ML20202E384

Partially Withheld Insp Repts 50-266/98-02 & 50-301/98-02 on 980105-20 (Ref 10CFR73.71).Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Review of Plant Support Activities Re Physical Protection of Facility

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: ML20202E370 ML20202E384
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: DPR-24; DPR-27

'

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

1. '

S ION n Thi -

nontrollee-

9802180133

DR 980209

ADOCK 0"300266

PDR

. . _ _ __ _

___ _ __ __ ________ _ _ _

.

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

'