IR 05000352/1985045

Physical Security Insp Rept 50-352/85-45 on 851119.No Violation Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Alleged Violations of Security Plan & Implementing Procedures

ML20205J312
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	01/08/1986
From:	Bailey R, Keimig R, Galen Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20205J297	List: IR 05000352/1985045 ML20205J293
References
50-352-85-45, NUDOCS 8601300153
Download: ML20205J312 (5)

Text

. .

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report N /85-45

.

Docket N License No. NP F-27 Licensee: Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia Pennsylvania 19101 Facility Name: Limerick Generating Station Inspection At: Limerick, Pennsylvania Inspection Conducted: Ncvember 19, 1985

Type of Inspe tion: Special Physical Security Date of Last 7si a Secu ity Inspection: October 28-November 1, 19.85 Inspectors: \ _]) F/ $3

, / Srni th , af ards Specialist I date ldarl tbd /- 7-d'&

, ~ J. Bail ,'P sical(/ Security Inspector *

date Approved by: #

, Safeguards Section

/- 8-8S pfR.Teimf,Ch date Inspection Summary: Special Unannounced Physical Security Inspection on-November 19, 1985._ (Inspection No. 50-352/85-45)

Areas Inspected: Special inspection to follow up on an allegation made by a former member of the contract security force regarding violations of the licensee's security plan and implementing procedure The inspection involved 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> on site by two region-based inspectors,

~Results: While some of the information provided by the alleger was substan-tiated, no violations were identified.

i

,

$ggi jyM SI G

..

. .

~

DETAILS

Persons Contacted

G. Leitch,~ Plant Manager

! J. Basilio, Administrative Engineer P. Supplee, Administrative Assistant, Security F. Larkin, Nuclear Security Specialist M. Berner, YOH Site Security Captain G. Kelly, NRC Senior Resident Inspector

,

The inspectors also interviewed other licensee and' Y0H Security personne . MC 30703-Exit Interview The inspectors met with ~the licensee representatives listed in paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on November 19, 1985, and discussed with them the scope and results of the inspection. No written material was provided to the licensee during the inspectio . MC 93700-Inspector Dispatched to Site Background

! This special inspection was conducted as a result of an allegation i received by NRC Region I regarding willful and ongoing violations i

of the licensee's security plan and implementing procedures. The

allegation was, made by a former contract security supervisor during interviews with the NRC on October 12, 1985 and November 6,198 On November 19, 1985 two regional inspectors were dispatched to !

the Limerick Station to review the alleged violations. Each of the

>

alleged violations identified by the individual during the interviews was reviewed'during this inspectio Review of Alleged' Violations (1) Tamper Alarms l

-

It is alleged that on October 9,1985, as a result of mainte-i

' nance being performed on the system, several protected area-perimeter intrusion detection zones were in tamper alarm and proper compensatory measures were not implemented.

! Findings The inspectors determined that a tamper alarm did occur as

~

i alleged, but that the compensatory measures implemented during

the period that maintenance was being performed on the intrusion detection system on October 9,1985, were in accordance with the licensee's security plan and procedures were adequate and i

. . .

'

appropriate to insure the continued effectiveness of the detec-

~

tion system. The compensatory measures were verified by the inspectors through a review of the security plan and procedures,

,

security posting logs for that date and alam response logs that 1 identify actions taken as a result of alarm (2) Response to Alarms It is alleged that alarms are not always responded to in a

, timely manner and that records do not always reflect the correct

, alarm response time.

Findings Alarm records were selected at random and reviewed for timely

response by the inspectors. No discrepancies were noted.

j Further, the inspectors noted that there are programs in plac ! to enable licensee and security management to verify alarm

,

response times and adequacy of actions taken. The inspectors

, reviewed the alarm response time verification programs and

'

randomly selected records of alarm response times. No i discrepancies were note ,

'

(3) Malfunctioning of Intrusion Detection System During Inclement

!

Weather

It is alleged that inclement weather results in an increase in nuisance alarms and proper implementation of compensatory measures is doubtful.

!

Findings .

-

The inspectors found that the incidence of nuisance alarms from

,

the intrusion detection system had been a problem, but that'it-l has been largely eliminated. The inspectors determined by a review of records that proper compensatory measures are avail-able, specified in procedures and were implemented during

>

periods of increased nuisance. alarms. The implementation of

'

compensatory measures was verified by the inspectors by review-ing alarm records for recent periods when heavy rain storms

,

occurred. No discrepancies were noted by the inspectors.

-

(4) Alarm Records i

i It is alleged that alarm records are not available for

'

July 3, 1985 and September 16-20, 1985.

i

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

. . .

Findings The. inspectors determined that the alarm records for July 3,1985 were inadvertently destroyed by a member of the security force. The licensee and security contractor were aware of this and had notified the NRC of the inadve'r tent destruction shortly after it occurred. The inspectors found that alarm records for September 16-20, 1985 were available on site and reviewed those for completeness and validity. No discrepancies were noted by the inspecto (5) Monitoring of Protected Area Perimeter It is alleged that'some areas (zones) on the protected area perimeter cannot be adequately monitore Findings The inspectors verified by direct observation that the entire protected area perimeter (all zones) can be monitored adequately from each alarm station.

(6) On-Site Communication Problems It is alleged that, in a certain area of the plant,. portable comunication equipment is ineffective, and because of this-situation, the required number of armed responders is not always availabl Findings

'

The inspectors found that there is an area in the plant where radio reception is marginal and that difficulties are encoun-tered in comunicating with the security force member on patrol when personnel in that area are using portable equipmen However, a review of posting assignments, the security plan, and security procedures by the inspectors disclosed that only-one member of the security force is assigned to patrol that area at any one time and, even if it were~ not possible to contact that person, it would not degrade the ability of.the security force to meet NRC armed response requirements as comitted 'to in the

,

licensee's NRC approve'd security pla (7) Off-Site Communication Problem It is alleged that the security force is using a radio frequency for which Philadelphia Electric company (PECO) is'not licensed by the Federal Comunications Comissio _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-_ -_____ _ _ _- __- _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

_ _ _ . _ _

T

. . . .

1 Findings The Inspectors observed that call letters were posted on a console in each of the alarm stations. The inspectors deter-mined that those call letters, and the frequencies assigned, are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission for use by an off-site entity, not affiliated with PECO, but with a need to contact the Limerick Generating Station under certain conditions. This allegation apparently stemmed from the mis-

-

understanding that those call letters, which were posted on the consoles, were being used by PECO to transmit off-site. The call letters were removed from the console by the licensee during the inspection in order to avoid any further misunder-standing. The inspectors also determined that the call letters and frequencies being used by PEC0 to transmit radio messages are appropriately licensed by the Federal Communications Commissio (8) Use of Controlled Substances by Members of the Security Force It is alieged that a member of the security force is supplying another member of the security force, who was allegeo to be a user, with controlled substances and that the supplier was suspended when found to be in possession of a controlled.sub-stance while on site, but later reinstate The inspectors determined through a review of personnel records and interviews of licens~ee and security contractor management

! and supervisory personnel that the . alleged supplier has never

!

been suspended for any reason and that the alleged user has an excellent work record with no indication or even suspicion of

! using controlled substances, Conclusion As a result of this inspection, the inspectors determined that, while'some of the information provided by the alleger is factual, no violation of any NRC regulations, the NRC approved -

security plan or its implementing procedures, occurred. The inspectors also determined ~ that the' remainder of the information provided either has no basis or results .from a misunderstanding or incomplete knowledge of security.