ML20140A904: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Adams | |||
| number = ML20140A904 | |||
| issue date = 06/03/1997 | |||
| title = Insp Repts 50-498/97-15 & 50-499-97-15 on 970505-09. Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Routine,Announced Insp Focused Upon Specific Areas of Licensee Physical Security Program | |||
| author name = | |||
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) | |||
| addressee name = | |||
| addressee affiliation = | |||
| docket = 05000498, 05000499 | |||
| license number = | |||
| contact person = | |||
| document report number = 50-498-97-15, 50-499-97-15, NUDOCS 9706050083 | |||
| package number = ML20140A879 | |||
| document type = INSPECTION REPORT, NRC-GENERATED, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS | |||
| page count = 11 | |||
}} | |||
See also: [[see also::IR 05000498/1997015]] | |||
=Text= | |||
{{#Wiki_filter:-. - . | |||
- | |||
. l | |||
.- j | |||
- | |||
i | |||
' | |||
. | |||
l | |||
ENCLOSURE 2 ! | |||
1 | |||
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i | |||
REGION IV | |||
Docket Nos.: 50-498 | |||
50-499 | |||
License Nos.: NPF-76 | |||
NPF-80 | |||
Report No.: 50-498/97-15 | |||
50-499/97-15 | |||
Licensee: Houston Lighting & Power Company | |||
Facility: South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 | |||
Location: FM 521 - 8 miles west of Wadsworth | |||
Wadsworth, Texas | |||
Dates: May 5-9,1997 | |||
Inspector: Thomas W. Dexter, Senior Physical Security Specialist j | |||
Plant Support Branch ! | |||
l | |||
Approved: Blaine Murray, Chief, Plant Support Branch | |||
Division of Reactor Safety | |||
l | |||
ATTACHMENT: Supplemental Information | |||
l | |||
1 | |||
i | |||
i | |||
1 | |||
i | |||
j | |||
! | |||
9/06050083 970603 | |||
PDR ADOCK 05000498 | |||
G PDR .-. | |||
-. - - - - . .- . . _-. | |||
. | |||
[ | |||
. | |||
* | |||
< | |||
. | |||
. | |||
! | |||
-2- | |||
l EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | |||
South Texas Project Electric Gererating Station, Units 1 and 2 , | |||
NRC Inspection Report 50-498/97-15;50-499/97-15 | |||
This routine, announced inspection focused upon specific areas of the licensee's physical | |||
security program. These areas included review of records and reports, testing and | |||
maintenance, detection aids - protected area, compensatory measures, access control of | |||
personnel and packages, management support, and review of previous inspection findings. | |||
Plant Sucoort | |||
* Two violations were identified involving (1) the failure to secure a vital area door | |||
and (2) failure to revoke a badge following the failure of a fitness-for-duty test. The | |||
security staff was correctly reporting security events. A very good records and | |||
reports program was in place (Section S1.1). | |||
* | |||
Security personnel had an excellent knowledge of testing procedures concerning the | |||
access control equipment. All access control equipment functioned as required | |||
(Section S2.1). | |||
* Very good progress had been accomplished in completing the installation of their | |||
new perimeter intrusion detection system (Section S2.2). | |||
* The compensatory measure program was effectively implemented. Security | |||
personnel were well trained on the prograrn requirements (Section S4.1). | |||
* A very good prograrn for searching personnel and vehicles was maintained | |||
(Section S4.2) | |||
* An effective security training program had been implemented. Medical | |||
examinations for security officers were thorough and well documented. Facilities | |||
and firing range were excellent (Section 5.1). | |||
* Senior managernent support for the security organization was strong. The security | |||
program was implemented by a well trained and highly qualified staff. The morale | |||
of the security officers was very good (Section 6.1). | |||
. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , _ _ _ . _ _ _ .. _ _ _ | |||
* | |||
. | |||
* * | |||
' | |||
.* $ | |||
!. j | |||
.- l | |||
! | |||
-3- i | |||
i | |||
; | |||
i | |||
Report Details | |||
! | |||
, | |||
; | |||
; | |||
IV. Plant Support i | |||
: | |||
S1 Conduct of Security and Safeguards Activities l | |||
t | |||
Sl.1 Records and Reports (81700-02.01) . | |||
I | |||
a. Inspection Scope | |||
i | |||
The inspector reviewed safeguards event logs and security program condition i | |||
reports to determine compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 73.21(b) and (c), , | |||
10 CFR 26.73, and the physical security plan, j | |||
l | |||
J | |||
b. Observations and Findinas j | |||
l | |||
The inspector reviewed the security event logs and security program condition ) | |||
reports from October 1,1996, through April 30,1997. The records were available ] | |||
for review and maintained for the time required by regulations. The i. spector : | |||
determined that the licensee conformed to the regulatory requirements regarding the l | |||
reporting of security events. The logs and condition reports were organizeri in j | |||
numerical sequence and easy to audit. The following two events were specifically l | |||
reviewed in detail, j | |||
! | |||
