ML18102A435

Forwards Insp Repts 50-272/96-14 & 50-311/96-14 on 960815-0903.No Violations Noted

ML18102A435
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	09/30/1996
From:	Wiggins J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Eliason L Public Service Enterprise Group
Shared Package
ML18102A436	List: IR 05000272/1996014 ML18102A435
References
EA-96-344, NUDOCS 9610070156
Download: ML18102A435 (5)

See also: IR 05000272/1996014

Text

.

~I -

\\.,. -

. **

September 30, 1996

EA 96-344

Mr. Leon R. Eliason

Chief Nuclear Officer & President

Nuclear Business Unit

Public Service Electric and Gas Company

P. 0. Box 236

Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038

SUBJECT:

INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-272/96-14, 50-311 /96-14 AND

50-354/96-08

Dear Mr. Eliason:

This refers to the inspection conducted August 15 - September 3, 1996, at the

Salem/Hope Creek Nuclear Generation Station. The purpose of that inspection was to

review the implementation of your Physical Security Program. At the conclusion of th~

inspection, an exit meeting was conducted at our King of Prussia,* Pennsylvania office and

the findings were discussed with Mr. L. Storz and other members of your staff.

Areas exa,mined during the inspection are identified in the attached report. Within these

areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative

records, interviews with personnel and observations by the inspectors.

Based on the results of this inspection, six apparent violations were identified and are

being considered for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the '~General

Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions." (Enforcement Policy),

(60 FR 34381 ); (June 30, 1995). The apparent violations involved: 1) the failure to

control photo badge key cards; 2) the failure to properly search an individual prior to

granting access to the protected area; 3) the failure to notify the nuclear shift supervisor of

a potential threat event; 4) the failure to deactivate photo badge key cards for individuals

who no longer required site access; 5) the failure to complete training for security

supervisors prior to assigning them supervisory duties; and 6) the failure to test an

intrusion detection system in accordance with procedures. The NRC is seriously concerned

about the implementation of the security program, particularly the access control function,

since three of the apparent violations were in that area.

At the exit meetiri-g on September 3, 1996, members of your staff provided specific short-

term corrective actions that had already been implemented for the apparent violations

pending completion and review of investigations being conducted by Public Service Gas &

Electric Company and the Wackenhut Company, the security contractor. Your staff also

committed to meet with us in the future to discuss the results of the investigations. The

hand-out provided by your staff at that meeting is enclosed with the inspection report.

'}

9610070156 960930

PDR

ADOCK 05000272

G

PDR

~F DI /1

' .

Mr. Leon R. Eliason

2

Because specific corrective actions were provided at that meeting, it may not be necessary

to conduct a predecisional enforcement conference in order to enable the NRC to make an

enforcement decision. However, a Notice of Violation is not presently being issued for

these inspection findings.

Before the NRC makes its enforcement decision, we are providing you an opportunity to

either: ( 1 ) respond to the apparent violations addressed in this inspection report within

30 days of the date of this letter, or (2) request a predecisional enforcement conference. If

you choose not to provide a response and would prefer participating in a predecisional ,

enforcement conference, please contact Mr. L. Nicholson of this office at (610) 337-5128

within 7 days of the date of this letter.

,

Your response should be clearly marked as a "Response to Apparent Violations in

Inspection Report Nos. 50-272/96-14, 50-311/96-14 and 50-354/96-08 and should

include for each apparent violation (1) the reason for the apparent violation, or, if

contested, the basis for disputing the apparent violation, (2) the corrective steps that have

been taken and the results achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid

further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Your response

should be submitted under oath or affirmation and may reference or include previous

docketed correspondence, if the correspondence adequately addresses the required,

response. If an adequate response is not received within the time,specified or an extension

of time has not been granted by the NRC, the NRC will proceed with its enforcement

decision or schedule a predecisional enforcement conference.

In addition, please be advised that the number and characterization of apparent violations

for the events described in. the enclosed inspection report may change as a result of further

NRC review. You will be advised by separate correspondence of the results of our

deliberations on this matter.

Based on our review of the information provided to us during the exit meeting, we find that

the additional interim measures implemented by your staff to address the performance

issues in this report are appropriate. Those interim measures, if implemented well, provide

assurance that the safety objectives of the security program are being achieved for the

Salem/Hope Creek Station. From the discussions during the exit meeting, we understand

that your staff agreed not to make substantive changes to those interim measures prior to

contacting us. If this understanding is incorrect, please notify us immediately.

Nonetheless, the NRC will remain concerned about security area performance until your

staff implements comprehensive, durable corrective actions responsive to the root causes

of problems found. Consequently, NRC considers closeout of concerns in the security

program to be a restart item for Salem.

Mr. Leon R. Eliason

3

In accordance with 10 CFR 2. 790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter,

its enclosure(s), and your response (if you choose to provide one) will be placed in the NRG

Public Document Room (PDR). To the extent possible, your response should not include

any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the

PDR without redaction.

Docket Nos. 50-272; 50-311; 50-354

License Nos. DPR-70, DPR-75, NPF-57

Enclosures:

Sin~erely,

James T. Wiggins, Director

Division of Reactor Safety

1. Inspection Report 50-272;96-14, 50-311 /96-14 and 50-354/96-08

2. Handout provided by licensee at exit meeting

cc w/encl:

L. Storz, Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations

E. Simpson, Senior Vice President - Nuclear Engineering

E. Salowitz, Director - Nuclear Business Support

C. Schaefer, External Operations - Nuclear, Delmarva Power & Light Co.

D. Garchow, General Manager - Salem Operations

J. Benjamin, Director - Quality Assurance & Nuclear Safety Review

D. Powell, Manager, Licensing and Regulation

R. Kankus, Joint Owner Affairs

A .. Tapert, Program Administrator

R. Fryling, Jr.,. Esquire

M. Wetterhahn, Esquire

M. Bezilla, General Manager - Hope Creek Operations

P. MacFarland Goelz, Manager, Joint Generation

Atlantic Electric

. Consumer Advocate, Office of Consumer Advocate

William Conklin, Public Safety Consultant, Lower Alloways Creek Township

Public Service Commission of Maryland

State of New Jersey

State of Delaware

. *

Mr. Leon R. Eliason

Distribution w/encl:

Region I Docket Room (with concurrences}

Kay Gallagher, DRP

G. Smith

R. Keimig

L. Nicholson, DRP

S. Barber, DRP

G. Kelly, DRS

N. Della Greca, DRS

D. Screnci, PAO

NRC Resident Inspector

PUBLIC

Distribution w/encl: (Via E-Mail}

L. Olshan, NRR

W. Dean, OEDO

J. Stolz, PDl-2, NRR

M. Callahan, OCA

D. Jaffee, Project Manager, NRR

Inspection* Program Branch, NRR (IPAS)

L. Cunningham, NRR

4

I L__

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Salem/Hope Creek Nuclear Station

NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-272/96-14,

50-311 /96-14 and 50-354/96-08

An inspection of the physical security program was conducted during the period of

August 15-September 3, 1996. Areas inspected included: protected area detection

equipment; alarm stations and communications; testing maintenance and compensatory

measures; access control of personnel; training and qualification; management support;

audits; and fitness-for-duty. The purpose of this inspection was to determine if the

security program, as implemented, met the licensee's commitments and NRC regulatory

requirements.

Six apparent violations were identified during the inspection. The violations included: 1)

the .failure to control photo badge key cards; 2) the failure to properly search an individual

prior to granting access to the protected area; 3) the failure to notify the nuclear shift

supervisor of a potential threat event; 4) the failure to deactivate photo badge key cards

for individuals who no longer required site access; 5) the failure to complete training for

security supervisors prior to assigning them supervisory duties; and 6) the failure to test an

intrusion detection system in accordance with procedures.

The exit meeting for the inspection was held in the NRC's Region I office, in King of

Prussia, PA on September 3, 1996. Senior management from the licensee's organization

and from Region I were in attendance. The scope and findings of the inspection were

discussed. The licensee presented some preliminary information from its investigation and

the investigation by its contractor which were initiated shortly after events occurred on

August 14 and 19. Those events brought into question the performance of several

security force members. The licensee also present short-term corrective measures for the

apparent violations 1, 2, 4, and 5 identified above. Apparent violations 3 and 6 were

identified subsequent to the inspection and brought to the licensee's attention on

September 25, 1996, via a telephone call.

ii