IR 05000213/1993007

Insp Rept 50-213/93-07 on 930510-14.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Mgt Support,Security Program Plans & Security & FFD Audits,Protected Area Physical Barriers, Detection & Assessment Aids & Packages & Vehicles

ML20045B488
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	06/04/1993
From:	Keimig R, King E, Ratta A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20045B486	List: IR 05000213/1993007 ML20045B485
References
50-213-93-07, 50-213-93-7, NUDOCS 9306180005
Download: ML20045B488 (8)

Text

.

.

'

.

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

REGION I

Report No.

50-213/93-07 Docket No.

50-213

License No.

DPR-61

,

Licensee:

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company P. O. Box 270

Hartford. Connecticut 06141

.

,

Facility Name:

Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Plant f

.

Inspection At:

Haddam Neck. Connecticut c

Inspection Conducted:

May 10-14.1993 Type of Inspection: Announced. Physical Security Insoection Inspectors:

"[

8-Ul A. 'Deta hitta[y[1 Security Inspector Date n.est 4. &

4 - 4 - 9.5 i

E. B. King, Physical Se6ur y Inspector Date l

Approved By-

['

8-F 9/

I 4. R. Keimig$ Ch', Safeguards Section Date

-

Facilities Radio ical Safety and Safeguards

,

o Branch, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Areas Insoected: Management Support, Security Program Plans and Security and FFD

'

Audits; Protected Area Physical Barriers, Detection and Assessment Aids; Protected and

,

Vital Area Access Control of Personnel, Packages and Vehicles; Alarm Stations and l

'

Communications; Testing, Maintenance and Compensatory Measures; Security Training and Qualification and Land Vehicle Bomb Contingency Procedure.

j Results The licensee's program was found to be directed toward public health and safety

and was in compliance with NRC requirements in the areas inspected. No safety concerns or j

violations were identified. However, weaknesses were identified in the 1992 FFD program audit in the random selection of personnel and the licensee's failure to effectively resolve two 1991 FFD audit findings effectively.

'

r

]

'

9306180005 930604 PDR ADOCK 05000213 O

PDR

,

.

.

-

DETAft_4 1.0 Key Personnel Contacted 1.1 Jicensee and Contractor Personnel

• J. Stetz, Vice President, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Haddam Neck Station

• D. Ray, Director, Nuclear Unit (CY)

• G. Halberg, Manager, Nuclear Security, Northeast Utilities Service Company

• M. Quinn, Acting, Nuclear Services Director (CY)

• J. Chiarella, Instrumentation and Controls (l&C) General Supervisor

• J. Pandolfo, Security Manager (CY)

.

• J. Lenois, Security Coordinator (CY)

R. Factora, Director, Unit Services, Millstone Station

!

D. Heritage, Manager, Occupational Health B. Cook, Fitness-for Duty (FFD) Administrator C. Marien, Occupational Health Administrator K. Duncan, Contract Nurse, Millstone Station

• M. Nericcio, Occupational Health Administrator (CY)

S. Oates, FFD Administrator J. Johnson, Safety and Health Administrator

• E. Annino, Senior Analyst (CY)

D. Cooney, Security Technician (CY)

M. Moore, Security Shift Supervisor (CY)

G. Tavares, Supervisor Information Research Group (IRG)

J. Mittica, Senior Programmer, IRG

• D. Caron, Chief, Burns Contract Security Force

• T. Gotczyca, Training Specialist, Burns Contract Security Force 1.2 U. S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission - Recion I

• P. Habighorst, Resident Inspector

• indicates those present at the exit interview The inspectors also interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel during the inspection.

!

l l

l

. _ _

i I

.

2.0 Manacement Suoport. Security Procram Plans and Audits 2.1 Manacement Suooort Management support for the licensee's physical security program was determined to be consistent with program needs. This determination was

,

based upon the inspectors' review of various aspects of the licensee's program

!

during this inspection, as documented in this report.

!

Security program enhancements made since the last physical security in September,1992 inspection (50-213/92-19) were as follows:

!

completion of the protected area (PA) lighting upgrade;

'

weapons upgrade;

procurement and installation of a new computer video imaging camera

for badging; and completion of the screenwell upgrade.

• p The following observations were made by the inspectors:

the licensee's former site Security Coordinator, who had been

designated as the acting Security Manager, was permanently assigned to

.

'

that position; the licensee's site security management continued to conduct self-

assessments of all aspects of the program;

,

the site security force totalled 131 personnel (including 2 officers on e

leave of absence) on May 14, 1993;

,

the security force had an attrition rate of 10% for calendar year 1992, e

but, the rate for 1993 to date is 2%; and

,

'

the security program continued to be actively supported by other plant

groups and effective communication channels existed among the security group (both licensee and contractor) and other plant groups.

These included operations and emergency planning participation in

'

security contingency drills, at a minimum of twelve per year, as well i

i

.

_

_

.

.

,

.

4 I

!

as daily meetings between the Security Manager, the contractor's Chief of Security, and other plant groups to ensure work activities are well coordinated to reduce the impact from and on security.

In summary, the inspectors found the licensee's efforts to maintain the

!

effectiveness of the program in protecting public health and safety and the plant to be excellent.

2.2 Security Procram Plans

'

The inspectors verified that changes to the licensee's Security and Training and Qualification (T&Q) Plans as implemented, did not decrease the effectiveness of the respective plans, and were submitted in accordance with NRC requirements.

,

2.3 Audits During the previous inspection conducted in September, 1992, (50-213/92-19),

the inspector noted that the licensee's annual Quality Services Department (QSD) audit report for Se security program was in the process of being formalized and, therefore, was not available for the inspector's review.

During this inspection, the inspectors reviewed the completed QSD audit report, No. A 25070, dated November 2,1992. The audit report documented I

one finding, one unresolved item and three recommendations. The inspectors'

review indicated that the audit was very comprehensive in scope, and the results were reported to the appropriate levels of management. A review of the licensee's responses to the audit results indicated that the corrective actions

~

were adequate and that the program was being properly administered.

Accordingly, Inspector Follow-up Item (IFI) 50-213/92-19-01, previously assigned to the review of the QSD audit report, is being closed.

.

The inspectors also reviewed the annual audit reports for the licensee's FFD program for 1991, Audit # QSD-91-5393, and 1992, Audit # 30199, and held

,

discussions with licensee FFD representatives to determine the effectiveness

,

of the program. Based on a review of the audit reports and discussions with

!

'

on-site FFD staff, the inspectors determined that the security of the computerized random selection program was weak in that it failed to ensure that only individuals with a need to know could gain access to the program.

The weakness was due to the lack of an effective password protection feature.

l Additionally, two findings identified in the 1991 audit were again identified in

!

the 1992 audit. One of the findings addressed weaknesses in the FFD manual.

!

Specifically, the manual contains numerous steps that are not or can not be i

F

>

I

,

.

. _

.-,

.

.

.

- -..-

..

..

?

.

.

!

carried out as written because they are cumbersome and too detailed. The j

second Ending identified a weakness in the failure to calibrate the intoximeters to the required tolerance.

i

!

On May 12,1993, the inspectors met with key FFD staff. At that time, the-l inspectors held discussions and reviewed the licensee's response to the 1992

audit that contained interim and Gnal corrective action to resolve the random l

selection program and the repetitive intoximeter weaknesses. The licensee l

!

projected the final corrective actions to be completed by June 1993. The inspectors also found that the licensee had committed to rewrite the FFD l

manual, in draft form, by the end of 1993. The inspectors stated that due to the potential for the licensee to incur a violation of the NRC's FFD rule because of the problems with the manual, the licensee should accelerate its i

revision. The licensee committed to having the manual rewritten and approved by the end of 1993. The inspectors also reviewed the specific weaknesses

identified with the manuals to ensure that no violation of NRC requirements

!

had already occurred. None was identified.

j These issues will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection. (Inspector Follow-up Item (IFI) 50-213/93-07-01)

.

3.0 frptected Area Physical Barriers. Detection and Assessment Aids

.

t 3.1 Protected Area (PA) Barrier

!

The inspectors conducted a physical inspection of the PA barrier on May 10-11, D93. The inspectors determined by observation that the barrier was

installed and maintained as described in the NRC-approved security plan (the Plan).

3.2 PA Intrusion Detection Aids

The inspectors observed routine licensee conducted surveillance tests of the perimeter detection aids on May 11,1993, and determined that they were f

installed, maintained, and operated as committed to in the Plan.

3.3 PA and Isolation Zone Lichtine The licensee, on December 20,1992, completed a major PA security lighting

- i upgrade. Ninety five additional fixtures were installed to climinate marginally lighted areas.

!

__

!

i t

.

.

r The inspectors conducted a PA and isolation zone lighting survey on May 12, 1993, from approximately 8:30 - 10:30 p.m., accompanied by a licensee

'

security supervisor. The inspectors determined, by observation and use of a

calibrated light meter provided by the licensee, that the station's lighting system met the regulatory requirement and was very effective.

Additionally, the inspectors observed that the isolation zones were adequately

maintained to permit observation of activities on both sides of the PA barrier.

3.4 Assessments Aids

.

The inspectors observed the PA perimeter assessment aids during day and i

night periods and determined that they were installed, maintained and operated as committed to in the Plan.

t In summary, the licensee satisfied the NRC requirements in the areas of PA physical

-

barrier, detection and assessment aids.

t 4.0 Protected and Vital Areas Access Control of Personnel. Packaces and Vehicles 4.1 Prrsonnel Access Control The inspectors determined that the licensee was exercising positive control over personnel access to the PA and VAs. This determination was based on

,

'

the following:

4.1.1 The inspectors verified that personnel were properly identified and

'

authorization was checked prior to issuance of badges and key cards.

l 4.1.2 The inspectors reviewed the security lock and key procedures and determined that they were consistent with commitments in the Plan.

The inspectors also reviewed the PA and VA key inventory logs, and interviewed members of the licensee's operations and security staffs concerning lock and key procedures.

,

4.1.3 The inspectors verified that the licensee was implementing a search program for firearms, explosives, incendiary devices and other j

unauthorized materials as committed to in the Plan. The inspectors

,

observed both plant and visitor personnel access processing during peak and off-peak traffic periods on May 11 and 14,1993. The inspectors

also interviewed security force members (SFMs) and the licensee's i

security staff about personnel access procedures.

I

i

.-

a

-

.

t

l 4.1.4 The inspectors determined, by observation, that individuals in the PA

!

and VAs displayed their badges as required.

I l

4.1.5 The inspectors verified that the licensee had escort procedures for i

visitors into the PA and VAs.

.

There were no deficiencies identified in the licensee's implementation of its PA personnel access control practices.

.,

4.2 Packace and Material Access Control l

,

The inspectors determined that the licensee was exercising positive control

over packages and material that were brought into the PA through the main

!

I access portal. The inspectors reviewed the package and material control procedures and found that they were consistent with commitments in the Plan.

The inspectors also observed package and material processing and interviewed

SFMs and the licensee's security staff about package and material control procedures.

4.3 Vehicle Access Control

!

The inspectors determined that the licensee properly controlled vehicle access t

to and within the PA. The inspectors verified that vehicles were properly

processed prior to entering the PA and the process was consistent with

commitments in the Plan. The inspectors also reviewed the vehicle search

!

procedures and determined they were consistent with commitments in the Plan.

!

"

This determination was made by observing vehicle processing and search, inspection of vehicle logs, and by interviewing SFMs and the licensee's

,

security staff about vehicle processing and search procedures.

In summary, the licensee established and implemented effective measures which met NRC requirements, for the control of personnel, packages and vehicle access to the

PA and VAs.

5.0 Alarm Stations and Communications

!

The inspectors observed the operations in the Central Alarm Station (CAS) and i

Secondary Alarm Station (SAS) and determined they were operated as committed to in

the Plan. CAS and SAS operators were interviewed by the inspectors and found to be knowledgeable of their duties and responsibilities. The inspectors verified that the l

CAS and SAS operators were not required to engage in any operational activities that i

would interfere with their assessment and response functions. The inspectors also i

verified that the licensee conducted communication drills with the local law enforcement agencies as committed to in the Plan. No deficiencies were noted.

I

t

.

.

..

6.0 Testine. Maintenance and Comoensatory Measures i

The inspectors reviewed the testing and maintenance records for security-related

.

'

equipment and confirmed that tests were conducted, maintenance was performed and records were maintained as committed to in the Plan. The inspectors also reviewed the licensee's use of compensatory measures and determined them to be as committed

'

to in the Plan. No deficiencies were noted.

7.0 Security Trainine and Oualineation The inspectors randomly selected and reviewed training and quali6 cation (including physical) records for 10 SFMs. The firearms requali5 cations records were also reviewed for armed SFMs and security supervisors in the sample. The inspectors

,

determined that the training and qualification had been conducted in accordance with the security training and qualincation (T&Q) plan and that it was properly l

documented.

Several SFMs were interviewed to determine if they possessed the requisite knowledge and ability to carry out their assigned duties. The interview results

,

indicated that they were professional and knowledgeable of the job requirements. No deficiencies were noted.

8.0 Land Vehicle Bomb Contineency Procedure The inspectors conducted a review of the licensee's Land Vehicle Bomb Contingency Procedure. The licensee's procedure details short-term actions that could be taken to

'

protect against attempted radiological sabotage involving a land vehicle bomb if such a threat were to materialize. The procedure appears adequate for its intended purpose. No deficiencies were noted.

9.0 Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives indicated in Paragraph 1.0 at the conclusion of the inspection on May 14, 1993. At that time, the purpose and scope of the inspection was reviewed and the Dndings were presented. The licensee's commitments, in the area of FFD, as documented in this report, were reviewed and confirmed with the liceraee. The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings.

,