ML20004E712

Forwards Final Supplemental Response to NRC 810114 Ltr Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Repts 50-518/80-24 & 50-520/80-24.Corrective Actions:Mod to Be Encircled on ECN to Improve Visual Identification of Affected Change Areas

ML20004E712
Person / Time
Site:	Hartsville
Issue date:	05/22/1981
From:	Mills L TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML20004E701	List: ML20004E712 ML20004E717
References
NUDOCS 8106150092
Download: ML20004E712 (2)

Text

,

.c.+..

f

/'

TENNEGSEECVA'EMYJ AUTHORITY cdANA P ES Eb 37101 G d G A*.

400 Chestnut Street Tower II 31 MAY U ^ 8 : 33 May 22, 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:

On February 6, 1981 TVA submitted its initial response to C. E. Murphy's January 14, 1981 letter, which transmitted Inspection Report Nos.

50-518/80-24 and 50-520/80-24, regarding activities at our Hartsville Nuclear Plant which appear to have been in violation of NRC requirements. The second interim response was submitted on March 31, 1981. Enclosed is the final response to the subject report, which provides supplemental information only to item 4 of the second interim report. 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.

l Very truly yours, f

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY l s

.M L. M. Mills, Manager Nuclear Reg 11ation and Safety Enclosure i

f I

l 8106154092

aa~ a e' '

ENCLOSURE FINAL (SUPPLEMENTAL) RESPONSE TO NRC-0IE LETTER FROM C. E. MURPHY TO H. G. PARRIS DATED JANUARY 14, 1981

References:

(1) Report Nos. 50-518/80-24 and 50-520/80-24 (2) L. M. Mills' letter to J. P. O'Reilly dated February 6, 1981 As indicated in our initial response (Reference 2) to the inspection report violation.in Raference 1, we are including the resolution of GE actions concerning handling ECN's and updating drawings as additional steps taken to avoid further noncompliance.

4. Steps Taken to Avoid Further Noncoroliance GE has responded to TVA's request regarding treatment of ECN's and has agreed to implement the practice of encircling the area of modification on the ECN to improve the visual identification of affected change areas. Additionally, GE has ensured TVA that C. F. Braun does review ECN's to the same crit 'ia as they review drawings. This is necessary because in the U. F. Braun do'cument control prograc, ECN's are the documents which directly change a drawing and are not the implementing tool for developnent of changes. C. F. Braun engineering personnel responsible for sign-off of ECN's have been instructed to ensure that all ECN's are legible when reviewing the ECN for release.

O y a- - - ,-,n--y ,,-4 - - , - , -m - ev,m , , - , - -