IR 05000277/1987020
| ML20236S912 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 10/29/1987 |
| From: | Bailey R, Keimig R, Lancaster W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236S893 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-277-87-20, 50-278-87-20, NUDOCS 8711300174 | |
| Download: ML20236S912 (8) | |
Text
.
-
._
_ - _ - - _
._
__ - -__ _ - __ - -
..
.
.-
,.
l l-.
[
.U.S. NUCLE R REGULATORY COMMISSION j
REGION I
a
. Report Nos, _ 50-277/87-20 50-278/87-20 I
Docket Nos.
50-277-i 50-278
'
. License Nos.
DPR-44 DPR-56 Licensee: Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101
. Facility Name:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2&3
'
Inspection At:
Delta, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted: June 28 - July 2, 1987 Date.of Last Physic Security Inspection: April 20-23, 1987
'
,
Inspectors:
/#-M-M
'
RfJ. Bailey
/sical Sect /ity Inspector date
~
M. M. ~
to-M47 W. K, Lancaster, Physical Security Inspector date
.
Approved by:
$[
/#.29'/7 4. R. Keir(i;, Chief, feguards Section, date Division of Radiat Safety and Safeguards Inspection Summary:
Routine, unannounced physical security inspection on
,
June 28 - July 2, 1987, (Combined Inspection Nos. 50-277/87-20 and 50-278/87-20).
I Areas Inspected: Management Effectiveness; Security Organization; Records and l
Reports, Detection Aids Protected Area on several allegations an(d interviews b and Independent Inspection follow-up
>
NRC of members of the secur ty j
force).
j Results: The licensee was found to be in compliance with NRC requirements in the areas examined. Certain information contained in the allegations was substantiated, however, no violations of NRC requirements were identified.
The results of the NRC interviews indicated areas where potential improvements are indicated.
8711300174 871124 PDR ADOCK 05000277 O
,
- -.. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ - - - - - _. _. - _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ - _ _ _ _. - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _. _
__
.
-
_
-
, __ _____ ___- ___
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
-
___
_ _ - _
.
DETAILS
.
1.
Key Personnel Contacted Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo)
D. M. Smith, Station Manager B. L. Clark, Administrative Engineer R. J. Weindorfer, Corporate Security Director P. Supplee, Nuclear Security Analyst R. L. Sweeney, Investigator, Claims Security Division N. R.. Carter, Investigator, Claims Security Division S. Tharpe, Chief, Security Coordinator L. B. Bean,.Vice President, Burns International J. G. Snavely, Regional Manager, Burns International R. A. Hintze, Nuclear Safeguards Coordinator, Burns International J. Collins, Regional Manager, Burns International M. D'Angelo, District Manager, Burns International U.S. Nuclear Regu'atory Commission (NRC)
L. E. Myers, Regional Project Engineer The inspectors also intt:rviewed other Philadelphia Electric Company employees and members of the Burns International. contract security force.
2.
Effectiveness of Security Contractor Management As a result of numerous and similar allegations received by the NRC between April 30 and June 22, 1987, related to the security force at Peach Bottom, the inspectors conducted interviews with security management (licensee and contractor) and security force members, and reviewed security records' and reports to follow-up on the allegations and to determine if there were any violations of NRC requirements involved.
The inspectors found that the licensee entered into an agreement with the security force contractor in April,1987 to provide personnel for fire-watch duties during the refueling / maintenance outage that started on May 1, 1987.
The security contractor combined this new manpower require-ment with his primary responsibility t, provide trained and qualified personnel for the security force since security personnel were either
already trained for firewatch duties or could be.
To meet the manpower needs, the contractor extended the work hours for members of the security force from 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> to 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> to free up additional personnel for fire watch duties. The licensee concurred with the extended work hours.
However, with the increased burden of scheduling personnel for firewatch duties, the contractor's security supervisors, who were responsible for both security and firewatch personnel, apparently lost control of shift i
scheduling and post rotations for members of the security force. As a result, member s of the security force were working long hours without breaks and adequate post rotations. The inspectors determined that these
!
working conditions were the root cause of the allegations.
The specific l
allegations and the inspectors' findings are discussed in Attachment 1 to j
l l
J
- _ _ - - -
-
{
.
.
- this report.
In order to determine whether there might be other, less apparent causes for the allegations, and of possible regulatory concern, the inspectors randomly selected a statistical sample of security force members and conducted interviews.
The interviews indicated general job dissatisfaction due to the following principal causes:
(1) conduct of shifts (e.g., long hours and poor post rotation practices with little consideration for breaks ;
members of)the(2) poor communications between management / supervisors and force; and (3) inadequate management / supervisory attention to members of the force. The inspectors, therefore, confirmed their initial determination. (See also Paragraph 6.b)
The inspectors expressed concern to licensee management because, while no violations of NRC requirements were identified, the conditions under which members of the security force were working were not conducive to having i
an alert security force and their performance could easily have been
'
adversely affected to a point where it would have been a NRC regulatory The inspectors also expressed concern that the licensee was not concern.
aware of the situation until the week prior to the inspection, when the plant manager found a member of the security force asleep on post.
The l
i plant manager's follow up on that incident surfaced the existing problems
and he began to take actions to correct those problems. The inspectors informed the licensee that this was another example of inadequate over-sight of the security contractor and poor outage planning.
Similiar problems have been brought to the licensee's attention by the NRC on
,
I several occasions in the past.
3.
Security Organization The inspectors reviewed the changes in the security organization that had occurred since the last inspection.
The inspectors found that the Captain of the security force had been replaced in June 1987 by a senior member of the on-site security force.
The inspectors determined that the individual is qualified for the position in accordance with the NRC-approved security plan and training and qualification plan.
I The inspectors reviewed the security force turnover since January 1987 and found that a total of 108 terminations occurred.
In reviewing the reasons
,
given by those who terminated, the inspectors did not identify any security program weaknesses or immediate regulatory concerns.
The inspectors discussed the NRC's Information Notice 86-88 with the licensee.
That Notice addresses recommended work hours for members of the security force and post rotations to avoid on-the-job fatigue.
The inspectors requested the records of hours worked per week by members of the security force since May 1, 1987.
The records indicated that one hundred security force members had worked more than 61 hours7.060185e-4 days <br />0.0169 hours <br />1.008598e-4 weeks <br />2.32105e-5 months <br /> per week; seven worked more than 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> per week; and four worked more than 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> per week. There were eleven instances where individuals had worked in excess of the seventy-two hours per week guideline provided in the Information Notice during the period reviewed.
None of the other guide-lines provided in the Notice had been exceeded.
The licensee stated that
..
....s.....
a..i
.a_ _..
a
-
- - - - " - - - - " - - - -
- ~ ^ ~ '
+
-
__
-__-- - - -
.
l:
.
l-
-
the security force contractor would be required to control the overtime i
better,and that licensee security staff would review the hours worked l
more closely.
4.
Records ~and-Reports The inspectors reviewed various reports and records including, but not limited to, computer input authorizations, card histories, payroll, security shift accountability, firearms control, shift assignments,
. security events, extended work hours and terminations.
Since May 1, 1987, the inspectors observed that the records pertaining to security shift accountability and shift assignment were poorly organized and maintained, thereby making their review very difficult.
However, the inspectors-concluded that no violation of procedures or NRC requirements were identi-fied.
5.
Detection Aids (Protected Area)
On June 30, 1987, the inspectors observed that the X-ray machine for the search lane in the main access building was providing poor contrast, causing the. operator to take a long time to distinguish the contents of packages passing through the machine.
The inspectors requested a licensee's representative to conduct an operability test of the machine in accordance with approved procedures. This was done and the machine failed the test.
The inspectors verified that the machine had passed the last test and that the test had been performed within the scheduled frequency.
The licensee took immediate compensatory action and implemented procedures to conduct physical searches of all hand carried items.
The licensee's representative stated that physical searches of all hand carried items would continue until the machine could be repaired or until new X-ray-machines, which were recently purchased, were installed and operational.
The representative stated that the new machines are scheduled for installation during the week of July 10, 1987.
No violations of the NRC-approved physical security plan were identified. The licensee in-formed the inspectors by telephone on July 20, 1987 that new x-ray machines were installed and operational.
.6.
Independent Inspection Effort a. Review of Allegations Attachment I to this report contains the findings and conclusions reached by the inspectors on several allegations received by the NRC concerning the licensee's security organization and the involvement of a contract employee, working at the plant, with drugs.
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
_ __
. _ - _ _.
_ - _ _ _-
.
.
b. Inspector' Follow-up of Concern Resulting from Survey Interviews
.
During the interviews of security force members, several indicated that, on occasions, they could smell alcohol on the breath of personnel working in the plant after they returned from having lunch outside of the protected area. The inspectors informed the Plant Manager of this on July 1,-1987.
The Plant Manager took immediate action to initiate an investigation and informed the inspectors that the results of the investigation would be available onsite for NRC review upon its comple-tion.
On August 4, 1987, a licensee representative contacted Regionf I by.
telephone and stated that during the investigation, three contractor employees were observed drinking alcoholic beverages in the parking lot outside the plant protected area on July 30, 1987.
The contractor employees'had denied the charge; however, because the licensee had concrete evidence, they were refused re-entry into the protected area and their access to the plant was withdrawn.
The investigation is continuing and patrols of the parking areas _and adjacent park facilities outside the protected area have been established, on a continuing basis, to strictly enforce the company rules pertaining to alcohol and illegal drugs on company property.
7.
Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives indicated in paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on July 2,1987. At that a
time, the purpose and scope of the inspection and the findings were i
presented to the licensee.
The results of the NRC Security Force Survey and allegation investigations were orally provided to the licensee at that time.
At no time during the inspection was any written material provided to the licensee.
l
'
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _
u n;
[.g
"y:[.
[.b '
.
..,
r ATTACHMENT 1 x
REVIEW 0F ALLEGATIONS-Asfa result of-several allegations received by1NRC between-April 30 and-
'
June.22, 1987, the~ inspectors reviewed. records and interviewed: licensee and security force personnel.. A recurrent complaint.from the. allegers was that.
members 'of 'the security force were. underpaid.
The inspectors did not pursue i that matter since 'it is not within. NRC's purview. The.following tre.the-
>
findings and conclusions. reached by the' inspectors on the other allegations.
A.
Allegation:
A This allegation was received by telephone to'the NRC' Senior Resident
>
Inspector.on June' 22' 1987.
It was stated that security force members-
,
(SFMs) (1) were overworked,;(2) had a' poor attitude (3) were working-12 hour shifts, (4) became bored because of the lack of post rotations,-(5)
l were not' given. timely lunch breaks, (6) one reported for. duty under the influence of alcohol, and (7) there were not enough armed SFMs on duty on weekends.
Findings.
.The. inspectors conducted interviews with licensee and contractor. security
,,
supervisory personnel 'and SFMs, and reviewed security force payroll records, firearms issuance logs, card key printouts, and shift scheduling records.. The inspectors confirmed the substance of the allegations, in
~
.
R general, with the exception of number (7), but'found no violation of NRC regulations. The inspectors determined that the SFMs were being subjected to less than desirable working conditions, but that,;as yet, those' conditions had not adversely affected their overall performance.
0f a
concern to the inspectors was the fact that the licensee's security staff had'not been aware of these potential performance debilitating conditions and that concern was expressedLto the licensee.
The licensee stated that corrective actions would be pursued.
The inspectors also determined that the SFM who reported for work under the influence of alcohol was not permitted access to the plant and was determined to be unfit for duty on that day.
>With regard to number (7), the inspectors determined that, at no time during the period in question, were the number of armed SFMs less than that required by the NRC-approved security plan.
However, on several occasions supervisory personnel were used to meet that number when other armed SFMs were assigned to fixed post duties.
That practice is not contrary to the NRC-approved security plan, but should not be implemented as a standard practice.
l l'
y
_
_ _ _ - _ - _ -
_ _.
______ - -
)
,7
'
[
Enclosure 1 l
l'
B.
Allegation:
This allegation was received by telephone on April 30, 1987, at the NRC
Region I office.
The alleger voiced several of the same allegations i
included in "A" above.
In addition, the alleger was concerned about (1)
i the overtime policy of the security force contractor, (2) the unresponsiveness of the contractor's management personnel to issues i
brought to their attention by SFMs, (3) the lack of overtime pay for training during the (utage, (4) the firing of a watchman because of sleeping on post, and (5) the questionable fitness for duty of security force members.
Finding:
The inspectors interviewed security management personnel and SFMs and reviewed contractor correspondence and security event records.
The inspectors determined that: (1) the contractor had a documented policy on overtime that was widely disseminated, readily available to all employees and appeared to have been explained to them at the time of employment (this matter'is not within the NRC's purview); (2) the unresponsiveness on the part of management concerned employer-employee
relations and, therefore, did not fall within the NRC's purview; (3)
overtime was being paid for training of new employees throughout the period in question; (4) a watchman, who was a probationary employee was
,
fired for sleeping on post; however, other instances of poor performance were a factor in his termination; (5) a majority of SFMs felt that they were not at their maximum effectiveness because of the long shifts, lack
~
of personal and lunch breaks, and infrequent post rotation; however the inspectors did not observe any SFMs who appeared to be " unfit for duty".
Item 5 of the allegation and the results of the inspectors' review were immediately brought to the licensee's attention by the inspectors.
The licensee committed to reduce the length of shifts within two weeks and to ensure that other working conditions were promptly improved.
C.
Allegation l
This allegation was received by telephone to the NRC Resident Inspector on June 18,1987. The alleger stated that a named contractor employee was a heavy user of cocaine, on and offsite.
Finding I
The licensee was advised of the allegation on June 19, 1987 by the NRC, j
and on June 23, 1987, the licensee requested the contractor employee to i
submit to a drug test.
The employee refused to submit to the test, there-fore, his access to the site was immediately withdrawn.
The inspectors verified that the employee's access to the protected area had been i
i l
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _
- - _ _.
.
.'
Enclosure 1 immediately withdrawn, however, he was still employed by the contractor on projects located outside of the protected area.
The employee sub-sequently submitted to a test on June 29, 1987 and admitted to the licensee that he had used cocaine until December, 1986, but claimed he had not used that drug or any other illegal drug since that time. The licensee notified the NRC on August 3, 1987, that the test for cocaine use by this individual was negative and that the individual's access to protected and vital areas had been restored on July 15, 1987. As a j
condition of continued employment, the individual will undergo unannounced I
drug testing for a period of six months.
l I
l
l l
_
_ _ _ _ - - ___ _ - _ - __________-_--______ _____-____________- __-_____________ _._________
__
_