ML20203N922

Nuclear Safety Review Staff Investigation Rept I-86-180-SQN, Employee Concern SQM-6-003-001,SQM-6-003-002,SQM-6-003-003, SQM-6-003-004,SQM-6-003-005 & SQM-6-003-006, Sequoyah Nuclear Drawing Control, on 860205-07

ML20203N922
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	03/04/1986
From:	Brock L, Knightly J, Stevens W TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:
Shared Package
ML20203N908	List: ML20203N905 ML20203N911 ML20203N922 ML20203N940 ML20203N950 ML20203N964 ML20203N975 ML20203N986
References
I-86-180-SQN, NUDOCS 8605060213
Download: ML20203N922 (8)

Text

. - - . -- - --_ --.

~

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF

'NSRS INVESTIGATION REPORT NO. I-86-180-SQN

EMPLOYEE CONCERNS

SQM-6-003-001 4 SQM-6-003-002 SQM 6-003-003 SQM-6-003-004 SQM-6-003-005 SQM-6-003-006

SUBJECT:

SQN DRAWING CONTROL DATES OF INVESTIGATION: FEBRUARY 5-7, 1986 INVESTIGATOR: U C/ - '

d -d 7 'b'b J. J. KNIGHTLY DATE REVIEWED BY: Z/f7/f'/o L'. E. BROCK DATE

/1 APPROVED BY: -

@A 3~

W. D. STEVENS DATE 4

8605060213 860502 PDR ADOCK 05000327 p PDR

W I. BACKGROUND A Nuclear Safety Review Staff (NSRS) investigation was conducted to determine the validity of six expressed employeo concerns as received by the Quality Technology Company (QTC)/Employeo Responso Team (ERT). The concerns of record, as summari cd on the Employee Concern Assignment Request Form from QTC and identified as SQM-6-003-001 through -006, stated:

SOM-6-003-001 Specific documents have been improperly issued.

Nuclear Power concern. CI has no further information.

QTC Clarification: Design drawings for ECN L6027 have been improperly issued.

SOM-6-003-002 Duplicate documents have been issued with conflicting data. Nucicar Power concern. CI has no further information.

QTC Clarification: Drawing 45N1749-30 (R8) was issued twice on two separate mylars dated November 29, 1985 and November 30, 1985.

SOM-6-003-003 Specific documents have been improperly altered.

Nuclear Power concern. CI has no more information.

QTC Clarification: Drawings 15W810-44 (R7) and 45W833-1 (R9) were issued without Project Manager's initials in title block. Initials were added to the mylars after issue.

SOM-6-003-004 Falsification of specific documents. Nuclear Power concern. CI has no further information.

QTC Clarification: The drawings identified in Concern SQM-6-003-003 were " corrected" without going through the NCR process.

SOM-6-003-005 Employee was directed to improperly chango another employee's work. Nuclear Power concern. CI has no further information.

1 o

QTC Clarification: The documentation included throo significant condition reports (SCRs) submitted January 11, 1986.

goM-6-003-006 CI feels an attempt is in process to ' cover up' a specific problem. Nuclear power concern. CI has no ftrther information.

QTC Clarification: CI feels the significant condition reports identified in SQM-6-003-005 are being rewritten in such a way that the real problems will be misstated.

II. SCOPE A. The scope of the investigation was dotormined from the stated concerns of record and the respectivo QTC clarifications to be that of only the specific concerns contained in the stated QTC clarifications.

B. To accomplish this investigation, NSRS reviewed applicable requirements, procedures, drawings, drawing management system reports, significant condition reports (SCRs), and open item tracking system reports for these SCRs. Additionally, responsible drawing control personnel were contacted to discuss the employce's l concern.

l l

l III.

SUMMARY

OF FINDINCS i A. Requirements and Commitments

1. Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual (NQAM), Part III, Section 1.1,

" Document Control," Revision March 21, 1985. " Preparation, review, approval, and issuance of documents and their revisions shall be accomplished in accordance with approved written procedurcs/ instructions. Thesc . . . shall include . . . the following requirements: . . . Final approval authority, Revision Controls. . . ."

l i 2. Office of Engineering Procedure OEP-08, " Design Output."

Project Manager ". . . signs at ' Issued Dy' and distributes the drawing."

2

_ . - - __ .- = , _ -- -

B. Findings

1. Concern SQM-6-003-001 A query of the Drawing Management System identified 25 drawings for ECN L6027. A review of the file of issued drawings maintained in the Office of Engineering Technical Information Center (TIC) found that 24 of the 25 drawings were issued without the Project Manager's signature / initials as required by OEP-08 Paragraph 5.1.3. The affected drawings are as follow.

45N1673-5 (R9) 45N630-4 (R15) 45N1645-1 (R11) 45N655-19 (R7) 45N1645-8 (R12) 45N655-44 (R7) 45N1648-1 (R10) 45W1656-4 (R22) 45N1648-4 (R16) 45W1673-5 (R9) 45N1688-1 (R23) 45W2673-5 (RA) 45N1688-3 (R26) *47B601-55-46 (R12) 45N1693-1 (R24) 47W605-15 (R13) 45N1693-3 (R19) 47W605-16 (R13) 45N2645-1 (R9) 47W605-33 (R15) 45N2645-8 (R12) 47W605-35 (R16) 45N2648-1 (R13) 47W610-30-01 (R28) 45N2648-4 (R9)

• issued with approval signature The nonconforming conditions for these drawings were reported in SCR SQN SQP8602 RO dated January 11, 1986.

2. Concern SQM-6-003-002 A review of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) mylar drawings found that wiring diagram 45N1749-30 was issued twice at revision level 8 on two separate cylars dated November 29 and 30, 1985.

The drawing was first issued at revision level 8 for LECN 6202/FCR 3583 and then issued the next day at the same revision level 8 for LECU 6544/FCR 3966. In addition to these revision control errors, the drawings were also issued without Project Manager's signature / initials. A subsequent revision, d9, references in the title block the November 30 issue. The nonconforming condition for the duplicate issuance was reported in SCR SQN SQP8601 RO dated January 11, 1986.

3. Concern SQM-6-003-003 A review of the applicabic drawings 15W810-44 R7 and 45W833-1 R9 found that both were issued without the Project Manager's initials in the title block. The SQN mylar copies included initials at the time of investigation but the microfilmed aperture cards which were sent out on distribution did not.

Since the cards were reproduced from the mylars, it was evident that the initials were added after issuance and 3

e

.,,m . _ __._.. , _ _ , . - ._. ,_ _ ~_ _ . , _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ , _ . _ . ., , - . , . _ _ , , , .

distribution. SQN document control personnel stated that the initials were added by unauthorized personnel and in a manner which contradicted offico practice. The DCU office supervicor stated that the proper method of correction was by reissuance of the drawing, recall of the incorrect drawing, and a memorandum of explanation to the document holders. He stated that this correction would be initiated promptly. The nonconforming situation was reported in SCR SQN SQP8603 R0 dated January 11, 1986.

4. Concern SQM-6-003-004 As noted above, it was found that drawings 15W810-44 R7 and 45W833-1 R4 were issued without the Project Manager's initials and that initials were added to the mylars without authorization after issuance. Because of this bypassing of appropriate corrective action, which should have included recall of the incorrect drawings and reissue of correct ones, the distributed drawings were left in an uncorrected status. Thus, the addition of initials to the mylars did not cause anything to be changed in the system of distribution. It was determined that numerous individuals had access to the mylars and could have placed the initials. It is not known who placed them or what their motivation may ha.e been. The nonconforming condition concerning the ir itials is included in SCR SQN SQP8603 RO.

5. Concern SQM-6-0e3-005 Three draft SrRs dated January 11, 1986, concerning document control problams identified in this report were found to have been submitt(d to the SQN Design Project Coordinator. The Project Coordinator stated during interviews with USRS that an initial decision had been made to consolidate the three SCRs into one. However, after the writer of the SCRs indicated that this " consolidation" might obscure the facts of the nonconform-ing conditions, it was decided to go ahead and issue the SCRs exactly as written by the original writer. NSRS confirmed by review of the c=ployee's original handwritten draf t SCRs and the issued SCRs (SQN SQP8601 RO, SQU SQP8602 RO, and SQN SQP8603 RO) that the issued reports were word for word as originally drafted. The issued SCRs were dated January 11, 1986, and, according to the Project Coordinator, were transmitted January 17. NSRS confirmed that the SCRs were transmitted and received for tracking, evaluation, and corrective action by reviewing the TROI open item and reporting system report dated February 1,1986, which chowed the applicable SCRs as assigned and in progrecs. With the transmittals having been initiated Friday, January 17, and the employee's statement of concern dated Tuccday, January 21, it appears that the concerned individual may not have known that the SCRs had in fact been prococced and trancmitted exactly as originally written.

4 o

6. Con: ern SQM-6-003-006 The facts of i.his concern are covered fully in the above report for SQM-6-003-005.

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Conclusions

1. Concern SQM-6-003-001. The employee's concern was substantiated.

2. Concern SQM-6-003-002. The employce's concern was substantiated.

3. Concern SQM-6-003-003. The employee's concern was substantiated.

4. Concern SQM-6-003-004. The employee's concern was substantiated.

5. Concern SQM-6-003-005. The facts of the employco's concern were not substantiated.

6. Concern SQM-6-003-006. The facts of the employce's concern were not substantiated.

B. Reco:::mendations Hone. The applicable concerns have been documented for analysis and corrective action by SCRs SQN SQP8601 RO. SQU SQP8602 RO, and SQN SQP8603 R0, all dated January 11, 1986.

i 5 i

i.

DOCUMENTS REVIIWED IN INVESTICATION I-86-180-SQN AND REFERENCES l

l 1. Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual (NQAM), Part III, Section 1.1, " Document Control," Revision March 21, 1985

2. Office of Engineering Procedure OEP-08 RO, " Design Output"

3. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Administrative Instruction SQNP AI-25 R12. " Drawing Control After Unit Licensing"

4. Drawing Management System Report dated February 7,1986, " Drawings Affected by ECN/FCR" (for ECN L6027)

5. Tracking and Reporting of Open Items (TROI) Report dated February 1, 1986

6. Significant Condition Reports (SCRs) SQN SQP8601, 8602, 8603 (all RO) i l'

6 o

Tv A ca cos e-eisi top.wp-s-es . >[

/ NITED STATES GOVERN > LENT 'l s

' ~

'M emorandton rexxtsses vantsv Aurnoniry TO: H. L Abercrombie, Site Director, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant FROM: K. W. Whitt Director of Nuclear Safety Review Staff E3A8 C-K DATE: MAR 101986

SUBJECT:

NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF INVESTICATION REPORT TRANSMITTAL Transmitted herein is NSRS Report No. I-86-115-SON Subject CRAFT WELDER It! CAPABLE OF MAKING PROPER WELDS Concern No. SOM-6-005-001 and SOM-6-005-XO2 The attached report contains one Priority 3 (P3) recommendation which requires you to take some form of investigative or corrective action within the next four months (July 10, 1986). No formal response is required for this report unless you disagree with the proposed action.

Please notify us if actions taken have been completed sooner. Should you have any questions, please contact W. D. Stevens at telephone 6231-K ,

e  %.

Recommend Reportability Determination: Yes No X

/ ,

9' 'As -

1. Dire M r NSRS/ Designee WDS:JTH

/

Attachment ec (Attachment):

W. C. Bibb, BFN J. W. Coan, W9C135C-K W. T. Cottle, WBN James P. Darling BLN R. P. Denise, LP6N40A-C G. B. Kirk, SQN F. E. Laurent, CEO-WBN D. R. Nichols, E10A14 C-K QTC/ERT, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Eric Sliger, LP6N48A-C J. H. Sullivan, SQN Kent Thorp, IOB WBN 0590U W. E. Mason--Review for OGC information, n ... I ' e e,...; .., R,, ,1, I? no,in,1,, n,, t iro. Pn,.rnli .Vanin e,s Pla n

y _

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF NSRS INVESTIGATION REPORT NO. I-86-il5-SQN EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SQM-6-005-001 SQM-6-005-X02

SUBJECT:

CRAFT WELDER INCAPABLE OF MAKING PROPER HELDS DATES OF INVESTIGATION: JANUARY 30 - FEBRUARY 11, 1986 INVESTIGATOR: . [ (( '

E._ HARHELL DATE /

,, A REVITAED BY: .

