ML19353B197
| ML19353B197 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 11/22/1989 |
| From: | Dexter T, Keimig R, Galen Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19353B195 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-289-89-22, 50-320-89-10, NUDOCS 8912120163 | |
| Download: ML19353B197 (7) | |
See also: IR 05000289/1989022
Text
-
1; nrm m
,
AI2J
- 2O.nRtQ.N.3CLLOM1
,
4 _ ,y _
s ..
m .~ . .- )
.y W , h p .: L - ,5f %M--
'
"
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
l
REGION I
c
50-289/89-22
+
Report Nos.
50-320/89-10
,
50-289
'
Docket Nos.
50-320
.
License Nos. OPR-73
Licensee: GPU Nuclear
f
100 Interpace Parkway
,
Parsippany, New York 07054
Facility Name: Three Mile Island Units 1 and 2
l
' Inspection At: Middletown, Pennsylvania
Inspection Conducted:
October 10-13, 1989
i
}
,
Inspectors: [
// af
f9
-
m
G. C. Smith, Senior Physical Security
I dale
r
Inspector
Ar- Y
// .2/h$
T. Dexter, Physical Sec tity Inspector
/
d(te
Approved by:
.
h - n es
'
--
R. R. Keimig, Chi (f, Safeguards Section,
date
.
Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards
!
Branch
Inspection Summary:
Routine Unannounced Physical Security Inspection on
l-
October 10-13, 1989 (Combined Inspection Nos. 50-289/89-22 and 50-320/89-10)
!
Areas Inspected: Management Support, Security Progrtm Plans, and Audits;
Protected and Vital Area Physical Barriers, Detection and Assessment Aids;
'
Protected and Vital Area Access Control of Personnel, Packages and Vehicles;
Alare Stations and Communications; Emergency Power Supply; T'esting,
Maintenance and Compensatory Measures; and Security Training and
Qualifications.
Results: The licensee was found to be in compliance with NRC requirements
in the areas inspected with the following exception:
an armed guard failed to
meet the minimum physical qualifications for visual acuity.
g21{0
fp
(
0-
w .. -
~~n
u - m . a -~~ ,- w. ., .
na
-
.
,
!
.
.
.
.
!
'
.
.
Details
1.
Key persons Contacted
H. Hukill, Vice President and Director TMI-1
R. Shaw, Radeon Director TMI-1
J. Stacey, Security Manager
J. Fornicola, Manager, TMI Quality Assurance
M. Wills, Media Relations Manager
S. Mervine, Protection Training Supervisor
J. Enders, Security Lieutenant
D. Hassler, Senior Licensing Engineer
J. Flowers, Security Analyst
D. Barry, Engineer
J. Herman, QA Auditor
C. Comerford, Security Staf f
The inspectors also interviewed other licensee security, maintenance and
training personnel.
All of the personnel identified above were present at the exit interview.
I
!
2.
Management Support, Security Program Plans, and Audits
a,
Management Support - Management support for the licensee's physical
security program was determined to be adequate by the inspectors.
This determination was based upon the inspectors' review of various
aspects of the licensee's program during this inspection, as
documented in this report,
b.
Security Program Plans - The inspectors verified that changes to the
licensee's Security, Contingency, and Security Officer Training and
,
Qualification Plan, as implemented, did not decrease the
)
effectiveness of the respective plans, and had been submitted in
l
accordance with NRC requirements. The inspectors' review of
,
l
Safeguards Plans and implementing procedures disclosed that the
i
i
number of rounds of ammunition carried by armed personnel for
revolvers was not specified.
The licensee agreed to document in a
'
procedure that armed personnel carry 17 rounds of ammunition for
their revolvers and that, for safety reasons, the chamber under the
hammer of the revolver is empty,
c.
Audits - The inspectors reviewed the Annual Quality Assurance (QA)
l
Audit of the Security Program conducted September 14 through
October 9, 1980.
There were no adverse findings identified during
,
the audit and the recommendations made by the auditors, were for
minor, non-regulatory issues.
The audit was conducted by individuals
with a thorough understanding of nuclear plant security and
&
.---%~.
.em% - ~.acesw wesemae
_
-
--
-
..
- - - - -
-
!
!
.
.
.
.
3
!
!
.
T
independent of the security program.
The audit was comprehensive in
,
scope and depth, however, one deficiency in the audit was identified
!
by the inspectors.
During the audit, the QA auditors requested, but
>
were denied, access to source medical documentation for members of
the security organization. The auditors stated that medical
department personnel maintained custody of the medical records and
orally responded to the auditors' questions relative to whether
personnel had met the physical qualifications required by the
NRC-approved Training and Qualification Plan and the NRC Regulations.
No discrepancies in the medical qualification records were identified
during the QA audit, however, the lack of independent verification of
source medical documentation is considered to be a weakness in the
audit program. QA department personnel recognized this weakness at
the time of the audit and, at the time of the inspection, were
attempting to resolve the issue.
Further details relative to concerns over medical documentation are
contained in paragraph 8 of this report.
3.
Protected and Vital Area Physical Barriers. Detection
and Assessment Aids,
a.
Protected Area Barriers - The inspectors conducted a physical
inspection of the Protected Area (PA) barrier on October 10, 1989.
The inspectors determined by observation, that the barriers were
installed and maintaired as described in the Plan. No deficiencies
were noted.
b.
Protected Area Detection Aids - The inspectors observed the PA
perimeter detection aids on October 11, 1989 and determined that
'
they were installed, maintained and operated as committed to in the
plan,
i
The inspectors requested the licensee to test the detection aids at
'
.
numerous locations. All detection aids performed as required except
for one that failed to alarm during the tests. The licensee took
immediate and appropriate compensatory measures and initiated action
to correct the deficiency.
c.
Isolation Zones - The inspectors verified by observation that
isolation zones were adequately maintained to permit observation of
activities on both sides of the PA barrier.
No deficiencies were
noted.
d.
Protected Area and Isolation Zone Lighting
The inspectors conducted a lighting survey of the PA and isolation
zones on October 11, 1989. The inspectors determined by
observation, that lighting in the PA and isolation zones was
adequate. No deficiencies were noted,
i
-
=
- . . .
-
--
.-
_ -
.
. .~.
--
- - . - . - - . - - - -
- . -
- - ..- -_-.
.
.
1-
q
.
j
.
i
.
.
4
'e.
Assessment Aids - The inspectors observed the PA perimeter assessment
aids during the daylight and the hours of darkness, and determined
that they were installed, maintained, and operated as committed to in
,
the Plan.
The inspectors confinned that a blind spot in the
j
assessment capability in the area of the Unit 2 Processing Center,
1
identified during a previous inspection, had been corrected and that
assessment capability was adequate in this area.
TEiS PMEPil CCfJf.lSS L4 WEE
'
E 0!KlilT! t E IS 151 IDR PiEL10
DISCLOSURE, li IS INT 9iTMAllY
Lifi BLAN.
f.
Vital Area Barriers - The inspectors conducted a physical inspection
of several vital area (VA) barriers during the period of the
inspection.
The inspectors determined, by observation, that the VA
barriers were installed and maintained as described in the Plan.
No
deficiencies were noted.
g.
Vital Area Detection Aidt, - The inspectors observed the VA detection
aids and requested the licensee to demonstrate, at several
locations, that the balance magnetic switch alarms and the tamper
switch alaras were installed properly and generated an audible and
l
l
visual alarm at the security alarm stations. No deficiencies were
noted.
4.
Protected and Vital Area Access Control of Personnel.
'
Packages, and Vehicles
a.
The inspectors determined that the licensee was exercising positive
control over personnel access to,the PA. This determination was
based on the following:
1)
The inspectors verified that personnel were properly identified
!
and authorization was checked prior to issuance of badges and key
cards.
No deficiencies were noted.
'
L
2)
The inspectors verified that the licensee was implementing a
search program for firearms, explosives, incendiary devices and
.
other unauthorized materials as committed to in the Plan.
The
inspectors observed both plant and visitor personnel access
processing during peak and off peak traffic periods. The
inspectors also interviewed members of the security force and
',
licensee's security staff about personnel access procedures.
No deficiencies were identified.
.'
'
,
l
,i
.
' ;* '
.
,
2f*
,
. l- - . . -
3
_ p rcn y y p w g g,e y , m m y. d t
,
n.T -
1,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
3)-
The inspectors verified the VA access list was' reval'riated at
least' once every 31 days as committed in the Plan. . However, the
inspectors noted that all of the approximately 900 personnel
badged for unescor.ted access into the PA, were also granted
unescorted access to all VAs in the plant. This included
secretaries, maintenance workers and vendors.
Apparently, the
licensee considered that a clearance for unescorted access to the
i
protected area was acceptable to permit unescorted access to'all
VAs.
The absolute need for access to a VA was not a considera-
t;on.
The licensee- agreed to review this portion of their
at cess program and determine what changes are necessary. This
will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection (Inspection
Follow item 50-289/89-22-01; 50-320/89-10-01).
4)
The inspectors determined, by observation, that individuals in
the PA and V4 displayed their access badges as required. ho
l
deficiencies were noted.
L
1
5)
The inspectors verified that the licensee had, and was
implementing, escort procedures for visitors to the PA and VAs.
No deficiencies were noted.
6)
The inspectors verified that the licensee had provisions for
expediting prompt access to vital equ'pment during emergencies
L
and that the provisions were adequate for that purpose.
i
b.
The inspectors determined that the licensee was exercising positive
j
control over packages and materials that were brought into the PA.
!
The inspectors reviewed the package and material control procedures
L
and found they were consistent with the commitment _s in the Plan.
No
deficiencies were noted.
c.
The inspectors determined that the 1 wensee properly controlled
vehicle access to and within the PA.
Tne inspectors verified that
vehicles were properly processed prior to entering the PA. This-
1
determination was made by inspection of vehicle logs, checking
!
vehicles in the PA, and by interviewing membert of the security
force about vehicle processing.
No deficiencies were noted.
5.
Alarm Station and Commun M iom
The inspectors observed the operation of the Central Alarm Station (CAS)
and Secondary Alarm Station (SAS) and determined they were operated as
committed to in the Plan. CAS ud SAS operators were interviewed by the
inspectors and found to be knowledgeable of their duties and responsibi-
-
11 ties. The inspectors verified that the CAS and SAS did not contain any
operational activities that would interfere with the assessment and
M
response funr:tions. No deficiencies were nottd.
,
,f --
_
s
,ge
Q
'
-hM4ft
b
-
b
b
.
,
.
.
6
.
~
6.
Emergency Power Supply
i
!
The : inspectors verified that the security systems emergency power was
'
supplied by a dedicated diesel generator and batteries. The emergency
systems were reviewed and found to be consistent with the Plan. The
batteries, battery chargers, diesel generator, and transfer switches are
located in=a VA.
No deficiencies were noted.
7.
Testing, Maintenance and Compensatory Measures
The inspectors reviewed testing and maintenance records and confirmed that
'
the records committed to in the Plan were on file and readily available
'
for NRC review. The review of maintenance records indicated that repair
or replacement of inoperable equipment was accomplished in a timely.
manner.
The inspectors reviewed the licensee's use of compensatory measures and
determined them to be as committed to in the Plan. No deficiencies were
noted.
l
8.
Security Training and Qualification
The inspectors randomly selected the training and qualification records
of 12 security' officers for audit.
The documentation required by the
Training and Qualification Plan (T&QP) was reviewed. .That documentation
consisted of physical qualifications and classroom, practical and firearms
training. -The inspectors determined that the required training had been
conducted in accordance with the T&QP and that it was properly documented.
However, the inspectors' review of physical qualification,
i.e., medical
i
documenta. tion required by the T&QP, disclosed a discrepancy. The
inspectors found that during a physical, on May 26, 1989, an armed
i
security officer's distance visual acuity was testM by the Medical
Department and determined to be 20/50 in the weak eye, corrected. The
NRC-approved.T&QP and 10 CFR 73.55, Appendix 8 states that the minimum
f
visual requirement for the weak eye is 20/40, corrected, for armed
I
security officers. The Medical Department did not disqualify.the officer
l'
for armed duty or provide the results of the eye test to security
'
maagement cr to the offict . Therefore, the armed officer remained on
duty. Once this concern was identifiad to the licensee by the inspector,
this guard wcs removed from armed 6.'ty.
The failure to disqualify the officer for armed duty when he did not meet
the minimum physical requirements of the NRC-approved T&QP is a
violation (50-289/89-22-02; 50-320/89-10-02).
After the above violation wa: identified, the inspectors' requested
licensee management to conduct a review of the eye test portien of the
medical records for all security officers to determine compliac- with tne
prescribed vision standards identified in the NRC-approved T&QP. At
management's direction, the QA auditors reviewed the eye test source
medical documentation. The review was completed before the end of the
1
I
-, , qw h
"
'MM M
N
-
g
!"
,
.
4
.
inspection and it identified one additional armed security officer who
f ailed to meet the minimum visual acuity requirements. That of*icer had
L
been tested by. the Medical Department in February 1989 and remained oc
armed duty .until this problem was identified.
As a result of the discrepancies identified with the eye test medical
documentation for security personnel, the licensee made a commitment to
perform a QA audit of the remaining portions of the security medical
records and the medical records of other licensee personnel who must meet
i
NRC required physical qualifications.
Further, management stated that QA
personnel performing audits would have access to source medical
documentation in the future in order to provide an independent review of
the documentation. The QA audits performed'on the medical documentation
for security o.'i1cers and other licensee personnel will be revieved during
a subsequent inspection (Inspector Follor item 50-289/89-22-03;
,
50-320/69-10-03)
'
9.
Exit Interview
-The inspectors met with the licensee representatives identified in
paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on October 13, 1989. At
that time, the purpose and scope of the inspection were reviewed and the
findings were presented.
i
i
I
e
k
,$
'%
.,: -- e
_m
w enas=ren - xaw w e w
+ e-
_