ML20235A251

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Trip Rept of 761017-19 Reassessment Visit to Exxon Nuclear Co.Outline of Findings,Recommendations & Comments of Assessment Team Encl
ML20235A251
Person / Time
Site: Framatome ANP Richland
Issue date: 11/08/1976
From: Schuster M
NRC
To:
NRC
Shared Package
ML20234F575 List:
References
FOIA-86-410 NUDOCS 8707080372
Download: ML20235A251 (5)


Text

_ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

I 4

k,b ; W P >y 60

(

N i

4.n.

l NOV8 IMS Memo to security file -

Trip Report - October 17-19, 1976 EXXON NUCLEAR COMPANY, DOCKET NO. 70-1257, NRC RE-ASSESSMENT VISIT Scope of Assessment i

An entrance briefing was conducted at 8:30 a.m. October 18, 1976.

i Attendees were:

i i

Exxon L. Hansen, Security Specialist

~j L. Merker, Mgr.. Aux. Systems R. Collings, Chief Plant Security '

D. Schnider, Sr. Safeguards Speciafist NRC

[

B. Minilli, Licensing


a -

. c..

0. Smith, Licensing E. Richard, Licensing
  • r l

C. South, Test and Evaluation W. Martin IE:I (Representing IE:HQ) i M. Schuster, IE:V 1

0. Shackleton'. IE:V

~

There-assessmentscopewasdescribedbiSmith:

1.

Threats to be considered include 3' dedicated, militarily trained outsiders armed with legal weapons.with or without the help of one insider, and one insider working alone to systematically remove a strategic quantity of SNM over a p6rtod of time.

2.

Scope of visit included the overall security program.

See Appendix A l

for detailed scope.

s.t s1 N--

I d

W Copyj l

j pages R itODUCE a

sP cU C APPROVA

~

i 8707080372 870701 t

PDR FOIA l

SKINNERB6-410 PDR

.e

,.s-NOV8 1M. k '. a. 'NE' 6 "*

2.-

3.

Findings, if contrary to current requirements will not, as a result of this visit, be identified as items of noncompliance.

Findings of Assessment Team An exit briefing was held at 1:30 p.m., October 19, 1976. Attendees were:

Exxon L. Hansen, Security Spet.ialist I

L. Merker, Manager, Aux. Opers.

j R. Collings, Chief Plant Security B. Berst, Acting Manager, Mixed 0xide 1

flRC Same as for entrance briefing..

Appendix 8 sets forth the findings of the assessment team, a copy of which was given to the licensee.

i a

dudgement i

~~

It was the considered opinion of the team, that Exxon could meet the design threat.

b. _. Odgins! #gned-byH Ms D. Schuster
0. Shackleton

.ji.._Schus ter 4

i i

l l

1

'I2 j

-m.

b, b

^

APPEN01X A

(

~

GROUP I

+ fr.

r.

Security Organization Guard Force size Equipment Training

~

Orders Patrols On/0ff-Site Response Clearances Use of Force LLEA Agreement Perimeter Barriers Illumination Guard Force Turnover Evacuation Procedures PA Searches Yehicles Personnel Articles GROUP II Operation of PCAS & SAS Hardening Visibility Control of Access On/Off-Site Communications Alarm Systems & Devices Testing & Records Motion Alarms & Tests Local Alarms Criticality Alarms Duress Alarms Search Devices Testing & Calibration GROUP III MAA Barriers MAA Er.try/ Exit Searches MAA Emergency Exits Access to Sf1M Storage Area Search / Screening of Waste, laundry & other materials leaving the fiAA Use & Control of Seals Doors SNM Containers Surveillance within MAAs Incoming / Outgoing Shipments 14ovement.',f SfiM between MAAs

gf[

(

n; q$%+

I APPENDIX B N_RC_psessmentTeamVisit I

October 18, 1976 Following is an outline of findings, recommendations and comments of an NRC Assessment Team Visit to the Exxon Nuclear Company Inc. on October 18 i

and 19,1976.

Findings are categorized in the following manner, as appropriate:

License Condition

+

Proposed License Condition X

Management Attention Item General Comment: The team concluded that the facility.(Exxon Nuclear i

Company) is capable of withstanding both the external (overt theft)'and internal (covert diversion) threats, as defined by the NRC Team Chief.

during the entrance briefing.

.a Specific Findings:

a.

The intrusion alarm signal transmitted by radio to an off-site monitored location (Centrifuge Test Facility - CTF) was not significantly distinct to unquestionably alert the person monitoring the system, and clearly distinguish an alarm from l

some other radio signal. Recommendation: Expedite procure-

~

ment and installation of equipment that will render a distinct..

4 l

alarm signal. Meanwhile, require strict adherence to the A

policy to conduct communication checks every 15 minutes.

l

+

b.

Clarification is required on the use of force issue, as con -

tained in guard instructions, as understood by security' supervisors and as required by the generic license condition' on this subject (and pending NRC rule change).

Recommendation:

I Discuss any misunderstandings with the NRC Licensing Staff and align guard instructions with the agreed upon license condition.

+

c.

The Secondary Alarm Station is only ma.rginally effective in I

that if it is not manned by a dedicated, Company employee and does not receive or monitor all alanns received in the Primary Central Alarm Station.

Recommendation: That the minimum essential communications and alarm equipment be installed within an onsite location or within the CTF to perfonn the minimum functions of the Secondary Alarm Station, as discussed.

I r

t_____

f

(

(

y0 ?9@.'f?-

M.

rigg @ ', A.

a f

Appendix B '

Established controls for access to the Central Alarm Station X

d.

were not always strictly adhered to.

Both doors were open on l

two occasions as NRC team members and maintenance personnel went in and out. Recommendation: Require strict compliance j

with the established procedure, without respect to the status of personnel desiring to enter.

Security communications and alarm equipment were not always X

e.

inspected by a technically knowledgeable individual following installation of worn parts or "out of sight" maintenance.

That following any such maintenance or Recommendatina:

installation of new parts on security communications or alarm equipment, the affected equipment / system be inspected by the Electrical Specialist Maintenance Engineer, in addition to the required check by a member of the security organization.

The Log Book and Type "E" fingerprint seals for the vault door, X

f.

were maintained in the same container, controlled by the same The same was,

person, in the Shipping & Receiving Warehouse.

found to be true with the logbook for the Type "E" and paper ej seals for SHi4 containers (maintained in file drawer, Room 221,.

Pu Facility).

Recommendation: Separate the seals from thG.

~

log books, as dTscussed.

Odell Smith

-I Plant Security Licensing Branch NMSS HRC 3 y i

k s..

4

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -