ML20009B349
| ML20009B349 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/25/1981 |
| From: | Haass W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Mills L TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107150306 | |
| Download: ML20009B349 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
f
,a r-O-
gg-p s.
~.
DISTRIBUTION:
tAentral File JUN 2 51981 NRC PDR LPDR NSIC QAB Projects QAB Chron. File WJohnston, DE HLevin, DE JSpraul, QAB W
tog Mr. L. M. Mills, Manager Huclear Regulation and Safety O
I Tennessee Valley Authority h >]I.
400 Chestnut Street Tower II 9
Chattanooga, Til 37401 g
Jut / g
Dear Mr. Mills:
I D jgsm,j
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED REVISION 5 TO TVA-TR75-1 A ke f
Your letter of May 19, 1981 proposed additional changes for Revision TR75-1A, TVA's topical report, " Quality Assurance Program Description." We have reviewed the proposed revision and require additional information before we can complete our review.
Our request for additional information is enclosed.
Your response should be submitted directly to me.
Please contact Mr. Jack Spraul of my staff on FTS 492-7741 if you have any questions regarding our request.
Sincerely.
Original signed by Walter P. Haass Walter P. Haass, Chief Quality Assurance Branch Division of Engineering
Enclosure:
Request for Addit.ional Information cc w/ enclosure:
S. Kamer, TVA
$'h kkEhhhh bp PDR t\\
rn,>
P.E;,QAB,,,
.[,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,P!i,d,qs,,,,,,,,
4S.p.tgu,1,;,cg, W
- P-
,6AI/.6.l......6AdfD....,
NZC FORM 388 410 80l NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
- = 'S* -32se2.
Lfoe
[, ;&acun#o,,
UNITED STATES
{
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
- y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 JUN 2 51981
(',
ef@OSt'h
/Sg g
~
. -I Mr. L. M. Mills, Manager
\\c\\'j o., Q%g Nuclear Regulation and Safety
- 8 Tennessee Valley Authority e
400 Chestnut Street Tower II
\\G / s p(</
Creattanooga, TN 37401
\\
Dear Mr. iiills:
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED REVISION 5 TO TVA-TR75-1 A Your letter of May 19, 1981 proposed additional changes for Revision 5 to TVA-TR75-1 A, TVA's topical report, " Quality Assurance Program Description." We have reviewed the proposed revision and require additional information before we can complete our review.
Our request for additional infonnation is enclosed.
Your response should be submitted directly to me.
Please contact Mr. Jack Spraul of my staff on FTS 492-7741 if you have any questions regarding our request.
Sincerely, f hy Walter P. Haass, Chief Quality Assurance Branch l
Division of Engineering
Enclosure:
Request for Additional t
Information cc w/ enclosure:
S. Kammer, TVA l
(
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TVA-TR75-1, Rev. 5 (Section 17.2)_
- 22.
The accepted Revision 4 of TVA-1R/5-1 indicates on page 17.1-11 that the Nuclear Power Quality Assurance Staff "has responsibility for implementation of...a com-pliance systems program, and a... surveillance program." The proposed Revision 5 indicates on page 17.2-10 that this staff "shall assure the implementation of a compliance system program and surveillance program." Describe these programs and compare how they are impicmented per Revision 4 to how they will be imple-mented per Revision 5.
23.
Replace or justify the deletion of the commitment on page 17.2-13 of Revision 4 which states that the "PORC reviews the adequacy of the plant quality assurance program and recommends appropriate changes." Also replace or justify the dele-tion of the parenthetical "such as" list from the next paragraph on the same page.
24.
Revision 4 indicated that EN DES reviewed and approved all proposed modifications to the safety-related CSSC (with exceptions) and that the EN DES design control sys tem described in 17.l A.3 was applied to the modification review.
Revision 5 indicates that NUC PR engineering groups can perform this function.
Describe the design (modification) control system of the NUC PR engineering groups that would perform this function under Revision 5.
The description should address the appli-cable portions of Criterion 3 of 10 CFR '50 Appendix B as found in SRP Section 17.2 (NUREG-75/n87, Rev.1).
25.
The fifth paragraph of part 17.2.5 has been extensively revised.
Clarify that precperational test instructions shall be reviewed for appropriate acceptance criteria and technical adequacy by either the PORC or by the special test commit-tee.
Indicate the participation of personnel from TVA's quality assurance organi-zations on these committees.
Justify or clarify the apparent lack of quality assurance organization review of instructions (e.g., maintenance instructions).
Finally, describe how the special test committee personnel are " qualified."
l
- 26. What is the significance of adding "as described in Table 17.2.2" to the last sentence of the eighth paragraph of part 17.2.57 t
27.
Discuss the " Qualified Vendor's list" mentioned in part 17.2.7 - What it is based upon, who maintains it, how it is updated and purged, etc. Also replace or justi-fy the deletion from part 17.2.7 of the comitment that " Supplier evaluations shall be conducted prior to the placement of an order by qualified personnel and the results shall be documented."
28.
Justify the assignment of the responsibility for receipt inspection of " commercial grade items" to the Pcwer Stores Unit as added to part 17.2.7.4.
29.
Justify the deletion or reinstate the sentence deleted from 17.2.16 (fourth para-graph) which said, "Those (conditions) not considered significant shall be reviewed and approved by the plant superintendent."
- 30. Provide a commitment to Regulatory Guide 1.146.
Requests 1-21 addressed Rev. 5 of Sections 17.0 and 17.1.
I
"lg
+
xy
- 31. Our review of LERs from TVA indicates that the reports seldom show the root cause of the reported event and often do not indicate any action taken to prevent re-c9rrence. Some examples are:
Plant LER #
Control #
Sequoyah 1 81-042/03L-0 036842 Sequoyah 1 81-040/03L-0 036841 Sequoyah 1 81-026/01 T-0 036472 Sequoyah 1 80-
/02L-0 031854 Browns Ferry 1 81-003/0lT-0 036083 Browns Ferry 2 80-043/03L-0 032899 Browns Ferry 2 80-045/0lT-0 032997 Browns Ferry 2 81-017/03L-0 036894 Thus it appears that the corrective action portion of the QA program is not as effective as it should be.
Dis cuss.
- 32. Similarly as in item 31, our review of 50.55(e) reports from TVA indicates that the reports seldom show the root cause of the reported problem or action taken to prevent recurrence. Some examples are:
Response to violation 328/80-22-01 NCR SQN EEB 8022 NCR WBN SWP 80.10 NCR SWP 8023 SORD-50-328/81-09, -12, -15, ai.d -21 WBRD-50-390/81-52, WBRD-50-391/81-50 Watts Bar NCRs 2512, 2742, 2853, 2935, and 2936 Thus it appears that the corrective action portion of the QA program is not as effective as it should be.
Discuss.
/
F 9
e m