ML20062H745

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to Request for Comment on IE Investigation Rept 50-322/79-24.Questions Appropriateness or Accuracy of Conclusions on Pages 46,47,48 & 54.Otherwise,rept Documents Apparently Extensive & well-performed Investigation
ML20062H745
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 05/22/1980
From: Thornburg H
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To: Thompson D
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
Shared Package
ML19344E167 List:
References
NUDOCS 8008270506
Download: ML20062H745 (2)


See also: IR 05000322/1979024

Text

____

p

-

UrnTED STATES

Enclosure 1

  • t .. Q- [g! j ,,ip ^$

NUCLE'AR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.

'

'

'

M

WA$MINGToN, D. C. 20555

. . .. '/

gay 4 2 l$d0

.

o

-

.

G'ORANDUM FOR:

D. Thompson, Executive Officer for Operations Support, IE

-

.

.

FRDXf

H. D. Thornburg, Direct 6r, Division o' Reac'q renstruction

-

Inspection. IE

SUBJdCT:

SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION INVESTIGATION REPORT

NO.

50-322/79-24

-

,

.

.

.

As requested, RCI has reviewed the subject report and associated' documents

for technical validity.

We have the following comments.

1.

There are.five locations where we question the appropriateness or

accuracy o_f the conclusions.

.

.

a.

On page 45, in the first sentence of allegation 22. finding b, and on

page 48, in the first sentence of allegation 23

finding b, the state- + 4

rent is cade that the condenser is not classified as a Code vessel 'as

the shell side is under vacuum".

This conclusion is not valid.

The

.

ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, in both Section III Nuclear

,

~~

Co:ponents, and Section:YIII, Unfired Pressure Vessels, provides rules

for design and construction of components to operate under vacuum (or

external .p essure).

It is a true, and in 'our opinion, sufficient,

.

_

state:aent that the condenser is not a safety-related unit, and is not'

classified as an ASME Code Vessel . We recommend the quoted phrase be

deleted in both locations.

-

.

b.

On page 47, the last sentence of the first (partial) paragraph reads, .

"This was confirmed by the NRC."

We find no basis or support for

that statement.

c.

On page 48, the first full sentence.

We do not understand the rationale

-

for selecting the outlet tube ends for examination since, if the tubes

we e inserted from the outlet side, 'the end projection would be the only

part of a tube which had not been pushed through a tube sheet or support

'

plate. Tube end damage, if any were to be found, would most likely

occur on the inlet tube end which would have been. pushed through both

t::be sheets, and every support plate.

'

.

,

d.

Page 54, the last sentence of the first (partial) paragraph. We do not

understand the use of the words, "This request to withold." We find no

A

E

'

!

CD.'iTACT:

J. E. Henderson

i

49-27551

I

-

t

! 80082706 %

.

.

.

..

-

.

--.

- .

.

.

__

.

i

-

.

.

.

2-

MAY 2 21350

'

-

-

.

reference to a "recuest to withold."

-

ig

2.

Subject to the above cor nents, we find that the report documents what

appears to be an extensive and well performed irivestigation.

,

-

b. 'f.

& k-

-

,

t_

.

H. D. Thornburg.

-

Director

Division of Reactor Construction

Inspection

.

,

Office of Inspection

.

'

and Enforcement

cc:

~

~

-

B. H. Grier, RI

.

C. O. Gallina, RI

W. J . a rd, X005

-

.

- .. .

e.e

e

e

a

.

e8

e

e

.

O

es

e

e

.

.

Se

o

O

.

.

O

e

,

I

-

-_