ML20216B287

Insp Rept 50-263/98-05 on 980309-13.Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Physical Security Program

ML20216B287
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	04/03/1998
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20216B280	List: ML20216B276 ML20216B287
References
50-263-98-05, 50-263-98-5, NUDOCS 9804130413
Download: ML20216B287 (2)

See also: IR 05000263/1998005

Text

,

.O

1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGIONlli

Docket No: 50-263

License No: DPR-22

Report No: 50-263/98005(DRS)

Licensee: Northern States Power Company

Facility: Monticello Nuclear Generating Station

Location: 414 Nicollet Mall

Minneapolis, MN 55401

Dates: March 9-13,1998

Inspector: G. Pirtle, Physical Security inspector

Approved by: James R. Creed, Chief, Plant Support Branch 1

Division of Reactor Safety

Enclosure

5 TM

ico Thia /

Deccatm11e4

9804130413 980403

{DR ADOCK 05000263

PDR

1

,

• )

/'

l

l

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant

NRC lnspection P,eport 50-263/98005

This inspection included a review of the physical security program. It was an announced

inspection conducted by a regional physical security specialist.

A violation was noted pertaining to failure to adequately protect safeguards

information on three occasions between October 9,1997 and February 17,1998.

The procedures for compensatory measures for extended security computer

outages will be upgraded. Protected area access control measures were

,

effective (Section S1).

' -

The reliability of an important security system component has not improved since

the previous inspection. Other security equipment observed functioned as

designed and compensatory measures for equipment failure were seldom

required. Maintenance support for security equipment appeared timely and

l effective (Section S2) .

,

I

=

Records reviewed were complete and accurate. Procedural guidance was for  ;

recovery actions after loss of some specific dual security systems was

! weak and upgraded during the inspection. A category of material exempted from l

, search upon entry into the protected area was questionable (Section S3).

I

l -

Security force performance has been consistent within the past year. Security

force members were knowledgeable of post requirements. Security supervisors 1

I

were active in providing good oversight of ongoing security activities. Plant

personnel demonstrcted a high level of awareness and compliance with secunty

requirements during entry into the protected area (Section S4).

l

• Training records reviewed were complete and accurate (Section SS).

l

-

The self-assessment program within the security section was extensive, well

monitored, and effective (Section S7).

I

2

Diolosure C

Upon Thi r

lied