IR 05000254/1996013

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Partially Withheld Insp Repts 50-254/96-13 & 50-265/96-13 on 960903-27 (Ref 10CFR73.21).Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Plant Support Activities in Area of Physical Security
ML20134P678
Person / Time
Site: Quad Cities  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 11/22/1996
From:
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20134P676 List:
References
50-254-96-13, 50-265-96-13, NUDOCS 9611290220
Download: ML20134P678 (2)


Text

_

_.

-.

. -..

.

V.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

<

REGION III

d Docket Nos:

50-254; 50-265

'

Licenses No:

DPR-29; DPR-30 Reports No:

50-254/96013(DRS); 50-265/96013(DRS)

Licensee:

Commonwealth Edison Company (Comed)

'

Facility:

Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2

Location:

22710 206th Avenue North Cordova, IL 61242

.

i i

l Dates:

Between September 3 and 27, 1996

'

.'

Inspector:

T. Madeda, Physical Security Inspector t

.i Approved by:

James R. Creed, Chief, Plant Support Branch 1

'

Division of Reactor Safety

.

~

9611290220 961122 4 -

PDR ADOCK 05000254

&

'

G PDR

]

)

,

.

.

-

__

_

__,

C

-

p

.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Quad Cities Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 NRC Inspection Reports No. 50-254/96013(DRS); 50-265/96013(DRS)

.

This inspection included a review of aspects of your plant support activities in the area of physical security. The report covers our initial review of your vehicle protection system, which was conducted on September 25, 1996, and routine review of your physical security program, which was conducted between September 3 and 27, 1996.

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

required level of protection to the site.

Implementation practices by

the licensee's and contractor security organizations were good, except as noted in this report. NRC identified performance deficiencies may represent precursors of potentially more significant problems.

The inspector identified the following violations:

(1) some material

delivered into the protected area by contractor personnel was not adequately controlled (Section S.I.2.b(1)); and (2) a programmatic failure to properly implement a vehicle access control procedure (Section S.I.2b(2)).

The inspector also identified that a contract security manager did not

properly evaluate an officer's physical medical condition (Section S.I.2b(3)(a)).

-

The tactical training drills and management support for that activity

were program strengths.

l l

l

6