ML20199F049

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Ack Receipt of Describing Matls Used During Training Course Presented at Facility.Disappointment Expressed That contrary-to-policy Nature of Matl Not Identified.Subsequent Listed Actions Recommended
ML20199F049
Person / Time
Site: Oyster Creek
Issue date: 10/21/1985
From: Taylor J
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To: Phyllis Clark
GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP.
Shared Package
ML20199F019 List:
References
FOIA-86-37 NUDOCS 8603270512
Download: ML20199F049 (2)


Text

.

1 gm RfC

,,/ 3g UNITED STATES y g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

;j waswinarou, o. c. 20sss ,

t 4

% e ...e / OCT 211985 A

, (/

Mr. P. R. Clark, President GPU Nuclear Corporation 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07054-1149

Dear Mr. Clark:

Thank you for your letter to Chairman Palladino, dated September 3, l'985, describing GPU Nuclear information and actions regarding certain materials used during a training course presented at Oyster Creek in the Fall of 1983.

The information th'at you provided regarding company policy and provisions for communicating this policy to employees was helpful. I am pleased to learn, as a result of a recent vendor inspection at General Physics (GP), that many of your employees who took the course at issue raised concerns about the inappro-priateness-of the presentation on interactions with the NRC. However, in view of the timing of your Enclosure 2 letter to employees dated December 8,1983, I am disappointed that the contrary-to policy nature of the material provided by GP wasn't promptly identified to GPU management by one of the 17 employees attending the course. ,

In addition to the actions identified in your letter, I recommend you take the following stepsi

1. Revise remaining copies of the lecture material provided by GP to remove the objectionable material.
2. Review results of the latest integrated leak rate tests (ILRT) conducted at Oyster Creek, to assure information reported regarding the test is

-correct and complete.

The slide numbered 3-5, in Enclosure 1 to your letter, was particularly distressing when it alleged that the " traditional industry approach to ILRT testing problems has been predicated on not stating to NRC...." From your communications with the course attendees and from GPUN management viewpoint, is this a valid allegation?

~

I 8603270512 860225 PDR FOIA 14 CARDE86-37 PDR. OI

.. ~

Mr. P. R. Clark _ .

The GPU actions described in your letter are responsive to NRC corcerns and no further written response is required. However; I would appreciate your comments on the validity of the allegation regarding the traditional industry approach to ILRT testing problems.

Sincerely, Original Signed B-J James M. Taylor James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Distribution:

WJDircks JRoe TRehm VStello HDenton TMurley GCunningham RMinogue JMTaylor RHVollmer ELJordan SASchwartz JGPartlow

BKGrimes JAxelrad JLieberman SECY OGC ED0 000974 DEPER R/F DCS CDeLiso (85-405) l

\

  • SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE J#4, sf 1

/C ~(S() *D:DEPER:IE

  • ELD *DD:IE *D. ED0 7 ELJordan JLieberman RHVollmer JMl a1r WDircks
9/18/85:jr 9/23/85 9/24/85 g8/.q/85 10/ /85 l 4

1 I