ML20207K425
| ML20207K425 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 11/28/1986 |
| From: | TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207K384 | List: |
| References | |
| 205.2(B), 205.2(B)-R01, 205.2(B)-R1, NUDOCS 8701090417 | |
| Download: ML20207K425 (20) | |
Text
.-
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 205.2(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAP,
~ (J REPORT TYPE:
SEQUOYAH ELEMENT REVISION NUMBER: 1 TITLE:
CONTROL OF DESIGN CALCULATIONS Calculation Control and Interface Requirements PAGE 10F 18 REASON FOR REVISION:
Revised to incorporate TVA Engineering comments.
PREPARATION PREPARED BY-h
// -A 6 -86 (f
V SIGNATURE DATE REVIEWS RE W COMMITTEE J$bi
!!'M '0b n_
ATUR' '
DATE
~
i TAS:
/
V SIGNATURE DATE CONCURRENCES fY b'
E CEG-H:
W ll* I' Y SRP:
SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE DATE 8701090417 861217 ADOCK 0500 7
gDR APPROVED BY:
O ECSP MANAGER DATE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)
[
]
I TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUM8ER: 205.2(B) s SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1
- G".
}
PAGE 2 0F 18 i
ij' 1.
CHARACTERIZATION OF ISSUES:
2-Concerns:
Issues:
l-WI-85-100-043 a.
lhere is inadequate control of design j
"There are problems in design calculations.
calculations, in that some are L
never prepared, some are in-b.
There is inadequate interface g
adequate in scope and quality coordination with design calculations and some are not stored as (e.g., Branch / project, ONP/0E).
)
quality records. There is j
inadequate interface and c.
There are no procedures to control of design calculations maintain calculations current.
o which impacts traceability of design requirements.
CI has no further information.
NOTE: The following issues from these i
Anonymous concern via letter."
concerns are addressed in other reports:
I-85-128-NPS Some design calculations are never F
An individual from BFN wrote prepared.
(Addressed in Sequoyah h
NSRS expressing his concern Element Report 205.1) p/y f
C that the control and quality 4
of GE's design effort is Some design calculations are inadequate inadequate. The CI sent in scope and quality.
(Addressed in several roughly written Sequoyah Element Report 205.1) pages detailing and sum-l marizing his evaluation and Some design calculations are not stored I
conclusion of three major as quality records.
(Addressed in
[
areas:
Element Report 205.3)
(1) Design Calculations Lack of control of design calculations j
impacts traceability of design require-
]
(2) NCh's, and ments.
(Addressed in Sequoyah Element Report 201.6)
(3) Management Policies h.
NOTE: The description of
(
I-85-128-NPS included here
[
and in issue "c" was i.
developed from a review by g
the evaluation team of the f
expurgated interview files y
for this employee concern.
q'[
O 0394D
-11/26/86
r TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 205.2(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUM8ER: 1 7~=.
PAGE 3 0F 18 2.
HAVE ISSUES BEEN IDENTIFIED IN ANOTHER SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS? YE_5Ljl_ N0 o
Identified by TVA S_QN,_N_SJtS Date March _6, 1986 TVA SNP - Nuclear Safety Review Staff Investigation Report No. I-85-132-SQN, DJ.esel Generator Loads, (03/06/86) o Identified by TVA SQN NSRS Date April 7,1986 TVA SNP - Nuclear Safety Review Staff Investigation Report No. I-85-992-SQN, Control of AC and DC Electrical Loads, (04/07/86) o Identified by NRC I&E Inspection Repor_t Date April 22,_,1986 c...
NRC - Office of Inspection and Enforcement Reports
. %s' Nos. 50-327/86-27 and 50-328/86-27 (04/22/86) o Identified by Gilbert / Commonwealth _Inc.
i Date March 3. 1986 Gilbert / Commonwealth, Inc. Report No. 2614, Seguoyah Nuclear Plant Modification for Tennessee Valley Authority, (03/03/86)
, Identified by Saraent_& Lund_y o
Date April 8 _1986 2
Sargent & Lundy Final Report, S_eguoyah Nuclear Plant, Nuclear Plant Electrical Calculation Program Assessment, (04/08/86) o Identified by TVA QQA Date A_ugu s_t_,.l_,
1984 TVA Office of Quality Assurance, Audit Deviation Report, D51-A-84-0006, (08/01/84)
O 03940 11/26/86
I, TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
205.2(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1 PAGE 4 0F 18 o
Identified by TVA DNE.EA Date Septemb.e_r._16_,.J 98_6 TVA Division of Nuclear Engineering (DNE), Engineering Assurance Audit 86-23, Audit Report, (09/16/86)
I 3.
DOCUMENT NOS., TAG NOS.. LOCATIONS OR OTHER SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIVE IDENTIFICATIONS STATED IN ELEMENT:
I-85-128-NPS refers to a lack of electrical calculations for power systems, cable size, conduit, and instrumentation.
4.
INTERVIEW FILES REVIEWED:
Expurgated QTC file for WI-85-100 and no additional unreviewed information was found.
Expurgated QTC file for I-85-128-NPS was reviewed and notes were
,s "9
developed by the evaluation team.
5.
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED RELATED TO THE ELEMENT:
See Appendix A.
6.
WHAT REGULATIONS. LICENSING COMMITMENTS. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. OR OTHER APPLY OR CONTROL IN THIS AREA?
- See Appendix A.
7.
LIST REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION. MEETINGS. TELEPHONE CALLS. AND OTHER DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO ELEMENT.
See Appendix A.
G 03940 11/26/86 i
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUNBER: 205.2(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1 p
~
PAGE 5 0F 18 8.
EVALUATION PROCESS:
a.
Reviewed upper-tier documents (e.g., regulatory standards) to determine the requirements for controlling and maintaining calculations current, j
b.
Reviewed Engineering Department and Project procedures that implement calculation policies; in particular, procedures that relate to the review / revision of design calculations supporting plant modifications and to the coordination / interface between branch and project.
c.
Reviewed results of audits (QA, NRC) that investigated whether design calculations have been reviewed / revised to support design changes, d.
Reviewed available transcripts of NRC investigative _
interviews to gain additional information regarding these concerns.
e.
Examined results of prior independent reviews (e.g., S&L, 4
z44 6/C, etc.) listed in Section 2, for discussion of validity of concerns.
f..
Reviewed the Essential Calculation Program (ECP), the Design Basis Program (DBP), and_the Design Baseline and Verification Program (D8VP) for SQN to determine if these programs adequately address the issues in Section 1.
9.
DISCUSSION. FINDINGS. AND CONCLUSIONS:
- Discussion:
The concerned individuals raised generic issues that design calculations lack adequate control, interface, and procedures for maintaining calculations current.
In reviewing these issues, the evaluation team examined past and present practices, procedures, and processes used at Sequoyah for preparing and controlling design calculations.
Reports and investigations performed by TVA and outside agencies and a review of calculations for other element reports were used to develop findings and conclusions.
In this report, the control of calculations has been interpreted to refer to the review and revision of calculations as plant changes are made. Control also 03940 - -11/26/86
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 205.2(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM p=m REVISION NUMBER: 1 PAGE 6 0F 18 is interpreted to refer to how calculations are treated after their approval. That is, are calculations considered official project documents that require filing, logging, filming, etc., or are they regarded as the personal working papers of the originator?
Interface refers to the needed coordination and communication between responsible organizations during the original design phase or design change process, for example, between branch and project and between OE, OC, and NUC PR.
a.
Reguirements for Desig_n Control To address the issue of inadequate interface control and the revision and updating of design calculations, the regulatory requirements to which TVA has committed for the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant were first reviewed.
The essential regulations that affect calculations are contained in 10CFR50, Appendix B.
TVA committed to 10CFR50 Appendix B in 1970. The applicable criteria include:
f,s, o
Criterion 111. " Design Control," requires establishment "Y
of measures to assure that regulatory requirements and the design basis are correctly translated into specifications, drawings, procedures, and instructions. Measures must be established for the identification and control of design interfaces and for coordination among participating design organizations.
These measures are to include the development of procedures among participating design organizations for the review, approval, release, distribution, and revision of documents involving design interface.
Design changes must be subject to the same design control measures that were applied to the original design.
o Criterion VI, " Document Control," requires that measures be established to control the issuance of documents such as instructions, procedures, and drawings, including changes thereto, that direct activities affecting quality. These measures must assure that documents, including changes, are reviewed for adequacy and approved for release by authorized personnel.
l (1) 0394D - 11/26/86
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUM8ER: 205.2(B)
SPEt,IAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1
(~-
PAGE 7 0F 18 TVA has committed in 1976 in the SQN FSAR to NRC Regulatory Guide 1.64, which endorses ANSI N45.2.ll, " Quality Assurance Requirements for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants" (App A, 6.c).
