ML20246E694

Forwards Performance Test Rept on Passive Infrared Intrusion Detection Equipment,Per Apr 1989 Rev of Security Plan. Adequate Compensatory Measures Have Been Provided Throughout Test Period

ML20246E694
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	06/30/1989
From:	Hunger G PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NUDOCS 8907120351
Download: ML20246E694 (4)

Text

, _ . . _ _ - . __

f: -~

EI  : s I s I7 3 .f 4

.c g.

[, -

PH'lLADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY -

) NUCLEAR ' GROUP HEADQUARTERS .

~

955-65 CHESTERBROOK BLVD,

. WAYNE, PA 19087 5691

-(215) 640-6000 June 30, 1989 I

Docket Nos. 50-352 ib 50-353 License Nos...NPF-39.

.NPF-83.

iU.'S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: - Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

SUBJECT:

Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Performance Test Report on Passive" Infrared M Intrusion Detection Equipment

Dear Sir:

The attached report provides the results of the performance-test on the passive; infrared intrusion detection equipment installed'at the. Limerick' Generating

' Station (LGS). This report is being provided in accordance with Section'3.1.3 of the

April, 1989 revision of the. LGS Security' Plan.

t

'm

.The passive infrared intrusion detection equipment was installed.and evaluated under actua1 operating conditions in. order to determine;its effectiveness 4

.in replacing existin'g sensors that were providing intrusion detection coverage for unusual terrain. .The conclusions reached by the performance test indicate that the passive infrared equipment is not acceptable for'use at LGS. Therefore, the passive infrared equipment is being removed from service.and a' modified version of the or.iginal microwave equipment is currently being installed. This installation is-expected to be completed within sixty days. Adequate compensatory measures have been

.provided throughout the' test period and these measures will continue to be provided until installation of the modified' version of the original system is complete.-

'If you ha've any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours, gRo7120351 890630 V p ADOCK 05000352 h Directo -Licensing Section PNU

$ Nuclear Support Division Attachment 6603

.cc: W. T. Russell, Administrator, Region I, USNRC ' l

'T..J. Kenny, USNRC Senior-Resident Inspector, LGS

ATTACHMENT

~

I PERFORMANCE REPORT ON THE ADPRO MODEL 150 PASSIVE i INFRARED INTRUSION DETECTION SENSOR TESTED FOR USE AT LIMERICK GENERATING STATION .

1 i

1.0 Scope of Testing The Adpro Model 150 (PRO 150) passive infrared (PIR) intrusion l detection sensor was installed and evaluated under actual j operating conditions in order to weigh its effectiveness in '

replacing existing perimeter intrusion detection (PID) sensors that were providing intrusion detection for unusual terrain, coverage requirements and conditions. The purpose of this testing was to determine if the PRO 150 equipment met the required probability of detection and acceptable false alarm criteria for ,

PID equipment at Limerick Generating Station.

l 2.0 References and Standards PECo letter to NRC from J. W. Gallagher to W. T. Russell, NRC, Region I, dated October 31, 1988 Limerick Generating Station Security Plan, dated April, 1989 Regulatory Guide 5.44, Perimeter Intrusion Alarm Systems Sandia 76-0554, Intrusion Detection Systems Bandbook .

Limerick Generating Station Security Surveillance Test (ST)

Procedures, ST-7-084-320 (Weekly PID Equipment Surveillance Test) and ST-7-084-800 (Return to Service / Quarterly PID Equipment Surveillance Test)

Adpro Model 150, Operations / Installation manual 3.0 Conclusion Testing of the PRO 150 equipment uncovered problems which make this equipment unacceptable for use as a PID sensor at Limerick. .

This conclusion is based on the following test results:

1. Significant variations occurred in the sensitivity of detection during changes in ambient temperature and background conditions.

2. The unavailability of a reliable intrusion test device, similar to the type used for other sensors made it extremely difficult to perform the required -

routine surveillance testing of the PIR sensor coverace areas above 6 feet.

y,y Attachment June 30, 1989 Page 2 of 3 4

4.0 Discussion The PRO 150 equipment was installed in order to replace existing intrusion detection sensors that exhibited a high false alarm rate caused by the periodic movement.of a rollup door located within the detection pattern of the sensor. The physical characteristics of the terrain at this location do not allow a conventional' intrusion detection scheme of coverage to be E installed.

The configuration of the PIR equipment tested used three PRO 150 units. Two units were stacked facing in one direction in order to provide-a detection pattern with adequate height. The third PIR unit was installed facing the stacked PIR sensor pair in order to provide overlapping detection coverage and to prevent the potential of defeating or tampering with the sensors.

The PIR equipment was tested using the weekly and quarterly Limerick Generating Stacion surveillance test (ST) procedures for perimeter intrusion' detection equipment.

This testing was_in accordance with the requirements outlined in Regulatory Guide 5.44.

The system was tested for two and one-half months. The Return to Service / Quarterly ST was performed three times a day (morning, afternoon, and evening) for the first three weeks of the testing period. A function operational check was conducted daily during the remainder of the testing period.

The results of this testing demonstrated that the PRO 150 equipment had acceptable probability of detection and false' alarm rates. However, this equipment is unacceptable to PECo because of the following factors:

~

1. There was no adequate method of testing the detection capabilities of the PIR sensors whose coverage pattern f extends above 6 feet in height. The ST procedures .'.

require that a simulated intrusion device such as an aluminum sphere be used for testing coverage areas above a person's height. The manufacturer of the PRO 150 recommended that the PIR sensor should only be tested with the passing of a person or a large animal l through the =one. The body temperature triggers the alarm sensor.

2. Evaluation of the sensitivity of detection over a 24- - ,

hour period demonstrated that the detector sensitivity changes depending on the time of day. The detection sensitivity appears to be related to ambient temperature and the temperature of the background.

l' I

1 )

1 Attachment P S t '* '- June'30, 1989

-Page 3 of 3

. . l ll

. This variation in the sensitivity of detection over l different ambient' temperature conditions is not '

' acceptable to PECo because~of the uncertainty of detection capability.  !

The'results of the testing did. indicate that'this~ equipment meets the probability of detection and false alarm rate required for

PID_ sensors in Regulatory Guide 5.44. However, our conclusions

,., on the PRO 150 equipment are.that if a consistent sensitivity of

. detection could be provided over time.and normal changes to-ambient conditions, and a reliable'intrusicn test device could be

- provided, then the PRO 150 PIR sensor would be an adequate PID sensor.

?

O

____,_,__u_ _ _ - - x---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - ' " - "-