IR 05000333/1990016
| ML20034D004 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 05/22/1990 |
| From: | Della Ratta A, Dexter T, Keimig R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034D003 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-333-90-16, NUDOCS 9006050336 | |
| Download: ML20034D004 (8) | |
Text
mmnTaMr : 3
.m_.
b hdhk.Ah61N
,
%
y_
pg.
(a - -.-
.-
SU-
-
fMN
$__ %
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
Report No.
50-333/90-16 Docket No. 50-333 License No. DPR-59 Licensee: Power Authority of the State of New York TJ 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Facility Name: James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Inspection At:
Scriba, New York Inspection Conducted: April 23-27, 1990 Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced Physical Security Inspection Inspectors:
[
d
- .2p-70 A. Della-Ratta,\\Saf eguards Inspector date-
t
_
- 99W!
/
T.
Dexter, Phys cal 1 urid lnspector date
'
%%
ab f h 9o
~
Approved _by:
.
I dat6 Richard & pimig, CF_
feguards Section Facili ti'trt lation $afety and Safeguards Branch Inspection Summary:
Unannounce ( Physical Security Inspection on April 23-27, 1990 (Report No. 50-333/90-16)
Areas Inspected: Management Support, Security Program Plans, and Audits; Protected and Vital Area Physical Barriers, Detection and Assessment Aids; Protected and Vital Area Access Controls of Personnel, Packages, and Vehicles; Alarm Stations and Communications; Emergency Power Supply; Testing, Maintenance, and Compensatory Measures; Security Training and Qualifications; and Land Vehicle Bomb Contingency Procedure Verification.
Results: The licensee was in compliance with NRC requirements in the areas inspected. However, potential weaknesses were identified in the areas of Protected Area Lighting, Assessment Aids, Protected Area Access Control, Testing and Maintenance, and Security Training and Qualifications.
9006050336 900523 PDR ADOCK 05000333 FDC g
,
.*-e
,+
.
_.
.
...
.
DETAILS 1.
Key Persons Contacted Licensee Personnel
- W. Fernandez, Resident Manager
.
,
- T. Teifke, Security / Safety / Fire Protection Superintendent
'
>
- J. Haley, Security Supervisor
- M. Warchol, Security. Shift Coordinator
- G. Tasick, Superintendent, Quality Assurance
- E. Connelly, Deputy Director of Security (Corporate)
R. Baker, Maintenance Superintendent U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
_
!
W. Schmidt, USNRC, Resident Inspector The inspectors also interviewed other licensee personnel and members of
,
the proprietary guard force.
- indicates those present at the exit interview.
2.
Management Support, Security Program Plans, and Audits a.
Management Support - Management support for the licensee's physical s
security program was determined to be adequate by the inspectors.
This determination was based upon the inspectors' reviews of various aspects of the licensee's program during this inspection as documented'in this report.
During the inspection the inspectors observed and noted that:
- The licensee relocated the personnel access entrance to a larger facil.ity that is more efficient and convenient for plant personnel use.
Individuals no longer have to stand in long lines outside the entrance during inclement weather and with separate exit lanes egress is also vastly -improved.
+The morale of the security force was excellent, and management provides tangible rewards for recognition of excellent performance.
- The cooperation and support from plant personnel in adhering to
"
security requirements was evident and supported by plant management.
b.
Security Program Plans - The inspectors verified that changes to the fp
'
licensee's Security, Contingency, and Guard Training and Qualification Plans, as implemented, did not decrease the effectiveness of the respective plans, and had been submitted in
,
L accordance with NRC requirements.
--z--
_______________ _..
................
...
. -
- - - -.
,
c.E
.
-
.
However, as noted during the previous security inspections, the inspectors found that several areas of the Security, Contingency, and Training and Qualifications plans still contained out-dated-information. The licensee has contracted an outside contractor to expedite the updating of the plans. The inspectors confirmed that a Purchase Request and Agreement document was issued for the revision of the plans.
c.
The 1989 annual security program audit report was reviewed during Inspection No. 50-333/89-14. The next annual audit of the security program is scheduled during May, 1990.
The results of this audit will be reviewed by Region I inspectors during the next scheduled inspection.
3.
Protected and Vital Area physical Barriers, Detection and Assessment Aids a.
Protected Area Barriers - The inspectors conducted a physical inspection of the protected area (PA) barrier on April 24,-1990.
The inspectors determined, by observation, that the barriers were installed and maintained as described in the Plan. No discrepancies were noted, b.
Protected Area Detection Aids - The inspectors observed the PA perimeter detection aids on April 24, 1990 and determined that they were generally installed, maintained and operated as committed to in the Plan. During this inspection the inspectors observed the licensee conduct tests of the PA perimeter detection aids and no
".
discrepancies were noted.
c.
Isolation Zones - The inspectors verified that isolation zones were adequately maintained to permit observation of activities on both sides of the PA barrier. No discrepancies were noted.
d.
Protected Area and Isolation Zone Lighting - The inspectors conducted a lighting survey of.the PA and isolation zones on April 24, 1990.
The inspectors determined, by observation, that the lighting in the PA and isolation zones was adequate.
During the lighting survey the inspectors noted several light poles with inoperative lights.
In the one area of concern, the licensee took immediate compensatory action,_by placing a recently purchased portable light in the area.
The inspectors determined from discussion with the licensee's security staff, and a review of work requests, that some of the inoperative lights had been reported to maintenance approximately a month earlier on work request number 61017. The licensee began corrective action by replacing the inoperative bulbs on April 25, 1990. The licensee committed to monitor the timely repair of inoperative lights.
This is an unresolved item (UNR 50-333/90-16-01).
I
,
K
!
>
.
.
..
.
.
.
e.
Assessment Aids --The inspectors observed the PA perimeter-assessment aids and determined that they were installed and operated as committed to in the Plan.
During the last security inspection the inspectors noted that a significant number of the video monitors in both the CAS and SAS had -
t problems with picture quality and several monitors had not been
'
working properly for over two months. The inspectors observed that the licensee had taken adequate corrective action to resolve this matter and a significant improvement was noted.
,
r THl3 PAi!AGMPil CONTAINS SAFEGUAES I;EST."'E:! i.D 13 MT FOR Pl5LIC DISC!0SEE, li IS IKT NTIONALLY
LEFTELAHX.
4.
Protected and Vital Area Access Control of personnel; Packages j.
and Vehicles a.
The inspectors determined that the licensee was exercising positive control over personnel access to the PA and-the vital areas (VAs).
This determination-was based on.the following:
.
1)
The inspectors verified that personnel are properly identified and that authorization is checked prior to issuance of badges and key-cards.
No discrepancies were noted.
D 2)
The inspectors verified that the licensee has a program to
,
confirm the trustworthiness and reliability of. employees and
contractor personnel.
This program includes' checks on-
,
employment history, criminal history, and a psychological examination.
No discrepancies were noted.
!
'
3)
The inspectors verified that the licensee has a fitness for duty program in place. A drug testing program has been
'
implemented and individuals are tested randomly, or for cause~.
No discrepancies were noted.
4)
The inspectors reviewed the. security lock and key procedures and determined that they were consistent with commitments in the Plan.
The inspectors also reviewed the PA and VA key
+
g' !.
inventory logs, and discussed lock and key procedures with members of the security force and the licensee's security
,.
staff.
No discrepancies were noted.
.
i I
k e
-
. -
.
. -
.
-.
.
.
.
- -
.
.
.
.
.
.
5)
The inspectors verified that the licensee takes precautions to ensure that only authorized individuals can be added to the access list by having a member of management review the list every 31 days and by limiting the access computer program to three essential individuals. No discrepancies were noted.
.
6)
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 personnel access processing during shift
. changes and visitor access processing, and interviewed members of the security force.
THis PARI.BRAPH C0fliAINS SAFE 00MDS IMAll::1 AllD IS NOT TOR PUhllt-DISCLOSUnE, IT IS 1XTENT!DilALLY LEFT EthM.
7)
The inspectors determin'd, by observation, that individuals in the PA and VAs display their access badges as required.
No discrepancies were noted.
8)
The inspectors verified that the licensee has escort procedures for visitors to the PA and VAs.
No discrepancies were noted.
9)
The. inspectors verified that the licensee has provisions for ensuring prompt access to vital equipment during emergencies and that the provisions are adequate for their purpose.
No discrepancies were noted.
10) The inspectors verified that unescorted access to VAs is limited to authorized individuals. The VA access list is revalidated at least once every 31 days as committed to in the Plan.
Till$ PARAERAPH CONTAINS SAFIGUMDS I4f0EAll51 AliD IS NOT FOR PUBil0 DISCLOSU22,11 IS INTENT!0NALLY LEFT BLAd.
.
....
,
.. _ _ _. _ _. _...
_.
.
..
.....
.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
.
.
'
.
b.
The inspectors determined that the licensee was exercising positive control over packages and material that are brought into the PA.
The inspectors reviewed the package and material control procedures and found that they were consistent with commitments in the Plan.
The inspectors also observed package and material processing and interviewed members of the security force and the licensee's
'
security staff about package and material control procedures. No discrepancies were noted, c.
The inspectors determined that the licensee properly controls vehicle access to and within the pA. The inspectors verified that vehicles are properly processed p *or to entering the PA.
The process was consistent with commitments in the Plan. The inspectors also reviewed the vehicle search procedures and determined that they were consistent with commitments in the Plan.
