IR 05000341/1988002

Partially Withheld Allegation Review & Physical Security Insp Rept 50-341/88-02 (Ref 10CFR73.21(c)(2)).No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Security Plan & Implementing Procedures,Mgt Effectiveness & Records & Repts

ML20150F216
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	03/30/1988
From:	Creed J, Drouin B, Kniceley J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20150F214	List: IR 05000341/1988002 ML20150F211
References
50-341-88-02, 50-341-88-2, NUDOCS 8804050076
Download: ML20150F216 (7)

Text

,

. . . . ,i -

'

, ,

. .

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-341/88002(DRSS)

Docket No. 50-341 License No. NPF-43 Safeguards Group IV Licensee: Detroit Edison C'ompany 2200 Second Avenue Detroit, MI 48226 Facility Name: Fermi 2 Atomic Power Plant Inspection At: Plant Site Inspection Conducted: February 1-5, 1988 Date of Previous Physical Security Inspection: October 5-8, 1987 Type of Inspection: Special, Unannounced Allegation Review and Physical Security Inspection Inspectors: @$- Th'If#

J. R. Kniceley4 Date Physical Security Inspector H ll~A &

B. S. Drouin '

yh h Date

Physical Security Inspector Approved By

30!88 g/R. Creed, Chief Date '

'

Wafeguards Section

. Inspection Summary Inspection on February 1-5, 1988 (Report No. 50-341/88002(DRSS))

l Areas Inspected: Included a review of Security Plan and Implementing i

Procedures; Management Effectiveness; Security Organization; Records and

[ Reports; Physical Barriers - Protected and Vital Areas; Lighting; Compensatory Measures; Assessment Aids; Access Control - Personnel: Detection Aids -

Protected Area; Alarm Stations; Communications; Personnel Training and Qualification - General Requirements and a review of allegations received by NRC Region III. A followup on previous items and Regulatory Effectiveness Review (RER) findings was also performe Results: The licensee was found to be in compliance with NRC requirements within each of the areas inspu te The allegations were unsubstantiated, and one RER observation remains open which deals with LLEA communication and one open item dealing with corputer problems remains ope ,

,

'

8804050076 880331 S' i PDR ADOCK 05000341 DJ l 0 DCD ;y n s l

" '

-

g . Enclosure 2

. .

.

.

Allegation Review The following information, provided in the form of allegations, was reviewed by the inspector as noted below: Background: (Closed) Allegation Nos. AMS RIII 87-0133 ana 87-016 On September 30, 1987, Region III NRC received an unsigned letter from

"The Detroit Edison Nuclear Security Officers Association" alleging various security deficiencies and questioning the actions of NRC security inspectors in reference to previous allegations. Several complaints were also addressed about the current Nuclear Security Director. Later, on December 18, 1987, Region III NRC received an allegation that some visitors being escorted by maintenance personnel were unescorted for a nonspecified period of time, The specific allegation;, NRC Review Actions, and conclusions are addressed below, Also, during the inspection conducted February 1-5, 1988, the inspector detennined through several interviews of guard force members that there is no known sanctioned organization called the "Detroit Edison Nuclear Security Officers Association". No one interviewed (including both managers and bargaining unit employees) had ever heard of the alleged organizatio (1) Allegation: Firearms scores were falsified in return for sexual favor NRC Review Actions: On October 17, 1986, Region III received a similar allegation from an anonymous individual claiming to be a security office NRC allegations case AMS-RIII-36-0174 was opened and a letter was sent to the licensee on December 3,1986, requesting that they investigate the allegatio On January 26, 1987, we received the licensee's response dated January 20, 1987. As a result of our review a further response was requested and on March 13, 1987, we received the licensee's supplemental response dated March 9,198 The licensee's second response was reviewed by NRC Region III Safeguards personnel and considered adequate to resolve o,r concerns and close the allegation. The licensee's review showed the allegation to be unsubstantiated. A letter was sent to the licensee on April 3,

1987, acknowledging that conclusion and closing the allegatio During the inspection on February 15, 1988, we reverified onsite by record review and interviews that the licensee's responses and

, investigation results described above were appropriate and accurat Interviews with personnel involved in the allegation showed that

,

there was no evidence that any personnel received special

considerations or treatment for sexual favors. Training records i showed that all personnel were qualified to perform their assigned

'

duties. Interviews with security personnel showed that no one was knowledgeable of favors being given to anyone for any reason and it was believed that no one could do anything deceptive without the knowledge of many.

I l

t

~

'

i . Enclosure 2

-

.

Conclusion: The staff's review of the licensee's Investigative Report and followup inspection activities showed that no evidence or information was discovered to confirm that firearm scores or any required training was falsified. All guards reviewed were found qualified. The allegation is not substantiated and is considered close (2) Allegation: The Director of Nuclear Security discourages bringing concerns to the NR NRC Review Actions: On July 14, 1986, NRC Region III Safeguards Section received a call from an anonymous individual who claimed to be a Detroit Edison guard. He stated that security officers were afraid to talk to the NRC because the Director, Nuclear Security made it clear that all concerns will be brought to his attention and not the NRC or disciplinary action will be taken if the individual is identified. At that time, allegation tracking No. RIII-86-A-0125 was opened and the allegation was reviewed, documented as unsubstantiated, and closed in Inspection Report 50-341/86-025, Section 4 During this inspection we determined through interviews with security force supervisory and non-supervisory personnel that the Director, Nuclear Security requested of guards that he be given the opportunity to respond and/or resolve concerns before they are taken to the NRC or any other organizations. Through interview and personnel file review, no evidence or allegations were developed to indicate that anyone was disciplined for talking to or requesting to talk to the NRC or that any threats of disciplinary action were made. The inspector found that many officers wanted to, and in fact did, talk to the inspector without fear of disciplinary actio Conclusion: The allegation was not substantiated. No evidence or information was developed that would indicate that the Director, Nuclear Security discouraged guards' concerns from being brought to the NRC. The allegation is considered close (3) Allegation: NRC inspectors ignore morale problem NRC Review Actions: Allegations of poor guard morale have been reviewed on numerous occasions and had been previously addressed and documented in RIII-86-A-0125 and reviewed in inspection i reports 50-341/86030, 50-341/86037; 50-341/86025; 50-341/8600 The matter was also reviewed and described in inspection report

,

50-341/87010 section 2.a.

!

The reviews mentioned above showed that, at times, some security l personnel did not agree with some changes and actions taken i by the Director, Nuclear Security. Through interviews and

'

observation of work activities, we determined that although at j times the morale of the security force was less than desired, everyone performed their duties adequately and indicated that they would continue to perfonn their job functions as required.

l

i

.' Enclosure 2

.

,.

l l

}- During this inspection, security force personnel were randomly j interviewed. The interviews showed that the morale for some

'

individuals was good while for others it was poor. Some people are still unhappy with decisions being made by management. The NRC concern is that morale does not deteriorate to the point where job performance is inadequat In all cases, the individuals interviewed stated that even if they may not agree with some decisions (i.e., promotions and shif t assignments) they will continue to perfom their assigned duties as require Observations of work activities showed that the security force is performing as require Conclusion: NRC is cor.cerned about performance of its licensee Morale becomes an issue when it impacts upon adequate performanc Based on previous inspections, observations and interviews, it has been determined that although some individuals may have a poor morale, job performance appears adequate, has not deteriorated, and personnel will continue to perform as required. This allegation was not substantiated and is considered close (4) Allegation: The current Security Director has removed the security force's Power of Arrest Authority and Quality of Life Progra NRC Review Actions: Interviews with the Director, Nuclear Security showed that the decision not to renew the state license which allowed the officers to be sworn deputys with arrest powers under the State of Michigan Public Act 330 was made when the previous license holder (the fomer Assistant Security Director) was terminated. In order to maintain the license, the officers initially needed 275 nours of security training which required 26 hours3.009259e-4 days <br />0.00722 hours <br />4.298942e-5 weeks <br />9.893e-6 months <br /> of requalification annually in topics not needed for specific duties at Femi. The

'

determination was made that security officcrs did not need to be trained as police officers and time could be better spent in training to be security officer It was detemined to be too costly to maintain the state license and to train the officers unaer the state requirements. The security officers continue to be qualified for their jobs as Nuclear Power Plant security officer The Director, Nuclear Security indicated that he discontinued the Quality of Life Program because it was not beneficial and circumvented the chain of comand for complaints. The meetings turned into non-productive complaint sessions and not problem solving sessions for which they were designed. He plans to reinstate that program or a similar type program at a later dat Conclusion: The allegations were substantiated because the Director, Nuclear Security did in fact remove the security force arrest powers and the Quality of Life Program. There is no NRC regulatory basis for either of these programs and it appears that the justification for discontinuing these programs [

- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ '

~

.

-

Enclosure 2

. ,

,

-

was reasonable. Training is now more directly related to specific job functions and more time is spent on relevant security force trainin This allegation is considered close (5) Allegation: The Security force is no longer inspired to do what the Federal Regulations or the security plan mandat NRC Review Actions: During the inspection conducted in February 1-5, 1988, the inspectors interviewed both supervisory and nonsupervisory security personnel. These interviews showed that all reviewed requirements are being met and that security personnel will continue to do what is required by Federal Regulations or the Security Plan. A random review of records showed that required documentation is being kept, checked and adequately filled out. During interviews, no one indicated that they were not going to do their job and they indicated that they will always do what is required and do it well. They also indicated that they would not tolerate anyone who did not do their job. Previous security inspections also identified that personnel were adequately performing their job functions. In addition to the routine inspections performed, a special Regulatory Effectiveness Review (RER) inspection was perforned on June 8-12, 1987 and a special Headquarters assisted inspection was perfonned on October 5-8, 1987. Both inspections showed that guard performance was adequat Conclusion: No evidence or information was developed to indicate that security personnel would not do what is require Observation of work activities, recorded review and interviews showed that work activities are being adequately performed and documented. This allegation was not substantiated and is considered close (6) Allegation: Management condones the changing and falsification of alarm station record NRC Review Actions: During the inspection on February 1-5, 1988, we reviewed alarm station's logs from July 86 - December 1987. No evidence or information was developed to indicate that alam station logs were falsified or altered in t.nywa When changes needed to be made the original entry was lined out and initialed. The inspector interviewed alann station operators who indicated that they were not aware of any alarm station logs which had been altered or falsified. There are hand written as well as computer records kept which make it very difficult to change or falsify a record without the knowledge of other One event which may be related to the allegation was identified in inspection report 50-341/86025 that identified a security shift Lieutenant who ordered that an entry made in an alarm station log be deleted and a new log retyped. A record report violation was

- - . _ _ _

.

.

,

b .

.

. .

.

issued and the violation was reviewed and closed in inspection report 50-341/86-037. No other information or evidence was developed to show tnat anyone ha' altered or falsified document Conclusion: Due to the lack of specific information with no further evidence other than the one previously identified incident or information being developed to indicate that alarm station logs were falsified, the allegation was not substantiated. This allegation is considered close (7) Allegation: The licensee failed to implement required compensatory measures during a power failure, but indicated they had in a report to the NR NRC Review Actions: The Region received notification of the above power failure as required by 10 CFR 73.71(c) and the failure is described as follows. On August 22, 1987, at 4:37 a.m. the alarm station onerators received a power supply (PS) trouble indication and officers were dispatched to the UPS room. At 4:55 p.m. the security system, failed due to the loss of power. According to record review all points affectea by the PS failure were compensated for and all intrusion detection alarms were immediately compensated for, as well as those barrier portals necessary for plant operations. Ac:ess to the plant was halted to all personnsi except those assisting with the incident. Alternate communication with LLEA was established and the remaining portals were compensated for upon arrival of additional security personnel. All points were properly compensated for until they were successfully operability tested once the power was restored. The cause of the failure was water dr'.;, ping into the PS cabinet which caused damage to the PS electronic Section 4.5 of the licensee's approved security plan identified i

what compensatory measures will be implemented for security equipment failures. Records review and interviews showed that during the system failure, the licensee implemented the appropriate compensatory measures as identified in their security plan. This event was deemed by the inspector as properly reported as specified in 10 CFR 73.71(c). C apensatory

measure log books, alarm station logs and interviews with personnel also showed that the committed to compensatory measures were take Conclusion: Records review and interviews with security personnel showed that during the identified UPS failure, appropriate compensatory measures were taken, and the event was adequately reported to the NRC. This allegation was not substantiated and is considered closed. This was the only UPS failure experienced by the license . .

,

,.

, .

. , .

, (8) Allegation: The licensee failed to implement proper compensatory measures for an alarm zone that was inoperable Tor three days and then changing alarm station logs three days later to indicate that compe satory measures were implemente NRC Review Actione' Due to the lack of specific information or time frame, tL inspector reviewed alarm station logs and compensatory measure logs from July 1986 through December 1987 for uncompensated for alarm failures. There were no uncompensated for failures identified. Without a specific zone location or date of occurrence, it was difficult to retrace alarm logs. The above mentioned alarm logs and compensatory measure logs were reviewed, but did not show any record alteration Any mistakes or errors were lined out then initialed by the officer making the correction Interviews with supervisory personnel and alarm station operators showed that they were not aware of any alarm zone left uncompensated for. Thty were not aware of any alteration of compensatory measure or alarm station logs. Supervisors are required to authorize all compensatory measure assignments and removal Conclusion: No evidence or information was developed to indicate that compensatory measures were not properly implemented for alarm zone failures. This allegation was not substantiated and is considered close (9) Allegation: On December 17, 1987, two maintenance personnel allowed their visitors to be unescorted for a nonspecific period of time within the protected are NRC Review Actions: On December 17, 1987, at 2:v3 p.m. a plant l cleaner (dvisea a security officer that another plant cleaner

,

had falien asleep while acting as an escort for a visitor in the protected area. The security officer verified through interviews that the visitor was properly observed and escorted by two other plant cleaners during the time the individual was allegedly asleep. The plant cleaner who was allegedly asleep 1 ( was escorted to the security building. and his keycard was I

deactivated. This individual was discharged by his employer

! (contractor) on December 18, 1987, for sleeping while on dut The two other plant cleaners signed written statements that they saw the individual sleeping and that they took control of his visitor while he was aslee The individual allegedly fell asleep on the 2nd floor of the Turbine Building which is inside the protected area. The inspector reviewed the nonconformance report (87-066) and the signed statements, and determined that the visitor was properly escorted while with% the protected area. There was no other record or recollection of any other incident similar to thi Conclusion: A review of records showed that the visitor in question was properly escorted while within the protected area. This allegation was not substantiated and is considered close _ ._