ML20206C446

Rev 5 to Engineering Document Quality, TVA Employee Concerns Special Program

ML20206C446
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	04/06/1987
From:	Brown W, Mann J, Stewart D TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:
Shared Package
ML20206C172	List: ML20206C168 ML20206C206 ML20206C275 ML20206C335 ML20206C425 ML20206C446 ML20206C473
References
80501-SQN, 80501-SQN-R05, 80501-SQN-R5, NUDOCS 8704130057
Download: ML20206C446 (20)

Text

g-

. TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: l 1

SPECIAL PROGRAM 80501-SON l REPORT TYPE REVISION NUMBER:

Element Report 5

. TITLE: PAGE 1 OF 6 Engineering Document Quality REASON FOR REVISION: Incorporate NRC Comments To re-format inaccordance with the Writer's Guide.

Revision indicators are shown in right hand margin of report.

Note: Sequoyah Applicability Only PREPARATION PREPARED BY: J. E. Mann io

/ BIGNATURE h deh 23 M27

' DATE '

h .YWh *1t/s t PEER:/

[ JV../97l

/

w ,

haw bE.[9/]

SIGNATU% DATE /

• TAS:

C I '

SIGNATURE DATE CONCURRENCES CEG-H:_N ten ;

r

/ c97 7 -

SRP : lg// '

/ //-R T7 SIGNATURE DATE DNATURE* DATE 5PPROVE fB':

1'

_ fMl N/A ECSP "MAIMGER' DATE j MANAGER OF NUCLEAR DATE l POWER I

CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)

• SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.

87041300S7 870406 PDR ADOCK 05000327 p PDR

/

t 4

REPORT NUMBER f REPORT TYPE: 80501-SQN REVISION NUMBER:

Element Report 5

TITLE:

Engineering Document Quality PAGE 2 0F 6

'l.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF ISSUES 1.1 Introduction This report- pertains to the Quality Assurance Category Evaluation Group (QACEG) investigation of an employee concern which was identified by Quality Technology Corporation (QTC) during the Watts Bar Employee Concern Special Program. This issue was determined to be applicable to the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQNP) and was investigated and evaluated on that basis.

1.2 Description of Issue The basic issue raised by the concern was that " typical" installation detail drawings were not provided. (IN-85-463-006) 2.0

SUMMARY

2.1 Summary of Characterization of Issue The issue derived from the concern is that " typical" installation

. detail drawings were not provided. The concern relates to problems associated with instrumentation installation because there were no typical installation detail drawings. Therefore, there were no specific inspection acceptance criteria for instrument mountings.

~

2.2 Summary of Evaluation Process During the course of the evaluation, various documents such as Appendix B to 10CFR50, TVA Topical Report TVA-TR75-1, Nuclear Quality j

Assurance Manual (NQAM), Administrative Instructions (AIs), Inspection Instructions (II), drawings and reports were reviewed. In addition, discussions were held with cognizant personnel pertaining to the issue l

! to determine the requirements for the installations.

2.3 Summary of Findings j

The QACEG investigation substantiated this issue and identified the following findings:

I l a. There were no " typical" drawings for locally mounted safety related instruments prior to March 31, 1981.

i

b. The environmental qualification "walkdowns" have shown that there are problems with instrument mountings.

c. Gilbert / Commonwealth Report, " Technical Review of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Modifications," March 23,1986 (Report Number 2164) indicated that discrepancies with instrument mountings exist due to inadequate design drawings.

REPORT NUMBER REPORT TYPE: 80501-SQN REVISION NUMBER:

Element Report -

5

-TITLE:

Engineering Document Quality PAGE 3 0F 6 2.4 Corrective Actions taken and the results achieved to date The Generic Concern Task Force (GCTF) Report of Employee Concern Number IN-85-463-006, " Typical Drawings for Instrumentation", - June 5, 1986, substantiated the issue at SQNP and made recommendations for corrective action. The report included Pre-Restart and Post-Restart recommendations such as "walkdowns" to verify proper installations on all safety-related instrument mountings and provisions for the Division of Nuclear Engineering (DNE) to provide drawings for all safety-related instrument mountings.

QACEG initiated an Employee Concern Special Program (ECSP) " Corrective Action Tracking Document" (CATD) Number 80501-SQN-01. because no evidence could be found that the Corrective Action recommendations of the GCTF Report had been responded to.

In response to the CATD, the Sequoyah Site Director transmitted Corrective Action Plans (CAP) which commit to pre-restart and post- .

restart actions to address the concern and the GCTF recommendations.

These actions include: obtaining a list of safety-related instruments required for Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), Chapter 15 events (seismic) and safety-related instruments other than those required for FSAR Chapter 15 events (seismic) and determining their location; development and approval of walkdown procedure; performing walkdowns to document verified installations and to verify problem areas; initiating corrective actions, as required, for each problem installation; and initiating Engineering Change Notices (ECNs) to provide adequate installation instructions.

The Sequoyah Site Director submitted a revision to the Corrective Action Plans (CAP) previously approved. These CAPS commit to pre-l restart and post-restart actions which include: obtaining a list of l

safety related instruments required for FSAR Chapter 15 events (seismic) for restart of Unit 2, and safety related instruments other 5 than those required for FSAR Chapter 15 events; determining by drawing

' search and field inspections which instruments do not have a design-approved mounting detail; initiating a Condition Adverse to Quality (CAQ) for those instruments which do not have adequate installation instructions; and providing approved mounting instruction for those instruments which do not have design-approved mounting details.

3.0 EVALUATOR (S)

$ J. E. Mann i

1 o

l

. /  ;

REPORT NUMBER:

REPORT TYPE: 80501-SQN Element Report REVISION NUMBER:

TITLE: 5 Engineering Document Quality PAGE 4 0F 6 4.0 EVALUATION PROCESS 4.1 General Methods of Evaluations Researched the Employee Concern File (including the Confidential File) for any additional information pertaining to this issue. No further information was available. Contacted the Employee Concerns personnel at SQNP and obtained Generic Concern . Task Force (GCTF) Report for Employee Concern number IN-85-463-006, dated June 4, 1986, " Typical Drawings for Instrumentation".

