ML081070371
| ML081070371 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/23/2008 |
| From: | Leeds E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Roe J Nuclear Energy Institute |
| Banic L, NRR/DPR/PRAB 415-2771 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML081270462 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC MD7781, Y020080006 | |
| Download: ML081070371 (3) | |
Text
May 23, 2008 Jack W. Roe Director, Operations Support Nuclear Generation Division Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 I Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20006-3708
Dear Mr. Roe:
I am responding to your December 17, 2007, letter requesting U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review and comment on the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Pandemic Licensing Plan, Revision 1.
The NRC staff believes that the NEI plan has some very positive aspects that warrant further discussion. The plan outlines numerous potential options that could be employed to address pandemic related issues at operating reactors. NEI includes in the plan its view on the advantages and disadvantages for the various options. Tables 1-3 are helpful for organizing relevant requirements, staffing guidelines, and surveillance test intervals. Enhancing these tables with appropriate entry conditions and the preferences for the intended licensing relief mechanism could provide further benefit. The tiered framework consisting of compliance categories A, B, C in Table 1 is a good example of how incremental progress could be made collaboratively on focused topics involving pandemic relief.
However, the NRC staff notes that the revised plan does not vary much from the original plan submitted on January 16, 2007. Most of the original comments remain unaddressed. Revision 1 of the NEI plan continues to recommend NRC enforcement discretion as the most efficient and effective licensing approach to a pandemic through a pre-established NRC policy.
However, the NRC staff finds that without bounding entry conditions and more specific technical bases for the proposed regulatory relief, NEIs approach still presents significant challenges that may prevent meaningful overall progress in pandemic preparation. For instance, the plan contains only limited justification concerning the public health and safety need for nuclear power plants to remain on-line during a pandemic; likewise, the plan does not adequately explain why increased safety and security risk may be offset by considerations of need for electric power.
Moreover, the plan continues to raise other significant legal and policy issues that would need to be resolved.
The detailed NRC staff comments are located in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession No. ML081120592 for your review. They describe the staffs continuing concerns as well as promising ideas that warrant developing.
In light of the above discussion and the desirability of being prepared for a potential pandemic, the NRC staff proposes working with NEI using an iterative approach. This would focus on reaching consensus on specific topics rather than attempting to comprehensively resolve the
J. Roe issues raised by the entire plan. Once you have reviewed the staffs comments, please arrange a followup meeting with the NRC staff to discuss the path forward.
The staff also encourages you to consider developing plans for other NRC-licensed facilities or activities, in particular Category 1 fuel facilities, other major fuel cycle facilities, and the transport of radioactive materials.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your plan.
If you have any questions, please contact Lee Banic of my staff at (301) 415-2771.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Eric J. Leeds, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
ML081270462(Pkg); ML080170520(Incoming);
ML081070371(Response)
- concurred via email OFFICE DPR:PGCB:PM DPR:PGCB:BC Tech.Ed*
DPR:NRR DORL:NRR NSIR NAME MBanic MMurphy CHsu MCase CHaney BMcDermott DATE 4/23/08 4/23/08 4/25/08 04/28/08 04/25/08 04/30/08 OFFICE NMSS*
OGC w/comments NRR NAME WSchwink PMoulding ELeeds DATE 4/30/08 5/01/08 05/23/08