ML20140C038
| ML20140C038 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, 05000124, 07001068, 05000083 |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1984 |
| From: | Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Aftergood S COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140C044 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-227 NUDOCS 8406190020 | |
| Download: ML20140C038 (3) | |
Text
A. - () lh ,
- &f 9 UNITED STATES
'8 p',' 4; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D C. 20555
/
@ 08 m Mr. Steven Aftergood Committee to Bridge the Gap Box 1186 IN RESPONSE REFER Ben Lomond, CA 95005 TO F01A-84-227
Dear Mr. Aftergood:
This is in partial response to your letter dated March 24, 1984, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, copies of all physical security and safeguards inspection reports from 1979 to the present for the research reactors at the Universities of California at Los Angeles, Washington, and Florida, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, and Iowa State University.
This response addresses the University of Florida and Virginia Polytechnic Institute research reactors. The search for inspection reports concerning the University of Florida was narrowed as explained in my letter to you dated April 9, 1984.
Portions of the documents listed on Appendix A are enclosed. The deleted information identifies procedures for safeguarding licensed special nuclear material at a licensed facility. This information is considered commercial or financial (proprietary) information pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(d) and is being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to exemption 10 CFR 9.5(a) (4)(of
- 7) ofthe theFreedom of Information Commission's regulations.Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) and Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.9 of the Comission's regulations, it has been determined that the information withheld is exempt from production or disclosure and that its production or disclosure is contrary to the public interest. The persons responsible for this denial are the undersigned and Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator, Region c -
8406190020 840500 '
c-6-
Mr. Steven Af tergood This denial may be appealed to the Conmission's Executive Director .for Operations within 30 days from the receipt of'this letter. As provided in 10 CFR 9.11, any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Exscutive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an Initial F0IA Decision."
The search for and review of additional documents subject to your request is ongoing. As soon as these actions are completed, we will be in touch with you.
Sincerely. .
- h. U
. M. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration
Enclosures:
As stated i
r; Re: F0!A-84-227 APPENDIX A
- 1. 3/12/79 Letter to T. F. Parkinson from W. B. Kenna re: Inspection Conducted on January 30-31, 1979 w/ enclosed Inspection Report No. 50-124/79-3 and Report Details (5 pages)
- 2. 6/15/81 Letter to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University from R. C. Lewis re: Inspection Conducted on May 4, 1981, w/ enclosed Inspection Report No. 50-124/81-01 and Report Details (6 pages)
- 3. 12/20/83 Letter to T. F. Parkinson from D. M. Verrelli re: Inspection Conducted on November 28-29, 1983 w/ enclosed Inspection Report No. 50-124/83-01 and Report Details (6 pages)
- 4. 7/19/82 Letter to A. M. Jacobs from D. Verre111 re: Inspection Conducted on June 29 - July 1,1982 w/ enclosed Inspection
, Report Nos. 50-83/82-01 and 70-1068/82-01 and Report Details (8pages)
I
' ~
l'rrenm rewnerry n p o wrg nri,,.u,,,,--..- --
. --.-....s. ....c E790 INFORMATIoy R EMOttggl '
In Reply Refer To: MAR 121979 RII:KHB 50-124/79-3 J
l Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University i ATTN: Dr. T. F. Parkinson, Director !
Nuclear Laboratory Blacksburg, Virginia 24060 Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. K. H. Besecker of this office on January 30-31, 1979, of activities authorized by NRC License No. R-62 at Argonaut and to the discussion of our findings held with Mr. T. F. Parkinson at the conclusion of the inspection.
The area examined during this inspection was your physical protection program and its implementation. Within this area, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel and observations by the inspector.
Within the scope of this inspection, no items of noncompliance were disclosed.
In accordance with Section 2.790(d) of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, ,
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, activities involving safeguards and security measures are exempt from public disclosure; therefore, the enclosed '
inspection report with the exception of the report cover page, which is an inspection summary, will not be placed in the Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, M/
William B. Kenna, Chief Safeguards Branch
Enclosure:
Inspection Report No. 50-124/79-3 (Exempt from Disclosure)
A
-. j . SO INpop 9 ), 2 . ' ' ,
ON gg,,.
t .
it , . u . .. .a 9 ,-2, f .6. . . .. . . . . . ;
9.,.........----
l .
......_:c nn'u' ny
--. ~.'~.,. ,,,,.......,,.,, .
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
- and State University MAR 121979 bec w/ Inspection Summary:
Local Public Document Room 2.700 fr. frog,3TATION Oygg pg Washington Public Document Room Nuclear Safety Information Center Technical Information Center Region II Reading Room Commonwealth of Virginia bec w/ encl:
Central Files IE Mail and File R. G. McCormick, DSI RII RII.. . RII RIl KM KBesecker:ht
.i'l' FGII'16'spie "4
FCantrell 'enna
.3/t)/79 3/'/79 J/(//79 //[/79
- .:;n...:...,+...au
** 'N'oamarnon nema
>* E 8 0 L 4fNf7EO STATES 0g#o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 c.n :N ,,
n'l if*
.g
.8 101 M ARIETTA STREET, N.W.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303
..../
MAR 121979 1
Report No.: 50-124/79-3 Licensee: Virginia Polytechnic Institute Blacksburg, Virginia 2.730 ggFORT, ATION REMO Facility Name: Argonaut Docket No.: 50-124 License No.: R-62 Inspection at: Blacksburg, Virginia Inspector: M ./fte '
K. H. Besecker, Physical Security Inspector
/85LI 7/927 Date Signed Approved by:
/s!~ /
F. P. Gillespie, Section Chief, Safeguards Branch Datq Signed
SUMMARY
Inspection on January 30-31, 1979 Areas Inspected This routine, unannounced inspection involved 6 inspector-hours onsite in the areas of access controls, response and compliance with the approved security plan.
Results Of the three areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
2.700 ir.fi Cr'21A?ia.'.! CEMcVED J
dy 5-Z_ --
c (_ _ .__
, ._ b _.% :s E g,.
,,2
--; . .,. ..y.
. .-,:::M ic e--.. .. . ..
,,,,,,, __. . .._.--.--- q
( ~6 , . . . . . . -- '
. _ ..,,,-...,.no DETAILS
- 90 INFORMATION R l
- 1. Persobs Contacted l l
~
Licensee Employees
- Dr. T. F. Parkinson, Nuclear Laboratory Director ;
- R. T. Stone, Reactor Supervisor A. P. Curtner, Senior Reactor Operator ,
I. E. Nickols, Director of Security Other licensee employees contacted included operators.
- Attended exit interview. !
l
- 2. Exit Interview l l
The inspection cope and findings were summarized on January 31, 1979, I with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1 above. The inspector also ;
indicated that since Robeson liall is no longer locked after normal l working hours as indicated in the approved Security Plan that the licensee should consider submitting a change to the Security Plan. The licensee indicated a Plan change was being considered for submission to the March 1979 meeting of the Safety Committee.
- 3. Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
- 4. Access Controls The licensee was found to be controlling access to the reactor facility as described in the Security Plan. A review of key control records revealed the licensee changed security locks and keys in l The inspector observed the licensee's described physical barriers to be intact and controlled as described in the Security Plan i
a dresse in paragrap IB. A.I. of the Physical Securit Plan had been removed, but was compensated for by the The licensee has also installed an intrusion detection system consisting of The system was functiona y teste in the presence of the inspector and found to annun-ciate at the l
. . . _ _ _....r.c.--.,. .790 INFORMATION REMOVE l
1 <
l
_ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . - - . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . ~ . _ _ . __ ______ _ _.___ _ _ _ _
- 7 - , - - - , . . . e r, u , , , n 2-
- 5. Response Controls M4 TION gg The inspector interviewed the University Security Director and found patrols, responses and drills are conducted as described in the Security Plan.
- 6. Security Plan The licensee is considering a change to the Security Plan as indicated in paragraph 2. The annual review of the Security Plan is scheduled to !
be documented during the March 1979 meeting of the safety conunittee.
IDRMATicy REMOVgg t.r.u. . i rr. .. w ;;;:'J:E 6
f6.l!0N
- s g ..j. . . . .u h
- b.3 2.73o INFORMATioN REM
..............sw.'
JUN 151881 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University ATTN: Vice President of Administration Blacksburg, VA 24060 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Report No. 50-124/81-01 This refers to the routine safeguards inspection conducted by Mr. B. L. Hall of this office on May 4, 1981, of activities authorized by NRC License No. R-62 at Virginia Polytechnic Institute Reactor Laboratory f acility and to the discussions of our findings held with Dr. Keith Furr, Director, Office of Health and Safety-Regulatory Programs, and Mr. Alan Curtner; Supervisor, Nuclear Reactor Labora-tory, at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during this inspection included your physical security program as implerented under the provisions of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 73, " Physical Protection of Plants and Materials", and the specific requirements of license conditions and your approved Security Plan. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, performance tests, and observations by the inspector.
Within the scope of this inspection, no violations or deviations were disclosed.
In accordance with Section 2.790(d) of the NRC's " Rules of Practice", Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, activities involving safeguards and security measures are exempt from public disclosure; therefore, the enclosed report with the exception of the cover page, which is an inspection summary, will not be placed in the Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, N
l R. C. Lewis, Acting Director Division of Resident and Reactor Project Inspection
Enclosures:
See Page 2 d
.___..___....___.._.....-g .B.780 lNFORMATION REMOWED
~,7;;; ..: :.:::. : *.~. .'. .- ' : 7
\