ML20134F537
| ML20134F537 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1997 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134F536 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-461-96-16, NUDOCS 9702100024 | |
| Download: ML20134F537 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000461/1996016
Text
___
_
.
. - . . .. - - - .
.-
--
--- -
-- - - -
--
.
-
V
.
'i
3
,
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Docket No:
50-461
License No:
Report No:
50-461/96016(DRS)
Licensee:
Illinois Power Company
Facility:
Clinton Power Station
l
!
Location:
Clinton, Illinois
i
.
Dates:
Between December 16, 1996 and
,
January 7, 1997
l
Inspector:
Terry J. Madeda
h
Physical Security Inspector
i
a
,
Approved by:
James R. Creed, Chief
'
Plant Support Branch 1
,
Division of Reactor Safety
l
!
!
i
i
i
d
i
b
!
!
.
.
En
Contains
I
s
N TICE
tains
I
is
Upon Sepa
TICS
,'g]
Deoontt
4
9702100024 970204
4
ADOCK 05000461
G
s
>
.
-
.g
'::c
~
.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Clinton Nuclear Power Station
NRC Inspection Report 50-461/96016
This inspection included our review of plant support activities relative to
the physical protection of your facility. The report covered our initial
review of your vehicle protection program and routine review of your physical
security program to include audits; protected area detection equipment; alarm
stations and communications; testing, maintenance and compensatory measures;
security training and qualifications; and follow up on previous inspection
findings. The inspection was conducted between December 16, 1996, and
January 7, 1997.
Security performance was adequate.
The performance of security intrusion and surveillance equipment was
.
observed to be very reliable.
Security management was aggressive in
resolving issues identified during this inspection.
The security program was challenged in the areas of package control,
.
vital area personnel access control, and implementation of compensatory
Violations involving the failure to properly control packages
measures.
in the protected area (Section S4.b.1) and the failure to properly
control personnel access authorization to a vital area (Section S4.b.2)
j
were identified by the inspector. Another violation, which was licensee
j
identified, involved two examples of failure to implement compensatory
t
measures in an appropriate manner (Section S4.b.3) was determined to be
a non-cited violation.
Also of concern was an inspector-identified vulnerability in the vehicle
barrier system that was missed during several " walk downs" by your
,
security and engineering staff (Section S8.1.b.1).
Despite the fact that full credit was given for your identification of
two of four violations, the basis failure to adhere to established
!
procedures was common to all.
1
i
!
l
)
1
2