ML19318C687
| ML19318C687 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1980 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19318C680 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007020164 | |
| Download: ML19318C687 (2) | |
Text
_
-. s,.
O ENCLOSURE License Nos. CPPR 106 & 107 Docket No. 50-352 & 353 Applicant: Philadelphia Electric Co. (PECO)
' Facility: Limerick 1 & 2 SUPNARY OF MEETING WITH PECO ON FEBRUARY 27, 1980 On February 27, 1980, representatives of the Philadelphia Electric Company, at their request, met with NRC Region I personnel to discuss the reporting of significant design and construction deficiencies in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e) requirements. Attendance at this meeting is indicated in the attachment.
PEC0 representatives stated that they were interested in NRC's interpretation of when the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period commences, within which notification of a reportable deficiency is required by 10 CFR 50.55(e).
PECO's interpretation had been that the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period commenced only after an affirmative decision that a design or construction deficiency was reportable.
PECO had not considered that there was a limit on the amount of time taken to decide whether an item is reportable.
PECO was informed by NRC that they should consider any item to be reportable unless a prompt decision could be made that it is not reportable.
In the case of an item concerning which a prompt decision on reportability could not be made, the item should be treated as reportable until and unless it is determined to be not reportable.
In this case, terminology such as " potential significant deficiency" or "potentially reportable" may be used in reports, if desired.
If an item is determined to be not reportable subsequent to a telephone notification or written report to NRC, that fact may be reported in the same fashion, i.e.,
by telephone notification or written report respectively.
Two other topics were also discussed during the meeting, as follows:
1.
NRC representatives stated that it was their understanding that changes had been made in PEC0's upper management.
If PECO desires a change in the individuals to whom correspondence from NRC Region I is addressed, a letter from PECO stating this is requestad.
2.
NRC representatives requested a meetim with PECO management be held in the near future to discuss various routine matters of interest.
(Meeting subsequently held on March 21, 1980 and documented in Meeting 50-352/80-06 and50-353/80-06).
Ml@@
c-
.o w
ATTACHMENT Attendance at the PECO-NRC meeting held on February 27, 1980 at the NRC Region I office PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY Mr. J. Corcoran, Field QA Branch Head (Construction) l Mr. C. Endriss, QA Engineer (Electrical Production)
Mr. G. Hutt, Office QA Branch Head (Construction)
Mr. H. Walters, QA Manager (Construction)
BECHTEL CORPORATION Mr. E. Klossin, Project QA Engineer OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT, REGION I Mr. R. Carlson, Chief, RC&ES Branch Mr. J. Mattia, Resident Reactor Inspector Mr. R. McGaugby, Chief Projects Section, RC&ES Branch
.