ML20207P455
| ML20207P455 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 01/08/1987 |
| From: | Russell J, Stewart D TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207P399 | List: |
| References | |
| 80203-SQN, 80203-SQN-R02, 80203-SQN-R2, NUDOCS 8701160150 | |
| Download: ML20207P455 (30) | |
Text
. - -
.s.
..f
. i-TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
SPECIAL PROGRAM 80203-SQN REPORT TYPE REVISION NUMBER:
Element Report 2
TITLE:
PAGE 1 0F 11 Inspection Performance REASON FOR REVISION:
Rewritten to-comply with Writer's Guide ~and Incorporation of any SRP and TAS comments.
Revision indicators are shown on each page in the. right margin to indicate change.
Note:
Sequoyah Applicability Only PREPARATION PREPARED BY: D G.
ARLO /R. D. HALVERSON d
n-87 ISIC RE'
- DATE REVIEWS PEER:
/
l SIGNATURE
/DATE/
TAS:
U l
1 o
SIGNATURE DATE CONCURRENCES A $/ }
),a
~
C SRP : h
/~ 8"k SIGNATURE DATE IGNATURE*
DATE APPROVED
~MV a4, -
i.r-rr NiA ECSP MAAAGER DATE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR DATE k$hO27 87011 CONCURREN FINAL DR PDR REPORT ONLY)
- SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.
r=r 3_ _.
W, LTVA. EMPLOYEE' CONCERNS REPORT NUMBERg'-
- .- REPORTITYPE:
SPECIAL PROGRAM 80203-SQN l
Element. Report!
REVISION NUMBER:-
- TITLE:
2 PAGE 2 0F 11 (InspectionPerformance-
- 1.0 CHARACTERIZATION-OF ISSUES 1.1L Introduction Thei
- issues ' described: below1 were -derived from Employee Concerns-generated as a4 result, of the Watts. Bar Employee Concern 'Special.
-Program.. The. issues were specific.to thel Sequoyah Nuclear Plant.
1.2 Description of Issues
- The conditions reported (Attachment' A) by concerned employees are:.
a..
Inspection personnel were distracted by craft personnel and i did not observe damaged cable insulation. -(00-85-005-003) b.
Craft' and inspection personnel falsified anchor pull tests and applicable documents. :(XX-85-023-X02)
^c.
Conax connectors - in the containment did not always ' meet vendor wire bend radius instructions,
connector installations with deficiencies were inspected -and accepted by Sequoyah Quality Control (SQN QC); no action was taken by SQN QC management to investigate or document the deficiencies.
(I-86-101-SQN) d '. -
An item of equipment may not have been adequately inspected.
(SQM-6-009-001)
- 2.0
SUMMARY
- 1 2.1 Summary of Characterization of Issues The issues. raised by the employee concerns suggest that:-
(1) inspection personnel were distracted by cra f t personnel and did not perform enetr required functions; (2) test results and documents were falsitled; (3) inspection personnel did not perform an adequate inspection of an item; (4) QC Management failed to investigate or document identified deficiencies.
[
2.2 Summary of Evaluation Process The evaluation process consisted of a review of the Employee Concern files, Quality Technology Company (QTC) files, and Nuclear Safety Review Staff (NSRS) files to determine the scope and extent of the concerns identi fied.
The Nuc lear Quality Assurance Manual, lower tier procedures and instructions, General Construction Specific ations, Work Requests and other related correspondence and documents were reviewed to determine g-,e w vr y,,----.---w-,+
y.vv.-
.-=.-,,y-#
c-m-m
%%%w,---.--f
% -v.,c r ye+-,r---m wi-m v-r i
m s
.TVA' EMPLOYEE CONCERNS
- REPORT NUMBER:
,.~. REPORT TYPE:.
SPECIAL PROGRAM:
80203-SQN-4
. Element Report-REVISION. NUMBER:
-TITLE:-
2'
~
'Inspec tion' Per formanc e
.PAGE 3 0F 11:
the programmatic requirements and management directives 'related ' to' theT issue.
Discussions' were ~ held with Quality ' Control,; Construction, and Modification personnel-? to obtain ' more specitic. information ' regarding ~
-the issues.~-
The documents reviewed during the investigations and used in the=
evaluation are listed on Attachment D.
2.3. Summary of Findings
i*-
2.3.1 Issue -- Inspection personnel were distracted by craft -
3 personnel. and did not observe damaged cable insulation.
extrac'ted - provided '
The concern from which this issue was reference to.a similar concern (00-85-005-014) which noted specific cable / conduit runs and. identified the period in which -
the incident occurred' as 1977.
The records that were applicable to the specific cable pulling..
operation ' were reviewed.
It was determined - that. the cables-
~
received and passed High Potential' (Hi-Pot) tests.
The ' cables have since been de-energized ' although the ; design ~ drawings do not re flec t. the. change. - The issue ~is unsubstantiated.
2.3.2 Issue -- Craft and inspection personnel falsified anchor pull. {
tests and related documentation.
The investigation identified an Employee' Response i Team (ERT)
Report dealing with the anme issue.
~The investigation also-produced a copy of a memorandum from the Office of the General Counsel, which agreed with the ERT findings and 'took no-further action on the falsification issue raised.
Based on the ERT Report, the interviews conducted,- and the-Quality Assurance Category Evaluation ' Group (QACEG) evaluation of the results, the QACEG could find no cases where anchor pull tests-were falsified. The issue is unsubstantiated.
2.3.3 Issues - Conax connectors in the containment did not alway a meet vendor wire bend-radius ins tructions ;
connector installations with deficiencies were inspected ~ and accepted by SQN QC; no action was taken by SQN QC management to investigate or document the deficiencies.
The NSRS investigated these issues and issued report No. I 101-SQN dated February 1986 (Attachment B).
A Corrective Action Report dated February 1986 was also issued.
Two valves we re found to have connectors where wire bend radii were below minimum requirement s and workplans were found to have been
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NLP'BER:
REPORT TYPE:
SPECIAL PROGRAM 80203-SQN Element Report REVISION NUMBER:
TITLE:
2 Inspection Performance PAGE 4 0F 11 written where wo rt-was per formed and inspected; however the plans did not re fe r to the vendor manual for installation of the connectors.
Lack of QC management action could not be verified since the QACEG could find no evidence to determine if the concerned individual brought this issue to QC Management prior to the NSRS investigation.
l The issue of the connectors not meeting the wire bend radius instructions and connectors being installed and accepted with deficiencies is valid.
A reinspection was initiated by TVA Management.
Specific correc tive actions and the results achieved to date are discussed below.
2.3.4 Issue -- A item of equipment may not have been adequately inspected.
This issue could not be evaluated since there was insufficient information available to perform an investigation.
l2 2.4 Corrective Action A Correc tive Action Tracking Document (CATD.
No. 80203-SQN-01 dated September 18, 1986 was issued for Engineering to determine the long term effect on cable repaired by electrical tape.
Engineering has responded and concluded that the insulation d.amage was not sufficient to impair cable function.
A Corrective Action Report which addressed the issue of Conax connectors installed with wire bend radit outside the allowable limits was written in February 1986.
Corrective actions, which consisted of issuance of Revision 1 to Maintenance and Addition Instruction M&AI-19 to include wire bend radii instructions, reinspec tion for the minimum bend radius and rework as necessary to all Conax Connectors, and the Environmental Qualfication Project Manager's concurrence with the Conax Vendor Manual Revision, were performed and verification by Quality Assurance (QA) was completed in August 1986.
No fu r ther actions are required.
3.0 EVALUATORS D. C. Barlow R. D. Halverson 4.0 EVALUATION PROCESS 4.1 General Methods of Evaluation Research cf the files produced additional in forma t ion to support the investigation by way of NSRS Reports and an additional concern.
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
REPORT TYPE:
SPECIAL PROGRAM 80203-SQN Element Report REVISION NUMBER:
TITLE:
2 Inspection Performance PAGE 5 0F 11 Construction specifications, procedures and instructions were reviewed to extract the requirements and determine adequacy of the details provided.
Microfilm records provided details of inspections and tests performed and per7onnel discussions were held to support the records reviewed.
Corrective action records and supporting data we re also reviewed to provide details on the de ficiencies noted and the corrective actions taken.
4.2 Specifics of Evaluation 4.2.1 Issue -- Inspection personnel were distracted by craft personnel and did not observe damaged cable instruction.
In researching the files for cdditional information regarding craft distracting inspection personnel and cable insulation damage, QACEG personnel reviewed a related concern (00-85-005-0 14) which identified the specitic cable / conduit runs involved.
Four cables were identified.
That concern also identified the period of time as mid-1977.
Microfilm records relating to the above identified cable / conduit runs were reviewed (cable pulling
- cards, cable / conduit inspection
- cards, and Hi pot records) to determine if inspections were performed and tests completed.
An interview was held with an individual involved in the inspection of three (3) or the above noted cable pulls.
The interview centered around how an inspector may become distracted and how an inspector can cover the inspections given the various areas cable is pulled through.
General Construction Specification G-38, Revision 1,
dated October 22, 1975 " Installing Insulated Cable Up to 15,000 volt Inc lus ive",
was reviewed to determine if instructions were provided for repairing damaged cable and/or insulation.
Likewise, Sequoyah Inspection Instructions Numbers SNP 11-28,
" Cable Pulling Inspection" Revision 0 (dated May 26, 1977),
Revision 1 (dated June 11, 1977),
Revision 2, (dated Oc tober 4, 1977);
SNP 11-10,
" Electrical Penetration and Interconnecting Cable Termination and Insulation Inspec t ion" Revision 6 (dated Decembe r 27, 1976),
Revision 7 (dated May 26, 1977), Revision 8 (dated June 11, 1977), Revision 9 (dated December 21, 1977); SNP II-26,
" Exposed Conduit and Conduit Box Inspection", Revision 0 (dated May 26, 1977),
Revision 1 (dated June 11, 1977),
Revision 2
(dated September 13, 1977), Revision 3 (dated October 14, 19/7), we re
- t TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBERt' -
REPORT TYPE:
SPECIAL PROGRAM 80203-SQN-
~ Element Report REVISION NUMBER:
TITLE:
2 Inspection Performance PAGE 6 OF-11
- reviewed to determine. inspection requirements and adequacy of those methods and acceptance criteria to - enable an inspector
.to perform the intended functions.
A Construction Category Evaluation Group l Element Report. No.
C010900-SQN dated Nov. 1986 was also reviewed for additional information pertaining to the subject issue.
4.2.2 Issue -- Craft and inspection personnel falsified anchor pull tests and'related documentation.
(
' An. Employee Response Team' (ERT) Report (XX-85-023-X02, dated March, 1986) (Attachment C) was found to address the same issue.
The QACEG investigation attempted to secure' a ' listing of the hangers in the Unit 2 Annulus area -since the employee concern identified this area specifically.
A list of hangers by location does not exist, according to Engineering, and it was. concluded that if-records were located it would be extremely difticult to establish if the test results were falsitied.
There fore, emphasis was placed on locating and discussing the issue with personnel who were involved.in anchor bolt installations / inspections in that period.
A review was pertormed of General Construction Specification G-32,
" Bolt Anchors Set -In Hardened Concrete" Revision 4 (dated April 21, 1976) and Revision 5 (dated July 21, 1977) to determine the installation and test requirements.
Inspection Instruction SNP 11-93, " Testing of Expansion Anchors Set in Hardened Concrete", Revision 0 (dated February 14, 1977),
Revision 1 (dated March 15, 1977),-
Revision 2 (dated November 2, 1977) were also reviewed to determine testing requirements and the associated documentation.
4.2.3 Issue -- Conax connectors in the containment did not always meet vendor wire bend radius instructions, connector installations with deficiencies were inspected and accepted by Sequoyah Quality Control (SQN QC); no action was taken by SQN QC management to investigate or document the deficiencies.
i NSRS Report I-86-101-SQN dated February 1986 was written on the above issues along with a Corrective Action Report (CAR) also dated February 1986 describing deficiencies on Conax connector bend radii.
The CAR and subsequent revision to Maintenance and Addition Instructions M&AI-19 (RI), " Installation of Conax Connectors" were reviewed to dete rmine if adequate req tirements for inspection or wtre bend radii had been provided and if the CAR had been closed satisfactorily.
'TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER REPORT TYPE:
SPECIAL PROGRAM 80203-SQN
-Element Report-REVISION NUMBSR:
TITLE:
2 Inspection Performance PAGE 7 0F 11 In researching the issues concerning Conax connector deficiencies, the QACEG Evaluation Group inte rviewed the QC Electrical Supervisor.
A copy of Corrective Action. Report SQ CAR-86-02-005 dated February 10, 1986 furnished by this individual was reviewed.
