ML20137J617

Discusses Util Inadequate 780605 Response to Deviation Re Concrete Testing Noted in Insp Repts 50-445/78-07 & 50-446/78-07.Response Should Be Accepted Based on Listed Reasons,Including Util Willingness to Correct Error

ML20137J617
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	06/13/1978
From:	Renee Taylor NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Seidle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML17198A292	List: IR 05000445/1975010 IR 05000445/1975013 IR 05000445/1977001 IR 05000445/1977002 IR 05000445/1977006 IR 05000445/1978001 IR 05000445/1978007 ML20136E534 ML20136F607 ML20136F614 ML20136F654 ML20136F657 ML20137F450 ML20137F490 ML20137F614 ML20137F642 ML20137F839 ML20137F884 ML20137F989 ML20137G027 ML20137G052 ML20137G077 ML20137G179 ML20137G288 ML20137G337 ML20137G361 ML20137G411 ML20137G433 ML20137G469 ML20137G481 ML20137G492 ML20137G650 ML20137G666 ML20137G734 ML20137G823 ML20137G863 ML20137G901 ML20137G920 ML20137G975 ML20137H013 ML20137H032 ML20137H104 ML20137H117 ML20137H144 ML20137H159 ML20137H181 ML20137H212 ML20137H221 ML20137H233 ML20137H245 ... further results
References
FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8512030005
Download: ML20137J617 (2)

See also: IR 05000445/1978007

Text

m

.

,

,-

.

.

'

..

'

t

+

. . - .

.

_

c.

.

-

.

,

-o.

,

.

.--

June 13, 1978

k Occket No. 50-445/Rpt. 78-07

c-

50-446/Rpt. 78-07

.m..n .

.

.m

-

(.I;

HEMORMiDU't FOR:

W. C. Seidle, Chief, RC&ES Branch

i

THRU:

W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section

FROM:

R. G. Taylor, Reactor Inspector, Projects Section

SUBJECT:

CPSES RESPONSE TO DEVIATION 78-07

TUGC01.ETTER DATED JUNE 5,1978

Then is probably some concem that TUGC0 has not adequately responded

to the deviation, particularly in regard to actions taken to pmvent

recurrence.

The deviation occurred as the result of a conscious decision by BaR which

was concurred in by Gibbs & Hill as the Engineer a

workload.

It was e understanding that the idea came from TUGC0 QA.

the site was well within the obvious intent of the project concrete sp

Further,

cations as they presently exist.

ecifi-

concrete as a whole was properly tested as was brought out in th

following points:It is g mcomendation that we accept their response based up

The decision to perfom tests in the manner that created the deviation

a.

was a fully conscious, coordinated and docucented decision but unfor-

tunately was also in error,

b.

The concrete was tested; i.e., no program bmakdown occurred and the

' (.

.

was no identified lack of concrete quality.

..

2 .7

-

The licensee corrected the situation irrediately after it was braucht

c.

r- -

to his attention; deconstrating his willingness to cooperate fully

. :?

.

.;..

-

"

g20j.g5 eM

i

CAR DE05-D9

eerm. e

__g

_

W

Tay1. ,. .h

Crossman_

e ...=.

_6/13/78

._ 6/.13/78

. _ -

....

- . . . _

NRC PORat 518 (944) NRod 0140

. . .

..._. -

. _ _ _ _

• v. e. eeve=== ew, emaete=e erave s, se,e - ese444

_ _ _ .

- . . .-

.

. _ - - _

. - . .

.

< , . . .

.

,?

.

-

-

, , ,

. , .

-

-

-

.

~

.

..

W. C. Seidle

.

-2-

- -

d.

The writer cannot think of a preventative action that will preclude

.

,

'

'

this type of error from occurring. Audits or training will not do

-

so since they would normally be based upon project specifications

.

-'

.and procedums which allowed the idea to develop. These documents

. s

- : ..'i

'

were fully approved by all required levels of engineering and quality

.

assurance.

.

ergy -

. ., :

-

R. G. Taylor, Reactor Inspector

Projects Section

i

.

I

I

'

.

O

..

-

~%Q? 'ee

- ~e .

-l. '. *

I

!

..

.

.; : -

,

E;# ..

i

1

j

2

e

'i

e

- - - .

- - - . . -

- -

.

- - - - - - - -

- -

- - -