ML20217A101
| ML20217A101 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1998 |
| From: | Krieger R SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9803240257 | |
| Download: ML20217A101 (7) | |
Text
{T,
south 1RN CAtlFoRMA R. W. Krirger EDISON
't::: L An EDl50% !%TER.%ATIONAltumpany March 11, 1998
' U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Docket Ncs. 50-206,50-361, and 50-362 10 CFR 50.54(p)
Safeguards Contingency Plan, Revision 19 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1,2, and 3 j
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(p), this letter submits Revision 19 to the U. S. Nuclear l
Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved (August 1983)" Safeguards Contingency Plan, San i
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1,2, and 3" which is provided in Enclosure 1. provides the Screening Criteria Forms (Assessment of Acceptability of 10 CFR 50.54(p) Plan Changes).
The changes, as described in Enclosures 1 and 2, do not reduce the effectiveness of the plan.
Four copies of the Safeguards Contingency Plan including Revison 19 textual changes are enclosed for review. Two copies are also forwarded, by this letter, to the Regional Administrator, NRC, Region IV.
. The enclosures contain " Safeguards Information" and must be protected in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. If you have any questions regarding this information, please let me know.
L Sinc m iy, jj,,jg;;;g,,y,j,y,,;;,,;;!,;, g;,,;
q p
Q 9903240257 900311 PDR ADOCK 05000206~
i y
1)
[.
p
- F.
PDR-EGUARDS INFORMATION I
- q..
iJ
- DECONTROLLED UPON REMOVAL OF ENCLOSURES P. O Ikw 128
' San Clemente. CA 92674 714 468-6255 Fus 714 368-6183
C^
(.
Document Control Desk. March 11, 1998-SCP Revision 19.
Enclosures cc:
E. W. Merschoff, Regional A.dministrator, NRC Region IV K. E. Perkins, Jr., Director, Walnut Creek Field Office, Region IV (without enclosures)
J. A. Sloan, NRC Senior Resident Inspector, San Onofre Units 2 and 3 M. B. Fields, NRC Project Manager, San Onofre Units 2 and 3 (without enclosures)
E. W. McPeek, Security Specialist, NRC Headquarters, Washington, D. C.
D. B. Spitzberg, NRC Region IV, San Onofre Unit 1 (without enclosures)
L. L. Wheeler, NRC Project Manager, San Onofre Unit 1 (without enclosures) 1 SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION
' DECONTROLLED UPON REMOVAL OF ENCLOSURES I
V N
a s
SAFEGUARDS CONTINGENCY PLAN, REVISION 19 March 11, 1998 SCREENING CRITERIA FORM -
.(ASSESSMENT OF ACCEPTABILITY OF 10 CFR 50.54(p) PLAN CHANGE)
SECTION/ TITLE:
Safeguards Contingency Plan (SCP), Section 2.2.9 - Threat Functional Groun - Miscellaneous Situations PROPOSED COMMITMENT:
Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes to remove the description of compensatory measures for the Loss ofIntrusion Detection System and Loss of AC Power Supply under the Other Pertinent Documents and Information section.
IMPACT ON EFFECTIVENESS OF A GENERIC PLAN:
- 1. O Yes E No DOES THIS CHANGE, DELETE OR CONTRADICT ANY REGULATORY REQUIREMENT?
- 2. O Yes E No WOULD THE CHANGE DECREASE THE OVERALL LEVEL l
OF SECURITY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPHS (b) THROUGH (h) OF 10 CFR 73.55 TO PROTECT WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF HIGH ASSURANCE 1
AGAINST THE DESIGN BASIS THREAT OF l
RADIOLOGICAL SABOTAGE AS STATED IN 10 CFR 73.l(a)?
Rationale. SCE p, rop"oses to remove references to " recommended 3 replanned scenanos to deal with the loss of the Intrusion Jetection System and loss of AC Power Supply. The recommended preplanned scenarios are no longer in use. The descriptions of actions to take in the event of a loss of the Intrusion Detection System (pages 2-51 and 4-46) and loss of AC Power Supply (pages 2-53,4-47,4-48) are addressed in the SCP itself.
These changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the Plan.
(Pages 2-52 and 2-54)
- 3. O Yes O No FOR ANY LICENSEE THAT HAS NRC-APPROVED SECURITY PLAN COMMITMENTS AS ALTERNATIVES TO ONE OR MORE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR 73.55(b) THROUGH (h): DOES THIS CHANGE DECREASE THE O'NRALL LEVEL OF SECURITY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE NEEDED TO PROTECT WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF HIGH ASSURANCE AGAINST THE DESIGN BASIS THREAT OF RADIOLOGICAL SABOTAGE AS STATED IN 10 CFR 73.l(a)?
SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION Decontrolled Upon Removal of Enclosure 1 1
ENCLOSURE 2 Page 1 of 5:
Rev.19 1
a e
SCREENING CRITERIA FORM
-I (ASSESSMENT OF ACCEPTABILITY OF 10 CFR 50.54(p) PLAN CHANGE)
SECTION/TrrLE:
SCP, Section 2.2.9 - Threat Functional Groun - Miscellaneous Situations PROPOSED COMMITMENT SCE proposes to add procedure SO123-IV-6.8, P4otected Area and Vital Area Barrier Patrols, to the Supplemental Security Procedure section and remove the description of compensatory measures for the Loss of Security Computer System under the Other Pertinent Documents and Information section.
IMPACT ON EFFECTIVENESS OF A GENERIC PLAN:
- 1. O Yes E No DOES THIS CHANGE, DELETE OR CONTRADICT ANY REGULATORY REQUIREMENT?
- 2. O Yes E No WOULD THE CHANGE DECREASE THE OVERALL LEVEL OF SECURITY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPHS (b) THROUGH (h) OF 10 CFR 73.55 TO PROTECT WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF HIGH ASSURANCE AGAINST THE DESIGN BASIS THREAT OF 1
RADIOLOGICAL SABOTAGE AS STATED IN 10 CFR 73.l(a)?
Rationale SCE proposes to remove reference to " recommended preplanned scenanos" to deal with the loss of the Security Computer System. Compmsatoiy measures for the loss of the Security Computer System have been incorporated into Security I
Procedure SO123-IV-6.8, Protected Area and Vital Area Barrier l
Patrols. This change was discussed with Region IV (Reference NRC Inspection Repon 97-24) and does not decrease the effectiveness of the Plan. (Page 2-56)
- 3. O Yes O No FOR ANY LICENSEE THAT HAS NRC-APPROVED SECURITY PLAN COMMITMENTS AS ALTERNATIVES TO l
ONE OR MORE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR 73.55(b) THROUGH (h): DOES THIS CHANGE DECREASE THE OVERALL LEVEL OF SECURITY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE NEEDED TO PROTECT WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF HIGH ASSURANCE AGAINST THE DESIGN i
BASIS THREAT OF RADIOLOGICAL SABOTAGE AS STATED IN 10 CFR 73.l(a)?
h SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION Decontrolled Upon Removal of Enclosure 1 ENCLOSURE 2 Page 2 of 5 Rev.19 j
SCREENING CRITERIA FORM (ASSESSMENT OF ACCEPTABILITY OF 10 CFR 50.54(p) PLAN CHANGE)
SECTION/ TITLE:
SCP, Section 3.2.2 - Security Force PROPOSED COMMITMENT:
SCE proposes to remove reference to post orders from the Plan.
IMPACT ON EFFECTIVENESS OF A GENERIC PLAN:
- 1. O Yes E No DOES THIS CHANGE, DELETE OR CONTRADICT ANY REGULATORY REQUIREMENT 7
- 2. O Yes E No WOULD THE CHANGE DECREASE THE OVERALL LEVEL OF SECURITY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPHS (b) THROUGH (h) OF 10 CFR 73.55 TO PROTECT WITH THE OB.iECTIVE OF HIGH ASSURANCE AGAINST THE DESIGN BASIS THREAT OF RADIOLOGICAL SABOTAGE AS STATED IN 10 CFR 73.l(a)?
Rationale: Post orders are no longer used to provide instructions
{
for security functions. Post order instructions have been incorporated into applicable Security Procedures, e.g., the Owner Controlled Area post order instructions v/ere incorporated into SO123-IV-5.2, Owner Controlled Area Access anc Patrols. This change does not decrease the effectiveness of the Plan. (Page 3-2)
- 3. O Yes O No FOR ANY LICENSEE THAT HAS NRC-APPROVED SECURITY PLAN COMMITMENTS AS ALTERNATIVES TO ONE OR MORE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR 73.55(b) THROUGH (h): DOES THIS CHANGE DECREASE THE OVERALL LEVEL OF SECURITY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE NEEDED TO PROTECT WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF HIGH ASSURANCE AGAINST THE DESIGN BASIS THREAT OF RADIOLOGICAL SABOTAGE AS STATED IN 10 CFR 73.l(a)?
SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION Decontrolled Upon Removal of Enclosure 1 ENCLOSURE 2 Page 3 of 5 Rev.19
i O
SCREENING CRITERIA FORM (ASSESSMENT OF ACCEPTABILITY OF 10 CFR 50.54(p) PLAN CHANGE)
SECTION/ TITLE:
SCP, Section 3.4.5 - Security Personnel Eau'oment PROPOSED COMMITMENT:
)
SCE proposes to return " Pair of handcuffs with key" and " Flashlight" to the Plan as required individual equipment for armed responders. Additionally, a " Flashlight" is part of the required equipment for unarmed security personnel.
IMPACT ON EFFECTIVENESS OF A GENERIC PLAN:
1
- 1. O Yes E No DOES THIS CHANGE, DELETE OR CONTRADICT ANY REGULATORY REQUIREMENT?
- 2. O Yes W No WOULD THE CHANGE DECREASE THE OVERALL LEVEL OF SECURITY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPHS (b) THROUGH (h) OF 10 CFR 73.55 TO j
PROTECT WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF HIGH ASSURANCE j
AGAINST TIE DESIGN BASIS THREAT OF RADIOLOGICAL SABOTAGE AS STATED IN 10 CFR 73.l(a)?
Rationale: In Revision 17 of the SCP, SCE proposed to remove specific references to a " pair of handcuffs with key" and " flashlight" from the Plan. NRC Region IV would not approve the proposed change. Therefore, references to a " pair of handcuffs with key" and " flashlight" are returned to the Plan. These changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the Plan. (Pages 3-8 and 3-14)
- 3. O Yes O No FOR ANY LICENSEE THAT HAS NRC-APPROVED SECURITY PLAN COMMITMENTS AS ALTERNATIVES TO ONE OR MORE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR 73.55(b) THROUGH (h): DOES THIS CHANGE DECREASE THE OVERALL LEVEL OF SECURITY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE NEEDED TO PROTECT WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF HIGH ASSURANCE AGAINST THE DESIGN BASIS THREAT OF RADIOLOGICAL SABOTAGE AS STATED IN 10 CFR 73.l(a)?
SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION Decontrolled Upon Removal of Enclosure 1 ENCLOSURE 2 Page 4 of 5 Rev.19 4
SCREENING CRITERIA FORM (ASSESSMENT OF ACCEPTABILITY OF 10 CFR 50.54(p) PLAN CHANGE)
SECTION/ TITLE:
SCP, Section 3.4.5 - Security Personnel Eauioment
]
PROPOSED COMMITMENT:
SCE proposes to add "or Tote" to the U2/3 Radwaste Rover description of response weapon (shotgun) location.
IMPACT ON EFFECTIVENESS OF A GENERIC PLAN.
i
- 1. O Yes E No DOES THIS CHANGE, DELETE OR CONTRADICT ANY REGULATORY REQUIREMENT 7
- 2. O Yes E No WOULD THE CHANGE DECREASE THE OVERALL LEVEL OF SECURITY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPHS (b) THROUGH (h) OF 10 CFR 73.55 TO PROTECT WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF HIGH ASSURANCE AGAINST THE DESIGN BASIS THIWAT OF RADIOLOGICAL SABOTAGE AS STATED IN 10 CFR 73.1(a)?
Rationale: Currently, the Plan indicates the shotgun is located in the Radwaste gun box. Adding "or Tote" provides management flexibility to have the Radwaste Rover tote the response weapon.
This change does not decrease the effectiveness of the Plan. (Page 3-12)
- 3. O Yes O No FOR ANY LICENSEE THAT HAS NRC-APPROVED SECURITY PLAN COMMITMENTS AS ALTERNATIVES TO ONE OR MORE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR 73.55(b) THROUGH (h): DOES THIS CHAN. GE DECREASE THE OVERALL LEVEL OF SECURITY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE NEEDED TO PROTECT WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF HIGH ASSURANCE AGAINST THE DESIGN BASIS THREAT OF RADIOLOGICAL SABOTAGE AS STATED IN 10 CFR 73.l(s)?
SAFEGUARDS INFORMATION Decontrolled Upon Removal of Enclosure 1 ENCLOSURE 2 Page 5 of 5 Rev.19
.