ML20151R083

Forwards Response to NRC Ltr Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-424/88-09.Corrective Actions:Technician Involved Counseled & Hydrogen Field Leads Labeled to Identify Terminals to Which Leads Are to Be Connected

ML20151R083
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	04/18/1988
From:	Gucwa L GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
References
SL-4404, NUDOCS 8804270236
Download: ML20151R083 (10)

Text

-- - -___

(.

Georgia Power Comparry 333 P edmont Avenue At!anta, Georgia 30308 Telephone 404 5264526 Mahng Address Post Off.ce Box 4545 A!!anta. Georg a 30302 Georgia Power L. T. Gucwa the southem e,'ectrc system Manager Nuclear Sa'ety and Lcensing SL-4404 0849m X7GJ17-V120 April 18, 1988 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Hashington, D.C. 20555 PLANT V0GTLE - UNIT 1 NRC DOCKET 50-424 OPERATING LICENSE NPF-68 REPLY TO A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Gentlemen:

In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Georgia Power Company (GPC) submits the enclosed information in response to NRC.

Inspection Report 50-424/88-09 which concerns the inspection conducted by Messrs. J. F. Rogge and C. H. Burger of the NRC Region II staff on January 30 -

February 26, 1988. A copy of this response is being t provided to the NRC Region II office for review. '

In each of the enclosures, transcription of the NRC violation precedes GPC's response.

Should there by any questions in this regard, please contact this office at any time.

Sincerely, ed?~ -%=.

L. T. Gucwa JAE/1m

Enclosures:

1. Violation 88-09-01 and GPC Response

2. Violation 88-09-02 and GPC Response c: (see next page)

' I

!!A4188E'sS$4 o  !

GeorgiaPower A U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi.sion April 18, 1988 Page Two.

c: Georaia Power Comoany Mr. P. D. Rice Mr. G. Bockhold, Jr.

GO-NORMS U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. J. N. Grace, Regional Administrator Mr. J. B. Hopkins Licensing Project Manager, NRR (2 copies) l Mr. J. F. Rogge. Senior Resident Inspector-Operations, Vogtle l I

l l

l 1

1 0849m M775

l l

Georgia Power d ENCLOSURE 1 PLANT V0GTLE - UNIT 1 NRC DOCKET 50-424 OPERATING LICENSE NPF-68 HRC NOTICE OF VIOLATION 88-09-01 AND GPC RESPONSE VIOLATION 50-424/88-09-01 "Technical Specification 6.7.la requires that procedures shall be established, covering activities delineated in Appendix A of Regulatory Guide 1.33, Revision 2, February 1978. Maintenance Procedure No.

24551-1, Rev. 7 "Containment Hydrogen Monitor Train A Analog Channel Operational Test And Channel Calibration" and Maintenance Procedure No.

24552-1, Rev. 7 "Containment Hydrogen Monitor B Analog Channel Operational Test And Channel Calibration" contains the specific procedures for the required surveillance tests.

Contrary to the above, on February 1, 1988, Maintenance Procedure Nos.

24551-1 and 24552-1 had not been adequately established in that these procedures did not contain measures to preclude rendering the respective monitors inoperable as a result of performing the surveillance.

This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement I)."

RESPONSE TO VIOLATION 50-424/88-09-01 Admission or denial of alleged violation:

The violation occurred as stated.

Reason for the violation:

The violation occurred due to noncomplience with the surveillance procedure. The procedure required that internal leads be disconnected; however, the field leads were disconnected.

Corrective steos which have been taken and the results achieved:

(1) The GPC Instrument and Controls technician who violated the surveillance procedure has been counseled rega.-ding the importance of procedural compliance.

(2) The hydrogen monitor field leads have been labeled to identify the terminals to which they are to be connected.

0849m El-1 04/18/88 SL-4404 l

rwns

, h l

Georgia Power d ENCLOSURE 1 (Continued)

NRC NOTICE OF VIOLATION 88-09-01 AND GPC RESPONSE (3) Procedure 24551-1, Rev. 7, "Containment Hydrogen Monitor Train A Analog Channel Operational Test and Channel Calibration," and Procedure 24552-1, Rev. 7, "Containment Hydrogen Monitor Train B Analog Channel Operational Test and Channel Calibration," were revised to preclude recurrence of this event.

(4) The independent verification process for unlabeled wires was revised so that Jumper and Lifted Hire tags will not be removed until the 1

verification process is completed. Applicable procedures were revised by April 15, 1988.

Corrective steos which will be taken to avoid further violations:

The corrective actions discussed above are expected to preclude further violations.

Date when full comoliance will be achieved:

Full compliance was achieved on April 15, 1988 when applicable procedures revisions concerning the independent verification process for unlabeled wires were completed.

0849m El-2 04/18/88 SL-4404

Georgia Power d ENCLOSURE 2 PLANT V0GTLE - UNIT 1 NRC DOCKET 50-424 OPERATING LICENSE NPF-68 NRC NOTICE OF VIOLATION 88-09-02 AND GPC RESPONSE VIOLATION 50-424/88-09-02 "10 CFR 50.73 requires in part, that the Licensee Event Report shall be submitted within 30 days after discovery of an event. 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2), requires, in part, a report for any operation or condition prohibited by the plant's Technical Specification.

Contrary to the above, the licensee failed to report events within 30 days of discovery as follows:

1. On July 23, 1987, an event was discovered which occurred on July 12, 1987, involving a failure to perform an Analog Channel Operational Test Surveillance on the Power Low Setpoint prior to the unit startup.

2. On June 24, 1987, an event was discovered which ider,ti fi ed that missed surveillances were not always reported. Five missed surveillances were not reported because the subsequent surveillance was performed satisfactorily.

Failure to perform a required surveillance is a condition prohibited by the plant's Technical Specification.

This is a Severity Level IV Violation (Supplement I)."

RESPONSE TO VIOLATION 50-424/88-09-02 VIOLATION EXAMPLE 1 Admission or denial of alleged violation:

The alleged violation occurred as stated based on example I cited in the Notice of Violation. However, based upon our review of the "Details" associated with NRC Inspection Report 50-424/88-09, GPC does have comments. In the "Details" associated with the inspection report, it was stated:

"TS Section 4.0.2 is to be applied to surveillance requirements only and has no applicability to the limiting conditions for operability or the action statements. Action statements invoking surveillance requirements should be met without the benefit of 4.0.2 provisions, since the unit is in a degraded condition and licensee attention is focused on ensuring that the plant is maintained in the safest condition. It is for this reason, that a grace period does not exist in the 3.0.X section of the TS."

0849m E2-1 04/18/88 SL-4404 700??S

Georgia Power d ENCLOSURE 2 (Continued)

NRC NOTICE OF VIOLATION 88-09-02 ANG GPC RESPONSE He agree. The main point of the above discussion, however, is that extensions to action statement requirements of Section 3.0.X of the Technical Specifications are not allowed. By a point of definition, in the referenced example, GPC was not "in" Section 3.0.X of the Technical Specifications. Rather, the applicable section was 4.3.1.1 (and Table 4.3-1, Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements).

The note associated with the Analog Channel Operational Test is an "S/U (1)". In the "Table Notations" for the referenced table, the Technical Specification (page 3/4 3-13), Note (1) states:

"If not performed in previous 31 days".

On August 18, 1987, corporate GPC was informed by Plant Vogtle personnel that an Analog Channel Operational Test (ACOT) surveillance was not performed during the reactor startup of July 12, 1987. However, the ACOT was performed during the reactor startup of June 5, 1987 and July 23, 1987. A review of the Technical Specifications indicated that there are no provisionary notes in the Table Notations to indicate that 4.0.2 does not apply. Additionally, there are no notes associated with the Surveillance Requirements of the Reactor Trip System Instrumentation (page 3/4 3-1) to indicate that 4.0.2 does not apply.

In reviewing this condition, GPC noted that the surveillance of June 12, 1987 and July 23, 1987 have successfully demonstrated the operability of the equipment; thus, there was no reason to assume the equipment would not have functioned correctly during the intervening period of July 12, 1987 to July 23, 1987. The situation in question involved a surveillance which is to be performed prior to each startup, with a provision that, if an ACOT was performed in a startup within the previous 31 days, the ACOT did not have to be performed. In this case, successful ACOT's were performed before and after the event in question. Additionally, since there were no provisions to indicate otherwise, GPC applied the provision of 4.0.2 to this 4.3.1.1 surveillance and concluded that a licensee event report was not required. That is, since the surveillance in question was completed within 38 days (31 days + 257.) of the surveillance that occurred on June 5,1987, it was concluded that the July 12 startup was within Technical Specification requirements. Since the purposes of surveillances are to demonstrate that equipment is functioning properly and since this surveillance was within 4.0.2 requirements of the T.S. and bounded by the surveillances performed on June 5 and July 23, 1987, GPC believed that the missed surveillance was not reportable. Thus, this event does involve an interpretation of the applicability of 4.0.2, not Section 3.0.X of the Technical Specifications.

0849m E2-2 04/18/88 SL-4404 70077$ .

Georgia Power d ENCLOSURE 2 (Continued)

NRC NOTICE OF VIOLATION 88-09-02 AND GPC RESPONSE Reason for the violation _;.

At the time this condition was detected, a review indicated that the surveillance was not required since the inspection interval of 3. days could be extended by 25%. It now appears that the provisions of 4.0.2 may have been incorrectly applied to the extension of the surveillance interval.

Corrective steos which have been taken and the results achieved:

Subsequent to the issuance of generic letter 87-09, GPC conducted a l review of the letter and decided to report all missed surveillance; i.e.,

except those performed within the 25% grace period of 4.0.2. In this case, we believed we were within the 25% grace period, therefore the event was not reported. ,

j 1

Corrective steos which will be taken to avoid further violations: l I

A memo was dictated on July 13, 1987 that explained that as a result of NRC Generic Letter 87-09, all missed surveillances will be reported. As previously mentioned, since we believed that this surveillance met the provision of 4.0.2, it was not reported. Since that time, we have reported missed surveillances to the NRC. Additionally, a memo concerning 4.0.2 applicability will be developed by appropriate GPC personnel and distributed to appropriate personnel by May 6, 1988.

D3te when full comoliance will be achieved:

Full compliance was achieved with the issuance of the July 13, 1987 memo. Since that time, missed surveillances, i.e., those beyond the 25%

grace period allowed by Section 4.0.2, have been reported. As previously discussed, we believe that this surveillance was not missed since it fell under the provision of 4.0.2.

0849m E2-3 04/18/88 SL-4404 700775

GeorgiaPower b ENCLOSURE 2 (Continued)

NRC NOTICE OF VIOLATION 88-09-02 AND GPC RESPONSE VIOLATION EXAMPLE 2 Admission or denial of alleaed violation:

The violation illustrated as the second example did not occur as stated.

Pursuant to the following discussion, GPC requests that the example be withdrawn, recognizing that the other example does support the cited violation.

Georgia Power Company decided, prior to the issuance of the NOV, that LER's were not required for missed surveillances where the surveillance was performed within the applicable LCO time period and operability was demonstrated as a result of the surveillance.

In the Statement of Considerations for the proposed rule 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(i)(B) for the Licensee Event Report System (Federal Regulation Vol. 47, No. 88, Thursday, May 6,1982) it states:

"Finally the licensee must report events where an Action Statement contained in a Limiting Condition for Operation is not met. For an Action Statement that gives the licensee alternatives (e.g., repair a specific component or achieve hot shutdown within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />), the Action Statement is met if either alternative is met (e.g., the component is repaired or the plant is in hot shutdown within'12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />). Failure to comoly with a Surveillance Reauirement need not be reoorted as an LER.

but should be tabulated in the Monthlv Operating Reoort" (emphasis throughout this discussion added by GPC). The final rule (which appeat ed in the Federal Register /Vol. 48, No. 168/ Monday, August 29, 1983) contained no clarifications in the supplementary information on the paragraph-by-paragraph interpretation of the LER rule to indicate that there had been a fundamental change in the NRC's position. The proposed rule of also discussed Technical violation of action statements rather than violation Specifications. It should also be noted that the NRC did indicate fundamental changes to the interpretation of the requirements of the final LER rule, but no clarifications were indicated for surveillance requirements.

Additionally, NUREG-1022 Supplement 1 was reviewed for additional guidance and interpretations. Section 2.0 discussed Technical Specification Violations.

Question 2.1 asked "Is it correct that I do not have to submit a LER unless I actually reach the end of an LC0 clock"? The NRC response was "Yes. f_qr.the 0849m E2-4 04/18/88 SL-4404

\ . _ _ _

y l

Georgia Power A ENCLOSURE 2 (Continued)

NRC NOTICE OF VIOLATION 88-09-02 AND GPC RESPONSE ouroose p11his criterion (i.e., a2iB) an LER is not required unless the conditions of the LC0 and its associated Action Statement are not met (i.e., are violated) or the plant must be shut down because of a Technical Specification requirement (i.e., 'the end of an LC0 clock')."

GPC applied this Q&A response as reflecting the Proposed Rules intent of L

not reporting missed surveillances unless the LCO also was exceeded or action statements not met.

Question 2.3 asked, "We believe that surveillance testing and redundancy together promise assurance of operability. Further, we often have 7-day LCO's and we perform surveillance tests on 30-day intervals. Is an LER required every time we find a problem during surveillance testing?" The NRC's responce was "No." In general, for the purpose of evaluating the reportability of situations found during surveillance tests, it should be assumed that the situation occurred at the time of discovery unless there is firm evidence to believe otherwise." GPC interpretated this Q&A as stating that LER's for missed surveillances were evaluated based on the time of discovery; not the' time the surveillance was originally missed.

This interpretation, :<e felt, was consistent with the NRC's explan-tion of 10 CFR 50.73 (a)(2)(1)(B) in NUREG-1022, which stated in part: "If -

the condition is corrected oefore the (LC0) time limit for being shutdown (i.e., before completion of the reported."

shutdown) the event need not be In other words, upon discovery of a missed surveillance, the

, LCO action statement and time limits applied and, provided that the condition was corrected before the LC0 clock expired, a report was r.ot required.

He believe it clear that LC0's and Action Statements were the focus of the original rule and a separate "clock" for reporting missed surveillances did not exist.

Georgia Power Company applied the regulatory guidance in these NRC documents and concluded that the purpose of a surveillance test is to demonstrate the operability of a component in order to ensure compliance with the associated LCO. If a surveillance test is missed, the components' operability has not been demonstrated; thus, upon discovery, one conservatively enters the applicable Action Statement.

This is similar to a component failing a surveillance test, declaring the component inoperable, and entering the applicable Action Statement. As previously promulgated in NUREG-1022, Supplement No. 1. Question 2.3, a failed surveillance test is not reportable under 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(i)(B), provided that the applicable LC0 Actioh Statement is entered and followed.

0849m E2-5 04/18/88 SL-4404 l

rwm

GeorgiaPower A ENCLOSURE 2 (Continued)

NRC NOTICE OF VIOLATION 88-09-02 AND GPC RESPONSE In Generic Letter 87-09 the NRC expanded its position in direct conflict, we believe, with the original LER rule. This letter states:

"To avoid any conflict among or misreading of Specifications 3.0.2, 4.0.3, and 4.0.2, the staff wishes to make clear (1) that Specification 3.0.2 shall not be construed to imply that the completion of a missed surveillance within the allowable outage time limits of the Action Requirements--whether or not the additional 24-hour time limit is included--negates the violation of Specification 4.0.3, and (2) that the failure to oerform a surveillance within the allowable surveillance interval defined by Soecification 4.0.2 constitutas a reoortable event under 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(1)(B) because it is a condition orchibited by the olant's TS."

This paragraph provided the first indication that the NRC interpreted that a missed surveillance that exceeded the allowable time limits of the Action Requirements and the failure to perform a surveillance as defined by Specification 4.0.2 constituted a reportable event separate and distinct from violating action statements. Thus, at present, a new NRC interpretation is being retroactively applied to the group of events in the second example cited in the inspection report.

In any event, GPC, on July 13, 1987, modified its prior interpretation and has no plans to challenge this new NRC interpretation as a backfit.

However, we request the withdrawal of the examples of violations since the violation is based on a "i.tw" reporting requirement. Prospectively, any missed surveillance that is not performed within its frequency interval + 251,will be reported under the Generic Letter requirement.

0849m E2-6 04/18/88 SL-4404 700775