ML18033A550
| ML18033A550 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1987 |
| From: | Russell J TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082340470 | List:
|
| References | |
| 24200, 24200-V02-R02, 24200-V2-R2, NUDOCS 8902140474 | |
| Download: ML18033A550 (60) | |
Text
EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROG VOLMAE2 ENGINEERING CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY REPORT 24200 ELECI'RICAL SEPAIMTION UPDATED NUCLEAR POWER 9R 8902i40474 8902(~~ i PDR AQOCK E>5Ci002.~9 P
~
h
~O 4i 0
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT TYPE:
SUBCATEGORY REPORT FOR-ENGINEERING TITLE:
ELECTRICAL SEPARATION REPORT NUMBER:
24200 REVISION NUMBER: 2 Page 1 of 17 1.
Revised to incorporate initial SRP and TAS comments, and latest element evaluation status.
2.
Revised to incorporate SRP and TAS comments and to add Attachment'.
R O BY:
~dr f UR R
PARA ON ei.-.
Io/~/8 7 TAS:
SI NATURE OATE 9 87.
CONCURRENCES CEG-H:
SRP.
~+~ /0 IF b'7-r6.2 5-P OVAL APPROVEO BY ORE CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)
SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.
)fp
~O 0
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
24200 REVISION NUMBER:
2 Page ES-1 of 1
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This subcategory report summarizes and evaluates the results of the element evaluations prepared under the Engineering Subcategory 24200, Electrical Separation.
The element evaluations document the 16 issues applicable to TVA's four nuclear plants,
- Sequoyah,
'Watts Bar, Browns Ferry, and Bellefonte.
The issues were derived from seven employee concerns that cited presumed electrical separation deficiencies or inadequacies in the design and installation of electrical equipment, cables/wires, and components.
Of the 16 issues
- reviewed, 10 were found to require no corrective action.
Findinqs that required corrective actions were identified for the the six remaining issues.
Although some weaknesses were -identified in the application of the separation criteria, which resulted in nonconformances, and in the completeness of the design basis for separ ation, the evaluation did not substantiate these as a
generic problem for any of the four nuclear plants.
All corrective actions.for the subcategory were judged to be significant from a plant safety standpoint.
The nonconformances i'dentified could result in a
ootentially unsafe condition caused by a common event, such as fire, that might affect redundant safety components.
In turn, incomplete design basis documents resulted in few instances where full compliance with various licensing commitments, such as single failure criteria and independence requirements, could not be verified.
The corrective actions include requirements for hardware modifications as the result of the nonconformances, the evaluation and analysis of design for generic applicability of these nonconformances, and the revision of various documents, including 1-icensing and design basis documents.
The number of nonconformances identified was limited and random in nature, and no systematic pattern could be established.
No specific nonconformances with licensing commitments were identified as the result of the incomplete design basis documents, although a small number of potential nonconformances were observed.
Implementation of the corrective actions in this report should resolve the problems identified.
Completion of the Oesign Baseline and Verification Program established by a Nuclear Performance Plan (NPP) will help to correct programmatic and management deficiencies and to prevent future design basis problems.
The establishment of the Corporate Commitment Tracking System by the NPP will ensure timely and complete incorporation of commitments into the design basis.
2715D-R17 (10/05/87)
0
- Preface, Glossary, and List of Acronyms for ECTG Subcategory Reports HISTORY OF REVISION REV NUMBER PAGES REVISED REASON FOR CURRENT REVISION 3'o clarify that one or more attachments will help the reader find where a particular concern is evaluated
~O ll
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
24200 FRONT MATTER REV:
3 PAGE i OF viii Preface This subcategory report is one of a series of.reports prepared for the Employee Concerns Special Program (ECSP) of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
The ECSP and the organization which carried out the program, the Employee Concerns Task Group (ECTG), were establi'shed by TVA's Manager of Nuclear Power to evaluate and report on those Office of Nuclear Power (ONP) employee concerns filed before February 1,
1986.
Concerns filed after that date are handled by the ongoing ONP Employee Concerns Program (ECP).
The ECSP addressed over 5800 employee concerns.
Each of the concerns was a
formal, written description of a circumstance or circumstances that an employee thought was unsafe, unjust, inefficient, or inappropriate.
The mission of the Employee Concerns Special Program was to thoroughly investigate all issues presented in the concerns and to report the results of those investigations in a form accessible to ONP employees, the
- NRC, and the general public.
The results of these investigations are communicated by four levels of ECSP reports:
- element, subcategory,
- category, and final.
Element reports, the lowest reporting level, will be published only for those concerns directly affecting the restart of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant's reactor unit 2.
An element consists of one or more closely related issues.,
An issue is a potential problem identified by ECTG during the evaluation process as having been raised in one or more concerns.
For efficient handling, what appeared to be similar concerns were grouped into elements early in the program, but issue definitions emerged from the evaluation process itself.
Consequently, some elements did include only one issue, but often the ECTG evaluation found more 'than one issue per element.
Subcategory reports summarize the evaluation of a number of elements.
- However, the subcategory report does more than collect-el'ement level evaluations.
The subcategory level overview of element findings leads to an integration of information that cannot take place at the element level.
This integration of information reveals the extent to which problems overlap more than one element and will therefore require corrective action for underlying causes not fully apparent at the element lovel.
To make the subcategory reports easier to understand, three items have been placed at the front of each report:
a preface, a glossary of the terminology unique to ECSP reports, and a list. of acronyms.
Additionally, at the end of each subcategory report will be a Subcategory Summary Table that includes the concern numbers; identifies other subcategories that share a concern; designates nuclear safety-related, safety significant, or non-safety related concerns; designates generic applicability; and briefly states each concern.
f Either the Subcategory Summary Table or another attachment or a combination of the two will enable the reader to find the report section or sections in which the issue raised by the concern is evaluated.
TVA, MPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECXAL PEkOGRAM REPORT NUMBER:,
2a2OO FRONT'ATTER REV:
2 PAGE ii OF viii The subcategories are themselves summa'rimed'n a'series of eight'ca'tegory reports.
Each category report reviews'he major findings and collective significance of the subcategory reports in one of the following,areas:
management and personnel relations industc ia'.L safety construct:Lon materiail control operations quality assurance/quality control welding engineering A separate report on employee concerns dealing with specific conten'tidns'f'ntimidation.
harassment, and wrongdoiing iwill gabe released by the TVA Office of the Inspector General.
Just as the subcategory reports integrate the information collected't the
'lement level, the category reports',integralte the infermation asaombled in
,'ll the subcategory reports within the category, addressing particularly the underlyi.ng causes of those problems that, run across more than o'n e
'ubcategory.,
0 A final report will integrate and esse'ss 'the i'nfOrmation. collected by al:L of the lower level reports prepared for the ECSP including the Xnspectoc General' report.
For more detai:1 on the methods by which ECTG employee concerns were'valuated and reported, consult the Tennessee Valley Authority, Employee Concerns Task Group Program Manual.
The!Mahual spe!1ls out the program's objectives,
- scope, organization, and responsibilities.
Xt also spe'cified the procedures that were followed in t'e inves'tigation, reporting, and closeout of the issues ra,ised by employed cbnc'eries.'
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS.
SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
24200 FRONT MATTER, REV:
2 PAGE iii OF viii ECSP GLOSSARY OF REPORT TERMS>>
classification of evaluated issues the evaluation of'n issue leads to one of the following determinations:
Class A:
Issue cannot be verified as factual Class B:
Issue is factually accurate, but what is described is not a
problem (i.e
, not a condition requiring corrective action)
Class C:
Issue is factual and.identifies a problem, but corrective action for the problem was initiated before the evaluation of the issue was undertaken Class D:
Issue is factual and presents a problem for which corrective action has
- been, or is being, taken as a result of an evaluation Class E:
A.,problem, requiring corrective action,'hich was not identified by an employee
- concern, but was revealed during the ECTG evaluation of a'n issue raised by an employee concern.
collective si nificance an analysis which determines the importance and consequences of the findings in a particular ECSP report by putting those findings in the proper perspective.
concern (see "employee concern" )
corrective action steps taken to fix specific deficiencies or discrepancies
.revealed by a negative finding and, when necessary, to correct causes
'in order to prevent recurrence; criteri'on
( lural:
criteria) a basis for defining a performance,
- behavior, or quality which ONP imposes on itself (see also "requirement").
element or'lement re ort an optional level of ECSP report, below the subcategory level, that deals with one or more issues.
em lo ee concern a formal, written description of a circumstance or circumstances that an. employee thinks unsafe,. unjust, inefficient or inappropriate; usually documented on a K-form or a form equivalent to the K-form.
CVA EMPLOYEIE CONCERNS SPECDLL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER'4200 FRONT MATTER REV:
2 PAGE iv OF viii
~I grouping of employee concerns.
~tindin s includes both statements of fact and the judtments made about those facts during the evaluation process; negative findings require corrective action.
issue a potential problem, as interpreted 'by'the RCTG duri,ng the evaluation
- process, raised in one or more concerns.'-
form ( see "employee concern" )
evaluation
.'judgment or decision may be based.
root cause the underlying reason for a problem.'Terms essential to the program but which deq6irh detailed definiti,on have been defined in the ECTG Procedure Manual (e.g.; generic, specific, nuclear
'afety-related, unreviewed safety-significant question).
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
24200 FRONT MATTER REV:
2 PAGE, v OF viii Acronyms AI AISC Administrative Instruction American Institute of Steel Construction ANSI ASME,.
ASTM AWS BFN BLN As Low As Reasonably Achievable American Nuclear Society American National Standards Ins'titute American Society.of Mechanical Engineers American Society for Testing and Materials American Welding Society Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Bellefonte Nuclear Plant CAQ CAR CATD CCTS CEG-H CFR CI CMTR COC DCR DNC Condition Adverse to Quality Corrective Action Report Corrective Action Tracking, Document Corporate Commitment Tracking System Category Evaluation, Group Head Code of Federal Regulations Concerned Individual Certified Material Test Report
,Certificate of Conformance/Compliance
-Design Change Request Division of Nuclear Construction (see also NU CON)
TVA. EMPIA)YEE CONCERNS SPECIAL, P ROGRAN REPORT NUMBER:
24200 FRONT ?OliTTER REV:
2, PhGE vi OF'iii DNE DNQA DNT Division of Nuclear Engineering Division of Nuclear Quality Assurance Divisi(>n of Nuclear Training DOE DPO Department of Energy Division Personnel Officer ECN ECP ECP-SR ECSP ECTG EEOC EQ EN DES FCR FSAR
'FY GET HCI Discrepancy Report or Deviation Report Engineering Change Not'ice Employee Concerns Program Employee Concerns Program-Site Repre'sentative Employee-Concerns Special Pr'ogram Employee Concerns Task Group Equal Employment Opportun,ity Conuiiission Envi,ronmental Qualification Emetgency Nedical
Response
Team Eng i:neer ing, D'e s ign Employise R'esponse Team or Emergency~:Response Team Field Change Request Final. Safety Analysis Report Fiscal Year General Employee Training Hazard Control'nstruction HVAC INPO IRN Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning Installation Instruction Institute of Nuclear Power Operations Inspection Rejection Notice'
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
24200 FRONT MATTER REV:
2 PAGE vii OF viii L/R-MSdlI MI MSPB MT NCR NPP NPS'QAM NRC NSB Labor Relations Staff Modifications and Additions Instruction Maintenance Instruction Merit Systems Protection Board Magnetic Particle Testing Nonconforming Condition Report Nondestructive Examination Nuclear Performance Plan Non-plant Specific or Nuclear Procedures System Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Services Branch NSRS NU. CON NUMARC OSHA ONP OWCP PHR PT QAP QC QCI Nuclear.Safety Review Staff Division of Nuclear Construction (obsolete abbreviation, soe DNC)
Nuclear Utility Management and Resources Committee Occupational Safety and Health Administration (or Act)
Office of Nuclear Power Office of Morkers Compensation Program Personal History Record Liquid Penetrant Testing Quality Assurance Quality Assurance Procedures Quality Control Quality Control Instruction
Pfh ENPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECDLL PROGRAM REPORT NUNBHR:
24200 FRONT NATTER REV,':
2 PAGE viii OF viii QCP Quali,ty Control Procedure QTC Quality Technology Company RIF Reduction in Force RT Radiographic Testing SQN Sequoyah Nuclear Plant SI Surveillance Instruction SOP Standard Operating Procedure SRP Senior Review Panel SWEC Stone and Webster Engineering Corporati~on~
TAS Technical Assistance Staff TEL Trades and Labor TVA Tennessee Valley -Author ity TVTLC Tennessee Valley'Trades and Labor Council UT Ultrasonic, Testing VT Visual Testing WBECSP Watts Bar Employee Concern Special Program WBN Watts Bar Nuclear Plant WR WP Work Request or Work Rules Workplans
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAI PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
24200 REVISION NUMBER:
2 Page 2 of 17 Section Executive Summary Preface ECSP Glossary of Report Terms Acronyms CONTENTS
~Pa e
ES-1 1
Introduction 2
Summary of Issues/Generic Applicability 3
Evaluation Process 4
Findings 5
Corrective Actions 6
Causes 7
Collective Significance Glossary Supplement for the Engineering Category 3
4 j
15 Attachments A
Employee Concerns for Subcategory 24200 8
Summary of Issues,
- Findings, and Corrective Actions
.for Subcategory 24200 C
References A-1 B-l TABL'ES Table 1
Classification of Findings and Corrective Actions 2
Findings Summary 3
Matrix of'lements, Corrective, Actions, and Causes Paoe 12 13 27150-R19 (10/05/87)
'Ci
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
24200 REVISION NUMBER:
2 Page 3 of 17
-1.
