ML20202E384
| ML20202E384 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 02/09/1998 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202E376 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-266-98-02, 50-266-98-2, 50-301-98-02, 50-301-98-2, NUDOCS 9802180133 | |
| Download: ML20202E384 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000266/1998002
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
. .
.
.
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,
REGION lli
Docket Nos:
50-266; 50-301
License Nos:
'
4
l
Report Nos:
50-266/98002(DRS); 50-301/08002(DRS)
l
Licensee:
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
Facility:
Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2
Location:
6610 Nuclear Road
Two Rivers, WI S4241
Dates:
Betweer January 5 and 20,1998
Inspector:
Terry J. Madeda, Physical Security inspector
Approved by
James R. Creed, Chief, Plant Support Branch 1
Division of Reactor Safety
enclosure C
- '
S
ION
n Thi
-
nontrollee-
9802180133 980209
DR
ADOCK 0"300266
. . _ _ __ _
___
_ __ __ ________ _ _ _
.
S
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2
'
NRC Inspection Report 50-266/98002; 50-301/98002
This inspection included a review of plant support activities relating to the physical protection of
tne facility. The inspector assessed and evaluated for compliance the following elements of the
security prograrn: alarm stations, communications, control of personnel and material,
assessment aids, vehicle barriers search equipment, event logs, respoase and staffing
capabilities, management controls, and follow-up on previous inspection findings. The
inspection was conducted between January 5-20,1998.
The inspector observed a violation when a vehicle vm inadt>quately searched. The
violation was caused when a security officer's attentru. -to-detail in searching a vehicle
was inadequate. Previous corrective actions for two similar violations were not totally
effactive to prevent recurrence. Each failure, although slightly different, involved weak
attention to dete.il by ihe search officer. It appeared that previous corrective action nad
not been effectively focused on addressing the issue of attention-to-detail. (Section
S1.1)
'
The licensee identified a violation regarding two failures to implement a specific
l
compenscto.y measure. The events were caused when security supervisory personnel,
because of a heavy workload in the alarm stations failed to implement on two occasions
a specific compensatory measure. Contributing to this implementation failure was a lack
,
of procedural guidance to address the specific compensatory measure required for the
situation. Previous corrective actions for three similar events which ir,cluded actions to
improve alarm station effectiveness by reducing workload activities and improving
procedural guidance were not totally effective. Although those actions have resulted in
l
overall improved performance by alarm station personnel, they did not prevent the
l
current events. (Section S2.1)
The inspector observed a violation i ' *n an armed security response officer was posted
to continuously monitor an outage of a protet,ted area nitrusion alarm zone. The
significance of this finding was that licensee security management was at.c.re of this
routinely implemented practice, but did not recognize that this action was in violation of
a security plan requirement which required the we of a non-response force security
officer. (Section S6.1)
Is
Decontrolig
i
a
'