ML20065C463

Forwards Rept of Physical Security Event,Per 870910 Telcon. Rept Partially Withheld (Ref 10CFR2.790(d))

ML20065C463
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	09/16/1987
From:	Beratta J NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.
To:	Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20065C236	List: ML20065C455 ML20065C460 ML20065C463 ML20066H255 ML20066H256 ML20066H284 ML20066H777 ML20066H791
References
FOIA-90-269 NUDOCS 8709230279
Download: ML20065C463 (1)

Text

_ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ - . . . . _ _ - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . - - - . . _ _ . _ _ . _ - - . _ - -

l.j e .

M Y 41AGARA O. . IT U wor AWK NINE MILE PolNT NUCLE AR St ATioN /P O BoK 32 LYCOM!No NE A iCA 13093 /if LCPHON! '315 343 21to September 16, 1987 s ,

Dr. Thomas E. Hurley Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Dr. Murley:

In accordance with 100FR73.71(c), enclosed for your inforcation is a copy of a Report of Physical Security Event, reported to the hR Region 1 Office by telephone on September 10, 1987.

This information concerns subject matter which is exempt from disclosure under 2.790(d) of the NRC's Rules of Practice, Part 2, Title 10, Code of federal Regulations. Accordingly, we request that the attachment not be placed in the Public Document Room, and that they be disclosed only in accordance with the provisions of 10CFR9.12.

'Very truly yours,.

[

Joseph P. Beratta ,

Manager, Nuclear. Security

/jnw Enclosures

,i c ; , _. - .. n ,

},

q t

1

,,,, ..-. . - ,,-- ,-. .,.- ---., . ~~ ,--..- ,-.,.-- .

REPORT Of PHYS! CAL $[CURITY ty[NT u

Region 1, USNRC, Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement 19406

' 631 Park Avenue, Thone (215 King 337)of Prussia, PA 5000 09/09/87 Date Of Occurrence:

2208 hours0.0256 days <br />0.613 hours <br />0.00365 weeks <br />8.40144e-4 months <br /> Time Of Occurrence:

f acility and Location: Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit il and Unit 12, Lycoming, NY 13093 i

Docket Nos.: 50-220/50 410

~

License No.: OPR 63/NPF-54 Licensee's Occurrence Report No.: 87-04 Terimeter Intrusion Detection System Brief Title (Subject): Failure (Not Properly Compensated for).

On Wednesday, September 9, 1987, at approximately 2208-DESCRIPTION OF EVENT:

I hours merbers of the Safety Review and Audit intrusion Board "$RAB' detection systemattempted to verify via functionall <

reliability of the perimeter the results did not fall with, testing several perimeter Zones. Accordingly, identifying this deficiency, the the Site Security Plan and Procedures. Upon subject morters and their armed escort proceeded to other perimeter Zones with the intent of performing a duplicate test.

failed to properly compensate for the the armed guard This pra:tice was Consecuently, degracation identified in the previous zone tested.

exercised at several perimeter Zones.

Upon being notified by 'SRAB' members at approximately RESPONSC BY LICENSEC:

S hours the site security supervisor " Lieutenant' imediately responded to the effeced zones commencing functional test senerating results as prescribed in the hRC approved Security Plan.

Minimal; Due to the f act that CONSEQUENCES AT FACIL17Y:

watchtours are performed in additio'n to the entire perimeter at both sites.

,yfe,} y p Licensee Employee Reporting: Daniel Specialist D. O'Hara$)

(31 349-1319Asst. Nuclear Security Mr. John Hackinon, H.0.0.

NRC Staff Employee Receiving Phone Call:

September 10, 1987 Date Of Phone Call:

2150 hours0.0249 days <br />0.597 hours <br />0.00355 weeks <br />8.18075e-4 months <br />.

Time of Phone Call:

__m._____ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - . . _ _ _ _ .

) *

> NOV 13 IMS License Nos. OPR 63 r Docket No. 50 220 NPT 69 50 410 Niagara Mohawk Pcwer Corporation AffN: Mr. C. V. Mangan Senior Vice President 301 Plainfield Road Syracuse, New York 13212 Gentieken:

Subject:

Combined Inspection No. 50 220/S8 30 and 50 410/85-29 This refers to-the reutine physical security inspection ccMucted 26 30,by 1988, 6t Mr. W. J. Tobin of the NRC's Region 11 office on September OPR 63 and

$criba, New York, of activities authorized by NRC License Nos.

NPT 69-and to the discussions of our findings held by Mr. Tobin with '

Mr. 8.- Bandia, yourself and others -at the conclusion _of the inspection.

Areas eramined during-this inspection are described in theWithin NRC Region _1 these areas, the

. inspection Repert which is enclosed with this letter. r inspection consisted of selective examinations of proceds es and . _

representative records,-interviews with personnel, and obseriations by the 3 inspector.

Within _the scope of this inspection, no violations ere o ser,ed.

Sections of the enciesed inspection report contain detatis of your security

~

program that have been determined to be exempt f rort public disclosure in j

accordance with 10 CFR 73.21 (Safeguards Information). Therefore, the sections so identified will not be placed in the NRC Public Occument Room and will receive limited distribution. This letter and the rexatnder of the inspection report-will be placed in the Public Document Room, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a). ',

Your cooperation with us' is appreciated.

Sincerely, 3 I

Orighi !Jgned Br.

RWid R. Baltact "l

I Stewart D. Ebneter, Director Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards.

Enclosure:

Combined Inspection Nos. 50-220/88-30 and 50 410/S8-29 (Contains Safeguards Inforttation (SGI) in Faragraphs 7, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and.13) _

. . . . . ~ .

=

?9/30 - 0001.0.0

- ~

} d'Sff' s

- r _-

hOV !! 4fB Niagara Mohawk Pcwer Corporation 2 4

cc w/enci (w/o 501):

J, P. Beratta, Supervisor, Nuclear Security T. Perkins, Vice President, Nuclear Generation J. Willis, General Station Superintendent V. Hansen, Manager, Corporate Quality Assurance K. Dahlberg, Unit 1 Station Superintendent R. Randall, Unit 1 Supervisor, Operations R. B. Abbott, Unit 2 Station Superintendent C. Beckham, Manager, Nuclear Quality Assurance Operations V, Drews, Technical Superintendent J. A. Perry, Vice President, Quality Assurance J. F. Wprden, New York Consurrer Protection Branch Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire John W. Keib, Esquire Connor l, Wetterhahn Director, Pc er Division Department of Public Service, $ tate of New York Licensing Project Manager, NRR State of New York, Department of Law Pubite Document Room (PDR) local Public Document Room (LpDR)

Nuclear Saf ety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident Insrector (w/SGI)

State of New York i

bcc w/enti (w/o $Gl):

Region 1 Docket Rocm (with concurrences)

NRC Project inspector Mar.agement Assistant, OR9 (./o enc 1)

$ec tion Chief, ORP Region i SLO PA0 ( All inspection Reports)

Robert J. Bores, OR$$

W. J. Tobin, Region 11 (w/sGl)

8. Clayton, EDO y t1 /

pg.g gt. . 's s Rl: 0RSS Rh RpS i mL K Bellamy Ebnt er Carr 19 11//t, /88 11//s/88 II/I1/88 II/ /88 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY SClR NMP 83-29d 0 - 0001.0.1 11/17/88

4- L..; .4

, 2 ',4 ' $ $ v: # E . <0 *t. . l ,

- i 0 W! kC& l' i

ft.~ t/. .eC 9.,__

l U.S. NUCL[ AR REGULA10RY CCMISSION J REGION ! - . .. . ,,.....

! 50 220/68 30 Report No. 5_0410/88M

. . . 7_

l -

' $0 220 Docket No. 50 d10 i '

CPR*6) - *t .  ; t t t '.t t l ,. r . .

i License No. tiPfff9 . .

l Nia;6re Mohawk Pcwer Corporation 1

' Licensee!

$00 ERi%)~e~iiFb?leTt l.' ...- . '

l f_ifciis[NiTYcK DNQl r.

IaCility N&"el N,I Ee,_fL II ,f,I,o I.nja V.n ,i.t 5,,l_ a fd2 Inspectio* Att 5.c r i ba.o New Y0rk Inspeetior condueted: 5eftegen2}.30,193 t

4

. bvM.+M '

8-date/4_'/[

In5pectors:

W. Ji f ot n, F *yw . ' curity Ins;ector

. // './L' N.;-

0. F. "aeron, b A n+ .t*

Engineer, . ... l,e,51 cal cate l v i Securit i

_ ; _ 6(+++<

., //.date /4 V /

1 chard R. ;t M g, 'ilef, Approved by:/,afeguards S

, OR$5 Sectie Unannounced Physical Security insp~ection ~~~~ on Ins ection Sumary: Routir.e

~~

~~

' 5i,[p~t eitte r t 6__0_0.a 1_988._'Ri.t r.,'i.2nT F_.5 _.~~ 6_6;ff_6__7 ? S -_

Security plan and procedures; management organization; Areas In gected:

f audits; records and reports; testing and maintenance; barriers (protected.an

[

I vital areas); security power supply; assessrrent 6 ids response to NRC -!nformation Notices and Generic Lettees.

g The licensee was (q/.pmpliance with NRC requireients in the_ areas Re suQp j

e r as Md-l . v. rj. 9 p L{l

. .. L _ o t S o.

• gfg ygyy $lf-L ..IC. m es l

l-

$ r 4

DETAILS

1. Persons Contacted Licensee

'J. Beratta, Manager, Nuclear Security '

• N. Rademacher, Director, Nuclear Compliance

• B. Bandia, Superintendent, Operations (Unit 1)

• 0. Maevittie, Manager, Security Projects

• 0. Ohara, Director, Security Compliance

• G. Gilmer, Supervisor, Security Technical Services R. Holliday, $ccurity Technician R. Commins, Security Assistant S. Ocmingo, Reactor Operator U.S. NRC W. Schmidt, Resident inspector

2. NRC Notices and Generic letters IE Information Notice 88-26 (Closed) - The licensee re.iewed this Notice with its staf f responsible for nuclear security cleararces. Additiorelly, the Notice was forwarded by the licensee to the contra: tor who performs clearances and background investigations for the litersee and, to the various contra: tors who furnish the licensee with empicjee clearances, l e.g., General Electric, Combustion Engineering, etc. ine licensee's actions were' considered appropriate by the ins;ectors. l IE Information Notice 8S-41 (Closed) - The licensee attended an NRC l f

Regulatory Ef fectiveness Review (PER) at another Regior ! f acility and currently is gathering information from other utilities who have had an RER. The lice 95ee is forming a team of security / maintenance / operation personnel to conduct a comprehensive review of the security program in anticipation of an RER in the future.

IE Information Notice 88-49 (Closed) - The licensee reviewed this Notice with all security personnel and has incorporated its centent into the security training and General Employee Training programs. The Notice was also forwarded by the licensee to various vendors and contractors who deal with safeguards information and an article on the subject was included in the utility's news letter. The licensee also conducts random audits on-the program for handling safeguards information.

Generic Letter 88-10 (Closed) - The licensee had reviewed the Letter and stated that it has not experienced a problem in purchasing approved safes and file cabinets.  !

3 4

3. .SecurityPlan/ Procedures _(MC_81018)

The inspectors reviewed the licensee's Physical Security Plan (PSP) and randomly reviewed the various security procedures which implement the PSP.

Several of these security procedures are discussed elsewhere in this Report under the applicable inspection module paragraph.

The inspectors determined that the licensee is meeting the criteria of 10 CFR 50.54(p) and 50.90 with respect to PSP revisions.

The inspectors noted a minor inaccuracy with Figure #10 in the PSP, Figure #10 is the wiring diagram for the uninterruptable power supply for the security system. During the Exit Meeting, the licensee agreed that a more accurate diagram was appropriate and would be submitted with the next PSP revision.

4. Management Organization _(MC31020/81022)

The licensee utilizes a proprietary security organization of approxicately 250 individuals, of whom about 155 are armed guards. The organization includes support services from a Compliance Section, an Administration

$ection (clearances and investigations), a Services $ection (training, maintenance and technical sup; ort) and an Operations seccion which provides the day to-day imple entation of the security program. The Manager of Nuclear Security is one of five Managers reporting to the Senior Vice President who is located onsite. The inspectors-found that the organization was as depicted in the PSP.

5. f.rogramAudit_(MC810),4) i The inspectors verified that the 1987 annual ser.urity audit was I performed on September 8-16, 1987, and, that the 198B audit was conducted on September 15-23, 19BB. The audit is the responsibility of the licensee's $afety Review and Audit Board, an independent organization that reports to the Manager of Quality Assurance (Corporate) in Syracuse, New >

York. The 1987 audit report was furnished to the Senior Vice President j (Finance), the Plant General Superinterdent, and to the Manager of Nuclear  ;

Security (onsite). The audit included the licensee's PSP, Contingency i Plan, Training and Qualifications Plan, security procedures, and NRC 3 inspection findings. Although the 1988 audit had been completed, the report had not yet been issued. The inspectors noted in their review of the draf t report that open items from the 19B7 audit had been reviewed and were resolved. The inspectors also noted that while there were no adverse findings in 1988, several minor findings were noted on the auditors checklists,_ e.g., key control, access lists, and control of safeguards information at the licensee's corporate headquarters. The 1988 security _

program audit report and its disposition will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.

i i

4

6. Records / Report s_(MC81083)

Throughout this inspection, various documents were randomly audited.

They included alarm printouts, daily logs, event reports, shift assignment rosters, maintenance requests, and patrol records.

The inspectors reviewed the Quarterly Log of Safeguard Events for April 1

- June 30, 1988, submitted to the NRC via licensee letter dated July 25,1988. The Log indicated a total of 70 events; 26 attributable to butan error and 44 due to equipment failures. With one etception, all events were recorded within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of discovery. The exception was drug related and was not logged for seven days due to complications with confirmation of drug screening tests which were beyond the licensee's control. However, the inspectors reviewed Security Administrative Procedure #14. " Reporting of Safeguards Events" Revision 2, dated February 17, 1983, and noted that the procedure does not define

" discovery" for the purpose of establishing the start of the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period within which loggable event must be recorded. The Security Compliance Director stated his interpretation that the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period started whenever he or another security maaager became aware of an event.

The Compliance Director was advised that this interpretation was incon-sistent with the NRC's regulation, 10 CFR 73.71, and that the regulation should be reviewed and the reporting procet.,re should be modified accor:lingly in order to avoid problems in the future. He was also of the opinion that in lieu of " red phoning" an e.ent to NRC Headquarters, the Resident inspector could be notified. He was also advised that this practice would not comply with 10 CFR 73.71 and that a modification to the reporsing procedures was in order to corre:t this misunderstanding.

This mitter will be reviewed during a subse:uent inspection.

7. TesMng/ Maintenance (MC81042j The inspectors randomly selected 5 Hardware Problem Reports (HPRs) f rom entries in the Daily security Event Logs for the purpose of reviewing the licensee's handling of maintenance and rereir of security equipment. The HPRs selected were as follows:

+ HPR#4931-An assessment aid was taken out of service on May 2nd, and was repaired and returned to service the next day.

• HPR#5690-A vital area door was found to have a f aulty locking l mechanism on May 11, and was fixed and returned to service by May 13.

• HPR#4884-A card reader concentrator was taken out of service on April 8 due to constant alarms, and was *epaired by April 13.

~

I '

• '~' ~ ~- , _ _ , , , , _

• HPR#5300 An intrusion detection tone was found faulty ard was repaired within the same day, June 22.

• HPR#6317 A metal detector was found f aulty and was re; aired within the same day, April 4 The inspectors determined f rom their review of the HPRs that the licensee is concientious in re; airing and pronptly returning security equipment to use thereby minimitirg the use of correns& tory reasures and corresponding security f orce overtime.

($Gl) The ins

• tors also reviewed the licensee's Security Surveillance Procedure,@M for weckly testing of thefiMintrusion detection system. The irstectors noted that the procedure only requires each zone tpbot&5tnj Q5ViQT& Q M Q & QlffCff f )ffEg g M@Q 7 tt it.srec tor s notec t* a t this is not cono stenTL tn MC kegulatory Gui de (RS) 5.44 but also noted that the licensee had not committed to t*e testing reavirer;cnts established in the RG. The licensee was advised trat the ef fectiveness of the system could be enhanced by testing as oul'ned in the RG. (5GI)

8. I hy s.i c a l B a [r,' ey s p r o tAlp d_ h ttal (Q 1052 )

During a tour o' the prctected area, the inspectors n:ted several potential sec.rf ty syste*, weatresses that could decrease the ef f ectiveness of the security program. The potential weaknesses vcre discussed with the liter.see who tc;k i-vred' a te c or rec tive action a s f olle.5:

• ($Gl) Urit i Vehicle Gate - The bottom of the gate was in encess of 6 inches f ec- the paserent level. (the intrec tors tre asured 7 inches),

it shovic te noted that f rc~ MTW-W) this gate is attended by a guard .he .rocesses vehicles. Additiorally, the pate is pro-

. tected w't* a system (which the ir $ rectors did not crawl and is located directly in test), a c f ront of t*e unn 1 Security Building. As a corrective action, the licensee raised the pavement under the gate. (5G1)

($GI) PA Fence Zone 28 - This zone is located in the enrete

' Northeast corner of the f acility. The inspectors noted that there Scere several poles located outside the fence but close enough to the fence barrier to be used as a climbing aid. The inspec 5 pointed out that the poles could be used to jump over the ce, to warn leaving or.ly the

+ of an intruder. 5 a correct ye action, the licensee ha ie se poles removed. (SGl)

+ (SGl) Zone 13 This tone comprises the interf ace of Unit 1 and Unit 2, loosely piled crushed rock was found under the interior f ence that could be easily pushed aside to create An opening in iremotl excess of 96 square inches ' 9  ; .- s i e t . I%.Flf ta a

t corrected this problem byl- ,

w

5 f

e ($Gl) Unit 1 Access Centrol Booth - The inspectors pointed door leading cutinto that the a 3/4 inch gap existed under the the badge isse.Jnce I

Access Control Booth, The door is ocate nea

{ windew, but to get to this door, an individual must i As afirprecautf

$t process ocary through the various 5;ecial purpose detector $, --

mea $vre, the licensee had a steel bar welded to the bottom of tFe i

,' door. ($GI) (

l I .(33;) 'E l (. ;t <,

pyl'h j {'f , j[ .yfiIf ?% yj i .l,,G,.

f mc

' s,' i: p ' i 3> 1, . , . .T . '

y[:i

%y[].]l  !

$  ;,h . d, , j, ..,!. ';' ,j ' j', ,],'

! y ',J

v. ($31)

I4'*h .y, . ;.). , y, , , ? j ,)

l The inspectors found that the protected area barrier was installed and itaintained in Confomance with ccP.tittents in the ISP, Physical Barriers.(yA al M eas),($ 11054) l i 9.

The inspectors randomly sele:ted the folle ing vital areas to eva' ste the i ef fectiveness of the barritrs and doors:

, , if [ . (

? Y, (SG!)If

};?Y.,. . 1 f$.. ,

>^

,yy .,.

. 7  %.

{ , ',, ., , , f

,a l

j >4 ,

9 . 'l .

e (SG1) The inspectors,-with the concurrence of and in the presence of j the licensee, attempted to manipulate several of the locking devices associated with vital area doors but were unsuccessful in unlocking the barriers, However, the inspectors determined that

...~._~r-

, . .b v . ... y,...~,_.. .~._,...m___,__,,_m.__,,,,,.,,,, . . . . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . -

^- - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _

ow.aw A w A e

.W as an additional Should be installed on doorshh d @ ty

'"' "'*"'" "" " '""'" "*4 "

"'sMUM "inij

e There is no intrusion barrier installed: .here they penetrate

• ($GI) M iris'81M gglperE g7 vital area barriers, _re icensee pointeo out t at rt ,

k'59kFm-~ ~

tie inspect 6rs that it is ev >ng this

[&% R k& 9RT M '

used. 1he Scensee advise The intpectors tratter as part of a security upgrade ef fort.

determined that thchMg3g&TF)%Wthey encountered were not easily emploitable but considerec that the licenste's evaluation was The evaluation will be revie.ed an appropriate course of action.

during a subsequent inspection. (5Gl) l ectors questiored the resistance of ventilation grills

+ ($G)) TFa h5 Joors. The licensee advised the in the in spec to'r s ...

was a 50 included in the security upgrade {

effort. ($GI)

J%N MQ-lh 7%

( g,: )

g g'Q3 f [ % .ss-!. :

i $ il waya,.~

(;

k 7

$' ' / . ,; {,k [}

f' bl l$;>l{%3h'M..; lb@

a (SGl)

The inspectors stated that these vital area barrier weaknesses appear to conflict with Paragraph 2.2.1 of the PSP which commits to vital i area barriers of ". . .suf ficient strength to meet This isthe perforrance cor.sidered an a

requirements of 10 CfR Part 73,55(a). . .".pending completion of the Unresolved item (88-30-01 and 88-29 01) licensee's ongoing evaluation,

10. . ecurBL ewer S P Supply IMC81058)

The inspectors requested that the licesee test the uninterruptable pcwer

[ supply for the security system to determine its operability as commit to in the PSP, t

q i

l

• i

($GI) On the evening of $je itember 29, the licensee remeted normal AC power to exercise the backup $g'M5ource$ for the security system. During the transient, the licensee selectively teste All were shown to be operab e, monitors,pr a computers all remained operable without i tion. Hcwever, there was no annunciation at either the CA$ or $A$ to indicate the system was being pc ered by the backup ;:wer supply, 45 stated in the PSP. The inspectors reviewed records of a test performed on Sept enber 26,19?B. The test record indicated that the required annunication "MOUBLE UP 10$ COM UPS COMMON ALARM" tad been received. The licensee could not explain why the security computer f ailed to printout the alarm annunciation during the NRC requested test. ($GI)

This is considerad an Ur. resolved Iter (83-30 02 and 83 29 02) pending a review by the licer;see into why the alarm f ailed te ann shciate.

~

11. A55esscent Aids _ (MCS106tQ '

The inspec tors revie=ed the operability and quality of attessment aids f rom the C AS and $AS.

($G!) The in5;e: tors noted that trir.or degradations en'st in the licensee's capability to assess DMte:ted area intrusion alarms d.e to the e

When tnis g ;' tet ta weakness was c35:v55e: alth the licensee'$ technical support staf f they indicated that corrective treabres would be tO en. Ibe ins;ect:*5 did not consider ~~~

60 the we ntest t' 4"ificant sinc e g l Qg% "; meter, correct ve measures are appropriate to en ance the 45 > pent system, ($Gl)

There were no violations identified in this area.

12. Ac c e 5 5_C o,n t r o_15_ (f a c k 4 g e s[ye h i c l e s) _( $ 8107 7 MS ) 0]g Throughout this inspection, the inspectors observed neerous packages and vehicles being processed into the protected area. On September 29, at about $;4$ p.m. a personnel injury occurred inside the protected area that resulted in the need for an ambulance.

($GI) The inspectors observed that the security force espeditiously f acilitated the entry of the ambulance into t ected area and escorted it to the Administration Building. (

- =h5 u nMs pia c e d in the vehicle was properly escorted out of the protected area. Upon

- - _~ - -

T termination of the emergency, the security force was obserted documeriting the event, which was considered as an exception to the normal access control procedure. The irspectors reviewed the licensee's procedure and the actions of the security force and found them to be consistent. No diseprepancies were identified. Additionally, during this inspection, the inspectors observed various vehicles inside the protected area and found them to be in accordance with j the requirerrents o the >. n several occas ons, onever, the adequacy of vehicle searches at the Unit 2 entry point was questioned by the inspectors because they were rapid, nonsystematic and mirrors were not ainays used for undercarriage searches. (SG!)

($GI) The inspectors also questioned the adequacy of vehicle gate cont .

The inspectors observed a truck enterine t it 1 vehicle gate during We af ternoon of Septe :e 28 +. .,s l,. .- g 'ir -

' ', l '.

{ ff.. . h. ; l f, . .. $

s The inspectors brovght these two obse.vations to the liter.see's attention. The licensee stated t*at the I

matters wovid be revie.ed and appropriate action would be talen. (SG!)

($G!) With respect to rick age searches, the irspectors found the Itcensee l to be implementing tre re:strements of its PSP. The licensee uses t nucce weaoons in test i 'g its bray pacla;e search eoviPert '.'

I I .

I No violations were ider'.ified in this area.

13. Detection Aidsjprotected and Vital Areas)_(MCB1078HJ6)C60]

l The inspectors reviemed the Itcensee's use of detection aids thr: ugh I

observation of protected and vital area systems and equipent.

l (SGl) The inspectors observec one potential weakness in protected area

' detection zone Ali, where the Unit 1 detection system interfaces with the

9

'. 5s >'.? -

6%

.\r" ,f., '.. .~.' 'e.. :. : ;;; f? .

.i., *;

b.g\, N.;'L ^The ' lic'ensee,' in t e 7

[ y{ *J3f, L.;&.: ' $,..%.G;y. .

.go,.

, f.

3..- ..

3, PSP, commits to ... e perimeter intrusion system is desi ned to meet NR RG .44 Revision 2)..." The RG calls for installation o h

s

. . . . ~

D y-

, s~

i j

WQREEEEEE d.k " ' t@ The inspec tors did not consider this weakness to be readily be nce the k T g4gqK9FI{BFMTMgr,

~ ~~

JS$1)

Ci) pll l l . .

l ll .

• {, t ig .

> ', I #'

c , >

,f i@ '

[ .

.[' f 34- / ' 4.E_S.t.a t. loft.I&@ 219 The inspectors toured the Central and Se:ondary Alarm (CAS and SAS)

Stations durirg this inspection, on various shif ts and noted that there are four oper Ators on ' sty at all times; one operator is dedicated to Unit 1 and an;cher to Unit 2, in both the CAS and SAS. The operators a;peared to be Lnc+1ej g eable of their dsties and responsibilities and f arriliar with the alarm station controls except that one operator was hesitant and appearh un sure when asted by the inspectors t,o perform a specific task. Upon being reassured by a the second operator, the first operator performed the task without dif ficulty.

There were ro violations identified in this area.

15. E r ij _1_n t e ry i er An exit interview was held on September 30, 1988, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1. The inspectors described the areas inspected and discussed the inspection results in detail.

No viritten material was provided to the leiensee by the inspectors during this inspection.

i 4

k