IR 05000352/1985034

Physical Security Insp Rept 50-352/85-34 on 850807.No Violations Observed.Major Areas Inspected:Followup on Allegation Re Removal of Sensitive Security Drawings from Facility by Former Member of Security Force

ML20134J220
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	08/26/1985
From:	Keimig R, Kushner W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20134J194	List: IR 05000352/1985034 ML20134J190
References
50-352-85-34, NUDOCS 8508290212
Download: ML20134J220 (3)

Text

_ _ . _ _ _ _

_

,

,

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /85-34'

Docket N License No. NPF-27

. Licensee: Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Facility Name: Limerick Generating Station Inspection At: Limerick, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted: August 7, 1985 Date of Last Physical Security Inspection: July 8-12, 1985 Type of Inspection: Special Physical Security Inspection

' Inspector: /4 - 7 J'

W. L.' KushneF, Safeguards Scientist date ,

Approved by: ~[ .~ Lc T R. R. Keimig, Chief Sa[pg'uards Section date Inspection Summary: Special Physical Security Inspection on August 7, 1985 (Inspection No. 50-352/85-34)

Area Inspected: Special inspection to followup on an allegation regarding the removal of sensitive security drawings from the Limerick Station by a former member of the security force. The inspection involved 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> on site by a region-based inspecto Results: The allegation was not substantiate "

PDR G ADOCK 05000352 PD .

--

i

.

DETAILS Persons Contacted

J. Basilio, Administrative Engineer M. Berner, Y0H Site Security Captain The inspector also interviewed other licensee and Y0H security personne . MC30703 - Exit Interview The inspector met with the Administrative Engineer at the conclusion of 1 the inspection on August 7, 1985 and advised him of the inspection resul t No written material was provided to the licensee during the inspectio . MC93700 - Inspector Dispatched to Site Background On August 2, 1985, a reporter for a Philadelphia newspaper advised NRC Region I by telephone that she had received copies of eight drawings along with a handwritten note from an individual who purportedly was previously employed as a member of the security force at the Limerick Generating Station. The note alleged that the drawings contained sensitive physical security information which the individual was able to take away from the station. The reporter requested a meeting with Region I personnel to discuss the allegation. On August 6, regional per-sonnel met with the reporter to review the allegation and the eight drawing The NRC personnel identified the drawings as being of the Limerick Station but could not identify them as drawings from the physical security plan for the station. The drawings had apparently been reduced to about 3" x 5" size and laminated in plastic. The NRC personnel advised the reporter that they would look into the allegation and report the findings to he Special Inspection

,

l On August 7, a regional inspector was dispatched to the Limerick Station

!

to investigate the allegatio The inspector studied the eight drawings

and determined that none were from the Limerick Physical Security Plan.

!

'

One was a hand drawn, unscaled, general outline of the station's perimeter boundary which depicted the general location of intrusion detection system zones. According to a licensee representative, this drawing, in similar reduced and laminated format, had been provided in the past to security force personnel as an orientation and familiarization aid. The inspector reviewed this drawing and the other seven with representatives of the

_

- , - - , . - _ , , . - . .,.n,-,~-.,,.,--,..---_..----..--~~-a.,---,-.---a mg-. , ,,,--.y a , - - - - . . . - - . . - - - - , - - - - - - , - . ,

. . >

.

license The inspector determined that the aid was no longer being provided since security force personnel were sufficiently familiar with the station to carry out their tasks without its use. The inspector also determined that the zones depicted on the drawing could not be effectively utilized to compromise the intrusion detection system. Additionally, the inspector determined that the other seven drawings were fire protection drawings which had been overlayed to add specific door identification number (The capability of overlay enhancement of drawing was available in the station's document control center. Plastic lamination and reduc-tion facilities were also available at the station). The licensee's rep-resentative stated that he had not authorized and had no knowledge of the reproduction of these drawings. The information depicted on these seven drawings was also determined by the inspector to not compromise the sta-tion's physical security progra Conclusions Based upon this special inspection, the inspector concluded the following:

One of the eight, reduced size, laminated drawings had been provided in the past to members of the security force by the licensee;

The other seven drawings were reproduced without the authori-zation or consent of the licensee;

None of the drawings, either alone or together, represented a compromise of the station's physical security program; Due to the drawing enhancement and reproduction facilities available on the station, the licensee was advised by the inspector that extreme pre-cautions must be exercised over the control of safeguards (sensitive security) informatior and other information of a proprietary nature. The licensee agreed to review this matter and to take appropriate actions as deemed necessar , Inspector Follow-up Item 85-34-01)

.

L