ML20039A256
| ML20039A256 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rancho Seco |
| Issue date: | 12/07/1981 |
| From: | Mattimoe J SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| To: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TAC-47445, NUDOCS 8112160423 | |
| Download: ML20039A256 (2) | |
Text
r kSMUD
/
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT O 6201 S Street. Box 15830. Sacramento California 95813; (916) 452 3211 December 7, 1981 s.
m f W/Y >
O DIRECTOR OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
%gO ATTENTION J0F F STOLZ
/gIA CHIEF OPERATING REACTORS BRANCH N0 4 3
US NUCLCAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g%
[
WASHINGTON DC 20555 g
g>-
00CKEF 50-312
~~ ~
RANCHO SEC0 NUCLEAR GENERATIN? STATION UNIT 1 SECURITY PLAN Your 'etter of July 14, 1981, requested information about our efforts to reduce the number of false / nuisance alams in the Rancho Seco Unit 1 Intrusion Detecti.
',y s t em. We responded on At. gust 21, 1981 with an agreement to detemine an acceptable target size upon which we would propose a change to our Security Plan with a revised nuitance alam rate.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90 the District is hereby submitting five copies of proposed changes to the District's Rancho Seco Security Plan.
These change:;
address the Rancho Seco Unit 1 Intrusion - Detection System and Security Records.
These changes are identified as Amendment No.10 to the Security Plan, and we have determined that the changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the Security Program as outlined in 10 CFR 50.54(p).
Also included are five copies of our Security Analysis Report which addresses the changes and our evaluation of those changes.
The enclosures contain infomation of the type specified in 10 CFR 2.790(d) and should be withheld from public disclosure.
As you know, the false / nuisance alam standards in the District's security plan were based on NRC Regulatory Guide 5.44 (Perimeter Intrusion Alam Systems).
We have since found the Regulatory Guide standard is technically impractical to meet. We have spent approximately $35,000 in an effort to achieve the lowest false / nuisance alam rate possible.
Under the circumstances, considering this amendment is the result of trying to comply with an NRC stondard which has proven to he impractical, we believe the $4,000 fee, which would nomally be assessed for a security plan change of this M g/
nature, should be waived.
.5 g
8112400$ g ~
/[F AN ELECTRIC SYSTEM SERVING MORE TH AN 600,000 IN THE HE ART OF CALIFORNIA
.g; 1 We would also'like to point _out that Chapter 13 of the District's Security Plan, concerning record retention periods, is included in our Security Plan
.only because the NRC includes it in its specified security plan format (NUREG-2020 " Interim Acceptance Criteria for a Physical Security Plan for
- Nuclear Power Plants" and Security. Plan Evaluation Report Work Book Revision I, January - 1978). Since the records retention schedule is not classified, we believe it would be better maintained separately from_ the classified Security Pl an.
LLL John J. Mattimoe
. Assistant General Manager and Chief Engineer l-Enclosures cc: W/ Enclosures Mr. R. H. Engelken, Director Region V, Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 202, Walnut Creek Plaza 1990 North California Boulevard Walnut Creek, CA 94596
(
_ _._ __