ML20134E851
Text
.
_ -... -. -.- ~
is j
l i
)
.1I July 31, 1992 NOTE TO:
James Lieberman, OE i
FROM:
David Matthews, PDII-3 a
i
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED REPLY TO ENFORCEMENT ACTION 91-141, VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 i
{
On July 9, 1992, Georgia Power Company (GPC) paid the civil j
monetary penalty associated with the opening of chemical l
j injection valves during modes that required them to be locked i:
-closed.
GPC's letter contained several remarks, including the i
following:
,(
Third, we continue to be concerned with the position i
taken in this enforcement action regarding reporting of 4
the event.
Even assuming a violation of the Technical i
Specifications occurred, events outside the plant licensing basis, such as this case, are not always i
outside the design basis of the plant.
The position j
taken by the NRC staff in this enforcement action is at j
odds with... ongoing discussions between the industry j
and the NRC on developing consistent interpretations of l
reporting requirements.
NRR does not agree that the staff's position on Vogtle is at odds with ongoing discussions between the industry and the NRC.
Our discussion with AEOD (P. Baranowsky) confirms that the staff's position does not conflict with discussions between industry and NRC.
In Vogtle's case, an uncontrolled boron dilution event in Mode 5 with loops not filled was precluded by design (along with the licensee's associated procedures and Technical Specification requiring them to be locked closed).
The design basis was not based on a design calculation for time-to-criticality as no valid calculation existed at the time. (If such design basis calculation had existed in 1988, then we agree that the event might not have been reportable.) Moreover, by openina the valves, the operator violated both the licensing basis and the design basis because they were the same in 1988.
Since opening the valves placed the plant in a condition outside its regulatory design basis as defined in 10 CFR 50.2 and delineated in SECY-91-364, the event was reportable pursuant to 10 CFR 50.73 (a) (2) (ii) (B).
Thus this NRC action is consistent with the reporting requirements and the ongoing dialogue with industry.
b
{I h/
9611040148 960827 kohN9-1 PDR mm,
_e-
' ~ ' ' "
l 4
t I
r, 2
f NRR proposes that the following comment be included with your reply acknowledging receipt of GPC's check:
i The NRC has reviewed your comment that our position regarding reporting of the event is at odds with ongoing discussions between the industry and the NRC on developing a
consistent interpretations'of reporting requirements.
find no such contradiction.
We i
Rather, our position is dialogue with industry. consistent with reporting requirements and th I.
l
)
/?L Y
/7LDavidB.Matthews xc:
i P. Baranowsky MNBB 9112 i
S. Varga 12-E-4 i
w'.
Partlow 12-G-18 D. Hood 14-H-25 4
]
1 4
~. _.. _._ _._. _ _ _. _ _.
t/
l l-q,7 A. /A~d L %:n 9t-1J1 i
aut s1 mz e
Georgia Power Company I
ATTN:
Mr. W. G. Hairston, III Senior Vice President -
4 l
Nuclear Operations l
40 Inverness Center Parkway Post Office Box 1295 l
Birmingham, Alabama 35201 i
Gentlemen:
i I
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated July 9, 1992 and your check for $100,000 in payment of the civil penalty imposed by order dated June 12, 1992.
Ne have reviewed y I
concern regarding the NRC Staff's position on reportability and have found the Staff's position is consistient with present NRC interpretations of the reporting requirements.
Sincerely, OriginalSigned Dy James Lieberman James Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement cc:
S.
Ebneter, RII Distribution JLieberman JLuehman GJenkins, RII EA File Day File
' c 7'f DCS OE:
J e
ruan 7/
/92
]
i
&&Q%9-W ff,
-.