ML20204J936
| ML20204J936 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Sequoyah |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1987 |
| From: | Russell Gibbs, Manuel J, Murphy M TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082280289 | List: |
| References | |
| 2019T, 313.02-SQN, 313.02-SQN-R01, 313.02-SQN-R1, NUDOCS 8703270335 | |
| Download: ML20204J936 (6) | |
Text
___ - __
TVA EMP14YRE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBEtt 313.02-SQh SPECIAL PROGRAN REPORT TYPE. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant - Element REVISION NUMBER:
1 TITLE: Personnel Safety (Hardware)
REASON FOR REVISION:
Revised to clarify conclusion Revision 1 l
N PREPARATION PREPARED BY:
T!I I
J. S. Manuel SIGNATURE
@ ATE i
REVIEWS PEER:
d'/!s//-
5 Y
/[
SIGNATURE
'DATE TAS:
h'n 3 // 0 7 n
M '
SIGNATURE
' 6&TE CONCURRENCES
{k/d/ I /*f8?
CEG-H 0%
3 *ll ~$l SRP:
SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE DATE APPROVED BY:
m&ma~L aluc/81 ECSP MANAGER DATE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY) f fbO 5
7 P
.O TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT EMPLOYEE CONCERNS TASK GROUP OPERATIONS CEG Subcategory: Miscellaneous i
Element: Personnel Safety (Hardware)
Report Number: 313.02 - SQN Revision 1 RMM-85-001 RMM-85-002 Evaluator:
J. S. Manuel 3-3~87 J. S. Ma uel Date
~ *M"#
3-3-B7 Review 2d by:
OPS CEtigember Date Approved by: C J/#/8 7 W. R. Lagergren Da'te 1536T
'R;visien 1
-I.
Personnel. Safety (Hardware)
This element report addresses employee concerns RNM-85-001 and RMN-85-002 which are specific to SQN and which were closed out via CI's supervisory and maintenance department actions and changes.
II.
Specific Evaluation Methodology The following employee concerns were investigated:
RMN-85-001
. Lights out in stairwell in Office & Power Stores (0&PS) Building.
RMM-85-002 -
Light out again in stairwell in O&PS Building. PN program-needed.
The evaluation of the above concerns and the associated line mana;ement responses to the concerns will concentrate on.four aspects:
1.
The validity of the concern 2.
Verification of the line response
-3.
Verification of corrective action taken by line management i
4.
The adequacy of corrective action to resolve the concern and prevent its recurrence Appropriate Regulatory requirements and SQN's specific procedures were reviewed to ensure programmatic compilance for preventative maintenance at_SQN.
III. Findings A.
Line Response to Concerns 1.
On the same day as RMM-85-001 was flied (8/14/85), MR-A-116723 was written to repair the lights. The lighting was repaired the following day.
2.
Five days after-the lighting was repaired (8/20/85), the
{
concerned individual was informed of the same.
3.
One month later (9/17/85) at the safety meeting, a member of the
(
i Plant Manager's Staff reminded employees to know the hazards and to be careful. On the same day, the same CI reported, via RMM-85-002, the lights were out again. The CI also requested a check on a Preventative Maintenance (PM) program for lighting.
I
?
i f
Page 1 of 3
R0visien 1 4.
The following day (9/18/85) a SQN electrical maintenance employee was interviewed. There it was determined that tue O&PS Building's south' stairwell lights were not in a PM program, and that the Electrical Maintenance Group would not be responsible for the office building maintenance after October 1, 1985. The interviewer was then referred to a third person (a different department, no department name was mentioned) who said they had not gotten word that they were to be responsible for building maintenance yet so they could not say what kind of program they would have. They would call the interviewer when they get the officin1 word and tell the interviewer what kind of proventativo maintenance program they would have.
5.
Two months later (11/19/85), the new general building maintenance unit responded that they were now responsible for building lighting. To report lights out or general building maintenance call extension 7160 or leave a note at the office located in O&PS-1 south end. The same day, the CI was given a form TVA 45 containing this resolution.
B.
Corrective Action 1.
When the first concern (RMM-85-001) was filed (8/14/85),
Maintenanco Request (MR) A-116723 was written to repair the lights. The lights were reportedly fixed the next day.
However, this investigator was unable to obtain a copy of the MR.
A computer search failed to turn up the MR.
2.
When the second concern (RMM-85-002) was filed (9/17/85), no MR was written. The lights were later repaired. No documentation could be located to substantiate the repair work.
3.
The supervisor of the new maintenance unit for O&PS could not locate a copy of MR A-116723. He also indicated that under their present operating situation, most of their work is phoned in by other employees. The resulting corrective action is then performed without any paperwork. Only on rare occasions does an item come in on paper. He went on to say that a problem like the lights being out in the stairwell would be handled within a day.
It would involve dispatching maintenance personnel to correct the problem. No paperwork would be created to document the action.
4.
The maintenance supervisor stated that under the new maintenance units's program, a problem could be voiced either in person or by calling extension 7160. Their office is located in the O&PS which makes for very good responsiveness.
Page 2 of 3
2:visien 1 C.
Conclusions 1.
Both concerns have been validated by line management.
l Corrective action was implemented and the problems have been l
completely corrected. The general building maintenance unit will l
E be responsible for responding to similar concerns, as they are 1
identified. This identification can occur via a visit to the l
maintenance office or by phone, extension 7160. The general lR1 building maintenance unit does not plan to incorporate building i
maintenance such as lighting into a formal PN program.
l g
1 4/
2.
There are'no regulatory requirements to govern this situation.
1
[
These concerns are not safety-significant or safety-related.
l This element can therefore be considered closed.
l IV.
Root Cause v
Based on the evaluation it appears that SQN is responsive to corrective action needs when identified by employees. This investigation has not lR1 determined a root cause.
l Y.
Generic Applicability Based on report findings these two concerns were isolated incidents at SQN. There is no reason to consider these concerns as generically applicable to other TVA nuclear plants.
VI.
References A.
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) Good Practice MA-107, Preventative Maintenance, INPO 85-032, September 1985 h
B.
10 CFR 50.49, " Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants" 6
VII. Immediate or Long-Term Corrective Action e
i No additional corrective actions are necessary.
I Page 3 of 3
.---- xr-
== s ~ n s -
_-asu&me m -
-l o
)
P AGE ' ',
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTNORITY RUN TIME -
RE*ERENCE
- ECPSI28J-ECPSI21C OFFICE OF NUCLEAR PONER RUN'pATE -
)
FREGUENCY
- REQUEST DFLOYEE CSNCERN PROSEAN SYSTEN (ECPS)
ONP - 1555 - RDet LIST OF EprLSTEE CSNCERN INFORMATION CATEGORY: OP PLANT OPER. SUPPSRT SUDCATEGORY: 31302 PER$8MNEL SAFETY (MARDHARE)
KEYWORD A
)
OENERIC KEYNORD B N
APPL STC/MSRS P
KEYWORD C CONCCAN SUB R PLT 33$H INVESTIGATION S
CSNCERN
)
NUMBER CAT CAT D LOC FLe3 REPORT R
DESCRIPTION
~
KEYMORD l
LIGHTS OUT IN STAIRMELL IN O A PS BU R798-85-081 OP 31302 N StN NNNN ILDING.
K-FORM
)
LIGNTS SUT AGAIN IN STAIRNELL IN O A Rfel-85-002 0F 31302 N StN NNNN PS BUILDING. PM PR00RAN NEEDED K-FORM 3
2 CONCERNS FOR CATEGORY OP SUICATEGORY 31382
)
4
)
l
)
l D
)
7 M
B' A__.
...