IR 05000443/1987021
| ML20236R769 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/29/1987 |
| From: | Bailey R, Keimig R, Martin W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236R767 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-443-87-21, NUDOCS 8711240019 | |
| Download: ML20236R769 (6) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- - . . _ _ _ - _ _. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _____, ___ . . ... ! ! U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION !
REGION I
i Report No. 50-443/87-21 Docket No.
50-443 License No. NPF-56 . Licensee: Public Service of New Hampshire .P.O.. Box 330-Manchester, New Hampshire Facility Name: Seabrook Station ! Inspection At: Seabrook, New Hampshire ~ Inspection' Conducted: August 17-21, 1987 'Date of Last Physical. Security. Inspection: November 24-26, 1986 u . Type.of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Physical Security /#~ M-#7 Inspectors: ' a .R. J. Baile h'ysical S(furity Inspector date ' y /*2937
- 4T. G. -Martin, Physical e
ity Inspector date + , -'r _/s.J# // ' Approved by:
- *
~fR.R.Keimig, Chief,/5dfeguardsSection, date i Division of Radiati% Safety and Safeguards ' In spection ' Summary: Routine, Unannounced Physical Security Inspection on ' August-17-21,1987 (Inspection No. 50-443/87-21) -Areas Inspected: Records and Reports; Testing and Maintenance; Physical Barriers (Protected and Vital Areas); Lighting; Compensatory Meaeures; i Assessment Aids; Access Control (Personnel and Vehicles); Training and Qualification; Follow-up on Security b ent Reports; and Inspector Follow-up Items (IFIs) i Results: The licensee was'in compliance with NRC requirements in the areas examined.
l
i .. ,' i ' 8711240019 871113 ,
4j3 ! ADOCK O .gDR ! ! ._________-__--______2
-_
. .
. DETAILS ' 1.
Key Persons Contacted Public Service of New Hampshire D. Moody, Station Manager J. T. Tuberty, Administrative Projects Manager S. J. Ellis, Security Department Supervisor D. W. Perkins, Plant Licensing Division T. L. Wiebord, Quality Assurance C. T. Goodnow, Chief of Security, Green Mountain Security G. R. Conway, Assistant Chief of Security, Green Mountain Security ! G. E. Paulsen, Deputy Chief of Operations, Green Mountain Security U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission A. C. Cerne, Senior Resident Inspector The inspectors also interviewed other licensee employees and members of the Green Mountain contract security organization.
2.
Follow-up on Security Event Reports The inspectors conducted an in-office and onsite review of Security Event Report Numbers 86-08 through 86-15 and 87-01 through 87-10 that had been submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 73.71.
These reviews were conducted to verify that adequate compensatory measures had been taken and that corrective measures to prevent recurrence had been properly ' implemented, where applicable.
Thirteen of the events resulted from startup testing and calibration of new security equipment and the security computer and associated hardware.
Four events resulted from the loss of station power when other plant j operational tests were being performed.
To prevent recurrence, the
licensee is reviewing the feasibility of additional power sources.
One event resulted from the discovery of a guard sleeping on post and appropriate corrective action was taken.
The licensee's event reporting program was_found to be acceptable. Several reports, however, required clarification from the licensee because of insufficient data. Onsite review of the licensee security event reporting program by the inspectors found that each event was properly analyzed by the licensee and appro-priately documented. Close-out actions were readily available for review by the NRC.
i F i !
l l __ -_
y, -. _ - , n;
Q '
- .
r .. . .
<, ' L .-3.
' Status of Inspector Follow-up Items (IFIs).
~ '.(Closed) IFI 86-56-01: Provide more administrative control over mainte-
. nance work' requests on security related-systems.
The inspectors observed that the: licensee.had refined the maintenance work request program and was u L' able to demonstrate' prompt retrieval of status information on outstanding
- work.
The. program also provides a weekly status report for use by security . management, (Closed) IFI 86-56-02: ' Address potential barrier deficiencies in an m.T exterior ~ portion of the Main Steam Chase. The inspectors observed that , zu .theclicensee had addressed the NRC concern and took appropriate corrective ! .. . action ~.to ' harden this -exterior barrier.
- (Closed) IFI 86-56-03: Conduct audits of the contractor background screening programs for unescorted access to protected and vital areas
! onsite. The. inspectors ve'rified that. the licensee had conducted an ,' init-ial audit on five of. twenty-eight contractor background screening
programs.
The audit reports were transmitted to the contractors for correctiveraction,.as necessary. The. screening programs were subsequently determined to'be'in compliance with the licensee's access authorization program. The. licensee. informed the-inspectors that such audits will con-tinue until each contractor's screening program is reviewed.
-(Cl o se'd)- I FI-86-29-10: Activation of the Central and Secondary Alarm Stations (CAS/SAS).
The' inspectors confirmed through' observation and test of the alarm' stations'that the alarm stations were-in conformance with the - NRC-approved physical security-plan and that the alarms were adequate and ap'pronriate.for.their intended functions. CAS and SAS operators demon-
. -- strated adequate skill. and knowledge in the performance of their duties.
