IR 05000302/1998013

Insp Rept 50-302/98-13 on 981116-20.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Area of Plant Support by Regional Safeguards Specialist.Physical Security Program Was Evaluated

ML20198N920
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	12/16/1998
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198N908	List: IR 05000302/1998013 ML20198N905
References
50-302-98-13, NUDOCS 9901060252
Download: ML20198N920 (7)

Text

_ , _ . _ _ . -

"

g ,

, .

,

1

>

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION ll Docket No.: 50-302 License No.: DPR-72 '

Report No.: 50-302/98-13 Licensee: Florida Power Corporation Facility: Crystal River 3 Nuclear Station Location: 15760 West Power Line Street Crystal River, Florida

' Dates: November 16-20,1998 inspector: Lori Hayes, Physical Security inspector Special inspection Branch Division of Reactor Safety Approved by: George A. Belisle, Chief Specialinspection Branch Division of Reactor Safety 9901060252 981216 PDR. ADOCK 05000302 PDR

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

5 8

'

,

.

.

! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (

Crystal River Nuclear Plant, Unit 3

'

,

NRC inspection Report 50-302/98-13

This routine announced inspection was conducted in the area of plant support by a regional safeguards specialist. . The specific area evaluated was the Physical Security Program for Power Reactors in the areas of Access Authonzation and Fitness for Dut The inspectos determined that the licensee currently staffed and implemented an organization that was capable of managing and implementing the Access Authorization Program requirement .

The inspector determined that access authorization was being granted to only those

'

individuals who fulfilled the elements specified in the licensee's procedures as required by 10 CFR 73.5 The inspector concluded that the Fitness For Duty organization and management control systems met regulatory requirements. Fitness For Duty personnel were aware of their individual responsibilities and performed their intended functions in a highly capable manne . .

.

The licensee's Access Authorization / Fitness For Duty audits were complete and effectivo in terms of identifying weaknesses in procedures and practices. The inspector i considered the audits to be a strengt '

i t

,

b

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

. - - .. . - - - . . - . . - . - - . - . - - - - -

-

..

l

'

e '

,

=

%

Report Details

,

,

S1 Conduct of Security and Safeguards Activities S1.2. Access Authorization p

'

S1.2.1 Pivw.iii Administration and imolementation Inspection Scope (81700)

'

a.' i The inspector determined how the Access Authorization Program (AAP) was

-

_ ad mii n stered including applicable organizational and contractual responsibilities and - ,

f, determined compliance with the provisions of 10 CFR 73.56.

' Observations and Findinos The Manager, Nuclear Security had the overall responsibility for the management and direction of the AAP. However, day to day operation was directed by the Security Administration Compliance Supervisor (SACS), with the assistance of the Access Control Coordinator (ACC). The SACS had the authority to recommend final

,. unfavorable actions and could act on the Managsr's behalf. The ACC reviewed all

. Information and determined eligibility of the individual who was being processed for unescorted acces l

'

! The licensee was currently in the process of testing a new access computer system,

Nuclear Unescorted Access Data System (NUADS), which they intend to implement in the near future. This new system will allow the licensee to input data to one system l rather than numerous systems.

t

! The AAP was implemented with the use of Access Control Procedure (ACP) 101, l

"

" Access Authorization Screening Program," Rev. 3, dated August 31,1998. The '

. inspector reviewed the procedure and determined that the elements of 10 CFR 73.56

'

were contained within the procedure.

, Conclusions

'

The inspector determined that the licensee currently staffed and implemented an organization that was capable of managing and implementing the AAP requirements.

'

S1.2.2 Backaround Investiaation (BI) Elements i- Insoection Scope (81700)

i i The inspector reviewed the Bl elements to verify that the program had been adequately i

'

designed and implemented in accordance with the licensee's approved plans and j procedures.

$

i a >

l

. , . . - - , .-

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

.

. .

,

'

.

2 Observations and Findinos The inspector determined the licensee could verify true identity and develop information concerning employment, education, credit, criminal history, military service, and the

. character and reputation of the individual, prior to granting unescorted access to

- protected and vital areas. The licensee utilized a contractor to perform the B The inspector reviewed approximately 30 background files to verify that the licensee  ;

'

was following ACP-101 and the requirements of 10 CFR 73.56. Thirteen files were for currently badged employees, eleven files were for individuals denied unescorted access, and 7 files were for those individuals no longer employed at the Crystal River facility. Of the files reviewed, the inspector determined that transfers, updates, reinstatements, and temporary clearances were being processed accordingly. The files were found to be complete and thoroughly reviewed prior to the granting of unescorted access. in addition, the inspector observed various phases of the access process for

'

13 new individuals and found the requirements were being followe *

The licensee had in place a conditional access program that had been recently .

'

developed. Through evaluation of the Employee Assistance Program, granting of -

conditional access can be acceptable for unescorted access. The inspector reviewed the licensee's site access training and found that it clearly described the consequences, rights, and responsibilities of the conditional access program in addition i y to the employee's right to appcal access decisions. Site access training also explained the employee's responsibility to report any arrest, criminal charge, incarceration, or ,

conviction without delay. A review of the licensee's Personal History Questionnaire revealed that individuals were advised about the repercussions of the omission or .

- falsification of informatio ;

The inspector reviewed files of those individuals who had been denied access authorization and found that the grounds for denial were clearly defined as well as the appeal process itsel , Conclusions The inspector determined that access authorization was being granted to only those

'

individuals who fulfilled the elements specified in the licensee's procedures as required by 10 CFR 73.5 S1.3 Fitness for Duty insoection Scooe (81700)

The inspector ensured that the licensee developed procedures to be utilized in testing for drugs and alcohol, including procedures for protecting the employees and the integrity of the specimens, and the quality controls to ensure that the test results were

. valid and attributable to the correct individual.

.

_ _ - -

y r -- , - ,_, , _ _ . , - -

_ - _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - -

. l 3 Observations and Findinas Medical Services was presided over by the Vice President of Human Resources, with the corporate office's Director of Safety and Health Services providing direct oversigh The inspector reviewed documentation and interviewed FFD key personnel and determined that individuals assigned the task to administer the FFD program were aware of the requirements and were capable of ensuring that the FFD program was operated in accordance with regulatory requirement The inspector observed the selection process for personnel to be tested and reviewed records of individuals who had been tested in 1997 and 1998. Generally six employees were randomly selected by the computer, with six backups in case individuals were on vacation or on sick leave. The inspector noted that approximately 577 personnel were q processed from June to November 1998 without any record- keeping error The inspector verified that the responsibilities and authorities of key personnel responsible for the FFD program were defineated in procedures as describe abov The Medical Review Officer (MRO) continued to receive and review drug test results from the certified laboratory and determined if the results were positive or negativ The inspector determined, through discussion and review of available records, that the MRO was experienced and actively involved in the administration of the program and was highly pro-active in ensuring the facility was a drug (illegal and legal) and alcohol free environmen The inspector verified that the licensee delivered each notification for testing to the appropriate supervisor and instructed them to inform the individual no more that two hours in advance that the test was scheduled. Review of documentation revealed that personnel were arriving at the laboratory within the required time frame. The acceptable drug and alcohol cutoff levels were within regulatory requirements. The inspector observed three collections by three different collectors. All three collectors were well aware of their responsibilities and each collection observed was conducted in a highly professional and efficient manne Condusions The inspector concluded that the FFD organization and management control sys: ems met regulatory requirements and FFD personnel were aware of their individual responsibilities and performed their intended functions in a highly capable manne S1.4 Audits Insoection Scope (81700)

The inspector determined if the licensee's audit program was of sufficient depth and whether the audits had been conducted in a timely manner.

l

.

.

_ _ _ _ -

_ . . _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ .

^

j

'

. .

,

.

'

i

.

i 4 3 Observations and Findinos i The inspector reviewed the last annual audits of the AA and FFD programs. The eudits l

'

were thorough and the findings were discussed in detail. The licensee took the proper corrective actions to close the findings. The inspector determined that audit findings

'

were reviewed, appropnately assigned, analyzed, and prioritized for corrective actio ;

The corrective actions were technically correct and performed in a timely manner.

[ Additionally, the inspector reviewed the licensee's audits of those contractors that i assisted in the administration of the AAP. All documentation reviewed indicated that j the licensee was effectively performing these audits, i

:

i Conclusions '

' )

The licensee's AA/FFD audits were complete and offective in terms of identifyin ;

weaknesses in procedures and practices. The inspector considered the audits to be a strength, i '

! XI Exit Meeting Summary 4 ,

j The inspection scope and findings were summarized to licensee management at the

conclusion of the inspection on November 20,1998. The inspector described the areas

,

inspected and discussed the inspection results. Proprietary information is not

. contained in this report. Dissenting comments were not received from the license ? l PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED  ;

j Licensee L S. Bemhoff, Director, Regulatory Affairs i Y. Dorminy, Access Control B. Grazio, Director, Site and Business Support l l '

G. Halnon, Director, Quality Programs

- K. Linhart, Medical Services

! F. Marcussen, Manager, Security

K. McCall, Acting Director of Training

[ L McDougal, Manager, Compliance B. McLaughlin, Compliance i

D. Watson, Access Control l

R. Wiemann, Engineering

M ,

\

. S. Cahill, Senior Resident inspector

!

j LIST OF INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED i IP 81700 Physical Security Program for Power Reactors

1

.

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