ML18033A564
| ML18033A564 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1987 |
| From: | TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082340470 | List:
|
| References | |
| 22500, 22500-V02-R03, 22500-V2-R3, NUDOCS 8902150112 | |
| Download: ML18033A564 (46) | |
Text
EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPHCIAL PROG VOLUBLE2
'NGINEERING CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY REPORT 22500 BATTERY SUPPORT DESIGN UPDATED I
TVA NUCLEAR POWER
~902150li-.
- ---9
$'90206 PDR 4DQCK P
I
~L ra.'Q iO 0
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT TYPE:
SUBCATEGORY REPORT FOR ENGINEERING TITLE:
BATTERY SUPPORT DESIGN REPORT NUMBER:
22500 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page 1 of 17 R A N
R R
ON:
Revised to incorporate initial SRP and TAS conrnents, additional Review Committee comnents, and CAPs.
2.
3 ~
Revised to incorporate additional TAS con.nts; added Attachment C
{References).
Revised to incorporate additional SRP and TAS comments.
DAR'-
~Cf~
REVIEW COMMI 5
A U I JO-Z' DA CEG-H:
SRP:
APPROVED B
N N
bA CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)
SRP Secretary's signatvre denotes SRP concvrrences are in files.
I
~ ~
0
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22500 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page ES-1 of 1
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This subcategory deals with battery support design and addresses activities such as calculations, seismic qualification reports, licensing commitments, and procedures.
The employee concerns cited a perceived inadequacy in the design of battery supports in that they have no vertical tiedowns and that Unistrut material should not have been used as a structural component of the battery racks.
The concern presumption was not substantiated for Watts Bar,
- Sequoyah, and Bellefonte.
However, the support design documentation at Browns Ferry was found to be incomplete or unavailable for review.
The evaluation team found that Unistrut is an acceptable and used to construct the battery racks.
The evaluation further use of battery tiedowns may or may not be required depending of seismic qualification.
common material found that the upon the results.
The causes of the negative findings were diverse, with causes in the design process effectiveness category dominating.
One of the three corrective actions may require minor hardware modifications for Browns Ferry.
The other corrective actions will need documentation changes to remove discrepancies.
Although the employee concerns and other issues assessed during the evaluation identified a few valid problems that require resolution, the number of such negative findings is too small to warrant any assignment of collective significance.
It can be concluded that battery support design does not constitute a significant problem for the Watts Bar,
- Sequoyah, Browns Ferry, and Bellefonte nuclear power plants.
Other programmatic issues associated with the FSAR and CSSC list are identified in Subcategory Report 20900.
The causes identified and other evaluation results are being reexamined from a wider perspective in.the Engineering category evaluation.
26250-R13 (10/1 0/87)
0
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22500 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 established 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 element 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 level.
To make 'the subcategory reports easier to understand, three items have been placed at the front of each report:
a preface, a glossary oi 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.
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 EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22500 FRONT MATTER REV:
2 PAGE ii OF viii The subcategories are themselves summarized iin a series of eight category reports.
Each category rapport review's the,'ma'jor'indings and collective'ignificance of the subcategory reports: in: one of the following areas,:
.management and personnel.
r~>latians, industrial safety construction material control.
operations quality assurance/quality control welding engineering A separate report on employee concerns dealing with specific contentions of intimidation harassment, and wrongdoing vill be released by the TVA Off'ice of the Inspector General.
Just as the subcategory reports integrate the information collected at the element level, the category reports integrate~
the information assembled in all the subcategory reports wit1>in the category, addressing particularly'he underlying causes of those problemsithat arun across more than one subcategory.
h final report will integrate and assess the information, collected by all of the lower level reports prepared for'the
- ECSP, including the Inspector General's report.
For more detail on the methods by which ECTG employee concerns were evaluated and reported, consult the Tennessee Valley,Autho.,ity EmpIoy'~'.e
'oncerns Tas]k Group Program Manual.
Th* Manual'spells out the program's'bjectives,
- scope, organization, and responsibilities.
It also specific's the procedures that were followed in the investigation, reporting 'and closeout of the issues raised by employee concerns.
TVA EMPLOYEE CC:CERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22500 FRONT MATTER REV:
2 PAGE iii OF viii ECSP GLOSSARY OF REPORT TERMS>>
classification of evaluated issues the evaluation of an 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, which was not identified by an employee
- concern, but was revealed during the ECTG evaluation of an 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.
criterion lural:
criteria a basis for defining a performance,
- behavior, or quality which ONP imposes on itself (see also "requirement").
element or element re ort an optional level of'CSP 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.
TVh EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECZhL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER"
-22500 FRONT KLTTER REV:
2 PAGE iv OF viii I~
grouping of employee concerns.
~findin s includes both, statements of fact and the, judgments made aboet those facts during the.evaluation process; negative findings require corrective action.
issue a potential problem, as interpreted by the IECTG during the evaluation
- process, raised in one or more concerns.
K-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 require detailed definition hsIve been defined in the ECTG Procedure Manual (e.gso generic, specific, nuclear safety-related, unreviewed safety-significant question).
0
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL'PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22500 FRONT MATTER REV:
2 PAGE v OF viii Acronyms AI AISC ANSI ASME ASTM BFN Administrative Instruction American Institute of Steel Construction hs Low As Reasonably Achievable American Nuclear Society American National Standards Institute American Society of Mechanical Engineers American Society for Testing and Materials American Welding Society Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant BLN CAQ CAR CATD CCTS CEG-H CFR CI CMTR COC DCR DNC Bellefonte Nuclear Plant 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'uclear Construction (see also NU CON)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22500 FRONT MATTER REV:
2 PAGE vi OF viii DNE DNQA DNT DOE DPO DR ECN ECP ECP-SR ECSP ECTG EEOC EQ EMRT EN DES ERT FCR Division of Nuclear Engineering Division of Nuclear Quality Assurance Division of Nuclear Training Department iof Energy Division Personnel Officer l)iscrepancy Report d'or Deviation, Report Engineiering Change Notice Employee Concerns Program lEmployee Concerns Program-Site Representative lEmployee Concerns Special, Program lEmployee Concerns Task Group Equal Employmeint Opportunity Commission
,Environmental Qualification Emergency Medi.ca'.L Response Team Engineering Design Employee
Response
Team or Emergency
Response
Team Field Change Request Final Safety Analysis Report Fiscal Year GET HCI General Employee Training Haz:ard Control Instruction HVAC INPO IRN Heating, Ventilating, 'Air Cond,ition,ing Installation Instruction Institute of Nuclear Power Operations Inspection Rejiection Notice
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22500 FRONT MATTER REV:
2 PAGE vii OF viii L/R Labor Relations Staff M&AI
'odifications and Additions Instruction MI Maintenance Instruction MSPB Merit Systems Protection Board MT Magnetic Particle Testing NCR Nonconforming Condition Report NDE Nondestructive Examination NPP Nuclear Performance Plan NPS Non-plant Specific or Nuclear Procedures System NQAM Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual NRC Nuclear Regulatory 'Commission NSB Nuclear Services Branch NSRS Nuclear Safety Review Staff NU CON Division of Nuclear Construction (obsolete abbreviation, see DNC)
NUMARC OSHA ONP Nuclear Utility Management and Resources Committee Occupational Safety and Health Administration (or Act)
Office of Nuclear Power OMCP PHR PT QA QAP QCI Office of Morkers Compensation Program Personal History Record Liquid Penetrant
- Testing, Quality Assurance Quality Assurance Procedures Quality Control Quality Control Instruction
~
~
~
TVA E}PLOCE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NIJMBER:
22500
,'FRONT NATTER REV,",
2
- PAGE viii OF viii QCP QTC RIF RT SQN SI SOP SRP SWEC TAS T6L TVTLC UT WBECSP WBN Quality Control Procedure Quality Technology Company Reduction in Force Radiographic Testing Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Surveillance Instruction Standard Operating
}?rocedur0 Senior Review Pariel Stone and Webster Engineerihg Codpodatfon Technical Assistance Staff Trades ahd Labor Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee Valley Trades andiLaibor Council Ultrasonic Testing Visual Testing Watts Bar Employee Concern Special Program Watts Bar Nuclear P'lant Work Request ot Work Rules Workplans
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22500 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page 2 of 17 Section Executive Sunmary Pref ace ECSP Glossary of Report Terms Acronyms 1
Introduction 2
Summary of Issues
'CONTENTS
~Pa e
ES-1 3
Generic Applicability/Evaluation Process 4
Findings 5
Corrective Actions 6
Causes 7
Collective Significance Glossary Supplement.for the Engineering Category Attachments 10 10 15 A
Employee Concerns for Subcategory 22500 B
Sugary of Issues,
- Findings, and Corrective Actions for Subcategory 22500 C
References TABLES Table 1
Classification of 'Findings and Corrective Actions 2
Findings Summary 3
Matrix of Elements, Corrective Actions,.and Causes A-1 B-1 C-1
~Pa e
12 13 14 26250-R14 11/04/87
0 0
0
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22500 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page 3 of 17 INTROOUCTION This subcategory report summarizes and evaluates the results of the ECSP element evaluations prepared under Engineering Subcategory 22500, Battery Support Oesign.
The evaluations discuss the perceived problem of a lack of vertical tiedowns
-and the use of Unistrut members for battery racks.
The employee concerns provide the basis for the element evaluations and are listed by element number in Attachment A.
Attachment A also shows the site location where. the concern in this subcatgory was originated and its applicability to other TVA nuclear plant sites.
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 o
Section 3 -- outlines the process followed for the element and subcategory evaluations and cites documents
- reviewed, and addresses the determination of generic applicability 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's 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 is characterized as safety related, not safety related, or safety significant o
Attachment 8 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 B by using the element number and applicable plant'.
The 2625D-R14 11/04/87
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SII'EC IAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
225OO REVISION NUMBIER:i Page 4 of 'i7 readier may relate a corrective action description in Attachment B to causes and s'ignificance in Table 3 by using the CATO nurse!ber vJhicth appears in Attachment B in parentheses at the end of the corrective action description.
The term Peripheral finding" in the issue column refers to a
-finding that occurred during the course of evaluating a concern but did not stem directly from a employee cioncern.
These are cla~ssified
~
as "IE" in Tables 1
and 2 of this report o
Attaichmient C lists the references cited in the text 2.
SUMMARY
OIF ISSUES The four employee concerns listed in Attachment A, which are essentially identical for ieach of the four plant sites, have been examined
.and the potential problem~s r aised by the concerns have been identified as issues f:or each plant.
Review of these issues, constitutes the one element evaluation foi each of the four plants.
The issues summarized below deal with presumed deFiciencies or inadequacies in i
the design of the battery support systems'25.0 Batter's Suis~ort De! ion - Battery support design is. inadequate in teat:
o Battieries are unacceptably suppiorted since thiey have no vei tical tiedowns.
o Unistrut members s,hould not havie been used fair the battery racks.
A statement describing each is! ue reviewed wiithinithe element evaluations is provided in Attachment B.
1'his attachment also lists findings and corrective
- actions, which are cliscussed in Sections 4 and 5 of 'this report.
As the following sections shadow the issues were found to be invalid for
- Sequoyah, Watts Bar,,
and Bellefonte.
1'he support design documentation for Browns Ferry was not availabileu 3.
GENERIC Ali PLICABILITY/EVALUATIONPROII:ESS This subcategory report is based ion the inform@tiOn evaluated to address the specific employee concerns related to the issues broadly defined in Section 2.
The evaluation process is describedk in tlhe fol.lowing subsections.
26250-R14 11/04/87 0
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMSER:
22500 REVISION NUMSER:
3 Page 5 of 17
- 3. 1 Generic A
licabilit Review As part of the evaluation process, the employee concerns were evaluated for their generic applicability to all TVA nuclear plant sites.
The generic review for this subcategory determined that the concerns are safety related and applicable to all four nuclear plant sites.
3.2 General Evaluation Process This subsection describes the general evaluation process that was used to evaluate the elements identified under this subcategory.
Additional specific evaluation processes are described in subsection 3.3 by element as applicable.
a.
Defined issues for each element from the employee concerns.'.
Determined generic applicabi lity of elements on the basis of their plant-uniqueness.and their effects on safety-related structures,
- systems, and components.
c.
Reviewed applicab'le FSAR (References 2,
24, 49, and 67),
and Safety Evaluation Report (SER)
(References 2 and 46), to understand TVA's commitments related to the specific design issues.
d.
Reviewed applicable regulatory requirements and practices to understand related engineering design requirements (References 2,
24, 49, and 67).
e.
Reviewed relevant TVA design criteria (References 2,
24, and 67),
specifications (References 2,
10,.28, 31, and 51), drawings (References 2,
3, 25, and 50),
and calculations (References 2, 32, 36, and
- 50) to develop an understanding of the design basis.
f.
Performed plant walkdowns (References 2,
38, and 66),
as appropriate, to develop a first-hand understan'ding of the issues.
g.
Reviewed issue-related correspondence, test reports, and nonconforming condition reports (NCRs) to evaluate actions taken by TVA.
h.
On the basis of this composite review, evaluated the issues for each element and described findings (see.Section 4).
i.
Reviewed and concurred with corrective action plans prepared by TVA for the issues requiring specific corrective actions.
2625D-R14 11/04/87
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
i i225OOi REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page 6 of 17 J.
Tabulated the issues, Findings,,
and corrective actions arranged first i'by elemeints and then by plants'in Attachment B).
3.3
~Secific Evaluation Process In addition to the general evaluation,,
as described
- above, performed by the evaluation team for each element, specific documents also were reviewed for each plant based on their app'licability to the issues.
1hese documents and other unique informat',ion are Iideintified below~
and in Attachment C.
The evaluation process for the element evaluations consisted of the following general steps:
a.
Prepared a 'list of class lE batteries
- in each of the four plants.
b.
Identified the locations of these'.batteries in each plant...
c.
Requested TVA to provide seismic.iqualification reports for the class lE batteries and battery rackse d.
Performed plant walkdowns (References 2,
- i38, and 66),
as appropriates to determine if tiedowns exist for the class lE batteries and if-strut membersi have ibeen used for battery rack conistructi on.
e.
Reviewed plant-unique licensing. commitments as described in the FSAR.
f.
Reviewed the seismic qualification reports and supplier drawings (References 2,
11,
'12, 16, l9, 20, 23, 34, 55, and 58) showiing 'th5 battery racks details, particularly.to identify-strut ri>ember's uised.
g.
Reviewed results of NRC Seismic gua1lification Review Team (SQRY) audit of Sequoyah and Watts Bar (References 1,
and 4 'through 9).
h.
Reviewed TVA NSRS Report I-86-274-S(}N For Sequoyah (Reference 2).
i.
Reviewed available transcripts of NRC investigative interviews (References 2, 41, 42, 59, and 60).
J.
.Oetermined the validity of the concerns.
In addition, plaint-unique additional correspondence, i,nternal
- memos, etce, were reviewed as appropriate.
For Browns Ferry, the seismic qualification report was not available for Judging the adequacy of the battery support, systiem.
2625D-R14 ll/04/87
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22500 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page 7 of 17 4.
F INOINGS The findings from each. plant for this subcategory are contained in Attachment B.
The findings for each plant element are summarized below.
- 4. 1 Watts Bar Seauo ah and Bellefonte The review of licensing documents and the seismic qualification reports for class lE batteries and the battery racks provides the necessary design details to conclude that the battery supports were adequate.
The vertical tiedowns were provided for the batteries where required by the seismic qualifications.
The Unistrut members used in the construction of battery racks had been included in the seismic qualification for all three of the plants.
Therefore, the adequacy has been established for the battery support systems with, or without vertical tiedowns and of using Unistrut for the battery rack structural members.
NRC General Oesign Criterion 2 requires Category I structures,
- systems, and components to be designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena such as earthquakes.
The
- SQN, WBN, and BLN commitments to comply with this criterion are contained in the following FSAR sections:
o
..Section 3.1 for SQN o
Section 3.1 for WBN o
Section 3.1 for BLN The seismic design bases of Category I items are described in the following FSAR sections:
o Sections 2.5, 3.7, and 3. 10 for SQN o
Sect'ions
- 2. 5,
- 3. 7, and
- 3. 10.3'or WBN o
Sections 3.2, 3.7, and 8.3 for BLN For all of these plants, TVA had required the supplier to qualify the Battery Support System For cl'ass 1E application.
The purchase specifications included the method of qualifying the batteries and the battery racks in accordance with licensing commitments.
The qualification of batteries was, in general, based on shake table testing 'to show their functionality before, during, and after testing.
The test response spectra (TRS) enveloped the requi,red response spectra (RRS).
2625D-R14 11/04/87
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
'2500 REVISION NUMBER:
3 IPage B of 17 In addition, the NRC Seismic gualification Review Team (SgRT) audited Watts Bar and Sequoyah to verify seismic qualification of Category I equipment.
The subject of battery vertical tiedowns was discussedl and resolved with NRC, during the respective audits.
4.2 Browns Fervor The Br owns Ferry commitment to comply with Ni<C,General Design Criterion 2, as summarized aboye,. is contained in BFIN FSAR, Appendix A.
The seismic qualification reports for class lE batteries and battery racks were not available.
A walkdown confirmed that no battery tiedowns were provided and that Unistrut members were used in the battery rack construction.
The preliminary review of the available informatIion showed that the vertica'1 seismic acceleration for the batteries may exceed 1.0 g in the Diesel Generator Building..
Therefore, it is esshntIial'd assess the need for vertical tiedowns of batteries in the Diesel Generator Bui lding befor e restart.
Therefore, the adequacy of battery supports for Browns Ferry could not.be established.
During the process of eva'luating the concerns for Browns F'erry, two peripheral issues were identified.
o The first is that the NRC 'has a generic safety t,ask action plan to verify the adequacy bf equipment, including batteries, under seismic loading at all operating plants, in, lieu, of requiring these plants to meet the criteria that
~>re applied to new plantS.
The margin of safety Iprovided in existing nuclear power plant equipment to resist seismically indu'ced loads andI perform required safety functions may vary considerably because of'ignificant changes in design criteria.
and met'hods for the seismic qualification of equipment over the years.
Therefore, the seismic qualification of equipment in operating plants must be reasse0sed to determine whether requalificat'ion is necessary.
TVA plans to ascertain the adequacy of strut members and the need for vertical,tiedowns in the rack
'as
'art of the program to be developed in response to NRC Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-46,, which is the tqpiC of NUREG-1030 and'UREG-1211.
o The second is discrepancies between the~project,"critical
~ structures,
- systems, and componbntIs"-
I(CSSC)~
l~ist and the FSAR,.
As a
result of these discrepancies, it was not possible to determine directly from the available documehtatidn which batteries are class 1'E.
This is a1lso the subject of Subcategory Report
- 20900, O-List."
26250-R14 11/04/87
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22500 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page 9 of 1.7 4.3 Summarized Subcateqor Findings Each of the detailed findings in Attachment B has been classified in accordance with the defined finding classifications.
The classified findinqs are summarized in Table 1.
Class A and B findinqs indicate there is no problem and that corrective action is not reauired:
Class C, 0, and E
findings require corrective actions.
The corrective action class is identified in the table by the numeral combined with the finding class.
The summary of findings by classification is given in Table 2.
Table 2
identifies one finding for each issue evaluated.
Of the nine findings identified by a classification in Table 2, six require no corrective action.
Of those remaining, two findings had corrective actions identified, and one requiring corrective action was a peripheral issue uncovered durinq t4e ECTG eval uat i on.
5.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS The general areas of corrective action are described below for the element reviewed in this subcategory.
Following this is a summary discussi.on of the information presented in Table 3.
The corrective actions are applicable only to Browns Ferry.
225.0 Battery Support Desiqn:
o Assess the need for providing vertical tiedown for class 1E batteries in the Reactor and Diesel'enerator Buildinqs o
Assess the adequacy of battery racks that suooort class 1E batteries to resist seismic loads o
Revise documents to remove inconsistencies between and within the FSAR and CSSC Table 2 identifies three findinqs that requi're corrective action.
The corrective actions, alonq with their finding/corrective action classifications, are summarized in Table 3.
The corrective action descriptions in the table are a condensation of the more detailed corrective action information provided in Attachment B.
Table 3 indicates the plant or plants t'o which a corrective action is applicable in the Corrective Action Trackinq Document (CATO) column, where the applicable plant is identified bv the CATO number.
The Finding/Corrective Action Classification column of Table 3 shows that of the three corrective actions identified, two invo)ye,further evaluation.
The remaininq corrective action has resulted fr om a peripheral
.issue of inconsistencies between the FSAR and the CSSC list in the identification of class lE batteries.
2625D-R14 11/04/87
~ TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER~
2I2500 RE VIS ION NUMBE'R:
3 IPage 10 of 17 The evaluation team has reviewed the Browns Ferry corrective action pllahs (CAPs) and has concluded that the stated CAPs are acceptable resolutions oF the concerns.
6.
CAUSES Table 3 identifies one or more causes for each issue requiring corrective action.
An attempt was made to identify only the most important cause for each corrective action;
- however, in some instances,, it was felt that the issues were the, result of a combination. of causes, each of which shouild be identified.
Therefore, more than one cause is ident;ified for,syne cdrrective acti ons.
Eight causes of the three negative findincis have been identified for thtt three corrective action descriptions listed in Table 3.
These causes are shnvn in the table and totaled at t:he end..
The most frequent causes for two. of the negative findings are "Inadequate Calculations" and "Insufficient Verification Documentation."
Proper documentation in the form of design calculations and/or seismic qualification reports was unavailable to audit the adequacy of~
the battery support design.
- Hence, improvements to the desiqn proces's in the'rea of, documentation appears warranted.
The third corrective action is mainly necessary because the pre:edures Wert not followed, which resulted in inconsistencies between the FSAR and
'other'roject documents such as the CSSC list.
Causes for this corrective action are presented in Subcategory 20900 (Reference 1).
7..
COLLECTIVE SIGNIFICANCE The. battery support desiqn at W'atts, Bar,
- Sequoyah, and Bellefonte is adequately documenteid and is acceptable.
Tne Browns Ferry support design review is incomplete because documentation is not available.
'In addition, the evaluation also revealed di.crepancies between the-FSAR and the CSSC list in the identificatipn of class lE batteries for Browns Ferry'hese discrepancies will require changes to the documents but will not impact hardware.
Earlier improvements'n the desiqn review ~process
'could-'have mitiqated t'e findings for Browns Ferry.
However, it is important for purposes of this subcateqory report to take a historical perstlective.
There were. ao n'eqatiwe
'indings for Sequoyah, Watts Bar, and Bellefonte.
The nature of the findings for Browns Ferry are represehtat'ive of what miqht be found on similar viintage~
plants.
It is for this reason that the NRC has established a seismic qualificati'on prejram for operatinq
.nuclear power pla'nts.
2625D-R14 11/04/87 II
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22500 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page 11 of 17 Althougn the employee concerns and otner issues assessed during the evaluation identified a few valid problems that reauire resolution, the number of such negative findings is too small to warrant any assignment of collective significance.
Overall, it can be concluded that the issues in the Battery Support Oesiqn subcategory for the four TVA plant sites investigated do not represent a siqnificant technical or manaqement problem and that no broader issues can be identified in this korea.
Other programmatic issues associated with the FSAR and CSSC list are identified in Subcateoory Report 20900 (Reference
- 1).
On the basis of these conclusions, the subject matter of this subcateaory report does not require specific treatment in the TVA Nuclear Performance Plan.
The findinqs of this subcateqory are heinq combined with the other subcateqory reports and collectively reassessed in the Engineering category evaluation.
26250-R14 11/04/87
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22500 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page 12 of 17 TABLE 1
CLASSIFICATION OF FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE AClIONS Element Issue/
~Findin
- 'indinq/Corr ective Action Class* Mal 225.0 Battery Support Desiqn b
c d
'A' A
A D6 A
C6 A
E3 0
- Legend:
- Classification of Findinqs and Corrective Actions A.
Issue not valid.
No corrective.action required.
B.
Issue valid but consequences acceptable~.
No corrective action requiired.
C.
Issue valid.
Corrective action initiated before ECTG eva1luation.
O.
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 B<
- 1. Hardware
- 2. Procedure 3.. Documentation 4.
Tr aininq
- 5. Analysis i 6.i Evalrjation
- 7. Othet 2625D-R14 11/04/87 1
0,
IADLE 3 HAINIX UF ELMNIS, CORRECTIVE ACIIUNS, ANO CAUSES SUVCATLGURv HSDO CAUSES Of NEGATIVE FINDINGS ~
REVISION NLH8ER:
3 PAGE I~ OF lf fI NO!NG/
CORRECTIVE ACITON ELEN CLASS wa CORRECTIVE ACTION CA'ID I
IECIINICAL I
IWvMLHLNI EffECT IVLNESS DESIGN PROCESS EffECT IVENESS ADE V
I W
3 a
5 6
T 8
9 10 II 12 13 Ia 15 16 IT
/Fra9-
/ '
Jproce-/Inade-)
/Inade-f
[Enfr9 (Deslfnflnsuf./
/
)
/ Slsnlfl-(nenteo)lnade-/Inade-/dures Tquate TUn-1
/Inade-(
(quate J Lack /Jud9nt(crit.//verlf /stds
(
/
/ cence of
/or9an-/quate (quate
/Not (cun-
/t lnely/Lack
/quate )Inade-/As-bit(of
/ not
/ccdnslt/Docu-
/Not
/
/
/ correctbe/
II I
II. II<<.If I-I I-II fl I lilt/IIII /q I
ID
-Ilk Iw[D
- /D I
/
t.[I l. Ilw I Jf dl I Dttl tl
\\
I I
I I
I III Dl II II.
Ikl II IHIDI tl I
d I I
D II DJ TZS.O 06 Assess the need for provldln9 uertlCal tlednwn TOr Cleat IE batteries In Reactor and Diesel Generator Dulldln9s.
C6 Assess the adequacy of battery racks that support class IE batteries to resist selsnlc loadS.
E3 Reulse doCunents Lo renown lnconslstencles between and utthtn fSAR and CSSC.
bfN 01 NFN UR Dfn 03 I
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I See Subca I
I X
I I
I X
I I
I I
I I
I I
I efory Report 20900,Section I
I I
I IAI-IPI
~ ~
I
- IOIALS I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
Defined ln the Glossary Supplenentd
~ a Defined In Table I.
g619IHt6 11/04/81
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAf PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
'22500'EVISION NUMBER!
'3 Pa,ge 13 of 17 TABLE 2 FINDINGS
SUMMARY
Pl ant Classification of Findin~s
'i otal A.
Issue not valid.
No correct;ive action required.
2 2
0 2
6 B.
Issue valid but consequences acceptable.
No corrective action required.
C.
Issue vali d.
Cor rect i ve acct i on initiated before ECTG evaluation.
D.
Issue vali,d.
Corr ective act i on taken as a resul,'t of ECTG evaluation.
E.
Peripheral issue uncovered during ECTG evaluation.
Corrective action required.
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
1 0
0 Total 4'.
2 3
2 262 5D>>R14 l 1/04/87'
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22500 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page 15 of 17 GLOSSARY SUPPLEMENT FOR THE ENGINEERING CATEGORY Causes of Ne ative Findinqs - the causes for findinqs that require corrective action are categorize as ollows:
Fragmented orqanization -'Lines of authority, responsibility, and accountabi ity were not clearly defined.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
. 7.
8.
9.
Inadequate quality (Q) traininq - Personnel were not fully trained in the procedures esta is ed or desiqn process control and in the maintenance of design documents, including audits.
Inadequate procedures
- Design, and modification control methods and procedures were de icient in establishinq requirements and did not ensure an effective design control program in some areas.
Procedures not followed - Existing procedures controllina the design process were not fu y adhered to.
Inadequate communications - Communication, coordination, and cooperation were not u
y effective in supplying needed information within, plants, between plants and organizations (e.q.,
Enqineerina, Construction, Licensing, and Operations),
and between interorqani zati onal di scip1 ines and departments.
Untimely resolution of issues
- Problems were not resolved in a
timely manner, and their resolution was not aqqressively oursued.
Lack of manaqement attention - There was a lack of manaqement attention in ensurinq that proqrams required for an effective desian process were established and implemented.
Inadequate desiqn bases
- Desiqn bases were lackino,
- vaque, or inccmp ete or esign execution and verification and for desiqn chanqe evaluation.
Inadequate calculations - Desiqn calculations were incomplete, used incorrect input or assumptions, or otherwise failed to fully demonstrate compliance with desiqn requirements or support desian output documents.
10.
Inadequate as-built reconciliation - Reconciliation of.licensinq or design ocuments with p ant as-uilt condition was lacking or inc cmp 1 etc.
Lack of desi n detail -'Detail in desi'qn. output documents was insufficient to ensure compliance with design requirements.
2625D-R14 11/04/87
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:>> 2250O REVISION NUMBER:
'age 16 of 17 GLOS SAR Y,SUPPLEMENT
( Cont')
incomplete.
13.
Oesiqn ciriteria/commitments not met - Oesiqn criteria or licensinq commitments were not met,.
14.
Insuff'icient verification documentation Documentation (Q) was
'Bl
- 15.
Standards not followecl - Code d'or industry standards and practices=
were not comp l sei3 wstfi.
16.
Enoineerinq error - There were errors or oversights in the assumptions, methodology, or judgments used, in the design process.
17.
Vendor error - Vendor design or supplied items were deficient for'he, intended purpose.
Classification of Corrective Actions '- corrective actions are classified as
'Rl>>,::
I 5 7HT 1.
Hardware - physical olant changes 2.
Procedure
- changed or generated' procedure 3.
Documentation - affected QA records 4.
TrainincC - reouired personnel'educaition 5.
Analysis - reauiredI design calcullations, etc., to resolve 6.
Evaluation - initial corirec'tike hctioh plan'ndicated a need to evaMuate the issue before a defii~itive plan could be establ.ished.
Therefore, al'I hard'ware, procedure, etc.changes are not yet known
~
7.
Other - items not listed above, Peripheral Findi~n~lssu~e
- A i>egative finding-that does not result directly evaluating an employee concern.
By definition, peripheral: findings (issbes) reouire corr ective action.
0 26250-R14 11/04/87 0
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22500 REVISION NUMBER:
3 Page 17 of 17 Significance of Corrective Actions - The evaluation team's judgment as to the signs seance o
the corrective actions listed in Table 3 is indicated in the last three columns of the table.
Significance is rated in accordance with the type or types of changes that may be expected to result from the corrective action.
Changes are categorized as:
o Documentation change (0) - This is a chanqe to any desiqn input or output document (e.g.,
drawing, specification, calculation, or procedure) that does not result in a siqnificant reduction in desiqn margin.
o Change in design margin (M) - This is a chanqe in desian 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 desiqn 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 existinq plant structure or component that results from a change in the design basis, or that is required to correct an initially inadequate design or design error.
If the change resulting from the corrective action is judqed to be significant, either an "A" for actual or "P" for potential is entered into the appropriate column of Table 3.
Actual is distinquished from potential because corrective actions are not complete and, consequently, the scope of required chanqes may not be known.
Corrective actions are judqed to be siqnificant if the resultant changes affect the overall quality, performance, or marqin of a
safety-related structure,
- system, or component.
2625D-R14 11/04/87
~ '
~
~
0 0
TVA, EMPL'OYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22500 REVISION NUMBER: 3 Page A-1 of 2 ATTACHMENT A EMPLOYEE CONCERNS FOR SUBCATEGORY 22500 Attachment A lists, by element, each employee concern evaluated in the subcategory.
The concern's 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; and the concern is auoted as received by TVA and characterized as safety related, not safety related, or safety significant.
0107A-R53 (10/28/87)
CONCERN ELENENT NUNUER PLANT LllCAIIVII ATTAOU1ENT A ENPLUYEE CONCERNS FUR SUNCATEGORY 22500 APPLlCAU(LiTY tLN MUN 8
N NLN CONCERN DESCRIPT(OK>>
REViSIUN NUNRER: 3 PAGE A-2 OF 2 225.0 Nl-85-100-UU6 VV UC 144 llt7 IIII VJr
~ CC V ~ I XX-85-122-018 XX-85-122-019 NUN 511K NLN UFN A
X A
A X
"Class lE and non'-Class lE batteries are unacceptably supported (no battery tie downs),
and Unistrut supports are unacceptably used.
Ci nas no further information.
Anonymous concern via letter."
(SR)
PSequoyanl Class lE and non-Class iE batteries are unacceptably supported (no battery tie downs),
and Un(strut supports are unacceptablg used.
Cl has no further information.
Anonymous concern via letter.
(SS)
Hel lnfnntP Claes 1E and nen-ClaSS 1E bat tol lPS ar P Iulna Cont abl v supported (no battery tie downs),
and Unistrut supports are unocceptobly uscdI Cl hos IIV IVI CIICI IIIIUII>>4CIUII~
nuully>>WUW l.uul.uiil via letter (SR)
"Browns Ferry:
Class lE and non-Class lE batteries are unacceptably supported (no battery tie downs),
and Un!strut supports are unacceotablv used CI has no furthpr lnfnrmat.inn Anonvmoiis I nncprn via letter.'SR)
- MISS lndleates safetv related riot safety related plied by fVA bulure evaluatiuus.
ur safety siunit~er'ECTG determination criteria In thP ECIC Prooram i>>anual
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER 22500 REVISION NUMBER: 3 Page B-1 of 4 ATTACHMENT B
SUMMARY
OF
- ISSUES, FINDINGS, AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR SUBCATEGORY 22500 Attachment B contains a summary of the element-level evaluations.
Each issue is listed, by element number and plant, opposite its correspondinq findings and corrective actions.
The reader may trace a concern from Attachment A to an issue in Attachment B by using the element number and applicable plant.
The reader may relate a corrective action description in Attachment B to causes and significance in Table 3 by using the CATD number which appears in Attachment 8 in parentheses at the end of the corrective action description.
The term "Peripheral finding" in the issue column refers to a finding that occurred during the course of evaluating a concern but did not stem directly from a employee concern.
These are classified as "E" in Tables 1
and 2 of this report.
0107A-R53 (10/28/87)
issues ATTACIIRENT B
'SUNIARY UF ISSUES, FINUINIiS, ANU CORRECTIVE'ACTIONS FOR SUBCAIEGOkY 22500 F indings REVISION NUNBEk: 3 PAGE B-2 of 4 Corrective Actions 11111*11111111 '11 Element 225.0
- Battery Support Design 11*11111*11111111 ~
SQN a.
Class 1E and non-lE batteries are unaccepiabiy supported since tney nave no tie downs.
b.
UnistI'ut sunoorts are unaccehtablu used.
XBN SQN
- a. Class'lE batteries are acceptably supported with or No corrective action Is required.
without use of tie downs as required by seismic qualifications:
non-1E batteries are acceotablv suooorted, h
The Struts IIJnIStt ut I used In
~ tjn tost tun nsnlrs supporting the class lE batteries are adequately qiIaliftcd by testing anu aha lysisj the struts used in tne non-TE battery racks are also acceptable.
IIBII a;
Class lE and non-lE batterie's nave inadequate supports since no hsttnru t iulnunt sa n nrnuIaua v
'v t v\\ ~ vvs h
IJnletrut member S uM4$~ /he bat tery rack are unacceptable and should nnt heVC tu.'CIr1ISCds
- a. Class 1E batteries are acceutablv suouorted with Or withOut uSC of tiedowns as required by seismic n s1ItInstl wns ~ nnn If hstt I
s t n1
~
t quv ~
~ ~
~ vvs
~ 4 st t nul ~
~ v uvstv ~ Ivs vl 9 vl Ivysou ty sujlpul tcv ~
these batter(cs along with the rack system were selected by tne NRC as an audit Item during a SORT audit In April ItJB2.
The Item dealing with non-Inclusion of battery vcrtkal ticdowns was discussed and.closed by tne HkC.
- b. The strits-:(IJn<str-t)-used (n-the--battery-racks supporting tne class 1E batteries are adequately qualified by testing anu analysis-,
tne struts IIsed In tne non-lE oattery racks are also acceptable.
No corrective action Is required.
233gD-B 87]
Issues ATTACIIHENI 8 SUZk4ARY UF ISSUES, FINUINGS, ANO CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
~
FUR SUNCATEGURY 22500 F indings REVISION NUNUEN: 3 PAGE 8-3 of 4 COrreCtiVe ACtiOnS UFN 8FN a.
Class 1E and non-lE batteries are unacceptably supported since they have no tiedowns.
b.
Unistrut supports are unacceptably used.
c.
Per iphera1 finding.
- a. Non-lk batteries are acceptably supported.
The class lE batteries located within the Reactor Uuilding (250 volt dc unit battery supply systems for units 1, 2, and 3, and 250 volt dc shutdown board battery supply systems for units 1 and 2) may be acceptable without vertical tledown.
- However, no TVA documentation of adequacy Is available.
Tne class lE batteries located within the OG Suilding (250 volt dc shutdown board battery supply system for unit 3 and tne 125 volt dc OG battery supply system for units 1, 2, and 3) have been determined by the evaluation team to be unacceptable without either vertical tieduwns (on the basis of the diesel building response spectra) or justification for not providing tiedowns.
- b. Tne acceptability of the battery rack system with the use of Unistrut members as battery supports Is Indeterminate as no seismic qualification report or complete Information was avaliab1e for evaluation team review.
- c. In addition, the evaluation team noted that TVA plans to ascertain the adequacy of strut aembers and the need for vertical tiedowns In the rack as part of tne program to be developed after plant restart.
This program is in reSPOnSe tO NRC USI A-46 whiCh IS the tOPIC Of NUREG-1030 and NUTMEG-1211.
TVA's comaitment to comply with tnls program Is contained In a letter from R. Gridley to J. 'Youngblood, dated Harch 'lg, 1886.
a.
Evaluation of the need for 1E battery vertical tiedowns in the Reactor 8uilding will be performed under the Unresolved Safety Issue (USI) A-46 program as a
post-restart activity.
ThiS program is covered by NUREG-1030 and -1211 and batteries are specifically covered by Section 2.4. 1 of NUREG-1030.
Tiedowns will be provided if required by the evaluation results'.
Evaluation of the need for 1E battery vertical tiedowns In tne Oiesel Generator 8uilding will be performed utilizing appropriate methodology such as the A-46 process prior to restart of each unit.
Tiedowns wi11 be provided if required by the eva1uation results.
(CATO 225 00 8FN 01) b.
Eva1uation of the seismic qualification of IE battery racks will be performed under the USI A-46 program as a
post-restart activity.
Rack modifications wi\\I be provided if required by the evaluation results.
(CATO 225 00 8FN 02) c.
None required.
23390-8 (11/04/87)
Issues ATTAClblENT 8 SUNVUIY UF ISSUES, FINOINGS, ANU CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR SUBCATEGORY 2250U Findings REVISION NUHBER1 3 PAGE 8-'4 of 4 Corrective Actions E1euent 225.0 - BFN (Continued) d.
Peripheral finding.
BLN Glace 1E and nnn lE bat torloc are unacceptably supported since tIIcJ
~Iovc no t IcvvwIIS0 b.
Unistrut supports are unacceptably
- used,
- d. Also, tne evaluai,ion team noted that there are several inconsistencies between and within the FSAR and the CSSC list for the identification of the proper design classification of the following battery systems:
o 48 volt dc annunciation supply s'y stem o
48 volt dc conmInication supply systets o
24 volt'dc'neutron monitoring supply system o
2>U volt dc station supply system BLN p1>cc ll'ost p
~ Ir Is t ~
I t
s l.
~
~
~
v
~
v
~
~ ~
vut\\m
~
~ ~ t us u us \\ cts too IJ outspus tcu witnout tne use of vertical tledowns.
The seismic iiuoliflictivnvf batteries was carried out by Ryle Laboratories by testing without the use of vertical tiedowns.
b.
The use of Unistrut members as battery suppOrtS is also acceptable for~lass IE and non-IE batterloc Ac mentioned in (a) above, the test specimen of the rack used UIYIsssut members M buttery,SuppoltS
~
d.
The BFN FSAR will be revised to clarify the appropriate safety classification of the annuciation and conIIunication batteries.
In addition the CSSC list of BF-1.11 will be renlaced bv one BFN q-list as a result, of CATO 209 Ul BFN 02 utsls h vill oncss
~ o that toopo ntpos
~ ~
sv sv sg v ~
ss
~
things, all safety-related batteries are Cleot ly IIldicatedo (CATO 225 00 BFN 03)
BLN II t tv
~ ~
I
.. ~
nu Vus I 'cs tsvc ol tlvsl Io I cgultcv ~
23390-8~4/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22500 REVISION NUMBER!
2
-Page C-1 of 8 ATTACHMENT C REFERENCES 1.
TVA Employee Concerns Special Program Subcategory Report 20900, "g-List,"
Rev.
0 Sequo ah Documents 2.
TVA Employee Concerns Special Program Sequoyah Element Report 225.00, "Battery Support Design," Rev.
0
( 12/31/86)
Watts Bar Documents 3.
TVA Drawings:
- Sections, and Details 45W217-1, R3, Electrical Equipment 125V Vital Battery V - Elevation 772.0 Plans and Details 15N210-4, R7, Diesel Generator Building, Electrical Equipment General Arrangement, Elevation 742.0 15N211-2, R2, Electrical Equipment General Arrangement, Elevation 742.0 18W332-1, R8, Miscellaneous Steel
- Frames, Covers, Grating, Plates, Anchor
- Bolts, and Ladders 4.
TVA letter to NRC, L. M. Mills to E. Adensam, WBN 142, Transmittal of Supplemental Information on Seismic gualification,
[NEB 820203 601],
(02/01/82) 5.
NRC letter to TVA, T. M. Novak to H.
G. Parris, WBN 1, Seismic and Dynamic gualification Review of Safety Related Equipment,
[NEB 820929 221], (09/23/82) 6.
TVA letter to NRC, L. M. Mills to E. Adensam, WBN 1
and 2, Additional Information 'to Resolve Concerns of ARC Seismic Qualification Review Team,
[NEB 821206 613], (12/01/82) 7.
NRC letter to TVA, T. M. Noyak to H.
G. Parris, SSER Regarding the Seismic and Dynamic gualification of Safety Related Electrical and Mechanical Equipment for the Watts Bar Nuclear'lant, Unit 1,
[NEB 840501 608], (04/25/84) 3808D-R14 (11/04/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:'
22'500 REVISION NUMBER:
'age C-2 of 8 8.
9.
10.
12.
13.
14.
15 16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
TVA letter to NRC, L. M. Mills to E. Adensam, WBN, Additional Inf'ormation to Resolve Concerns Relatecl to Seismio Qual'ificatio'n of Equipment,
[NEB 840521I 611], (05/17/84)
TVA letter to NRC, D. S.
Kammer to,'E.,'Adensam,'BN, Corrective Actions, Seismic Qualification of Equipment,
[J!JEB 840620 615],
(06/19/84)'VA Specification
- 1980, Reissue 3-85763 [no RIMS number]
Wyle Laboratory Report 43479-1 for TVA Contract 76K3-85763
[EEB 770418 924], (01/26/77)
Gould Report 60 NCX-2550 and S07-074526-806 transmitted to TVA w>th letter
[EEB 770429 013],
(04'/26/77),'emo from i). B. Kellly, G. Martzin, and C.
H. Sudduth to Electric<%1 Engineering Files,
- WBN, 125V Vital Batteries, Contract 76K3-85763,
- Gould, Inc., Seisa~ic Qualification Type-Tests,
[EEB 770128 902],
(Ol/26/77)
Memo from R.
G.
Domer to F.
W, Chandler r, WBN Contract 76K3-85763, Squadcheck EE-096811 - Seismic Qualification of Gould, Inc.,
125V Vital Battery Assemlbly - Rack Seismic Anally<is',
['CEB 7705'19 010], (05/19/77)
TVA letter to W.
C. Smith,. Gould, Inc., from F.
W. Chand'ler,
- WBN, 125V, Vital Batteries, Contract 76K3-85763,,[EEB,770525 925],"(05/23/7i')
Gould Drawings f no RIMS numbeir]:
- 059469C, RB, Il.ayout for Three Cells, - For Type, See Table On Special Test Rack wit,h "666" Rack !)racing
- 062823D, RE, Layout for 60 Cells NCX-2250 Battery ON-2-S07-074526 806 and 1-5CI7-074526-816 Two Step RackS13 -0" LG. (Heavy Seismic Res!traint)
TVA letter from.F.
W. Chandler to U. Ortiz, Gould, Inc.,
(GNB Batteries),
WBN 125V Vital Battery and Rack,
[EEB 841030 907], (10/30/84)
Memo from F.
H. Coleman to CEB Files, Contract 76K3-85763, Squadcheck EE83-29346,,
Seismic Qualification df t!Jodification of the 125-V Vital Battery Rack Incorporating the G'ovid IJni'vedsa1I Stee'1 Corner Fitting,
[CEB 841029 251]~
( 10/29/84)
CR Battery Repor t UL7610-02, TVA Contract 80KB-827334, Seismic Qualification TestTwo-Step Rack of "0" Battery Sizes 3DCU.-.9 Battery
- Units, ARR'130HK50 Battery Charger, '[n6 RIMS ni'~mber], '(l l/18/76)
Wyle Laboratory Report 43368-1, TVA COnt'ract 80KB-827334, Seismio Simulation Test Program,
[no RIMS number],
(09/22/76) 38080-R14 (11/04/87) il!
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22500 REVISION NUMBER:
2 Page C-3 of 8 21.
CEB memo R. 0. Barnett to F.
W. Chandler,
- SON, WBN Seismic (jualification of 125-V Diesel Generator Batteries and Racks,
[CEB 800909 002],
(09/09/80) 22.
TVA letter to CED from F.
W'. Chandler to G. Walker, SgN Units 1
and 2
125-V Diesel Generator Batteries and.Racks,
[EEB 800924 919], (09/24/80) 23.
CED Drawing M-7739, R5 [no RIMS number]
24.
Watts Bar regulations, licensing commitments, design requirements:
FSAR Sections 2.5,
- 3. 1, 3.7, and 3. 10, including Subsection
- 3. 10.3 and Table 3. 10, Amendment 54, (04/02/85)
Design Criteria WB-DC-30-2, "125V Vital Batt'ery System,"
Rev.
1 Design Criteria WB-OC-30-2. 1, "125V Fifth Vital Battery System,"
Rev.
0 Nuclear Regulatory Comnission, "General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,." Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50
( 10 CFR 50),
Appendix A; Washington:
GPO; (07/71)
Browns Ferr Documents 25.
TVA Drawings:
- 47N230, R13 47N232, Rll
- 47N234, Rl
- 48N958, R16
- 48N949, R13
- 48N889, R9 48N897-5, R5 (Control Bay U-1 and 2) "Electrical Equipment; Battery and OC EMPT Rooms;
- Plans, Sections and Details" (Control Bay and Turbine Building units 1, 2, and 3)
"Electrical Equipment Battery and OC Equipment Rooms-Plans and Sections"
'(Powerhouse, Reactor Building, units 1 and'2) '"Electrical Equipment, 250 volt Battery and DC Equipment RMS SB-A, B, C,
and 0 Plans, Sections and Details" (Reactor Building, units 1
and
- 2) ".Miscellaneous Steel-Control Bay Embedded Parts El. 593.0" (Reactor Building, unit 3) "Miscellaneous Steel - Control
- Bay, Embedded Parts,,El.
593.0" (OG Building) "Miscellaneous Steel
- Frames, Covers, Grating and Stairs, El. 583.5" t
(OG Building, unit 3) "Miscellaneous Steel Frames and Covers" 38080-R14 (11/04/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPIECIAL PROGRAM FiEPORT NL1MBER:
'2500 REVISION NUMBEiR:
2 Page C-4 of 8
- 48N885, R4
- 45N202, R5 (OG Building) "Miscellaneous Steel, Heating and
- Vent, f:raimes and Electrical Equipment Anchorage" (Reactor Building, units 1
and
- 2) "Electrical Fquipment; Generail Arrangement; Plans and Sect'ions"
- 45N206, R5 (Reactor Building, unit 3) "Electrical Equipment; Gdnekal'rrangement; Plans and Sections" 45N337-5, R2 (Diiesel Generator Building, unit 3) "Electrica'I Equipmenti, Diesel Generator Rooms 3A, 3B, 3C',
and 3D; Outline a'nd'enera,l Ar r angement"'5N329, R3 (Diesel Genierator Buildihg, units 1
and
- 2) "Electrical Equipmient; Diesel Generator Roioms AB, C, and 0; Outline and Gener atior Arrangement" 26.
"Report on thie Earthquake Analysis of thie Fieaicator Building, Floor
Response
Spectra,"
transmitted by John A. Blume and Associates, transmitted by lletter from E.
J., Kieth, Blume, to W. Boop,
- TVA,
[no RIMS number] (07/13/67) 27.
Letter from M. N. Sprouse, TVA to C&D Batteries, "250 volt Shutdown Batteries,"
Contract 73C8-84065,,
[no RIMIS, number],
(01/29/7'3) 28.
Specification 1708 for "25iD volt Shutdown Batteries, and Racks,"
(Requisition 8-840i65),
['no RIMS number]
29.
BFN Nonconformance Report (NCR)
BFN TDP 8204
[BWP 830606 020], (06/06/83) 30.
Letter from D.
Fi. Patterson, TVA, to iH. iN.iBankus,.General Electric, "Replacement of Diesel Generator Batter'ies -
Contract 66060-90744;
[no RIMS number], (ill/28/75) 31.
Requisition package from TVA to CED Batteries, TVA Requisition 8-826823, "Batteries and Battery Racks for Diesel'enerator Control and Field Flashing,"
[QIEB 800115 125], (11/06/79) 32.
ONE Calculations,
"'125 Volt Diesel Generator Battery Flack Anchorage,"
[B22 851101 114], (11/01/85),
33.
Engineering Change Notice (ECN) P5304, Anchorage Detail for the 'l25 Volt Diesel Generator Battery Racks, I.B22 'B50927 500], (09/27/85) 34.
Vendor Drawi'ng, QO Batter.ies K-4363, TVA Contract 66-90744,
[no RIMS number],
(02/19/70) 4 i
3808D" R14 (11/04/87)'l!
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22500 REVISION NUMBER:
2 Page C-5 of 8 35.
36.
37.
TVA memo from H. R. Beasley to G.
R. Hall, "Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant-Safety Evaluation - Battery Rack Installation," [B22 850424 Oll],
(04/24/85)
ONE Calculation, "Battery Rack Installation Evaluation,"
(Reactor Building and Diesel Generator Building), Branch Project Identifier No.: BFEPCI-212,
[B22 860324 142], (03/24/86)
TVA memo from R. 0. Barnett, Chief Civil Engineer to N. T. Henrich, Acting Chief, Electrical and Instrument and Controls Services, "Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) - Seismic Qualification of the 250-Volt DC Main Battery Bank Racks,"
[841 870320 002], '(03/20/87) 38.
Letter from G. L. Parkinson, Bechtel, to G. R. McNutt, TVA, BLT-150, "Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Trip Report," [no RIMS number],
(03/19/87) 39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45, 46.
Quality Information Release (QIR CEB-86-011),
"Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant - Seismic Qualification of Safety-Related Equipment,"
[B41 860815 003], (08/15/86)
Quality Information Release (QIR CEB-86-100),
"Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
- Seismic Qualification of Replacement Spare Parts in Safety-Related Equipment,"
[B41 870102 002], (Ol/02/87)
Letter from B. J.
Youngblood, Director PWR Project Directorate 84, NRR to S. A. White, TVA Manager of Nuclear Power,
Subject:
"Concerns Regarding TVA Nuclear Program,"
[L44 860226 001], (02/18/86)
Letter from B. J.
Youngblood, NRC, to S.
A. White, TVA with the attached transcript of the investigative interview conducted by the NRC on 02/21/86 at the First Tennessee Bank Building in Knoxville, TN
[845 860714 832], (06/23/86)
BFN CSSC and Non-CSSC Listing, Standard Practice BF.-1. 11, RO (01/30/87),
[no RIMS number]
BFN FSAR Update Appendix C, "Structural Loading Criteria," Amendment 04, (08/06/86)
BFN responses to FSAR Questions C. 1, C.3.4, C.S, C.9, and C. 12, BFN FSAR Update through Amendment '04, (08/06/86)
Safety Evaluation of the TVA, BFNP units 1, 2,
and 3; Docket Nos:
50-259, 50-260 and 50-296, issued by U. S. Atomic Energy 'Commission, Directorate of Licensing, Washington, D.C., (06/26/72) 3808D-R14 (11/04/87)
TVA EMIPLOYEE.CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER';
22500 REVISION NUIMBER:
2 Page C-6 of 8 47.
TVA BFN, "Seismic Design Basis, Status,Report,"
[no RIMS number],
(03/86) 48.
Diesel Generator Building Earthquake Analysis Report,
[CEB 800619 010],
(02/06/69) 49.
Browns Ferry Regullations, Licensing Commitmemts~
Desi'gn Requirements:
BFN FSAR Update through Amendment 04,'08/06/86)'ection 1,.6.2. 17 "D-'
Power Supplg" Section 81 Section 85 Section 86 Section 8.,8 Appendix A
Appendix C
"'Electric Power System - Sutnmary Description" "Standby A-C Power Supply and Distribution"
"'250 Volt 0-C Power Supply and Distribution"
"'Auxiliary 0-C Powe'r Supply and Distribution"
"'Conformance to AEC Proposed General Design Criteria"
"'Structural Load'ing Criteria" NRC NUREG-1030, "Seismic (}ua'lifit;atic)n bf Eqltiprnent in Operating Nuclear Power Plants," Final Report, (02/87)
NRC NUREG-1211, "Regulatory Analysis for Resolution of Unresolved Safety Issue A-4', Seismic Qualification of Equipment in Operating Plants<"
(02/87)
Comment Draft of 27 General Design Criteri'a foi"Nuclear Power Pl'ants,~
10 CFR 50,, Appendix', (ll/22/65)
Comment Draft of 70 General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plant Construct'ion Permits, 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, (07/10/67)
Bellefonte Documents
'50.
TVA Drawings:
3BW0200-.00-2, R6 4AW0830-X2-1, RB 4AW0830"X2-2, R7 i=quipment Plan El. 686.0 Miscellaneous Steel Embedded
- Parts, El,. 686.0, and Walls to El. 704.5 Miscellaneous Steel,,
Embedded
- Parts, El. 686.0>
and
,Walls to El. 704.5
, ~
38080-R14 (11/04/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER:
22500 REVISION NUMBER:
2 Page C-7 of 8, 5AW0248-EU-1, R3 Electrical Equipment -
125V Vital Battery Rooms, Part Plan - El. 686.0 5AW0248-EU-2, R5 Electrical Equipment -
125V Vital Battery Rooms Part Plan - El. 686.0 4AW0334-Xl-l, R6 Concrete Equipment Foundations, Fl. El. 686.0 Outline and Reinforcement 4AW0830-X2-22, R12 Miscellaneous Steel Embedded Parts El. 686.0 and Walls to El. 704.5 51.
TVA Invitation Bid and Acceptance Document for BLN, Contract 78K4-823476,
[AS 780301 567], (02/17/78) 52.
Letter from CED Batteries to B. H. Mathews, TVA, Contract 78K4-823476,
[no RIMS number],
(05/18/78) 53.
Letter to CED Batteries from TVA [no RIMS number],
(02/17/87),
780628C0044 54.
Letter from F.
W. Chandler to CQ) Batteries, Contract 78K4-823476,
[EEB 780609 930], (06/09/78) 55.
C5D Battery report for TVA Contract 78K4-823476; "gualification Certification and gualification Report, For Batteries; No.
78061460457,"
[no RIMS number]
56.
TVA memo from R.
M. Hodges to L. S.
- Cox, "Nonconformance Report 3008,"
[BLP 840518 048], (05/18/84) 57.
Engineering Change Notice (ECN) 2986, "EU, 125 V DC Battery Rack (Anchoring)," [BLP 840523 001], (05/22/84) 58.
CED Drawing M-7131-1, Rl, For TVA Contract 78K4-823476 [no RIMS number]
59.
Letter from B. J.
Youngblood, Director PWR Project Directorate 84, NRR to S. A. White, TVA Manager of Nuclea~ Power,
Subject:
"Concerns Regarding TVA Nuclear Program,"
[L44 860226 001], (02/18/86) 60.
Letter from B. J.
Youngblood, NRC, to S. A. White, TVA with the attached transcript of the investigative interview conducted by the NRC on 02/21/86 at the First Tennessee Bank Building in Knoxville, TN
[B45 860714 832], (06/23/86) 61.
Report No.
CEB 80-33, Rl and R2, Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, "Dynamic Earthquake Analysis of the Auxiliary - Control Building and Response Spectra for Attached Equipment,"
[841103E0033]
3808D-R14 (11/04/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONC'ERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBERl 2'2500 REVISION NUMBER:
2
-Page C-8 of 8 62 TVA memo from R. 0. Barnett to Those'isted, "Bellefonte Nuclear Plant,
'uxiliary Control Building, Dynamic Earthquake Analysis and Response Spectra for Attached Equi~iment."
[CEB 821012 013], (10/12/82) 63.
TVA.memo from Jl. D. Shube>C, Jr. to Civil Engineering Support Branch Files, "Bellefonte Nuclear Plant Units 1
a'nd 2, Auxiliary Control Building, Seismic Design Review Meeting'.- 'Meeting Notes,"
[CEB 830201 005], (11/01/83),
64.
TVA Nonconformance Report (NCR)
BLN CEB 8201)
RO,
'.[CEB 820217 002],
(02/16/82);
R1,
[CEB 831011 020], (07/01/83);",,and closure
[CEB 840103 014], (Ol/03/84) 65.
TVA memorandum from IR. 0. Barnett, Chief'EBg to R-.
M. Hodges, BLN Design Project Manager,
'"BLIN - Auxiliary/Control Building - Revised Seismic i
Analysis,"
[CEB 820527 002]
66.
Letter from G. L. Parkinson, Bechtelg to G.
R. McNutt, I'VA, "Bellefonte Trip Report,"
BLT 232, (06/04/87) 67.
Bellefonte regulations, licensing corrrnitments, design requirements:
- 3. 1, 3.2,, 3.7, and 8.3i, Amendment 2i', (06/20/86)
General Design Criteria N4-50-0702, "Design of Civil Structures, " Rev.
5,
[805 860815 507], (08/12/86)
Design Criteria, N4-E-V-07i'5, "125V Class IE OC Power Distribution System,"
Rev.
2'.,
[B42 860103 513], (12/18/85)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "General~ Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," Title 10 Code of'ederal Regulations, Part 50 (10 CFR 50),
Appendix A; Washirsgton:
GPO; (07/71:)
3808D-R14 (11/04/87) ik~