ML20151S735

Partially Withheld Insp Rept 87010 Response.Deficiencies Re Security Dept & Valve Tampering Discussed.Related Info Encl

ML20151S735
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	10/08/1987
From:	CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:
Shared Package
ML20151S659	List: ML20151S655 ML20151S735
References
FOIA-88-15 NUDOCS 8804280437
Download: ML20151S735 (12)

Text

,

o.

ATTAC1 DENT Consumers Power Company Big Rock Point Plant Docket 50-155 0

INSPECTION REPORT 87010 RESPONSE October 8, 1987 es0420g4[ 10 ppg hhWELLGO-lciormation in Db md 5 a g 3 Pages ut accordnce viith the frede:;10f information Act, exem ion,3 FOIA 8 3

)

t A

The following is in response to NIC Inspection Report 50-155/87010 (DRSS) dated September 4, 1987, regarding alleged tampering at the Big Rock Point Plant.

Corrective actions for deficiencisa noted within the report are outlined in the following.

1) Deficieray verbal threat to a valve and the subsequent degraded mode of valve'~ -"Neither th so they could determine if a reportable event was required under th criteria of 10 CFR 73.71(c). Security was advised only of the verbal conf rontations and graf fiti incidents involving a worker."

de sponse The Plant Manager has advised all employees by memorandum dated August 12, 1987, of their responsibilities to report future incidents to site management in a timely manner. Additionally, General Employee Training is being modified to more clearly define individual security naponsibilities.

Completion Date - The Plant Manager's memorandum was issued on August 12, 1987.

General Employee Training will be revised by November 9,1987.

2) Deficiency "A thorough investigation of the potential valve tampering event and the threat against the valve was not performed by the Plant staff or the Fis1d Maintenante Services - West (NS-W) group. Both agencies investigated the verbal conf rontations and graf fiti incidents. Each sacacy thought the other conducted an investigation of the potential valve tampering event."

Response

The Corporate Security staf f is developing a procedure to outline investi-gative responsibilitise for incidents of potential tampering.

Completion Date - November 9,1987.

3) Deficiency "No effective procedures were in existence to address needed investigation of deliberate acts directed t. gainst Plant equipment even though I&E Information Notice 83-27, dated May 4,1983, identified the need for such procedures or guidelines. The 1&E Information Notice was sent to the site Security Section for information purpens about four years ago."

Response

The Corporate Security staf f is developing a procedure addressing investi-gations of deliberate acts directed against Plant equipment.

Completion Date - November 9,1987.

4) Deficiency "The Senior Resident Inspector (SRI) was not advised of the threat against the valve or degraded mode of the valve even though the licensee later characterized the incidert as having the potential of interrupting Plant operations and jeopardizing the Company's license to operate a nuclear facility. The SRI was only advised that a person's site access was terminated because of verbal confrontations and writing graf fiti. The SRI was not advised of the suosequent more significant licensee conclusions pertafning to the individual and the event."

Response

The Corporate Security staf f is developing a procedure detailing individuals to be notified, including the SRI upon discovery of an incident.

Conrpletion Date - November 9,1987.

5) Deficiency "The verbal threat against A valve which occurred on February 6, 1987, was not immediately reported to the licensee's management by at least two perronnel who heard the threats.

This represented the single greatest f ailure on the part of the Plant staf f."

Response

Timely notification to site management of potential tampering events to site management was addressed in the Plant Manager's memorandum dated August 12, 1987. Timely reporting of events vill be outlined in General Employee Training and a procedure being developed by the Corporate Security stsif.

Completion Date - The Plant hanager's nemorandun was issued on August 12, 1987.

The procedure and General Employee Training revision vill be completed by November 9, 1987.

g 89 99%@

A 9 ' fg S g M%

-'~

'--"'M"

i a-

6) Deficiency "Management actiona after the threat against the valve became_known (Fabriu ry 19, 1987), were not aggressive. Avalkdownofth(_,

Jon February 13, 1987, was completed prior to management knowledge of the threat and complete knowledge of the degraded mode of the valve. No subsequent check or inspection was conducted because of the incident.

Although the Plant Review Connittee (PRC) reviewed the verbal confrontation and graffiti-incidents, the investigation found no evidence that tha threat against the valve and subsequent degraded mode of the valve was reviewed by the PRC. Additionally, the two technicians work was just routinely reviewed, no additional review actions were taken based on the threat or detected degraded mode of the valve."

Response

The Corporate Security staff is developing a procedure outlining a.anagement responsibilities, provisions to inspect equipment and making this informa-tion available to the Plant Review Committee.

Completion Dat_e_ - November 9,1987.

7) Deficiency "Management's actions in reference to the valve incident indicated that i

management was not aware of the true significance of tampering with Plant i

equipment.

(Section 236.b of the Atomic Energy Act designates such an offense of punishable by a $10,000 fine, imprisonment for up to ten years or both.)

Respones The Plant Manager's memorandum dated August 12, 1987, stressed the signifi-cance of tampering with Plant equipment. Additionally, General Employee Training is being revised to reflect the significance of tampering events.

Completion Date - The Plant Managers's memorandum was issued on August 12, 1987.

General Employee Training vill be revised by Novenber 9,1987.

l l

l l

l l

l l

• 4.. i.

.,.. w ( N Q g h

A.Q CHM.I. '. ' As: TION %

.Uk, BY g[ ' '

over ths e, hone to l

A lid....... ' f 0:

Channel 7 news has learned exclusively that t e FBI and Secret vs.. :. *nves*

• gating a Michigan mar. who has two brothers who are in jail in F

e t4 forism charges. Althe'.

gh the nae.es' are dif f erent, authcrities J

~

confirm.J that 41-year old l

of Charlevoit is the r...c trother of a man being held by k'est Berlin police in the bombing of a disco th6t left two dead and over 200 trijure-which 1.d to the US raid on. Libya.

, t.as another brother who la in all in Londen on charges that he trii,.

t

. 9raeli airlines last re..th.

Channel 7 investigative reperr..

J

'l

,I hu. so -arned that th..s e is considerable controversy over ; i s 7

T,.*i

(

) 45 alleged to hsys sa.

here in the United States.

$ 25 J ]E N

F ire on the story.

B 6::

$.E 5'24 r

i

.til recent!

E-3.g vas just another ir e

Born in Jordan, he noved here in 1974 He has been an assen.bly line v.

f.h h d 5 2%

c.

= crea:n ver. dor, mechanic, a gas station operator and an oil fielc..orker, h5

.- < 2 He became a US citizen a few years ago. Today, he is a man for whom terror 1~-

he, bec%e a personst nightmare. (

is a man who has beeri of contt toterest lately to the TBt and Secret Service. He has two brothe rs

.s.

or vhc have been tied to recent tt rt.: * <-

fand(-

a botbtng plou, in Eorope. (

has just been through a bitter J:vu.,:e ar.J child custody battle that has included allegations et at he he t hr e a t e r.e d and has threatened to attack a nuclear po.

n.rthern Hie.1gan.

So f ar, authoritles have t

$1,- t i c a l al.r..,; t

• ~

dier.ed threats. Thiswomanis(

T l. '

T4*.

n. day. ber J 3 v *.s r c e action against beCan.c U nal and tar vat uted Cust.

i

...... ~

...w...... ~...-._.. ~

v I

s

/

p'.

.J ' ' 4 l'e

,g',

p..*

transcript S/14/86 reistives and one of her friends apparently told Charlevoix County police

^

of ficials thar had made threats against th

' hand the Sig ko.'k Point nuclear power plant north of Charlevoix. A spokesinan for

(:ensumers Power which owns the nuclear power plant. has confirmed that the polier 1. ave notifie) of them of t!.e aller,cd thra.at by The cotrparn spokesn.an said "We've been alerted and we've taken* all the

.- 4 :

pi e.;aut ions that vt would for anything like this." He added "The Big Rock nucicar plant tar, a very e16borare sec.;rity systern that is designed P.u n t to pre tect u-frov tetterint cett."

efused n/ request for ai, or.-: a:cu int e rvi rv.

St.<. did, ic,vever, cone er.t to an ci a*-cace rn int e rv'v.,

she told me that about eight mnths ago her estranged husband told hcr "I't.

'i g te be sc-ebody.. e'carybody's going to know at."j g.

..ble goes f ar beyond an angry ex-wif e.

The Traverse City pelice 1. ave a alony warrant for his arrest for f ailing to retorn a rental car that he obtained at the local airport last Dece::,ber. The Traverse City police report a

s confires that thc l'BI and Secret Service are interested in(

The police detective's, report on the missing rental car states in part "I had talked with the Secret Service agent who advised that the FM terrorist scetion vt.uld be mere ir.terested in tne vehicle than the Secret Service vocid."

07. April 29th, the police at Detroit Metro Airport found the car 1

\\h tha rented and never returne/.. Meanwhile, turned up at Scotland Yard in 1.ondon and apparently told Fritish poli.w.

that his brothers had disgraced the f arntly.

)[.assine-returned to the t'nited States. Our efferts to reach him have been

,...,.tet.

