ML20248D742
| ML20248D742 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of California - Irvine |
| Issue date: | 09/27/1989 |
| From: | Scarano R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248D741 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-326-89-01, 50-326-89-1, NUDOCS 8910040386 | |
| Download: ML20248D742 (2) | |
Text
L i
APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION University of California Docket No. 50-326 Irvine, California License No. R-116 During an NPr' inspection conducted on August 28-31, 1969, violations of NRC requirement-c're identified.
In accordance with the " General Statement of
.edure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C
~ Policy and
+
(1989), the violations are listed below:
A.
Technical Specification (TS), Section 6.3, states in part:
" Written procedures, revieweo and approved by the Reactor Operations Committee, shall be in effect and followed for the following items...."
"e.
Maintenance procedures which could have an effect on reactor safety.
" f.
Periodic surveillance of reactor instrumentation and safety systems, area monitors and continuous air monitors."
Section 4.1 Reactor Operations, of the licensee's Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), dated April 21, 1982, states, in part: " Routine operations must comply with these procedures." Further Section 4.7.1 Maintenance Records, dated April 21, 1982, states, in part:
"In addition, a Monthly Summary Checklist of maintenance and test activities shall be completed.... This list shall be checked and signed each month by the Assistant Reactor Supervisor, and reviewed by the Reactor Supervisor by the seventh working day.
If this review has not been completed, reactor operation may not be resumed."
Contrary to the above requirement, 1.
The Operator Monthly Maintenance checklist for September 1988 had not been signed by the Assistant Reactor Supervisor.
2.
The Operator Monthly Maintenance checklists for the period August through December 1988 not been reviewed by the Reactor Supervisor.
3.
Reactor operations continued even though none of the Operator Monthly Maintenance checklists had been reviewed for the period August through December 1988.
These in aggregate are a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement I).
B.
Technical Specification E.2 requires
.i Section 6.2 f. that the Reactor Operations Committee "...shall meet at least quarterly".
Contrary to the above requirement, the Reactor Operations Committee failed to meet during the period August 19, 1988, to January 30, 1989.
This is a Severity Level V Violation (Supplement I).
89100,o386 890p27 gDR ADOCK 05000326 PDC
W' q. -w a
1
)f
,)
a+ -
!g i g,,
I V ;w V.
~
j d
II. Records, states, Documentation of additional
' training and testing required-for individuals; exhibiting A~
~ deficiencies'will be included".
w w
Contrary to the above' requirement,.the licens~ee did not document.
. additional training provided to a senior reactor operator who scored:
less than 80% on-two sections of the 1988 requalification examin'ation.
~
2.
The Reactor Operator Requalification program, dated February 20, 1974, provides,.inlpart, in Section III.' Course Work, annually, t
'!Each licensed operator and senior operator will be evaluated based
- on an operating test by the Reactor Supervisor.
Knowledge of normal-Sand emergency procedures, design changes and job performance will be
' evaluated.
Contrary to'the above requirement the Reactor Supervisor did not conduct an operating test for evaluating operators or senior
~ <
operators during the period of 1988 and 1989 to the date of the
.: inspection.
TheseLin aggregate are a Severity Level IV_ Violation (Supplement I).
- Pursuant to the> provisions of 10 CFR 2.201,Lthe University of California,
^
Irvine is hereby ~ required to submit a written statement'er explanation to the U. ' S. ' Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, i,
D.C. 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator,. Region V,.within 30 e
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 admittet, (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 T N CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION V.
V64 T
Ross A. h ano,%,
Dated at-ainut Creek, California Director
.this S 7 day of September 1989 Division Radiatbn Safety and ir Safeguards n
E:1______
___ _