IR 05000263/1998017

Insp Rept 50-263/98-17 on 981026-30.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Physical Security Program

ML20196C247
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	11/24/1998
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20196C243	List: IR 05000263/1998017 ML20196C241
References
50-263-98-17, NUDOCS 9812020016
Download: ML20196C247 (11)

Text

. . - , . . ~ , ~ . - . . . _ - - . . - . - - . . - . - . - ~ . . . = . . - . - - . . - . = . . . . .

,

.

, .

..

• i

"

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.

. REGION lli

!

!

'

Docket No:: 50-263 License No: DPR-22-5

.. .

Report No: 50-263/98017(DRS) l l

Licensee: Northern States Power Company

!

r F9cility: Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant '

l

Location: ;2807 West Highway 75

. Monticello. MN 55362

- Dates: October 26-30,1998 l n

I  ;

Inspector: ' G. Pirtle, Physical Security inspector o

!  :

Approved by: James R. Creed, Chief, Plant Support Branch 1 *

Division of Reactor Safety i

.

k l.

l l

L P

i  ;

e F

t

' #

9812(i20016 981124 PDR ADOCK 05000263 9 PDR i

- , , . . -

. - .. . . - . .- . . . .. . - . .. . . . , . . . . -

-

.

!' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i l'

Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant  !

l l

NRC Inspection Report 50-263/98017

l This inspection included a review of the physical security program. It was an announced l inspection conducted by a regional physical security specialis . .

! *

Security facilities and equipment observed by the inspector functioned as

[ designed, except for radio communications with the Local Law Enforcement l Agency (LLEA). An inspection Followup Item was identified in refereace to

'

reliable radio communication with the LLEA. Compensatory measuiss for l security equipment were seldom required and maintenance support appeared to l be timely (Section S2).

i- -

Records and documents reviewed were complete and cccurate. Minor i deficiencies were noted in procedures for documenting loss of communication L with the LLEA, and implementation of 10 CFR 50.54(x). Procedures for security l equipment testing were detailed and equipment observed was tested in

'

accordance with the procedures (Section S3).

Security force members were knowledgeable of post ree aments and ,

performed duties in a professional, effective and competent manner on a consistent basis. (Section S4). i

!

-

Self-assessments were a strength. The self-assessment program was varied,-

L aggressive, and well documented. Findings were effectively documented and L

corrective actions were implemented timely (Section S7).

l

,

!

l

'

!

2

,

x

,q , , _ , - . . . , , , -: en'.- m . _ , _ _ - _ . . _ _ _ . . . _ . . . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _

.

l .

l- . Report De alls '

t i:

' IV. Plant Support .

S2- Status of Security Facilities and Equipment l . .

I j Insoection Scooe (81700)

1^

,

l The inspector reviewed the condition of secunty equipment and facilities required by the

,

security plan. The equipment observed included, for example, search' equipment, l intrusion alarm equipment, alarm assessment equipment. and equipment within the

'

{

security alarm stations. Facilities observed included the Main Access Facihty and  !

primary alarm station.

L

> '

l- Observations and Findinas l-l- --

. Security equipment observed during the inspection functioned as designed (except as noted below), and compensatory measures were implemented in a timely manner when l- appropriate. Maintenance support for security equipment was generally timely; security l equipment requiring extensive compensatory measures was generally repaired within j two day A concern was identified in reference to radio communications with the local law enforcement agency (LLEA). On five occasions in October.1998, the licensee identified that the security alarm stations did not have radio communication with the LLEA for short periods of time. Telephone communication was available ilowever, so the LLEA could be contacted in an emergency. The lack of rad?o communications with LLEA was j discovered by security officers during required radio checks with LLEA. No'such  ;

communication failures were noted during August and September 199 i

!

During the ins;:sctor's interview with the system engineer, it was discovered that the system engineer was aware of the problem, but had not determined tiie cause. The l cause appeared to be either environmental or a retutt of recent and ongoing  ;

communication system upgrades with the LLEA communication center. The system engineer will continue followup on the issue until the cause has been determined and  !

the situation resolved. This issue will be monitcied as an Inspection Follow item (50-263/98017-01). Conclusions r

L Securit"'acilities and equipment observed by the inspector functioned as designed, b except v rad!O commanications with the LLEA. Compensatory measJes were seldom L required and maintenance support appeared to be timely.

!

{-

?

'.

3 L

4.

!

i e

, .-

- . . _ .- .

. - . . - - - . , . ,

_ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _. ..

l S3 Security and Safeguards Procedures and Documentation i a, Insoection Scope (81700)

,

The inspector reviewed selected procedures pertaining to the areas inspected and also ;

reviewed appropriate logs, records, and other documents. The inspector observed the l implementation of some testing procedure '

b. Observations and Findinas

Records and documents reviewed were complete and accurate. Security procedures  !

were well written, reviewed at the appropriate time, and were in sufficient depth to '

adequately address the tasks described. Two minor deficiencies in procedures were note On April 14,1998, a loggable security event showed that suspension of security l requirements was requested and implemented under the authority of 10 CFR 50.54(x)  ;

and (y) for an emergency ambulance entry into the protected area. During the I inspector's review of the event, it was noted that the one hour report to the NRC (10 CFR 50.72) and followup Licensee Event Report (10 CFR 50.73) were not complete Further evaluation of the issue by the inspector concluded that the 50.54(x) suspension of security requirements was not needed or appropriate for emergency vehicle entry because the security plan and procedures already addressed this preplanned contingency. The appropriate procedure was revised to clarify this point to the security shift supervisors. This issue demonstrated that the security staff did not fully l understand the purposes for implementing 10 CFR 50.54(x) and the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 and 73 in this are The inspector noted that the procedure (SIP 05.02) matrix for logging security events i did not require loss of radio communication with the LLEA to be logged. There was a j disparity between the narrative part of the procedure (Section 5.4.1B), which required reductions in effectiveness to be logged, and the matrix, which required only total loss of f communication to be reported. A temporary change to the procedure to require communication loss with LLEA to be logged as a security lncident was completed by the security staff before the inspection ended. It should be noted that the loss of I

!

communication incidents were documented (in security shift activity reports), but not as j loggable security incident Procedures prepared for security equipment testing were detailed in nature and appropriate for the components being tested. Component testing observed by the inspector was in accordance with the appropriate procedures. Documentation of equipment testiag was complete, accurate, and in accordance v/ith procedure l requirements. The security staff effectively monitored and tracked all system testing

requirements.

, 4

w,,-

_ _ - . _ _ . _ . ... _ . _ ___ . _ . _ _ __ . . - _ . . _ _ _ . - . _ _

-

- j

.

c . Conclusions (Records and documents reviewed were complete and accurate. Minor deficiencies

• ~

were noted in procedures for documenting loss of communication with the LLEA, and

, implementation of 10 CFR 50.54(x). Procedures for security equipment testing were l' detailed and equinment observed was tested in accordance with the procedures.

L-S4 Security and Safeguards Staff Knowledge and Performance

.  ;

,

>

a Insoection Scope (81700)

. . The inspector toured various security posts and observed performance of duties to p determine if the officers were knowledgeable of post requirements. Security event logs

and other records pertaining to security force performance were also reviewed.

b.' ' Observations and Findinas

~

Security shift supervisors observed by the inspector provided excellent oversight of security activities in progress. Alarm station and security supervisor activity logs were

-

current and accurate. Personnel observed on post were very knowledgeable of post

, - responsibilities, procedures applicable to their post, and the functioning of equipment at -

i the security posts. Alarm station operators were thorough anJ timely in their monitoring

.. of activities and dispatch of security personnel for various activities.

l'

Security force performance has been at'a high level of efficiency. The inspector's l j review of loggable security events, and other analysis data, showed that the security

force errors have caused only about nine loggable security events since January 199 Conclusions

] . Security force members were knowledgeable of post requirements and performed duties in a professional, effective and competent manner on a consistent basi S7 Quality Assurance in Security and Safeguards Activities Insoection Scone (81700)-

The inspector reviewed self-assessment evaluations conducted by security staff and 1 other personnel (licensee and contractor).

b.: Observations and Findinas ,

The self-assessment program for the security department continued to be a strengt i The major program elements included audit and field observations by the Generation E Quality Service (GQS) Department, documented back shift checks and evaluations by senior contract security force supervisors, and limited scope self-assessments completed byindividual security officers. NRC security inspection procedures (81000 series) were often used to define the scops of the self-assessments. Self-assessments

..

I

, . . m u .m e - ,

. _ ._.._ _ _. _ _ _... _ _. _ _ .__ _ _ ___. _ _ _ _

l

.

• i were scheduled through 1998. All self-assessment findings were documented, actions 1 assigned, and corrective actions monitored. Practically every major aspect of the -

security program was evaluated and trended for performance and identification of potential problems. The self-assessment effort was recently strengthened by assigning a supervisor on a full time basis to fill the position of self-assessment lieutenan The inspector reviewed the GQS audit meeting exit briefing notes (audit number AG i 1998-S-3), dated October 21,1998. The final report was not published at the time of j

the inspection. The audit findings consisted of observation report findings prepared ,

during the audit period (third quarter of 1998). The scope of the audit was adequat The vast majority of audit findings were positive, but eight deficiencies were noted with )

l some administrative requirements. The noted deficiencies were being addresse J Additionally, the inspector reviewed fifteen GQS observation reports, dated between June 17 and October 2,1998. The GQS observation reports adequately addressed areas such as: plans, procedures and practices; vehicle barrier system; weapons requalification; personnel and vehicle access; security training and qualification; effectiveness of the physical protection system; testing and maintenance program; and security records and other areas. The observation reports were well documented and j

'

were generally performance orientated. No significant deficiencies were note The inspector selectively reviewed self-assessment summary reports maintained by the security staff to track audits and related corrective actions completed by security force personnel. Fifty-six self-assessments (addressing 31 topic areas) had been completed since January of 1998. Some of the self-assessment subjects included: assessments aids; protected and vital are access; personnel training and qualification; testing and 'i maintenance; physical barriers; contingency plan implementation; power supply; records and repods; alarm stations; vehicle barrier system; and access controls. Procedure and .

practice deficiencies were routinely identified, followed up, and closed. Fifty-six )

concems were identified as a result of the self-assessments. Forty-two concerns were )

determined to require followup action, and 24 of the 42 items had been closed. The i remaining 18 items were being monitored for closur ;

Finally, the security staff prepares a meaningful and informative quarterly analysis of approximately 10 performance areas (to include loggable events; equipment performance indicators; personal performance indicators; and trend summaries) that receives wide distribution, to include the President, Nuclear Generation, Corporate Security Director, Plant Manager, Mansger of Quality Services, Director, Generation Qua!ity Services and other Conclusions Self-assessments were a strength. The self-assessment program was varied, aggressive, and well documented. Findings were effectively documented and corrective actions were implemented in a timuly manne . -- ., . - .. . _ - .- -- .

.. - .. - . - . .- -- -~ - . - . - .-. . - . - .. - - - -

.

S8- Miscellaneous Security and Safeguards Isaues (92904)

S (Closed) Insoection Followuo item (Recort No. 50-263/97013-01)): Several dual

'

security computer failure incidents had occurred. Analysis, evaluation, and various corrective actions have resulted in there being no security computer failures since May 199 S (Closed) Unresolved item (Recort No. 50-263/97013-04)): The security plan allowed j reduced and minimal compensatory measures to be implemented when security l

'

equipment failures became so extensive that they exceeded the on-duty security force's capability to effectively compensate. However, no measures were taken to strengthen the compensatory measures if the equipment outages existed for a long period of time (over two hours).' NRC review of the issue concluded that compensatory measures for long-term extensive equipment failure required strengthening. Corrective actons are -i described in Section S8.5 belo '

, (Closed) Insoection Followuo item (Recort No. 50-263/ 97201-02)): This issue was identified during the Operational Safeguards Response Evaluation conducted in October l 1997, and pertained to the need for Operations personnel having vital area keys in their l possession. The necessary vital area keys have been changed and issued to l Operations personnel.

!

L S8.4 . (Closed) Violation (Recort No. 50-263/98005-01)): A violation was cited for three l occasions of safeguards information not being protected as required by 10 CFR 73.21.

r The licensee provided a written reply to the violation on April 30,1998. The inspector confirmed that the corrective actions identif:od in the reply to the violation had been effectively impbmente ,

S8.5 (Closed) Insoection Followuo item (Recort No. 50-263/98005-02)): Procedures were required to be developed to cope with long-term compensatory measures for extensive security equipment failures. The compensatory measures for long term extensive equipment failures were strengthened, and the appropriate procedures were revise S8.6 (Closed) Unresolved item (Report No. 50-263/98005-03)): The security plan needed revision to identify security measures to be implemented to exempt certain vehicles from being searched priar to entering the protected area. The necessary revision to the i: security plan has been submitted to the NRC. The review results will be addressed by separate correspondenc Exit Meeting Summary I

L 'Ine inspector presented the inspection results to licensee management personnel at the l

conclusion of the onsite inspection on October 30,1998. The licensee acknowledged the findings presented. The inspector asked the licensee whether any materials examined or

! inspection findings discussed during the exit meeting should be considered as proprietary or

! safeguards information. No proprietary or safeguards information sas identified.

i

$

7

/.

i

,

,m., -- . -, , _ , - . _ _ _ _ _ , . . , , _ _

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

. _ . . _ . - . . _ . .._ . _ . . - .. _ _ _ . . . . . . . _ . .

