IR 05000029/1990010

Partially Withheld Insp Rept 50-029/90-10 on 900524 (Ref 10CFR73.21).Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Security Event & Access control-vehicle

ML20044A031
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	06/14/1990
From:	Albert R, Keimig R, Lancaster W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20044A027	List: IR 05000029/1990010 ML20044A026 ML20044A029
References
50-029-90-10, 50-29-90-10, NUDOCS 9006270320
Download: ML20044A031 (5)

Text

'

f X

M f

'

g

...7g. vj r74.

~-

s, f.

,

,

,

iMU"IIF?RW U h w

.

.

W

-

ff /bg ki_ AI ffg;;x;~

/ (:ncL " E)

._..m.. a

-

i hyfhYgj192$

$ l[796 A

i (cLei:lIznIca)-

(DA{} S. " NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION

.

'

REGION I

.

..:a

,c q;

=p

- ;w

1. ,

c ', q Report No. '50-29/90-10

>

.

Docket No.-l50-29

~

/7

,

,

,

,.

,

License No.= DPR-3

J!!

.

i HQ

. Licensee: Yankee Atomic-Electric Company

+

'

-F

'630 Main Street

'Bolton,' Massachusetts 01740-1398

,

,

,

s

Facility Name: Yankee Rowe Atomic Power Station i

,

'

Inspection-At:

Rowe, Massachusetts

+

' Inspection Conducted: May 24, 1990

,

lIf,

Inspectors:

9 11/

$6-/Y-9 i

R. J.: Albert, hysical Security Inspector da,te

,

,

.<;;J j'

.

k.

. -CwcoA&

to/Ik)9 o.

"

. f W.' g.Lncaser,PhysicalSecurityInspector dat6 f

Approved by:

M W

/9 9b

.

i P.

'?imig, Chief,~ Safeguards Section.

.

I date'

i

,

,'

Di v i s '.o.

of Radiation Safety and Safeguards

,

'Inspe,ction Summary: Special, (Reactive) Ugannounced Physical Security

,

Inspection on May 24, 1990'(Inspection Report No. 50-29/90-10) in Response to

,

,

E-a Licensee SecuritL vent

'

S Areas Inspected: On-site follow-up of licensee security event (No. 90-S03 00);

Access Control-Vehicles.

>

R_esults:; The licensee pas found in non-compliance with NRC search requirements

,

. u, in:that a vehicle, which contained an unauthorized weapon,Jwas' permitted-into t

[;

'the protected area of the pl nt.

-

.k.'

'

l l

'

[j :

.

,~

'

[

, /x 9006270320 900616 PDR-ADOCK 05000029

'

PDC

.

'

ac g

. l'l

'\\

'

S k i

1. ..

'[

f.

l * d'l \\) i. N' } ',. 3 ;

'f.

r

,.

{l $.Gj{

l lf.

'

.{.

<

n e

,_

,

, ye

-

p y,~

,

,

.

... -

,

'

m 3,

OETAILS~

1.

Key Personnel Contacted

,

Licensee ~and' Contractor Personnel

• T. Henderson, Plant' Superintendent (Acting)

• N..St. Laurent, Manager of Plant Operations ( Acting),

• B. Wood, Manager of Administrative Services

• J. Palmieri, Security Manager

'

R. Mellor,' Technical Director

'

L USNRC

-

• T. Kosby, Senior Resident Inspector j

• indicates those present at the exit interview

.

The inspectors also interviewed other licensee employees and members of

,

the Burns Contract Security Force.

2.

' On-Site Follow-up of a Report of a Non-Routine Event

a.

Background At approximately 5:20 p.m., on May 19, 1990, the licensee notified the NRC Operations Center, via the Emergency Notification System (ENS),

that an unauthorized shotgun had entered the protected area (PA) as

_l'

the result of an inadequate vehicle search.

b.

NRC Findings On Thursday, May 24, 1990, two security specialists arrived at the

',

station and reviewed the Yankee Rowe Physical Security Plan (the~ Plan),

applicable Security Department procedures, and vehicle access controls -

and authorizations.

The inspectors also interviewed plant operations

and security personnel (both licensee and contractors), and conducted physical inspections of both the vehicle search area and the safety injection tank _(SIT) construction project.

• The inspectors determined that two contractor security force members (SFMs) searched a privately owned non-designated vehicle (1988 Chevrolet pick-up truck) entering the PA at approximately 7:42 a.m.,

on May 19, 1990, for contraband (firearms, explosives incendiary

,

devices, etc.).

No contraband was found, and, when asked, the driver indicated that he had no contraband.

The vehicle and driver were escorted by an armed SFM into the PA to perform work at the SIT construction project. The driver of the vehicle was an employee of l'

!

'

+ n g x g<

.

W

s.

e

.

m Soil and Material Testing, Inc. - the prime contractor for the' SIT.

construction project.

The vehicle'was being used to haul construction' tools _ (e.g., shovels, picks, wheelbarrows ) to and.from.

the SIT. construction project.

%' T Till$ PARAGRAPil C0lliAllis SAFEGUARDS

!

IV0RM131 AE IS liDI FOR PlRIC

'

J

'13010Si!RE, IT IS lili!Ilil0 lim f

!BT BLAllK.4

While-the vehic e was parked at the construct on project, it was-

,

-l l

i

,

under the direct observation of.an armed SFM posted in the area._ At-

n v

'

approximately:11:05 a.m., the driver and. vehicle were escorted out of-the PA by_an armed SFM.

At approximately 4:45 p.m., the vehicle and driver returned to the plant and again were searched prior to entry into the PA.

The SFMs conducting the vehicle search found an unloaded shotgun behind the

,

seat of the vehicle. At that time it was determined that the shotgun.

.l had be'en in the' vehicle when it entered the PA earlier that. day..

The j

licensee also determined, through interviewing the vehicle's driver,-

.

that_the' gun had been behind the seat.for almost a year'and had been

{

F forgotten, j

The inspectors determined through interviews of both licensee and.

l-contractor security personnel and reviews.of pictures taken during=

l the licensee's investigation that the SFMs' searching the cab of this

!

vehicle (upon its. first entry into the PA) did not search through

-!

numerous articles (e.g., clothing, Jackets, shoes, books) located

i 1 behind the truck's bench seat.

The-. shotgun was hidden within these l

articles.

The SFMs conducting the search apparently merely lif ted up j

the articles on~the floor of the truck behind'the bench seat to look j

for contraband.

The inspectors determined that two SFMs failed to detect a full-size,

]

single-shot, exposed hammer, 12 gauge' shotgun entering the PA in:the.

!

vehicle's cab at approximately 7:42-a.m.:on May 19, 1990. Though the weapon.was not actually discovered within the PA,-it was concluded'

that it, in fact, had been in the PA earlier that day.

Therefore, for a period of approximately -three hours and 23 minutes,

!

an unauthorized shotgun was within the PA.-

However, the shotgun,

.

!

which was located in the cab of the vehicle, could not have been used

for radiological-sabotage because the cab of the vehicle had been i

locked, the keys were in the possession of an_ armed SFM and the

o vehicle was either under escort by an armed SFM or under direct:

i observation by the armed SFM posted at the construction proje't.

-!

c

,

i

'f

'

, L_

n

,

t.

..

.

.

.

.

-

t

,

,

.,.

.,

'.

V

.

.

.

-

,

,,?-

-

.-

'

-The inspectors reviewed the NRC-approved Yankee Rowe_ Physical Security Plan _(the. Plan) and implementirg procedures and found:the

i-following requirements:

n Tills PARAMAP}l CONTAlHS SMEGUES II0milM AllB IS tiOT FD!! PUBLIC DiSCLOSUiiE, IT IS IW1EWil0 RALLY LEFTBLAE

+10._CFR 73.55(d)(4), states,.in part,-that all vehicles shall' be searched for items which could be used for sabotage purposes prior to entry into the protected-area.

Contrary to the above, the inspectors determined that the licensee's failure.to' comply with the above requirements in the NRC-approved

Plan, the station procedures and 10 CFR 73,55(d)(4), i_s a violation of NRC requirements, (50-29/90-10-01)

c,

. Licensee's Corrective Action immediate corrective action 'saken by the-licensee included:

1.

Suspension without pay of the two' security officers.

>

2.

Immediate supervisory review'and surveillance of-vehicle searches, training and qualification programs, lesson plans, and recent internal and external independentxevaluations.

The licensee concluded, and the NRC agreed, that the event was an isolated performance problem involving the conduct of' the search by

- the two security of ficers and not a programmatic problem with vehicle searches.

The inspectors found that the-corrective actions taken by the licensee should prevent recurrence of this violation.

L i

k 1;

,

,

..

%c.

p

-,7,1

,

v

,,.

,,..

5:

.-

.

-- i f,

,

3.

Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives indicated in paragraph.I at the conclusion of the inspection'on May 24,- 1990-At that

'

,

time,.the purpose and scope of the inspection were reviewed, and the findings-_were presented.

The licensee was informed that they would be

'

notified of NRC Region I management's' assessment of. this matter on a later

--

'date.

.i i

>

k~

\\

o-

,1

\\t -,

\\

'.

i'

{ 4

.

-

)

'\\;

m

3

%

,

.

< h; '

t g

'

-

'

'A. '

\\i

.

.

_,-

m