The applicable requirements of ANSI N45.2.11 are:
o Section 4, " Design Process," paragraph 4.2, which states that design analyses (calculations) shall be performed in a planned, controlled, and correct manner 1
o Section 6, " Design Verification," paragraph 6.2, which requires that when changes to previously verified designs have been made, design verification is required for the changes, including evaluation of the effects of those changes on the overall design i
o Section 8 " Design Change Control," which also requires that documented procedures be provided for design changes to approved design documents, including field changes. These procedures should assure that the impact of any change is carefully considered, that O,
required actions are documented, and that information concerning the changes is transmitted to all affected persons and organizations. These changes must be justified and subjected to design control measures commensurate with those applied to the original design.
b.
TVA Entineering Department Procedures e
A briej overview of TVA's early nuclear power plant engineering organization provides background information useful:in assessing TVA's engineering practices and procedhres pertaining to design calculations and interface j
review.
I l
All design engineering for the TVA nuclear power plants prior J
to October 1973 was performed by the engineering branches.
These engineering discipline groups designed several nuclear plants concurrently, beginning in the early 1960s.
In October 1973, an organization change at TVA resulted in the establishment of the Division of Engineering Design. At this time a project system was established that assigned engineers l
from the engineering disciplines to work exclusively on a l
specific project, such as Sequoyah 1 and 2.
The Sequoyah project engineering team members, under a project manager, were assigned responsibility for maintaining the design
, Q activities related to Sequoyah, including any needed design i
l changes. The preparation and updating of calculations however was performed by both the project and the Branches.
i 03940 - 11/26/86
f TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 205.2(B)
{
SPECIAL PROGRAM j'.
REVISION NUMBER: 1
[
PAGE 8 0F 18 I
a i
3 Branch procedures provided engineering personnel with k
technical direction for developing and issuing calculations i
prior to the initiation of project engineering teams in late l
1973.
The first QA program procedure for calculations was j
contained in the SQN Quality Assurance Manual.
Procedure 3
SQN-QAP-Ill-1.2, " Preparation, Review, and Records of Design l
Calculations," which was first issued on March 8, 1970, placed responsibility for the " orderly making, indexing, and 3
filing of computations..." 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 l
for checking, review and final approval of calculations (App. A, 5.mm).
h Since October 1973, three separate engineering procedures Fl manuals have been used by the TVA Engineering Branches and i
projects:
e.
.T_1 t_l e.
Effective Date h
o Division of Engineering Design, October 1973 Engineering Design Procedures 7
t (EN DES EPs)
L f
o Office of Engineering Procedures (0EPs) June 28, 1985 b
o Nuclear Engineering Procedures (NEPs)
' July 1,1986 i
A general review of past and present TVA procedures covering the preparation and issue of design calculations is discussed in Sequoyah Element Report 205.1. This Element Report 205.2 I
centers on those procedural requirements for revising b
calculations, interface coordination, and updating k
calculations to support design evolution and revisions.
I Section 4.5.1 of EP 3.03, " Design Calculations," described f
changes or revisions to calculations. The procedure stated that:
g I
" Calculations for the redesign of a component, t
system, or structure must be accompanied by review of associated calculations for possible updating.
Any configurailon change given by an
[
as-constructed drawing also must be reconciled with the associated calculations."
G 0394D 11/26/86
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUM8ER: 205.2(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1 PAGE 9 0F 18 EP 3.03 also provided detailed instruction for revising calculation sheets, changing the cover sheet, and the revision log.
Specific direction was given in Section 4.5.4 on checking, approving, and microfilming changed calculations.
... a change to an approved calculations document is checked and approved like the original; once a i
calculations document is microfilmed, it must be remicrofilmed entirely as in Subsection 4.4 after a revision."
OEP-07, " Calculations," which was in effect from June 28, 1985 to June 30, 1986, instructs the Project l
Engineer (PE) or Group Head (GH) in Section 4.1.8 to ensure that calculations are revised in accordance with the Revision section of DEP-ll. The referenced section in OEP-11 on i
Change Control addresses changes to the ECN cover sheet and attached data sheets but does not refer directly to changes to a calculation package, f
NEP-3.1 on Calculations (effective 07/01/86) repeats the basic direction on calculation revisions given in OEP-ll.
The user is referred to NEP-6.1 on Change Control which pk9 contains the same wording as OEP-ll.
However, NEP-3.1 does add four requirements for the Lead Engineer (LE) or GH.
These include tracking unverified assumptions, notifying users when previously unverified assumptions have been verified, processing calculation revisions in the same manner as the original, and evaluating calculations for inconsistencies, errors, omissions, etc.
In addition to the NEP's, project-specific requirements, such as the project organization, interfaces, and any variances from the Nuclear Engineering Procedures (NEPs) are identified, approved and controlled in a Project Manual. The Sequoyah Engineering Project (SQEP) Project manual was issued on September 27, 1985.
The SQEP Project Manual contains two variances to the procedure on calculations, NEP-3.1.
These variances identify l
calculation packages prepared for the Appendix R effort and the Design Baseline and Verification Program as output documents subject to all DNE procedural requirements pertaining to the issue and control of output documents.
0 0394D - 11/26/86
=.
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
205.2(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1 p-
~
PAGE 10 0F 18 i
i-1 I
The Project Manual also contained a variance to the Design Input Procedure, NEP-3.2.
This variance issued a modification criteria procedure that covers the responsibilities of various groups within the Division of i
Nuclear Engineering (DNE) for generating acceptable i
modification criteria for proposed plant modifications.
Attached checklists clearly highlight where calculations are required to be generated, reviewed, or revised to support ECNs and to confirm that appropriate design inputs have been selected and incorporated in the design.
c.
Audits and Investigative Reports The issues raised by the concerns regarding the inadequacy of interface coordination, up-to-date status, and control of calculations have been identified and addressed in TVA internal audits and investigations, as well as in independent verification reviews by outside consultants.
1 In July 1984, the Office of Quality Assurance (0QA) Audit
..g Deviation Report 051-A-840006 (App. A, 5.mm) identified "a
?
failure to establish an adequate system to ensure that calculations and studies performed by the Auxiliary Power System section of the Electrical Engineering Branch (EEB) are updated and revised to support the design as changes are made af ter plant operation." The request for corrective action stated that the EEB should establish controlled procedures to define the interfaces, methods, and requirements for evaluating the effect of changes on the design and l
incorporating these changes in calculation documents.
1
[
NSRS Report No. I-85-132-SQN ( App. A, 5.nn) on Diesel l
Generator Loads reviewed the maintenance of DG load calculations. The report referenced 0QA Deviation Report 051-A-840006 and also identified a deficiency in the processing of an ECN in which EEB was not notified of a change in the Auxiliary Power System ( APS) loads during the ECN review cycle.
NSRS Report I-85-992-SQN (App. A, 5.oo), on the Control of AC and DC Electrical Loads documented other discrepancies in the management and control of electrical load margins and interfaces.
l l
l l
1 03940 - 11/26/86
.~.
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 205.2(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1 C7, PAGE 110F 18 External reviews of Sequoyah were performed by Gilbert /
Commonwealth (G/C) and Sargent & Lundy (S&L) beginning in January 1986. The G/C report noted a lack of documentation of design change evaluation and appropriate interface review involving mechanical, civil, and electrical disciplines (App. A, 5.b).
The Sargent & Lundy Report on Sequoyah's Electrical Calculation Program listed electrical calculations that were not kept up to date including short circuit, instrument setpoint, cable, and auxiliary power system calculations. The NRC inspection of Sequoyah's design control practices in February 1986 identified deficiencies of a similar nature with the AFW pump station pressure switch setpoint calculations and concerns with battery sizing calculations (App. A, 5.a).
Also, in the transcript of the NRC investigative interview, the concerned individual discussed the absence of control of calculations, including their informal preparation and issue (App. A, 5.p).
d.
TVA Calculation-_Related Program _s l
{iG TVA established an electrical calculations program in 1985 to 3
correct and resolve deficiencies found in electrical calculations at the four nuclear plants ( App. A, 5.qq).
This program is designed to identify those calculations required to support safety systems used for safe shutdown (essential calculations) and others needed to support plant reliability and availability (desirable calculations). After identification, the essential calculations are to be located and updated or superseded; if not available they must be l
generated.
In March 1986, the Director of Engineering Technical Services made this effort a recuirement for the Mechanical, Nuclear, and Civil engineering branches as well, l
and a Sequoyah Unit 2 restart item (App. A, 5.k).
In April 1986, a Design Basis Program was developed to address the lack of design criteria for each nuclear plant.
The program requires the development of a Design Basis Document (DBD) that compiles all commitments for each plant that are found in the FSAR, design criteria, NRC commitments, etc. Verification that calculations exist to support the DBD are an essential part of this program. TVA is committed to develop design basis documents for FSAR Chapter 15 l
safety-related systems prior to the restart of Sequoyah 2.
l l
l l
03940 - 11/26/86 l
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMGER:
205.2(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1
_ _I.
PAGE 12 0F 18 A Design Baseline and Verification Program (DBVP) was also established in May 1986 to assess the adequacy of past modifications at Sequoyah. The DBVP requires a review and evaluation of modifications since operating license issuance for safety-related systems including verification that calculations exist to support the changes. This phase of the program is also scheduled for completion prior to restart.
Findin_gs:
a.
The reports and documents reviewed by the evaluation team support the concern that some calculations prepared during the design phase of the Sequoyah plant were not treated by the design engineers as permanent project / plant support documents equally as important as design input or design output documents. Consequently, they were not controlled in i
the same degree and manner as design input / design output documents.
3 b.
The lack of adequate coordination between branch and project C,12 for electrical design changes was documented in several reports (App. A, 5.mm and 5.nn) and resulted in inadequately prepared and controlled electrical load calculations (See Sequoyah Element Report 213.1).
c.
Both past and current TVA engineering procedures require review of calculations that may be affected by or that i
support changes in design output documents.
Conclusions:
The issues of inadequate interface coordination and control of design calculations (issues "a" and "b"),
in particular those that preceded the SQN operating license, are valid and are supported by l
the reports, documents, and calculations reviewed by the evaluation team.
There are procedures to control and maintain calculations and therefore, issue "c" is not valid.
b i
0394D - 11/26/86
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
205.2(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1
-p PAGE 13 0F 18 In addressing the existence and updating of calculations required to support safety systeas at SQN, the TVA Essential Calculation Program (ECP) takes an initial step in correcting past deficiencies. To ensure a fully responsive program, however, the ECP must provide evidence to substantiate the following elements:
o Documentation criteria for the classification of calculations as essential, desirable, or obsolete o
Verification that calculations have been reviewed for unverified assumptions, reasonable method / approach, reasonable results, etc.
o Documentation of independent review of the list of essential /
desirable calculations and approval of these lists by TVA management.
o Detailed schedules by engineering discipline for the postrestart, long-term completion of the Essential Calculation Program.
i I.
l 1
B I
a C
03940 - '11/26/86 a
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUM8ER:
205.2(8)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUM8ER: 1 h#
PAGE 14 0F 18 APPENDIX A 5.
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED RELATED TO THE ELEMENT:
a.
Letter f rom J. M. 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 /Conunonwealth Report No. 2614: Segu nah Nuclear Plant Modification _sjor TVA, (03/03/86) c.
S_eguoyah Nuclear Plant - Desian Bajeline and Verification Program, R0, (05/01/86) d.
Sargent and Lundy Final Regort, Secu.gyah Nuclear Plant.
Nuclear Plant Electrical Calculation Program 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 Response to Deficiencies and Unresolved Items,"
. -*d
[L44860729 801], (07/28/86) f.
Letter f rom 8. J. Youngblood, NRC, to S. A. White, TVA,
" Transcript of Interview of Dallas R. Hicks," (06/23/86) g.
Letter from D. G. Smith, INPO, to J. A. Coffey, TVA, transmitting INPO Evaluation of Bellefonte Construction Project,(06/05/86) f 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) i i.
Se_qum ah Nuclear Performance Plan Volume II, Final Concurrence Transmitted July 14, 1986 (RIMS No. L44 860714 800), Chapter III, Paragraph 2.2, " Design Baseline and Verification Prograni."
j.
Se.g_uogh_Eng.i_neerina Proj_ect (SQE_Qff oj_ect Manual, R0,Section VII, " Project Specific Requirements (Variances / Expansions)," (09/27/85) k.
TVA memo from Kirkebo to Those Listed, (805 860307 006),
" Design Calculations," (03/07/86) h 03940
-11/26/86
l TVA ENPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 205.2(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1 Q
PAGE 15 0F 18 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 f.ey 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 O.
