ML20209G423
| ML20209G423 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1987 |
| From: | Russell Gibbs, Halverson R, Kemper L TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209G315 | List: |
| References | |
| 80202-SQN, 80202-SQN-R05, 80202-SQN-R5, NUDOCS 8704300543 | |
| Download: ML20209G423 (14) | |
Text
-
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER 8 SPECIAL PROGRAM 80202-SQN kPORTTYPE REVISION NUMBER:
Elernent Report 5
TITLE:
PAGE I 0F 12 Inspection - Inspection Procedures REASON FOR REVISION:
Revised to incorporate CATD 80202-SQN-03 and NRC comments.
Revision indicators are shown in the right margin of each affected page.
Note Sequoyah Applicability Only PREPARATION PREPARED BYt R. HALVERSON/W. AKELEY f86&M skAr SIGNATUR( #
~
DATE REVIEWS PEER w w '-
L 4'3-87
~ l Q
SIGNATURS DATE
'// /17 hf Ybyfg7 SIGllATURE
~
MATW' CONCURRENCES CEG-H t.
h
- /
SRP M
((74d7
[IGNATUREy SIGNATURE DATE DATE APPROVE l i
r 1
N/A v v ECSP
(
DA1 E I HANAGER OF NUCLEAR DATE MANAGER POWER CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)
- SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.
4 P
P L
8.'
+ '
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
i-SPECIAL PROCRAM 80202-SQN REPORT TYPE:
REVISION NUMBER:
Element Report 5
TITLE:
PAGE 2 0F 12 Inspection-Inspection Procedures 1.0 CHARACTERIZATION OF ISSUES 1.1 Introduction The issues described in this Element Report were derived from employee concerns generated as a result of the Watts Bar Employee Concern Special Program.
The issues were determined to be applicable to the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) and were investigated and evaluated' on that basis.
1.2 Description of Issues The conditions reported by Concerned Employees are:
A.
Unknowledgeable inspectors utilised procedures to aid in the inspection process.
(00-85-005-002)
B.
Unacceptable conduit bends and threaded conduit joints were accepted by inspectors.
(00-85-005-002)
C.
Surveillance Instructions (sis) and Maintenance Instructions (mis) are revised in an uncontrolled manner (pen and ink changes in the field).
(SQP-86-009-X03)
D.
Notice of Indications (NOIs) and Maintenance Requests (MRs) do not have a proper tracking system.
(XX-85-102-008) 2.0 SUBSIARY 2.1 Summary of Characterisation of Issues Principal issues disclosed by concerned employees ares whether inspectors are knowledgeable or do they get by with the help of procedures; inspectors accepted unevenly bent conduit and conduit joints with too many exposed threads; uncontrolled pen and ink changes to sis and mis; and MRs and NOIs are not properly tracked.
2.2 Summary of Evaluation Process The Quality Assurance Category Evaluation Group (QACEC) evaluation consisted of reviewing Specifications, Instructions, Procedures, Inspection Reports, Survey Reports, and Correspondence.
Discussions were held with Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) personnel to determine specific problem areas regarding electrical inspections, fleid pen and ink changes to sis and mis, and program controls for NOIs and MRs.
8 TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
8 SPECIAL PROGRAM 80202-SQN REPORT TYPE:
REVISION NUMBERt Element Report 5
TITLE:
PAGE 3 0F 12 Inspection-Inspection Procedures 2.3 Susanary of Findings The conclusion reached as a result of the QACEC evaluation of these issues are sumanarized below.
The _ issue of QC Inspectors not having adequate knowledge was not substantiated.
The concerned employee stated that QC Inspectors used procedures in the performance of their duties.
Inspectors are trained in the use 6f QC Inspection Procedures and utilisation of procedures during inprocess inspections is an accepted practice.
The issue of unacceptable conduit bends and threaded conduit joints is partially substantiated.
While specifications contained specific installation criteria, QC inspectors were not required by procedure to inspect conduit bends or exposed conduit threads.
With regards to sis and mis being revised in an uncontrolled manner (field pen and ink changes),
this issue was found to be unsubstantiated.
The concerned employee had not provided specific information.
However, QACIC investigation reveals adequate controls are in place to control revisions to plant instructions.
TVA QA Surveillance Reports revealed no instances where Surveillance or Maintenance Instructions were revised in an uncontrolled manner.
The issue of NOIs and MRa not having a proper tracking system is partially substantiated.
However, no upper or lower tier requirements have been violated.
The program that controls MRs does not provide feedback or status information to the initiating individual or organisation.
2.4 Corrective Action Taken and the Results Achieved to Date 2.4.1 Issue -- Unacceptable conduit bends and threaded conduit joints were accepted by inspectors.
A Nuclear Safety Review Staff (NSRS) Report identified this problem and suggested an engineering evaluation of the effect of unevenly bent conduit and exposed threads at conduit joints should be made.
Engineering has completed their evaluation and has determined that, "no corrective action is required to inspect presently installed conduit system for inappropriate running threads or unevenly field bent conduit".
Justification was provided and engineering has committed to incorporate inspection requirements in the Quality Control Program.
The Nuclear Requ1 story Commission (NRC) contracted Franklin Research Center as NRC Staff consultants to perform an 5
evaluation of TVA's program and practices for installing class
6.
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
SPECIAL PROGRAM 80202-SQN REPORT TYPE:
REVISION NUMBERt Elesment Report 5
TITLE:
PAGE 4 0F 12 Inspection-Inspection Procedures 1E cables.
This evaluation was to determine if significant abuse could have occured to the cables 'during cable installation.
As a result of this evaluation, the Franklin Rose, arch Technical Evaluation Report (TER) provides conclusions and recommendations regarding cables installed in 5
conduit which are bent to radii smaller than recommended by cable manufacturers.
The NRC agrees with the TER findings, conclusions, recommendations and will track these items under NRC Dockets 50-327 and 328.
2.4.2 Issue -- NOIs and MRs do not have a proper tracking system.
QACEG investigation concluded that the program that governs the issuance of Maintenance Requests does not provide status information to the initiating individual or organisation.
The l5 SqN Site Director committed and revised the program to incorporate provisions for notifying the orginating section of rejected or cancelled WRs.
3.0 LIST OF EVALUATORS W. M. Akelay R. D. Halverson 4.0 EVALUATION PROCESS 4.1 General Methods of Evaluation Upper-tier programs and lower-tier implementing procedures were reviewed to determine requirements and specific responsibilities.
Standards, Specifications, Instructions, inspection Reports, NSRS Reports, Survey Reports, Surveillance Reports, and Correspondence were reviewed to determine the extent of the issues and their overall significance to the the plant structure.
Discussions were held with cognizant personnel pertaining to specific problem areas regarding electrical inspections and the program for controlling Maintenance Instructions, Maintenance Requests, and Notice of Indications.
4.2 Specifics of Evaluation 4.2.1 Issue -- Unknowledgeable inspectors utilise procedures to aid in the inspection process.
4.2.2 Issue -- Unacceptable conduit bends and threaded conduit joints were accepted by inspectors.
i TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
SPECIAL PROGRAM 80202-SQN i
REPORT TYPEt REVISION NUMBER:
Element Report 5
i TITLE:
PAGE 5 or 12 Inspection-Inspection Procedures Reviewed Employee Concern File including Confidential File for any additional information pertaining to these issues.
NSRS Report I-85-968-SQN was issued documenting the investigation and findings of concern 00-85-005-002.
This report was l
reviewed and it contents re-evaluated.
Codes, Specifications, Instructions, and Standards reviewed during this evaluation i
are those included in the NSRS Report, " Documents Reviewed During This Investigation I-85-968-SqN and References".
Also reviewed Franklin Research Technical Evaluation Report 5
TER-C5506-649 (Sequoyah), " Evaluation of Sequoyah units 1 and 2 cable pulling and cable bend radii concerns," dated February i
19, 1987.
4.2.3 Issue -- Surveillance Instructions and Maintenance Instructions are revised in an uncontrolled manner (pen and ink changes in the field).
i A review of the Employee Concern File including Confidential File did not provide specific details, therefore a review of t
the program that controls the review and issuance of new and revised Plant Instructions was conducted.
The NQAM, Part III, i
section 1.1, revision March 21, 1985 " Document Control" and Administrative Instruction (AI)
AI-4, Revision 60, j
"Freparation, Review, Approval and use of Flant Ins tructionen 5
i reviewed and discussions were held with two QA Engineers were and one Quality Control (QC) Supervisor knowledgeable of the t
issue to determine the possible cause for revisions to sis or mis by field pen and ink changes.
A randon review of four Maintenance Instructions and six l
Surveillance Instructions was conducted to determine if i
i uncontrolled changes had occurred.
The following instructions i
l are related to work performed during the period of April 1985 5
t through August 1985.
l Maintenance Instruction Date i
MI-6.4 4/1/85 I
)
MI-10.1 4/11/85 i
j MI-1.2 8/28/85 i
MI-2.3 8/26/85 i
r Survel11ance Instruction Date 5
j SI-166 4/4/85 SI-666 4/5/85 l
SI-166.3 4/16/85 i
SI-164 5/8/85 i
f i
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
8PECIAL PROGRAM 80202-SQN RgPORT TYPg REVISION NUMBER:
Elesment' Repor t 5
TITLE:
PAGE 6 OP 12 Inspection-Inspection Procedures SI-128 5/16/85 5
51-166.1 6/27/85 A review was also conducted on the QA surveys associated with SI and MI activities.
This included reviewing seven Survey Reports of SI activities perforised during the period of April 1985 throu8h October 1985 and twenty-one survey Reports on MI activities during the period of January 1985 through October 1985. The survey reports are Surveys of SI Survey Period 13A-85-A-001 4/26 and 4/27/85 l
13A-85-P-002 6/28-7/17/85 l
13A-85-A-003 8/29 and 8/30/85 j
13A-85-A-004 10/4-10/7/85 13A-85-A-006 10/21/85 13A-85-A-007 10/28-10/30/85 13A-85-P-005 10/17-11/5/85 i
survere of wR survey Period 4A-85-A-001 1/25-2/8/85 l
4A-85-A-002 2/27/85 4A-85-A-003 3/15/85 l
4A-85-A-004 4/18-4/23/85 l
4A-85-P-005 4/26 and 4/27/85
)
4C-85-A-006 5/5/-5/31/85 I
4A-85-A-007 6/4 and 6/5/85 4A-85-A-004 6/10/85 l
4C-85-P409 6/11-6/26/85 l
4C-85-s-010 7/26-8/6/85 l
4A-85-A-011 8/8/85 I
4A-85-A-012 8/14-8/16/85 4A-85-A-013 8/16-8/23/45 4A-85-A-015 9/16 and 9/17/85 4C-85-5-016 9/27-10/23/85 4A-85-A-017 9/10/85 4A-85-A-018 9/13/85 4A-85-A-019 11/4-11/12/85 4A-85-A-020 12/4/85 4A-85-A-021 12/5/85 4A-85-P-023 11/18-12/5/85 I
4.2.4 Issue -- Notice of Indications and Maintenance Requests do not l
have a proper tracking system.
l QACEC evaluation included reviewing TVA Topical Report TVA-TR75-1A, revision 8; NQAM, Part II, Stetion 2.1
" Plant Maintenance"; NQAM, Part III, Section 1.1 " Document Control"I
" Maintenance l5 i
Standard Practice SQM2, revision 19 and 22 I
l TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
SPECIAL PROGRAM 80202-SQN l
REPORT TYFg REVISION NUMBER:
l Elasent Report 5
TITLg:
PAGE 7 0F 12 Inspection-Inspection Procedures Management System";
and SI-114, Section 17.0, revison 4
" Inservice Inspection Program".
These documents were reviewed to determine existing program controls for the issuance, tracking and closure of NOIs and MRs.
5.0 FINDINGS i
l 5.1 Findings on Issue -- Unknowledgeable inspectors utilise procedures to i
aid in the inspection process.
5.1.1 Discussion NBRs Report 1-85-968-SQN was reviewed and QACEG concurs with their conclusion regarding this issue.
The use of procedures in this manner is encouraged so that the inspector will be able to base the inspection on areas contained in a documented set of guidelines.
5.1.2 conclueton The issue of laspectors not having adequate knowledge was not substantiated.
The concerned employee stated that QC Inspectors used procedures in the performance of their job.
l Inspectors are trained in the use of QC Inspections Procedures and utilisation of procedures during inprocess inspections is an accepted practice.
I' 5.2 Findings on Issue -- Unacceptable conduit bends and threaded conduit l
jolate were accepted by inspectors.
I 5.2.1 Discussion l
l QACEG has reviewed and followed up on NSR8 Report I-85-964-SQN I
and the report was found to be factual.
QACEG and NSR8 evaluations reveal inspectors are trained in the use of the QC inspection procedures, such as SNP Inspection Instruction No.
l 26, " Exposed Condult and Conduit Box Inspection".
