IR 05000272/1991010

Partially Withheld Insp Repts 50-272/91-10,50-311/91-10 & 50-354/91-07 on 910401-05.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Mgt Support,Security Programs Plans & Audits & Protected Area Access Control of Personnel

ML20073M674
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	04/26/1991
From:	Albert R, Dexter T, Keimig R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20073M678	List: IR 05000272/1991010
References
50-272-91-10, 50-311-91-10, 50-354-91-10, NUDOCS 9105150353
Download: ML20073M674 (8)

Text

. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _.

.... _._

... __

___

~.__

_

..

... _.

M MC.?MATiOM

\\

~.'<'s fCi M

.

N'ypkKf"Eh U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

,

50-272/91-10 50-311/91-10 Report No.

50-354/91-07-50-272 50-311 Docket No.

50-354 DPR-70 DPR-75-License No.

NPF-57 Licensee: Public Service Electric and Gas'Comoany.

Facility Name:

Salem and Hope Creek' Generating-Stations Inspection At:

Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducted:

April 1-5, 1991 i

Inspectors:

O % 2 0 - f/

.

R. 'J.

Ibert Phfsic Security-Inspector

-

.

&n(&M date Ws/W L

T. W. 0~exter, Phykicp1 -Security inspector

/

fate Approved by:

/

~

/

4/26./f/

, gR. R. KMritig, Chief, -Sa feguarcs Section

_

cate Division of Radiation Safety and_Safeouards:

Inspection Summary:

Routine, unannounced-Physical Security insoection (Combined Inspection Nos. 50-272/91-10, 50-311/91-10 and 50-354/91-07)

Areas Inspected:

Licensee action on previously identified item and follow-up on actions taken in response to the findings :of the Regulatory Ef fectiveness-Review (RER) conducted on April _ 10-14,.1989; management support, security programs plans and audits; protected area physical barriers, detection and assessment aids; protected area' access control of personnel, packages, and vehicles: alarm stations and communications; testi.ng r

~snance and compensatory measures; security training and -qualifications'

l Results:

The licensee was in compliance with-NRC requirements in the areas inspected. However, one~ unresolved ~ item and-onelpotential weakness were identified in temporary licensee designated ' vehicles and protected area lighting, respectively.

~

i

.

91051503b3 910429

-@W i:

PDR ADOCK-05000272 t G

PDR

• jyj

..

.,-.

,

u.-.-.-.-

. - -.. -.

....... -

.

.. - -.

.

.

_

.

-

_

.

.

.

.

DETAILS 1.0 Key Personnel Contacted

Licensee and Contractor

J. Deckard, Security Supervisor

J. Fleming, Senior Staff Engineer / Audits

J. Hoffman, Security Supervisor M. Ivanick, Senior Security Regulator Coordinator

J. Loeb, Security Support Staf f Assistant-

R. Matthews, Program Manager, Wackenhut

P. Moeller, Manager, Site Protection

G. Munzenmaier, General Manager, Nuclear Services

M. Pastra, Licensing Engineer

D. Renwick, Nuclear Security Manager

i R. Savage, Lead Auditor

• B. Weiser, Security Senior Staff Engineer U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRCl

• S. Barr, Resident Inspector (Salem)

• T. Johnson, Senior Resident Inspector (Salem / Hope Creek).

• R. Keimig, Chief, Safeguards Section (Region 1)

,

The inspectors also' interviewed other licensee employees and members of the Wackenhut contract security force.

i

• Indicates those present at-the exit interview i

2.0 Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items

,

!

2.1 The inspectors reviewed the111censee's actions on the following I

previously identified item:

2.1.1 (Closed) UNR 50-272/90-23-01, 50-311/90-23-01 and l

50-354/90-19-01: During the previcus~ Physicalf Security I'

Inspection, the inspector determined that the caps on the fill'

L lines to the fuel oil tanks for the plant. diesel generators

'

were not adequately secured to prevent the introduction of contaminants into the tanks.

During this inspection, the

-

'

inspectors reviewed the corrective actions taken by the i

licensee. -The inspectors found the corrective actions to be L.

satisfactory. Therefore, this item is closed.

,

l l

l l

!

l

'

i f

l

,....

__

.

_

_

.-

.

.

. _ _

-

,-

_,.,...

.. _,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _

-

3.0 Follow-up on Regulatory Effectiveness Review (RER) Findings On April 10-14, 1989, the NRC conducted a Regulatory Effectiveness Review (RER) at the Hope Creek Station.

The report of the RER findings was transmitted to the licensee on April 26, 1989.

On June 19, 1989, the licensee responded to the RER findings by letter and cutlined those actions already taken and proposed to correct potential weatnesses that were identified.

During the regional security inspection concucted-November 13-17, 1989, the inspectors reviewed the licensee's corrective actions completed to that time. During this. inspection, the inspector reviewed the status of the licensee's action on the items which remained open.

3.1 Following are the results of the inspector's review of several of the licensee's actions that remained open at the conclusion of Combined Inspection Nos, 50-272/89-22, 50-311/89-24 ana 50-354/89-19, conducted on November 13-17, 1989.

3.1.1 Section 2.2.1-Findina 5 Ti:S P/EGMPH CO.WCS SAFEGG.33 IsfaE'H!El I.hD 13 NOT FOR PC5!!C E!33SEE, !T IS l.iiTEiliiOELLY EFT UM

_

The inspectors tested this zone during the inspection.

No deficiencies were noted.

Therefore, this aspect of Finding

{.

5 is closed,

-

i;;;S FAr.l,TJ7 Cf:.Xi3 CAFESUlM3 13r:E".i;;.'.

.' NOT FOR PllBilt 0lSCH...:. 'I 'S I:;T:ZiOHLLY LEfi LM1

.

The 1,spectors reviewed the licensee's corrective u.tions during this inspection.

No deficiencies were noteu Therefore, this aspect of Finding 5 and the Regur. I inspectors' findings are closed.

J

. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _

l

._

-

.-

_ _

..

_ _

.

_

.

____.._

- _

_

l

i

!

TI'l$ PAP,AGRAPH CONTAINS SAFEGUA!1DS L

IHF0FIAi!03 IFJ IS NOT FOR PUBLIC

,

DISCLOSE.i,11 IS INTENil0NALLY

!

LEFTPLAMK.

!.

!

This aspect of Finding 5 will remain open'until the IDS is

installed and reviewed during a subsequent inspection.

'

3.1.2 Section 2.2h PCBMPH CMS MGM

12FOR!.:A!!03 /ED IS NOT FOR PU6ll0.

EiSCl0SURE, IT IS INTENil0NAllY..

Licensee Ac M n0l d,

i 11'l3 PGMRAPH C0XTAlWS SAFEGUARDS -

ITr.n!!21 AND IS NOT FOR PUBLIC

,

!ilSCLOSU2!, IT IS INTEWil0NALLY :

ThelihkebsbegunupgradingtheCCTVsinphases, i

This item will remain open until the final phase is completed I

and reviewed during subsequent-inspections.

3.1,3 Section 2.3.2

!

i}lls Pf2AGRAPH CONTAlHS SAFEEUA3DS

!

I;E7.MA!!0!I AND IS N01-FOR PUBLIC l

DISCLOSti?,E,11 IS INTENil0NALLYi

LF.FTBLAMX.

During this inspection,~the: inspectors reviewed the-Iicensee's

-

-

- corrective actions..No c'iscrepancies'were identified.

.'

Therefore, this< item =is closed.

' 4c0' Management Suoport, Security Program Pla'ns and Audits-

4.1 Mar,aaement Support - Management support for the licensee's pnysical security program was determined to be active and effective by-the

!

inspectors.

This determination was. based upon the licensee's-j

-

f i

.

v w

,

y

~ <

=y-

< - +

.-e

+,

y,

,,

e. w ev > 4 e

a-yv. s.

v - v a-w e-r<s,-.-#,e

-

. _ _ _.___.. -. _ _..

_.. _.. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _..,

,

l

{

.I J

.

proactive approach in dealing with issues impacting security, the

'l

{

various aspects of the licensee's program as documented in this D

report, and the licensee responsiveness to potential weaknesses

{

identified during this inspection.

!

4.2 Security Program Plans - The inspectors verified that changes to the

'

,

!.

licensee's contingency and guard training and qualifications plans,1

!

as implemented, did:not decrease the effectiveness of.the-respective:

plans, and had been submitted in accordance with NRC requirements.

'

However, the licensee's_ practice, as discussed.in Section 6.3, tin

.

i

. handling temporarily designated, vehicles did not appear to be-

-

consistenC with the NRC-approved Physical Security Plan-(the Plan),

- i

.-

!

4.3 Audits-The inspectors' reviewed the 1989-and 1990 Annual Security =

~

l Program. Audit Reports and: verified that the audits had been conducted i

in accordance with the. Plan, The e tits were comprehensive in~ scope-

,

-

with -the results - reported to= the apropriatel levels' of management. -

i The inspectors' review included the response oflthe security organi-

.

'

zation-to the audit recommendations and the corrective actions"taken.

The corrective actions appeared appropriate for the-recommendations.

-

No deficiencies were~noted.-

!

.

{

5.0 Protected Area Physical Barriers, Detection' and Assessment Aids

!

9'

5.1 protective Area Barriers - The inspectors conducted a physical!

'

-

inspectior of the Protected: Area (PA) barriers on = April 1,1991.

!he inspectors determined, by observation, that the barriers were

'

,

installed and-maintained as described in the Plan.

No discrepancies J

,.

were'noted.

'

,

.

$-

5.2 Protected Area Detection Aids -'Thelinspectors' observed the PA

!

!

-

. perimeter detection aids on April 3-4,.1991, and det' ermined that-

!

-

i they were installed,. maintained and operated as-committed to in the

~

'.

Plan.

-

,

L

!

!

L i!P3 N30Wil 00hTA!ilS SATEEM a

L-lE'ETON AND 13 hai FOR PilBUC i-DISCLOSWE, IT IS INTENil0NAl.l.V; LEFT BLAMK.

.

"

h o

i-

.

.

,

l-5L3-Isolation Zones --The inspectors verified that-isolation zones werei i

adequately maintained to permit = observation of~3ctivities on-both

'l

-

'

sides of the PA barrier.

No discrepancies were noted, i

d

t

'?

. _._

_ _.___

.. -. _.

_.. _ _. _

-. __

. _.

.

_

_ _. _

.

.

d

i

.

'

5.4 Protected Area and Isolation Zone Liohting - The inspectors

!

conducted a lighting survey of PA and isolation zones on April 2, i

1991.

The inspectors determined, by' observation, that the lighting f

was adequate, g

ti"3 PAWA?ll CMAlWS SAFEGUA3DS i

1%3AilCN AND 13 NOT FOR PUBUC DISCLOSURE, li IS INTDiil0 NAUT itFT BLAM.-

,

,

The licensee ' committed-to review this matter and take corrective action.

This matter will be reviewed during a. subsequent inspection.

)

'

5.5 Assessment Aids The-inspectors observed the PA perimeter assessment aids and determined that :they wereigenerally, installed, maintained, i

and operated as committed to:in the blan, except. as-noted in j

Section 3 l.1 of this report, e

.

6.0 Protected Area Access Control of Personnel, packages'and Vehicles

.

!

6.1 Personnel Access Control - The inspectors. determined that theLlicensee

}

was exercising positive control over personnel. access into the -PA.

This determination was based on the following:

,

}

6.1,1 The inspectors verified that-personnel are tproperly identified -

<

and authorizationLis checked prior to issuance of badges and

-

key cards.

No discrepencies were noted.

-

j-6.1.2 The inspectors verified that the licensee has a' programLto l

confirm the trustworthiness and reliability of~ employees.andi

-

contractor persornel.

No' discrepancies-were noted.

,.

,

l-6.1.3 The inspectors verified that the licensee hasias searchipr'ogram,.

~

i as committed to in1the Plan,= forf firearms, explosives,- incendiary-l devices-and.other unauthorized matertals.. Thel inspectors observed -

i personnel access processing duringi-shift! changes, visitoriaccess i

processing during shift changes,-and interviewed members.of the-

'

securityJforce and licensee's security staf f fabout -personnel-

)

a: cess = procedures.. No discrepancies were noted.

e

,

!-

6.l.4 The inspectors determined,tby--observation, thatLindividuals'in

-

Lthe PA and VAs display their access badges as required. !No-discrepancies were'noted..

- *

-

6.1.5= The ' inspectors verified that the-licensee has = escort -procedures

'for visitors intoithefPA.and.VAs.

Nofdiscre'pancies'were notedi

'

r

!

it

+

f i

!

-

I

'

i '.

- r

.

?

'

i _,..

o-

.

.

.

....

.

...

_ _

..

_

-

_

_

- -

. _ _

_ _. _. _. _ _._ ___ _ _

- l

.

i

.

!

.[

6.2 Package and Material Access Control - The inspectors. determined that the licensee-was exercising positive control over packages and material-l that are brought into the PA at the main access portal.

The inspectors t

reviewed the package and meterial control procedures and found-that l

they were consistent with commitments in_the Plan.

The. inspectors l

also observed package and material processing and interviewed members-

.

of the security force and the licensee's security staff about package.

and material control procedures.

No discrepancies were noted.

2

,

6.3 Vehicle-Access Control - The inspectors determined that the licensee properly controls vehicle access to_and within the PA.

The inspectors-verified-that vehicles are properly authorized prior to being allowed

f to enter the=PA.

Identification is verified by the SFM at the vehicle

!

access portal.

This procedure is consistent with the commitments in

the Plan. The' inspectors observed vehicle processing and search,

inspection of vehicle logs, and interviewed members of the security force and licensee's security-staff about vehicle searchiprocedures.

e l

The inspectors also reviewed the vehicle search' procedures and determined that they were consistent with commitments in the Plan, i

l MS PARAGPJ.PH CONTAllis SAFEGUARDS

IWF3?25TiOH AND IS NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE,11 IS INTENil0NAllY-

,

IER B!AHL

1.

'

.The licensee agreed to submit a plan change.to_ reflect: current =

-

-practices in regare to temporarily designated vehicles, This is an-i unresolved item (UNR 50-272/91-10-01, 50-311/91-10-01, and 50-354/

91-07-01), pending further review'by the NRC.

l 7.0 Alarm Station and-Communications The inspectors observed the operation of the Central ancLSecondary Alarm

'

!

Stations-(CAS and SAS) and determined they.were maintained and;operatedLas committed to.in-the-Plan.

CAS and SAS operators'were interviewed by the

-

in:pectors.andLfound to be knowledgeable'of f heir _ duties and responsibilities, t

i-The inspectors verified that the CAS-and.SAS'did not contain-any operational.

. t activities.that would interfere with the assessment and response functions.

'

-

No discrepancies were noted.

..-

!

.

.

e t-Q, w.-

ren-e.,.vs e n-w en.n,ps-+.,-

-,wv A m,, -

w s

-

.-

-.

_

-

-

.

!

i i

!

8.0 Testing, Maintenance and Compensatory Measures

!

The inspectors reviewed the testing and maintenance records and confirmed

,

i that the records committed to in the Plan were on file and readily i

available for licensee and NRC review.

The station'provides dedicated I

instrumentation and controls (!&C) technicians to-conduct preventive and corrective maintenance on security equipment. A check of repair records

.

indicated that repairs, replacements and testing is being accomplished in

a timely manner.

No discrepancies were'noted.

,

i The inspectors also reviewed the licensee's use of compensatory measures t

and determined them to be as committed to in the Plan.

No discrepancies-

were noted.

9.0 Security Training and Qualification

The inspectors randomly selected and reviewed the training and-qualification r

records fer 12 SFMs.

The physical and firearms quali'fication records for

'.

those SFMs were also inspected.

In addition, the inspectors randomly

selected and reviewed the medical' qualification records for seven SFMs.

The SFMs selected were armed guards and supervisory personnel.

No

'

discrepancies were noted.

On April 4,-1991, the inspectors reviewed aLportion of an_ initial firearms

i training class which was conducted at the licensee's-firing range.

The i

inspectors verified, through observation, that the training was conducted in accordance with the Plan.

However, the. inspectors noted that the students had a tendency to point their weapons behind the firing line when drawn' from the prone position. This matter was discussed with the licensee.

.

The licensee agreed to look into the matter and take corra t've action.

!

10.0 Land Vehicle Bomb Contingency Procedure

,

i Ouring Combined Inspection Nos, 50-272/89-22, 50-311/89-24 and 50-354/89-19,

-

i the inspectors inadvertently excluded the results of_their review of the

licensee's land vehicle bomb contingency procedure from the-inspection

)

!

report.

During this inspection, the inspectors conducted another-review

'of the procedure The licensee's procedure details short-term actions

'

thct could be taken to protect against' attempted radiological sabotage i

'

involving a land vehicle bomb if such a threat were to materialize. The.

procedure appeared adequate _for its intended' purpose. No discrepancies

were noted.

,

,

31.0 Exit-Interview

i The inspectors met with the licensee representatives indicated in section-1.0.at the conclusion of the inspection on April 5, 1991, At that time, the purpose and scope for the' inspection:were reviewed and the findings

>

were presented.

The' licensee's committments, as documented _in this report,_

'

'

)

were reviewed and confirmed with the ' licensee.

q

.

~,

--

- - - -

e

,

<.w,v

,m.

,,ry

,v--3 y

- -, -,

,,4--"t

- * * * "

• • t#

-