IR 05000327/1987069
| ML20236N578 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 11/05/1987 |
| From: | Belisle G, Julian C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236N575 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-327-87-69, 50-328-87-69, NUDOCS 8711160238 | |
| Download: ML20236N578 (4) | |
Text
_
_. _ _
_..
-
._
,.
. _ _. _ _.
_ _-
_..
.
r
'
AQ Ctcog
- UNITED f TATES
_ /
Do NUCLEAR REGULA9'ORY COMMISSION.
[
REGl JN li n
g
,j 101 MAnlETTA STREET,N.W.
'*
's ATLANTA, G EORGI A 30323 -
i
%,...../
.
..
- ,
' Report Nos.:
50-327/87-69 and 50-328/87-69 Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority
'
6N 38A Lookout Place
'
1101 Market Street.
-
Chattanooga, TN' 37402-2801
!
Docket Nos.:
50-327 and 50-328 License Nos.:
DPR-77~and DPR-79
.;
Facility Name:
Sequoyah 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: October 19-21, 1987 Inspector:
bh M
///S/f7 G. A. Bel [Sile
/
g0a te' Signed Accompanying Personnel:
K. R. Jury t/ daw
///S[87 Approved by:
-
-
C.A.Julian,Chijff
~~ Gate Signed Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety SUMMARY
'
Scope:
This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the areas of-drawing control and vendor drawing control.
Results:
No violations or' deviations were identified.
l 8711160238 871109 PDR ADOCK 05000327 PDR G
w
_
.-. _ _ _ _ _ _.
_
i
_
<
q
)
-
.
\\
'
REPORT DETAILS j
!
i 1.
Persons Contacted
.9 Licensee Employees
- K. Akers', Communication Specialist
M. Anderson, Engineering Records Manager, Division of Nuclear Engineering-(DNE)
T. Arney, Assistant Director of Nuclear Quality Assurance
'
- R. Birchell, Assistant Site Representative, Employee Concerns Program (ECP)
!
J. Boyles, Site Representative, ECP j
- J. Curry, Drawing Unit Technical Coordinator, DNE j
R. Guthrie, Project Senior Engineer j
J. Hickman, Project Control Enginear
- G. Kirk, Manager, Compliance Licensing
- T. Knight, Assistant to The Site Director (
- R. Martin, Project Administrative Staff
.R. Maxon, Lead Engineer, Employee Concerns Task Group
!
A. Ritter, EA Engineer
- H. Rodgers, P0RS, Plant Reporting Section j
- Y. Sadre-Orafat, EA Engineer
!
- C. Whittemore, Licensing Engineer
.
Other licensee employees contacted included engineers, technicians, and office personnel.
NRC Resident Inspectors K. Jennison - SRI P. Harmon
- Attended exit interview
,
2.
Exit Interview
,
' The inspection scope and findings were summarized on October 21, 1987, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above.
The inspector a
described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection findings.
No dissenting comments were received from the licensee.
The licensee did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspection.
,
i
- _- _ __ __
.
..
.
. _ _
__
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
. - __ - ____-__ _ - __
';
.<
t
,
,,
.
7;,
2-
,
~ 3..
Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters
<
-This subject was not addressed in the inspection.
4.
- Unresolved Items Unrescived. items were.not ' identified during this ' inspection.
y
'5.-
Drawing Control-Issues had.been raised related to the use of design drawings for field work that did not contain the required project manager's signature.. In
"
addition, another. ~1ssue concerned.two 'other drawings being 1.ssued as.
~
originals to two separate, work plans.
These concerns had been substanti-ated by TVA's Employee Concern Program Task Group (ECPTG).
Corrective
.
action had been initiated and implemented.
'
The' inspector reviewed Significant. Condition Reports (SCR) SQN SQP 8601R0, SQN SQP 8602R0, SQN' SQP 8604R0, and a Sequoyah (SQN) Internal Audit of i
Engineering Change Notices (ECN)' and Field Change Request (FCR) Procedures, and drawing issues.in evaluating the corrective action adequacy in resolving the above-issues.
TVA identified that the root cause of these issues related.to new personnel being relocated to SQN coupled with an
. 0perations Engineering procedure revision around the time of the relocation and less technical management attention to the ECN, FCR, and drawing issues.
~
processes than was necessary.
TVA determined that adequate' procedures to control drawing issuance did exist, and that these problems resulted from personnel errors.
The 'affected drawings were corrected as required, personnel were reinstructed and are now adhering to their procedures, and-the utility has committed to increased technical and management attention in this area (by placing the ECN, FCR, and drawing issue processes under
'
the direction of the Project Coordination Section Supervisor).
In addition, the above mentioned audit addressing ECNS and FCRS, did not identify any j
discrepancies' relating to these specific concerns. The audit findings are
'
in the administrative process for closure. The technical concerns of this issue are considered closed.
Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.
-6.
Vendor Drawing Control An issue was identified regarding vendor drawings not being maintained nor
]
released properly.
This issue was significant due to the possibility of incorrect drawings being issued to engineers for field usage.
These
- issues were substantiated by TVA's ECPTG.
TVA's evaluation determined I
that SQN Environmental Qualification'. (EQ) binders do not match those in plant-controlled vendor manuals. Additionally, it was determined that the
- vendor manual and drawing programs required more control.
Corrective a
action has been initiated and implemented which resolves this concern.
'
d I
J l
I L
-
_______________________d
=-
-
~
-
-
'
'
'
..
r as
,
,
s g
f..
^4
'3 v
. The" inspector reviewed Corrective Action Request (CAR) SQ-CAR-86-01-004,
which,1as: part of its corrective action established a new vendor manual
- control program.'
This program is currently being implemented at SQN.
In
.
i addition, the inspector reviewed CAR.SQ-CAR-85-03-005, which was written to document' that' revision levels of drawings contained in validated ~ vendor manuals l did not accurately reflect as-constructed drawing revision levels.
)
'(resulting in vendor deawings not depicting as-constructed configurations).
H
' As a ' result of-this CAR,J the Nuclear Quality Assu'rance Manual (NQAM)..
Part III, Section 1.1, and' Administrative Instruction, AI-25, Revision.13, were revised to. define more restrictive controls on use of vendor' drawings.
L As a. result of' the two CARS,. a 'page by page review ~ was performed on all vendor manuals that contained EQ equipment, Technical. Specification '(TS)
.
equipment, and: Reactor Trip: System equipment to verify the accuracy of
,
' plant. manuals withi the. latest information available from the-vendor.
-
Additionally, the.1icensee has undertaken an extensive Vendor Manual E Upgrade. Program... This : program encompasses 325' manuals that relate-to critical; structures, ; systems, and. components..(CSSC) and partly involves.
the. fall.owing;
. A manual by manual verification of. current plant configuration-and
,
vendor'information.
,
Formatting'of the manuals to be consistent with one another (with all components' covered being identified).
A cross reference matrix being developed.between the manuals and Surveillance Instructions.(sis) for updating as appropriate.
Of. these. manuals,.144 have been prioritized for Unit 2 restart and encompass equipment which is-maintained -per' the sis or Operating Instruction's (01) or is regularly maintained. ' Drawings that are utilized during work performance are or have been entered into the control-system.
Vendor manuals are now all controlled with a review of all sis against
.
vendor manuals being performed to ensure _ maintenance and work in general is being performed in accordance with the latest information'.
Based on these corrective' actions, this concern's technical issues are considered to be closed.
Within this area, no violations or deviations were identitied.
x i
n
,p
'
b'
.
.
__
_. _ _
_ _ _ _ _. _
_ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _