ML20247D460

Corrected Notice of Violation from Insp on 890109-13. Notice of Violation Submitted on 890302 Inadvertently

ML20247D460
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	03/02/1989
From:	Julian C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20247D440	List: IR 05000424/1989003 ML20247D435 ML20247D460
References
50-425-89-03, 50-425-89-3, NUDOCS 8903310085
Download: ML20247D460 (2)

Text

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

. m w * -

ENCLOSURE 1 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Georgia Power Company. Docket No. 50-425 Vogtle License'No. CPPR-109

'During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on January 9 - 13, 1989, a violation of NRC requirements .was' identified. . In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforce--

ment 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 Assurance 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 init ,1 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. .% 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.

It, 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, i 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.

hk G

4

___________J

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. response 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 sSould not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action

.as may be proper should not be taken.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a A,d%

Caudie A. Julian, Chief Engineering Branch. .

Division of Reactor Safety Dated at Atlanta, Georgia this g day of March 1989 I

I l

I 1

I 1

4 1

- - _ - _ - - _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ . _ _ _ i