ML20209A807

Insp Repts 50-327/87-16 & 50-328/87-16 on 870304-06.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected: Corrective Action & Licensee Action on Previously Identified Insp Findings

ML20209A807
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	03/27/1987
From:	Belisle G, Runyan M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20209A772	List: ML20209A766 ML20209A807
References
50-327-87-16, 50-328-87-16, NUDOCS 8704280285
Download: ML20209A807 (4)

See also: IR 05000327/1987016

Text

. .

UNITED STATES

[#48 %Ig NUCLEAR REOULATORY COMMISSION

.? o REG 10N il

7 g 101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W., SulTE 2900

ATL ANTA, GEORGIA 30321

o, f

%,, '*..../

Report Nos.: 50-327/87-16 and 50-328/87-16

Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority

6N 38A Lookout Place

1101 Market Street

Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801

Docket Nos.: 50-327 and 50-328 License Nos.: DPR-77 and DPR-79

Facility Name: Sequoyah 1 and 2

InspectionConducted:,fiach 4-6, 1987

Inspector:

M. F. Runyan

T 97c! 7

' '

-r 8'7

Date Signed

7

[

Accompanying Personnel.: G.p.Belisle

Approved by: ( 7e ( -:i 7 Th 7  !

G. A. Telisle, Chiof " Date Signed

Quality Assurance Programs Section

Division of Reactor Safety

SUMMARY ,

Scope: This special, announced inspection was conducted in the areas of

corrective action and licensee action on previously identified inspection

findings.

Results: No violations or deviations were identified.  ;

8704290285 870413

PDR ADOCK 05000327

G PDR

- - - - _ - . _ . - - . .

. _ . _ _ ..-.._-_. - - - _ . .- _- .-

. .

1

i

l

i

. REPORT DETAILS

i t

i  :

l 1. Persons Contacted

! Licensee Employees

V. Bianco. Nuclear Engineer

T. Burdette. Special Assistant to Deputy Manager

i D.Cowart, Supervisor,QualityAssurance(QA)

i D. Craven, Site QA Manager

M. Frye, Plant Assessment Section Supervisor

'

M.Gorman,QualityEngineering(QE)

i *C. Hansen, Licensing Support Section Supervisor

i B. Hurst, Department of Nuclear Engineering (DNE), Civil Staff

j *J. Huston, Consultant, Stone and Webster Engineering

R. Jenkins, DNE

i J. Kearney, Performance Assessment Engineer

. J. Killian, Branch Chief, Quality Audit Branch l

• G. Kirk, Compliance Licensing Supervisor

T. Lee, Licensing Engineer

i A. Morris, Maintenance Planning

'

• R. Parker, Director Division of Nuclear Quality Assurance (DNQA)

} A. Ritter, Engineering Assessment (EA)

! J. Robinson,DepartmentofNuclearConstruction(DNC)

M. Stitt, Conditions Adverse to Quality (CAQ) Coordinator

l D. Widner, DNC '

i

) Other licensee employees contacted included office personnel.

NRC Resident Inspectors -

K. Jenison, Senior Resident Inspector

P. Harmon

j D. Loveless

! W. Poertner

1

• Attended exit interview

'

2. Exit Interview

The inspection scope and findings were sunnarized on March 6,1987, with

3 those persons indicated in paragraph 1 above. The inspector described the

{ areas inspected and discussed the details of the inspection. No

! dissenting comments were received from the licensee. The licensee did not

j identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by

the inspector during this inspection.

4

i

)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. .

2

3. Licensee Action on Previous Enforcement Matters

This subject was not addressed in the inspection.

1

4. Unresolved Items 1

Unresolved items were not identified during this inspection.

, 5. Corrective Action

The licensee introduced a revised corrective action program in procedure

' Al-12 (Part I), Corrective Action, Revision 0, dated February 20, 1987.

This procedure established a consolidated corrective action reporting

system, replacing most of the previous problem-identifying reports with

Conditions Adverse to Quality Reports (CAQR). The issuance of this

procedure implemented Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual (NQAM), Part I,

,

Section 2.16 Revision 2. AI-12 (Part II), Adverse Conditions and

Corrective Actions, Revision 0, was issued simultaneously to provide

measures to process existing conditions adverse to quality (CAQ), which

were previuusly reported on various (now obsolete) reports.

AI-12 (Parts 1 and 2) replaced the previous AI-12, Adverse Conditions and

Corrective Actions, Revision 25, which also provided process controls for

CAQs (which were then more narrowly defined and just one of many reporting

systems).

CAQs were first reported under the new program on February 23, 1987;

therefore, this inspection was primarily focused on the first-stage

i process of reporting CAQs and an early perception of the potential success

of the program. The inspectors reviewed 70 of the approximately 118 CAQRs

that had been received by the site CAQ Coordinator. These CAQRs had been

initiated by numerous plant groups and documented a wide variety of

problems from apparently insignificant issues to broad generic concerns.

'

Based on the review of CAQRs and discussions with site personnel, it

appeared that the new CAQR program had been initiated in a favorable

l manner.

Only three CAQRs had been closed at the time of the inspection-CAQR Nos.

SQP870028, SQP870044, and SQP870053. In each case, the CAQR was closed

without material corrective action. CAQR No. SQP870028 redundantly

repeated a currently open previous finding, and CAQR Nos. SQP870044 and

SQP870053 were determined to be invalid CAQRs per the AI-12 (Part I)

definition. In the absence of a sample of closed CAQRs requiring

substantial corrective action, an assessment of the effectiveness of the

corrective action process was not possible during this inspection.

j In a similar manner, it was too premature to assess the revised CAQR

escalation process described by AI-12 (Part I). Three CAQRs had been

escalated: SQP870027 and SQP870065 to determine the responsible group and

SQP870107, sent to Corporate QA, to resolve an assertion that the CAQR

system outdates the Sequoyah Nuclear Performance Plan (SNPP).

- - ._ ._ - - . ._ - . _-.- . _ . - - =_

, .

,

3

i Two CAQRs had been written against the CAQR program itself. CAQR No.

SQP870051 stated that CAQRs have been issued without utilizing the  !

continuation sheet when additional space was needed to describe the CAQ.

j CAQR No. SQQ870107, as described above, described differences between the

revised CAQR program and statements contained in the SNPP.

This inspection was primarily an information gathering effort to establish

j a baseline for future inspections during which the overall effectiveness

of the CAQR program will be assessed. Included in this assessment will be

. a review of the disposition of problem reports written under the old

i system (in particular approximately 40 Corrective Action Reports (CAR) and

110 Deficiency Reports (DR)) as delineated by AI-12 (Part II).

Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.

6. Q-List

i A meeting with representatives of various plant groups was conducted to  !

discuss the methods whereby distinctions are made between quality and [

!

I

non-quality components for plant maintenance, design, and modification

work in the absense of an all-encompassing Quality (Q)-List. Licensee

personnel explained that currently existing documents are sufficient '

to positively control the identification of quality items and that the

! current effort to construct a plant-wide Q-List is an efficiency enhance-

! ment only. A schedule for Q-List completion is due three months after

4 startup of Unit 2. Current sources of information for determining "

l equipment classifications include procedure SQA 134, Critical Systems, r

} Structures, and Components (CSSC) Listing of Mechancial, Electrical,

. Instrumentation, and Controls Equipment, the 10 CFR 50.49 List for Units 1 1

l

and 2, plant drawings, and several other specialized lists. l

Within this area, no violations or deviations were identified.

f

7.LicenseeActiononPreviouslyIdentifiedInspectionFindings(92701)

(0 pen) Inspector Followup Item 327,328/87-04-01

Division of Nuclear ,

Engineering (DNE) and Division of Nuclear Construction (DNC) Procedural

i Adherence to the Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual (NQAM). i

4

At the time of the inspection, DNE and DNC procedures were not ready for

.

review to verify compliance with the NQAM requirements.

l

!

i

l l