IR 05000186/1983001

Partially Withheld Physical Protection Insp Rept 50-186/83-01 on 830201-03.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Site Orientation,Security Plan/Implementing Procedures,Security Organization & Physical Barriers

ML20215J318
Person / Time
Site:	University of Missouri-Columbia
Issue date:	02/24/1983
From:	Creed J, Bern Stapleton NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20215J138	List: IA-86-421, Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Noncompliance Noted in IR 05000186/1975003 IR 05000186/1976001 IR 05000186/1977007 IR 05000186/1978004 IR 05000186/1979001 IR 05000186/1980003 IR 05000186/1981002 IR 05000186/1983001 IR 05000186/1985003 IR 05000186/1985004 ML20215J136 ML20215J159 ML20215J183 ML20215J188 ML20215J201 ML20215J210 ML20215J230 ML20215J237 ML20215J240 ML20215J243 ML20215J248 ML20215J262 ML20215J265 ML20215J332
References
FOIA-86-421 50-186-83-01-01, 50-186-83-1-1, NUDOCS 8610240389
Download: ML20215J318 (7)

Text

- _____________- - _

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-186/83-01(DRMS)

Docket No. 50-186 License No, R-103 Safeguards Group II Licensee: The Curators at the University of Missouri - Columbia 309 University Hall University of Missouri Columbia,1:0 65202 Facility Name: University of Missouri - Columbia Inspection At: Columbia, MD Inspection Conducted: February 1-3, 1983 Date of Last Physical Protection Inspection: May 5-6, 1981 Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Physical Protection Inspector: 1- M1 M d

<1/M[O B. W. Stapleton

'(Date)

Physical Protection Specialist Approved By: c B5 J R. Cree'd, Chief (Datd)

.afeguards Section Inspection Sur . nary Inspection on February 1-3, 1983 (Report No. 50-185/83-01(DRMS))

Areas Inspected: Included a Site Orientation, Review of Security Plan /

Implementing Procedures; Security Organination; Records and Reports; Testing and Maintenance; Locks, Keys, and Combinations; Physical Barriers; Lighting; Assessment / Surveillance Aids; Entry / Exit Control - Personnel; Detection Aids - PA, MAA, CAA; Communications; and Independent Inspection Effort. The inspection involved 16 inspector-hours onsite by one NRC inspector. The inspection began during the day shif Results: The licensee was found to be in compliance with NRC requirements within the 13 areas examined during the inspectio (Details - U.NCLASSIFIED ) Enclosure Contains SAFLSUATOS lt6 W ATICM Upon Separation This Page is Dacontrolled i

.

8610240389 861010 PDR FOIA BENNISH86-421 PDR

_ _ . _ . _ _ -

- - -_ .-

- _ , , _ _;g . - - -- -

g_ - . ,

) , ~ ;. . . ~.u ..; s . g . . - s . .' '

t'

, . l . . :. -

-

. . .

VARN d

' DETAILS -

$niUt ho r i- g d $ r. #. l o.feT ! $ ~ P' rch i b i t ecm,al Mctipj(I : N .M Persons Contacted' Y,A,+;to,"CFC 0iVi

.MS$6 f 6'

M . a. d i v er.-

cTNIUnd"SNLTo *Dr. R. Brugger, Director, Research Reactor Facility

• Dr. D. Alger, Associate Director, Research Reactor Facility

• C. ?!cKibben, ?!anager, Research Reactor Facility

• D. !!cGinty, Reactor Physicist , Research Reactor Facility

.flajor J. Watring, University Police Department

• Denotes those present at the exit intervie . Exit Interview (t!C 530703B):

The inspector met with senior licensee representatives noted in Paragraph I at the conclusion of the inspection on February 3, 198 The inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection and informed the licensee that no items of noncompliance were identi-fle The licensee acknowledged the inspector identified weakness relating to documentation of training records and agreed to correct i (See paragraph 6).

Additionally, the licensee again expressed a concern that was noted during the physical protection inspection (50-186/81-02) in May 193 At that time, the licensee indicated that their revised security plan, submitted in Flay 1980, was not yet approved. The inspector informed the licensee that based on a telephone discussion with the Plan Reviewer in N!!SS prior to the inspection, the plan still has not been reviewed. The plan is scheduled for formal review by N!!SS in April 198 . Independent inspection (!!C 592713B): No items of noncompliance were noted. The inspector reviewed the following three subjects with licensee personnel: (1) August 6, 1981 audit by outside agency, (2) Protection of Safeguards Information, and (3) 73.71 reporting requirement On August 6, 1981, the University Police conducted an independent audit of the Reactor Facility's security program. This audit is required by the security plan to be completed every two year The auda was thorough in nature and many of the observations by police personnel have been or will be incorporated by the license The two cost significant observations, which are expected to be implemented by the licensee by December 1983 are: (1) the updating; of the licensee'scalarm system to provido bottor

~

'

and (2) use of d >etween and - - -

,The inspector verified the compYeteness

,

o: o n e a lh": t . ine additi6 Tis will enhance the licensee's security progra __O_ _ .

a~-a: v

. _ _ _ _ _

%SMMUhDSNNFORMi\TIO%

.

The inspector reviewed the licensee's protection of Safeguards Information through a review of records and an. interview with the licensee's security contact. The licensee properly labels all Safeguards Information and controls access to only those individuals with a need-to-know. Safeguards Information is stored in a combina-tion locked safe approved in accordance with the General Services Administration. The inspector determined that the licensee is com-plying with the performance requirements of 10 CFR 73.2 During the inspection, the inspector. advised the licensee of 10 CFR 73.71 reporting requirements. Examples of events and actions tc be taken were discussed. As of the date of this inspection, the licensee has not had any events which would require telephonic notification of the NRC. The licensee will maintain a log listing such events for informational and audit purpose . Site Orientation (MC 81N14B): After the entrance briefing, the inspector was given an orientation tour of the facility. The tour was conducted to familiarize the inspector with the licensee's facilit The inspector paid particular attention to areas where the licensee has made changes since the last inspection and those areas where change is contemplated. No weaknesses in the licensee's security system were noted as a result of the orientation tou The inspector also viewed the licensee's indoctrination training film and noted that previous weaknesses in the security system were emphasized so that current employees would be more alert to avoid such problems in the future. The indoctrination is required training for those individuals desiring unescorted access to the facility and appeared to be adequat . Security Plan / Implementing Procedures (MC 81N18B): No items of non-compliance were noted. As mentioned in Paragraph 2, the licensee's revised plan dated May 16, 1980, has not been approved. Therefore, the licensee was inspected against the approved security plan dated September 15, 1974 Through a review of the physical security plan and interviews with the responsible individual for security at the facility, David McGinty, the inspector identified changes or modifications to the licensee's plan since the last inspection. The licensee has kept the NPC advised of changes to the security plan, with the most recent change dated January 5. 1963. The l i ce::s e e submitted this char:ge w: thin the time period and under the provis: ens of 10 CFR 50.54(p). It is the in-spector's opinion that the change to the plan appeared to increase the effectiveness of the security plan and is further addressed in Paragraph 15 of this repor A review of records, as wel: as observations and interviews. con-ducted by the inspector she.ced that the licensee implements procedur'es which aid in the effectiveness of the approved security pla h - .g . . .

M 3 .m M_--

'

.

"EGJADSP0lWAT09 .

.a The Associate Director for the Research Reactor Facility reviews the Physical Security Plan and Procedures on an annual basi The last review was conducted on September 9,1982, and all requested adminis-trative changes were implemented later that month. Since the annual review was conducted, the licensee has revised or reemphasized pro-cedures on an as needed basis. The procedures reviewed by the in-spector were adequate in meeting the commitments outlined in the security pla . Security Organization (MC 81N22B): No items of noncompliance were note An interview with the Assistant Director of the University Police Department, as well as a review of records, showed that the licensee is meeting security plan commitments regarding the overall structure and functional responsibilities of the security organizatio During interviews with rand , Reactor personnel, the inspector verified that the ,r would respond to the Reactor Facility in an expeditious manner. Xdditiona_11y, other Local Law Enforcement Authorities (LLEA) such as the p ould respond as necessar The ' consists of l full-time comm.issioned

.of ficers andgdispatchers. The k'atchmen Section consists ofgwatch-men and; $ up~ervisor. The police department performs routine patrols of the reabtor facility in_ addition to their response functio One minor weakness was note During a review of security force records, the inspector could not verify, annual retraining' concern-ing indoctrination to the Reactor Facilit Neither the_ University police force nor the licensee was able to present documentation that showed it was completed. The licensee committed to document. training records more accurately and to complete 1963 annual security indoc-trination for the officers and watchmen by March 1, 198 . Records and Reports (MC 81N38B): No items of noncompliance were note The inspector reviewed the licensee's records and reports for the following criteria: (a) document availability, (b) adequacy of the licensee's record and report preparation in response to regulatory require rents , (c) completeness of documentation, (d) accuracy of documentation, and (e) adequacy of document retentien period Regarding the weakness in.documentatior. training identified in Paragraph 6. the licensee will document the training'to comply the above criteri The following records were reviewed:

Suhioct Date Spent Fuel Shipment June 23, 1%1 January 11. 1982 January IS, 1982

,

JS!RGUARDS*NF0RMhTIO .

w

-

"pg in

'

-

ogA_ L e a ic

.:_t. Auss n ,,-:0v 1V "A44~

,, % .w m m " ' ~ ~'~

e Subject Date January 26, 1982 Annual Physical Security Plan September 17, 1981 and Procedure Review September 9, 1982 Outside Agency Audit of August 6, 1981'

Reactor Facility Reactor Routine Patrol Log July-October 1982 January 1983 Research Reactor Log Look November 30-January 10, 1982 April 5-May 18, 1982 May 19-June 28, 1982 November 3-December 9, 1982 Fuel Vault Log December 1982-January 1983 Test / Drill MURR Visitors Log November 1982-January ~1983 Fuel Vault Special Instructions August 26, 1982 and List of Authorized Individuals Containment Access List January 7, 1983 Testing and Maintenance (MC 81N42B): No items of noncompliance were noted. The inspector verified that the licensee is meeting testing and maintenance commitments specified in the pla One equipment failure occurred within the last year. _On Se ember 15, 1982, during ar[ intrusion alarm test $f the' ' the

. The lic ..m acequately documented the failure and corrective action taken by maintenance personnel. The adequate response by the police force was also documente . Keys, Locks, and Combinations (MC 81N46B): No items of noncompliance were noted. The outer personnel doors of the facility on the north, west, and south sides of the building have no outside key lock Their primary function is for emergency exit. W~d - -" " - " h the personnel airlock doors is controlled by c ;-.

p.4; g d ioc This s cnungea whenever an individual terminates employmen ine /for the airlock doors was last ch.anced in January 1983. Access to tde fuel vault is controlled by a'

U % g,. m - w m h a n g g y uthorined ,

ina nicuu s s nave tueji h 2 L : to this loc _This lockL%!ssb u ra'

is also changed upon termination of an employee and was c bnged withiit

~

the last year. The inspector verified that the licensee is controlling access through use of keys, locks, and combinations in accordance with the security pla . Physical Barriers - PA MAA. CAA (MC 81N;4B): No it ems of noncompi i-ance were noted. The licensee delineates security areas as Protectod, Vit al, and Material access area In a March 26, 1975 letter from NRR to t.he University of Missouri - Columbia, the licensee was granted certain exemptions concerning the requirements of physical barriers as M!GMDSWORMNTO%

s

,

.

-

R$GUAESTORMAFma i noted below. The inspector verified that the licensee is imple: rent ing the plan as stated in the aforementioned lette Thereactor[ , building functions as both a protected and vital area boundar The licensee was exempted from 73.50(b)(1) re-quiring passage through two barriers before giving access to vital equipment, in lieu of the reinforced concrete r g luilding providing a deterrent equal.,,to two barriers. '3he laboratory building surrounding the{ g fuilding serves as an isolation zon The material access. area is w(thin the which is located within the[ 6 ! building, creating a cual barrier desig All physical barriers provlueu a sufficient deterrent to attempted penetrations and were maintained in accordance with the security pla . Lighting (MC SIN 62B): No items of noncompliance were note On the evening of February 2, 1983, the inspector toured the exterior of the reactor facility and verified that exterior lighting was sufficient to aid in detection of unauthorized entry to the facility. The two year audit conducted by the University Police on August 6, 1981, in-cluded a weakness in exterior lighting. The licensee repositioned the angle of several lights to comply with the recommendations of this audit. The inspector observed that interior lighting was sufficient to detect attempts at unauthorized entry within the reactor facilit . Assessment / Surveillance Aids (MC 81N66B): No items of noncompliance were noted. The licensee utilizes'T /at points of access to the reactorf

~

~

buildin in accition, the interior of

-

thei is mo ttore by g All are monitored in the Patrols of thb facility are conducted by the T actor staff every_ jduring times when the reactor is opera-

tin During non-duty hours ' watchmen patrol areass 6 1 Records of patrols were reviewec anc found to be adequat . Entry / Exit Control - Personnel (MC 8_1N70B): No , items of noncompliance were noted. Entry into the reacto(i m -_ u. r 3 build limited to Q access point Primary access is through the; 6,ing is ,

'

doo Individuals with prior authorization approval'and who need frequent access have been given ak r le mn :u11 to_ the irterior airlock door Those individuals not in possession 0: the rh . L mra -

'

must state, by intercom, their need for access to control roo Operators monitor the airlock by be control room operators can use a { m - - - _mmes ' of all those authorized to the reactor tor further ver111 cation. The inspector verified through observation and a review of records that, access to containment is controlled and the list of individuals M M , Abuthorized access is curren All individuals autorized access have work related duties inside the .

ighuildin ?SF.fG 3RDS. i E0WA"0@

_ ,

h

"

. .

. ,

Unescorted access to tho' Y ' .is rertricted to ! individuals who art in possession of thel '

'

'

to the The inspector verified that the licensee restricts access to the'. 'by moasures specified in the security pla . Detection Aids - PA, !!AA, CAA (MC SINSOB): No items of noncompliance

.were noted.. The inspector verified that the Material Access Area M,'when unoccupied , is protected by an active intrusion alarm system. On February 2, 1983., the inspector, accompanied by the Reactor Physicist, tested the ' intrusion alarm system and found the system to function as ce % ..uu. The inspector verified that the alarm system is tested at least once every I day All points of entry to reactor ( Are protected by an active intrusion alarm system when the , building i The licensee currently operates the reactor on a 24-hou(r @/seven day schedule, therefore, the intrusion alarm system fo As g activated as ppecifi.ed in the plan. When '

he system is

- t e s t e'd once eve ry' fay . Communications (MC 81NSSB) No items of noncompliance were note The inspector verified by interview with University Police personnel that communications equipment iss tested for operability /[, 6 e , 2,mer m mm:3 Watchmen and University Police

~ personnel communicate directly tothe security office, who in turn can communicate with LLEA for additional assistance, s

The licensee is considering placement of .. to thfgv&w.-uw w.aglfrom thehy;fmr com sometime in 198 Thex11censee is considering tnis action as the result of an independ-ent audit conducted in August 1961. The inspector noted that this should aid in times of an emergeecy and increase the effectiveness of communications betweer. the licensee ar.d LLE The inspector did, however, verify by interviews with the licensee and University police force personnel that the training was given approximately January 1982. All training records and certifications of security force members are kept by the University police depart-men The officers must qualify to the same standards as state law enforcement official $AfMOARDF FDRV Al0E

,