ML20205J711
| ML20205J711 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1987 |
| From: | Martin M TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | Ebneter S NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205J713 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8704010394 | |
| Download: ML20205J711 (26) | |
Text
,
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY o
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant P. O. Box 800 Spring City, Tennessee 37381 March 30, 1987 Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:
Mr. Stewart Ebneter In the Natter of the Application of
)
Docket Nos. 50-327 Tennessee Valley Authority
)
50-328 EMPLOYEE CONCERNS TASK GROUP (ECTG)
This transmittal provides to NRC the information requested by Jack Spraul, NRC, per telecon with G. R. McNutt, TVA, on March 25, 1987.
Enclosed is the following information:
-Attachment 1 - CAP and CATD for Element Report 20901
/ - CAP and CATD for Element Report 20902 - BLT 084 - ION 520 - CSSC LIST, SQN and Supplement to Attachment 5 - Minutes of Review Neetings Please call Martha Martin at (615) 365-3587 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, if you have any questions.
Very truly yours.
TENNESS VALLEY AUT@RITY bh/
N. S. Martin Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ECTG Licensing Nanager Enclosures ND Y
\\\\
8704010394 870330 DR ADOCK 05000327
}
PDR An Equal Opportunity Employer 1
O 2
Document Control Desk EMPLOYEE CONCERNS TASK GROUP (ECTG) cc (Enclosures):
Mr. G. G. Zech, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission TVA Projects 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Sequoyah Resident Inspector (w/o enclosures)
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 2600 Igou Ferry Road Soddy-Daisy, Tennessee 37379
[
m.. io s....s >
UNITED STATES GOVERN 31ENT S03 8 (; l a 0 809 Meinorandum TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY To W. R. Brown, Jr., Program Nanager, Employee Cone.orns Task Group, ONP, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant FRoat H. L. Abercrombie, Site Director, ONP, O&PS-4 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
"^"
DEC 0 51986 SUBJEG SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN) - EMPLOYEE CONCERNS TASK GROUP (ECTG) ELEMENT REPORT 209.01 SQN - ENGINEERING CATEGORY - CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (CAP)
Reference:
Your memorandum to me dated November 6, 1986, " Watts Bar Nuclear Plant - Employee Concerns Task Group (ECTG) Sequoyah Element Report EN20901 - Q-List - Q-List Differences" (T25 861106 935)
I acknowledge receipt of your element report and in accordance with your request (see reference). Element Report 209.01 SQN has been reviewed for applicable corrective action.
By way of this memorandum I am endorsing the site line organization CAP, returning your Corrective Action Tracking Document No. 209-1-SQN, and attaching the CAP for your review / concurrence. This CAP is not a restart requirement.
If you agree with the proposed CAP, please sign the ECTG concurrence space below item 9 on the CAP tracking checklist and return the CAP tracking checklist.
U/fM1
~. L. Abercrombie H
~"~
RCD:JDS:JB:CS l
~
Attachments i
cc (Attachments):
i Elk bO RIMS, NR 4N 72A-C (S53 861204 911) 0422T c n.RW ' i
__. _ " :. _. 1...;.
ac___. ; _._
._ j
' a - r_.s
.x._
D ~ M6$ ? ~
&.E.P22/'
_...~ _. _.
3
. :.. p..._.
.2
. [.l~_~f L
I Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan
$ O* W
I 1
Standard Perctica P ga 8 o
SQA166 Revision 8 A
Attachment A Page 1 of 2 l
Corrective Action Plan of Employee Concern Investigation Tracking Checklist ECTG Report /CATD Number EO9 OI S M 4@ Y 20k- / - SN Lead Organization Responsible for Corrective Action Plan CPpF--
Initiation Date
//- f-Id*
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (CAP)
- 1. Does this report require corrective action?
Yes
)(
No (If yes, describe corrective action to be taken, if no, provide justification)
- 3eY CAP AWrMMgATT 2.
Identify any similar item / instances and corrective action taken.
A192Y
- 3. Will corrective action preclude recurrence of findings?
Yes X
No g
- 4. Does this report contain findings that are conditions adverse to quality (CAQ) as defined by AI-12. or NEP 9.l?
YES No #
A/A
- 6. Which site section/ organization is responsible for corrective action?
OA)Wi>/JU
- 7. Is corrective action required for restart?
Yes No X (This determination is to be made using Attachment C of SQA166.)
- 8. P2 zone number for restart corrective action? Zone A/A
- 9. Estimate completion date for correction action. _ t./ c - 9 7 Completed By k(f), h$vbVl/u/
Date
- 12. f G Approved By I e C, "vJrtw
,3/
Date
- 12. 9 L ECTG Concurrence _h E/8 'M Date
/- f/- #7 C
0206S/mit l
l l
ATTACHMENT TO CAP FOR ECTG REPORT 209.01 e
NCO i
1.
The_ Critical Structures and Components (CSSC) committee in Nuclear Central Office (NCO) was an interdiscipline committee which ensured a thorough review in the initial preparation and in all revisions that have been made to the list. The group consisted of experienced representatives from:
1 Quality Assurance (QA)
Mechanical Branch Plant Branch Reactor Engineering Branch Licensing i
Other groups provided assistance on an as needed basis:
Chemistry Fire Protection EN DES 2.
The CSSC list was prepared using a conservative methodology. Thus, most revisions have further defined boundaries by removing from the list those specific items that do not have any safety-related function.
i 3.
The instrument list in the CSSC list was prepared by the plant Instrument Naintenance Section followed by an independent review by 1 {- s j'd the NCO Instrument and Controls Group. This was done under the guidance of the NCO CSSC committee.
4.
An agenda item opened in 1981 which states " Determine the accuracy of SQN CSSC list for Instrument and Controls Group and revise the CSSC list accordingly." All action on this list had been completed by i
January 1983. At this time it was recommended that the agenda item remain open in order to review it against the Q-List when the Q List was issued. The Q-List was never issued in a usable form, thus the additional review of the CSSC list cannot be performed, i.
Plant 1.
The CSSC Revision Committee at present is an interdiscipline committee which ensures a thorough review in all revisions to the list. The committee consists of experienced representatives from:
QA Technical Support Naintenance Plant Operational Revlew Staff Division of Nuclear Engineering (DNE) l 2.
The Employee Concerns evaluator has identified the fact that DNE has not participated in the committee, that only a person from Design Services has participated. This report statement is in error, the individual has always been from DNE.
{,
3 ATTACHMENT TO CAP FOR ECTG REPORT 209.01 SQN 3.
The necessary reviews for any changes to the CSSC list due to Plant moditication is identified in the workplan process. Workplans are reviewed to identify any plant procedure that may need revision because of mod!fications. As a backup to this process the plant required PORC approved procedures to do maintenance on CSSC equipment. When the plant is modified, those procedures are revised l
and this serves as another check that the CSSC list is kept current.
However, since the CSSC list is only summary in form. there is very little change required to the list because of modifications.
4.
Most of the evaluator's concern was the Instrument List. The development of this list was conservative in its methodology. Also, the plant treats all IE devices as CSSC and all 10CFR 50.49 devices as CSSC whether they are on the CSSC list or not. This has given l
additional assurar.ce that there is no instrument and control devices that should be CSSC that is not treated as CSSC.
5.
A review of all active agenda items (38), by various committee members, has identified only three items that may require actions prior to restart. If further review determines that any action is necessary, it will be completed prior to restart.
No review of CSSC list is necessary prior to restart.
{},
0411T l
i f
i y
-....,.w-
,, - --, -yew
-s--
r=--,
v--w-----e w
w
--w-ew y
y-v,r---e,-
,r y
y
,w----
---y 3
,w-
-a
=
t-w e
ECTG C.3 Attachment A
- Page 1 of 1 i.-
Revision 2 - A k
ECSP CORRECTIVE Action Tracting Document (CATD)
INITIATION 1.
Immediate Corrective Action Required: k Yes O No 2.
Stop Wort Recommended: 0 Yes M No SdN 4
INITIATION DATE 1040/E 3.
CATD No. S GT.I 5.
RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION:
DNP [oPERATicMS) /'PME 6.
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION:
R O NQR TVA has d-o A FMeus of A SGN Cf5c LAf in ce>4frm iir Accman ahl 'comnlatenesi. L AfJth-reference ie 80M CffC Resew Co u n/e m eet a'. minuter ind.coier +14t. erfarm acfA ttu Astacidell wl& Veterininina omer C5rc c mulled /w hAve been defened 4 +ke oradin. TXiF' (0- Litt dewleuri.
3,s t i ra e ertoa) v
.<e r Aaterro of rkunssa t - A Arm od sa
- a Cf' Pd 4M K M & n0 1 _S c_t
- O ATTACHMENTS 7.
PREPARED BY: NAME t L f_.
-a_
N DATE: 10/lb/ff, 8.
CONCURRENCE: CEG-H L2rT~c DWhlff /2r4E DATE:
//- / JC f
9.
APPROVAL: ECTG PROGRAW MGR. 'M/6/h.M!
DATE:
//-64 v
CORRECTIVE ACTION
(
10.
PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN:
T e r//F OfP esoss//fTp 8 V /VFA/'AAOL/N SGB 26iMY 9//
1 l
/ / //
O ATTACHMENTS GR: p # /9' W4r#//h/1r4cw/ DATE: N/5//6 11.
PR0 POSED BY: DIRECTOR 12.
CONCURRENCE: CEG-H:
DATE: /- 2/*#7 SRP:
/
DATE:
ECTG PROGRAM MGR:
DATE:
VERIFICATION-AND CLOSEOUT 13.
Approved corrective actions have been verified as satisf actorily implemented.
SIGNATURE TITLE DATE
~
,n.,,,.,..,,,.......,
T25 870121
'9 5 5 esnu,:.ym:s a,u:nsm:xr M.em oran d um TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHOIMTY H. L. Abercrombie, Site Director, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant ONP TO W. R. Brown, Jr., Program Manager, Employee Concerns Tast Group, FROM Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ONP DATE JAN 211987 SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN) - EMPLOYEE CONCERNS TASK GRO
SUBJECT:
ELEMENT REPORTS - ENGINEERING CATEGORY - CONCURRENCE WITH CO ACTION PLAN (CAP)
The category evaluation group leader, Engineering, concurs with the CAPS presented in the attached reports.
201.01 SQN 201.05 SQN 209.01 SQN 209.02 SQN 223.03 SQN 228.00 SQN
~
(
/
W. R. Brown, Jr.
hYd' y GRN:EMC Attachments cc (Attachments):
RIMS, MR 4N 72A-C R. C. Denney, DSC-P, Sequoyah l
l l
3339T
!r L
.4 1
p77)c// eg n...-......,
UNITEDiTATES GOVERN 3!ENT S03 861205 807 2V MOTdMdMM TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY TO W. R. Brown, Jr., Program Manager, Employee Concerns Task Group, ONP, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant FRO 3!
H. L. Abercrombie, Site Director, ONP, O&PS-4. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant DATE DECC>5 bco SUBJEm SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN) - EMPLOYEE CONCERNS TASK GROUP (ECTG) ELEMENT REPORT 209.02 SQN - ENGINEERING CATEGORY - CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (CAP)
Reference:
Your memorandum to me dated November 6. 1986, " Watts Bar Nuclear Plant - Employee Concerns Task Group (ECTG) Sequoyah Element Report EN20902 - Q-List - Impact and Significance of Q-List Differences" (T25 861106 936)
I acknowledge receipt of your element report and in accordance with your request (see reference), Element Report 209.02 SQN has been reviewed for applicable corrective action.
By way of this memorandum I am endorsing the site line organization CAP, returning your Corrective Action Tracking Document No. 209.2-SQN-1, and attaching the CAP for your review / concurrence. This CAP is not a restart requirement.
If you agree with the proposed CAP, please sign the ECIG concurrence space below item 9 on the CAP tracking checklist and return the CAP tracking checklist.
(C/O R. L. Abercrombie RCD:JDS:JB:CS Attachments i
cc (Attachments):
8 ;,.,
/
RIMS, NR 4N 72A-C (S53 861204 912) g
-u 0420T
~
.G.
'b_.
Q)D M d _
&.:.: hW:/-U.
,e--
i
,... :..... a n--
[",'-.. +__J b
bF j. E_f.'._~.Z m.
Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan g gg mq
e e
e Standard Practica pig 3 8 SQA166 Revision 8 g..h Attachment A Page 1 of 2 Corrective Action Plan of Employee Concern Investigation Tracking Checklist ECTG Report /CATD Number D k 02 SfA/
fTD # 20 9'E 'UN -!
Lead Organization Responsible for Corrective Action Plan OtW.
Initiation Date
//-f - W>
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (CAP)
- 1. Does this report require corrective action?
Yes No /
(If yes, describe corrective action to be taken,*if no, provide justification)
<[ r jo AcevR Arre s M eMr s s twt. O F C SSC freM S we Ch=Nf*ff/c?D iTile'A) TM~'S t' 'ftre~st S fvx l. Be'~ Q/4PaSiflo4/fb I/O s9rcDRH4/C~2' tvi7t! 1Nt=' Sf/M/fkGb 74 o ce n g r e n y o;t. Coupmos>s Anne se ro Qi! Art IW ds ryttewrt / Piwsws ts / A T - I z,,
2.
Identify any similar item / instances and corrective action taken.
/JerJ 6 k
- 3. Will corrective action preclude recurrence of findings?
Yes X
No s
- 4. Does this report contain findings that are conditions adverse to quality (CAQ) as defined by AI-12 or NEP 9.l?
YES No -Y i
HM
- 6. Which site section/ organization is responsible for corrective action?
ON?/ ppW
- 7. Is corrective action required for restart?
Yes No X (This determination is to be made using Attachment C of SQA166.)
- 8. P2 zone number for restart corrective action? Zone
- /A
- 9. Estimate completion date for correction action.
A>/A c
% ATW4 b r w k L s c 'r & J. % 2 L. % M&t n,+;w of mink L & Saw circ Utf ec<a.er reseMA,or,b h vtWS.
. 7.
O ATTACHMENTS m
7.
PREPARED BY: NAME -d dh fad DATE: f *//21r4rl, 8.
CONCURRENCE: CEG-H ]D I2Rb IN, DATE:
//- /-K 9.
APPROVAL: ECTG PROGRAPfhGR.
8 A/7/1/rfun M '
DATE: //-5 fle V
CORRECTIVE ACTION 10.
PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN:
N 'M / F CA P '/ T A A> S W //k M 13 Y Af"MofAA!DL'M 3 '>3 Th/20'{ 94 b i
/ / e 5">
/
O ATTACHRENTS 11.
PROPOSED BY: DIRECTOR /pGR: /hr/ucN////// tNu/-
DATE: /4/</r*
1 12.
CONCURRENCE: CEG-H:
h E /8t
- M E---
DATE: /-M-U SRP:
/
DATE:
ECTG PROGRAM NGR:
DATE:
VERIFICATION AND CLOSEOUT 13.
Approved corrective actions have been verified as satisf actorily irnplemen t ed.
SIGNATURE TITLE DATE e
m
.m
--,,._..__.,----__.,m_
,.m----_
TV A 64 di es e egl (OP WP S.A*s)
T25 870121 955 estn:n.. t m:s iain:usmxr s
Mestorandum TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTilOIUTY
)
H. L. Abercrouble Site Director, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant ONP TO W. R. Brown, Jr., Program Manager, Employee Concerns Task Group, FROM Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ONP DATE JAN 21 $87 SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN) - EMPLOYEE CONCERNS TASK ELEMENT REPORTS - ENGINEERING CATEGORY - CONCURRENCE WIT
SUBJECT:
ACTION PLAN (CAP)
The category evaluation group leader, Engineering, concurs with the CAPS presented in the attached reports.
201.01 SQN 201.05 SQN 209.01 SQN 209.02 SQN 223.03 SQN 228.00 SQN 229.11 SQN 231.01 SQN
/
t W. R. Brown, Jr.
hd y GRM:EMC Attachments cc (Attachments):
RIMS, MR 4N 72&-C R. C. Denney, DSC-P, Sequoyah 3339T
?
?
g /Ja c4
".2
- ^
Bechtel Western Power Corporation Engineers - Constructors
(
Fifty Beale Street San Francisco. Cahfornia Mari Address: PO Box 3965, San Francisco, CA 94119 December 23, 1986 BLT-084 Mr. George R. McNutt Engineering CEG-H Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
Subject:
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Employee Concerns Evaluation Program Tennessee Valley Authority Job No. 16985-026 Corrective Action Plan for CATD 209.1-SQN
Reference:
Letter, McNutt to Parkinson, TCAB-022, December 8,1986
Dear Mr. McNutt:
Enclosed is a record of the telephone conversations held on December 17 and 18, 1986, to discuss the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for SQN Element Report 209.1(B) with the appropriate line organization.
Because certain portions of that conversation provided significant clarifying information to the CAP, it is requested that the telephone conversation record be reviewed by the TVA participants to confirm its accuracy and completeness.
Please provide for that review and advise of the results as soon as possible.
Very truly yours, G. L. Parkinson Project Manager GLP/gd Attachnent 07110 L
12614 (6 861
TELEPHONE CALLS cc:
G. L. Parkinson C. W. Jordan
~
K. D. Hardine
^
DCC
(
Responsible Group Supervisor:
{k
J. Violette l
FROM OF FILE DATE T. Clift /R. Fortenberry TVA SC 209 12/17/86 TO OF JOB NO.
TIME L. Anderson /R. Wolters/J. Violette Bechtel 16985-026 16985-026 i
1 ITEMS OF DISCUSSION ACTION REQ'D (INCLUDE NAMES AND DATES)
I i
j The purpose of this conference call with Ron Fortenberry, SQN CSSC Review Committee Chairman, was to discuss the TVA Correctiv.e Action Plan (CAP) for SQN Element Report 209.l(B). The discussion was oriented towards the informal comments made by Anderson on the CAP - which had been previously telecopied to Clif t/Fortenberry. A copy of the CAP i
and the marked up comments is attached for record purposes.
The discussion proceeded in the order of the items presented on the CAP form:
CAP Items Discussion NCO - Item #1, #2, and #3 Fortenberry explained that he had requested background information from Chattanooga on the development of the CSSC list, since prior i
to 1984 the list had been controlled by the l
CriticalStructuresandComponents(CSSC)
Committee in Nuclear Control Office (NC0) in Chattanooga. The information provided was intended to emphasize the involvement of the design engineering organization with the d
multi-organization CSSC Committee in the i
development, review, and revisions of the CSSC List.
In addition, Fortenberry highlighted the conservative methodology to the list being of summary nature and typically defining boundaries.
He emphasized that the large i
majority of revisions to the list have been j
to remove items rather than additions.
i J
J j
07090 - Page 1 1
---.----,-n--,
. - - - ~
TELEPHONE CALLS cc:
G. L. Parkinson C. W. Jordan K. D. Hardine DCC Responsible Group Supervisor C
.JB, SC, LD, ID, RW, LA J. Violette FROM 0F FILE DATE T. Clift /R. Fortenberry TVA SC 209 12/17/86 TO 0F JOB NO.
