ML19347E813
| ML19347E813 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1981 |
| From: | Mills L TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347E811 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105130433 | |
| Download: ML19347E813 (2) | |
Text
f's s
e TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY.
CH ATTA NOOG A TENNESSEC 37101
- ~
400 Chestnut Street Tower II l*"i
? I: 5" March 30, 1981 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:
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION REPORT NO. 50-260/80-34 Enclosed is our supplemental response to the subject report as requested by E. H. Girard of your staff. If you have any questions, please call Jim Domer at FTS 857-2014.
To the best of my knowledge, I~ declare the statements contained herein are complete and true.
Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY h
L. M. Mills, Manager Nuclear Regul'ation and Safe'ty Enclosure l
81051304/,33 q
/4 D t.OuJl C C OOf tum tv i"C!O,m
~
.~
\\<#
~
E:7 CLOSURE 1j
~
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE INVESTICdTION REPORT NO. 50-260/80-34.
BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR-PLANI Question
~
~
Item B.l..b alf returning.bdre rods a' d stu'b's was a firm requirement, it n
should be. stat'ed in'.the re'sponse.that the craft people ~ understand'it as
~.'shch; also, why were electrodes and: rods'. treated separately in' ths MAI?'
RESPONSE
~
. c TVA 'onsiders the. return of bare rods and~ stubs to have been a firm c
requirement.and that TVA craft, personnel understood this assuch.
Odr
~
~. review of the related procedures indicated that the wording in this regard.should be'sfronger. Thes.e,procedu'res. have been 'ch'snged t'o s.tste -
~
that bare rods and stubs,will be returned...
.. ~
~
~
The control of coated
- electrodes.and bdre' rods is, treated se'erately in
~
p the Modification' Addition Instruction dd'e to the'special requir'ments' e
for temperature. control 'on coated electrodes..Other requirements such as accountability of electro' des and bare rods are the same.
Question
, Item C.2--Does the workplan require visus 1 idspection'of'the. welds? If it'does, specify wherer If not, this should be stated as a reason for the violation..
RESPONSE-The weld data sheets for. Wor'kplan 9883 required dye-penetrant examination
'only This fact may have contributed to the inspector not verifying
~
weld size.
4 Question
. Item C.3--Has a check been made t'o verify proper weld size from othe" (pre'vious) work? Welds from previous outages should be sampled to verify that this violation.is limited to this outage.
RESPO'NSE Checks.were made on similar size' socket welds that were made during the unit 2, cycle 3 outage' as. stated in the subject response.
Proper-control to verify adequate weld size was fully implemented in the' unit 3, cycle 3-refueling outage and will'be~ incorporated.during upcoming refueling.
outages. Before. unit 2, cycle 3 refueling outage, moditications involving.small, piping were relatively few; and TVA does not expect a generic problem. However, TVA will inspect a random sample of these welds to verify'this.
.