ML20155K277
| ML20155K277 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1975 |
| From: | Houston R NRC |
| To: | Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155H438 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-196 NUDOCS 8806210160 | |
| Download: ML20155K277 (2) | |
Text
Y
~$
SEP 0 51975 Docket No. 50-142
.i George E. Lear,- Chief, ORB-3, L UlIVERSITY OF CALIFOR.'l!A, LOS ANGELES, SECURITY PLAh Licensee:
University of California. Los Angeles Branch and LNi:
ORS-3. D. Jaffe P.eview Branch:
RL:ISSEP Revicis Status:
Continuing
Reference:
(a) Letter UCLA to COL dated 6/20/75 (b) Letter UCLA to vRL dated 7/15/75 (c) Letter isRL to UCLA dated 1/3/75 We have reviewed thE licensce's transmittals, references (a) and (b),.
which consists of revisions to the previously :pproved UCLA Security Plan, reference (c).
The ratorial sulcaitted is unacceptable with respect to one item identified in the enclosure hereto, to be withheld fron F'llic disclosure, which should be forwarded to the licensec.
original s sted ty R. WWt Po*M R. 'r.'ayne Houston, Chief Industrial Security and Emergency Planning Cranch Division of Reactor Licensing
Enclosure:
UCLA Security Plan DIST: w/ enclosure DIST:
GElear y/o enclosure cc: w/o enclosure Docket File-ARVanNiel D. J. Skovholt IS&EPB R/F
.-,,. C_
=
CRLtcNiel: pj RWHouston 9/g/75 9/e'/75 r.= Asc.m tan..m uoi om o.............,....................
/
1 I
Docket No. 50-142 UCLA Security Plan Ne have reviewed your revision dated 6/20/75 to the physical security plan for the Nuclear Energy Laboratory at UCLA.
At Section D.I. of the plan you state that coly one member of the UCLA police Departrrent will immediately respond to an intrusion alarm and that additional personnel i
would be available to respond if needed.
Your previous plan, dated 8/21/74, stated that at least two members of the security force would immediately respond. We find this change tends to decrease the effective-ness of the security plan for the facility, No explanation is offered for the change, and it eppears that no compensating security measures have been provided. We request, therefore, that you provide justification for this proposed change or revise your plan to reflect the previously t
approved level of protection.
j
]
1 r
I I
l
. _ - _ _