IR 05000271/1989008
| ML20246N156 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/28/1989 |
| From: | Dexter T, Keimig R, Lancaster W, Sylvester E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246N139 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-271-89-08, 50-271-89-8, NUDOCS 8907190309 | |
| Download: ML20246N156 (17) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ _ _ - __ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ pi.RE7Irt.IDYrli h g.
' 5" ' te. & w d Ya., ' ~
l{Utd) f(.SIGmiem3) g g W g ., _ _ , e.a o %lIM: RCGiow.L ' 7- /Off '"gnw.., '"W
- .,. j oRGt.im.!ami) - .Dirs) ( ,, .. . , U.S. N CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
' Report No. 50-271/82-08 D:cket No".
50-271' ~ License No. DPR-28 , ' ,L*censee:. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation _ , Fa cility. Name: !Wrmont Yankee Nuclear Power Station
.w iIrspection At: Vernon,. Vermont Ir spection L Conducted: May 15-19, 1989 ^
- o
. Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Physical Security ?I.y spectors: 4/29 MRd " a- , . .< " W. K.. Lancaster, Physical Security Inspector ' date.
h, S }g/q 9
y E. D. Sylvester, Senior Reactor Engineer, ' da t'e LPhysical. Security 4??4~- l W/* l ._ T. W. Dexter, Physical Yecurity Inspector - dste '
Approved byi _e - 4-/# #9 - E. R. Keimi W f /, Safeguards Section . date.
K Division of ram 4 tion Safety and Safe. guards Irspection Summary: Routine, Unannounced Physical Security (Inspection
- Report No. 50-271/89-08)
y ' Areas' Inspected: Management Support, Security Program Plans, ar.d Audits;
- Protected Area, Access Control and Vital Area Physical Barriers, Detection and LAssessment Aids; Protected, Access Control and Vital Area Access Control of
< Personnel,- Packages and Vehicles; Alarm Stations and Communications; Power Supply;. Testing,. Maintenance and Compensatory Measures; and Security Training ! and Qualifications.
8907190309 99o732 gDR ADOCK 05000271 p'[ PDC , .h J ' ^ ~ . _ _ _. _ _. _. _ _ _.. _ ~ -. _ - _ - - - _ - - - - - - - -
-... _ _ - _ - _ -, _ - . . . .. h Results: The licensee was found in noncompliance with.the NRC-approved P.mysical Security Plan in the areas.of Protected Area Assessment and Detection Adds, Protected and Vital Area Physical Barriers, and Access Control of Pa:kages into the Protected Area.
, L , ' m_-_-_-_-_-- __ - - - -
_- - ,
. , , ,
DETAILS 1.
Key Personnel Contacted Licensee and Contractor Personnel
- J. P. Pelletier, Plant Manager i
i
- R. D. Pagodin, Technical Services Superintendent
- J. B. Sinclair, Plant Services Supervisor
- J. M. Moriarty, Security Supervisor
- R. B Putnam, Access Control Coordinator
- R. P. Grippardi, Quality Assurance Superintendent
- S. A. Wender, Instrumentation and Controls (I&C) Engineering Assistant
- M. Watson, Senior I&C Engineer
- C. B. Langmaid, Chief, Green Mountain Security Services (GMSS)
W Jacobson, Assistant Chief, Operations (GMSS) R. Laudry, Assistant Chief, Training (GMSS) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
- G. Grant, Senior Resident Inspector
- Present at the exit interview 2.
Management Support, Security Program Plans, and Audits Management Support - Management support for, and attention to, the a.
physical security program appeared to have decreased in certain This is based upon the inspectors' review of various aspects areas.
of the licensee's program, and the nature of the apparent violations and concerns identified during the inspection.
The inspectors observed that the licensee's physical security program has some notable strengths; however, it also has some weaknesses that are in need of attention.
The following are examples of program strengths:
- An excellent fixed lighting system;
- Large clear isolation zones and a higher than required Protected Area (PA) fence;
- Excellent security force training lesson plans that clearly incorporate the NRC-approved Vermont Yankee Security Plan (the Plan) implementing procedures;
- Training of security force members (SFMs) on an alarm station simulator; and, J
I
, -- .____-_ _-_ __ _ _ - _ _ _ - s
.. . ,. y ..., .
,
s -
- x
- ~
.
- Excellent communications between licensee. security supervision and the security-force contractor.
The following are exampl_es of weaknesses observed: , T93 FMAW.Fil CMTA!!lS SAFESi!ARDS-
' +- INIMET!CN MD 15 it0i TE PUBUC DISCLOSURE, li IS I!M10NAlif e - LEFT KA R.
- ._z . . . . ., The inspectors expressed the concern that, while scme aspccts of the . program ' appeared.to be performance-oriented and received approp'riate ~ management attention, some aspects, n'otably equipment and systems, have'been neglected.to the point that they are only~ marginally effective. The licensee indicated that all of the weaknesses ' identified during the inspection wculd be reviewed and assessed.
b.~ . Security program plans - The bspectors. reviewed the NRC-approved
security plan (the plan) ancl met with licensee representative:, to ' discuss.several inconsistencies in t.he plan. The following are some representative examples:
i l
l l T93 PGE!!/fil CEID!S SAFEBERDS !!!f0?EliCM 32 IS HOT FM RSU9 D!$0LOSEE, II 13 INTElmSEllY ' LEFT Bitsi - + , _ _. _ . . . _ _ _ _li_f.i_1_l ' _" 2"- __M.____ _2_.E_m _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ^ " " ' - ' ^ ^ " ' ' ' ' " * ' ' ' " ' ' ' ' ' - ' ' ' ' ' l
__ _- _ _ . . . _ _ _. - ____ _ _ . r n a
' e.q:
,. . m THis PLUDEPli CDUA!!!S SAFEMAiBS-Eif0fMAI!0W A!G IS EDT FOR PSilG DISCLOS! IRE, IT 13 IU3fl0NALLV LER BLAK wJ
- The'~ licensee committed to review the. Plan and correct-any inconsistencies s'.
Audits The inspectors reviewed the 1988 and.1989 annual security, c.
program audit,' conducted by the Quality Assurance (QA) organization,; and verified ;that'the audit had been conducted in accordance with the Plan.. The, inspectors noted that there were no! major adverse findings, concerns or recommendations made in the official trans-mittal of'the. audit report.
Apparently, the QA auditors found all aspects of the' security program to be satisfactory;.a few minor-discrepancies were noted.
Based on the inspectors'~ findings during ~ .this inspection, the inspectors questioned the depth and thoroughness of the-audits and/or the security expertise possessed by the.
. a uditors.' The licensee agreed'to evaluate the inspectors' concern in this area.
The licensee's audit program will be reviewed further during the next inspection.
'3.
Protected and' V' ital Area Physical Barriers Detection and Assessment Aids Protected Area Barriers - The inspectors conducted a physical a.
inspection of the PA barrier on May 15, 1989.
IMS FlilADMNi CONA!E SATEW53 Ni0ff f3! M M 3 IS EDI FEi FLE IG 0!M0!THE, li 13 lii!IUMl?d)V LER BLA K d i 'The inspectors reviewed the Plan and found the following require-ments: . !
_ _:. ...... __ _ _ -. _. - ~ - - - - - - - - - , . _. _ _ _ m= _ _ _ -
g.
,. - -- - - . , . (" O
' 4,.y ,5 - ": -
, , 1' '+',
. n, Tfil5 PGAggtig c0gipts SAFEEUMBS . (HiOFSTDH MD IS HOT FOR PBLIC DISCLOS1!iiE, IT IS lilTEllTIOMLLI e ' , LM BLAE - - i :. The inspectors determined that the' licensee's.: failure to comply with commitments.in the Plan is an apparent violation of NRC requirements l' - (50-271/89-08-01)'. .g b.
Protected Area Detection Aids -iThe inspectors. tested the PA~ _ perimeter intrusion detection system (IDS) on May 15,.'1989 THIS FMACRAPH CONTAltlS SAFEGilARDS INfBREAIGN MD IS NOT FOR PUBUC DISCl0SURE, li IS INTENil0NALLY LEFTBLAK i j None of the above mentioned areas had been identified as being deficient by the' security force during the 7-day functional-tests of the PA 105.
The inspectors reviewed the Plan and found the following require.- ments: i I'33 hf.)tfb!Niht bb ,
isGPEAlis Mil IS NOT IDR PUBLIG DISCLOSURE,11 IS liiTENTIONAllir tm stag, ._a i , ! - -. _-- _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -
_ __ _- __________ _ _ _ L - ' ' lC'. _ ,.. t, i" , . Thefinspectors determined that the licensee's failure to comply with commitments'in the. Plan is an apparent violation of NRC requirements.
(50-271/89-08-02).
L Tilla FARA9PJ.Ps CONA!!!S SAFECI'AES. L liif0EATi3!i IG is RBI FOR POSilC- , Y - EISCLOSUP.E, II 13 lEEEl0HLL : LEFTBLAE Isolation Zones'- The inspectors verified that isolation zones ~were c.
very wel1 maintained and' free of obstructions.
d.- Protected Area and Isolation Zone Lighting - The in.spectors.
conducted ailighting survey. of-the PA and isolation. zones on May 15, 1989..:The inspectors determined by observation that lighting-in both the PA and isolation zones was' adequate.
, Assessment Aids'- The i'spectors observed the use of assessment .e.
n aids,.and other security equipment in operation'at the Central Alarm Station (CAS) both during the hours of darkness on May.'15, 1989, r ; ' during daylight hours on May 16, 1989.
The inspectors found th.c-several portions of.the PA barrier and associated isolation zones could not be adequately assessed.
I0l3 EWEEAPd 0j)ififE5 $Jg!!jgg InICWhT3 IM 15 ROI FOR FELig El0Simf,1113 DiHHH00RV - IIFT Btm.
-- - - -- = _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _._ :: - -
[- -- - - - - ., i ,. ,
IES Ff2JSPMil EDESIS SAIEE0E00I girs; TRIM MD 151:0T FOR PUBUG DISCLOSURE,11 IS MST10EV , ... wd (ggy gg < The inspectors reviewed the Plan and found the following requirements: b ??IU,[[{f}} ["m~?l% ShiiRRRDS IGUM;;9y gy N IEEEIs~ t!stlogpr [[ggf'IIE'IUIIW152Qs j - ---_ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - ^ ' - ' - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-__ _ - -. " o ~
- .
- w _g . . . f.
' Vital Area Barrier - The inspectors conducted a physical: inspection n of vital area-(VA) barriers on May 17, 1989.
T}li$ PAM3AN) CDMA!ss SAFEGL'lJ2S Enil,Aii3 AH IS liDI FOR PilBUS DISCL0SimE, IT IS IEEllil0llELIr LEFT BLAK ud The inspectors reviewed the. Plan and found the following' require-ments: This PM2EAM CMi!!NS SAfEMMEDS- !ODEIDM MG 15 RLII FOR FE8.
Distt0!iEE, li IS !MEhTIGEUJr ., LEfi BtAK . ad The inspectors' determined that the licensee's failure to comply with commitments in the Plan is an apparent violation of NRC requirements
- ~
(50-271/89-08-04).
g.
Access Controlled Area Barriers - The inspectors conducted a physical inspection of access controlled area (ACA) barriers on May 17, 1989.
zg3 pApfanMI COMkms thfEGAES gggpyntml Da IS HOT f0R PUEIC mstLO$USE,11ISIMEEIONElI LEfiElfE The licensee agreed to assess these areas and take appropriate corrective measures as required. The licensee's actions to resolve these concerns will be reviewed during the next inspection.
h.
Vital Area Detection Aids - The. inspectors observed and witnessed testing of the VA intrusion detection aids and determined that they were installed, maintained and operated as committed to in the Plan.
_ -. - _. _ - _ _ - _ - _ - _ ___L_ L __ -_ . _ _ - _ - - - ' _
-.-_ _ _ _ - - - - _, - _ - - _ _ - _- _ . _ _ _ _. - _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ - _ -. ____ y w <. .4 protected Area, Access Control. and Vital Area Access Control of Personnel, Packages and Vehicles Access Control of Personnel.- The inspectors' determined that the a.
licensee was exercising positive control over personnel access'to-the PA, ACAs and VAs. This determination was based on.the following: The' inspectors verified, by ob'servation, that personnel'are properly F . identified and authorization is checked prior to issuance of badges and key-cards.
The^ inspectors verified that the licensee has a fitness-for-duty L' program in place. A drug testing program has been implemented and ' individuals are tested as follows: . All prospective. licensee employees who would be assigned to'the
plant are tested prior to employment;. , , S, All consultants and contractors must certify to the licensee
that-their employees have been ~ drug tested;
- .
Testing for cause.
The inspectors noted that the testing program'does not include annual-testing of licensee, consultants or contractor. employees who have-access to pas, VAs and ACAs at the. station.
There is no random testing at the present~ time because the State'of Vermont prohibits such testing.
The inspectors verified that the licensee.has.a search program, as committed to in the Plan, for firearms, explosives, incendiary devices and other unauthorized material.
The inspectors observed plant personnel and visitor access processing several times during the inspection, and interviewed members of the security force and the-licensee's security staff regarding personnel access procedures.
'The inspectors determined, by observation, that individuals in the PA and.VAs display their access badges as required.
The inspectors t rified that the licensee has escort procedures for visitors to the Pa and VAs.
The inspectors verified, by a review of security procedures and records,'that the licensee has a program to confirm the trustworthiness and reliability of employees. This program includes checks on employment history, criminal history, and a physical examination.
x- _r--_-____-L--_= - - - - - - -
l5 ' ,. . <. ". , . l The inspectors reviewed the procedures for the control of security.
locks and keys, and determined that they were consistent with commitments in the Plan.
The. inspectors also-reviewed the PA, ACA and VA key inventory legs, and discussed lock and key control procedures with members of the security force and the licensee's security staff. No deficiencies were identified.
, The inspectors verified that the licensee has provisions for expediting prompt access to vital equipment during emergencies, and l that the. provisions are adequate f'r that purpose.
The inspector $ verified that unescorted access to VAs is limited to authorized individuals. The VA access list is revalidated at least once every 31 days as committed to in the Plan.
1m3 ptERAPB CBMA!dS SAIEMAES girny.gis ED IS liOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE, li is IEENTIONAllY LEFT BLAE
q l l . _ .- ---
_--__----____J
-
-.-- - _ . . -
. ... 3p gl$ pff;M?.kP}} cagTAWS SHEM gent,Alisil fE is !!01 FOR PUBUG - l Disttos0RE, IT is INTEXT10MM ' L LUT BLAMX.
The licensee agreed to assess these matters.
This area will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
b.
Access Control of Packages - The inspectors determined that the licensee has a program which, if properly implemented, would - positively control hand-carried items that are brought into the PA via the main gatehouse.
The inspectors reviewed the search procedures for the main gatehouse and found them to be consistent with commitments in the Plan.
IIHs PEA 2APd 00VfA!!!S 5UE0M!25 lUDMi!M En G ir! FOR ragg tiStl0SUR li IS iniHM%lt LEfi f!t.fiX The inspectors reviewed the Plan and its implementing procedures and found the followino reovirements-il l P P M D :' ( k K ( 0 f $l y;Si g $ si.!*"Mf J E < J i P* iffy > - l!G.l% G i W a %;6 g, ilfl?llM - The inspectors determined that the licensee's failure to comply with the above requirements in the Plan and its implementing procedures is an apparent violation of NRC recuirernents (50-271/89-08-05).
I5S l'2I:E?iHi CQ!!!f,ldS $y[ggggg isiDBdlG IE IS EST FOR PUBUG DISCLOSURE, II IS Ilittygigggy, liffBLANK.
_, _, _ _ ..., _ _. _.. _ a____..-.-_-_ _ -. -- -.- - _ -. -
, - _. -_- ___ _ @l < ..q :y jg
. . . . 13.
>
- ? ?
. .4
' O ?I.IO?2il [C,Qfm$ $gggg , , ' WW2hDMI kB IS NOT in pg + / DISCLOSURE, II JS JgDgggyf- . LUT 8 TAR g , 'The licensee agreed to assess this matter. The inspectors considered the inadequate searches of packages and materials entering the PA~ to be an Unresolved Item (50-271/89-08-06).
Vehicle Access Control - The inspectors determined that' the licensee c.
properly controls vehicle access to and within the PA. The inspectors verified.that vehicles are properly processed prior to entering the PA. The process was consistent with commitments in the Plan. The inspectors also reviewed the vehicle search procedures and.
determined that they were consistent with commitments in the Plan.
This determination was made by observing vuhicle processing and search, inspection of vehicle logs, and by interviewing members of - the security force and licensee's security staff about vehicle processing and search procedures.
5.
Alarm Station and Communications The inspectors observed the operations of the CAS and SAS and determined that they were maintained and 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 SAS did not contain any operational activities that would interfere with the assessment and response functions.
TRS PAfthMAPi! CMIARS SMEBilABS. MGVAD% hG IS NOT TM FM tiSCLOSt2E, il 13 NEBB31F LITTMtR j . m,. _.-----u-- - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - -
- - - ._-- .- ._ -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ __ __ _ ___ - . _ - h . .. - w.
. '* .
,, TB3 PAuganni t0 gag 3 3fyggg3 EEUilidJDN IS IS 10T FOR Pmg ' USCESSE, II 15 l#TENilsg/ny I WT B!A#K.
. 1: li The licensee agreed to assess this area and to.take corrective actions as necessary. This area will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
The inspectors observed tests of all communication capabilities in the CAS and the SAS and reviewed the testing records for the communications channels. All were found to be as committed to in the Plan.
6.
Emergency. Power Supply , The inspectors verified that there are several systems (batteries, dedicated diesel generator, and plant on-site AC power) that provide backup power to the security systems.
The inspectors reviewed the test and maintenance records and procedures for these systems and found that they were consistent with the Plan. The diesel generator is located in a locked VA.
' The inspectors also verified that the door access control system for VAs-will permit emergency ingress and egress when the system's normal power is lost.
' 7.
Testing, Maintenance and Compensatory Measures The inspectors reviewed testing and maintenance records and confirmed that the records committed to in the Plan were on file and readily available for NRC review. The station uses experienced instrumentation and controls (I&C) technicians to repair / replace and test any security equipment which requires preventive or corrective maintenance. However, > a check of repair records for 1988 and 1989 indicated that repairs, replacements and testing were not being accomplished in a timely manner.
The inspectors also reviewed the 1988/1989 Quarterly Security Event Logs and the 1988/1989 Maintenance Work Request records.
- _ _ _ -- --_ -. ----- ~
,7-._
-
.. .. <.
103 FArs!&fal C0X1A!hs SArtat!AEH InTOTWJDN AKS IS ET FOR Pudit DiSCLOS!!RE, IT IS lhTEh710llALLY LEfiBLAK lhe licensee agreed to review the maintenance history for these components in an ef fort to determir e reliability of the equipment.
The licensee also agreed to assess the timeliness of their corrective maintenance program.
This matter will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
The ' inspectors also reviewed the licensee's use of compensatory security measures and determined that they were being implemented as committed to in the Plan.
8.
Security Training and Qualification Several SFMs were interviewed to determine if they possess the requisite knowledge and ability to carry out their assigned duties.
I!U3 E!IM EAf:1 ($jA32; !)J[[:[gf$ iUDM!M IM is EI fg pgg USCliiffif!E, II 13 isi!ETEi!!dir WT Blta _,sq;) . l - _ _- _____-_-_- _-_-__-_-__-_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - . _ _ - . _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _
_ , -- __ .- . _____ _ __ = m E : , U4 ' &l
,,: ' ^ ', , > 3- . . l $$[[ g ];gn.% - . . -- sgM .s It appeared'to'the inspectors'that a complacent attitude toward the ~ security program existed within the security force. Through interviews,= the inspectors-determined that this' complacent' attitude could be attributed to the lack of' adequate facii ctes-(gatehouse, p CAS), poor security systems (PA CCTV 105, etc.), and a lack of-management attention to correction of identified deficiencies.
.The, licensee agreeo.'to evaluate this matter.
This matter will be . reviewed.again during subsequent inspections.
The' licensee's contract' security force consists of thirty-six. security officers, eight supervisory personnel, one assistant chief - " (operations), and one Chief. (Project Manager).
In addition, the security. force has three full-time training-personnel. -The- , Inspectors verified that the armed response force. meets the . commitments in the Plan and that there is always one. full-time. member.
of the security organization on-site who'has.the authority to direct - securityiactivities.
[ IfI/Id!s . unan.fam$gyg . usesi m um man- > s
]j [ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _
= = = =
= = = = - '
_ - _ _ _ t t- . ..e o
17: Tm! PAUGU.Pil CONTA!KS SAFESUARf6 IWTCRVEIGN AH3 IS NOT FOR PDSLS DISCLOStiRE, II (S %TEhT0ELV LEFT BLAliX.
d The litersee agreed to evaluate this matter. This matter will be reviewed agair, during subsequent inspection.
On May 18, 1989, during a review of the licensee's Guard Force Training and Qualification (T&Q) Plan suitability records, proof of high school graduation or equivalency was not on file for one of the seven SFMs being examined by the inspectors.
Proof of high school graduation by this SFM was presented to the inspectors that same day.
However, the inspectors expressed a concern to the licensee over the guard force contractor's attestment that all conditions of employment are being met and documented as required in the licensee's T&Q Plan.
The licensee agreed to rr ciew this matter and committed to conducting a 100% audit of all.SFM suitability files to ensure that all conditions of employment are being met and documented as required.
This matter will be reviewed again during a subsequent inspection.
9.
Exit Interview The inspectors ett with the licensee representatives indicated in f aragraph I at the conclusion of the inspection on May 19, 1989. At the time, the purpose and scope the-inspection were reviewed and the findings were presented.
At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspectors.
l' ! l l l l f Lu - - - - _ _ - }}