Text

Partially Deleted Insp Repts 50-254/77-14 & 50-265/77-14 on 770426-28,0502-06,12,13 & 26.Noncompliances Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Implementation of Approved Security Plan Relative to Security Organization
	ML20235P472
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	06/27/1987
From:	Belanger J, Carlson D, Creed J; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20235P433	List: IR 05000254/1977014; ML20235P430;
References
	FOIA-86-894, FOIA-87-A-29 50-254-77-14, 50-265-77-14, NUDOCS 8710070288
Preceding documents:	ML19309F938 (23 April 1980);
	Download: ML20235P472 (26)
	v • d • e

,

y--

,

'

l

.

..o

.

1 (

'

f'-

U.S. NJCLEAR NdGULA'!ORY COMMISSION

-

0FFICE' )F INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT [*

'

.i

,

A.

%f

.

/

REGION III

-:'W,

4,

.'s

,41

!

ReportNo.5N254/77-14;50-265/77-14

Docket No. 50-254, 50-265 License No. DPR-29, DPR-30

Liccusee: Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767

<

Chicago, IL 60690

!

,

Facility Name: Quad-Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2

'

,

'

Inspection At: Quad-Cities Station, Cordova, IL Inspection / Investigation Conducted: April 26-28, May 2-6,12,13, and 26,1977 i

..

.~p

Inspectors:

J. L1 Belanger 4 2 p!r) '7

,

-i date/ sign'ed j

(,!27 UD. M Car YW-l

.

'

ddte s(igne'd

. F. Donah e (,

217 ['1 1 i

g

' da':e signed i

A. Phillip F

[g[27!'7'7

'

date signed d,

ief h ///7

, Approved By:

.

Safeguards Branch date signed

\\,

'

,

Attachment:

S-F3-77-91 Findings (Part 2.790(d) Information)

Copy __,(,and'

, copies Ps ges

/

_

THIS f/4DHENT IS NOT TO BE s

REPRODUCED WIDI SPECIFIC i

8710070200 37'tOO7 APPROVAL OF RIII

.

)

PDR FOIA POR

{

tick AYB 7-A-G! '

{s Y O

,,

~

.

c Nif0?51 '$ft k1h'es record Was d Ieled b,

~

c in accudance with e freedom of Information f

n"# % a.,

(4pa o a.2a)

-

(g b Mu'

~

- _ _ _ _ _ _

_

5,

'y

.

,

$

~

\\

,'

,

.

I x,,

d

'

4-

-

Jy{
@5_u--tm v r wa O uD
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. _ - -. _ _.
e rir s m ;,.. g.;. oo ee-. _
_
"
,
.
.
,,
^
sns c.a. ss.,
,-
_dw
--
.,
I now' fall undar tha QA dcp:rto".nt..Thsy explcinsd that, to their

understanding, their basic responsibility was delineated by the
Technical Specifications and that the QSP would have to be revised.
j This would represent a reduction in the frequency of security plan audits.
,
4.
Security Organization SectionsIV.FandIV.E.2ofthesecurityplanrequireshhat-l a.
thesecurityforcebetrained3 Contrary to the above h members of the security, force (watchmen) were not trained until approximately three to four i
months subsequent to the initial date of assignment onsitep
!
In addition, records indicate that one guard (during his tenure of employment at the site) never received a portion of l
the training required by the Security Plan.
l A review of guard force training records showed that s 'former t
guard began employment at the site on January 12, 1975. These

'
records also showed that this former guard did not receive the ighty-houhlock of instruction, which is given by the guard contractor, until approximately three months af ter site assign-
The Pinkerton certification for this training was dated ment.
April 4, 1975.
This former guard confirmed this during an interview.
A guard, who is presently working at the site, began site assignme t on Januar;y 21, 1975.
The Pinkerton certification for the eighty-hour)1ock pf instruction shows that the training, for this guard, was completed on April 3, 1975, a
!
period of approximately two and one half months after assignment.
These records also show that this guard did not receive certifi-cation of having received training in the Quad-Cities security procedures until May 30, 1975, a period of approximately four months.
The guard confirmed this information during an inter-view.
A second former guard stated that he had never, during the entire tenure of his employment as a guard'at the site, received training in the Quad-Cities. security procedures.
This individual was employed at the site from December 9, 1976 until April 1,1977.
'
A review of training records
.
Mi g g a,,... -.
.
,
bl
..
5-
-
-
C 2.nt ': :..;-= 13:- -
l
_ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - _ - _ - _
-
.
.
.
.
t,
+ 3 '.
~;;&iirr@=cWi
~~l rs If~~
,
- % (o [w [ D //
- 'n
had received the trainingshowed there was n r lleg.r o
, and confirmed the former gu s ta temen t.
(See Notice of Violation, item 5)
28-30, 1974,During the physical protecti a similar situation.the licensee had bon inspection een cited for noncompliance fcon 07) dated October 1,1974 The report (50-254/ 74-12 and 50 to properly train certain or
, showed that the licensee had failed-265/74-other guards, b.
Sections III.C.4.d and IV observed nonconformances w.B of the security plan re procedures be processed as devi ith the security plan or secu i quire that Quality Procedure 1 preclude recurrence.5-52, which includesations in accordance with r ty Quality Pro corrective action to Assurance knual) stateslure 15-52 (Commonwealth Edison Company, Quality
, in part:
" Scope :
>
This, procedure applies to pr istrative controls and materi locedures, admin-components a s, equipment, have become, operational."or parts inctalled for use w
" Definitions - Deviation:
perfonnance or a failure toA departure from acce trative controls which res lcomply with adminis-u pnent uncorrected u ts in perform as,equired by Tresult in a failure o,f an item or could, if r
\\
or approved procedures."echnical Specifications o
Contrary to the above, on s were not processed as deviationance with the s procedures were observed and Edison quality proc onform-preclude recurrence.edures which include correctivs in acc found a vital area door unsec For example, on April 13 e action to
,
processed as a deviation.
ure at 1341 hours0.0155 days 0.373 hours 0.00222 weeks 5.102505e-4 months ,and it was not1977, a
>
During the conduct of this i conformance with security prograrecords were items which represent non-certain of these nonconformances
,
m commitments.
management had been previously i nformed of these items bysh staff members from various Stati on Departments.
Interviews R
r=
~6-Pcco u[ -
'
..

n
-
._
i.
.
,,
.
E 6 2+ D) t**w.a t !h.
.
with Station personnel and Station management sho when reported, these items were not evaluated as d wed that, accordance with the provisions of the cited Qualit eviations in and that either no corrective action to preclude ry Procedure or ineffective corrective action to preclude recurr taken.
ecurrence, ence was-A review of the licensee's " Deviation Report
that between January 1,1976 and May 5. records showed Deviation No. D-4-1,76-21 security-related deviation report

(1)
was written as a r 21-.23, 1976; (2) noncompliance identified during an NRC inspect
>
Deviation No. D-41-1-76-37 waon January on May 29,1976; (3) result of "Pinkerton Security Guard Shor s written as a Deviation No. D-4-1-76-68 w occurred a result of an item of noncompliance and a deviati as written as fled during an NRC security inspection on Noon identi-1976.
Each of these reports indicated that ac vember 10-12, completed.
a een made during this period.
eports" During this period, however views with Station Managemen,t,other licensee records and inter-Force personnel showed that many nonconformaStation Employ program procedures and the physical securit nces with security Some examples of these nonconformances ar :y plan had occurre e
(1)
Open or unsecure Vital Area doors:
(a)
Records and interviews with security pe showed that many vital ares doors have been fo rsonnel No record of a " Deviation" report was pr und enten t.
epared.
(b)
{
A Quality Assurance Surveillance Report 77) dated A ril 13, Q77, reported that the(QAO-4-6-
\\
P
.
door of the south
,was found ajar. This report
!
a local " alarm" system that would give i
indication that the door was completel t
" Deviation" report was prepared.
ve y closed. No (2)
Improper display of photo identification b d
-
a ges.
An audit was conducted by CECO employees to the Quad-Cities Station, on December 610
, not assigned
, 1976. A
-
y_
-.
C M i h *!. I,L..r
.........q
.........;.AW
^
-7-W ' r.~. L m o.
nior.
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _. - - -
_
.ti c,
,,.......
'
e
,
.,
' '

.j
.
finding of this audit was "Several personnel were obs not wearing their photo ID badges clearly displayed
-
erved
..
No deviation report was prepared regarding' this ite

s, (3)
i Failure of the protected area perimeter intrusion system to detect attempted penetrations.
alarm (a)
guard was able to penetrate. under the
_
y certain sections on March 6,1976, writing, by a memorandum on that date.wa
' 3
>

report was prepared regarding this item..No deviation
(b)
An inspection conducted by representatives of th licensee's corporate security organization was e
conducted o Sepymber 23, 1976.
his inspection

sho
.
by}Eedtha ighg5 alarm zones could be circumvented-
'
taken, ho/e'verCorrective action, in this ' case,' was it did not preclude recurrence.
,
'
Although an "au,dit" report was examined, no devi- -
ation report was prepared.
(see Notice of Vio1*ti'"'
\\
,
I**" 7)
the plant security force to be evaluated ann c.

m er'of j
.
Contrary to the above, a member of the plant securit
.j was not evaluated during the period of February 9
!
y force May 3,1977, a period of approximately fif teen months
, 1976 to j
)
.
A review of guard force personnel records and int
'
the station security officer disclosed that fourerviews with guards have more than one year of service, thus qualifyi of fourteen them for at least an annual evaluation la accorda
.
ng security plan cosmitment.
,
nce with the completed for three of the above guards. Guard evaluation forms ha sted as of this inspection.who began site assignment on evalu-views with both the guard and the Station Security OffiHis cer.
(See Notice of Violation, Item 14)
,
,
!
k

,
8-
.
-
y.........
w = " " \\mg AA.-
< =
, _
i
'
,
J
!
... _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
__
e
-
'
i
-
,
.
..
. MtsstMOQklefetes%ien... s
-..
-
5.
Physical Barriers protected area fence be a minimum ofSections II.B.5 u res that the yeet high.
Contrary to the above, the physical barrier (fe

,
zone 15 at the southwest corner of.the protectednce) along alars not provide an equivalent. degree of resist
.
adjacent to ey eet and did concrete " curb" along that area
-
endtration.- A effective height to approximate 1[provides a base that redeces the 5%eet.
i
~~During an exterior inspection of the protected area ph barrier (fence) on May 2, 1977, the NRC inspecto~~
.
ysical a member of the securityJoreg observed a sectionr, accompanied b{
that,yas not effectively feet high.
of the barrier adjacen]t a concrete wall west of the life sta
.{
zoneUS
'
this point was installed behind a concrete c mmediately The fence, at feet high and four-feet wide) which runs up a hillurb (approxima
.
slope of the hill, the height of the curb and relati Becaen of the'
the fence, the NRC inspector (approximat l
.
ve location of j
the height of the fence to be effectively 5'6"e y 5'5" tall) estimated
'
ively reduce the penetration resistance of the b This would effect-
.
facilitate penetration.
arrier and would (See Notice of Violation, Item 3)
During a previous physical protection inspecti
\\
!
12, 1976, noted sections of the security plan.the licensee was cited f
'!
ance with the above i
occurred because four particular portions of thThis item of noncompli requirements.
Adequate corrective action was taken for th location.
specific i
sections.
(See Section 2 of this report)
i or.e other 6.
Access Controla
_
vital areas be controlled.Section III.D.2 of the security pla a.
es that access to Contrary to the above, control of access t Building, a vital area, was not provided io the Unit 1 Terbine 1977, at 2309 hours0.0267 days 0.641 hours 0.00382 weeks 8.785745e-4 months , the R,jiedopenC inspector accompanied
-
t guard, observed door No.
.
S-9-h.. -.
~~.' 'hn L_____________________~~
E
.
.
,
.
- -
.
3,,...,...
-
..,
.
. -, %.i,ler spection of "Shif tgficers Logs" showed that thi
.
March 23, 28, April 16, 22, 23;had also been found unsecured on s door April 26,1977.
and earlier:in the day on An initial check of Vital Area doors was' condu 26, 1977, by WRC inspectors inanediately after th i ce on April onsite.
hours showed all vital area doors controlled o
. e r arrival secured.
During a subsequent inspection of the protect d Pinkerton' guar,A ob' served a vital door thatap
-
e area'(at'
e ya secured.
The was qgt locked or tied open with a nylon rope.
was found.
and tied to the..outside knob.inside " crash bar," and ousing mechanism-from fully closing and This rope prevented the door Access to the ould not all strike.
'
the bolt to en gained without the use o No'Iu. a vital area, gage. the a key.
could be-control access.
ard had been posted to A subsequent inspection of @e "Inny Peri records disclosed that door meter Partol" at 1300 hours0.015 days 0.361 hours 0.00215 weeks 4.9465e-4 months , on the same rTay by f"Pinkertohad been found uns t

'
n guard.
To determine how many vital area-doors had b the past proved difficult because gu een found open in Perimeter Patrol" sheets.by supervisors not to record sj
'
ces on the " Inner (This practice was discontinued.
.i April 22,1977.)
in the guard ' office, which were not provid dHowever nor to the guard contract agency's officee to the licensee that the guard shif t officer had reco d d, it was determined area doo ;s, that had been fo re many 'of the vital that the unsecured.. Bus, it was noted 28, Apri I13, 16, 22 and 23 door was found open on March 23,
.
.
.
977.
Additionally, a review of the Shift Officers L
'
period following the last inspection (November 1976)
ogs for the that other vital area doors have been fo
-
disclosed t
und unsecured:
i February 9, 1977
'
-
..

~ _ _
00 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months .
.
i
..,.
.
......
C,i._,
...
..........
..,
A
~'
- 10 -
9. M -^^?," L L.. - d
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
L...
,
...6.
i.
...
...
.
W
,
..
Cfs. 8.w.-~
February 12, 1977
-

~.
-
30700 hours.
March 7,~1977 r-
-\\
--
with rage.
ipropped open

March 8, 1977
-
_.
March 28, 1977 2015 hour0.0233 days 0.56 hours 0.00333 weeks 7.667075e-4 months 
-
April 9, 1977
) door sjar at 2050 hours0.0237 days 0.569 hours 0.00339 weeks 7.80025e-4 months .
'

-
, door ajar.
,
April 13, 1977 North door of(
}1341 hours.
-
April 14, 1977 I
!
ytoom.
I April 15, 1977 dtoor open Q2110 hours and
. Woor sjar.
During the August 28-30, 1974, physical prot of noncompliance was cited.a vital area door was found s and an item
,
'
-
As a result of the July
,
21-23, 1976 inspection, an ites'of noncompliance was a ares door unsecure. lso cited as NRC inspectors found a vital As a result of the inspection a civil penalty of $4,000 was assessed for that ites
'
.
i the door found unsecure during the presThe l{
requirements, for Notice of Violation, Item 1.
-
ent inspection.
(See j
Addendum, Allegation Nos. I and 40.f) refer toi investigation i
b.
Sections III.D.1, III.D.2 and IV.C g the Section C persons)Laccess to vital areas be lim security plan and centro 11e nd that authorize with personnel showed thatContrary to the above, key is s and laterviews limited to authorized personscess to vita (equipment is not vide access to vital areas are, issued (tci other thJoys which in tha persons; specifically, station janitors and cert i
.
an authorized Key inventories showed thac[}$9lA review of key ancontractors)
.
e on May 5 1977.
,
)eys (to locks on p,lant
!
.
g.
.
...
.
L...
. :...,
....._..1
..
.
'
....... i s e vT4
..
11 -
-
tm.%$i n=r:M^"
f
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. - - - -
_ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~
~
.
.
,
v A
s
-
-.
~~~ *...~~
_
.
,

awit
.
~
h. i.75U ni niw..dvu vital area doors) have been issued cardswereexaminedandtheNRCin[spectorKey issuan had been issued to employees'of compani
'
noted that)
_fkeys wealth Edison (Ceco) and to Ceco employ es other than Common-to be authorized unescorted access t ees who did of this are:
o vital areas.
oc appear 1-xamples
'*fi 23,19 6 I
i "
p panywasissueda[
key (2)
An employee of ayUS." was issued tw January 24, 1977, l
eye on
.
!
(3)
key on August.29, 1975.An employee of " Ceramic was issued ai~
.
(4) Jn
'
, key on October 5. 1976.ployee of " Continenta as istaed a
!
.
(5)
1975 July 14,1975, July 17,1975Four Cec
]keyonJune5, one respectively,
, and August 6, 1975 (6)
A CECO " Stores" employee was issued af ]
1976.
keyonSeptember27,M
,
The inspector then attem A
listed individuals were, pted to verify whether the abcve in fact, authorized a rea s, Access authorization is designated b J aj, cess to vital y
j j
)
issued to the above 1 o ed individA selective examination of th (5) and the " Stores" employee (6) puals showed that theJa l hat one ' individual NS~' ~
resently are issuedt t
no1ong'rhad)anyphoto-identificati the protected area. badge and therefore was not authorized e
!
The inspector further verified that thunescorte
" red badged" janitors did, in fact produced them when asked.
,haveth(-~~
las.they e
ItshouldbenotedthatI
~
control access to areas other t an vitalre also used for rooms, washrooms, and gates outside the pareas, such as lo
.
rotected area.
e
..
__
%is*
** w e as..
- 12 -
w.#
~,... _
~ - -
=4
,,
,
.________J
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
....,._--
.
- - -
-
e,f,,,.,,
a**
,,....
....
+
~~' '~~
,
'
..
,
M2 w r hi
' '
- -- __
..
.
(See Notice of Violation, Item 4)-
.
As a result of a physical protection inspectio
...
August 28-30, 1974, t
t e licensee was cited forn conducted on ducted and all keys could not be a an item of not con-
,"~Section III.C of the security plan requires c.

r
- -.. _ _
.
i
,
Contrary to the above, on February
~
-
.
25.1977 he vehicle gate entrancenexttothegatehousej
,
'
. was not[',.
y_tews with security force perso,,nnel showed that the
'j i
!
'
1he Shif t Officers indicated that th og for February 25,1977 (2000-300 hours)
to the gjate osse',' wad
'.(adjacent
,
'
Q1:5'T y wh;e, log ~for the previous shift (0800-169 noted that,
....
the gate waTrepaired at 2050 hour0.0237 days 0.569 hours 0.00339 weeks 7.80025e-4 months s]on. he" log indicates that
..
.
February 25, 1977.

Log sheets for November 27, 1976 December 4 and 5, 1976, February 1 1977, and April 8,1977, also noted the inoper q
ability o jut did not specifi the gate was open or closed.
.,
-
cally indicate whether l
duties within the gatehouse (i.e., visitar con
guard force the central alarm station, answering the t lrol, monitoring distribution, searches, etc.) it is impossible fe ephone, badge adequately monitor protected area access through this i
or them to from inside the gatehouse, those duties and shorta h ay also indicated that due to gate gate to control access.ge of guards, no one was posted at the (See Notice of Violation,' Item 6)
>
During a physical protection inspection cond access through a gate, in that an NRC inspector pass d ure to control the gate unchallenged, entered the protected

e through to the station control room.
area and proceeded civil penalty of $5,000 being assessed.This citation resulted in a
...
.
..
.
J
. *
v. ir = _. _ _
~~..wi~~
_ _ _.
......
- 13 -
m NS b
l l
-_ _ ____--.

~
L
..,
..
- - -...
_
.
...
.....se
.
D-
_O_ = ;;; aiac u m ee-
'
d.
C. 2 of QSP-2 and Section C. 2.a of QSP-6 on
!
i
-!
-
~~l with a station janitor, who was issued and dis i~~
"
l
,!
.
.i on May 4 and 5, 1977, a review of the licen review was to verify that those individuals who were not s
authorized unescorted access to vital areas did not, enter vital areaa unescorted.
in fact, The licensee utilizes sh

,

i unescorted access to all area
,, Individuals authorized
!
including vital areas, have within the Prog eted Area, badge.
_ on their j
Individuals (usually contractors) who are authorized
'
cces nly to vital areas in which they are working are coded tfie Protected. Area only, but not vital areas
.
{
~
j-j The NRC inay e, made a selective check of individuals who were issues fact not'sai~n1Eg unescorted access to vital area.ackgr interview with a Station janitor en During an inspector found that he did enter th 3, 1977,ithe_ NRC (a vital area
routine course) unescorted from the Serv, ice Building during the A
,...
displaying a[ af his duties.
This janitor _ was,, at the tinse.
background photo-identification badge and be
'
indicated that w en he entergd the work, he va.s d;hplaying thatL '
}ce s
,
dae. Further, the janitor j
produced a eries key which 11 open these, and other,
^
vital ares.
rs.
(See Notice of Violation, Item 9)
!
.
C.3.6 of QSP-2 requires that a161sitors be e e.
.
ection authorized person at all times while in the protected y an C: ?.
-.w
\\
..
wra u
.....<-~.........vn 14 -
-
p_a = = ~
_g_ -
m. --b
_
- _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _
,
..
.
.......
.....
.
.....
..
.
....
.
y I
%(
,
,
t
.,
g,s ;n H',
J>
N,
-
,....
-
,
,
.
-
-'
a t i.,,
_
.
. aM * * ' ' * * I N N i Contrary to the hbove, interviews with pe on one occasion, April 9 1977, an authorized Commonwealthrso Edison employee allowedh,wo visitors to r a short period, in the protected area (Service B ild emain unescorted

for ing).
u by a former Pinkerton guard.This item resulted from on of an allegation i
that on Saturday, April 7 inspector interviewed a Quad
,
!
who he was conducting on a, tour of the plant 1977,hea te vital area) for a period of approximately twutsi ng (a non-
'l while the plant employee utilized the washr
'
o to Ove minutes oom facilities.
(See Notice of Violation, Item 11)
f.
Section IV.C of the security plan
\\ C.3.c.(2) of QSP-3 require thatf' and Sections C.3, C,4.b and
'!
/
Con
_. _trary to the above,l
'
on May 4,1977, showed that on Jan ary 8 ent t
1977, CECO emp1 ees brought their,
11, 15, 16, and 17,
,
,
)
l A review of " Vehicle Access Logs" was 1977.
Entries on these logs shows ' the ehicles, ~ y 4,

co ucted on Ma area.yFor example, the logs shove teredthepr{otected
"
i Date the following:
Times Vehicle 1/8/77 Purpose of Entrf 1/8/77 1520-2230 1/11/77 1520-2230 73 Vega 1/11/77 0030-0610 66 Chevy Cold Weather 1/15/77 0800-0000 Maverick Cold Weather Cold 1826-0224 Ply Duster Ford Maverick Repair Car for Jim Ruth 1/16/77 2215-Blank To plus car heater into 1/15/77 Pinto outlet due to cold.
1/16/77 0140-0705 1/16/77 1515-2225 5'avtrick Check lights 1/16/77 1517-0601 Bring car into repair VW 1/17/77 1720-074?
Pontiac 72 Warm car up
-
1/17/77 1703-23b1 Maverick Warm car up 1950-0005 Rally Nova To plus car in due to cold.
Frozen Fuel Line I
Chevy Trk Mechanical Problems I
- 15 -
M.,. ; 3,' _ _ E M 2 3
-#--
_
-_ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--
- - -- - - - - - -
o.
I
b= %. o..
..
rp..,..,._.
.
2 a e,
.... - s - 'TOS,
Additionally
,
parked adjace,nt the main entranthe NRC inspectors o (inside the protected ' area) n ot accompanied by a pro badged individual, unattended o n May 4, and 5, 1977.
Each of the above listed log case a member of the Station Staff, who isentries indicated that, access, did allow these vehicles t in each o enter. authorized toisllow (See Notice of Violation
, Item 10)
g.
,of QSP-2 requires that]Section IV.C of the sep
.
plan and Sections C.1 and C.1 a
.
Contrary to the above, on May 3 accompanied by a guard, observed
, the NRC inspector.
-
,
>
an l
the licensee' son May 3,1977 an NRC inspect or station protected area.y force wa, accompanied by a securit
manber of Maile approaching the southeastcond corner of the Turbine Building at (within the protected area)
the NRC inspector noticedapproximate have a photo-identification b demployee walki
,
-
t who did not appear to an guard, the individual was questi

a ge.
E en pointed out to the badge.
covered by twoHe producted the badge from oned about the location of his outer coats.
a shirt pocket which was
'
to properly display the bad The guard instructed the indi id ge.
Additionally, on Apri v ual employees entering t 7,1977, the displayed.
This port inspector observed
'
questioned about the situation thwas monitored' y a guard.th badg personnally recognized the individe guard indicated that he Een bother them by asking to see th i uals and did not want to e r badges.
(See Notice of Violation
,
i
'
Item 12)
,
.
MhTiON
\\
'
,
16 -

-
m _.1-q {'_ ) h N M l I U
\\
n
.
-
I
- _ - - -
.
..
..1
.m %
-
..
.
e
.
,.
on'
~ During an "offsite" audit 1976, re conducted probles. preventatives of the license.during December Their corrective action dide had identified h.
, QSP-5 require thatSection IV.C of the securit not prevent recurrence.ar simil y plan and Section C.2.c (3)(f)
,

..
.
,of.
issued visitor badContrary to the above, on M
~
s but were n,ot required tay 3 '1977,[tw nopectors were Two NRC security in Cities gatehouse onspectors, initially arri They received authorization May 3, '1977, 'at approximatelved atlthe Q to enter the protected ar ea and completed'the requ numberedvisitorbuttonhandthnatio cer.
emescortedtothe)erv[icece
. Building.
n or-They were not required to the abov)e procedure.
rior to entering the protect d L
welk through{ '
e It should be area as required by noted that QSP 5 at Sections C 2 C.2.c. (2)(e) specifies ~ th at!p At irregular intervals
