ML20147B004
| ML20147B004 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem, Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1997 |
| From: | Racquel Powell NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Holloway W, Oneill J SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147B009 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-96-351 NUDOCS 9701290255 | |
| Download: ML20147B004 (10) | |
Text
, _,,, _ -, _,,, ~, _
.m, w w n.. R, S,
(
FTilA -
,# peg um
" lg% _ h, 1,\\
RESPONSE TYPE RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF l FINAL h l PARTIAL 7,p INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST DATE JAN 2 41997
..ee.
DOCKE i NUMBE R(Si f// apphcable) mECP '
R
...J.
H.
O'Neill, Jr. ATTN:
W.
R.
Holloway PART 1.-AGENCY RECORDS RELE ASED OR NOT LOCATED fSee checked boxes)
N a agency records subject to the request have been located.
No additional agency records subject to the request have been located.
Requested records are available through another public distribution program. See Comments section.
Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Appendix (es) are already available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC.
)
Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Appendix (es)
O are being made available for public inspection and copying
]
X tt the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC,in a folder under this FOlA number, i
The nonproprietary version of the proposal (s) that you agreed to accept in a telephone conversation with a member of my staf f is now being made available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC, in a folder under this FOI A number.
Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Appendix {es) may be inspected and copied at the N RC Local Public Document Room identified in the Comments section.
Enclosed is information on how you may obtain access to and the charges for copyin; icords located at the NRO Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC.
X Agency records subject to the request are enclosed. A p p e n d i c e s 0&O Records subject to the request have been referred to another Federal agencylies) for review and direct response to you.
Fees You will be billed by the N RC for fees totaling $
You will receive a refund from the NRC in the amount of $
in view of NRC's response to this request, no further action is being taken on appeal letter dated
, No.
PART 11. A-INFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE C:rtain information in the requested records is being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to the exemptions described in and for the reasons stated in Part il, B, C, and D. Any released portions of the documents for which only part of the record is being withheld are being made available for public X
inspection and copying in the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, DC in a folder under this FOI A number.
COMME NTS The review of additional records subject to your request is continuing.
The record listed on Appendix P is copyrighted.
Therefore, it is only being made available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room.
Some of the records on Appendix R m drafts which are considered predecisional information.
The f i r..
versions of the drafts have already been made publicly available or will be addressed in future responses to this request.
0 0\\
c)7 i /
4-
~
- sV ON ON RE ED INFORMATION AND PUBLICATIONS SERVICES WGNnTUR '. DIRECTO Y
a(h (Ihdb Op, }l,
'b j.
4 y' " '97012.90255'"970124 s
O'NEILL96-351 PDR
,,,,,, _ ~,
l NRC FORM 464 (Part 1) (191)
Fol A NUMeERts)
DATE RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF j
INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST FOlA 351 24 @
(CONTINUATION) l l
PART ILB-APPUCABLE EXEMPTIONS Hecords subject to the request that are described in the enclosed Appendix (es) Q & Rare being withheld in their entirety or in part under the Exernption Nojs) and for the reason (s) given below pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and 10 CF R 9.17(a) of NRC regulations.
- 1. The withheld mformation is properly classified pursuant to Executive Order. (Exemption 1)
)(
- 2. The withheld mformation relates solely to the internal personnel rules and procedures of NRC. (Exemption 2) l X l3. The withheld mformation is specifically exempted from pubhc disclosure by statute mdicated. (Exemption 3)
Sections 141 145 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Restricted Data rir Formerly Restricted Data (42 U.S.C. 21612165).
X Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Unclassified de%ards trdormation (42 U.S.C. 2167).
[
l4. The withheld information is a trade secret or commercial or financial informat that is bemg withheld for the reason (sl indscated. (Exemption 4)
The mformation es considered to be confidential business (proprietary) information.
The mformation is considered to be proprietary mformation pursuant to 10 CFR 2 790(dH1L The information was sutmitted and received m confidence pursuant to 10 CF R 2 790tdH2)
X
- 5. The withheld mformation consists of interagency or intraagency records that are not avariable through discovery dur ng htigation (Exemption 5). Apphcable Privilege:
Dehberative Process Disclosure of predecisional information wuuld tend to inhibit the open and frank exchange of ideas essential to the deliberative process X
wha recordi are *'inheid a 'ha'r eanra'v the f acta are 'ne tricablv in'attasaad a'th the oradect=ionai sn'ormation 7 hare also ara no reaioaab'v =aaresabia f actua' a
portions because the release of the f acts would permit an mdirect enouiry mto the predecessonal process of the agency Attorney worli product previlege IDocuments prepared by an attomey in contemplation of htegation i Attorney-chent privilege. IConfidential communications between an attorney and his/her client.)
- 6. The withheld mformation es esempted from public disclosure because its disclosure would result m a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (Exemption 6)
- 7. The withheld information consists of records compiled for law enforcement purposes and as being withheld for the reasonisl indicated (Exernption 7) 6/9 Disclosure could reasonably be expected to mterfere with an enforcement proceedmg because it could reveal the scope, assetion, and focus of enforcement efforts. and thus could possibly aHow recipients to take action to shield potentg! wrongdomg or a tiolation of N AC requirernents from mvestigators. IExemption 7 ( AD Disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. (Exemption 7(C))
The information consists of names of individuals and other information the denlosure of which could reasonably be enoected to reveal identities of confidential sources. (Exemption 7 (DD l
OTHLH l
PART li. C-DENYING OFFICIALS Pursuant to 10 CFR 9 25(b) and or 9 2 Sic) of the U S. Nuclear Rego:atory Comm<ssion regutations. it has been determined that the information withheld is exempt from pro duction or disclosure. and that its product *on or doctosure is contrary to the pubbc mterest. The pMsons responsible for the den +al are those off tcials identified below as denying officials and the D, rector, Division of Freedom of informat-on and Pubi. car,ans Services. Of t:ce of Admintstration, for any deniais that may be appealed to the E xecutive Director for Optrations IEDOL l
DENYING OFFICIAL TlTLE OFFICE RECORDS DENIED APPELLATE OFFICIAL EDO ERUM IG I
Q/1 - Q/5' R/1' l H. J. Miller Administrator Region I n / _9 n/,
y e
~_
~
L i e b e rnia.n D irecim_DE R/4 X
(
i
(
l l
PART 18. D-APPEAL RICHTS The denial by each denying official identified m Part ILC may be appealed to the Appellate Official identif.ed there. Any such appeal must be made m writing within 30 days of receipt of this rssponse. Appeals must be addressed. as appropriate. to the E xecut.ve Director for Operations, to the Secretary of the Commission, or to the inspector General. U S Nuclear Repl: tory Commission, Washmgton, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and m the letter that it is an " Appeal from an initial FOf A Decision."
NRC FORM 464 (Part 2) (191)
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
R i
0 Re:
FOIA-96-351 APPENDIX O RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN THEIR ENTIRETY NO.
DATE DESCRIPTION /(PAGE COUNTl 1.
No date Assessment of Salem System Readiness Reviews (Blake welling) (2 pages) 2.
No date Nuclear Department Organization NC.NA-AP.ZZ-0002 (Q) (48 pages) 3.
No date Salem Administrative Controls (27 pages) 4.
No date Detailed Sequence of Events (Attachment 4)
(2 pages) l 5.
No date Escalated Enforcement Action Tracking Sheet j
No date Administrative Controls - Enclosure 4 (180 pages) 7.
No date Administrative Controls - Enclosure 7 (66 i
pages) 8.
No date Administrative Controls - Enclosure 7 (82 pages) 9.
Undated Senator Biden staf f briefing notes (7 pages) 10.
Undated Salem Tables, pages 85, 86, 178, 179, 180 and 181 (6 pages) 11.
Undated Handwritten sheet: SSPS, " Power Supply failures to transfer" (1 page) 12.
Undated Draft:
Supplement to Salem OE 7079 (2 pages) 13.
Undated Handwritten sheet, Board Schedule Meet, 3/21, 2PM, Newark (1 page) 14.
05/08/91 Ltr from Ralph Donges to Ralph Paolino, (4 pages) l 15.
11/09/91 Press Release: NRC Staff sends Augmented Inspection Team tc Site of a Turbine Failure l
(2 pages) 16.
11/12/91 Preliminary Notification of Event or Unusual i
Occurrence--PNO-I-91-81 (2 pages)
I
r D
Re:
FOIA-96-351 APPENDIX O (continued)
RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN THEIR ENTIRETY NO.
DATE DESCRIPTION /(PAGE COUNT) 17.
02/03/92 Memorandum from A.
Randolph Blough to Salem AIT Enforcement (2 pages) 18.
02/04/92 NRC Enforcement Conference (31 pages) 19.
03/18/92 Press Release:
Subject:
NRC Staff Cites PSE&G for Salem Unit 2 (1 page) 20.
04/02/92 Letter to I.
Selin from Senator Biden (EA 92-007 and EA 94-112) (5 pages) 21.
04/23/92 NRC Information Notice 92-30: Falsification of Plant Records (5 pages) 22.
06/21/93 Policy Issue - SECY-93-173, Proposed NRC Generic Letter Titled, " Rod Control System Failure and Withdrawal of Rod Control Cluster Assemblies" (9 pages) 23.
03/05/93 Fax from Tom Johnson, SRI to Dan Holody (4 pages) l 24.
03/31/93 Notice of Significant Licensee Meeting No.
93-41 (1 page) 25.
04/06/93 NRC Enforcement Conference *- Firewatch Program (39 pages) 26.
04/07/93 Licensing & Regulation (31 pages) 27.
02/01/94 Work Control Enforcement conference (Salem)
(52 pages) 28.
02/09/94 PSE&G Nuclear Department Employee Update (4 pages) 29.
04/08/94 Memorandum from Thomas Martin to Marvin l
Hodges on Augmented Team Inspection Charter for the Review of the Salem Unit No. 1 Reactor Scram and Loss of Pressurizer Steam Bubble (18 pages) l I
s Re:
FOIA-96-351 APPENDIX O (continued)
RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN THEIR ENTIRETY NO.
DATE DESCRIPTION /(PAGE COUNT) 30.
05/20/94 Ltr from Anthony J. McMahon, to James T.
Wiggins,NRC,
Subject:
Salem Unit 1 Augmented Inspection Team (3 pages) 31.
07/21/94 Memorandum from Eugene Kelly to Distribution on Salem AIT Escaled Enforcement Briefing Package (37 pages) 32.
07/26/94 Memorandum from Eugene Kelly to Distribution on Salem AIT Escalated Enforcement - Briefing Package (37 pages) 33.
08/03/94 Summary of Salem SRO Enforcement Conference with attached e-mails (3 pages) 34.
08/10/94 Note from D.
Holody,
Subject:
Transcript of Enforcement Conference held on 8/2/94 (1 page) 35.
10/06/94 Nuclear Today (Thursday) (2 pages) 36.
01/11/95 Ltr from Richard W.
Cooper, Director, Division of Reactor Projects to Mr. Calvin Vondra (3 pages) 37.
01/11/95 Ltr from Richard W.
Cooper, Director, Division of Reactor Project to Mr. Lawrence Reiter (3 pages) 38.
02/08/95 NRC Enforcement Conference (Attachment 7)
(14 pages) 39.
02/16/95 Salem-LTOP-Meet with attached Salem Pops Time Line and Chronology of POPS Evaluation by PSE&G (4 pages) 40.
06/16/95 E-Mail from Johr R. White to (DJH)
D.
- Holody,
Subject:
Salem inf Conf (6/23) (1 page) 41.
06/19/95 E-Mail from G Scott Barber to J. White (JRW1),
Subject:
Salem Enf Conf Schedule change (1 page)
Re:
FOIA-96-351 APPENDIX 0 (continued)
RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN THEIR ENTIRETY NO.
DATE DESCRIPTION /(PAGE COUNT) 42.
07/27/95 Salem E/C Pre-brief w/ attached Salem Predecisional Enforcement Conference, Discussion of Issues / Apparent Violations (7 pages) 43.
11/22/95 Action Item No.95-222 (51 pages) l l
l
r l.
Re:
FOIA-96-351 APPENDIX P COPYRIGHTED RECORDS BEING RELEASED TO THE PDR NO.
DATE DESCRIPTION /(PAGE COUNT) l 1.
10/06/94 The Philadelphia Inquirer, PSE&G fined l
$500,000 for violations (1 page) 1 1
1 l
l l
l l
s Re:
FOIA-96-351 l
APPENDIX Q l
RECORDS BEING WITHHELD IN PART NO.
DATE DESCRIPTION /(PAGE COUNT)/ EXEMPTIONS i
1.
Various Notes from NRC Region I State Liaison Officer's Log (21 pages) EX. 6 2.
11/09/90 Ltr from James H.
Joyner to Steven E.
Miltenberger,
Subject:
Combined Inspection 1
Nos. 50-272/90-23, 50-311/90-23 and 50-354/90-91 with enclosed inspection report (11 pgs) EX. 3 3.
04/29/91 Ltr from James H.
Joyner to Steven '.
Miltenberger,
Subject:
Combined Inspectin Nos. 50-272/91-10, 50-311/91-10, and 50-354/91-07 with enclosed inspection report (11 pge) EX. 3 I
4.
02/16/95 E-mail from S.
Barber to J.
White,
Subject:
Salem Pops Enforcement Panel (1 page) EX. 2 5.
05/21/96 Conversation Record (2 pages) EX. 6 l
l
. ~.
- _.. =. -.. - _. _...... -. -. -. -
9 Re:
FOIA-96-351 APPENDIX R RECORDS BEING WITHHELD IN THEIR ENTIRETY i
l l
NO.
DATE DESCRIPTION / (PAGE COUNT) / EXEMPTIONS 1.
No date X.O Work Control (15 pgs) EX. 5 2.
No date Salem Panel (Handwritten notes) (1 page) EX.
I 5
3.
Undated Draft Appendix A, Notice of Violations and I
Devictions, Appendix B,.and Executive Summary l
(12 pages) EX. 5 4,
04/07/93 Routing and transmittal note to DRP, et al.,
from Dan with attached Excalation/ Mitigation Analysis (4 pages) EX. 5 i
J l
l l
I I
i
)
i 1
i d
i j
mammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 1
Copyrighted Document Addressed Under FOIA
\\
i l
i l
For hard copy, l
refer to PDR Folder:FOIA 74
- as I i
===================================.
i i
1 l
d* H' D' & lk
~
i FOIA Name & Number:
Pages:
P-1 b A A\\
l' 2 4'9 7 WOoh 7
v.us v
5 i
i i
~
l SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE
....,~...~,, _,~..... -.
..o~.
2300 N STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20037-1128 (202) 663-8000 (202 fen-eOO7 FOl/WA REQUEST JOHN H. O'NEIL1., JR. f*.C.
( * * *'**
cage 99 gy; August 30,1996 Date Rec'd.
9-b ti Action Ott Director, Division of Freedom of Related Case:
Information & Publications Services l
Office of Administration i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Two White Flint North Building l
11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Re:
Freedom ofInformation Act Request Regarding the Salem Generating Station, Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311
Dear Sir or Madam:
l This is a Freedom ofInformation Act request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. { 552(a)(3) and 10 l
C.F.R.
9.23. We request that you make available to Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge the documents responsive to the attached Request for Production of Documents. These documents need to be made available as soon as possible to support depositions in an accelerated legal action. In order to expedite production of the documents, we have deliberately tailored this request to be narrow in scope and straightforward in the type of documents requested. We have already obtained copies of relevant documents presently available at the N.R.C. Public Documents Room and they need not be produced again in response to this request. Of course, we agree to bear the cost of this request as per 10 C.F.R.
{Q 9.23(b)(4),9.33,9.39, and 9.40, and we authorize you to respond to this request piecemeal as documents become available. Please contact me at (202)663-8148, or William Hollaway j
at (202)663-8294, at your convenience if you have any questions regarding this request.
Please direct your response, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. { 9.27, to:
William R. Hollaway, Ph.D.
]
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N.V/.
I Washington, D.C. 20037-1128 (202)663-8294 l
Fax: (202)663-8007 l
M w SOM 9pP.
i 4
d SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE A PAmihE RSMiP DNCLUDING PROFESSION AL CORPORAflONS Director, Division of Freedom ofInformation and Publications Services August 30,1996 Page 2 Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sin erely, i>
\\
(/
4 John I. O'Neill, Jr.
Attachment 1
148107-0t / EX.TMKi l
l
FOIA Request, Aug. 30,1996 REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS l
L DIRECTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS l
I 1.
The term "NRC" means the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, all offices and/or branches thereof specifically including, but not limited to, headquarters in l
Rockville, Maryland and the Region I office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and also in-cludes all employees, consultants, agents, and representatives to the maximum extent per-mitted by 10 C.F.R. Q 9.3, unless otherwise indicated by the request.
2.
The term " Salem" means one or both units of the Salem Generating Station located in IIancocks Bridge, New Jersey and operated by the Public Service Electric and Gas i
Company.
3.
The term " SAP" means the Salem Assessment Panel that was developed in 1995 specifi-cally to review Salem Generating Station on an ongoing basis, including all members and supervisors th f
4.
The term "PSE&G" refers the operator of Salem, Public Service Electric and Gas Company.
5.
The term "PECO Energy" refers to PECO Energy Company, formerly known as Philadel-phia Electric Company.
6.
The term "Delmarva" refers to Delmarva Power & Light Company.
7.
The term " Atlantic Electric" refers to Atlantic City Electric Company.
8.
The term "SALP" means the Strategic Assessment of Licensee Performance, a compre-hensive review of plant performance, performed for each plant on an 18-month cycle. The most recent SALP review for Salem was issued on January 3,1995.
9.
The term " Enforcement Action" means a civil penalty levied by the NRC against the licen-sees of Salem pursuant to single or multiple violations at Salem. The most recent En-forcement Action regarding Salem was issued on October 16,1995.
10.
The term "AIT" means the Augmented Inspection Tea;ns that performed investigations of Salem in 1992,1993, and 1994, including all members and supervisors thereof.
11.
The term " SIT" means the Special Inspection Team that performed an investigation of Sa-lem in 1995, including all members and supervisors thereof.
FOIA Request, Aug. 30,1996 12.
The term "PA" means the comprehensive Performance Assessment evaluation of Salem performed in July-August,1995 to aid in focusing future NRC inspection resources at Salem.
13.
The term " Confirmatory Action Letter" means the letter from the NRC to PSE&G on June 9,1995 confirming PSE&G commitments to take specific actions prior to the restart of Salem and confirming that failure to take these actions may result in enforcement action.
IL DOCUMENTS REQUESTED 1.
All documents concerning the NRC's Salem Assessment Panel (" SAP") established on August 2,1995, especially including but not limited to:
All internal NRC discussions concerning the formation and purpose of the SAP; a.
b.
Transcripts,.aeeting minutes, summaries, and handouts of all meetings at'the SAP; c.
Lists of attendees at all meetings of the SAP; d.
All materials presented to the SAP; e.
All notes taken during presentations and meetings of the SAP; f.
All reports or memoranda of the SAP; g.
All reports or memoranda written by any members of the SAP concerning Salem.
2.
All documents concerning the NRC's Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance
("S ALP") reviews of Salem from 1990 through the present, especially including but not limited to:
a.
Transcripts, meeting minutes, summaries, and handouts of all NRC meetings on the Salem SALP reports; b.
Lists of attendees at all meetings on the Salem SALP reports; c.
Variances, differences or changes between consecutive Salem SALP reports; d.
Internal NRC discussions about interim drafts of the Salem SALP reports; e.
Internal NRC discussions about final drafts of the Salem S ALP reports, FOIA Request, Aug. 30,1996 i
l f.
Internal NRC discussions about variances, differences or changes between interim reports and the final Salem SALP reports; g.
The basis for each of the findings in the Salem SALP reports; h.
Region l's knowledge ofissues raised in the Salem SALP reports; l
i.
Region I's knowledge of PSE&G's plans to address issues raised in the various Sa-lem SALP reports; j.
Internal Region I discussions concerning the findings and conclusions expressed in the Salem SALP reports; k.
Whether NRC or Region I ever expressed any concerns about poor or declining performance or the like to PSE&G related to the Salem SALP reports; 1.
Communications between NRC and Region I personnel concerning consistencies or inconsistencies between the vario 3 Salem S ALP reports; m.
. All documents setting forth or discussing the deliberations and considerations of the SALP boards reviewing Salem performance from 1990 to the present; To the extent not covered by previous requests, all other documents regarding the n.
Salem SALP reports.
3.
All documents concerning potential and actual NRC enforcement actions regarding Salem from 1990 to the present, including but not limited to:
a.
Transcripts, meeting minutes, summaries, and handouts from all Enforcement Con-ferences concerning Salem between NRC and PSE&G, including but not limited to meetings on February 2,1992; April 9,1992; April 6,1993; February 1,1994; July 28,1994; February 10,1995; June 1,1995; June 23,1995; July 13,1995; and July 28,1995; b.
Lists of attendees at all Enforcement Conferences concerning Salem between NRC and PSE&G; c.
Transcripts, meeting minutes, summaries, and handouts from all internal NRC meetings concerning enforcement actions regarding Salem; l
l d.
Lists of attendees at all intemal NRC meetings concerning enforcement actions re-I garding Salem; e.
Communications with PSE&G concerning potential and actual NRC enforcement actions regarding Salem;. ~
~
FOIA Rcquest, Aug. 30,1996 E
Communications with others conceming potential and actual NRC enforcement actions regarding Salem, especially including but not limited to PECO Energy, l
Delmarva, and Atlantic Electric g.
Internal NRC discussions concerning potential NRC enforcement actions regarding Salem; h.
Internal NRC discussions conceming actual NRC enforcement actions regarding Salem, including but not limited to the $50,000 civil penalty issued March 9,1994; the $500,000 civil penalty issued October 5,1994; $80,000 civil penalty issued April 11,1995; and the $600,000 civil penalty issued October 16,1995; i.
The basis and rationale for taking each of the enforcement actions regarding Salem; j.
Internal NRC discussions about drafts of the enforcement actions regarding Salem; k.
Internal NRC discussions concerning the findings and conclusions expressed in the enforcement actions regarding Salem, 1.
. Internal NRC discussions concerning PSE&G's responses to each of the enforce-ment actions regarding Salem; 4.
All documents concerning meetings between the NRC and PSE&O management or Board of Directors concerning the performance of Salem from 1990 to the present, including but not limited to:
Transcripts, meeting minutes, summaries, and handouts from all meetings, includ-a.
ing but not limited to meetings on June 25,1992; July 1,1992; October 10,1992; July 16,1993; July 18,1993; August 6,1993; May 7,1994; March 20,1995; March 21,1995; April 3,1995, June 5,1995; and May 24,1996-b.
Lists of attendees at all such meetings; c.
Communications with PSE&G concerning such meetings; d.
Communications with others concerning such meetings, especially inclu ng but not limited to PECO Energy, Delmarva, and Atlantic Electric; e.
Internal NRC discussions concerning such meetings.
5.
All documents concerning the NRC Augmented Inspection Team (" AIT") investigations 4
ofincidents at Salem from November 11-December 3.1901; December 14-23,1992, June 5-28,1993; and around April 1994, including but not limned to:
FOIA Request, Aug. 30,1996 Transcripts, meeting minutes, summaries, and handouts from all AIT meetings re-a.
garding Salem; b.
Lists of attendees at all AIT meetings regarding Salem; Communications with PSE&G concerning the AIT investigations at Salem and c.
AIT meetings regarding Salem; d.
Communications with others concerning the AIT investigations at Salem and AIT meetings regarding Salem, especially including but not limited to PECO Energy, Delmarva, and Atlantic Electric; Internal NRC discussions concerning the AIT meetings regarding Salem; e.
f.
The reasons why the NRC decided to do the AIT investigations at Salem.
g.
The basis for each of the findings in the AIT reports ofinvestigations at Salem; h.
Notes taken by inspectors during and after the AIT investigations at Salem; i.
' Internal NRC discussions about interim drafts of the AIT reports ofinvestigations at Salem; j.
Internal NRC discussions about final drafts of the AIT reports ofinvestigations at Salem; k.
Internal NRC discussions concerning the findings and conclusions expressed in the AIT reports ofinvestigations at Salem.
6.
All documents concerning the NRC Special Inspection Team (" SIT") review of Salem per-formance from March 26-May 12,1995, including but not limited to:
Transcripts, meeting minutes, summaries, and handouts from all SIT meetings re-a.
garding Salem; b.
Lists of attendees at all SIT meetings regarding Salem, c.
Communications with PSE&G concerning the SIT investigation at Salem and SIT meetings regarding Salem, d.
Communications with others concerning the SIT investigation at Salem and SIT meetings regarding Salem, especially including but not limited to PECO Energy, Delmarva, and Atlantic Electric, Internal NRC discussions concerning the SIT meetings regarding Salem;
- e.
i FOIA Request, Aug. 30,1996 f.
The reasons why the NRC decided to perform the SIT investigation at Salem; i
4 g.
The basis for each of the findings in the SIT report regarding Salem; h.
Notes taken by inspectors during the SIT investigation at Salem; l
i.
Internal NRC discussions about interim drafts of the SIT report regarding Salem; j.
Internal NRC discussions about final drafts of the SIT report regarding Salem; l
k.
' Internal NRC discussions concermng the findings and conclusions expressed in the l
SIT report regarding Salem.
l 7.
All documents concerning the NRC's Performance Assessment ("PA") review of Salem from July Il-August 25,1994, including but not limited to:
Transcripts, meeting minutes, summaries, and handouts from all meetings concern-a.
ing the PA mview regarding Sa'em, b.
Lists of attendees at all meetings concerning the PA review regarding Salem; c.
Communications with PSE&G concerning the PA review and PA review meetings regarding Salem; d.
Communications with others concerning the PA review and PA review meetings regarding Salem, especially including but not limited to PECO Energy, Delmarva, and Atlantic Electric; e.
Internal NRC discussions concerning the PA review meeting regarding Salem; f
The reasons why the NRC decided to do a PA review regarding Salem; g.
The basis for each of the findings in the report regarding the PA review regarding
- Salem, h
Notes taken during the PA review regarding Salem, i.
Internal NRC discussions about interim drafts of the PA review report regarding Salem; j.
Internal NRC discussions about final drafts cf the PA review report regarding Salem; k.
Internal NRC discussions concerning the findings and conclusions expressed in the l
PA review report regarding Salem.
6-
FOIA Request, Aug. 30,1996 4
8.
All documents concerning the Confirmatory Action Letter of June 9,1995 (CAL No.
1-95-009), including but not limited to:
a.
Communications with PSE&G concerning the Confirmatory Action Letter; i
b.
Communications with others concerning the Confirmatory Action Letter, espe-cially including but not limited to PECO Energy, Delmarva, and Atlantic Electric; i
4 c.
Internal NRC discussions concermng the Confirmatory Action Letter; 1
4 l
d.
Discussions with Region I concerning non-final drafts of the Confirmatory Action Letter; e.
Discussions with Region I concerning final drafts of the Confirmatory Action Letter; f.
Region I's knowledge of the issues raised in the Confirmatory Action Letter; g.
Region I's knowledge of PSE&G's plans to address issues raised in the Confirma-tory Action Letter.
}
M85R01IDOCSDCl 7
1 l
P j
1990 i
1 i
Docket Nos. 50-272 50-311 i
50-354 f
l Public Service Electric and Gas Company ATTN: Mr. Steven E. Miltenberger i
Vice President and l
Chief Nuclear Officer i
P. O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Gentlemen:
i
Subject:
Combined Inspection Nos. 50-272/90-23, 50-311/90-23 and 50-354/90-19 This letter refers to the routine safeguards inspection conducted by i
Mr. T. W. Dexter of this office on September 25-28, 1990, of activities et the
)
Salem and Hope Creek Gener.ating Stations, Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey, authorized by NRC License DPR-70, DPR-75 and NPF-57 and to the discussions of our findings held by Mr. Dexter with Mr. P. A. Moeller and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during this inspection are described in the NRC Region I l
Inspection Report which is enclosed with this letter. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the j
inspector.
l Within the scope of this inspection, no violations were observed; however, one unresolved item and several potential weaknesses were identified that should 1
receive attention to maintain the effectiveness of your security program.
l These are identified and discussed in the enclosed inspection report.
J l
l Sections of the enclosed report contain details of your program that have been determined to be exempt from public disclosure in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21 (SafeguardsInformation). Therefore, the sections so identified will ribt be placed in the NRC Public Document Room and will receive limited distribution.
This letter and the remainder of the inspection report will be placed in the l
Public Document Room in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a).
b h
l 16-357 7
///
J
?
- I r:
l UPON SEH.g[hg,bhy,p~ ~p. 0 IAL RECORD COPY SG CIR AI 90-23/23/19 - 0001.0.0 Lcs.
" Ei'ATION.
11/09/90
" -~ M{53LLE3, j
AB%2AGiU4 3 pp
m l
A A Av Q
)
ll0 y 0 g 7pgg Public Service Electric 2
and Gas Company l
i No response to this letter is required.
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Sincerely, i
l l
Ori;in:l Signed By:
16 mas H. J0yner James H. Joyner, Chief Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguarcs Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
Combined NRC Region I Inspection Report Numbers 50-272/90-23, 50-311/90-23 and 50-354/90-19 (Safeguards Information (SGI) is contained in paragraphs 3 and 5) cc w/enci (w/o SGI):
J. Urban, General Manager, Fuels Department, Delmarva Power & Light Co.
L. Miller, General Manager - Salem Operations C. Johnson, Manager - Quality Assurance Nuclear Operations B. Preston, Manager, Licensing and Regulation J. Walter, Chief Engineer, Public Service Commission of Maryland General Manager - Nuclear Safety Review M. Wetterhahn, Esquire R. Fryling, Jr., Esquire S. Ungerer, Manager, Joint Generation Projects Department, Atlantic Electric Company Licensing Project Manager, NRR D. Wersan, Assistant Consumer Advocate, Office of Consumer Advocate R. Engel, Deputy Attorney General, Dept. of Law and Public Safety Lower Alloways Creek Township Public Document Room (POR) local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
K. Abraham, PA0 (2 ) All Inspection Reports NRC Resident Inspector (w/SGI)
State of New Jersey i
l l
l OFFICIAL RECORD COPY SG CIR AI 90-23/23/19 - 0002.0.0 11/09/90 l
I
0 0
. ~.
Public Service Electric
'~
3 fjgp 0 and Gas Company 9 ggg f
l bec w/enci (w/o SGI):
. Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o enc 1)
R. Bellamy, DRSS R. Blough, DRP P. Swetland, DRP P. Kaufman, DRP B. Clayton, ED0 J. Caldwell, ED0 R. Dube, NRR (w/SGI)
I l
l l
l i
RI:D RI:
S is D
r Keimig Jdyner 1/ /90 11/9/90 11/$/90 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY SG CIR AI 90-23/23/19 - 0003.0.0 3
l 11/09/90 i
l
)$g.w=T 4
-a y;~afisg r
l
"'OU.
S. NUCEEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I l
Report Nos.
9 50-311 l
Docket Nos.
50-354 EE iEMW G M ME lf 9.! '. D Pi.TESffME DPR-70
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Facility Name: Salem and Hope Creek Generating Station Inspection At: Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducted: September 25-28, 1990 Type of Inspection:
Routine, Unannounced Physical Security Inspector:
f)f)W /A/
h) 9
//
9h T. W. Dexter, Physical' Security Inspector
/
ate
~
Approved by:
ex6
//-S-po
. R. Keimig', Chie
' Safeguards Section date
' Division of Radi on Safety and Safeguards
\\asp ection Summary:
Routine, Unannounced Physical Security Inspection nea's Inspected:
Licensee action on previously identified items and foirow-up l actions taken in response to the findings of the Regulatory Effectiveness view (RER) conducted on April 10-14, 1989; Protected and Vital Area Physical rriers, Detection and Assessment Aids; Protected and Vital Area Access
- Q}ntrolofPersonnel, Packages,andVehicles.
- nResults: The licensee was in compliance with NRC requirements in the areas inspected. However, potential weaknesses were identified in the areas of Photected Area Detection and Assessment Aids, and Protected Area Lighting.
- t. -_Copis
~
.um w
r h
.()
5 l
DETAILS l
1.0 Key Personnel Contacted Licensee and Contractor Personnel l
P. A. Moeller, General Manager, Nuclear Services l
D. W. Renwick, Manager, Nuclear Security R. Fisher, Screening Supervisor
.B. Weiser, Security Engineering and Planning Staff l
M. Iranick, Senior Security Regulatory Coordinator l
R. Brown, Licensing, PSE&G l
M. Pastra, Licensing, PSE&G R. Mathews, Project Manager, Wackenhut i
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) l T. Johnson, Senior Resident Inspector, Salem / Hope Creek l
l The above personnel were present at the exit interview.
In addition the inspector also interviewed other licensee employees and members of the Wackenhut contract security force.
2.0 Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items E.1 The inspector reviewed the licensee's actions on the following previously identified item.:
2.1.1 (Closed) UNR 50-272/89-22-02, 50-311/89-24-02 and 50-354/89-19-02: On November 13 and 16, 1989,'the inspectors determined, by observations, that the licensee's protected area l
lighting was adequate, but several marginal areas were j
' identified.
During this inspection, the inspector reviewed the l
corrective actions taken by the licensee and relevant procedural changes.
The inspector found the corrective actions and the procedures to be satisfactory.
3.0 Follow-up on Regulatory Effectiveness Review Findings On April 10-14, 1989, the NRC conducted a Regulatory Effectiveness Review (RER) at the Hope Creek Station. The report of the RER findings was transmitted to the licensee on April 26, 1989. On June 19, 1989, the licensee responded to the RER findings by letter and outlined those actions already taken and proposed to correct potential weaknesses that were identified. During the regional security inspection conducted i
November 13-17, 1989, the inspectors reviewed the licensee's corrective l
actions completed to that time. During this inspection, the inspector reviewed the status of the licensee's action on the items which remained l.
open.
I
3.1 Following are the results of the inspector's review of several of the licensee's actions that remained open at the conclusion of Combined l
Inspection Nos. 50-272/89-22, 50-311/89-24 and 50-354/89-19, conducted j
on November 13-17, 1989.
l 3.1.1 Section 2.2.1-Finding 5 (SGI)
Licensee Action (SGI) j This item is open and will be reviewed in a subsequent l
inspection.
i In addition, two locations were identified where team members believed the Intrusion Detection System (IDS) could be defeated.
Location 1 (SGI) i Licensee Action l
(SGI) l The licensee committed to issue a Design Change Request (DCR) for the engineering evaluation during 1990 and to complete the upgrade in 1991. This item is open and will be reviewed in a j
subsequent inspection.
4
Location 2 Licens,ee Action The licensee is evaluating two types of IDS to determine which l
o.'e t; auld be most suitable for this particular application. The licensee expects the evaluation to be complete and design of the system to begin January 1, 1991. This item is open and will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection.
3.1.2 Section 2.2.5 (SGI)
,M icensee Action (SGI)
This item will remain open and be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
3.1.3 Section 2.3.2 j
(SGI) licensee Action I
l This item will remain open and will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection i
s t
v-w vyw_--
v
-w-w--ww y-ww su
i 4.0 Management Effectiveness During the course of the inspection, the inspector interviewed several l
security force members to determine if there were any conc. erns that could affect plant safety or security.
Several issues not within the NRC's 1
purview were raised. However, of note to the inspcetor was that members of the security force believed they were not receiving clear messages from i
first line supervisors when they discussed directions from management.
The inspector discussed this perception with licensee security management for feedback to the security contractor. This matter will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
5.0 Protected and Vital Area Physical Barriers, Detection and Assessment Aids 5.1 Protected Area Barrier - The inspector conducted a physical inspection of the PA barriers on September 25, 1990. The inspector determined, by observation, that the barriers were installed and maintained as described in the Plan. No deficiencies were noted.
i l
5.2 Protected Area Detection Aids - The inspector observed the PA l
perimeter detection aids on September 26, 1990, and determined that j
they were installed, maintained and operated as committed to in the Plan.
(SGI) j The systems are being aggressively tested each quarter and those concerns that were previously identified have been corrected.
5.3 Isolation Zones - The inspector verified that isolation zones were adequately maintained to permit observati,on of activities on both sides of the PA barrier. No discrepancies were noted.
5.4 Protected Area and Isolation Zone Lighting - The inspector conducted a lighting survey of the PA and isolation zones on September 26, 1990.
The inspector determined, by observations, that the lighting w,as very good. Since the last inspection, the licensee has revised the procedures to address compensatory measures for inadequate lighting j
with more specificity.
1 4
However, the inspector found two areas that required additional l
lighting to supplement the lights already present and one area where bushes reduced the available lighting. The licensee took immediate i
compensatory actions and committed to correct the deficiencies. This
}
item will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.
-h l
5.5 Assessment Aids - The inspector observed the PA perimeter assessment l
aids and determined that they were generally installed, maintained and operated as committed to in the Plan.
(See also Section 3.1.5 of l
this report.)
5.6 Vital Area Barriers - The inspector conducted a physical inspection of several VA barriers on September 26 and 27, 1990. The inspector
(
determined, by observation, that the barriers were installed and l
maintained as described in the Plan. No discrepancies were noted.
{
5.7 Vital Area Detection Aids - The inspector observed the VA detection aids and determined that they were installed, maintained and operated as committed to in the Plan.
No discrepancies were noted.
I 5.8 Fill Lines for Plant Diesel Generators Fuel Oil Tanks l
l (SGI) i l
T is is an unresolved item and will be reviewed during subsequent inspections. (UNR 50-272/90-23-01, 50-311/90-23-01 and 50-354/90-19-01.)
i 6.0 Protected and Vital Area Access Control of Personnel, Packages and Vehicles s
l l
6.1 personnel Access Control - The inspector determined that the licensee was exercising positive control over personnel access to j
the PA and VAs. This determination was based on the following:
i l
6.1.1 The inspector verified that personnel are properly identified i
and authorization is checked prior to issuance of badges and key-cards. No discrepancies were noted.
l 6.1.2 The inspector verified that the licensee has a program to j
confirm the trustworthiness and reliability of employees and
~ ~~
contractor personnel.
No discrepancies were noted.
k 6.1.3 The inspector verified that the licensee has a search prosram, j
as committed to in the Plan, for firearms, explosives, incendiary devices and other unauthorized materials.
The inspector observed personnel access processing during shift changes, visitor access processing, and interviewed members of the security force and licensee's security staff about personnel access procedures. No discrepancies were noted.
1
\\
O O
6 l
6.1.4 The inspector determined, by observations, that individuals in the PA and VAs display their access badges as required.
No discrepancies were noted.
6.1.5 The inspector verified that the licensee has escort procedures for visitors to the PA and VAs.
No discrepancies were noted.
6.2 Package and Material Access Control - The inspector determined that the licensee was exercising positive control over packages and material that are brought into the PA at the main access portal.
The inspector reviewed the package and material control procedures and found that they were consistent with commitments in the Plan.
The inspector 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.
The licensee is maintaining a very aggressive package search program at the main access portal to prevent contraband from being brought into the PA.
The licensee has a random search program that ensures approximately 35 percent of all packages being hand-carried are physically inspected by a SFM in addition to being processed through the X-ray device. Na discrepancies were noted.
6.3 Vehicle Access Control - The inspector determined that the licensee properly controls vehicle access to and within the PA. The inspector verified that vehicles are properly authorized prior to being allowed to enter the PA.
Identification is verified by the SFM at the vehicle access portal.
This procedure is consistent with the commitments in the Plan.
The inspector observed vehicle processing and search, inspected vehicle logs, and interviewed members of the security force and licensee's security staff about vehicle search procedures.
The inspector also reviewed vehicle search procedures and determined they were consistent with commitments in the Plan.
However, on September 26, 1990, the inspector, accompanied by a security force supervisor and two members of the licensee's security staff, found all of the on-site emergency vehicles with their keys in the ignition and parked in an unsecured garage in the PA. A member of the licensee's security staff immediately removed the keys and gave them to the supervisor of the fire and safety team on' duty.
The inspector determined that each vehicle was equipped with an immobilization device that would have to have been defeated in order to move a vehicle. However, the licensee committed to change the practice of leaving the keys in the vehicles.
The keys will be controlled by fire and safety personnel in the future.
In addition, the licensee modified the fire and safety personnel procedure by adding a paragraph to address the security of the vehicle keys.
I
._.. _. _ _.. _ - _. _. - _ _.. _ _ _ _ _. _ _. ~.. _. _. _. _.. _...
O g
y 8.0 Security Training and Qualification The inspector randomly selected and reviewed the medical qualification records for nine SFMs. The SFMs selected included supervisory personnel and two SFMs who were disqualified prior to completing training. The records were well maintained and readily available for the inspector's and licensee's review.
No discrepancies were noted.
9.0 Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives indicated in paragraph I at the conclusion of the inspection on Sep.tember 28, 1990.
At that time, the purpose and scope for the inspectior: were reviewed and the findings were ) resented.
The licensee's ccmmitments, as documented in this report, were reviewed and confirmed with the licensee.
e l
I l
l l
I l
i l
l 4
4 l
APR 2 9199; i
i l
Docket Nos. 50-272 j
50-311 50-354 l
Public Service Electric and Gas Company ATTN: Mr. Steven E. Miltenberger Vice President and l
Chief Nuclear Officer P. O. Box 236
{
Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 l
Gentlemen:
i
)
Subject:
Combined Inspection Nos. 50-272/91-10, 50-311/91-10, and 50-354/91-07 l
}
This letter refers to the routine safeguards inspection conducted by Messrs.
i R. J. Albert and T. W. Dexter and observed by Ms. S. Fiveash of this office on j
April 1-5, 1991, of the activities at Artificial Island Nuclear Generating i
Station, Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey, authorized by NRC Licenses DPR-70, DPR-75, i
j and NPF-57,and to the discussions of our findings held by Mr. Albert with Mr.
l P. A. Moeller and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
I j
Areas examined during this inspection are described in the NRC Region I i
Inspection Report which is enclosed with this letter. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspectors.
Within the scope of this inspection, no violations were observed; however, one unresolved item and one potential weakness were identified that should receive attention to maintain the effectiveness of your security program. These are identified and discussed in the enclosed inspection report.
Sections of the enclosed report contain details of your program that have been determined to be exempt from public disclosure in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21 (Safeguards Information).
Therefore, the sections so identified will not be placed in the NRC Public Document Room and will receive limited distri,bution.
This letter and the remainder of the inspection report will be placed in the Public Document Room in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a).
c.
+5
'7l.diV[
I Agggg 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY ALEM HC 91-10/07 - 0001.0.0 El'LOSUR C05?AI:l5 SAFE 30EL5 I ~;3,:;,7 3,
UPON SEPE!.'.'IO3 IHIS It.3E 13 ;Egm3;;;,;),
o o
APR 2 9 ;gg7 Public Service Electric and Gas Company 2
No response to this letter is required.
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
1 Sincerely, Original Signed By:
i James H. Joyner James H. Joyner, Chief Facilities Radiological Safety 4
and Safeguards Branch
+
Division of Radiation Safety i
and Safeguards
Enclosure:
Combined NRC Region I Inspection Report Number 50-272/91-10, 50-311/91-10 and 50-354/91-07 (Safeguards Information (SGI) is contained in paragraphs 3, 5 and 6) cc w/ enc 1 (w/o SGI):
S. LaBruna, Vice President, Nuclear Operations J. Urban, General Manager, Fuels Department. Delmarva Power & Light Co.
General Manager - Salem Operations B. Preston, Manager, Licensing and Regulation General Manager - Nuclear Safety Review l
J. Robb, Director, Joint Owner Affairs 1
A. Tapert, Program Administrator l
R. Fryling, Jr., Esquire M. Wetterhahn, Esquire l
S. Ungerer, Manager, Joint Generation Projects Department, l
Atlantic Electric Company D. Wersan, Assistant Consumer Advocate, Office of Consumer Advocate Lower Alloways Creek Township i
Public Document Room (PDR)
Local Public Document Room (LPDR)
Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)
K. Abraham, PA0 (2)
NRC Resident Inspector (w/SGI)
State of New Jersey bec w/enci (w/o SGI):
Region I Docket Room (with concurrences)
Management Assistant, DRMA (w/o encl)
J. Joyner, DRSS R. Blough, DRP J. White, DRP P. Kaufman, DRP i
J. Stone, NRR K. Brockman, EDO 4
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY SG CIR SALEM HC 91-10/07 - 0002.0.0 04/25/91 1
Public Service Electric and Gas Company 3
APR 2 91991 l
I RI:DRSS RI:DRSS I:DRSS RI:DRSS Albert /cmm Dext r imig R3d
.I, r
04/2 U91 04/gf/91 4/p"/91 0
1 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY SG C R SALEM HC 91-10/07 - 0003.0.0 j
04/26/91 i
i l SAFEGUARDS INFORMATl0f(
O i
m l
DEf'.RMINATI qADEB%
0 1 _/W e&1e.0ffice.gateJ# aV-u.. a.
mt l
D v.* a r&y /
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0K4ISSION REGION I 50-272/91-10 lEifi~.3M" EG FG 50-311/91-10 F, !
l
- P, GT Report No. 50-354/91-07
- 7 ", 3 y
- p;. 1 t,
7-....u:.2n
. i k, m. &,
50-272 l_U.__}EU Ml?
50-311 Docket No.
50-354 DPR-70 OPR-75 j
License No.
NPF-57 Licensee: Public Service Electric and Gas Company i
Facility Name:
Salem ar.d Hope Creek Generating. Stations Inspection At: Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey Inspection Conducted: April 1-S, 1991 i
Inspectors:
&><.dI//
OY-26-9/
R. 'J.
Phisic Security Inspector date lbert[ & M
%6/A/
, Phykicp1 Security Inspector
/
fate'
.W Approved by:
/
d 4/24,/9/
l R. R. Ki#nig, Chief, Safeguards Section date
~
l Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards 1
Inspection Summary: Routine, unannounced Physical Security Inspection j
GombinedInspectionNos. 50-272/91-10, 50-311/91-10 and 50-354/91-07) l Areas Inspected:
Licensee action on previously identified item and follow-up on actions taken in response to the findings of the Regulatory Effectiveness l
Review (RER) conducted on April 10-14, 1989; management support, security-programs plans and audits; protected area physical barriers, detection and i
assessment aids; protected area access control of personnel, packages, and vehicles; alarm stations and communications; testing maintenance and l
compensatory measures; security training and qualifications, i
l Results:
The licensee was in compliance with NRC requirements in the areas i
inspected. However, one unresolved item and one potential weakness were identified in temporary licensee designated vehicles and protected area
}
hti
_ r.e s tive i
j D _.
, u-g;e m s m eg
(.
l l.-
O O
l I
DETAILS l
l 1.0 Key Personnel Contacted 1
l Licensee and Contractor l
i
- J. Deckard, Security Supervisor
- J. Fleming, Senior Staff Engineer / Audits J. Hoffman, Security Supervisor l
- M. Ivanick, Senior Security Regulator Cocrdinator
- J. Loeb, Security Support Staff Assistar.t
- R. Matthews, Program Manager, Wackenhut
[
- P. Moeller, Manager, Site Protection
- G. Munzenmaier, General Manager, Nuclear Services
- M. Pastra, Licensing Engineer
- D. Renwick, Nuclear Security Manager
- R. Savage, Lead Auditor I
- B. Weiser, Security Senior Staff Engineer U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
- S. Barr, Resident Inspector (Salem) t
- T. Johnson, Senior Resident Inspector (Salem / Hope Creek)
- R. Keimig, Chief, Safeguards Section (Region I)
The inspectors also interviewed other licensee employees and members of the Wackenhut contract security force.
l
- Indicates those present at the exit interview 2.0 Licensee Action on Previously Identified Items 2.1 The inspectors reviewed the licensee's actions on the following previously identified item:
2.1.1 (Closed) UNR 50-272/90-23-01, 50-311/90-23-01 and 50-354/90-19-01: During the previous Physical Security Inspection, the inspector determined that the caps on the fill lines to the fuel oil tanks for the plant diesel generaters were not adequately secured to prevent the introduction of contaminants into the tanks.
During this inspection, the inspectors reviewed the corrective actions taken by the licensee. The inspectors found the corrective actions to be satisfactory. Therefore, this item is closed.
l l
3.0 Follow-up on Regulatory Effectiveness Review (RER) Findings l
l l
On April 10-14, 1989, the NRC conducted a Regulatory Effectiveness Review (RER) at the Hope Creek Station.
The report of the RER findings was transmitted to the licensee on April 26, 1989. On June 19, 1989, the licensee responded to the RER findings by letter and outlined those l
actions already taken and proposed to correct potential weaknesses that j
were identified. During the regional security inspection conducted l
November 13-17, 1989, the inspectors reviewed the licensee's corrective
)
actions completed to that time.
During this inspection, the inspector j
reviewed the status of the licensee's action on the items which remained open.
3.1 Following are the results of the inspector's review of several of 1
the licensee's actions that remained open at the conclusion of Combined Inspection Nos. 50-272/89-22, 50-311/89-24 and 50-354/89-19, conducted on November 13-17, 1989.
1 s
j 3.1.1 Section 2.2.1-Finding 5 (SGI) i j
i I
i 1
i (SGI) 1 l
i I
(SGI) 4 The inspectors reviewed the licensee s corrective actions during this inspection.
No deficiencies were noted.
Therefore, this aspect of Finding 5 and the Region I inspectors' findings are closed.
S 1
i (SGI) l i
1 (S01) i t
l This aspect of Finding 5 will remain open until the IDS is installed and reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
3.1.2 Section 2.2.5 (SGI)
Licensee Action (SGI)'
l The licensee has begun upgrading the CCTVs in phases.
This item will remain open until the final phase is completed and reviewed during subsequent inspections.
3.1.3 Section 2.3.2 (SGI) i (SGI)
During nspectors reviewed the licensee's corrective actions.
No discrepancies were identified.
Therefore, this item is closed.
4 c0 Management Support Security Program Plans and Audits 4
1 4.1 Management Support - Management support for the licensee's physical j
security program was determined to be active and effective by the I
inspectors. This determination was based upon the licensee's A
proactive approach in dealing with issues impacting security, the various aspects of the licensee's program as documented in this report, and the licensee responsiveness to potential weaknesses identified during this inspection.
I f
4.2 Security Program plans - The inspectors verified that changes to the licensee's contingency and guard training and qualifications plans, as implemented, did not decrease the effectiveness of the respective plans, and had been submitted in accordance with NRC requirements.
{
However, the licensee's practice, as discussed in Section 6.3, in handling temporarily designated vehicles did not appear to be consistent with the NRC-approved Physical Security Plan (the Plan).
a' 4.3 Audits - The inspectors reviewed the 1989 and 1990 Annual Security l
Program Audit Reports and verified that the audits had been conducted i
in accordance with the Plan. The audits were comprehensive in scope l
with the results reported to the appropriate levels of management.
The inspectors' review included the response of the security organi-i zation to the. audit recommendations and the corrective actions taken.
l The corrective actions appeared appropriate for the recommendations.
No deficiencies were noted.
t 5.0 Protected Area Physical Barriers, Detection and Assessment Aids 5.1 Protective Area Barriers - The inspectors conducted a physical l
inspection of the Protected Area (PA) barriers on April 1,1991.
The inspectors determined, by observation, that the barriers were installed and maintained as described in the Plan. No discrepancies l
were noted.
l 5.2 Protected Area Detection Aids - The inspectors observed the PA perimeter detection aids on April 3-4, 1991, and determined that I
they were installed, maintained and operated as committed to in the Plan.
(SGI) j i
{
1 r
l 5.3 Isolation Zones - The inspectors verified that isolation zones were l
adequately maintained to permit observation of activities on both i
sides of the PA barrier. No discrepancies were noted.
. _ _ _ _ _... _.. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
5.4 Protected Area and Isolation Zone Lighting - The inspectors i
conducted a lighting survey of PA and isolation zones on April 2, i
1991. The inspectors determined, by observation, that the lighting was adequate.
The licensee committed to review this matter and take corrective j
action.
This matter will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
5.5 Assessment Aids - The inspectors observed the PA perimeter assessment aids and determined that they were generally installed, maintained, j
and operated as committed to in the Plan, except as noted in j
Section 3.1.1 of this report.
i 6.0 Protected Area Access Control of Personnel, Packages and Vehicles 1
j 6.1 Personnel Access Control - The inspectors determined that the licensee i
was exercising positive control over personnel access into the PA.
i This determination was based on the following:
}
l 6.1.1 The inspectors verified that personnel are properly identified and authorization is checked prior to issuance of badges and j
key-cards. No discrepancies were noted.
6.1.2 The inspectors verified that the licensee has a program to l
confirm the trustworthiness and reliability of employees and l
contractor personnel. No discrepancies were noted.
6.1.3 The inspectors verified that the licensee has a search program, as committed to in the Plan, for firearms, explosives, incendiary devices and other unauthorized materials.
The inspectors observed a
personnel access processing during shift changes, visitor access i
processing during shift changes, and interviewed members of the i
security force and licensee's security staff about personnel i
access procedures.
No discrepancies were noted.
1 i
6.1.4 The inspectors determined, by observation, that individuals in the PA and VAs display their access badges as required. Alo i
discrepancies were noted.
i 6.1.5 The inspectors verified that the licensee has escort procedures for visitors into the PA and VAs.
No discrepancies were noted.
s
6.2 Package and Material Access Control - The inspectors determined that the licensee was exercising positive control over packages and material that are brought into the PA at the main access portal. 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 i
of the security force and the licensee's security staff about package and material control procedures.
No discrepancies were noted.
{
6.3 Vehicle Access Control - The inspectors determined that the licensee l
properly controls vehicle access to and within the PA. The inspectors verified that vehicles are properly authorized prior to being allowed to enter the PA.
Identification is verified by the SFM at the vehicle access portal. This procedure is consistent with the commitments in the Plan. The inspectors observed vehicle processing and search, inspection of vehicle logs, and interviewed members of the security i
force and licensee's' security staff about vehicle search procedures.
The inspectors also reviewed the vehicle search procedures and determined that they were consistent with commitments in the Plan.
(SGI The licensee agreed to submit a plan change to reflect current practices in regard to temporarily designated v.ehicles. This is an unresolved item (UNR 50-272/91-10-01, 50-311/91-10-01, and 50-354/
91-07-01), pending further review by the NRC.
7.0 Alarm Station and Communications The inspectors observed the operation of the Central and Secondary A.larm Stations (CAS and SAS) and determined they were maintained and operated as I
committed to in the Plan. CAS and SAS operators were interviewed by the j
inspectors and found to be knowledgeable of their duties and responsibilities.
The inspectors verified that the CAS and SAS did not contain any operational j
activities that would interfere with the assessment and response functions.
l No discrepancies were noted.
O O
f.
l l
7 1
8.0 Testing, Maintenance and Compensatory Measures l
The inspectors reviewed the testing and maintenance records and confirmed l
that the records committed to in the Plan were on file and readily available for licensee and NRC review.
The station provides dedicated instrumentation and controls (I&C) technicians to conduct preventive and corrective maintenance on security equipment. A check of repair records i.'dicated that repairs, replacements and testing is being accomplished in a timely manner. No discrepancies were noted.
The inspectors also reviewed the licensee's use of compensatory measures and determined them to be as committed to in the Plan. No discrepancies l
were noted.
9.0 Security Training and Qualification The inspectors randomly selected and reviewed the training and qualification records for 12 SFMs. The physical and firearms qualification records for those SFMs were also inspected.
In addition, the inspectors randomly selected and.eviewed the medical qualification records for seven SFMs.
The SFMs selected were armed guards and supervisory personnel.
No discrepancies were noted.
On April 4,1991, the inspectors reviewed a portion of an initial firearms training class which was conducted at the licensee's firing range. The inspectors verified, through observation, that the training was conducted in accordance with the Plan. Hnwever, the inspectors noted that the students had a tendency to point their weapons behind the firing line when drawn from the prone position.
This matter was discussed with the licensee.
The licensee agreed to look into the matter and take corrective action.
i 10.0 Land Vehicle Bomb Contingency Procedure l
Durin; Combined Inspection Nos. 50-272/89-22, 50-3'.1/89-24 and 50-354/89-19, l
the inspectors inadvertently excluded the results of their review of the licensee's land vehicle bomb contingency prc' edure frcm the inspection l
report. During this inspection, the inspectors conducted another review of the procedure. The licensee's procedure details short-term actions l
that could be taken to protect against attempted radiological sabotage l
involving a land vehicle bomb if such a threat were to materialize. The procedure appeared adequate for its intended purpose. No discrepancies l
were noted.
11.0 Exit Interview l
The inspectors met with the licensee representatives indicated in section i
1.0 at the conclusion of the inspection on April 5, 1991. At that time, the purpose and scope for the inspection were reviewed and the findings were presented.
The licensee's committments, as documented in this report, i
i were reviewed and confirmed with the licensee, r
_