IR 05000410/1982010

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
IE Mgt Meeting Rept 50-410/82-10 on 820414.Areas Discussed: Corrective Actions Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Rept 50-410/81-13
ML17053D128
Person / Time
Site: Nine Mile Point Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 04/15/1982
From: Ebneter S
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML17053D127 List:
References
50-410-82-10, NUDOCS 8204300304
Download: ML17053D128 (4)


Text

~

U.

S.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION I

Report No M82-10 Docket No.

50 410 License No.

Pri ority Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard, 1<est Syracuse, New York 13202 Facility Name.

Nine Mile Point 2 Meeting at:

King of Prussia, PA Meeting conducted:

April -14, 1982 NRC Personnel:

a Category date signed date signed Approved by:

S.

.

E neter, C ie

, Engineer>ng Programs Branch Meetin Summar

date signed d te signed

.Areas Discussed:

A meeting was held at the request of the licensee to discuss proposed corrective actions in relation to violations identified in Inspection Report 81-13.

Results:

The following conclusions were reached:

(a) the licensee should include in Kss response to the violations the verbal conmitmenhs made in the NHPC/Region I/NRR meeting held on January 13, 1982 in Bethesda, Maryland and the commitments/details of the NMPC submittal to NRR dated January 22, 1982; (b) in addition, the licensee should include any other commitments necessary 'to assure all the violations are corrected and that adequate measures to.prevent recurrence are implemented; (c) as defined in the January 22, 1982 submittal, the proposed organizational element Compliance and Verification Unit, which will report to the NMPC Nine Mile Point 2 Project Manager, is acceptable provided it does not dilute the gA organization functions, does not adversely impact the gA organization staff, and is audited by the gA organization for effectiveness; (d) the submittal date for the licensee's response to IR 81-13 was extended to April 23, 1982.

Region I Form 12-1 (Rev.

February 1982)

':~}V>f" ~'}'3 'f

"

. "i >f 'yf~3

<<

i ti}'f<'

Bf}f'

/IIviV)

'V

~ '}f<<V )"$

}l f v'f'I' ",

'}

<<V i V+

IV

}

$

P I

0', )

j'y<<i

Vj I'

.

I P,II

'r, V,V'~~1'i ',ii -.,

f<< ""<i;",

"i

}t

}

'i 4l

<<~

II

}IV>

}

'

" i I

~ II,IL'<<<<f<<f-" 4IIQlilV, ,'"~pc.q"i II V <<x VV+ I.,l I 3)ll> j ) W' i<<V < <<.},3P '})<i g f I'< <<. <<}'>>'I' << i<<i) I,jl, <<:l<<V <<, ~<<<<fl", ('

8'}1 It<<P<

> "" ' "~ ~i" <<f<< 'I << ~ I ', ' <<>> lf~>> DETAILS 1. Meetin Attendees Nia ara Mohawk Power Cor oration NMPC R. Clancy, Senior Vice President, NMPC G. K. Rhode, Vice President, NMPC U.S. Nuclear Re ulator Commission R. T. Garison, Director, Enforcement 8 Investigationi' S. D. Ebneter, Chief, Engineering Programs Branch.. DETP, RI E. J. Brunner, Chief, Projects=Branch,No. 1, DPRP,, RI> L. E. Tripp, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2A, DPRP, RI S. K. Chaudhary, Reactor Inspector, M&PS, EPB,. DETP, RI 2. ~tt tl S The meeting was convened on April 14, 1982 at the request of the licensee to discuss proposed corrective actions in response to the findings of the Construction Assessment Team Inspection documented in report 81-13. 3. Areas Discussed The participants discussed corrective actions which had been previously proposed in a meeting held at Bethesda, Maryland on January 13, 1982 which was attended by representatives of Nine Mile Point 2, NRC Region I, and NRC Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). In addition, the letter dated January 22, 1982, with an attachment that detailed a proposed organizational change to strengthen project controls at NMP-2 was discussed. These proposals were considered acceptable and appropriate as partial corrective actions in response to IR 81-13 findings. It was agreed that they would be supplemented by the formalization of oral commitments made at the January 13, 1982 meeting and other commitments as necessary to correct all violations and prevent recurrence. The extensive findings of the CAT inspection has impacted the licensee's abi.lity to develop complete responses to all of the findings. The time period to respond was extended until April 23, 198 V 1 '),hHfH ~ I H ~ H ~ H ' y f Hr Ill IH I IHH il H H H H H h I HHf lt 'I"H t C ' 'h H r ~ r' }}