ML15118A335
| ML15118A335 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1998 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15118A333 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-269-98-04, 50-269-98-4, 50-270-98-04, 50-270-98-4, 50-287-98-04, 50-287-98-4, NUDOCS 9804020386 | |
| Download: ML15118A335 (11) | |
See also: IR 05000269/1998004
Text
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
Docket Nos:
50-269, 50-270, 50-287
License Nos:
Report Nos:
50-269/98-04, 50-270/98-04, 50-287/98-04
Licensee:
Duke Energy Corporation
Facility:
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3
Location:
7812B Rochester Highway
Seneca, SC 29672
Dates:
March 2-5, 1998
Inspector:
W. Stansberry, Safeguards Inspector
Approved by:
G. Belisle, Chief,
Special Inspection Branch.
Division of Reactor Safety
ENCLOSURE 2
9804020386 980325
ADOCK 05000269
G
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Oconee Nuclear Station. Units 1, 2, and 3
NRC Inspection Report 50-269/98-04.
50-270/98-04, and 50-287/98-04
This inspection included aspects of the licensee's plant support program. The
report covers a one-week period of an announced inspection by a regional
inspector.
Plant Support
The inspector's evaluation of the Fitness For Duty Program determined
that there were no changes to the licensee's Fitness For Duty Program
and that the program was adequate and met the licensees' commitments and
NRC requirements (Section S1.3).
A repeat violation was identified for failure to secure unattended
safeguards information. The unattended safeguards information was not
disclosed -or compromised (Section S1.4).
The inspector's review of plan changes verified that the changes did not
decrease the effectiveness of the Security and Contingency Plan and the
Training and Qualification Plan (Section S3.1).
The inspector's review of random samples of the Security Procedures
verified that the procedures adequately met the Security and Contingency
Plan commitments and practices (Section S3.2).
The inspector concluded through observation and interviews of security
force personnel, that the security force was being trained effectively
and according to the Training and Qualification Plan and regulatory
requirements (Section 5.1).
The inspector's review found that the security force training records
met the Training and Qualification Plan and regulatory requirements
(Section .5.2)..
The inspector verified that the total number of trained security
officers and armed personnel immediately available to fulfill response
requirements met the number specified in the Security and Contingency
Plan. One full-time member of the security organization who had the
authority to direct security activities did not have duties that
conflicted with the assignment to direct all activities during an
incident (Section 6.3).
ENCLOSURE 2
REPORT DETAILS
IV. PLANT SUPPORT
S1
Conduct of Security and Safeguards Activities
S1.3 Fitness For Duty Program
a. Inspection Scope (81502)
The inspector evaluated the Fitness For Duty Program to determine
whether changes to the licensee's Fitness For Duty Program met the
licensees' commitments and NRC requirements as stated in 10 CFR Part 26.
b. Observations and Findings
Through discussions with Fitness For Duty personnel and review of
Fitness For Duty records, no significant or major changes were found to
the licensee's Fitness For Duty and Chemical Testing programs.
Personnel interviewed understood their responsibilities and authorities
and were qualified to perform assigned duties as indicated in Corporate
Policy and Procedure. "Fitness For Duty Program." Revision 10.
The
licensee's audit reports for the Fitness For Duty Program were found to
meet NRC requirements and licensee commitments. The corrective actions
to resolve identified nonregulatory issues were technically adequate and
implemented in a timely manner.
The inspector specifically reviewed procedures for the sampling process
from the collection of a donor's specimen to the final storage process.
Each specimen was collected in one container. The temperature of the
sample was checked by a thermal strip attached the side of the container
and recorded in Step 2 of the Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control
Form (FDTCC) from SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories. The
specimen was then split into two samples. Each sample was sealed with a
specimen bottle seal from the FDTCC form. Each seal was initialed by
the donor twice'verifying that the Social Security Account Number (SSAN)
and the date on the seal was correct. The sealed primary specimen
container (sample 1) was then sent to a laboratory for analysis. The
sealed split specimen container (sample 2) was stored in a locked
freezer at the site awaiting the outcome of the testing of the primary
specimen. If the primary specimen was found negative in containing
substances listed in the Fitness For Duty procedure, the sample was
destroyed. If the primary specimen was found positive, the testing
laboratory notified the corporate Medical Review Officer (MRO) of the
results. The MRO then called the site to have the split sample set
aside for possible retesting by another laboratory. The MRO also called
the donor to discuss any reason that the primary specimen was positive.
ENCLOSURE 2
2
The MRO asked the donor if they wanted to appeal the results and have
the split specimen sent to a second laboratory. If the donor wanted to
appeal the results and wanted the split specimen sent to a second
laboratory, the MRO notified the site to have the split specimen sent to
the second laboratory for retesting. If the donor did not want to
appeal the results and did not have the split specimen retested, the MRO
notified the site to send the split specimen to the corporate Fitness
For Duty office where it was archived in a locked freezer. If the split
specimen was negative, the site was notified of the negative split
specimen. If the split specimen was found positive, the MRO notified
the site and called the donor to discuss over the telephone or in person
the specific results. Any appeals of the process went to the Employees
Assistance Program. Fitness For Duty records at the site were stored in
a locked file cabinet in a locked room.. There were no master keys to
the room or file cabinet locks.
To verify the specimen process, the inspector selected four names to
track through the Fitness For Duty system. Two names had positive
primary specimen results. One individual's specimen was positive for
cocaine and the individual was advised of the positive test. The
individual had no explanations for the positive test and did not appeal
the results or ask for the split specimen to be sent to a second
laboratory for retesting. The second individual's specimen was positive
for d-methamphetamine. The MRO advised the individual of the positive
results. The individual denied use of that drug and requested that the
test results be reviewed by the Appeal Panel.
The Appeal Panel reviewed
and upheld the positive results. When the MRO advised the individual of
the positive results and the appeal process results, the individual did
not request that the split specimen be sent to a second laboratory for
retesting.
The inspector examined records and split specimens at the corporate
MRO's office. The FDTCC for the second individual indicated on copies 4
and 6, under Step 4, to be completed by the individual, the printed
name, signature, date of signature, a telephone number, and date of
birth. The two initials on the specimen bottle seal of.the split
specimen were similar to the handwriting of the individual signing the
FDTCC. The SSAN, specimen, and the requisition number were also the
same. At the site, the inspector reviewed the department location
organizational effectiveness contacts Fitness For Duty checklist,
Revised 3/1/96, (Checklist #1), and Program Administrator's Fitness For
Duty Event Checklist, Revised 3/1/96, (Checklist #2).
On line 24 of
Checklist #1,
the Organizational Effectiveness consultant indicated that
the second individual had been asked if they understood the Appeals
Process as explained by the MRO, and could appeal through the site
program administrator within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> from the time of notification.
ENCLOSURE 2
3
Line 25 indicated that the consultant informed the individual that the
request for unescorted access was being denied at all three Duke Energy
Corporation nuclear sites and that the positive screen would be released
to other utilities should they request such information. The inspector
found that the documentation of Checklist #2 was completed.
c. Conclusion
The inspector's evaluation of the Fitness For Duty Program determined
that there were no changes to the licensee's Fitness For Duty Program
and that the program was adequate and met the licensees' commitments and
NRC requirements.
S1.4 Control of Safeguards Information
a.
Inspection Scope (81810)
The inspector reviewed Problem Investigation Process (PIP) 4-098-1025
concerning an electrical systems engineer's (ESE) safeguards container
that had not been properly secured. This review was to determine
whether Safeguards Information (SGI), as defined in 10 CFR 73.21,
Nuclear Systems Directive 206, "Safeguards and Information Controls."
Revision 5, and Security Guideline - 18. "Safeguards Workplace
Procedures," had been disclosed or compromised.
b.
Observations and Findings
The licensee's investigation revealed the following:
0
Between the hours of 5:09 p.m. and 5:29 p.m., on March 3, 1998,
the second drawer of ESE safeguards container, ID#739, was left
unsecured in the engineering safeguards work area (ESWA).
o
The magnetic "OPEN/CLOSED" sign on the front of the container was
showing "OPEN."
o
The "CONTAINER ACCESS LOG" indicated that the container was closed
at 5:00 p.m.
o
The safeguard's container was within the protected area.
o
The ESWA was monitored by an alarm system with an interior motion
detector and door alarm switches at the doors to the area. The
alarm system annunciated in the badging area of the Protected Area
Access Portal.
The main entrance door was controlled by an
electrical keypad lock. The second door was locked from inside.
ENCLOSURE 2
4
Review of the annunciator records/logs showed that no entries into
the ESWA during the above time were made.
o
All documents within the container were accounted for based upon a
review of container contents against the container inventory
listing. The other safeguards containers in the area were found
secured.
o
Individuals involved were trained in safeguards practices and were
authorized access to the information within the unsecured
container.
0
No evidence of tampering or attempted forced entry into the
unsecured container or the doors to the ESWA.
The immediate corrective action was the securing of the container and
it's content. The inspector verified that the supervisor of the ESWA
was knowlegable of the requirements to secure SGI. The inspector
verified that the intrusion system was intact and the corrective actions
to the previous violation were still implemented. Intermediate and long
term corrective actions were not developed as of the end of the
inspection. The failure to secure Safeguards Information was a repeat
violation of a violation (NCV 50-269, 270, and 287/97-12-06) cited in
Inspection Report No. 97-12, dated October 6, 1997, and is identified as
violation 50-269. 270, 287/98-04-01.
c.
Conclusions
A repeat violation was identified for failure to secure unattended
safeguards information. The unattended safeguards information was not
disclosed or compromised.
S3
Security and Safeguards Procedures and Documentation
S3.1 Security Program Plans
a. Inspection Scope (81700)
The inspector reviewed appropriate chapters of the Duke Energy
Corporation Nuclear Security and Contingency Plan (S/CP). Revisions 02,
03, 04. and 06, and the Nuclear Security Training and Qualification Plan
(T&QP), Revisions 02. 03, and 04.
ENCLOSURE 2
5
b. Observations and Findings
The inspector's review of the changes to the S/CP and T&QP reported or
submitted for approval verified their compliance to the requirements of
10 CFR 50.54(p) or 50.90. Most of the changes were for clarity,
editorial, grammatical, and organizational/position/title changes.
Necessary coordination was made for merging the changes into the
consolidated S/CP and T&QP for each of the three Duke nuclear power
plants. Revision 5 will be implemented when the new personnel access
program with new badges and hand biometrics is installed and
operational.
c.
Conclusions
The inspector's review of plan changes verified that the changes did not
decrease the effectiveness of the S/CP and T&QP.
S3.2 Security Procedures
a.
Inspection Scope (81700)
The inspector reviewed a sample of the licensee's Security Plan
Implementing Procedures (SPIP) to verify that the procedures were
consistent with S/CP commitments and practices.
b.
Observations and Findings
The inspector reviewed seven SPIPs involving communications and access
controls. Procedures implementing plan changes that the licensee had
determined not to decrease the effectiveness of the S/CP were reviewed
and discussed with appropriate licensee management to verify the
validity of the determination. Also, the impact of the changes as
implemented on the plan and overall program was evaluated.
The S/CP was revised and reviewed in accordance with approved licensee
procedures before changes were implemented. Changes were incorporated,
as appropriate, into the implementing procedures. No changes reviewed
decreased the effectiveness of the respective plans.
ENCLOSURE 2
6
c.
Conclusion
The inspectors" review of random samples of the SPIPs -verified that the
procedures adequately met the S/CP requirements.
S5
Security and Safeguards Staff Training and Qualification
S5.1 Security Training and Qualification
a. Inspection Scope (81700)
The inspector reviewed the security training and qualification program
to ensure that the licensee was complying with the criteria in the
Nuclear Security Training and Qualification Plan (T&QP).
b. Observations and Findings
The inspector interviewed security non-supervisory personnel,
supervisors, and witnessed other security personnel during the
performance of their duties. Members of the security force were
knowledgeable of their responsibilities, plan commitments and
procedures. Documentation and equipment inspected was found as
committed to in the approved T&QP. The inspector found that armed
response personnel had been instructed in the use of deadly force as
required by 10 CFR Part 73. The inspector observed shotgun
requalification range firing and basic security officer training.
c. Conclusions
The inspector concluded through observation and interviews of security
force personnel, that the security force was being trained effectively
and according to the T&QP and regulatory requirements..
S5.2 Training Records
a. Inspection Scope (81700)
The inspectors interviewed security personnel and reviewed security
personnel training and qualification records to ensure that the criteria
in the Training and Qualification Plan were met.
b. Observations and Findings
The inspector interviewed security non-supervisory personnel and
supervisors about the quality and timeliness of the training provided.
Members of the security force were knowledgeable in their
ENCLOSURE 2
7
responsibilities, plan commitments and procedures. Twelve randomly
selected training records.covering the last three years were reviewed by
the inspectors concerning training, firearms, testing, job/task
performance and requalification.
The inspector found that armed response personnel had been instructed in
the use of deadly force as required by 10 CFR Part 73. Members of the
security organization were requalified at least every 12 months in the
performance of their assigned tasks, both normal and contingency. This
included the conduct of physical exercise requirements and the
completion of the firearms' course. Through the record's review and
interviews with security force personnel, the inspectors found that the
requirements of 10 CFR 73, Appendix B, Section 1.F. concerning
suitability, physical and mental qualification data, test results and
other proficiency requirements were met.
The interviews and training records reviewed revealed an effective
training program.
c. Conclusions
The inspector's review found that the security force training records
met the Training and Qualification Plan and regulatory requirements.
S6
Security Organization and Administration
S6.3 Staffing Level
a. Inspection Scope (81700)
The inspector was to verify the total number of trained security
officers and armed personnel immediately available at the facility to
fulfill response requirements met the number specified in Chapter 3 of
the S/CP. The inspector was also to verify that one full-time member of
the security organization who had the authority to direct security
activities did not have duties that conflicted with the assignment to
direct all activities during an incident.
b.
Observations and Findings
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). At least one full-time .manager of the security
ENCLOSURE 2
8
organization was always onsite and had no duties that conflicted with
the assignment to direct all activities during an incident. This
individual had the authority to direct the physical protection
activities of the organization. The four shifts had the number of
trained security officers and armed personnel immediatel-3 available to
fulfill response requirements and commitments of the S/CP.
c.
Conclusion.
The inspector verified that the total number of trained security
officers and armed personnel immediately available to fulfill response
requirements met the number specified in the Security and Contingency
Plan. One'full-time member of the security organization who had the
authority to direct security activities did not have duties that
conflicted with the assignment to direct all activities during an
incident.
V. Management Meeting
X1
Exit Meeting Summary
The inspector presented the inspection results to licensee management at
the conclusion of the inspection on March 5. 1998. The licensee
acknowledged the findings presented. Although reviewed during this
inspection, proprietary information is not contained in this report.
Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
Licensee
E. Burchfield, Regulatory Compliance Manager
D. Durham, Security Specialist
P. Grobusky, Human Resource Manager
M. Nazar, Engineering Manager
M. Satterfield, Security Support Supervisor
NRC
M. Scott, Senior Resident Inspector
ENCLOSURE 2
9
INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED
IP 81502:
Fitness For Duty Program
IP 81700:
Physical Security Program For Power Reactors
IP 81810:
Protection of Safeguards Information
ITEMS OPENED, CLOSED, AND DISCUSSED
50-269. 270, 287/98-04-01
Licensees failed to secure unattended
safeguards information. (Section 1.4)
NONE
I
ENCLOSURE 2