ML20154D573

Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-424/88-09.Violation Occurred as Stated in Encl Evaluations & Conclusions

ML20154D573
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	08/31/1988
From:	Reyes L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:	Hairston W GEORGIA POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 8809150337
Download: ML20154D573 (5)

See also: IR 05000424/1988009

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __

~

'

. . . 7

. -

'

-

.

f

AUG 31 E

Docket Ne. 50-428

License No. NPF-68

Georgia Power Company

(ATTN: Mr. W. G. Hairston, !!!

Senior Vice President -

Nuclear Operations

P. O. Box 4545

Atlanta, GA 30302

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT: REPORT NO. 50-424/88-09

In cur letter of May 10, 1988, we acknowledged receipt of your response on

April 18, 1988 to our Notice of Violation issued on Mr.rch 17, 1988. Our

evaluation of your response to violation 38-09-02 is complete.

In your response you admitted violation 88-09-02, example one with comments.

Your corrective action should include submission of a licensee event report as

discussed in the enclosure.

Af ter careful consideration of the basis for your denial of violation 88-09-02,

example two, we have concluded, for the reasons cretented in the enclosure to

this letter, that the violation occurred as stated in the Notice of Violation.

A revised response to this violation including submission of the required

licensec event reports is requested. Therefore, in accordance with

10 CFR 2.201(a), please submit to this office within 30 days of the date of

this letter a written statement describing steps which have been taken to

correct example two and the results achieved, corrective steps which will be

taken to avoid further violations, and the date when full compliance will be

achieved.

The responses directed by this letter and its enclosure are not subject to the

clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No 96-511. .

We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely.

Original Signed by

Charles W. Hehl /for

Luis A. Reyes, Director

Division of Reactor Projects

Enclosure:

Evaluations and Conclusions

cc w/ encl: (See page 2)

@$0"$$ : b $4 Ze^e /

0

.

_ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _

. ,

,

,

Georgia Power Company 2

AUG 'o 1 I*O

cc w/ enc 1:

R. P. Mcdonald, Executive Vice

President, Nuclear Operations

P. D. Rice Vice President, Project

Director

C. W. Hayes Vogtle Quality

Assurance Manager

G. Bockhold, Jr., General Manager,

Nuclear Operations

J. P. Kane, Manager, Engineering

and Licensing

J. A. Bailey, Project Licensing

Manager

'

B. W. Churchill, Esq., Shaw,

Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge

D. Xirkland, !!!, Counsel,

Office of the Consumer's Utility

Council

D. Feig, Georgians Against

Nuclear Energy

bec w/ enc 1:

E. Reis OGC

J. Hopkins, NRR

M. Sinkule, RI!

DRS, Technical Assistant

NRC Resident inspector

Document Control Desk

State of Georgia

Rll Rll Rll , A Rll /

5 + r* V

CPasterson MSinkule VLBrownlee GJenki}sff /

8/.a s/88 hs8/2,/88 8/rf /88 8/yg88

&& .

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ __- ___-__-_______- ______ -____ _ _ - _ _ __ ____- _ _ _ _

., .

'

.

,

J

i

ENCLOSURE

i

EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

On March 17, 1988, a

iotice of Violation (NOV) was issued for a violation

,

identified during a routine NRC inspection. Georgia Power Company responded to  :

the Notice on April 18, 1938. Violation 88-09-02, example one was admitted  !

with comments and example two was denied. The NRC's evaluations and

conclusions regarding the licensee's arguments are as follows:

Restatement of Violation 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 an  ;

! plant's Technical Specification:. y operation or condition prohibited by the  :

Contrary to tht above, the, licensee failed to report events within 30 days of * l

discovery as follows: ... ,

,

-

... . .

1. On July 23, 1961, an-eveht 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 identified that missed l

surveillances were not always reported. Five missed surveillances were j

not reported because the subsequent surveillance was performed

satisfactorily.

I Failure to perform a required surveillance is a condition prohibited by the

plant's Technicat Specification."

l

1 Suanary of Licensee's Response

I The licensee contends that, prior to issuance of the NOV, Licensee Event I

i Reports (LERs) were not required for missed surveillances where the l

I surveillance was performed within the applicable limiting condition for

! operation (LCO) time period and operability was demonstrated as a result of

the surveillance,

,

i

a The licensee contends that in the Statement of Considerations for the proposed

rule 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(1)(B) for the Licensee Event Report System contains a

statement: "Failure to comply with a Surveillance Requirement need not be

reported as an LER, but should be tabulated in the Monthly Operating Report."

