ML043290201

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, 2004 ORGANIZATION: Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)

SUMMARY

OF NOVEMBER 10, 2004, MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR 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 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 in Rockville, MD. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss issues related to the applicability of 10 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 an NRC/NEI meeting held on September 9, 2004 (meeting summary ADAMS Accession No. ML042610277).

Highlights of the Part 21 Portion of the Meeting To begin the discussion of applicability of 10 CFR Part 21 to ESP holders, the staff referred NEI to the staffs June 22, 2004, letter (ML040430041) providing the staffs 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. In practical terms, this means the program should be in place before the NRCs final safety evaluation report is issued.

2. The staff agrees with NEI that language in the draft ESP template regarding Part 21 can be simplified as discussed in NEIs letter of September 27, 2004.

3. Item 4 of the NEI September 27, 2004, letter stated that Part 21 applies only to safety-related activities, as defined in the regulation, and that determination of which ESP 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 should be consistent from one ESP to the next, and that the staff cannot envision a situation in which a particular ESP activity would be considered safety-related for one ESP application but not for another. Industry representatives pointed out that different reactor designs may identify different equipment as being safety-related. This fact could

result in two ESP applicants identifying different safety-related activities if they were referencing 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 21 implementation is to be addressed in ESP applications. As the NRC stated in its June 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, both retrospectively 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 applicants have 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 NRCs ESP Review Standard (RS-002) to reflect this information. The staff acknowledged that an ESP applicant is not required to include information relating to its Part 21 program in its ESP application. However, it is the staffs 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 through the inspection process.

5. NEI stated in its September 27, 2004, letter that further discussion was needed on the need for a separate item in the ESP template on Part 21 applicability. The staff agrees with NEI that no separate item on Part 21 applicability is necessary. The ESP template will reflect a single item stating that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with Part 21.

Highlights of the Emergency Planning Portion of the Meeting On 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 for ESP 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 this subject by reiterating the major points made in the letter.

NEI stated that they need more time to review the staffs letter. NEI also suggested that a further discussion on major features of the ESP would be more beneficial after the issuance of the staffs 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 the industry 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 figures forward, 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 the business 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 in association 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 address lessons 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 Meeting This discussion was a follow-up to a discussion in the September 9, 2004, NRC/NEI meeting on the 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 characteristics and the design parameters that the staff used in evaluating the suitability of the site. As stated in the NRCs February 5, 2003, letter on Generic Issue ESP-6, a combination of site characteristics and PPE values will comprise the ESP bases that will be the focus for 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 site characteristics and postulated design parameters in the ESP and the EIS.

3. Nature of site characteristics: The staff agrees with NEIs characterization of site characteristics 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 the design 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 additional data) to bound those postulated for design, the design may be modified to account for the existing characteristics, or the licensee may provide additional analysis to demonstrate that the proposed plant would nonetheless comply with NRC requirements concerning 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 taking the Plant Parameter Envelope (PPE) approach, are surrogates for actual facility design information used to support the NRCs safety and environmental reviews.

5. In the situation where actual design characteristics proposed in a COL application are not 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 design characteristics 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 the environmental impact of the actual proposed action. Because this evaluation will comprise part of the agencys decision regarding the COL application, the evaluation of the difference would be subject to litigation.

6. The participants discussed the requirements in 10 CFR 52.79 which states, . . .if the application 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 were considered 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 the permit.

Finally, the staff stated that it was not prepared to address Item 6 from the NEIs September 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 Issues NEI led a discussion with the NRC staff concerning the evaluation of new or changed information included in a COL application that references an ESP. NEI stated that they have concerns 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 the time of the COL application and comment on whether the COL applicant needs to update the site data that was reviewed for the ESP.

2) NEI requested that the NRC consider where the environmental protection plan fits into the 10 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 action items during their next public meeting.

