ML20195B261

Forwards Results of Evaluation of UCLA 770120 Security Plan

ML20195B261
Person / Time
Site:	05000142
Issue date:	03/31/1977
From:	Mcpeek E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Clark R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20155H438	List: ML20155H433 ML20155J880 ML20155J917 ML20155K253 ML20155K277 ML20155K283 ML20155K303 ML20155K341 ML20155K368 ML20155K389 ML20155K408 ML20155K417 ML20155K420 ML20155K571 ML20195B206 ML20195B254 ML20195B261 ML20195B278 ML20195B297 ML20195B322 ML20195B345 ML20195B386 ML20195B441 ML20195B532 ML20195B574 ML20195B649 ML20195B674 ML20195B709 ML20195B785 ML20195C045
References
FOIA-85-196 TAC-06519, TAC-6519, NUDOCS 8806210361
Download: ML20195B261 (2)

Text

< ,

4 0 '*

UNITED STATES

^

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

' { g W ASHING TON, D. C. 20555

\.'..../ M MAR 3 1 1977 TAC No.: 6519 Docket No.: 50-142 MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert A. Clark, Chief, Operating Reactors Safeguards Branch, 00R FROM: Eugene W. McPeek, Reactor Safeguards Engineer, Operating '

Reactors Safeguards Branch, D0R l

SUBJECT:

EVALUATION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES SECURITY PLAN

, l A review has been made of proposed changes dated January 20, 1977,'

to the University of California at Los Angeles security plan. The  ;

evaluation of these changes are attached.

'Ty p, d bi$'

Eugene W. McPeek, Reactor Safeguards Engineer Operating Reactors Safeguards Branch l Division of Operating Reactors '

Attachment:

l As stated l

l l

l 8806210361 880603 i PDR FOIA '

AFTERC D85--196 PDR

- - - - ~ -- --

MA: 3 . $7' UN:'.'ERSITY 0:

CALIFORMA AT LOS A*iGELES SECURITY PL AN Docket NO.

50-Ic2 1

The plan states there is a one and one-half hours Boeter Hall around check between the hours place. doors and to see if and through the of 1630 and 01on e every

30. Engineering Building the hours of 0130 and 0800The This patrol should patrol v ty taking is to be rade Energy Laboratory and once ed.

is unoccupiother every fourng hours all periods durioncet

2. your security plan be chang n s and holidays, when the N uclear ed accordingly.

The plan states that the r that eactor .

detection system.equipnent because the reactor consoleConsequentl changed. has been While controls have been tied the level of increased; thprote n al ntrusion essential component. y, ite should function of ction continue afforded t the reactor 3.

Please change your the console securit has not-The removal of o be identified as an y plan accordincly.

that control has been degraded.

of access tand concrete effectiveness ofpadlocks from the crane plug reduces plan should Consequently, be modified this change io the be irnpiementedtounacceptable irradiate n your plan isstorage pits should and reestablish acce.ss controlYour revised security e

W 3 . 577 UN:'JERSITY Ot CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES SECURITY DLA" Docket No. 50-142 l

1. The plan states there is a one-man foot patrol at least once every one and one-half hours around and through the Engineering Building l Boeter Hall between the hours of 1630 and 0130. This patrol is to check doors and to see if there is any unusual activity taking place. The patrol should be made once every two hours, between the hours of 0130 and 0800 and once every four hours during all other periods to include weekends and holidays, when the Nuclear Energy Laboratory is unoccupied. Therefore, it is requested that your security pla^ be changed accordingly.

2. The plan states that the reactor console is not considered essential eavipnent because the reactor controls have been tied to the intrusion detection system. While the level of protection afforded the reactor console has been increased; the function of the console has not' changed. Consequently, it should continue to be identified as an  !

essential conponent. Please change your security plan accordingly. l

3. The removal of the Sargent and Greenleaf padlocks from the crane and concrete plug reduces the effectiveness of the security plan in that control of access to the irradiated fuel element storage pits has been degraded. Consequently, this change in your plan is l unacceptable and should not be implemented. Your revised security <

plan should be modified to reestablish access control.  !

e 1

_____I