ML17053B339
| ML17053B339 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/28/1979 |
| From: | Robert Carlson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Rhode G NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17053B340 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001240150 | |
| Download: ML17053B339 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000410/1979005
Text
<Pg ASCC,
Fp,
+
.0
4y
I
Ap
Cy
/4,/p
0
+>>*++
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
63I PARK AVENUE
KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIAI9406
Docket No. 50-410
Q$Q gft979
Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation
ATTN:
Mr. G.
K. Rhode
Vice President
System Project Management
300 Erie Boulevard,
West
Syracuse,
13202
Gentlemen:
Subject:
Inspection
50-410/79-05
This refers to your letter dated October 23, 1979, in response
to our letter
dated August 23,
1979.
As stated in the Notice of Violation appended
to our letter of August 23,
1979,
S8W Procedure
EAP 16.2 requires
immediate notification to the client (Niagara.
Mohawk Power Company) of any deficiency which may be reportable.
As stated in your above referenced letter,
a task force was formed on or about
March,
1979 to investigate
the audit findings of September,
1978.
Nonconform-
ance
and Disposition Reports
issued
on April 4,
1979 stated that the
UT tech-
. nique
used to examine the "K" groove weld joints were inadequate
and questioned
the results of the
UT examination of the base-ring
"T" welds.
The dispositions
of these reports required reexamination of the "K" welds
and of 1005 of the "T"
10 CFR 50.55(e) identifies one form of a reportable deficiency as
"A
significant breakdown in any portion of the quality assurance
program.."
and
required
a report if it "...could have affected adversely
the safety of opera-
tions of..."
There appears
to be no question that the unacceptable
UT techniques
used are
a significant breakdown of a portion or the manufacturers
quality
assurance
program which was identified no later than April 4,
1979
and possibly
as early as September
1978.
Although you state that Niagara
Mohawk was informed
on May 18,
1979 that the problem was minor in nature,
you are here referring to
the results
of- reexamination of the "K" and "T" welds.
Until having obtained
these results,
you were not in a position to know whether it would or would not
affect the safety of operation of the plant.
However, you were certainly in a
position to know that it could. have affected the safety of operations.
Since
this deficiency should
have
been reported within twenty-four hours after April
4, 1979,
and was not reported until after its identification during the
NRC
inspection of May 14-17,
1979, it is our position that the noncompliance
as
cited is valid.
Soox94o
I G G
Niagara
Mohawk Power Corporation
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Your assertion that internal procedures
were complied with in evaluating the
deficiency raises
questions
as to the adequacy of those procedures
or at least
to misconceptions
in their implementation relative to 10 CFR 50.55(e).
The
resulting failure to report
a deficiency,
as required
by this regulation, is
clearly an item which requires
prompt corrective action to prevent recurrence.
Should you have any further questions
concerhing this matter,
we will be pleased
to discuss
them with you.
Sincerely,
Robert T. Garison, Chief
Reactor Construction
and Engineering
Support
Branch
CC:
Eugene
B. Thomas, Jr., Esquire