IR 05000254/1996013

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
Issue date:	11/22/1996
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20134P676	List: IR 05000254/1996013 ML20134P671
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) I

'

Facility: Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2

Location

22710 206th Avenue North

.

Cordova, IL 61242 1 i

i l Dates: Between September 3 and 27, 1996

'

.

'

Inspector: T. Madeda, Physical Security Inspector l t

I i

.i Approved by: James R. Creed, Chief, Plant Support Branch 1 '

Division of Reactor Safety

.

I

~

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, 199 Plant Supoort

• Security program performance, in the areas reviewed, provided the required level of protection to the sit 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 problem *

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 strength l l

l

!

l l

l

6