ML20062H749

Submits Comments in Response to Re IE Investigation Rept 50-322/79-24.Clarifies Minor Points. Revision Not Necessary

ML20062H749
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	06/10/1980
From:	Grier B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Thompson D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
Shared Package
ML19344E167	List: IR 05000322/1979024 ML20062H745 ML20062H749 ML20062H751 ML20062H756 ML20062H767 ML20062H770
References
NUDOCS 8008270511
Download: ML20062H749 (2)

See also: IR 05000322/1979024

Text

_ __ - - - _ - -

• *

p** ** % UNITED STATE 3 * .

! gb NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON

'

l " 1 O h REGION I

• • ~%

"'Ef $31 Pa m e( AVENUE

&. stssec OF PauS5t A. PEwativt.v ANs A 19404

%, . . .. . /

GN10un -

Md'.ORANDUM FOR: D. Thocpson, Executive Officer for Operationus upport, IE

~

-

+

B. H. Grier, Director, Region I

,

-

FROM: ,

SUBJECT: ' 510REHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION INVESTIGATION REPORT NO.

50-322/79-24 .

-

.

With respect to a menorandum from H. D. Thornburg to you dated May 22,1980 on

the above referenced subject, we are providing the following comments.

.

1. Relative to observation la, our statement was that the condenser was not

classified as a Ccde vessel "as the shell side is under vacuum" due to the

fact-thati Section VIII, Division 1, U-l(Scope), Paragraph (c)(8) specifi-

cally excludes those vessels with internal or external pressures less than

15 psi. We agree that the ph[ase could have been deleted without s,ignifi-

- -

,

cantly affecting the conclusion drawn. ,

-

,

2. Relative to observation lb, our statement "this was confirmed by the NRC"

refers to our confirmation of S&W statements regarding the procedures

utilized to retube a partially ' built condenser. Since this conclusion was

-

made by an inspector who is considered to be an expert in the design and

construction of condensers, we concluded that that fact provided eno. ugh

basis for our " confirmation." ,

3. Relative to observation lc, the rationale for selecting the outlet tube -

ends for exacir.ation was based on the allegation that the tubes were ~

ha: cered in, allegedly using a two by four piece of lumber. Any damage

caused by such hamering would evidence itself on the hammered end, in this

' - case, the outlet side of the tubes. The inlet side of the tubes might be

subjected to scoring, an area covered in the report, while deforniation

would occur at the outlet end as a result of the alleged hansnering.

-

! 4. Relative to observation 1d, we agree with your coments. The words, "This

l reouest to withhold" refers to an internal decision by the licensee to not

! -

include the results from the septic system boring with those being assembled

l relative to the liquefaction study which was underway at the time. This,

in our judoenent, was justified. The~re was no willful attempt to withhold

'

~

any of the'lieuefaction data from the NRC. The one-time-only septic system

borings had no relationship to the licuefaction study. This matter could

l have been more clearly stated in the report. ,

l -

l

, 1

.

0008270hl

. _ ._ _

.

,

. _- -. .

. .

.

Memo for D. Tnompson 2

We do not consider it necessary to issue a revision to this investigation report

even though some increased clarity might be achieved in some cases.

.

.. ey

'

. i! 4% -

.

J

Boyc6 H. Grier

Director

CC -

-

H. D. Thornburg, DRCI

J. B. Henderson, DfI

W. J. Ward, XOOS V

C. O. Gallina, RI

R. Carlson, RI

. .

e

e

.

e

S

e

e

4

e

e

9

_ . . y