ML20205A325
| ML20205A325 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Sequoyah |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1986 |
| From: | Knightly J, Koltowich M, Stevens W TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082280289 | List: |
| References | |
| I-86-185-SQN, NUDOCS 8703270416 | |
| Download: ML20205A325 (7) | |
Text
._,
i
.l PAGE 1 0F 6
~
~'
ATTACHMENT B
-(
..t d
. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF USRS INVESTIGATION REPORT NO. I-86-185-SQN EMPLOYEE CONCERN:
SQM-6-002-002 e.nM-6 nnN003 (SQM-6-002-004]
S QM-t,-v v 4-v v.a SQM-6-002-006
.P
SUBJECT:
SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT VENDOR DRAWING CONTROL, DATES OF INVESTIGATION:
FEBRUARY 12-13 and 19-20, 1986 l
(/
ol U
3-4-/6 INVESTICATOR:
DATE J. J }2;IGHTLY g
.a Mr'.;
?dM
~4,,
REVIEWED BY:
ref a we DATE M/ A-( KOLT0WICH l
l t
~
APPROVED BY:
d/Mf y
~ 7. *'
DATE
- -4:
W. D. STEVENS
'.'hj '* 'a..:.;
.. ?
tJ4 e'
p,
' i. r,,,'-
1 e g
t
'$'w. +;;,.< ':
, e
.~
e 4
,e rq.;. :e.b. n l
l if.w
' v ;',.
r.,
~
,?.
+
s, t
_ k*I, '
{
,y.
_.: ;, c... ;.
t' W *
,di,
- ~ *
- e e
n B703270416 MO319 T.
g i
l PDR ADOCK O g7 e
i I
,i
l-1.
BACKCROUND ANuclearSafetyReviewStaff(NSRS)'investigationwasco The Quality Technology Company (QTC)/ Employee Ecspo t
through -006, Request Form from QTC and identified as SQM-6-002-002 3
stated:
.t
"..h.
Specific supervision is not responsive to correcting a quality problem in a time'ly manner which can and is
- (Names /dctails
'M affecting the quality of the plant.
known to QTC, withheld to maintain confidentiality.)
No further information may be released.. Huclear. Power
- UJ CI has no further,information.
,f' concern.
The' office supervisot for'the SQU QTC Clarification:
Engineering Project was asked by the employee to have n' vendor drawing audit' conducted,in 1985 but no audit was performed.
SOM-6-002-003
/
Specific supervision has neglected to perform a n.
scheduled assignment which results in a continuous (names / details known to quality impact on the plant.
Nuclear QTC, withheld to maintain.tenfidentiality.)
No further infornation may be Power concern.
CI has no fur.ther information.- ' -
released.
't
.i 4.-
An audit of vendor drawings was to QTC Clarification:
have been performed in September 1985 after a TVA drawing audit, but the vcnder audit was cancelled.
f.
SOM-6-002-004_
Specific supervision sto'pped corrective action en a quality problem that had.bcen identified months (Names / details known to QTC, withhcid to earlice.
maintain confidentiality'). Uo further information may
~
LCI has no further be reicased. Nuclear Power conccen.
- w-information.
Supervisor denied a written request QTC Clarificaticn: submitted by employee on January 9, 1986, to perfo vender drawing audit.
l s.
t
+..
-9',,
s
'{
.e5 4 **
, [.-
,,,,. 9
,',.,. :.-t '
t,. -.
-p
, - ).
,m
n 00M-6-002-005 r
G.m J.' '
t
'*l
.!d Controlled documents contain conflicting data relating to the same installation.
(Names / details known to QTC,
.'s withheld to maintain confidentiality.) 1No further infomation may be released. Nuclear Power concern..
1 CI has no further information.
.,t w QTC Clarificationt ' Applies to design draw ngs-mylars.
Check wash-off los.for specifics. Better controls - are needed 'f or the o'riginal mylars.
'i t
SOM-6-002-006 e...
Work is being performed to documents containing conflicting or obsolete data.
(Names / details known to i
QTC, withheld to maintain confidentiality.) No further information may be released. Nuclear. Power concern.
a' CI has no further information.
- QTC Clarification:
Concern is based on programmatic problems that both a new mylar and old may exist with each containing different data.
4ir I
II.
SCOPE The scope of this investigation das determined from the stated A.
concerns of record and the respective QTC clarifications to be that of only the specific concerns contained in the stated QTC clarifi-cations.
To accomplish this investigation,'liSRS reviewed applicable require '
B.
ments, procedures, drawings, drawing logs, cnd correspondence.
Additionally, respon4ible drawing control and rcprographics personnel were contatted to discuss the.cmployec's concerns.
W.'
- y
- ?
$b ' ~
4 t
III. SUt! MARY OF TINDINOS.
. h,,.
w.. -
...;l A.
Requirements and Co=mitments., -. p. :1f, : ',., % ^
.+
N.,,. m.
