IR 05000483/1988013
| ML20196H344 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1988 |
| From: | Creed J, Pirtle G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196H302 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-483-88-13, NUDOCS 8807060138 | |
| Download: ML20196H344 (4) | |
Text
-.
..
...
s..
.
.
n
..
U.S. HUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
,'
. REGION;III
-
Report No. 50-483/88013(DRSS)
Docket'No. 50-483 License No. NPF-30
' Licensee:
Union Electric Company-Post Office Box 149 - Hail Code 400 St. Louis, MO 63166 Facility Name:
Callaway County Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Inspection Conducted:
May 25, 1988 Type of Inspection:
Special Allegation Review During Safeguards Inspection 33 % $.9 M
,
Inspector:
Gary C Pirtle Aftb(Bh
Physical Security Inspector Date JamesR. Creed, Chief}c lo///e/M C\\ ce4-F Approved By:
Safeguards Section Date
' Inspection Summary Inspection on May 25, 1988 (Report No. 50-483/88013(DRSS))
Areas Inspected:
Allegation review pertaining to a named individual with unescorted access to the Callaway County Nuclear Power Station allegedly exhibiting aberrant behavior, and removing computerized data from the plant.
<-
Results:
Tie allegations were not substantiated.
The licensee's inquiry into the allegation was thorough and the conclusions were supported by investigation
. findings.
,
8807060138 880617 ADOCK 0%y3 DR
....,
.
,
.
DETAILS
,
.
1.
Key Persons Contacted e
- G. Pendergraff, Superintendent, Security, Union Electric (UE)-
- J. Clark, Assistant Superintendent, Security (UE)
8. Albaugh, Assistant Superintendent, Personnel Development (UE)
The asterisk (*) denotes those personnel present during the exit meeting on May 27, 1988.
The name of the individual identified in the allegation and other specific duty assignment details are not included in the Report Details to protect the person's right to privacy.
2.
Exit Meeting (MJ 30703)
An exit meeting with the personnel denoted in Section 1 above was conducted on May 27, 1988.
The licensee represerAatives were advised that their investigation appeared to be adequate in' scope and methodology, and that the allegations were not substantiated.
The licensee representatives were also advised that the inspection report findings ~were subject to NRC Region III management review and that the final. inspection report would contain the formal perspective for the inspection results.
,
3.
Investigation-Allegation Review:
The following information, provided in the form of an allegation, was reviewed by the inspector.as noted below:
a.
Background:. (Closed) Allegation No. RIII-88-A-0042.
The NRC Region III office received information on March 25, 1988 that a named individual with unescorted access.to the Callaway plant had recently been acting strangely as though he was under a lot of pressure, and had removed computer discs from the plant.
The licensee's Superintendent, Security was advised of the allegations by telephone on March 28, 1988.
A letter, dated April 1, 1988, formally advised the licensee of the specific details pertaining to the allegations and requested the licensee to:
(1) determine if the individual is demonstrating aberrant behavior; (2) determine if the individual had been granted unescorted access to the plant 'n accordance with licensee procedures; and (3) determine if there was any Safeguards Information on computer discs in the person's possession or if any such information may have been removed from the site (Note:
Safeguards Information is information generally
,
L pertaining to security measures at a nuclear plant and is exempt x
from public disclosure and requires stringent controls for access and protection).
!
,
i
..,..,
-
,
.
.
,
'%
The licensee responded by lei,ter, dated April 12, 1988, to the NRC Region III request. The licensee's response addressed the three i'ssues cited above and concluded that the allegations were not substantiated.
During an onsite safeguards inspection conducted between May 20-27, NL 1988, the inspector reviewed the data in the files of the T
Superintendent, Security and interviewed the Superintendent, A
Security; Assistant Superintendent, Security; and the Assistant
\\
Superintendent, Personnel Development in reference to the allegations.
b.
The specific allegations, NRC review actions, and conclusions are addressed below:
(1) Allegation: A named employee had been acting strangely as though he was under a lot of pressure. Specific examples were not given, but the implication was that the employee's conduct may be indicative of aberrant behavior warranting review by licensee management.
NRC Review Actions: Review of the licensee's investigation results, dated April 12, 1988; inspector's review of the allegation case file maintained by the Superintendent, Security; and interview results with the Superintendent, Security; Assistant Superintendent of Security; and Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Development disclosed the following information pertaining to the aliegation.
The employee who had allegedly shown aberrant behavior traits has been a licensee employee for approximately six years.
Backgrounding screening and psychological evaluation results were completed in 1984 with favorable results.
The criminal history check results were received in October 1987 and there was no record of criminal convictions.
Interviews with the Superintendent, Security showed that the individual had not had any plant unescorted access authorization denied or restricted because of aberrant behavior since being employed.
Interviews with the Assistant Superintendent, Personnel Development disclosed that the individual had not had any adverse personnel actions initiated because of aberrant behavior and was considered a good employee.
The individual's immediate Supervisor and the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of maintenance were interviewed by licensee management personnel.
None of the personnel were aware of any recent aberrant behavior by the individual.
The individual was also evaluated within the past four months under the licensee's Continued Employee Observation Program (CEOP) with favorable coments. The supervisor performing the evaluation and the individual involved had attended management
'
-g.-s
.. '
.
training: regarcing stress management as.well as other training designed to familiarize them with stress-related symptoms.
The evaluating supervisor had also received other training such as
-
,-
Problem Prevention through Behavioral Observation, Human Understanding, etc.
s Conclusion:
The allegation was not substantiated.
Record reviews and interview results disclosed no evidence of past or current aberrant behav:or that would warrant denial of unescorted access to the plant.
The individual involved and his supervisor had been trained to be sensitive to stress related symptoms that may be indicative of aberrant behavior and a recent supervisor's evaluation of the individual had i
been performed.
(2) Allegation:
A named individual allegedly had removed computer discs from the plant.
The implication was that the computer discs should not be allowed to leave the site.
NRC Review Actions:
The only NRC regulatory security concern pertaining to computerized plant data is in reference to computerized Safeguards Information data (security related data).
Such information has limitations on who may have access to the data and requires strict controls while in use and when unattended (refer to 10 CFR 73.21 for detailed information).
Review of the licensee's investigation results, dated April 12, 1988, and interviews with the Superintendent, Security disclosed that the named individual had very limited involvement with security equipment and his Safeguards access level does not permit him to check out Safeguards Information from the document control system.
Additionally, interviews with the Superintendent, Security disclosed that only the Security Department generates and controls computerized Safeguards Information at the site in computer disc form.
Such discs are under direct control of the Security Department and are stored in Security Department safes or other security facilities.
No discs were repov ced lost or missing, and the named individual did not have access to the computer discs because of his Safeguards access level and physical protection provided for such data.
Also, the individual is not employed within the Security Department.
The licensee's investigation did determine that the individual was a home computer enthusiast and frequently traded program discs with other plant employees.
Conclusion:
The allegation was not substantiated.
Although some computer discs may have been removed from the site, there is no evidence that the discs contained site specific Safeguards Information, which is the only data of NRC regulatory security concern.
l l
_~