This determination was made by observing vehicle processing and search, inspection of vehicle logs, and by interviewing members of the security force and licensee's security staff about vehicle processing and search procedures.
No discrepancies were noted.
5.
Alarm Stations and Communications a.
The inspectors observed the operation of the Central Alarm Station (CAS) and the Secondary Alarm Station (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.
No discrepancies-were noted, b.
The inspectors observed tests of all communications capabilities in both the CAS and the SAS and reviewed the testing records for the communications channels. All were found to be as committed to in the Plan. No discrepancies were noted.
6.
Emergency power Supply a.
'The inspectors verified that there are several systems (batteries, dedicated diesel and propane gas generators, and plant on-site AC power) that provide back-up power to the security systems and reviewed the accompanying test and maintenance procedures for these
.
systems. The systems and procedures were consistent with the Plan.
The batteries, battery chargers, diesel and propane gas generators are located in locked areas. No discrepancies were noted, b.
The inspectors verified that the door access control system for VAs
'
o will permit emergency egress when normal power is lost.
Administra-tive procedures permit emergency ingress capability when normal power is lost. No discrepancies were note., - - - -,,,,, -,,
'
.
.
..
,
-
7.
Testing, Maintenance and Compensatory Measures a.
The inspectors reviewed testing and maintenance records and confirmed that the records committed to in-the Plan were on file and readily available for licensee and NRC review. The station provides instrumentation and controls (I&C) technicians to repair / replace and test any security equipment that,'equires corrective maintenance.
-
The inspectors determined, through a review of Work Request records that in certain instances, repairs or replacement of equipment and parts was taking in excess of one month toLcomplete.
It appears that when the licensee is in an outage, the maintenance personnel may be committed to outage maintenance, and repairs or replacement of security equipment is assigned a low priority.
The inspectors also determined through conversations with the licensee's maintenance' personnel and security staf f, that security equipment was not assigned to a preventive maintenance program and the licensee does not have,1&C te"inicians dedicated to provide maintenance of the security equir~:nt and systems. The-licensee committed to resolve the issue of the timely repair or replacement of the security equipment and systems.
This is an unresolved item.
(UNR 50-333/90-16-04).
b.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's use of compensatory measures and determined them to be as committed to in the Plan. No
,
discrepancies were noted.
8.
Security Training and Qualification
'
During the last ' physical security inspection, the inspectors found that the licensee's training section was not using a suspense system to alert supervisors of upcoming recertifications. The lack of a suspense system resulted in certain instances where the period for the completion of physical examinations or requalification training of Security Officers (S0s) exceeded for short periods of time, the twelve months for reterti-fication required by the Training and Qual,ification Plan. The licensee committed to establishing an effective suspense system to resolve this problem. During this inspection the inspectors determined through a review of records and other documentation that the license had established a suspense system that alerts supervisors of upcoming recertifications.
The security inspectors randomly selected and reviewed the training and qualification records for eleven S0s. The inspectors found that in one record the completion of a physical examination exceeded the twelve months recertification for a short period of time. This was due to a S0 who, for an unknown reason, failed to report for his annual physical scheduled on April 11, 1990. The S0's last annual physical date was on April 17, 1989.
The licensee's nurse had scheduled and notified the 50 by written notice, but did not forward a copy of the written notice to the S0's Supervisors.
When the S0 failed to report for his scheduled physical the nurse did
.
_ _
__________
p e
,
.
V
'
.
,o
9 not notify the SO's Supervisors or of the fact that she had rescheduled the 50 for another date. However, the nurse did inform the 50 by written nntice that a new date of April-30, 1990, which was the next earliest date available that the licensee's medical doctor would be on site, was confirmed for his physical.
The licensee's Security Superintendent took immediate administrative action to prevent recurrence by issuing written instructions in two memorandums, one to the security force and one to the nurse, both dated
- April 26, 1990.
This is an unresolved item that will be reviewed during the next scheduled inspection (UNR 50-333/90-16-05).
Several 50s were interviewed to determine if-they possess the requisite knowledge and ability to carry out their assigned duties. The interview
!
results indicated'that they were knowledgeable of their job requirements. No discrepancies were noted,
'
i 9.
Land Vehicle Bomb Contingency Procedure The inspectors conducted a review of the licensee's Land Vehicle Bomb Contingency Procedures. The licensee's procedure details short-term l
actions that could be taken to protect against attempted radiological sabotage involving a land vehicle bomb if such a threat were to
!
'
materialize. The procedure appeared adequate for its intended purpose.
No discrepancies were noted.
10.
Exit Interview
<
.
The inspectors met with the licensee representatives indicated in paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on April 27, 1990.
At
_
that-time, the purpose and scope for the inspection were. reviewed and the findings were presented.
The licensee's commitments, as documented in
!
this report, were reviewed and confirmed with the' licensee.
!l
i
!