IR 05000220/1988030
| ML20206K720 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1988 |
| From: | Cameron D, Keimig R, Tobin W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206K710 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-220-88-30, 50-410-88-29, NUDOCS 8811290510 | |
| Download: ML20206K720 (10) | |
Text
-. _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _____
Irv,'I E"I.D M 1 N
.,,,
,
.
,
24'/d' wit 6-
-.
.
,
(:
.;)
( i.1 '~ ~.
,)
.
_ N M a l k issi m Z
__
H? d'.M
_
< om...u l.. : s.: )
C ' T7J U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
50-220/88-30 Report No.
50-410/88-29 l
'
50-220 Docket No.
50-410
,
l OPR-63 t
License No. NPF-69
.
Licensee: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
T6D frie BR ievard, West
'
Syracuse, New York 13701 Facility Name: Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2
!
i Inspection At: Scriba, New York l
j Inspection Conducted:
September 26-30, 1988 i
?
Inspectors:
~iU
_// = /4 = f/
. J. To n
- se curity Inspector _
date
'
,
i l
J '- N
_/fr/$ *//
.
07. " meron, Ra
.t Engineer, Physical _
date
,
Securit l
'
'
t i
!
Approved by:
M
_//-/d -//
f
ichard k._h h.19, 'aief, date
!
Safeguards Sectio, DRSS
'
t
!
50-22078Tysical Security Inspection on Inspection Summary: ~ Routine, Unannounced Ph
~
30 and 50-410/8F29)
i
$epteyper 2F3BZl988 Report Nos.
~
~
,
l Areas Inspec_ted:
Security plan and procedures; management organization; t
,
audits; records and reports; testing and maintenance; barriers (protected and
.
vital areas); security power supply; assessment aids; detection aids l
(Protected Area); access controls; alarm stations; and Licensee's actions in
j response to NRC Information Notices and Generic letters.
[
>
.
Results: The licensee was in compliance with NRC requirements in the areas
[
'
examined.
f 8811290510 881118-l PDR ADOCK 05000220 O
[
r
,
t
______ ___ ___ _____ _ ___-___ _________ _____ ___
'
,
.
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee
- J. Beratta, Manager, Nuclear Security
- N. Rademacher, Director, Nuclear Compliance
- B. Bandia, Superintendent, Operations (Unit 1)
- D. Maevittie, Manager, Security Projects
- 0. Ohara, Of rector, Security Compliance
- G. Gilmer, Supervisor, Security Technical Services R. Holliday, Security Technician R. Commins, Security Assistant S. Demingo, Reactor Operator U.S. NRC W. Schmidt, Resident Inspector 2.
NRC N;tices and Generic Letters IE Information Notice 88-26 (Closed) - The licensee reviewed this Notice with its staff responsible for nuclear security clearances. Additionally, the Notice was forwarded by the licensee to the contractor who performs clearances and background investigations for the licensee and, to the various contractors who furnish the licensee with employee clearances, e.g., General Electric Combustion Engineering, etc. The licensee's actions were considered appropriate by the inspectors.
'
IE Information Notice 83-41 (Closed) - The licensee attended an NRC Regulatory Effectivenets Review (RER) at another Region I facility and currently is gathering information from other utilities who have had an RER.
The licensee is forming a team of security / maintenance / operations personnel to conduct a comprehensive review of the security program in anticipation of an RER in the future.
IE Information Notice 88-49 (Closed) - The licensee reviewed this Notice with all security personnel and has incorporated its content into the security training and General Employee Training programs.
The Notice was also forwarded by the licensee to various vendors and contractors who deal with safeguards information and an article on the subject was included in the utility's news letter. The licensee also conducts random audits on the program for handling safeguards information.
Generic Letter 88-10 (Closed) - The licensee had reviewed the Letter and stated that it has not experienced a problem in purchasing approved safes and file cabinets.
.
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
'.
.
.
3.
Security Plan / Procedures (MC 81018)
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's Physical Security Plan (PSP) and randomly reviewed the various security procedures which implement the PSP.
Several of these security procedures are discussed elsewhere in this Report under the applicable inspection module paragraph.
The inspectors determined that the licensee is meeting the criteria of 10 CFR 50.54(p) and 50.90 with respect to PSP revisions.
The inspectors noted a minor inaccuracy with Figure #10 in the PSP.
Figure #10 is the wiring diagram for the uninterruptable power supply for the security system.
During the Exit Meeting, the licensee agreed that a more accurate diagram was appropriate and would be submitted with the next PSP revision.
4.
Management Organization _(MC81020/81022)
The licensee utilizes a proprietary security organization of approximately 250 individuals, of whom about 155 are armed guards. The organization includes support services from a Compliance Section, an Administration Section (clearances and investigations), a Services Section (training, maintenance and technical support) and an Operations Section which provides the day-to-day implementation of the security program.
