ML19276E165

Responds to NRC 790109 Ltr Re Violation Noted in IE Insp Rept 50-364/78-20.Corrective Action:Addl Clarification Being Provided for General Responsibilities Already Delineated in Existing Plant Procedures.Approval Expected by 790301

ML19276E165
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	02/05/1979
From:	Clayton F ALABAMA POWER CO.
To:	Murphy C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML19276E162	List: ML19276E165
References
NUDOCS 7903070499
Download: ML19276E165 (2)

Text

.

' 15-

r. , :r k

n F. L. CLAYTON JR S

, Alabama Power

• O February 5, 1979 J. M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Unit 2 NRC Inspection of December 11-14, 1978 Mr. C. E. Murphy, Chief Reactor Construction 6 Engineering Support Branch U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, N.W.

Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Re: RII:BRC 50-364/'S-20 Dear !!r. Murphy-.

This refers to the apparent deficiency in the subject inspection re-port which states:

Criterion I of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, as inplemented by the FSAR, paragraph 17.2.1, requires in part that, "The authority and duties of persons and organizations performing activities affecting the safety-related functions of structures, systems and components shall be clearly established and delineated in writing.

These activities include both the performing functions of attaining quality objectives and the quality assurance functions".

Contrary to the above requirements, on December 13, 1978, the inspector found that certain licensee organizational responsibilities for the control of pre-service inspec-tion are not clearly delineated in writing. Examples of lack of written responsibilities are:

1. The Pre-Service /In-Service Coordinator, who works for Southern Company Services, performs certain review and approval and program surveillance. None of his responsibilities are defined by written procedures.

79030704[99 a cer?Y

,_ 20n n /LL

Mr. C. E. Murphy PAGE TWO February 5, 1979

2. An Alabama Power Company Level III examiner performs certain review and approval recommendations, as well as surveillance during inspections. His responsi-bilities are not defined by written procedure.

3. The Operations Maintenance Supervisor has overall responsibility for the pre-service inspection. How-ever, this responsibility is not delineated in writing, nor is his interface uith the above personnel or the pre-service contractor described.

The plant staff is currently preparing an administrative procedure to provide additional clarification to those general responsibilities already delineated in existing plant procedures. Procedure approval is anticipated by March 1, 1979.

We do not consider any of the information in the subj ec t inspection report to be proprietary.

Sincerely yours, kY F. L. Clayto , Jr.

FLCJr/TNE:bhj