ML17083C275
| ML17083C275 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1990 |
| From: | Kirsch D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17083C274 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-90-16, 50-323-90-16, NUDOCS 9007120033 | |
| Download: ML17083C275 (4) | |
Text
APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Docket Nos".
50-275 and 50-323 Pacific Gas and Electric Company License Nos.
DPR-80 and DPR-82 During an NRC inspection conducted on April 17 through May 25, 1990, three violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with t e "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1990), the violations are listed below:
A.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, Instructions, Procedures and Drawings, states, in part:
"Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures or drawings of a type appropriate to the circumstances, and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures or drawings..."
1.
Nuclear Plant Administrative Procedure NPAP-E-14/NPG-5.3, Supplier Documents and Recommendations, states as follows, in part:
Paragraph 1.2:
"Information covered by this procedure includes vendor bulletins, vendor information..."
Paragraph
- 4. 1:
"Supplier recommendations/documents within the scope of this procedure, when received by NPG organizations...or individuals, shall be forwarded to the Supervisor, PSG".
Contrary to the above, Limitorque Maintenance Update 89-1, when received by individual licensee employees from Limitorque on or about December 22, 1989, was not forwarded to the Supervisor, PSG.
In addition Limitorque Maintenance
- Update, dated August 1988 had been received from the vendor by an individual licensee employee but had not been forwarded to the Supervisor,
- PSG, as of May 25, 1990.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).
2.
Nuclear Plant Administrative Procedure, NPAP C-12, Rev.
19, Identification and Resolution of Problems and Nonconformances, Paragraph 5.4.1.a,
- states, in part:
"A guality Evaluation is required for any of the following situations in which the quality of an item or activity is determined to be unacceptable or indeterminate.
"1.
An item will not perform its intended safety function or no longer meets its design requirements such as seismic or environmental qualification requirements.
"2.
There is a question whether an item will perform its intended safety function or meet design requirements."
~90074-20093-9'006%2=
PDR ADOCK 05000275 Q
14 Contrary to the above, at the time of the inspection, a guality Evaluation had not been performed on spring pack def>ciencies in Limitorque actuators of four safety-related valves identified in Request Nos.
- A0126108, A0126109,
- A0126110, A0125730 dated October 1988.
The deficient condition raised the question of whether the items would perform their intended safety function or meet design requirements.
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement 1).
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 wth 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 action 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 CONISSION Dated at Walnut Creek, California this~~~day of~1990 enny s
- 1rsc, e
Reactor Safety Branch Division of Reactor Safety and Projects