ML20214Q729
| ML20214Q729 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1986 |
| From: | Engelhardt J, Lagergren W TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214Q673 | List: |
| References | |
| IN-86-011-003, IN-86-011-003-R01, IN-86-11-3, IN-86-11-3-R1, NUDOCS 8706050135 | |
| Download: ML20214Q729 (4) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:._ --,_
-' ./
L%'.
.. a. -
- . ... s s* .
.g , - ' ANACE'. INT B Revision 1
.!ENNE::SEE VALLEY AUTHORITY U .
SEQUOYAH NUOLEAE PLANT GENEEIO CONCERN TASK TORCE GCTF IN-86-011-003
- Employee Concern Number: .
Subject:
Supplier's Subcontractors Date of fh}.1%
- Investigation: May 9, 1986 p.'.
)
.A Wste Investigator:
f} J. E. Yl Rev2ewed By:.
-4 Engelhardty.rtD,. l/Date P, d 5 G TE he=ber
" <#_ b" I b' ' S b - .
Dcte Approved By: L'. E. Lagtjgrpn sy.7./
/' ?
V IC fSS h.]& MRG, Member
'Date y' ,
eh e'
.:::-,. Dcte JEECTG I
I 0004T , 8706050135 370526 DR ADOCK 05000327-PDR
~
..r
) ,
.- ,,,e ,;
^ * *' Revision 1 i g ,
y . I, Dackground An investigation was conducted at Seguoyah to determine the validity of an expressed concern as received by Quality Technology Company (QIC)/ Employee Response Team (ERT) for Watts Bar Nuclear P3 ant ( VB N )' . , The concern was determined to be teneric for Seguoyah by the Untts Bar Concern Response Task Force. The concern of record, as summarized on the Employee Concern Assignment Reguest Form from,QTC and identified as IN-86-011-003,. stated: TVA does not require material suppliers to involve QA requirements
. on sub-tier suppliers.
The_III.Jollowup group was contacted to receive further information on the concern. An example was given by the concerned individual to EKI
. and i.s stated as follows:
Prior to 1982, TVA Class A bolting material was purchased from ' Dravo subcontracted with Texas Bolt Company for
# Dravo Company.
this material. The certified m:11 test report received from Texas Solt Company did not indicate that the material was ASME Class I. r No'further information was requested from the EET followup group. d(-..k;
- n. ,*
Ef.r sf , II. Scope A. The scope of this investigation was determined from this concern to be two specific issues: 1... Does TVA require materiti suppliers to have sub-tier suppliers
- meet the QA requirements for procurement?
s
- 2. Did. Dravo supply bolting acterial for Segueyah?
! . B. To accomplish the investigation, Nuclear Quality" Assurance Menual (NQAH) requirements were reviewed and the Procurement Quality Assurance Ertnch, Supplier Ivaluation Group (PQAB SEG) wcs i contacted. III. Su=mcry of Findings ,
- 1. NQAX, Part III, Section 2.1, " Procurement of Mctericls, Cocponents, Spare Parts, and Services," list the requirements for procurement of QA material. This NQAM incorporates the following requirements:
- 1. ANSI 45.2.13, " Quality Assurance Requirements for Control of 7 Procurement of Items and Services for Nuclear Power Plants" d'n 'Oh. .
l i Page 1 of 3 i
' - - , , w ,
. .,,, g Revision 1
. . ~
c ris .
~ -A
_s .
; Regulatory Guide 1.123, " Quality Assurcnce Erg 2.
Plants" . 3. ASME, Section III, article NCA-3000. " Metallic Haterial
-Manufacturer's and Material Supplier's Quality System Program" '
4 Other applicable standcrds
~
These standards reguire that sub-tier' suppliers clso meet the same QA requirements.as the supplier.
. B.
' Supervisor of Supplier Evaluation Group was contacted about the implementation of NQAM, Part III..Section 2.1 and DravoQA's Supplier Corporation's compliance with these requirements. Evaluatio plants.
Part of this audit process is to verify that suppliers b tier suppliers
, maintain a QA program that will assure that any su -Dravo Corporation maintcins also meet these requirements. for certificate which certifies that it meets thel QA requirements Texas Bolt It was 4
,. supplying ASME code material for nuclear and-only minor p ants. Comp
' audited by PQA3 SEG in October 1985 (audit 867-14),Both d Dravo problems were found. ep$py3 are on TVA's " Acceptable Suppliers List" for supplying ASME co e
.J .,. T material. -Dravo Corporation only had a contract to supply material
- to WBN.
j. IV. Conclusions and Reco=mendations A. Conclusiens The employee concern wcs found not to be valid fcr the following s
- reasons : .
1. NQAM, Part III, Section 2.1 does require sub-tice suppliers to
. meet tho same reguirements as the contract supplier t:hich is veriIled by PQLB SEG. -
- 2. Dravo Corporation and Ieres Bolt ' Company meet the . requirements for supplying ASME code material. .
- 3. Drnvo Corperation did not have a contract to supply material for Seguoy ah Nuclear Plant.
B. Reec=mendations_
~'n.
" None y
- Q.,
Page 2 of 3
-e*- . . . . ,
e. u.. 3 Devision 1 y . y, deferences " ANSI N45.2.13-1976,'* Quality Assurance Requirements for control of Procurement of Items and Services for 1Juelear Power Plant" , ASnE Boller and Pressure Vessel Code Section III, Articles NCA-3800, *
Hetallie Materir.1 Manuf acturer's and Haterit.1 Supplier's Quality System Program." 1983 NQAM, Part III, Section 2.1 " Procurement of Materials, Component, Spare Parts and Services,"' dated December 23, 1985 Regulatory Guide 1.123, "Q'ur.lity Assurance Requirements f or Cont.rol of Procurement of Items and Services for Nuclear Plants " Revision 1 July 1977
. dated October 17, 1986 Procurement Quality Assurance Branch Audit 86V-14, and November 18, 1985, RIMS numbers L19 860117 802 and L19 851118 800 respectively ,
J ..> Y'f.)$$E
' .g I
l , - a _
'i *
's .
Page 3 cf 3 e e M v ,ye--
- r -. % , e-se.----r--c-m-- --y+-w----e------,,--ww w- - m-- - ---- e- ,- =: r-=o ee--w
g 4
*. 3. ..; . .
s-
'. st ,.* ~E V -
1,i ,. -- r. ".4 . n.
. A"~AC&EN"" C 4 w ;-- ~
4: -
-- - - .n -
n _
- u m s -
xm . . 3 -- r .
' ' ' ^
y7_ m u __, . "-- -
@b- #::W.TAsf.irT dn _
m &..w:wma.yw9s s..w k Yk
-e-p n @..b..$mW n f.@b.w .v.ww .
n wa Ad..N@%*g.g rp.7..gh%, w'O 'r@3:"wm%.,5 E,S *- ' ,, '- '
.. 4 *:
sWWfM,;Dw.v
,a .
,-4 . n- e.Q :w.s.< %.u. n.s . 3 I W.. .:. .4. .
h .N.2. c. ,W. .- , w ,.3,
. 0013. . .. ..
,50312.;4,g;E0.
- r-
..r. ;h. .s ...;. . . .n c N,* . * -
}" %,, ..:po%y a ..tr e J - T ,r .~, ..c -
v,. M .e ;).m c +. W.k-3 y.% :>.:c- % .;... ; -rm .-
,) "n N?)i*ef.vy-i -
85 0 ff5 dM.1/ra*
- . t' : .. 19 -q yMN'lk
- ..pswir..gy@,&.2'
-wn.b,e. M
-w k.f.,.h.f.h. :b,gm.v-(pCM : : -;.:~ ~ 2.pm*' -ks . Jf"j, .J.TIXXISSII io
- .f.,
Qc '..%yfW. 1,. .
,,g$tW$
>c' n.
VA!.!.J.T AITI
...c.m,q;. y.. ,g. y. - r , .
.c
- o. n.~.w-p
, .;,:;;.. r.;l .'.f,T:T7'T
- ,. 'Q-(..*:,.,3.,,.. .
nt
~. .n. ~
- vt
,M~ :
Q.;R,.7d . yS2.hfr,ArerL";;;.C'Q/e e'v. a,.c.. M - FUCII.AR SATI!T RIVIIV STATT
; e.'. *z *1e
- o. Mt.:n .tv,,- g'~ix c.
w.Dij@ d..#%;:cm : 9 6 . m yW..*n%r; .:. t
~.:
RIPORT NO. E-E4-17-NFS 4 4'4. d *--;fr:e
+,..r . ,7:g,p&. ;.K-p' 'r:'g i ---. ..k.M' ('4 Q~r:v'.if. W,'o;,.-:..:: *.
h.D. ,G,m. .T ' ' ,
- ~
'f. x
.", . .:,h .6"
';':.:.:.r;:41 .- .Y WwW.,,< F - .
Tr : 4@.$ l q:L M;W- '.;- . .+ .m%q:qJ - W Yr:-S.'ht, A- O ? *A
,w ;$..b.':..C . .. .w-
*..-...: "' M,9 : m%. -* M...
. . .),es%,.J' .,;.:~i ..l:- '. :': .L hnC ., e- 4 iU,;'W,. c v ,--n.
it ^ :s
-- ;.W.' .,.. . . ...:. .,. .
5 ;A.
,F NNM
' 'SUF.JEC$ Yk. '
h i[ N 7.b,b,h': hN""% % & ,e
. E,. - yd... .& < ' . ~ I:R .OFIRATIN: XUC:TA1 PM.1 F;.AXTS ., .%. -8$:
NNN.3.m. .E.w*h"Id.A* (. h,$w 5 Y.hkh,.. u $1.V. ,.5. . ~.RIVIIV DT 5:FROCUR.". XT FRAC
- 4. . . .
.M..q: .-:7v hh'h5hY. ,.* '.:s . l' $k5$h* -.b...hl'5$:it ,
.. -. m:-s.a 4JJW ..- m . a .f+:9 -
e g % v>hd'.6.v
,..r..- r. u . ..
2 ..~,' Y ". r!; :~ .=. . - ; i -.i".m< :?kf;< . .- tt . . .
, b A;I.s
. ,, . ; . s .M_ ,M.f. 7, %wl"C
' * > 6 . l..
~4 Q. .m y*
. rt. -
- s. ,w- .% e m
i b WAp..GEVII~d:.,(.W ;:.71'\~t .e. N -11r 1984 - DICT =IR S,1984
'.. ~4.Wess% P49*Oper 3 L. ' *
'. t .@.7 C.-y ,J.t ' Mg,y.dM, 9-d'
'N.?
..Ks-e.,?:.e.:$"r
- - E - - . .. n. 5@4:: .M.'}5.':s:h*L2%p#~;.:
. i # -"
M p* ..W, ? f..xq g -t!L $.,+y'.ss. af @ N M i ~ 4 . 2 G ' %*' p'.<.~.
. ?. . ~.! n ~ %.s %:;;.-
7:t?_g.),yc. 2TIA.M . I.I. A:'E.Rf "~
.. g.>./// ~fs u e
".- .r a. g M-'l@q,y s -
...,.y- Tr.tm y e.m.c
; s
,.< s.. ,:;,:w .;' J.- aC:T.l > ".- 1-.-.
<,. g ,.g . 4 .g. K.-D n-= - y .4w k.gg,,.k%,
I x x n.n
. f i L:11AM.,M?i&bl4 ~~~'+ Yj ..2--). L '
- M N SrnyfY'N@n,: .u :k.$M.M.. y MM.: u-
?.'
W.r. e.i@4
.r;r;:. . MM.x- tr W .
l'f[&~$gMM l M
. ,,a,,y ',^ LQ;%%g:Y e.,~W.*",c
~$.
$.N
&~.I.k&* ?-r;h *,7__, ~;%:'.f. Wu . :' UhM 2.f.,W;.z.g.;;$.h j %y *-
gy - *
....~%=. . 14r + *
.r,..
rp%D- . A .- z s.6Cb i-- s'+'%Sp:,,u EerscrIn 11: .g@*.~%39/l/* 4",Nn.4,t t
/ ' = .v- ' - e .. -yG.n:::2.W.r*C=,.p: c+ptr.
l 5 %. l
' ^
h k iR is>$1rt:.%d:~K
~
Qf * - 0 'k
')k,m$
.,fg w Y,p'VYr% f k5 f.li.'dN@r.
drM. I.
& L . a.Q
i a
/h M. d,f'&.iW@*M'd;;,WIMD n :.w. .-mes 3% ,y. r . ,. A e J. m..h-Q.