This procedure was used by construction QC inspectors for conduit i
inspections.
The procedure was issued and revised three times i
in 1977.
Nowever, none of the revisions required that conduit bends be i
inspected.
Interviews with past construction inspectors indicated that they never checked for condult bend radius.
Inspection Instruction No.
26 has clear instructions for Inspection of conduit identification,
- grounds, conduit fitt!ngs and lubricant, flexible condult, burre and sharp edges, physical separation, hangers, and termination.
All of l1 y
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER SPECIAL PROGRAM 80202-SQN REPORT TYPE:
REVISION NUMBERt Element Report 5
TITI.E PAGE 8 0F 12 Inspection-Inspection Procedures these attributes were part of an inspection record the inspector filled out and signed.
Exact specifications for conduit bends are found in the Electrical Design Standard DS-E13.1.7.
This standard gives minimum bend radius and minimum straight length required after the bend.
It is not known if this standard was actually used by craftmen in the field at SQN.
The standard states in section 1.0, "This standard gives the minimum bend radius requirements to be used in the design and installation of conduit systems."
TVA General Construction Specification G-40,
" Installing Electrical Conduit Systems and Conduit Boxes",
states in Section 3.2.4.1 (b),
" Running threads on field threaded conduits shall not be used on metal conduits for connection at couplings." Running threads are extra threads. When they are used at a coupling, the coupling or other connector will not cover all of the threads.
TVA QC instructions did not require inspection for exposed threads.
Adherence to the construction specification was the responsibility of the craf tsmen.
5.2.2 conclusion This issue of QC inspectors accepting unevenly bent conduit and conduit joints with too many exposed threads is substantiated.
However, QC inspectors were not required to inspect conduit bends or exposed conduit threads.
The requirements for inspection was non-existant and QC inspectors did not accept defective practices, but rather accepted systems which may have had specification deviations which were not required to be inspected.
The electrical craf tsman are required to properly install the conduit in accordance with installation specification requirements.
Due to the lack of inspections to verify specification installation requirements a review by the Department of Nuclear Engineering (DNE) is required to determine if conduit installations are acceptable.
5.3. Findings on Issue Surveillance Instructions (sis) and Maintenance Instructions (HIs) are revised in an uncontrolled manner (pen and ink changes in the field).
l l
5.3.1 Discussion The Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual (NQAM), Part III, Section l
1.1, Revision March 31, 1985, provides for specific controls (le preparation,
- handling, and onsite review) of Plant
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
SPECIAL PROGRAM 80202-SQN REPORT TYPE:
REVISION NUMBER:
Element Report 5
TITLE:
PAGE 9 0F 12 Inspection-Inspection Procedures se$k[Sn a0d
- undh" tho' ge"$Naf su*peNNfoN btke "seEkion supervisor.
When the instruction is satisfactory to the supervisor of the originating section, it is submitted for independent review by the Plant Operational Review Committee (PORC).
As part of this independent review, representatives of the Site Quality Manager (SQM) are required to review the instruction for adequacy of QC hold
- points, required documentation, format, and content.
Instructions required by Plant Technical Specifications are required to be approved for issue by the Plant Manager and/or the Nuclear Service Division of Westinghouse (NSD).
NQAM, Part III, Section 1.1, paragraph 5.4.4.2.E, requires that, " changes which go beyond the intent of the original instruction shall be handled through the same formal review process as the original issue before they can be implemenced."
Additionally, AI-4, Revision 0 " Penetration, Revtew, Approval) and Use of Plant Instructions", Para.
10.0, provides for
" Temporary changes to PORC-Reviewed Plant Ins tructions".
Temporary changes to Plant Instuctions may be made when it is discovered that a non-intent instruction change is needed to complete the work in progress after approval has been received.
These changes are documented by the use of Appendix 5
G1 to AI-4, " Temporary Change Form" (TCF).
AI-4 Para. 11.0, also allows " Expeditious instruction changes to PORC-Reviewed Plant Istructions".
These changes are processed using Appendix C2, " Instruction Change Form".
Using a copy of the latest approved revision of the instruction, the originator shall clearly mark the required changes of the affected plant instruction pages and attached to the back of the ICF.
TCFs and ICFs require approval by the responsible section supervisor or Shift Engineer (SE), QA and PORC.
Only upon completion of these approvals may the instruction change be impicmented.
A QACEG review of four HIs and six sis revealed two mis (MI-1.2, dated August 28, 1985 and MI-2.3, dated August 26, 1985) in which hand written changes were evident.
However, as per AI-4 requirements, these instructions are accompanied with appropriately approved ICFs.
The review of the (28) surveys performed by QA on SI and Maintenance Request (HR) activities revealed that checklist attributes included verification that the latest revision to applicable instructions were being used.
Survey reports reveal no instance where the latest revision to the applicable l
Instruction (SI or HI) was not used.
Survey Reports made no mention of " pen and ink changes in the fleid" on either surveillance or maintenance instructions.
\\
9 a
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBERt SPECIAL PROGRAM 80202-SqN REPORT TYPEt REVISION NUMBERt Element Report 5
TITLEt PAGE 10 0F 12 Inspection-Inspection Procedures 5.3.2 Conclusion Based on a review of existing program controls governing plant instructions, this concern is not substantiated.
As addressed in this report, adequate controls are and have been in effect to control revisions to Plant Instructions.
QACEG investigation revealed no instances where Surveillance or Maintenance Instructions were revised in an uncontrolled manner via " pen and ink changes in the field."
Notice of Indications (NOIs) and Maintenance 5.4 Pindings on Issue Requests (Mas) do not have a proper tracking system.
5.4.1 Discussion The concerned employee states that NOIs and MRs written by the Inspection Department are closed and placed in Plant Archives by another department.
The department which wrote the MRs or NOIs would still be waiting for a disposition.
The concerned employee concluded that the tracking system for NOIs and MRs is inadequate.
NOIs are controlled by 31-114.1 " Inservice Inspection Program" which provides for the notification to the issuing organisation of the disposition' assigned.
- however, are controlled by Standard Practice
- SqM2,
" Maintenance Management System."
This procedure requires the q responsible unit to notify the Maintenance Scheduling Unit (MSU) when changes or cancellations occur with MRs.
SqM2 also provides for computer tracking.
"CA" is the symbol used on 5
the computer run when Mas or WRs have been cancelled.
5.4.2 Conclusion Employee's concern regarding the proper tracking of NOIs and MRs is partially substantiated.
Standard Practice SqM2 does not provide feedback or status of MR information to the initiating individual or organisation.
5.5 Corrective Action 5.5.1 Issue - Unacceptable conduit bonds and threaded conduit joints were accepted by inspectors.
NSRS Report 1-85-968-SQN identified this problem and transmitted their recommendations to H. L. Abercrombie, Site Director of SqN, on 2/24/86 requesting a response by Apell 20, 1986.
NSRS recommendations suggested an Engineering evaluation of the effect of unevenly bent conduit and exposed threads at conduit joints should be made.
Contact with the Of fice of the Employee Concern Special Project Manager
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
SPECIAL PROGRAM 80202-SQN REPORT TYPE:
REVISION NUMBER:
Element Report 5
TITLE:
PAGE 11 0F 12 Inspection-Inspection Procedures revealed that no response was submitted by H.
L. Abercrombie to the NSRS.
QACEG issued a Corrective Action Tracking Document (CATD) 80202-SQN-02 (Attachment D) requesting an engineering evaluation.
The Site Director of SQN responded October 20, 1986.
The response included a memorandum (S08 861009 821) dated October 9, 1986 to D. W. Wilson, Office of Nuclear Power (ONP), requesting the Department of Nuclear Engineering perform an Engineering evaluation.
Engineering completed their evaluation and concluded that "no corrective aG.on is required to inspect the presently installed conduit system for inappropriate running threads or unevenly field bent conduit".
Justification was provided and addressed in the Corrective Action Plan (S03 870130 801),
dated February 3, 1987.
Engineering has determined that.this concern is not a condition adverse to quality, however to more specifically state the duties of the inspector relative to conduit bends and running threads, Inspection Procedure M&AI-6,
" Installation of conduit and junction boxes", will be revised to provide inspection requirements for conduit bend radius and conduit running threads.
Since this issue was raised after the completion of Sequoyahs Construction Phase, no revision is necessary for Procedure SNP Inspection Ins truction No.
26,
" Exposed Conduit and Conduit Box Inspection", as it relates only to the construction phase.
Estimated completion date for procedure revision to M&AI-6 is scheduled for March 2, 1987.
Additionally, under contract to the NRC, Franklin Research Center performed an " Evaluation of Sequoyah units 1 and 2 cable pulling and cable bend radii concerns." Their findings, conclusions and recommendations are endorsed by the NRC and addressed in Franklins Research Technical Evaluation Report TER-C5506-649 (Sequoyah).
Follow-up of recommendations will be tracked under NRC Dockets 50-327 and 328.
5.5.2 Issue - NOIs and MRs do not have a proper tracking system.
5 QACEG issued CATD 80202-SqN-01 identifying that Standard Practice SQM2 does not provide Maintenance Request (MR) or Work Request (WR) status information to the initiating individual or organization.
Note Since MRs are being replaced by WRs at Sequoyah, further information in this paragraph refers only to the WR system.
The SQN Site Director responded October 20, 1986 committing to revision of SqM2 to incorporate provisions for notifying the originating section of rejected or cancelled WRs.
SQM2, Revision 22, Punchlist item Number 7, dated Feburary 10, 1987, was issued and states;
I v,
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
SPECIAL PROGRAM 80202-SQN REPORT TYPE:
REVISION NUMBER:
Element Report 5
TITLE:
PAGE 12 0F 12 Inspection-Inspection Procedures "According to section F.2 of this instruction CSSC WRs can be dispositioned by cancellation."
Also, it states " cancelled WRs are not QA records and may be discarded." To enhance the WR process and provide feedback to the originator, the originating section will be notified _ of the reason WRs are 5
rejected or cancellu."
This revision provides justification as to why a WR is cancelled and enables the originator to challange inappropriate cancellations or rejections.
Upon re-review of
- SqM2, QACEG issued CATD 80202-SQN-03 identifying that standard practice SqM2 contains the following discrepancies a.
Contrary to AI 2.8.5 requirements, " conditions adverse to quality-Corrective Actions," MRs are utilized to document conditions adverse to quality.
b.
Contrary to AI 2.8.5, identified as-constructed deviations are reported via AI-25 " Drawing Control After Licencing."
c.
Flow Chart (Attachment 1) does not show line-of notification of cancelled WRs to the WR initiator.
d.
SqM2 does not fully describe the purpose and the function of the " Report of Failure" form (Attachment 8).
e.
Incorrect reference to AI-12
" Adverse Condition and Corrective Action."
f.
Various typographical errors Attachment A identified the concerns as potentially safety significant and safety related.
However, QACEG evaluation concluded that only concern 00-85-005-00 was potentially safety significant.
Engineering has performed an evaluation and concluded that this condition was not adverse to quality and no corrective action (reinspection of presently installed conduit) was required.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS J
A.
Employee Concern Progse System (ECPS)
List of Employee Concern Information B.
NSRS Report I-85-968-SQN l
C.
CATD 80202-SQN-01 D.
CATD 80202-SQN-02 E.
CATD 80202-SQN-03
?
ATTACHNENT A EFERENCE
- ECPS120J-ECPS121C TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY PAGE 264 REQUENCY
- REQUEST OFFICE OF NUCLEAR P0HER RUN TIME - 12:19:18:
NP - 1555 - RHM EMPLOYEE CONCERN PROGRAM SYSTEM (ECPS)
RUN DATE - 10/85/86!
LIST OF EMPLOYEE CONCERN INFORMATION TEGORY: QA QA/QC PROGRAMS SUBCATEGORY: 80202 INSPECTION PROCEDURES S
GENERIC KEYNORD A H
APPL QTC/NSRS P
KEYNORD B CONCERN SUB R PLT BBSH INVESTIGATION S
CONCERN KEYNORD C NUMBER CAT CAT D LOC FLQB PEPORT R
DESCRIPTION KEYNORD D 1 005-002 QA 80202 N SQh NNNN I-85-968-SON SS SEQUOYAH - ELECTRICAL QC INSPECTORS TRAINING T50224 K-FORM DO N01 NAVE ADEQUATE KNOHLEDGE OF HH QUALIFICATION AT THEY ARE INSPECTING, AND GET BY 0 ELECTRICAL NLY HITH HELP OF PROCEDURES. BECAUS INSPECTORS E OF THEIR INEXPERIENCE. ELECTRICAL 4
I INSPECTORS SOMETIMES ACCEPTED UNEVEN LY BENT CONDUIT AND CONDUIT JOINTS H 1
-To/
IIH TOO MANY EXPOSED THREADS. THIS
<47 OCCURRED IN 1977. CI HAS NO SPECIFI-CS DR FURTHER INFORMATION. CONSTRUC l
TION DEPARTMENT CONCERN.
I 2P-86-009-X03 QA 80202 N SQN NNNN SS SURVEILLANCE INSTRUCTIONS AND MAINTE RECORD GENERATION l
T50273 K-FORM NANCE INSTRUCTIONS ARE REVISED IN AN NONCONFORMANCE UNCONTROLLED MANNER (PEN AND INK CH GENERAL ANGES IN THE FIELD), AND THESE REVIS GENERAL IONS ARE IMPLEMENTED PRIOR TO APPROP RIATE REVIEN AND APPROVAL, NUCLEAR PONER DEPARTMENT CONCERN. NO FURTHE R INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN FILE.
1
.o o
T50227 HE 507GJ REPORT G-29C, PROCESS SPEC. 0.C.1.1 IS IN PRO DURES CCHFLICT HITH THE TVA QUALITY ASSURA QUALITY NCE COMMITMENTS AS STATED BY THE TVA HELDS i
TOPICAL REPORT, TVA-TRF5-1A,' IN THA T PROCESS SPEC. 0.C.1.1. SECTION 6.0 ALLO 43' UNCERTIFIED HELDER FOREMEN, WHO HAVE DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY FOR T
%/
HE INSTALLATION, TO PERFORM PREMELD 1
INSPECTIONS, NUCLEAR POWER CONCERN. a j
CI HAS NO FURTHER INFORMATION.
7, l '
( 102-008 QA 80202 N bFN NYYY I-85-949-BFN NS BROWNS FERRY, NOTICE OF INSPECTIONS RECORD GENERATION i
IS0208 K-FORM AND MAINTENANCE REQUESTS HERE HRITTE NONCONFORMANCE l
N FOR DISCREPANCIES BY AN INSPECTION QUALITY DEPT. AND ANOTHER DEPT. BOUGHT.0FF REPORTS i
THESE MR'S CLOSED AND PLACED THEM IN,
THE PLANT ARCHIVES. THE DEPT. WHIC H HROTE MR'S & NOI'S HOULD BE STILL HAITING FOR DISPOSITION. THEY DON'T HAVE PROPER TRACKING SYSTEM. NUCLE AR PONER CONCERN. CI HAS NO FUTHER INFORMATION.
I l
4 y
r - y e
w-v-e,e
+e
--me w
g w-7 = ee - ee w e-e ti e
--wov =v-Ws ww as r ge r T e T gm m w w sw ese..w erumer
,,*e e e D,. - ewete e m w + e VM
- W au g ' em ww w. ee 4---e w "' e
. tva,ce tos e4sg top we s.ess frJ (1.,yl
]
UNITtD STATES GOVERNMENT ATTACHMENT B
)
Memorandum TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY g
d To: H. L. Abercrombie, Site Director Sequoyah Nuclede Plant 3
(
FRON: K. W. Whitt. Director of Nuclear Safety Review Staff. E3A8 C-K 3
,a j
DATE: February 24, 1986 5
6
SUBJECT:
NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF INVESTICATION REPORT TRANSHITTAL
]q j
Transmitted herein*is NSRS Report No.
I-85-968-EON Subject Inadequate Knowledge of Electrical OC Ins'pectors Concern No.
00-85-005-002' and associated prioritized reconenendations for your
!e action / disposition.
a
~
b 4
~.
g
[
It is requested that you respond.to this report and the attached one
~
Priority 2 [P2] recomumendation by April 20.~1986 Should you n,
have any qusJtion., please consact W. D. Stevens at telephone 6231-K Recomunend Reportability' Betermination: Yes oX 5
J
- {
1 4
3 d/) x
/
e W r, NSRS/ Designee ff m
WDS:JTH pl Attachment j
cc (Attachment):
W. C. Bibb,,BFN W. T. Cottle, WBN
]
James P. Darling, BLN l}
R. P. Denise, LP6N40A-C 8
C. B. Kirk, SQN D. R. Nichols, E10A14 C-K QTC/ERT, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Eric Sliger, LP6N48A-C J
J. H. Sullivan, SQN.
p#.
531U N-s
,?.
,,e e...:.. n...o. n....r..r.... s.. n... o o e...:. nr.
n.
-