ML19308A289

Responds to NRC 790119 Ltr Re Violations Noted in IE Insp Repts 50-518/78-16,50-519/78-16,50-520/78-16 & 50-521/78-16. Corrective Actions:Proper Document Distribution Procedure Reemphasized to Personnel

ML19308A289
Person / Time
Site:	Hartsville
Issue date:	02/14/1979
From:	Gilleland J TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
Shared Package
ML19308A287	List: ML19308A289 ML20062G927
References
NUDOCS 7903080334
Download: ML19308A289 (3)

Text

• -

TENNESSEE VAL LEY AUTHORITY C.H ATTA NOOG A T ENN ESSE E 37 401 g 500C Chestnut Straet Tower II FE0 141973 i ,n 4

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:

As noted in C. E. Murphy's letter dated January 19, 1979, concerning the Hartsville Nuclear Plants A and B, we are enclosing a supplercental response to our original January 11, 1979, letter. Our original response answered IE Inspection Report 50-518/78-16, 50-519/78-16, 50-520/78-16, 50-521/78-16. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Tish Jenkins at FTS 854-2014.

Very truly yours, s

?

i ./0 (j[

J. E. Gilleland Assistant Manager of Power Enclosure 7003 080 33g Moo N

3/

t MCIAL CO

Supplemental Response to NRC-01E Letter From C. E. Murphy to N. B. Hughes Dated December 20, 1978

References:

1. Ril BRC 50-518/78-16, 50-519/78-16, 50-520/78-16, and 50-521/78-16.

2. Letter from C. E. Murphy to J. E. Gilleland dated January 19, 1979, on the same topic as reference 1.

This report supplements our original report dated January 11, 1979, to you on noncompliance i tem-infraction-518-78-16-01, Si9-78-16-01, 520-78-16-01, and 521-78-16-01 and complies with the commitment made to J. Linehan of your staff by T. Tyler of TVA in a January 17, 1979, telephone discussion and documented by referenced 2. This supplemental response concerns the generic aspect of distribution of documentation at Hartsville Nuclear Plants A and B.

Response

Documentation is' received onsite for both plants in one of two ways. In one method, drawings, contracts informa tion, STRIDE information, and vendor infor-mation is sent directly from the EN DES Design Project Manager to the Docu-ment Control Unit at each plant. Each Document Control Unit is then responsi-ble for distribution of the documentation within its respective plant. This method of documentation ject noncompliance item. control and distribution is not involved in the sub-In the other method of documentation receipt, construction specifications and specification revision notices (SRN's), design criteria and design input memoranda (DIM's), design standard drawings, design guides and design standards, EN DES engineering procedures, EN DES draf ting standards, and EN DES in:annation systems engineering procedures are sent directly from EN DES to the CONST Project Manager (CPM). The CPM in turn reutes these docu-ments to Document Control Unit for each plant. This method of document receipt is the subject of this noncompliance item.

Of the documentation received by the latter method, only construction specifications and SRN's and design standard drawings have any impact on construction activities. The remainder of the documents are sent to the site for information only. Ir, ordar to ensure that all copies of construc-tion specifications and SRN's and design standard drawings that are main-tained in either Plant A or B are up tc date with the latest issued revisions of these types of documents, an audit will be performed by the site CONST QA organizatica. Any copies that are discovered to be deficient will be upgraded.

4 In order to prevent recurrence of this problem, the proper distribution of 't.hese two types of documents has been reemphasized to all personnel involved in their handling; and steps are being taken to distribute these two types of documents directly from EN DES to the Document Control Unit of each plant.

e