IR 05000361/1998002

Insp Repts 50-361/98-02 & 50-362/98-02 on 980209-13.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Physical Security Program,Including Review of Alarm Stations,Access Control,Vital Area Barriers & Emergency Power Supply

ML20247D314
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	03/11/1998
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20247D313	List: IR 05000361/1998002 ML20247D309
References
50-361-98-02, 50-361-98-2, 50-362-98-02, 50-362-98-2, NUDOCS 9805150003
Download: ML20247D314 (2)

Text

_

_-_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ - _ _-

ENCLOSURE

!

!: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

Docket Nos.: 50-361; 50-362 License Nos.: NPF-10; NPF-15 Report No.: 50-361/98-02; 50-362/98-02

-

Licensee: ' Southern California Edison Co.

! Facility: San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 i

Location: 5000 S. Pacific Coast Hw '

,

San Clemente, Califomia Dates: February 9-13, 1998 Inspector (s): A. Bruce Eamest, Physical Security Specialist Plant Support Branch

, Approved By: '

Bleine Murray, Chief, Plant Support Branch

!

Division of Reactor Safety Attachment: Supplemental Information l-I

!

!

!-

i

!

I I l

,

f

~

l 9905150003 980311 PDR ADOCK 05000361 G pm

_

--__-___m__. _ .-

i l \

-

e )

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3 l NRC Inspection Report 50-361/98-02; 50-362/98-02 This routine, announced inspection focused on the licensee physical security program. The ,

areas inspected included review of alarm stations, communications, personnei and vehicle j access control, vital area barriers, vital area detection aids, emergency power supply, '

records and reports, and the security organization. Overall, a continued slight downward program performance trend was noted. Good performance was observed in certain l program area !

Plant Support I

-

The alarm stations were well protected, and the operators in the central alarm station .

!

'

were alert and efficient (Section S1.1).  ;

l

-

Communications problems were identified with the responding local law enforcement I agency (Section S1.2).

-

A noncited violation was identified involving inadequate searches of a vehicle and an employee (Section S1.3).

-

The vital area barriers were adequate. A concern was idantified involving unescorted / uncompensated uso of personnel boom trucks that could allow unauthorized access to vitel areas (Section S2.1).

-

The vital area detection aids were adequate to detect an intruder attempting to enter the vital areas (Section S2.2).

-

A significant port %n of the perimeter detection system would not provide a " standby power" indication in the alarm stations if the system suffered a power loss (Section S2.3).

A very good safeguards event reporting system was in place (Section S3.1).

-

A good security organization capable of meeting security and contingency plan requirements was in place (Section S6.1).

I l

,

l

_ _ - _ _ _ - _ - - - _