ML20212F498
| ML20212F498 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 02/23/1987 |
| From: | Russell J TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212F190 | List: |
| References | |
| 80303-SQN, 80303-SQN-R03, 80303-SQN-R3, NUDOCS 8703050103 | |
| Download: ML20212F498 (37) | |
Text
'
.'/ TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
. -}' REPORT TYPE SPECIAL PROGRAM 80303-SQN
,, ,, Element Report REVISION NUMBER:
TITLE:
3-
, QA Personnel - Personnel-Training and Experience PAGE 1 0F 12 REASON FOR REVISION: Incorporation of Corrective Action responses.
Note: Sequoyah Applicability Only PREPARATION PREPARED BY: P. Carey f"2d S 7 M IGNATURE DATE
.; REVIEWS fi PEER: ,e lb
$ h' '
NATURE DATE If TAS:
U 2f2/ 7 SIGNATURE Q B,(MM / pts
! CONCURRENCES CEG-H :, e J/gs/87 SIGNATURE DATE SRP : 9 e/8
.GNATURE*
2-23-67 DATE APPROVED BY:
kYD '
N/A ECSP 'MMAGER DATE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR DATE POWER CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)
- SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.
P
[- ;. -
. REPORT NUMBER:
80303-SQN REPORT TYPE: REVISION NUMBER:
. 1 Element Report' 3
- TITLE: PACE 2 0F 12 Personnel-Training'and Experience 1.02 CHARACTERIZATION OF ISSUE 1.1 Introduction The issues described .in 'this Element Report was derived from employee
- concerns. generated- as a result of the Watts Bar Employee Concern Special Program (ECSP). These concerns were determined to be (SQN) Plant and were investigated applicable. to the Sequoyah NuclearTwo of the concerns were determined to and evaluated on that basis.
be Sequoyah specific, the other concern was generically applicable.
1.2 Description of Issues The issues reported by concerned employees (Attachment A), and ' as Personnel-noted below, - were grouped by issue under this element -
- Training and Experience.
A. SQN procedure for handling safety concerns not_being followed.
receive written feedback Concerned Individual (C1) di'd not l'
pertaining to a condition reported by the CI on a TVA form 45.
(I-86-211-SQN, dated January 30, 1986)
(QA)-
B. Training and experience of selected Quality Assurance e
' . personnel. (SQM-86-009-008, dated February 12, 1986)
NOTE: Employee concern as described in Attachment Power A also ' Operations addressed Management lying to the training .and 5 Training Center (POTC) with regard to portion
[ experience of selected QA personnel, however, that addressed by the Management and
?
~ of the concern is Personnel Category Evaluation Group.
?
?.
being trained C. Engineers . in the Electrical Design Branch are notThis is a multi-in the preparation of electrical calculations.
part concern which is assigned to the Engineering Evaluation Group. However, the Quality Assurance Category Evaluation Group (QACEG) has been assigned to evaluate the - training portion of that concern.
(I-85-128-NPS, dated February 18, 1986) i 2.0
SUMMARY
2.1 Summary of Characterization of Issues SQN procedure for The issues disclosed by concerned employees are:
handling safety concerns not being followedtraining in relation andto feedback to experience of the Concarned Individual (CI), inadequate electrical engineers are not being i selected QA personnel by POTC, and trained in the preparation of electrical calculations.
I
~ - - ~ . - - - _ _ _
.' l
.;,:. 3
- REPORT NUMBER 80303-SQN
,. REPORT TYPE: REVISION NUMBER:
'.'El'ement Report 3
. TITLE: PAGE 3 0F 12 Personnel-Training and Experience-2.2 Sununary of Evaluation Process The Quality Assurance Category Evaluation Group (QACEG) . evaluation audit reports, consisted of reviewing applicable procedures, Discussions were held with correspondence, 'and. training records.
cognizant personnel to gain further facts and insight to each is~ sue.
2.3 Sn==mry'of Findings The conclusions reached as a result of the QACEG' evaluation of these
, issues are:
The issue of "SQN procedure handling safety concerns not. being followed," could not be verified . as substantiated or concern unsubstantiated since reference to the original information (TVA form 45) was unobtainable.
The issue of " Management lying to the POTC," was addressed in a -
report issued by. the Division of Quality Assurance (DQA) and will not be evaluated by QACEG. The DQA evaluation determined that l the concern was.a management issue.
However, the issue of experience and training by POTC of selected i
QA personnel was evaluated by QACEG utilizing. Nuclear Safety
- . Review Staff (NSRS) reports, QA audit reports, and the evaluation 1
conducted by Division of Quality Assurance as documented in their report. This issue was found to be substantiated.
The issue of " Electrical Design Branch Engineers not being trained in the preparation of calculations," was found to be unsubstantiated. However, the QACEG investigation indicated
-training had not been accomplished to the latest issue of Nuclear dated July 1, 1 Engineering Procedures (NEP) NEP-3.1, Revision 0, 1986 and NEP 9.1, Revision 0, dated July 1,1986.
2.4 Corrective Actions Taken And The Results Achieved To Date 2.4.1 Issue " Training and experience of selected QA personnel."
Deficient areas noted in SQN Corrective Action Request- (CAR) 86-01-003 were verified as corrected and closed through a follow up surveillance.
y Four of the six recommendations issued by NSRS were closed either atter the investigation, or determined that no action was required, or action was required and scheduled to be The remaining two implemented at a later date.
recommendations from NSRS were reviewed and evaluated by the l
_ _ _ ~ .. . .
REPORT NUMBER -
80303-SQN
_c- REPORT TYPE:
El'ement Report' REVISION NUMBER: '
3 l TITLE: . .
-Personnel-Trtining and Experience PAGE 4 OF 12 Division of Quality Assurance for validity of the concern.
Any_ deficiencies that were identified during the investigation were corrected.
2.4.2 Issue " Electrical Design ~ Branch Engineers are not being trained in the. preparation of electrical calculations."
The training records for the engineers assigned' to- the Sequoyah Project Office at Knoxville indicated they were trained to the requirements of NEP 3.1, " Calculations" and NEP 9.1, " Corrective Action" which pertains to the ' revision of-calculations.
3.0 LIST OF EVALUATORS t-
.P. A. Carey 5-W. E. Bezanson
? 4.0 EVALUATION PROCESS 4.1 General Methods of Evaluation The evaluation process consisted of reviewing procedures relating to
{' issues, applicable audit reports, training documentation, the investigation reports, Division of Quality correspondence, NSRS Assurance investigation reports, and outside contractor assessment 3 reports to determine the requirements, extent of the issues, and corrective actions taken. Discussions were held with responsible personnel pertaining to t.he issues described within this- Element Report.
[
4.2 Specifics of Evaluation 4.2.1 Issue- SQN Procedure for handling safety concerns not being followed.
QACEG's evaluation process consisted of reviewing procedures pertaining to the Employee Concern' Program at Sequoyah. These procedures are as follows:
Nuclear Safety Review Staff Office Procedures l=
" Handling Employee Concerns", Revision 1, dated 0207 July 25, 1985
" Employee Response Team Program", Revision 3, dated 1
0307 l
November 6, 1985.
l l
r
+ ,
.. REPORT NUMBER:-
80303-SQN REPORT TYPE: . REVISION NUMBER:
El'ement Report 3
TITLE: PAGE 5.0F 12 Personnel-Training and Experience 0308 " Employee Response Team Proy, ram Adminis'tration",
Revision 2, dated September 16, 1985.
Sequoyah Standard Practice SQA 178 "TVA Office of ' Nuclear Power Employee Concern 0,.
Program Line Organization Procedure", ' Revision dated February 6, 1986.
The above procedures pertained to past methods used for ~
conducting investigations of employee concerns at Sequoyah.
QACEG reviewed NSRS Report I-85-135-SQN, dated . February 18,.
1986, documenting an investigation of another concern which identified the same issue as described in Concern SQM-6-009-008. Discussions were held with a former NSRS investigator to obtain additional . information pertaining to the notification of the NSRS evaluation results.
L
- 4.2.2 Issue- Training and experience of selected QA personnel.
I-QACEG evaluation process consisted of reviewing NSRS Report The evaluation process 86-109-SQN pertaining to this issue.
I encompassed investigating and verifying two areas of concern:
(a) formal training was provided by POTC for QC inspectors as required; and (b) experience obtained through on-the-job
- instruction and performance that satisfies minimal experience 5 requirements prior to certification.
g In addition, based on two recommendations made by NSRS, QACEG reviewed an evaluation report issued by the Division of Quality Assurance addressing the validity of this concern.
.r QACEG and NSRS evaluations included reviews of procedures, instructions, and various documents such as certification records at POTC, and SQN Site Quality Control (QC) Files, QC Daily Work Logs, personnel history records, QC Inspector These Training Manuals and On-The-Job Training Manuals.
documents were reviewed as they identified the requirements In addition, discussions were and connaitments for the issue.
held with POTC personnel, QC management personnel and QC
~
inspection personnel pertaining to this issue.
4.2.3 Issue- Engineers in the Electrical Design Branch are not trained in the preparation of calculations.
QACEG evaluation process consisted of reviewing applicable procedures pertaining to the Electrical Design Branch Training
o
. REPORT NUMBER 80303-SQN
- JREPORT TYPE: - REVISION NUMBER:
Element Report 3 TITLE: PAGE 6 0F.12 .
Personnel-Training and Experience at Sequoyah. Those documents were reviewed as they reflected the programs in effect when-the concern was addressed:-
Office of Engineering Procedures (OEP)
OEP-06, " Design Input", Revision 0, dated April.26, 1985 OEP-08, " Design Outputs", Revision 0, dated April 26, 1985 OEP-18, " Training", Revision 0, dated July 1,1985 OEP-07, " Calculations", Revision 0, dated April 26, 1985 Nuclear Engineering Procedure (NEP)
NEP-1.2, " Training", Revision 0, dated July 1,1986 NEP-3.1, " Calculations", Revision 0, dated July 1, 1986- 1, NEP-9.1, " Corrective Action", Revision 0, dated July 1986 NEP-6.1, " Change Control", Revision 0, dated July 1,'.1986 The OEPs :were changed to NEPs to reflect . new organizational changes within TVA. QACEG's review of the procedures same, 'with the new
?
indicated they were basically the L
procedures reflecting only minor editorial and organization title changes, The following Engineering ' Assurance (EA) audit reports were k reviewed, as they addressed the above calculation and training procedures:
Audits EA-86-17, dated March 10-17, 1986 Sequoyah
' EA-86-23, dated August 4-8, 1986 Sequoyah l-TVA Division of Engineering Design EEB-EP 22.31 - Electrical Engineering Branch Training Procedure, Revision 0, dated March 7,1986 Training records were obtained for personnel in theThese Electrical were Engineering Branch in Knoxville and Sequoyah.
, reviewed to determine what training was conducted during the i period of 1985 to 1986.
(,
Discussions were held with the Assistant Electrical Branch Chief within the Electrical Engineering Branch in Knoxville and the Lead Electrical Branch Chief at Sequoyah to determine the reasoning behind the deficiencies in the Electrical Design Calculation Program, as identified in the EA Audit Reports.
I- ' ' ' ' ~ ~ - - - - ' . _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ , _ _ , _ , _ *Y~ *"f- mt- ., . _ _ _ _
,.a.
' REPORT NUMBER:
REPORT TYPE: 80303-SQN
, ' Eiement Report REUSION NUMBER:
3
. TITLE: PAGE 7 0F 12
'. Personnel-Training and Experience 5.0 FINDINGS-
.5.1 Issue- SQN Procedure for handling safety concerns not being followed.
5.1.1 Discussion Research for this concern . revealed that NSRS performed an investigation (Report I-85-135-SQN, performed ~ November 26 through December 12, 1985) of the Welder certification Update Program as a result of Concern Numbers - XX-85-049-001 > and XX-
'85-049-X03. The issue derived from those two concerns is the same issue identified in Concern Number I-8C-211-SQN and described in this Element Report.
I The results of the NSRS investigation (per NSRS Report I 135-SQN) were forwarded to Quality Technology Company (QTC) on
}
' - February 18, 1986, at Watts Bar (via carbon copy and J. attachment of letter to H.L. Abercrombie, Site Director, SQN, from ' K.W. Whitt, Director of NSRS). It _ was not NSRS's g"
practice to respond directly to the Concerned Individual (CI) beyond September, 1985. Their reports were distributed to QTC and it was QTC's ~ responsibility to submit results of the N investigation to the CI.
j 5.1.2 Conclusion Since QTC records are unavailable for QACEG review, a-g of whether Concern I-86-211-SQN was determination 3
a substantiated or unsubstantiated cannot be determined since a reference to the original concern number was unobtainable.
As the specific issue addressed within Concern I-86-211-SQN,
." was with feedback to the concerned individual, QACEG does not consider this to be a problem that would potentially impact
" safety.
5.2 Issue- Training and experience of selected QA personnel.
5.2.1 Discussion NSRS Report I-86-109-SQN documented inconsistencies within the certification files at POTC and the QC certification files at SQN. In particular, a lack of documentation supporting waiver of previous experience, certification, andPreviously, inconsistent on-the-job training (0JT) documentation. a SQN Inplant Survey Checklist No. 2-28-S-001, performed January 25-28, 1986, reflected several related deficiencies that were later documented on CAR 86-01-003, issued January 31, 1986, by QA.
CAR 86-01-003 documents expired certifications and l
inadequacies in the continuity of certification documentation.
l
- REPORT NUMBER:
REPORT TYPE: 80303-SQN-V, ' Element Report REVISION NUMBER:
TITLE: 3-
- Personnel-Training and Experience PAGE 8 0F 12-SQN-. Master List .of NDE certified . inspectors -reflects inaccurate certification expiration dates and eye examination due dates. ' Eye examinations had expired and - some inspectors.
.were atill . performing inspections.. Certification forms were not properly completed in some instances, and previous experience, waivers _ were not signed by the' Field Quality Engineering (QE) Staff Chief.
An approved. corrective ' action plan was submitted to R. B.
Kelly, Director of Nuclear Quality Assurance, providing a summary of corrective action status on June 1, 1986. .It was noted all corrective actions were - complete for CAR 86-01-003, with the exception of response to NSRS Report .I-85-373-NPS.
Response to I-86-373-NPS - 'was subsequently -submitted July 29, 1986. Verification of corrective action was conducted through Inplant Survey 21-86-S-026, conducted July 30-31, 1986.
As a result of NSRS's evaluation and recommendations, a 4
detailed review was performed by the Division of Nuclear Quality Assurance, in August 1986, to verify the validity. of l training -and experience of selected QC personnel -at SQN.
Specifically, the Division of Quality Assurance addressed
, recommendations I-86-109-SQN-02 and -04. -(Recommendations I-86-109-SQN-01, -03, -05, and -06 had been previously closed
- out by responsible organizations) Letters from C. C. Mason to R. K.
Seiberling, dated May 23,. 1986, and from H. L.
Abercrombie to R. K. Seiberling (no date) document closures.
The Division of Quality Assurance review was conducted to determine the following with regard to QC Certification Files of inspectors presently at SQN:
- a. Determine if the program described in NQAM, Part II, Section 5.3A was met.
i
- b. Establish on-the-job training (0JT) practices that were used to certify individuals in areas where little or no ,
opportunity for OJT existed.
- c. Determine if the OJT time period was waived on initial certifications. In these cases, supporting documentation
,, will be obtained and included in the certification files at the site.
5.2.2 Conclusion The issue of training and experience by POTC of selected QA personnel is substantiated based on the findings identified in previous NSRS reports, the Division of Quality Assurance report, and this Element Report. However, improvements in the l
l L
. -- -_ . . .. ~ _
.. n ,
+
t ,
REPORT NUMBER -
. REPORT TYPE: -
80303-SQN f ~. Element-Report REVISION NUMBER:
TITLE: 3
. Personnel-Training and Experience PAGE 9 OF 12 ,
l training and experience of QA personnel is . presently underway on . an interim basis per Nuclear. Quality Assurance. Manual' (NQAM) . Part II, Section 5.3A, . until the New . Quality Control
-Inspector Training' Program is developed. and proceduralized by the Technical Support Branch in Chattanooga. .CATD 80303-SQN-
- 01. was . issued to incorporate a tracking method to ensure that this new training program becomes implemented and evaluated as
. effective.
5.3 Issue- Engineers in the Electrical Design Branch are not trained in the preparation of electrical calculations.
1 5.3.1 Discussion Procedures were reviewed as referenced in Section 4.2 of this 9;=
1 Element Report. It was determined that procedures for 5 preparation and control of calculations were. in place, 4 however, engineers were not complying with the procedures.
, This is evident based on the results of .the Engineering
? ' Assurance audits described within this element report.
h Audit Report EA-86-17. conducted in March 1986 cited eight deficiencies, four pertaining to calculations. Calculations were not retrievable, independent reviews of calculations were not performed, calculations were not prepared in accordance 9 with procedures, calculation logs were not up to date, drawings issued prior.to issuance of related calculations, and !
training records were not complete. The report also stated all training had been conducted, but documentation had not been submitted to the Electrical Engineering Branch - Document L Control Section. All of the deficiencies cited pertaining to
- calculations and training of engineering personnel remain open L as of this investigation.
Audit Report EA-86-23 conducted in August, 1986 cited eight deficiencies pertaining to preparation and control of electrical calculations; calculation logs not being maintained, drawings do not reference applicable calculations, and no documented evidence of training to applicable procedures was available. This report also stated that the F TVA employees had been trained to the OEPS. Three of the
,' deficiencies pertaining to calculations remain open as of this investigation.
Those open deficiencies identified in the above reports will not be addressed in this report, as they will be resolved per the EA Audit Program.
REPORT. NUMBER:t 80303-SQNn REPORT TYPE:- REVISION NUMBER:
' Element Report 3
' ' TITLE: PAGE 10 0F 12 -
' Personnel-Training and Experience Training records that were obtained from the: Electrical Design Branch for the Sequoyah Project. in Knoxville and the Sequoyah .
site were reviewed as per. requirements of EEB-EP. 22.31,
- Revision 0,' dated March 7, 1986. Personnel were trained to.
Office of Engineering Procedures (OEP) 06, " Design Input",
OEP-08, " Design Output", and.OEP-07, " Calculation", and-tested in- all three. procedures under training session QA 103 during
'1985 and 1986.
Subsequent to the OEP training, the' Office- of Engineering
- Procedures were revised under the new organization of " Nuclear Engineering". The engineers were now required to be trained to the requirements of NEP 1.2, " Training", _ Revision 0, dated July 1, 1986, NEP 3.1, " Calculations", Revision 0, dated '
July 1, 1986 and NEP 9.1 " Corrective Action", Revision 0, dated July 1, 1986 as it pertains to .the. revision- of i.
calculations. As a result of these . revised procedures, the
- ~ training should be documented as per the requirements of NEP 1.2. Based on ~ the QACEG L investigation it was - established, s
4 that as .of October 27, 1986, the personnel in the Electrical.
Design Branch for Sequoyah, located iin Knoxville had been j trained in the requirements of NEP 3.1 and NEP 9.1.
The QACEG's review of training record for Electrical Design 6 Branch Engineers, located at Sequoyah, indicated they hadThis not d
been trained in the' requirements of NEP 3.1 and NEP 9.1.
was due to the priority of the system walkdown effort being performed at SQN. As a result, CATD 80303-SQN-02 is being Q issued to ensure that Electrical Design Branch Engineers at j
SQN, will be trained to the NEP 3.1 and NEP 9.1 requirements.
Through discussions between this evaluator and the Assistant i'
' Electrical Branch Chief, in the Electrical Engineering Branch in Knoxville, and evaluation of those documents described
,h within this element report, indications are that the engineers l were trained. However, the results of the EA audits indicate the training was inadequate.
An independent assessment was conducted by Sargent and Lundy of TVA's Electrical Calculation Program,Asand the results a te,sult of the L
indicated that this program was deficient.
assessment by Sargent and Lundy, corrective action is being implemented to improve the Electrical Calculation Program.
A separate effort is being conducted by the Engineering Concern Task Group pertaining to the technical aspects of this Concern.
Through the assistance of Sargent and Lundy, utilizing TVA Electrical new undergo formal training Engineers will
~
- ~~ REPORT NUMBERt
. . 80303-SQN REPORT TYPE:1 REVISION NUMBER:
' Elemer c Report . 3 TITLE, PAGE-11 OF 12 Persoanel-Training and Experience procedures and technical guides currently being Inwritten by TVA addition, TVA with. the assistance ' of Sargent and Lundy. -
'has contracted through Sargent and Lundy, a new ~ computer The database for use in the preparation of calculations.
intent is to train the Electrical Engineers.in the use of this program, along with new revised procedures .and- technical guides. This new training program is tentatively scheduled r
l:
for implementation the first quarter of 1987.
5.3.2 Conclusion Based on QACEG's investigation and the review of all documents -
referenced within this report, - the issue is unsubstantiated.
Training was . performed to the OEPs which was the program in -
effect during the time period the employee concern was issued.
However, based on the results of the' audits and the fact that some of the site Electrical Design Branch Engineers nave not
~been trained to to the new requirements of'the NEPs, CATD No.
80303-SQN-03 was issued to ensure implementation of an Also, CATD No. 80303-SQN-02 is improved . Training Program.
being issued-to ensure site Electrical Design Branch Engineers are trained to the present requirements of NEP 3.1 and NEP 9.1.
the commencement of the new training program and assurance or its implementation and effectiveness, the issue Until of electrical engineers preparing electrical calculations
, without adequate training is considered potentially safety f' significant.
L 5.4 Corrective Action v
5.4.1 Issue
" Electrical Design Branch Engineers are not being trained in the preparation of electrical calculations."'
e J
QACEG's review of training records for the engineers assigned l to the Sequoyah Project Office at Knoxville indicated they were trained to the requirements of NEP 3.1, " Calculations"
, and NEP 9.1, " Corrective Action" which pertains to revision of '
l calculations. The QACEG evaluation of training records for the Electrical Design Branch Engineers located at the SQN site indicated theAs engineers were not trained to the latest
( procedures. a result, QACEG issued ECSP Corrective Action -02 a (CATD) Nos. 80303-SQN-01 and Tracking Document (Attachments B and C).
on January 9, A response to CATD 80303-SQN-01 was provided i
1987. The response stated that on or about October 27,current 1986 commenced for general quality control training Upon completion of the general certified inspectors.
l
REPORT NUMBER: -
REPORT TYPE: . 80303-SQN
-Element Report REVISION NUMBER:
TITLE: 3 Personnel-Training'and Experience PAGE 12 0F 12 training, basic and specific training will be conducted. Two certification programs will be maintained until an appropriate number of QC inspectors have . completed the new training program. The- new training and certification program will be implemented when the individual QC inspector has completed the required training. ' An evaluation of the new QC ' training and certification program will be made after appropriate number of inspectors have completed the program.-
l A response to CATD 80303-SQN-02 was provided on February 13,
- 1987. The Electrical Engineers at Sequoyah have been trained in the current revision of NEP 3.1, " Calculations" and NEP 9.1, " Corrective Action". Attendance rosters- for 'those 7: individuals have been provided to QACEG showing evidence of training conducted November 24 and 25, 1986. This training will be incorporated into each individual's Training Record (ITR) per the requirements of NEP 1.2 f
6- An updated response to CATD 80303-SQN-03 was provided on
( February 13, 1987. The new training program will be implemented by Sargent and Lundy and TVA covering the I( preparation / issuance and control of electrical calculations.
k* This is an ongoing effort that is scheduled for completion by December 31, 1988.
h Attachment A identified the concerns as potentially safety-significant. However, QACEG evaluation concludes that only concern I-85-128-NPS is potentially safety-significant, but the concern is_ not considered detrimental to the safe or reliable operation of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. A separate investigation has been conducted j by the Engineering Concern Group pertaining to the integrity _ of the
! calculations and the results will be documented in their report on
- - Concern No. I-85-128-NPS.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS A. Employee Concern Program System (ECPS) List of Employee Concern Information.
B. Corrective Action Tracking Document (CATD) No. 80303-SQN-01 C. Corrective Action Tracking Document (CATD) No. 80303-SQN-02 l
l D. Corrective Action Tracking Document (CATD) No. 80303-SQN-03
--~- -- -
ATTACIDtENT A ,
- ~
TEllllESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY PAGE" -
I.046 -
REF EREllCE - ECPSI20J-ECPSI22C OFFICE OF HUCLEAR Poller Rust TIllE - 12:50:50 FREQUEllCY - REQUEST RUll DAIE ;- 12/02/86 OllP - 1555 - allH EMPLOYEE CollCERil PROGRAM SYSTEM (ECPS) .
LIST 0F EllPLOYEE CollCERis IllFORMAT1011 CATEGORYs GA GA/QC PROGRAHS KEYll0RD A S GENERIC H APPL QTC/flSRS .P ' KEYll0RD 8 S CollCERIl KEYll0RD C CollCERai SUS R PLT b35H IllVESTIGAT IOla KEYl0RD D laulleER CAT CAT D L OC FL03 REPORT R .DESCRIPTI0ld-HP 70601 S Sell YYYY I-86-109-50ll SS - HAllAGEMENT (Kiloilla) HAS LIED TO THE P * ' 310llCollFORilAllCE 5011-86-009-004 K-FORM .0.T.C. ( ACRollYH ll0T DEFIllED Ill HAIL T R AllaillG 150267 QA 00307 ER) AllD, SY DCIllG S0 TO Tile IIRC AS QUALITY HELL, REGARDIMG THE TRAlllIllG Ali0 EXP. EstPLOYEES II .
ERIEllCE UCLEAR OF SELECTED POHER QA PERSolellEL'.
DEPARTHEllT CollCERil. ' HO FURTHER IllFORHATI0ld Ill FILE.
80303 N SON NNNN NO DURING THE COURSE OF IVESTIGATING A I-86-211-SQN GA NOTHER CONCERN, HSRS RECEIVED THE F0 REPORT LLOHING AS A BY-PRODUCT OF CONTACT H IIH THE CONCERHED INDIVIDUAL (CI).. ,
SON PROCEDURE HANDLI ,
YYYY SS 'AN INDIVIDUAL FROM BFN HROTE NSRS EX I-85-128-NPS EN 20106 5 BFN PRESSING HIS CONCERN THAT THE CONTRO EN 20411 REPORT L AND QUALITY OF DE'S DESIGN EFFORT EN 20501 IS INADEQUATE. THE CI SENT SEVERAL EN 20502 .,
ROUGHLY HRITTEN PAGES DET AILING AND
4 4
y i
.j.
..J. ... .. , j ATTACH". INT B .
ECSP CORREC'"IVE
. Action Trackine Docu=ent (CATD)
INITIATION _
I. Immediate Corrective Action Required: . 1X/. Yes _/-/ No
- 2. Stop Work Recommended: // Yes /I,/ No.
- 3. CATD No. 80303-SON-01 4.* INITIATION DATE 11/26/86
- 5. RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION: Technical Suecort Branch-
- 6. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: /I) QR - / / .NQR As identified - in Element Reoort 80303-SON. TVA Ouali:v Control Insoectors are currentiv beine ::ained eer the recuiremen:s - of NOAM Part II. Section - 5.3A. Revision O. dated October 1. 1986.
- NOAM Part II. Section 5.3k s:ates that these recuirements are on an interi= basis until the new Ouality Con:rol Insoee:or Trainine
- Prorram, to be condue:ed by the Tecnnical -Sucoort Branch in j Chattanooea becomes effee:ive. No date for i=clementation by TVA
, has been commi::ed.
~- / / ATTACIL'!ENTS
- 7. PREPARED BY: NAME Patricia A. Carev /44 _ DATE: 11/26/86
- 8. CONCURRENCE: CIG-H R. K. Maxon Q C )'T h 4- DATE: /'I-/u %
[
- 9. APPROVAL: ECTC PROGRAM MGR: EV//,G4*6p n DATE: /E-/v-34 s
J 1 ~ya 33 CORRECTIVE ACTION 6 j . g 4 C W,/f 3_ e S- *
- 10. PROPOSED CORRECTIVF A.CTION P : Fac razst m renv'ern/ e./o ve d VM_e etu m ceim.vuor sad bul. 'b chrem et,.J r:A u aa s.n &
- l .
- Br+m4$ &c d#ad.Jr t*aas_s#' ,s f A*rias! dds Es'rd en' brast hr !m.
ca. a e e rnire.:<, .ers a wn > -me,,,Js. ie h ,he A eu-<e J r -.,44 e+
&~
4* *,aroremm e M"#%) s ul srva sah s re42,$r u.rt le ,c.,r an som e4 . r. .da . * /.
76w s. 4 .
A ff*hff. fkt Sfynt f a f 6en.e.rg/ **EArAhnre. Y.fn efE n esfAP"Jenf fr%eer2,e f 1,nf> r/ A su,,4rlaJ i.wris ssi eonrorasrv iA A ,J Geseurmar dow tomanrwa
% . u-o rk ma ns.J>.or s' re-r.nesma pana ns,. us/As
~
. &a v.*J r no,at,as
" imourmem aka *Ae iss,.<, dun i se.is orevr- si,or ea,osarn n rAe res..ea2 .m m,0;w, As euwst.e:,. oc -t a.~. ~ art La ,Je. some s., nrera 4. sal.a e/sa9P*Ns
~
~
Lal, A / h i s/ze //t , / / ATTACHMENTS i [,,,,
- 11. PROPOSED BY: DI' RECTOR /MGR: 4/ fh /A
/ DATE: /-f w O A
- 12. CONCURRENCE: CEG-H DATE:
SRP: DATE:
ECTG PROGRAM MGR: DATE:
i
- VERIFICATION AND CLOSEOUT .
,, . s Rn .
- 13. Approved corrective actions have been verified as' satisfactorily,
! . implemented. -
l SIGNATURE TITLE DATE jyN. :
l .:e%
k w.L l
I I
l E
, r, . - ** * .
- [ ,
ATTACID!ENT C ,
t
-\
'Oig, '~
ECSP CORRECTIVE
~ Action Trackine Document -
(CATD)
INITIATION
- 1. Immediate Corrective Action Required: /X/ Yes /-/ No
- 2. Stop Work Recou: mended: // Yes /I_/ No
- 3. CATD No. 80303-SON-02 4. INITIATION DATE 11/26/86
- 5. RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION: Electrical Engineering Branch at SON
- 6. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: /X/ QR /~/ NQR -
As identified in Element- Reoort 80303-SON. Seouovah Electrical Eneineers located at Seouovah have not been trained in NEP 3.1
" Calculations" and NEP 9.1 " Corrective Action. NEP 1.2 "Traininc" states eersonnel shall-be trained to the recuirements of NEPs.
64
/ / ATTAClDIENTS
- 7. PP2 PARED BY: NAt1E Patricia A. Carev //2/~ DATE: 11/26/86
] 8. CONCURRENCE:. CEC-H R. K. Maxon 7,4/k"/?F/ 4 DATE: / 2-to- Tr(,
.' 9. APPROVAL: ICTC PROCKAM MGR:, (ll///F.saav># #. DATE: /2-/O -///.'
A p-ggV CORPICTIVE ACTION a- 10. PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN:
cz-c r+o n -> ,Jssca.-
- .. ,s ,or _a
=
v ,- _.
SEE A r ( A& NB9 CAP.
((b 4 3
... . . . *%i.
,a , / /ATTAC101ENTS
- 11. PROPOSED BY: DIRECTOR /MGR: g884 //, '
DATE: .27.7.j -) *
- 12. CONCURRENCE: CEC-H DATE: ~
I i-
- SRP: DATE:
' ~ '
ECTG PROGRAM MGR: DATE:
i
.. VERIFICATION AND CLOSEOUT - -
w
- 13. Approved corrective actions have been. verified as satisfactorily implemented.
-% SIGNATUP2 TITLE DATE iS
- 6 i
i Y
l
l
- ' ' . r.
.' Standard Practice Page 8
. SQA166 A Revision 8 .
.- Attachment A Page 1 of 2 Corrective Action Plan of Employee Concern Investigation Tracking Checklist
- ECIG Repo'rt/CATD Number R03 03 .Md-/tI/dA7A 9o?o 7-roeu-M02 & l r-Lead Organication Responsible for Corrective Action Plan 6Al#~ / * '#
Ir.itiation Date /2 //'2./fG CCaRE:~"IVE ACTION P*AN (CAP)
- 1. Does this report require corre=tive actiret? Yes / No
. (If yes, describe corrective action to be taken, if no, provide justification) r-ex. CA 7O A/D. 9o 36 3 .S0A:-0 2. SEE MixHNi=aT .f MrsNCANcE 12 6 S *TE fL'S F0f- INCI V~'E DUPL S THAT REC'n AuD rec.it VE D Trpe ns p G Oy /.jEta 3. I euO 4.t . ~~~~
' ' ' ~ ' ' ' ~ '
_ 1*-':"***'~
'.... ^ : : T:,~ . " '
~",:- _ :
, a o, s-
,., n_,s
. -: f
_s C '
/ -
l1040*
- 2. Identify any similar item / instances and correceive action taken.
Al A-
.r cp
{ -
- 3. Will corrective action preclude recurrence of findings? Yes z/ No e
- 4. Does this report contain findings that are conditions adverse to cuality (CAQ) as defined by AI-12 or NEP 9.1? YES No /
w
% 6. Which site section/organi=ation is responsible for corrective action?
- 7. Is cor.rective action required for restart? Yes t/ No
' (This determination is to be =ade using Attachment C of SQA166.)
- 8. P2 =ene number for restart corrective action? Zone
- 9. Estimate co=pletion date for correction action. .
Cc=pleted By %70 NJ t .'
Date 3 k - N ~~ b /b ')
Approved By ' N. M. (MML m /ku)A Date ECTG Concurrence
~
r/ 9/, 2- / 2-r7
. , Date s .
t
, . =
^
s
.w s.
0206S/mit
. RIMS Aceno __ ___,,,__ _ _ _,,,_,,,,___,_ _ _ _
e
- El ectri cal Engineering Branch Training Roster i- .
su,4
. ee. of Trai ni ng __.h)_E__C--.3. .__1
. . C '
3- _ A L_ c__V L A__T_bO_ M_5 '
Rel ated Document - N-___3 $. , Pil.h)-Q. UMg PL AeT'5
.. Revi si on _o 1 vE Date of Trai ni ng- ,[ "Z-T _
-____ Central Staff / Project 'Sf .*QM
- Acti vi ty No.
.,.n.
_ _ _ _______ Sub Proj _____ Mise _ -
- '__ This training consisted of formal instruction by __
[ _
.M In'structor's Name This training belcensi sted ofthat reading in lieu of f ormal Si'gnatures ow indicate instruction.
subject document.
of Supervi sor herewith certifies thatindividual s read and un the sub.iect document has been verified. empl oyee's knowl ec:.
i
______ ___.Superv2sor's Signature f SSN PRINT NAME !
- (LAST
__--_____ __ ; _ _____,FIRST.MI) ! ! SCHEDULE
-- ______ .;-____ SIGNATURE ! AND GRADE t
_t-- - _ _
_M__f_-b_2.-E___~7 :. __CO__L_L_tf_dj.. R.lCHAk
~
V D L$'
av g ----- __--__.
. Q.a .
$' /t f-4 te7. . ___-__- -_--__-_--__ *. . -
I a --
g .
l __ __________ _____-_-- .:_ .
_ __-. __ __- :I _______
u ! __ ____-_-__-___ -____. _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ - ._ *
- e. I__ _ _ _ _ _
____ i I t ______
~.
I _________ -______-___ *.--
4
___ __'--____ _--__---__-- ___. I I
. I _____ _______ __ __. _-
t -_ __-______________ -_ __ ________________ _. .
l i!_________-________i I
_ _ ___ .* __ ! l____ ____,___ - _-_____1 t .
L.
- t1______________..___.! =
____-- I .- _____--___ -
I i
g l
I _____-_ .___-- --_;.-- . __ _ __
_ __- *. -- ___-----__ _ _ _--- . i l
i l
W mp I I _ -_ ___- -_-- ______ . . _ _ _
.v..w/..-_ -_-__. .
. i
" * " **** = " ** __
_e.____.*.****.'..
g
$ 7 70 t U l ' ~ "
[.?/e/ --_-______________-__.. -
o
~
- . [( *,' . ,
'a; . . .
1;Ep.1.2 Attach =ent'3 Page 1 of 1-
- 4 I q, ,
, p- ;cd
~ . ,
,4 M % '{ c y y f N T[
- 5 C ~ .
a 1 k rJ a 4
- = m 2 u sS i c QEl E, t
'E h $
o o c M q g k o c.
hA hN o g ) N o
N y EE Y h 5N Mg 4 'S h
$h.h
~
eE e ut u &' h-Q }ih 4 'hd()v>a svi kg 5j oa u ... -
+
er'/#:' -
y L s 'i' 'r -
4 %v s -
aj a
= , w w .i M N " 4 v d 5 k y N c, ,
s= .< ,. N i
.C v e g 9i. to2 ed 2 -
I " 2R G =S 6- 4 I 3" vs.
i<) c 1w3 9* V'I
, I Re A LU g s$
=
2 8 .y 12. un O fl g, l ! dd
.t k
~
e roG y o' w : '
E %u+
b ilI ,$
@ [
- 5 s
M g &
=
d '*
4 d it u
-3 R u
S n
' 'S 0 V in 5 3 @ N t,,
-0 $ $E $ i 7 @N $ $
.r <J e@ 6 sE Ms J $ 4 4
$ $ Q>W@ 9 7 ,A sie a >- 4-
~a s O R je $ 7 5
= i ,
1 y :
E co p s 7 R e. <
E .
s y o D
. , , a s 4
- { w ..I g3 4 -
" +vR ^+ 2 N N N r s
.t oj
- h. =
- I t> g,
=
a -
C j
= 5 d 3 <
J Q ~
b'
-Tc vd li -
W, s e< x g . ._
3 V w a 2.
s f .J
.; e
==
- m. -
a A
5 .u$> a --
g e -A q-4J G r
g-
.- ' o_
v o ;"' -
a c' i E 4 cg ! 9.e e a e g w
4
.x g g M @ p
=.
n- tu a L= t 3' Y -0 u .i q
' 1 D
g 3 i
~
'Z 5J 4 f g 4 : @s @ i lY
.i
^
sa V O
$ & s yd
~ E
~i
[i dk8
- .s ; qm .y wl w$ .
$ E
\} $ 4 Q w iN a m s2
" ~~i E 8 .
i N Mfy% a.'i 'N I
M$ c4 a ef_ .
- c. $$ c]t i
.a.e u e E
i!-
4 1
~
i k m.f m, ., %. %
l t 9 -
i <
N. ,
Ah 4 ,, -
%a
~
Q f f $ e $0
r-____---- - - _ _ . . _ _ _ -
- Qf, - 'g. g. ' :*.' . ,
', ~
. .a >.'
DNE-EA TRAINING ATTENDANCE ROSTER
- n. . * -
COURSE TITLN AND NO.: _ EP 3.I .
DATE: __lll'ZF/86 _ TIME: _
__ LOCATION: _T\/A - $ f0 P "
JNSTRUCTOR (PRINT): _ R. L . C OLu td 5 INSTRUCTOR-(SIGNATURE): .[ [df]g #
SIGNATURE NAME (PRINT) SOCIAL LAST FIRST HI JOB TITI.E SECURITY NO. ll0HE IVA. -
' ScilED/ GRADE .
BR/PR . ADDRESS
_1.jhk '
W 2%L M V' C.
O'l0 oC *3 onspierut?
2)hess~?rn5u-,I h !!sspa PJ/l4n9}f obi 'lf-153w tunnen,wa~ erc s? EIC &D - -
Or!E Dse pl3
\twMbuh 1! BNHNaff,lARRv V All7-No-D3D Y _598. :5'Pn ih IN$h fL
~
r Du&-
Plocid en '2 AM b 700 GM)8% % C NN .Do S a- /\ PM DSc M1-410-02-?520 3 EwEnuAssoe sbbWf$b Shtn . & dxid a. Dae i>se pe<r.
G.)-2.2-Ilo79 Dim =,se
- ibnf$thk Iklrk . Danl'el Ne .hc INI
'.. _8.
.2D- &S.2M &.5g. ha. DSc. P-85.SAlP.
- t. - 9.
. 10. '
11.
12.
8
- o > :-
- $. 3 y. .
_14 .
SW.
--15. ,
O N'
ACColfNT Pffffffmp-
![ ,zilibc= 4.:d c~- wt . " ta = ' " '
}. Lt -
R y .,
gn
^_'b.,.
- c i_ ^ .
. _ . .; s ;
DNE-EA TRAINING ATTENDANCE ROSTER '
COURSE TITL$ AND NO.: _ N E.P 3.I - ,-
DATE: _ lI[26/F(, TIME:
LOCATION: oT V A - 5W P "
INSTRUCTOR (PRINT): _ R.L COLLIM INSTRUCTOR (SIGNATURE):_. /[jj,3 -
SIGNATURE NAME (PRINT) SOCIAL LAST FIRST MI JOB TITLE HOME SECURITY NO.. TVA -
SCI!ED/ GRADE . BR/PR
' ADDRESS 1
blbAJW BDarrrDAlusc.T A Nd-42 -M99 l5.F -f '
- 2. b.S NAC usar l Sem f.%
k 33c- g 7-7c10 14c 644 .
a.2/a, A L Jonese Ma x Gk f~dt- $? PC l
'ho-44-8c24
.sc - 4 E66 MS lAbdbhas Crm > %h\\ A 4 x1.- M - @ 3 2 ?"4; "@ Esh s.p.HA.,4 Hwpa m6 p91 m-e .sS.sz na. c,,, , su eu '
s.11R blal 'BEGIK V;LAnty M. 25l~17 -!?1-19 .
ELEcggWli EED fff 1.$Mb$i d De>um>[hends. #
5
_8.b 2sr-o2-& n e 85d!'k- EEB P48 I,. 212 16 . 6%os.W UT. d,\\- 8 '2.- W O 4 w .
hb EBB PSC- PS2- ,,
_9.Ein.P.fb.irettlio RT:llflG1T t-%fW S. O'?-
258-72.-6'759 alsalDrvp E.c 4
. 10. W ,w AoArmi L.
EER P'?
$-A Av-se- tsas- h. v PC5' b$e osh o n bawA /r .T -- M! - 9t *2. ~3A f.5 ~ - ,4
/45kk$dsna/2
. i w/-x-s!P77 cA $$
13 4 r&& ft/ l'17 A1b ll49Hth Y l- U $ hs.$ f $d o : :-
14 W . Mr/ MhNEA LAFS.T Id.. ' ll't -%-5t?> 3 al95TAJLWer EMr s Od & _'- e :r .
~
.sc.-.i EES. I'13,-
f - oP 15 b 'nt $AL oSGlre . . l lt u a l .lb Y . I D I - 9 l- 3 W 3 AW ' 0 sla e EE6 P -33 I&. &=f R. ff C * $#'- W- l34 'O '""*I G 4( OffMT PfftMnW. ]W%[*. Y~!' . r-
- n . - "^
- , . i. , -
C OU2.5E. T t T L E - F J E P 9 .'I lea s ratterop n. . c. . w y
[ *..
. ..' DART c- u t I /'2W / 7 6 b CA-T1 oid 'rtrA.- 5 Al-P
.' AkM6 SSY .
G (G U N rd P.E-
]. ..
._ . . . R. t. . CD t.u a s - $ 2-6 2.-52 5 7 [ h %. 1
. . _ _ . _ . . .... . w. H n r c H E R W/-BY-e762
.'l L 1.-?.4..7piY .. --.. ....yy
.. 0 W WN la. E . 6 e J .. -
f
~~
V.
c 't a E- 6 H 4 . . ..
Ad. 84c.rry. .. . _. .Rc -0 =.46? . . _.O 2/.f,6~$. . . _ . .
K. G. ~'Y&
... - U.t'% .D%.._ ....k $ .u
~ L)l. 8EGi.Ej' .
' 51 3 4-l_7 jfis_ y -_n'p -
D.T. Kick 22.'7-e(o-s2e9
, i. f ' .
3.2.Ebya- 4L7-+U.0o eg_fQL Q _
&..i<. NADI.. . 3%SA-7410 '
.W 4'
- 5. _i=. ron. rom . oM 6 D.5-5 .
M' _,-;
tl AsL..S.rer xo. S m S~ '
/
EM/. Lhv6 4 u- pa.-es.e4 h ~ h ... ~ '.
E_15.2emusTr IIe
- &we m.21-6 t M h.'B Bew>u u. ___
4M DuroM das .G.t-1&59 hx4L O v --
i L W.. M M E E _- 9m.-*.-55Sss. .____2 .
I_'d/-
dl_AlcsEltyG~e. 101.-K43.2d. dl 0#--- ?' Y"" B.. .
- W V - 0) _o L ...
M _
XIf}-._
%%'WLA.6wt did-N4M $ %. -
Z I CAc:1,..p. g.
Y ~
.. Sc y g.gg . cgp-e.. e.;,
PEarmp URoa'inatutt:gys:rars 4 X Solew--.l._._C4pr A-( . E M &&.S.. -
D.3stC -I5.55 &_f+&L:Q ..=== -
~
'%c.-S S-33e5^.._ 8 f1_ L'/. -
i
- l. M S n o c.; r o i s _ s c W A. y R. m . _ _ .
f @, _ ,
- g- -. ... .
I; ..
N.- __kb.b . . . . . . _...- -- . ..--
l I
- . - - - , . . . . . . . _ , . _ . _ . _ . . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . , _ . _ _ _ . _ , _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , . _ _ , _ _ . _ ~ . _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ , _ _
COURSE M A r^ E " EP 9 ' *S '*- EC"
. . ~.
pwre. It/z1/?C LOCA' nod A TVn _ S y p
.. A /A M G- . . . .._ S 5 Al.. .-.--- .. . .... .St Gal A-rya' p-
.Sgfq S,pya:cND -_. W.-r-c2-6218_.___ ./4jd$l[_
G W..(/No&~eu)o=O %@._5_6 _74 Y_3^ -
AJ R to__Ge.amA.rn
.bb.y'_.Eusuy acc.-7<>-77 7u .
b.//a A ac d' _.
m_5;- Etfa g _:dGs -
1914;heelmocS 2 si-H- As w _ .;_l Jaog Msey.
)_
fu~-98-62/3 Ai
\Ibn l, VNl
~
A/4-76-720/ /
$$n)
L:k w. 6oe4_!& .
I+ e -6 2. -2G4s- V M % L 4)
(
%u..:> ~9.TRM c-n 0.I /)xk idi 9 s u '
35T.To-WVO
\dMTG 0$L9AW.! L ,
&_K.}C 619uzm.,Je. O-82'/G79 bb[$N U L.0., O!nd.e M.i' G-l'i40 (4.v i
.# cg_/)vcf s s
/ d-LJl -
410 C2. 62.29 MdJd>b .,
% Omg 1 md!- m-m-asi Hkw2.dmL IY 4sca, %ce Rgyp_;fowss a M-y,-dMS n-u- Bszd fh24Y-- g J.g ~#
~
&.6 JA>ma.op zu -O -as3_z 2 .J-/ U ( D u c
-Ece.- mcGe1 ' e<a.4c-coco M 9f@d
'/
n . .
l-Od s nLLo_c,rJ2mi____sJ_s_46-rIL&E
.O I'-.
- . .
- ) . . . _ . _- --- ._ .
l i
L
w
. :e J,.
,. ., ms
. . ~.i v
a
~. . UNITED STATES COVERNMENT ~
M6MO7d,71d14771 .,
TENN5:SSEE VALLEtiUTHORITY D - i 10 ._ - .;
.. : Those n ,ted 3
~ -
B05 '86111;9 015 c
.FROMl : J. Frede:Act Weinhold, Manager of. Ecsineering Assurance, W12 B34 C-K m
- HOV 191986 -
' ~
.l_1
SUBJECT:
. .. .. U TRAINING AND PROFICIENCY ON NUC1 EAR ENGINEEl;ING PROCEDURES (NEPs)
~
~
.. \ -
In response tc some re:ent questions concerning Engineering Assurance
- training, I offer the Oc11owing guidelines for helping to ensure that your staff is adequately trained and proficient in the NEPs and that corresponding documentation to reflect this is properly maintained. . .
.,~.
1.
- NEP-1.2,'"Trainint." ds the controlling document for the training of DNE
". managers and employens in all nuclear plant projects.
2.
a Eachemployeew5thinDNEmusthaveanindividualtrainingrecord(I!R)as described in NEP-1.2. .
3.
The. Initial NEP indoctrindtionSub4eet.shall be entered on the II2 as t nor
~
line item under tha heading An "X" should be an'tsred upder the' g, .
Trainine Ramtf red column, and the date of trainin;; should be entered under Inf tial Trainina. ~ '
5 4.
The' current schedule,for conducting EA. training ~on new NEPs arei NE '
g .
%- revisions is indicated specific training dates. on the attachment'. :You will be notified of u, , .;.
.. ; 9,(f.
i.6 No;E: .* - .-
,, ?, .. -
1". 'the same as the old OEPs;'where there'are minor differ b
' - OEPs; to NEPrifor brief, self-explanatory NEPs; or for relatively minor changes In _these cases, in order to meet 10CFR50, Appendir B, and DNE reguirements, you should continue to ensure that' each employee is proficient assignments.
with respect to each NEP which affects his/her wori, .
~
! This profici'ency can be attained by individuals reading, the prncednrn as well es othee means'that you r_cy require for proficing y; I *
. . i, , Attainment of proficiency should be indicated on ea:h employee's ITA and
- dated under current basis.Initial Trainint or Follevue Training,. as applicable on a '
~ -
Trainir.s
, future. on all major NEP subjects will be developed and presented in the i
/ .
S.
~ Tral .ing on the OEPs will no longer be required. However, the OEP videstspes needs. will be retained by EA to satisfy any specific further
- a. .
- .a
- DNE1 - 2784E gg7 g. y , ,
, EA 11/19/88 -
i (
m,,. _ .
,. . , . . . ~
8 x-s
- hose listed T 7; .
NOV 191936 PAINING AND PROFIC1FNCI FOR NUCLEAR INGINEERING PROCE
- i 6.
The responsibility for determining which employees need training.cn .
t' fr.dividual rasts with the NEPs and ensuring employee's that the employees receive the training supervisor.
r If you have any questions concerning' training' please contact R. A. Thompso
., . - extension 6067-K.
Y- -
' 9 u
/
J'. Frederiet Weinhold R. O. Barnett, W9 D224 C-K -
H. S. Beckner, W9 C135 C-K s
$ , C. A. Chandley, W7 C126 C.K -
f.. .:n;. ' R. R. Hoesly, 9-113 SB-K.
g
. L. W. Lau, W4 A4 C-K . .
- J. M. McGriff, BR SN 75A-C .
J. H. Miller, LP SS 150D-C , ,. .
. i. Jf.~_ .A F t' 7
, . .'.. K. T. Myers, Wil B19 'C-K. ,2. %;5;?.' .'.~ .
C. L. C' Dell, WS C99 C-K '
- l 3 'N.* '
~
W. S. Ranghley, W8 C126 C2K d ' ./. S * *h
- S. B. Johnston, W5 D181 C-K J. P. Stapleton, DNE. A10 BFN_ '
e L. Tu=mel; V11 C68 C-K -
- R. C. Weir, V10 C126 C-K ..
%, f,, s. ,
4 '
RT:ZFS
- Attachment
- s .
ec (Attachment): - .
RIMS,, SL 26 C-K ~
's .
W. D. DeFord, W12 B32 C-K
- ) ' -
E. A. Putkonen, W12 A19 C'K '
. , ,J. W. Kelly, DNE. DSC-A10, SQN f ; e . - A. E. Little, DNE, I0B-C176, WBN n
I. Reviewers Initials / Dace 5
R.. Weaver, El Design Building, BFN T.*W. Roberts, W12 CBS C-K R. A. Thompson A'2 / // /i /r.
R. A. The pson, W12 C84 C-K , P.* L. Duncan g 6/ir//rz M. G. Earndon, W12 A10 C-K W. D. DeFo:d LWf n /eo /76,
[%, DNE1 - 2784E EA 11/19/86 g .;. -- a . . * - -
(-
r-p ..
. .. Y o ?. . t - -
. i.
T NEP !"?.CNING SGEDUI.I/P*.A';S y Page 1 07 3
~. >
NIP / TIT _E EA TRAININO S EEDtH5/F.*.X S m
- 1.1 CC:CROL OF NONE PIANNED
.._,_. .. . NEPS .. . .. . . ._
1.2 '"PAINDiG 1/87 .
1.3 EECORDS CONIROL TO BE AIE0WCD 1.4 AUDITS -
TO BE REDWCD
~
1.5 3PRt3 FROCEDURES/ NME PIR;5ED
- INS RUCICNS .
^
I 1.6 ?ROJECI ?IOCDURES/ 12/86 INSIRUCTIONS -
4 .
2.1 LIGNS2:G SUPPORT -
TO BE ANS0W CD '
2.2 REVIIW OF LICNSING REPORTS ' TO BE ANNOUNCD
>:;&?: 2.3 CONTROL OF CFRIGES TO LICHSINO DOCUMENTS * ' 1/87* ~
/
s I "
- 2.4 CCICROL OF LICENSING COMMIDENTS - ,,.4/87.,, .
. ..,. ...w.,.~ *
... . . . . .. sd S -
. . , 3.1 CALCU!.ATIONS '..".s,
- .- ' ;*
- TO'3E RE0WCD.
g , , . . . ; -' s. .
0 3.2 ESIGN INPUT -
' . - TO BE' ANNOUNCED .
!. 3.3 IICERNAL INIERTACE CONTROL l, TO 3E AIECWCD
- e. .' .
3.4 DISIGN r m m - 'g -
- o 3g n=cwcD ,
~
. . . 3.5 DESIGN 3 ASIS DOCUMENTS 4/87 -
3.6 SYSTEM DESCRI?IIONS 20 BE RC;0CCD
. 3.7 ENOINEERING DIACRAMS TO BE R30WCED i .' .
(f
.I 3.B QUALI?ICATION OF COMPUIER PROGRAMS 2/87 s
- ~ ~
p . :.4'.1 PliDCURDENI -
TO 3E ANNOUNCED -
. g
', J56314.02
, *SUEJECT TO NEP ISSUE SCEDUI. '
A e.p ,O e@ e
1
~. , .
-i i
- .=* . .
.l NEP TRAININO SOFIDULE/P1ANS
'a- Page 2 0F 3
-,, . ME?/TI"LE EA TRAININO SCEISULI/PLO:S 5.1 DISIGN OUTPUT TO BE RCIOUNCD
- - 5. 2 REVII'4 -- -- - - - - -- - --
2/87 -- -- --
,, 5.3 InIRNAL ImERPACI CC:iTRcL TO EI Mc 0WCID 5.4 DRL INOS - 1/87 5.5 SPECIFICATION OF ENGINEERING 12/86
~
, .. P2QUIR 2NIS 5.6 EEVIr4 OF SUPPLIER DRL'DIOS TO II MINOWCID
.)
g* 5.7 RIVIrJ OF SUPPLIIR TECFliICAL R TO 3 M CO W CID DCCUMINIS
- a
' 5.8 QUALI"Y OF SU?? LIER DOCUMIES TO 3E MINOWCD
- Ch N
5.9 COMPUIIR CINIRATID DR&TNGS- $.
, TO BE MCIDWCD .
~-
6.1 CFAi2 CONIEDL - -
TO II #CiOUNCD
- y@Da -
P. 6.2 DESIGN CFJuiGI NOTI 2
.. -3/87. ..;~.-
v - -
_. .r .
..,.,, = - + i ;.* . , .'
ss- -
6.3 v .dA'ING ?LANI MODIFICATIONS .- i
- .. . 3/. 87
-.3, 6.4 PIANT MODITICATION PACKACIS -
3/87 - -
a
~
6.5 PIANI MODIFICATION STUDIIS 3/87.
p . :. -~'
6.6SATITYANALYSISOFPLANTMODIFICdIONS . 3/87 -
.s.-
6.7 DOC m iT UPDA 3 PRO CSS - MODIFICATIONS 3/67 -
7.1 DOCUMENT CCNTROL ,
1/87 l , , .7.2 DOCENT QA IIVIL MARDNG TO 3 MINOW2D
. u _
- ~ s
. . u .- . .:-
- x. . .
M J56314.02 *SU3 JECT TO NIF Iss;E S CEDULI
%..g. s i
l
..,p-
./.
a.
/,-
- h"EP TRAINU;0 SCFZDU.E/PUJIS .
Mf. , Page 3 0F 3
~ -. -. . .
- NEaj~' ~" ,
^
EA TRAININO SOEr,02/puJ;s
, _9.1 CORPICTIVE A rICN 1/g7 r- 10.1 ENGINEERING SERVI 25 OUTPUT -
to3g ggggggp .
10.2 CDNIROL OF F..'ASURr;0 AND IIsI TO BE ac;0UN2D EQUL*MENI 10*3 F*S*IN*a -
TO 3E ANNOUN 2D
. .. 10.4 IIST SCOPING DOCUENTS 00 BE ANNOUNED AND INSTRUCTIONS .
~
^
4, c
t j- .
n .
. H ?.k. .
s g44. - -
PM-7
.,.s.
~
ee
... s. .-
. .~- , - .
. =..
, . 5 .
l .
I -
\
i -
s . .
S .
. s
.t. . . .
.e'
(,": .- J55314.02 *sU3Jgcr ;o ggy Issug gegegg e *
,,,,,,ee* n n o - 1 ==*
- l
c
.i * * * .
~., . -
ATTACl! MENT D u ei
~
T CSP CORFICTIVE
_ Action Tracking Document 1(CATD)
INITIATION ,,
1.
Immediate Corrective Action Required: ~
2.
Stop Work Recommended: /~/ Yes /I/ LX/ Yes / / No
' 3. CATD No-. No~
80303-SON-03 4
- 5. INITIATION DATE 11/26/86 RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION:
' 6. Electrical Encineerine Branch -
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: '/X_/ QR /~/ HQR As identified in Element Reoort-80303-SON. a new revised training program is beine develooed by TVA and Sarcaent and Lundv for the Electrical Encineerine Branch with recard to orecaration review.
and control of electrical calculations. A verbal committment date of January 1967 has been noted by Assistant Lead Electrical Entineers in Knoxville for -ieolementation of this new training program.
initiation However.
of the actual - dates for orotram comolecion and trainine has not been manacement. established by 1
- 7. PREPAPID BY: NAME / /ATTAClefENTS
[i . B.
CONCURRENCE: CEG-H Patricia A. Carev /g <'/~ DATE: _11/26/86
- 9. R. K. Maxon 9<',4C //P/-e '
l, -
n . ..g DATE: / Z-/o - e-G
.gg. APPROVAL: ICTG PROGRAM MGR: . W882S'tW M DA og CORRECTIVE ACTION T...
10.
PROPOSED e -- CO,.RRECTIVE or1 ACTION N PLA,r,:-
<~ u nn 1
.,,,,,w. , . ~ . .
.- , s,i
~ , - = , . , - , , 1 ~
>- jf (
. 5FE ^? Ns e c J fM. -
1 .
[O
. 2;s .
.x
~ .
r i -
~ ~
- 11. >
PROPOSED BI: DIRECTOR /MGR: g(/#L 4_
/ /ATTACllMENTS
- 12. /,f, DATE: 2-/)g '
~
CONCURPINCE: CEC-H
~
SRP: DATE:
. . . . . DATE:
ECTG PROGRAM MGR: . -
s DATE: -
_ VERIFICATION AND CLOSEQUT ' ' .
! (, 1. - * *
~
13.
Approved corrective actions have been verified implemented. '
as satisfactorily
.yp SIGNATUPI TITLE DATE -
~
[ . - -
.7, ; a. ' . .
Standard Practice Page 8 SQA166.
Revision 8' . '
1
,, .7 Attachment A Page 1 of 2 a Corrective Action Plan of Employee Concern ' Investigation "
, Tracking Checklist-ECIG Report /CATD Number _
S? O 3 0 3 - 5 041- o 7 $
s I.ead Organi=ation initiation Date Responsible for Corrective Action Plan
/// Z /, / '9 6 #E/S '
- 1. Does this report require j corrective action? Yes v No (If)yes,
/. Ce s/l describe
/e- ele corrective action to be taken, if no, provide justifi
. < fr. s m e . / r. / S u n / .. A f onJv / o '., cation)-
4 see m
~ L? 7<.:.i - de- e &ch.h / ca le u f.c A .- r.
EEn e ~sfe o e .- e- AG o . , < <.z
'a v . . / r ,, , h -, 4, :. .- :/c', edee.. / - , / / :
,,sh M ><' r.c /<.- o s ,. rph r'e -r L.,
ne.eas r s/r.
- v ;< b .
e4 c s le uA/a/se . A-r >
- EE.G te s k,u--
p@ . i st -s e ,- / ,, , s n e e w '
,dr;. s r -
4: .
- 2. essn. ~ A4e < 4 e n u, /z,.
IdentifyitrXaany similar item / instances and corrective action taken a -
Y/ ,
Q $
N8.I
' 4. Does this report contain findings that are .Yes-conditio3.
V No _. Will c as defined by AI-12 or NEP 9.1? ns a'dverse to cuality (CAQ)
V
$ YES No
N f a /2 Aln . :
$' 5 D Af E f ts % 5'z "? #D '
S- 6. Which SQ sitefF-section/organi d*/ce 14 ,*e ation a f is responsible for corrective on?
acti ~ .
- 7. Is corrective action required for restart? /
"; ? ' Yes No determi g
- 8. P2 zone number for restart corrective Zone action?(This. .
- 9. Istimate' completion date for correction action. _
ik '
r Z / "T/ / 'l 2 ' ]'.
Completed By _ M M. udo,s ,
Approved By ECTG Concurrence
- 4. d- u./ ct.A >- Date Date M//[i> 7 i 2 -/ r - r7
. _ Date [-
s w.;
M 4
h.e..
f e
i 0206S/ cit *
..~....- .
4
, UNgD. STATES GOVERN 31E.W QA Record Memorandum rtxxtssts vitttr turnonirr Q'J To :
J. A. Raulston, Chief Nuclear Engineer, W10 C126 C-K .
u~ J. Sequoyah P. Vineyard, Project Manager, Sequoyah Engineering Project, OE, DSC-A, Nuclear Plant Frost : ,
E. Chitvood, Acting Chief Electrical Engineer, W8 C126 C-K DATE :
SUBJECT:
SEQUOYAH (B43 851126 905) NDCLEAR PLANT - SIGNIFICANT CONDITION REPORT (SCR)
All required OE action on part B of the attached SCR has been completed.
4 E. Chitvood
- RLC:C0 Attachment cc: RIMS, SL26 C-K - v/l R. G. Domer, W12 A6 C-K - v/1 p~
G. T. Hall, OE, DSC-A, Sequoyah - v/ Original for you files.
J. R. Lyons, W12 D131 C-K - v/1
~
fg H. 3. Rankin, ONP, OSC-E, Sequoyah - v/l Css R. A. Sessoms, OE, O&PS-2, Sequoyah - v/l K. W. Whitt, E3 A8 C-K - v/1
!! R. C. Williams, W8 D225 C-K - v/l Principally Prepared by: R. L. Collins, Extension 7023.
sd
\i
- s i l
1
,, s s e s a) .
l i
l l
C06070.02 i
1 9'
w SQEP - Mar. 12, 1986
\ O?
$.N n... r e e. . - - -
L
. 4
~
Rius
, A.
- n
',. O!GNIFICANT C'ONDITION REPORT y
A -1 Numoer
+ B43 '851126 905
, C Prosect/Ptent and Unit C Dete 13 iSCR Numoer and Rev.
Seouovah Nuclear Plan Units 1 and 2 11-21-85 SON EEB E527
@ Preparer and Organizatson @ OC NOR NoJDefeciency Reoort f
7 v. D. Reece. OE /DE'"S /EE3 / SnN_Ep For oC uer onM g @ Contract Numoer L.I2.1V'"*ar .
co N/A_ _ NA -
.j e R.auirement viented .
.j _
Recuirements to orecare and maintain design calculations e M Source of Requirerewnt g 10CFR50 Anoendix B and OEP-7 E Ljaj onertation of Condition _
j f Failure to identify the required minimum set of calculations and studies for all electrical systems in order to establish the technical adequacy of each I and that the design basis is met.
d .
2 .
c s
o C _ _ -
g - Syrtem UNID/ Component Cooe (For OE Use Only) 4 VariOUS NA 1 E Q Date of l~I"IMethod of Discovery j i Occurrence Various v Estirnated C Actual
- Generic SCR evaluation 5 Lj_j Significant Condition Q Organization to Deterrruno Correenve Action
, j Adverse to Quality >. y Yes N
- .=
NUC PR & OE LiQgj If significant,NES.NLS Contact 4 & Date Ll.gg Cornacted by D. L. Williams 3 11/26/85 j , m.
s, I 11 I is e Potentral Generic Condition R. C. Williams 8 af yes,initiere Attacnment 5 of CEP.17and L12J srench Chief or oC cuasity Menever Evaluation Recuired? l list Attachment 5 RIMS Accession No.:
g
,& D vn B "a l (Distribute as roovirh block 30.1 7w. QL ses irr.r/ps-Llij Root Cause f
_ There was no program in place to define the required minimum set of
- p. calculations and studies for the electrical systems in order to establish
. 8 technical adequacy and the design basis or to revise the calculations
? 8 once they were performed.
v 5 -
7 _ .
= -
-- L?.'sj Corrective Action l
A minimum set of electrical calculations has been decided uoon, precared, and is
= curmitly being revieaad by Sargent & Lundy for content and syn:hensiveness. Following this j review, the calculations will be revised as necessary and a &pted for use.
E y -
= , s
. 'S
! g , * ' -
- i l 6 l
i 15 - - - - - - - - -_ ___-_
l 8 [1ga) Coordination Review of CE Work (Provide initials) L),aarj r, s Scheduled Date of I Completion ;
.5
., E C It'ol Action Reovired to Prevent Recurrence (ARPR)
S . A program has been put in place to augment the recuirements of OEP-7 ard OEP-ll.
Trainina has been conducted to ensure that encineers and desianers are cognizant of osot,,,h,e, + o6 roc, ram recuiremen*bs or OEP-7 and OEP-ll. The crocram"will ensure that o or +21 r = 1 r. , tions are neeoarad and naintained for (cont n o.2)
TVA 1070c (OE445) electrical Chances crior to restart of tre W -e
- e '
SCR Number and Revision . .
I bal ARPR (continued)
~
4 ffTF1 Sch'eduled Comowtion Date of OE Work &
I 41 Does the corrective action oeviate from e ossign criteria requirement? Yes
@ No L1.Z.] Doseen Criteria Document Number @ Eeception Raouart Nurvoor
~d a
.5 1 % 1 Is en ECN roovired? @ impact on Seneouse?
o
! a
$ Q~ Yes i O Affects proiee comaletica eheduie
- If yes, ECN number c w 0 No 1 o o 8 O Affect = ==hedure of reisted e=tivities i = l
< O 0 naim aset o u. ITial Review Concurrence with Review Signature and Date Vr cation St t bow Other M. .k -
[h y
h El Acoroval Signature and Date (Distribute es reou. red .
RIMS Acesssoon humoer "
See block 30.1 -
io 3
d Wrwau-Is it a generic condition?
3-w-u 1
m Yu No E If yes, coscribe.
U E
q Q cf u.! .
cn
,"' m PN Preparer and Date
] .
g
- @ Supervisor and Date
-,y o
@ ARPR Recommenced By and Date
- u. L2i,,) ARPR Approwd By a,d Date
- f. T Concurrence of Designated Quality Reviewer for ARPR and Date
- j. RIMS Accession Nummer (Distribute es appropriate See block 30.)
JM a
,e
@ Romerks This SCR.is being written in response to Potential Generic Condition Evaluation 4 for CAQs WBNEEB8527RO, WBNEEB8528RO, and WBNEEB8539RO. This SCR*is similar to BFNEEB8529 vritten 6n October 28, 1985.
i i
!, See Continuation
@ Att OE/OC Action Complete Sheet
& Signature, Organization, and Date e
s s 3" .
.o 1301 r *: u -
RIMS, SL26 C-K ~
U NRC Resident inspector -
i OC Site Oedicated Data Base OC-OAB, Knoxville j NEB NLS _
Records Storage Facility Q NSRS _
ANI (For Code items Only)
{
9rs jj
- =
f OE Project Manager
_ OC OAB Site
.vs s -
OC Project Manager p Chief, OMS -
} _ OE Manager RIMS Accession Numoer
_ NEB. CMS (for ASME Code items) 1
7-
. . *i'.' .
- ENGINEERING REPORT RlMS Accenion Number CEP-17
~
(By OE for CP Planti ATTAcMMENT 4 ER Riv. 0 (By NUC PR for OL Plent) maa 1 mer 4 r CAO Report No and Rev Plant and Unit NUC PR Contact and Date Notified (OL Nuc Plents Only)
- SQnEEB8527 SQN 1 and 2 o-[ Defenstive Statement of CAO (See Note IJ .
OW j2 (See Attachment) -
.C 44
., u g2 *o .
l
- See Note 2 on Daoe 4 for completing Part B .Part 8 contenueo on pages 2 and 3*
-g h Yes (OL Nuclear Plants Only) Due Date of Failure Evaluation Preparation of Failure No Evaluation is requested by NUC PRF .
Conclusions (See Note 3J e -
2~~
e ..
2 I
wT D Ei
, =m
- u. _O a .
m Recommencations (See Note 4J
.. To w c.
- t
) f:.
W., 7 1.
. Operational Limitations / Actions a
Justification For Continued Operation
- g. Suggested Corrective Action
.9 li 2
w m"'1. . -
> gg
- h$
sa m ConcJusions y .2 . .
n **
A indeterminate item?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Yes No FSAR Revision Required?
................................................. .................... Yes No Deficiency Adversely Affects safe Operation of Plant?
JA OE Contact
.................................................. Yes No Approved By and Date Prepared By and Date TV A 1 C276 (C E.7.*** -e'***
___-_-________-__-___---_-___-__----_________-_--_--_---_-------------------A
.: camy .
. .* < averanwnesNT 4 s
- m es p sze 4 P:rt B (Continued) ,
. ER Rev. CAO Report No.and Rev. Page 2 of 4 ,
1.
4 Tabulate Data on All Failed and/or Affected Components. Structures. and Systems: Give descriptions, model and manufacturers' numoers, and original anc revised cesign criteria anc/or specifications. (See Note 5.) ]{
f1 e i 2.
Failure Mechanisms of Affected Components. Structures, and Systems: State whether each affected component, structure, and system became open or closec, inoperative, or snorted; or nad shortened life, reduced accuracy, increased l drift, reduced capacity, etc. (See Note 6.)
7
?
i
'., &s
' W.. f e
~ 3.
Alternate Uses and Generie imoliestions: Identify alternate uses of the components, structures, and systems in the plant. Discuss generic implications. (See Note 7.)
4
.j .
w .., ! ' .
~. ..-
g- -
, . , . . ~ .
.' 4.
_Comconent. Structure, and/or System Failure Models): Give description and extent of effects of failures on each
, component, structure, and/or system involved. (See Note 8.). '
9 m %
h/
- , . . . *=_.-_m-m- - , ,
osm-1 Le o e,
. m .
p.,',,
- Part B (Continued)
~~
CAO Report No.and Rev. Page 3 of 4 JRRev.
- 5. Cause of the CAQ: Discuss what the CAO was due to, e.g., a program breakdown. new regulation, analysis or design
, Jrror, test results snowing a deficiency, and/or failure to meet design criteria and/or purchase soecifications. Include b' calculations, analysis results, test results, and/or purchase requirements not met, or other bases. (See Note 9.)
't
- 6. Consecuences on Plant Desion Functions: Discuss effects of failures on all involved component's, structure's, and
- system's aDility to partorm their plant oesign functions. (See Note 10.)
ry -
.st y
i t g r. -
dy 7. Justification for Conclusions in Failure Evaluation: Discuss the reasoning based on the information above which lands
, 'J"4,. to tne conclusions stated. (See Note 11.)
4:
M
- -j .
~ r
"-, . .c w.,
t
- q=.s ~~ 4. s
- s. -
- ';'th ,. ',
C o;
. s
.*. e. 3 .
. Prepared By and Date Coordinated in NUC PR with:.
-m .
[1-
'- Verified By and Date Discipline Project Engineer (s) and 4 . . NEB Concurrence and Date w,
Approved By and Date L
, .A.
~
.', . ~ .
- CEA-17 O
- ATTdcMMENT 4 mges cap 4 Page 4 of 4 ,
NOTES ON ER FORM BLOCMS
, 1. Provide a definitive statement of the CAQ. The NCR/SCR description of the CAQ is to be restated verbatim or expanded 7
for clarification to ensure the statement reflects "standalone" documentation of the CAQ.
- 2. Various items in Part B (pages 2 and 3) are to be completed to support the conclusions and recommendations. Allitems on the form (pages 2 and 3) are not necessarily applicable to each CAQ. Add sheets and data as necessary.
- 3. Explicitly state the conclusions of the failure evaluation regarding the ability of the affected component's, structure's, or system's capability to perform its required design function.
4 Recommendations in this block (or elsewhere on the ER) should provide OE's best judgment as to what is needed to correct the condition. Recommendations are to reflect suggestions that correspond to the stated conclusions of the failure evaluation. The recommendations should not be worded as requesting work authorizations or funding for additional y work. ..
- 5. Other affected components, structures, and/or systems (CSSs) not specifically identified in Part A of the ER should be Identified here.
- 6. " Mechanism" pertains to the mechanics of Individual component failure (s).
- 7. Alternate Uses and Generic implications: Identify alternate uses of the affected CSSs in the, plant. If the condition has f generic implications, they should be discussed here.
A r
- 8. " Mode" as used here pertains to operational manner or process.
d* l *
,. 9. Self explanatory.
. v, > ,
- 10. A conclusive statement is needed here on the ability of the affected CSS to perform its intended design function with the condition documented in Part A of the ER. Plant safety aspects (i.e., safety evaluation) are not to be considered here.
- 11. Provide adequate Justification to ensure the conclusions stated are logical and reasonable based upon the evaluation
- 4 findings and statements.
4 -
j '
. .e
. .:i.:;.: .
v . . .~ . . - . ~ ,
- u. 4 l e . - e,. . . *
. - xy .. .
- C.[e , ,'
. . . t
,. .. ., . s, p .~.-. . ,
g *. . - .
mi ...- .
a' 8
q'[E .
- Af,4 .""
l
- 7. y n * ,_ ,. ,
4*v*t ".:.n . ...
t -
ATTACHMENT TO ENGINEERING REPORT PART A FOR SQNEEB8527 Definitive Statement of CAO -
OE has failed.to identify the minimum set of design calculations necessary to document electrical systems design adequacy. As a result of various y audit findings against OE including an INPO audit .of the Bellefonte design
- process, it was determined that OE/ electrical should formally identify the minimum set of design calculations necessary to support ongoing design modifications. ' Potential Generic Condition Evaluations cannot be' accurately made without such a planned program for SQN.
. Examples,of deficiencies being identified:
- 1. WBNEEB8517
- No documented calculations exist to evaluate 480Y Class 1E and non-Class 1E over and under voltages when power is being supplied from A' various non-normal alignments. 'Also, there are no retrievable *
calculations for maximum control circuit cable lengths for the MCC L
starter circuits. This conditions exists for SQN but no program is underway to determine if these calculations are required.
- 2. WBNEEB8528 This CAQ for WBN identified lack of documentation to verify analysis' of various voltage conditions on 6.9kV shutdown buses and 6.9kV BOP buses.
O.h
'J The same was true for short' circuit valve documentation on 6.9kV BOP g( buses. These same deficiencies exist on SQN and a documented program would address the need.
3 ,
- 3. WBNEEB8539 This CAQ for WBNidentified several components fed from the 120V A-C
' vital instrument power system which did not have adequate operating ,
voltage per the manufacturer's minimum voltage requirements due to
- .; excessive cable voltage drop. These same components were looked into M on S,QN and assuming a 0.5 power f actor and design cable lengths they
-r> were found to have adequate operating voltage. This review did not h ,'f,;*gy(. assure adequate operating voltage on the remaining safety related A-C
. circuits nor were the assumptions verified. It was stated that a more complete review of the 120V A-C vital instrument power system was 2% :..#. essential to properly address the generic condition of excessive cable 9e*-';U. c" voltage drop.
~
y, 4 3../
n -.v.: -, Y %, . -
. n .W;. , < * *. e .* - t~
y .:-,.. .e. a , .
~ . ~
- .y. p .'
] . p :l...
- . r.,
. *[' .4 N ._ 015329.02
$k '
i w
I 1