IR 05000309/1992022

From kanterella
Revision as of 16:33, 11 July 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Insp Rept 50-309/92-22 on 921130-1203.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Mgt Support,Protected Area Physical Barriers & Assessment Aids,Protected & Vital Area Access Control of Personnel,Packages & Vehicles
ML20126H326
Person / Time
Site: Maine Yankee
Issue date: 12/21/1992
From: Albert R, Keimig R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20126H311 List:
References
50-309-92-22, NUDOCS 9301050143
Download: ML20126H326 (6)


Text

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - _ ___ _ _ -_______ ________-__ _ _ _ _ __-____ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 1

,

Report N /92-22 Docket N License No. DPR-36 Licensec: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Facility Name: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station Inspection At: Wiseasset. Ma}RE Inspection Conducted: November 30 - December 3.1992

,

Ins lwctor: Mah . l .

/2' 2/* f 2 R. J. Albert, 'hysical Security inspector Date Safeguards So[; tion *

Approved by: a r* #N 'N

/R R. KeimiDChief' t Date Safeguards Section Facilities Radiological Safety and Safeguards llranch Areas Insnected: Management Support and Audits; Protected Area Phy.sical llarriers and Assessment Aids; Protected and Vital Area Access Control o'! Personnel, Packages and Vehicles; '

Alarm Stations and Communications; Maintenance; and Triinin Ilentitn Continued good management suplurt for the physical security program was evident.-

The licensee was in compliance with NRC requirements in the areas inspecte .

L 930105014*3 921221

- gDR ADOCK 05000309 PDR^

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

.

,

.

DETAllli '

, Kev PersortttcLCattiaticil Licenice 11. lllackmore, Plant Manager R. Haywood, Quality Assurance Supervisor P. Metivier, Security Director W. Smith, II, Security Programs Coordinator H. Torberg, Security Supervisor, Operations J. Weast, L,icensing Engineer G. Whittier, Vice President, Licensing and Engineering Otttlnttler C. Urguhart, Chief of Security, American Protective Services (APS)

'

R. White, Deputy Chief of Security, APS .Un Nuclear Regulatory ConunlSSinu

.

A. MacDougall, Reactor Engineer ,

C. Marschall, Senior Resident Inspector The inspector also interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel during the inspectio .0 Manacement Support and Audlls Mitnagcjnent Suquart Management support for the licensee's physical security program was determined to be good by the inspector. This determination was based upon the inspector's review of various aspects of the licensee's program during this inspection, as documented in this repor .2 Audits The inspector reviewed the annual security program audit report no. MY-92-04 and verified that the audit had been conducted in accordance with the NRC-approved Physical Security Plan (the Plan). The inspector's review found that the-audit was comprehensive in: scope and did not identify any programmatic weaknesses. The results of the audit were reported to the appropriate levels of management. A Corrective Action Request (CAR) was written for one audit -

finding. The inspector determined, by a review of the CAR and the lleensec's

__ ___ _____________ _ ___ ____ _ _ _ ___

.

.

3 ,

responses to audit observations and recommendations, that adequate corrective actions were taken. No deficiencies were identine .0 Protected Area (PA) Phnin1Llhttriers niid AssessmertLAlds

. PA Ilarrien The inspector conducted a physical inspectior, of the PA barrier on December 1,1992, and determined by observation that the barrier was installed and maintained as described in the Pla .2 hnhtlJmLZMitS The inspector verified that the isolation zones were adequately maintained to permit observation of activities on both sides of the PA barrie .3 AmrutttenLAhls

'

The inspector observed the PA perimeter assessment aids and determined that they were installed and operated as committed to in the Pla .4 1%_and Isojation Zone Licidhlg  ;

The inspector conducted a lighting survey of the PA and isolation zones on

'

December 1,1992. The inspector determined by observation that lighting in the PA and isolation zones was adequat There were no deficiencies identined in these area .0 PA and Vital Area (VA) Access Catiltpl of Personnel. Packaces and Vehicks PersomitLAteess control The inspector determined that the licensee was exercising positive control over personnel access to the PA and VAs. This determination was based on the following:

4.1.0 The inspector verined that personnel were properly identined. and ,

authorization was checked prior to issuance of badges and key card . _ _ _ _ - . _ - _ - _ - _ -

.

.

4.1.2 The inspector verified that the licensee has a search program, as committed to in the Plan, for firearms, explosives, incendiary devices and other unauthorized materials. The inspector observed personnel access processing during shift changes, visitor access processing, and interviewed members of the security force and licensee's security staff about personnel access procedure .1.3 The inspector reviewed the security lock and key procedures _ and determined that they were consistent with com,nitments in the Plan. The-inspectors also reviewed the protected and vital area key inventory logs, and discussed lock and key procedures with members of the security force and the licensee's security staf .1.4 The inspector determined, by observation, that individuals in the PA and VAs display their access badges as require .1.5 The inspector verified that the licensee has escort procedures for visitors in the PA and VA .1.6 During this inspection, the inspector reviewed a licensee identified access authorization event that had been reported to the NRC by telephone within I hour, followed by written Securhy . Event Report (SER) 92 S01-01, dated November 30,1992, and Revision 1, dated December 4,1992. On November 3,1992, the licensee found six fingerprint cards that had fallen between a desk and wall, apparently in May 1990. The cards had not been processed in accordance with 10 CFR 73.57. Four of the cards had never been r.ubmitted to the NRC for processing. The other two cards had been submitted but were returned to the licensee because they were illegible. They were not resubmitted as require Upon finding the six cards, the licensee implemented prompt corrective measures and initiated an investigation. The investigation determined that, in addition to the six cards discussed above,28 other fingerprint cards had not been submitted or resubmitted to the NR Thirteen of the 34 individuals in question had unescorted access to the station. The licensee continued their unescorted access based on their trustworthiness 'and reliability after reviewing. their work histor Fingerprint cards for all 34 individuals have since been submitted to the NRC for processin This item is considered unresolved (URI 50-309/92-22-01) pending further review during a subsequent inspectio I

.

.

S hteknne atid Material Access Control The inspector determined that the licensee was exercising positive control over packages and materials that are brought into the PA at the main access control portal. The inspector reviewed the package and material control procedures and found that they were consistent with commitments in the Plan. The inspector also observed package and material processing and interviewed security officers and the licensce's security staff about package and material control procedure .3 Vehicle Access Conit0]

The inspector determined that the licensee properly controls access to and within the PA. The inspector verined that vehicles are properly processed prior to entering the PA. The process was consistent with commitments in the Plan. The inspector also reviewed the vehicle search procedures and determined they were consistent with commitments in the Plan. This determination was made by observing vehicle processing and search, inspection of vehicle logs, and by interviewing security officers and licensee's security staff about vehicle processing and scarch procedure Other than as discussed in Section 4.1.6, there were no deficiencies identified in these area .0 Alarm Stntions nnd Comnlunlentlotis The inspector observed the operations of the Central Alarm Station (CAS) and the Secondary Alarm Station (SAS) and determined that they were maintained and operated as committed to in the Plan. CAS and SAS operators were interviewed by the inspector and found to be knowledgeable of their duties and responsibilities. The inspector verined that the' CAS does not contain any operational activities that would interfere with assessment and response functions. No denciencies were identifie .0 Maintennnee The inspector reviewed maintenance re:ords and conGrmed that life records committed to in the Plan were on Glc and readily available for NRC ud licensee review, A check _-

of repair records indicated that maintenance is accomplished in a timely manner. No deficiencies were identined, j

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

!

'

i

'

e

.

6 7.0 Irdtilng The inspector observed security personnel conduct tactical enhancement training at the firing range. The training, which now consists of firing from all tactical positions, permanent and transitional, showed g(xx! licensee initiative, llased on the positive '

comments expressed by security force members to the inspector, the training appeared to be beneficial to tactical performance. The inspector also observed several security

'

contingency drills that were conducted at the station during the course of this inspectio The licensee provided the inspector with documentation on contingency drills that had been conducted since the June 1992 Operations Safeguards Response Evaluation (OSRl!).

An aggressive drilling schedule was apparent, even though the licensee demonstrated good performance during the OSRE. There were no denciencies identiDed in this are .0 Exit Interview The inspector met with the licensee representatives indicated in paragraph 1.0 at the conclusion of the inspection on December 3,1992. At that time, the purpose and scope of the inspection were reviewed and the findings were presented.