ML20207K408
| ML20207K408 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 11/28/1986 |
| From: | TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207K384 | List: |
| References | |
| 205.1(B), 205.1(B)-R02, 205.1(B)-R2, NUDOCS 8701090412 | |
| Download: ML20207K408 (20) | |
Text
r D
TVA ENPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 205.1(8)
SPECIAL PROGRAM
~ ~T)
~ REPORT TYPE:
SEQUOYAH ELEMENT REVISION NUMBER:
2 TITLE:
CONTROL OF DESIGN CALCULATIONS Calculation Preparation Requirements Policy and Practice PAGE 10F 18 Scope and Standards REASON FOR REVISION:
Revised to incorporate TVA Engineering comments.
PREPARATION PREPARED BY:
//.24 - 84 V
7, SIGNATURE DATE REVIEWS
////1
//*26-94 GEUURI *
DATE TAS:
/
~
SIGNATURE DATE CONCURRENCES A /N
// Z f N'
//' W l6 CEG-H:
y SRP:
SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE DATE APPROVED BY:
G ECSP MANAGER DATE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE G701090412 861217 CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)
DR ADoCK 05000327 p
PDR J
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 205.1(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: '2
['
PAGE 2 0F 18 1.
CHARACTERIZATION OF ISSUE (S):
Concerns:
Issues:
WI-85-100-043 a.
Some design calculations are never "There are problems in design
- prepared, calculations, in that some are never prepared, some are in-b.
Some design calculations are inadequate adequate in scope and quality, in scope, and some are not stored as quality records.
There is c.
Some design calculations are inadequate inadequate interface and in quality.
control of design calculations, which impacts traceability of NOTE:
For this element report, in issue design requirements. CI has "c," quality is defined as comp 11-no further information.
ance with procedures as opposed to Anonymous concern via letter."
technically error-free calcula-tions. Technical adequacy is addressed in other elements.
I-85-128-NPS An individual from BFN wrote p@.
NSRS expressing his concern
~
that the control and quality NOTE: The following issues from these of OE's design effort is concerns are addressed in other reports.
inadequate. The CI sent several roughly written There is inadequate control of design pages detailing and sum-calculations. (This issue addressed marizing his evaluation and in Sequoyah Element Report 205.2) conclusion of three major areas:
There is inadequate interface coordination with design calculations (1) Design Calculation (e.g., Branch / Project). (This issue (2) NCits, and addressed in Sequoyah Element Report (3) Management Policies 205.2)
NOTE: The description of Some design calculations are not I-85-128-NPS included here and stored as quality records. (This issue in issue h was developed from addressed in Sequoyah Element Report a review by the evaluation team 205.3) of the expurgated interview files for this employee concern.
Lack of control of design calculations impacts traceability of design require-ments.
(The traceability issue is addressed in Sequoyah Element Report 201.6)
Q There are no procedures to maintain calculations current.
(This issue addresssed in Sequoyah Element Report 205.2) 0299D (11/26/86)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 205.1(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM
(_
REVISION NUM8ER:
.2 PAGE 3 0F 18 2.
HAVE ISSUES BEEN IDENTIFIED IN ANOTHER SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS? YES X NO Identified by N_RC. Gjlbert/Comonwealth,_Inc. _,_Sa_rcent & Lundy Date For dates, see documentation identifiers below.
Documentation Identifiers:
a.
NRC I&E Inspection Report Nos. 50-327/86-27 and 50-328/86-27, (04/22/86) b.
Gilbert / Commonwealth Report No. 2614,(03/03/86) c.
Sargent & Lundy Report, (04/08/86) 3.
DOCUMENT NOS.. TAG NOS.. LOCATIONS. OR OTHER SPECIFIC OESCRIPTIVE IDENTIFICATIONS STATED IN ELEMENT:
' - ' ' - ' ' ' ~ " " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' * ' ''''' ''"' "' ' ' " **'
C~1 systems, cable size, conduit and instrumentation.
4.
INTERVIEW FILES REVIEWED:
Expurgated QTC file for WI-85-100; no additional unreviewed information was found.
Expurgated QTC file for I-85-128-NPS was reviewed and notes were developed by the evaluation team.
5.
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED RELATED TO THE ELEMENT:
See Appendix A.
6.
WHAT REGULATIONS. LICENSING COMMITMENTS. DESIGN REQUIRENENTS. OR 0THER APPLY OR CONTROL IN THIS AREA?
See Appendix A.
hl 02990 (11/26/86)
t TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUM8ER: 205.1(8)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: _2 PAGE 4 0F.18 7.
LIST REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION. MEETINGS. TELEPHONE CALLS. AND OTHER DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO ELEMENT.
1 See Appendix A.
8.
EVALUATION PROCESS:
a.
Reviewed baseline documents to determine policy and procedures for development and control of design calculations.-
b.
Reviewed Engineering Department and Project procedures that implement the identified calculation policies for development 1
and control of design calculations.
c.
Reviewed results of audits (QA, NRC) to substantiate that design calculations have been performed to support existing
- design, d.
Reviewed available transcripts of NRC Investigative interviews to gain additional information regarding these a-concerns.
e.
Examined results of prior independent verification reviews I
(e.g., S&L, G/C, etc.) for discussion of validity of concerns.
f.
Reviewed the Essential Calculation Program, the Design Basis Program and the Design Baseline and Verification Program for Sequoyah Plant to determine if these programs will adequately address these issues.
i 9.
DISC 65SION. FINDINGS. AND CONCLUSIONS:
j Disg.giljojt:
i The concerned individuals raised general issues that the preparation, control, and quality of design calculations are inadequate.
This report addresses issues "a",
"b," and "c";
namely, that some calculations are never prepared, some calculations are inadequate in scope, and some are inadequate in quality.
In reviewing these issues, the evaluation team attempted to understand the past and present practices, procedures, and processes used at Sequoyah for generating and controlling design calculations.
b 02990 (11/26/86)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 205.1(8)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUM8ER: 2
- 1..
PAGE 5 0F 18 A technical review of sample SQN calculations was not done for this report since it was judged to be outside the scope of the employee concern evaluation program.
Rather, the reports and investigations performed by TVA and outside agencies and a review of calculations for other element reports were used to develop findings and i
conclusions.
In this report, scope as related to a calculation has
~
been interpreted to mean that a calculation does address the essential parameters required by the calculations. Quality refers to the technical aspects of input, procedures, and the correctness of results.
4 a.
In addressing the issues of the lack of and the inadequacy of 4
design calculations, the basic regulatory requirements to which TVA has committed for the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant were first reviewed.
)
The essential regulations that affect calculations stem from 10CFR50 Appendix 8, of fective July 21, 1970. The applicable criteria of 10CFR50, Appendix 8 include:
I o
Criterion 111
" Design Control," requires measures to be
_s established for assuring incorporation of regulatory requirements and the design basis into specifications, drawings, procedures, and instructions. The design control measures must provide for verifying or checking the adequacy of design by the use of alternate or simplified calculation methods o
Criterion V
" Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings,"
requires that activities affecting quality be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings.
These documents must include acceptance criteria for determining that important activities have been satisfactorily accomplished o
Criterion V1
" Document Control," requires that measures be established to control the issuance of documents which prescribe all activities affecting quality o
Criterion XV11
" Quality Assurance Records," requires that suf ficient records be maintained to furnish evidence of activities affecting quality.
Records are also required to be identified and retrievable 0
02990 (11/26/86)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 205.l(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER:
2 V
PAGE 6 0F 18 In addition, 1VA has committed to NRC Regulatory Guide 1.64 Revision 2 which was issued in June 1976.
This Regulatory Guide endorses ANSI N45.2.ll-1974, " Quality Assurance Requirements for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants." Some of the applicable requirements include Section 4.2, which states that design analyses [ calculations] shall be performed in a planned, controlled, and correct manner.
Procedures must also include requirements for identifying documents to permit ready reference and retrieval; defining the objective of the analyses; definition of design inputs and their sources; documenting assumptions, and identifying those assumptions that must be verified as the design proceeds; identification of computer calculations, including computer type, code or programming inputs and outputs; and review and approval.
b.
A review was made of the applicable engineering department procedures that have governed the preparation and issue of calculations since the initial design of the Sequoyah plant, g,.
Prior to October 1973, design engineering for TVA nuclear d
plar.ts was performed by the Architectural, Civil. Electrical, and Mechanical engineering branch or discipline groups which worked on several nuclear plants concurrently.
The Branch provided their engineering personnel with technical direction for the preparation of certain types of calculations through Branch Design Manuals.
The Sequoyah nuclear plant Quality Assurance Manual contained procedure SQN-QAP-111-1.2,
" Preparation, Review, and Recordt of Design Calculations,"
which was first issued on March 0,1970.
This procedure placed respor,sibility for the " orderly making, indexing, and filing of com,1utations..." with the design engineers and supervisors in each design branch. Some detail was provided on how to structure a calculation package, assure adequate legibility and indexing, and the assignment of responsibility for checking, review and final approval of calculations (App. A, S.mni),
in October 1973, an organization change at IVA resulted in the establishment of the Division of Engineering Design. At this time a project system was established that assigned engineers f rom the four engineering Branches (which has evolved into the Civil, Electrical, Mechanical and Nuclear Branches) to work exclusively on a specific project, such as b
0299D (11/26/06)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
205.1(B)
+
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUM8ER: 2 y
PAGE 7 0F 18 Sequoyah. New division-wide procedures, called Division of Engineering Design, Engineering Procedures (EN DES, EPs),
were established and were in ef fect from 1974 to mid-1985.
These EPs were quite detailed and prescriptive, and included many administrative controls in addition to addressing quality assurance requirements.
The first procedure to control design calculations on a division-wide basis was EN DES-EP 3.03, " Design Calculations," which was issued as Revision 0 on August 22, 1974.
EP 3.03 provided a great amount of detail on the preparation, checking, approval, and revision of calculations. Additional guidelines were offered for the microfilming and storage of calculations, changes to calculations, and the checking of vendor calculations.
The Office of Engineering (0E) Management initiated changes to the design control program with the issue of the Engineering Program Directives Manual on June 28, 1985.
These directives replaced the EN DES Engineering Procedures g
with new procedures (OEPs) governing the engineering design
'J process.
The new OEPs reduced or eliminated most of the administrative details previously found in EPs.
In place of a stand-alone procedure, with instructions on reviewing, issuing, and revising calculations, the reader of the new OEP-07, " Calculations," was referred directly to other procedures that control these individual activities. OEP-07 abbreviated the thirteen pages of directions found in EP 3.03 into three and a half pages. The end result is a series of single sentences that provide anyone unfamiliar with the process rather minimal direct instruction on how to accomplish a given activity.
Beginning on July 1,1986, Nuclear Engineering Procedures (NEPs) were issued to govern the reorganized Division of Nuclear Engineering (DNE) design engineering activities.
Calculations were covered in NEP-3.1, " Calculations," which closely resembled the content, format, and brevity of OEP-07 issued a year earlier. This procedure required the active use of five referenced NEPs for full understanding of how to verify, issue and revise TVA design or vendor calculations.
b 02990 (11/26/86)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUM8ER: 205.1(8)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUM8ER: 2 C
PAGE 8 0F 18 The earlier.EP3.03 provided guidance on the indexing, binding-and storage of calculations. However, this effort of pulling together calculations in an orderly, systematic manner was lef t optional for the project manager or branch chiefs.
Also, no mention was made in EP 3.03 of a calculation log to record new calculations and control revisions.
The June 28,1985 issue of DEP-07 first provided for such a log.
A January 15, 1986 revision to OEP-07 identified another useful purpose for the calculation log, namely, to track those calculations containing assumptions that require later reevaluation and verification.
The OEPs and the current NEPs are silent on filing, retention, and microfilming of calculations.
In addition, present procedures do not provide sufficient detail regarding organizational responsibility for calculation preparation and revision (project versus branch) and design interfaces which would ensure a more offective calculation control program.
Past procedural guidelines on computer calculations (EP 3.23) and human factors (EP 3.36), for example, are not retained in the new NEPs.
In summary, the three different sets of engineering department procedures (EPs, OEPs and NEPs) addressed the letter of the applicable regulatory requirements.
That is, they reference such requirements as checking, review, approval, issue, revision, and retention of calculations in a generic, non-specific manner. The deficiencies described below related to the availability and quality of calculations, however, suggest that design calculation procedures have not been definitive or complete enough to assure that there is an of fective program for calculation
- control, c.
A review was made of audits (QA, NRC) and independent verification reviews (G/C, S&L) to substantiate that design calculations have been performed to support existing design.
i TVA had two surveys of the SQN design control program performed by Gilbert-Comonwealth (G/C).
The first survey covered the program activities af ter June 1985. The second survey covered program activities from operating license to June 1985 (App. A, 5.b).
This second survey had extensive NRC involvement and resulted in a special inspection by NRC of G/C's final report (App. A, 5.e).
C 02990 (11/26/s6)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUM8ER: 205.l(8)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2
{
PAGE 9 0F 18 In addition, TVA surveyed the Sequoyah design control program in a review of unimplemented and partially implemented ECNs issued against three plant systems.
Both this survey and the results of the G/C inspection are documented in NRC 1&E Inspection Reports 50-327/86-27 and 50-328/86-27 (App. A, 5.a).
The second G/C review team identified 19 technical issues and 18 observations as a result of changes pertaining to the main and auxiliary feedwater systems. Seven technical issues and one observation were related to calculations (App. A, 5.a).
A general conclusion of the NRC inspection of the second G/C review and the TVA survey was that there was a lack of available calculations supporting the original design in some disciplines.
A significant deficiency associated with electrical calculations for Sequoyah was confirmed in November 1985 (App. A, 5.1).
Electrical calculations were identified as not properly documented and controlled, and those that were bn documented were not kept up to date. This type of deficiency was first identified to TVA in an INPO evaluation at Bellefonte and Watts Bar Nuclear Plants ( App. A, 5.g and 5.h).
In January 1986. TVA contracted with Sargent and Lundy Engineers (S/L) to perform an independent assessment of TVA's program to identify the minimum set of electrical calculations required both for restart and to support the original plant design basis. The S/L report concluded that while TVA has all or portions of many of the calculations required to support restart currently up to date, the majority of calculations necessary to fully document the design basis of the plant "... were prepared informally by TVA during the design period and were not maintained in a manner, as required by today's standards, that would allow easy retrieval over the life to the plant." ( App. A, 5.e) d.
TVA programs which address calculations issues directly or indirectly were reviewed.
In response to TVA QA audits, INPO evaluations, NRC inspections, and the Watts Bar Employee Concern Program, TVA management initiated an essential calculation program. The goal of this program was to identify those calculations required to support safety systems used for safe shutdown
~
(essential calculations), and other calculations appropriate bs 02990 (11/26/86)
r--
i i
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUM8ER: 205.1(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM
_ ym REVISION NUMBER:
2 PAGE 10 0F 18 for plant reliability, availability and economic operation (desirable calculations). The essential calculation program was at first mandated for the Electrical Engineering Branch (EEB) and four nuclear projects. (This program was initially referred to as the minimum calculation set by EEB.) The other Branch chiefs were requested in December 1985 to review the generic applicability of the electrical calculation problem to their discipline (App. A, 5.nn).
In March 1986, the Director of Engineering Technical Services extended this requirement to the Civil, Mechanical and Nuclear Branches, where following development of lists, essential calculations for each plant were to be located and reviewed; updated or superseded; and if not retrievable, they were to be generated. For Sequoyah, this program plan was judged to be a plant restart requirement (App. A, 5.k).
At the time this element report was prepared, the Electrical and Mechanical disciplines were in the final stages of completing the preparation and review of essential calculations required for restart. The nuclear discipline 43 had completed procedures for the classification and review of essential calculations, and completed a detailed review of some 260 calculations issued by the Safety Analysis Group. A sampling program was under development for the Nuclear Analysis and Operations Support groups' calculations. The Civil discipline, however, has focused restart calculation efforts on verification that calculations exist to support SQN plant safety system modifications made after OL in June 1981, and all calculations necessary to support ongoing restart ECNs on the Sequoyah activities list. The remainder of the identified essential calculations will be determined to be pre-restart or post-restart essential calculations.
This selection will be made based on established criteria and documented engineering judgment and will be completed prior to restart ( App. A, 5.00, 7.f).
In April 1986, a Design Basis Program was approved in a memo f rom the Manager of Engineering (App. A, 5.1).
The program was developed in an effort to address the issues of a lack of design criteria for each of the nuclear plants.
The program centered around the development of a design basis document (DBD) that compiles all commitments for each plant contained C
02990 (11/26/86)
_~.
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUM8ER: 205.1(8)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUM8ER: 2 PAGE 11 0F 18 in the FSAR, design criteria, NRC commitments, etc.
Essential to each D8D are those calculations required to support the design. Design basis documents for those systems required to mitigate FSAR Chapter 15 accidents and provide for safe shutdown will be developed prior to restart of Sequoyah 2.
In July 1986, the Sequoyah Nuclear Performance Plan (NPP) was issued to the NRC describing TVA's action program to be implemented as part of the restart effort for SQN2 (App. A, 5.1).
The NPP,Section III, described the Design Baseline and Verification Program (D8VP) as a program "to access (11g.] the adequacy of past modification work and correct as required.
This program has been designed to address the design control issues by:
I o
Verifying and establishing the plant configuration i
o Reconstructing the design basis o
Reviewing and evaluating modifications since OL issuance h
against the design basis o
Performing the required tests or modifications developed from this review and evaluation" r
j A key component of the review of ECNs and other change i
documents was the evaluation of all calculations needed to i
support engineering changes. The pre-restart 08VP effort j
focuses, however, on those modifications made to FSAR l
Chapter 15 safety systems since the operating license was granted in June 1981.
i In summary, these programs described above address SQN calculation issues. The essential calculation program is the most comprehensive.
It asks the questions, "What calculations are required for plant safety and support j!
systems; which ones are needed to ensure performance, reliability and availability? Which of these required calculations do we have; and are they current and up to i
date?" The Design Basis Program requires calculations to support the design basis documents. These required calculations may overlap those addressed in the essential calculation program. The Design Baseline and Verification Program will require review, prior to restart, of the i
adequacy of calculations related to safety system j Q modifications made since OL.
i 02990 (11/26/96)
- - ~.
t i,
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 205.1(8)
SPECIAL PROGRAM
( N.9 REVISION NUMBER:
2 PAGE 12 0F 18 i.
UnJitat:
a.
INP0 evaluations at Bellefonte (March 1984) ( App. A. 5.g) and Watts Bar (May 1985) ( App. A, 5.h) first identified to TVA that some electrical calculations were not available.
This discrepancy was also confirmed at Sequoyah in November 1985 j
(App A, 5.1) where calculations could not be retrieved to L
support voltage levels, acceptable maximum cable lengths and diesel generator loads.
The Sargent & Lundy SQN electrical calculation program assessment report in April 1986
( App. A, 5.d) also indicated that a large number of calculations that TVA may have performed were informal or are not retrievable or available for review.
The lack of calculation documents to support the plant design bases was not limited to the electrical discipline. As part t
of the essential calculation program, the Sequoyah mechanical
}
group identified missing calculations for a number of plant i
systems including the main and auxiliary feedwater, chemical l
cleaning, essential raw cooling water, main steam, plant air, and steam generator blowdown systems (App. A, 5.m).
- Also, 1
evaluation team members were advised by TVA that Civil 9
calculations were not available for review for issues related to Sequoyah Elements 215.6, 215.9. 218.4, 220.3. 222.3, 222.5, 222.6.
i b.
The reports and documents reviewed also identified i
j deficiencies in the scope of some design calculations. The G/C and NRC reviews of Sequoyah plant modifications made to the auxiliary feedwater system since operating license cited TVA failure to systematically address pipe support thermal I
loads for field routed pipe; and failure to consider torsional shear stress ef fects on weld design for cable tray l
l supports (App. A, 5.a and 5.b).
The Sargent & Lundy report indicated deficiencies in the scope of some electrical calculations reviewed including those for cable ampacity and containment electrical penetrations (App. A, 5.d).
- Also, evaluation team members confirmed that some calculations were 4
inadequate in scope in reviews for Sequoyah Element Reports j-215.2, 215.6 and 220.3.
i I
t t
O 1
l t
l l
02990 (11/26/H6)
., _ _ -. _ ~.. _ _ _ - - - _ -. - _ - - - - -,. -, - ~ _, -.
-.. - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - -
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUN 3ER:
205.1(B) r-SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER:
2 7.pm PAGE 13 0F 18
~
l c.
Deficiencies related to the quality of design calculations (clear statement of purpose, listing of assumptions and I
indication of unverified assumptions, reasonableness of l
approach and results, etc.) were documented in both the G/C and S&L reports (App. A, 5.b and S.d).
Examples include the i
steam generator access platform design, cable tray support j
loads, short circuit and station battery calculations.
.C_pnclusigns 1
The reports and documents reviewed by the evaluation team substantiate the fact that the employee concerns in this area are valid in that some design calculations, in particular those that preceded the operating license, are not presently available or retrievable and therefore do not provide support for the Sequoyah f
design bases. The reports do not necessarily support the conclusion, however, that some calculations were never prepared.
TVA, like other utilities and A/Es involved in the design and construction of nuclear power plants in the '60s and early '70s, followed industry practice of a more informal, less rigorous fpg approach toward documenting design calculations.
This distinction i
B does not, however, eliminate the need to have essential calculations required to support the design basis of safety systems.
L The documents reviewed also support the validity of concerns "b" and "c" regarding the inadequate scope and quality of some design f
calculations. The majority of reviewed calculations, however, were found to be adequately prepared.
In fact, many of the findings 1
t regarding TVA design calculations produced years ago are the result
[
of reviewing these calculations using todays more rigorous standards rather than by using those standards and procedures in
, effect at the time of the actual design process.
The evaluation team has determined that, when completed, the Design Baseline and Verification Program should provide for adequate review of calculations required to support modifications made since OL issuance.
Other on going programs at Sequoyah which concern calculations include cable tray support analysis, alternately analyzed piping and supports, and the electrical system review.
The identification of essential ca'lculations by each SQN engineering group, and the review, updating, and/or development of these essential calculations are regarded as basic to meeting regulatory requirements and should be comoleted prior to restart.
Although the Civil discipline has prepared a master list of essential calculations, only certain classifications of these
('
essential calculations will be reviewed prior to plant restart.
The Civil group has comitted to justify, prior to restart, the postponement of the review of the other classifications of essential calculations until after restart.
02990 (11/26/86)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 205.1(8)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2
~'
PAGE 14 0F 18 APPENDIX A 5.
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED RELATED TO TNE ELEMENT:
a.
Letter f rom J. N. Taylor, NRC, to S. A. White, TVA, "NRC Reports 50-327/86-27 and 50-328/86-27," [L44 860506 542),
(04/22/86) b.
Gilbert / Commonwealth Report No. 2614: Seouovah Nuclear Plant MgAifications for TVA, (03/03/86) c.
33guovah Nucl_egr_Pignt - Design,_8aseline and Verification
,Pf_qgr.4m, RO, (05/01/86) d.
Sargent and Lundy Final Report, letuoygh Nuclear Planti MMcltAr Plant Electrical Galcylgtion Er_oiram Assessment, (04/08/86) e.
Letter from R. Gridley, TVA, to J. Nelson Grace, NRC, "NRC-01E Region II Inspection 50-327/86-27 and 50-328/86 O Response to Deficiencies and Unresolved Items," (L44860729 801],(07/28/86) f.
Letter from 8. J. Youngblood, NRC, to S. A. White, TVA,
" Transcript of Interview of Dallas R. Hicks," (06/23/86) 9 Letter from D. G. Smith, INPO, to J. A. Coffey, TVA, transmitting INPO Evaluation of Bellefonte Construction Project,(06/05/86) h.
Letter from Z. T. Pate, INPO, to H. G. Parris, TVA, transmitting INPO Evaluation of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Construction Project, (09/19/85) 1.
Egguoyah Nucle _ar Perlo_tus.nce,, Plan Volume II_, Final Concurrence Transmitted July 14, 1986 (RIMS No. L44 860714 800), Chapter III, Paragraph 2.2, " Design Baseline and
[
Verification Program."
j.
3!RM9Yih__ Engine 37,ing_Erpitc1_(SQEP_) Project _ Manual,, R0, i
Section VII, " Project Specific Requirements j
(Variances / Expansions)," (09/27/85)
I k.
TVA memo from Kirkebo to Those Listed, (805 860307 006),
" Design Calculations," (03/07/86) i
[
l 02990 (11/26/86)
L
~
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 205.1(S)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2
- h.~~
PAGE 15 0F 18 1
i APPENDIX A (Cont'd) 1.
TVA memo from Drotleff to "Those Listed," (844 860402 007),
" Design Basis Program for TVA Nuclear Plants," (04/08/86) m.
TVA memo from Key to Chandley, (844860729012), "Sequoyah Nuclear Plant - Design Calculation Review," (07/29/86) n.
10CFR50, Appendix B. " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants," Criterion III l
o.
Regulatory Guide 1.64 (Rev. 2, dated 06/76), " Quality Assurance Requirements for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants" p.
- ANSI N45.2.11-1974, " Quality Assurance Requirements for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants" q.
TVA Topical Report, TVA-TR75-1A (Rev. 8), " Quality Assurance Program Description for the Design, Construction, and Operation of TVA Nuclear Power Plants" h
r.
EN DES-EP-1.14 R10. " Engineering Records - Retention and Storage," (05/13/83) s.
EN DES-EP-3.03, R8, " Design Calculations," (04/24/84) t.
EN DES-EP-3.10, R7, " Design Verification Methods and Performance of Design Verification," (04/25/85) u.
EN DES-EP-4.04, R9, "Squadcheck Process," (04/24/84)
, v.
OEP-06, R0, " Design Input," (04/26/85) w.
OEP-07, R0, " Calculations," (04/26/85) x.
OEP-10, R0, " Review," (04/26/85) y.
OEP-11, RO, " Change Control," (04/26/85) z.
OEP-16, R0, " Design Records Control," (04/26/85) aa.
NEP-1.3, R0, " Records Control," (07/01/86) 02990 (11/26/86) t t
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 205.1(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 2 PAGE 16 0F 18 APPENDIX A (Cont'd) bb.
NEP-3.1, R0, " Calculations," (07/01/86) cc.
NEP-3.2, R0, " Design Input," (07/01/86) dd.
NEP-5.1, R0, " Design Output," (07/01/86) ee.
NEP-5.2, R0, % view," (07/01/86) ff.
NEP-6.1, R0, " Change Control," (07/01/86)
I gg.
TVA memo from Chandley to Kirkebo, (844 860814 014) "SQN -
Review of Existing Calculations," (08/14/86) hh.
TVA memo from Key to Chandley, (B44 860729 012) "SQN - Design Calculation Review," (07/29/86) 11.
TVA memo from Raulston to Those Listed, (B45 860909 258)
" Design Calculation Verification," (09/09/86) h jj.
TVA memo from Barnett to Kirkebo, (B41 860811 013) " Design Calculations," (08/11/86) kk.
TVA memo from Johnson to Barnett, (B25 860819 499) "SQN -
Policy Memorandum PM 86-02 (CEB) Civil Discipline Policy for Design Calculations," (08/19/86) 11.
TVA memo from Raughley to Those Listed, (843 860811 903)
" Policy Memorandum PM86-15 (ECB) Electrical Calculations i
Checklist," (08/06/86)
' mm.
SQN-QAP-III-1.3, (03/08/70) nn.
TVA memo from Beasley to Those Listed, (805 851211001),
" Design Calculation," (12/11/85) oo.
TVA memo from Johnson to Hernandez, (B25 861117 304), "SQN -
Implementation of Sequoyah Civil Discipline Calculation Action Plan," (11/13/86) pp.
TVA memo from Barnett to Those Listed, (841 860616 011),
" Policy Memorandum PM 86-02 (CEB) - Civil Discipline Policy for Design Calculations," (06/16/86) 0 0299D (11/26/86) l
,~.
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUM8ER: 205.l(8)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUM8ER:
2 PAGE 17 0F 18 i
APPENDIX A (cont'd) 6.
WHAT REGULATIONS. LICENSING COMMITMENTS. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OR OTHER APPLY OR CONTROL IN THIS AREA?
a.
10CFR50, Appendix B Criterion III
" Design Control" Criterion V
" Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings" Criterion VI
" Document Control" Criterion XVII
" Quality Assurance Records" b.
NRC Regulatory Guide 1.64, Revision 2 " Quality Assurance Requirements for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants" c.
" Quality Assurance Requirements for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants" d.
NQAN, Part IV Section 2, " Design Services," (12/31/84) 7.
O LIST RE00ESTS FOR INFORMATION. MEETINGS. TELEPHONE CALLS. AND OTHER DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO ELEMENT.
a.
RFI No. SQN-530, (09/04/86) b.
RFI No. SQN-533, (09/05/86) c.
RFI No. SQN-534, (09/08/86) d.
RFI No. SQN-569, (09/16/86)
, e.
Report of meeting in Knoxville and SQN site, August 27-29, 1986, BLT-043 (09/16/86) f.
Teleconference between Clift, et al., TVA, and Dowd, et al.,
8echtel, (ION #412) (11/17/86) 0 02990 (11/26/86)
~
TVA EMPLOYEE C0hCERNS REPORT NUM8ER: 205.l(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER:
2
, _ feg, PAGE 18 0F 18 CATD LIST The following CATD forms are included as part of this report:
205.01 SQN 01 (Revised 11/24/86) 205.01 SQN 02 (Revised 11/24/86)
O l
e 02990 (11/26/86)
___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,. ~.. _, _., _ _ _ _ _... _.. _ _.
I*
ECTG C.3 I.
Attachment A Page 1 of 1 Revision 2 - A 4-ECSP CORRECTIVE Action Tracting Document l
(C4TD) a l
INITIATION 1.
Imediate Corrective Action Required: M Yes 0 No 2.
Stop Wort Recomended: 0 Yes K No 3.
CATD No. 2.c f. c / S G A/ O/
4.
INITIATION DATE
///J v /P4 5.
RESPONSIBLE ORG%NITATION:
DNC 6.
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: % QR O NQE CeUn%
I)r s e.ePL ont c HAs rio r ce +* FLc rch Irs PL Cn ts!r+rres,.
eF ors pre &-AIVt PLAs/ TO PRoJIbr Jo s re f r en tr ea foR tJo r Cc +r f s.t TH f A L L.
E5s ta ria s CA Lc - A rio d s
~
PRIDR TO RCsPrent h
e s...
O ATTACHMENTS I
7.
PREPARED BY: NAME AfA R. M EP' WJ DATE:
a /a v/ F4 i
8.
CONCURRENCE: CEG-lL1 Yo h IR.M@
DATE:
/ /-LP -M 9.
APPROVAL: ECTG PRMIAAM MGE.
DATE:
l CORRECTIVE ACTION h
10.
PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN:
4 i
1 h
t t
f O ATTACHMENTS 11.
PROPOSED BY: DIRECTOR /MGR:
DATE:
l 12.
CONCURRENCE: CEG-H:
DATE:
(
SRP:
DATE:
ECTG PROGRAM MGR:
DATE:
f VERIFICATION AND Ct.0SEOUT e
j 13.
Approved corrective actions have been verified as satisfactorily
{'
implemented.
J SIGNATURE IITLE DATE G
y t
ECTG C.3 Attachment A Page 1 of 1 Revision 2 - A ECSP CORRECTIVE Action Tracting Document (CATD)
INITIATION 1.
Iassediate Corrective Action Required: $ Yes D No 2.
Stop Wort Reconenended: 0 Yes E No 3.
CATD No. M 5.8/ SW 87-4 INITIATION DATE
//[2Y84 5.
RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION:
- 2) A/K 6.
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: KQR O NQR PRio A rb VLA N T Actro t T AL. L
[ A0 0"! AI S C A
- AIC
.1) GCo f r id[J s
M s) $ T
/N P L& PI C a r A J D " CD *4h. G r f T~t9 6 [Ksts) Trite.
C.39 t c J u s9 7oo si fintA A *1 A Mb THC RE do EW of CA s.t.as A ric.u sr/od u ct4 Sv?P e R T McDoc ocA r son ro G4fETV G V.$ rf u s
%r a rot e a THE fQ E - K Es ras,e r Pr e s,M O t=
rnt 3Es o s. 3 o
St95 C L o O L MD Utt o f s c hrhd P4 f.Kw O ATTACHMENTS n
i 7.
PREPARED BY: NAME Mw D. kuut_ IP' 9d/
DATE:
- /Z W 84
{. c.;
8.
CONCURRENCE:
CEG-H W V 93 % R. A W DATE:
//-L PFt 9.
APPROVAL: ECTG PROGitiM NGR.
DATE:
(
CORRECTIVE ACTION I
10.
PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN:
O ATTACHMENTS 11.
PROPOSED BY:
DIRECTOR /MGR:
DATE:
12.
CONCURRENCE: CEG-H:
DATE:
SRP:
DATE:
ECTG PROGRAM NGR:
DATE:
VERIFICATION AND CLOSE0UT L
13.
Approved corrective actions have been verified as satisfactorily implemented.
SIGNATURE TITLE DATE
.