IR 05000454/1989003

Physical Security Insp Repts 50-454/89-03 & 50-455/89-05 on 890201-0303.Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Plans for Coping W/Strikes,Licensee Initial Implementation of Strike Plan & Return to Normal Security Operations

ML20247C582
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	03/23/1989
From:	Creed J, Pirtle G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20247C547	List: IR 05000454/1989003 ML20247C542
References
50-454-89-03, 50-454-89-3, 50-455-89-05, 50-455-89-5, NUDOCS 8903300213
Download: ML20247C582 (4)

Text

.

-

m ..e,'

. . ,

g<p.- , , n ,

)

g( - ..

-

' ' '

mg!K;;' . , ..

r

,

t

.U.JS. NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COMMISSION s-

'* -REGION ~III

'

Reports No.=50.-454/89003(DRSS);.50-455/89005(DRSS);

Docket Nos.:50-454; 50-45 <

. Licenses No.'NPF-37; NPF-66'

Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company

P. 0. Box'767 Chicago, IL- 60690'

'

Facility'Name: ; Byron Nuclear' Power Station,:-Units-ILand 2 Inspection Conducted: Between February.1 and March 3, 1989 Date.of Previous Physical Security Inspection: June 23 - July l L1988

~

A m

. Type'of' Inspection: Announced Physical' Security Inspection

~ Inspector: 1.iMM G. L. Pirtle .

3/21/83 ~

Date Physical Security Inspector f

Approved By: $ h u;h 8 87 ppmes R. Cre~ed, Chief Date Yafeguards Section Inspection Summary -

.

Inspection Between February 1 and March 3,1989 (Reports No. 50-454/89003(DRSS);

No. 50-455/89005(DRSS)). -

Areas Inspected: Included a review of licensee plans for coping with strikes; .

licensee's initial implementation of strike plan; and return to normal security i operation ]

Results: The' licensee.was found to be in compliance with NRC requirements I within the areas examined. Planning and implementation of plans.to cope with j the security- force strike were adequate. Transition of security operations appeared adequate.

<

8903300213 890323 PDR ADOCK 05000454 f i Q PDC .-

j

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _-__

r ^ - - - ~~ - - - - -

- - - -'-- n - o i[. , 2 9

.

,

'

,

.s  ? 't I

-

yt j .

-

DETAILS.

!? i 1, j q Key' Persons Contacted

,

• R.. Ward, Services Superintendent, Commonwealth Edison Company -(CECO)-

!

+J. Kudalis, Services Director, CECO

+ Toleski, Nuclear Security Administrator,1 CECO . I

+ Lucas, Station Security Administrator, CECO

, , D. Goble, Assistant Station-Security Administor,; CECO .

.

H'. Krist, Assistant Station Security Administrator','. CECO

.

,, ,

'[

. B. Rittmer, Project Manager, -Burns International. Security -

Services,Inc.:(BISSI) y

.R. Witherby, CAS/SAS Coordinator, BISSI

• P. Brockman, Senior Resident Inspector, NRC Region III-  !

N. Giles, Resident Inspector, NRC Region III J

• Denotes personnel present during the February 2,1989. exit meeting, p , + Denotes personnel present during the March 3, 1939 exit meetin In addition to the key members of the. licensee's s:aff listed above,- the inspector also interviewed other members of the security ' organizatio . Entrance and Exit Interview (IP 30703) ' At thel beginning of the onsite inspection on February 1,1989, Mr. - R. Lucas and other members of the licensee's staff were informed of .the purpose of the visit and the areas to be examine The inspector met with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1 on February 2, 1989. During that meeting, the inspector advised the Services Superintendent that planning for and implementation of contingency plans for the strike involving the security force were adequate. The inspector requested-that NRC Region III be notif.ied if the security measures reviewed by the inspector changed for any reason, and if vandalism or threats of vandalism occurred onsit l During the March 3,1989 exit meeting, personnel present were .

.

advised that the return to normal security operations appeared to .

!

have been effective. Continued increased sensitivity by management i

'

personnel of guard force performance appeared warranted. (Refer to Section 3.b for further information.) l l

- - __-__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

- _ - _

-

. , .

b

'1g

~

. .

I r

'3.- Program Areas Inspected Listed belew'are.the areas which were examined by'the inspector within--

the . scope lof these inspection activities in'which no: violations, deviations, unresolved, or open items were identified. These areas were reviewed. and. evaluated as deemed necessary by the inspector to. meet the'.

ispecified;" Inspection' Requirements" (Section 02) of the applicable NRC Inspection Procedure (IP) as ' applicable to the security plan. Review .

>

. included interviews, observations,'and documentation review that provide

• lindependentiverification of your abilityito meet security commitment The depth and scope of activities were conducted as deemed appropriate and necessary for. the Program Area.and operational status of the security-syste Numbe Program and Inspection Requirements Reviewed 92709 Licensee Plans for: Coping with' Strike: (2.01) Reviewof'

Contingency' Plan for Nonavailability of ' Security Force; (2.02)

Determination.of Quantity and Types.of Personnel Affected by

.

the' Strike; (2.03) Review of Minimum Manning Requirements per

. Shift; ~(2.04) Determination if Security Staffing is- Capable Jof Meeting Regulatory Requirements During the Strike; (2.05)

Review of Training and Qualification Program Certification.for

. Contingency Force Personnel;' (2.07)' Review of Capability- to -

- Assure Adequate Site Access for Personnel, Delivery of Goods, Ambulance and Fire Department Support, Cmdination with Loc Law Enforcement Personnel, and Capability for Unencumbered Shipments or Receipts of Radioactive Materials; (2.09) Review of. Contingency Plan and Procedure (s).for Coping With Strike by the. Security' Force; (2.10) Capability to Assure Emergency Notification System Communication Capabilit Licensee's Initial Implementation of Strike Plan Review Minimum Shift Manning; (2.07) Confirm Min'imum(2.04)Security Staffing Requirements'are met; (2.08) Verify the Integrity of Site. Security; (2.09) Review Adequacy of Law Enforcement Support, l 81022 Security Organization: (2.01) Security Organization; (2.02)

l Contact Guard Force; (2.03) Onsite Direction; and (2.04) Number of Response Force-Personnel, The inspection showed that the contract security force managers and licensee security management personnel had adequately planned and implemented appropriate contingency requirements to cope with the strike by the security force which occurred between February 2-12, 1989. Shift manning levels exceeded minimum requirements of the licensee's security plan. Contingency security force supervisors

were certified as qualified under security force training and qualification plan criteri Continuous licensee oversight was L provided for adequate shift operations during the strik NRC

I L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. _ - -

.

. ...

? g 1: ,

!

~ c: ,

Region III was not advised of any onsite . acts crf. vandalism or-

threats of vandalism between February 12.and March 3,.1989. The -

. return to normal' security operations appeared. adequat L b. -Interviews conducted by the inspector.during the March 3,1989 inspection disclosed that the contractor. security and licensee management personnel should maintain a: high level of sensitivity towara' alleviating. potential; impressions of management actions:

that may be conceived as. reprisal in nature. An example of,such actions included a perception that disciplinary notices for minor infractions were being prepared whichEprior to the strike did not result in such notices. . Some' supervisors were perceived a difficult to approach.and talk to since the strike was resolve ~

Licensee and. contractor security force managers were aware of the-tensions and issues and; stated they would closely monitor performance This-issue has had no effect on performance, but could have an adverse impact on security force morale if not resolved. Guard-

. force performance will be monitored during. future inspections

'(454/89003-01; 455/89005-01), Between February 2 and February 13, 1989,- daily telephone contact was maintained between the licensee's corporate security department '

and NRC Region III to monitor progress and performance of security-operation m __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _