IR 05000528/1998013

Partially Withheld Insp Repts 50-528/98-13,50-529/98-13 & 50-530/98-13 on 981019-24 (Ref 10CFR73.21).Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Licensee Physical Security Program, Including Mgt Support,Security Audits & Plans & Procedures

ML20196D655
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	11/20/1998
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:
Shared Package
ML20196D635	List: IR 05000528/1998013 ML20196D629 ML20196D639
References
50-528-98-13, 50-529-98-13, 50-530-98-13, NUDOCS 9812020303
Download: ML20196D655 (2)

Text

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

,

.  :

DOCUMENT CONTAINS ENCLOSURE 2 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION IV

Docket Nos.: 50-528 50-529 50-530 License Nos.: NPF-41 NPF-51 NPF-74 Report No.: 50-528/98-13 50-529/98-13 50-530/98-13 Licensee: Arizona Public Service Company Facility: Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1,2, and 3 Location: 5951 S. Wintersburg Road

Tonopah, Arizona

. Dates: October 19-24, 1998 Inspector: A. Bruce Earnest, Physical Security Specialist, Plant Support Branch Approved By: Blaine Murray, Chief, Plant Support Branch ATTACHMENT: Supplemental information DOCUMENT CONTAINS ENCLOSURE (S) CONTAIN(S) UPON SEPARATION THIS PAGE IS DECONTROLLED 9812020303 981120 I PDR ADOCK 05000528 G PDR ,

__

.

-2- DOCUMENT CONTAINS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1,2, and 3 NRC Inspection Report 50-528/98 13; 50-529/98-13; 50-530/98-13 This routine, announced inspection focused on the licensee's physical security progra The areas inspected included access control- personnel, packages, and vehicles; protected area physical barriers; plans and procedures; review of security event logs; contingency plan implementation; management support; security program audits; and followup of previously identified items. Significant improvements continue to be noted in the security progra Plant Sunoort

• A very good program for searching personnel, packages, and vehicles was maintained (Section S1.1).

• A proper protected area barrier was in place (Section S2.1).

.

.

Changes to security plans were reported within the required time frame. Revision 40 to the physical security plan was a violation in that changes were not made in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(p). Implementing procedures met the performance requirements in the physical security plan (Section S3.1).

A very good security event reporting program was in place. The security staff was correctly reporting security events. The security field reports were accurate and neat (Section S3.2).

The licensee effectively implemented the safeguards contingency plan in response to a bomb threat. (Section S3.3).

=

Senior management support for the security organization was very good. The security program was implemented by a well qualified and highly professional staff (Section S6.1).

.

Audits of the security, access authorization, and fitness-for-duty programs were effective, thorough, and intrusive (Section S7.1).

DOCUMENT CONTAINS ENCLOSURE (S) CONTAIN(S) UPON SEPARATION THIS PAGE IS DECONTROLLED i

i

!

_