..c. (1)(e) and authorization proceduresof " irregular intervsis"
...." There is, however, no menti E.
connection with "Visitore" ac
on" SL*!!Lu n i,c a, t,Lipa,s,,,,hty, pig
.
\\
cess-
_
Sections IV.1.2.b and IV C C.I.a.(1) of QSP-21 require thof the suurity plan and
\\
.
at the)
ction thatthfContrary to the above, int
.
.
erviews with muard force per
=

sonnel showed s
,
..
.. _...... _ _
Cities Stationon may 4,1977, the NRC inspector c
.
..
...
. _ _ _ _ _.
have headings e,ntitled " Radio ChSecurity Material Transfe
-
r reports.
eck" and "Tel Check." These forms The security Dai :..........
I
- 17 -
.
- - _ _
._-L-_----.--_----__
. _ -.. _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ - - -
.1
- -
<
.
.g.-
,
..
.h
..
,

'-**
pd 0. 7 0....
a ine-
_. - -
.
force supervisor explained thes
'
Check":
" intercom radio" to the controltests of guard force port (1)' " Radio inter-plant telephone system at room;- (2). "Tel Check":e radios an lif ting the receiver and hearin the alarm console accompa test of the'
!
the test requirements for the telephone as ou.g a' dial tone ' 'fhis doe lished'by Further -interviews with other
'.
!
for comp,leting the " Quad-Cities Stlined in QSP-21.
et guard force personnel, responsibl Reports" indicated that tests

tat yn Security Material Tr e
of thef ansfer (See Notice of Violation Item 16)
,
8.
t Detection Aids j
a.
,
protected by an electronic intrSectionIII.Cre
)
e
!
detecting attempted penetratio ) n alarm systemro usio
\\
ns capable of Contrary to the above,
1977, in that the NRC 1nspectorcapable of de cir_cumvempted penetrations on May 2
.
zones 1, 6,14, and 19.
A test of th ted the system at l
,
'
alarm systemj(licensee's protected aga perimete
1977.
j sensor and a check of the abilitThe test consiste r intrusion detect possible intruders 6y of eachor operability of each NRC inspector monitored alar 41ern some to unning, walking or crawlich O the gatehouse and the other
zone (except a portion of ne tes ich was in the access betweenalong the protected area $one 7 n
barrier.
'
licensee. inspectors by means of portable radios Cosununication was maintain
,
rovided by the The test for operability of tested sensors were operati each sensor showed that all tests, spec' ifically crawlinng properly.
inspector wasentirely capable of detecting attg, showe However penetration at the following locations:able to penetrate the alarm sy empted penetrati_ons.
The NRC stem
cn 18 -
-
_...-
v
& h
..
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
..
.
o
-
..
.,
..
v
+4k x

o Zone 1:
g. _..,.
-
' ' ~ ~
the infrared beam adjacent t Itanchion which faces south and up an o the sensor immediately south of the gat hzone c ncline.
This rrier (fence).
Zone 6:
e ouse.
the protected area barrierithe infrared b the northwest corner of south of the northern most sensor st,approximately30J.ee r
$
Zone 14: [
_ anchten.
the infrared bea penetrate the system because' inspect
,
The
\\
orner r
'
to.
i
'
'
"where large steelThe point of penetration was most severe point of erosionplates had been installe
,
at an area Zion 19: {e
.
e-

south protection area barrierthe infrared be

.
'
ocations along the able to
\\
The inspect;or was (
.
NOTE:
Each penetration was (
of the licensee's security foobserved and verified by a i
,
rce.
(See Notice of Violation member
, Item 2)
i JanuaryDuring a physical protecti
}
,
21-23, 1976, one alarm zone was successfully cir
!
vented and the Itcensee on
'a s cited for noncompliance.
test of the alarm system oRecords and interview cum-(
.
'
n March 6,1976, security guard tions and reported this unsuccessfully penetrated t
.
I y
arm system in Officer.
s writing to the Station Securita number of loc Records also showed that d y
the licensee's Corporate Se uring a tut by representatives of 23, 1976, the sys curity Organization on September eight alarm zones, tem did not detect attempted pe l
netrations in i

\\
"g%ff a
,,,,,mo
-
e
8'"**
s... w*
i
%
~~.,.~~

,,,
..
.
- 19 -
";"i, c. i murTW195filiEEETc
- - - - - - '
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - -
_
^eM,...
.
%s... _
-
.,
.
N]Ns
~~

b.
-
C.3.a. (3) of QSP-13 requiSection IV.C of ty plan and Sections C recorded in the Security Alar res that all alarm annun.2.g. (2) and.
I m Log.
ications be Contrary to the above in comparison w i
, a selective review certain alarms,ith the alarm console print outsof alarm
'
5, 15 occurrin Alarm, Log.20, and 30,1977, g on January 2, 3, 7 and 8, sh were not recorded on the Security,' Apri
tape but were not record dThe following ala
!
!
nted on the computer. print-out guards on the " Security Alara L
e in accord og," on the' dates indicated:a q
Qate, Line, i
1/2/77 M
'
1/2/77 0625 1/3/77 0828
\\
1/3/77 0444
.\\
1/3/77 1636
'
1/7/77 1638
(
1/7/77 1315
1/8/77 1316
!
1/8/77 1816
1 4/1/77 2124
!
4/5/77 0505
\\
4/5/77 0703
1 4/20/77 0357
4/20/77 0823
f 1318
(It should be noted that the presently i 10 )
\\
alarm has occured (time, dateation console i
e does print-out the' fact thatnstalle I
in red ink).
However alarm sone, and of the alarm nor does,it show this pr, int-out does not an the word " Alarm"
on the other hand, does providresult of that a what action' was taken as ashow on.
The (See Notice e for reco." Security Alare Log,"
,
i of Violatico. Item 13) rding this information. 4 9. Jeph
/
The barriers enclosing the monitored bybfrared devices inp otected area were not c 31, 1976 and April 23, 1977 (
that:
a period of 47 ' weeks), Zonebetween the of May i
one (1) cf
.
,
.1 2.t s u

a a,,, y 20 -
-
i O
AA* a
-
i nh%,
a
'l
.
.q
'
.
'
.

'
the system was inoperative b
'
_
and April inoperative for 17 of those23,1977 (a period of 19etwe weeks) alara Zone seven (
television monitors to sizone was not continuously
.
, 1976 weeks.
~ Additionally, the isolatio
.I eyed and displayed on sufficie t s
CCTV Camera No. ' 4 was inop multaneously view the entire z n
1977, the time lof this inspecti erable from January 1,1977 to A n
on.
.
one in that
'
interviews with guard forceThe above inoperab pril 27,
,
personnel, in addition tocurity sy the " Shift Officer's kg" i
Surveillance Test Checklist "
and the " Weekly Security Syst rough because reviews of also noted that durinof the extended periods of in The above were
.
used as examem Electronic and March, more than the months of Decemberoperability; however,ples t
on most days due to ift it wa
!
, January ercent of the alara zones a,is fFebruar.j that during thCommonwealth Edison Surveill unctioned
o zones out of(Qudit (Novemberance Au March 5,1977)
period of the Q parts.-
The'au it also noted, "At'no
, noted 13, 1977
-
'yere inoperable due to lack operational."
throu h g
T~ he audit,,,qoncluded:
[*~
"Ihe presenttime were all five'
of
'
made by plant management. conditions at Quad-Cit Jare not isble means {nder vint
'
on.'
u the Station Securfty OffiAlso, regarding the above s No response to the audit ertime was pecific instances, records to have been " closed out" bdirected at repairing t cer had initiated a number of showed that deficiencies.
not finally completed until apappears that althou proximately Aprilrequests" were issued, eted.
It November 10-12During a physical protectio
27, 1977 was i
1976, this situation was disn inspection conducte
.
the attention o,f plant ma during

alarm system e,guipment.was the inordinate delay enco na5ement.
Discussed during that inspcover untered regarding repair of'c review of maintenance recordsdelay was due Lo Station ection
!
ty to obtain replacementmanagemen ertain the{jarthwere going to be that the acquired from a, during that inspection, sh annagement said that the syst parts. A weeks."
April 23,1977.It was found that it had reem would be repaired "w source.
that new t
dated December 2(See IE Inspection Reportmained 50-265/76-25, i
n three
~
, 1976)
s No. 50-254/76-25 and i
.
-
,
-.-...y7 a b_w 21 0
' *

'
w..,..
>
'7

_ - - ------- -
.N

.
'
.
-
-.
..
-
-
.
~
...,,
,
The security plan at Sech
.
!
.
on III.C.3.d.3 i
showeJ~that the be noted that a selective r l
eview of records 10.
Response Procedures a.
Section IV.C of the'sec QSP-13 re.qu. ires that[ urity plan and Section C I
\\
_ _ _..
s
.
..
_of
$
Contrary to the above, a k
showed that on January 6(Security Alarm Logs selective examination-of re
-
,-
.{
1977, buses of alarms we,re, -12,: 1977
,
rs guards, and April nnel not determined,. aQaecurity-1,-5, and 2
,
A selective
-
for the months of January and Areview of the " Security s
five-day intervals.
pril 1977 at approximately43" wa response by guards toThe log indic ed several instances of no alarms, the
'3' These logs contained the follow information*
,
1anuary 6,1977
!
A1are
-
ca,use,: received at 0845 hours0.00978 days 0.235 hours 0.0014 weeks 3.215225e-4 months , Zone 4
"Ne Visible Cause, Possibl
,
tenance on Panel" Action Taken:
y main-
{
January 11, 1977
" Surveyed and Left Red" t
Ma3 received at 2215 hours0.0256 days 0.615 hours 0.00366 weeks 8.428075e-4 months , Zone 15 Quee,:
"No A
Action Taken:pparent Cause"
.
January 12, 1977
" Surveyed and Lef t Red"
'
Alag l
-
Ca,use: received at 1532 hours0.0177 days 0.426 hours 0.00253 weeks 5.82926e-4 months , Ione 3.
"No Visible Casse" Et1on Taken:
~
April 1, 1977
"Sur A_lare veyed and Left Red"
-
Qu,se: received at 1515 hours0.0175 days 0.421 hours 0.0025 weeks 5.764575e-4 months , Zone 15.
"No Visible Cause -
)
Action Taken: sun shining on it" _ probably

i
'
'
" Surveyed and Left Red"
's
.
i 4 *. * * ' 9,* f
-
,...m
.ni. i O e,,,,
,
I
,
__r...,.....--,,........--'
'
.
,
- 22 -
I
"' W ',l T_
s-
-.____m
_,
,.m___
- - - - - ' ' " - - - - ' '
._ --
_ - - - -

. -
.~..u w
$rl 2. "? M 'i M a rice -
4 April 20, 1977
-
\\
Alarm received at 0141 hour0.00163 days 0.0392 hours 2.331349e-4 weeks 5.36505e-5 months 
-
,,
Cause:
Action Taken:"No visible Cause" s, Zone 19.
l April 20,1977
" Surveyed and I, eft Red" d
Action received 2346 hours0.0272 days 0.652 hours 0.00388 weeks 8.92653e-4 months 
-
!
cause:
"No Visible Cause, possibl Zone 15.
M malfunction" Action Taken:
e
'
that the records were accInterviews with gue
" Surveyed and Left Red" urate in that, on occasionsonito survey of the alarming sector would reveal but that because of e "

, al would not be made. the frequency of some alarapparent cause,
no (See Notice of Violation ms, responses
, Item 8)
b.
Section IV.C larm panel monitor in thethe security p requires tha control room on C.3.a en alarms are annunicated tehouse notify the of QSP-13
>
Contrary to the above, the NR day of the inspection, that[ C inspectors ob that alaras were invalid the control room was not notifiedser of invalid alarmsgroompersonnelconfirmed).
Further, guard force and c that the& control room isontrol alarm panelInterviews with guard force not notified activities, s(howed that station), and observation of th central al disclosed that the above prroom when alarms ouse o contact was made with the co eir inspection of April 26 room of invalid alarms is ed
'
ntrol for notifying the control (fifty parcent of the se,condary al 1977, the NRC inspectors obsered top D wasinthealarmmode3'!he the panel was normally res shif t engineer on duty statedarm erved that personnel tolpot monitor theconfirmed th),t it is et about once per shift.
,
that a
panel and to not receivepractice fo cation from the guard force r NRC inspectors observed appr oximate1yhOalarmegardinginvalidalarm which were not communicated NOTE:
(See Notice of Violation tothecontrolroom] annunciations
,
Item 15)
,
'
- 23 -
Par M it90(d)=tu _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
____
-
..

,
9+% *44- % w.tu-
'
%.
da:
11.
Exit Interview
.
.
.
......
Ihree of the inspectors /inv Station's mangement (denot d estigators site on May in Paragraph 1 as Footnotmet with m 13, 1977 e
and findings of of the These individuals were bri f the physical protection i investigation of allegation
.
e 1) at the nspection onlye ed on the scope s had not, at that time, been, as the The licensee representative regarding the items completed.
of noncompliance except for ths made

Paragraph 6.b - The Stati or rebuttal
,
that the described situhad been discussed during e following:
on Superintendent mentioned th the course of the insp at this Item for a long time.
ation -(janitors having He indicated ction.
Pa ragra.ph_6.f
p eys) has existed The Station Superintendent indicated not consider that this bring their private vehicleopinion, he considered should be item of noncomplithat he does ceptable togliev those individ weather conditions at that s into ance as, in his I
been initiated and tParagraph. 8.a - The repre time.)the protected area because of the uals to or near completion. hat the corrective actiosentatives men I
Paragraph 9 - The Statio n was eitherork orders had completed parts for the alarm systenswere still being encounte on a priority basis, as soo, but that the pregarding obtaining pr a
A meeting was n as possible.
arts would be obtainedreplacement Corporate management (denot dalso held with representati 13, 1977, the licensee on certainto discuss immedi in paragraph 1 as Footnotves of the license e
ate corrective measures to b included in an Immediate ADiscussed during this of the more significant idee 2) on May e taken by ction Letter dated May 19ng were the a.
Take immediate action to which were
, 1977.
of open vital area doorspositively controlled and a assure that access to vital a ction is taken to prevent r reas is
.
Actions, ecurrence
.
.
maintained.
)
Recordiof opid'336Fs~w~ill~bi
'
Q!
t,s & c'." :.?.:. ~ ~ m
~~ ~~ ~,....,,
.
- 24 -
.'
s
'T'aYt 0.7 h

- _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _
_
)
r

.
..
,
,
l
'
b.
'D Take appropriate actio idNEfM y~~
p%
n to In this assure that the regard 3re.reliab'le and eff corrected on a.. steps are the event portions ofsufficiently broad toprio is t
assure system defects and that the corrective-maintain high system reli b are the system are inop action erative, a ility.
In Action:
Contractor who install d Station will review th
"

e the T
_
improvement in reliabilit ystem att e Zion Nuclear Gen e similar
..
will be corrected on a priy and effectiveneQuad-Cities the gu fence.ard on special patrol isority ' asis..
System defects ss.
s As checking the protected arstated 'in l,'
c.
Take immediate action t aminimumheightofkightstore the protected area f ea o
Action:
ee t.
Al height of[l sections of protected ar ence to
'7 feet.
d.
Take immediate ea fen'ce are now a which cannot be 'determi action to minimum ned, are responded to iassure tha record maintained to
, the cause reflect this Action:
of'
response.
mmediately and a mined, a prompt response v11
\\
If the 1'b'e made. ~ause cannot be dete c
e.
inoperable open gate intake immediate action

o the protected area fassure that, in th access
/
control is exercised at the event of an Action:
protected area fenceIn the event of an ino opening. ence, positive access.
perable The licensee represent, a guard will be postedopen gate in the to control corrective actions would batives indicated manner.
site after issuance ofRepresentatives of that the e
accomplished in the above listed'
the Immediate Action Lthe RIII Safeguards appropriate
.\\
corrective etter toranch visited
!
actions were being take t
the ar.sure that n.
'
'
.
c*..,
- 25 -
4*.
a g
'
s i
attn-
_ _ _
- - --
-
- - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _
~

p'

.
!
.,
d a,
E Attending thisA third meeting w
,
Director office (eting was held on June 9 corporate me bn RI dencted represe,ntativ1977 at ere meeting w,ere:II and members in Paragraph 1 as F the RIII office es
\\
results of of (1) the of the licensee'.
the. s taff.
and (3) itemsthe investigatiallegations
Discussedootnote 3) 'a d s
of concern. on, (2) apparent itmade by former guarddu
n the
'
ems s and the of noncompliance
,
.
l
.i
!
d r
i
'I l
l
,
i l
' 26.
on
________._____o

v t e Inspection Report - Quad Cities - 1977014
80 \| 81 \| 82 \| 83 \| 84 \| 85 \| 86 \| 87 \| 88 \| 89 \| 90 \| 91 \| 92 \| 93 \| 94 \| 95 \| 96 \| 97 \| 98 \| 99 00 \| 01 \| 02 \| 03 \| 04 \| 05 \| 06 \| 07 \| 08 \| 09 \| 10 \| 11 \| 12 \| 13 \| 14 \| 15 \| 16 \| 17 \| 18 \| 19 \| 20 \| 21 \| 22 \| 23 \| 24 \| 25 \|
1977 Quarterly Integrated 1Q (0) 2Q (0) 3Q (0) 4Q (0) Assessments Mid Cycle End of Cycle 19(0) 36(0) 14(0) Security Operator Exams Emergency Planning Other

IR 05000254/1977014

Text

REGION III

Navigation menu

Search