- 4.
. Records and Reports'
The inspectors-reviewed various reports and records including, but not limited to, ' audits of the' security program, audits of contractor back-c
ground screening programs, security event reports, designated licensee ! t . vehicle records, shift assignment records, and communications check j - records,- All reports and records were complete, properly maintained and readily' accessible. No deficiencies were noted.
L 5.
. Testing and Maintenance
The inspectors conducted a selective review of raaintenance procedures and records and determined that the program appeared to assure that security i related' equipment' met'the required performance objectives.
Corrective j maintenance was generally conducted in a timely manner, however, the inspectors observed several detection aids that, although operational, we're in need of maintenance attention, e.g., weather seals on these ~ devices were degraded.
Replacement of the seals was undertaken by the l ! E l I l . _ _
_.
_- _ _ Q- , f 'I.- , -. - [[ -
j ' < l
- licensee'during the. inspection.
The. inspectors verified that the licensee
> ..had'previously identified the degraded seals and had. requested the manu- ] .facturer of.these devices to develop-a more durable' seal.
l 7 6'.~
- Physical Barriers (Protected Area)
.] - ,
The' inspectors determined by observation that the licensee was maintain'ing.
{ the physical' barriers surrounding the protected area in accordance with j ' , < - 'the:NRC-approved physical. security plan.
No deficiencies were noted.
.
L7.
Physical Barriers-(Vital Aiea)- .a.
' < THIS PARAGRAPH CONTAINS SAFEGUARDc INF0EMAI?ON /HD IS NOT FOR PUBLIC " D!SCLOSURE,11 iS UlifHiiONALLY .f , -LEF T BLANK.
I I t.
l _ z u.
..t- ' ' b; Tills PARAGRAPH CONTAINS SAFE 00ARDS lNF0RMATiON AND 15 NOT FOR PUBt1C - i ' ' ' DISCLO5U."sE,iT IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT DLANK.. i - 8.
Lighting.
The.inspe'ctors verified through observation that the illumination of the protected area and isolation' zones was adequate to permit monitoring and observation'of activities with the-unaided eye.
The inspectors also
, verified through observation that the assessment aid system was capable of i functioning properly within the range of illumination being provided,- as - committed. to in the NRC-approved physical security plan. No deficiencies
Lwere noted.
,
! !
_v.
t u . ; -[ = ' 'f; t, e ....,
m;.JW@ . F._ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - m v== h , ~ > , ,
e4l
, , . [[. l-g.,. 94gt{ '
hf ' s q hb ^ ' .5 , , < ,, , '} &: * ' ql t V ty & ' ,- "9? TC'o'mpensatory Measures ' < '
, The inspectors observed that the.. licensee was.providing compensatory < > . s y csecurity measures?for a. portion.of' the perimeter intrusion detection 3W jsystem thatidid not consistently meetrthe. required performance standards.
- iTheDi.nspectors; verified that; steps:were;being'taken to correct the ' " deficiency.5f The' inspectors also verified that the compensatory measures
- were: adequately employed and.in accordance with the NRC-approved physical m
, # - . security plan'.,No deficiencies were noted.
7 10uAbsessment' Aids ' , ' [: r >! . I!!!S PARAGRAPH CONTAINS SAFEGUARDS < liiFORMATicli AND IS N07 TOR PU3LIC ' . DfSCLOSURE,1 TIS li:TEHil0HALLY f . LETTBLN4K.- < a
- -
K nr . , 'll'. 2AccessiCo'ntrol -(Personnel) ' < J The; inspectors ~_ observed and verified that access to the protected and + + .. o:! vital-areasEwas being controlled in accordance with commitments in the f' ~ iNRC-approved physical security plan and implementing procedures. No -
deficiencies were:noted..: ' i m , . ~t r12. TAcce'ss Control (Vehicles)
- Interviews ofiplant an'd. security personnel, records reviews and observa-
, tion'by the inspectors indicated that designated licensee vehicles are .. limited in use to:onsite plant functions'and are controlled to ensure that " ' they.are used only by authorized persons, for authorized purposes.
No ! ,
- deficiencies were noted.
!
- i
- 13; Training and-Qualification-
.Ths' inspectors verified that the security contractor had developed and , . implemented a procedure'for random testing of security personnel in their y' Lduties~and responsibilities.
Random testing is conducted in addition to
- required annual training and requalification.
The security contractor
- informed the inspectors that, since the implementation of random testing, ca!high level of. assurance 4 regarding the proficiency of the security force
, ..between"requalification periods had been achieved.
No deficiencies were > noted.. ' - _y c t > . >
. l x . ' h , ,
, V.. iw_=_ _ _- - -.
r_; . - _ _ _, f..'.. . ' ,! ..., . 3.~ .
l i 14.
Exit Interview-The inspectors met with the licensee representatives listed in paragraph 1 on August 21, 1987, and discussed the scope and results of the inspection.
! No written material was provided to the licensee by the inspector during the inspection.
i
l ! l l l . l l l
! I ! i
l __-_-___-J }}