4.2.4 Issue -- An item of equipment may not have been adequately inspected.
2 Insufficient information available to perform an investigation.
5.0 FINDINGS 5.1 Findings on Issue - Inspection personnel were distracted by craft personnel.
5.1.1
-Discussion Concern.-No. 00-85-005-003 dealing with the inspector being distracted and preventing him from noticing damage to cable insulation re fe renced Concern No.
00-85-005-014 which identified four specific cable / conduit runs.
That concern stated in part, " Insulation was mistakenly cut off of a 440 volt cable and the insulation was reattached with electrical tape."
The concern went on to identify the cables as the power feed to the Back Flow Gate Hoist Motors..There are four such motors and are part of the Essential Raw Cooling Water (ERCW) System. That same concern identified four cable / conduit runs as 1-PL-6370-B, 1-PL-6360-A, 2-PL-6370-B and 2-PL-6360-A and also identified the period ot time as mid-1977.
Concern No. 00-85-005-014 is a reissue of Concern No. 00 005-001.
The reason for reissue was a correction of one of the cable numbers referenced in the concern.
This concern was part of the Construction Element Report No. C010900-SQN and 2
the particular issue is addressed under the heading
" Insulation Damage".
Inspection records -show that two (2) inspectors were involved with the cable visual examinations of the identified cable / conduit runs in the period from June-September 1977.
An inte rview was held with an individual involved in the inspection of three (3) cable pulls (1-PL-6370-B, 1-PL-6360-A, and 2-PL-6360-A).
The inte rview centered around how an inspector may become distracted and how an inspector can cover the inspections given the various areas cable is pulled through.
The individual involved with cable pull 2-PL-6370-B
- /
i TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBERt-REPORT TYPE:
SPECIAL PROGRAM 80203-SQN
. Element Report-REVISION NUMBER:
TITLE:
2 Inspection Performance PAGE 8 0F 11 inspectron-could not be interviewed as he is no longer employed by TVA.
The - individual interviewed, who inspected three of the four cables in question, stated that because of the various areas a cable may._ be pulled through ' the inspector could not always-witness the entire operation.. In his opinion, the point at
'is' sue could have happened.
In reviewing the records it was noted that the four (4) cable / conduit runs re ferenced indicated acceptable installation and testing through the period June-September 1977.
These cables _ received and passed a Hi-Pot Test.
It was also found that the cables have been de-energized since the Back-Flow Gate Hoists are no longer needed.
In discussions with the Design Engineering personnel and a review of the drawings associated with the motors and ' c ables, -
it was found that the design drawings 45N-751-1,
-2,
-5, and -
' 6 do no t reflect that the ' cables have been de-energized and motors taken out of service.
5.1.2 Conclusion The issue of an inspector being deliberately distracted from noticing a cable insulation nonconformance and the same inspector being distracted.while the cable was improperly repaired and pulled into the conduit can not be substantiated.
However, since the re ferenced cables have been de-energized the issue raised by the concerned employee is invalid at this time.
The. ECSP Corrective Action Tracking Document No. 80302-SQN-01 which was issued on September 18, 1986 was issued for Engineering to evaluate the long term e f fec t on the cables being repaired with electrical tape.
SQN has since responded by saying that records indicate acceptable installation and testing (Hi-Pot and Megger).
The cables have been in service since 1977 and it is likely that they have experienced the worst conditions including submergence during that time without any problems.
Engineering concluded that if there was damage, it was not sufficient to impair the function of the cable and no further action is needed.
With the additional in forma tion made available to QACEG and further research where it was found that Engineering did not re flec t the status of the cables as being de-energized on the design drawings, QACEG has prepared CATD 80203-SQN-02 for SQN
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
REPORT TYPE:
SPECIAI PROGRAM 80203-SQN Element Report REVISION NUMBER:
TITLE:
2 Inspection Performance PAGE 9 0F 11 to evaluate the problem condition in light ot their response to CATD 80203-SQN-01, ( Attachments E and F).
Cra f t and inspection personnel falsified anchor 5.2 Finding on Issue pull tests and applicable documents.
5.2.1 Discussion The SQN Inspection Supervisor provided the names of five (5) inspection personnel who were involved in anchor bolt inspecticas in 1977.
These personnel were inte rviewed to determine their knowledge of falsification of test records or other wrongdoing involving records.
They all said they had heard that falsification had happened at Watts Bar, but no one could recall an instance of falsification of test results having happened at SQN.
The ERT report mentioned conducting interviews with 27 individuals involved in the installation and inspection of anchor bolts.
They too denied knowlege of falsification of test records.
The Office of General Counsel (OGC), in their memorandum to the Manager of Nuclear Power dated April 30, 1986, concluded that in its review of the QTC investigation into the issue of craft and inspection personnel falsifying anchor pull tests and documentation there was
"...no collaborating / objective evidence
...found to allow substantiation."
The Office of General Counsel will take no further action on this issue.
In 2
a phone conversation with the Of fice of the Manager of Nuclear l Power, ONP advised that it has accepted the decision of the Of fice of General Counsel regarding this issue.
5.2.2 Conclusion Based on inte rviews, lack of data to support the issue, the ERT Report and the OGC memorandum, it is concluded that the 2
issue of craft and inspection personnel falsifying anchor pull tests and applicable documents is not substantiated.
5.3 Finding on Issues - Conax connectors in the containment did not always meet vendor wire bend radius instructions, connector installations with deficiencies were inspected and accepted by Sequoyah Quality Control (SQN QC); no action was taken by SQN QC management to investigate or document the deficiencies.
5.3.1 Discussion The issue dealing with Conax connectors and deficiencies noted was the subject of a NSRS Report of " Installation of
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
REPORT TYPE:
SPECIAL PROGRAM 80203-SQN REVISION NUMBER:
Element Report 2
TITLE:
PAGE 10 0F 11 Inspection Performance Conax Connectors", I-86-101-SQN dated February 1986 and a Corrective Action Report (CAR)
SQ CAR 86-02-005 dated February 10, 1986.
Two valves were verified to have wire bend radii below minimum allowed.
A sample was than taken from Units 1 and 2 and an additional 14 valves were found to have 2
deficient wire bend radii.
Workplans were written to install the connectors, field installation was completed and inspections were performed.
Work plans did not contain steps to verify wire bend radius nor did they re fe rence the vendor manual for installation.
A review was made of the CAR ~ and a sub seque nt revision to Main tenance and Addition Instruction M&AI-19 (RI),
" Installation of Conax Connectors".
It was determined that the requirements for inspection of wire bend radii have been added, reinspection for the minimum bend radius and rework as necessary to all Conax connectors, and the EQ Project Manager's cconcurrence with. the vendor manual revision have been performed.
QA verified corrective action was taken and the CAR was closed in August 1986.
5.3.2 Conclusion The issue of Conax connectors installed in containment that do not meet the vendor wire bend radius instructions was substantiated.
However, this condition was documented in SQ CAR-86-02-005, reinspections have been performed, and corrective actions have been completed.
The issue of connectors being inspected and accepted by QC with deficiencies is factual since there were cases found whe re wire bend radii was inadequate.
Work Plans for the installation of the connectors did not address bend radii when 2
~
issued.
General Construction Specification G-38 did not address wire bend radii either.
Inspections were conducted to the requirements of the approved workplans.
It was the omission of minimum wire bend radius inspection criteria in the workplans which allowed the connector installation to be accepted by QC.
The inclusion now, of vendor instructions for minimum bend radius in the M&AI-19 (R1) will preclude the omission of bend radii inspections in the future.
The issue of no action being taken by SQN QC Management to investigate and document the deficiencies prior to the NSRS investigation cannot be susbtantiated.
No evidence exists to determine if anyone knew there were deficiencies prior to the investigation.
n 1
,t' g
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
REPORT TYPE:
SPECIAL PROGRAM-
.80203-SQN Element Report REVISION NUMBER:
TITLE:
2 Inspection Performance -
PAGE 11'0F 11 Attachment A identified ' ' this issue as potentially sa fe ty related.. However, corrective ' measures including procedural change.and necessary rewo rk and reinspection have been completed and no further action is needed.
2 5.4 Finding on Issue' - An - item of equipment may not have been adequately inspected.
In researching this issue the QACEG could not find any specific information that indicated a need for further investigation.
i 6.0 ATTACHMENTS A.
List of Employee Concern Information Subcategory:
80203 Inspection Performance B.
NSRS Report I-86-101-SQN
'C.
QTC Employee Response Team (ERT) Report No. XX-85-023-X02 D.
Listing of documents and correspondence reviewed during the investigation of these issues.
E.
CATD No.' 80203-SQN-01 and SQN Memorandum dateu October 29, 1986 (RIMS S03 861022 808)
F.
CATD No. 80203-SQN-02 dated November 18, 1986
,.m
,_mv
---e-.
ATTAClBIENT A i
- ECPSI20J-ECPSI2IC TEllflESSEE VALLEV AUTil0RITY PAGE 13 CY
- REQUEST OFFICC OF flUCLEAR POWER RUll TIME - 13:4C 25 SSS - PHl1 EMPLOYEE C0tlCERi! PROGRAM SYSTEM (ECPS)
RUtl DATE - 10/I6/86 LIST OF Ef1PLOYEE CutlCERil IllFORMATION QA QA/QC PROGRAMS SUBCATEGORY: 80203 IllSPECTION PERFORMAllCE S
GENERIC KEYHORD A H
APPL QTC/flSRS P
KEYHORD B IRN SUB R PLT BBSH IllVESTIGATI0ll S
C0llCERil KEYl10RD C 3ER CAT CAT D LOC FLQB REPORT R
DESCRIPTIO!1 KEYl10RD D t -Soti QA 80203 N SQH N N ll ti flS I.CollAX C0!1tlECTORS INST ALLED INSIDE K-FOR!1 SEQUOYAH tlVCLEAR PLA!!T ( SQil) UllIT I COHTAIll!1EllT D0 fl0T ALHAYS MEET VENDO R HIRE BEND RADIUS REQUIRE!1ENTS. 2.A LLEGED DEFICIEllCIES IN C0HAX CONHECT OR IllSTALLATI0ll HERE INSPECTED BY SQ fl QUALITY CutlTROL (QC) AHD ACCEPTED.
3.N0 ACTI0tl !!AS TAKEli BY SQ!i QC Matt AGEMEllT TO IllVESTIGATE OR DOCUMEllT T HESE DEFICIENCIES HHEtt THEY HERE MAD E AHARE OF TilEM.
Emur M
6 N
4enumme 1
)
105-003 QA 80203 H SQH YYNY SS SEQUOYAH: CRAFT FOREMAll (K!10MH) AND 110 tlc 0tlFORMAtlCE j
'4 K-FORM OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CREH DELIBERATE CORRECTIVE ACTI0tt LY DISTRACTED All IllSPECTOR TO PREVEll GEllERAL T THE IllSPECTOR FR0!!Il0TICING A fl0HC FOREt1AN DilFORMAllCE REGARDIllG CABLE IllSULATIO i
il DAt1 AGE.
THE IllSPECTOR HAS DISTRAC TED HHILE THE CABLE DAMAGE HAS REPAI RED IllPROPERLY, AtID THE CABLE PULLED IllTO THE CONDUIT.
(SPECIFIC CABLE C0tlCERN ADDRESSED Ill THIS FILE, CutlC ERil 001) DETAILS Kil0Hil 10 QTC, HITHH ELD DUE TO CONFI DENTI ALITY.
Il0 FURT llER IllFORf1ATIDH MAY BE RELEASED. CD NST. DEPT. CollCERil. CI HAS 110 F 109-001 QA 80203 il SQH 11 H tl N 1-86-242-SQN SS A PIECE OF EQUIPMElli (t10T SPECIFIED) fl0t1CONFORMAllCE i2 K-FORM F1AY HOT HAVE BEEll ADEQUATELY IllSPEC IllSPECTIO!!
TED.
DETAILS Kil0Hil TO QTC, HITHHELD QUALITY DUE TO CollFIDENTIALITY.
110 FURTilER EQUIPMEllT IllFORMATI0li f1AY BE RELEASED.
IlUCLE AR POWER DEPARTMElli CollCERil.
- CE
- ECPS120J-ECPS121C TEllflESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY PAGE 14 1CY
- REQL;EST OFFICE OF flUCLEAR P0HER RUll TIME - 13:48:25 SSS - Rllit EMPLOYEE CollCERil PROGRAM SYSTEM (ECPS)
RUll DATE - 10/16/86 LIST OF El1PLOYEE C0llCERil IllFORMATI0li
- QA QA/QC PROGRAMS S', CATEGORY: 80203 INSPECTIDH PERFORMANCE S
GENERIC KEYHORD A H
APPL QTC/flSRS P
KEYHORD B ERf1 SUD R PLT BBSH. IllVESTIGATI0ll S
C0llCERH KEYHORD C BER CAT CAT D LOC FLQB REPORT R
DESCRIPTION KEYHORD D 023-X02 IH 00000 S SQti N 11 Y ti SS CRAFT AllD IllSPECTIO!! PERSOH!lEL FALSI FALSIFICATIO!1 33 QA 80203 K-FORM FIED ANCHOR PULL TESTS AND APPLICABL RECORDS E DOCUl1EllTS. MID 1977.