Regulatory Guide 1.64 (Rev. 2, dated 06/76), " Quality Assurance Requirements for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants" p.
ANSI N45.2.ll-1974, " Quality Assurance Requirements for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants" 4
TVA Topical Report, TVA-TR75-1 A (Rev. 8), " Quality Assurance Program Description for the Design, Construction, and Operation of TVA Nuclear Power Plants" b'
r.
EN DES-EP-1.14 Rev.10. " Engineering Records - Retention and Storage," (05/13/83) s.
EN DES-EP-3.03, Rev. 8. " Design Calculations," (04/24/84) t.
EN DES-EP-3.10, Rev. 7. " Design Verification Methods and Performance of Design Verification," (04/25/85) i u.
EN DES-EP-4.04, Rev. 9. "Squadcheck Process," (04/24/84)
, v.
OEP-06, Rev. O, " Design Input," (04/26/85) i w.
OEP-07, Rev. O, " Calculations," (04/26/85) x.
OEP-10, Rev. O, " Review," (04/26/85) y.
OEP-11, Rev. O, " Change Control," (04/26/85) z.
OEP-16, Rev. O, " Design Records Control," (04/26/85) 4 i
i aa.
NEP-1.3, Rev. 0, " Records Control," (07/01/86) l l
)
03940
'll/26/86
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUM8ER:
205.2(8)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUM8ER: 1 p
PAGE 16 0F 18 APPENDIX A (Cont'd) f i
bb.
NEP-3.1, Rev. O, " Calculations," (07/01/86) cc.
NEP-3.2, Rev. O, " Design Input," (07/01/86) dd.
NEP-5.1, Rev. O, " Design Output," (07/01/86) ee.
NEP-5.2, Rev. O, " Review," (07/01/86) 4 ff.
NEP-6.1, Rev. O, " Change Control," (07/01/86) gg.
TVA memo f rom Chandley to Kirkebo, (844 860814 014) "SQN -
l Review of Existing Calculations," (08/14/86) hh.
Not used.
l 11.
TVA memo from Raulston to Those Listed, (845 860909 258)
" Design Calculation Verification," (09/09/86)
I jj.
TVA memo from Barnett to Kirkebo, (841 860811 013) " Design
- h Calculations," (08/11/86) l kk.
TVA memo from Johnson to Barnett, (825 860819 499) "SQN -
t Policy Memorandum PM 86-02 (CE8) 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 j
Checklist " (08/06/86) l mm.
Office of Quality Assurance (00A) Audit Deviation Report l
D51-A-84-0006, (07/02/84) (0QA 840801503) nn.
NSRS Report No. I-85-132-SQN, (03/06/86) r oo.
NSRS Report No. I-85-992-SQN (Final Report), (04/07/86) pp.
TVA memo from Weinhold to Wilson (805 86 0916 001) " Division l
of Nuclear Engineering Assurance Audit 86 Sequoyah j
Electrical Evaluation Restart Issue," (09/16/86) qq.
TVA memo f rom Beasley to Chandler, (805 851107 003) " Audit i
Deviation Report D51-A-84-0006-001, Inadequate System to l
Ensure Calculations Are Updated to Support Design Change Made af ter Plant Operation," (11/07/86) 03940 11/26/86
.~e---.mr, y
.---,.-..,,--ww--,
-m..w,,,_em.-,wm--~m
-.m m,,,-, -.
-e-w-.----,,-,e.-..
...-%v,r-
,, -, -2
l TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 205.2(8)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1
~~
PAGE 17 0F 18 APPENDIX A (Cont'd) 6.
WHAT REGULATIONS. LICENSING COMMITMENTS. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OR OTHER APPLY OR CONTROL IN THIS AREA?
a.
10CFR50 Chapter 1 Appendix 8 " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," (as amended 01/75) b.
NRC Regulatory Guide 1.64, Revision 2, " Quality Assurance Requirements for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants," (06/76) c.
" Quality Assurance Requirements for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants" d.
NQAM, Part IV, Section 2, " Design Service." (12/31/84) e.
NEP-1.3, Rev. O, " Records Control," (07/01/86) f.
NEP-3.1, Rev. O, " Calculations," (07/01/86) 9 NEP-3.2, Rev. O, " Design Input," (07/01/86) h.
NEP-5.1, Rev. O, " Design Output," (07/01/86) 1.
NEP-5.2, Rev. O, " Review," (07/01/86) j.
NEP-6.1, Rev. O, " Change Control," (07/01/86) 7.
LIST REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION. MEETINGS. TELEPHONE CALLS. AND OTHER DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO ELEMENT.
- RFI No. SQN-530, (09/04/86)
RFI No. SQN-533, (09/05/86)
RFI No. SQN-569, (09/16/86)
Report of meeting in Knoxville and at SQN site, August 27-29, 1986, BLT-043 (09/16/86) b 03940 - 11/26/86
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
205.2(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 1 PAGE 18 0F 18 CATD LIST The following CATD form is included as part of this report:
205.02 SQN 01
.O I
s i
G 03940 11/26/86
ECTG C.3 Attachment A
,~
Page 1 of'L Revision 2 - A ECSP CORRECTIVE i
Action Tractina Document (CATD)
INITIATION i
1.
Inusediate Corrective Action Required: 8 Yes O No 2.
Stop Wort Reconvaended: 0 Yes e No 3.
CATD No..l2ofa?
5 4 ^/ O/
4 INITIATION DATE
// fl-5.
RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION:
3dE 6.
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: G QR O NQR 7-Mau ae A-- A - c tr M " 7,
,c6 h
\\
,w g s u w.-m n o t r--_ n u
A. W=- MM. & A et.o L A_Lh'.
ef % f' 0 & -
m w,-# 9 M s Hm.
J,.
t/ M ' k
~ D - D ~1 x. QM&%
Ms
-P-pw 14 w/w A u.
b e -- '&~tf~. of :_-_'l.--J 1-1 w JAh 4:t.ef'.':-mp/M h6 (coa s,a u c o oa Mc?
/*+e ) n l 1
0 ATTACHNENTS
~
7.
PREPARED BY: NANE
% B. M F QL DATE:
a A l
8.
CONCURRENCE:
CEG-Hm/fu h if,Wi 6 DATE:
it 2,t, t 6 Qi 9.
APPROVAL:
ECTG PR0dfAM NGR.
DATE:
CORRECTIVE ACTION j
j 10.
PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN:
1 J
i O ATTACHNENTS 11.
PROPOSED BY:
DIRECTOR /NGR:
DATE:
i 12.
CONCURRENCE: CEG-H:
DATE:
l SRP:
DATE:
l ECTG PROGRAN NGR:
DATE:
l j
VERIFICATION AND CLOSEOUT
! h 13.
Approved corrective actions have been verified as satisfactorily implemented.
SIGNATURE TITLE DATE I
i
.--.-.-..,,...-,----..,-.-..._-_m-mm.
,e ECTG C.3 Attachment A pO -
Page ~2_ of 2 Revision 2 - A ECSP CORRECTIVE Action Tracting Document (CATD:
INITIATION 1.
Immediate Corrective Action Required:
E Yes O No 2.
Stop Wort Recommended: O Yes G No 3.
CATD No. '2a F 02 34d 01 -
4 INITIATION DATE
//- 4 '3 '
S.
RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION:
.h eJ C 6.
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: 15 QR O NQR PM,-t 2 - Co a is 4to c.<2.e- _ L% & &
,,o ~tt - - 2 4# /a 71M w-J J. 'hiliJte) Mo L o =!h W kulk An. e4 Ho-T. Ar'Ca-L%"M v1'AG m-34 a
AonM a
o., 1 O ATTACHMENTS 7.
PREPARED BY:
NAME Me<~ f. M (V '
- M DATE:
n 26 -f4 8.
CONCURRENCE:
CEG-H 66ff0 h 8,W W/K DATE:
1/-2f 4' gt 9.
APPROVAL:
ECTG PROGRis'MGR.
u DATE:
CORRECTIVE ACTION 10.
PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN:
O ATTACHMENTS 11.
PROPOSED BY:
DIRECTOR /MGR:
DATE:
12.
CONCURRENCE: CEG-H:
DATE:
SRP:
DATE:
ECTG PROGRAM MGR:
DATE:
VERIFICATION AND CLOSEOUT
{i 13.
Approved corrective actions have been verified as satisfactorily implemented.
SIGNATURE TITLE DAIE
.. -. - - -.