The Manager of Nuclear Security is one of five Managers reporting to the Senior Vice President who is located onsite.
The inspectors found that the organization was as depicted in the PSP.
5.
Pr_ogram Audit (MC81034)
The inspectors verified that the 1987 annual security audit was performed on September 8-16, 1987, and, that the 1988 audit was conducted on September 15-23, 1988. The audit is the responsibility of the licensee's Safety Review and Audit Board, an independent organization that reports to the Manager of Quality Assurance (Corporate) in Syracuse, New York. The 1987 audit report was furnished to the Senior Vice President (Finance), the Plant General Superintendent, and to the Manager of Nuclear Security (onsite).
The audit included the licensee's PSP, Contingency Plan, Training and Qualifications Plan, security procedures, and NRC inspection findings.
Although the 1988 audit had been completed, the report had not yet been issued.
The inspectors noted in their review of the draft report that open items from the 1987 audit had been reviewed and were resolved.
The inspectors also noted that while there were no adverse findings in 1988, several minor findings were noted on the auditors checklists, e.g., key control, access lists, and control of safeguards information at the licensee's corporate headquarters.
The 1988 security program audit report and its disposition will be reviewed during a subsequent inspectio _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________
.
.
.
6.
Records / Reports (MC81083)
Throughout tnis inspection, various documents were randomly audited.
They included alarm printouts, daily logs, event reports, shift assignment rosters, maintenance requests, and patrol records.
The inspectors reviewed the Quarterly Log of Safeguard Events for April 1
- June 30, 1988, submitted to the NRC via licensee letter dated July 25, 1988.
The Log indicated a total of 70 events; 26 attributable to human error and 44 due to equipment failures. With one exception, all events were recorded within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of discovery.
The exception was drug related and was not logged for seven days due to complications with confirmation of drug screening tests which were beyond the licensee's control.
However, the inspectors reviewed Security Administrative Procedure #14. "Reporting of Safeguards Events" Revision 2, dated February 17, 1988, and noted that the procedure does not define
"discovery" for the purpose of establishing the start of the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period within which loggable event must be recorded.
The Security Compliance Director stated his interpretation that the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period started whenever he or another security manager became aware of an event.
The Compliance Director was advised that this interpretation was incon-sistent with the NRC's regulation, 10 CFR 73.71, and that the regulation should be reviewed and the reporting procedure should be modified accordingly in order to ovoid problems in the future.
He was also of the opinion that in lieu of "red phoning" an event to NRC Headquarters, the Resident Inspector could be notified.
He was also advised that this practice would not comply with 10 CFR 73.71 and that a modification to the reporting procedures was in order to carrect this misunderstanding.
This matter will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
7.
Testing / Maintenance (MCS1042)
The inspectors randomly selected 5 Hardware Problem Reports (HPRs) f rom entries in the Daily Security Event Logs for the purpose of reviewing the licensee's handling of maintenance and repair of security equipment.
The HPRs selected were as follows:
- HPRN4931-An assessment aid was taken out of service on May 2nd, and was repaired and returned to service the next day.
- HPR#5690-A vital area door was found to have a f aulty locking mechanism on May 11, and was fixed and returned to service by May 13.
+ HPR#48S4-A card reader concentrator was taken out of service on April 8 due to constant alarms, and was repaired by April 1 _ - _
_
____-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _.___ ________ - ____ -__
_ _ _ _ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _
l
.
.
,
5
.
- HPU5306-An intrusion detection zone was found faulty and was repaired within the same day, June 22.
- HPU6317-A metal detector was found faulty and was repaired within I
the same day, April 4.
The inspectors determined from their review of the HPR$ that the licensee is concientious in repairing and promptly returning security equipment to use thereby minimizing the use of compensatory seasures and corresponding security force overtime.
-
I"I *f ? ' * *.M1000,'m * pfQgpg*j W0 t. e un,, et :..c. p.,pgp i * E" 4.'. " :.0'l,"'"v;;,,,3i,
-
'
W ' ::. ;'a ;
!
1 8.
Physical Barriers (Protected Area) (MC81052)
'
Ouring a tour of the pretected area, the irspecters noted seseral potenti4' security syste
.eatr. esses that cosl:: decrease the effectiveness
,
of the security program.
The potential weaknesses were discussed with the licenset who took immediate corrective action as follows:
!
l
...
. 7-. 3 3
,,,
.
_,
.
,
~
j i*
,,
!. '
'.
,
l l
,
. _ _
_
._
-
_
._. __
.
.
,
.
1'
,o m,y naa.7 ipq:
y,. y
,
l!.
