IR 05000443/1985018

Preoperational Security Program Review Insp Rept 50-443/85-18 on 850610-14.Major Areas Inspected:Security Program Audit & Security Plan & Implementing Procedures. Portions Withheld (Ref 10CFR73.21 & 2.790)

ML20137S310
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/25/1985
From:	Bailey R, Dunlap J, Keimig R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20137S303	List: IR 05000443/1985018 ML20137S298
References
50-443-85-18, NUDOCS 8512060209
Download: ML20137S310 (9)

Text

1

-

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l REGION I i Report N /85-18 Docket N License N CPPR-135 Licensee: Public Service of New Hampshire P.O. Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Facility Name: New Hampshire Yankee-Seabrook Nuclear Station Inspection At: Seabrook, New Hampshire Inspection Conducted: June 10-14, 1985 Type of Inspection: Preoperational Security Program Review Date of Last Phys 1 Security spection: None Inspectors: ' b

. Bail / Phys cal fecurity Inspector

// ,2/- / 8 date liu @ . Dunl~ap, Physidal Security Inspector

// ,2f'-f[

date Approved by:  ;[f //-26-7

[ R. [eimig Chief, feguards Section, DRSS date Inspection Summary: Preoperational Security Program Review on June 10-14, 1985, (Inspection Report No. 50-443/85-18).

'

Areas Reviewed: Status of program including: Security Program Audit; the l Security Plan and Implementing Procedures; Management Effectiveness; and, Physical Barriers (Protected Area). The review involved 64 hours7.407407e-4 days <br />0.0178 hours <br />1.058201e-4 weeks <br />2.4352e-5 months <br /> onsite by two

NRC region-based inspector Results

Development and implementation of the licensee's security program are progressing as schedule hk N O

i

. .

DETAILS Key Persons Contacted Pubitc Service of New Hampshire W. A. Difrofio, Assistant Plant Manager

• J. T. Tuberty, Administrative Service Manager

• G. Kingston, Compliance Manager

• J. Warnock, Quality Assurance Manager

• C. Roberts, Security and Computer Systems Manager

• P. Upson, Audit and Evaluation Supervisor

• S. J. Ellis, Security Department Supervisor

• J. G. Newhall, Security Supervisor

• B. R. Seymour, Security Supervisor

• R. White, Security Supervisor

• C. R. House, Security Staff Assistant

• W. C. Howe, Chief of Security-Green Mountain Security R. H. Messina, Assistant Chief of Security-Green Mountain Security H. Van Pelt, Shift Commander-Green Mountain Security

,

J. Lacrosse, Training Supervisor-Green Mountain Security Yankee Atomic Electric Company

• V. W. Sanchez, Licensing Engineer

• D. Maidrand, Assistant Project Manager NRC

• A. C. Cerne, Senior Resident Inspector

• R. M. Gallo, Chief, Reactor Projects Section, 2A Region I (DRP)

The inspectors also interviewed other licensee employees and members of the security organizatio . MC 30703-Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives (indicated by aste-risks in paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the review on June 14, 198 At that time, the purpose and scope of the review were discussed and the findings were presented. The licensee acknowledged the inspectors' observa-tions and findings (identified in Attachments 1 and 2 to this report) and stated that modifications, as appropriate, would be mad At no time during this review was written material provided to the li-censee by the inspecto _

l

. .

3 MC 81018 - Security Plan and Implementing Procedures The inspectors reviewed the current Physical Security Plan. The results of this review were discussed with a representative of the licensee. The inspectors' findings are summarized in Attachment 1 to this report. During future security program reviews, the security plan will be reviewed fur-ther to determine the adequacy of the licensee's actions concerning the inspectors findings. (InspectorFollowupItem 50-443/85-18-01).

Attachment 2 to this report contains a listing of the NRC-issued security related Bulletins, Circulars and Information Notices that have been sent by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement to licensees for their infor-mation and action, as necessary, in the past. The licensee's actions with respect to the information contained in these documents also will be in-cluded during future preoperational security program reviews. (Inspector Followup Item 50-443/85-18-02). MC 81020 - Management Effectiveness The inspectors observed that development of the security program is on schedul Station administrative procedures pertaining to plant security and detailed security procedures have been prepared and approved for us The station security organization is functionally divided and an experi-enced Security Program Manager, Site Security Supervisor and four func-tional supervisors have been engaged in providing guidance and coordi-nation in development of the progra . MC 81052 - Physical Barrier (Protected Area)

The inspectors observed that the protected area barrier for the site is not completed; however, a portion of the barrier located inside the completed main guard house does not conform to paragraph 4.2.4 of the Physical Security Plan. The licensee acknowledged this and stated that

'

the barrier would be modified to conform to commitments in the Security Plan. (Inspector Followup Item 50-443/85-18-03).

, The inspectors discussed the physical protection that will be afforded to I the Circulating Water Pump Building. The licensee advised the inspector

! that NRC's Offices of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards and Nuclear l Reactor Regulation were currently analyzing the level of protection which l should be afforded to this building. The licensee acknowledged that the

physical security plan would have to be amended to reflect the outcome of NRC's analysi (Inspector Followup Item 50-443/85-18-04).

i I

l

. . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ ____ , __ ___

. .

Attachment 1 The New Hampshire Yankee - Seabrook Nuclear Generating Station Physical Security Plan, Revision 4, dated August 4,1984 was reviewed by the NRC Region I Physical Security Inspectors. The inspectors' findings and obser-vations were discussed with the licensee representatives who stated that they would be included during further development and implementation of the security progra Paragraph Finding:

Page 6 The plan does not include a commitment for a manage-Reference: 10 CFR ment system to provide for the development, approval, 73.55(b)(3) revision, implementation and enforcement of station

'

procedures that implement the Physical Security Plan, Se-curity Contingency Plan and Training and Qualification Plan. The licensee agreed to include this commitmen Paragraph 2. Finding:

Page 8 TUE ?l ~ * ' ""M.'" !?J U,ij $ D S E0 Tm o N:UC i ^ ' ' ' . . . . ,: : ::: %, !! L1 i.i:F! 't,::; Paragraph 2.6. Observation:

Page 12 Reference: 10 CFR 73.55(c)(4)

.!!IS I Pl*W3PH i.:itNTMNS FUE ':;5 7 ngro," " r- ";g n pai r g:: ngy; DlSCLO^ : ., a ;31liiDiTIONT;LLY LEFIDL/ di Paragraph 3. Finding: Page 22 T!!IS PARACn?MI CC'!Tf,IN~ 2.700(d}

IF E ATL)>> ] IfI'0I20R FK;I" .3 E L '7.';3CC. II IS II!KiillJ';?d.LY N M ".UL i

,

i

. =

' THIS Pl.RAC:?APH CO:i?AINS 2.790(d)

INF0~lATION /J?D IG N3? FOR PUI'LIC DISC:.03UF.E. IT Is IUIZIl?IO!! ALLY LEFI EL/tNK, j Paragraph 4. Finding:

Page 25 THIS PARAGRAPH C0:7?AINS 2.790(d)

INFC U'AII0:I AND IS :for F03 PUELICDISC'0Erc. ITIS I;IIE*i2IO:: ALLY L;77 gtg;;g, Paragraph Finding:

Page 26 ..w

The security plan describes the type of intrusion detection systems that will be installed in the isolation zone However, the inspectors determined that a different type of intrusion detection system is being purchased. The li-censee stated that the plan would be revised accordingl Pararagraph- Finding:

6.10. Page 45 THIS PARACRAPH CONTAIUS 2.790(d)

INF0FIATION AI;D Is NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLO MS. II IS IN::NIIONALLY LE."I EL?d!E' .

Paragraph 7. Finding:

Page 46 This paragraph discusses the types of intrusion detection systems and their installation. Since different systems are being purchased, this paragraph needs to be revised accordingly. The licensee stated that this would be don Paragraph 7. Finding:

Reference: 10 CFR 73.55(d)(7),

(8) and 73.55(e)(3) THIS PARAGRAPH cc:ITAINS 2.790(d)

IN;'0!WATION AND 15 I'OT FOR FUPLIC DISCLO3URE IT IS INIENIIONALLY LZZ: LLAN :nyn 7 m ,1n;gr ;e m ? M 0(d)

I:O ~'

_ 'c a FU ' ' I_ IG ,

l' ; - .. ;. . . %T.,X . ;

'

-

_

.. .

THIS PA?lGPdPH COUTAINS 2.790(d)

INFoRMATI0M AND IS UoT FOR PUELIC DISCLOSURE.17 IS INU"!!IONALLY L2FI ELANK. ,

Paragraph Finding:

Page 54 Reference: 10 CFR The plan does not comit to the general communications 73.55(f)(1) requirements, contained in 10 CFR 73.55, for security per-sonne The plan does not include a commitment that each guard, watchman, or armed response individual on duty is capable of maintb..ing continuous communications with an individual in each continuously manned alarm station. The licensee will revise the plan accordingl Paragraph 1 Finding:

Page 60 The plan does not specifically describe which isolation-zones have zone encroachments that require additional de-tection aids or patrols. The licensee will revise the plan to reflect thi Paragraph 1 Finding:

Page 60 1 . Reference: 10'CFR The plan states that the separation barrier between Units

,

73.55(d)(1) and 1 and 2 contains approximately five vehicle gates providing

-

Review Guideline access to the Unit 2 construction site and that traffic

1. 18 through any one of the five gates is estimated to be min-

imal. 10 CFR 73.55(d)(1) requires that the individual responsible for the last access control function (control-ling admission to the protected area) shall be isolated

'

b within a bullet-resist'ng structure. The NRR staff position on vehicle gates states that vehicle gates and emergency exits, only used occasionally, may have access controlled by two guards at the gate / exit, provided:

(a) Individuals are processed through the normal personnel access control (b) Vehicles are subjected to prior processing at the normal vehicle control statio (c) Material and packages on the vehicle have been checked for identification and authorization, and have been subjected to search requirement ,

. .

(d) Keys used for unlocking the protected area portal are issued to a guard from within a bullet-resisting structure and are always returned to the bullet-re-sisting structure after locking the porta The licensee agreed to change the word " minimal" to "occa-sional" to conform to the wording of the NRR position. The inspector stated that if personnel and vehicular traffic increased beyond occasional use, those gates / exits would be considered as primary entry / exit portals and, therefore, would have to meet 10 CFR 73.55(d)(1).

Paragraph 1 Finding:

Page 64 THIS PARAGRA?II CONIAINS 2.700(d)

INF021TIO:1 AD IS I!0T FOR FUB;IC DISCLOSURE. IT IS INILTfIOELLY LEFI IJLAN Paragraph 1 Finding:

Page 66 Reference: 10 CFR The plan states that the records described in the plan are 73.55(b)(1) available for NRC review, unless precluded by applicable privacy laws. The licensee will revise the plan to conform to 10 CFR 73.55(b)(1).

- - .

-, -

- . _ _ -- .

_ . _ . _

.. .

Attachment 2 1977

'

Item Title Date IE Circular 77-04, Inadequate Lock March 18, 1977 Assemblics IE Bulletin 77-08 Assurance of Safety & December 28, 1977 Safeguards During an Emergency - Locking Systems 1978 IE Circular 78-17 Inadequate Guard Training / October 13, 1978 Qualification and Falsified Training Records 1979 IE Circular 79-03 Inadequate Guard Training / February 23, 1979 Qualification and Falsified Training Records IE Bulletin 79-16 Vital Area Access Controls July 30, 1979 1980 IE Circular 80-09 Problems with Plant Internal March 28, 1980 Communications Systems IE Information Notice Possible Weapons Smuggling May 5, 1980 No. 80-18 Pouch 1982 IE Information Notice Increasing Frequency of March 10, 1982 No. 82-05 Drug-Related Incidents IE Information Notice Inadequate Security March 16, 1982 No. 82-07 Screening Programs IE Information Notice Defective and Obsolete November 26, 1982 No. 82-46 Combination Padlocks 1983 IE Information Notice Falsified Pre-Employment March 23, 1983 No. 83-15 Screening Records

,

,

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

l l

'

o o

IE Information Notice Operational Response to May 4, 1983 No. 83-27 Events Concerning Deliberate Acts Directed Against Plant Equipmen IE Information Notice Impact of Security Practices June 9, 1983 No. 83-36 on Safe Operations IE Information Notice Respirator User Warning: October 11, 1983 No. 83-68 Defective Self Contained Breathing Apparatus Air Cylinders IE Information Notice Use of Portable Radio Trans- December 19, 1983 No. 83- mitters Inside Nuclear Power Plants 1984 IE Information Notice Design Basis Threat February 3, 1984 No. 84-07 and Review of Vehicular Access Controls IE Information Notice Employee Protection March 14, 1984 No. 84-08 IE Information Notice Operation of Emergency August 29, 1984 No. 84-69 Diesel Generators 1985 IE Information Notice Inadequate Management January 17, 1985 No. 85-04 of Security Response Drills IE Information Notice Partial Loss of AC Power April 9, 1985 No. 85-28 and Diesel Generator Degradation

.. .. _ ___ __