IR 05000280/1979013
| ML18114A489 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 04/11/1979 |
| From: | Hennessey R, Tobin W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18114A488 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-79-13, 50-281-79-16, NUDOCS 7905020033 | |
| Download: ML18114A489 (4) | |
Text
MATERIAL TRANSMITTED HEREWITH corim1tttZ}a+i~Df1MATION NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA STREET, ATLANTA.GEORGIA 30303 APR 111979 Report Nos. 50-280/79-13 and 50-281/79-16 Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company P. 0. Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 Facility Name:
Surry I and II Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281 License Nos. DPR 32 and DPR 37 Safeguards Group No. IV Inspection at Surry Site near Surry, Virginia Inspe~~/)~,~~* ~::\\k-~~~
- ~es~
SUMMARY Inspection on March 21-23, 1979 Areas Inspected Safeguards ti{Signed
't'lt ~'i,,
eigned This routine, unannounced inspection involved 19 inspector-hours onsite in the area of independent inspection effort regarding 10 CFR 73.55 interim measure Results In the area inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identifie MATERIAl TRM!SMITTED HEREWITH cmnA!l:S 2.EQ 1NFC!1MATION
~:~~)/& ~opi This Docurr:cc:~_ i~ n"~- tc he reproduc-cd w:\\t:-*,:', ::-,,ccific approvel cf 1::::::11
,.,,-~
( )
- Persons Contacted Licensee Employees EXEMPT FRCM D12CLDSURE Hi Cf~ z.'790 liffO~:,*'.ATIDN DETAILS
- W. L. Stewart, Station Manager
- J. L. Wilson, Superintendent, Operations
- F. R. Saunders, Superintendent, Maintenance
- T. A. Peebles, Superintendent, Technical Services
- R. M. Smith, Supervisor, Health Physics
- P. P. Nottingham, III, SGRP, Assistant Supervisor, Health Physics
- S. Sarver, Corporate Health Physicist
- A. L. Parrish, III, SGRP, Project Manager
- W.R. Skelley, Jr., SGRP, Staff Assistant
- C. W. Rhodes, SGRP
- R. L. Baldwin, Supervisor, Administrative Services
- E. P. Dewandel, Staff Assistant
- C. F. Wheeler, Security Supervisor
- H.J. Van Dyke, Security Operations Supervisor
- F. L. Rentz, Resident Quality Control Engineer Other Organizations
- D. J. Burke, Resident Inspector, USNRC
- D. M. Collins, Inspector, USNRC
- Attended exit intervie.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and findings were summarized on March 23, 1979 with those persons indicated in Paragraph l abov.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings Not applicabl.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.
EXEMPT FROM DI.SCLOSLIRE 10 Cfit 2.790 li'ffOR.MATION
__.J
- !
_/
EXt::MPT FROM DISCLOSURE 10 Cr; 2.79:J ::,!;-0::.i.MATlDN-2-Independent Inspection Effort The inspector examined all 10 CFR 73.55 Interim Security Measures as required by the following interim pages of the Licensee's Modified Amended Security Plan and Amendments thereto:
Interim 3 - 2 Interim 3 - 3 Interim 3 - 4 Interim 3 - 5 thru 3 - 6 Interim 3 - 7 Interim 3 - 9 Interim 3 -
Interim 3 - 18 Interim 3 - 19 Interim 3
Interim 3 - 21 Interim 4 - 4 Interim 4 - 5 Interim 4 - 6 Interim 5 - 1 Interim 5 -
Interim 5 - 4 Interim 5 - 5 Interim 5 - 6 Interim 5 - 7 Interim 6 - 3 Interim 6 - 4 Interim 6 - 5 Interim 7
Interim 7 - 2 Interim 10 - 2 Interim 13 - 5 Interim Page 5 - 2, Section 5.2.1, states, "An. armed member of the station security organization is stationed inside the main control room." This requirement is prefaced by a statement describing the current structural inadequacy to be brought up to the specifications of 10 CFR 73.55:
"Installation of bullet resistant doors in the Main Control Room vital area boundary is incomplete." In questioning the control room security officer in this regard, it was the inspector's view that specific security functions would relate to the stipulated weakness, i.e., lack of bullet resistant door Instead, it was discovered that specific procedures for this post had limited guard attention and activities solely to the double doors at the south end of EX[MPT FROM DISL:LDSURE Hl Ctrt 2.790 l:~FOR:*1ATION
....
l I
EXEMPT FRD!'-1 DISCLOSURE 10 ci:-r< z.79:.! ltffORMATION-3-the control roo The inspector informed the Station Security Supervisor and the Coordinator, Production Security, that it was his view that the existing instructions failed to address security for all control room door The Coordinator, Production Security, agreed that the procedure was not accurate, further agreed with the inspector as to how the security officer was intended to have been used, and directed an immediate change to procedures to reflect that the security officer was to protect all control room equipment in the event of incidents directed from any entranc The inspector again questioned the same security officer on duty in the control room that same day and found the latter procedure to be understood, and in effec The letter of interim page 5-2, Section 5.2.1, was viewed to have been met, however, the ultimate security objective of placing the security officer in the control room required clarificatio No items of noncompliance or deviations were observe EXEMPT FfWM DISCLOSURE 10 Cfn 2.790 INFDRi**lATIDN i
I j