ML19261B918
| ML19261B918 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hartsville  |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1979 |
| From: | Gilleland J TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19261B913 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903070533 | |
| Download: ML19261B918 (3) | |
Text
.
d TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CH ATTANOOG A. TENNESSEE 374ot 500C Chestnut Street Tower II li c
~,"
kB 8 1979 Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II - Suite 3100 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. O'Reilly:
Enclosed is our response to C. E. Murphy's January 18, 1979, letter RII:TEB 50-518/79-3, 50-519/79-3, 50-520/79-3, 50-521/79-3, regarding activities at Hartsville Nuclear Plants A and B which appeare.1 to have been in violation of NRC regulations.
'n'e have reviewed the subject inspection report and find no proprietary information in it.
If you have any questions on this matter, please call Tish Jenkins at FTS 854-2014.
Very truly yours, (b
- lc lM yJ. E. Gilleland Assistant. Manager of Power Enclosure JFMCI Al. t
.~,7 y 7903 070 6U
A ENCLOSURE INTERIM RESPONSE TO NRC-01E LETTER FROM C.
E. MURPHY TO N. B. HUGHES DATED JANUARY 18, 1979 (REFERENCE R11:TEB 50-518/79-3, 50-519/79-3, 50-520/79-3, 50-521/79-3)
This report responds to the following Notice of Violation described in Appendix A of IE Inspection Report R11:TEB 50-518/79-3, 50-519/79-3, 50-520/79-3, and 50-521/79-3.
Noncompliance Item - Infraction - 518-79-03-01, 519-03-01, 520-79-03-01, and 521-79-03-01 As required by Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, as impicmented by PSAR Section 17.1A.5, activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures,
.and shall be accomplished in accordance with those instructions, procedures.
Construction Engineering Procedure (CEP)-5.01 requires that the Document Control Unit attach or dis-tribute a copy of deviation requests for each controlled CEP or QCI onsite.
CEP-6.02 requires that controlled manuals be updated.
Contrary to the above, a deviation request to CEP-6.01 had not been controlled as required.
Specific examples are as follows:
1.
Controlled CEP tianual 33 did not contain a deviation request, dated December 15, 1978, f or CEP-6. 01.
Additionally, revision 5 to CEP-6.01 was not properly incorporated into the CEP manual.
2.
Controlled CEP Manual 19 did not contain a deviation request, dated December 15, 1978, for CEP-6.01.
3.
The controlled CEP Manual, located in the site QA Supervisor's office, did not contain a deviation request, dated December 15, 1978, iot CEP-6.01.
This is at. infraction.
Response
The control and distribution of deviation requests will be discussed at a joint Staff / Construction Engineers' meeting in Knoxville on February 9, 1979.
During this meeting, a decision will be made either to delete the deviation request from the quality assurance program or to establish and document a more adequate control and distribution system.
If deviations are retained, CEP -5.01 will be revised to reflect, as a minimum, the following:
a.
Deviation request numbering system (existing and future),
b.
Development, maintenance, and distribution of Deviation Request Index(es),
c.
Improved preparation, review, and approval cycle, and, d.
Improved control and distribution features.
Also, existing deviation requests (including those of CEP-6.01) will be brought into conformance with the re'ised CEP-5.01.
If deviations are deleted, CEP-5.01 will be revised to reflect the deletion of deviation requests from the quality assurance program.
In addition, each existing deviation (including those to CEP-6.01) will be reviewed and, where applicabic, transferred to a revision request, incorporated into the proper procedure or deleted.
A final response will be forthcoming May 1, 1979, detailing the decision and any further corrective action which might be employed.
.