IR 05000369/1996009

Insp Repts 50-369/96-09 & 50-370/96-09 on 961104-08.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Safeguards Insp Included Aspects of Licensee Plant Support

ML20135C594
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire, Mcguire
Issue date:	11/27/1996
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20135C585	List: IR 05000369/1996009 ML20135C582
References
50-369-96-09, 50-369-96-9, 50-370-96-09, 50-370-96-9, NUDOCS 9612090008
Download: ML20135C594 (8)

Text

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

_

.

,

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 11 Docket Nos: 50-369, 50-370 License Nos: NPF-9, NPF-17 gi Report No: 50-369/96-08, 50-370/96-08 /

Licensee: Duke Power Company

' '

f Facility: McGuire Generating Station, Units 1 &

, Location: 12700 Hagers Ferry R /

'

l V - 1tersville, NC 28078 l

Dates: November 4-8,1996 Inspector: W. Stansberry, Security inspector Approved By: P. Fredrickson, Chief, Special Inspection Branch Division of Reactor Safety l

l

'

i l I

'

l l

l l

.

i

!

9612090008 961127 PDR ADOCK 05000369 G PDR  !

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

. -

.

.

! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

!

l Muduire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 l NRC Inspection Report 50-369/96-09, 50-370/96-09

!

l l

'

This safeguards inspection included aspects of licensee plant support. The report covers a !

one week period of an unannounced routine inspection by a regional safeguards specialist inspecto Plant Support

-

The licensee's intrusion detection cystems were functional, effective and met licensee l commitments. There were no vulnerabilities found that could be exploited to avoid detection. There were no violations of regulatory requirements found in this area (Section S2)

.

The licensee's alarm stations and communications systems were complying with the criteria in Chapters 8 and 10 of the Physical Security Plan (PSP) and portions of the i Safeguards Contingency Plan. There were no violations of regulatory requirements found in this area (Section S2).

.

The inspector found that the licensee provided outstanding support for the Physical Security Program and considered this area a major strength to the program. This was based on the review of the PSP, records and interviews with management, support, and security personnel. There were no violations of regulatory requirements found in this area (Section S6).

Evaluation of the effectiveness of management controlindicate that human errors, hardware / mechanical problems are being effectively controlled and managed. Root cause analyses on the Licensee Event Reports and Security Event Logs were a strength. There were no violations of regulatory requirements found in this area (Section S6).

Licensee-conducted audits were thorough, complete, and effective in terms of uncovering weaknesses in the security system, procedures, and practices. The audit reports concluded that the security program was effective and recommended l appropriate action to improve the effectiveness of the security program; and the licensee had acted appropriately in response to findings made in the audit reports. The inspector determined that all the above items were reviewed, appropriately assigned, analyzed, and prioritized for corrective action. The corrective actions taken were technically adequate and performed in a timely manner. There were no violations of regulatory requirements found in this area (Section S7).

l l

. . ,____ _ ._ _ ___ __. _ __ __ ___ _

.

H REPORT DETAILS i

"

l IV. Plant Suppod

"

\

'

S2 Status of Security Facilities and Equipment

. S2.1 Protected Area Detection Eauipment

Inspection Scope (87100)

i '

Based on the commitments in Chapters 4,5,8, and 9 of the Physical Security Plan (PSP), the inspector evaluated the licensee's intrusion detection systems to verify that !

they were functionally effective and met licensee commitments. This evaluation was also to ensure that there were no vulnerabilities that could be exploited to avoid detection.

l Observation and Findinas

! i

'

The licensee had installed intrusion detection systems that could detect attempted i penetrations through the isolation zone, and attempts to gain unauthorized access to :

'

the protected area. Systems had a diversity to assure maintenance of the system's l

'

capabilities. The licenses segmented the intrusion detection systems into enough alarm zones to prov,se adequate coverage of the protected area perimeter barrier and isolation zones. Protected area access control detection equipment at the access l portal and warehouse were evaluated also. Observation of eight protected area i perimeter alarm zone's and the warehouse x-ray detection equipment's 7-day test verified functional and alarm operability of this equipment. The perimeter alarm

'

i systems communicated alarm conditions to response force personnel through the alarm i station.s, allowing for response to assess and correct the conditions. Security

,

procedure EXAC-09, " Compensatory Measures for Degraded Security Systems",

! Revision 16, dated February 29,1996 was reviewed and found adequate.

i Conclusions

$ Based upon the above evaluation, the inspector concluded that the licensee's intrusion detection systems were functional, effective and met licensee commitments. There were no vulnerabilities found that could be exploited to avoid detection. There were no violations of regulatory requirements found in this are S2.2 Alarm Stations and Communications Inspection Scope (81700)

The inspector evaluated the licensee's alarm stations and communication equipment to ensure application of the criteria in Chapter 8 of the PSP, and portions of the Safeguards Contingency Pla _ . _ _ __ _ .__ _ _ _ . . _ __._._ _ . - __

.

