IR 05000286/1989015

Partially Withheld Physical Security Insp Rept 50-286/89-15 on 890605-07 (Ref 10CFR73.21).Violations Noted Re Physical Barriers,Vital Areas & Access Controls.Major Areas Inspected:Detection & Assessment Aids & Alarm Stations

ML20247R087
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	07/24/1989
From:	Cameron D, Keimig R, Lancaster W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20247R080	List: IR 05000286/1989015 ML20247R075
References
50-286-89-15, NUDOCS 8908070339
Download: ML20247R087 (11)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ .

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

e e e' ichdD E*l1 _3%

 . ..
   .
    - ;, ,   .

Q +jf 0/M/h .

    / .' -    f'

3 pig.g);

 -
   . .
    (%. nM o.I . sdo   .
        :,

t

 ,

pgg , fe:;ioyZ _7-28 ; 89' ~ ~

 ~ichadnITIOCI) -   Pl M   '

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

, Report No. 50-286/89-15< Docket N License N DPR-64-Licensee: ' Power Authority of the State of New' York

    .123 Main Street-White Plains, New York 10601 Facility Name:  Indian' Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant
 ~ Inspection.At: Buchanan, New York Inspection Conducted: June 5-7, 1989

, Type of Inspection: Special, Unannounced Physical Security Inspectors:

    . ,s /- 3 ,

K. Lancaster, Phfsical' Security Inspector

         -,
          ~

a 1 k 7. It -SS date kl L D. F. Cameron, Reactor Engineer-Physical 7h+/n date Sec ty f5H ~Ydited/ f T.W. Dexter,Physichl/ecurityInspector / Approved by: M 7 - M- 99 R. R. Keimig, Chief / Safeguards Section date Divisions of Radiation Safety and Safeguards Inspection Summary: Special Unannounced Physical Security Inspection (Inspection Report No. 50-286/89-15) Areas Inspected: Management Support, Protected and Vital Area Physical Barriers, Detection and. Assessment Aids; Protected and Vital Area Access-Control _ of Personnel,. Packages and Vehicles; Alarm Stations; and Testing, Maintenance and Compensatory Measures; Follow up of a Previously Identified Ite Results: The licensee was found in apparent violation of the NRC-approved Physical Security Plan in the areas of Physical Barriers - Vital Areas; Access Control - Personnel and Packages; Lighting; and Assessment Aid .PDR ADOCK 05000286 g FDC _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ - _ _ - _ _ _ . . _ . . - - _ _ - _ _ ._-_ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _-

_ _ _ - _-- - - - . __ _ ._ _ _ _ . __ _ - _-- _ _ _ __ __ - _ - __ ,

.
.

           .
,

DETAILS 1, Key Py sonnel Ccntacted Licensee Personnel W. Josiger, Resident Manager

     * ?eckham, Assistant to the Resident Manager E.'Sackman, Manager of Security Compliance
    ' Harrir.gtsrs Director of Security
     *J. Russell,. Superintendent of Power
     *5. Davis, Quality Assurance Engineer
    *J. Hahn, Security Manager
     *W. Heady, Security Supervisor J. Mosher, Security Coordinator
    "M. Leonard, Security Coordinator
    *E. Eberhardt, Security Coordinator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

P. Koltay, Senior Resident Inspector

    *G. Hunegs, Resident Inspector
    *Present at 1.he exit interview Purpost 4pp Scope of the Inspection The purpose of this inspection was to follow up on the oral commitments made by the licensee during an Enforcement Conference on April 28, 1989,
    .to correct the violations identified during NRC Inspection 50-286/89-0 Since Inspection 50-286/89-05 had been conducted during a major outage, and several of the identified problems were attributed to ;atage activities by the licensee, this inspection was conducted prior to the end of the outage to assess the licensee's responsiveness in addressing the overall areas of NRC concern while similar outage conditions still L      existed.

! It is noted that this inspection precetnd the NRC's issuance., on June 12, 1989, of a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty resulting from the aforementioned inspection. Therefore, the licensee has not'had the opportunity to formally de,siop its response to ' the specific violations and corrective actions to pretent their recurrenc ( However, the NRC concerns regarding the violations and the programmatic weaknesses they reflected, as well as the licensee's actions to correct them, were discussed during the Enforcement Conference on April 28, 198 i

           )

>

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

     - _-

1 . '

      >
     ,

> 3 Follow-up of a Previour'v Identified Item Unresnived Item (50-286/89-05-02): During Inspectior. 50-286/89-05, the inspecto the adequacy of a certain Vital Area (VA) barrier was questioned by During this inspection, the inspectors conducted a detailed review of the VA and its barrier against unauthorized and undetected acces This item remains ope TiilS l'AMSMRI C0HEB SAFEEU!G IHFDP3.TUM IAD IS IDI FOR NBUC GISCLSSlEE, II IS liiTSTIONAllY < LEFI BLAR Even though this weakness t as identified to the .icensee curing Inspection 50-286/89-05 &; an Unresolvec Item, the licensee had taken no action to resolve the issue. Prior to the completion of this i inspection, appropriate compensatory measures were implemented at this V , I Management of the Security Program Management attention to the physical security program and to the NRC concerns e,. pressed at the Exit Meeting following Inspection 50-286/89-05 and during the Enforcement Conference on April 28, 1989, was not readily apparent during this inspection. This is based upon the inspectors' review of the licensee's actions to correct the identified problems, as discussed in thi' repor .

      !

l l l w-_ - J

, - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ . .

        .

*

I

  .

B

; >.-

i-i

The-inspectors noted a lack of responsiveness by security supervision to the NRC security concerns identified during this inspection. When problems ; were identified by the int,pectors, security supervision had to-be prompted to take appropriate actions, such as implementing c epensatory measures and correcting deficient lighting. A similar lack of responsiveness was experienced by the inspector during Inspection 50-286/89-0 The inspectors also cbserved that security supervisors (particularly sergeants) seemed:to be preoccupied with administrative tasks and only

    . infrequently sonitored the activities of the guard force. The inspectors
    'noted that several of. the potential violations identified during this inspection could be attributed to poor supervision. The licensee agreed to -look into this matte During Inspection 50-286/89-05, the inspector found that the general morale of.the guard force was low. lSome improvement was noted during this inspection
    ~

as a result of shorter working hours and the use of contractor security personnel as watch persons to supplement the proprietary guard force, However, this matter needs additional attention to avoid the potential for performance-related problem . protected and Vital Area Physical Barriers, Detection and Assessment Aids Protected Area Barriers - The inspectors conducted a physical inspection oT the Protected Area (PA) barrier on June 5,1989. The insp>ectors tjetermined, by observation, that the barrier was generally installed and maintained as described in the Plan, l ' i}{{$ pfyj p Agl g uitm s SAFEW E I;;FORI M 3 Is D IS ROT IBA F B il0 DISCLOSEE, II IS liiTENT10HLLY ,. LEFT BLA _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - _ - - _ - - - -

_

 .
 . ..

5 Protected Area Detection Aids - The inspectors observed testing of the PA perimeter detection aids on June 5,1989, and determined that they were installed, maintained and operated as committed to in the Pla Il!!S PARASEAPH 00%iA!]S SifECUAM3 IRf0RMAilM MD IS NT FOR Pli3 tlc DISCLOSt!RE, IT IS Ini KilGNitLY LETT PLAE Isolation Zones - The inspectors verified that isolation zones were generally enaintained to permit observation of activities on both' sides of the PA barrie However, the inspectors expressed a concern to the licensee that security force patrols vere not routinely checking to assure that isolation zones were being kept clear of obstructions. The interior isolation zone at the intake structure was found to have construction equipment and material stored in it. When this problem was identified by the inspectors, the licensee's security supervisor had to be prompted to take corrective action. The licensee stated that isolation zones located near outage work areas were difficult +o keep clear because of the limited work spac The licensee ag m to monitor this situation more closely in the futur Protected Area and Isolation Zone Lighting The inspectors conducted a PA and isolation zone lighting survey on June 5, from approximately 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., accompanied by a Security Coordinator. The inspectors found seven areas, listed below, that did not meet the illumination level committed to in the Pla The licensee's calibrated light meter was used during the surve THIS PARCRt.PH C0KIAlHS SAFEEUARDS INFORif.AllM 3D IS !!SI F0it P9BLIC USCLOSliRE, IT IS IKiENTIORllY LEFTBLAE l _ _ . _ _ . _ . -

- - _
. .
' *
    .  ,

TRi! FAM(fl.fil CChTAihS SAFEGUARDS IKiORMATIM AND IS NOT FOR PilBLIC DISCLOSURE, IT IS EFJiilDilAllV

      ,

LEFT ElB _ m 2;d

       .

The licensee's failure to comply with the Plan is an apparent recurrent violation of NRC requirements (50-286/89-15-01). Assessment Aids - The inspectors observed the use of assessment aids, and other security equipment in operation at the Central Alarm Station (CAS), between approxic nely 9:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., on June 5, 1989. The inspectors found that portions of the PA barrier and associated isolation zones could not be adequately assesse L r i s 5' q ,, , 31lgaisnauiGM,, ,

     -a

_ _ _ _ - - _ _ . __ .._---

_ _ . _

.
     ..
      .
        .

BIS PARAGRAPH contA!gg Sgyggggggg thT0!&.'ATIn AM IS HUT TOR FEUC EISCLDSURE, li 15 lhTEIRIMftly LEfT BLAN The inspectors reviewed the Plan and implementing procedures and found the followino requirements: E!3 PARADRAP!! CONTA!NS SAff0!!AUg isifRAiiH Ad IS NOT F01 FEUC UlSLLDSGE, li 15 HiifHil0NAlly e IEFT B!E . The inspector determined that the licensee's failure to comply with the requirements in the Plan and its implementing procedures is an apparent violation of NRC requirements (50-286/89-15-02).

f. Vital Area Barriers - The inspectors conducted a physical inspection of several Vital Area (VA) barriers on June 6 and 7,1989. The inspectors determined, by observation, that the barriers were generally installed and maintained as described in the Pla HIS PARAERAFil CONTAih5 SAFE 80/JDS IXf0GATiOX AND IS NOT FOR PBil0 DiSCLDSURE, II 15 INTENil0XAltY I LDTBLAN _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - ' - - ' - - _ _. .- -

 .
    . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___  - _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ -
 .   ,

1 ., a .1. -

       ,

L int $ P&2GMh t02185 SA!ECW.BS L ' 15Giidis sa is 110T IBR l'0Bl2 Di30l05URE, II 13 INT 3TIUMIF 4 l LM BLAlul ~"$ 5N L An unauthorized individual could have used these openings to enter

          ~

this VA from the PA without detection. There were no compensatory measures in.p1_ ace at these openings and it is not known how long this situation existe Prior to the completion of the inspection, compensatory measures were implemented by the posting of S0s at this degraded VA barrie The inspectors reviewed the' Plan and implementing procedures and found the following requirements: IM PUMEUId UdIAMS Sk! N U isiC E fJ108 Sil 4 ROI IDS I M 9;scl0$12E,11 is IXT5fMEF 4

. Im RE   "d The inspectors determined that the licensee's failure to comply with the requirements in the Plan and its implementing procedures is an apparent violation of NRC requirements (50-286/89-15-03). Vital Area Detection. Aids - The inspectors observed the VA detection aids and determined that they were installed, maintained and operated as committed to in the Pla . Protected and Vital Area Access Control of Personnel, Packages, and-Vehicles The inspectors determined that the licensee was generally exercising positive control over personnel access to the PA and VAs, except for personnel searches. This determination was based on the following:

1) The inspectors verified that personnel are. properly identified and authorization is checked prior to issuance of badges and key-card ) The inspectors verified that the licensee has a search program, as committed to in the Plan, for firearms, explosives, incendiary

   ' devices and other unauthorized materials. The inspectors observed
 ,
--.__----_.--.---._--_,_.-.l- - - . - . _ . we   --+.,m. . . . .

__ - - - -

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

plant personnel and visitor access processing several times during the inspection and interviewed members of the security force and the licensee's security staff about personnel access procedure Several problems were identifie IlilS PAIGAPii CMTANS SAFEE!! Ass

  !EiOF3.AllSN M il 13 1;0T [02 HIBtl0 DISCLOSURE, IT IS lhTD!T10)iAllY
  !EfiBIAR I The inspectors expressed concern to the licensee because during Inspection 50-286/89-05 the same types of se rch deficiencies were identified and, apparently, either corrective actions had not been implemented or, if implemented, were not effectiv The inspectors determined that the NRC-approved Plan and implementing procedures contain the following requirements:

p g W M ?ll9* - rs g ins Skilb kJU *e*4 g315 6.,.gy ygtg

  -
    .

o gittBSWE,il 3ggggg F

   ~~'~~g3;d gyi g.nEL l

i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_--_- - - - - n

<
. ..

   .

   .g3 phygEA?H CDMAES bN f3 e R 11 3 UE j
   [[f1 BLAN The inspectors' determined that' the licensee's failure to comply with the requirements in the Plan and its implementing procedures is an apparent recurrent violation of NRC require-ments (50-286/89-15-04).

3) The inspect' ors determined, by observation, that individuals in the PA and VAs display their access badges as require )' The inspectors verified that the licensee has escort procedures for visitors to the PA and VA The inspectors determined that the licensee has established controls for vehicle access to and within the PA, The inspectors verified that, generally, vehicles are properly processed prior. to entering the P Ilgs PARABRAPil COEAIMS SAFEMAES IEOPRATlW Alig is ET IGR PWllC DistLDSEE,11 IS liiTEMIMAll0 Ltti BLf . Alarm Stations and Communications The inspectors observed the operation of the CAS and SAS and determined

 'that they were maintained and operated as committed to in the Plan. CAS

" and SAS operators were interviewed by the inspectors and found to be knowledgeable of their duties and responsibilities. The inspectors verified that the CAS and SAS do not contain any operational activities

that would interfere with the assessment and response functions.

l

. . .
 - _

 . ._ _ _ _      __ .-
 , .
  .. .-
       *

11  ! i Exit Interview l The inspectors met with the licensee representatives indicated in j paragraph I at the conclusion of the inspection nn June 7,1989. At that i time, the purpose and scope of the inspection were reviewed and the l findings were presente At no time during this inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspectors.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ }}