ML17138B759
| ML17138B759 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1980 |
| From: | Robert Carlson NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | Curtis N PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17138B760 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102040287 | |
| Download: ML17138B759 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000387/1980006
Text
I II ))EGO
~c"
o
C)
J)
)
O
S
++*+
4'ocket
Nos.50-387
50-388
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR
R EGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
631 PARK AVENUE
~
KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19406
0$ C 0 i:."Jv3
Jg)
')
.MC)
f l(
C)
QO
hP
w
Q
~ p
Power
8 Light Company
ATTN:
Nr. Norman
W. Curtis
Vice President
Engineering
and Construction - Nuclear
'
North Ninth Street
Allentown, Pennsyl vania
18101
Gentlemen:
Subject:
Combined Inspection 50-387/80-06;
50-388/80-04
This refers to your letter dated August 21, 1980, in response
to our letter
dated July 21, 1980.
Thank you for informing us of the corrective
and preventive actions
documented
in your letter.
These actions
are being examined during subsequent
inspections
of your licensed
program.
In reference
to your disagreement
with the classification of noncompliance
Item
C, tubing support bracket,
as
an infraction because
the item had not been
sub-
mitted for guality Control inspection, it is not a requirement of Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission inspections
that licensee guality Control inspection
be
completed before the
NRC inspect
an item or activity.
Nor is it a requirement
that the licensee
be offered the opportunity to detect errors at multiple levels
of checking and/or
inspection before the
NRC ci.te on an item or activity.
In
the case in question;
the original error, failure to provide clear instructions
on the drawing,
had already
escaped
one level of checking,
namely design checking.
It seems
reasonable
to assume that the apparent resultant failure on the part of
the craftsmen to discern the design intent could apply equally as well to
guality Control.
Therefore,
the classification of this noncompliance
as
an
infraction stands.
In response
to our request for a description of actions
taken or planned to
improve the effectiveness
of your quality assurance
program for construction,
you briefly described
a recent organizational
change.
We are evaluating the
impact of this change
on your program during subsequent
inspections,
particularly
in terms of the effectiveness
of identification of nonconforming conditions
and
adequate
corrective action.
Power
5 Light Co.
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Sincerely,
.
. e~f
~ obert T.
Ca
son, Chief
/
Reactor Construction
and
Engineering Support Branch
CC:
A. R. Sabol,
Manager,
Nuclear quality Assurance
kl.
E. Barberich,
Licensing Engineer
H.
W. Keiser, Superintendent
of Plant
'
I