ML20062H745

Responds to Request for Comment on IE Investigation Rept 50-322/79-24.Questions Appropriateness or Accuracy of Conclusions on Pages 46,47,48 & 54.Otherwise,rept Documents Apparently Extensive & well-performed Investigation

ML20062H745
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/22/1980
From:	Thornburg H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:	Thompson D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
Shared Package
ML19344E167	List: IR 05000322/1979024 ML20062H745 ML20062H749 ML20062H751 ML20062H756 ML20062H767 ML20062H770
References
NUDOCS 8008270506
Download: ML20062H745 (2)

See also: IR 05000322/1979024

Text

____

p -

UrnTED STATES Enclosure 1 .

' '

• t .. MQ- [g! j ,,ip ^$ NUCLE'AR REGULATORY COMMISSION '

WA$MINGToN, D. C. 20555

. . .. '/ gay 4 2 l$d0 .

o -

.

G'ORANDUM FOR: D. Thompson, Executive Officer for Operations Support, IE -

. .

FRDXf H. D. Thornburg, Direct 6r, Division o' Reac'q renstruction

-

Inspection. IE

SUBJdCT: SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION INVESTIGATION REPORT

NO. 50-322/79-24 ,

-

. .

.

As requested, RCI has reviewed the subject report and associated' documents

for technical validity. We have the following comments.

1. There are.five locations where we question the appropriateness or

accuracy o_f the conclusions.

. .

a. On page 45, in the first sentence of allegation 22. finding b, and on

page 48, in the first sentence of allegation 23 finding b, the state- + 4

rent is cade that the condenser is not classified as a Code vessel 'as

the shell side is under vacuum". This conclusion is not valid. The

~~

.

ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, in both Section III Nuclear ,

Co:ponents, and Section:YIII, Unfired Pressure Vessels, provides rules

for design and construction of components to operate under vacuum (or

. external .p essure). It is a true, and in 'our opinion, sufficient,

_ state:aent that the condenser is not a safety-related unit, and is not'

classified as an ASME Code Vessel . We recommend the quoted phrase be

deleted in both locations. -

.

b. On page 47, the last sentence of the first (partial) paragraph reads, .

"This was confirmed by the NRC." We find no basis or support for

that statement.

-

c. On page 48, the first full sentence. We do not understand the rationale

for selecting the outlet tube ends for examination since, if the tubes

'

we e inserted from the outlet side, 'the end projection would be the only

part of a tube which had not been pushed through a tube sheet or support

plate. Tube end damage, if any were to be found, would most likely

occur on the inlet tube end which would have been. pushed through both

'

t::be sheets, and every support plate.

. ,

d. Page 54, the last sentence of the first (partial) paragraph. We do not

understand the use of the words, "This request to withold." We find no

'

A

E

! CD.'iTACT: J. E. Henderson

i 49-27551

-

I

t

! 80082706 % . _ . ._ .. - . --. - .

.

__

. . i

-

. .

.

- '

- 2- MAY 2 21350

.

reference to a "recuest to withold."

-

ig

2. Subject to the above cor nents, we find that the report documents what

appears to be an extensive and well performed irivestigation. ,

-

,

b. 'f. & k- -

t_ . H. D. Thornburg. -

Director

Division of Reactor Construction

,

.

Inspection

. Office of Inspection

and Enforcement

'

cc: ~ ~

-

B. H. Grier, RI .

C. O. Gallina, RI

W. J . a rd, X005 -

.

- .. . e.e

e

e

a

.

e8 e

e

.

O

e

es

e

.

.

Se

o

O

.

.

O

e ,

I

-_