ML040890632
| ML040890632 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/02/2004 |
| From: | Zimmerman R Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response |
| To: | Floyd S Nuclear Energy Institute |
| Peralta J NSIR/DNS 301-415-6689 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML040890632 (3) | |
Text
April 2, 2004 Mr. Stephen D. Floyd Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Nuclear Generation Division Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708
SUBJECT:
LETTER FROM NEI (FLOYD) TO NRC (ZIMMERMAN) ON NRC APPROVAL OF DOCUMENTS PERTINENT TO SECURITY ORDERS, DATED MARCH 3, 2004
Dear Mr. Floyd:
I am responding to the subject letter in which you request NRC staff endorsement of (1) a white paper outlining a process to be followed by licensees as they proceed with their implementation of the April 29, 2003, Design Basis Threat (DBT) Order (Enclosure 1); and (2) a cover letter template to be used by licensees on or before April 29, 2004, when providing their Supplemental Response to the April 29, 2003, DBT Order (Enclosure 2).
The staff agrees, in principle, with the soundness of the process outlined in Enclosures 1 and 2 to your letter. However, note that licensees are ultimately responsible for ensuring that all measures necessary and sufficient to provide protection against the DBT set forth in to the April 29, 2003, Order are fully implemented no later than October 29, 2004.
Specifically, if a licensee learns or becomes aware of an issue or vulnerability that invalidates any assumptions it made with respect to compliance with Section III.B.1 or B.2 of the DBT Order when its original response was filed, that licensee must, consistent with the Order inform the Commission of such an issue or vulnerability in its Supplemental Response due on April 29, 2004. In this case, the licensees supplemental response should include: (1) the specific details of the issue or vulnerability (including assumptions made), (2) an assessment of its impact on the licensees ability to fully protect its facility against the DBT, (3) measures taken by the licensee to cope with or mitigate the issue or vulnerability, and (4) a detailed summary of any specific revisions, amendments, or changes to the facilitys security plan, training and qualification plan, and/or safeguards contingency plans deemed necessary to address or mitigate the issue or vulnerability.
Once NRC has approved and licensees have fully implemented the revised physical security plans (which include pertinent requirements of the Order issued on February 25, 2002), the safeguards contingency plans, and the training and qualification plans, the Commission will consider requests to relax or rescind, either in whole or in part, the requirements of the February 25, 2002, Order. Therefore, a licensee request to relax or rescind, either in whole or in part, the requirements of the February 25, 2002, or the April 29, 2003, Orders should only be included in their supplemental response due by April 29, 2004, if it determines that relief is necessary to overcome site-specific factors or due to previously unforseen implementation issues.
Stephen D. Floyd Any supplemental response that includes a request to relax or rescind, either in whole or in part, any Order requirement must also include (1) the bases for the request, including site-specific factors or previously unforseen implementation issues, (2) a discussion of the actions taken by the licensee, in good faith, to implement the specific Order requirement, and (3) a listing of the security measures that will be taken to compensate for the Order requirements for which rescission or relaxation is sought.
Finally, upon completion of the NRCs review and approval of the revised plans, the staff will make administrative, conforming changes to each facilitys operating license such that the security-related license conditions will reference the correct date of the new security plans.
Because licensees are submitting their revised plans in response to the April 29, 2003, Order, no license amendment applications are needed to effect these changes in the operating licenses.
Sincerely,
/RA Roy P. Zimmerman, Director Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response
Enclosure:
As stated.
cc: Mr. Douglas J. Walters, NEI Mr. James W. Davis, NEI Mr. Robert Bishop, NEI
Stephen D. Floyd Any supplemental response that includes a request to relax or rescind, either in whole or in part, any Order requirement must also include (1) the bases for the request, including site-specific factors or previously unforseen implementation issues, (2) a discussion of the actions taken by the licensee, in good faith, to implement the specific Order requirement, and (3) a listing of the security measures that will be taken to compensate for the Order requirements for which rescission or relaxation is sought.
Finally, upon completion of the NRCs review and approval of the revised plans, the staff will make administrative, conforming changes to each facilitys operating license such that the security-related license conditions will reference the correct date of the new security plans.
Because licensees are submitting their revised plans in response to the April 29, 2003, Order, no license amendment applications are needed to effect these changes in the operating licenses.
Please contact Mr. Scott Morris at (301) 415-7083, or me if you have any questions on this matter.
Sincerely,
/RA Roy P. Zimmerman, Director Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response
Enclosure:
As stated cc: Mr. Douglas J. Walters, NEI Mr. James W. Davis, NEI Mr. Robert Bishop, NEI DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC WKane SCollins JDyer WBorchardt ELeeds CHolden RWay FCongel RPZimmerman DCummings ADAMS No: ML040890632
SMorris*
JShea*
JGoldberg*
ELeeds for LMarsh*
GTracy RZimmerman DATE 03/29/04 03/29/04 03/30/04 03/30/04 03/30/04 04/02/04 04/02/04 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY