IR 05000309/1987015
| ML20235W462 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1987 |
| From: | Bailey R, Keimig R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235W439 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-309-87-15, NUDOCS 8710160242 | |
| Download: ML20235W462 (6) | |
Text
_ _. - _ - _ - _ _
_.
_
_ _ _ -
.
-_-.
- _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
.
.
'U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
'
Fieport No.
50-309/87-15 REVIEzc ays i
,
_ J I,1 J e w y
_
W
' Docket No.
50-309-(uA;;2)
-
g
-
License No.- DPR-36 E/2c 8e % r lg,q -g//
. Licensee:
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (0RGANIZAhp.g
,
5M)
'<
t
-
83 Edison Drive Augusta, Maine 04336 Facility Name: " Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station Inspection At: Wiscassett,-Maine Inspection Conducted: June 8-12, 1987 Date of Last Physical Security Inspection: March 17-21, 1986 Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Physical Security
..
'
Inspector:
-
_ 9-2[@
R.' J. Bailey, yiical SecuMty Inspector date '
!
Approved by: _V R. Keimig, Chief' Sa ards Section, date
/
f
/A I 87 Division of Radiatio afety and Safeguards Inspection Summary:
Routine, Unannounced Phlsical Security Inspection on June 8-12, 1987 (Inspection No. 50-309/87-15)
Areas Inspected:
Security Organization; Physical Barriers (Protected and Vitalareas); Lighting;AccessControl(Personnel);Trainingand Qualification; and participation of the security force in an eniergency preparedness drill.
j Results:
The licensee was found to be in compliance with NRC requirements within the areas inspected, except as follows:
Physical barriers to two security vital areas were not being maintained
'
a.
properly;.
-
.b.
Health physics personnel were performing security access control duties and were not qualified to perform those duties; and Lighting in certain areas of the protected area was inadequate.
c.
l All duties assigned to memoers of the security force during the emergency
'
preparedness drill were carried out as required and in a timely manner.
M*tBBM8%hi G
L
___ - ---_
'
- - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ _.
- - _
- -
. _.
- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
_ _ _.
___ --_
- _ _ - -.
>,
o
"
,
-
,
,
ILJ
^
DETAILS 1.
Key Personnel Contacted J. Garrity, Plant Manager B. J. Castonguay, Manager, Administration R. Lawton, Manager, Quality Assurance B. Marshal, Security Director S. D. Evans, Licensing Engineer.
R. Hayward, Quality. Assurance Project Engineer L. Lawson, Quality Assurance Section Head
'2.
Security Organization and Program i
The licensee's Site Security Supervisor informed the inspector that the former Chief of the contract security force resigned for personal and health reasons and was replaced on January 15, 1987 by a senior member of the on-site security force who is very knowledgeable of the Maine Yankee security program.
The inspector verified that the individual was qualified and was performing his duties as described in the NRC-approved
'j physical security plan.
The inspector determined that 26 ' individuals lef t the contract security l
force since February 5,1986.
Twenty lef t for other employment opportunities, three expressed dissatisfaction with the job, two were terminated for cause, and one retired.
i j
The_ inspector reviewed the licensee's policy with regard to security force l
work schedules for the maintenance and refueling outage that began on March 23, 1987. The inspector found that the hours of work for the j
.,
security force were changed from an 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> shift to a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shift, with j
5 days on and 2 days off, for a total of 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> per week and that i
supervisors were authorized to work 66 hours7.638889e-4 days <br />0.0183 hours <br />1.09127e-4 weeks <br />2.5113e-5 months <br />, when required.
The inspector requested the licensee to conduct a review of the work schedules for the security force to determine if the work schedule.was being adhered to.
The results of that review indicated that no security
. officer had worked more than 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> in any week during the outage.
j The inspector reviewed a Security Memorandum (Number 14.8.2) dated July (
12,1985 (Subject: Outage Work Hours) that was presented as being the
}
licensee's current policy.
That policy indicates that the maximum number j
of hours to be worked per week is 60 and that personnel will have 24
'
continuous non-working hours during eat.h seven day period. Overtime restrictions are established as follows:
a, no more than 16 continuous hours worked, b.
no more than 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> within any 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period, j
i c.
no more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in any 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> period, l
d.
at least 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> between work shif ts, and i
any deviations in excess of those restrictions require special e.
!
permission.
{
_ _
_ _ _ - _
_ _ _._ _.__
L
'
,.
,
,
(
No deficiencies were noted.
The inspector discussed some of the generic findings from the NRC Regulatory Effectiveness Review (RER) program with the licensee. The-(.
licensee's representatives stated that they would include those findings
-
.
in their review of the security program.
3.
Physical Barriers (Protected Area)
.
The inspector visually observed the protected area barrier on June 18, 1987 and noted the following:
a.
THIS PARAGRAPH CONTAINS SAFEGUARDS INFORMAT!0N JJ43 IS NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCI.0SURE,IT IS INTENil0NALLY LEfIBLANK.
b.
THIS PARACRAPH CONTAINS SAFEGUARDS INFORf,1t.T'ON "?d0 IS NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSU:;E,11IS HiTENiiONALLY LEFT BLANK.
c.
THIS PARAGRAPH CONTAINS SAFEGUARDS INFORfAAT'O'r 'm IS NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSuaE,il IS INTEllTIONALLY LEFT B1ANK.
d.
Signs were posted outside the protected area perineter barrier (PA)
-warning employees not to park vehicles within the outer isolation zone.
The area between the staff building (outside the PA) and the PA barrier is a well-traveled roadway and portions were marked with yellow lines to further warn employees not to park near the barrier.
In addition, the licensee informed the inspector that a memorandum had been issued to all employees warning them about parking in security isolation zones. Those actions were taken by the licensee
.
,
-.
-
.
..
_ _ _ _ - -.
__ - ____-____ _
-___ - -
_
l-
,
b
'
,
m
,
,
in' response'to a previous violation cited during NRC Inspection Number. 50-309/86-15. This' item (86-15-01) is closed..
4.
Physica1' Barriers (Vital ' Areas)
- The inspector visually observed the physical barriers around vital areas H
on June 11, 1987 and noted the following:
.
a.
THIS PARAGR'JH CONTAiHS SAFEGUAR
INF 0 ' " '"
!
- g ;;c7 F0i! PUBLIC
..
j DISCLUSURE,li d IN1ENT10NALLY LEFT BLANK.
l b.
l l
{
THIS PARAGRAPH CONTAINS SAFEGUARDS -
INFORMt.TGN t110 IS NOT FOR PUBl10 DISCl0Si>RE,1115iHIENTIONALLY Lk.FI BLANK,
~
}
5.
Lighting THIS PARAGRAPH CONTAINS SAFEGUARDS INFORM AT'ON ?Dp IS NOT FOR PUBLIC
!
DISCLDSURE,11 SINTENil0NALLy I
LEFT BLANK.
.
m_____ _ _ _. _ _ _.. _ _ - _ _. - _ _ _
- -_
_ _ _ _
...
...
'On June 9,1987, at approximately 10:30 p.m., the inspector visually observed that there was no illumination in and around the areas within the protected ' area that are listed below:
a.
b, THIS PARAGRAPH CONTAINS SAFEGUARDS c*
INFOU.iAr0" '."3 IS NOT FOR PUBLIC d.
DISCLOSURE,iIiS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
e.
.:s I.
Licensee security management concurred that lighting in those areas was below required by Paragraph 3.1.3 of the NRC approved physical security plan.
The inspector identified this as an apparent violation of the NRC-approved security plan.
50-309/87-15/03 6.
Access Control (Personnel)
.
.
...
.
"'
^R INf0 ' i *c ;8PH CONTAINS SAFE 00ARDS gig.Jis&io8"o r
This is an apparent violation of the NRC-approved security plan.
'
(50-309/87-15-04)
7.
Training and Qualification L
The inspector brought the following observation to the attention of the
.
I site security supervisor and corporate security director for consideration i
in the training program:
I IN gge r
,f,CONTllHS SAFECUAR0"c
\\
OlSCl05URE U <a MENii0NALLY1IDR PUB
'
LEFT BLANK.
,
_ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _. _
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
_ _ _ _ _
'
..
,
8.
Independent Inspection Effort On June 9,1987, the inspector observed the response of the security force during an exercise of the site emergency plan.
While the security force had a limited role during this exercise, the inspector determined that the security officers performed their assigned duties, as outlined in the site emergency plan, in a timely and professional manner.
10.
Exit Interview The inspector met w1th the licensee representatives listed in paragraph 1 on June 12, 1987, and discussed the scope and results of the inspection.
No written material was provided to the licensee by the inspector during the inspection.
,
k
i i
_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _