ML20134G604

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests Info Re Deficiencies in Ruskin Fire Dampers Noted in 841127 Part 21 Rept,Including Model Types,Notification to Other NRC Regional Offices & Generic Implications.Nrc Failure to Act When Problem Reported in 1980 Questioned
ML20134G604
Person / Time
Site: Palo Verde, 05000000
Issue date: 01/07/1985
From: Garde B
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
To: James Keppler
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20132C675 List:
References
FOIA-85-264, FOIA-85-265, REF-PT21-85 NUDOCS 8508270057
Download: ML20134G604 (2)


Text

_

>a

~ -

-January 7, 19851.

Mr. James G. Keppler Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 ,

Dear Mr. Keppler:

On November 27, 1984 you were notife6 by Mr. James ' Cook of Consumers Power Company ("CPCo") that Ruskin Manufacturing Company ("Ruskin") had filed a Part 21 report about three models of HVAC Interlocking Blade Fire Dampers. As you may recall, several of GAP's clients raised the problems'with the Ruskin Fire Dampers several years ago. Specifically, we are referring to the complaints of Mr. Dean Darty in 1979, 1980 and 1982; and also,of Mr. Earl. Kent in 1982.

Mr. Cook's letter erroneously reports that the problems with the dampers were ori'ginally recognized at the Palo Verde nuclear station when the dampers' failed to close under normal duct pressure.

GAP is interested in why the HRC/ Region III did not take ~

appropriate action in 1980 when the fire damper problem was first reported. We request the following information re-garding the Ruskin Fire Dampers:

1. What model types are included in the Part 21 noti-fication?
2. What action, if any, was taken in the 1979-82 time frame to determine whether-the problems ultimately

, discovered in operation at Palo Verde were a potential?

3. What notification, if any, did Region III give to the other Regional NRC of fices, or to the operators and constructors of nuclear power plants?
4. What action was taken by Region III or the vendor inspection branch to determine when Ruskin or the Zack Corporation decided to notify the NRC about the problems known to both corporations for several years? e508270057 850802 PDR FOIA MCDEVIT65-264 PDR JAN 33 gg5

=~- , . . .

e 9,

Mr. James G. Keppler January 7, 1985 ,

.
. .. m . .

Page Two .. . , .,

_._ t

5. Has this matter been, or will it be, referred to the Office of Investigations ("OI") for investi-gation into the four-year delay of a Part 21 notific>. ion?
6. What efforts have been taken to issue an Informa-tion Bulletin regarding the Ruskin Fire Dampers?
7. What program is in place, if any, to determine the generic implications of allegations given to '

the NRC7

'By separate request filed today under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), we have requested all information developed on this issue. GAP would appreciate a response as soon as possible.

Sincerely, IMC 8

Billie Pirner Garde Citizens Clinic Director

\

BPG:me cc: William Dircks, EDO Darrell Eisenhut, NRR ~

Ben Hayes, OI Dean Dartey Terry Howard enclosure

,