ML16341E602
| ML16341E602 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/28/1988 |
| From: | Kirsch D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341E603 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-88-03, 50-275-88-3, 50-323-88-04, 50-323-88-4, NUDOCS 8804130020 | |
| Download: ML16341E602 (4) | |
Text
APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Docket Nos.
50-275 and 50-323 License Nos.
DPR-80 and DRP-82 During an NRC inspection conducted on January 31, 1988, through March 5, 1988, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987), the violations are listed below:
A.
Facility Technical Specification 6.8.1 states that:
"Written procedures shall be established, implemented and maintained covering...applicable procedures recommended in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February 1978...."
Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February 1978, Section 7e(l) specifies procedures for "Access Control to Radiation Areas Including a Radiation Work Permit System."
In partial implementation of this requirement, Radiation Control Standard 4,
dated November 18, 1985, "Control of Access," in Section 3.3, "Entry into the Controlled Area," states in Paragraph 3.3.1:
"Except as exempted by the Diablo Canyon Technical Specifications, written authorization (usually an SWP or RWP) is required for all entries into the Controlled Area," and in Paragraph 3.3.3.:
"Entry into the Controlled Area shall be made only through the normal established access control points."
Contrary to the above, on, February 19,
- 1988, a licensee employee entered the Radiological Controls Area by stepping over a posted boundary at a point not established as a normal personnel access control point.
Also, the individual did not have written authorization to enter the area.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement IV).
B.
10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B; Criterion X, "Inspection" states, in part, that "A program for inspection of activities affecting quality shall be established and executed by or for the organization performing the activity to verify compliance with the documented instructions, procedures, and drawings for accomplishing the activity."
gualify Control Inspection Plan Number 88-0376, the inspection plan for the replacement of the valve seat diaphragm for Unit I Charging System valve 8484B, stated in Inspection Point Number 01 "gC Specialist Mechanical to visually examine the valve internals for cleanliness prior to closeup of the system."
Contrary to the above, on February 24,
- 1988, a guality Control Inspector stamped and initialed his acceptance of cleanliness on the inspection plan without visually inspecting inside the body of valve No. 8484B for cleanliness.
Subsequently, the valve body was properly inspected.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).
8804130020 880328 PDR ADOCK 05000275 9
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Pacific Gas and Electric Company is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the U.S.
,Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:
Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region V, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, Diablo Canyon, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice.
This reply should be clearly marked as a
"Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation: '(1) the reason for the violation if admitted, (2) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results
- achieved, (3) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (4) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order may be issued to show cause why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other actions as may be proper should not be taken.
Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Gated at Walnut Creek, California this ei~ day of
, 1988 Dennis F. Kirsch, Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects