ML20249A557

Memorandum (Status Conference & Security Contentions).* Informs That Board Decided to Conduct Telcon on 980615 W/Parties Re Status of Discovery & Scheduling on non-PSP Portions.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 980616

ML20249A557
Person / Time
Site:	07200022
Issue date:	06/16/1998
From:	Bollwerk G Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#298-19208 97-732-02-ISFSI, 97-732-2-ISFSI, ISFSI, NUDOCS 9806170059
Download: ML20249A557 (8)

Text

.

f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00CKETED USNRC ATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGBOARgg g Before Administrative Judges:

OFFC GF SEcry if ay G. Paul Bollwerk, III, ChairmanRULDAM -ND Dr.' Jerry R. Kline ADJUDCAENS ETAFF Dr. Peter S. Lam SERVED "JUN 16 sa In the Matter of Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, L.L.C. ASLBP No. 97-732-02-ISFSI (Independent Spent Fuel June 16, 1998 Storage Installation)

MEMORANDUM (Status Conference and Security Contentions)

After reviewing the NRC staff's June 15, 1998 status report, the Board has decided it will conduct a teleconference with the parties concerning the status of discovery and scheduling on the non-physical security plan (PSP) portions of this proceeding. As was indicated in the Board's June 12, 1998 memorandum and order, this telephone conference will be held at 1:00 o.m. EDT (11:00 a.m. MDT) on Wednesday. June 17. 1998. Those parties who are not part of the PSP oral argument being held that same date are being contacted with instructions.for participating in the teleconference. Along with the Board, PSP argument participants Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (PFC), the State of Utah (State), and the staff can take part in the teleconference from the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board f

l-9806170059 990616 PDR ADOCK 07200022

• L g6O L

k.

Panel Hearing Room. If necessary, the Board will resume the PSP oral argument once the teleconference is completed.

In addition, as an aid to the PSP argument participants, attached to.this memorandum is.a-listing of the contentions at issue, which incorporates the agreed-upon language changes.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

• 4 5 G. Paul Bollwerk, III ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland

~ June 16, 1998

• Copies of this memorandum were sent this date to counsel for the applicant PFS, _ and to counsel for

' interveners Skull Valley Band of Goshute. Indians, ohngo Gaudadeh-Devia, Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation,l Castle Rock Land and Livestock, L.C./ Skull Valley' Company', LTD., and the State by Internet e-mail transmission; and to counsel for the staff by e-mail through the agency's wide area. network system.

f-1.

i L

L_--_-_________----__-----_--- --_ - - - - -- - - - - -

O e

c. .

ATTACHMENT A i.

I l

l~

s State of Utah Security Plan Contentions

1. Security-A -- Security Force Staffing CONTENTIOM' 'fhe Applicant has failed to establish a detailed plan for security measures for physical protection of the proposed ISFSI as required by 10 C.F.R. S 72.180, including failure to demonstrate that it has adequate staffing capability to cope with or respond to safeguards contingency events.

2. Security-B -- Equipment and Training CONTENTION: The Applicant has not described the type or location of security equipment available to security force personnel, nor has the Applicant described adequate training for fixed site guards or armed response personnel.

3. Security C -- Local Law Enforcement CONTENTION: The Applicant has not met the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 73, App. C, Contents of the Contingency Plan, Law Enforcement Assistance.

4. Security-D -- Power Supply CONTENTION: The Applicant's discussion of the security power system does not ensure that the security system provides the protection required by 10 C.F.R. Part 73.

5. Security-E -- Alarm System Performance CONTENTION: The Applicant has not demonstrated that the performance of the alarm systems described in its Security Plan are adequate to assess the detection of intruders at the site in that:

(a) The Applicant has only generally discussed the perimeter intrusion detection systems in its Security Plan and has failed to give minimum specifications for the system in accordance with l 10 C.F.R. S 73.50 (b) (4) and Regulatory Guide 5.44.

(b) The Applicant's closed circuit television (CCTV) system and coverage plan description are too limited to show l the logic for the location of the f devices or their operational capability l nor does the Applicant's description of f i,

s

)

the CCTV system confirm the assumptions  !

relied on by the Applicant in the Security Plan to shcw that the CCTV

. system is adequate to detect intrusions.

I

6. Security-F -- Intermodal Transfer at Rowley Junction CONTENTION: The Security Plan fails to address the  ;

performance objectives and requirements of 10 C.F.R. j SS 73.25, 73.26, 73.45, 73.46, 73.50, and Part 73, App. C for fixed site physical protection of the intermodal i transfer facility at Rowley Junction or to adequately protect transit of spent fuel into and out of Rowley Junction in that:

(a) The Security Plan must address the applicable l requirements of Part 73 and 10 C.F.R. S 72.180 for j transportation to and from the proposed ISFSI. l (b) The Security Plan must address physical protection at the intermodal transfer point because the intermodal transfer point could be considered a fixed site subject to the requirements of l 10 C.F.R. SS 73.45, 73.46, and 73.50.

(c) The Security Plan fails to address essential regulatory components for providing security at the intermodal transfer facility.

(d) The intermodal transfer facility represents a high risk for unauthorized access or activities because of its proximity to Interstate 80.

~

7. Security-G -- Terrorism and Sabotage I CONTENTION: The Applicant has failed to adequately assess and describe procedures that will protect spent fuel I from unauthorized access or activities, such as terrorism and sabotage, as required by 10 C.F.R. SS 73.25, 73.45, and Part 73, App. C.

8. Security-H -- Transportation of Spent Fuel To and From the ISFSI CONTENTION: The Applicant has failed to demonstrate how it plans to comply with applicable physical protection requ.4rements during transportation to and from the proposed ISFSI in accordance with 10 C.F.R. S 72.180 in that:

s (a) The Security Plan is inadequate to demonstrate how the Applicant will comply with 10 C.F.R. S 73.37, including monitoring spent fuel movements, reacting to unforeseen situations, or communicating with necessary individuals, and other applicable portions of part 73, as required by 10 C.F.R. S 72.180.

(b) The Security Plan does not provide adequate in-transit physical protection to protect the health and safety of the public becauus the Applicant does not describe route conditions or designate transportation routes and alternatives, or describe security measures for each of the potential in-transit routes and-evaluate any natural conditions or man-made characteristics which may impact security procedures.

9. Security-I -- Establishment of a Central Communications Center CONTENTION: The Applicant has failed to identify the establishment of an adequate communications center as required by 10 C.F.R. S 73.37 (b) (4) in that:

(a) The Applicant makes the statement that the status of spent fuel during transit will be monitored; however, nowhere in the Security Plan'does the Applicant describe a designated communications center with the capability of tracking spent fuel shipments from any or all of the 110 reactor sites.

(b) Neither the Applicant's Central or Secondary Alarm Stations nor the Applicant's Alarm Station Communications Center appear to have the ability to track spent fuel shipments across the country.

l l

l L

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, LLC Docket No.(s) 72-22-ISFSI J

-(Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB MEMO (STATUS CONFERENCE...)

have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.

Administrative Judge Office of Commission Appellate G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Jerry R. Kline Peter S. Lam Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and 1.icensing Board Panel Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Mail Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.

Catherine L. Marco, FSq. Diane Curran, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel Harmon, curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg Mail Stop 15 B18 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20009 Washington, DC 20555

-Martin S. Kaufman, Esq. Joro Walker, Esq.

Atlantic Legal Foundation Land and Water Fund of the Rockies 205 E. 42nd St. 165 South Main, Suite 1 New York, NY 10017 Salt Lake City, UT 84111

O l .

l Docket No.(s)72-22-ISFSI LB MEMO (STATUS CONFERENCE...)

Denise Chancellor, Esq.

l Assistant Attornoy General Jay E. Silberg, Esq.

Utah Attorney General's Office Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 160 East 300 South, 5th Floor 2300 N Street, NW P.O. Box 140873 Washington, DC 20037 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 John Paul Kennedy, Esq. Clayton J. Parr, Esq.

Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Castle Rock, et al.

Reservation and David Pete Parr, Waddoups, Brown, Gee & Loveless 1385 Yale Avenue 185 South State Street, Suite 1300 Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Danny Quintana, Esq. Richard Wilson Skull Valley Sand of Goshute Indians Department of Physics Danny Quintana & Assocs., P.C. H6rvard University 50 West Broadway, Fourth Floor Cambridge, MA 02138 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Dated at Rockville, Md. this 16 day of June 1998 Office of the Secretary of tKe Commission i

1

.