IR 05000443/1990014

Insp Rept 50-443/90-14 on 900618-22.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Action on Previously Identified Findings,Mgt Support,Security Program Plans & Audits,Protected & Vital Area Physical Barriers & Detection

ML20055G052
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	07/03/1990
From:	Albert R, Keimig R, King E, Lancaster W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20055G049	List: IR 05000443/1990014 ML20055G047
References
50-443-90-14, NUDOCS 9007200092
Download: ML20055G052 (8)

Text

M ,.. a

?. iu:h?;;DM t l!gw,

. ,~,lBo.n k o R:._h2Mit^

p;ea::)

hN (31c;rJs) - .J Q ,

'

_ 9f! M L NA y ~ l' -- St Y- -

l

! { c;m;umm :) S.~

U. S. NUCSM REGULATORY COMMISSION I

'-

REGION I  !

l Report No. . 50-443/90-14 .

'

' Docket No.-50-443

'

License No. NPF-56  :

!

t L ' Licensee: Public Service of New Hampshire P. O. Box 330 o Manchester, New Hampshire .

m

,

-

y ,

Facility Name:

'

Seabrook Nuclear Station Inspection At: Seabrook, New Hampshir_e Inspection Conductedi June 18-22, 1990

,

.

Inspectors: wa.d / L

~

./ ~7-3-90 li. J. AIbert.- Phy Security Inspector date 4 tor / d. t ,. ~7 - 2 - 9 0 h g O . King, Physi Security Inspector date 9?ff w /d b t.,,W. K. Lancaster, Physical 56curity Inspecto Yf/f0 Xiate

'/

Approved by: / d < /-

'

'/.s- 90 '

R. M T A Chie W afeguards-Section date n: 1 Division of Rad ion Safety and Safeguards  ;(

[ -Inspection Summary:Inspection on June 18-22,_1990 (Routine, N Unannounced Physical Security Inspection 50-443/90-14) r i

Areas-Inspected: Licensee Action on Previously Identified NRC Findings; Fanagement Support, Security Program Plans, and Audits; Protected and Vital Area Physical Barriers, Detection and Assessment Aids; Protected and Vital Area Access Control of Personnel, Packages, and Vehicles; Alarm Stations and Communications;' Emergency Power Supply; Testing, Maintenance and Compensatory ,

Measures; and Security Training and Qualification .Results: The licensee was in compliance with NRC requirements in the areas inspected. However, a potential weakness was identified in the criteria for vital area acces '

PDR ADOCK 05000443 , PDC  ;

g-

'

u

{-

,

,

+

r

a l

e i

k DETAILS I Key Persons Contacted Licensee and Contractor Personnel

• D. Moody, Station Manager

*B. Seymour Security Department Supervisor

• S. Kulback, Security Supervisor

• R. Messina, Security Shift Supervisor

,

• C, Goodnow, Chief of Security, Green Mountain Seearity Services (GMSS)

E R. Cole, Training Supervisor, GMSS h *G. Conway, Assistant Chief, Administration and Resources, GMZ L W. Anderson, Systems QA Supervisor, GMSS

• T. Wiebold, NOF Avait

• G. Paulsen, Operations / Training, GMS$

• R. Madea, Engineering-

• R. Krohn, NRC Coordinator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Personnel

• N. Dudley, Senior Resident Inspector

!

• Indicates those present at the exit interview.

. The inspectors also interviewed other licensee employees and members of !

the GMSS contract security organizatio . Follow-up of Previously Identified items During a routine physical security inspection conducted on September 25-29, 1989, an NRC Inspector identified deficiencies in five areas of the security progra Those areas and the status of the deficiencies are as follows: (Closed) Unresolved item (50-443/89-12-01): Deficiencies were identified

in several protected area intrusion detection system zon'es. At that time, the ~ licensee committed to review the matter and implement corrective ,

! '

measures to enhance the effectiveness of the protected area intrusion detection system. 'During this inspection, the inspectors determined,

'

by observing the licensee aggressively test the entire perimeter intrusion .

detection system on June 19, 1990, that the corrective actions taken by the licensee were satisf actory and of fective. Each zone was tested at least twice with a 100 percent pass rate.

[ (Closed) Inspector Follow-up Item (50-443/89-12-03): A review of the p licensee's analysis of lighting surveys indicated that incorrect lighting G measurements had been recorded for over two years as a result of improper utilization of light meter During this inspection, the inspectors i

I

___

i '. ,

..

. - *

_ ,. ,

II

'

i '

reviewed the procedures for operating the light meters and for taking I lighting measurements. The procedures were determined to be satisfactor No deficiencies were noted during a lighting survey of the protected -

area on June 18, 1990, i

' (0 pen) lospector Follow-up Item (50-443/89-12-04): The protected area assessment system was potentially weak in certain areas. The licensee immediately compensater for the potential weaknesses and initiated a design change request (DCR) to correct the. proble During this' inspection, the inspectors verif_ied that the licensee had completed initial work on the system and was engaged in refining -

the system for more effective assessment. The project is estimated  ;

to be completed in the latter part of 1990 and compensatory measures >

will remain in effect until completion. This item will remain open and will be reviewed during subsequent inspections, (Closed) Unresolved item (50-443/89-12-05): A 1987 audit report identified several deficiencies with the Yankee Atomic Electric  ;

'

Company's (Bolton, Massachusetts) clearance progra The licensee had not'yet followed up on the audit's findings to verify that the Yankee Atomic Electric Company had corrected the identified deficiencies. The licensee committed to reaudit the clearance  ;

program by November 1, 1989. During this inspection, the inspectors *

verified that the licensee had reaudited the clearance program by the date committed and that the deficiencies had been correcte e (Open) Inspector Follow-up Item (50-443/89-12-02): The roof _and sides of a certain building were not provided with an intrusion detection system (IDS). The licensee egreed to install an 105. During this inspection, the inspectors reviewed the licensee's interim corrective measures and found them acceptabl The final corrective action should be complete by October 1990 and will be evaluated during

~ subsequent inspection . Management Support. Security plans _and Audits Management Support - Management support for the litersee's physical security program was determined by the inspectors to be active and apparent. This determination was based upon the inspectors' review of various aspects of.the licensee's program as documented in this o repor The inspectors noted that security force members (SFMs) are, in general, ,

very knowledgeable of their post duties, contents of procedures and their other responsibilities, and exhibit a very professional demeano On-site security managers and supervisors appear to be effectively implementing a quality program and corporate support is very evident,

.

W

m--

.-

' '

.

s 3 1

.

Both the licensee and the security force contractor continue to pursue I innovations to enhance the security program; for example, the inspectors noted that numerous internal audits, reports, studies, and analyses 1 are being conducted and used to provide the bases for future plans and actions. In addition, excellent communications exist between th . licensee and the security force contractor, Security Program Plans - The inspectors verified that changes to the licensee's Security, Contingency, and Guard Training and Qualification

~

Plans, as implemented, did not decrease the effectiveness of the respective plans, and .., **en submitted in accordance with NRC requirement No dise nm , ..+ e noted, Audi' -

3 t :u -s reviewed the preliminary 1990 annual security prog c t w oa .id verified that the audit had been conducted in acc. m *> ' NRC-approved Physical Security Plan (the Plan).

The aue ' m m ensive in scope with the results reported to the appropri n * , cf management. During a future inspection, the inspectors w1: 1 review the response of the security organization to the audit findings and the corrective actions taken to remedy any adverse findings. No discrepancies were note . Protected and Vital Area Physical Barriers. Detection and Assessment _ Aids Protected Area Barriers - The inspectors conducted a physical inspection of the protected area (PA) barrier on June 18, 1990. The inspectors determined, by observation, that the barrier was installed and maintained as described in the Plan. No discrepancies were noted, Protected Area Oetection Aids - The inspectors observed the PA perimeter detection aids on June 19, 1990. The inspectors determined that the-detection aids were installed, maintained and operated as committed to in the Plan. The inspectors also observed the licensee test the PA 105 on that date. The tests resulted in a 100 percent pass rat No deficiencies were noted, Isolation zones - The inspectors verified that isolation zones were adequately maintained to permit observation of activities on both sides of the PA barrier. No discrepancies were noted, Protected Area _and Isolation Zone Lighting - The inspectors conducted a lighting survey of the PA and isolation zones on June 18, 199 The inspectors determined, by observations, that lighting in the isolation zones and PA was adequat No deficiencies were noted, e, Assessment Aids - The inspectors observed the use of assessment aids and other security equipment in operation at the CAS, during day and night hours, on June 20 and 21,1990. The inspectori determined, by observation, that the assessment aids were installed, maintained, and generally operated as committed to in the Pla "

" ' ' . . . . . _ . - . . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ .

. .

y ,

--.

.

-

an-

,

-

,

,

t

• *

. ,, , , ,

.

e

[i 1 Protect!'d and Vital Area Access Control of Personnel. Packaces and Vehicles k' Personnel Access Control - The inspectors determined that the licensee-

,

was exercising control over personnel access to.the protsected and i

"

vital areas. This determination was based on the following: -

,

,

(1) The inspectors verified that personnel are properly identified {

and authorization is checked prior to issuance of badges and -!

key-cards. No discrepancies were noted.-

'

t (2) The inspectors verified that the licensee has a program t ,

-confirm the trustworthiness and reliability of employees and -

contractor personnel. This program includes checks on employment, credit,' criminal history, and a psychological examinatio '

'

l

.(3) The inspectors reviewed the ecurity lock and key procedures and -

determined that they were consistent with commitments in the Plan. The inspectors also reviewed the protected and vital area -

key inventory logs, and discussed lock and key procedures with members of the security force and the itcensee's sciurity staf No discrepancies were note j i

,(4) The inspectors verified that the licensee takes precautions to I

. ensure that an unauthorized name cannot be added to the access-list by having a member of management review the list every 31 i days. No discrepancies were note (5) -The inspectors verifieo that the licensee has a search program,. !

as committed to in the Plan, for firearms, explosives, incendiar ,

, devices and other unauthorized materials. The inspectors observed :

'

personnel access processing.during sf t changes, visitor access processing, and interviewed members sf the security force an ;

,

licensee's security staff about personnel access procedures. Noy l discrepancies were note l

(6) The inspectors determined, by observation, that individuals in j the Protected Area -(PA) and Vital Areas (VAs) display their' access

'

badges as required. No discrepancies were note e (7) The inspectors verified that the licensee has escort procedures for visitors to the PA and VAs, No discrepancies were note '  ;

.

'

(8) The inspectors verified that the licensee has a mechanism for ;

'

i expediting access to vital equipment during emergencies and that d the mechanism is adequate for its purpos No discrepancies were note ,

e (9) The inspectors could not discern, based on the documentation presented, that access to VAs is lim' 3d to only those personnel :

with a valid nee !

,

(

,

~j u .

7, ,

y *

h !

_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

- - -

. .

, .

-

,

}-

, ,

5 j

,

.

Ifl!$ PAWAAPil CMARS SAFEEUAES RTElm 1J1313 EDT FOR Flisil0 RDi0tUfl, IT IS IMil0XALLY

. LUT BLA The licensee committed to evaluate this concern and, if warranted, to take corre:tive actio This mitter will be reviewed during subsequent inspections and is considered an unresolved -item (UNR

$0-443/90-14-01).

O Packant and Material Access Control - The inspectors determined that j F/ licensee was exercising positive control over packages and material that are brought into the protected area at the main access control point.. The inspectors reviewed the package and material control procedures and found that they were consistent with commitments in the Plan. The inspectors also observed package and material processing and interviewed members of the security force and the licensee's security .

staff about package and material control procedures. No discrepancies were noted, i Vehicle Access Control - The inspectors determined that the licensee properly contr615 vehicle access to and within the PA. The inspectors verified that vehicles are properly authorized prior to entering the P Identification is verified by the SFM at the vehicle access poin This procedure is consistent with the commitments in the Plan. The inspectors.also reviewed the vehicle search procedures and determined that they were consistent with commitments in the Plan. This determination was made by observing vehicle processing and search, inspection of vehicle logs, and by interviewing members of'the security force and licensee's security staff about vehicle search procedures. No discrepancies were note . Alarm Station and Communications The inspectors observed the operation of the Central Alarm Station (CAS)

and determined that it was maintained and operated as committed to in the

' Plan. The CAS Operators were interviewed by the inspectors and found to be knowledgeable of their duties and responsibilities. The inspectors verified that the CAS does nat contain 6ny operational activities that would interfere with the assessment and response functions. No discrepancies were note The inspectors also observed testing of all communications capabilities in the CAS and reviewed the testing records for the communications channel All were found to be as committed to in the Plan. No discrepancies were note .

.. . . . . . .

.m . . .

- . - - - - - . - - - _ . . . . _ _ , , ,

• *

. ,

.

.

6 4 a

. Emergency Power Supply The inspectors verified that there are several systems (batteries, station diesel generator, and plant on-site AC power) that provide backup power to the security systems, and reviewed the accompanying test and maintenance procedures. They were found to be consistent with the Plan. The diesel generator is located in a locked VA. No discrepancies were note g The inspectors also verified that the door access control system for VAs will permit emergency egress when normal pcwer is lost. Administrative l

procedures permit emergency ingress capability when normal power is los No discreparties were note . Testin_g, Maintenance and Compensatory Measures gg The inspectors reviewed testing and maintenance records and confirmed that the records committed to in the plan were on file and readily available f or licensee and NRC review. The station provides instra entation and controls (l&C) technicians to conduct preventive and corrective maintenance on security equipmen A check cf repair records indicated that repairs, replacements and testing i s being accomplished in a timely manne No discrepancies were note The inspectors alsc reviewed the licensee's use of compensatory measures and determined them to be as committed to in the Plan. No discrepancies were note . Security Training and_ qualification The inspectors randomly selected and reviewed the training and qualification records for twelve SFM Physical qualification and firearms qualification records were inspecte These records were for both armed guards and supervisory personne The inspectors determined that the required physical qualification requirements had been met, that t.aining had been conducted in accordance with the security program plans and that they were properly documente No discrepancies were note Several SFMs were interviewed to determine if they possess the requisite knowledge and ability to carry out their assigned duties. The interview s results indicated that they were very professional and knowledgtaole of g their job requirement No discrepancies were note g E

The security force contractor administers the trainine program with seven professionals (one supervisor, two instructors /of f-shif t, three instructors /on-shift, and one clerk). Newly hired SFMs receive a minimum

,

of five weeks of basic training (including 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of firtarms training).

SFMs also receive one day or training every five week _

.

w M . . . . . . . . . . . .. .

?

"". , ,

.

.

At the time of the inspection, the licensee security force consisted of B 154 contract personnel (21 supervisory, 28 security system operators, 68 security officers, 17 watchmen, and 20 administrative personnel) and nine licensee personnel (one manager, two supervisors, five shift supervisors, and one staff assistant). The inspectors verified that the armed response force meets the commitments in the plan and that there is always one full-time member of the security organization on site who has the autoority to direct security activitie . Land Vehicle Bomb Contingency _ Procedure The inspectors conducted a review of the licensee's Land Vehicle Bomb Contingency Procedure. The licensee's procedure details short-term actions that would be taken to protect against attempted radiological sabotage invole'ng a lar/J vehicle bomb if such a threat were to materializ The procs._re appeared adequate for its intended purpos No discrepancies were note . Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives indicated in Paragraph 1 bt the conclu! ion of the inspection on June 22, 199 At that time, the purpose and sccpe for the inspection were reviewed, and the findings were presente The licensee's commitments, as documented in this report, were reviewed and confirmed with the license l ( ^ $ " m ,. ,

__

' ' G. ; 4

. y .:;; ;f J. ; y ; ; J y< n gy;__;

.

~ , - ... , s- - , _ . , . .

y w. :;