.

.

'

l

,

2 Observations and Findinas The inspector verified that annunciation of protected and vital area alarms occurred audibly and visually in the alarm stations. The licensee equipped both stations with

Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) assessment capabilities and communication

'

equipment. Alarms were tamper-indicating and self-checking, and provided with an

uninterruptable power supply. These stations were continually manned by capable and

, knowledgeable security operators. The stations were independent yet redundant in operation. Alarm station's interiors were not visible from the protected area, and no l single act could remove the capability of calling for assistance or otherwise responding

to an alarm. Alarm stations' wr:Jis, doors, floors, ceiling and windows were bullet-

resistant at the high-powered rifle rating (UL752). Security procedure EXAO-12,"CAS/SAS Operations", Revision 51, dated May 30,1996 was reviewed and found adequat j i

'

Based on the licensee's PSP commitments in Chapter 10, the inspector evaluated the provision, operation, and maintenance of intemal and extemal security communication i l links, and determined that they were adequate and appropriate for their intended i l function. Each security force member could communicate with an individualin each of the continuously manned alarm stations who could call for assistance from other security force personnel and from locallaw enforcement agencies. The alarm stations had the capability for continuous two-way voice communication with locallaw enforcement agencies through radio as well as three other telephone services.

'

Besides the radio and voice lines communications, there were five duress alarm systems available. The licensee had compensatory measures for defective or i

'

'

inoperable communication equipment. Security procedure EXAO-13," Security Radio Communication System", Revision 15, dated March 29,1995 was reviewed and found adequat Conclusions

-

Based on this evaluation, the inspector concluded that the licensee was complying with the criteria in Chapters 8 and 10 of the PSP and portions of the Safeguards Contingency Plan. There were no violations of regulatory requirements found in this area.

'

SG Security Organization and Administration S6.1 Manaaement Support

!

j Inspection Scope (81700)

The inspector evaluated the degree of the licensee's management support to the Physical Security Program. Based on the requirements contained in the PSP, the inspector reviewed the Licensee's Event Reports (LERs) and the Safeguards Event Log (SEL) entries. This review was to determine if the licensee appropriately assigned, analyzed and set priorities for corrective action for the reports and log entries, and whether the corrective action taken was technically adequate and timel .

.

!

3 Observations and Findinas The licensee had an onsite physical protection system and security organization. Their objective was to provide assurance against an unreasonable risk to public health and safety. The security organization and physical protection system were designed to protect against the design basis threat of radiological sabotage as stated in 10 CFR 73.1(a). A proprietary security force provided protected area site security for the licensee. There was, in addition, a proprietary police force and a contract security force outside the protected area providing onsite security. At least one full-time !

manager of the security organization was always onsite. This individual had the authority to direct the physical protection activities of the organization. The management system included a mechanism for establishing, maintaining, and enforcing written security procedures. These procedures documented the structure of the security organization, and detailed the duties of security force and other individuals responsible for secunty. Licensee's management system provided for written approval of procedures and revisions thereto by the individual who had general responsibility for security functions. Licensee management exhibited an awareness and favorable attitude toward physical protection requirement No LERs were documented for review. The review of the SELs as of the end of the 3rd quarter of CY 1996 indicated the following:

EVENT rd Qtri - 4th Qtr ist Qtri 2nd Qtri 3rd Qtr-

' '

95 '95 . '96 - '

'961 96:

Human Errors 20 (27 %) 34 (40 %) 23 (34 %) 29 (51 %) 18 (33 %)

Hardware Systems 54 (73 %) 52 (60 %) 45 (66 %) 28 (49%) 34 (67 %)

Other Events 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 74 86 68 57 55 (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%)

The overall trending since 1st Quarter 1995 has been down. Each quarter had an excellent Executive Summary that was provided to site management. A Problem Investigation Process (PIP) was initiated on any problem shown in the evaluation of the trends of each quarte There had not been any security force turnover since 1987. There were no compensatory measures in effect at the time of the inspection. Review of previous compensatory measures indicated that they lasted no more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. Review of the outstanding security work-orders showed the there was only one work order open as of November 5th, dated October 8,1996. The longest opened work order since l March '96 was open 28 days. Since March, there has been 132 work orders, with 73%

of them completed and closed with in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />,86% were closed within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br />. This was accomplished by a data base control system and a security predefined activities data base program. The security organization supports the site fire brigade, fire watch,

'

.

and medical emergency teams. Site support to the repair and maintenance of the j security systems and equipment was provided by two dedicated Instrument and i Electronic's personne Conclusions The inspector found that the licensee provided outstanding support for the Physical Security Progrem and considered this area a major strength to the program. This was based on the review of the PSP, records and interviews with management, support, and security personnel. There were no violations of regulatory requirements found in this are S6.2 Effectiveness of Manaaement Control Inspection Scope (81700)

l The inspector evaluated the adequacy of the licensee's controls for identifying, j resolving and preventing problems by reviewing such areas as corrective action systems, root cause analyses, and self assessment in the area of physical securit Also, this inspection was to dett.rmine whether there are strengths or weaknesses in the licensee's controls for the identification and resolution of the reviewed issues that could enhance or degrade plant operations or safet l l Observations and Findinas To determine the adequacy of the above, the inspector reviewed the Licensee's Event Reports (LERs) and the Safeguards Event Log (SEL) entries. This review was to determine if the licensee appropriately assigned, analyzed and set priorities for corrective action for the reports and log entries, and whether the corrective action taken was technically adequate and timel The review of the LERs and SELs indicated a significant decrease in reportable events since 1995. Significant improvements were evsdent in the unsecured vital area doors, CCTV and microwave SEL event entries. SELs have continuously declined except for increases during outage The root cause analyses, corrective actions and self assessment, as mentioned in paragraph S6.1 above were revieweci and found appropriate and adequat Conclusions Evaluation of the effectiveness of management control of the above noted areas indicate that non-human errors, hardware / mechanical preblems are being effectively controlled and managed. Root cause analyses on the LER's and SELs were a strength. There were no violations of regulatory requirements found in this are _ _.

l 1

'

l . ,

l l

,

l

S7 Quality Assurance in Security and Safeguards Activities S7.1 Audits and Corrective Actions Inspection Scope (81700)

Based on the commitments of the PSP, the inspector evaluated the licensee's audit program and corrective action system. This also verified compliance with the requirement for an annual audit of the security and contingency programs. During the inspection, a small representative sample of the problems identified by audits was evaluated by the inspector to determine whether review and analysis were appropriately assigned, analyzed and prioritized for corrective action and whether the i

corrective action taken was technically adequate and performed in a timely manne !

i Observations and Findinas l The licensee's program commitments included auditing its security program, including l the Safeguards Contingency Plan, at least every twelve months. The audit included a review of routine and contingency security procedures and practices. This review evaluated the effectiveness of the physical protection system testing and maintenance program. The Nuclear Assessment and Issues Division, Regulatory Audit Group prepared two reports since the last inspection. The first was SA-95-51(MC)(RA) dated September 26,1995. This audit was conducted during the period of August 7-10, 1995. There were three strengths and one procedural finding. The audit conclusion was, "Overall, the security program at the McGuire Nuclear Site is adequately and effectively implemented." The second audit was SA-96-06 (MC)(RA), dated August 19, 1996. The audit was conducted during the period of July 29-August 1,1996. There were three strengths and no findings or recommendations. The audit conclusion was the same as stated above for the fat audit. The reports were sent to the Site Vice-President and corporate management. Reports of audits were available for inspection at the plant for a period of three year Conclusions Licensee-conducted audits were thorough, complete, and effective in terms of uncovering weaknesses in the security system, procedures, and practices. The audit reports concluded that the security program was effective and recommended appropriate action to improve the effectiveness of the security program; and the licensee had acted appropriately in response to findings maoe in the audit reports. The inspector determined that all the above items were reviewed, appropriately assigned, analyzed, and prioritized for corrective action. The corrective actions taken were technically adequate and performed in a timely manner. There were no violations of regulatory requirements found in this area.

!

,

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

'

. ,

r l 6 V. Manaaement Meetina

. X1 Exit Meeting Summary l

l The inspector presented the inspection results to licensee management at the conclusion of l the inspection on November 8,1996. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented.

l Although reviewed during this inspection, proprietary information is not contained in this l report. Dissenting comments were not received from the license PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee R. Birmingham, Organizational Effectiveness, McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS)

T. Bone, Security Support Supervisor, MNS W. Evans, Security Manager, MNS T. McMeekin, Site Vice President, MNS S. Sellers, Security System Technician, MNS J. Washam, Regulatory Compliance, MNS NRC M. Sykes, Resident inspector INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 81700: Physical Security Program for Power Reactors

!

I