ML20155A956

Insp Repts 50-259/88-22 & 50-260/88-22 & 50-296/88-22 on 880711-15.Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Assessment of New Employee Concern

ML20155A956
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	09/19/1988
From:	Jenison K, Little W, Poertner K NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20155A935	List: IR 05000259/1988022 ML20155A932 ML20155A938 ML20155A956
References
50-259-88-22, 50-260-88-22, 50-296-88-22, NUDOCS 8810060129
Download: ML20155A956 (5)

See also: IR 05000259/1988022

Text

. o

'

.

t

[p $%g'#

4 UNITED STATES

!,. **f E

-e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

o  ! REGION 11

jE 101 MARIETTA ST., N.W.

-

,,,,, ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30323

Report Nos.: 50-259/85-2.?, 50-260/S3-22, ard 50-296/82-22

Licensee: Tennessen Valley Authority

6N 3bA Lookout Place

1101 Market Street

Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801

DccLet tocs.. 50-259, 50-260 ard 50-29C License Ncs..  :'PR-33, CPR-52,

and DPR-65

Facility han.c. Broons Ferry 1, 2, and 3

Inspecticn Cenducted: July 11-15, 1933

Inspectors:[Jens N- 'I _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i / 7 ff'

K . S'ntor Resident Insrector C te Signed

-

- b

K.Poert .r.

&

Resicent inspktor

J Y ? k - _.

ate Signed

-b - 'f0/b

Approved by: g(T)-

Cd

.

5. u , secticn Cnief

TVA Projects Section 2

_[//[k

Date 5 gnea

TVA Projects Division

SUWMRY

Scope: This 3pecial unannounced inspection was conducted to assess the New

Employee Concerns Progran.

Results: One violation was identified invclving inadeauate encrective action

in the area cf cperator qualifications. and is a refuel item,

50-259,250.296/55-22-01: Inadequcte Correctise Action

In addition, the Bronn's Ferry New Employee Concerns Progran appears

to De acequatel ' irpiementeu ano ac:11ni sterea, aria is acceptacle to

support the restart of Srcnns Ferry Unit 2.

8810060129 880919

PDR ADOCK 05000259

0 FDC

._ _

. .

'

,

'

. .

-

,

I

i

REPORT DETAILS

t

7

, 1. Persons Contacted

,i

Licensee Employees

,

i *J. Walker, Plant Manager  :

"C. E11euge Employee Concerns Program  !

• J. Looney, Employee Concerns Program

• P. Heck, Employee Concerns Task Group

"D. Hosmer, Restart Test Program i

• N. McFall, Compliance Staff '

"R. Earon, Quality Assurance Supervisor

?

'

4

,

NRC Personnel

"D. Carpenter, Senior Resident Inspector

"

!

• C. Brooks, Resident Inspector

'

• E. Christnot, Resident' Inspector

• W. Bearden, Resident Inspector  ;

I * Attended exit interview on July 15. 1938. l

2. Employee Concerns Program

a. Program Review

The inspectors reviewed the New Employee Concerns Program (ECP) and [

j

the Employee Concerns Task Group (ECTG) Program (old program). The  :

i

new ECP is a commitment in the TVA Corporate Nuclear Performance j

l Plan (CNPP) and is described in the TVA Employee Concern Program

Instructions Manual. This ECP manual is supported by six ,

j

, instructions which Pere reviewed by the inspectors and are listed

below: i

l

ECP 1, site Representative Procedure

i ECP 2, Reserved i

ECP 3, File Storage

ECP 4, Identification of Employee Concerns '.ht.t are potential

restart itens at Sequoyah  ;

j ECP 5, Corrective Action Verification (ECTG)

l ECP 6 Identification of Employee Concerns that are potential j

'

restart items at Browns Ferry.

ECP 7, (Oraft) ECr Corrective A; tion

The inspectors verified that the ECP concerns were reviewed for  ;

restart /ren-restart cete-ination for Brenns Fe r ry Unit 2 in

f

, accordance witn tne criteria outlinec in t h CtF

i

4

I

$

!

i

i

I

-

.

. .

a

2

,

.-

i-

L The inspectors identified two programmatic issues which did not

l appear to be at the same state of completion that was required to

support the restart of Seaucyah Unit 2. These issues were the piece

parts progran (espacially the operability lookback determinaticn) and

vendor nanual/ drawing control program.

Based on the review of the New Employee Concerns Program manual and

its supporting procedures, the inspectors considered the New Employee

<

Concerns Program to be adequately established at Brewns Ferry.

b. Implementation

The inspectors conducted an implementation evaluation and reviewed

'

the following ECP concerns and files:

1

ECP-87-BF-F09 ECP-S7-BF-112 ECP-S7-BF-K46

ECP-87-BF-062 ECP-87-BF-369 ECP-SS-BF-274

1 ECP-SS-BF-801 ECP-SS-BF-495 ECP-SS-BF-200

'

ECP-SS-BF-568 ECP-S6-BF-541 ECP-87-BF-094

ECP-87-BF-H30 ECP-S7-BF-593 ECP-S6-BF-564

ECP-86-BF-239 ECP-86-BF-214 ECP-86-BF-C67

1 ECP-86-BF-214 ECP-S6-BF-157 ECP-86-BF-BS3

}

j One instance was identified where a file did not adequately address

4 the employee's concern as stated. in discussions with the ECP

Manager, it was agreed that the file would be reopened to better

address closure of the concern.

'

The inspectors concluded that the ECP appears to be adecuately

< staffed, managed, and implemented, and can support the restart of

Unit 2.

j c. Review of ECP Subcategory Reports

I

) Tne inspectors reviewed portions of the following ECTG Subcategory

i Reports:

) (1) 31000, Operations / operational. Element 31003 included Correc-

tive Action Tracking Docu ent (CATD) item OD 31003-BFN-01. As a

j corrective action to the CATD, standard pract i ce BF 14.25,

'

Clearance Procedure, was revised to require that tygon tubing

J utilited for temporary levei inoication ce centrolled by a

,

caution order due to the potential for nerpressuri:ation which

l would result in tubing rupture. The inspector determined that

, this item had been closed on the licensee's tracking document

I

and by the ECP reviewer. Review of CF 14.25 determined that the

l revision to the procedure cid not satisfy the requirements of

the C ATD. Tne pro:edure was revised te alert nsirtenance to

use cautien wner utilizia; t3;on tub a; fi or ter:3ra ry l e ', e l

indication. The C/TD problem aescription stated the reason for

- ----- - - ------- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ' - - ~ -

'

[ '. ~ .

'

-

.

3

the CATD was a lack of administrative controls on root valves

to tygon tubing being used for levJ1 control. This item was

referred to the licensee for review.

(2) 30100, Mechanical Equipment R(liability. No deficiencies were

identified.

(3) 30200, Electrical and Communications. No deficiencies were

identified.

(4) 30700, Nuclear Power Site Program. No deficiencies were

identified.

This program.will require additional inspection to cetermine adequate

implementation of CATO items. In addition, inspection of the review

'

packages that generated the CATO items will be necessary in order to

determine if CATO closure adequately addressed the employee concern

and programmatic concerns. The inspectors were unable to determine

if this program is adequate to support the startup of Browns Ferry

Unit 2. Further inspection of the ECTG Program as it applies to

Browns Ferry will be conducted prior to Unit 2 startup.

3. Operator Qualifications

During this inspection, the inspectors became aware of an issue irvolving

the training status of several Shif t Engineers (four temporarily premoted

and four permanently promoted). Four Assistant Shift Engineers weru

promoted to the position of Shif t Engineer in order to support site

manning requirements.

Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual (NQAM), part II, Section 6.1, requires

that shift engineers satisfy the minimun qualifications delineated in

Nuclear Plant Operator Training program procedure FMP 0202.05 at the time

of initial core loading or appointment to the active position. FMP

0202.05 requires candidates for the position of Snift Engineer to pass the

Shift Engineer accrediting <.xamination unless it is waived by the Chief,

Operator Training Branch, and the Plant Training Review Board or the

Accrediting Subcommittee. Final Safety Analysis Reoort (FS AR), section

13.2.1.2.5, states that the shift engineers are qualified for their

supervisory positions by fulfilling the requirements of TVA's formal

operator training program. This is a comprehensive work-study training

ano acvancement program witn rigorous qualifying examinations acministered

by a central accrediting comittee.

In approxi ately January 1937, the licensee's lire manage ent became aware

tnat the four temporarily prcmoted Shift Engineers did not reet the above

stancards and did not take adeauate corrective actions to resolve the

issue. Ir additien, it was icentifiec trat fcur etner permaner.tly

assigred Snift Engineers cid not rave recercs to snow trat their certifi-

cation examinations were successfully passed. The licensee nad not taken

adequate correctise actior at the time of this irstecticr.; therefore, this

is icentifiec as a viciation cf 10 CrR 50, arreno1x E. Criterior XVI.

Corrective Action (259,260,296/SS-22-01).

s-

_ _ _ _ .- - _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

, ,

I. ,

, .

t

.

1

4

'

I

4. Action on Previous Inspection Findings (92701)

i (Closed) Unre:olved Ite- 259,260,295!!7-3-03, t.a:L of Fornalt:ed Methods

To Fully Implement ECP Program.

This item addressed varicus observatiens vot* res:ect to the implementa-

tien of the estaDIisned hew Erployee Concerns irojra .. Tne inspectors

reviewed this iten and determined that the cbservations, as stated in the

i subject inspection report, were accurate and still evisted. In addition,

the inspectors identified the following observations:

'

}

-

No generic reviews are condu:ted on ECP files.

,i

-

No reviews of the old program for ccm on issues are docutented during

the ECP file and c;ncern closure prccess.

-

The ECP data base is incomplete for files. The data base for

concerns is complete and adequate.

- The ECP verification of corrective actions has not been formally

established in the ECP Program. Currently line management is solely

i responsible for completion of corrective action. The New Employee

Concerns procedure, Verification of Corrective Action, is still in

draft form.

The above observations, in cl u:ii ng the ones made in In mection Report

259,260,296/87-30, do not constitute regulatory issues or specific

[ commitments by the licensee. None of the abovt observattens resulted in

i regulatory or compliance issues. These observations did not e- '.ribute

! to any safety issess and were identified by the inspe: tors ..y for

completeness. This iten is closed.

l 5. Exit Interview (30703)

The inspection scoce and findings were su- art:ed on July 15, 1953, with

those persons indicated in paragraph 1. The inspectors described the

areas inspected and discussed in cetail the inspection results listed

b e l o,< . The licensee did not identify as preprietary u y of the materials

provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspection. The New

Erployee Concerns Program files anc cer: erns are aaministratively

conficential and were treated as such by tne insoectors.

(0 pen) Violation 259,260,296/25-22-01, Iradequate Corrective A:tien,

paragraph 3.

(Closed) Unresobed Iten 259,200,296/S7-30-03, La:L of Formalind Metheds

To Fully Implement ECP Program, paragraph 4.