ML20040G808

Revised Final Rept Re Deficient Drawing & Document Control, Initially Reported on 810127 & 0203.All Superseded Drawings & Documents Replaced W/Current Revisions.Addl Audits Revealed No Significant Deficiencies

ML20040G808
Person / Time
Site:	Hartsville
Issue date:	02/01/1982
From:	Mills L TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
References
10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, NUDOCS 8202160495
Download: ML20040G808 (4)

Text

-

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY '

CH ATTA NO ,

,h,SSdb 3h401 400 Chestnut Street Tower II 82 F *bf P^"Ril >.1282 HTRD-50-518, -519, -520, -521/81-05 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II ATTN: James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

HARTSVILLE NUCLEAR PLANT - REPORTABLE DEFICIENCY - DEFICIENCY DRAWING AND DOCUMENT CONTROL - REVISED FINAL REPORT - HTRD-50-518,

-519, -520, -521/81-05 The subject deficiency was initially reported to NRC-0IE, Region II, Inspector R. W. Wright on January 27 and February 3, 1981, as HT-G-81-06 deficiencies 1 and 2, respectively. The final report was submitted on March 16, 1981. In accordance with paragraph 50.55(e) of 10 CFR Part 50, we are enclosing our revised final report on the subject deficiercy. This revised final report was requested by NRC Inspector W. B. Swan to clarify additional corrective actions taken to resolve the deficiency. If you have any questions, please call Jim Domer at FTS 858-2725.

Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY s

. . MilIs, nager Nuclear Regulation and Safety Enclosure ,,

ec: Mr. R. C. DeYoung, Director (Enclosure) i '

et s Office of Inspection and Enforcement f' '

.\

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4 Washington, DC 20555 ~/

, :j '

, 02:' 4 N

V _ _ ,

p

\[ . .[

y

~.

OFFICIAL COPY B202160495 820201 DR ADOCK 05000

/_ (, ~

An Ecuar opportunity Employer #

. , ENCLOSURE ,

• ^_

HARTSVILLE NUCLEAR PLANT DRAWING CONTROL HTRD-50-518, -519, -520, -521/81-05 10CFR50.55 (e)

REPORT NO. 3 (REVISED FIl4L)

On January 27, 1981, TVA informed NRC-0IE Region II Inspector, R. W. Wright, of a potentially reportable condition under 10CFR50.55(e) regarding the recurrence of drawing control deficiencies. This is the revised final report on this deficiency.

Description of Deficiency The TVA CONST QA Unit at Hartsville performed an audit of the drawings being used on the site. The auditor surveyed 469 drawings being maintained by engineering and crafts personnel and found 26 drawings which were out of date and/or superseded by later revisions. A similar finding wac reported to NRC-0IE Region II on August 15, 1980, in which 30 out of 155 drawings were found to be superseded.

The auditor also surveyed controlled documents other than construction drawings which are maintained in manuals onsite. This survey revealed that 12 C. F. Braun specifications and associated Engineering Change Notices (ECN's) were not sufficiently controlled in that document recipients did not have up-to-date revisions and the DCU master file contained superseded material.

Safety ISplications If any construction or inspection activities were conducted to the requirements of out-of-dat9 or superseded drawings or documents, those activities may not conform to current requirements. Therefore, this could have led to the construction of some plant feature in an incorrect configuration which could have adversely affected plant safety.

Corrective Action

1. The Hartsville Site QA Unit conducted a 100-percent audit of safety-related site-issued drawings. This audit revealed that out of approximately 40,000 drawings, 1155 superseded drawings were being held by engineering and quality control inspection personnel. All superseded drawings and documents have been replaced with current revisions.

2. Of the 1155 superseded drawings identified under action item 1, 16 were identified as being in use. Each case is described below.

4KE5603-2K-02 R3 -

This drawing was used for acceptance (1 copy - assigned inspections on shop-fabricated items. The QC Civil Unit) change effected *oy revision 4 involves a feature on the Mk. No. 4 frames. None of those frames were inspected during the time

.that this superseded drawing was in use.

9

, ~2- a ..

S-515221FP1-1 RO -

These were used to fabricate a single S-515221FP1-2 RO support. The support was installed on S-525221FP1-3 R0 August 18, 1980. These drawings were (4 copies each revised on October 26, 1980. Sequence STRIDE Project Control Charts were changed to modify this Engineering Hanger support as required. ~'

Unit)

S-514A44FP1-1 RO - Member size was changed by revision 1 to a smaller S-514A44FP1-2 R0 size. Since we were still fabricating and (1 copy each installing this support, the design change was implemented.

assigned to  !

STRIDE Project l

Engineering Hanger Unit) '

s S321200AP2 R1 -

No changes in the fabrication or installation of (1 copy assigned this support are necessitated by this change.

to STRIDE Project Engineering Hanger Unit) 3 A team consisting of QA engineers from TVA's Office of _ Engineering Design and Construction QA Staff and CONST QA Branch conducted an investigation to determine why the breakdown in drawing control occurred after full compliance was reported to have been achieved as of October 8,1980. The investigation was conducted on February 12-14, 1981. The following is a stammary of the results of this investigation:

(a) No individual or organization was responsible for the entire drawing control process from receipt of a drawing until it was retrieved.

(b) There were too many individuals and stations where groups of controlled drawings were located which contributed to the increase in the number of drawings.

(c) No restraints were placed on personnel requesting drawings or complete sets of drawings from the DCU which also contributed to ute increase in the number of drawings.

(d) Vendor drawings were not adequately identified and controlled.

(e) Construction working drawings were not identified as controlled drawings.

(f) Field Change Requests (FCR's) were not being incorporated on C. F. Braun drawings.

(g) The Drawing Index was not maintained in an accurate status.

' These findings have been addressed either procedurally or administratively.

~

4. All TVA construction site QA units were directed to conduct audits to determine if the Hartsville drawing control problem e::isted at other TVA nuclear facilities. With the exception of Hartsville, there were 1 no audit findings evaluated and deemed "significant." Line and QA management reviewed the audit and investigation findings on February 18, 1981. No document control procedures were necessary for Sequoyah, Watts Bar or Bellefonte. The drawing control procedure did require adjustments for Hartsville, Phipps Bend, and Yellow Creek Nuclear Plants. Construction Engineering Procedure (CEP) 6.01,

" Drawing Control," was revised and approved on April 23, 1981.

Due to operating differences between Hartsville and other TVA nuclear facilities, a site-unique procedure was issued in interim form on September 25, 1981. Minor changes were made to the interim procedure, and it was subsequently issued as a permanent document, CEP 6.05, Revision 1, on December 3, 1981. The changes did not affect the handling of superseded material, but were " fine-tuning" efforts. In addition, CEP 6.01 was revised and issued on December 4, 1981, and now only applies to Phipps Bend and Yellow Creek.

Additional audits of the drawing control system at Hartsville were conducted between June 1 and July 1, 1981, and in November 1981.

Additional deficiencies were noted, but none involving the use or pos:sssion of superseded drawings were deemed "significant." As a result we believe that full compliance has been achieved.

l i

k i

- _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ .