IR 05000277/1986010

Physical Security Insp Repts 50-277/86-10 & 50-278/86-10 on 860401-02.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Locks,Keys & Combinations,Mgt Effectiveness,Training & Qualification & Followup on Allegation RI-86-A-0033

ML20195E861
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	05/28/1986
From:	Bailey R, Keimig R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20195E849	List: IR 05000277/1986010 ML20195E843
References
50-277-86-10, 50-278-86-10, NUDOCS 8606090251
Download: ML20195E861 (4)

Text

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

__

, ..

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

50-277/86-10 Report N /86-10 50-277 Docket N DPR-44 License Nos. DPR-56 Licensee: Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Facility Name: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Stat. ion, Units 2 and 3 Inspection At: Delta, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted: April 1-2,1986 Date of Last Phys' 1 Security Ins tion: November 25-27, 1985 Inspector: ! $h 8-28 date cfh R f J . ' Bai l ey , ,Kfs4 c31SecptyInspector

"/

Approyed by:

/ R

/. Be Keimi , Ch

. .

cp Safeguards Section,_

e J -2A-44 date Inspection Summary: Rour.ine, Unannounced Physical Security Inspection on April 1-2, 1986 (Combined Inspection Nos. 50-277/86-10 and 50-278/86-10).

Areas Inspected: Locks, Keys and Combinations; Management Effectiveness; Training and Qualification; status of inspector followup items; and followup on an allegation (RI-86-A-0033).

'1 Results: The licensee was found to be in compliance with NRC requirements in

,

the areas examined and the allegation was not substantiate !

8606090251 860602 7 PDR ADOCK 0500 ,

G I

!

.

'

..

DETAILS Key Persons Contacted D. Smith, Assistant Plant Manager J. Oddo, Nuclear Security Specialist S. Tharpe, Site Security Supervisor T. Johnson, Senior Resident Inspector, Region I The inspector also interviewed other licensee personnel and members of the Burns International security forc . MC 30703 - Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives listed in paragraph I at the conclusion of the inspection on April 2, 1986. At that time, the purpose, scope and results of the inspection were reviewe No written material was provided to the licensee by the inspector during this inspectio . MC 92702 - Status of Inspector Followup Items (IFIs)~

-

(Closed) IFI (50-277/85-02-01 and 50-278/85-02-01): Potential security weaknesses in the protected area barrier. On April 2, 1986 the inspector observed that the licensee had taken corrective action to eliminate the potential weaknesses in the protected area barrie (Closed) IFI (50-277/85-02-02 and 50-278/85-02-02): Surveillance test procedure ST.7.8.7 for perimeter detection aids. The inspector observed that'the licensee had revised ST.7.8.7 and that the surveillance tests were being conducted in accordance with the new procedur (Clc. ed) IFI (50-277/85-32-02 and 50-278/85-29-02): Permanent guard shelters. The inspector found that the licensee had procured and was using guard shelters for outside post ,

'(Closed) IFI (50-277/86-06-01): Procedure for implementing tne Training and Qualification Program. The inspector t'ound that the security force contractor had developed a comprehensive procedure to administer the training progra . MC 81046 - Locks, Keys, and Combinations

)

During this inspection, the inspector conducted a review of an allegation (RI-86-A-0033) received by the NRC Resident Inspector at Peach Bottom on March 20, 198 The alleger stated that there was a lack of adequate

. control over security keys and that, on March 12, 1986, security keys were left with an unauthorized person. The alleger also stated that plant personnel sometimes took security keys home accidentall ]

..

.

..

The inspector had conducted a review of the licensee's security key con-trol procedures during Combined NRC Inspection Nos. 50-277/85-37 and 50-278/85-38, conducted August 5-9, 1985, and no violations were identi-fied. The inspector again reviewed key control during this inspectio That review included the licensee's security incident file for the period

January 1, 1985 to April 2, 1986. The inspector found a report, dated May

"

10, 1985, that documented an incident involving security keys which were left in the custedy of unauthorized personnel. It appeared that, prior to May 20, 1985, authorized security force members were-transfering the custody of the key for a particular door to a watchperson stationed at a nearby post when it was necessary for the door to be open. A watchperson is not authorized to have custody of security keys. On May 22, 1985, and as a result of tFat incident, the Captain of the security force issued a memorandum to all security force personnel directing them not to leave

-

security keys unattended or in the custody of unauthorized personnel, and that, if it was necessary to transfer the custody of security keys during a shift, the Sergeant-of-the-Guard must be notifie The inspector could find no report since that time which identified a recurrence of such an incident.

I Interviews of the licensee and contractor security management staff j revealed that no one was aware of the occurrence of such an incident on

March 12, 1986, but that, on March 14, 1986, an incident involving a

! vital area key being left unattended outside of the protected area did *

occur. The inspector aetermined that the alleger was involved in that d

incident and had been terminated by the security force contractor on May 18, 1986 for the infraction. Although the alleger initially denied i leaving the keys unattended, he subsequently retracted his written statement and admitted to the infraction. uuring those interviews, the inspector also determined that, on one or two occasions, keys (non-security) to an equipment shack outside of the protected area were acci-dentally taken from the site by a member of the security force. No occasions were identified involving security keys being taken off sit '

In conclusion, with the exception of the event in which the alleger was involved, the inspector could find no other evidence of inadequate control

of protected or vital area keys, t

I

. - -- . - . p _. . .- . . . . -

-

'

l

'

i- .

. .

- i i

'

l 4 1

l MC 81020 - Management Effectiveness

During this inspection, the inspector discussed some of the generic findings from the NRC Regulatory Effectiveness Reviews conducted at othe facilities. The representatives stated that they would consider those

findings during implementation of the Peach Bottom security progra . MC 81501 - Training and Qualification

The inspector found that the licensee ard security force contractor had developed a written procedure to administer the training program,

'

I prepared new tests for all crucial security tasks and developed a security force performance observation checklist. These enhancements are

, a part of the training program upgrade to which the licensee committed

'

during previous inspections of the security program.

I i

I l

.

,

l l

\

-

t

I

i i

l

4 i

!

E 3 - . , . -, .+---,-e.w.-- ,w .---s- - , , , .r. ,- - - . - . - ,- . , . _..c-- y. . . . , . , - _.. ,- ,- _.wc_my+-ryy,,,---~w.w.w,. .,mym.,.w y. ,ww .