4.2 Specifics of Evaluation Reviewed the following documents to determine requirements and commitments at SQNP:

a. Appendix B to 10CFR50, criterion III, " Design Control";

Criterion V, " Instructions, Procedures and Drawings"; and Criterion VI, " Document Control".

b. TVA Topical Report, TVA-TR75-1A/R8, Section 17.2.6, " Document Control".

c. NQAM, Part III, section 1.1, " Document Control", revision 0, dated June 18, 1986; part V, section 2.4, revision 0, dated July 10, 1985, " Design Change Supplements"; and part V, section 6.1, revision 0, dated December 31, 1984, " Drawing Control".

d. SQNP AI-25, revision 15, dated July 15, 1986, " Drawing Control After Unit Licensing".

i e. SQNP AI-25, Part 2, revision 0, dated October 15, 1985, " Revision of As-Constructed Drawings".

f. Gilbert / Commonwealth Report, " Technical Review of Sequoyah Nuclear.., Plant Modifications," March 23, 1986 (Report number 2164).

g. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Inspection Instruction (II) Number 84,

" Instrumentation Location and/or Installation Inspection",

revision 4, December 31, 1981.

h. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Inspection Instruction (II) Number 85,

" Installation Verification, Flushing and Pressure Testing of Instrumentation Sensing Lines, Sampling Lines, Control Supply Headers and Signal Lines," revision 10, May 4, 1984.

i. Generic Concern Task Force (GCTF) Report of Employee Concern Number IN-85-463-006, " Typical Drawings for Instrumentation,"

l June 5, 1986.

REPORT NUMBER REPORT TYPE: 80501-SQN Element Report REVISION NUMBER:

5 TITLE:

Engineering Document Quality PAGE 5 0F 6 A review of the various revisions to the above procedures determined that there were no changes from earlier revisions that would have an effect on the findings and conclusions contained in this report.

In addition to reviewing the above documentation, QACEG's evaluation included discussions with supervisory personnel in Drawing Control, Quality Assurance, and Employee Concern Special Project personnel at Sequoyah. Additionally, QACEG held discussions with a Supervisor, 5 Electrical Quality Control, Watts Bar, who was. assigned to Sequoyah as an inspector during the construction of the plant.

5.0 FINDINGS 5.1.1 Discussion The concern states that typical installation detail drawings were not provided, therefore there were no specific inspection acceptance criteria.

The GCTF Report was reviewed and its contents evaluated by QACEG.

The report substantiates that typical installation detail drawings were not provided.

The Gilbert / Commonwealth Report, " Technical Review of Sequoyah Nuclear Power . Plant Modifications", March 3, 1986 (Report No.

2164) was reviewed as it pertains to this issue. The report indicated that discrepancies with instrument- mountings existed due to inadequate design drawings.

Discussions were held with a Supervisor, Electrical Quality Control, Watts Bar, who was assigned to Sequoyah, and performed inspections during the construction of the plant. He stated that 5 locally mounted instruments were installed in accordance with approved vendor drawings and seismic support drawings (47A051 and 47A052 series). He further stated that although " typical" detail drawings for locally mounted instruments were not provided, he felt that there were adequate installation instructions and inspection acceptance criteria to properly install the instruments. It should be noted that drawings are being revised to provide installation instructions and inspection acceptance criteria. As a part of the corrective action to be taken, a commitment was made to provide adequate installation instructions where required.

5.1.2 Conclusion Based on QACEG evaluation of the specific evaluation reports, discussions with cognizant personnel and review of pertinent documents, the issue is substantiated at SQNP and the following findings were identified:

4 REPORT NUMBER:

REPORT TYPE:

80501-SQN REVISION NUMBER:

Element Report 5

TITLE: PAGE 6 OF 6 Engineering Document Quality.

\

a. There were no " typical" detail drawings provided for locally mounted safety-related instruments prior to March 31, 1981.

b. Environmental qualification "walkdowns" have shown that there are problems with instrument mountings.

Attachment A identified the concern as potentially safety significant. As identified in paragraph 5.1.3 planned corrective i

actions are ongoing and any impact on safety will be determined 4

upon completion of those actions.

5.1.3 Corrective Action In response to CATD Number 80501-SQN-01 initiated by QACEG, the Sequoyah Site Director transmitted Corrective Action Plans which commit to pre-restart and post-restart actions to' address the concern and the GCTF recommendations. The actions include:

obtaining a list of safety-related instruments required for FSAR Chapter 15 events, and safety-related instruments other than those required for FSAR Chapter 15 events, and. determining their development and- approval of. walkdown procedure; l

I location; performing walkdowns to document ' verified installations and to verify problem areas; initiating corrective actions, as required for each problem installation; and initiating ECNs to provide adequate installation instructions.

The Sequoayh Site Director submitted a revision to the Corrective Action Plans (CAP) previously approved. These CAPS commit t 5 pre-restart and post-restart actions which include: obtaining a list of safety related instruments required for FSAR Chapter 15 events (seismic) for restart of Unit 2, and safety related instruments other than those required for FSAR Chapter 15 events; i

determining by drawing search and field inspections which instruments do not have a design-approved mounting detail; initiating a Condition Adverse to Quality (CAQ) for those instruments which do not have adequate installation instructions; and providing approved mounting instruction for those instruments which do not have design-approved mounting details. The SQN response adequately addresses the recommendations contained in i the GCTF Report.