- Q~
a. 1
, Y l ~~-. NN'$. v en.i$TjiMM-h~- W W W;",.,1W '31b :sM[i*f$.D*.I%
h, s h*'Y,d #. .&F b
~
W l I S'A% -t.p. y k
'b$$~,QYY?3.3 id **?.W5.i&hg
- d. M.i,"- --- %g. 's..hj i
f #h.s.3 Y } h.&i. ff~*55%g. A
-x' $ 9 p% .$ W .**S.h.kU.@~
i 'O.'&'
.~..g..'i c.. . g.e
- - ~ mw%.p '
- 5. t' it
'y % %':;:'.:.:.c. 4 M.e %,.g m. W.V.+. %b m'W:'y'" @6 'h.g. VrhQ
.1 tr* :
,::: - ; ~~ .u
.a., .3. .,e g.a.
.r. -pe.- g ps...y- e, .ua.o .. ..M;'p:
m:A. . .%.; , . . ca.r. v.+.: J. :- %- n
-.s y- .5.a.- M.a..~.: ..n1 ~n:. C w -s,:. w y. .,.m. _my.
m,.:.,d i.v. . .v..m. -2_. , , .
. . .. p.-
w" h:::*. ,,:* . m m ,. -
* :.,* y *'.*.v,.,93..-t.a. Q. m :. * .'M m ,c W.".
. . - ~n..;- . a.......na. %; .n . : .-s . ;: p.tt . %. ' .'.r~. ...a
" ~ n',id:4*:zs .. W (,7. .sy .. %,.,. C.*.2',t v . .:. q*hw;~'.*h,. A .,v(" a,: .u. k y .
- . . . . ..4. ,
f~O*'*N Nfa gyummES 4
'g 'l ' !~, O,[.?w" 'OC 'l,M,Y) .D,
"-h"#:Y Q
i.
.._. n ;ff p.C m. ,E,' ~ , ,I.E.5..f 3 i
.. - . .,7. .r,.' . .. ..,.:_- c., 2 o., %,- y.9 y,y; g s;x;.e,q f 5,2 g
= m. :.: . , - - - - _ . , _ , .;. ;
.. . . - . . . . 4. j u l T [=
. /
..e .~ r-- ,,
i m%
' ;f % V
.u 5.~ -
, :), y"f(';q.hw, . . .'
- u. -
7 + _ - ~-- _\ in
^
- -, O ~E -
~ ._.-
"wmm.~
,p '- JeDysm7NT &
Ma p-g
- w _ _= - __ _ . 2_-_-_ -_- m ~ _m n
w - ~_~ _ A;,wMv --_ n _ -- _ - - - 3 -
=
yeo
~ma,ww e-_ %
-.~- __
Nf N n&okw'.s@.:.d.n%' e*
- A.n-.
6.: +M! t ka c:d i 3 w y.;;;,%,, bbbbbh mwme.
.. w an... e, M.7;.:w%c:.n. . o
-b
- kNIIfhil.h$auak,,eW.s
.muk.
..,u.
' .: ,, , k . : ',. a2&
... :..: s- :(gr.4
%~+:.$m ,-
l
- ,...npy7.Q.%.
n: ,:::.heo m
- s. - e-: L,r
, m)N.Nf)y*
; &.t%.&pt-p: p.*'./r.,.
-k'[t
.c ,L u+,d.',
'.k:p -:.~i% ry n?.Q:;c.!;7.. ylq -;: e . :' '
. W. w a; .1
..*.. .+.
r.u .
. ~ .-
, W,f.n%.ye;.d .:n rl...n-g.$%w.
9- '
'l? y e 3.}. a
,i}j-?,5, d.. ((-4,u, g,E4N.
~ ' ~
R.- a YJb -. . . S %"TA112 CT CCM
.w. . u. x:y :w+[iNY.M,. - l
.m 1f. . v .,.,o.a. <. .x.n . w-
. + : . .xf,T*f.(.*g
~
.n.
.y,.w' c J.ec........,,:,...,..:. . ; .s . i.e., ...w. . . . . .. .
I ,La ..w e v p. n..,. w. q
..e..
...................W1:,,a..,-
- , .r qGy %
Mp :.u.a. .ygr. : .m.. -
. s .. .a.:..; vs.c .. .v.w . , 4., . . i
.~... . . . ;1 9 - ,:2.i;in .r m -
est s , .- . C l h .r, y .T;ln. y,M Q;;:.R.1.,,.u M ;- V . ' : . ' * . *'.'^. m o (. .
~
a .- .
. . >e- :
.. ., ~
.WD .;- .. . '1L. I 3C3K . .
.s .. n:.a.rv.p., !-
p}q eq;;-hIII[ Wo.W, r , EutAK! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 h .:. $ $..pb k x-v.. ic.. ./s m .s -
,.m E f.h mni:rwry; a? .T :r -
I Cl.hkd, h l i.
.:::q:rl.r,.e.1:;W.-Q?i "i;%'
{:7 . - r : g Geoeral Unfamiliarity with Procurement Cycle . l
- c. f.,i/J.E*yf$.
. '.s.;p1.." -7Ezesssive 7. . and/or Ineffective Review of Purchase
. .... 1 ~ ^l $l;-~.h;P W~
...M.:..(
*. . .;.1 - .
Raquests and Requisitions .......... . . . ... 2
. $*~ .. ec -
U M,.. ';O,':,$ef. i.; 2 .'-t., ~ C. Inef f ective Use of Available Procurement System . . ... 3 M
, "-II.. i.~;.f@.e i g .! *9.A. ' ' D.
- Apparent Iack of Planning .
2 -'. '@h-li.M
. . . . . . . ........ 4 2.!:,W E. Qu.ality Assurance . ................... 4 3 %.p.f.' . . ;VV .f..' . , . , ~.J.g
;r;::'W E E. .y? : '.:.". "v
.y . -. .i -
y e. -.g < ..
. " IV. COM"ICRS AXD F.ICOM. CATIONS . . . . . . . ........ 6 .-. -..'.s.,dM . q.:
M M .i.y . 3 ,,"L c.D.. .,; ;c/e T. IETAI!.3. . . . . . . .
- . ;: e. - . ................... 11
- N. ,O' -
. . - v 3 7. t,e . ,.W L?. G.,
- T': ...A A. Upper-Tier Locuments . . .. . . . . . . ........ 12 * #d , B j $V,h[i[I),' .
f;'c'; , R. Planta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 *['I$ .. CT. -l:*/.d. '"';., 2. Prepa ration and Review Cycle f or Procurementa. 12
%r
- n. t ,. -:
l a. Originstor
, ':,s'
, t 2,.c
) U. ' .D M..; '! . *
. . -u .
. . . b. Specifications Engineer . . . . ........ 13 m *. .C,'
c.m#. e .8 !. ..
- c. Tield Quality Engineering . . . ........ 15
., . : .e ..* -
17 d Plant Si:perintendent. ., ..... ....... 16 ...m "i h 3
% :'Si. l .. . "
. e. Power Stores. . ...c.. . . ........ 16 G';M.'
}4-y,e.p, . . MM
~ .. .;;r , .; , r ,<C.
.. **.'.;.2
.. '4._ .' , 2. l *
- 3. I. Tusetioning 17 J Planning . of Plant Procurement System.
. .;. d.?.'.'T.$..
f g '*'f.[, ..................... 28 y Y ;'i f b ~ 4. ~ Special bethods of obtaining haterial and
. .s
, % g"21.{
/ .9c.,r-l Jg'$ 4 'f :.'. " ,,, ' . ' * . . , Servi ce s ...................... 19
! % 5tnD'i.' e.
- a. Service Contracts . . . . . . . ........ 19 ./y.f A[0$t NN5h g.;t S *' .,
. h. Indefinite Quantity Ters (Iqi) Contractm. 20
,)iy;$%
i"D. L&.W. v:l .. . .. QW l G [ ;#. !. ,' - .
. . . c.
d. Tranaters . . . . . . . . . . . ........ TVA Tabricated Equipment. . . . . . . . . . . 11 , ::Q*f %', MA$."N.f/ M - Receipt Inspection Program . ...........'. 23 23 C N:h.T= f.'Yrga. -[,H* .f.*i, :"# 5.
- 6. Storage and Reorder of Shelf I.ife Items. . . . . ._., 27
. . , 'M ' !M5 w -W :pr.. ..lw .
.g " g, .
.a Power Stores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,,9 !.SS.
w
,'. 3.p..M o;42 eho T.' ,6 ; : ;4;*, .- ;. C. *
- 1. ZT3 and SQK Power Stores ,# - j. '~
1* 29
'N. .id.N.*g ...,.U/M. .d.l'iM; d,i ."if . M Pe.rer S tores Dis tribution Center '. . . . . . ', . . .'. ' 31 ' '
2. 2: 55
. A:,%{dM k
- y - ,[',A, .o :MG . . . . 3. g, Central office.
Oggge, og zag 1aaeging . ....................~.~[32;'ku,3.,g$IA .
% y-q$ jyj "6 .
."Y...: , ge.. ~K. ; - . . , . , ...., ;.g q tntchaatns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ t.,..' . .-' . 1335.v t:: :?.
% a gm
*;,a.- n:a..t.. T.
.. f.Q '- D $ g s.
Omslity Aa serance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .".'ic .,*.37. Dy.gc3
,, 'Pg E C PE Procnrumest Problem Tast Terce . .
. . . . . y"y. .
43 ';, g{;{ Qdj'j
@.m.
# G .. g d.g%.
1."';u.w.
.e .. -q E.- .b.c.Cx x:x=................... W ..r S E 4 . ., ~-
-~
==s&f.
. :. %y.._. ..y . .,-
,m..
o. m.* y
.e~:s x:rmc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :: * .. a.
, .n;
- n,..lwp..
m !,P m. A.%..,J,;,4 .
-e: .w:: . . .
- w. .y...,. .,y . ... .: w.. .,
_ ,. o . . s : w s.4 Frwareissest tre1ms 1 ,; 1:. .-e.M.
. .:.- - ^.':#_u,; ;s:_ p :.ws
.*; m"":: ! ,cIW
J . e Q .
; )
~
y ;- .
,d
[ w "="__ .c. m D - -
~ .
^ -]g
.m" r_ -
s - - - - Ar --
*R2W6f ' -
_ w _7 Y'.Y h f reWh$ fat?$Nk $WWS$,0.W.WM-. ~ In ~[
- 1. w . -. .)$h...,%:.;t :
.. w n t .h. . .h.3ss '$ n N.; . . ~ . , . . . . ..-
bk ~$.. - LZ:
.s . ~o % i
, :n; ~ ..Yf..*.', W%,w. w : n. f. :. q}V.s .h. . 7.r n. .; x. :P..,'. ~.'?. l
~
. .. Q y.r t s... A, pt.r}.) .
# J
,. . c .J . e.
m,...%. e. f.>:... ., ,..n .~,. 9., "' .~ A. .
- M* G ;;3. ;V.:. ,6,.:,4. m, . ..m ' Q. N ;k : '. ..
m c. "v. , g.
;t,s. ;y.':yi:p uncc.A %'
, . & :~.. 1. : /., 4 ., m*M
.r u S'.' *k
- .t W*-n 1.**. :e Qh ;: s. ~
- ' .' ; .. rKt
- .w%:m
..cce"% -M.i
.. ..m , c. s . .m .,..9......../*y W er , f.
.n- 2.*q% w - -A .
&.\
n
*}.M Xe. .y} g . 1.s .. . -
.' ' ' W~ : .':*. ~]h ' rf r nr.pg i K.Tfj.fc;h*fE.6W:Mg*.Y:#,f ..~;;
mereciated with t.he timely receipts of procured materials fp{r;gf.yy
. C. .,y. .g {
J,~ ,.y,...d .y., P. ;4.bsve h=M ens hoes the subject of the Division of Muclear Power (rX FK) die .Jch,i g .,#g A,cumstems es->=merous occasions, and as a result of the R.a gula to ry ; r.:.
!".;.. W in *
, . ..4. T' ,Oi. Perf arammen lag rvveneet Prog ram (RFIF) at Browns Ferry nEuclear .wrT3 Flant CMilMh"
. , ' -. : "j . M (N1). I:32 ewport was solicited in the form of a review. The reviev k ,'f . .' '
.W '. ' . ,N. ,7 4-[. ' une tendetted to examina and evaluate th e procurement proce s s for & * .d.hjff t; ~
.T . #-,* * , . [ asec.lma.r planta and determine the reasona f or time delays and problems. m F.Q?y*;f r .
.:~* i q.iq .
,4' II, geog -
w-(!,
. . The procurw est activities associated with '~iA's nuclear power program ' it h
- were divided into two phases, operating placts and plants under con- , (f.
,' .,, struction. This review covered only the operating plants and centered , T. i
-p f,t M, ** sinality level I and II itees and services. Those services or S '
,, ite== manuf actured by TVA were reviewed for only BTN. c a . .:~- .
r 2-_. . As a pa rt of the Nil: PR reurzacization effort to move personnel from , ,-:
- the Ecclear Power Central Office (N;0) and to solve procureme.nt prue- ' * : .<
, le== identified by a joint Division of Purchasing (FL*PC), TX FI and "c $ l
.. Pv-er Stores task force, NCO procurement activities were transferred 'l 1
~ to the sites. Icterorganizational come acicaticas and work.ing rela- '
*/. tieaships were stated to have been developed to attack problems asd -.
5.~
- atreamline operationa. NSRS did not include the evaluation of the
~N ., ;*
l ~ reorzaair.ation within this review, but did evaluate the task force
. ;. , ' fiziings based upon the findi:gs of this review.
\ *
.s
' ' ' I.II. .' h2 '
- M 51=iAKI
' ' ~
. ]. During the past several months NSR.S has been reviewing the procurement process of materialn and services for VA's operating nuclear planta. -
The review began on June 11, 1981., and co=tinued until the final O
, ' closecut in Ch.attaccoga oc December 5, 198!.. As a part of the review, j cleme* cts were held at the cocslet.on cf the onsite review at F.TX ,
MK , ECC, and.FL'IO!. Thrournout this review, people within FX FI, I h=ar r S to re s . I".JE3i, and the Office of I.ngineertng (CI) were ve ry - 6,1pful, coc pera tive , and in many cases candid. Virtually everyons ., ,; interviewd considered __ procurement to be a es 4r reblem, asd to a : I
- . large crtes:t _the _ problem was the "other ruv." Interviews were cec- "-
l 1 ducted with a'summoer ci cecicatec pecple try'ing hard to do their job *", !~ aus they s.aw it, but frustrated because the system. reralsticas, CA, , fr , " fr_T=crtefved _ Q working against tb_ A , lace group vd**"- -{
, 6 r*carumes'.
F chain t.ad real proniema anc had several examples they ac
,6-
, suure willing ta shart, , ,'y
,i,..
}
,,.T jhelame cr>crienced be rX F7 1n eroeuring matarials in a timely summmers == rY Iti f_% Jett1,,p s,Q,y,rg cus _c re n e c 0 v _ M ?"# , 11 broad h c,m
. , . - t , therv osers itvt catageraes vitata veict ident11ted caficiencies
}l( '
+
emm u be y1=r=J. ._ 7$ O' -'Ml g Srw-re f De f ad I is ri t v Vi tl Pro en rvoir-- t *v-1e w, h.; _ - ! ***eicistsd ri t.1 e+di s tip e f the p reestv=-s t cT:1 * *en
% ,,g a . ..
Y...q u .. . . . .
-m__ _ ..
l
3
,. -8 .
r, , ,e h m . - ' - . **^
^
Je - -- _,- d e- -
- - "-- .-m 1 - _ !
w., m k __ _ n . - n
)* '. .
- l*
4.b . . 1. . . .. . . . $ . .W . /W' ;, * *
'*l.<b
. -M,fAq'n:
*n G &m:4,'ir ".' .?C.*4'i.'.7$
yM .M-. d,("%- e 4,i, -
- ~ . - -
~
~ Qf h*T'v$ ul.)iV
}7. . ,:.u. n .
3 -
.U.i r?1r.:$
- 8.? d. . &...
~ - .V. . ;lll-le..'h:lhi5.&a'
," .- 4 tr?! *.%:yp'.El'O&, i' c {(.'Y:5'O@M.QE.!-W Q; ' ;D.W:, . W ::.2.
c;w @, .. ?
.. &. h s.9%" - .- .
;9... \7.:: m*
,' .%.E.
. we re ~ s,e t evs re ef th_e_;..&*
tj Tbe
- their i respumathLQtyI bewve r , fn e e s 5^
Qre}p5escism, or p r@en of e = _n int _precur==rnt'" g l g: y y l Y.jpiMY['.,l,7 1.'.' : e '{.:. U . @3m.yna, Eo_se
'. ' y , :
.G. ; bthat kne w _ the eettre e rs t ee .
. < ~ .d . e t t me me re Unrealistic taan soerpectation.s peeple tatervs ve rs = Sg<.e;W A .si g g yy; <
p" . ; d .' *-6. ' 7 , ., -hf/7 tan epen - the procurement e y a taie by erisinatora of procure : q:pp g"@
. P . . , 'J'" .c J O. . aesta. " Orde red material was requested to be onsite g ene rally ..W. ,,p i'M S'.). .
" ( .* T.",'$,.h.'; withia 90 days when, based upon t.his review of procurements,. 6 2.g'V{-+j'd7f <
~~
'[. . : -
'. }...,; V y seneths' to - 1 year would be more realistic. He ene kncv bewgesg a.ge.:y'?.'.Ti M; w.
.. 3
- f. . '_t t weal d ta ke to purch a s e ma te ri a l s but it was recers.a. accepted .h.. *..+ ..,q- . . . . ,
1.
~.
. .?'IM t Iney wonN' Lot ce tners woen neecec. . . . M":
i.
.c ..
,3.':.
7 j . . . ..,- ' That lack of k=mwledre of the t re e" e -eet -stem and associated ,. ../.'
'](.
^
g e=a procueed frustratien alu=g the procurestent c h tin ._ At . ti.e a, u r-%a 6.ne procurement cycAe anc regulations were viewed at ---
. g u.. , ;.
l ,' ,g alA o r fLnT'a~a tt o o a l leveAs as a burcer a a <*-r q f__tc ma a.e LA_e , .}.;%Q
- e. C-% .' ,- p ru eu re==-n procers more c!af ficult._ The svstem acc regulatsons .3
( [^i.
. .__me n eDc as ruaasocas ten:ct the sites wny ines c5G e ~E . ' O ~d[
l i
,,, p.u.ncna s e o.et.nics versus _now to purenase somethinn_ anc were .-*Q also oesignec to purenase so.e ring (Iow nacfTne site did not s .'3 l -- *- want over vnat it did want. As a result, the sites were putting .
cy more effort into using the system shortcuts through the overuse ,.;g
,.'. . of emergency purchases and field purchases rather than learnin.g ;*
1'
. the system for normal procurements and how to work wi m " it. .;t v .3 : i There w no procurement trainine identified at the sites for :M '
-<...- %, _. u-,n ae swatnin the procurement cycle. For the most part per-
;' '**' socnel were i=troduced to the rigors of procurement by being -
;f . ' .. . Landed a cepy of the site procurement procedure (e.g., SGA 45),
~
; 'e - t which was over 300 pages long, and to? d to read it. The __n r o cu_r e-f.- ,
=" cf items appeared to be *~d by site persennel as a -
l " required u= desirable .i e b as if it were part cf an initia 1cc. '
. .x.
; R .- E.reessive nod /or ineffective Review er ourchase Keeuests and -
Ecoursiticas , 1
- s. Typically 17 throval signatures and initials, some by the same
, people regnized to sign both the purchase request and purchase
. requisition, were required for a site-originated procurement. ..L The value added to those documents beyond wnst the originator, .'. * ^
quality assurance, and authorising of ficial contributed was, for i.g 4 the most pa rt, m M ==1. In a very small number of procurements - j that were considered more courplicated, the X 0 provided valuable 7 - impet. Considering the ttmef rame to prepare, approve, and trans- 5-i:f. seit a proeurement requisition from the sites to vendors for bida, i the sites typically took one to f our days , PUR3 about three ..- I dars, and the KD weeks to months. The value added by the FCC, , I We uma primarily editorial in nature, could not s uppo rt the .]~.f
\
c=tt a=d time delay by the C D in the procurement cycle; conse- j;', j
,==stly, the remeval of the EO f ree the review cycle and trans-Est of the af fects4 KD perseesel to the sites was viewd by EDt3 3
'd.
' me a posittee acties p reyt d.e4 t.he EQ problems and delays were '[
met trame serraad wit.h t.has. '- F A d h _ l
, , - - - .,-,,--n__---- , - - - . _ - . - , . - - - - - - - - , . _ , , . - -- _n, -
. m _ . - _ - . _
J . 4
- r. , ..
s.
.t
^_.% Ms=r_r- _ ~
_ - ~ . . - - . F3' , n --
, - - - ~3 - __ $ d'**'
I I t n .x :.e w.. . u.- * '* r . , ~ '
- .ne *=,Q r
. . mgw;www,,
. . ..*. *. .hn.),'.J s .* g . . r . .
.*:*.*.w, . ~, - -
- .y m .-- g.
- _f };g.
* ~
.g..f,p p4 ,.* .
, "q! .. . < '2.y,C6 tm 1 :rf N.7,%. * ' F ' - .
V..g
' . ' . 7*h.h W be M th.4L t.he..es11rt ytoeuroneat sya tes, vita a11 ' *. , [.[
l ?' *
*'.7.htta -rwrtaus, inne predicetad spes the eeacapt af ea f aty 1a sw- . ? ? + .h.,4*Le -
- Qhuesi i.e.* the mere peo,le intelved la reviewins, the bettar the
./' y T[-
G.,predimet.,ila actaalit7 wtat NERS feend was proenreneat doete. eats e - 4 heriant d'** tad ier me app.atwot good reaeao other tha.n a percs1yed , . .'.n2.,'
, d' 'U. amad te (emummmatrate a degree of naefulneas by e a ch auccesatve -p l. -
' r- ... y ,etemet. M p M ,*7.p* : . r*t-
~, ;' - Y.9.- . -
i All bw i.a reeersted by the sites, both QA and non-QA, were
- P rweiewed by the site Tield Quality Insincering Group (TQI). Jor d.$
the meet part there was one individual performing tb.at review at , ]; h.,h
**ck ' alta .
- r Thos e procurements included direct cha rg e s , IQ*a, i.l g l
, field p=.rda=*s, tramafers, and haterial hanagewest Sys tem (MAMS) [ ""
, rv cders. :; For eaample, at EDi caring hay and June 1984 th.e re ej i j
..N,M . . were 1t51 procsrement actions or about 26 procurements per day ,. W '
, that revoired TOC review and approval. The effectiveness of the P (, ai;g rveiew on that number of procurements by one individual is ques- ..
t.ie=nble, and the effectiveness of the review of QA procurements
===14 be erhanced if the review of non-QA procurements by TQI *
-- ' ~ gl
- w r= performed only on a sa.mpling bassa. l j
. C. Imeffective L e er Available Procurement svites: -
.3
*. .' ' g IQT emetracts are supposed to be time savers in that once the IC
- 1 kam betz reviewed and approved, Requests for Delivery (F.La) apainst the IC can be issued directly to the vender without the _ ,
...g[4 I
review and approval process required for new p ro curements . gs KC Z'1's procurement procedures negated.any time savings af forded k fp by == IC because they required rue review and approval of each 23 as if it were a new procuremer.t. There was no mechanism to
~
identify larre nae items, such as steel, as potential candidates - far IC contracts.l3 M8" is a en paterized system to mai=tain an established supply 5 ef inventoried stock items throughout Power, and has the pcten- -- t.ial ef t eing a very powerf ul tool. The maximus inventory level l med ='= t= reorder point for some materials were inadequate, and
,- r-
- @?]
Ek sitas established the practice of boarding iters such as mops and Pl astic bottles to ecmpensate. The sites viewed t.be es tab-14 "*=d marimm./ minimum levels as a rbitra ry and an effort to , N stack in restories. In actuality the est.ablished maximum / _1___ 7"*- Insels were neither, and the site problems can be attrib- i
- Lad ** Peer ===-4 cation between the site and the Materials
- l Wumr. Services staff (M), vno aaministered MA55. ~
.*
- J Ites had the espehility of reordering OA items automati-eslly, h initiated by Power Stores, this capability could not ^ - - ~
har e s--.d due ta the rverder prestam not being approved as a GA a s'es'uus. As secs , ==== m rized ch amp s ta fW:5 inf ormatloc oc ap=cafi.est&ams, etc., ces1d e<enr. Therwiore, eifarts we re '.
, te crits a QA prvtran fer fu." . Ia anditioe, fiA53 had ,
nur curemlity e( cumurd = t er like eroers f rue dif f arent sites ier - ann-gt asserts 4, but. cecordiog ta T::4 perosameI was et.a.:trsimed . by acnar e( gast a==rrs4 Caumet1 (Ol'Q tvgeiruments si cs thet it r--e--.a v-,w- -,--r--m-, - , - . - - - - - - - - - - - . - - . - , . - - - - - - - - - - . , - , - - - - - - , - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - -
6 O , I l f Tb 7*'Q.r1' ?4Nj g.)'qy/;44 , .q; h} h h$h !$p.t? h' &:a. .?, , ~,, , ,.
~
- $. .a
'Y.
f' A "2w m !t
.,.,'r .:. 3 i h. +d. % .h4 ....