TIME L. Anderson /R. Wolters/J. Violette Bechtel 16985-026 16985-026 ITEMS OF DISCUSSION ACTION REQ'O (INCLUDE NAMES AND DATES)
NC0 - Item #4 Fortenberry stated that this item was presented to indicate the extenuating circumstances for the TVA agenda item, "De,termine the accuracy of Action required -
SQN CSSC list for Instrthient and Controls Group Fortenberry (TVA) and revise the CSSC list accordingly." He will provide documentation that establishes the completion of the I&C list review action (January 1983)
(
Plant - Item #1, #2 Clarification of this item was provided by Fortenberry, the Design Services representative on the CSSC Review Committee, has been the interface with the DNE organization.
That rep.
has been B. J. Hurst of DNE, over the past two years. Fortenberry emphasized that this provided for DNE involvement on an as-needed basis, and cited examples of active participation by DNE as an ' integral part of the CSSC Comnittee activities.
Plant - Item #3 Considerable discussion ensued regarding the concept presented in the CAP being interpreted by Bechtel as an af ter-the f act activity -
questioning the value of the work plan review process in initializing necessary revisions to the CSSC list.
The discussion on this item carried over to the continuation of the conference call on the next day (December 18, 1986).
07090 - Page 2
TEk.EPHONECALLS
~
cc:
G. L. Parkinson C. W. Jordan K. D. Hardine DCC Responsible Group Supervisor l JB, SC, LD, ID, RW, LA J. Violette FRTTM 0F FILE DATE T. Clift /R. Fortenberry TVA SC 209 12/17/86 TO 0F JOB NO.
TIME L. Anderson /R. Wolters/J. Violette Bechtel 16985-026 16985-026 ITEMS OF DISCUSSION ACTION REQ'D (INCLUDE NAMES AND DATES)
The Bechtel concerns regarding application of this process in the plant modification activity were discussed and resolved by the clarification from TVA that in the modification planning activity the CSSC list is not used as a source document in the workplan process.
Plant - Item #4 Fortenberry emphasized the conservative C
methodology of the Instrument List and stated that to his knowledge there have been no cases identified at SQN of the installation or use of non-qualified items.
Plant - Item #5 Fortenberry responded that the review of all active agenda items included those items that were noted as " deferrals to the development of the Q-List."
He stated that this action correlated to the committed completion date on the CAP of January 15, 1987.
l b
07000 - Page 3 I
Standard Practice Page 8 SQA166 pyggpfg907* 10 BlY-O8h Revisicn 8 Attachment A Page 1 of 2 Corrective Action Plan of Deployee Concern Investigation y
Tracking Checklist 1
ECTG Report /CATD Number EO9 OI T@AI AfD #2OiI-S@M Lead Organization Responsible for Corrective Action Plan ope %
Initiation Date
//- 9-f b i
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (CAP)
- 1. Does this report require corrective action?
Yes
/
No (If yes, describe corrective action to be taken, if no, provide justification)
I
%Y C4P kr7MxMesJT 2.
Identify any similar item /ir. stances and corrective action taken.
AlsA W
(*
{k
- 3. Will corrective action preclude recurrence of findings?
Yes #
No
- 4. Does this report contain findings that are conditions adverse to quality (CAQ) i as defined by AI-12 or NEP 9.l?
YES No A l
AM i
~
- 6. Which site sectign/ organization is responsible for corrective action?
CA)?/bpcT
- 7. Is correct 2ve action required for restart?
Yes No X (This determination is to be made using Attachment C of SQA166.)
- 8. P2 zone nu:aber for restart corrective action? Zo AR_
- 9. Estimate completion date for correction action. 'na/~./c 97 N Completed By
//>, LNb te
/Z. y6 Approved By
'E,C, " h V
Data G. 9 (.
ECTG Concurrence 4
Date idkk utn Aes % y& M
/
02065/mit i
I
.. ~
raso 1 ez a ATTACHNENT TO CAP FOR ECTG REPORT 209.01 l
A77dC &f6klY fo Al.7*- O9Y i
NCO 1.
The Critical Structures and Components (CSSC) committee in Nuclear Central Office (NCO) was an interdiscipline committee which ensured a thorough review in the initial preparation and in all revisions that have been made to the list. The group consisted of experienced representatives from:
g Quality Assurance (QA)
Nechanical Branch Plant Branch Reactor Engineering Branch l
Licensing
- jgM,
- Other groups provided assistance on an as needed basis:
Chemistry Fire Protection gI EN DES 2.
The CSSC list was prepared'using a conservative methodology. Thus, most revisions have further defined boundaries by removing from the list those specific items that do not have any safety-related function.
I 3.
The instrument list in the CSSC list was prepared by the plant Instrument Maintenance Section followed by an independent review by the NCO Instrument and Controls Group. This was done under the
(
guidance of the NCO CSSC committee.
I An agenda item opened in 1981 which states " Determine the accuracy of p SQN CSSC list for Instrument and Controls Group and revise the CSSC p
list accordingly.") All action on this list had been completed by 3
anuary 198Mt this time it was recommended that the agenda item
--- g[ M j remain open in order to review it against the Q-List when the Q List 7'r was issued. The Q-List was never issued in a usable form, thus the 7
h hb'additionalreviewoftheCSSClistcannotbeperformed, Plant l
l 1.
The CSSC Revision Committee at present is an interdiscipline committee
'i which ensures a thorough review in all revisions to the list. The committee consists of experienced representatives from:
QA Technical Support Maintenance Plant Operational Review Staff Division of Nuclear Engineerlos (DNE)
The Employee Concerns evaluator has identified the fact that DNE has j
not participated in the committee, that only a person from Design l
Services has participated. This report statement is in error, the l
[
individual has always been from DNE.
i l.
A h.k
- a ede db.
& u fA @k ut & cuc14.
Mkh ade i
\\ i Ay D+
n ~0 4 v & flaskgtka.ad~
,a
Pago 2 of 2 4
l i
ECTG REPORT 209.01 SQN 77'NT To 8& N,/,
ATTACHNENT TO CAP FOR I
T
[
I
((f 3.
The necessary reviews for any changes to the CSSC list'due to Plant modification is identified in the workplan process. Workplans are I
j reviewed to identify any plant procedure that may need revision because of modifications. As a backup to this process the plant required PORC approved procedures to do maintenance on CSSC equipment. When the plant is modified, those procedures are revised and this serves as another check that the CSSC list is kept current.
However, since the CSSC list is only summary in form, there is very little change required to the list because of modifications.
4.
Most of the evaluator's concern was the Instrument List. The development of this list was conservative in its methodology. Also, the plant treats all IE devices as CSSC and all 10CFR 50.49 devices as CSSC whether they are on the CSSC list or not. This has given additional assurance that there is no instrument and control devices that should be CSSC that is not treated as CSSC.
i 5.
A review of all active agenda l'tems (38), by various committee l
members, has identified only three items that may require actions prior to restart. If further review determines that any action is i
necessary, it will be completed prior to restart.
No review of CSSC list is necessary prior to restart.
I 0411T l
C A ~ *1,R W :
- f. & cm L & W i lt. C SS C.Aiet u n yeN &
a fo tAl% R4 prc, are c44 & AA Mfw,e Jrud6 advb Ghg pd *AAde..). N W ek u n 4n s-U n w 4,s,D.9,,uu.
Y V*'ssk so
, p,0 fe< k Cstc)J S
{
% w TLe "
.f4 " a<AML.
4, k.1k 6, % 4sw rAur M & sc h 10CFR Co.yT [fvfera Mt M book ?
4
- s. Da A. vu,u / AuwyA L. ra s "... y" v u A M Q L en oes p oe p e a w a '. u..,
l A, @ h 6 4 su csrc we Msw,4s ?
Q tJ.u) w W.
l1
8N#I Y
U10 g 70116 001 Bechtel Western Power Corporation Engineers - Constructors C
Fifty Beale Street San Francisca Cahfornia Mad Address: PO Box 3965 San Francisca CA 94119 January 15, 1987 BLT-097 Mr. Ceorge R. McNutt Engineering CEG-H Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 i
Subject:
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Employee Concerns Evaluation Program
~
Tennessee Valley Authority Job No.16985-026 Corrective Action Plan for CATD 209.01-SON
Reference:
a)
Letter, McNutt to Parkinson, TCAB-022, December 8,1986 b)
Letter, Parkinson to McNutt, BLT-084, December 23. 1986 c)
IOM, Fortenberry to McNutt, S53 870106 942, January 5,1987
Dear Mr. McNutt:
Enclosed is a record of the telephone conversations (ION 520) held on December 17 and 18,1986, to discuss the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for SQN Element Report 209.1 with the line organization. This version of the telecon record incorporates the comments of R. W. Fortenberry for our mutual records.
Very truly yours, frdon L. Parkinson Project Manager GLP/df Attachments 1/16/87---GRl!:Rb!W cc:
RIl!S, }!R 4N 72A-C D. T. Clift, 9-162 SB-K R. W. Fortenberry, ONP, O&PS-4 SQNP OP190 12614 {& 86)
, TELEPHONE CALLS cc:
G. L. Parkinson MN~N8 K.'. Ha r ne DCC Responsible Group Supervisor l JB, SC, LD, ID, RW, LA J. Violette FROM OF FILE DATE T. Clift /R. Fortenberry TVA SC 209 12/17/86 TO 0F JOB NO.
TIME L. Anderson /R. Wolters/J. Violette Bechtel 16985-026 08:00 a.m.
ITEMS OF DISCUSSION ACTION REQ'D (INCLUDE NAMES AND DATES)
The purpose of this conference call with Ron Fortenberry, SQN CSSC Review Comittee Chairman, was to discuss the TVA Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for SQN Element Report 209.l(B). The discussion was oriented towards the informal coments made by Anderson on the CAP - which had been previously telecopied to Clift /Fortenberry.
A copy of the CAP and the marked up coments is attached for record purposes.
The discussion proceeded in the order of the items presented on the CAP form:
((
CAP Items Discussion NCO - Iten #1, #2, and #3 Fortenberry explained that he had requested 1
background infomation from Chattanooga on the development of the CSSC list, since prior to 1984 the list had been controlled by the Critical Structures and Components (CSSC)
Comittee in Nuclear Control Office (hCO) in Chattanooga.
The infonnation provided was intended to emphasize the involvement of the design engineering organization with the multi-organization CSSC Comittee in the development, review, and revisions of the CSSC List.
In addition, Fortenberry highlighted the conservative methodology to the list being of sumary nature and typically defining boundaries.
He emphasized that the large i
majority of revisions to the list have been l
to remove items rather than additions.
t 070;D - Page 1 efd
TEbEPHONE CALLS cc:
G. L. Parkinson C. W. Jordan 104 UO K. D. Hardine DCC Responsible Group Supervisor l
JB, SC, LD, ID, RW, LA J. Violette FRCM OF FILE DATE T. Clif t/R. Fortenberry TVA SC 209 12/17/86 TO OF JOB NO.
TIME L. Anderson /R. Wolters/J. Violette Bechtel 16985-026 08:00 a.m.
ITEMS OF DISCUSSION ACTION REQ'D (INCLUDE NAMES AND DATES)
NCO - Item #4 Fortenberry stated that this item was presented
.to indicate the extenuating circumstances for the TVA agenda item, "Detennine the accuracy of Action required -
SQN CSSC list for Instrument and Controls Group Fortenberry (TVA) and revise the CSSC list accordingly." He will provide documentation that establishes the completion of the l&C list review action (January 1983)
) (
Plant - Item #1, #2 Clarification of this item was provided by Fortenberry, that the Design Services representative on the CSSC Review Committee has been the interface with the DNE organization.
That rep. has been B. J. Hurst of DNE, over the past two years.
Fortenberry emphasized that this provided for DNE involvement on an as-needed basis, and cited examples of active participation by DNE as an integral part of the CSSC Committee activities.
o Plant - Item #3 Considerable discussion ensued regarding the concept presented in the CAP being interpreted 4
by Bechtel as an after-the fact activity -
questioning the value of the work plan review process in initializing necessary revisions to the CSSC list.
The discussion on this item carried over to the continuation of the conference call on the next day (December 18, 1986).
I 07090 - Page 2 ef(
, TELEPHONE CALLS cc:
G. L. Parkins:n I
C. W. Jordan D. Hardine DSS 2o Responsible Group Supervisor JB, SC, LD, ID, RW, LA J. Violette FROM 0F FILE DATE T. Clift /R. Fortenberry TVA SC 209 12/17/86 TO 0F JOB NO.
TIME L. Anderson /R. Wolters/J. Violette Bechtel 16985-026 08:00 a.m.
ITEMS OF DISCUSSION ACTION REQ'D (INCLUDE NAMES AND DATES)
The Bechtel concerns regarding application of
, this process in the plant modification activity were discussed and resolved by the clarification from TVA that in the modification planning activity the CSSC list is not used as a source document in the workplan process.
Plant - Item #4 Fortenberry emphasized the conservative
(
methodology of the Instrument List and stated that to his knowledge there have been no cases identified at SQN of the installation or use of non-qualified items due to an error in the CSSC List.
Plant - Item #5 Fortenberry responded that the review of all active agends items included those items that were noted as " deferrals to the development of the Q-List." He stated that this action correlated to the committed completion date on the CAP of January 15, 1987.
L 07090 - Page 3 efd
Standard Practice Page 8 SQA166 Revision 8 Attachment A Page 1 of 2 Corrective Action Plan of Deployee Concern Investigation Tracking Checklist FCTG Report /CATD Number EO9.OI tmh 4fD #20iI-SQM Lead Organization Re'ponsible for Corrective Action Plan ope %
Initiation Date _, //- 9-Ib CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (CAP)
(
- 1. Does this report require corrective action?
Yes _ )(
No I
(If res, describe corrective action to be taken, if no, provide justification)
% Y Q F n jcyn gAyT i
t
[
2.
Identify any similar item / instances and corrective action taken.
AMA>c C(e
- 3. Will corrective action preclude e currence of findings?
Yes X
No
- 4. Does this report contain findings that are conditions adverse to quality (CAQ) as defined by AI-12 or NEP 9.17 YES No #
JJA
~
- 6. Which site sectig'DNctn/orjanization,is responsible for corrective action?
0A)?/
- 7. Is corrective action required for restart?
Yes No X (This determination is to be made using Attachment C of SQA166.)
- 8. P2 zone number for restart corrective action? Zone._. - A/A
- 9. Estimate completion date for correction action.
-/ c-9 7 Completed By
[/1, b hate
[U 7k-7 Approved By 1, C, 'h d
Date 12.
si. 9 L ECTG Concurrence A
Date
/
-* lJkk ak A<s A. nlo k ?
s i
0206S/mit IIl 4 y.a
'r tgth a EL 4 t.
n.
f i
g t
(
1, ATTACHNENT.TO Q P FOR i
l
!.,li BCTG RENdT N9.01 j
s
.c I
t i
i ip
+
kI 4
x
\\ /,
1.
The Critical Structures and Componen:s (CSSC) committee in Ntietear Central Office (NCO) was an irtu discipline committee whleh essuced a thorough review in the initial preparation and in all revistoms that have been made to the list. T?.e grot 9 consisted of esperienced
[
,6
([
l representatives from: 5 Quality Assurance (QA)
I Nechanica' Branch 3
j Plant Branch I,
Reactor'tagineering Brane't.
j Licensing Other groups provided assistance on,an so e sded basis:
'/.'.
i b
V V
F1he Protection JgM Chemistry j [
(<pf ]
EN DES 2.
The CSSC list was prepared using a conservative methodology. Thus,'
most revisions have further defined boundaries by removing from the list those specific it$ms that do not have any safety-related function.
L 3.
TheinstrumentlistththeCSSClistwaspreparedbytheplant Instrument Maintenance Section followed by an independent review by i
the NCO Instrument and Controls Group. This was done under the I
guidance of the NCO CSSC committee.
[
ii.
An agenda item opened in 1981 which state " Determine the accuracy of j
p SQN CSSC list for Instrument; tad Controls Group and revise the CSSC i
p list accordingly."f All actjon on this list had been completed by 3
anuary 198 M t this time it was recommended thaf the agenda item j
j- - -[pM remain open in order to review it against the Q-List W.9n th> q List 3
was issued. The Q-List was never issued in a usabi'e f an, thus the j
&p D, 7 additional review of the CSSC list cannot to performed.'
k h
\\
L J i.
Plant
)
1 1.
The CSSC Revision Cc'spittee at present is an interdiscigillna committee which ensures a thorough review.In all revisions to t.he list. The l )!
i committee consists of esperienced representatives from:
t.
QA e.,
Technical Suppwt i
Naintenance Plant Operational' Review Staff
!' l Division of Nuclear Engineering (DNE)
The Employee Concerns evaluator has identified the fact that DNE has
- ] li not participated in the cosmittee, that only a person from Design jt i' !
Services has participated. Thfs report statement is in error, the I
individual has always been from DNE.
c mmu d s
- w'a 9 y k tA dicneJ&
M il e4+.
D u 04 m& fLeAq h co acat
- L
.s Pts'a 2 of 2 ATTACHNENT TO CAP FOR ECTG REPORT 209.01 SQN i
i 3.
The necessary reviews for any changes to the CSSC list due to Plant modification is identified in the workplan process. Workplans are l
l reviewed to identify any plant procedure that may need revision because of modifications. As a backup to this process the plant required PORC approved procedures to do maintenance on CSSC equipment. When the plant is modified, those procedures are revised i
and this serves as another check that the CSSC list is kept current.
However, since the CSSC list is only sununary in form, there is very little change required to the list because of modifications.
4.
Most of the evaluator's concern was the Instrument List. The development of this list was conservative in its methodology. Also, the plant treats all IE devices as CSSC and all 10CFR 50.49 devices as CSSC whether they are on the CSSC list or not. This has given additional assurance that there is no instrument and control devices that should be CSSC that is not treated as CSSC.
5.
A review of all active agenda items (38), by various committee j
members, has identified only three items that may require actions prior to restart. If further review determines that any action is necessary, it will be completed prior to restart.
j No review of CSSC list is necessary prior to restart.
0411T 4
W m "f, % T :
i f.1k % A cAN / A cSrch a. rek k s.4
\\
40 th l;Q 9A w & c4 % k k h % & + m e JwdA a<3;v A (Mg AM *AA A.). h4 l
cW % n qu-k-U v<nn/ 4,s AK, 4 l
yewA 9 pkJ
, pm.Al & & % circ.M wa m wzLe"
.t.4"adw L.
l
- 4. %ah %ca dSMrduvm M Lte k jocre ec.ife Acv% va s rli,AN' ?
- s. D A re k i A ~ b e TAihnnk &"-
Q mkk, Q L en pes /noc Pe kA L.g 'a'.ld..
l j
%., vey +r L -th SU csrc Rev:v %%J9% ?
jb N.uj W jdd.
dd f
.