6.0 ATTACHMENTS A. List of Employee Concerns IN-85-463-006, subject: Typical Drawings for B. GCTF Report, Instrumentation C. Corrective Action Tracking Document (CATD) 80501-SQN-1 i

, r Af... >- 27

.lEllllESSEE 1.t EY Alllll0RIIY Rllil I llil; - I!.$*

R E F E R EllCE [ CPS 120J-ECP512lC

• OFFICE DI' lillCL E A:' rilllEn , Rlill DABC - 01/1;

- ItEqllESI J rilEqutilCY

• EllriOYEE CollCEllll l'ROGR All SYSTIll (T. CPS)

OllP - I 5 5 5 - Rillt ' LISI UF Fill't0YLE CullCEllli IllrottilAllull l EllGillEEll DOCUllElli qll All I Y C AI EGollY e qA 9A/qC PROOltAll5 50 DCAI EGullY e 80501 EE stinP O A 5 Gr.IlER I C El til0PO 8 A Pl* L qiC/fl5HS P 51. ll10R in C 11 IllVE5 i l gal l oll S CollC ERil E L ill0R O D CullCERil Sun It Pt I 5 R S ll R llESCR il'I l ull p tilC llEPORI llUllDER CAT CAI l' l. 9 D flultrollr untiallC E 11 11 Y Y 55 tillir i 2 SYSiffl5 IIAVE flallY PRoet fil5 lil5rI C i t illi fil -8 5-46 3-006 qA P.0501 ll linil lli lit 11151810110181 Ai100 11151 At t Al lull i E t il51 Rillit ill A l l utt -

K-l Unil li tillit lill ERI EREllCE51 DECAll5E lullit Gllll R AI I50105 R ECElll L Y , IllERE llERE 180 IYPICAL fil5 T .

AlL AII088' DEI AIL DR AlllllGS. ll151 RilllEll 15 til51 Al.L T.D PE R lill AlllllG 2-f 5- 10-14

~

A/B I Do ll) U11115 3 IIAD liti "lYPICAt s" A llu 111115 IIAH l10 SPECIIIC lll5PECilull A UllE DR AlllllG llA

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• CCEPIAllCE CRilERIA.

S RECr.lllLY REVISED 10 til0VillE lil51 AL ,

L Allull BYPICAL 1800111111G f.R I I I R I A Bif f IIAllY lil5IRilllElll5 ll(RE lil51 AllID Bf r OllE lilI5 REV. (4711610-30) C/ I IIAS I!

. Il ll0RE litr0RilAII0ll. y-l I Y Y -Y Y t S C0llCERil5 liXPRFSSED RFCARDillG-l-r---P >-

-Brill ESC-8 5-0 &~-q A-8 0 0 0 0-II-RFil -P.UCE S S FUR F, val UAl f ull or-I ocrRa l ape- Q ri-Foull I- I C A R I I: l l.Y . - ? lilADF4t8AIF 10lPERST A- 4

1. f/f f(, lilllllG IIF-IllF-L EVEL slF ColllHnL-nEqtlin h

<T /

E U -Ill-fl0GI- E A R-P Alli S-Pil Acil All-l S-IllP I C- si A T I V F-012--IIE AF.IIE S %-Ill-fl4 All. 14b- collr- y 1 Gillt A i i till-Gillii Rul. .

' ils-llRG-l D Els t I r F D-TIIE-Fot i GilillG-gallq Fnli FHull-IIEV I Fil-Ol'-9IG-r iL E- OR Alllllair j

UX-8 5-0 TI-110 5-q A- A 0 5 01-11-5 911-11 11 K-1:Ollit -11

.Ill-lllli-00lli Hul-Il00ll-PO-Hui-RFil f fi T-i (k Y/I[f6 .

• AC.l U Al P L Alli-Cullr I GilR A I I UllS y st _

4 90 ?' i, in 1

W

,e...c.-

g . . r.s.. .w . .s .

. .o *

+4 .L ; 4.........,

. . ; 1. *. . . ;

......L..LL

. . . . . , . .r.., .. ....

..a....f..'.

.. . . nc .....r.

t' 'v'

. . c.

. '.' ~

C*.*..**.~...~'...'~_~."..r.'.

w .

c:-- #4CC-d'i- O

~.:ployee Con:c: n th::.be-:  !!!-05 463-006 3L. ],... ... . ,. p ,:. . . ,. n..t:n.s _

. . .c....,,.s.....e....,..

.. .. ...... n

-n.. .., c .e ,

.... 3.:...:...

...... . . ... . e f, , , c. . ,. c.. .

.s.

.. r%

',., ,, C gI .. ). ,m,.R. ..

. c-

~

\ f s .". .e e

w~.

c.a.:....... . . . . . . .

sl. . .

s. -

.. ....-...._ ~. . .. . . . . .

s

,/ , f // } ~

neriewed 3.r: 8"M"# d 9 Mh / t. d ~~ J'". ,c

.). ..

vs-- :. u... ...~, e

~ - e . .' . y '.

.Q e W : %

...,.,.....y....

~.

: . , , , - . . , , ,. . . s . ..

...e..

~.*. . ,

t. ..,. .?

...e

,' - ; . ' . ' . t. .; -

'. ! (r. L: . "

s' t . ~. .

.a. . . n e..,. ...

, .. .C tn.. *".

. ."* . 4 %f 04.l-.

k e

S a: r.;r ound Se;ucyan :: ceter ;ne :ne vs.i:;n cf An investist. ion was cen:w::ec a:ty cuali:y Te:nnc'.ety Oc reny.

an es;ressec cen:ern as re:eive  ! .e (C;-)/Im;1cyee Ke s; nse 'e s.m (I?.7) f or Va: s ~  : r.: lic:les: T'.en .

f or Sequoyen by':ne Wa::s 'Str con:ern ves ce:erminec :o De generi:

Con: erns Eesponse !ast. Ter:e. The concern of rotert. as summer :ec en the-Em loyee Concern Assi;nmen: Reques: term fic CTO and icen:ifiec as ri.2 5 -t 6 3.c c 6, s.ated: .

Uni: 2 sys ems have many problems wi:.h instrumen:t: ion inster.t:ica (e.g. vi:h in:erferences) because un:11Ins.ruments recently :nere in::t'.was lee no per

ypical ins:tils:icn ce:til cravings.had no :ypictis anc :nus had

' Drawing 2 75-30-74 A/S (bo:h units) One drawing was no specific inspec: ion acceptance criterit.insttils:lon :ypi:r.1 moun-in; criterit recen:1y revised to provice bu: many ins:: men.s were ins.r.11ec before this revision (47W610 30). .

No' fur.her information wr.s reques ed from. the IT.I follow-up ;roup.

.~.

e.>

s Seete . . .. .

1.

The se:pe of this.inves-i;t. ion was determined.' cm this ::n=ern to be ene spe ,::

. :ssue.

.i. , s .g...

a.,....., .. .:.g-

.r--

3- ..w:

-=**.o . . s r.- e r i d e d c - s r.*' e v. . t ' e e '*

3.s.L 9.t.:c s.

.3 0,.

• 4

. s...."3e

. . + d w'...* ~

. o t. . ..., a.r. ... s h .S e .a . e .e ..8 + t .i c . i. n. .e - . . ew s w e e e .n. d.~.~.

8 . .

.=.

Office of In;ineerin;'s (OI) Sequcyth Pr:jec- Instrumene .-and . '. s . -. t. .

C-.. .. .- o1 S u p e. - . . s c. , .' c -..se . - C.- . s .. ~.~. . '. e n .' ~ s .-~ ~ e ' . S u r W r.: .s 3 r.: Nucle s.: Fir.n: and Ins: umente.icn persennel. ..Seme Wt::s

. . , c.. sw4. . . s , . .h e . e. s.. ... , . s c ., . %. e

.s. t.

s 4. . e .4 ,., s... ..., e . .. . . ..,.p ....

un::m;1sted elec:ricti qualificeriens "utik downs" r.nd the Gilber:

C:=menwe r.ith F.eper: were reviewed.

.... S.. ....; , c.e ...c:.... . . . s

. . , s. . : . : , ,

g....: 3 , -

r......

ws.. ,:. . 3 . .. e s.. v . 3, e . . . . .. : . e. :. : s.o. ,..

. o 3e.p .... .

=.. . m.. . . e .- s . . c .. .e

. . , .. ...s. s . u t. . . s *..t-n . P. ~. . ' *.. *. *. =. '. t. . . . . . .

.e.:.g ug., . . .

...e, ..

, g,....,..........:,...........,..e.e...:3..

w............. . . . . ...........r w.. : .. .s. t . . . . .... ... ..

,...,..,.e  :... . . ..

c . . . .2. , , ,.a e....

g.. . .,,. .r s..,

. ...a

.e,.,.r. ..,... . . . . .

~..*.a..=e:....-.=.....e e.' .*.e C.... ..-~. .S.c. ..7.:e.' d. ...in=.=. . .

d:s..e.ica Previcus show . en the 47W E10 crawin;s es ic:tily acuntec .instruments.,...c,..,.-...,.s..g - .  :

. . .e. n.. n.a

.c .s.e e ., . ,c. g n , .

.. he w

. .s.. ... .. .:

. c. :le.1

. - c  : .

r...

..:. .2...,

.2 s . . ..., e . . . . . s ... . , e :. ..s. . .t .s e. e s. . . . . . . ". . . . .

...u. , s. e . . s. v .. ...... .es . . . . . . . . . . . .  : . ~ - e '. .e " . . . es:.e ~..

.n' .e .. e c . .a. . .. .',

4 . ..". 5 0 s e. :. e .e d s .". ... .' w e - =.

. . . d.,,e,.". .e.: . (.. . : : , ,- .~ - , t ..p. ) . . ,

c. ..s . ...m e n. c. .

en.,. . 3. ,, . . . .

. g..:,,.. . . . . o .r

. .s....

is ene of the ic:11~.y meunted lower cen.cinment cocier 4-A. . s.: . s . . . . .. . e . .

.a. .c : e : s. ve :. .e . . . . : c . .

s.....,

1. . .

.-e;e . c .P a

, ~ . -

. ...- e g .:. g r y c . : n n . . 5 5 (: nt:.nuet:

I*. w&s ce*.e -i*.e:

• n 1 *. *"e

' . g g ,' g ; .c . . . , g *, e d

• O ".* . e : e d & *. *= " E ". *. s b r. : .

• - " wgg was ins:t.ec en . t. =cun. es.sno.n en c:n.ing c3:5:.;eg ca:ec i n s :.-= e n g-;a* ".-....*"*L.t,....;

e...... .r ... .

4, 9. C. .e.. * -- - $. .e g 37.... .. .., . . .r...

ge....L.y

,, e..,.

Du .:.,. .. .h. e : . .. .. ..... .. .e... . 3 .. t . :. .<.. :... s... : c . s . c . h e . s.e.. .. .: ..c. .m e . . . . . t. s ..r....

a; Sequcyah scme generi: pectiems were dis:cteret wi:n ins :=en:

=oun.ings, ,

1. 15 ou- of 56 "mecel 764- Ear :n . ansmi ters had the! meun-ing b:s:Lets reve: sed.

2. e exbero . ensmitter moun.in; brackets did ne: have the required 7g .c./.b

. . . .e

. ... ..:ng.

3. S r.:i "C" rin; empert .tre swi;;hes were moun .ed with 2 U.be' .s. .

instead of 3.

There were r. iso some c-her iscir.:ed cases cf in::::e: . ins :=en .

mean::ngs. .

... , . e . .u..

8 . . s. ... .. ,.

s.s,be .jnw

. e . . .

ny e r.~. .. y. s e ; c...... ( :., .r .. .. e. . .. e . ) . w. .: .. .. .e. .. e..e. . e th.:e is r. ;::blem .

re:iew of Seguoyr.h modifier.tions. cete.=ined thr.

( .. e. . .

w. : . . , :,s"e cr..t s .h. e e . .. .

• e - '. 0 ) wi. ..'. h e' ..- ."... . i a... e. c.'

