memo Letter Technical Input Document Other _________ (Listing - ML993570062)Case/Reference #: (TAC, WITs, Yellow Ticket, etc.)Availability: Non-Publicly Available or Publicly AvailableDocument Sensitivity: Non-Sensitive Sensitive (pre-decisional) ( Copyright)Keywords: (Include Template #)Comments:Quality Control Check by: ________Entered in ADAMS _ / ____ / ____

GRAND GULF EARLY SITE PERMIT SERVICE LIST-5-Official Agency Record____ / ____ / ____