ML20100Q597
| ML20100Q597 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Salem |
| Issue date: | 08/02/1983 |
| From: | Mccorkle G NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Thomas C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20100Q372 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-83-531 NUDOCS 8412170163 | |
| Download: ML20100Q597 (7) | |
Text
I
[
IS 1
DISTRIBUTION:
HMSS r/f M 311) s 1983 311 AUG 2 PStarcher(2)
CGaskin RDiggs MDiORANDUM FOR: Cecil 0. Thomas, Chief Standardization and Special Projects Branch Division of Licensing, NRR FROM:
George W. McCorkle, Chief Power Reactor SG Licensing Branch Division of Safeguards, HMSS
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATIOft SAFEGUARDS REGULATORY EFFECTIVENESS REVIEWS Enclosed is a proposed letter to the licensee which closes out the two open items in our memorandum of May 20, 1983.
We agree with your coments, dated June 29, 1983, regarding surveillance of the day tank valves and accordingly, this matter is being dropped.
1 George W. McCorkle, Chief Power Rcactor SG Licensing Branch Division of Safeguards, NMSS
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
Region I C0tlTACT:
C. E. Gaskin, HMSS 42-74383 8412170163 840430 PDR FOIA SHOLLYB3-531 PDR 3
h
}
h
,f
...........d..u SGPR~
SGPR SGPR @J
'SGPR i
....g.g.;.
.g.................
... g........
..p...
.......................j orrece >
J seae>
..../. 2.............
..S.../...../. 8. 3.........
......................l
......../...n.y.. 8 3......
.. 7 3
7 83 7
ouc>
m\\rarafvP nA n f;1ff/2/8VMf5\\ (2/6VS?2 _
N
uuva u ne.
l 50-272/311 PROPOSED LETTER Mr. Richard A. Uderitz Vice President - Nuclear Public Service Electric and Gas Company P. O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038
Dear Mr. Uderitz:
This is a supplement to our letter dated June 24, 1983 regarding two unresolved safeguards matters.
Concerning the procedures for personnel search at the protected area entrance, we have concluded that your proposal (as presented telephonically by Mr. Ivanic of your staff)'to install and operate electronic search equipment is acceptable provided that the action is completed in a timely manner. Accordingly, it is requested that you submit an' implementation schedule for our review within 45 days of receipt of this letter.
Concerning the surveillance of the day tank v'alves, no further act{on is requi. red.
Sincerely.
+
4 I
BRIEFING PAPER - REGULATORY EFFECTIVENESS REVIEWS I
L 1.
Brief Explanation of What is Done Safeguards Regulatory Effectiveness reviews are performed by a multidisci-plinary team consisting of Safeguards Division staff, U.S. Army Special Forces personnel, and, as appropriate, reactor safety staff from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and participants from the affected NRC Regional Offices.
The review itself is conducted in three basic phases.
It begins with a preliminary analysis, performed at NRC Headquarters, that includes review O
of reactor site vital area analysis data, plant layout diagrams, and reactor safety system diagrams.
This preliminary analysis is used to form a working notebook and a draft Vital Area Definition report that will guide the actual on-site review. The on-site review,which requires approximately one week per reactor unit, does not include challenges to the site security progra'm but rather consists of a structured examination of vital equipment, a validation of the site vital areas, and an assessment of the site security program's effectiveness and impact upon plant safety. The final phase of the review consists of follow-up activities, conducted at NRC Headquarters, that include documentation and management review of the results and assembly of site data for possible use in future safeguards licensing decisions or NRC emergency res-panse activities.
2.
Facilities Done to Date - Summary of Results Field tests were successfully conducted at three different operating reactor sites (North Anna Unit 1, Pilgrim, and Crystal River) to refine the technique.
Full fledged,RER's were conducted for five reactors: Palisades, Salem Units 1
,and 2, and Turkey Point Units 3 and'4.
Vital Area Validations have been done for those same five reactors and also for St.1.ucie Units 1 and 2.
s
~
4 No significant vulnerabil.ities requiring immediate remedial attention were found as a result of these reviews; however, at one site the review found' indications that the overall effectiveness of some of the elements of the safeguards system did not assure fulfillment of the intent of the regulations.
Suggestions' were made which, if adcpted, would improve that effectiveness.
Some suggestions were also made for changes to licensee procedures which, if adopted, had potential to improve the interaction between licensee safe-guards and operational activities. At another site some areas being protected as vital were judged not to require that level of protection and suggestions were made which, if adopted, would lessen the burden on the licensee.
3.
Number by Year to Completion FY RERc Cumulative RERs 83 4
4
- Includes 4 fuel cycle 84 6
10 facilities.
85 18*
28*
86 18 46
- Includes 130 power reactors 87 18 64 (10 yr plan total) plus 4 88 18 82 fuel cycle facilities.
89 18 100 90 18 118 91 16 134**
4.
Problems / Issues a)
Loss of expertise due to resignations and reassignments has had a negative impact on our learning curve, but we have initiated both interim and long term measures to keep on schedule.
b)
Although the emphasis is to be on performing the RERs prior to issuance of operating licenses, the reactor unit needs to be at least 95% complete prior to the visit by our technical assistance contractor (Los Alamos National Laboratory) needed to conduct the fault tree analysis that precedes the NRC staff analysis.
3..
l i
c)
Criteria for vital are(identification should be consistent with the I
vital island requirements and guidance of the Insider Rule package, i
This can be accomodated in the reviews since the present language of 10 CFR 73 can be interpreted to permit the grouping of items of vital equipment in vital areas (ELD;agreesf;.
1.
O I
L 4
e Se e
1 t
f
)
t S
4 9
l
{
STATUS OF FIRST l}UARTER PROGRAM DRIEFING ISSUES I M'$[
~1%, b a/iIn
~
ISSUE & OFFICE-ACTION DIVISION STATUS 1.
Consider options for LLW in case of FC/WM FC requested e'xtension from Rehm
~
failure of state compacts.
Discuss to 4/1/83..Hehm approved.
with EDO by 3/1/03.
Currently on schedule.
?
2.
Consider transferring all or part of SG HMSS AND IP staf fs are currently the I AEA study to DOS, or-as a minimum discussing conments on a contractor
- align output timing with DOS report relating to IAEA safcguards.
Thara will. he. a meetino between_the reappraisal and restrict study to technological issues.
Mvise EDO of 7A ggf5 p(gnuc,m)u-./><W44#
progress by 1/15/83.
,y gg his 3.
Reassess utility of the Regulatory
-SG
- '/'h8@/M Effcctiveness Review in conjunction Mpd g - p rg, A with re-examination of the Safety /
%p-A 7J /s4 %
Safeguards study.
pfyfg g
LTSNYpib7u)Id' df d'*%
4.
Part 35 (Hedical Licenses) - provide FC rewrite to EDO by 1/15/03.
EDO on 1/11/83.
Item Closed.
5.
In conjunction with IE and the Regions, FC Transportation emergency rcsponse complete review of procedures for NRC policy paper sent to Regions for comment on 1/17/83.
Regional response to transportation accidents and l
provide recoamendations to EDO by 1/15/83.
connents due by 3/2/D3.
FC requested extension to 5/15/83.
Relun approved, but wants sta f f-approved draft sent to E00 before it goes to states for tonnents.
6.
Review strategics for dealing with issue FC/WH Davis sent memo to Dircks 2/3/03 of decontamination criteria for W. Valley discussing strategics, decision i
and discuss with EDO by 5/1/83.
points and timing for West Valley decontamination activics.
l e
1, 1
4
. Q>' "%.A
,j&
UNITED STATES Mg
'.o 6
4, f aI NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
wAswiuorcu. o. c. 2osss C
i g,o.v g INFORMATION FOR MR. DAVIS EDO PROGRAM REVIEW 8/1/83 1.
Update EDO Monthly Status Report to 7/31/83.
2.
Update PPG Performance Report,to 7/31/83.
f.En* 3.
Update 2/27/83 Status fo ist Quater Program Briefing Issues.
(
4.
Update NWPA Schedules - see chart used in 1st qtr review
- add other pertinent milestones
- cover FC items (e.g. MRS) 5.
Provide Chart on Status of NWPA Recruitment 6.
Update Chairman's Background Paper on LLW Compact Status.
QA 7.
Write BP on RERs - Brief explanation of what is done
- Facilities done to date - summary of results.
-#byyeartocompletions(seebudget)
- problems / issues 8.
Write BP on Safety / SG - summarize comittee recomendations
- NMSS actions planned to implement / status
- problems / issues 9.
Update Chairman's BP on Mill Tailings Rule - SECY paper on suspension
- Udall letters on misinterpretation of Atomic Energy Act (EDO 13351) 10.
Decentralization - status
- results of first NPR
- summary of how NHSS does NPR 11.
West Valley - BP on current status & schedule
- shifting to new phase - construction - fuel sh.ipment L_____