I

t: PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTE')

-1

~l Licensee: j M.' Hammer, Plant Manager. .

~ R. Cleveland, Personnel Security -

'?

T. Gallagher, Nuclear Security Specialist

, .

G Maybury,' Administrative Lieutenant, The Wackenhut Corporation (TWC)'

C. Johnson, Nuclear Security Specialist D. Pallansch, Training Coordinator, TWC .

L. Wilkerson, Superintendent, Securit .

,

J

'NRC '

S. Ray, Senior Resident inspector, NRC Region ill INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED IP 81700 Physical Security Program For Power Reactors

. IP 92904 Followup - Plan; Cupport i'

'

ITEMS OPENED AND CLOSED l i

'

Owed I

'

- 50-263/980 C-01 IFl Radio Communication With the Local Law Enforcement

... Agenc Closed 50-263/97013-01 IFl- Dual Security Computer Failures 50-263/97013-04 URI Compensatory Meat.ures For Extensive Security 1 Equipment Failures

'50-263/97201-02 IFl Vital Area Keys for Escape Route From Turbine Building-50-263/98005-01 VIO Three Occasions When Safeguards Information Was Not

< -

Adequately Protected

'50-263/98005-02 IFl implementation of Compensatory Measures For Extensive Security Equipment Failures .

50-263/99005-03 IFl . Revision to Security Plan Required to Address Security L Measures to Exempt Certain Vehicles From Search t.~

l I' 8 L

!

!

, .;. a

,. , ._, - , ,,,

. - . - . . . - . - . _

.. .

~

.

. .

~ LIST OF ACRONYMS USED GQ ' Generation Quality Service IFl Inspection Followup Item LLEA" Local Law Enforcement Agency

' T W C ' . The Wackenhut Corporation

~ URI - Unresolved item

- VIO '

.

Violation

!

.

t i

!

l 8 i

!

!

-

I i

. _ _ . - , ,_

, ._ . . __ . . . . . - _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ . _ . - _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . - . . _ _ _ _

..:

' '

PARTIAL LISTING OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Security Event Reports From June 1 to October 14,1998 Procedure 0483, " Explosive Detector Performance Test", Revision 2, July 26,1996 Procedure 4114PM, " Security Door Hardware", Revision 10, March 2,1998 Procedure 0306, " Protected Area Barrier and Lighting Inspection", Revision 18,' January 30, -,

1998- .l Procedure 0305," Metal Detector Performance Test Procedure", Revision 9, January 3,1997 Procedure 1397-01, " Vehicle Barrier System inspection", Revision 1, July 15,1997

. .

'

Procedure SIP 04.01, " Testing and Inspection of Systems and Equipment", Revision 9, April 7, 1998 Procedure SIP 04.02, " Equipment Calibration, Maintenance, and Surveillance Procedures",'

Revision 3, January 7,1997 Procedure SIP 05.01, " Security Compensatory Measures", Revision 13, May 18,1998 i

Procedure SIP.02.03, " Operation and Use of Communications Equipment", Revision 6, April 7, i 1998 Procedure 030, " Perimeter intrusion Detection System Functional Test", Revision 27, July 2, 1998'- J Procedur's SIP 05.02, "Reposting of Security Events", Revision 10, August 21', 1997 '

Security Shift Activity Reports From August 1 through September 30,1998 Monticello Security Work Orders Master -

Reply to Notice of Violation in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-263/98005, dated April 30,1998

~ Monthly Management Report Prepared by The Wackenhut Corporation For Period Between

^

= August 24 and September 27,1998

. Third Quarter Security Department Quarterly Report-Job Description for Position of Self Assessment Lieutenant Security Self Assessment Schedule For 1998 i

TWC Monticello 1998 lasues Tracking Listing (Security), dated October 1,1998 l

,

'

!

10'

L f

. , , . .-. .,-. -- , ,- ,

, _ . _ . _

,

- ,;  !

.

~*

.Self Assessment-1998- Summary For The Period Between January 1 and September 30,1998 l

. .

.

Generation Quality Services Audit Exit Meeting Notes, dated October 21,1998 l

Fifteen Generation Quality Services Observation Reports For The Period Between June 17 and October 2,1998 -

!

!

!

.s

i I

,.

'

l~

l

11

,