/d 4

. C. CATLIN 6 ATE '

^*

APPROVED BY: / 3//D b W. D.~ STEVfNS" DATE/

1 0006s

-76o32.5o311-

'A  %

I. BACKGROUND A Nucicar Safety Review Staff (NSRS) investigation was conducted to determine the validity of two expressed employee concerns as received by Quality Technology Company (QTC)/ Employee Response Team (ERT). The concerns of record, as summarized on the Employee Concern Assignment Request Form from QTC and identified as SQM-6-005-001 and SQM-6-005-X02, j respectively, stated:

Craft individual (known) was passed through the welding test in March 1985, by agreement between Engineering (known) and the general foreman (known). The individual i

is alleged as being incapable of making a proper weld, and every weld the individual has made in the containment area of the reactor building has had to be redone. Additional details are known.

Welder certification test records were potentially falsified for an individual (known), by agreement between Engincering (known) and general foreman (known). Occurred in March 1985.

Additional details known.

Further information was requested f rom the ERT follow-up group regarding the names of the individuals alleged to be involved and a more exact location of the welds that required rework. QTC provided the names and a little more information on the location of the poor welds. Since the above concerns are related, involving the same individuals, both concerns were investigated at the same time and are addressed in a single report.

II. SCOPE A. The scope of the investigation was determined from the stated .

concerns of record to be two specific issues requiring investigation:

1. whether the welder is incapable of making proper welds, and

2. whether there was collusion to certify this welder resulting in falsified records.

B. In conducting the investigation, USRS reviewed the welder's certi-fication, weld rod draw cards, and workplans referenced on weld rod draw cards; and interviewed weld test representatives, cognizant engineers, general foremen, and modification management.

III.

SUMMARY

OF FINDINGS A. Requirements and Commitments

1. TVA Topical Report TVA-TR75-1A, Section 17.2, " Quality Assurance Program, Program Applicable to Operation" l

> =

2. ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section IX, " Welding and

- Brazing Qualifications"

3. Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual (NQ'AM), Part II, Section 6.1,

" Welding" B. Findings Note: In order to preserve the confidentiality of individuals interviewed, they are identified by letter only below.

1. References 2 and 4 require that personnel performing special processes (i.e., welding) be qualified and that their qualifications be documented.

2. ASME Section IX (Ref. 1) and AWS tl.1 (Ref. 10) provide requirements for qualifying welders and guidance on how to maintain their qualification. ,

i

3. The Office of Nuclear Power has defined in reference 3 how to meet the requirements of ASME Section IX and AWS Dl.1.

4. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) utilizes references 5, 6, and 7 to implement the requirements of the welding program.

5. The welder in question was certified in March 1985 as shown by reference 8. In discussion with the weld test representative who signed his qualification record, Individual C said that he did not remember any real problems with the welder in question.

He remembers that the operator welded his coupons in the fabrication shop, not in the weld test shop. Individual C is not the engineering individual named by the concerned individual (CI) as having passed the welder by agreement.

6. Individual C said that he had never passed anybody that was marginal and that he had never been asked by any of the foremen or general foremen to do so.

7. During interviews with modification managers Individuals A and B stated that a recent problem had been identified with a particular welder. After more discussion, it became obvious that the welJer they were talking about was the same person named by the CI. Individual B said that as a result of the welder's poor performance, an employee performance report was filled out by his foreman and a copy placed in the personnel files.

/

m

• 2

- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ ~

p x

8. Individual D, the general foreman over the questionable wolder

.. during the above mentioned poor pecformance period, was interviewed concerning the details of the job. Hc stated that this welder had done most of his welding in the snop area in a flat position. He said that work done by the questionable welder in the turbine building did involve some out-of-position welding, but it was not that difficult in his opinion. He said that the welder really wanted to do a good job but looked like he may not have had enough experience to sharpen his skills to do so.

9. Individual E, the general foreman normally in charge of work activities in which the questionable welder would be involved.

was interviewed concerning the welder's performance. He stated that the individual was a borderline welder but did fine in the l fab shop. However, the individual had passed the qualificaiton j test, was certified, and had been utilized where he was needed.

However, his work was continuing to be reviewed and, should it continue to be below standards, he would be retested.

10. Process specifications 1.H.2.2 and 1.C.2.2 of reference 3 have 'I provisions for renewal of qualification when there are reasons to question the welder's ability to produce welds that meet requirements.

l

11. After reviewing the questionable welder's weld rod draws from the tool room, a determination was made of the various workplans on which the individual worked. In discussions with three cognizant engineers responsible for those workplans, none knew of any major problems. They did ecmember that come welds required grinding, and in some cases weld repairs; but since <m, vorkplans do not always identify tho welder to a specific job, they did not remember the welder (s) involved.

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Conclusions

1. The concern that the welder in question was incapable of making proper welds was substantiated in part by virtue of the poor performance evaluatior. for work performed in the turbine building. However, the welder reportedly does an adequate job on welds made in the shop.

2. The concern that the welder was passed by collusion between engineering and the general foreman resulting in falsified records could not be substantiated. The individual (engineering) named by the CI as being a part of the collusion was not the individual who signed the welder's qualification record. No anomalies were found with the welding performance qualification record.

3

o

8. Recommendations ,

1. I-86-115-SQN-01, Continue to Monitor Welder Performance khe welder performance should be monitored closely for at least one' month; and if his' welds, including out-of-position welds, are not up to standard?, the welder should be ratested under the

-l provisions stat.ed in parascaph III.B.10. The performance evaluation should be documented and a copy sent to personnel files. SQN should notify NSRS when the performance evaluation is completed. [P3) y

^-

_. _ s e

' ' ' ,4 j 1

)

\

f.

f r.

as 4

' sr g

= 1 9

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED IN INVESTICATION I-86-115-SQN AND REFERENCES

1. ASME Boiler and Pressure vessel Code,Section IX, 1983 Edition Winter 83 Addenda, " Welding and Brazing Qualifications"

2. NQAM, Part II Section 6.1, dated October 12, 1984, " Welding"

3. Area Plan Procedure DPM N73 M2 dated August 28, 1984, " Process Specifi-cations for Welding Heat Treatment, and Allied Field Operations"

4. TVA Topical Report TVA-TR75-1A R8, Section 17.2.9, " Control of Special Processes"

5. SQN Modification and Additions Instruction M&AI-1 R9 dated August 5, 1985, " Control of Weld Documentation and Heat Treatment"

6. M&AI-5 R9 dated January 29, 1986, " Welding Material Control and Welder Certification Procedure"

7. SQN Standard Practice SQM-17 R2 dated May 17, 1984, " General Welding Requirements for Nuclear Plants - DPH N73M2"

8. Welding Performance Qualification Record of the Questionablo Welder

9. Employee Performance Report for the questionable wolder for a period in January 1986

10. ANSI /AWS D1.1 -1985, Ninth Edition, dated February 8,1985, " Structural Welding Csde - Steel"

11. Workplans WP 9936, 10001, 10714, 10954, 11438, 11485, 11778, and 11854 ,

3 5

V A di 05 9-6;I (Op wp.3 a3) ,

d _

UNITED STATES GOVERN 3 TENT g' I Memorandttm Tsxxesses vALLsY AUTHORITY TO: H. L. Abercrombie, Site Director, Sequoyah Nucicar Plant FROM: K. W. Whitt Director of Nuclear Safety Review Staff, E3A8 C-K DATE:

MAR 101986

SUBJECT:

NUCLEAR SAFETY FFVIEW STAFF INVESTIGATION REPORT TRANShlTTAL Transmitted herein in ESRS Report No.

I-86-164-SON Subject RITRIEVAL OF SCRAPPED MATERIAL Concern No. SOP-S-004-003 No response or corrective action is required for this report. It is being transmitted to you for information purposes only. Should you have any questions, please cor. tact W. D. Stevens at telephone 6231 .

Reco::::: lend Reportability Determination: Yes No X

. f" .

W/ irector, k [)1NSRS/ <w Designee WDS:GDM \ f Attachment warrs saa cc (Attachment) =gNE,$',y W. C. Bibb, B W. T. Cottle, % l.pg i i gf '

Ja::1cs P. Darling, BLN R. P. Denise, LP6N40A-C G. B. Kirk, SQU g g l ,

D. R. Nichols, E10A14 C-K .

) i d' QTC/ERT, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant w as Eric Sliger, LP6N48A-C T, ".'

J. H. Sullivan, SQN $ *"

'{T.~

(j

.. u w> es ,

t

==-

Q

'? !.L 4587U L

f

,g

• D... . I t e r ..: . n,. al. 1) e.. la../.. n

• I. Pa..,n ti ('n , .*,, n r pin ,,

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF NSRS INVESTICATION REPORT NO. I-86-164-SQN EMPLOYEE CONCERN: SQP-5-004-003 i

SUBJECT:

. RETRIEVAL OF SCRAPPED MATERIAL DATES OF INVESTIGATION: FEBRUARY 10-25, 1986 INVESTIGATOR:

/

1,1, 3/4/5 W. R. SIMONDS DATE REVIEWED BY: ,M l!86 J.f.'K'INCAID DATE APPROVED BY: M ..

/W W. D. STEVENS DATE i

?

i

- S'/o o325o318/-

I. BACKCROUND A Nuclear Safety Review Staff (USRS) investigation was conducted to determine the validity of an expressed employee concern as received by Quality Technology Company (QTC) Employco Response Team (ERT). The concern of record, as summari=cd on the Employee Concern Assignment Request Form from QTC and identified as SQP-5-004-003, stated:

SEQUOYAH: New material has been ordered scrapped by a supervisor and later retrieved by a different group.

This could represent a lack of control regarding scrapped matorial.

Names / details known to QTC and withheld to maintain confidentiality. No further information. cay be released. Nuclear Power Concern. CI has no further information.

NSRS obtained additional information from the ERT follow-up group which further specified the concern to be that the concerned individual (CI) had noticed brand new fittings still in the manufacturer's plastic bags in a garbage pile next to a warehouse in November 1985. These fittings were picked up by someone from another plant organization the following week. The CI assumes that the fittings were later used somewhere in the plant but is unsure what happened to these fittings after they were picked up/ retrieved from the garbage pile.

II. SCOPE A. The scope of this investigation is defined by the concern of record to be a potential lack of control regarding scrapped material.

B. NSRS reviewed pertinent regulations, regulatory guides, and industry standards to identify requirements applicable to the issuo being investigated. TVA commitments, quality assurance procedurcs .and Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) instructions were also reviewed to identify specific programmatic controls related to this issue. '

Material-related documentation was reviewed to obtain information pertaining to the issue. Quality assurance audit and surveillance reports were reviewed to identify any previous findings related to the issue. Interviews were conducted with plant personnel to obtain information specifically portaining to the alleged occurrence.

III.

SUMMARY

OF FINDINCS A. Requirements and Commitments

1. 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Critorion XV, " Nonconforming

'datorials, Parts, or Components"

2. TVA Topical Report TVA-TR75-1A R8, Paragraph 17.2.15

" Nonconforming Materials, Parts, or Components" l

3. TVA Topical Report TVA-TR75-1A R8, Table 17D-3, which commits TVA to use U.S. URC Regulatory Guide 1.33 (R2), dated Feburary 1978, " Quality Assuranco Program Requirements (Operations),"

which endorses use of ANSI N18.7-1976 B. Findings

1. The investigators determined that the material referred to in the concern of record consists of twelvo vibration absorbers (A.K. A. flexible metal hoses) which were manuf actured by Packless Industries, Waco, Texas. Upon inspection of these absorbers, it was found that several wero sealed in the original plastic bags; and the only identifiable marking was the .runnber

- P-12 which appeared on the plastic bags and also stamped into one end fitting of each absorber. This number is believed to be the part number. This could not be readily confirmed since there was no other markings which gould lead to a purchase document or quality requirements.

2. The investigator further determined that the absorbers described above were scrapped by discarding them into a dumpster containing scrap metal in mid-November 1985. This action was taken by a responsible plant employce because the absorbers were considered to be unusable and because there were no identifiable quality assurance requirements evident on any of the items (Refs. 3b and 3d).

3. Subsequently, other plant personnel retrieved the absorbers from the dumpster because they appeared to be usabic and suspected that they possibly were scrapped by mistake. The absorbers were later returned to the organization which had discarded them initially.

4. An effort was made to return the absorbers to Power Stores for credit. However, there was an inconsistency between the presumed absorber part number and the TVA Item Identification Code (TIIC) number which provented Power Stores from receiving the absorbers for credit (Ref. 3b). The responsible organiza-tion then placed the twelvo absorbces in an area used by the Elcetrical Maintenance Group of miscellaneous storago. That is where these items remained as of February 28, 1986 (Ref. 3d).

5. SQA45 (Ref. 3b), paragraph 13.1, states that QA materials left over or recovered in connection with maintenanco, operation, or retirement of property shall be returned for credit or scrapped. It is further stated, "QA materials that are left over from maintenance activitics, operation, or retirement of property and that have no traccability shall be scrapped or shall be marked or tagged as "No QA" and may be used on non-CSSC equipment. These non-traceable materials need not be returned to the power Stores Section."

2

m 6.

SQA148 (Ref. 3c), paragraph 2.0, states that the SQN plant maintenance organization shall maintain an area at which scrap material vill be accumulated. It is further stated, "It is a {

common place practice to retrieve from scrap metal piles materials which may be needed for use in plant maintenance work."

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Conclusion l

The employee concern is not substantiated. This conclusion is based i upon the finding that nontraceable material, such as the once discarded absorbers, may be retrieved and used in plant maintenance work on non-CSSC equf ment. ,

i B. Recommendation Uone 1

6 l

t 3

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED IN INVESTICATION I-86-164-SQN AND REFERENCES

1. TVA Topical Report TVA-TR75-1A R8

2. NUC PR NQAM Procedures

a. Part III, Section 2.2 " Receipt Inspection. Handling, and Storage of Materials, Components, and Spare Parts," dated December 23, 1985

b. Part III, Section 2.3, " Issuing of Materials, Components, and. Spare

-- Parts," dated July 29, 1985

c. Part III, Section 7.1, " Nonconforming Materials, Parts, and Components," dated December 23, 1985

3. Sequoyah Instructions

a. AI-11. " Receipt Inspection, Nonconforming Items. QA Levels / Description Changes and Substitutions," R32

b. SQA-45, " Quality Control of Material and Parts and Services," R18

c. SQA148, " Saleable Scrap," RO

d. AI-36, " Storage, Handling, and Shipping of QA Material," R8

4. Sequoyah Corrective Action Report Summary Printout dated January 22, 1986

5. Sequoyah Nonconforming Item Log (fonn TVA 7830A)

6. ANSI U18.7-1976, " Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance for the Operational Phase of Nuclear Power Plants"

7. Division of Quality Assurance Audit Report No. PSQ-A-85-0005,

" Procurement / Storage Activities," dated April 25, 1985

8. Division of Quality Assurance Audit Report No. SQ-8400-04, "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Procurement / Storage Activities," dated March 8, 1984

9. Sequoyah Inplant QA Staff Survey No. 15a-85-P-001, " Nonconforming Items,"

dated Feburary 19, 1985 4

i

'I' _ _ , _ . _ _ , _ _ , _ . _ - . - _

f _.

.v iv .,.n w. ..~e e 7 ,_- ,

UNITED STATES GOVERN 31ENT

'(.*

• Memoran d ttm TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY TO: H. L. Abercrombic, Site Director, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant FROM: K. W. Whitt, Director of Nuclear Safety Review Staff. E3A8 C-K DATE: MAR 0 71986

SUBJECT:

NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF INVESTIGATION REPORT TRANSMITTAL Transmitted herein is USRS Report No. I-86-131-SON Subject SEISMIC SUPPORTS ARE NOT DESIGNED PROPERLY. THEY ARE RIGID Concern No. 00-85-005-008 No response or corrective action is required for this report. It is being transmitted to you for information purposes only. Should you have any questions, please contact W. D. Stevens at telephone 6231 .

Recorr.end Reportability Determination: Yes No X

+ .__ 42-A

(//

/

Director NSRS rnxichV waf T5 dAR secutan ut WDS:GDM uit w.crercormt Attachment cc (Attachment): 'iR 10'66 W. C. Bibb, BFU W. T. Cottle, WBN _

James P. Darling, BLtl g 5 g R. P. Denice, LP6N40A-C 2 I d G. B. Kirk, SQN

• J* ,

D. R. Nichols, E10A14 C-K **

QTC/ERT, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant N "' l Eric Sliger, LP6N48A-C -C', '

J.11. Sullivan SQN gy* l l

,rJ W 0579U

, r L

Rnv !!.S Savin us Rands Renular/v nn the Pavroll Saninos Plan

,y . - -

e , , _ , _ - - - _ , , . _

- , - - - , - - . - -- - ,