UtlIT82, AtlH OPERATIONS ULUS AREA.
(DETAILS TO SPECIFICE CA AllCHORS SE i.9HH TO QTC AllD HITHELD TO MAIllT AIll COP IDEllTI AL ITY).
CONSTRUCTION DEPT, ilCERil. CI HAS HO MORE IllFORf1A TI0ll.
.. ~ _.
. ~
.~
-J..
. c o-s
..l^
,, ~ TV A s i tos-9-45) top WS 5 8 5)
~
UNITED STATES COVERN. ENT ATTAC M U B M
' iMemorandum TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
- r To: H. L.'Abercrombie, Site Director, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant FROM: K. W. Whitt, Directorof Nuclear Safety Review Staff. E3A8-C-K-
((Q 27 lhbb.
DATE:
SUBJECT:
NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF INVESTIGATION REPORT TRANSHITTAL
.'N Transmitted herein is NSRS Report No.
T-86-101-SON
. Subject INSTALLATION OF CONAX' CONNECTORS Concern No.
N/A-l
,and associ'ated prioriti::ed reconnendations for your action / disposition.
It is requested that you respond to this report and the attached Priority.
2 [P2] recommendation by-Aoril 28, 1986. Should you have any questions,
~
please contact W. D. Stevens at telephone 6231-K l
t l
Recommend Reportability Determination: Yes No I
l'
" irector, NS m nesilftee
=ans aan MJCLfan u t.
WDS:JTH snr ::.,=.crens cue.
I Attachment cc (Attachment):
PAR 0336 W. C. Bibb, BFU W. T. Cottle, WBN James P. Darling, BLN j g R. P. Denise, LP6N40A-C
}. 2 2 G. B. Kirk, SQN i -1".'.,
l; D. R. Nichols, E10A14 C-K g
QTc/ERT, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant l'. ~
l<
'Eric Sliger, LP6U48A-C
'l2 J. H. SulliVan, SQN C.?.
9 ps43u
g,.
.j.
-s '.
1 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF NSRS INVESTICATION REPORT NO. I-86-101-SQN
~ ~ ~
IN5TALLATION O' CONAI CONNECTORS SUBJECT DATES OF INVESTIGATION:
FEBRUARY 10-13,~1986 3
N b
-INVESTIGATOR:
N. T. HENRICH DATE REVIEWED'BY:
2[26 [$
~
L. E. BROCK DATE l
I.
pp-
/
APPROVED BY:
_/
Mue +~/
.M)7 I W. D. STEVElfS '
DATE /
~
l,.
i j
f.
l:.
g O
y m
e,..
w
~
f*.
I.
BACKCROUND A Nuclear Safety Review Staff (USRS) investigation was conducted to.
determine the validity of an expressed employee concern _ identified to the NSRS during the investigation of employee concern IX-85-087-001.
The concern addressed by this report was not related to the concern under investigation at that time and was outlined in a memorandum from C. E. Chmielewski to R. C. Sauer dated December 31, 1985 (Ref. 1).
The employee concern addressed by this investigation report did not come through the Quality Technology Company (QTC)/ Employee Response Team (ERT). Therefore, no Employee Concern Assignment Request Form is availabl,e su=marizing the concern of record.
II. ' SCOPE-
~
The scope of this investigation was determined from the concern of A.
record as su=marized in reference 1 to be that of three specific issues requiring investigation:
1.
Conax connectors installed inside Seq'uoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN)-
unit 1 containment do not always meet vendor wire bend radius requirements.
2.
Alleged deficiencies in Conax connector installation were r
inspected by SQN Quality Control (QC) and accepted.
3.
No action was taken by SQU QC management to investigate or document these deficiencies when they were made aware of them.
B.
To accomplish this investigation, vendor manuals and environmental qualification data sheets were reviewed to determine Conax connector l
installation requirements. Procedures governing the actual i
installation of these connectors were reviewed and compared against these requirements.
Discussions were also held with QC personnel to P
determine if Conax connector installation deficiencies have'been identified and any corrective action planned or taken te resolve the deficiencies should they exist.
l
~
III.
SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS A.
Requirements and Commitments i
l Not applicable to this investigation.
B.
Findings 1.
Conax Corporation Manual, Installation Manual for Electric Conductor Seal Assemblies with Lenn Bodv fer Pipe Thread
~
Ecuipment Interface, IPS-725, was originally issued June 26, 1981. The latest revision to this manual is revision "C" which
-1
.~.
,m.
.E was issued February 15, 1985 (Ref. 4).
This manual provides basic information, handling, and install'ation instructions for Conax electrical conductor seal assemblics type ECSA.
Section 7.2 of the manual specifies the minimum wire bend radii requirements. Based on a review of the manual revision log, it appears that these requirements were identified in the original issuance of the manual.
2.
Reference 3 documents that Conax electrical conductor seal assemblies type ECSA are environmentally qualified for forty years with one design basis accident and 100-day postaccident operation. However, the initial installation.and subsequent
~
reinstallation or replacement of the seal following maintenance must be perfcrmed in,tecordance with Conax installation
~ instructions outlined in reference 4.
3.-
Workplans 11077 R1, 11231, and 11335 (Refs. 6, 7, and 8 respectively) were written to install Conax connectors to meet enviro.tmental qualification requirements set forth in NUREG-0588.
Each of these workplans were prepared and worked prior to issuance of a modification sud additions instruction regarding installation of Conax connectors. Thesi workplans did not, 8
specify minimum connector wire bend radius requirements and did not require verification of installed wire bend radii. Each of these workplans had been reviewed and approved by SQN QC personnel. Work was performed in accordance with the workplans, and specified QC inspections were performed.
4.
Discussions with QC personnel revealed that some, but not all.
of the SQN QC inspectors received Conax connector, installation training when it was offered to craft personnel. QC inspectors evaluated Conax connector installations against requirements identified in approved workplans. The inspection criteria did not include evaluation of wire bend radii.
5 5.
Modifications and Additions Instruction M&AI-19 RO (Ref. 2a) was approved April 12, 1985, and provides guidelines for initial
. field installation of electrical Conax connectors for SQN.
As initially issued, this procedure did not address minimum bend radius requirements for there connectors nor did it' identify a need to inspect completed installations for acceptable wire bend radii.
6.
Modification and Additions Instruction M&AI-19 was subsequently revised July 26, 1985 (Ref. 2b) and incorportted vendor reco=mendations for the minicum bend radius of elect rical pigtails as specified by Conax Corporation in reference 4
m 7'o.
._7.- Maintenance activities have confirmed that valves 2-FSV-43-310 and 2-FSV-43-319 installed under wokplan 11077 R1 have wire
' bend radii which do not meet minimum requirements set forth in
~
M&AI-19 R1_(Ref. 2b)'and Conax manual IPS-725 (Ref. 4).
8.
Work requests B-106737 and B-106242 have.been initiated to inspect. a sample of installed Conax connectors for proper. wire 4
bend radii. Preliminary inspections indicate that a number of valves using Conax connectors on both units do not meet the' specified wire' bend radii requirements.
9.
On ' February 10,~1986', SQN Corrective Action Report (CAR)
SQN-CAR-C6-02-005'(Ref. 5) was is' sued to identify an adverse condition related to the installation of Conax connectors.
~~" This CAR states:
~
I' Contrary to the. requirements of M&AI-19 and the Conax vendor manual IPS-725, not all Conax l
connectors were installed with wire bend radii within allowable linits. In addition, M&AI-19 is not consistent with the vendor manual' revision referenced in the EQ binder.
Adherence to these requirements is~necessary to 4
2 maintain equipment environmental qualification.
As written, M&AI-191R1 (Ref. 2b) specifies a different torquing sequence and different t'inal torquing values than conax installation manuni IPS-725 (Ref. 4).. In addition, M&AI-19 R1 does not provide details regarding application of Grafoil sealant.
I' 10.
In accordance with SQN Administrative Instruction [ AI-12 (Ref. 9) an evaluation of. the root cause of the deficiency-addressed by SQN-CAR-86-02-005 must be completed within 30 days i'
of the icsuance of a CAR.
This evaluation must also address.
's-remedial. corrective action, action to prevent recurrence, and an estimated schedule for completing the corrective action.
7 11.
QC has-begun reviewing all workplans and/or work instructions for work affecting any equipment within the scope,of the environmental qualification program against vendor instructions t.o ensure compliance with vendor recommendations.
~
IV.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A.
Conclusions 1.
The first issue raised by the concern of record is substantiated in that several Conax connectors have been installed on both units 1 and 2 without meeting the minimum i
wire bend radii requirements set forth in Ccnax installation manual IPS-725.
~
1
c"N
~
2.
The'second issue raised by the' concern of record could not be substantiated. Conax connectors were installed in accordance
. with approved workplans..These workplans had been reviewed and approved by QC.
QC inspectors were not directed to inspect Conax installations -for proper bend radii. It should be noted.
however, that the workplans did not adequately address Conax installation recommendations identified in the vendor's manual regarding minimum wire bend radii.
- 3. -The third issue raised by the concern of record could not be substantiated. CAR SQN-CAR-86-02-005 has been, issued to document Conax connector installation deficiencies. A response, is required by March 12, 1986, unless an extension is approved.
~
B.
RecoImmendations
'~
I-86-101-SQN-01, Resolution of Deficiencies The deficiencies identified in corrective action report SQN-CAR-86-02-005 should be addressed and resolved in accordance with SQN AI-12.
[P2]
1
~
g e
I
i
,n~
p
- ~
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED IN INVESTICATION I~86-101-SQU-AND REFERENCES
- 1.
-Informal memorandum from C. E. Chmtelewski.to R.~C. Sauer, " Employee Concern at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant-(SQN)," dated December 31, 1985 2.
Modifications and Additions Instruction M&AI-19, " Installation of.Conax-Connectors"-
a.
R0 dated April 12, 1985 b.
.1~ dated July 26. 1985.
3.
SQN Environmental, Qualification Binder, "Conax Conductor Seal Assemblies (ECSA)," No. SQNEQ-CSC-001 4.'
Conax Corporation, Installation Manual for Electrical Conductor Seal-Assemblies with Lenz Body for Pipe Thread Equipment Interface, IPS-725 RG, dated. February 15, 1985 4
5.
.SQN Corrective Action Report SQN-CAR-86-02-005 dated February-10, 1986
- 6.
Workplan 11077 R1, " Installation of.Conax Conne'ctors in PASF Valves Inside Containment," prepared October 15 -1984 S
7.
Workplan 11231, "Various Equipment Seals - NUREG-0588,": prepared September 24, 1984 8.
Workplan 11335 "Various Equipment Seals NUREG-0588," prepared November 7,'1984 9.
SQN Administrative Instruction - AI-12. " Adverse Conditions and Corrective Actions," R20, dated August 2, 1985.
h e
D t
e i
i I'
i ee v3
.-em,
.-,-,,--..,-.-%.---.-,--,-e-
- - - -., + -
..,--...-4 v.--
n.-c..-
- - M
p;.
(
(-
ATTAC101ENT C a
OUALITY TECHNOLOGY COMPANY Qi C P.O. BOX 600
. Sweetwater. TN 37874-(615)365 4414 ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT PAGE 1 OF 4
. {_
CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-X02 CONCERN: Sequoyah; Craft and inspection personnel falsified anchor.
j pull-tests and applicable documents, (Mid-1977, Unit 2, Annulus).
INVESTIGATION-PERFORMED BY:
T.
Hough DETAILS
- PERSONNEL CONTACTED: (CONFIDENTIAL)
I O
/
I a
t I
I l
i 1
' )
e
+
s 2, ;;-
. /..
s....
k'
(.
PAGC-2 OE 4
- ERT INVCSTIGATION_ REPORT.
[ CONCERN;NO:
XX-85-023-X02' x
DETAILS,; continued
. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED:
Inspection Instruction'- 93 (II-93)
" Testing of?' Expansion-SNP
~
- 1. -
Anchors Set'in Hardened Concrete and Grouted Anchors"'
.R-0.(2/22/77), R-1-(3/22/77), R-16 (8/1/84).
- 02. -
General. Construction Spec.
-G-32 " Bolt Anchors Set in Hardened-Concrete"
- R-0.
(9/72),
R-4 (4/21/76),
R-5 (7/21/77),
R-6 (2/17/81), and R-10 (4/1/85).
J3.
SNP 47A050' " General Notes"- (Support Typicals)
L4..
. Craft' Time Cards'(1978) f
SUMMARY
'OF INVESTIGATION:
This concern was-not substantiated. Interviews were conducted with (27).
anchors individuals involved in theLinstallation of concrete expansion No (CEA's ) at' Sequoyah during the time f rame specified-in the concern.
collaborating / objective evidence was found to allow substantiation of the concern.