'

The final rule 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 regarding

,

surveillance requirements.

j The GPC response notes that the Generic Letter 87-09 was the first indication

) that the NRC interpreted that a missed surveillance that exceeded allowable

time limits was reportable.

1

i

_ ___ _ _, _ -_ _ _ _ .__

_

!

., .

. .

,

i Enclosure -

2

!

1

l The licensee also contends that the answers to NUREG-1022, Supplement 1,

Questions 2.1. and 2.3 provided guidance, couples with the statements of

3

consideration for the proposed rule for not reporting missed surveillances,

i The answers to Question 2.1 and 2.3 state Lhot en LER is not required unless

1 the end of the LC0 clock is reached or a problem discovered during surveillance

testing is repaired before the end of the LCO clock is reached.

NRC Evaluation

1

i The NRC staff has carefully reviewed the licensee's response and has concluded

1 that the licensee did not provide any information that was not already

considered in determining the significance of the violation.

4

i It is clear by review of the licensee response to the violation that the

! licensee was implementing selective portions of the proposed rule. The

] proposed rule would have allowed reporting of these type events in the monthly

1 operating report instead of a'Lic,ensee Event Report. When the final rule was

, issuad the licensee failed to note the change. As stated verbally to licensee

representatives, had GEC rovided the information in the monthly operating

1 report..then the NRC would have considered GPC to have made a good faith effort

{ to comply with the regulations even though the proposed regulations were not

binding on the licensee,. The fact remains that, the licensee did not

4 follow the intent of the proposed rule; therefore, the argument that the

ji proposed rule interpretation was in effect is not valid.

l The specific time period that is in question was between January 16, 1987, when

the operating license was issued, and June 4,1987, when the Generic Letter

j was issued. The Generic Letter was issued to provide guidance for performing

! surveillance testing when action statements could not be met when a missed

i surveillance was identified. The gereric letter contained a "matter of fact"

statement that missed surveillances constituted a reportable event under

j 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(i){C' !ecause it is a condition prohibited by the plants TS.

! GPC contends that the answers to NUREG-1022, Supplement 1 Question 2.1 and 2.3

provided guidance that an LER is not required unless the LC0 clock is reached.

GPC prJvided no infomation that the missed surveillances applied to this

j question.

The licensee response equates entering a LC0 because of a missed surveillance

,

not performed in the required time interval with entering a LCO fo. a failed

i surveillance which is inside the required surveillance time interval. Clearly

J the two are not equivalent. A surveillance that is missed and not performed

! during the required time interval is a condition prohibited by technics)

! specifications and a LER is required. The condition when a failed surveillance

! that was being performed inside the time interval is corrected before the LC0

l clock expires is not reportable,

i

!

!

I

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ __. _.

'

,

i

o .

- .

,

.-  ;

Enclosure -

3

[

!

In addition, NUREG-1022, Supplement 1. Question 2.5 and corresponding answer '

gives guidance that Surveillance Requirements that are outside the specified

4 time interval is a condition r.ot allowed by the Technical Specification and an (

, LER is required,

a

Furthermore, NUREG-1022, Supplement 1. Question 2.2 and corresponding answer l

l states that time restraints are a measure of significance and that any event.  :

! operation, or condition that is prohibited by the Technical Specification is r

sufficiently significant to warrant an LER. l

1 Since NUREG-1022 and Supplements were published prior to issuance of the Vogtle

1 operating license the licensee had ample notification to preclude this

.

violation. ,

,

GPC provided no additional information concerning the time intervals for the l

five missed surveillances stated in example two of the violation. The missed l

'

surveillances are discussed iri paragraph five of the inspection report. These l

surveillances appear to be examples of exceeding the surveillance time l

l intervals allowed by the Technical Specifications and may not be inclusive of l

'

l all. mined surveillanc'es. .- -

,

.

j Conclusion: ,

. ,

The NRC concludes that the violation should stand as written. The response to I

the first example of the violation is inadequate in that the corrective action

i has not included the submission of the LER. The response to tne second part of

j the violation is inadequate in all respects.

1

l

i

i

i i

i

l l

l l

1 i

>

!

i r

! I

i i

i

!

l

1 I

'

I  !