.n y.
~
Division of Ensinocring Derign Management and Engineering Data,;(
1.
Systems (!!EDS) Procedure EP 23.05',1"EN DES and Vendor Drawings;,,.
Information Services." "The TIC does not maintain pre-1975.Fr-I original vendor derawings unless they have been placed under TVA.
i revision control and sent to TIC for storage. All other.. vendor l originals which were submitted to the TIC prior to 1975 have y,,-
i.
been or are being microfilmed and destroyed."
[
4 j
8
~
^ -'
A. * ' - ;
, a;.Q .p'
~~
.. v.s
/
' 3..
l
. +.
4.-
- [
i 4
2 i
e 1
I 2.
Of fice of Engineering Office Instructiun OE-0I 3001, " Drawing '
(
Originals - Checking Out and Checking In."
B.
Findings 1.
Concerns SQM-6-002-002 and SQH-6-002-003 The Office Supervisor for the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN)
Engineering Project came to the position in January 1985. He stated that drawing controls at that time for both the TVA and vendor drawings were not fully adequate; that original drawings f or SQN design work were not always immediately available as ---.
needed; and that first prioritics for correction were placed on the TVA drawings and on several other critical matters affecting
~
the SQN engineering. design effort.0 The vendor drawings received a second priority. 'The inmediate supervisor veri'fied to USRS,l-that this statement of prioritics represented'the management !?'
priorities at that time a.X
.F[*
fi s, ' d.
W' In order to verify that all TVA drawings'were'available and to.
correct any deficiencies by reordering replacements (washoffs),'
a TVA drawing audit was conducted during September-October 1985. The Office Supervisor verified the employec's statement:
i that an audit of vendor drawings was to have been performed att the conclusion of the TVA drawing audit?.. He stated that the :.U' vendor drawing audit was postponed from October 1985 to January 1986 because staff was needed on other projects, but that the"C audit was begun in January and had been'in process for threc' '.
wacks.
. J,@
c.
an~
In order to maintain a dated listing of,i,alf. replacement drawings-requested from Office of Enginccring,' Knoxville, a washoff log' was initiated by the SQN Office Supervis'or*'on August 1,*1985.7'. '
The log included 240'entrics at the time'of the investigation in; February 1986.
Of these, approximately'220--over-90 perecnt of the total--were for replacement vendor drawings with the remainder being for TVA drawings. LThe further investi atien of_
~
5 these orders is reported below under' finding No. 3. f,*,pv>
qp,'
cf i'
n
.u..h v %.
E E.L 'g8 '. Nc.9Y
,e b
2.
Conecrn SQM-6-002-004
- i.' '
- f*
.),.
W It was verified that the cmployee sub=1tted a written requesti.!-
...sv dated January 9, 1986, requesting overtime on several weckdays' ~
and a Saturday to set up contract files and..nudit "B" sisc TVA.'
drawings. This request was denied by the supervisor in a forml.
TVA 45D memorandum also dated January 9,'1986.
The supervisor.i.
stated in the memorandum that he__ wanted to work with the af ceployee with 'regards to f.eentract ciawi@ nnd noted that ".
c we have real problems with manutacturo drawing originals." He wrote that, "I currently am working on other cicrical items with deadlinec and cannot work with (the ceployec)... I am well
\\
aware of us being deficient as f ar as an audit is concerned but l
i 3
L
(
'l w.-
.t m-7
[.f; we have been, deficient since I arrived in January 1985.
.I don't
- b feel another two weeks is going to be that critical to us."
2+
Later that same month, the vendor drawing audit and correctivei*
action activities were started and were in their third week'atf'.
thetime-ofthisinvestigation,.,.f.IJ'- ~@ if -
(
.v,,
R
.n
'3.
Concerns SQM-6-002-005 and SQM-6-002-006i'
.y.. ;..q At the time a drawing original.is determined to have been lost, a replacement original ("washoff") is requested from the office of Enginecring, Knoxville.~ The washoffs are produced from the '
microfilm aperture cards maintained by the Technical Information L'
Center. As noted above, approximately 240 washoffs were -.
7' requested.between August 1, 1985, and February 1986, with over.
90 percent of the replacements being for' vendor drawings.
The "
OE Reprographics Supervisor stated,-that because the vendor
]
drawing originals before 1976 were routinely discarded, there is a periodic need at the sites to provide wastoffs from the y
aperture cards. He did not believe that the quantity of SQN *.',
requests was unusual. He stated that SQN was the first site to centralize the authority for washoff requests, thus minimizing duplicate or unnecessary requests. He indicated that Knoxville desired similar centralizaticn at the other sites.
When a replacement drawing is received at the Office of Engineering SQU site, the replacement is checked in and becomes the new " original" which will be the baseline drawing for subsequent changes.
If a mi,scing drawing should eventually reappear and not be properly dispositioned, the potential would exist for the two " originals" to contain obsolete or conflicting data whenever one drawing was updated but'not the other. The controls whi'ch' arc now in place to avoid lost and duplicative drawings include the following:
~
(a) Drawing checkout system: Drawings'are checked out from the drawing tanks on a Drawing / print Request Form which includes a self-checking scetion for. removal of drawings after hours if necessary. It was determined that the Office of Engineering Section heads had keys to the drawing area for access af ter normal working, hours when drawing control personnel were not present.: Although this provides some possibilities for. drawings to " stray" after hours, the office supervisor did not believe this to be any majer
. problem. Ho vigorously supported the necccaity for 24-hour access to the drawing originals, demonstrate,d the ease-of-use of the checkout forms, and stated that the checkout ri:-
records were updated promptly each morning from sny forms; i
left during the night.
~f.
',h.c a
4 g:
J.,,
e m.e an..
. g.
~
B g.
6g 4.'
B I':
s.
A
~
.3 u
o*
[
(b) Drawing check-in system: Whencvor it is neccccary to request a replacement for a lost original, a note is}placed in the drawing. checkout file for any cases where the lost' original reappears. Subsequently, if a drawing being' checked in is one for which a replacement had been ordered, the document control clerk is flagged to cancel the replacement order or to withdraw one or the other original from the system.
(c)
Centralized ordering of replacements:
As noted above, SQN is the fi'rst TVA site to centralize the authority for washoff requests.
OE Reprographics is to deny all requests execpt those channeled through the authority. The OE' Supervisor of Reprographics' stated that this centrali:ntion is helping to eliminato duplicative requests wherein two or
'~
more individuals might order the same replacement.
IV.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A.
Conclusions 1.
Concern SQM-6-002-002.
The employce concern for vendor drawing.
controls is substantiated, but the concern for supervisory
-a responsiveness is not substantiated. The vendor drawing audit"
[
was delayed until 1986 because of other reasonabic prioritics.;
I,
'T s The audit is now in progress.
~-
.d 2.
Concern SQM-6-002-003.
The employee concern is not substan,"
tinted. Supervisory neglect was not identified.
',',g {.f,'
The employce concern is not substan";J-jt-3.
Concern SQM-6-002-004.
tinted. The supervisor denied a request'for overtime but'did' not stop corrective action.' Corrective action is in progrcss.
A.
Concern 'SQM-6-002-005 and SQM-6-002-006.
The employee concerns.
for duplicative mylars are substantiated in that this condition does sometimes exist. The concern'is mitigated by the finding?
that several controls arc in place'to minimize the condition.,2 NJ Support was not identified for additional controls such as -
,['{p.
further limitation of necess to the,mylars.
- 3gg[.
x<x, 4
", ~ d B.
Recc==cndations 4
v-
-E6-185-SQU-01, Trackinn of Corrective Action i'.
~.
h Corrective action concerning SQN vendor drawing controls is in progress through (1) performance of a vendor drawing audit which began January / February 1985 aEd (2)' controlled replacement of
[
drawings where needed.
Controls to minimi:c recurrence of dupli '
\\,
cative mylars have been developed and are in place. There are no, additional recommendations, but SQN chould provide notification to s
USRS when corrective action is completed.
[p-3) 5 L----- -
I
'. f +
.s
- y.
o.
s -- -
^
!7 -
.(..-
c; DOCUMENTO REVIEWED IN INVESTIGATION 1-86-185-SQu 3
- a :.E AND REFERENCES t-
~'
.y.
. +.
.s;..
.1
,, ~.
.s yn
__'["DrawingOriginals-J'1
~
.'.,1.
Office of Engineering Office Instruction OE-0I 3001,.:f[.
,g
. Checking Out and Checking In" f-3J
- 2.. Division of Engineering Design Management and Engineering DatsxSystems tion.
.(MEDS) Procedure MP 23.05,'"EN DES and Vendor Drawings - Informa (j
- i.. '
't, Ja 1
Services"-
6:i.
c.,
mL Office of Engineering Office Instruction Manual OE-0I 4003 '" Prints and-Q Q
- i.a : 2..'
n...'
. ;_ 3.
Microflim - Routine Distribution"
.v 5.;.,.
Hemorandums S. L. Dodd to John Dennis and. Jack. Valentine dated January 9'
[
1986; and Jack W..Valentino to John Dennis dated. January 9,1986 4.
(>
. f.! -
+
- i.,.
. ?. -
'. 3
- e. :
- t..,.
.t c.
y..
s-g
^
.d m,
- c.. -
x s
t
+
.y
- )..-.,
~
J
\\, b i
mv.. ;
i;s.
..' 6 \\
j EL.
- m gi g.I
.e 4
4 s
(
~
s.
3 i._
) ~._,
4 t
.,.t,.
e s
s y
[
b e
~
6 i.'
-