ML20082B478

Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Rept 50-322/83-26.Corrective Actions:Util Verification Program Implemented by Field QA Div Providing Assurance That Hanger Installation in Accordance W/Design Documents

ML20082B478
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	09/30/1983
From:	Pollock M LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML20082B473	List: ML20082B478
References
SNRC-969, NUDOCS 8311210204
Download: ML20082B478 (5)

Text

.

O e e- ,

IEEEERSA

[,/E,g l LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COM PANY k 175 EAST OLD COUNTRY ROAD

• H ICK SVI LLE, NEW YORK 11801 MILLARD S. POLLOCK vsCE PRESIDENT = NUCLEAR September 30, 1983 SNRC-969 Mr. Richard Starostecki, Director Division of Project and Resident Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 NRC Inspection of August 9-11, 1983 Shoreham Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1 Report No. 50-322/83-2fo

Dear Mr. Starostecki:

In accordance with Title 10CFR Part 2.201, Attachment 2 of this letter provides LILCO's response to the Notica of Violation con-tained in Appendix A of your letter dated August 30, 1983 which forwarded the results of special inspection 50-322/83-26.

Our response includes (1) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (2) the corrective steps taken to prevent recurrence of similar violations; and (3) the date when full compliance is expected to be achieved.

! While we anticipate that you will find this response acceptable, please do not hesitate to call my office should you require further information or clarification regarding cur reply.

Very truly yours, N k hb H. S. Pollock Vice President-Nuclear MSP/ law S4 Attachments cc: C. Petrone, I&E Resident Inspector All Parties listed in Attachment 1

~

8311210204 831114 PDR ADOCK 05000322 PDR n g

a STATE OF NEW YORK )

ss.:

COUNTY OF SUFFOLK )

MILLARD S. POLLOCK, being duly swoi:n, deposes and says that I am the Vice President - Nuclear for Long Island Lighting Company, the owner of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. I have read the Notice of Violation dated August 30, 1983, and also the response thereto dated September 30, 1983 prepared under my direction. The facts set forth in said response are based upon reports and information provided to me by the employees, agents, and representatives of Long Island Lighting Company responsible for the activities described in said Notice of Violation and in said response. I believe the facts set forth in said responses are true.

gadd h.

d MfLLARD S._POLLOCK Sworn to before me this

/d "

-day of Je @ , 1983

)% $

RCSA L:E CLP/ EROS

. Notary Pub!!c Stab of timv York tio. 204 7c32s3 Qualified in Nassau County Commission expires Mar. 30,19 YY

ATTACHMENT 1 Lawrence Brenner, Esq. Herbert H. Brown, Esq.

Administrative Judge Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Karla J.~Letsche, Esq.

Board Panel Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Christopher & Phillips Commission 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20555 1900 M. Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Dr. Peter A. Morris Administrative Judge Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith Atomic Safety and Licensing Energy Research Group Board Panel 4001 Totten Pond Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Dr. George A. Ferguson Suite K i

School of Engineering San Jose, California 95125 Howard University 2300 6th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20059 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

Twomey, Latham & Shea 33 West Second Street Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. P.O. Box 398 David A. Repka, Esq. Riverhead, New York 11901 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

Washington, D.C. 20555 Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.

9 East 40th Street Mr. James Dougherty New York, New York -10016 ,

3045 Porter Street -

Washington, D.C. 20008 Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.

State of New York L'

Department of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 i

I m

f-

~

2 Attachment 2 1,

i 4

RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF VIOLATION l i

. Violation

i. .

j - 10CFR50, Appendix B, Criterion X, and Shoreham FSAR Section 17.1.10A require that inspections . verify conformance of completed con-

struction activities to documented instructions, procedures, and drawings..  !

l-Contrary to the above, as of August 11,.1983, . documentation recording final Quality Control bolt torquing-inspections of hanger.

i 1P41-PSR-5332 was not consistent with the hanger as-built condi-tion, in that the inspection record indicated bolts and nuts were i- torqued whereas the actual installation utilized studs and nuts. -

j t

Response

[

(1) Corrective steps taken and results achieve'd:

The condition details on support 1P41-PSR-5332 are identified on LILCO Deficiency Report (LDR) #1559. _LILCO performed a

reinspection of this support to determine ~ if the actual ~

1 installation meets all . the existing site requirements._ The 3

results of this reinspection revealed'that7although,the1FQC

inspection report references bolts -instead of studs, ' all I conditions of installation including _the use'of studs are in conformance with approved installation requirements.,

The studs installed were verified to'have:been manufactured using alloy-Al 93 GR 97'which.is an approved stud material.

The.nutssutilized~were' confirmed to be ANCO nuts,_-also site

approved for

this installation.- In addition, : the . torque '

requirements were verified to be within..limitsispecified_for this. installation., Based upon the-material. confirmation and-torque verification required by LDR #1559,.no'further correc-j ~tivecaction is' required for this. support.

i >

(2).. Correcitive steps taken .to preventi recurrence '

r of similari _

! . violations:

L

" ~

'The Verification Program, instituted bylLILCO and> implemented:

by our Field-Quality Assurance Division' asidescribed !in.

section 4.a of .I&E Inspection -_ Report 50-322/83--13: provides us '

.with reasonablelassurance that,famong'other things,-the: actual;-

installation of hangers' 'is~ :in 7accordance E with J the - design -

L documents. To J provide'. further 4 assurance, a sample ~ 'of 123 -

similar hangers-received-a' quality control inspection:and~all-

~

were . - found 3 tol be :in acompliance Ewith idesign. specification - < J; requirementis . : 1 Based upon._thefextensiveuverificationiprograms instituted Jon Tsite 'and the 7 results; of.~ourj reinspec. tion' of u 23_..

simil' ar -- hangers , .LILCO ' . believes i this 1. condition _- to? be " an~-

t

. isolated-occurrencei m

l

',e e li _

s .

s

~

, 4 f_ J

l l

1 Attachment 2, Continued; l i

(3) The date when full compliance will be achieved:

Based upon the acceptability of the installed hanger, the extensive verification program, and'the results of our sample reinspection, full compliance has been achieved.

w 4

V

, s -

m L._.