ML19341B746
| ML19341B746 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1981 |
| From: | Strasma J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Stramiris B AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102270348 | |
| Download: ML19341B746 (2) | |
Text
, _ _ -
SOL pa taco UNITED STATES y_
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
)e(
REGloN Ill 3
j 7ss acoSEVELT RoAo
/
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS Got 37 N
February 5, 1981 d
., k,f \\[OMU 1
qs 0 9 Y " H Mrs. Barbara Stamiris h
,p#g*
5795 N. River Freeland, MI 48623
/
e 7
Dear Mrs. Stamiris:
V// gi g @
This is in response to your December 14, 1980 letter concerning the Zack Company, which is the heating, ventilating and air conditioning contractor at the Midland Nuclear Power Station construction site.
As you know, the NRC fined Consu=ers Power Cc=pany S38,000 for violations involving work by Zack, and that fine was recently paid.
I as enclosing a copy of the January 7, 1981 notice of the fine.
You asked six qt estions in your letter:
1.
Were any such audits conducted by the NRC or Consu=ers prior to the lifting of the original stop work order?
A joint Bechtel/ Consumers Power group conducted an audit of the Zack Co=pany Chicago Office in April 1980.
T'e NRC conducted an extensive investigation into the Zack work. The April audit and the NRC investigation findings along with subsequent NRC inspect-ion results were reviewed prior to lifting of the stop work order.
2.
L'as that lif ting a joint NRC-Consumers decision?
The NRC reviewed the corrective action taken by Consumers and Zack prior to authorizing Consumers to lift the stop work order. The NRC's Innediate Action Letter, issued in March 1980, provided.for NRC review before work could resume.
(The NRC's review is covered in Inspection Reports 80-21 and 80-22).
3.
How is the partial stop work order different from the original'one?
The partial stop work affected only leak testing at the Zack facility in Chicago.
Site work at Midland and fabricating work at Chicago are not affected. The original stop work was a cocplete stoppage of all safety-related fabrication and' installation at the Midland site.
h Bros s7o 3tg t
Mrs. Barbara Stamiris February 5, 1981 4
Dces the NRC agree with Consumers' assessment that the duct testing program was the only shortec=1:.g revealed by the audit and that it was a "very small part of the total progras"'
The NRC is still reviewing Consumers' audit.
It is correct, however, that the duct testing program was only a small pertion of the work being done.
Consumers, with NRC's concurrence, has subsequently lifted the stop work order for the duct testing.
5.
Do you have any idea when the investigation will be concluded?
As I mentioned earlier, the investigation has been conpleted and a fine levied. The case is still being reviewed by the NRC's Office of Inspector and Auditor to determine if there are any aspects of the investigation which should be reviewed by the Department of Justice.
6.
I as also interested in any studies or reports en the pipe whip restraint creblem reported to the NRC this past August and hcw it involved quality control.
The NRC has asked Consumers Power to perform a thorough review of all low-alloy steel bolting material, 7/8 inch or greater in d. -
meter, which had been tecpered and quenched (heat treated and cooled). The licensee's review and NRC followup are still in progress. Similar problems have been identified at other plants and the NRC is censidering whether any action is needed to alert other licensees to the problem.
I hope this answers your questions. If I can be of further assistance, please let ce know.
Sincerely yours,
,wm Jan Strasca Public Affairs Officer cc:' PDR LPDR
'4.D. Paton, ELD J.H. Sniezek, IE
Enclosures:
Notice of Fine L