IR 05000272/1993005
| ML18096B333 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1993 |
| From: | Albert R, Keimig R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18096B332 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-272-93-05, 50-272-93-5, 50-311-93-05, 50-311-93-5, 50-354-93-05, 50-354-93-5, NUDOCS 9303120008 | |
| Download: ML18096B333 (6) | |
Text
1-
.-
Report Nos.:
Docket Nos~:
License Nos.:
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMiSSION
REGION I
50-272/93-05 50-311193-05 50-354/93-05 50-272 50-311 50-354 DPR-70 DPR-75 NPF-57 Licensee:
- Public Service Electric and Gas Company Facility Name:
Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations Inspection At:
Hancocks Bridge. New Jersey Inspection Conducted:
February 1-5. 1993 Inspector:
hysical Security Inspector Approved by:
. R. Keimig, Chief, eguards Section Division of Radiation. afety and Safeguards 03-03 -93 Date J-4-9$
- Date Areas Inspected: Follow-up of Previously Identified Item; Management Support and Audits; Protected Area Physical Barrier and Assessment Aids; ProteCted Area Access Control of _
Personnel and Packages; Maintenance and Compensatory Measures; and Security Training and Qualification:
-
Results: The licensee's security program was directed toward public health and safety. No concerns or violations of NRC requirements were identified in the areas of the security program, that were irispected. However, the licensee has had recurring fitness-for-duty (FFD) program problems with (1) ensuring behavioral observation training for supervisors in a timely maliner, and (2) *ensuring *that personnel with infrequent unescorted station access meet required aspects of the FFD program. These matters were considered unresolved.pending subsequent revie PDR ADOCK 05000272 G
DETAILS Key Personnel Contacted Licensee R. Binetti, Psychological Servic:es Administrator J. Coeb, Security Support Staff Assistant R. Fisher, Screening Supervisor J. Fleming, Senior Staff Engineer - Quality Assurance (QA) Audits M. Ivanick, Senior Seeurity Regulatory Coordinator L. Krajewski, Site Access Administrator S. Mannon, Licensing and Regulation P. Moeller, Manager - Site Protection D. Renwick, Nuclear Security Manager M. Samuels, Medical Department Administrator R. Savage, Senior Staff Engineer - QA Audits C. Weiser, Senior Staff Engineer Contractor R. Matthews, Security Program.Manager, The Wackenhut Corporation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Couimission - Region I R. Keimig, Chief,.Safeguards Section K. Lathrop, Resident Inspector The *inspector also interviewed other licensee personnel and members of the contract *
seeurity force during this inspectio.0 Follow-up of Previously Identified Item
.
.
Unresolved Issue (URI) 50-272/91-10-01, 50-311/91-10-01; and 50-354/91-10-01: The licensee's handling of temporarily designated vehicles did not appear to be consistent with the wording in its physical security plan (the Plan). The resolution of this item was threefold: (1) the licensee was to revise its plan to reflect current practices in regard to temporarily designated vehicles, (2) the NRC was to review the revised plan to ensure that the language was consistent with current practice, and (3) the NRC was to make a determination on whether the licensee's practices met the spirit and intent of NRC regulations. The first and second items were completed. However, the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation still has the issue of temporarily designated vehicles under
. generic evaluation. Therefore, this unresolved issue is being administratively closed and will be tracked via the generic evaluation of the issue. The licensee will be notified of the NRC's position when the evaluation is completed..
.
3 Mana&ement Support and Audits 3.1 - Mana&ement Support
. Management support for the licensee's physical security program was determined to be good by the inspector. This determination was based upon the inspector's review_ of various aspects of the lieeilsee's program during this inspection, as -
documented iil this report. -_
- Audits*
The inspector reviewfd the annual security program audit report no.92-031 and verified that the audit had been conducted in accordance with the NRC-appi'oved physiCal security pla The-inspector's review found that the audit was comprehensive in scope and in-depth. The results of the audit were reported to the appropriate levels of management. There were four audit findings, but only
.one-appeared to be programmati That finding concerned personnel. with unescorted access who infrequently visited the statio.2.1 Personnel With Infreguent Station Access -
The audit identified that unescorted station access was not being revoked for non:..resident *personnel who did not access -the protected area over a 60-day *perio This finding, although captured under the security program, is a fitness-for-duty (FFD) program issue that was also identified in the previous program audit. The licensee's current corrective measure entails retrieving and assessing access data from the security computer every 30 days. _This matter appears_to be a problem in the FFD program for which the licensee had not implemented effective corrective measures. -
This_ matter -*is considered unre~olved pending review during in a subsequent inspection (URI 50-272/93-05-01, 50-311/93-05-01, and 50-354/93-05-01.)
3.2.2 Supervisory TrainiD&
The inspector also reviewed the most recent annual audit of the licensee's FFD program, QA Audit No.92-035, conducted March 2-13, 199 From the audit report, the inspector determined that the licensee had not trained 20 newly appointed supervisors, who had behavioral observation responsibilities, in a timely manner, i.e., within 3 months of appointmen ':fhis finding was also identified. in the li~nsee's previous annual audit
.*
--~---*----------------......,....------------
(no.91-035) and* indicates that the licensee's corrective measures in response to that audit finding were also not effective. *
The licensee's current corrective.measure is to provide a combined policy
.. awareness/escort/supervisor training course to.everyone with unescorted station acces This *corrective measure, whl.ch will be implemented through a complete cycle of annual requalification training, began on October 22, 1992. By the ~nd of October 1993, everyone will have been trained at the supervisory leve Since this c0rrective measure is *being implemented* as personnel cycle through annual requalification, a potential still exists for newly appointed supervisors not to be trained in a timely manner. Supervisory appointees who are in excess of 3 months of their requalification dates will have to.
be identified and trained until such* time as the requalification cycle is within* 3 months * of completio At the time of this inspection, the licensee had not implemented a* mechanism to accomplish thi This matter is considered unresolved pending review during a subsequ~nt inspection. (URI 50-272i93-05-02, 50-311/93-05-02,.and 50-354/93-05-02)
There were no other discrepancies identified in these area.0 Protected Area Physical Barrier and Assessment Aids Protected Area Barrier
.
.
The inspector conducted a physical inspection of the protected area (PA) barrier on February 1, 1993, and determined by observation that.the barrier is installed and maintained as described in the Plan. * Isolation Zones*
The inspector verified that the isolation zones were adequately maintained to permit observation of activities on both sides of the PA barrie * Assessment Aids The inspector observed the PA perimeter assessment aids and determined that they were installed and operated as committed to in the Plan. However, the*
assessment aids have aged to the point where aggressive maintenance support * *
appears necessary to keep them acceptable until the licensee physically begins hardware replacement in calendar year 199.4 PA and Isolation Zone Liehtine The inspector conducted a lighting survey of the PA and isolation zones on February 1, 1993. The inspector determined by observation that lighting in the PA and isolation zones was adequat No discrepancies were identified in these area.0 Protected and Vital Area Access Control of Personnel and Packaees Personnel Access Control
~ *
The inspector determined that th-e licensee was exercising positive control over personnel access to the PA and V A This determination was based on the following:
5.1.1 The inspector verified that personnel are properly identified and authorization is checked prior to issuance of badges and key-card.1.2 The. inspector verified that the licensee has a search program, as committed to in the Plan, for firearms, explosives, incendiary devices ~d other unauthorized materials. The inspector observed personnel access processing during shift changes, visitor access processing, and interviewed members of the security force and the licensee's security staff about personnel access procedure *
5.1.3 The inspector determined, by observation, that individuals in the PA and V As display their access badges as require.1.4 The inspector verified that the licensee has escort procedures for visitors in the PA and VA.2 Packaee and Material Access Control *
The inspector determined that the licensee was exercising positive control over packages and material that are brought into the PA at the main access portal and the recently implemented warehouse. The inspector reviewed the package and material control procedures and found that they were oonsistent wit]l commitments in the Plan. The inspectors also observed package and material processing and interviewed members of the security force and the licensee's security staff about package and material control procedure There were no discrepancies identified in these area * _ Testin&. Maintenance and Compensatory Measures
". The inspector reviewed testing and maintenance records and confirmed that the rec0rds committed to in the Plan were on file and readily availaple for NRC and licensee review. A check of repair records indicated that maintenance and testing were being accomplished in a timely manne * The inspector reviewed the licensee's use of compensatory measures. and determined them to be as committed to in the Pla There were no discrepancies identified in these area.0 Security Trainin& and Qualification The inspector randomly selected and reviewed the training and qualification records for eight security force members, including supervisory personne Their physical and firearms qualifications records_ were also inspecte There. were no discrepancies identified in this are.0 Exit Interview The* inspector met with. the licensee *representatives indl.cated in Paragraph 1. 0 at the conclusion of the inspection on February 5, 1993. At that time, the purpose and scope of the inspection were reviewed and the findings were presented.