ML20211C795

Ro:On 970916,reactor Staff Discovered That Intrusion Alarm Sys Was Not Tested for Operability During First Calendar Wk of Sept.Caused by Other Members Being on Leave or Alternate Duty.All Sys Tests Were Properly Documented

ML20211C795
Person / Time
Site:	U.S. Geological Survey
Issue date:	09/18/1997
From:	Fouch T INTERIOR, DEPT. OF, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NUDOCS 9709260308
Download: ML20211C795 (1)

Text

- - _ - - - - - _

.s l

+c

/g, j g United States Department of the Interior GEOL.OGICAL SURVEY llO X 25016 M .S._9_I I DENVER FEDERAL CENTER

^"

n ne m mena n, 9/18/97 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Warhington DC 20555 REF: License R-113, Docket No. 50-274

Dear Sir:

On September 16, 1997 the reactor staff discovered that contrary to our Physical Security Plan, paragraph 6.1.4.1.A, Tests, the intrusion alarm system was not tested for operability during the first calendar week of September.

The intrusion alariu is normally tested on Friday of each calendar week, and was tested on Friday, August 29. On Friday, September 5, only one staff member was on duty at the facility due to other members being either on leave or an alternate duty schedule. The alarm system was not tested on September 5, as required. On Monday, September 8, another staff member realized that the alarm system test was not done on the 5th, so he performed a successful test of the system at 0745 on the 8th. 5 The staff involved did not realize at that time that a 'I requirement of the security plan had been violated. A different staff member conducted the next alarm system test on Friday, September 12, and recognized at that time that a security plan violation had occurred.

The intrusion alarm system has functioned properly during the entire period of this occurrence. All system tests were properly documented, as required, in the reactor operations log.

The reasons for the testing oversight are poor scheduling of the alarm system tests and confusion about the interpretation of the " weekly" interval. One staff member thought that " weekly" allowed for a maximum interval of ten days if the long-term, average interval did not exceed seven days.

Physical security plan compliance was achieved on Monday, September 8, when the alarm system was successfully tested.

Two actions have been taken to prevent this event from recurring. All staff members have received instruction on the requirements for testing the alarm system every calendar week, and future alarm tests will be scheduled to occur in mid-week instead of on Fridays.

Any questions concerning this event may be directed to Tim DeBey, Reactor Supervisor, at (303) 236-4726.

Sincerely, t

y ye #

Thomas D. Fouch Regional Geologist l lll l l gl Reactor Administrator '

9709260308 970918 PDR ADOCK 05000274 S 'R

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