.o D W.J.W?.' :...- !
.m. .
' *.r_
y.T, f;;.m...: .,e...~ 7 f..i.l 7:: .:.. . ..,.
'?c e, *. -t.
(p-0;.g.f'N. ; n. : " -' i / h " , could set be weed. Kea wee aleo dieadvantagod by met ksving a
;):.
$~d / history of inventory items. Inventory ita=s c*ald ' ~}
w.{kf'd.hh".$"k'/ $.t became Ph.'a pa' rtmiste
!}3yp.dyl.D%'". c he supp lemen ted by field purchases and direct charge purchases o f a us a g eusagt l ," uh.ich nevs hi s to ry.
.c . i . r:g;.. .
t=. ;
- 3. y.),[.:NE,f,',
.i
. '3.
6 4reat 1.aek of P1aen1,nj ,
, ;if- .l.'.@ W e u ,
,b
.j
.t F523 did not specifically look at work planning and its assc- -.
' g%. .-i 'cUli2.' .,
G T 5. { ciated impact upon the procurement process during t.be review. It was covere.! in an NSP.S review of outage controls (see RSIS R.cport J.] ' w h[g U,I:,*;g Qabsence 1
.~ f.,%N 7. ,,
'Ne d 7.',,['
' . of the discussion of a planning or scheduling phase P.-Sb 27-SCN/ETF). It was evident, however, from the conspicuoua '~,'j,
.N 4 2. ,T : . during interviews that whatever work planning was occurring, it *- ;
'?h-}Cli.I.e
., had little positive effect upon procurese=t. That observation
- supported by the identified fact that engineers at the plants
. g .- . :;f,.". . was R.37,ffy3'% g. .
wen scneculing modifications without having the needed material , [.: 1.g":'*f**) . onsite, with unrealistic expectations on delivery t.ates, and vers [J: using a large number cf energency purchases. Engin.eers vert .3 [Q'. . .a ,;i-[.2 -/ - relying upon their ability to find the needed material somevr.ere ' (ej.T.. . wit.n' in th e TVA system wben ordered r.aterial ha d not arrived 3: d.,.',..
.f .-5 onsite The review did not attempt to determine how many jobs .
if. , - required cancellation or rescheduling due to material shortages. Contributing to the probles of planning work was the fact that tio
. d)
.%,',,.Q*,
,T $ - one icte-viewed really knew bow lent it too k te procur- n-N d
r=_ M l S;!y 7 ~ It la uncerstooc cy JiSP5 tnat tnere is no one tametrame appli-
@, W.y- cable to all items procured. Exa=ples were found by and identi- ~T l
l-(g, ,pf, ! fled to NSP.S of ;recurennts t i raneed_from a few days te yve-
-g g.
g;;; .,.;' y ,three vears and still ws_uigs. A reasonable e s tima te enculd be estaouanec for routsne procurements based upon past procure- , $ gf.l j d. sme n t a , be it six months or, one year. for use in plasming and . Ti
..ej.~l..l :. -- ecnetulinn. - e(f
. ,. j
, -C..L. .' .I . . .' ,
.%n -
E. -ICualiti Assurance e]-
- y,-: .. .
9 -t e' . , .-- The quality requirements for items procured was a portion of this (I ," review. The Operational Quality Assurance hanaal (C*W O was '
f ar- reviewed with regard to procurement and found *e
. n e _ra c e- ..; ;
,' cunoc rs ome and conflicting in some cases. Tne main problems -
, ],I,';~4 '
"ide'ntliacc were tne interutsglint of IC"T_? Pa rt c' requirements -?
with onalite assursnee requirementa and the use of e=rcial c,.'".rl
- 3. ,,
'" * ,gra oc items a s b a s ic components. ,,
..~.. .1
. . ,,'?.~~.- Thie cualite level T and TL designation is used for basie_ em-
* ;' - . meets a nd 10CTR21 a pp li ca o t ia t e was ceterminec ige alt --ne e I J
[ me-e t s v2 tri t e o n e _ p _leve l ceniynstroos. _ Fart 21 applicability. Part 21 couac be determined not applicable In the determir.ation of
,y bec.aom e tJ e i tse being p rocu red was a commercial grs6e item. If
'+ .
\J' '
it wre a ca mercial grade ites then the quality retairwuesta ,N d,
"). c !d be significantly reesced to allow the procursuest f rom na T
yi, . emorp revve veneer med receipt anspecties ky aa inry.ettar met ,
,e=11fied te Ars! E5.2.6. N Com hrt III, Sect.i.a 2.1, i
-: A eE Ac eu.d4.s T, ferm f o r en te rsta taa h rt 21 erplicentlity w,s eef t. / '. ]
csa.ec J w e betac s4s==ed as that if et itan wes toccified ma i - 't
' b/$ - E N &&I grsee 88 Miff * **t1et use rp9 Cry ( Q (tg g(tyg.g p }
/
e, , i
~ ^~
~
y T ~ , - - - __ _ -_ n- __x_ -
~
7--_-'M--^L z,m- -- _w % ,. ve - - ~" __ -- - - '
',-v .. :rugg
,--..,. .. k;.yJ ., ~% n. ;'a n'~... . . w%. .
1: ~ ~ , ..
. m, . tp.m. .n" n * ~, g = ; . . . . .i.;..
.: d * ,
; *r
. .C. ~. .:& ' - ' y -
kfjf.l ~ h .k . the aaiaty fisaeLioe ei a Cs80 eo poseat er syatea. fissy M lsvel
," h) 5 -
I and II, Part 21 N/A, yrecurseenta of eommercia1 3rede itams
._ j{Q{f'.[?
2, were seen. All procurements, however, in the GA 1ml I category
= m s'.'.~l. -
rvtwired TVA-approved vendors and quality do ctme n t.a tion . yer
% g; Mjpg$i,M those with a QA level II desiscation, which is almost equally tago rta nt from a safety standpoint as a OA level I itas, most j ;S A Q. 2 rvquired no CA do cu.me nta tio n. Procurement wi t.h a CA 1m1
,,39 / desirnation and no CA cocumentation or manuf acturing requirements
. y* M...' f. : . results in an implied level of q ualt ty that j us t may not be there; also, it resuits in purchased equipment whose quality
~.>.* . , characterf stics are ru.t knovr..
W. . . .? :
,.,i,,,,,. The use of comercial grade items us basic cowpone=ts is allowed FT * *
- by the NRC. In using such an ites as a basic compone.st TVA
,,,$, 3 assumes the sole responsibility of assuring that th.at item will I a Nr e ' 4f,. . . perioris as required when required, including an accident situ.a-
- 2. * ** :"
Q '. . - tic e.. Currently TVA has no receipt inspectica program f o r com-mercial grade items that includes testing or some other mech.an-
,p,.i ' *,
- g. .([8l
- ism, such as vendor audit, that can name that assurance.
.5..
Considering the ff ee basic categories of probless enumerated above and
.;5,*, ? y other findings ide=tified elsevnere within this report, a comparisoc I4 v. was made with the findings of the FU: PR Procurement Problems Task Kh9 yorte Report. Vith regard to the work of the task force and their
.$A* .
findings, NsRS believes it represents a good work effort. P,ased upoa 9;('7.*, the findings of this review, NSRS can support many of their recommen-
.iJ; f . . datiens that are directed toward changing the system, such as:
l j,CU ]' f. .. l
.* * ' Istablish a planning group
=ar
' ^ '
y *- - Isrprove P"RCH/ site comunications
' tl# -
,- . Iliminate unnecessary procurement cycle steps R . , . ./ -
." Letter utilice auto =ated systems
, i *.' l,, * :." . .
;"G' ! - .
NSRS understood that nany of these reco:mendations were being imple. mented, but did not review the extent of the icpleme nta tice. Other
.,W.
- task f orce~the _recers:rp da ticch , however, appeared to be directed Mt ~gg;( -
,".-~ E8EiTTU3g system as as or developing._.the ability Ela te ew **
i wittan Lne present s ys tem with wnica NSP.S does not agree.
~ - - -
In the det. ails of this report additional problems are identified in
- the areas of a; p rov 1= g vendor services, doet.nentation in. adequacies
. vith internal TVA transf ers, TVA-f abrica ted equipment, receipt inspee-l .
tion program, and materials with a lis:ited shelf lif e. A.: negative as the findings may b.e. NSRS wants to cuphasize that the findi-_vn a -- -*
..- for the most part pcEE7 problems but a re _ sys tes problems. People'dN
. p.et b. eve the p roceour e s or tra tutor to peric.s tne t.a s t more effi-T.%-
l , As R:Z5 setzested solutica to the problems found during this review is i mr* mi.ned la Attachment 1. l w . g.
~
l l l
a
- J
- i. . .
h __
~
~ ww. = - - -
m __-=
-_ = ~
- _ ,__
- e m --asmsam
, 54 wm Mb .- N ^
_ m -- y- =_
; .~ g VM " - '* % ~ " "
l
, u .v em. .. ..
_ _ _ _ .atum 3 _,b.M M# m h h w _ m-Ht= W S R.Ry D;*; . . . . . .,q **.*.1.
. .t '
' Q(*s .-;.-".,.
~
- : p* s.~* /i C.~.~.
.waL
. .??*,G s . .. ; . . '
.,a,dG/.r:f'
- v. , ,,. , p d : rii.c 4 * .
.h'i*i4. ',h;',[,f;f. . W U' ,
.? se.te;:
- ta. h O.' ; . '
, s%gsm:*.i. . .c . IT. MICES AKD .11CDrT1lUCA* IONS ..
, I. ((: , .' A. 1-84-17-KPS-01, N P oeure et fi'ste= is Tac cumber o.e s J Wot *
b.Wh.l ' ..,.
bell Kaown b* the Deers
' &-Wr. Y :
. *. - Coaclusion e.c.. . . w. . . c: .
f,i-Q,'D !. The biggest proble= found with the procurement system used by KlE ) q.,"***~s - P7. was its wasteful and cumbersome nature. Procurements we re p f. '[;k.' overloaded wit.h redundant reviews producing little value added in 8
;g,.,(# .- '.r"-
- most cases and causing unnecessary time delays up to smo n t.ha .
p :. .:' Virtually anyone could initiate a procurement actice with little
.' . . , * . or no training. No one was found in the procurement process that .
l .- y d,. .. ..:. .
* (- knew the process much beyond their , sphere of involvement. That p/,f*H resulted in unrealistic expectations being placed upon the systes , , ,g.o:r.K. by the originator with ressed to delivery time, and in perpetus-i i* #~ ,Q' ,. .g-1.e tion by others in the process who did not correct the problems or crpectations.
- One of the more cumbersome and redundant revier processes occurred wit.hin the N00, and the removal of that review Y..'
- s' process on October 1, 1981., with t3e transfer of people to the
,[,:=
- sites, will help streamline the process provided the Central Office problems were not also transferred to the sites. do
_ correct the problems with the svstemt_d.rastic introspecttve
. i .; ,. . , ,
,, __ manaeement aceavsts anc acu en are recuired (see secticas v.i 1, xt,y .;. ., . 7 .~c; k.D] anc %.h).
6* *n e %' t F..-. -.4 . Eecocnendations
%.c.. a .;
- g . -- s
, M*, . , O R-BI.-17-FPS-01A ~
l:" - . g Ine Procurement Problem Task Torce recommendation to elimirate ' l
.}',' .-
1.' l ., , , .,( k [.y f p [ h tplacing all unnecessary very stepsfew,in the procurement cy cle with the goal of if any. steps between the requisitiener asd tha i
.,{, .- purchasing agent should be given the highest priority. ,
sa '
- 1
! , P- 4-17-FPS-015
, A lorma hzec , documented training program covering the e= tire l prockrement process should be oeveloped and required for all "
,]
_ .L~ ~ ~ .
- personnel within the procurement cycle from the o rigir.a tor .
s /(,' (requisitioner) through *he purchasing agent. -I
) :::**. B-S.-11-NDS-01C ::
A reshstAc timeframe(s) should be established for routine non-
*i special order procurements, based upon past experience, to cover .
' t.nc time required f rom procurement origination throus.h receipt of i the material' ensite. A mechanism should be included in the 3, 7 %- procurement system to pertodically evaluate and a dj us t that j
,,4 ,
timeframe as necessary, as well as coeueunica te the timeframme to *
-Y . ._
izvolved personnel (planMrs, procurers , etc.). 1 j- I'
. 2 -Ita- 17-e5-C I D
- q. 3 2.a te ria l availability and p rocu rement time f rame s s Ald be La-1
[@ ;'. cleced la all maintsmance and modificaties pla.ac.14 activities. ' ( 3:"*1: This ret cmime sca t t et is p re d i c a ted t3cet ied e rmaties tht l l
== n u .m l ey , y . m e -o .md s < u u s u e. % .ad l _. . _ . , _ . _ _ ._.
._.~ -
,, e
, _ g,,
- -" n ,
my-- _m
---- - - , _ ?
____---_-.--_--- ww r_ _u - _ _- _ _ _ i h '*2r.fC.!."'
= . ' ~ . ?,M.. . .. 5 '
.f 'N T..
.. e. ; r. .. ; . .
p,,,.,; . .y 3,.
. . c . .,s , s , ,, .
.m:.;'.'{..&.I.. :R.f -
- 2. -
,G . . V .'
.r
.r,: pe ..#,. ~
e i. : .,. fS,* .], . eche4311as ie,actiee at eaek eite. A1 e o e ee N8JL5 R.s ye rt 3
- 84
- 27
- ptK/ITI se emtage -ceatro1.)
iD"'l',.I',:
.e
- .a((.A.:
N* .4 :
' , ;.- 6"* . . . A :' . ,- 1.
k=44=17-KFS-C2, l.a ck o f A; erova l o f On site Vender ILa rvlees at itQt
..m ,I. W ,b., - -
k.f V) b CoaeIuaien f.% . ',,1 .1:; .i. b , M*,'.? g*,* . The OQAM, Part III, Section 2.1, paragraph 10 requires and ideo- l . m'
.f- ; , ' * =:., i , tifies three acceptable methods f or evaluating and accepting the -
work performed onsite by vendors. Contrary to that requirement {uJ
;. ., ,.g*y .
SQN received services on three separate occasions and could not ; 47 .6 ' - provide, after repeated requests, obj e ctive evidence that the g 4' . .' ' service had been evaluated and accepted in accordance with the
- OQAM requirement. It is therefore concluded that OQAM, Part III, f;.yM.1* , Q g -( j. . Sectice 1.1, pa ragraph 10 is not being implemented at SQN. (See
; -74 ;j,' , ' .t section V.E.4.a.)
~; W* r . '
!I
f,1 ! . R ecommen e s t i o n
%""* . . T. .
SQN should develop and ieplement .: program that satisfies the S requirement and intent of OQAr., Part III, Section 1.1, paragraph D {9.!$ .. 10-
~* .
5 . C. E-84 '17-NPS-C3, Izees sive Review ef Recuests f or Deliveries (RDs)
*1.
. on IC Co= tracts
.' . .I .
L ,.f . ' Conclusien
.. s NU: PR was reviewi=g and approving EDs with the same riger as the ~
*, . , IC
- contract, against wbtch the RDs were written. That conati-4 . ,tuted a redi.:.cdant ef f o rt costsng 20 days or c> ore delay in receipt s..
,of t.be cczznodity or service. (See section V.E.4.b.)
'. . Reeerneedstfon
., NU" PR should streamlane its procedure for the review and approv-al of RDs , with no change of contracL involved, to be in line ,
*. with the requirementa of the TVA Procurement hanual.
; I:. E-84-17-NPS-04, Iciufficient Do ews en t a t i o n f or Trans ferred Material Y'
Conclusion
,. ID-CA.P 4.3 requ2 res the ortganal contract to be reviewed by the
< site receiving the transferred material for tech.nical and QA r eq s t remen t.s . No objective evidence could be found substantiat-
- ", ing compliance. Sites requesting material to be transferred to -
them by another TVA organization or location did not specifically 3 identify dooamen ta tt ee requirements or require a c197 of the 3' ersginal centract the material was p u rch.a s ed unde r . Thersfort,
$- t.he re c e i v t awg sits t.a d a limited ba s i s for a c cep ti.a. ma te rial dana.g t am recelyt iaa rec tioc p roc e s s . Tae site tasamar4 that 411
-y _ _ . _ _ . - _ , . _ _ . _ _ - - . , - - - - .,- _
l .., .. l . i
.e . s
}
% . ,im. - _
~~
I i
"C --
l _--w Sa m_ ~ -- ; e,g. **!..;.. .;.* . l 'q o. ..m.. ., .,.y g;. . _ ,. T~W
....c. ,,; - -
;; la :, ,t;
,.:s -.2. . ;.y;* ... , ' ,
- k. .: . .i,
( . .;,
?;;,.y;; .,." *:
- 1 I
h
.E : ', . . '
epplicable derweestation had been sent by the treasierring erpe-instion erithoet kaewana essetly what the original specificat1*ma T .b . [ ' (tachaical/rA) wers. (See sections V.3.4.c and 7.3.5.) ~
,g . . - N- o .
h dation
%wu}$. r D
t [ i
' - -' d p.,*f EC PR abould implement the requireme=ts specified in I6 W 4.3
' k . .. :t '
.', regarding transf erred ma terial. A copy of tae origin.sl contract
= M d t>e in the possession of and used by the receirtag site d
- y .
p curing receipt inspection, and QC documentation required with the
$[,2 '.
,p..-.. ,,
.s.
transfer should be specifically identified. l II, V ' I. . R-M-17-NPS-05 , Cable Assemblies at EIN with As sirmed CA Irwel I l N i .i.. L-signations Tabricatec ev T. A free OA Leve! 12 Pa rts vita he I * "
,; ^
2* . . :.2 n; , heeranism t e Lie e ra c e C A Classitiestion i ..,-93., .cM, 8-r - Conclusien pd
- t. - ...
l - [,* ,.s er 4 fg{ Cable assemblies stanuf a ctured by TVA were impreperly classified QA level I items. f The assemblies were manuia ctured from parts
- ir .'. ' 6 Y with a Jesser QA level II designation and no mechanism was fou.nd yinf([f .Qsection that' was capable of upgrading the QA level designatier..
! E j'$ h,, V.E.4.d. ) (See i 3
- N f R e ce:r:enda ti en t.
(RY ETN should take whatever steps are necessary to assure t.h.at the f". cable assemblies, identified in section V.E.4.d. in stoch, in [* . 3 ,- use, and f abricated 'in tte future satisfy the techn.ical asd CA
- specificaticus required.
g'y . T. R-St.-17-NPS-06,
; ,- ETN Power Steres hereiet Inseeeted *taterial Ket
,, e-Trained to Inseeet
~. .
Ceneluslen - Power Stores receipt inspectors are not tra.'ned to receive mater- - ial with Certificates of Compliance or Certificates of Conforw-g
~
- ance (CCC), Certified Mill Test Eerorts (CG), or ott.cr similar QC docusientation. On at least tvc separate occasions ETR Power M -*l[. . Stores personnel receipt inspected and accepted material with
,' CM*Rs. One CM R was for diff erent material tsan specified in the J. coctract and was not co n c er.f o rme d.
j , , '- . ~he other CD was for similar material substituted by the vendor but no TVA approval of
,-(
the substitution was found. Vhile the 00A*.', Pa rt III, Section
*2 does not prohibit Power Stores personnel from receipt 1.n-s pecting material with OC documentation, they shou.ld not be a11 owed to receipt inspeet ah1peenta with QC doc.mmaztat.1on t. hey -
hsn met t>eca trained to interpret. (See section T.E.3.)
- L- .iati e f.
A6 p- c: n . a re,i- t>e a t. u ,u
-c.a r na cc 4 - tan .e oimn.e m t r m irt imu r g t. rn w mt n w -a - ==.4 taAe c e r rvet t n e c t s ..e as mernaa ry N time im
.l l '
.. a.
~ ~.
ur '-
~~ . __ __ _
_ , .c--q --
-_ - - L- r - -
1
- jr- _ _ - - . . - -
^
~ __ _
.w.C= nv=. .n.p /.< ; ..'- . . ...
F=rs& a.h:.*iN :t.r.2, ..= ,; . w,, m
'ot ..gr'*
..:(s. . e
. > -. g. 2.T. ' < ' ) . r ...
,{jr . ;,".,' ,
\
J. le;. ta s i.$2 i' t Q.*.'& .
- ,.o.u*:':.:%.,*A.n..',:,.
~
q\,
- 1-T;M.j t. b&4 17-175-07, Materta! With Limited Shelf Life het P.cordered
.h*((.!a[..
s,.a :, . -s -
' )n a *imeh nae.n r
. F.v.::C.,.<.. 'S.: . Coeeluaion
.? ,.
y,C.U ' - The 00M and PM systes of procedures required the periodie L. f7 ;. inapection of material with limited a2. elf life at one half tAe t y.1, ,- abelf life. Through PM revisions that OCAM requirement was L :^ ^. ' deleted. Prior to deletion of the requirement, periodic inspec-W;J.M tion was being performed (before the shelf life expired) at ETY
,G,: but not at SQX. ETN required (ET 16.4.) reorderir.g s half life y,
3
. ..; ' ( f
', material with a three-south lead time, but SQN had no require-Neither ETX ner SQN were reordering material with suffi-ment.
~[ . .(;[p/ -
' .;;~ *. cient lead time to have new material in place before the existing Q @( i .,j . r.aterial shelf life erpired. Considering the la tes t industry f.'.;,
pA q . ,'; , philosophy regarding shelf life material, as cent.ained in ANSI / 1
,'i. ' i ASMI NOA-1-1979, the deletion of icspectice requirements and
_ ~ 1 G; .* reorder 1=g of items with insufficient had times to assume as l " .- adequate supply of fresh material is considered ir.a ppr op ria ta . A .W . . . f: (See sections V.E.6 and V.2.2.) . l ',c,,., R e concren d a t i ou 1 n.. ( .
. .g..;; ,,
FU: FR should revise the OVAM to es tablis: programs to ir.spect
.w.,
and reorder snelf life ea.erial to assure an adequate supply of 2.r ; f resh material. Also, the currect three-morth reorder lead time
,.specified in t?" N77A2 abould be reevaluated and a dj us ted a s 4
,v,2 ,. ,:tI
' necessary.
E.
. ... S
- . i.- .
- E-8!.-17-NPS-08, Materisla Macarement Syste= (M>. Eel h der Utilized g
. -( . _' '.7 ICooelunien
, The F.AES system was being under utilized in that its capability
,~*
- to track inventory items usage and to reorder investory 1*e-.
- f. , - automatically was not being used. Considerable matpower was ..'
* .being expended to perform tnose functions sunually au ths P.M:S system was not receiving all sources of inventcry iten usage.
*I.'
Coe (eterrent to a more couplete utilization of pas was the f act that its program did not have any quality assurance centrol to prevent unauthorized changes to specifications or other QC infor-mation. Efforts were reported to be underway to prepare a quali-F',- . ty ec-atrol feature f or MA".S which NSRS highly endorses. (See
, section V.C.l.)
?
, .. k _ A ation
- ", FC P1, Power S tern s , and the Ma te rials P.a ma rement Se rvicars -;
.-~ , 5+ctime should j o i.a tly increa se effer.a to utilize the EM2 ia
. ?
Y
.s . the a=*t ef fe1:tive and e f ficarat mr yessible, i L'a e .,
g
i
. . 1
..=, .* , l l
~~
=-( _-----.; ~ . _ ,
Me
~ \
-M _
' *r' l w cZaW{== _m ^-
^
-..~& - -=-~av- ____ a I
~
7 LTLQ:h"L :.:,,.- ~
*I'
&,:V4.Y&$?f:..;*Q'5.m.;
, % 'G r & & *v .,
y.-J: y ; :'.! 3yf4 M{.', . 1 - 4L* 4'Y.G . (?,N.Q{.*t .
. 1. 3 17-JrFS-01, 10171'!1 P er;u t remen t s Incorrectly linked te Irtc F1 T. l" QA keystrweents 4 _. IlMd"
(?2.9
.fdi,P q] t-[ '.
gn'.tet Cenelunten D'ig Eb'5k*l ,? ' Reporting of defects and liability requirements igesed upon p er D,gY vu odo rs try loCTR!! were incorrectly 11ntad in t.ba 00A?! to NUC F1 I
'.ti:h-Q. -
4w$N , quality levels in Last if 100TR21 was determined not applicable 0 .',' g> "r} /g ;jN7.-L.i 3
- then manufacturing quality and receipt inspection requirements were automa tically reouced. In addition, the OCAti, Part III, j e . -eg,ql. . ., Section 2.1, Appendix T, a tta chment 1, form for determining Part
- O 21 applicability was incorrect in that if an item was determined g ? y.'." py "I
to be coszzercial g ra de then its affect upon or use within a f Critical System Structure or Component (CSS 0) could incorrectly
.e , .
, .Z j...
- be ignored. FU: PR agreed with NSRS that the form should be
. 2.' . e. corrected. (See section V.C.) ?T.;.lt.'S.
N . '
*' !.f. l .
3 . 7;;.9, - Rece needstion
. A.' .
; [I( 'he OQA". and FUC FR procedures should be revised to remove influ- l
.. .~ ences of 1007T01 applicability upon the determination of required t
,' % .- quality levels for itens and services, and training in the re-
-g4,* quirements and li=itations of 10CTF.21 should be provided to all I ! J j: !(. personnel in the procurement cycle. It is further recWed j \.
that the OCA".. Part III, Section 2.1 j Appendt.x T, atta chment 1, c.
'. 1*:. '
" be corrected as soon as possible and separated from the general y
f 00Mi revision so that all questions on the form are answered ! whether or not 200TT01 is applicab3e to the ites or service.
, n.e. :
J.. R-84-17-NPS-10, Cemeercial Crade Items with OA Level I and !!
]V . -
,4.'. . . .
L+sienatiens
. .,) , - I
,:f. . .f *,.f.' ! Cenelusien
- i. ..
' }.,
,- Connercial grade ite=s were being purchased with little or no CA '
,. g requirements or from vendors or manufacturers without TVA-
. , r, approved QA programs end riassified as QA level I or II. That l ; practice was contradictory to the purpose of having QA le.el 1
'. and II items with considerable QC docuteentation at'asting to its
', .' suitability for fulfilling an intended function.
r (See section / T.C.)
- 4. .*..
u ,a 4 9 ' Recommendatien tJC l
, yl Itne purchased with no QA requirement', or ke'equirements for
'?-
material certifications (CD:, C.'i R , etc.) and/or f ree tudors er
,i '" sums f a cture rs without TVA-approved CA programs should r.o t be 1 perci.ased with a CA level I or II des 1Fnation. ,
a +.. M.s.; *
- .,. . _ _ _ - _ .- - - _ - . . - . - . - -.g_, - . . _ , - - - .
s, f
- i xv 5! '
a k.?.my.4 i. n vu.u .4;:: ;y. b.e: m w#...n.~..... - -
~
.~- . .
h
, ~.f.?.m '}y;.l.Tl' .'
3 *,J,h. t.d. [.
. . , p.,.[ , E. <D-44-17-EPf*11,. . Ovality Yerifie,t1oc f er Commme re 1 e1 Crs4 ILauf .!
, h; Nop. b- M asise ,
}
4 u - 4d Di.'&TE.:,al #.h0/ The *** *f C8"mercial grade items as basic components places the k ,
' f .Q,G 2 '. ;.: :..: rwepassibility for assuring tA.a t the itan will functice as 1.a - ,i f:rA'[$ ' , The CA p rograms jO tended under all conditions solely upon TVA. ti .j
. #.:,;f.g.. . within TVA, at the time of this revjew, was not capable of prs--
S' .. viding that assurance because it did not include a receipt in-
,.D;$].'.f.'.' 3. D, 5 g
,*T-; , ' d ' spection program vnich included testing of the item or comparable
, ,k j D ;.t., jg '.; . ' ; '
, sech. anis ms such as an audit of the vendor's QA program for cour-mercial grade items. (See sections V.T. and V.C.)
g \, .1
, @Y.x. 'f.3
.' A .:. ;', Reen-endation
..{ , j' Q , .. ,( . .!
':' .,. , " :, .ro.r,J '
g ! 9 FUC PR should establish a receipt inspection program which in- g
,J C %".2 ?:.
- cludes testing or comparable me cha nis ris , such as audit of ven- k ged, t lIn~02~5. .' . dor's OA program, verification of ce rtifica te cf conformance, '
. M.W 'c . '
etc., for replacencnt co-creial grade items that will be dedi-
,f' li '
[9 y. ,.'.C, cated as basic components or parts thereof, tr.at would provide .'. I
'Qp . ,
documented assurance that the ites will function as intended wr.an necessary including accident conditions. ( ,A h%' . 4 - I.. R-8!-17-NPS-12, Peceiet Inspection cf OA Level I and II Items bv
~.;;.,.:: ', y~ - 27
),
, , , , Cenelusien
-,_ p; ~ . . .
s 57* L' '- ' Considering the changes recomended by NSRS in this report with - 4
' N.'% . d' y- .' ',
; regard to the procurement of quality level I and II material a.nd '
T f tc-reial grade items to be dedicated as basic compecents, the
' 'Y V p ,.. ,.f a ,4 *.- -
; division of receipt inspections between KE and Power Steres, in ;
f.' effect during this review, will be inadequate. (See sections j 7 ; '. . V.P. 5 and V.C.) [ 'N. ~; .~'.f s ' . . ' ;
',':: ,~
- Recommendation ..
- 4.g::T /- ,
~
. All itema procured as QA level I and II and commercial grade
.g..' items to be dedicated as basic courponents abnuld be receipt '
', g, ' lospected by Q E or others qualified to ANSI N45.2.6 ,
j
' .tr' .:' .. . .. .. T. ICAILS
,1
, p; -
The procurassent process was evaluated by review of pertinent KRO -
@ .y , ressl.atioma , consensus s tandards TVA was coscitted to. TVA policy ;
L~ dec=== ta , and various levels of procedures. As part of this evalue-
.. tiam the precedaral flow of selected procurunents was f ollowed f r==
- the originater throeck F".201. Es23 attampted to identify all painta -
.. ef erig1matime for p recurements for operatiaa anclear plaata med inclmded the sita, DC, 300, vveder-surplied itamms with s ervices, ==d d i.e.n I m tr s i ers be t-m s i ta a.d . rr aa.iu ti =s . n=re n.- loe Q. 3f " 7, ., - m aw,.is i t t u se l ecta e t r am.a.a t r r:: , sz , at , .w ta=
T.
.j f EP sen rrvi m d. Of the+e rev i ew.4, 45 we re **Ief tad Ie r Iwrthme "g ' 6V- - d
. stadr ** b'88: r rt-ia t a w .I b+eie tr7,5 ef Freewass::.a ta the .i
l *
/
** = * .
e
\
l wm M 3 , (a** .
.:q' '?L~X.~.'yl.a*IO.M.,m
,ja..W .
,c.?lZ.i.w{'G.s. .' l.. .? h
?
=, ,', . i.M .e e*
Y........e
- M ."
gg y h.. y,j',' . . ~ ,, - m J
,'..'..s.f.','..n',%.'.'.'-
.e y.
., .u.
, . .. .w .
5 3.- ,....;. ,* .
- m
. h *
- g*f , ' '
N elettrictle amtchasirsl, and s t ris t tu ra l areas. The se p reciaremmen ta
- . ;. 4 T,M. f . 's .. i / &ar:1 meed itsums , se rv L ee s . and in te rns! transfers precured as either
- 8 * * . " c 11. .. .! Garwet etarre, laeefinite Onality Ters (ICT), or haterial fumagemes't g k j ,. -
' >Petas (Mem ) stect rve rte r s . Of those 45 rep re s e n t.a tiv e precure-
- k
,.0;h . " ['[/ siests, 21 were fellowed through t.be antire review and approval cycle i
m
.g to PWG. Of t.he 21 procurement actions , 12 we re cla s sifie d a s ame r-y, .pencies with the russining 9 being normal procurements.
"" " gJ pv r/,i,,. .?. y
'~,8- ' " )I During the canrae of selecting and following the procurement actions A
.,3.*,
- ewr 9C people at all organization.sl levels were interviewed with b rf rega rd to their function in the procurement process and problems 3
;;L - amoeciated with their f unction. At Fi,;R:'E, in addition to their fune-ties with.in the TVA procurement system, discussicca were held on 1;.S. - .d.
' }k , Gover==t procurement regulations and their 1;rpact u::oc '">'A.
f c .. ,
'"= Q . ' A. th-ve- 'l'ter Documeets *::\
u D.* x. -; ).~
- 4. .
3 Throughout this review an evaluation was made which compared the 5E
. regulatory require =cnts contained within tne Code of federal d y
'.. 3errlations and Regulatory Guides concitted to in the WA Topical Report against TVA icplementing procedures which included the e
!.*- Operational Quality Assurance Manual (00AM), Division of Euclear l \?. Power Area Program Manuals (DPMs), WA Procurement Manual, Office . *n $'"'
& W. of I.nzineering I.ngineering Procedures (IPs), and applicable plant
- ,.?.*
procedures. A detailed listing of the procedures reviewed is f , g .G' contained in section VII, Locuments Reviewed." I.zeept.as noted " hr '
- b' .
1 !* p elsevner
. r _ ,
.e .in _thi..s_ r..e. p o. .r.t WA.'.s_ ,p r o--c u r e.m.e. n_t p.r.o g r.a. m s_.in. . _th.e_" Ue a"s.".
r 1,e,,ve,,,d we re__a, coqhanc,e w1 W egula u ry_ requirements and were
- f. 'f G...,
l
.M
,,_iMaementec :n accorcance wnh p:pgram p.qee, cures. ,
l) g/ M g - 5 2. Plants I e t g' **.4, Activities at the plants ass ciated with the procurement and fE . c.ltimate receipt and storage cf iterra and services were reviewed. $ D .'; ;- Dnless otherwise specified the findings are applicable to both ' SCN and ZTX. s 'i. . t '. . 1.. Prepa ration and Review Cvele fer Procurements .'
'b E. ' At the sites procurement activities were confined primarily M e
M ' d. -
- to five groups or functional areas of respcasibility. Each N Q u. '. is disenased as follows: "
3 .... .g.
' '~
. . 4 Oririnater 2} a Once it was dete rnioed that an item or service was >
reguired for operation of the nuclear p la.sts , somme h
' indirtemal had to initia te the procurument action and
- f 1.hs t ladividaal was identified as the o rigia.ata r. Aa *
-{ 16catified la the OCMi and found ta p ra ctice , the 7
3 @" ~ , ori gia.s te r could be aa7 "evssiamat entg i. nee r , sper- ' d riper, et resp maib1e 6e s i gs.ee . * *m e Sti.gia.a ta r wa.: @ k:
- a ..
. ruvremaLb1e ier prvN rteg L.he ystra.u.e rwt med
, .r.c1f n=c tse rn. a 1 tec=.1 cal w w 11ty t w re. g B
4
* *, .*e O.
_- y- --
~
n __M -- J- ___- 5' .: .-
- L..{3.E . ~ a . a.~Ff0St.'.ifPS:%i;.'FQ:-
. :p:e .
- k. .?.' ,: :#. .
'*^
m '. (%;G, VQ.. * .
~
.&.W ?.h.~.L , . * '
Q.f 's,$,?. A : ' , . meste aasociated with the procurament. Specifica lly, h, 0 as assigned in the DQM, the orig 1 Aster shoulds
,. m9.a*'JdJ.' . . J. r.. " . O., . .w f.d, *'*0 ,
$,..7.4
- be f es tlia r with the fanctions of the system
. % b. p.:
~
;g,.
- t.be precurement is a s socia ted with,
; g%-G.K i,
' f f ,,,*. '. . r .
- be f amiliar with the sys tem's importance to safety, and 9; , ' .'f. ,
- l}-; Cy' r $2;% . . . .
- be 'f amiliar with the cowpliance, tachsical, a nd j.d. , quality requirements of the system.
.-. *j -
- s. ' " ?. ,', . Vith regard to the above requirements, and in procure-ments evaluated during this review, all o rig ina to rs
~ * ' * * ;7 . L .- , ..- occupied positions where the qualifica tions to fill
[/,Y:';}
'k : * ~ those positions satisfy t.b e requirements to procure
; .U 3 ,
items and services specified above. In addition, the
< 'U , .. originator was required by the OQAM to specify com-U . pletely and accurately on the purchase request as
,,.- =. applicable the following; K..
*. .:t .
- tech.nical description of the procurement
, y,;.i ~ s@. /
.i $ ,
- component or system of use , ,
,,r ;.~{ ..M ~
?. . . *
- j'{. -
applicable regulatory code .<
,f; . ', ,' , ..
QA level '3
- 7. . * ' p' .C .
I lf . .
~
design basis. M. - * "* I -
- other esanufacturing requirements , b '
l l ,
~ '*
identify required tests, inspections, and 4,,8'~ exar:ina t ions list dorutsentation requirements //ffg . [ specify special handlict, pack. aging, or storage ggr7 g,.<.g,f l , . . requirementa g 5
- determine the original IN DTS procurement CA ,
requirements jy,-7 c.pfg5fpp
- [.{ '. ~
,,,. evaluate ICCTR 1 applicability /. "
- AM;67[
~s
(..*
- identif y special receipt inspection requirements
, L,' specif y the date the preer.r==ent is waated If the o ri g in.a t o r prvrared the peretate reg =e-s t cow-B*' M .' plately end seestately as twtairv4, me ++titiemal review ef the e.ennest - v.14 be sects 64ry, t i es , eoct r a ry te eeto61aabed 7 fve**sres , the octytme-1a yree-w - e enected te esey1et4 tant . &M ryct
,. . . _ _- . ~ . . _ _ _ . . . . _ . _. _
i e Y 'h.h,$$j
&'G,R'S'.YN',&*'^"T * ' '
0.5lN. w'*'*. p ., W h o ?D, i . - 1 *,'
.W..
-N ..D.,q:.%
f l'; 't.', .. * - r E. .t .?
~ -
ecturately a nd completely for all itsas abeve.
.$. h'$:w' '*!..h .3.']ky .i.. the?.5 ' p ..wee- a spe e to.d Ter em 1 m ma==1aetarer to y rev14e
' 9,
, b.y,.N.***,; . ' , ,*
inf ormati*e os special h.aadling, pa ck.a s tag and s ta ra re
'ON#-Ul. ~# ,;. requirweents. The final OA requirements and Fo rt 21 l
l ,rf 3,.,[ spplicability were specified by the plant T;;T. st.af f and A 2 823 .. s .. K D OA Croup, and the final technical re-;uirements were I.'[*j ,'" .. ." specified by the plant specifications engineer and NOC -
%i4 . OE Creup.
W Li.*! y - . . . c- LT ., " XSF.5 expected to find a training program f or origina-None was found nor 1
- tors in place and functioning.
required. Wat KSRS f ound instead was a description by Tl , '
, ,7 plant supervision of self training. Origina to rs were
,. p ., given a ecpy of the plant procurement procedure (s) and e f. . . ' crpected to learn on their own. As a result NSRS found p~E4 6-that most routine purchase requests prepared by t.be .
ig [* 7.,. originator were changed at the site by TQI and hateri-q als personnel. Those changes ranged free significa= [(G l 7,.3
- (wrong OA level or tectn cal specificatice identified) to editorial.
_n ' h. .* . > ,
- r. .
=
r -P. q.; , , Wile the originator was required by the OQAM and plant 2 . procedures to specify everything required in all pro-
~ ~. . .
- curements, they were not given the training necessary
'.{ , , i to accomplish this.
, ;.y . .
.* h. Seceifientiens Ieri=cer h% .- . --
s " Once the originator completed the purchase req 4est, it .
-7:*', was sent to the specificaticas engineer for review of the technical specifications and coordination with TCT,
.(-
[ ,
- other maintenance and engine-ring staffs, acbsinistra-
.y' , * ; ;
tive staff, Power Stores, and Plant Manager f or their input and/or approval. Bas 2cally, the specifications a engineer was to assure the purchase request was coe-plete and accurate. Both ETE and SON handled this ** function scxzewhat differently. ,
,x .
At ETX there were positiens of specifications engineer g l: .~4 ' - for both Operations and Tield Services that were staf f ed with engineers. For the Field Services Group, the specifications engineer assumed the function of the For 3- o rigir.a to r and filled out the purchase request.
=
" the Operations Group the specificationa engineer re-s.. viewed the purchase request as corpleted cy the o rigin.a te r.
1 [ ' ',* At SCE the specifications engineer's functina was falfilled by a mate rials offiest from the Eaterials
- Dait, wee did met have an e ng inee ria.g ba cly rosad. ha techencal s pecif ica t.iesa s t tayt to rvview was
***(rt W . Wt the fumettee prtnerily fa.lfilled by tse g
estertals ofIscer wee eee of a.z7etittag m tn.
,e
. a.
)
s 8 e 8 o
~- -
C , . _ , W_M
~'~
e .
= _
- - - - - _ a -
_t = _ , -
- ad
* . .J
- 3. & :.::i g'. W .= s , r .* - ' ~
l}.f $. .$ % . hj! . fkh ca ,l8=U. T."] f,
." * ,g ;
* * . ..,s***
*t . t
&ateria1s um1La at beth SW and IIT werv the priacire1 "
j.g$gr* ? MQ;ic y,;- ' ' h* yetate ef ces La et ier tachalcal and gaslity aeauxrocs edO,Yf'pt.4j#.10 - chaares mede is th NCo. The 700 Qua1ity Engineerias d
- , M-374-l. !' (
Branch (QO prepared a f ora lettar te the fils arith the m of the originator and M pe rs ona concurring by , M O 'T.;5 pf . ' , telepbone with the 300 changes. It reporte.dly was the matarials of ficer's responsibiltiy to assure that input l
, %:.'i '* - by the originator or TQE was obtained be f ore the 1 p. ,*{".
chang e s were approved. On procure =enta reviewed by l T fiu. ESR.5, a v a rie ty o f na me s we re listad for the originator g N/ 8
.W .
' , concurrence on Lbe CZ form le tters and most of the time the individual was other than the o ri gi.na to r of the
' J,
- ,[' .* . purchase request. Some a pp rovals were by te chnical
,y . . . . , g Q '. ". personnel and others were by t.he materials officer. In y Y.*C I A. ; all cases the plant TQI engineer approving the purchase M. M -; *" , requisition concurred in the NCO caanges. The materi-1' h,h.f;, ' als officers are not technically qualified to approve
' 0. l ~
. 6 either tech =ical or QA changes en their own. Centrary AQ- to obtaining the originator's approval for ch.atres, a materials efficer concurred in the FCC proposed cf.anges M ${.'"
- h. , for the originator on four specific instances (FRs
$. 94:9BE, 951123, 951C2E, 951134). With regard to TR Ob 1.r 951134, cerrespondence was found in the procurement fff g .,' s .- , .
file which showed the originator was aware and agreed with the change before the sta te ria l s efficer approval 7 l:4., f }l- was given; however, in the other three cases no similar correspondence was found. With regard to TR 952C28, the FCC added a technical requirement 1 which the
.h3 '. . * , .
M'~ materials efficer concurred and to which the vender .
. g -
- took exception. The pla=t wanted zine-coated sheet-
-A.*
I metal, not oiled. The NCO added not chestically deG h- . ! treated. The vendor quoted chemically treated no cil, l 9.f. * * - and the site materials officer approved the czeeption.
.*C, .ne site materials officer should not be cc curri=g in
*2. technical cha=ges.
, t ~?
5, ,
- c. Tield Cus11tv Enrineerint -
~ '
he TQE was also required to review quality level I and II purchase requests for coupleteness and accuracy and i
- approve them. At both SQN and ETN one individual in
..,.. esca TQr. group wee assigned that responsibility. ESRS found that an addition to the procurements of quality Icvel I and !! materials and s e rvice s , which this
[# revsew centered on, that enti.neer also reviewed all y level III and IV procurements as well as moo-M pro-c . eu rweesta . Virtu. ally everyt.hing procured by the sites woe a pp roved and/or reviewed to a s s arit the preyor i
. . armality level and requirweesta had been placed e the
{-[ itas beiat P rocu red. To put pervpective es t.he megui-g T? t mee ei that e f f e ri., ETI Pv==r 1 tares ytwi4*d a ear-g ;M riLstt== *f yr+ ear =mesta ier nay and June 1M4 thirtag 4",c '" ICS I rt=cw= men ta , wt did e.c t aun hm amey we re
- eenisty level I er II. I'h t % 4 g% _ta e
l l
T '
- . . 4*
i e-l l ) L m_. n2 . -- __ _ N __ _ w -
* *K'Krl" %&- W __ ugr_v. __
' h N '[d f lF M S W A W* . iW." 3 r
~
I
%-::n p:v.M:::c:W .~. : : c ;*
? *' . -
.cs,~ % . *w.,1,).C.'::cv;w"y? ; ,: : -
E p a :s.t. p . . . i cW,.MQ.i. e s./;F * .
$B ?;,". wesld.resalt la aa averate ef abeut 26 per day twtuir- '
t 7 7 Rh.(.jg:h. ,- iat M erpreval and/or trview. ,- b!.hJ':.;;-
.-.s...:. -
- I: he TCt twviev ef purchaee requeats wee daeeribed is y :. the CQAM as including both tachaical and CA require- ;
l; f.}i.'97-%g"Q,.hy.*'.'l;.-..
;W},. M
~ .
. 7:k. . '
- aursts. Depending upeo t.be i tem er earvice being pre-eu. red, TCE described their review as including a c our-parison of t.he technical and QA requirements with plant
.. drewings med previous procuraments of the ' s ame ites. -
1h '.
. . A.1though MSRS did not physically observe this type of TUC review in process, the s>echanics involved in per- .
;[,4-/c4
.(. . [ forming it could be time c o ns uming. Consida ring thm
( f number of purchase requests reviewed, the completeness -
,. .- M g(fJQ. ). ,,. ,
of each review is of con.ern. TQI described the neber
- 7t .'sQ* . of p ro curements found with QA le*cla lower than re-l (. . Q ,*..* . , -
- quired as ve ry few. The routine review of non-QA t r *. procurements by TQI is, therefore, considered too time ,
T*l. ,. consuming by NSRS for the benefit received, and the V; . . time expeuded could be more effectively utilized on QA
;{,.,, -l procurements. A periodic review of a sampling of
..f .. non-QA purchases abould be sufficient to detect prograa
- P deficiencies.
l' !)f %,;, - l - ** "
- d. Plant Sueerictendert .
Q.
- w:
l d.,.g: . Upon completion of the review and approval cycle of the purchase request, the purenase request was sent to the l ~J: 3 , plant supehintendent f or authorination.
~ ,.3..'
,g. - a
. 1. . . !
y .. . . . , .
- c. Power Steres ,
i 4
'~;
. The purchase request with all approvals and authorine- ;
;.s. -
tion was sent to Power Steres for determination of the r appropriate method of obtaining the requested item (s) ,! '
* ,
- and p repa ra tion of the associated doewenta tion.
. fie tho ds available to Peewe r Stores included direct
- j 2
.4 -
charge procurement using a purctase requisition, re-
. q ues t for delivery under an existing ICT contract, I . Q-*
- field purchase order to purchase itema of less than
,. $300 from local suppliers, or a transf er requisition
~
(TX) used to transfer items from one TVA site to
.- a no the r. Once the method was selected, Power Stores
. . would traescribe the approved purchase request writeup ,
verbatan on the a pp rop ri ate form and add ca all the parchase request attacaments wuich could include QA and j tec2:aical specification requarweents. Procurment i ., forms p repa red by Power Stores we re 6e fia.e4 as M ' * (.;* d cuments is CO V'.. Pa rt III, Section 4.1, =6ermas
, y aroese reques ts we re viewed as worksheets and anot M m , documests. The of f acia1 CA documest revsires 'M sisaatare ef T".:C a nd t h,- p2aat eune rta -t.
9 '- s- e 4y b.th rar **d i he Plast s we rimta=4ast e One.- ., 81primC the ***e rrocs-imrat eetnoc tricg. !
%w , j i
- J ~ l l . ;
- 1 I
l l
-f ' . e d M M'.Y, *#I' F '; *c * '
1 . h,, 2 a:
.h. .g.bD
- :, , .$*. .* b:N("'rpJ *'%. .cw** .
-. T: 2~n t~
~
~
, ..y:- % - a ~..,.
. . w. . ;'. . . e . >.
z, i: 7' .# "< '. ,
. ?-j Jb.}.5].$..
m , Y .: :,. ;.0 c' i..-
.;'.a :. .
7: -' '
~- . .1>
The ysrch.aae retseet ae deeerib.e4 La F5RS wes met em** j w Qh.W *' C >*
< '- steered a OA document bensuae it vse n,t always pre- ,y ]
p&l.gM;"' l ;. , -.. pared ta indelible iak and could f ade witA time. Tbe ; d %.M /.li f O WS, Part III, section 4.1, required 04 reeerde te be prepared in 1.ak er typed. la confli6L witA that PM- [ g l S'-Y.M).
'.h'y' . , J';,Q' ' t e n opey , RR2 ob s e rv ed a tt a c bee n t s t o pu r cha s.e reque s t s .<
4 .*R' . (e.g., 10CT11 applicability form) tha t we re prepa re d j , hD' * ' ? * 'ag f.1;.' partially in pencil tha t were classified as GA f,1.q .1, ; c 4. , , decmenta. ,, 4
; ,. . r .
