ML20107F152
Text
.
4 Decket No. 50-219 104ER 2.7pg_gnWAT!OB_
APPENDIX A 4
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Based on the results of the NRC inspection on January 21, 22, 23 and 27, 1975, it appears that certain of your activities were not conducted in full compliance with NRC regulations and requireswmts as indicated below:
1.
Contrary to 10 CFR 50.54(p), at the time of the inspection sections of the protected area barrier along the banks of the intake and dis-charge canal were lef t unprotected, where fencing had been removed for necessary construction work.
(On February 3, 1975, Licensee Representative, R. Baron, called IE I and. announced that tiiis item of noncompliance was corrected.)
This infraction was identified by the inspector and had the potential for causing or contributing to an occurrence with safety significance.
2.
Contrary to the Oyster Creek Industrial Security Plan, dated J muary 7, 1974, Section 4.2.1, Security Procedure Requirements, written security procedures had not been issued or placed at specific locations for use by employees and security force members.
(On February 3, 1975, Licensee Representative, R. Baron, called IE:I and announced that this item of h,pj noncoopH anes was corrected.)
3.
Contrary to the Oyster Creek Industrial Security Plan, dated January 7, 1974, Section 3.4.2, Control, doors to the emergency diesel generator were unlocked, at a time when the building was unoccupied and no in-dividual had the doors under surveillance. The northeast door to the reactor building and two other doors in the maintenance shop of the turbine building also were unlocked.
n is infraction was identified by the inspector and had the potential for causing or contributing to an occurrence with safety significance.
4.
Contrary to the Oyster Creek Industrial Security Plan, dated January 7, 1974, Section 3.3.3, Surveillance, and Attachment A of the supplement thereto, dated April 19, 1974, vital area alarms were not fully in-l Y l8 I
l 9604220242 96C213 PDR FOIA DEKOK95-258 PDR s
i 10 'CER 2.7.90 IEEDRZMTIOH stalled and operational.
(Prior to the exit interview on January 27, 1974, this item of noncompliance was corrected.)
This infraction was identified by the inspector and had the potential for causing or contributing to en occurrence with safety significance.
5.
Contrary to the Oyster Creek Industrial Security Plan, dated January 7, 1974, Section 3.3.3, surveillance, light.ing of the protected area section of the canni was insufficient to permit effective visual in-spection of the area using the closed-circuit television cameras.
This infraction was identified by the inspector and had the" potential for causing or contributing to an occurrence with safety significance.
6.
Contrary to the Cyster Creek Industrial Security Plan, dated January 7, 1974. Section 3.3.2.3, Ins'pection or Searches, at the time of the inspection licenseo personnel and security force members at the Oyster Creek Station advised that no unannounced or scheduled nearches of in-dividuals had been conducted.
This deficiency was identified by the inspector.
M 7.
Contrary to the Oyster Creek Industrial Security Plan, dated January. 7, 1974, Section 3.3.2.3, Inspection or Searches, signs posted at access points fail to advise those who pass that their persons, effects and vehicles are subject to random search.
This deficiency was identified by the inspector.
l 1
l g.. m.. n,3. ~..
. m,
u.
i
.~xm Te:2:37
\\
k '$ #
-