ML20207J756

Forwards Proposed Transmittal Ltr & Comments on Physical Protection Plan in Response to Verbal Request from Rancho Seco to Provide Addl Comments on ISFSI Physical Protection Installation

ML20207J756
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco, 07200011
Issue date:	02/19/1999
From:	Emeigh C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Shankman S NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
References
TAC-L22012, NUDOCS 9903160376
Download: ML20207J756 (4)

Text

,

. February 19, 1999 l

MEMORANDUM TO: Susan F. Shankman, Deputy Director Licensing and Inspection Directorate Spent Fuel Project Office FROM: Charles W. Emelgh, Acting Chief Original signed by:

Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS P

SUBJECT:

RESPONSE TO TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REQUEST -- REVIEW OF RANCHO SECO ISFSI PHYSICAL PROTECTION PLAN This is in response to a verbal request from Rancho Seco to provide additional comments on their ISFSI physical protection installation. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District Rancho Seco ISFSI Physical Protection Plan submittal of May 8,1995, provided an alternative measure '

that must be clarified in accordance with the new rule (10 CFR 73.51). Attached is a proposed transmittal letter and comments on their physical protection plan.

Casework No. 07200011010S, RITS No. 221 AKA, Tac No. L22012 Docket 72-11 I Attachments: Proposed Itr which  ;

includes review comments  !

CONTACT: Charles E. Gaskin,415-8116 DISTRIBUTION Docket No. 72-11 NRC File Center PUBLIC Region IV FCLB R/F FCSS R/F NMSS r/f RHall, SFPO

[G:\RS0508c]

OFC FCLB [5 FCLB Y FCLB ,, FCLB 6 NAME CM PShea /)/h' j-h sb v

CEm6ihh DATE 02/099 02//799 02/l@99 02//9/9c C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

/0

~

\'O 9903160376 990219 PDR ADOCK 0 %00312 g Y PDR , , .,,(. . ,

~ -~ ~~y

'{, , ,

.__.2 vdV

i t

1. "8%

[ 41 UNITED STATES 3

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20A%o001 o 2, February 19, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO: Susan F. ShanKman, Deputy Director Ll:ensing and inspection Directorate Spent Fuel Project Office FROM: Charles W. Emeigh, Acting Chief t: .

• C %(

Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safe.y and Safeguards, NMSS

SUBJECT:

RESPONSE TO TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE REQUEST -- REVIEW OF RANCHO SECO ISFSI PHYSICAL PROTECTION PLAN This is in response to a verbal request from Rancho Seco to provide additional comments on their ISFSI physical protection installation. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District Rancho Seco ISFSI Physical Protection Plan submittal of May 8,1995, provided an alternative measure that must be clarified in accordance with the new rule (10 CFR 73.51). Attached is a proposed transmittal letter and comments on their physical protection plan.

Casework No. 07200011010S, RITS No. 221 AKA, TAC iJo. L22012 1

Docket 72-11 1

Attachments: Proposed itr which includes review comments CONTACT: Charles E. Gaskin,415-8116 l

l l

l

L DRAFT Mr. Steve J. Redeker Manager Plant Closure and Decommissioning Rancho Seco Sacramento Municipal Utility District 6201 S Street j P. O. Box 15830.

Sacramento, CA 95852-1830 1 I

Dear Mr. Redeker:

Enclosed are additional review comments associated with your ISFSI physical protection plan.

These comments are !n response to a discussion with Mr. Bob Jones regarriing compliance with 10 CFR 73.51. .

The measures described in your May 8,1995, submittal are withheld from public disclosure. They contain sensitive Safeguards Information and must be protected in accordance with the provisions stated in 10 CFR 73.21.

Sincerehf, Susan F. Shankman, Deputy Director Licensing ed dr<spection Directorate Spent Fuel Project Office Docket 72-11

Enclosure:

As stated ATTACHMENT 1

1 RANCHO SECO SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION PHYSICAL PROTECTION PLAN dated May 8,1995 Review Comments

_P_aae Paraaraoh Comment 4-1 4.3.2 10 CFR 73.51(d)(3) specificalty requires that both alarm stations l be continuously manned. While one can argue that the pager is 1 in effect a portable alarm station, there still is no protection for the I alarm station security post. The onsite alarm station is essential in providing assessment and communication to the offsite responders. Accordingly, that alarm station must be protected within a protected area and hardened in order to assure the safety of the alarm station operator while the LLEA is being summoned, j The rule provides for a somewhat relaxed patrol schedule. '

However, while that prid is being conducted, another watchman should man the term sss/ica post.

6-2 6.4.1.1 Maintaining the hn'(tMtweente secondary alarm station and the central alarmMMeni!Sessentia'lin preventing a loss of control of the facility. Then#tra, cer.udty of the communication building is also essential. By provrdag aamall protected area that j encompasses the secondaryMrurm station, hence the communication building, assurance would be made that the communication link is being maintained.  !

l 6-2 6.5.3 Assessing an alarm within 30 minutes seems excessive and not compatible with preventing a loss of control over the facility.

10-8 103.2.2 The LLEA response time is too slow and needs to be cut in half in order to assure " timely response."

i ENCLOSURE m