Raj K. Anand, Project Manager New Reactors Section New, Research and Test Reactors Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 689 Attachments: 1. List of attendees

2. Agenda

3. Handouts cc w/atts: See next page

Package: ML043290195 Memo: ML043290201 Att. 1&2: ML043290240 Att. 3: ML043290243 OFFICE RNRP:PM RNRP:PM* EPPO:SC OGC RNRP:SC NAME RAnand MScott w/comments EWeiss Rweisman LDudes DATE 12/7/2004 12/7/2004 12/ 9/2004 12/17/2004 12/28/2004 Distribution for November 10, 2004, Meeting Summary dated December 28, 2004 Hard Copy RNRP Rdg.

LDudes RAnand E-mail PUBLIC DMatthews/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 LIST Grand Gulf Mr. George A. Williams Site Vice President Mr. George A. Zinke Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Manager, Project Management Bald Hill Road - Waterloo Road Nuclear Business Development Port Gibson, MS 39150 Entergy Nuclear, M-ECH-683 Federal, State and local 1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213 Attorney General Department of Justice Mr. Michael A. Krupa State of Louisiana Acting Director, Nuclear Safety Assurance P. O. Box 94005 Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9005 Bald Hill Road - Waterloo Road Port Gibson, MS 39150 Attorney General Asst. Attorney General Mr. William A. Eaton State of Mississippi Vice President P. O. Box 220 System Energy Resources Inc. Jackson, MS 39205-0220 Entergy Operations, M-ECH-38 1340 Echelon Parkway Mr. Robert W. Goff, Program Director Jackson, MS 39213 Division of Radiological Health Mississippi State Dept. of Health Ms. Patricia L. Campbell P.O. Box 1700 Winston & Strawn Jackson, MS 39215-1700 1400 L. Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005-3502 Mr. Phil Bass, Director Office of Pollution Control Mr. Michael D. Bourgeois Department of Environmental Quality Manager, Project Management P.O. Box 10385 Nuclear Business Development Jackson, MS 39289 Entergy Nuclear, M-ECH-683 1340 Echelon Parkway Mr. Jerry Cain, Chief Jackson, MS 39213 Environmental Permits Division Department of Environmental Quality Ms. Frances G. Buford P. O. Box 10385 Acting Director, Nuclear Safety Assurance Jackson, MS 39289 Entergy Nuclear South, M-ECH-414 1340 Echelon Parkway Ms. Kathleen B. Blanco Jackson, MS 39213 Office of the Governor P.O. Box 94004, State of Louisiana Mr. William K. Hughey Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9004 Sr. Manager, Business Development Entergy Nuclear, M-ECH-683 Governor Haley Barbour 1340 Echelon Parkway Office of the Governor Jackson, MS 39213 P.O. Box 139, State of Mississippi Jackson, MS 39205 Mr. Bob Evans Enercon Services Inc. Mr. Rick Foster, Director 12850 Middlebrook Road, Suite 108 Emergency Management for Tensas Germantown, MD 20874 Parish P.O. Box 768 St. Joseph, LA 71366

GRAND GULF EARLY SITE PERMIT SERVICE LIST Military Department Mr. Gary Wright, Manager Louisiana Dept. of Homeland Division of Nuclear Safety Security/Emergency Preparedness Illinois Emergency Management Agency Col. Mike Brown, Asst. Director 1035 Outer Park Drive 7667 Independence Boulevard Springfield, IL 62704 Baton Rouge, LA 70806 Ms. Nancy Butler, Director Mr. Robert R. Latham, Jr., Director Harriette Person Memorial Library Mississippi Emergency Management 606 Main St.

Agency Port Gibson, MS 39150 P.O. Box 4501, Fondren Station Jackson, Mississippi 39296-4501 Mr. David Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists Ms. Bobbie Young, Director 1707 H Street, NW Claiborne County Emergency Management Suite 600 Agency Washington, DC 20006-3919 P. O. Box 558 Port Gibson, MS 39150 Mr. Paul Gunter Director of the Reactor Watchdog Project Mr. Thomas E. Reynolds Nuclear Information & Resource Service Co-RAC Chair 1424 16th Street, NW, Suite 404 FEMA Region IV Washington, DC 20036 3003 Chamblee-Tucker Road Atlanta, GA 30341 Mr. James Riccio Greenpeace Ms. Prosanta Chowdhury, Project Leader 702 H Street, NW, Suite 300 Louisiana Department of Environmental Washington, DC 20001 Quality Office of Environmental Compliance Mr. Brendan Hoffman Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Research Associate on Nuclear Energy Preparedness Public Citizens Critical Mass Energy P. O. Box 4312 and Environmental Program Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4312 215 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20003 Ms. Lisa Hammond Chief, Technological Services Branch Mr. Marvin Fertel FEMA Region VI Senior Vice President 800 N. Loop 288 and Chief Nuclear Officer Denton, TX 76209-3606 Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 Ms. Vanessa E. Quinn, Chief 1776 I Street, NW Radiological Emergency Preparedness Washington, DC 20006-3708 Section Department of Homeland Security/FEMA Mr. Adrian Heymer 500 C Street, S.W. Nuclear Energy Institute Washington, D.C. 20472 Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Mr. Thomas P. Miller Washington, DC 20006-3708 U.S. Department of Energy Headquarters - Germantown Mr. Russell Bell 19901 Germantown Road Nuclear Energy Institute Germantown, MD 20874-1290 Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708

GRAND GULF EARLY SITE PERMIT SERVICE LIST Mr. Ernie H. Kennedy Mr. Joseph D. Hegner Vice President New Plants Lead Engineer - Licensing Nuclear Plant Projects Dominion Generation Westinghouse Electric Company Early Site Permitting Project 2000 Day Hill Road 5000 Dominion Boulevard Windsor, CT 06095-0500 Glen Allen, VA 23060 Dr. Regis A. Matzie Mr. Thomas Mundy Senior Vice President and Director, Project Development Chief Technology Officer Exelon Generation Westinghouse Electric Company 200 Exelon Way, KSA3-N 2000 Day Hill Road Kennett Square, PA 19348 Windsor, CT 06095-0500 External Email Mr. Glenn H. Archinoff jim.mallay@framatome-anp.com 5275 Westview Drive gzinke@entergy.com ACR Suite eddie.grant@exeloncorp.com Frederick, MD. 21703-8306 Mr. Ed Wallace, General Manager Projects PBMR Pty LTD PO Box 9396 Centurion 0046 Republic of South Africa Mr. Tom Clements 6703 Guide Avenue Takoma Park, MD 20912 Mr. Paul Leventhal Nuclear Control Institute 1000 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 410 Washington, DC 20036 Dr. Jack W. Roe Vice President Advanced Technologies & Laboratories International, Inc.

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

Washington Operations 12300 Twinbrook Pkwy., Suite 330 Rockville, MD 20852 Dr. Glenn R. George PA Consulting Group 130 Potter Street Haddonfield, NJ 08033

RNRP COVER PAGE DOCUMENT NAME: E:\Filenet\ML043290201.wpd

SUMMARY

OF NOVEMBER 10, 2004, MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR 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 !!!

NAME DATE

1. R. Anand / /04

2. M. Scott / /04

3. E. Weiss / /04

4. A. Kugler / /04

5. OGC / /04

6. L. Dudes / /04

7. / /04

8. / /04

9. / /04 DOCUMENT DISPATCHED: ____ / ____ / ____

ADAMS ACCESSION #ML043290195 TEMPLATE #:

DRAFT or FINAL Security Rights:

Folder: 9 NRR/FLO Viewer = : NRC Users 9 Copy to ADAMS DPC 9 Restricted to Processing Folder Owner = : Originator 9 Immediate 9 Others as appropriate 9 Normal 9 Packaging Document Type: 9 Memo 9 Letter Case/Reference #: (TAC, WITs, Yellow Ticket, etc.)

9 Technical Input Document 9 Other _________ (Listing - ML993570062)

Availability: 9 Non-Publicly Available Document Sensitivity: 9 Non-Sensitive or 9 Publicly Available 9 Sensitive (pre-decisional) (9 Copyright)

Keywords: (Include Template #) Comments:

Quality Control Check by: ________ Entered in ADAMS _ / ____ / ____

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