IR 05000321/1978030

Insp Repts 50-321/78-30 & 50-366/78-38 on 780827-29. Noncompliance Noted:Physical Barriers & Security Organization

ML20147D835
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	10/03/1978
From:	Fuchko J, Gillespie F, Mcguire D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20147D786	List: ML20147D780 ML20147D813 ML20147D835
References
50-321-78-30, 50-321-78-38, NUDOCS 7810160040
Download: ML20147D835 (6)

Text

, .. . .. . - ...~

- :2 .ih m I' ' "'

'

-

l'

.

r. 7*'

• • ,',,a e er *, *

'

" '

~

• ~*

h ' e. * Unite' D 'STITtS' .

[pH AIGgIo, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[ REGION H

$.

3 ,. ,

• • '-

{k 101 MAFitETT A sTRE E T, * ~/~ 2 ATLANTA GEORGIA 30303 -!

.

o 8

!

% .% ....

/ s

.

.

Report No /78-30.and 50-366/78-38

_

Docket No and 50-366 Licensee Nos.: DPR-57 and NPF-5 Category: C ,

.

Licensee: Gecrgia Power Company 270 Peachtree Street, N I

.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Facility Name: Hatch I and 2 Inspection at: Plant Hatch site, Appling County, Georgia .

Inspection conducted: August 27-29, 1978 Inspectors: J. M. Fuchko D. R. Mc Guire

.

Reviewed by: -

.

F. P. Gli!.espie, Chief Date Security and Investigation Section Safeguards Branch  ;

i Inspection Summary

.

Inspection on August 27-29, 1978 (Report Nos. 50-321/7S-30 and 50-3en.78-38)

Areas Inspected: An unannounced security inspection of Hatch I and 2, to follow-up items identified during previous inspections. The inspection involved 32 inspector-hours on site by two NRC ins'ectors, p The inspection was initiated during an off-shift perio Results: Of the areas inspected, two items of noncompliance were identifie Deficiency-physical barriers (50-321/78-30-01, 50-366/78-38-01); deficiency-security organization (50-321/78-30-02, 50-366/78-38-02).

S-T2 95' ~l[' -

cory ~ ' ri ' ' ' :' .

.

.. ..

-

A

r. *

r ., ..e '

45kIboc@ m . . ,. - - .

- . , . . . . _ . .

'

.

. : . . ..- , e ,,,

. _ , . . _ ~ . . _ . , - , . . . , _ _ . . . . . . , , , . _ . . . . , . - - . . . . . . - , ...._.~.__..,s . , . ~ . - _ . - ,

EXEMPT MJrl G - ..

"

to cr3 2.79011JUM at RII Rpt. Nos. 50-321/78-30 and 50-366/78-38 -1-

-

.

DETAILS Prepared by:

J. M. Fuch<o, Security Inspector Date Security aid Investigation Section

- Safeguards Branch Dates of Inspection: nugust 27-29, 1978

'

Reviewed by: ,

F. P. Gillespie, Chief Date Security and Investigation Section Safeguards Branch Persons Contacted

• M. Manry, Plant Manager

• H. Nix, Assistant Plant Manager

• C. R. Miles, J QA Field Supervisor

• E. Spell, Jr., Sr. QAFR

• J. Peregoy, Jr. QAFR

• J. M. Watson, Sr. QAFR

• D. J. Vaughn, Assistant Plant Security Supervisor

• T. C. Wilkes, Plant Security Supervisor 2C. E. Belflower, QA Site Supervisor Several members of the plant security force were also contacte * Denotes those present at the exit in c.e rvi ew . Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Infraction (78-10-01): Failare to indicate expi rat :ca date on nonemployee picture badge '?he inspectors observeJ that nonemployee picture badges now have expiration date (Closed) In f raction (78-10-02): Failure to conduct a vital area key inventor The licensee has conducted and documented a ke'. i nven t a ry which was completed April 17, 197 (Closed) Infraction (78-20-01): Failure to maintain an s' perimeter barrie The inspectors determined that the perimeter barrier is nm at least 8' h2g (Closed) Infraction (78-20-02): Failure to maintain isolation re The licensee now maintains an isolation zone .i n d has deve!cre! a

! prm edure for compensat,.iry actions ( l.oca l Urde r 1-111 in the event that -

t he e l e.t r Zolle i 3 Hol m.41 fit .s liled .

i

,

'h l 'W

'U ' "

I 10 C F R 2.7 90 C L

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

- . . .. ~

. . . ,.

o ,.

s

.r

~

'

J EE." c7 rm;; c;,

. , ID CT3 2.790 !!JFDH d.. . ., p 1 i RII Rpt. Noc. 50-32!/78-30 d and 50-366/73-38 -2- l

.

.

P

.

(Closed) Infrietion (78-20-03): Failure to maintain operational . 's ,

perimeter lighting. On August 27, 1978, the inspectors obsersed that  ! ,

all the perimeter lighting was operationa . !

(Closed) Unresolved (78-20-04): Guard qualification A= random review of recor.js. revealed that the guards were qualified in accordance with licensee cJmmitment i

! >

(Closed) Infrastion (78-20-05): Failure to establish security  !

procedures. A frandom review of procedures revealed that procedures have been estab?ished for those referenced in Report Nos. 50-321/78-20 and 50-366/ 78-25;.

i (Closed) Unresolved (78-20-06): Failure to maintain Vital ' Area Lo Licensee complys with current security pla ,

(Closed) Inf ract ion (78-20-07): Failure to- positively control designated vehiile The inspectors observed security patrols.

.

checking designated vehicles during their rounds. During the course of i the inspection, no unattended designated vehicles were observed to be unlocked (unsecured) or with the keys in the ' ignitio y J

u (Closed) ' Infraction (78-20-08): Failure to search hand-carried I

<

package Hand-carried ' packages were searched on . all entry searches observed by the inspector ,

(Closed) Inf raction '(78-20-09): Failure to ' issue or maintain badges that~ only allowed access to vital areas when ' a need for entry was established. Such a badge system is now establishe (Closed) Infraction (78-20-10): Failure to train individuals controlling access to vital areas. The inspectors observed that access 'l to any open vital area is now being maintained by a guar (Closed) Infraction (78-20-11): Failure to follow escorting requirement The i t, spe ct o rs observed during the course of the inspection that escorting requirements were being followe (Closed) Infraction (78-20-12): Failure to secure unattended vital l ares doors. The inspectors observed that unattended vital area doors I were secure (Closed) Infraction (78-20-13): Failure to maintain an access cont rol roste The licensee now maintains an upta t ed roster, which is reprinted on a weekly basi i l

'

EXEMJ ~ F F" If 2 C'..J

10 CF R 2.W'. N Cm L .,

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

.

-

EXEMPT FRGM DC .o. ..ca 10 CFR 2.7g ifd .

RII Rpt. Nos. 50-321/78-30 and 50-366/78-38 -3-

'

(Closed) Infraction (78-20-14): Failure to maintain continuous l communication. All security individuals observed by the inspectors were capable of maa ntaining continuous ccmmunicatio . Physical Barriers Chapter VI, F of t.he licensee's approved Security Plan requires the area on both sides of the protected area fence to be kept clear of any obstructions for at least 10 feet inside and outside the protected area fence. Paragraph 73.55(g)(1) of 10 CFR Part 73 requires, in part, that the licensee employ compensatory measures to assure that the effectiveness of the security system is not reduced by f ailure or other contingencies affecting the. operation of the security related equipment or structure During the course of the inspection it was observed by the inspectors that the area around the protected area fence was not always being maintained clear cf obstructions for at least 10 feet and compensatory measures were not always being implemented. This is a deficiency (321/78-30-01, 366/ 78-38-01) .

On August 28, 1978, the inspectors, accompttied by licensee representatives, conducted a walking check of the protected area barrier and isolation zon At approximately 11:40 a.m., it was observed that a guard stationed on the eastern protected area perimeter as a compensatory measure, due to dirt piles, trenches and equipment in the isolation zone, lef t the assigned post and went to a truck located behind a metal building. This new location blocked observation of most of the affected zone. After a short period the guard returned to the assigned pos Continuing. the inspection, the inspectors then observed at approximately 11:45 a.m., that a truck was parked outside the protected area in the isolation zone next to the southern protected area barrie Maintenance was being performed on the barriers top guard. The inspectors questioned as to who was conducting compensatory action. A licensee management representative went to the construction access point guard house and asked the guards there, "who is per-forming compensatory action?" He was told that they checked outs tde on occasio A guard was then stationed in the af fected are . Security Organization Paragraph 73.55(b)(3) of 10 CFR Part 73 requires that the 1teensee establish, maintain and follow written security procedures which document the structure of the security organization and which detatl the duties of guards, watchmen and other individuals responsible for EW'PI T~C M W-0CFR .~5 IM LfA' A

, --. , _ __ _ _

- - - . ..- - . - ~

&

, t

.. '

wPT f got4 0150' . . M-r -

~ '

'

,

10 CFR 2.79a INEDM, , ]

P RII Rpt. Nos. 50-321/78-30' '

" -4-and 50-366/78-38- ,

i

'

security. - Du' ring the course .of the inspection, on August 27 and 28, 1978, the inspectors conducted a random review of licensee security procedures, which revealed that procedures dealing with designated l

_

vehicle . control, guard training, compensatory measures , and testing [

and maintenance of security equipment, were not being maintained. This is a deficiency (321/78-30-02, 366/78-38-02), Designated 'icles A review of procedures for designated vehicles indicated that- ,

there were two areas that were not covered. There was no-provision for who had the - authority to designate vehicles' and initiate changes. :The second problem was that there was no'

procedure set, detailing the duties of the patrol guard to' check designated vehicles within the protected area to insure they ar properly secure This. checking was committed to- in the GEC response to. inspection reports 50-321/78-20 and 50-366/78-2 > Guard Training A review of guard training . procedures revealed that though +

records are maintained, they were being maintained on the wrong i form j Compensatory Measures The procedure was not' cicar, as to stating. that a member of the ,

security organization would be stationed in the af fected zon Testing and Maintenance A review of procedures for actions to take in.the event of various the ala*.m annunciator, revealed that va rious

-

failures of component failures were not addressed. The procedure for test.ing the hand-held metal Jetector, was not the testing procedure being )

'

utilized in the actual testin The rewording of identified security procedures were discussed with licensee management representatives, and corrective action was initiated during the inspectio . Exit Meeting An exit meet tng was conducted with those indicated in paragraph 1. Two items of noncompliance were discussed at that time. The plant manager

.

EXEMDI r%. Dis:LC., c vr 10 CFR 2.790 Ivam . 1 I

i

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

,

• '

• ' -

Ev.D4PT FRGli .ifa ~~

,

iG Lr;i 2.790 1:.. :. . . RII Rpt. Nos. 50-321/78-30 and 50-366/78-38 -5-

-

'

indicated some concern over what was the dividing line over what constituted an acceptable procedur The inspectors indicated that these concerns would be brought to the attention of management in the Regio l

,

l l

l l

EXEt4PT F RC: Chi 1-10 CFR 2.790 INFORn.u. _ _ -. - - _