IR 05000219/1987040

Physical Security Insp Rept 50-219/87-40 on 871106.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Three Allegations Re Deficiencies in Security Program.Allegations Were Not Substantiated

ML20196A203
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	01/21/1988
From:	Keimig R, Martin W, Galen Smith NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20196A188	List: IR 05000219/1987040 ML20196A186
References
50-219-87-40, NUDOCS 8802040303
Download: ML20196A203 (4)

Text

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

..

,

.

U.S. NilCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No. 50-219/87-40 Docket N License N DPR-16 Licensee: GPU Nuclear Corporation 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippanny, New Jersey 07054 Facility Name: Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Inspection At: Forked River, New Jersey Inspection Conducted: November 6, 1987 TypeofInspeb tio  : ipecial Unannounced Physical Security Inspectors: /(

' (/

C. Smith, Safeguards Specialist

/ - Al-f k date h - l~~U* fl W. G! Mhrtin, Physical Security Inspector date Approved by: _/ e: / / A/ M g. R. Keimig, ThTef,fpTeguards Section, date Division of Radiatider Safety and Safeguards Inspection Summary: Special Unannounced Physical Security Inspection on November 6,1987 (Report No. 50-219/87-40)

Areas Inspected: Three allegations relative to deficiene;ies in the security progra Results: None of the three allegations were substantiate PDR O ADOCK 05000219 PDR

........ . . . . . __ _ _

..

.

Report Details 1. Key Persons Contacted P. Fiedler, Vice President and Director, Oyster Creek J. Kowalski, Licensing Manager M. Douches, Quality Assurance Engineer M. Heller, Licensing Engineer R. Pezella, Security Sargent R. Ewart, Security Lieutenant The inspectors also interviewed other licensee security personnel, l

2. Follow-up on Allegations On October 27, 1987 the NRC Region I office received an anonymous letter alleging three deficiencies in the implementation of the physical security program at Oyster Creek. The three allegations were reviewed during this inspection based upon the information provided by the allege The allegations and the inspectors' findings are presented below.

l Allegation l

! Positive access control to a specific vital area was inadequate

! during the last major outage due to the configuration of the

! approach to the porta Finding

,

The inspectors reviewed the licensee's NRC-approved Physical

'

Security Plan (the Plan), the area in question, drawings of the approach to the portal, shift reports for the period, security information reports that are generated by members of the security organization to identify deficiencies and concerns, and security incident reports that are used to formally document identified problems. The results of that review disclosed that the configuration of the access control portal was such that two members of the security organization were necessary to positively control access during peak traffic periods. The shift reports indicated that two members of the security organization were posted when necessary. During the eight month outage period, security incident reports disclosed only two minor access control problems at the vital area portal in questio Neither problem appeared to be indicative of a programmatic problem and neither problem resulted in an unauthorized individeal gaining access to the vital arer. One security information repcrt identified a potential concern over the access control at that vital area. The report indicated that two members of the licensee's security management organization reviewed the concern and determined that no l problem existed. The report also indicated that security management l offered to provide assistance at the post, if the situation warranted, in the future. No further indications of a concern at that post were eviden _ _

O

- 3 i

i i

Bases upon the inspectors' review of records and physical observations of the area, the allegation could .not be substantiated. l b. Allegation:

One of the intrusion detection systems on the protected area perimeter was upgraded and the alarm station operators were not provided training on the modified syste Finding The inspectors reviewed the Plan and interviewed members of the security organization, who perform alarm station duties, and members of the telecommunications department, who upgraded the perimeter intrusion detection syste The review and interviews disclosed that the upgrade of the system consisted of installation of a new status board in the existing system. The new status board was installed because the existing board was obsolete and parts were no longer available. The new status board was moved from the Secondary Alarm Station (SAS) to the Central Alarm Station (CAS), but operation of the system remained the same. Because there were no changes in the operation of the system and CAS and SAS operators are trained to operate both alarm stations, training of the operators on the upgrade was not deemed necessary by the licensee. Further, the system that was upgraded was a back-up to the primary intrusion detection system and is only used as a short term compensatory measure when the primary system is inoperative. However, the inspectors identified one potential problem with the system in that an alarm station operator in one station could turn off the system without the knowledge of the other alarm station operator. This weakness was not a result of the system upgrade and apparently had always existe When the weakness was identified by the inspectors, the licensee committed to take no credit for the system, even as a short term compensatory measure, as permitted by the plan, until the weakness was corrected. The alarm station operators were apparently not trained on the updated system because there was no change in system operation that would have necessitated the trainin Based on this review, and interviews with the alarm station operators, the allegation could not be substantiate c. Allegation The security force is undermanne .__ _ _ _ - _

.

.

-

Findings The inspectors reviewed the Security rosters and shift reports for an approximate eight month period prior to receipt of the allegation and determined that all posts to which the licensee had committed to in the NRC-approved security plan had been manne Additionally, through a review of overtime records for the same period, the inspectors determined that the licensee was following the guidelines contained in NRC Information Notice 86-88 for security force overtime. No member of the security force had exceeded the number of work hours recommended in the guideline Therefore, there was no apparent indication that the security force was undermanned. The inspectors also subjectively assessed the security force workload, including contingencies, and the security force complement and found them to be compatibl Based upon this review, and interviews with randomly selected members of'the security force, the allegation could not be substantiate . Exit Interview The inspectors met with the licensee representatives listed in paragraph 1 at the conclusion of the inspection on November 6, 1987. At that time, the purpose and scope of the inspection were reviewed and the findings were presente At no time during this . inspection was written material provided to the licensee by the inspectors.

!