ML20154J887
| ML20154J887 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1986 |
| From: | Grace J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Kelly R GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8603110099 | |
| Download: ML20154J887 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000321/1985032
Text
O VC<d' ML yg
f
'
MAR 0 51986
Georgia Power Company
ATTN: Mr. R. J. Kelly
Executive Vice President
P. O. Box 4545
Atlanta, GA 30302
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: REPORT NOS.~ 50-321/85-32 AND 50-366/85-32
Thank you for your response of January 13, 1986, to our Notice. of Violation
issued on December 12, 1985, concerning activities conducted at your Hatch
facility.
We have evaluated your response to the violations and found that
violation No. 2 of your letter meets the requirements of 10 CFR 2.201. We will
examine the implementation of your actions to correct violation No. 2 during
future inspections.
After careful consideration of the bases for your denial of violation 1, we have
concluded, for the reasons presented in the enclosure to this letter, that the
violation occurred as stated in the. Notice of Violation.
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 violation 1 and the results achieved, corrective steps which
will be taken to avoid further violations, and the date when full compliance
will be achieved.
The response directed by this letter is not subject to the clearance procedure
of the Office of Management and Budget issued under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
PL 96-511.
We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Original signed by
J. N. Grace
J. Nelson Grace
Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
Staff Assessment of Licensee Response
cc w/ encl:
J. T. Beckham, Vice President and
General Manager
H. C. Nix, Site General Manager
P. E. Fornel, Site QA Supervisor
L. Gucwa, Manager, Nuclear Safety
and Licensing
bec w/ encl:
(See page 2)
~~~G&O3110099 960305-
'
ADOCK 05000321
l
G
Il
'
ygoj
---
s
.
MAR 0 51986
Georgia Power Company
2
bec w/ encl:
NRC Resident Inspector
Hugh S. Jordan, Executive Secretary
Document Control Desk
State of Georgia
RII
RII
RI
RIlpOb. /'
-
T)
\\h
(;
j
Alanatonis
VBr& nlee
GJen ns
RWalker
2/5S/86
2/.21i/86
2/
<86
f
2/ j/86
..
-
_ - _
__ _ - - _
_ _ - _ - - .
.
-
- - - _ _ _
_ .
.
.s
,
ENCLOSURE
l
Staff Assessment of Licensee Respnnse
Region II has reviewed the licensee's response of January 13, 1986, to the Notice
of Violation (N0V) issued on December 12, 1985.
After a careful review of the
Georgia Power Company response to the two violations, the staff has found the
licensee's response to violation No. 1, as presented in the NOV, to be acceptable,
but disagree with the licensee's assessment that violation No. 2 of the NOV, did
'
not occur.
There is sufficient justification that violation No. 2 of the NOV,
,
designated as violation No.1 in the licensee's January 13, 1986 letter, is an
appropriate example of noncompliance with 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(i) reporting
i
requirements. This violation should remain as stated for reasons stated below.
)
10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(i) requires that a four-hour telephone notification be made of
any event found while the reactor is shutdown, and that, had it been found while
the reactor was in operation, would have resulted in the plant, including its
principal safety barriers, being seriously degraded or being in an unanalyzed
-
condition that significantly compromises plant safety.
On December 15, 1984,
with Unit 1 shut down, the licensee identified a nonisolable linear through wall
,
!
'
crack approximately 2 3/4-inches long in the 18-inch nitrogen inerting and purge
!
line by the magnetic particle inspection method.
At the time of discovery, as stated by the licensee, the shift supervisor was
,
l
notified of the finding and judged that the crack ~would not significantly compro-
mise plant safety, and hence did not make a four-hour telephone report to the
NRC.
However, subsequently a written report was submitted to the NRC per the
_
requirements of 10 CFR 50.73.
,
While the shift supervisor's assessment of the problem was eventually verified to
be correct, in that the crack would not significantly degrade primary containment
'
boundary in the event of a design basis accident, his conclusion was not sup-
,
!
ported by an engineering analysis until much later.
The results of the analysis
(
!
were presented to the NRC on November 8,1985.
Therefore, from the time of
'
' discovery to the time of completed engineering analysis, the nonisolable crack in
the nitrogen inerting and purge line was in an unanalyzed condition. The purpose
of the four-hour NRC telephone reporting requirement is for the licensee. to
promptly identify items such as cracks and breaks in piping that may signifi-
cantly compromise plant safety.
Therefore, while credit is given to the
.
licensee in making an engineering judgement of NRC reportability determination
i
under 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2)(1) criterion, the significance of this condition (i.e.
nonisolable crack) was not adequately assessed.
In this case, visual and
'
'
magnetic particle inspections were not sufficient. bases for determination of
condition significance. An engineering evaluation was also required to determine
-
safety significance.
For the aforementioned reasons, the violation remains as written.
,
I
2
I
'
i
_
.
.
_