A vm -

if-ts

'r

l

.,,.6.............---~o.s......**~.*..*~.=~=-.e.--~..*~~-w**-.-...~~~...~

A l

l

. 'd 4();,*:6 o

)

• O.

. Itranscript

\\

4 a6).1r.g questions shcutl

.d } 'the T.91 bas refused to coment on the inventf-e...

i

s t i'..n o fl The Secret Service vill only confirm that J

the(.

jense is an oper. investigation. Source 6 say that federal 3nvesti-tato:8 have: r.ot beets able to substantiate the threats 16

^!:.ged t<, have :ade. Vast's e. orc. the TB! has net betti able to find ar.y

.s betvec nd terrotis:. beyor.d the fact that hc

. r..,. '...t h r s ir. j ail in 1.urc pt-ori teriorist bon.bir..; charges.

GVC

~"""%...,,

, e u.u

/y Egh pF

~7E L E fr1r

.? f t:<.

'.: rA,

e f

r

/

%-%=%

h

...a o...

...... - ~ ws...

.w e e.

.s o s.n.s.

. o.. ~ ~. ww

.m...

~....

e

'l e

I e

s m u n d $ a u,J i

Y smm Viw

.. j n:

4.241 ~ 2&P R%iN$g$t?^~$

.u 1 _.,. g h r+..<-

gq p.

l opggyog,.

'e -

e -;

i 9

j 3

. (

g*

• ** % em.. %.

'M he Y

1

)

1 i

e

,e

• f 0

4 MEModANDUM 0

OF CfLL Pmwiedt% a

_ g

)-

• ascALLie t

youweniv irtosy-rQguese

~

af n

~

p ri e r - >

om

>Ws% 50'1 h08bWwrove O At c4Lt Acriu C airua~io vouacru.O i: **ir>~o 1o sta vou O = u m m oinutur Ed N 40's 1

n es

[

le

\\

/O: og sec tivio.y w.

,, w -

1 r,.

=e

, _, _,:,, _, m,~. ;.,,.....

6 Tiwt Dart CONVERSATION RECORD 4yo

- g,/f, O visil O CONFERENCE g TELEPHONE NAwusmoot m

@NCOMING Location of V, Set /Conferexe:

O OLTTGOING EC OF nRSON($) CONTACT [D OR IN CONTACT omGANIZAT10N (O n e, eept, twreaw.

TELEPHONE NO.

witu vou eC CJ R3 SUBJECT *

• V.m 4

bt msvu'-

k

. oc L~<$

ctgd </

~

$$ /

L c

hcr

• Agcb.'~0..

.~.

,dOICCII.n m Q.'s (c;e,d n',23 ddM In J;C idanCt Wityh Freedom r q ga,n.,n 1

F01A 22 -J_/ R flG, CAemptions.

~ " " "

t ACTION REQUIR(D Mawe or nasoN oocvutstum convce&AhDN SJGNAWR DATE i

ACTION TAKEN EcNAtunt Titts oArt sons-not

. vs..o..

5n. Saisono CONVERSMION RECORD

$$AmTT t5$"Or#I U

m.... <

a an

ATTACHMENT DEFICIENCIES IN ADDRESSING EQUIPMENT TAMPERING EVENT -

Although no violations of specific NRC requirements were noted during the inspection, the licensee's actions at the time of occurre,nce of the potential equipment tampering event were inadeouate. Deficiencies noted included:

(1)

Ne,ntr the site nor corporate security departnerits w e

verbal threat to a valve and the subsequent degraded mode of Valva so they could determine if a reportable event was required under tW ;

criteria of 10 CFR 73.71(c).

Security was advised only of the verbal confrontations and graffiti incidents involving a worker.

(2) A thorough investigation of the potential valve tampering event and the threat against the valve was not performed by the plant staff or the Field Maintenance Services-West (FMS-W) group.

Both agencies invertigated the verbal confrontations and graffiti incidents. Each agency thought the other conducted an investigation of the potential valve tampering event.

I (3) No effective procedures were in existence to address needed investigation of deliberate acts directed against plant equipment even though IE l

Information Notice W3-27, dated May 4,1983, identified the need for such procedures or guidelines. The IE Information Notice was sent to the site security section for information purposes about four years ago.

(4) The Senior Resident Inspector (SRI) was not advised of the threat against the valve or degraded mode of the valve even though the licensee later characterized the incident as having the potential of interrupting plant operations and jeopardizil.g the company's license to operate a r.uclear facility.

The SRI was only advised that a person's site access was terminated because of verbal confrontations and writing graffiti. The SRI was not advised of the subsequent more significant licensee conclusions pertaining to the individual and the event.

(5) The verbal threat against the valve which occurred on February 6,1987 was not imediately reported to the licensee's sianagement by at least two personnel who heard the threats. This represented the single greatest failure on the part of the plant staff.

1 (6) Management actions af ter the threat against the valve becam own (Febpry 19,1987) were net aggressive. A walkdown of the an February 13, 1987 was completed prior to manageme knovieage of the fmat and complete knowledge of the degraded mode of the valve. No l

subsequent check or inspection was conducted because of the incident.

Although the Plant Review Comittee (PRC) reviewed the verbal confrontation and graffiti incidents, the investigation found no evidence that the threat against the valve and subsequent degraded mode of the valve was reviewed by the PRC. Additionally, the two technician's work was just routinely reviewed, no additional review actions were taken based on the threat or detected degraded mode of the valve.

Informaticn in th,: rc;W ces dated l.

"ta of Mormatien c4

9

• ( '-

ATTACHMENT (7) Management's actions in reference to the valve incident indicated that management was not aware of the true significance of tampering with plant equipment. (Section 236.b of the Atomic Energy Act designates such an offense as punishable by $10,000 fine, imprisonment for up to ten years or both.)

1 l

w l

l l

)

2

l

• .. s -

JAN 141987 Docket No. 50-255 Consumers Power Company ATTN: Dr. F. W. Buc han Vice President Nuclear Operations 212 West Michigan Avenue 20-10 IIg go 3

Jackson, MI 49201 i

j Gentlemen:

This refers to the routine safeguards inspection conducted by 1

Messrs. J. L. Belanger and B. Drouin of this office on December 15-18, 1986, of activities at the Palisades Nuclear Plant authorized by NRC l

Operating License No. DPR-20 and to the discussion of our findings l

with Mr. J. F. Fir 11t and others of your staff at the conclusion of j

the inspection.

The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and interviews with personnel.

No violations of HRC requirements were identified during the course of this inspection.

Areas examined during this inspection concern a subject matter which is exempt from disclosure according to Part 73, Title 10. Code of Federal Regulations, Section 73.21(c)(2). This information must be handled a'id protected in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 73.21.

Consequently, our repcrt of this' inspection will not be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

lnformation in this record was deleted n Mcordance with the Freedom cf Informa kf.eu mstio g J f0tA h*o

• ^

g o

@S

Consumers Power Company 2

jay )4 1987 We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection, i

Sincerely.

Yh h

W. L. Axelson, thief Nuclear Materials safety and Safeguardo

Enclosure:

'.'nspection Raport No. 50-2$$/,B6033(DRSS)

(UNCLASS,F EO SAFEGUARDS,NFORMAT,0N) l cc w/ enclosure:

Mr. Kenneth W. Berry, Director Nuclear Licensing J,E File. F. Fir 11t, General Manager

,,E/D,/ORPB l

E/ES NMSS/SGPL l

NRR/PWR-B/SSPB cc. w/enclo,F,0Nsu,ED SAFEGUARD:

re, w/o U,NCLASS NFORMT DCS/RSB (R,DS)

Resident, Fee Manageme,n,t, Branch Licensing nspector, R Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service Commission Nuclear Facilities and Environmental Monitoring Section y

,Gu d R,,,

R,,,

R,,,

y Bela,nger/ib eh eed il ond an ulit ' wf

Inspection Sumary Inspection on December 1.5-18, 1986 (Report No. 50-255/86033(DRSS))

Areas Inspected:

Included a review of Management Effectiveness; Security Organization; Physical Barriers-Protected Area; Physical Barriers-Vital Areas; Detection Aids-Protected Area; Assessment Aids; Access Control-Personnel; Access Control-Packages; Access Control-Vehicles; Training and Qualification-General Requirements; Previous Inspection Findings, and Allegation Follow-up.

Results: No violations were identified in the twelve areas inspected. Two programatic weaknesses were identified in the areas of employee security refresher training and vital area access control, as a result of the allegation review. All previously identified open items were closed except for one unresolved item relating to the CCTV system and one open item involving vital area barriers.

Details: UNCLASSIFIED SAFEGUARDS INFORMTION.

P

~

~

1 3e inspector detennined through interviews tha't th mb" N2 l system was effectively utilized to observe the owner Ei< rolled' area

- Jr.ino a sniper scare incident which occurred.on December, 12,.1986.. _,

}

C$

j-

[

i C

s I

t

• fh l

l

.l 3.

Entrance and Exit Interviews (IP 30703)

S l

pS u

m.

-