ML031611037
| ML031611037 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 06/02/2003 |
| From: | O'Connor T Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Collins S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| EA-03-086, LRN-03-0247 | |
| Download: ML031611037 (3) | |
Text
PSEG Nuclear LLC P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038-0236 JUN 0 2 2003 LRN-03-0247 Q PSEG Mr. Samuel J. Collins, Director NuclearLLC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Salem Units I and 2 Docket No. 50-272 and 50-311 Facility Operating Licenses DPR-70 and DPR-75, Hope Creek Generating Station Docket No. 50-354 Facility Operating License No. NPF-47
Subject:
Answer, Response and Request for Clarification in Response to April 29, 2003, Order Requiring Compliance with Revised Design Basis Threat for Operating Power Reactors (EA 086)
Dear Mr. Collins:
Section IV of the April 29, 2003, Order Requiring Compliance with Revised Design Basis Threat (DBT) for Operating Power Reactors (EA-03-086) (Order") states that, in accordance with 10 CFR §2.202, a licensee must submit an answer to the Order and may request a hearing on the Order within 35 days of the date of the Order. This letter constitutes the answer (pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 and Section IV) and response (pursuant to 10 CFR 50.4 and Sections III A.1, B.1 and B.2) of PSEG Nuclear, LLC (PSEG) to the Order.
Section II of the Order states that "[i]n order to provide assurance that licensees are implementing prudent measures to protect against the revised DBT, all licenses identified in Affachment 1 to this Order shall be modified to require that the physical security plans, safeguards contingency plans, and the guard training and qualification plans required by 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.34(c), 50.34(d), and 73.55(b)(4)(ii) be revised to provide protection against this revised DBT."
PSEG consents to the Order, and does not request a hearing. PSEG notes the request for clarification of five DBT issues provided in the safeguards attachment to the letter from Mr. Colvin, President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, to Chairman Diaz dated May 16, 2003. We encourage the Commission to respond to this request as soon as possible, as the Commission's clarifications may affect the manner of PSEG's compliance wih the Order.
Because the NRC has used force-on-force testing as a standard by which compliance with the DBT was evaluated, PSEG also requests that the NRC 95-2168 REV. 7/99
Mr. Samuel Collins, Director JUN U 2 Z003 LR-N03-0247 provide a clear definition of the objectives and criteria for force-on-force exercises so that appropriate revisions can be made to PSEG's safeguards contingency plans, security plans and security officer training and qualification plans.
Specifically, PSEG needs a clear explanation of the purpose of the force-on-force exercise (e.g., is the purpose of force-on-force exercises for security officer training, or to evaluate licensee compliance with the Design Basis Threat?).
Similarly, the success criteria for the force-on-force exercise needs to be established (e.g., is the criterion prevention of a large offsite release, which would be consistent with the basis for risk-informing NRC regulations, or some other criteria?). Finally, if a force-on-force exercise is going to be used as a performance test of the licensee's ability to protect against the Design Basis Threat, a clear definition of adversary rules of engagement and adversary tactics is needed to provide appropriate predictability and stability in the regulatory program. Absent these clarifications, the standard by which licensee performance will be measured will continue to be a constantly moving target which is counter to the Commission's Principles of Good Regulafion.
To enable PSEG to meet the compliance dates specified in the Order, the requested clarifications are needed as soon as possible. If the clarifications cannot be provided by October 1, 2003, we respectfully request that the Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation extend the dates for submitting the revision to the security plan, safeguards contingency plan, and for full implementation of the Order on a day-for-day basis until such clarifications are provided.
PSEG also confirms its understanding that the Commission intends to exercise enforcement discretion to accommodate issues which may arise as licensees, in good faith, take reasonable actions to implement the specific requirements of this Order. We further understand that the Commission will exercise enforcement discretion for the period necessary to resolve such issues and to integrate the requirements of this Order wih the orders issued February 25, 2002, as well as with other pertinent regulatory requirements, and our safeguards contingency plans, security plans and security officer training and qualification plans.
Should you have any questions, please contact Robin Ritzman at (856) 339-1445.
I declare under penalty of peijury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on Ieo.
- SincWely,
,/
- Operations JCN D... -
Mr. Samuel Collins, Director JUN 2 2003 LR-N03-0247 C
Mr. H. Miller, Administrator - Region I U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. Robert Fretz, Project Manager - Salem U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 08B2 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mr. Richard Ennis, Project Manager - Hope Creek U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 08B2 Washington, DC 20555-0001 USNRC Resident Inspector Office (X24)
Mr. K. Tosch, Manager IV Bureau of Nuclear Engineering P. O. Box 415 Trenton, NJ 08625