ML18024B455: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML18024B455 | | number = ML18024B455 | ||
| issue date = 01/24/1980 | | issue date = 01/24/1980 | ||
| title = Responds to NRC | | title = Responds to NRC Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Repts 50-259/79-42,50-260/79-42 & 50-296/79-42.Corrective Actions:Review of All Previous Insp Data Records Was Made to Verify Notification to Des Engineer | ||
| author name = | | author name = Mills L | ||
| author affiliation = TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY | | author affiliation = TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY | ||
| addressee name = | | addressee name = Oreilly J | ||
| addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) | | addressee affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) | ||
| docket = 05000259, 05000260, 05000296 | | docket = 05000259, 05000260, 05000296 | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| contact person = | | contact person = | ||
| document report number = NUDOCS 8004040181 | | document report number = NUDOCS 8004040181 | ||
| title reference date = 01-02-1980 | |||
| package number = ML18024B454 | | package number = ML18024B454 | ||
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE, UTILITY TO NRC | | document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE, UTILITY TO NRC | ||
| page count = 6 | | page count = 6 | ||
}} | }} | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:TENNESSEE | {{#Wiki_filter:TENNESSEE VALLEYAUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE 37401 400 Chestnut Street Tower II January 24, 1980 4 | ||
TENNESSEE 37401 400 Chestnut Street Tower II January 24, 1980 4<<V/+0')IR Mr.James P.O'Reilly, Director Office of Inspection | <<V/ | ||
and Enforcement | +0 | ||
U.S.Nuclear Regulatory | ') IR 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 | ||
Commission | |||
Region II | ==Dear Mr. O'Reilly:== | ||
activities | Enclosed is our response to C. E. Murphy's {{letter dated|date=January 2, 1980|text=January 2, 1980, letter}}, RII:LM 50-259/79-42, 50-260/79-42, and 50-296/79-42, concerning activities at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant which appeared to be in noncompliance with NRC requirements. | ||
at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant which appeared to be in noncompliance | We have reviewed the above inspection report and find no proprietary information in it. If you have any questions, please call Jim Domer at FTS 854-2014. | ||
with NRC requirements. | Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY L. M. Mills, anager Nuclear Regulation and Safety Enclosure | ||
We have reviewed the above inspection | ~ W 1 | ||
report and find no proprietary | g<< | ||
information | gE | ||
in it.If you have any questions, please call Jim Domer at FTS 854-2014.Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY L.M.Mills, anager Nuclear Regulation | ~ | ||
and Safety Enclosure~W 1 | ~ | ||
A 4 | |||
0 | |||
L ENCLOSURE RESPONSE TO C.E.MURPHY'S LETTER DATED JANUARY 2, 1980, REFERENCE: | An Equal Opportunity Employer | ||
0 | |||
L ENCLOSURE | |||
===RESPONSE=== | |||
TO C. E. | |||
MURPHY'S LETTER DATED JANUARY 2, 1980, | |||
==REFERENCE:== | |||
RII:LM 50-259/79-42, 50-260/79-42$ | RII:LM 50-259/79-42, 50-260/79-42$ | ||
50-296/79-42 | 50-296/79-42 INFRACTION | ||
INFRACTION | , As required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, "Activities affecting qualigy shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings." | ||
, As required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V,"Activities | Tennessee Valley Authority's memorandu'm dated October 4, 1979, | ||
affecting qualigy shall be prescribed | : entitled, "Program to Resolve NRC IE Bulletin 79-14," states in part "All discrepancies not resolved by the EN DES engineer at the site will be called into the EN DES coordinator (CEB)" and the guideline used for the implementation of NRC IE Bulletin 79-14 stated in part "notify MN DES promptly regarding all possible non-conformances." | ||
by documented | Contrary to the above, the following discrepancies were not reported to "EN DES" for proper evaluations. | ||
instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate | 1. | ||
to the circumstances | Three hangers in the RCIC system unit 3 were identified,.to have discrepancies with a similar installation 'in unit 2. | ||
and shall be accomplished | These discrepancies were nat reported to EN DES and Unit 2 hangers were not inspected. | ||
in accordance | 2. | ||
with these instructions, procedures, or drawings." Tennessee Valley Authority's | A horizontal support was identified on a 6" line of RCIC system in unit 1 which did not appear on the hanger drawing. | ||
memorandu'm | This discrepancy was not identified to EN DES and the support was not part of the original as-designed analysis. | ||
dated October 4, 1979, entitled,"Program to Resolve NRC IE Bulletin 79-14," states in part"All discrepancies | This is in infraction. | ||
not resolved by the EN DES engineer at the site will be called into the EN DES coordinator (CEB)" and the guideline used for the implementation | |||
of NRC IE Bulletin 79-14 stated in part"notify MN DES promptly regarding all possible non-conformances." Contrary to the above, the following discrepancies | ===RESPONSE=== | ||
were not reported to"EN DES" for proper evaluations. | Corrective Ste s Which Have Been Taken and Results Achieved A review was made of all previous inspection data records to confirm that EN DES has been notified of all discrepancies. | ||
1.Three hangers in the RCIC system unit 3 were identified,.to | The unit 2 hangers referenced in item 1 above have been inspected with minor deviations which were determined by EN DES not to be significant. | ||
have discrepancies | The horizontal support 4 | ||
with a similar installation | referenced in item 2 above was reviewed by EN DES and determined not to be significant. | ||
'in unit 2.These discrepancies | :t.i | ||
were nat reported to EN DES and Unit 2 hangers were not inspected. | ~ | ||
2.A horizontal | |||
support was identified | Corrective Ste s Taken to Avoid Further Noncom lienee An outage mechanical engineer is assigned at the plant t'o coordinate NRC IE Bulletin 79-14, and he is working more closely with the field inspectors in order to report deviations to EN DES promptly. | ||
on a 6" line of RCIC system in unit 1 which did not appear on the hanger drawing.This discrepancy | Deviations are called in to EN DES daily, followed up by copies of drawings and sketches detailing deviations when needed. | ||
was not identified | Identified deviations are tracked through disposition. | ||
to EN DES and the support was not part of the original as-designed | The onsite EN DES engineer is assisting the outage mechanical engineer'n reviewing and screening the inspection data, thereby increasing the promptness of reporting discrepancies to EN DES. | ||
analysis.This is in infraction. | Date Full Com liance Achieved Full compliance was achieved on January 22,= 1980. | ||
RESPONSE Corrective | |||
Ste s Which Have Been Taken and Results Achieved A review was made of all previous inspection | )'f 0}} | ||
data records to confirm that EN DES has been notified of all discrepancies. | |||
The unit 2 hangers referenced | |||
in item 1 above have been inspected with minor deviations | |||
which were determined | |||
by EN DES not to be significant. | |||
The horizontal | |||
support 4 referenced | |||
in item 2 above was reviewed by EN DES and determined | |||
not to be significant. | |||
:t.i~ | |||
Corrective | |||
Ste s Taken to Avoid Further Noncom lienee An outage mechanical | |||
engineer is assigned at the plant t'o coordinate | |||
NRC IE Bulletin 79-14, and he is working more closely with the field inspectors | |||
in order to report deviations | |||
to EN DES promptly.Deviations | |||
are called in to EN DES daily, followed up by copies of drawings and sketches detailing deviations | |||
when needed.Identified | |||
deviations | |||
are tracked through disposition. | |||
The onsite EN DES engineer is assisting the outage mechanical | |||
engineer'n | |||
reviewing and screening the inspection | |||
data, thereby increasing | |||
the promptness | |||
of reporting discrepancies | |||
to EN DES.Date Full Com liance Achieved Full compliance | |||
was achieved on January 22,=1980. | |||
)'f 0 | |||
}} | |||
Latest revision as of 04:16, 7 January 2025
| ML18024B455 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1980 |
| From: | Mills L TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18024B454 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004040181 | |
| Download: ML18024B455 (6) | |
Text
TENNESSEE VALLEYAUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE 37401 400 Chestnut Street Tower II January 24, 1980 4
<<V/
+0
') IR 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 2, 1980, letter, RII:LM 50-259/79-42, 50-260/79-42, and 50-296/79-42, concerning activities at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant which appeared to be in noncompliance with NRC requirements.
We have reviewed the above inspection report and find no proprietary information in it. If you have any questions, please call Jim Domer at FTS 854-2014.
Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY L. M. Mills, anager Nuclear Regulation and Safety Enclosure
~ W 1
g<<
gE
~
~
A 4
An Equal Opportunity Employer
0
L ENCLOSURE
RESPONSE
TO C. E.
MURPHY'S LETTER DATED JANUARY 2, 1980,
REFERENCE:
RII:LM 50-259/79-42, 50-260/79-42$
50-296/79-42 INFRACTION
, As required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, "Activities affecting qualigy shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings."
Tennessee Valley Authority's memorandu'm dated October 4, 1979,
- entitled, "Program to Resolve NRC IE Bulletin 79-14," states in part "All discrepancies not resolved by the EN DES engineer at the site will be called into the EN DES coordinator (CEB)" and the guideline used for the implementation of NRC IE Bulletin 79-14 stated in part "notify MN DES promptly regarding all possible non-conformances."
Contrary to the above, the following discrepancies were not reported to "EN DES" for proper evaluations.
1.
Three hangers in the RCIC system unit 3 were identified,.to have discrepancies with a similar installation 'in unit 2.
These discrepancies were nat reported to EN DES and Unit 2 hangers were not inspected.
2.
A horizontal support was identified on a 6" line of RCIC system in unit 1 which did not appear on the hanger drawing.
This discrepancy was not identified to EN DES and the support was not part of the original as-designed analysis.
This is in infraction.
RESPONSE
Corrective Ste s Which Have Been Taken and Results Achieved A review was made of all previous inspection data records to confirm that EN DES has been notified of all discrepancies.
The unit 2 hangers referenced in item 1 above have been inspected with minor deviations which were determined by EN DES not to be significant.
The horizontal support 4
referenced in item 2 above was reviewed by EN DES and determined not to be significant.
- t.i
~
Corrective Ste s Taken to Avoid Further Noncom lienee An outage mechanical engineer is assigned at the plant t'o coordinate NRC IE Bulletin 79-14, and he is working more closely with the field inspectors in order to report deviations to EN DES promptly.
Deviations are called in to EN DES daily, followed up by copies of drawings and sketches detailing deviations when needed.
Identified deviations are tracked through disposition.
The onsite EN DES engineer is assisting the outage mechanical engineer'n reviewing and screening the inspection data, thereby increasing the promptness of reporting discrepancies to EN DES.
Date Full Com liance Achieved Full compliance was achieved on January 22,= 1980.
)'f 0