IR 05000010/1996011

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Withheld Insp Repts 50-010/96-11,50-237/96-11 & 50-249/96-11 on 960731-0830 Ref 10CFR73.21.Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Aspects of Plant Support Activities in Area of Physical Security
ML20132G356
Person / Time
Site: Dresden  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 09/19/1996
From:
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20132G335 List:
References
50-010-96-11, 50-10-96-11, 50-237-96-11, 50-249-96-11, NUDOCS 9612260240
Download: ML20132G356 (2)


Text

_

_ _ _

_

_

__ _ _

.

_ _ _ _ _ _

_

_ _ _ _

._-

._

.

.~.y S

7%db U.S. NUCLEAR REGULAT0hi 0MMISSION

REGION III

Docket Nos:

50-010; 50-237; 50-249 Licenses No:

DPR-2; DPR-19; DPR-25

,

Reports No:

50-010/96011(DRS); 50-237/96011(DRS);

i 50-249/96011(DRS)

'

Licensee:

Commonwealth Edison Company (Comed)

>

Facility:

Dresden Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 j

l Location:

Opus West III i

1400 Opus Place - Suite 300 Downers Grove, IL 60515 Dates:

Between July 31 and August 30, 1996 Inspector:

T. Madeda, Physical Security Inspector Approved by:

James R. Creed, Chief Reactor Support Branch 1 9612260240 961219 PDR ADOCK 05000010

PDR

.

-_

. -.. -.

.

.

- -..-

_=

. -.

.

.

/

.

S EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Dresden Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-10-96011; 50-237-96011; 50-249-96011 This inspection included a review of aspects of your plant support activities in the area of physi al security. The report covers our review of your vehicle protection system, which was conducted on July 31, 1996, and routine review of your physical security program, which was conducted on August 5-9, 1996.

Plant Suonort Security program performance, in the areas reviewed, provided the

required level of protection to the site.

Implementation practices by the security organization were generally effective and conducted in a professional manner.

The inspector identified the following violations:

(1) a portion of a

vehicle barrier was ineffective (Section S.I.b.(1)); (2) an individual granted unescorted access was not properly screened (Section S.I.2.b.(1)); and (3) some material delivered in to the protected area was not adequately controlled (Section S.I.2.b.(2)).

I

  1. Mmmes SA

%

Ia Doocotaalled