ML20235Y209
| ML20235Y209 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/23/1987 |
| From: | Partlow J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Felmus N GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235Y212 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99900403 EA-87-120, NUDOCS 8707250156 | |
| Download: ML20235Y209 (4) | |
Text
____ _____.______-__ _ ___
o p Cae UNITED STATES
~ '
^,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
g ga WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
.m,*
July 23, 1987
' Docket No. 99900403 EA 87-120 General Electric Company Nuclear Energy Business Operations ATTN:
Mr. N. L. Felmus Vice President & General Manager
(
175 Curtner Avenue San Jose, California 95125
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NO. 99900403/86-03)
Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted on August 11 - 12, 1986 at your San Jose, CA facility.
During this inspection an Unresolved Item was identified.
The NRC has completed the review of the information contained in your letter l
dated February 11, 1987 in response to the Unresplved Item and the-information provided in a subsequent meeting with your Mr. G. Stramback at our office on April 2, 1987-Based on this review a violation of NRC requirements has been identified.
The violation described in the enclosed Notice of Violation (Notice) involves the failure to notify the NRC of a defect that could affect the operation of a licensed facility. An evaluation was conducted by General Electric (GE) under Potential Reportable Condition (PRC) 86-09 for a defect identified at Vermont Yankee.
GE had supplied non-safety related repair kits for scram solenoid pilot valves rather than the safety related kits requested in the purchase documenta-tion. These non-safety related kits resulted in slow scram times for six con-trol rods. GE evaluated.this defect as not being a significant safety hazard and, thus, not reportabTi under 10 CFR Part 21.
This evaluation was based on a previous transient analysis involving slow scram times at the Monticello Nuclear Plant.
The Monticello analysis was believed by GE to bound the conditions for slow scram times at Vermont Yankee.
The NRC has determined that the 10 CFR Part 21 evaluation done for Monticello was in error because your definition of defect is inconsistent with that of 10 CFR 21.3(d).
This section defines a defect to include a condition or circumstance' involving a basic component that could contribute to the exceeding of a safety limit as defined in the technical specifications.
The Monticello evaluation was in error because a Technical Specification Safety Limit for minimum critical power ratio would have been exceeded even though the potential offsite radiological exposures would have been below NRC guidelines.
Although the defect at Vermont Yankee affected only six control rods and was within the Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation, the ' potential existed that more defective repair kits could have been utilized at Vdrmont Yankee or at other licensed facilities where they were supplied.
Therefore, a 8707250156 870723 PDR GA999 ENVCENE 0
99900403 pga
/
1 i
L
I ' 4 ~.,.
,~
.; /
Y General Electric Company July 23, 1987 proper 10 CFR Part 21 evaluation would have determined that notification of the defective repair kits to both the NRC and affected facilities was required based on the potential for enough kits to be utilized that a safety limit could i
' be exceeded..Notwithstanding your evaluation, the information available.to your responsible officer reasonably indicated that there was a potential for a safety limit being exceeded.
However, a report was not made.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions", 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1987),.the violation described in the enclosed Notice has been classified at a Severity Level III.
Since the
(
violation was not the result of a knowing and conscious failure to provide the required notice and appears to be the result of an inadequate understanding of the regulations and an inadequate evaluation, a civil penaity is' not being proposed.
However, because your conclusion that this event was not reportable was based j
on an erroneous definition of a defect, please include as part of your response to this Notice any other reports required by Part 21 that have not been made due to your use of this definition.
The responses requested by this letter are not sybject to the clearance pro-cedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, James C. Partlow, Director Divisic n of Reactor inspection and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
4 Notice of Violation cc: Northern States Power Company Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation
1 General Electric Company July 23, 1987 DISTRIBUTION:
RIDS Code IE:09 VIB Reading-DRIS Reading J. Taylor, DEDO J. Martin, DEDRO S. Schinki, 0GC J. Lieberman, OE J. Partlow, NRR B. Grimes, NRR E. Merschoff, NRR J. Stone, NRR P. Milano, OE K. Naidu, NRR Enforcement Coordinators RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV B. Hayes, 01 S. Connelly, OIA E. Jordan, AE0D F. Ingram, PA D. Nussbaumer, GPSP DCS l
1 l
l
'S '
,,f fals OE OGC L)t D:NRR Q,0 D,
,Q PMilano SSohinki
-TMu4ey JLieberman y1 7/p/87 7/o*/87 7/tj/87 7/tl/87 7yB7
D 4
4 o
General Electric Company July 23, 1987 DISTRIBUTION:
~ RIDS Code IE:09
' VIB Reading DRIS Reading J. Taylor, DEDO J. Martin, DEDRO S. Schinki, OGC J. Lieberman, OE J. Partlow, NRR B. Grimes, NRR E. Merschoff, NRR J. Stone, NRR P. Milano, OE K. Naidu, NRR Enforcement Coordinators
'/
RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV B. Hayes, 01 S. Connelly, DIA E. Jordan, AE0D F. Ingram, PA D. Nussbaumer, GPSP DCS I
I i
j q
i
(
5'
-y L s OE OGC tit D:NRR p,v fg PMilano SSohinki 4ftrky JLieberman y1 7/go/87 7/ 9/87 7hj /87 7/tl/87 y87