ML20062H749
| 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: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8008270511 | |
| Download: ML20062H749 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000322/1979024
Text
_
__
- - - _ - -
p** ** %
UNITED STATE 3
.
!
gb
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON
" 1 O
h
REGION I
'
l
"' f
- ~%
$31 Pa m e( AVENUE
&.
E
stssec OF PauS5t A. PEwativt.v ANs A 19404
%, . . .. . /
GN10un -
Md'.ORANDUM FOR:
D. Thocpson, Executive Officer for Operationu upport, IE
s
~
+
-
FROM:
B. H. Grier, Director, Region I
,
-
,
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
have been more clearly stated in the report.
l
,
l
-
,
.
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
-
-
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