INTRODUCTION This report summarizes and evaluates the results of the ECSP element evaluations prepared under Engineering Subcategory 24200, Electrical Separation.
The element evaluations document the review of 16 issues (four.
per plant) related to TVA's four nuclear plant sites:
Sequoyah (St}N), Watts Bar (WBN), Browns Ferry (BFN), and Bellefonte (BLN).
The issues were derived from seven employee concerns which cited presumed electrical separation deficiencies or inadequacies in the design and installation of electrical equipment, cables/wires, and components.
The employee concerns provide the basis for the element evaluations and are listed by element number in Attachment A.
The plant location where the concern was originally identified and the applicability of the concern to other TVA nuclear plant sites are also shown.
The evaluations are summarized in the balance of this report as follows:
o Section 2 summarizes, by element, the issues stated or implied in the employee concerns and addresses determination of generic app1 icabi 1 ity o
Section.3 outlines. the process followed for the element and subcategory evaluations and cites documents reviewed o
Section 4 summarizes, by element, the findings and identifies the negative findings that must be resolved o
Section 5 highlights the corrective actions required for resolution of the negative findings. cited in Section 4 and relates them-to element and to plant site o
Section 6 identifies causes of the negative findings o
Section 7 assesses the significance of the negative findings o
Attachment A lists, by element, each employee concern evaluated in the subcategory.
The concern number is given alonq with notation of any other element or category with which the concern is shared, the plant sites to which it could be applicable are noted, the concern is quoted as received by TVA, and is characterized as safety
- related, not safety related, or safety siqnificant o
Attachment B contains a summary of the.element-level evaluations.
Each issue is listed, by element number and plant, opposite its corresponding findings and corrective actions.
The reader may trace a concern from Attachment A to an issue in Attachment 8 by using the element number and applicable plant.
The 2715D-R 1 9 (10/05/87)
'TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROBRAM
- REPORT, NUMBER
'24d.00'EVISION NUMBER:
2 Page 4 of 17 reader may relate a corrective action description in Attachment 8 to causes and significance in Table 3 by using the CATO number which appears in Attachment 8 in parentheses at the encl of the correct.ive action description o
Attachment C clontains the references c:ited in thie text The employee concerns listed in Attachment A have bleen examined for all four plant sites.
The seven concerns raised have been identified as 16 separate
- issues, four issues per plaint.
llhe issues are clommon to each of the Four
- plants, and hence are common'o each of the four element evaluations.
The
- issues, which are reviewed in. the four element evaluations, are summarizied as'ol lows:
242.0 inadequate Ellecti ice'I and Ph'ical separation
- Electrical and phys>ca sepiaratson7or redundant lulnnph caole, coieponents, and equipment is inadequate.
The issues, which deal with presumed physical separat.ion deficiencies or inadequacies in the desiqn and installation of electrical cable/wiring, also claim that procedures. were violated (such as inadequate separation of Q
ancl non-Q cables in trays) and suggest thait these separation deficiencies result in improper instaillation of cable tray covers and in overfilled cable trays.
As the following-sections
- show, the issues were found to be valid to the'xtent that a limited number of nonconformances with desiqn criteria requirements and licensing commitments, specifically for minimum spacia'1 separation requirements (e.g.,
redundant cable trays) were ideritified for all four plants.
Similarly, all four plants require revision of the design
'riteria addressinq separation to satisfy or clarify commitments to l.icensing requirements.
As a result of these findings, correctilve actions are required at all four plant,s.
Each issue reviewed within the e1lement evaluations is stated ful.ly in,
which also lists corresponding findings and corrective actions that are discussed in Sections 4 and 5of this report.
0 3.
E VALUATIOIN PROCES.S This subcategory report is based on the information contained in the applicable element evaluaitions that address the specific employee concerins related to the issues broadly. defined in Section 2.
The evaluation process'onsi'sted of the following steps:,
a.
Defined the issues from tine employee concerns.
0 2715D-R19
( 10/05/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
24200 REVISION NUMBER:
2 Page 5 of 17 c ~
d.
e.
Reviewed for each plant applicable sections of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Safety Evaluation Report (SER),
ynd SER Supplements (Refs.
53 through
- 58) to understand scope and basis of NRC review, to determine the extent of regulatory compliance, and to identify any open issues or TVA commitments related to the design.
Reviewed regulatory requirements (Ref. 3), industry standards (Refs.
4, 5,
and 6),
and TVA criteria documents (Refs.
7 through 17 and 108 through 112) related to the issues to develop an understanding of the design basis.
Reviewed applicable design documents (Refs.
18 through 37) and conducted facility walkdowns (Refs.
38 through
- 52) to develop design understanding and to verify implementati'on status and compliance with licensing commitments/design r equirements.
Reviewed other documents applicable to the issues and determined to be needed for the evaluation, such as correspondence (Refs.
59 through 96), transcripts of interviews (Ref. 97), procedures (Ref. 98), condition adverse to quality reports (NCRs,
99 through 104),
and evaluation reports (Refs.
- 105, 106, and 107).
Using the results from st'eps a through e above, reviewed the issues for each element and documented the findings in element evaluations.
Tabulated the issues,
- findinas, and corrective actions from the element evaluations in a plant-by-plant arranqement (see Attachment B).
Prepared Tables 1, 2, and 3 to permit comparison and identification of common and/or unique issues,
- findings, and corrective actions among the four plants.
Classified the findinqs and corrective actions from the element evaluations using the definitions in Table 1.
On the basis of ECSP guidelines, analyzed the collective significance and causes of the findings from the element evaluations.
Evaluated defined corrective actions to determine if additional actions are required as a result of causes found in step j.
Reviewed the Nuclear Pe'rformance Plan (NPP, Ref.
- 2) to determine whether the resolution of possible programmatic and management deficiencies that resulted in problems identified durinq the evaluation will be covered under the plan.
27150-R17 (10/05/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM RIEPORT NUMBER:
24200 REVISION NUMBER:
2 Page 6 of 17 m.
Provided additional judgment or information that may not be apparent at the element level.
4.
F INOINGS The findings from the element evaluations for this subcategory are contained in Attachment B.
They ar'e listed by element number and by plant.
A summary of the findings is presented below:
242.0, Inadequate Electricail and Phs sica11 Se
.ra ion - Regarding the
~genera issuie o7 eTectirsca7 ano pny.'ica separat ion inaiSequacy,
'.pacific cases of nonconformances with licensing commitments or design criteria requirements were identified for all plants.
Such,nonconformances include redundant raceways not meeting mi'nimum separat,ion requirements (spatial, missirig tray covers, or improper instailtation of tray covers) at
- WBN, SQN, and BFN; internal separation of wir'ing or components not meeting minimum separation requirements (spatial anid missing barriers) at WBN and BFN; c'lass 1E cables incorrectly routed iin nonclass 1E conduits or not meeting separation requirements at; BFN; redundant instrument air tubing not meeting minimum separation r equiremients at BLN; and other nonconformances either inter.nally identified by TVA at WBN and BFN, or identified as violations by the NRC at BFN.
In addition, instances were identif Ied where inconsistencies existed between licensing commitments and the design criteria and where the design criteria requirements were unclear or incomplete to demonstrate compliance with licensing requirements.
Such instances include certain aspects of the separation of cables in free air, internal separation (including adequacy of barriers),
raceway separation, and electrical isolation.
0 These findings.were judged to be significant from a plant safety point of view because the nonconformances identified could result in a potentially unsafe condition caused by a common event, such as a fire, that may affect redundant safety components.
No instances were identified where oraicedures were intentionaIlly ianored.
The limited cases of nonconformance previous'ly described cannot be construed as a
systematic violat,ion of procedures.,
T'e specific issue about Q
and non-Q cables routed in common trays could not be substantiated as a violation of procedures.
Oesiqn criteria and licensing commi1tments allow t his kind of configuration.
The limitation. for insta'llation I)f non-Q cables is that, once they are routed in class lE cable trays with Q cables of one division>> they can not be routed in trays containing cables of the redundant division.
- However, a violation was identified at BFN where class lI-cables were'routed in a noncl ass 1E conduit.
The i ssuies of rai sed covers and overfi 1 led trays causing separatioin deficiencies could not be substanti'ated, although cases of 27150-R17 (10/05/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
24200 REVISION NUMBER:
2 Page 7 of 17 improper installation of cable tray covers were identified at BFN.
Raised covers are acceptable, if adequate senaration is maintained, and overfills are not the result of improper separation.
'n summary, although corrective actions require some modifications to documentation and physical installation, in the judgment of the evaluation
- team, the current overall design and installations generally comply with the separation criteria.
The classified findings are summarized in Table 1.
Class A and 8 findings indicate that there is no problem and that corrective action is not required.
Class C, 0, and E findings require corrective action.
The corrective action
- class, defined in the Glossary Supplement, is identified in the. table by the numeral combined with the finding class.
Findings are summarized by classification in Table 2.
Where more than one corrective action is identified in Table 1 for a single finding (e.g.,
Element 242.0, Finding "a"), Table 2 counts only a single classification, with class 0 classification qiven preference over the C if both are used.
- Thus, Table 2 identifies one finding for each issue evaluated.
Of the 16 findings identified by,a classification in Table 1, ten require no corrective action.
The.remaining six require corrective actions to resolve the identified problems.
From this table, it can be seen that at Watts Bar, where most of the issues originated, one out of four issues was found to be valid and to require corrective action.
At Browns Ferry, three of four issues are valid.
At Sequoyah and Bellefonte, one of four issues is valid.
No peripheral findings were identified.
5.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS Table 2 identifies six issues that require corrective action.
The corrective
- actions, along with their findings/corrective action classifications, are summarized in Table 3.
The corrective action descriotions in the table are a
condensation of the more-detailed corrective action information provided in.
Table 3 indicates the plant or plants to which a corrective action is applicable in the Corrective Action Tracking Oocument (CATO) column, where the aoplicable plant is identified by the CATO number.
Corrective actions to resolve the negative findings may be combined into two major groups.
One of them deals with the resolution of identified nonconformances, the second one addresses adequacy of the design criteria and conformance to licensing commitments.
The corrective actions involve - sinqly or in combination - evaluation, hardware modification, and document revision.
A condensation of this information applicable to all plants is presented in the following paragraphs.
27150-R 1 9 (10/05/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
24200 REVISION NUMBER:
2 Page 8 of 17 The first group of correct:ive actions, to resolve conditiions where design output documents and/or physical Iinstallations do not conform with licensing requirements or design criteria, will consist of modif Ication or justification/analysis to satisfy the requirements.
In other gases, evaluations will be performed and corrective action wiill be taken as required to assure raceway installations and internal wiring meet the established separation criteria.
A similar approach is applicable for corrective action required for conditions ei'ther identified before the evaluation team's involvement (class 1E cab1es routed in non-Q conduits, and NRC-identified conditions at
- BFN, and separation of redundant instrument air tubing not meeting the separation criteria, at BILN) or where iexist.ing corrective action will cover specific items identif ied by the evaluation team (internaI separation not meeting the separation criteria at BFN)e The second group of corrective actions will ensure that the design basis documents include the commitments and that these commitments are properly reflected in the dies ign -output documents and actual installation.
Thi s will require an evaluat,ion of commitments/requirements (C/Rs), design criteria, the
- FSAR, and design output documents associated with electrical equipment and raceway separations.
The design criter ia wi 11 be revised if'hey ar'e found to be incomplete, do not reflect C/Rs, contain discrepancies with other documents, or simply need clarification.
As a result of these activities, analyses, inspections, or modifications may be required, although no specifIic separation conditions were identified that do not conform with licensing commitments, such as divisional separation of cables in free air; internal separation in class lE control boards,
- panels,
.and relay racks; and electrical iso!ation.
(A few areas that may reooire corrective, ar:tion were ohserved,
-such as some redundant cables in free air in c1lose proximity to each other, or a vertical and a redundant horizontal tray located less than 3 feet from each other.
These areas are considered potential, because the corrective action,,
if any, can be established only a)Fter the applicable separation requirements in the design basis are definedl.)
However,,such addit'ions t,o design criteria requirements must primarily keep )Future modification in mind.
The evaluation team finds the corrective action plans acceptable to resolve the findings.
6.
CAUSES Table 3 identifies tlhe cause for each riegative finding requiring corrective action.
The causes are diverse, but are all related to t'e eff'ectiveness of management and of the design process.
0 27150-R20 (10/05/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
24200 REVISION NUMBER:
2 Page 9 of 17 Seven causes for the identified nonconformances, which resulted in some installations not meeting design criteria or licensing commitment requirements, are in the management effectiveness area and are related to procedures (separation criteria) not being followed.
The remaining four causes are in the design process effectiveness area.
Two of these causes are related to inadequate design bases and are reflected in the incompleteness of the separation design criteria.
The two other causes can 'be considered isolated occurrences, and were identified at BFN only.
One of these
- causes, lack of engineering judgment documentation, concerns Engineering' failure to provide justification for a corrected nonconformance.
The other cause, design commitment not met, concerned, an instance where the design failed to satisfy commitments made to the 'NRC.
The fact that design basis documents did not completely follow or reflect the licensing commitments and requirements regarding separation; particularly for cables in free air, interfacing of horizontal and vertical trays, panel internal wiring; shows lack of management and design process effectiveness in this area.
Other than the identified deficiencies, the overall separation program appears to be adequate.
The nonconformances could have been identified earlier, or even prevented by earlier management awareness of the need for ensuring compliance with design basis documents associated with sephration.
TVA has developed a Nuclear Performance Plan (NPP), to correct programmatic and management defic.iencies.
The consolidated nuclear organization should assure centralized direction, clear lines of responsibility, and delegated authority.
TVA has also developed three plant-specific NPPs to provide a
complete account of the actions it is taking to improve its nuclear program.
As indicated in the corporate
The comol tion of the Design Baseline and Verification Program established by the HPP will help to prevent such design basis problems as discussed
- above, and the independent oversiqht reviews being performed by Engineering Assurance will provide feedback to DNE management on performance and, thus, provide closer control of the desiqn process.
The strengthening of the licensing process and the establishment of the Corporate Commitment Tracking, System by the NPP will ensure timely and complete incorporation of commitments into the design basis.
7.
COLLECTIVE SIGNIF ICANCE As can be seen from the significance columns of Table 3, all corrective actions for this subcategory are judged to be significant because installation nonconformances could result in a potentially unsafe condition from a common
- event, such as fire, that may affect redundant safety components.
Although the identified nonconformances could have an effect on safety-related cable
- systems, their limited number cannot be considered.
uncommon for nuclear 2715D-R20
( 10/05/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:.
04260 REVISION NUMBER':
'2
'age'0 of 17 projects.
Furthermore, the identified nohcdnfbrm'andes'ere random in natur0,
~
and no systematic pattern could be detected. that would indicate a, more generalized problem in the separatian program.
I'ncOmplete design basi's documents or inconsistencies between thes'e documents and licensing committmehts could result in. error in the separation design;
- however, no specific nonconformances wraith licensing commitments were identified
( a very small number of potential nonconformances were obSerVed).
On the basis of these observations and in spittle of some weaknesses and problems identified that validate the employee concerns, the overall physical
'nd electrical separation design appears to be adequate and does not constitute a generic prob'lem fear any of'he four 'nuclear 'plants.
Furthermore, implementation of the corrective actions-,
which include actual and potential hardware modification, evaluation, review for generic applicability, and
'evision of design criteria and.licensing documents should.resolve th'e problems identified during the evaluation and any other problems that Wag bb
.uncovered during the implementation of,corrdctlive actions.
A significant portion of the identified dhficiencies were attributable to inadequate procedures and inadequate design 'baSis'ocuments as addressed and analyzed in Subcategory Report 24500.
The results of this subcategory evaluation are being combined with the other subcategory evaluations and reassessed for the engirieering cateqory report. 0 27150-R20 (10/05/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
24200 REVISION NUMBER:
2 Page 11 of 17 TABLE 1
CLASSIFICATION OF FINDINGS ANO CORRECTIVE ACTIONS Element Issue/
~Findin **
finding/Correcti ve Action Class*
242. 0 Inadequate Electrical and Physical Separation between Redundant and between Q and non-(}
Wiring, Cabling, Equipment, and Components 01 06 A
06 Cl Cl C6 03 06 03 A
06 A
A 06 A
- Classification of Findinas and Corrective Actions A.
Issue not valid.
No corrective action required.
8.
Issue valid but consequences acceptable.
No corrective action required.
C.
Issue valid.
Corrective action initiated before ECTG evaluation.
0.
Issue valid.
Corrective action taken as a result of ECTG evaluation.
E.
Peripheral issue uncovered during ECTG evaluation.
Corrective action required.
- Defined for each plant in Attachment 8.
- l. Hardware 2.
Procedure'.
Documentation
- 4. Training
- 5. Analysis
- 6. Evaluation
- 7. Other
~ 27150-R17
( 10/05/87)
TVA EMP'LOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
'4200 REVISION NUMBER:
2 Page 12 of 17 TABLE 2 FINOINGS
SUMMARY
Pl ant Classification of Findi~ns A.
Issue not valid.
No corrective action required.
SQH 0'fBN'FN BLN 3
'3 '1 Total 10 B.
Issue valid but consequences acceptable.
0 0
0 0
No corrective action required.
0 C.
Issue valid.
Corrective action initiated before EC1G evaluation.
0.
Issue valid.
Corrective action taken as a result of ECTG evaluation.
E.
Peripheral issue uncovered during ECTG evaluation.
Corrective alcti'on required.
0 0
0 0
1 1
3 1
'0' 0
0 0
Total 4
4 4
4 27150-R17 (10/05/87)
IABLE 3 HAIRIX OF ELEHENIS, CORRECIIVE ACIIONS, ANO CAUSES SUBCAIEGORY 2C200 REVISION NUHBER: 2 PAGE 13 OF I)
HANAGEHENI fFF ECII VE NESS
. CAUSES OF NEGATIVE FINOINGS a OESIGN PROCESS EFFfCIIVENESS IfCUBICAL AOE Y
FINOING/
CORRECY !YE ACTION ELEH CLASS ~ aa CORRECIIVE ACIIUN CAIU I
2 3
Frag-(aented Inade-Inadc-(Organ-quate quate
( Iaa-(
Q-IProce-t lon-durcs i
S 6
Proce-(lnade-dures (quate Un-NoL ICoa-tinely Fol-(uuni- (Res of loved cation issues Inadc-Lack quate of Hgt Ocslgn Atten Bases (Inade I lfngrg (Oeslgnl lnsuf.
(quate
( Lack (tudgnt(Crit/ IYerlf Sids Not Fol-Engrg lowed frror Inadc-(AS-bit(
of quate (Recon-(Design not Coast t Oocu-Not Oocu-nent a-Ycndor Error Ca les c I 1.
Oat a I I Lion neo ted Hat g
10 II 12 13 Ii 'S 16 Iy Signlfl cence of Corrective Actions' H
H 262.0 Ol Correct specific physical and electrical separation nonconforaanccs Identified during the evaluation tean's ualkdown to satiify design criteria requireients.
SQN 03 I
IA(- A(
Oeterninc generic app1lcabi Iity oF separation nonconforaaanccs Identified during thc evaluation tean's walkdowns,and correct as needed.
SQN 03 Correct'eparation nonconfornances ldcntlflcd during ihc evaluation tean's ualkdnwnS by perfarilng gcncrlc applicability reviews.
NBN Ui Evaluate separation nonconf oraances ident ifled during the cvaluat lou tean's uaikdown through inspect ious and gCnCrIC appliCabl1lty
- reviews, and detcralnc and Inltlate corrective actions as nccdcd.
BFN U3 C6 Generic BF-CAR-86-025g wII I also address and correct InLcrnal separation nonconfonaances identified during the evaluation tean's walkdown Lo satisfy design criteria requiroaents.
BFN 02 Cl leplcnent fCNS P OIS3 and P-0822 to satisfy an NRC violation notice, BFN Ui
~
Oefincd In the Glossary Supplenent.
~ a Ocfincd ln fable I.
TASLE 3 HATklk UF ELEIRNIS, COkkfCTIVE ACTIONS, ANO CAUSES SUSCATECORV 2C200 REVISION NLNISERI 2 PAGE ICOF 11 HakACENfNI EffECI IVEhfSS CAUSES OF NEGATIVE F INDINGS ~
DESIGN PROCfSS EFFECTIVENESS TECHNICAl ADE V
I 2
6 6
1 8
g 10 II 12 13 le 15 16 11 F INDI NG/
CORRECTIVE ACTION ElfH CLASS. ~ a CORRECT I VE ACTION Rcvlcu separation dcslen bails to verify that no dlrrr&lshPIat U let
~ ok r
~
~ ~
pert incnt l1ccns lng coaaaitsents ind that
~II coeaaltsents have been included ln thc FSAR, In thc desinn bails and criteria In the.design docusents, and ln thc actual Insialliiion~
Corrective actions vill be pcrfeased fsodltlcitlons or Justification analyses) is nccdcd to correct identified dUiir'I nci t rv
~ o PI rar dcslgn criteria rcqulrcsents.
CAIU SUN OI SON 02 r III Aj U '0 NSN Ol NSN 03 SFN Ol Frig-sented Organ-ise-t Ion lnide-quite 4.
trn Inadequ-atete Proce-durea Proce-durCS Not Fol-Ioved Inide-quite Cos-suni-ciiion Un-tlac ly Res ot Issues Inidc-lack quate of Hgt Design Atten 8ises Inade-quiLC Calcs Inade-qUitC As bit Recon-c I 1.
lack ot Design Detail fngrg not Oocu-sented Design Crit/
Coeaalt Not Het lnsur.
Vcrlf Oocu-senta-t ion Stds Not Fol-Engrg loved Error Vendor frror S
igni (l-cance of Correct Ivc A H 03
- Stlfy the Change Of COndult designation trua non-class IE to class lf.
SFN Uc
~v UU Pcffors rcvieu tu dctcrslnC lf other class IE ciblcs have bccn routed In nonclass IE condults (H condults)
SF NOC Ca Correct Instmot air t b! Cg separation nonconforvaances identified-by TVA-Lo sailsfy design criteria requlrcsents.
klN Ol Revise design criteria to clLhcr clarify design requirement t Or te dOCusent
. Ilccns lng coral tsent s.
I A I IUIALS Octlned ln the Glossary Supplesent.
I *~
~ a Defined In 'Table I.
28160-R ~
I 1)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER'4200 REVISION NUMBER:
2 Page 15 of 17 GLOSSARY SUPPLEMENT FOR THE ENGINEERING CATEGORY Causes of Ne ative Findin s - the causes for findings that require corrective action are categorized as follows:
1.
Fragmented or anization - Lines of authority, responsibility, and accountabi ity were not clearly defined.
2.
3.
Inade uate ualit
- 0) trainin
- Personnel were not fully trained in t e procedures estab ishe or design process control and in the maintenance of design documents, including audits.
Inade uate procedures
- Oesign and modification control methods and
.procedures were deficient in establishing requirements and did not ensure an effective design control program in some areas.
4.
Procedures not followed - Existing procedures controlling the design process were not fu y adhered to.
5.
Inade uate communications
- Communication, coordination, and cooperation were not u
y effective in supplying needed information within plants, between plants and organizations (e.g
, Engineering, Construction, Licensing, and Operations),
and between interorganizational disciplines and departments.
6.
Untimel resolution of issues
- Problems were not resolved in a
time y manner, an their resolution was not aggressively pursued.
7.
Lack of management attention - There was a lack of management attention in ensuring that programs required for an effective design process were established and implemented.
8.
Inadequate desiqn bases
- Oesign bases were lacking, vague, or incomp ete or design execution and verification and for design change evaluation.
9.
Inadequate calculations - Oesign calculations were incomplete, used incorrect input or assumptions, or otherwise failed to fully demonstrate compliance with design requirements or support design output documents.
10.
Inade uate as-built reconciliation - Reconciliation of design and icensing documents with p ant as-built condition was lacking or incomplete.
ll.
Lack of desi n detail - Detail in design output documents was insufficient to ensure compliance. with design requirements.
27150-R17
( 10/05/87)
TVA IEMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPIECIAL PROGRAM REPOR'T NUMBER: '420'0 REVISION NUMBIER:
2 Page 16 of 17 12.
Failure to document, eQn~i~neerin judoments
- Documentation justifying engQneervng judgments used in the design process was 'larking or incomplete.
13v DeaiqrQ Criteria/Ccnvnitmenta nut met -.Deaign Criteria Or liCenalng commvtments were nuit met.
II Q <<'
QQI "
'nsufficient to audiit the adequa'cy'of'elsign and installation.
15.
Standards not folloiwed - Code or industry standards and practica!s were not complied wiith.
= 16.
Enqineerinq error - There were errors or oversights in the
,assumptions, methodology, or,judgments used in the design process.
lgv VendOr errOr - Vendar deaign Or Supplied itemv Were defiCient fcr the inQtended purpose.
Classification of Correcti ve Actions - correqtiIve actions are claSsified as 1.
Hardware - physical pliant changes 2.
Procedure
- changed or generated, a,price'dur,'e 3.
Oocumentation - affected gA records 4.
Traininq - required personnel educ8tion i
5.
~Anal sis - reqiuired dc.sign calculations, etc
, to resolve 6.
Evaluation - initial corrective act'iori plan indicated a need to
~eva uate the issue bef'ore a defihitive p'lan could be established.
Therefore, all hardware, procedure,i etIceie changes are not yet known 7.
Other - items not list,ed above 0
Peripheral Findinq QIssuge
- A negative finding that does not result directly evaluating an employee-concern.
By definition, peripheral findings (is.ues) require corrective action.
Cl 2715D-R17
(,10/05/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
24200 REVISION NUMBER:
2 Page 17 of 17 Significance of Corrective Actions - The evaluation team's judgment as to the scans icance ot t e corrective actions listed in Table 3 is indicated in the last three columns of the table.
Significance is. rated in accordance with the tyoe or types of changes that may be expected to result from the corrective action.
-Changes are categorized as:
Documentation change (0) - This is a change to any design input or output document (e.g., drawing, specification, calculation, or procedure) that does not result in a significant reduction in design margin.
Change in design margin (M) - This is a change in design interpretation (minimum requirement vs actual capability) that results in a significant (outside normal limits of expected accuracy) change in the design margin.
All designs include margins to allow for. error and unforeseeable events.
Changes in design margins are a normal and acceptable part of the design and construction process as long as the final design margins satisfy regulatory requirements and applicable codes and standards.
o Change of hardware (H) - This is a physical change to an existing plant structure or component that results from a change in the design basis, or that is required to correct an initially inadequate desiqn or design error.
If the chanqe resulting from the corrective action is judged to be.
siqnificant, either an "A" for actual or "P" for potential is entered into the aooropriate column of Table 3.
Actual is distinguished from potential because corrective actions are not complete and, consequently, the scope of required chanaes may not be known.
Corrective actions are judged to be significant if the resultant changes affect the overall quality, performance, or margin of a
safety-related structure,
- system, or component.
27150-R17
( 10/05/87)
li II
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT'UMBER:
24200 REVISION NUMBER: 2 Page A-1 of 2 ATTACHMENT A EMPLOYEE CONCERNS FOR SUBCATEGORY 24200 Attachment A -- lists,'y element, each employee concern evaluated in the subcategory,.
The concern's confidential number is given along with notation of any other element or category with which the concern is shared, the plant sites to which it could be applicable are noted, the concern is quoted as received by TVA and characterized as safety related, not safety related, or safety significant.
0107A-R32 (09/28/87)
CUNCERN ELEIIEHE KKHBEH ATTALWLNTA EN'LUYEE CONCERNS FUR SUUCATEGORY 24200 PLANT APPL ICAUILI TY LIICK>ltll SIIK llllH BIH BLH CUNCERN UESCRIPT)ONt REVISION NUHUERI 2
PAGE A-2 OF 2 242.U wf-85-)00-004 rr >EI'9'J EI11 vv
~ cc v ~ ~
XX-85-)22-0)2 iiUtl
~LI>B ULN "E)ectrfcdl separation and physical separation of redundantant wiring and cabling and for equipment and components are inadequate at all p)ants.
Cl expressed that detailed reviews need to be made, and are so extensIve tndt a ConSultant probab)y Shou)d be used, providing
.K..-
v x
rllt II BcnB
~Ilvl Wcl>4c ~Il 4
~ ~ L>Ill
~ Hne IJni "Eiectricai separation and ptiys ical separatfon of redundantant wiring and cdbling dnd for equipment and comoonents are inadeauate dt all plants.
CI expressed that detailed reviews need to be made, and are SO ertenSiVe tiiat a CUASultdnt Prbhdbly Shnuld he USOU nrnvldinLK Independence from TVA."
(SR)
"E)ectrfca) separation and physfca) separatfun of redundantant wiring dild Cabling and for equipment and components are inadequate at ail p)ants.
CI expressed that detailed reviewS need to be made, and are so extensive that a cunSultant probably should be used, providing inueoendence from TYA "
(SRl XX Uh 122 0)
'1 IN-86-254-004 IN-86-259-00b IN-86v3)4-004 UFN wUN wUtl wUN "Elcctrlcc) separation aiid f>ilysfca) separatioii of i'eduAudAtaAi wlr lAg and cabling and for equipment and components are Inadequate at all p)ants.
CI expressed that detaf)ed reviews need to be made, and are so extensIve that a consultant probably should be used, providina Independence from TVA."
(SR)
"CI believes proceilures are being violated (In genera))
when Q and nioA-Q electrical cables are noi being separated In cable trdys.
Ilils Inc)udes
)ow, medium, and high voltage cables.
Uy not separating the
- cables, the trays are being overloaded."
(sR)
"Hany electrical cab)es have been placed fn cable trays without tl>nnKKttn Hant ~ tti Ln UK vK> ln tK K vn v v.n t v
'1 t x
~
~
v
~ 'v v\\ wvK v\\ ~ ul ~ ~
Lvfly vvv I ~
~ I vy ccVcI t clItclnt v tu c
~ In Ilet above the tray because of cable arrangement."
(SR)
"cable separation is Inadequate and In many cases nonexistent."
(sR)
SIILNU/SS Indicates sdf<<ty r<<ldtuu, iiut safety r<<ldt<<u, ur sdf<<ty siguif icdi>t Uufufe uvd)udtfuils ~
7/ Il>li~')//ll/II/1 di PE.'r Eli'term f>EK>t fun cr It<<r Ia in tile LC IG Prugrd>EE manud) d>EII dPP) iud
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
24200 REVISION NUMBER: 2 Page 8-1 of 16 ATTACHMENT 8
SUMMARY
OF
- ISSUES, FINOINGS, AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR SUBCATEGORY 24200 Attachment 8 contains a summary of the element-level evaluations.
Each issue i.s l-isted, by element number and plant, opposite its corresponding findings and corrective actions.
The reader may trace a concern from Attachment A to an issue in Attachment 8 by using the element number and applicable plant.
The reader may relate a corrective action description in Attachment 8 to causes and significance in Table 3 by using the CATO number which appears in Attachment 8 in parentheses at the end of the corrective action description.
0107A-R40 (10/06/87)
Issues ATIHLIIHt.NI U sUt4HAKY.UF ISSUES, F INUINGS, ANU CORRECTIVE ACIIONS FUK SUUCA)EGO)>Y ?4?U!)
F Iiidl(14s cofrect ive Act lulls REVISION NUNUEK: 7 Page 8-2 of )6
- nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn E)e<rent 24?.0
- inadequate E)ectrica) and ptiysicd) supnfdtiun (between wirlnq, cd!i) lilg, LquipmL'nt dild cu>fpu<ILnts)
St)N a.
Electrica) separation Is Inadequate.
Review is t'eoUlreo
'to dssess e)ectricd) and physica) separation adequacy of
~ >>>>>n>>s>>t tit>>n i)t t>>i
~ >,V<>
V>>~ ~ ~
>> ~ ~
~ ~ >V ~ \\ >>>> ~ ~ J ~ \\ >I>'t>>ill% > ~ >4 is well as equipoent.
Sqk St)N Is cuneittLd to curP)y with Itl.'E Stan>idrds 719-)9/)
fkef
- 6) diiu diid-l9/I (kiif 4 I tor lniien,in<ion<'e an>i redundancy, but not cumrittu<t to Regulatory
~'..Ii.
1 1>.
1 ~
>A 1
~
~ I I
~ 1
~ ~
Uu>4e
~ ~ IJ
> Jl'I U>
I9IU ikL>
Ji ~ UI
<o ibtb Standard 304-)9/4 (Kef. U).
I'.Iectrlcd) sepdrdtiuii dnd lsu) Jtlu<t CU>it<rents on C/K data stiuets (Refs.
)OU thfougi<'ted ln ti>ii Siind> ~ dit 1>in ><dist>in r> itei ia (Kef ~
>i)
Nunc required.
lVA COmnlt tLU tU rL>vlL'<<d))
corn<
)te'nts/re~emL>nts (C/Ks)'n tiie
>>I>I iin L>~>> fll> <ln>1
> ii Uii
>>1n Vii ~
> ~
~ >U> g>> i ~iiiyI~I n>.PU>>>>JI ~
Ca)~fa)ion," to det<<r><inc lf thV C/RS <ru~>iglruSSed befnru or afar restar~vAgindlcated tliat nu act(on <<Il) bp~ei(before r<<start lf the%'/k Is ad4%Esea'\\In the deslun crit rats) )I)wttt<tgtt document, throu h~ficd phys)ca)
Insta d~r s s.
lf the $//has nub<<(i(v<<ngd<tressed>
any re>n> lriik ~id)>>s IS ~
In>:p>E t IonS ~ ur
<i<odl flea I ns to u
tpl lance <<il)
IVA dlsu gt>i'leQ til>i~fgqulfL'U Cl<JII4<is to design gr(teb)a U~iigt uutput docu<rents gil~a~tug restart un)ess ttie Etiknhaa.
SUUUW>t al>dificatinns that are re I e r
r.
Further<fore, V
'ey4fe t the appropriate
>fga o
re that the effeCt Of dny'L/
wi C
n t adequately covgf e
cr teria or Lteslgn nutpnt
<A <
nL>nt <<ll) ibn i<iiedsed in d))
ECNs ln
<L )Uteri<i< befur the design cfltLfId n<L design QUtp<i
" docuent dfe UPd tLQ A CA/ <<I)) be gen n ud fur aii deficiencies Ident fle<
>plot)un Is sciieduled -for- 03/l (CAl'0 242 UO SIIN Ol)
?db i!i-?ii (~7)
0 ATTACNkcltT u Suevtky OF IS>uta, FINOINGS, Aku COPHECTIVE ACTIONS Fuk SOUCATEOukY 24700 REV)S10N NUHUERT ?
Page 8-3 of 16 Issues F ina lrtgs Corrective Actions Eleaent 242.0 - Sgk (Continued)
Separation uf reuu<<uant cau)es in tre<< air app<<ars to satisfy the uusiqn into<<t as approv<<a by the Nkc ln t Safety Evaluatiun Report (SEk) (kef. 5, para.
U.be3 criteria cuulu be founu for s<<paration uf cab)es in air except for those in the cable spreauing roon.
/
o tnt 4 that the same proceSS out)ined th re ve act Iun for CATO 242 00 No SQN I
e fo) lowed to ensure that e
+y c
~
or aration in free air, or qa c
tt to keep adequate ice o
y t single failure r
r aretiuI t.
(The followinq I
ric state s
le failure crit u
The s
ca le of performs t
ctive t
q 4 to accomp) Isn' cd unc presence of an ectab e
within t<<e systt~
n tvht Ident ifiable, but nui tu ures, al) failures occurring as a
su e single fal)ure, anu all faI)urus w
h uld be cause4 by the design basis eve r
Irinq tne protective function.)
This r e
Ill be cotrp)etea before restart.
CAIIS w qenerated as needed if aeficlencies are found.
Cunp)etion is scneuu)eu for 03/15/
(CATO 742 00 SQN 07)
Thu NSHS conc)usiun (H<<f. )U/) t<<at uivislona)Iced cabl trays aru auequately separated In comp) lance with aeSi criteria was confirmed by wa)kuow<<s by the evaluatio team, with two trinur exceptiuns where cau)<< tray c rs shou)4 havt. been Installed but were not.
Prublem Ident Ificatiun Hepurt (Plk)
EEUUU)76 haS been qun<<rateu tO Iu<<ntify J
n ocueent the specific separation Igob)txn twe cable trays of Cha<<no)s I, ll, lli, an n enqineerlnq chanqe notice will be
~
~
Install the tray covers ana bo th e cable trays to satisfy the vip ar rit a.
P IR SJN EEU861/5, Rl, r ss a
er discrepancy between the e
crit 4
45N880 series 4
I qs res
~ ~
a vision to these qs a ~
discrepancy.
'TVA a o
4)v;a ha t~c
)etc 45NUUO series w
r t
Obqjgy s aled and WalkdOwnS r
aS n gafb de mine tee extent e
tn 'tt etc rt problem.
This v
e f the nt that haa cab)e tr s
except the area Insiae the ste c
Yfinaent of the reactor bui laing (thes t
s are non-class 1E).
246)O-?0 (09/29/87)
Issues ATTACtlHENT U SUNRAY UF IbbULb, FINUINtiS, AttU 1'.URHtCTIVE ACTIONS FUR SUttCATEtiUHY 24200 F lnuIuqs Corrective Actions REVISION NUNIIER: 2 Page U-4 of 16 Eleoent 242.0 - SIIN (Continued)
In auui T
perfurliteu a field walkdown g 11 reas where there was a
question trai or channel Interaction s
Io os Inq, etc.),
a question rs wh re ttiere was a lack of u ttt'cat skell QllutkllffwIllq'h ~
Illc wagkT re Iyat no ottier cases exist c
lige not been InstliiletTaer sign criteria arid/or 4sattat.(re tnqs futptrgeunts.
tn tnegcairstutt stkttlytl,ftete eatkun n.
it waS $0 t
S +lhlannul separatiittngritup)
~iqgvert ical ly pass wltnin 3 gi4gofitr Btigin separation qroup) ruhnib rizo
)A This situation Q e8p 1 g addressed fsnk.
As a
elk ytuutft tgteu tn.~
tne save pru s
n t
corrective ac o
or CATU 242 00 Sl)N 01 u ~)l ull wed for all separat toil Itin)Inta nta nn nf this process wil sure that al)g
\\ iuv e' tte eet4 fns S+I see
~ us ~
ars
~ ees I s ~ Q
~ say J running horl?untasty nu tra~s runiipg VertlCally, Or ti ggenerai COfflilii nt to keep adequate In gndence t
sfy the single failure c Iferi equirerent, are properly aduresse Atls will be qenerated as needed If deficiencies are founrl Cofisfklet+I is sclieur ~ 1 eel for 03/)5/81.
(CATU 24? -00 S'qN 03) aAL lts I
9u ltl7k r IJ III u~
4 21 ala I TYA Indicated that the safre process ou eu in tule corrective action.fur 2,
St)N 01 above wl'll be followed
'epa, 'n C/Hs to ensure that a
'en parat ion of Inte Ir las contrul I/Vb
- r4s, pan p
+
ra are tf'g ojfgrJy auure ff' Q oe pted a~7ieeded
. u ar lull:
u p~n IS SC IiP r
03/
(CATU 24 Stt
///
separation uf Interiialt wirinq In sp<<elf ic
/i westinqiiuusu-furnisueu cuntrol uuarus was coufirfi~/<II//t u rtnq atkuu ns (K f. 4t), tn c tnty ttrr u sfqn/
utt Ce lice Isi Ntulkevue
~
nO ucSIqs
~ Critered ween e fuuneu fue wirinq separation In other, class lE contrul boar
- panels, anu relay racks as cuiqritteu In tne FSAi (Hef. 56).
ATTACNMLNT u SUHHAHY uF
- ISSuES, FINUINGS, Aku CORkECTIVE ACTIONS FUR SUUCATEGOkY 24?00 REVISION NUNUER: ?
Page 8-5 of 16 Issues FindinqS Corrective Act Iuns Element 242.0
=
SQN (Continued)
Altnouqu design criter la uucu<nvnts are
- area, separation uf dlvisiona)ized anu cable trays appears to satisfy separat approved In the SI.R (Huf. bb, para.
U.
~3).
.COMPt KTN, shouda separ
'b.
Inadequate separation In trays of Q and non-Q cables for a)l voltage levels as a result of procedures being vio)ated.
- b. Lacx of verification of tt<e current)y as'-installed status b.
of cables In raceways naxes corp)iance tu tne design criteria and procudur<<s Indeterminate.
TYA cen<'ltted to verify tne as-installed StatuS Of CableS In raCeways.
The corrective action plan Is addressed In Subcategory Report ?6600, 54N element 239.0.
(CA1OS 239 00 SQN 01 and 04) c.
Cable trays are overloaded as a-resu) t of Inadequate separation.
- c. Cable tray over)uauing Is not a result of Inauequate dIvisional separation.
Ov<<r)oau)nq Is a prob)em independent of divlsiona) separation.
c.
Cab)e tray over)oading is a<juressud In Subcategory keport?6600, S<)N elements 238.3 and ?40.0.
d.
Inadequate cab)e arrangement results In covers extendinq 3 to 4 Inches above trays.
- u. Haised tray covers are acceptable as long as they ar<<.
d.
properly Insta))ed and separation requirements are complied with.
FurthermOre, nu evidence was found during tne walkdowns (Hefs. 42 and 44) to Indicate that Inadequate cable arrangeaent caused covers to extend above safety-related cable trays.
None required.
WBN a.
E)ectr ical separation Is Inadequate.
Review is required to assess electrical and physi'cal separation adequacy of redundant wirlnq, cab)es, components as well as equiparant.
- a. watts Uar Is coenitted tu comply with ILLL Standards
?79-a.
197) and 3UU-)97) fur inuepenuu<nce and redundancy, out no specific cereitments to Hequ)atury Guide ).75-)974 or 1970, or to IELL Standard 3U4-1974 for s<<paration are Identified in the FSAR.
Iiowever, watts Uar SEH (Hef. 54) )
COVerS the appruaCU at WUN tO SatiSfy tue Intent uf Regulatory Guide 1 ~ 75 and IEEL Standard 3U4 for the separation crit<<ria between class
)E anu non-class
)L
- circuits, and for associated circuitS.
A)thOugn the SER Indlca'tes that TvA has adequately demonstrated to tne NHG compliance with the intent of t<<e requlatory requirements for w'UN, tnis >>as not been fully ref)ecteu In tne FSAR (Hef. 53) and tne uesiqn cr)ter)a (Hef. 7).
TVA cue< Itted to review and Iuentify separat ion coe<<Itments and requirements contained In the FSAR,
- SFR, and Iicensinq coaeitments, and to ensure that the partial coen)tments to Requlatory Guide 1.75 and IEEE Standard 384 are Inc)uded In desiqn criteria and/or desiqn output docunents.
Comp)et)un ls schedu)ed for 10/01/87.
(CATO 24? 00 HUN 01)
?4510-?0 (09/29/87)
Issues AlIN.IIKtNT, 0 SIpuiAHY Ut
- ISSUES, I INUINli5, ANU CUHHtCIIVt ACTIONS FUH SUBCAItGURY i!4i!00 I indinqs Corrective Actions B.VISION NUIIUtK:
iage 8-6 ot I6 klement 24Ã.0 - HBN (Continued)
NO SpeCitiC COmritaentS were identit led In tne FSAR and desiqn criteria for redundant cable separation In free.
air exCePt fOr thOSe ln the Cable SPreI)ding rOOm.
Ihe design criteria and the I'SAH are not specific regardinq separation between cliannel and train raceways.
Ikn Ant t H
~ t t i n tk Luhat
~
t nh
~ ~ sc Vct ~ Vs ~ \\ I
~ acl lo olsu lslc
~ unsa 4U IEUE o'Vali cot separation of vertical from redundant horizontal trays.
ihe WalkdOwn pertOrmed by the eValuatiOn team (Hef. 40) revealed that in tne Cable spreading room (elevation 741 feet), tIie tiorizonta I distance between horiZontal trays ta134 anss
'141I I ann
~ h t ini1 t
~.
OUU Isl 1
1 ts ~
~ vv us 4 vs lvv ussu
' cl ~ Iko ~
al oJ OUI IU lo seto assoil feet.
TVA Indicated that althouqh separation of cables In free air is not covered In watts Bar Uesign Criteria MB;UC-30-4, TVA drawing 45W896-1, R4 (WattS Bar),
pro'vides partial-details of free air separation requirements.
TVA comnitted to ensure that all comiiitments for itin nf rhtslnc In frnn oil'nlilnl'Cyul ES ~ SVS ~ V Vu
~ 4
~ ~ ~
~
~
~.
more general comnitment to keep adequate independence io satisfy ihe siAgle failure criterion will be reflected ln desiqn documents, with adequate issctif ioatinn beinn nrnVIIlell fnr exceptions.
Additional ly, the
- 4) lilstai led I oildition of coble IA free air will be verified as necessary.
Completion Is scheduled before unit I
fall I inad (CAIU ?42 UU iiBN 03)
TVA Indicated that the desiqn criteria do address. separation of redundant cables in
,trayc and COndssltS SpoCi flraiIU horizontal separation and vertical separaiion of ihe qeneratinq siaiion protection system (GSPS) cables, which include channel and train separation, are covered ko further action. is rnnuIresd TUh
~
O ~
t O tk k ltk
~
I tk Uattc Qi I tsa Elias I ~ Elteu'
- IIOI, O I assuuais
~ llIC llu ~
~ O Bass des iqn criteria address horizontal separation and vertical separation of GSPS cables, they do not address separation between redundant cables ln iroys riiAAlng vertical)y from those in trays running horizontally.
Therefore, TVA comnitted to review all C/Rs and licensIng connltments and io revise the design criteria to ensure that all a Osssrsltsmeiits fol SCPorait sofi beiiieCI ~
redundant horizontal and vertical trays Z45IU-PU 49/B/)
Issues A)TACIT.NT U bUHHARY OF
- ISSUES, FINUINGS, ANU CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR SUUCATEOORY 24700 Findinqs Corrective Actions REVISION NUHBER: 2 Page U-7 of )6 Element 242.0 - NBN (Continued) or a more general comnitment to keep adequate independence to satisfy the sinqle failure criterion requirement are properly addressed.
According)y, It wi)1 be determined whetner an eva)uation of the current desiqn Is necessary.
TVA also committed to generate Cps for any deficiencies that are Identified.
Comp)etlon Is schedu)ed before unIt )
fuel load.
(CATU 242 00 wBN 03)
The desiqn criteria do not address Internal wiring separation.
These requirements are covered In the westinqnouse specification for Hestinqhouse panels only and In tne "wiring Olaqram for Control Boards Critica) wiring Braid Installation."
Furthermore, the separation criteria address only barriers for raceway separation.
Barriers and acceptable materia)s are not specified in tne criteria for Internal separation of redundant devices In panels.
In addition, tne eva)uation team performed a
wa)kdOwn (Ref. 39)
On three WeStlnghOuSe panelS ()-H-3,
)-H-4, and )-H-b).
Tne following observations were made:
TVA conmitted to determine the separation requirements for redundant Safety-related e)ectrica) equipment and components Inside panels that Involved the fo))owing:
o Review watts Bar desiqn criterIa for simi)ar coenitments o
Oetermine all Interna) separation requirements necessary to ensure Independence between redundant equipment and ~iring Inside pane)s o
Uetermine and document discrepancies between the FSAR, desiqn criteria, and necessary requirements o
Review desiqn drawings for app) Icabi) Ity of requirements o
oetermine and Implement corrective action for Identified def icienc les Comp)etion of corrective action Is schedu)ed for )0/0)/81.
(CATO 242 00 HBN 0))
?45l0-70 (09/2U/87)
ATTACIIWNT U
SUMMARY
UF ISSUES FINUINUS, ANU CUHKECTIVE ACTIONS FUH SUUCATEUUKY ?4200 REVISION NUHBER: 2 Page B-B of 16 Issues F indinqs Correct ive Actlons Element 242.0 - NBN (Continued) o Uivision dnd/ur train wires are covered witn ireta) ne <<in In aanac
.< ".. Vl I-I I
I I
~
~ ~ ~ a ruaau Pa<in
~
U< eas
~
~ ii ~ 4 I Utc< lint IL III aqreeaent witn.tiie west inqiiuuse specification.
u Uivlsion and/ur train wires are routed via meta) enclosures to division and/ur train risers
)ocated on oonnsite ends of the n<<nel
)hie rnutinn ic in accordance with the desiqn criteria and with wBN wcchan<ca)
)ayoiiL drawings'umerous noncomp I lances witii tiiu Wat criteria were Identified in an audit tne evaluation 'tea<a,review.
Tne sum fin<iinnc w<<c cubmitten tn the Nk<'H findinqs were regarding equ)print Se w l< IngsCP4r4L Ion ~ lr4Cew47 SL'P4I=4L Io Identification.
As a result of tnes (Hef. U9) was Issued Altnouqii sore were resolved.
tiie elvaludt ion teaa c
unducted orior to WNK.mRN
(<ra%<an, YntJntl 1 <<m<ms (4@7<-g.
f tiie nonc~f %rhea $
tne documentation required to verify tne resolution of
<<11 tne I twas in tne Itl k C)used<
Neil dnn samnlas Ial an
~
by tne evaluation tean conf ir<n tndt tiie saap)ed Items a
a ~
C
~
a.
<I..
l... ~
<iaVc Ucc<I 44L I<<< aLLO< I ly I cblJ<vcv ~
o In a dny instanclts in 41 I tnrcu p<kie1s, nuoweta) ) ic slidinq boards were used as separation barriers and were placed on ttie.modulus uetween tne switches of different trains.
No assess<rent ny the eva)nation team wds made regdrdinq tne ddequdcy of this mdteiial fnr use-<<c dn <<Ceent<<blu b<<rl Ier Review tne FSAR for cenaitments to separate equipment and coeyonents inside
'panels or electrical enclosures.
- Also, TVA will provide a just)f)cation to why noeieta) ) Ic slidinq boards (q)astic type I<an ha ata n n I lan n
~ Uaatl a
. I us ~'I Ua<
~ <I~
r< UV ~ ucv Uy nLaa <4\\Jnuuac I were used as separation barriers between redundant switches.
Corp)et)on 1s scnedule for )0/0)/U?.
(CATU 242 00 NUN 01 )
None required.
None required.
TVA established that a)1 items of NCR li- -
were PAMArdsWH
'9M9tlGT'Pj) EU
) c In E2W n<<cll ~ 4<l ~IB?1
0 0
ATTACIIMENT u
SUMMARY
OF
- ISSUES, F IIIUII<GS. At(0 CuRRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR SUUCATEGUNY 74?UU 0
REVISION NUN8ER: 2 Paqe 8-9 of 16 issues Fiouiiigs Corrective Actions Element 24?.0 - w8N (Continued)
Llectrical separation aou isolation cumiiitaents io tne FsAR iiave not b<<en reflecteu in tne separation aesign criteria.
In audition, NCR w-31-V, wnico resultea from tne auait aiSCuSSed abOVe, Iuentifieu inStanCeS where tne interlOCk circuit between trains A aou 8 ao<<s nut maintairi tne minlmuiii air space, nor is there a metal barrier Installed.
Furtriermoru, toe uesiqn uf tiiese circuits aoes not confurm to tne FSAR criteria for a train A circuit wIto an Interlock from train 8 aevice.
Tvn coeniitted to review ana identify separation comnitments and requirements contained In the FSAR,
- SER, ana licensing coniiitments, and to ensure that the partial corniitments to Regulatory Guide 1.75 and IEEE Standard 384 ar' incluuea in design criteria and/or design
-output documents.
Ceiipletion is scneaulea for 10/Ul/8).
(CATU 242 00 WUN 01) walkuowns by the evaluation team (Hufs. 38 ana 40) revealed tiiat:
u Tray ?U?221 crosses uv<<r trays JA2221 aoa JA22?2 at co)uiivi S.
Tray 282227 nas a tup cover but no botton cover.
Also, trays 3A2199 ana JA??UO cross trays 382)18 ana 38?726.
Trays 3A2200 ana JA7199 both nave solid bottom covers, but only oiie tray nas a tup cover.
Trays 282178 and 382226 have top covers but oo bottom covers.
o In tne cable spreauinq ruum (<<levation
- 14) feet),
toe norizonta) distance betwe<<n trays 3iI25S 4oa 3A135, anu between 38791 ana 3A166 is leis toan 3 feet.
Tnis is aqainSt the requireix.ntS Of the ueSign Criteria.
u At elevation 1UU feet, coordinate Cs-i), in toe auxiliary Iostruirent rurxr, tne distance uutweeo cuiuluit )PVUOuE anu the raised cuver oo redundant tray 2U) Is 1/?
'Inch (criteria require \\-inch minimum separation).
None required.
TYA establisiied tnat these Items are ln full corp)lance'ith watts Uar separation criteria.
Tne evaluation team verified tnat tne desiqn is in conformance with desiqn criteria requirements.
TYA aqreea tnat tnis item is not in complialice with the aesiqn criteria ana committed to determine lf a qeneric CAI) nas been qenerated that would encompass those two items.
TVA also coonitted tnat if no CA/ can be found, one will be Initiated to identify anu resolve these Items.
Completion ls sctieuuled before unit 1 fuel loaa.
(CATU 24?
UU wNN U4)
TYA aqreeu tnat the 1/? inch conduit/tray separation is not in compliallce with the design criteria and comnitted to determine If a qeneric CAI) hai been qenerated.
Comp)etion is scheuuled before unit 1 fuel luau.
(CATU ?42 OU wUN U4) 245)U-20 (09/79/87)
ATTACttHttlT ii SUttHAHV UF ISSUES, fINUINUS, tutU CUHHECTIVE ACTIONS fUR SUUCATEGUttV ?4200 REVISION NIPtUER: 2 Page 8-10 of 16 Issues Finainqs CorrectIve Actions Element 242.0 - ttUN (Cont inuea) b.
Inadequate separation of tI ana non-t) cables in trays, for all voltage levels, is the result of a violation of procedures.
Cable trave are nVerlnadea ae a
result of inaaequate separation.
d.
Inadequate cable arrangement results In covers extending 3 to 4 incbec above the tray.
- o. t.ack of ver ifIcat lou of tue currently as-installed status b.
of cables in raceways makes co,rpj lance tu ttie aesign criteria'nu proceaures Ina<<tere inate.
c Cable tray over 1oaaiiiq Is not a result of inadequate C.
uivisional separation.
Uverluauinq 1s a problem inaepenaent uf uivisionat separation.
a.
Ha ised tray covers are acceptable as lung as tney are u.
prnper1 v inct al li a ana senarat i in
~ e i irons eats ara comp11ed <<Itn.
Tne ttuclear Safety Hev lee Staf f (NSKS I Report I-8S 6?U iiUti (Ref.
105) concluded tnat tray covers
)
naa been raisea 3 to 4 Incnes, vtiicn violates specif ic separation criteria.
In audit ion, the tray coveis ana tne solid cable tray bottoms vbtcn nrnvtded steel barriers between separate saf<<ty divisional crossovers, do no
-0 e
he gaug nq requirement of UeSiqn Ct ttci to uU-UC-30-4.
Tne -NSRS report al su conc luuea tnat ttie lack of implementing deSiqn seParatiOn requirementS in ttie aesign output. document resultea in tray separation deficiency; All issues Identifleu in tnis report nave been sattsfactorilv resolved anit rnrrective artinns completed.
TUA coeitittea to verify tiie as-installed status of cables In racetrays.
The corrective action plan is addressee In Subcategory Report 26600, uUN element 239.0.
cvniv~ 'cud 04 iiuu 'vc aiiu vv) lravii 'ini
~
~., ii ri -
nit cable tray uverloaainq is addressed in Subcategory Report 266UU.
itUN elements 238.1 and ?40.0.
None required.
?d(ill ?0 I
? I
issues ATTr4CINCHT U surpIART UF IssuEs, F IHUINOs, r Nu cuRREcTIVE AcT)0Ns FUR SUUCATEGUrry 24700 F ina ings Corrective Actions REVISION NUHUER: 2 Paqe U-ll of 16 Element 242.0 - UfN a.
Electrical separation Is Inaaequate.
Revie~ Is requirea to assess e)ectrica) and physica) separation aaequacy of redundant wiring, cable, and components as well as equipment.
a.
Urowns Ferry is cornr~ittea to crxrp)y)ng <<1th
)FEE stanaaras 279-19/)
ana 3uu-)97I for'Inaepenaence ana redundancy, but not committed tu Regulatory uuide 1.75-
)974 or 1970, or to IEEE Stanuara 384-)974.
Separation requirements for caule trays are aaequately addressed In design criteria except for separation between reaundant vert)ca) ana rrorizonta) trays ana for separation between reaunaant vertical or rrorizonta) trays runninq on different planes.
No criteria cou)a be found for separation uf cables in free air except for those in tne cab)e spreading room.
uesign criteria (Ref. )u) are nut specific for electrical isolation between redundant circuits ana between class 1E ana non-'c)ass
)E circuits UfH a.
Hone required.
CAr)RS UFP d70508, UFP 8705)b, and UFP 870516 have been initIatea reguirlnq clarification of aesiqn criteria UFN-50-794 re)ative to trre separation of redundant vertical ur horizonta) trays runninq on different planes.
Corrective action wi)I be comp)eted prior to restart of eacrr unit.
(CATO ?42 00 UFH Ul)
CAr)Rs UFP 87U508, UfP 870515, and UfN 8705)b have been Initiatea to track irr TROI the c)arification of aesiqn criteria UFN-b0-794 for separation of redundant cables in free air.
Corrective action
<<111 be comp)etea prior to restart of each unit.
(CATO 242 00 UFN Ul)
Uesign criteria BFH-50-794 specif )cally aaaresses electrical Isolation of redundant circuits ana electrical Iso)ation between class
)E ana non-class
)E circuIts in Section 5.2.2.3.).
The evaluation team verifiea that electrical Isolation is aadressed in the design criteria as inaicated.
(CATO 242 UO UFN 01) 24510-?0 (09/29/8l)
Issues ATTACIINL'rrT 8 suerARY OF
- ISSUEs, FINUINUS, Attu CURRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR SUUCATEGORY 24?OO F inulnqs Corrective Actions RfVISION NUNBER: 2 Paqe B-l? of 16 f)ement 242.0 - BFN (Continuea)
The fo)lowinq ubservatlu<<s
<<aue during tne eva)uatlun tea<<
walkaOwn (RefS. 46, 41 ana 48) Inu)Cate AOACOmp) IanCe with tne UFN FSA<t (Ref. 51) anu
< E deSiqn criteria (Ref.
- 15) in the fol)owinq aspuctsr u
instances were lu<<ntifl<<u In od<<e) 9-3, where switcr<es Of redundant aiViSIOA were nut aaeq>>ate)y Separated Reaundant division anu/or el<anne) cables or wires I'nnnnntnct tn tnncn c <trI cn ~ < r n.
c
~
c
~ ~.i i v slibA cn
~ ~ %. ~le4 ~
tell I%.>> Vo>>vt wevt l>>e mIAI<tum separation require('ants, are not run In an en<c<oseai rdcewdy anu
<n.so<<<u lnstdncus dre even run toqether.
u iiOnCu<<p) iance with design crii<<ria for term)nat)ng reuu<<uant aivisions was observed In panel 9-J anu Identifieu on terminal b)ock "VV," dnd potential for Aoncomp))ance miqht exist on termioa) blocks "rc" ana "AAA."
Generic revie~ under UF-CAR-86-0259 rrshlnc nntnr<nn rnnt ~
\\
c innr 'tk IX'
\\
~ I
~
~ ~ I < \\ vl~ ~ ~ u ~
<crl>>
~ Lr
~ ccrc wv not meet the aivisional separation criieria) aAd resuliiAg corrective actions will also aaaress all concerns Identifieu In panel 9-3.
I<<p)ementation of corrective actions wi)1 Inc)uae walkdown of panels Including 9-3.
Cart'ective act inn wrll bn <nctnletea< nr<nr to restart of each unit.
rnnna ncn.In..cc
.c
~ t
<vntv chic
'vv Urd vkr Sacs as above.
ln the unit 1 cab)e spredul<<q ruo<<, at elevation bu6
- feet, the eve)udt(on teat'bsurvea that unmarked conuuits carrvinq'ables frutn a dlvI>ion 4 tray were in contact witn Uivlsion li trays.
Also, trays (top.
tO-bOttam) & II, JPAt Jkt AF dna C=bleS JA trays-JE--
anu JOA are in contact with tne trayS directly over!<eau-.
A<is does Avt Prvvi<r<< ade<iudie Sepaldt<OA betwein aivisiona) d<)<<~i)drily, cables in tray M-II toucr< JAT cable tray above.
Tnis do<<s nut provide adequate separation between divisional ana hood)visional trays.
I<rp)e<lvntatiun uf tCtrs r-o/53 d<<u p-UU??
'iu sdtlsfy r<RC vlu)dtIOA notice 4S pari vf a )u<<q-t<<r<<< Cucn<<it<rent uy IVA.
CAIIRS UFP U/USU9 and UFP U1U5)3 have been Initfateu to perform an inspection of.
Identlf!ed rdCewayS ~na tu eValuate the raceway conf Iquration for vio)ation of the Ucaiqn Criter4 OBf-50-194-.
Are CASKS will aeterm)nu thu corrective actiorr for each discrepancy as weil.as IAItidte actions to revise desiqn output documents.
The correct ive action Mill lAvo)ve <todlfIcatiof< of raceways dAd/or Justification of the exiSting corlfiguratioA Uy performIAq en<
- analysis, TVA wi)1 also evaluate a)1 CAI)RS for generic applicability by responsible uesiqn discip)ine.
Corrective action will be crxrs<)<<tea prior to restart of each unit.
(CATU ?42 UO UFN UJ) l<rp)e<<vntation of tire ECNs Is trackeu in ine i'RUJFCT/? (P7) sysier, which iracks activities that extend beyund 17/?7/85.
'CATU 742 UO UFN U4) 745)0-70 (UQQ
Issues ATTHCIIMfttT lt SUHHAHY uf ISSUL's, fINUINUS, ANU CuHkfCTIYf ACTIONS FUR SUUCATfOUHY 24?00 f Inuings Corrective Actions kfYISIUN NUHUER: 2 Page B-13 of 16 Element 242.0 - BFN (Cuntinuea) b.
Inadequate separation In trays uf Q and non-Q cables for all vo)tage levels as=a result of proceaurus beinq violatea.
- b. Lack of prucuuurus fur annual routing of caules anu verification of ttte cable routing program, ana tne resultinq uncertainty reqarulnq tnu current as-installea status of cables in raceways, make compliance witn the UFN FStut Indeterminate for runninq Q ana non-t) cables toqether.
Routing of tI anu non-Q cables in the same race~ay Is allowed pet FSAH; tiuwevur, tnu FsAH does nut permit a nun-tI cable, once ruuted In a tI tray, to be subsequently routed in a t) tray cu>>taininq cables of another division.
b.
TYA ctNtmltted to verify ttte as-installea status of cables ln raceways.
the corrective action plan Is addressed in Subcateqory Report 76600, GFN element ?39.0.
(CATus 739 00 UFN Ul, ana 03)
NCR UFN Uwp 0304 (Hef. lu2) iuu>>tifieu a nun-conformance wttere uivision II cables were ruutea in a non-class lf conduit (H conuuit).
Th<< problem was correctea by Chanqing tttls conault aesiqnation to class lf; however, no analysis was Iaentifiea to justify tttls cnanqe.
Also,'o evidence could be found tltat an evaluation was performed to aetermlne whetner utttur, similar cases ex lsteu.
TYA will review all "H" conauits to aet<<rmine If other "H" conauits ttave class If cables installed In thea.
TYA will also provIue documentation justifylnq tne chanqe of conauit desiqnation from "HGO" to a "3fS Uivision II" conduit.
If other simIlar cases are aiscovered, they will also be justified by analysis and reaesiqnated.
This condition Is not considerea to be a
CAQ at this time, so a Problem Identification Report (PIR) will be Initiated to ducument ana track this condition until a determination Is made.
Cofrective action will be cony)uteu prior tO the restart of each unit.
(CATU 242 00 UFN u4) c.
Cable trays are overloadea as a
result of Inaaequate separation.
- c. cable tray ovurluauing (overfill) is nut a result of c.
cable tray overloadinq is adur'essed In Inadequate uivislona) separation.
Uverluaaing is a
j Subcateqory Heport ?66UO, UFN problem Inuepenaent of aivisiunal separation.
elements 23U.1 ana ?40.0.
24510-?0 (09/29/Ul )
ATTACHIEENI U 5UIEIVIHY UF l55UE5, F INUINIi5, ANU CUHHLCTIVE ACTIUN5 FOR 5UUCATEIiOHY 742UU REVISION NUIIUER: 2 Paqe 8-14 of 16 Issues FinuinqS Corrective Actions Element 242.0 -
UFN '(Continued) d.
Inadequate cable arranqemunt resu)ts In covers extending 3. to 4 Inches above trays.
- d. Haised tray covers are dcceptdulu ds long as they are properly installed and separat Iun requlreitents are cun'plied witn.
Ilowever, during tlie wa)kvowns, altliough no evidence was found:of tray cuvurs extending 3 to 4 inches abuve c)ass 1L trdyst instances of IInpropir rover inStal)atiOn were identified.
TOIS WaS the reSult Of OV rf 1)
C OC)uidiI d 'Ilie I ~Istdl lat IOn Of a tray cover as required by separation requireIevnts.
d.
L'AUHS UFP U70509 and UFP U70513 have been initiated to perform an inspection of Identified raceways and tu evaluate the raceway conf lquratiun fur vlo)ation of the
~
~
~
s
~
~ ii iii i~ =nu irs i
~ i id \\ II4is<<
W I I ~
Ilec Inn I'r It's I I IlfllAll 14d Ts rAIUI..I I I determine the corrective action for each uiscrepancy as we))
as initiate actions to revise deSlqn output-docixeentS.
The corrective action'wl)1 Involve imdlflcatlun of racewavs and/or iustlfication of the existing configuration.
Uy performlnq an
<<nsluc lc TIIA uE 11 slcn nnsl
~ ~ stn sl I rAUU n
s
~ rs i
~ ~ ~ i ~ nsi I,IVIJUI4 QI I IisIIIIA for generic dppllcabl) ity by responsible des lqn Ulsc Ip I lne ~
I ul I ecL lve aced lon wl I I oe comp)eted prior to the restart of each unit.
(CAIU 242 00 UFN 03)
BLN ULH Elet trio<<1 Sep<<rat leo IS jnailenuatn, Review ls required to assess electrical and pilysical separation adequacy of redundant wirlnq, cable, and components as well as equipment.
IULH 'IS COXIOItted tO Cemp)ylllq Willi lttt. Utandarus 179 )971 and 30U-)971 for independence aild redundancy, as well as wtth Requlatury l'uide ).75-.')9/U and ILEE 5tandard 3U4-)974.
Nu docideents were Ident lfjed-tiI ver! fy-t!Iu reso! tion and/or corrective action for Prob)oil iuentification Report PIH-NN EEEIUII)9'(revinivant irlxtruIrent air tubinq was Insta) led with 6 inch separation Instead of the requlrid IU inches)
(Hef. 103).
4 Iiolle I equi l i.'u ~
TVA COv4nl'Ied shat CurlssruCt IOOI Wl)1 I eroiitc Instruirent air tublnq'R3-LOPR-)678-A and iHT-LOP)I-104C-0 per 5080925-IO-series to meet qeneral specification G-60 to ensure the instrument air tubing is installed with
)U-Inch Separation as required TVA alSO perforlted a walkdown in Train A and Train U iifIea J
~ ol ll ~
~
~44 I II<<I~ IAIIUIII 4 I I
~ 44 IIIg r
S sll 14n I I
~
I A.li I i instal)ed before G-60 revision (before February 19U5) and identified six Instances of instrument air tublnq with Separation conf)lets.
four Iiave been corrected and the redlalnlng tWO are ruri eeteil iunidei COI rect IVn action of PIR BLN EEUU619.
Comp)etion ls scriedu)ed bcfUI e unit 1 fuel load (CATU 242 00 ULN 01)
?4510-?0
/87) 0
Issues ATTACIIKLNT u sueIARv OF IssuEs, FINDINIis, ANU CURRLcTIYL AcfloNs FUR soUCATEGUKY ?4?00 F ina 1>>qs Currictive Actions e
REVISION NOKBER:
7.
Page B-lb of 16 Element ?42.0 - ULN (Continuea)
Separation require>vgts fur cable trays aru aa<<quately aaaressea in aesiqn criteria.
IIow<<ver, clarification is needed reqaruinq the angular orientation between redundant vertical a>>d horizontal trays, and fur separation of redundant hurizu>>tal or reuundant vertical trays runninq on uifferent pic>>es.
No specific distance was iaent Ifieu In t>>e uesiqn criteria tu separate tne Int<<mal wiri>>g In all class IE control boards,
- panels, anu relay racks.
TYA cennltted to revise the design criteria N4-5-0?U6 to clarify the applicability of horizontal ana vetical separation requireeents to all race~ay confiqurations encountered ln the plant layout includlnq sper Ifically the separation of redundant norizuntal or redundant vertical trays runninq on different planes.
Completion 1s scheaul<<a before unit I fuel loaa.
(CATO 242 00 BLN 02)
Uasea on consitments to Regulatory Guide 1.75 ano IEEE Stanaara
- 384, TVA cogreltted to uocument in the design criteria the requirements for internal wiring separation in equipment.
Completion is scheduled before unit I fuel load.
(CATO ?4? 00 ULN 02) b.
Inaaequate separation in trays of I) and non-I) cableS for all voltaqe levels as a result of procedures beinq violated.
The followinq observations made aurinq the evaluation team walkdown indicate (Refs.
49 through 52) noncompliance with tne ULN FSAK and aesiqn criteria, as fo I lows:
u Instances were iu<<ntifiea I>> pan<<l IIX-IH-004, where s~itches of redunuant uivisiun were not aaequately separateu.
Ri'aundant division ana/or channel cables or wires connected to these
- switcnes, which do not meet the minimum separation requirements, are not run in an enclosed raceway and in some instances are even run toqether.
Uellefonte is currently unaer construction, ana this condition is considered normal; therefore, no Immolate requiri~nts exist for providing tiie requirea separat ion.
Nowever, future safe operation of the plant will require the
~
installation of barriers and enclosea raceways.
b.
The lack of verification uf th<<Computer rOutinq program and tne adequacy of the corputur-rOuted cables to tne des iqn criteria anu procedures are Indeterminate.
None required as this condition Is the result of onqoinq modifications to this panel ana is consiaerea normal for a plant under construction.
b.
TvA coenittea to verify the as-installed status of cables in raceways.
The corrective action plan is addressed in Subcategory Report ?6600, BLN element 739.0.
(CATO 239 00 BLN 01) 74510-20 (09/29/81)
issues ATTAC)WLNT d bueQNY UF )SSutS, F)NU)NOS, ANU CURPtCT)VE. ACTlONS Fuh SUNCATLOuHY ?42OU Findinqs Curr<<ctive Actions RfVlSION NUNUERt 2 Paqe B-16 of 16 E)ement
?42.0 - BLN (Continued) c.
Cable trays are over)oaded"as a
result of inadequate separation.
- c. Cab)e tray uverloauinq (uverfi)) ) is nut a.result uf inadequate divisional separatiun.
Uverluauinq is a prOblem inuependent Of u)V)S)una) Separatinn.
c.
Cab)e tray,uverloadinq is addressed in Subcateqory Report 26600, BLN elements 23B.)
and ?4U.U.
d.
)nadequate cable arranqumeni results 4
. ~.
4 A I
')
~
x
~ I~ LMve~ 5 ChlCIWwlq 4 lM 1 wlWleh above trays.
- d. Haiseu tray covers are acc<<ptau)e as luuq as tney are wl MERCI
~ 7 I ~Ib ~ 0 ~ ICV OIIV 4% <<Q ~ IllIVI~
~ CQU ~ I %PIKIILQ Ol C comp)i<<d witn.
Uurinq'the wa)adown (Ref. 52), no evidence was iuund ui tray covers extinuinq above tne tray.
)n fact, tbe trays tout were inspected did not nave cuvers because tne plant is sti)1 under construction and It appearS un))telv tuat ra)Sod COVerS w))) be required In tnu future.
u.
None required.
?46)u-?0 ~9/07)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
24200 REVISION NUMBER:
0 Page C-1 of 8 ATTACHMENT C REFERENCES 1.
Sequoyah Element Report 242.0, Rev.
3 (04/07/87), "Electrical Separation"
( Inadequate Electrical and Physical Separation between Redundant and between Q and Non-Q Wiring, Cabling, Equipment, and Components) 2.
TVA Nuclear Performance Plan:
Revised Corporate Nuclear Performance
- Plan, Volume 1 (03/86)
Revised Sequoyah Nuclear Performance
- Plan, Volume 2 (03/87)
Browns Ferry Nuclear Performance
- Plan, Volume 3 (08/86)
Watts Bar Nuclear Performance
- Plan, Volume 4 (03/87) 3.
Regulatory Guide 1.75, "Physical Independence of Electric. System,"
Rev.
0 and Rev.
2, (02/74,and 09/78) 4.
IEEE Standard 308-1971, "Class lE Power System for Nuclear Power Generating Stations"
~ 5.
IEEE Standard 279-1971, "Criteria for Protection System for Nuclear Power and Generating Stations" IEEE Standard 384-1974, "Trial-Use Standard for Separation of Class 1E Equipment and Circuits" 7.
WBN Oesiqn Criteria WB-OC-30-4 for Separation of Electric Equipment and Wiring, Rev.
4,
{B42 851030 508], (10/03/85) 8.
SQN Oesign Criteria for Separation of Electric Equipment and Airing (SQN-OC-V-12.2),
Rev.
6, (09/30/85) 9.
SQN Design Criteria SQN OC-V-11-4..1 "Normal and Emergency Ac Auxiliary Power System,"
Rev.
2, (07/22/86) 10.
BFN Oesign Criteria for Physical Independence of Electrical
- Systems, BFN-50-794, Rev.
0,
( 11/26/85) 11.
BLN Oesign Criteria for Physical Independence of Electrical
- Systems, N4-50-0786, Rev.
3, (09/30/85) 12.
BLN Oesign Criteria for Physical Separation Outside of the Primary Containment, N4-50-0741,,
Rev.
1, (10/04/84) 37720-R2
( 10/06/87)
~ TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
24200 REVISION NUMBER:
0 Page C-2 of 8 13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Westinghouse Specification 952367,'General Equipment Specification for Control Board Construction,"
Rev.
2,
( ll/12/73)
Westinghouse.Specification Cr'iteria for Internal Wiring: (678855),
Rev. 0, (07/30/71)
General Electric Design Specification 22A2809,, "Electrical Equipment, Separation for Safeguard Systems,"
Rev. 2, (04/25/72)
Bobcock and.Wilcox,Equipment Specificiati'on '8-'i153000001-10 for
" Instrument and Control Panels,"
(05/l?2/79)
Babcock and Wi,lcox, "Electrical Equiprhent, 'Separation for Safeguard Systems" TVA Drawings 47M605-8, 10, 14,,
15, and 23, "E'lectrical Layout of Control Boards" TVA Drawings 45N1643-1 through 8, "Miring Diagrams Unit Control Board'anel 1-M-4" 20.
21.
Wirinq,Diagram, Control Boards Critical Wiring Braid Installation (E-45M1640 Rev. 3),
(CI5/03/84)
OE Calculation, "Nonsafety-Related Electrical Equipment Important Safety per 10 CFR 50.49(b),"
(,825 8511,07 300j,
( ll/07/05)
Ql o 22.
23..
24; 25.
26.
Mechanical Layout of Control
'.loards Drawings M4 47W6905-10, Rev.
19; H4 47W605-13, Rev.
13; M4 47W605-14, Rev.
2'1; M4 47W605-19, Rev.
1Ci; and M4 47W600-55, Rev.
10 Orawino 47W200-2 "Eauioment Plan - El. 749. 0 and Aboi'ie," Rev 13, Drawing 47W200-3 "Equipmeni Plan - El. 734.0'and El. 732.0," Rev.
15 OE Calculations, "Analysis of Ac/Dc Instrument and Control (IEC) Power System to Identify Assoc',iated Circuits,"~ 10 CFR 50; Appendix R,
{B43 860630 901j,, (06/30/86)
TVA Drawings 45W880-27, "Conduiit and Grounding Cable lrays Detail Sheet 14," Rev.
3, (04/16/86)
OE Calculation, "Analysis of Ac/Oc InStrument ~and Control Power System to Identify Associat:ed Circuits -
10 CFR 50< Appendix R," [843 860129 9033, (Gl/28/86) 0 3772 D-R2 (10/06/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
24200 REVISION NUMBER:
0 Page C-3 of 8 27.
EN DES Calculation, "Listing of Electrical Equipment in a Harsh Environment. Required to S'atisfy 10 CFR 50, 49," [845 850611 002],
(06/11/85) 28.
- TVA"Unit 2 "Wiring Diagrams Unit Control Boards Panel 9-3,'" 45N2641-1
- Series, sheets 1 through 7
29.
GE Unit 2 "Connection Diagram Panel 9-3," 791E489 Series, sheets 1
through 9
30.
TVA Design Drawings "Equipment Location,"
47W200 series drawings 31.
"Equipment Plans 8 Sections"
- drawings, drawings 3DW0234-00-1, Rev.
3,
-(ll/12/8) and 30W0234-00-2, Rev.
3, (ll/12/85) 32.
Layout of control boards bench lIX-IM-004 and 2IX-IM-004 drawing SCW0935-TX.-5, Rev.
6 33.
Layout of control boards bench 1 IX-IM-005 and 2IX-IM-005 drawing 5CW0935-1X-6, Rev.
13 34.
Layout of control boards bench 1IX-IM-006 and 2IX-IM-006 drawing 5CW0935-1X-7, Rev..
6 35.
Layout of control boards bench 1IX-IM-006 and 2IX-IM-006, and 1 IX-IM"007 and 2IX-IM-007 drawing 5C0935-IX-B, Rev.
2 36.
Control board instrument tabulation 5CB1.906-IX-A, Rev.
2 37.
Control board instrument tabulation 5CB1907-IX-A, Rev.
3 38.
Walkdown performed by J.
39.
Walkdown performed by S.
- Wheeler, Bechtel, on 01/28/87, BLT 177 Mabie, Bechtel, on 02/24/87, IOM 1703 40.
Walkdown performed by S. Mabie, Bechtel, on 02/28/87, IOM 1704 41.
Walkdown oerformed by J. Wheeler,
- Bechtel, and N. Black, TVA, (BLT-080),
(08/23/86) 42.
Walkdown performed by J. Benkert, Bechtel, and H. Liao, TVA, (BLT-557),
(09/17/86) 43.
Walkdown performed by J. Benkert, Bechtel, and C. Dodson, TVA, ( IOM 556),
(09/18/86) 3772D-R2
( 10/06/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REIPORT NUMBER:
24200 REVISION NUMBER,':
0 Page C-4 of 8 44.
Walkdown performed by J. Wheeler,, Bechtel, and G. Bell, TVA, (BLT-061),
(10/09/86) 45.
Walkdown performed by J. Wheeler,
- Bechtel, and R.
Sentman and J. Sanders, TVA,, BLT-168, (03/ll/87) 46.
Walkdown performed by S,. Mabiie, Bechtel IOM. 848, (04/06/87) 47.
Walkdown performed by S. Mabiie, Bechtel IOM 851, (04/07/87) 48.
Walkdown performed by S,. Mabie, Bechtel IOM 867',
(04/08/87) 49.
Walkdown performed by S,. Mabie, Bechtel, for control room panel 1IX-IM-007, IOM 1096, (06/Ol/87) 5D.
Walkdown performed by S,. Mabie, Bechtel, IOM '1104, (06/05/87) 51.
Walkdown performed by S;. Mabie, Bechtel, I'OM'l,l'38,'06/05/87)'2.
Walkdown performed by S Mabie, Bechtel, IOM 1155, (06/08/87) 53.
54.
WBN 'Safety Evaluation Report (SER),
Oocket Hch.
50~390 and 50-391 Section 8.3.3.3 also Supplement No.
3 Section 8.3.3.3 55.
SON FSAR, Chaoters 7 and 8
56.
SON Safety Evalution Report (SER),
Odckht No. 50-327'and 50-328, Section 8.5 57.
58.
59.
TVA letter to
- NCR, Field Audit at WattS B'ar 'Nur.le'ar Plant,"
[A27 810024 014j~ (02/04/81) 60.
TVA memo from R.
W. Cantrell to J. A.'aul'ston, "WBN - Nonconforming Conditio'n fleport (NCR) W-31-P'ield Audit 'for'epa'ration of Electr'ical
'quipment and Systems Interim Report,"
[SWP 810415 007], (04/15/81) 61.
TVA memo from J.
E,. Wilkins to j. C. 'Stand'ifer, "WBN 1
and, Electrical Separation Field Audit -
NCR W-31-P,"
[WBN 8205'l7 011],
(05/17/82)'2.
TVA memo from C.
H Jetton and J.
E. Wilkins, "WBN -
NCR W-31-P,"
[WBN 820115 200], (01/13/82) 3772D-R2
( 10/06/87) 0
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
24200 REVISION NUMBER:
0 Page C-5 of 8 63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
TVA memo from R.
M. Cantrell to J. A. Raulstoa, "WBN 1
and 2 - Electrical Separation Field Audit -
Report No.
3 (Interim)-
HCR W-31-P,"
(SWP 810702 034], (07/01/81).
TVA memo from F.
M. Chandler to Electrical Engineering Fields, "MBN-Oesign Input Memorandum on Separation of Electrical Equipment and Miring, Oesign Criteria WB-OC-30-4," (843 851125 911]
TVA memo from E. Chitwood.to Electrical Engineering Fields, "WBN - Oesign Input Nemo on Separation of Electric Equipment and Miring Oesign Criteria WB-OC-30-4," [843 860224 902], (02/18/86)
TVA memo from E. Chitwood to J.
A. Raulston and J.
C. Standifer, "MBN 1
and 2 - Significant Condition Report No.
SCRWBNEEB8582,"
['843 860224 940], (02/24/86)
TVA memo from E. Chitwood to J. A. Raulston, "MBN Unit 1
and 2-10 CFR 50.55(e)
Final Report - SCRWBNEEB8582,"
[B43 860124 930],
(01/24/86)
TVA memo from J.
E. Wilkins to W.
T.. Cottle, "MBN Nonconforming Condition Report M-31-P,"
[WBN 820226 009], (02/26/82)
TVA memo from R.
M. Cantrell to C.
C. Mason, "MBN Uni't 1-and 2
Honconforming Condition Report, M-31-P,"
[SMP 811013 006], (10/08/81)
TVA memo from M. T. Cottle to J.
C., Standifer "WBN - Nonconforming Condition Report; M-31-P,"
[WBP 840607 008], (06/05/84)
TVA memo from Raughley to Electrical Engineerinq Fi-les, "Oesiqn Input Nemo on Separation of Electrical Equipment and Miring Oesign Criteria SON-OC-V-12.2," (843 860710 921], (07/08/86)
TVA memo from Hall. to Chandler, "Response to'Hemo from Chandler to Those Listed," (B25 851226 013],
(12/23/85)'VA memo from Chandler to Those Listed, "Potential Generic Condition Evaluation,"
(B43 851219 905], (12/19/85)
TVA memo from Wilson to Abercrombie, SON - "Employee Concern XX-85-122-011 - Electrical and Physical Separation cf Redundant Circuits and Equipment,
[B25 860505 011], (05/05/86)
HRC-OIE Reportabil'ity Information Oistribution, SCR WBNEEB8582, "Minimum Separation Oistance between Oifferent Oivisional Cable Tray Crossings,"
[B45 860206 828], (12/31/85) 3772O.-R2 (10/06/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NLIMBER:
24200 REVISION NUMBER:
0 Page C-6 of 8 r
76.
77.
78m
~
79.
80.
81.
82.
83 ~
84
'5.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
TVA memo from Wil'son to Raulston, SQN -
SCR SQNEEB8634, Rev.
0,
[825 860509 004], (05/09/86)
SCR SQNEES8634 Minimum Separation
'DiStance between Different Divisional Cable Trays," Rev.
0, (04/30/86)
TVA memo from Standifer to,Ennis,,
"Watts Bar Nuclear Plant - Addendum to Employee Concern Investigation Report I-86-570-WBN," (01/02/86)
TVA memo from Standifer to Ennis, "Wat'.ts Bar ttuclear Plant - Employee Concern Investigation Report Numbed I<85<570-WBN', " '(12/13/85)
TVA memo from Ennis to Standif'er.,
"Watts Bar Nuclear Plant - Employee Concern Investigation Report Transmittal )" ~(11/15/85)
TVA memo'rom IR. H. Davidson to N. B. Hughes, "Meeting with AEC staff-BFN Licensing IReview - June 7,
1972'," '(07/1'8/72)
TVA letter from L. M. Mills to J.
P'. O'Really, "Response to the NRC dated 09/13/84 to H,. A. Parr is," [L44 841015 811], (10/15/84)
General Electric letter t:o W. C. Hibb, "l=lectrical Separ ation Specification Applications - Browns Ferry," (01/31/86)
TVA memo from IM. R. Beasley to. Hall, "BFN - Excaliuation of Genera'1 Electric Design Specification,
"[82I2 851Ii21 002], (11/21/85)
TVA memo from IR. L. Lewis to E.
P.
Schilicsger, "SFN - Engineering Report EEB 8606 Erroneous Specifications Listed on Design Orawings,'-'R39 860214 935], (02/20/86)
TVA memo from N. R. Beasley to E. P. Schlinger,
"'BFN - Units 1, 2, and 3
- Engineering Report for CAQ Report'CR BFNEEEi8606 Revision,"
[822 860228 015]~ (02/28/86)
TVA memo from O. T. Lanqley to BFEP FileS, "BF'N -
SCR BFNEE88606-Walkdown" [822 860421 001], (04/21/86)
Failure Evaluation/Engineering Report '"ADS 'and Manual Relieve Valve Cables not Separated as Required by Fire Protection Plan,,"
[NEB 840510 255], (05/10/84)
TVA memorandum from F.
W. Chandler to ThOse~ Listed, "BFN Nonconformance (NCR) Report; BI=N BWP 8304," Rev.
1,~(08/27/85)
Nonconformance Report (NCR) Report BFN
- BWP, 8304, Rev.
1,
[BWP 830307 002 ], (03/07/83) 0 37720-R2
( 10/06/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMfKR:
24200 REVISION NUMBER:
0 Page C-7 of 8 91.
92.
93.
94
'5.
96.
97.
'98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
Quality Information Request/Release QIRNEB84014 from T. E.
Haynes to C.
H. Sudduth, "Criteria for Special Cable Separation,"
('NEB 841207 7251 ], (12/07/84)
QIR NEB84004 from H. L. Jones to G.
R. Owens, "Criteria for Special Cable Separation,"
[NEB 840807 251], (08/09/84)
QIR NEB 84012 from T. E.
Hayes to C.
H. Sudduth, "Criteria for Special Cable Separation,"
[NEB 841113 257], (ll/13/84)
TVA memo from J.
P. Stapleton to E.. O. Hill, "BFN - SCR BFN EEB8606 Field Verification of Panels 9-15', 9-17, 9-12, 9-14," [822 860522 018],
(05/22/86)
TVA memo from E. Chitwood to Electrical Engineering Files, "BLN - Oesiqn Input Memorandum on Physical Independence of Electrical System - Design Criteria N4-50-0786,"
[843 860130 908], (01/29/86)
TVA memo from W. S. Raughley to R. R.
Hoes 1ey, "BLN Problem Identification Report (PIR)
BLN EEB8615,"
(843 860528 936], (05/28/86)
Letter from B. J.
Youngblood, NRC, to S. A. White, TVA with the attacned transcript of the investigative interview conducted by the NRC on 02/21/86 at the First Tennessee Bank Building in Knoxville, T.'l,
[845 860714 832], (06/23/86)
SQN Engineerinq Procedure SQEP-29, "Procedure for Preoarinq the Oesicn Basis Document for Sequoyan Nuclear Plant," (07/18/86)
Nonconforminq Condition Report (NCR) W-31P, (02/04/81)
Significant Condition Report WBNEEB8582, "Minimum Separ ation Distance oetween Different Divisional Cable Tray," ('843 051219 906], (12/13/85)
SCR BFN EEB8606, "Inadequate Design Control - Wronq Design Criteria Referenced on Drawings," Rev.
0, (02/07/86)
Nonconformance Report BFNBWP8304, Rev.
1, jBWP 330307 0021, (03/07/83)
0,
[21 871117 002], (ll/17/86)
Problem Identification Report (PIR) PIR BLN EEB 8615
[S43 860678 937),
(05/22/86)
NSRS Report I-85-570-WBN, "Cable Arranqement in Cable Trays," (10/15/85)
NSRS Report I-85-706-WBN, "Cable Separation '""('-ll/22/85) 3772D-R2
( 10/06/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS S,PECIAL PROGRAM PASSPORT NUMBER:
24200 REVISION NUMBERS:
0 Page C-8 of '8 107.
NSRS Report I-85-133-SQN, "Electrichl and Physical Separation of Redundant Circuits and Equipment,'" (02/27/86)
'08.
C/R No.
SQN EEBPBN1002 (Source of C/R FSA'R Amendment 2, Section
- 7. 1.4.2. 1,, page
- 7. 1-19 paragraphs 5 and 7)" TSC/SMS Isolators - Oefine Functiona'I, Quiilification, Oetailed Technical Requirements (e.g.,'axi'muo Cred. Voltage) and Testing Requirements" 109.
C/R No.
SQN EEBPBN1085 (Source of C/R ~oER'/79')
"Undervoltage and Underfrequency Trips Upgr aded to Class lE and Moved'o Auxiliary Building to Satisfy NRC Requirements, Meets IEEE 279" 110.
C/R No.
SQN EEBPBN1134 (Source of C/R 3/79)'"A'ssurahce That Inter train Interlocks Are Oesigned Such That a Failure in One Train Will Not Adversely Affect Oevices in Other Tr'aih"
'll.
C/R No.
SQN EEBPBN1082 (Source of C/R FSAR Amendment 2, Section 7.6.7. 1)
"A Failure in the Non IE Part of the Low Temperature Over Press: Circui't Will Not Harm the 'Protection Set Because of Isolation Oevice" 112.
C/R No.
SQN EEBPBIV1013 (Source of C/R FSA'R Amendment 2,
Sections 7.2.1.1.8 and 7.2.2.23[5 ]) "Oesign Bases and Qualification Testing Requirements for Reactor Trip. Sys~tem Isolation Amplifiers" 0
3772D-R2
( 10/06/87)