ML20247B989

Notice of Violation from Insp on 890109-13.Violations Noted: NRC Not Appraised of Potential High Energy Line Break Locations Until 881114 & Lack of Evaluation of Blocked Forged Tee

ML20247B989
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	03/02/1989
From:	Julian C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20247B982	List: ML20247B980 ML20247B989 ML20247C003
References
50-425-89-03, 50-425-89-3, NUDOCS 8903300095
Download: ML20247B989 (2)

Text

y'

.y ,

f* _.

I' .

n ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION  ;

Georgia Power Company Docket No. 50-425 L Vogtle' License No. CPPR-109 ,

p During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on L January 9 - 13, 1989, a violation of NRC requirements was identified. In ,

.accordance with the'" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforce- i tr.ent Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1988), the violation is listed below:

10 CFR 50'.55(e)(1) requires in part that, the holder of the- construction permit notify the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of each deficiency found in design and construction which were it to have remained uncorrected, could have affected adversely the safety of operations of the nuclear power plant at anytime. throughout- the expected lifetime of the plant. The implementing procedure, Georgia Power Company's Quality Assutance Department procedure QA-04-02, paragraph 1.B. contains examples . of reportable deficiencies which include: (1) deficiencies / defects which require replacement of a safety class component and (2) deficiencies / defects which require-extensive evaluation. In addition, paragraph 1.F of QA-04-02 requires that an initial report be made to NRC without having officially determined whether the occurrence is reportable and will be reported as a " potential 10CFR50.55(e)."

Contrary to the above, on May 7,1987, Georgia Power Company (GPC) was aware.of a potentially reportable discrepancy in Unit 2 concerning a block

- forged tee with structural discontinuities that had been installed in a Class 1 piping system without GPC concurrence. On May 21.-1987, GPC made the decision to replace the block forged tee with an acceptable extruded tee and extruded reducer. Since the original forged reducing tee designed for the installation had higher than ASME Code allowable stresses the licensee concluded that the forged tee would further adversely impact the existing design analysis. An evaluation to determine the long term detrimental effects the blocked forged tee could have had on safe operation of the plant had it remained installed in the system, was not performed. The deficiency was not reported by the licensee to NRC as required until November 14, 1988.

In addition, during a broadness review of the above discrepancy (between  ;

May 7, 1987 and May 18, 1987), GPC discovered that of a total of 44 ASME Class 1 tees installed; 41 were block forged in lieu of extruded including the one discussed above. Subsequent extensive evaluations found that the 40 remaining tees were acceptable as installed. However, 11 new potential high energy line break locations resulted from their installation. NRC also was not appraised of this aspect of a potential reportable item until November 14, 1988.

3903300095 890302 P PDR ADOCK 05000424 c G PNU b

.o 7

2 This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement II).

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region II, and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, within 30 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) admission or denial of the violation, (2) the reason for the violation if admitted, (3) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the ,responsc time. 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.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O

l.

Caudie A. Julian, Chief Engineering Branch Division of Reactor Safety Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this g day of March 1989

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -