ML19320B539
| ML19320B539 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1980 |
| From: | Hind J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Dewitt R CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007140430 | |
| Download: ML19320B539 (1) | |
See also: IR 05000155/1980005
Text
,N "-
k k.
ja stou
UNITED STATES
- g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,y
e
o
REGION ill
5
f
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD
/
GLEN ELLYN, ILUNOIS 60137
- ,
Docket No. 50-155
>JUN 2 6 680
'Consu=crs Power Co=pany
ATTN:
Mr. R. B. DeWitt
Vice President
Nuclear Operations
212 West Michigan Avenue
Jackson, MI 49201
Gentlemen:
This ackrSaledges your letter dated June 9, 1980 which responds to the non-
compliance identified in IE Inspection Report No. 50-155/80-05 transmitted
to you by our letter dated May 13, 1980.
We have no questions regarding your response and stated corrective actions
regarding items 2 and 3.
We will examine that corrective action during
our next inspection.
Your response to item I has not totally addressed our concerns. We request
that you forward, within ten days of the receipt of this letter, the infor-
mation requested in the enclosure to this letter.
The information contained in the enclosure to this letter is exempt from dis-
closure under the provisions of Section 2.790(d) of the NRC's " Rules of Prac-
tice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations. Therefore, the enclosure
to this letter and your response will not be placed in the Public Document Room.
Your response should be submitted as a separate enclosure to your transmittal
letter.
Sincerely,
.
-
2.
v J. A. Hind, Chie#
Safeguards Branc
Enclosure: As stated
cc w/ enc 1:
Mr. D. P. Hoffman, Nuclear
Licensing Administrator
Mr. C. J. Hartman, Plant
Superintendent
Central Files
Reproduction Unit NRC 20b
,
cc w/o encl:
,
Local PDR
80011
03,0
f
4o
s
.
Part %.?;Jtaj 1;; ace.:: ,,
.
- ' '
.
,
f
l
- -
'
.
Docket No. 50-155
Consumers Power Company
REGION III COMMENTS REGARDING
RESPONSE TO NONCOMPLIANCE
.
ITEM 1 - Your positions related to this noncompliance are not fully respon-
sive in that, at the time of our inspection, two areas of the protected area
barrier (fence / isolation zone) were not under continuous CCTV surveillance,
as required by your approved security plan (Section 15.1).
Your response, in part, states that CPC does not consider the motion detec-
tion system (Perimeter Alarm System) to be fully functional. We observed
this fact and concur with your henclusion. We also agree that appropriate
compensatory measures, as required by your security plan, are taken when
the operability of the intrusion detection system is interrupted. However,
the CCTV system as designed is capable of functioning independent of the
motion detection system and was functional during our inspection to pro-
vide visual assessment capability. Therefore, you must conform to approved
security plan commitments regarding continuous CCTV surveillance, even though
the motion detection alarm feature is not functional.
We request that you describe how you plan to provide the required CCTV sur-
veillance and advise us what measures will be taken if continuous CCTV
surveillance is interrupted.
Your position regarding the relocation of cameras, that continuous CCTV sur-
veillance may not be necessary near the Security Building, and that a taller
fence (east and west warehouse) provides a greater level of protection are
not discussel in your approved security plan.
Therefore, if you are con-
templating changes to your security plan, such changes must be submitted to
i
NMSS/NRR for review and approval,
i
In summary, this office continues to hold the position that this is a valid
1
item of noncompliance and you must conform to approved security plan commit-
ments pending submission of appropriate revisions and their approval by
NMSS/NRR.'
,
.
.
1
s-rz q0-l.sb
'j
g
Cc ; ,[of
I
cepies
b a.fu.
e. m..
.. . m . . . m
FU?IOUCEL WITd097 C?r
I ; r t E ,7 9 3 G1! l . f :r .. g
ATP?.C'.'A!. Op RII