ML20134A975: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 15: Line 15:
| document type = PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION OF EVENT OR OCCURRENCE (PNO,, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| document type = PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION OF EVENT OR OCCURRENCE (PNO,, TEXT-INSPECTION & AUDIT & I&E CIRCULARS
| page count = 2
| page count = 2
| project =
| stage = Other
}}
}}



Latest revision as of 20:41, 14 December 2021

PN-III-75-027:during Predocket Insp,Several QA Deviations Identified Leading to Conclusion & Recommendation to Reject Tendered Application
ML20134A975
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Marble Hill
Issue date: 08/11/1975
From: Hayes D, Hunnicutt D
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20134A980 List:
References
FOIA-84-293 PN-III-75-027, PN-III-75-27, NUDOCS 8508150482
Download: ML20134A975 (2)


Text

s 4 -

PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE No: PN-III-75-27 Date: August 11, 1975 PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION OF EVENT OR UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE This preliminary notification constitutes EARLY notice of events of POSSIBLE safety or public interest significance. The information presented is as initially received without verification or evaluation and is basically all that is known at the time of this notification.

IT SHOULD BE SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT THIS NOTIFICATION MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT LATER MAY BE DETERMINED TO BE INACCURATE OR INCONSISTENT.

Facility: Marble Hill Units 1 and 2 (Public Service of Indiara)

Subject:

RL/IE/UTILITT MEETING - SUBSTANTIVE QA FINDINGS During the predocket Inspection for Marble Hill Units 1 and 2, several QA deviations were identified leading to the conclusion and recomunendation by IE:III to reject the tendered application. One of the deviations (considered to be the most serious by IE) was the fact that neither Section 17 of the PSAR nor the QA Program Manual defined the application of the QA program to replicated portions of the facility. It is antic-ipated that the applicant will take issue with our finding on this matter. The applicant feels an understanding was reached with NRC on this and alludes to discussions with NRC in a letter to IE:III dated May 27, 1975. The letter states in part: " Based on recent discussions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it is our under-standing that Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. and its subcon-tractors will not be required to apply any additional quality assurance requirements on design and procurement activities than were used on the replicate aspects of the Base Plant. Therefore, the enclosed -

program is intended to apply only to those design and procurement activities associated with non-replicate portions of Marble Hill which are safety related."

<. Our discussions with the Licensing Project Manager and Licensing QA do not confirm any understandings one way or the other.

i l

8508150482 850610 PDR FOIA LEIGHTOS4-293 PDR ,

t

.s .

s ~. . ..

Marble Hill Units 1 and 2 -. 2- August 11, 1975 Our concern includes not only how the QA program will apply to replicated portions of the facility but that the applicant omitted any reference to this matter in both Section 17 of the PSAR and the QA Manual.

i

Contact:

D. W. Hayes , D. W. Hayes , D. M. Hunnicutt ,

Prepared by Senior Branch Chief i

2 l

l e 1

I w r 4 ,

r--- - ,. -,,--.v-<-.. p g .,n,- -