ML20216D516
| ML20216D516 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/09/1998 |
| From: | Spessard R NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Amer A AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| REF-QA-99901292 NUDOCS 9804150331 | |
| Download: ML20216D516 (2) | |
Text
I i
l
&M%
9 9
gb
\\
UNITED STATES Corrected Copy j
g g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 4 001
%,*****f April 9, 1998 Mr. A. E. Amer, Chairman i
Amer Industrial Technologies, Inc.
1000 South Madison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 l
Dear Mr. Amer:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed your letter of March 24,1998 (letter was actually dated March 24,1997 in error), concerning our letter of November 7,1997.
Our November 7 letter addressed the response of Amer Industrial Technologies, Inc. (AIT) to the staff's January 13,1997, notice of nonconformance. Your letter acknowledges that AIT has had some problems in the past, but states that AIT has implemented meaningful changes to its j
program. As support, you cite a recent ASME audit which showed significant improvement over the previous ASME audit and NRC inspection. Therefore, you request that the NRC issue a letter dc ;W d " negative overtones or implications" which simply states that all findings have been successfully closed.
The ASME audit findings cited in your letter do not address the concerns noted in our letter of November 7,1997. Our letter again offered AIT the opportunity to respond to Nonconformance E (attached to our January 13,1997, letter) to explain the bases for documentation discrepancies relating to hydrostatic test reports generated by AIT. The discrepancies identified in Nonconformance E related to the fabrication sequence and operation sign-offs on the fabrication route sheet for the heat exchanger in which these tubes were installed. Those discrepancies still have not been explained to our satisfaction.
Further, our letter of January 13,1997, had asked that AIT reconcile its October 11,1996, response with respect to Nonconformance B.2, that "Not all tests were performed on each piece, however, because some of the available test samples weren't large enough," with its closure of NCR #442-1, which states that mechanica! tests were performed on all tubes with satisfactory results. Again, AIT did not respond to the additional opportunity offered in our letter of November 7,1997, to provide an adequate explanation for inconsistencies in information provided to the NRC conceming mechanical testing of these tubes.
AIT has yet to assure the NRC staff that information supplied by AIT can be relied upoa and that the products supplied by AIT are in full compliance with the applicable technical and quality requirements. Nevertheless, based upon our understanding that you were not supplying components for nuclear safety-related applications, the NRC decided not to take formal enforcement action. Although the staff decided not to take enforcement action regarding the inconsistencies and ccnflicts in information supplied to the NRC by AIT, our letter of November 7,1997, cautioned that the submission of incomplete or inaccurate information to the NRC is a matter of serious concern, and that deliberate submission of incomplete information may lead to formal NRC enforcement action, including the issuance of civil
>{ g l
penalties or orders, or to criminal prosecution.
f (f L ' \\,3 9804150331 980409 I
PDR GA999 ENV*****
Cf-y 7
/
C I3 9 g
1 Mr. A' E. Amer.
Based upon the above, the NRC has decided to deny your request of March 24,1998.
However, were AIT to submitinformation addressing the staffs outstanding concerns, the staff would inform AIT if those concerns have been satisfactorily resolved, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders," a copy of this letter will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
Sincerely, tr s e M.___
R. Lee Spessard, Director Division of Reactor Controls and Human Factors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 99901292
...i