* Uncompensated Vital Area Door in Access Mode l | |||
' | |||
l | |||
Licensee Condition Repo'rt 97-6585 identified that on April 2,1997, at | |||
approximately 6:44 a.m. an alarm station operator d;scovered that a vital | |||
area door had been left in the access mode (the lock alarm and the balance | |||
magnetic switch alarm were taken out-of service) without being controlled | |||
by the security system or by an armed security officer referencing an access | |||
authorization list. The door alarm had been inactivated at 7:06 a.m. on | |||
April 1,1997, so it could be blocked open for painting work in the vital area. | |||
A compensatory officer was posted at the door. At 5:08 p.m. the workers | |||
left the area. The compensatory officer secured the door and called the | |||
central alarm station operator to reactivate the alarm on the door. The | |||
officer claims he receised an acknowledgement from the station operator, . | |||
carded out from the area and waited to ensure there were no alarms on the | |||
door. When he did not hear a call for an alarm on the door he departed the | |||
area. However, it appears that the alarm station operator did not place the | |||
vital area door back in the alarm mode. | |||
.- . . - - | |||
- | |||
. | |||
. | |||
.. | |||
, . | |||
! . | |||
l | |||
-4- | |||
l | |||
The licensee's immediate compensatory actions were io search the vital area ; | |||
for any fore;gn materials or objects and then test and secure the door alarm. | |||
However, the licensee had not developed long-term corrective actions. | |||
, | |||
South Texas Project Physical Security Plan, Revision 7A, dated January 14, | |||
1997, Chapter 4, paragraph 4.4, " Vital Area Access - Personnel," states, in | |||
part, " Access to Vital Areas shall be controlled by the security system or by | |||
an armed security officer referencing an access authorization list. Personnel , | |||
entry / exit is documented for all vital area access except the control room." + | |||
The licensee's failure to control a vital area door in the access mode, between the i | |||
afternoon of April 1,1997, and the morning of April 2,1997, is a violation of its I | |||
security plan (50-498;-499/9715-01). | |||
i | |||
* Failure to inactivate Badae - Fitness-For-Duty Failure ! | |||
! | |||
Licensee Condition Report 97-0165 identified that on February 5,1997, i | |||
while a licensee fitness-for-duty department employee was imputing drug l | |||
test results into a computer data when the individual noted that a contract , | |||
employee, who had failed a for-cause alcohol test on February 3,1997, had I | |||
not had his badge revoked. The department employee completed a condition l | |||
report and notified security to revoke the badge in the security computer. ! | |||
l | |||
The licensee's investigation determined that the employee's supervisor had | |||
maintained control of the empicyee's security badge and that the employee | |||
had not entered the protected area. j | |||
i | |||
The licensee's corrective action involved the project engineering supervisor i | |||
discussing the importance of the line of communication and the procedure | |||
requirements for badge transactions. However, the inspector determined , | |||
that the following licensee's security plan and procedures were not l | |||
' | |||
implemented: | |||
South Texas Project Physical Security Plan, Revision 7A, dated January 14, | |||
1997, Chapter 4, paragraph 4.2, states, in part, "If a person is terminated , | |||
for-cause, that individual's access is revoked and his/her assigned badge is j | |||
deactivated through the security computer system prior to or simultaneously i | |||
with notification of termination." l | |||
l | |||
l | |||
! | |||
. | |||
_. -. . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | |||
\ | |||
- ' | |||
. | |||
* | |||
.. l | |||
, | |||
9 F | |||
# | |||
5- | |||
! | |||
l 1 | |||
i | |||
South Texas Project Procedure OPGP09-ZA-0002, " Fitness For Duty | |||
Program," Revision 7, dated October 24,1996, paragraph 6.11, " Confirmed | |||
, | |||
Positive Test Results," states, in part, "A ' Confirmed Positive' notification l | |||
l letter (Form 2) is delivered to the department manager, or designee, notifying ) | |||
l them the individual is denied site access. The HL&P employee will be ! | |||
terminated . . . Notification of the above positive test results shall be made l | |||
using the guidelines contained in OPGP03-ZX-0002, Condition Reporting i | |||
Process." | |||
l | |||
' | |||
South Texas Project Procedure OPGP03-ZX-0002, " Condition Reporting | |||
Process," Revision 13, dated September 12,1996, paragraph 4.1, | |||
" Condition identification," states, in part, "For conditions where security | |||
concerns are obvious or perceived, contact Plant Protection immediately and | |||
deliver the CR form to Plant Protection, or if database. entry was made, | |||
promptly in form the Security Force Supervisor of the Condition Report | |||
number." | |||
The failure to initiate a proper condition report and a Form 2 is a violation of the | |||
security plan and implementing procedures (50-498;-499/9715-02). | |||
c. Conclusions | |||
Two violations were identified concerning (1) the failure to secure a vital area door | |||
and (2) failure to revoke a badge following the failure of a fitness-for-duty test. The | |||
security staff was correctly reporting security events. A very good records and | |||
reports program was in place. | |||
i | |||
S2 Status of Security Facilities and Equipment | |||
S2.1 Testina and Maintenance (81700-02.07) | |||
a. insoection Scooe | |||
The inspe tor reviewed the testing program for the access control equipment, | |||
b. Observations and Findinas | |||
The inspector observed the licensee conducted testing of the explosive and metal | |||
detectors and the x-ray machines at the east and west protected area access ; | |||
facilities. A security person working at each facility tested the equipment. Both j | |||
personnel were knowledgeable of the testing procedures and both conducted the ; | |||
tests in a similar rnanner. All equipment tested satisfactorily. , | |||
i | |||
l | |||
_, _ _ _ . _ . . _ , _ _ _ . , , _ | |||
. - . - .,~.-..--- - - -.- -. .. --. .-.- . - . - . - - - . . ~ - - - | |||
- | |||
l . | |||
- | |||
l , | |||
, | |||
- | |||
, | |||
' | |||
1 | |||
t | |||
'I | |||
-6- , | |||
; | |||
' | |||
. | |||
I | |||
c .' Conclusions | |||
Security personnel had an excellent knowledge of testing procedures concerning the ; | |||
. | |||
access control equipment. All access control equipment functioned as required. ) | |||
: | |||
I | |||
' | |||
& | |||
S2.2 Detection Aids - Protected Area (81700-02.04) | |||
a. Inspection Scoce | |||
1 | |||
1 | |||
The inspector reviewed the protected area detection aid system. | |||
l | |||
b. Observations and Findinos l | |||
: | |||
The licensee was in the process of replacing the entire protected area detection aid l | |||
system. The detection systems' capabilities, zoning of the alarm systems, detection ! | |||
'' | |||
system security, and types of detection aids have been changed signific'antly. | |||
The inspector discussed with members of the security system engineering and ! | |||
' installation group the estimated completion time for the perimeter microwave l | |||
. system. The licensee expects to have the system tested and turned over to i | |||
security before the end of June 1997. The inspector observed portions of the ; | |||
installed system on May 7,1997. The detection systems appeared to be well f | |||
designed and should detect an intruder attempting to enter the protected area. | |||
c. Conclusions | |||
The licensee was making very good progress toward the completion of the | |||
installation of their new perimeter intrusion detection aids. | |||
S4 Security and Safeguards Staff Knowledge and Performance | |||
S4.1 Compensatorv Measures (81700-02.07) | |||
a. Inspection Scope *s | |||
. | |||
The inspector reviewed the licensee's compensatory rneasures program. The areas | |||
inspected included deployment of compensatory measures and the effectiveness of | |||
those measures. l | |||
l | |||
b. Observations and Findinas | |||
The inspector confirmed through a review of condition reports and security event | |||
logs.that the licensee deployed compensatory measures in a manner consistent with | |||
the requirements in the security plan. The inspector determined through interviews j | |||
of security personnel that the security personnel available for assignment to | |||
compensatory security posts were properly trained for those duties. The inspector | |||
! | |||
. | |||
. . ~ | |||
,,a . , -~,,.,e c -.m, - . . - , , - - | |||
_ . .. _ _ | |||
, | |||
l . | |||
, | |||
- | |||
i | |||
.* | |||
1 - | |||
! - | |||
1 | |||
i | |||
-7- | |||
l | |||
also observed security personnel posted on several compensatory posts around the | |||
perimeter of the protected area. Personnel appeared to be observant and those that | |||
the inspectors interviewed were knowledgeable of their duties and responsibilities, | |||
c. Conclusions | |||
The compensatory measures program was effectively implemented. The observed | |||
compensatory measures met the requirements in the security plan. Security | |||
personnel were well trained on the program requirements. | |||
S4.2 Access Control of Personnel and Vehicles (81700-02.05) | |||
a. Insoection Scone | |||
The access control program for personnel and vehicles was inspected. | |||
b. Observations and Findinas | |||
' | |||
Access control activities were observed at the both security building entrances and | |||
at the vehicle positive se feral times during the inspection. Tha licensee properly | |||
controlled personnel access to the protected area. The protected area access | |||
control equipment was inspected and found to be functionai and well maintained, | |||
c. Conclusions | |||
i | |||
A very good program for narching personnel and vehicles was maintained. l | |||
S5 Security and Safeguards StaH Training and Qualification | |||
SS.1 Personnel Trainina and Qualification (81700-02.08) | |||
a. ]_nspection | |||
n Scope | |||
The inspector reviewed the licensee's security training and qualification program. | |||
b. Observations and Findinas | |||
The security organization conducted all required training in accordance with its | |||
approved security, training, and contingency plans. The inspector confirmed, by a | |||
review n' .he composite security training records, that the required training was 1 | |||
conducted every 12 months. | |||
The inspector observed security officers during the performance of their duties. All | |||
security officers displayed excellent conduct and knowledge of the procedural l | |||
requirements. | |||
l | |||
l | |||
i | |||
l | |||
-. _ __. .- _ - . - _ _ _- .. .. | |||
. | |||
.. | |||
. | |||
. | |||
-8 | |||
* Medical Examinations | |||
Medical examination records for 10 armed security officers were reviewed. | |||
The medical records were complete and indicated that the required annual | |||
, | |||
medical examinations were thorough and conducted in a timely manner. The | |||
results of the medical examinations were properly documented. | |||
* Trainina Records | |||
Training records for 10 armed security officers were reviewed. The records | |||
were complete and all required training was current and conducted within | |||
every 12-month period. | |||
1 | |||
* Trainina Aids and Facilities | |||
The inspector verified that the security contractor was providing training | |||
videos covering numerous security subjects. The training facility was | |||
excellent it was located in a permanent type building adjacent to tha | |||
protected area and convenient for personnel to use. The licensee's rebuilt | |||
firing range was excellent. | |||
c. Conclusions | |||
An effective security training program had been implemented. Medical | |||
examinations for security officers were thorough and well documented. Facilities | |||
and firing range were excellent. | |||
~ | |||
S6 Security Organization and Administration | |||
a | |||
S6.1 Manaaement Suocort (81700-02.01) | |||
a. Inspection Scope | |||
The effectiveness and adequacy of management support was inspected to | |||
determine the degree of management support for the physical security program. | |||
- | |||
_. | |||
* | |||
I l | |||
; ; | |||
.- | |||
* | |||
l | |||
! . | |||
I | |||
.g. | |||
' | |||
b. Observations and Findinas | |||
l | |||
1 | |||
The inspector determined by discussions with security force personnel that the j | |||
security program received strong support from senior management. The inspector | |||
determined that the security program was imp lemented by a well trained and highly | |||
qualified security staff. All members of the security organization had a clear , | |||
understanding of their duties and responsibilities and the morale of the secunty ; | |||
officers was very good. j | |||
l | |||
c. Conclusions ; | |||
j | |||
Senior management support for the security organization was strong. The security ! | |||
program was implemented by a well trained and highly qualified staff. The morale | |||
of the security officers was very good. | |||
S8 Miscellaneous Security and Safeguards issues (92904) ; | |||
i | |||
l | |||
S8.1 (Closed) Unresolved item 498:499/9616-01: Failure to Verifv Criminal History of i | |||
Foreian Nationals | |||
During the access authorization inspection the inspectors identified two individuals | |||
who appeared not to have had their criminal histories checked in their countries of | |||
origin. Guidance received from the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Regulation was i | |||
that it was expected that licensees would conduct criminal history checks with | |||
foreign countries. During this inspection the inspector, with the licensee determined | |||
that one of the individuals, although born in Mexico was a United States citizen. 1 | |||
The second individual was a citizen of Mexico and was in the United States on a | |||
visa. During the background check the validity of the visa was not checked. | |||
Subsequent investigation by the licensee determined that the individual has been in | |||
the United States for 20 years and learned through the Department of Immigration | |||
and Naturalization Services that the visa was valid and current. The licensee had | |||
cumpleted all other background screening including a FBI criminal history check | |||
prior to granting unescorted access to the individual. This unresolved item is | |||
considered closed. | |||
V. Manaaement Meetinas | |||
X1 Exit Meeting Summary | |||
The inspector presented the inspection results to members of licensee management | |||
at the conclusion of the inspection on May 9,1997. The licensee acknowledged | |||
the findings presented. | |||
1 | |||
i | |||
~ . _ . _ . . . ._._._____m. _._,__.__.__ ._._ _ ___ _..____._._. | |||
< | |||
. | |||
' | |||
... ! | |||
!- l | |||
> | |||
l- . | |||
l' | |||
' | |||
l | |||
' | |||
ATTACHMENT | |||
t | |||
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION [ | |||
: | |||
i | |||
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED l | |||
' | |||
; | |||
i ! | |||
l I | |||
l Licensee | |||
W. Cottle, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Nuclear ; | |||
i J. Groth, Vice President, Nuclear Operation | |||
P. Arrington, Assistant Licensing Specialist | |||
l | |||
J. Drymiller, Supervisor, Security ! | |||
l M. Hall, Senior Operations Coordinator, Security j | |||
l S. Head, Licensing Supervisor | |||
J. Hinson, Manager, Employee Relations | |||
A. Keating, Electrical / Instrumentation and Controls Manager | |||
T. Koser, Licensing Engineer | |||
L. Martin, General Manager, Nuclear Assurance and Licensing ; | |||
M. McBurnett, Licensing Director | |||
' | |||
J. Northrop, Security System Engineer , | |||
R. Piggott, Senior Quality Assurance Specialist l | |||
A. Rodriguez, Senior Coordinator, Security l | |||
C. Sanders, Lead Training instructor : | |||
' | |||
D. Sheesley, Security Systems Supervisor | |||
J. Sheppard, Assistant to Executive Vice President l | |||
' | |||
M. Smith, Administrator, Plant Support Quality | |||
Fi Timmons, Manager Plant Protection Department | |||
P. Travis, System Engineer Supervisor | |||
INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED | |||
IP 81700 Physical Security Program for Power Reactors | |||
IP 92904 Followup - Plant Support | |||
LIST OF ITEMS OPENED AND CLOSED | |||
Ooen | |||
50-498;499/9715-01 NOV Failure to Properly Secure Vital Area Door | |||
50-498:499/9715-02 NOV Failure to inactivate Badge For Fitness-For-Duty Failure i | |||
Closed | |||
50-498:499/9616-01 URI Failure to Verify Criminal History of Foreign National | |||
! | |||
l | |||
l | |||
l | |||
l | |||
l | |||
- , . ._ _ ! | |||
~ . .. . | |||
. | |||
. . -. - .. . . | |||
, | |||
; | |||
. , | |||
. | |||
; - | |||
. | |||
- | |||
4 | |||
, | |||
-2- | |||
; i | |||
l | |||
l | |||
' | |||
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED | |||
South Texas Project Physical Security Plan, Revision 7A, January 14,1997 l | |||
l | |||
j Security event logs from October 1,1996, through April 30,1997 condition reports for the I | |||
i same period. | |||
* | |||
1 | |||
; | |||
South Texas Project Procedure OPGP09-ZA-0002, Fitness For Duty Prcgram, Revision 7, I | |||
dated October 24,1996 | |||
, | |||
South Texas Project Procedure OPGP03-ZX-0002, Condition Reporting Process, | |||
4 Revision 13, dated September 12,1996 | |||
! | |||
, | |||
Security Officer Training Records (composite listing) | |||
4 | |||
Background invest;gation (file) records for two individuals granted unescorted access | |||
authorization to the protected area | |||
' | |||
Medical Records for ten members of the security organization | |||
' | |||
31-Day Access Review Records for January and February 1997 3 | |||
) | |||
! | |||
i | |||
4 | |||
) | |||
i | |||
1 | |||
i | |||
; ; | |||
. | |||
5 | |||
. | |||
* | |||
- , | |||
1 | |||
J | |||
}} |
Latest revision as of 16:35, 18 December 2020
ML20140A904 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | South Texas |
Issue date: | 06/03/1997 |
From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
To: | |
Shared Package | |
ML20140A879 | List: |
References | |
50-498-97-15, 50-499-97-15, NUDOCS 9706050083 | |
Download: ML20140A904 (11) | |
See also: IR 05000498/1997015
Text
-. - .
-
. l
.- j
-
i
'
.
l
ENCLOSURE 2 !
1
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
REGION IV
Docket Nos.: 50-498
50-499
License Nos.: NPF-76
Report No.: 50-498/97-15
50-499/97-15
Licensee: Houston Lighting & Power Company
Facility: South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Units 1 and 2
Location: FM 521 - 8 miles west of Wadsworth
Wadsworth, Texas
Dates: May 5-9,1997
Inspector: Thomas W. Dexter, Senior Physical Security Specialist j
Plant Support Branch !
l
Approved: Blaine Murray, Chief, Plant Support Branch
Division of Reactor Safety
l
ATTACHMENT: Supplemental Information
l
1
i
i
1
i
j
!
9/06050083 970603
PDR ADOCK 05000498
G PDR .-.
-. - - - - . .- . . _-.
.
[
.
<
.
.
!
-2-
l EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
South Texas Project Electric Gererating Station, Units 1 and 2 ,
NRC Inspection Report 50-498/97-15;50-499/97-15
This routine, announced inspection focused upon specific areas of the licensee's physical
security program. These areas included review of records and reports, testing and
maintenance, detection aids - protected area, compensatory measures, access control of
personnel and packages, management support, and review of previous inspection findings.
Plant Sucoort
- Two violations were identified involving (1) the failure to secure a vital area door
and (2) failure to revoke a badge following the failure of a fitness-for-duty test. The
security staff was correctly reporting security events. A very good records and
reports program was in place (Section S1.1).
Security personnel had an excellent knowledge of testing procedures concerning the
access control equipment. All access control equipment functioned as required
(Section S2.1).
- Very good progress had been accomplished in completing the installation of their
new perimeter intrusion detection system (Section S2.2).
- The compensatory measure program was effectively implemented. Security
personnel were well trained on the prograrn requirements (Section S4.1).
- A very good prograrn for searching personnel and vehicles was maintained
(Section S4.2)
- An effective security training program had been implemented. Medical
examinations for security officers were thorough and well documented. Facilities
and firing range were excellent (Section 5.1).
- Senior managernent support for the security organization was strong. The security
program was implemented by a well trained and highly qualified staff. The morale
of the security officers was very good (Section 6.1).
. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , _ _ _ . _ _ _ .. _ _ _
.
- *
'
.* $
!. j
.- l
!
-3- i
i
i
Report Details
!
,
IV. Plant Support i
S1 Conduct of Security and Safeguards Activities l
t
Sl.1 Records and Reports (81700-02.01) .
I
a. Inspection Scope
i
The inspector reviewed safeguards event logs and security program condition i
reports to determine compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 73.21(b) and (c), ,
10 CFR 26.73, and the physical security plan, j
l
J
b. Observations and Findinas j
l
The inspector reviewed the security event logs and security program condition )
reports from October 1,1996, through April 30,1997. The records were available ]
for review and maintained for the time required by regulations. The i. spector :
determined that the licensee conformed to the regulatory requirements regarding the l
reporting of security events. The logs and condition reports were organizeri in j
numerical sequence and easy to audit. The following two events were specifically l
reviewed in detail, j
!
- Uncompensated Vital Area Door in Access Mode l
'
l
Licensee Condition Repo'rt 97-6585 identified that on April 2,1997, at
approximately 6:44 a.m. an alarm station operator d;scovered that a vital
area door had been left in the access mode (the lock alarm and the balance
magnetic switch alarm were taken out-of service) without being controlled
by the security system or by an armed security officer referencing an access
authorization list. The door alarm had been inactivated at 7:06 a.m. on
April 1,1997, so it could be blocked open for painting work in the vital area.
A compensatory officer was posted at the door. At 5:08 p.m. the workers
left the area. The compensatory officer secured the door and called the
central alarm station operator to reactivate the alarm on the door. The
officer claims he receised an acknowledgement from the station operator, .
carded out from the area and waited to ensure there were no alarms on the
door. When he did not hear a call for an alarm on the door he departed the
area. However, it appears that the alarm station operator did not place the
vital area door back in the alarm mode.
.- . . - -
-
.
.
..
, .
! .
l
-4-
l
The licensee's immediate compensatory actions were io search the vital area ;
for any fore;gn materials or objects and then test and secure the door alarm.
However, the licensee had not developed long-term corrective actions.
,
South Texas Project Physical Security Plan, Revision 7A, dated January 14,
1997, Chapter 4, paragraph 4.4, " Vital Area Access - Personnel," states, in
part, " Access to Vital Areas shall be controlled by the security system or by
an armed security officer referencing an access authorization list. Personnel ,
entry / exit is documented for all vital area access except the control room." +
The licensee's failure to control a vital area door in the access mode, between the i
afternoon of April 1,1997, and the morning of April 2,1997, is a violation of its I
security plan (50-498;-499/9715-01).
i
- Failure to inactivate Badae - Fitness-For-Duty Failure !
!
Licensee Condition Report 97-0165 identified that on February 5,1997, i
while a licensee fitness-for-duty department employee was imputing drug l
test results into a computer data when the individual noted that a contract ,
employee, who had failed a for-cause alcohol test on February 3,1997, had I
not had his badge revoked. The department employee completed a condition l
report and notified security to revoke the badge in the security computer. !
l
The licensee's investigation determined that the employee's supervisor had
maintained control of the empicyee's security badge and that the employee
had not entered the protected area. j
i
The licensee's corrective action involved the project engineering supervisor i
discussing the importance of the line of communication and the procedure
requirements for badge transactions. However, the inspector determined ,
that the following licensee's security plan and procedures were not l
'
implemented:
South Texas Project Physical Security Plan, Revision 7A, dated January 14,
1997, Chapter 4, paragraph 4.2, states, in part, "If a person is terminated ,
for-cause, that individual's access is revoked and his/her assigned badge is j
deactivated through the security computer system prior to or simultaneously i
with notification of termination." l
l
l
!
.
_. -. . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
\
- '
.
.. l
,
9 F
5-
!
l 1
i
South Texas Project Procedure OPGP09-ZA-0002, " Fitness For Duty
Program," Revision 7, dated October 24,1996, paragraph 6.11, " Confirmed
,
Positive Test Results," states, in part, "A ' Confirmed Positive' notification l
l letter (Form 2) is delivered to the department manager, or designee, notifying )
l them the individual is denied site access. The HL&P employee will be !
terminated . . . Notification of the above positive test results shall be made l
using the guidelines contained in OPGP03-ZX-0002, Condition Reporting i
Process."
l
'
South Texas Project Procedure OPGP03-ZX-0002, " Condition Reporting
Process," Revision 13, dated September 12,1996, paragraph 4.1,
" Condition identification," states, in part, "For conditions where security
concerns are obvious or perceived, contact Plant Protection immediately and
deliver the CR form to Plant Protection, or if database. entry was made,
promptly in form the Security Force Supervisor of the Condition Report
number."
The failure to initiate a proper condition report and a Form 2 is a violation of the
security plan and implementing procedures (50-498;-499/9715-02).
c. Conclusions
Two violations were identified concerning (1) the failure to secure a vital area door
and (2) failure to revoke a badge following the failure of a fitness-for-duty test. The
security staff was correctly reporting security events. A very good records and
reports program was in place.
i
S2 Status of Security Facilities and Equipment
S2.1 Testina and Maintenance (81700-02.07)
a. insoection Scooe
The inspe tor reviewed the testing program for the access control equipment,
b. Observations and Findinas
The inspector observed the licensee conducted testing of the explosive and metal
detectors and the x-ray machines at the east and west protected area access ;
facilities. A security person working at each facility tested the equipment. Both j
personnel were knowledgeable of the testing procedures and both conducted the ;
tests in a similar rnanner. All equipment tested satisfactorily. ,
i
l
_, _ _ _ . _ . . _ , _ _ _ . , , _
. - . - .,~.-..--- - - -.- -. .. --. .-.- . - . - . - - - . . ~ - - -
-
l .
-
l ,
,
-
,
'
1
t
'I
-6- ,
'
.
I
c .' Conclusions
Security personnel had an excellent knowledge of testing procedures concerning the ;
.
access control equipment. All access control equipment functioned as required. )
I
'
&
S2.2 Detection Aids - Protected Area (81700-02.04)
a. Inspection Scoce
1
1
The inspector reviewed the protected area detection aid system.
l
b. Observations and Findinos l
The licensee was in the process of replacing the entire protected area detection aid l
system. The detection systems' capabilities, zoning of the alarm systems, detection !
system security, and types of detection aids have been changed signific'antly.
The inspector discussed with members of the security system engineering and !
' installation group the estimated completion time for the perimeter microwave l
. system. The licensee expects to have the system tested and turned over to i
security before the end of June 1997. The inspector observed portions of the ;
installed system on May 7,1997. The detection systems appeared to be well f
designed and should detect an intruder attempting to enter the protected area.
c. Conclusions
The licensee was making very good progress toward the completion of the
installation of their new perimeter intrusion detection aids.
S4 Security and Safeguards Staff Knowledge and Performance
S4.1 Compensatorv Measures (81700-02.07)
a. Inspection Scope *s
.
The inspector reviewed the licensee's compensatory rneasures program. The areas
inspected included deployment of compensatory measures and the effectiveness of
those measures. l
l
b. Observations and Findinas
The inspector confirmed through a review of condition reports and security event
logs.that the licensee deployed compensatory measures in a manner consistent with
the requirements in the security plan. The inspector determined through interviews j
of security personnel that the security personnel available for assignment to
compensatory security posts were properly trained for those duties. The inspector
!
.
. . ~
,,a . , -~,,.,e c -.m, - . . - , , - -
_ . .. _ _
,
l .
,
-
i
.*
1 -
! -
1
i
-7-
l
also observed security personnel posted on several compensatory posts around the
perimeter of the protected area. Personnel appeared to be observant and those that
the inspectors interviewed were knowledgeable of their duties and responsibilities,
c. Conclusions
The compensatory measures program was effectively implemented. The observed
compensatory measures met the requirements in the security plan. Security
personnel were well trained on the program requirements.
S4.2 Access Control of Personnel and Vehicles (81700-02.05)
a. Insoection Scone
The access control program for personnel and vehicles was inspected.
b. Observations and Findinas
'
Access control activities were observed at the both security building entrances and
at the vehicle positive se feral times during the inspection. Tha licensee properly
controlled personnel access to the protected area. The protected area access
control equipment was inspected and found to be functionai and well maintained,
c. Conclusions
i
A very good program for narching personnel and vehicles was maintained. l
S5 Security and Safeguards StaH Training and Qualification
SS.1 Personnel Trainina and Qualification (81700-02.08)
a. ]_nspection
n Scope
The inspector reviewed the licensee's security training and qualification program.
b. Observations and Findinas
The security organization conducted all required training in accordance with its
approved security, training, and contingency plans. The inspector confirmed, by a
review n' .he composite security training records, that the required training was 1
conducted every 12 months.
The inspector observed security officers during the performance of their duties. All
security officers displayed excellent conduct and knowledge of the procedural l
requirements.
l
l
i
l
-. _ __. .- _ - . - _ _ _- .. ..
.
..
.
.
-8
- Medical Examinations
Medical examination records for 10 armed security officers were reviewed.
The medical records were complete and indicated that the required annual
,
medical examinations were thorough and conducted in a timely manner. The
results of the medical examinations were properly documented.
- Trainina Records
Training records for 10 armed security officers were reviewed. The records
were complete and all required training was current and conducted within
every 12-month period.
1
- Trainina Aids and Facilities
The inspector verified that the security contractor was providing training
videos covering numerous security subjects. The training facility was
excellent it was located in a permanent type building adjacent to tha
protected area and convenient for personnel to use. The licensee's rebuilt
firing range was excellent.
c. Conclusions
An effective security training program had been implemented. Medical
examinations for security officers were thorough and well documented. Facilities
and firing range were excellent.
~
S6 Security Organization and Administration
a
S6.1 Manaaement Suocort (81700-02.01)
a. Inspection Scope
The effectiveness and adequacy of management support was inspected to
determine the degree of management support for the physical security program.
-
_.
I l
- ;
.-
l
! .
I
.g.
'
b. Observations and Findinas
l
1
The inspector determined by discussions with security force personnel that the j
security program received strong support from senior management. The inspector
determined that the security program was imp lemented by a well trained and highly
qualified security staff. All members of the security organization had a clear ,
understanding of their duties and responsibilities and the morale of the secunty ;
officers was very good. j
l
c. Conclusions ;
j
Senior management support for the security organization was strong. The security !
program was implemented by a well trained and highly qualified staff. The morale
of the security officers was very good.
S8 Miscellaneous Security and Safeguards issues (92904) ;
i
l
S8.1 (Closed) Unresolved item 498:499/9616-01: Failure to Verifv Criminal History of i
Foreian Nationals
During the access authorization inspection the inspectors identified two individuals
who appeared not to have had their criminal histories checked in their countries of
origin. Guidance received from the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Regulation was i
that it was expected that licensees would conduct criminal history checks with
foreign countries. During this inspection the inspector, with the licensee determined
that one of the individuals, although born in Mexico was a United States citizen. 1
The second individual was a citizen of Mexico and was in the United States on a
visa. During the background check the validity of the visa was not checked.
Subsequent investigation by the licensee determined that the individual has been in
the United States for 20 years and learned through the Department of Immigration
and Naturalization Services that the visa was valid and current. The licensee had
cumpleted all other background screening including a FBI criminal history check
prior to granting unescorted access to the individual. This unresolved item is
considered closed.
V. Manaaement Meetinas
X1 Exit Meeting Summary
The inspector presented the inspection results to members of licensee management
at the conclusion of the inspection on May 9,1997. The licensee acknowledged
the findings presented.
1
i
~ . _ . _ . . . ._._._____m. _._,__.__.__ ._._ _ ___ _..____._._.
<
.
'
... !
!- l
>
l- .
l'
'
l
'
ATTACHMENT
t
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION [
i
PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED l
'
i !
l I
l Licensee
W. Cottle, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Nuclear ;
i J. Groth, Vice President, Nuclear Operation
P. Arrington, Assistant Licensing Specialist
l
J. Drymiller, Supervisor, Security !
l M. Hall, Senior Operations Coordinator, Security j
l S. Head, Licensing Supervisor
J. Hinson, Manager, Employee Relations
A. Keating, Electrical / Instrumentation and Controls Manager
T. Koser, Licensing Engineer
L. Martin, General Manager, Nuclear Assurance and Licensing ;
M. McBurnett, Licensing Director
'
J. Northrop, Security System Engineer ,
R. Piggott, Senior Quality Assurance Specialist l
A. Rodriguez, Senior Coordinator, Security l
C. Sanders, Lead Training instructor :
'
D. Sheesley, Security Systems Supervisor
J. Sheppard, Assistant to Executive Vice President l
'
M. Smith, Administrator, Plant Support Quality
Fi Timmons, Manager Plant Protection Department
P. Travis, System Engineer Supervisor
INSPECTION PROCEDURES USED
IP 81700 Physical Security Program for Power Reactors
IP 92904 Followup - Plant Support
LIST OF ITEMS OPENED AND CLOSED
Ooen
50-498;499/9715-01 NOV Failure to Properly Secure Vital Area Door
50-498:499/9715-02 NOV Failure to inactivate Badge For Fitness-For-Duty Failure i
Closed
50-498:499/9616-01 URI Failure to Verify Criminal History of Foreign National
!
l
l
l
l
l
- , . ._ _ !
~ . .. .
.
. . -. - .. . .
,
. ,
.
- -
.
-
4
,
-2-
- i
l
l
'
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
South Texas Project Physical Security Plan, Revision 7A, January 14,1997 l
l
j Security event logs from October 1,1996, through April 30,1997 condition reports for the I
i same period.
1
South Texas Project Procedure OPGP09-ZA-0002, Fitness For Duty Prcgram, Revision 7, I
dated October 24,1996
,
South Texas Project Procedure OPGP03-ZX-0002, Condition Reporting Process,
4 Revision 13, dated September 12,1996
!
,
Security Officer Training Records (composite listing)
4
Background invest;gation (file) records for two individuals granted unescorted access
authorization to the protected area
'
Medical Records for ten members of the security organization
'
31-Day Access Review Records for January and February 1997 3
)
!
i
4
)
i
1
i
- ;
.
5
.
- ,
1
J