ML20126C258
| ML20126C258 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello, Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1975 |
| From: | Hind J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Thornburg H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126C255 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9212220436 | |
| Download: ML20126C258 (4) | |
Text
. _ _ _. - _ - _ _. - - _ _ - - - _ - _ _ -.
UNITED STATES NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DIRECTORATE OF REGUL A10RY OPERATIONS 4
l REGION lli -
799 ROOSEVELT Ro AD g
oLEN ELLYN, ILLINols 60137 MAR 2 '41975 H. D. Thornburg,_ Chief Field Support and Enforcement - Branch Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Headquarters NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY PRAIRIE ISLAND UNITS 1 and 2 i
DOCKET NOS. 50-282 and 50-306-LICENSE NOS. DPR-42 and DPR-60 In the Prairie Island Security Plan, Revision 1, dated September 19, 1974, Section 2.4.3, it is stated in part that "The Administration Building outside door is under constant surveillance from the Guardhouse Facility."
The physical protection inspection conducted on-October 21-23, 1974' developed that a closed-circuit television monitor screen is situated in the Guardhouse.
This monitor views the entrance to the Administration Building which is not in direct line-of-sight from the Guardhouse since the entrance is around the corner of the building. There ic no. signalling device to alert tne guards vnen the entrance door is' opened so that they
~
may view the activity on=the CCTV monitor. -The entrance door =is within the protected area-fence and-is not normally locked.
The inspector noted that the guards in-the Guardhouse Facility, particularly at shift change, are distracted-by their other duties and do not provide constant surveillance by CCTV of the Administratica Building' door as committed to'in the security plan. Accordingly,;the licensee was cited for-failure to provide constant surveillance. In response to this item of noncompliance the-licensee maintains that "It was never intended, stated or implied that a guard would continuously observe the front entrance to the plant." We interpret the word " constant" as being' continuous without interruption. A copy of the licensee's response.to Infraction No. 3 is attached.
\\
t
~
\\v
\\
q a
r x,,,..,,,;
9212220436-7505073
~ ~ - -
-~
PDR -ADOCK 05000263
_ F' PDR_
A
H. D. Thornburg MAR 2 4 1975 Obviously, we interpret the word " constant" differently than the licensee.
It would be appreciated if you would refer this matter to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to determine if the degree-of surveillance provided the Administration Building portal is acceptable in light of the commitment made in the Security Plan.-
/
M J. A. Ilind, Chief Materials and Plant Protection Branch
Enclosure:
Response to Items of Noncompliance (10 CFR 2.790 Information) cc w/ encl:
IE: Files DR Central Files IE III Coordinator IE: Chief, MPPB
. w e -
y
7 b
10 CFR~ 2b790 INFORMATION,
4_
I ENCLOSURE i
Northern States Power Company Docket No. 50-282 and 50-306-1.
Infraction-ii Section 2.3.1. of the Prairie Island Security Plan dated September 19, 1974, submitted as part of the FSAR, states, "The Security Area t
(Protected Arca) is enclosed with 9-gauge.gnivanized-_ chain link-security fencing.
The fence is 8-feet in height with 1m additional 1-foot of 3-strand barbed. wire angled outward 45 degrees along the top."
Contrary to the above, the effective height of the fence northwest of the screenhouse is reduced by three to four feet below the specified
~
nine feet by a section of steci cofferdam protruding from the ground immediately_outside the fence.
]!
Response
t i
The section of steel' cofferdam described above has since been cut off 0
flush with the ground.
m I
- 2. " Infraction t
Section 2.3.3.3. of the Prairic Island Security Plan dated September 19, 4
1974, submitted as part of thc FSAR, atetes, "Individualci packscao and vehicles shall be subject to unannounced as.well as scheduled inspection and scarch before entering or leaving the. Security (Protected) Area."
Contrary to'the above, employees were not subjected to scheduled j.
scarch-before entering the Security (Protected)- Area.
Response
b A portal metal detector has since been installed, through which each l_
employee must pass _when entering the Security Area. Anytime the portal '
i' o f-metal detector is not operational,10% of employces entering the Security Area are-scarched using a. portabic metal detector.
2 i:
3.
Infraction' Section 2.4.3. of the *Prairic Island. Socurity Plan dated -September 19
- 1974,
[
' submitted as~part of the FSAR,' states in part, "The Administration Building outside door is under constant surveillance from the Guardhouse Facility."
F 4
10 CFR 2.790 INFORMATIONL l
/
Copy No.
/
of do I
I 4
e
u..
Contrary to the above, the door of the Adninistration Building, eithough monitored by closed circuit television, is not under constant surveillance because other dutics distract the guard's attention from the monitor scrcen.
Response
Durips the process of finalizing the prairic Island Security Plan, sub-mitting it for' review, and having it accepted, a thorough description of the physical facilitics and of the dutics and actions of the security personnel was given.
It was never intended, stated or implied that a 1
guard would continuous 1v observe the front entrance to the plant. We believe the word " constant" correctly conveys the actions our security
]
personnel are executing with respect to the Administration Building-outside door as intended to be "normally under visual surveillance".
1 The proposed ruic making for amendment to 10 CFR Part 73.55 is currently in process and creates significant uncertainty as to near future requirements for access control and access control facilitics, Therefore, pending issue of the amended regulation, we propose to continue a
{
use of the present Security Plan with the above described application of plant front entrance surveillance.
1 1
b 1
i 4
t s
10 CPR 2.790 INFORMATION 2-
- - - - - - +
Y
~+
a+
y r-wwpe--