TENNESSEE VALLEY AMTHORITY CMATTA*:0C1.A. YZP4HMCSS(K 3740)

400 Chetnut Street Towr 11

:Jay 24, 1983

win-o-3o/S-06, -391/f2-06 EJO-WAA43/2-03, -439/82-03

55S. ftlm.' R3PIatwy Commission 36040 n ATME: James P. O02eilly, Regional Administrator 101 Ihrletta Street, Suite 2900 Atlanta. Georgia 30303

.Lim

Der 311. O'Seilly:

VAEM MRANlD BELLNEE MEDOAS PUNTS - REORTABLE DEFICIENCY PMINING- RAZZ R~EVIE AND EANDLING - UBRD-50-390/82-06, -391/82-.06 KJD-50.A38/82-03, -439/82-03

Th. sbject deficiency wans initilily reported to XRC-OIE, Region II, letoc loss Butcher on Deecnfer 15, 1981 as Audit HSI-13, Deficiency

Nos. 2,3,and . la accordawnc.with paragraph 50.55Me of 10 CRPart 50, we are enclosing our fifth Interim report for the Watts Bar and Bellefonte Nuclea Plantr,. As discussed in our third interim report, It bus been determined that deficiency 2 has no applicability to Watts Bar. With regard to deficiencies 3 and 4, additional sampling of engineering change notices resulted in the Identification of problems in am area. Based upon the review of 100 Bellefonte engineering notices, It ws determined no additional samling is necessary. We anticipate transmitting additional information regarding Watts Bar and Bellefonte an or before Jv~ly 22, 1983.

If you have any qisinplease call Ralph Shell at M7 858-2676.

Very truly yours,

TEXNEISE VALLEY AUTHOITY

L. K. Mills, ge Nuclear Licensing

Enclosure cc: Wb. 1. C. DeYoung, Director (Enclosure)

Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555

630&070072 S3D524 PM. ADOC -500

q Ponn~jr&1C0Py

J.i 1Ar

ENCLOSURE WATTS BAR AND BELLEFONTE NUCLEAR PLANTS

EUGiNEERING M~ANGE NOTICE REVIEW AND HANDLING lOCIR50.55(e) REPORT N0. 5 (INTERIM)

AUDIT 161-13, DEFICIENCY MOS. 2, 3, AND 4 VDRD-50-390/82-06t -391/82-06 BLRD-50-.438/82-03, -439/82-03

Interim Progress

Watts Bar~

TWA conducted an initial sampling of the Watts Bar Design Project Organization (W3P) to determine if conditions existed where an Engineering Change Notice (ECK) should have required an accompanying Nonconformance Report (NCR). The results of this sampling ! udicated problems In one area only within the desigD project. Therefore, a complete review of all ECK9 produce~i in this one area was performed. A total Of seven discrepancies were identified. Subsequent investigation revealed that five of these seven discrepancies were nonconforming conditions.* These five noncon,"ormances are being processed by TVA in accordance with existing procedures.

In order to prevent recurrence of this problem, WBP has conducted a retrainl-.g of all employees to easure that they are aware of the type of conditions requiring initiation of MCRs.

These corrective actions have been presented to TVA's Office of Quality Assurance in an effort to Close the s~oject audit findings.

Bellefonte

Audit 161-13, Deficiency Mo. 3 listed 12 ECUs which %iure stated to have required an accompanying NCR. After further investigation, six Of these 12 were determined to actually require NCR.i. Only one of the six XCRs was determined to be a condition adverse to safe plant operati.on and wrns reported to th~e NRC initially on Augu3'u 2, 1982 (NCR DLNQAB8203).

The Bellefonte Design Project (BLP) conducted an audit of 100 EC~s to determine the extent of this deficiency. The audit indicated several insignificant anomalies and ane additional instance where an NCR resulted. Upon further investigation of the Sal, It was determined that a problem did not actually exist and that the Sal should not have been written. Based on the results Of this sampling, it was determined that no addition sampling is necessary.

To prevent recurrence of deficiencies 3 and 4i, BLP has instituted a training program to educate all personnel in the requirements Of Engineering Procedures with respect to ECN review and handling.

These corrective actions have been presented to TVA's Office of Quality Assurance in an ef'fort to Close the subject audit :-indings.