This investigation was conducted intermittently from 11/25/85 to 2/21/86.-
FINDINGS:
review of The investigakion of this conce'rn was approached in two ways:
applicable documentation and interview of personnel involved in CEA installation during 1977.
As noted during the investigation of a
related-concern (XX-85-023-001),
applicable documentation proved difficult to obtain.
This is due to the fact that work plans were not'
{
utilized at SNP until 1981. This fact, when combined with the-myriad of documented exceptions to anchor pull-testing (Ref:-
47A050 notes and procedures) and the unlikelihood of finding documentation applicable proving falsification of pull-testing, dictated that the investigation
-effort.be concentrated on the interviewing of personnel.
Personnel records and cost accounting records were reviewed to deterg.ine appropriate personnel to interview.
A list was developed comprising personnel. certified to conduct inspections of CEA 's and
- l
l ERT INVESTIGATION-REPORT FAGE 3 <0r14 CONCERN-NO. -XX-85-023-X02 DETAILS, continued
~
FINDINGSi: continued those' persons; involved in'CEA installation.
Th'e list.was narrowed by_
.dstermining.whomL within~the list-are still. employed ~ locally
.ti.e.,
s.immediately_-: available f or.. interview). Interviews were conducted to.
verify involvement (during specifiedutime-frames),: determine compliance with-procedural. requirements,- and ascertain knowledge of wrongdoing-activities.,
R2sults.of the interview process are as follows:
~
o.
Acquaintance' with1 the individual. alleged to -have been 7
involved.
in.
falsification - activities could not be established,.(even after prompting).
~
o Knowledgef of' alleged wrongdoing activities was limited-to WBNP and
'was denied'in relation to Sequoyah.
Several craft personnel and a few inspection personnel made reference to activities such as cutting off
" Red-Head" CEA's,
_ welding bolts to the backs of base plates, etc.,
but only at
- WBNP, not'at SNP.'(Reference various other ERT concerns).
o With-few exception, inspection. personnel interviewed expressed concern regarding the quantity of "47A050- Notes" generated -and the ability of.anyone to keep abreast of the "050. Notes" and subsequent changes. (Reference various~other ERT concerns) t CONCLUSIONS:
-This concern is not substantiated.
I This conclusion is based on the following:
o The "47A050 Notes" allowed numerous exceptions to
. pull-testing, i.e.,
there were few personnel knowledgeable m
about exactly when a
pull-test absolutely had to be performed.
il' l
.~-
_;_i>?,
- f.,
.'m ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT
.PAGE 4 OF14 CONCERN NO. XX-85 -0 2 3-X0 2 -
- DETAILS, continueo iCONCLUSIONS, continued ~~
o
.No documentation.could be obtained.that ~.would support occurrence of this wrongdoing activity (falsifying pull-test.
records) o.
No collaborating '.te s timo ny was obtaine.d. from personnel
-involved in CEA installation in the Sequoyah Unit-2 Annulus during 1977.
t:
i_.
is t-
/
o PREPARED BY:
Jh/84 DATE REVIEWED'BY:
I Mg 3/7/7p DATE
'/
~
s.
, ~.
c u,.
ATTACHMENT D List 'of Documents Reviewed in the Evaluation Process Element Report 80203 a'.
Quality Technology Corportation Employee Response Team (ERT) Report-No. XX-85-023-001 (Revised 10/22/85)
'b.
Memorandum, SQN Site Director ~to Manager of Nuclear Manager's Review Group, April 24, 1986.
c.
Hemorandum, General Counsel to Manager Nuclear Power, April 30,- 1986
.(Administratively Confidential) d.
Construction Specifications:
G-38, Rl-
" Installing Insulated Cable UP to 15,000 Volt Inclusive" G-32, R4, R5
" Bolt Anchors Set in Hardened Concrete" e.
Sequoyah Inspection Instructions:
SNP-II-93, RO, R1, R2 SNP-II-10, R6, R7 SNP-II-26, RO, R1, R2, R3 SNP-II-28, RO, R1, R2 f.
Maintenance and Addition Instructions:
M&Al-4, R8 M&AI-7, R6
.g.
Construction QA Procedure, Const. QAP-10.01, R1 h.
Hanger Drawing General Notes, 47A050 (latest issue of each page) i.
NSRS Report I-86-101-SQN, February 27, 1986
.j. '
Corrective Action Report, SQ CAR 86 02 005, 2/10/86 k.
Construction CEG Element Report C010900-SQN, November 1986
- c.,
.q
,vvi.4eos..
' ATTACHMENT E Page 2 tWITED STATES GOVERNMENT S03 861022 808 Mem orand M771 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY To W. R. Brown, Program Manager, Employee Concerns Task Group, ONP, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant FROM H. L. Abercrombie, Site Director, ONP, O&PS-4, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
~
DATE October 29, 1986
SUBJECT:
SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN) - EMPLOYEE CONCERNS TASK GROUP (ECTG) ELEMENT REPORT 802.03 SQN - QUALITY ASSURANCE CATEGORY - CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (CAP)
Reference:
Your memorandum to me dated October 2,1986, "Wat$s Bar Nuclear Plant - Employee Concerns Task Group (ECTG) Element Report 80203-SQN - Inspection Performance (Sequoyah)" (T25 861002 871)
I acknowledge receipt of your element report and in accordance with your*
request (see reference), Element Report 802.03 SQN has been reviewed for applicable corrective action.
By way of this memorandum I am endorsing the site line organization CAP and attaching the CAP for your review / concurrence and returning your Corrective Action Tracking Document 80203-SQN-1. This CAP is not a restart requirement.
If you agree with the proposed CAP, please sign the ECTG concurrence space below item 9 on the CAP tracking checklist and return the CAP tracking checklist.
L A/#1 H. L. Abdrerombis RCD:JDS:JB:CS Attachments cc (Attachments):
RECEIVED l
RIMS, MR AN 72A-C (B25 '861017 076) l, A. G. Debbage, ONP, ECTG Building, WBN M308S/
i 0221T Employee Ccn:3rns Task Grcup WBN wel,eter.i ne:s 1PD 4
(LB 1
{
?cA i
i 1
JAS ia i
e,
- u. -
1 1
m-t-H l
c i
F f
t I$ I t
e i R _. f, M y
s J
- I 4
{
=
, e' g.
Pega 3
,c.
ATTACHMENT E Standard Practice Page 8 SQA166 Revision 8 Attachment A Page 1 of 2 Corrective Action Plan of Employee Concern Investigation Tracking Checklist E02C3-59.A>--/
ECTG Report /CATD Number 8 0 ~2 0 & W N 47b#
Lead Organization Responsible for Corrective Action Plan 6W6,/A/F3n2//e Initiation Date
/0 74 CCRREC~IVE ACTICN PLAN (CAP) 1.Doesthisreportrequire[correctiveaction?
Yes Noi (If yes, describe corrective action to be taken, if no, provide justification)
.SroCL YM/L /.5 do DEntil4D IMF* sit.m#noJ AJ 7NL 1+tlAD4D CMt$Wis/Sulnno.J 124/A1L bV nM u.sL of ftAcnuest'. YttfL rio Cttuir Cent b& fW !@C YHL 77W6 12tA+1/t., /!LCorf-DS F0/l 7K.(4) CerNL /fEDurf" AMa5 fitJi/4.r.lb sactM nce4/1M1 Sis.
IMsmLbM1od k%D 7t5174 (Nr-Psf nos 'mtDGil). 7%st C#9tts }h+vL MA*):s) 26/CL-Arvel 1911 AJO id ML UCLLY HooO Dutid 7?t1S U/WL YEM! NA400 th4sl BMI%t/fAtib 1%. wouf CoJoinos.S f/JCluDIN(~ SubAb(D4J:L) Ylh+f 1NCY LJilb8L SW/SitutO P wipreur MY AtobtsAs. BMt.o rJ 7K.19so/L. sol Co&uDC 7N#1' 7NL. /A)Sv/Mo2 N 2.
Identify any similar item / instances and corrective action taken.
- 3. Will corrective action preclude recurrence of findings?
Yes
)(
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
>'s
MIA
- 6. Which site section/organisation is responsible for corrective action?
ta ow t.,
- 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 eJ J A
- 9. Estimate completion'date for correction action.
d2le Completed By M,l-Date Def./f /98/a A proved By
- )7) (f D J,,, w s,,f; { / //
Date jg/jg'jpg ECTG Concurrence ~ // ~
O W/f/A//3 Date
' /g4d.g-jm-yr y
) OwoL wes aof S""*
7 '""*' Y .'
6746l.L. } nod A10 f'!W WN Ib
~
s y-
, 3 ;?
l 0206S/mit
p T,
ATTACHMENT E Page 4 Standard Practice Page 9 SQA166 Revision 8 ATTACHMD.'T A Page 2 of 2 CAP CLCSURE
- 10. Was your corrective action initiated and completed in accordance with step l?-
Yes No
- 11. If step 10 is no, describe the corrective action taken.
- 12. Is the corrective action implementation complete?
Yes No
- 13. Is the corrective action documentation closed?
Yes No
- 14. What documents were used to implement the corrective action?
Completed By:
Date Verified By:
Date ECTG Closure:
Date (Step No.)
Description 0206S/mit
CL
.;i.
~," e
,m.
,z
,. -, y
[*'
ATTACHMENT E.
Page 1
~
- TTAC:L.L::T -
ECSP CORRECTIVE Action Tracking Document (CATD)
' INITIATION l.'
-Immediate Corrective Action Required: '/5/ Yes // No
~
2..
Stop Work Recommended: // Yes /X/. No 3.
_ CATD No.
80203-SQN-1 4.
INITIATION DATE 9/5/86 5.
RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION: QACEG 6.
-PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: /I/ QR /[/ HQN
'k Engineering to determine by evaluation, the long te rm e f f ec t ' on cable where insulation was possibly repaired by the -use ~of electrical tape.
440 volt cable feeding Back Flow
-Gate ~ Hoist Motors (lAA,-IBB, 2AA, 2BB)
A_ A A f////// //\\
/ / ATTACHMENTS 7.
PREPARED BY: NAME D.G. Barlow
/j'#l/ //#A_)
DATE:
0./f-f(
8.
-CONCURRENCE: CEG-H k k'/rld
't DATE:
Q-tk-Y L 9.
APPROVAL: ECTG PROGRAM MGR:
/-
DATE:
CORRECTIVE ACTION 10.
PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN:
NoriE - S66 hST1F1CWno.J 0J JVmtCMmW ft oF MEA 02AWDUM B 26~ T &IOl'1 0 9 Gr Dnic-b Oc'i 17,19fb l
/ / ///
/
/ / ATTACHMENTS 11.
PROPOSED BY: DIRECTOR /MGR: #4/h/7////id/u/u DATE: /#/2,*9/7, 12.
CONCURRENCE: CEG-H DATE:
SRP:
DATE:
ECTG PROGRAM MGR:
DATE:
VERIFICATION AND CLOSEOUT,
g i
13.
Approved corrective actions have been verified as implemented.
satisfactorily 1-i
~
SICNATURE TITLE DATE b
y__
'l
/
1 3
g ATTACHMENT F ECSP CORRECTIVE Action Tracking Document (CATD)
INITIATION 1.
Immediate Corrective Action Required:
// Yes
~
7
// No 2.
Stop Work Recommended:
/;/ Yes /X_/ No 3.
CATD No.
80203-SQN-02 4.
INITIATION DATE 11/18/86 5.
RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION:
Office of Nuclear Power 6.
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: ' /X_/ QR /;/ NQR Employee concern 00-85-005-003 was investigated by QACEG and COCEG.
COCEG investigation C010900-SQN indicates that cables 1-PL-6370-B 1-PL-6360-A, 2-PL-6370-B and 2-PL-6370 which supplies
- power feed to the ERCW Backflow Gate Hoist Motors have been de-energized and the motors permenately taken out of service.
QACEG invstigation reveals Design Drawings 45N-751-1,
-2,
-5, and -6 do not reflect this system
- status, m
/
// ATTACHMENTS 7.
PREPARED BY: NAME R. D. Halverson,A C C DATE: 11/18/86 8.
CONCURRENCE: CEG-H R. K. Maxon' /</C // Md DATE: /I// P/ Sr (e 9.
APPROVAL: ECTG PROGRAM MGR:
DATE:
CORRECTIVE ACTION 10.
PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN:
l l
I p
/ / ATTACHMENTS I
11.
PROPOSED BY: DIRECTOR /MGR:
DATE:
12.
CONCURRENCE:
CEG-H DATE:
SRP:
DATE:
ECTG PROGRAM MGR:
DATE:
VERIFICATION AND CLOSE0UT 13.
Approved corrective actions have been verified as satisfactorily implemented.
(
SIGNATURE TITLE DATE e
.-------m-
-._.y w.
,y.
-__-----s e
m.-.-
,