ML19254E362
| ML19254E362 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Marble Hill |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1979 |
| From: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Dattilo T DATTILO, T.M. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19254E363 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910310500 | |
| Download: ML19254E362 (2) | |
Text
'
$26 m
,.l.
jo, UNITED STATES Q'
,=
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
y.,
REGION 111 t.
.- r#
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD 0,
,o/
GLEN ELLYN,ILLINolS 60137 October 1, 1979 Docket Nos. 50-546 50-547 Mr. Thomas D. Dattilo Attorney at Law 311 East Main Street Madison, Indiana 47250
Dear Mr. Dattilo:
This is in response to'your Letter of September 4,1979, in which you requested certain infornation relative to concrete placement activities at the Marble Hill nuclear site.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's construction inspection program includes the practice of reviewing, on a sampling basis, nonconformance reports initiated by the licensee and its contractors. The number of these reports at any nuclear construction site is considerable. The purpose of this review is to determine whether the licensee and its contractors are implementing their quality assurance programs for detecting nonconforming activities, and whether these nonconforming activities receive proper evaluation, correction and disposition.
If the inspector. finds that proper attention is being given to these matters by the licensee'and its c'ontractors, the nonconfor=ances are not viewed as being aberious breakdown in construction supervision. On the other hand, when nonconforming activities are either 'not identified by the applicable quality assurance progra=s or are not being dealt with properly, enforcement action is then taken. When this initial enforcement action fails to bring about the needed corrective actions, escalated enforcement is initiated (Management Meetings, Immediate Action Letters, Civil Penalties, Orders). As you know, several of these escalated actions were taken at Marble Hill beginning in April 1979.
With regard to the threc specific inquiries you presented in your letter, our office did have knowledge during mid to late 1978 of some instances in which concrete not fully meeting the licensee's specifications was installed by the Newberg Construction Company and that izproper concrete vibrating may have occurred (as evidenced by observed honeycombing).
Our inspectors also were aware that the qualifications of some offsite US Testing personnel had been questioned by Public Service of Indiana in an audit of US Testing activities at its Hoboken, New Jersey laboratory, which provided some testing services for Marble Hill.
It was concluded, however, that the identification and follovup of problems by the Public Service of Indiana and its contractors were reasonable and responsible.
Further, the existence of these documented nonconformances at that time, was not judged to be abnormal or indicative of a serious breakdown in the quality assurance p ro gram.
7 910310 (OD J'
4 347
Mr. Thomas D. Dattillo 10/1/79 As we find it neither necessary nor appropriate, we respectfully decline your request to respond to your letter under oath.
Furthermore, we see no reason for relinquishing our statutory responsibility to inspect and investigate activities at Marble Pill.
Sincerely,
..-. A fan n hn ---
,CL_
37 r/ James G. Keppler Director cc n/ incoming ler dtd 974/79:
144RC Central Files PDR Local PDR e
4 548
^
a e
9 G
... ~..
.