. s o. e -3 was c'ue .o r. i.t... d.. d e.. e i. . d e . r. '.'.s , . . . d a. d ..-. . .5 ew*e

..-..m.n... .w.:s ca,4 .. . . c.. aw:... . s ., w. .. . e

. o w:. . , w g .n. c.s..

.. . . . .. ...s we . .o

.;,..: . . .. . .ed .o 5e i. . s . ~ ~.e .. . t . .i..*. .

7::a interriews wi .h the OI Iid Sc;e::isc: it wr.s determined thr.- OI does ;;esen:17 ;;cride ":ypict.is" fer saf t:y-reitted ins:.:: men-moun-in;s bu: there'is s-ili t ;;chlem with pro:idin; ade; -

ste de:til of

. ' .' s ur. s ,- c .' .. e ^ .

_,. e .e ..c".' .*..c.

-he c.--'

. . o s .n. ".. e c . ~..~. =. ' . .* s .1. .' . .* . '. c . .

et.. *- ;.he G .' b e. ./ C . .a

. . .we .c_ '. .'. . e p - .. - . ( $. =. . .' e .- =.. - . e .- ) .

~

.. . C . .. . .. . . . .:c.s

. x ,. *..* s ". *. c .' t '. e . ". * . e . , * . *.- ' c.to'.~.cs v1.s .e . :..'t.=.'.

. . "..- - ~..%. e .'.._' ' c '. ;. .. e, resscns:

m.

. ..ne.e we.e "c.

s..='..*..n..

. . . ' . . -* .. ~....** . . .. . ed. s L.' t *. .

e.3 .e.

s 4.. . . . ....

. . e..s be.' .. 2 e . -'

. . . . . .' ." N..

. s.. , e. .. .: .. .. .. ., .. .. ., .2.. . ., . :. .r :....:..~~t..a.a.....,.

.. .u., . . e. , .u. . g... . s. t .. . .., . . . . . .

. . . . s

- - '.*.*. 1 w...*.*...s.-..e....~.~.......c.

r.. e ,.. .

' :..* . .- =. , .... . ' e .e

.. . 3. .. s-. : . b e . . / - .... . .. . *. *. .' . 5 - =. . , . .- . s .. . . e d. . ..*. - . . 5. e. - =. t e.

sw:...,.

w:.y

..g..

.. .. ...e.. . . .

n. . .. .:....

... g g . ,. ... .. :.. .g......, t.e. c n.:. . ...

6

.er

..g

... . c.

f.ev.s.0* .'.

o

. .t,.. . . . .

g..g==.* = 3

s. t.

5.re-. Eerte-:

• C.

...,g. s 3.L..g... e.n. *."* o ". .' '. b t . .. .-. .t.t. .

yt.:,y r. , .

sfe

.L.,y,C._s. ..C insttiled safe y.relt;et ins

• u.en:s required fer

,.  ? '

til ~*,*1 releases in e::ess c.

snutcosr.. citigate core ca.me;e or :o preven: found correc:ec.

10 CyE 100 limits wi:n any discrepancies

!"A ins:al".ec 2.

OE should provide adequa:e cenwin;s for t.;; 1.

saf e:y-relt. ed ins .ru. men; moun:in;s requirec f or rec =enestic:

f.f:er Rester--

"*'tir. cow.s ." f er all remainin; !7A ins:r.11ed saf e:y-relt. ed

3. -

ce=;1e:ed in recc.Tenenca:icn i to verify ;reper ins:ruments no:

ins tilt:ier. should be comple:ed.

4.

OE should provide adeque.e drawin;s f er :he remainin; ~71 2. ins:t;1ec st.fe:y-reisted instrument mountin;s required for rec:=. ends:icn T:' . References .r ... . ,

g ..,... .. . . ,. e n.u... . .t... ., 3 ..: e y.sey o. 5, q y. .. . s. : _ _ p. .. e .

C. t , .. _..c e . . j ..- . .... .. y g g.n. .. s. ..

. e .

z :. . )

, .,e.ct .. ( w- / w r

.. w .

s .e : . . .-; c o s , ,= c.a_. e . ..

.v. o .s. ..... .. . . , .

.= 3. t _.... ' -

. -. . . . Pits: D:twing 471L~1 195, Eerision 2

2. *4t :s Str N.ucles.: ..

. . . . . s e l..._ e. Vene..

. , t. ..

..s t.. L.t. 3 e . .-.

... . : _ ,. .. . 2. c . .. . . . e . C.. .....

2. . e , s... e 5.....a .: . . e ., -

w - ... , ,

t. . . ..

._ ., .c.:..  : c , c. D.

. . .,.e ..D . : .,., e _. e n.

.r.., .e. -. - ....: e c a..e e.

s... =. . ,.. . .n_.

w t__ , . e. .. o . . i .

11 e. .. . tn .. .< .

c.gc, ( .e e. . 8 o' 0 4_s o . o.

4.

3... ng. .

c e. )

I.

I

.s;e

3 cf 3 1

I I

f

ATTACHMENT F.

ECSP CORRECTIVE Action Tracking Document '

~

(CATD) ,.-

INITIATION , .

1. Immediate Corrective Action Required: /[/ Yes /[/ No

2. Stop Work Recommended: /~/ Yes /X_/ No

3. CATD No. 80501-SQN-1 4. INITIATION DATE 9/23/86

5. RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION:

6. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: /X_/ QR // NQR ~.-

' There is no evidence that the recommendations identified in the' Generic Conern Task Force Reoort for Emplovee Concern IN-85-463-- -.",

006 had ever been addressed. ,

Attachment to Element Report 80501-SQN, Revision 0

_. N / / ATTACHMENTS I

7. PREPARED BY: NAME J. E. Mann Wurb u ) DATE: f/2 4/M, g

8. CONCURRENCE: CEG-H R. K. Maxo(F_F_7h( _ ~/---- DATE: C/-2. W

9. '

G APPROVAL: ECTG PROGRAM MGR: /  : DATE:

f,c CORRECTIVE ACTION ,

10. PROPOSEL CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN:

SW CA7 'fE4AJS#1ifl6D B V Af6~ f02 A ifs 0DUAA S /f T 6//06' 20/

i i

_ , 1 ,, / / ATTACHMENTS

11. PROPOSED BY: DIRECTOR /MGR: V IR. . Lal W DATE: HI'0lCb

12. CONCURRENCE: CEG-H GOW 4,4'A f& DATE: 7./6/97 SRP: / 9 DATE:

ECTG PROGRAM MGR: DATE:

VERIFICATION AND CLOSEOUT

13. Approved corrective actions have been verified as satisfactorily i=plemented.

i i SIGNATURE TITLE DATE f

6

,

• u . - _ , , . , . - - , . , ~ . . .

- _ _ _,__,_,-_m.,,.. ,,mm._., , , , _ , , - , , ,y,. .,-.-.,.--e - -

p

, Tva"64 tos.s.esi coswas asi

, 81J gg1 ,

UNITFD STATES CO\*ERN?.!ENT D 8 Q'y

' Memorand um TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY TO_  : R. C. Denney, Employee Concerns Special Project Manager, ONP, DSC-P, Sequoyah FROM  : M. M. McGuire, Configuration Control Manager, ONP, 0&PS-2, Sequoyah DATE  : Novemoer 5, 1986

SUBJECT:

SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN) EMPLOYEE CONCERNS TASK GROUP (ECTG) ELEMENTS REPORTS - REPORT 805.01-REVIEW AND CORRECTIVE PLAN (CAP) -

\ -

Reference:

Your memorandum to me dated October 10, 1986 "Sequoyah Nuclear -

Plant (SQN) - Employee Concerns Task Group (ECTG) Element Reports - Report 805.01 - Review and Corrective Action Plan (CAP) Initiation" (503 861010 802).

I have evaluated the referenced employee concern report and your CATD attached to.the report. The CATO problem description reads "There is no evidence t' hat the recommendations identified in the Generic Concern Task Force (GCTF) report for IN-85-463-006 employee concern has ever been ad- t dressed." I have been tracking actions being taken to address IN-85-463-006 in my #iles. Maintenance personnel (Ron Gladney) had indicated they were addressing the employee concern IN-85-463-006. SMI-0-317-26 was approved

. . . , on May 23, 1986 and revised on August 7, 1986 for the purpose of field

'!^ verification of the interface (installation requirements) of CSSC Foxboro Transmitters. The maintenance section indicated these walkdowns have been completed but all items have not been *esolved. The maintenance section indicated they were not certain their walkdowns addressed the entire GCTF recommendations.

DNE has completed two corrective action plans attached-(pre-restart and post-restart). The pre restart plan will address the GCTF recommendations and will ensure any remaining walkdowns not previously done by maintenance are scheduled. The post restart action plan is to be scheduled at a later date. These corrective action plans by DNE address IN-85-463-006.

I would like to draw your attention to section 5.2.6 of your report and

make a clarification of the last paragraph in that section that reads "A Corporate configuration program manager has been named and TVA has committed to develop an hoeved program for all shby July,1986". The site is awaiting the issue '"a ^^*---'te plan. This plan has not been issued to the site as of thil ddyi,L

~ H. S. RA VIN Monatw of .'rntttts  %

H0'/0a75 g -

n, g, segu3re MMM:JH Attachment < , ,

cc: See list on page 2. 2 ! ;5 I HBR l l l

. ACD l 4 QLP t l i 1 i 1 i l l ! 8 i i :

. _ . = n r-e e n e n + -

,c . . .-

2' R. C..Denney

'SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR-PLANT (SON) EMPLOYEE CONCERflS TASK GROUP (ECTG) ELEM .

. REPORTS - REPORT 805.01-REVIEW AND CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (CAP)

TO: RIMS, MR 4N 72A-C H. L. Abercrombie, ONP, 0&PS-4, Sequoyah -

W. E. Andrews, ONP, 0&PS-3, Sequoyah G. N. Buchanan, ONP,~0&PS-3 Sequoyah R. W. Olson, DNE,SB-2, Secuoyah J. H. Sullivan, ONP, P08-2, Sequoyah D. W. Wi_lson, DNE, DSC-E, Sequoyah '

I >

l*i;%. .

a a

t-4 1

2 t

j Standard Practice Page 8 SQA166 Revision 8 ,

Attachment A . .

Page 1 of 2 .

r-Corrective Action Plan of E=ployee Concern Investigatieri , .

Tracking Checklist g;g ,

EC-'G Report /CATD Numcer 9 0 .5"" O [ T C M c.3 ro # FOS ~O /-SC A/- / 41.R D o w M [S.I,2.

Lead Organization Respcnsible for Corrective Action Plan Ceur,dssa % Nmu Initiation Date /O-/o- M r- CCRRECTIVE ACTICN PLAN (CAP)

1. Does this report required corrective action? Yes )( No (If yes, describe corrective action to be taken, if no, provide justification) l) cern,M LIST cf urg7st- A6t Arg o tysvg um m Ago urgg ry re g PTAf{ . .

t* uAP re A IS' FVEWrs 2) OErGKmt0G Lo tA7 tom or IAtsrff tlM2M'r: ,

"h n2vem p toALx oews> Paceraud e RAI D cRTntM APtf ev4L L*') PF4k.- 4m ulnL K Deu/ Af - ~* Det' u te fatt yearfr e o thr s~rALL A T)cM AUO IDSMTI f V ff n Rt,2&t IMWALL AT1DMS l~ 8'b ! AllT1 ArG de R M1G e77 t/6 Md Tren)$ /LS ti20tJ s t\M.*>,

l rer z,sca PRonL2m JWSTALL ATo cs) C)to m e-1 f

• M -me PR e vr eG_ ACEC08TS

~ , ,z , x insrpt i A77nd INSr A tle ->e sn '))eemrvin- ro ?rArwinre M AootiE.

2. Identify any si=ilar item / instances and correceive action taken.

McacedpeRNAne2 /!G PERT- l'Ne rO S O M3 u) P ? 3e r p o' (surt 13 e274 o*Jb J. P. VrasyARD ro rue: e Lt srno nemo oArea 1-t:- % (ets' -% e2c4 cod

.[ 3. Will corrective action preclude recurrence of findings?

4. Does this report contain findings that are conditions adverse to cualitv (CAQ)

Yes X No as defined by AI-12 or NEP 9.17 YES No X

5. IF a CAQ condition exists, what CAQ document was initi sted? -

.. N/A

6. Which site section/organi=ation is responsible for corr.ective action?

bNE-Sf0EP- E f

7. Is correc:ive action required for restart? Yes X' No

~

(This determination is to be made using Attachment C of SQA166.)

8. P2 =ene number. fer. restart corrective action? Zone 9195*

9. Estimate completion date for correction action. 12 - 3 /- % .

j .

Cc=pleted By Odt t1, bw% ~

- Date

/ e[A s ~~~

Approved By K h & ,e_

L A/h_.Sf YY/ch 4 L 4 Date e i / N / 97 '. '. 7 - * ' t, ,

Date 2*/4 /5 '7 ECTG Concurrence T h:tPi t j y I

i 02065/mit w

9 em

.I.

Standard Practice

'f Page 8 SQA166 Revision 8

'{ Attachment A

} Page E of 2 1 Rcf ot-A ce-17 r-

" Corrective Action Plan of Employee Concern Investigation Tracking Checklist

, EC"G Report /CATD Number 9CS.or So d/NAro

• sos'o t - St%- t- . Posr- ResrMr -

WALK OO WhJ (C.12.h Lead Organization Responsible for Corrective Action Plan Cosip,e.vitar,- a Cox/ /t e t Initiatic,n Date go-to-tc CORRECTIVE ACTICN PLAN (CAP) j 1. Does this report required corrective action? Yes X No (If yes, describe corrective action to be taken, if no, provi,de justification)

D FedDRrArn F*S A R L IST er SArErY- RELAT2*O FAffYn oos*n rfX n-'aER n AM Tue1B Anr t* tl A f' T'E tt IS' CJEhin 2) DE~C Afs ts AJ E Lt)" C ATr es) of rM T-Aurups/rt -

M CGur=unt wAL K oews) P4enn0A2 AAro ce1~4rns Affemv42 La) f9f fe# rm -

watrocu wn Oc e o n.sstr venorr e-o irvsrAH Ayre ALT A Af D F C2hfTr CV PAO RLEM rnmu s-nens .Thur r, A ~-e eene enve Aen-nr os nenorneo_ ren fi dff l

$$O AL & rH P N STr4LL A Yiort C)rNITrA M G? h) ~r'o FAD VI O C- A0cs 'veru_ \

JNsrALLArind IN S Y M U f'Tr e M S 9)C Ar%*se=r'~

• o PE# PE'ror a vE 5 A Adevs,

2. Identify any sinilar item / instances and corrective action taken.

N on eerir-, A e r++)cs AcecRv (Nc4 ) <esiswe sw s~ Ro l'SwP ?3 c22u c3d

1. f. VINFYMO -ro ~r r n <2 L3 r tvn is@sen 0,+rs"O e-G 9f. fR2S' % c:cC eo &

.r- ,,

' 3. Will corrective action preclude recurrence of findings? Yes Y No

4. Does this report contain findings that are conditions adverse to cuality (CAQ) as defined by AI-12 or NEP 9.l? YES No x

5. IF a CAQ condition exists, what CAQ document was initiated?

e. N/A

6. Which site section/org'anization is responsible for corrective action? -

DA) E - SeG G - E t

7. Is corrective action required for restart? Yes No X i

(This determination is '.o be made using Attachment C of SQA166.)

8. P2 :one nu::.ber ,for restart corrective action? Zone N/A-

9. Estimate completion date for correction action. rb BE" Sc.-GOULES A Ar##

8 d r/d rt., d m i W V Cc=pleted By Date /0k2/G Approved By "flO / L k fy7,. .C'<.O _ Date // '/ 2 '/ 72 ECTG Concurrence -7t/nt g_ Ec.r]FA. -

, y Date / 2 -5'7

~.

W r

t 0206S/mit

- . I

. e-

, - .. . ., ..-...,m -

I o~p..n . T 2 5 '8 7 0 20 4 999

s coynammer ' . i TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY andum i

r James L. McAnally, Corrective Action Progra.n Manager, A108 IOB, (

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ONP W. R. Brown Jr., Program Manager, Employee Concerns Task Group, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ONP FEB 0 41987 ELEMENT

-T:

SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT - EMPLOYEE CONCERN PLANS-(CAP)

Attached are copies of ECSP Corrective Action Tracking Document . '

(CATD) No. 80501-SQN-01 and Corrective Action Plan responses concerning the subject Element Report.

• t The Quality Assurance . Category Group Head concurs with your ccerective action plans and has incorporated them into Element

.. ..y : . , ' ; ~

Rsport 80501-SQN. . . , ,.; .

' 7'5NN' v' MYJ /

W. R. Brown, Jr.

f?- - - . A-- : '.

WEB:EMC Attachment j.- ...; , . . . ,~

j cc (Attachment):

RIMS, MR 4N 72A-C '-

• H. L. Abercrombie, Sequoyah ONP R. C. Denney, DSC-P, Sequoyah ONP . ~ *: - --w -

v.vne Tnn T 41.- fr7 - Unr*, sn-o r

.' f. a.. .

3527T

+

a l

t I

i

I D STATES GOVERNMENT 898 870220 803 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Memorandum TO - W. R. Brown, Jr., Program Manager. Employee Concerns Task Group, ONP, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant FROM - H. L. Abercrombie, Site Director, O&PS-4, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 9 4

' February 20, 1987 DATE ,

SUBJECT:

- EMPLOYEE CONCERNS TASK GROUP (ECTG) ELEMENT SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN)

REPORT 805.01 SQN - QUALITY ASSURANCE CATEGORY - CORRECTIVE ACTIO (CAP) REVISION

Reference:

My memorandum to you dated November 10, 1986, "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) - Employee Concerns Tast Group (ECIG)

Element Report 805.01 SQN - QA/QC Category - Corrective Action Plan (CAP)" (S03 861107 803)

Attached are my revised CAPS for Element Report 805.01 SQN for your These revised CAPS supersede the CAPS previously review / concurrence. s transmitted to you (see above reference) and one of these CAPS is a restart requirement. Please note these CAPS are also applicable to the Engineering Category Element Report 223.03. .

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.

(( '

H. L. Abercrombie f .

RCD:JDS:JB:PW - . . ~ . . _ . _ . .

Attachments 'E

cc: RIMS, MR AN 72A-C (S03 870219 850)

J. L. McAnally, ONP, A108 IOB, Watts Bar (w/o Attachments)

I. C. Price, 5-212 SB-K (Attachments) ~"-y -

0676T c  % AM N5.

4 egm

.,,, , i,,, p,,,,,,,7f 5',,,.irr gs k,n C Nk a..

rc c . .: . , o - a , o ,,,, r ,..r,,

,- Standard Practica Paga 8

, SQA166 Revision 8 A Attachment A Page 1 of 2 Corrective Action Plan of Employee Concern Investigation Tracking Checklist ECTG Report /CATD Number ZoSe t sera /ep--nam.mt sca -1 Ces 1[rc A fMr S.I.2. 3 Lead Organization Responsible for/ Corrective Action Plan c'ecg,cugar, o .

G- ,en Initiation Date /O- /o- 96 CORRECTIVE ACTICN PLAN (CAP)

1. Does this report require corrective action? Yes x No (If yes, describe corrective action to be taken, if no, provide justification)

_A disrara A List of sMe rv- A 2 L H2O /N #?AUMGMR M WEA ~M%d GM.E AOD'!AGO

, r4 FcA A /%2MFJ IS Et!?AfrS 2) DETER /*1rNP RV l)/7ActMr. 'ye,9 pea nun V FL O IA9 W 2f-*1trl M)ti rCH IN YR u m p e Go Nor HAr!2 A Op ti c, M -A t A1& J O f1nta-inC w wA- 3)/NironvM P CA ro FeA inc YAUMP/1rs L i< -72 O t rl *2+ AAsvg if Rpico rnen M Pace:or pri A/PAcvso t'rcunmni:

Fe-A IN W Au m ektr.s Lo$720 /N *2

• A% eE .

2. Identify any similar item / instances and corrective action taken. '

NCR ses) %/P '3 3cs Ac (q, r p *f ?n nue 3*r)

.l.R Anevneo so r m ? 4 rsren esmo DAreo 2~c- 7 A, f B2 f a c acc eex)

3. Will corrective action preclude recurrence of findings? Yes X No

4. Does this report contain findings that are conditions adverse to cualitv (CAQ) as defined by AI-12 or NEP 9.l? YES _ No X

5. IF a CAQ condition exists, what CAQ document was initiated?

h/A

6. Which site secti'on/ organization is responsible for corrective action?

b42 .30 2 / *-F !

7. Is corrective action required for restart? Yes No X (This determination is to be made using Attachment C of SQA166.)

! 8. P2 :one number for restart corrective action? Zone /V/A-

9. Estimate completion date for correction action. un ce ,-s#m,rv s o ,

Completed By _.

Date 2 -/'3 - F7 M Approved By f.<'7M' M Date l'n ,'T *N ECTG Concurrence '//-7/, L Date -,A/,/o 7 , r i .

i I

l 0206S/mit

,w -

Standard Prcctics Paga 8 4

SQA166 Revision 8 Attachment A Page 1 of 2 Corrective Action Plan of Employee Concern Investigation Tracking Checklist ECTG Report /CATD Number EM,01 S wks ro*StCor-Schi-Of REV I CA 6'a l.2 151 Lead Organization Responsible for Cotrective Action Plan. A ,p,eudonce_t (SAr'not Initiation Date /o Se.

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (CAP)

1. Does this report require corrective action? Yes X No (If yes, describe corrective action to be taken, if no, provide justification) f) OBrevd A 1157 of s'MG r% AGLATPn3 ImrMuneNrt AEcarfen Fert f5AR N#PrEA /T EUFArr3 Fest RGsfrer?T~ of Un'r 1 - D D2-EAnorJR RV DRa aMO 9FMM Axid fust o raid >=e rar-r> u % ers r e wrers n abs be av Me? A DE 5 6G,v = Af 0AcVED P1C U AJ'r> rio Wn mA  %) iAr,7o A TE A eAO FeR 1ArcTRiLnrAr-t AMTED rat b AAev e. '1) PAcvio:= AN ADMm:20 Mr u um MG A~# in srGah rm L m -t'n D r nr + :t ^ M m '!=

2. Identify any similar item / instances and corrective action taken.

A:e R SOr3 %G T30T no (St<>P T30:%W ON

• J P tliAIFYARn ~m 'fr+me Ltsrea'M2ino DA-720 2-C-?C [R2 5'%e:cCo02)

3. Will corrective action preclude recurrence of findings? Yes X No

4. Does this report contain findings that are conditions adverse to cuality (CAQ) as defined by AI-12 or HEP 9.l? YES No X 5.-IF a CAQ condition exists, what CAQ document was initiated?

Af/A

6. Which site section/ organization is responsible for corrective action?

DNE - 80F A - G/

7. Is corrective action required for restart? Yes X No (This determination is to be made using Attachment C of SQA166.)

8. P2 :one number for restart corrective action? Zone 9/79

9. Estimate completion date for correctio action. p - 2 7. ?'? ,

Completed By _# Date S-/1- 77 Approved By 4-46it'/td4nf S Mrr734 Date 2//y/r/

ECTG Concurrence ,/f_/k _ '- V Date '5A r/91 i

C. -

0206S/mit

_ . - , - -