- Y.: *:07 i T. "' f.it Cl!" '
'
'i!i h il'J N il'
..
I F,
- '
.
-
The inspectors found that the protected area barrier was installed and maintained in conformance with co nitments in the PSP.
9.
Physical Barriers (Vital Areas) (M081054)
'
The inspectors randomly selected the folle.ing vital areas to evaluate the effectiveness of the barriers and doo's:
T'S PAMMANI C0h!t!!N 5 '.FECUAP03 INict't".T!3N AND 15 Ni f 09 PllPltC
[i:Srt0"E.I,IT15 INTENT:0N!4LlY trn OUNK.
)
_ _ _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _
_
.
.
.
.
inis P;?AGat.PH CONTAir SAFC00ARDS n;rOn".1:0i; Atl015 NOTl0't PUEllC U5tLO:0!:E,111SINTENil0MLLY l'F T 3 LANK.
The inspectors stated that these vital area barrier weaknesses appear to conflict with Paragraph 2.2.1 of the PSP which com:ts to vital area barriers of "... sufficient strength to meet the perfctmance requirements of 10 CFR Part 73.55(a)...".
This is censidered an
.
'
Unresolved item (8S-30-01 and 88-29-01) pending cc pletion of the licensee's engoing evaluation.
10.
Security Power Supply _(M081058)
The inspectors requested that the Itcensee test the uninterruptable power supply for the security system to determine its operability as sommitted l
to in the PSP.
'
l
. _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
_ _ _ _ _ _
-
.
.
.
-
l h$ E%.,GUAPH CON'TMl'; $Attapaggg nA, o 0M ?.tt?,;$ ytyt ;g poegn i
LFIx,[',.K'i$,1, j. II G INTIMilfj;;;lhl~,,7 IfCl I t
This is considered an Unresolved Item (88-30-02 and 88-29-02) pending a review by the licensee into why the alarm failed to annunciate.
q 11.
Assessment Aids (MC81066)
j The inspectors reviewed the operability and quality of assessment aids from the CAS and SAS.
t l
T4! rn CrF't CONTAW'StJECUARD5
'
1:;rp.weg ' p,?. IS H01 FM "UBLIC l
DisctrJurl.1 GINi[NiiDNAILY
!
l.CETB!l.!L
i ft j
-
,
,
,
There were no violations identified in this area.
]
12. Access Controls (Packages /Vehteles) (MCS1077/M081074)
)
Throughout this inspection, the inspectors observed nu erous packages and
?
vehicles being processed into the protected area. On September 29, at I
about 5: 45 p.m. a personnel injury occurred inside the protected area that resulted in the need for an ambulance.
,
i I
1HIS Pla"L'.NI CONTAlll5 SnGUAROS INFOMt.*,1M AND IS NOT F0E 'USUC
!
Oc.; c5tr t,1T :5 INTENT!0NMlY
'
Lt-a?M.
,
l i
'
_,
.. - -,. _
-, _ - -,.
-
.-.,_,
.
.-
Tl!!S PY,c:.,*2H CONTAINS SUEG!!ARDS
.
pr y",;n 0tt t,t!D IS NOT F0E Altll0 013ctcstrit. lT is liiTENT10NALLY LEI T BLANK.
Ne violations were icertified in this area.
l3.
Detection Aids _(Protected and Vital Areas)_(v.;'1078,w:51:50j The inspectors revie ed the licensee's use of detection aids through observation of protected and vital area systems and equipent, T1"" "'1l/: ?,i* CONT 414S 5";.if 4DDS
.
.;t,t:0 G N01 fO! T E S
'
n:
0.c.; '::,5:, :1 1A ';ii[FIMN! L l" tri li.W.
!
I
.,
,
.
Il!!! P/ '","'I"3 CONTAIVS $4" GU ARDS INIf 'M "l'Q,*.,':i115 40 i I O r T'h 'o t
I.6 ' < U T. ii ". I."fitp,'Oph (y lli a :ig,
.
.
Alarm Station (E81084)
The inspectors toured the Central and Secondary Alar.? (CAS anc !AS)
Stations during this ins.cection, on various shif ts and noted that there are four operators on-dutv at all tires; one operator is dedicated to Unit I and another to Unit 2, in both the C45 and SAS.
The operators appeare: to be kno=ledgeable of their duties and rest:nsibilities and familiar with the alarm station controls except that ene operator was hesitant and a;peared unsure when asked by the inspectors to perform a i
specific task. Upon being reassured by a the second operator, the first operator perforced the task without difficulty.
There were no violations identified in this area.
15.
Exit Intersiew An exit interview was held on se,n'.enber 30, 1938, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspectors described ti.e areas inspected and discussed the inspection esults 'n detail.
No written material was provided to the leiensee by the inspectors during this inspection.
-