. .&c .; ". .>= , . -- In addition to signing the procurement form for record
. (g,',9.I ' * ' purposes, TQE was required to review f or accuracy the s . ' . .* documents prepared and attachments included by Power a g .N-[,y3l - Sto res . As TQE was the last to see the purchase .
f i .5.W *',; request prior to transcription by Power Stores, t. heir , review of the finished product was editorial 1.n nature, b ' IJ.$ .D", * * ' . i TQE, therefore, was required by the OQAF. to duplicate
~
M.W its own work in reviewing and approvi.ng all QA level I EO,' and II purecases twice. L6. 7
- 1.ike TQI., the Plant Manager was required to duplicate his work in authorizing both the purchase request and Q: . * *
, J: . . * ' purchase requisition.
'y.~f. .[N , With all required signatures obtained, Power Eteres
-y, then transmitted the procurement ,isciage to Chattanooga h* .
l ,ir. , . for additional review and approval prior to gc1=g to Purchasing. . l"T. . 5" l .T.9 : - 2. Tunctienice ef plant Procurement Svstem i
~ ; . .~.: ! . I
~
T. ' g ! Overall, the procurement systen used at the plants contained ,,
';.j',. . -
- redundancy and was predicated on the concept t. hat additicnal
..- review will procuote a better product. As a general rule, a procurement frors the identification of need through trans-
, f(.
- mitt.al of the coupleted procurement pa cka ge to Chattanooga
' contained 10 alsnatures or initials signifying review and l
'Mi,, f
.2- approval of the procurement. Generally that preparstion j ,
l J. process was not considered ex ce s sive--ta ki.ng 4 days for N g. normal and em.ergency direct charges a nd I da y f o r an eme r-
~
gwncy E3 unoer an ICT contract. More complicated procure-5, ; ments were seen that required I to 1-1/2 months to prvpare. . Of the lo signatures or initials in the approval process,
.y only 2 - t.be o ri gina tor asd TQI--were identified as having any subst.astive Lachnical or quality contribution regarding Lame specificaticas or requirements of the procurement. ,.
's ', '
Perw.amel ist.arviewed werv guerally aware of their fumetica . is tme TVA precure=rst process but runerally ama mars of the imeetime med rway.aaibility of other sections 1.a that prv- ,
- cm.s a . ' with the p esable e s ery t t o.e of h,we r Stores. W
..' 1me r e ei T** era 1 yr curemest r* rs la ti s.=4 we la c4 ====g
),, these ta the p rocsraerv t p roc es a . Ter == m 1e, me one'et
.~. i I.. .
l s
~
_--_ 4 _ , _ . _.__ q pa-_ - =- , j -- T - WMW
? ,
t-smm se __
- ^ "
.,r.
w; _e yc _ _- -- ._w_ - - .A Mh.aner e_w
'. __ _ ama_ m- MD" "' " q f.Y~
- 5. ' N .' '. . l' ' , ': - ' . al-h~'-- '%-
%:.S;M.'$
0D :* P .%. .'.*!. . '"'~h' '.? " h
.1%
.o... .e 'v..:.
. K.. .l.e.o.s" Y'M~v. . . Q 13,Q l .m.
- Q ...: * -
. 'A [glA:I'c**]E.}'
W :.' N ,
', ' t.hs plaats er elsewhare sithia TVA knew how leeg it neumelly
' '~
teet to procure seestAlas. They knew it te+k tme lent med
! D. 1*24*a :.8?.Q$ b ' }d " ..
,;;,. selten arr1**d wtnee seemed. The originators wesid allow to
*N.g*Nh[. ' . .
ters, La establishing a data wastad, frem th.e time a pur-ehr.ee regnes t was initiated ier restina nomenergency p.er- \
.d'/,'2Rr./.
De- .,Q(If,y.[".,*~ . .,, - chases ei esusmoe itame (nuts, bolta, s tee l, etc.), mutil ( items we re e xpe c te d o ns ite . That date tras virtually (
.T- t h -a.=
y [i*fd.@%-( .
- * ~... 1pme red throughout the procurement process. As a resmit,
- ,G the purem. ass requisition rarely arrived at purch.asing witA 98 , ?$@[."
% *[ *. M sufficient time remainint, until the data wanted was passed, -
*.T;.. '
to sevurtise f or quotations, let alone time to review the quotations, award the contract, manuf acture, and deliver the QE.. /F' 'i '.
.gi,y ites. Of the requisitions reviewed by H5RS, it typically 4-: - took 6 months to 1 year to receive material onsita and the .1 . l2,3- sites were only allowing 90 days. With sufficient training 77.7[ .-'
in and knowledge of the procurement process, personnel f( 9[ ;q-l: Q r. within the prorutement cycle could establish more rwalistic timeframes in order to receive needed materials. w .M . M ?!!. Probably the most frequent complaint about the procurement d I,"U' process expressed by the sites was the material was not O y.- . there when needed. That complaint results in large part
% . ,i-f;P.7;.. from the unrealistic' expectation placed by the sites upon # the procurement system. The site routinely wants rapid M'7@ " . ' .'. ... results,. 90 days or less, and the system can't handle it. <d $ 1. . .
C[U .Tc. ...~ 3. PIanninr , m g.v.. . . . : ' Planning of work for naintenance and outage modifications
-%;*.,[;.7 **
was not a form.al part of.the review; however, the obtatning T' .
~ "~
f-[.I*f, .
,[ I of needed m.aterials to perform work was reviewed. As iden-
..' l tified in section V.E.2 above, ordered ma terial often r.~. f,T ..
arrived at the site after it was needed. There was no one I.1 . factor producing that condition but several factors begin-
." *"i ning wit.h the originator and including all steps through receipt inspection of the material onsite. This review (J. '. . I found. however, no evidence ensite that material availabili-
. q.% .
4 ...',' *. . ty was factored into the work planning process, yer further I .r , - : inf orm.ation en planning see NSR5 Report R-84-27-SOM/ITI (::XS 3 ."E 841 .23 C52). s
,J .w. .. -
Ter esample, in E3 modification werk, site pereoc. cal ex-
' , - . plaimed that a comple te E3 package was bot received f rom ,
.. D 25. Portions of the E3 pactag* would arrivs in stag's .
- ever same ti.me period. Wan the sitas ha d we.a t t. bay be-1is re.d to be a eaffieient anecat of the L3 paelare, woet
( ===14 he schedaled and meterials o rd.e red. Lagineers at the
-.f * . site ta charpe of the modification work and erwering matari-
?' al --aly s ta ted t.hs t the material ereered woeld p-shakly
.A' e. .rrive be f ore the E:"I wert s ta rted. Caas16eriact that
*~
s . aaly 94 ders woe alle M f or prerweeets that oesc % e I ?-* taee 6 anochs te 1 yeer L4 pet, tha t esprimood esecen === sell rh. he offort one fe==d, haswreer, to 1.m- % a swww rsa I istit ta.ori ruse la the eita pl mez.im;; reww.s.
, e
- f. ..
,h*; .Lw.<:-n. ;., c-H . -
.9[*f?"#
q ,p af.91 . n m . ;- :. M b,. - v.2. 4*
*<* .,$r y a :*
. . . h i' ,*2i[W..b, N WJy G% *:.?
'**hD'.g,';.Id ..y:L; ! a7 '
&at risulted, wsee the ma te rial did not arrive, was **
- i
,;yd(!dhb - ~; '
eirercise la resourcefuloses by the sita en g1mee rs , etich
\pj, they apreared to t>e va ry 3ood a t . The easimeers kmd te fimJ
- f. the amaterial they needed throust borrowing it from anotAer
(;Iy*h.7.l rg. f.., i {.2 5 .. - engineer onsite, finding it at another site and having it Q'it.y(%
"; d ,. j trans f e rred, or initia ting an emergency pu. chase. Ef f.e ctive as the engineers ammy be , that effort in resourcefulness is C'* _ >." ' l '
N:,b~ ,[e.'l'. time co ns uming and wa s te f ul . With more effective planning a
' significant portion of the ti.ne w a s te d o n o b t.a ining ma te ri-f.I
' .f;
' M; 't. -[- G T. '
als could be eliminated.
.#WlllT53 ifjI ,y%..C it < w. 4 Eecetal Methode ef Obtainint 5terial and Seevices a.v ., . . .n.
'.*- / - "S.,'
Much of the e=pbasis within this report is generic in r.ature and applicable to all types of procures >ents. The sites h. ave [ygg f..NE.d i, . numerous methods available for obtaining material and ser-b*
,' " d-lY,Y ' .
vices with direct charge contract being the most c ommo r.. This review examined not only direct charge contracts but ,
- T-1,* N other methods as well, and this section will focus on t.e l
- f@ ( i less c orsson methods and their associated s tr eng t.hs atd
' 7 .1, weaz.nesses,
' " , *.. ,,]; .
y- .<.,'
':f 4:g , :" a. hrvice Ccetracts b-g; j',
Often the services of consultants or workers with
- speristined expertise i s. required. I.i ke materials
,,+
,~
- being received at a alte ecquires a receipt inspection, b',,,. ' the rrceipt of a service at the site .also requires an *
, l.
evaluation and acceptance. Acceptance of a service is identi fied in th e .OQ A. , and three acceptance methods
*i.v .
, are listed in Part III, Section 2.1, paragraph IC.C.
~'
4. f s e On two separate occasions, SQN obtained the service of
;D- Turnanite, Inc., to stop leaks which could cause a
[ ' , shutcovn of the plant. Those s e rvices were requested
- by purchase requisitions 959104 and 955163 which speci-
-' fled the vendor aball comply with the tech.nical re- -
qui r s>ents of IQT contract E2F35-9254C3. On one occa-
'.* sion a Culf and Western Service rep re s enta tive was
" , *, requested, under purchase requisition 940060, to per-
.. : form work at SQM. In all three requisitions it was Y specified that work was to be performed and doctamented
= '" .
under 7",'A procedures and QA program. On four separate occasions SON mec ha nical maintenance and complianev j ; , personnel were assed for the elocumentation contained in the worm pactages or elmevnerv for (bose tAree coe-tracts, vnaca natisfied t.b e a cerpta nes of serview . k' , requirement of the OQMt s pe ci fied a bov e . .C2:3 did m.t retelve any sech documentation er an explamattee of bene m tw OQN!*3s s atis f ied and mu s t the re f o re coecleet t. hat g, it e es met esist.
- g- m.
' /
C -
- - - -- - -_ _ a
~~
6
._ A m.__. we- _ -
-_ y - =w -
mwy. m
, om - =
"]- -
{ _ _ _ - -
~ -c. -&
a~.% .. r~6 - . -
, 3,#o.s<. 3.c%a,mTs. ..::w~ . ... .n . c. ..,..
,.f.rW, i
- p. . ,;,v+,;,yd.::.e.
- q . .v - '. e,,t -
y.% . %. ?. . " . l h .). I*. % r* *. l .?C :. , i - 2 ~QM: ~ .v:.: . Indeftette Quantity Te rs M CT) Centracts
.MTk9.,;[: .n. b.
~
. &f.]? % >-2.- A.a I W contract can be a powerf ul tool vtes precitring ,
$'* '.'s the same item or se rvice on a routina, rvpetitive T. C , $,j[
.,g.
f.y;f T;..,J l basis. Vben such an ites or service is identified, aJs ICT contract can be prepared following the sans preper-
?
l l c;y; ": , *
*ft ation, review, and approval procedures as if it were a ICTs are advertised, sent out j-M ,i, y*
~L direct charge contract.
for bids, bida reviewed, and contract awarded no dif-y - - f e rently than a direct charge. The difference is, or ' .f.;I; -. , , . is supposed to be, that veen items or services are required under the ICT, a request for delivery (RD) is g l!.- * . ~ - C.,.'?p' i prepared and sent to the vendor bypassing the review l and approval process. That procedure was described as
- f. .-Sc'g
.- M.f. . being followed by T.X DIS, but not by NUO FR, In each J ^
of the NU FR EDs reviewed by NSRS, the RD: we.n t
' 'J.I I -
~
through the some r e. i.rw process as the original ICT, therefere eliminating any savings of nacpower or time f.d' . ,,. gained by having the IQT. Argu= rents were presented t. hat I - .,
' .? .
the ICT was not an actual contract, the KD wa s , asd J . therefore, had to go through the review and approval
,1 ,,,
process to satisfy QA documentation requirementa. It was also argued that some times not every hing pur-
.O .
chased on an RD was covered by the original 10 7.s l-
.,1 .
[.,, Vith regard to the first argument, the ICT contract was retsined as. a QA record as were the RDs. ~he EDs S- specified what was wanted and that the terna and condi- ~
,1, ; .
- tions of the specified ICT were applicable. Each RD
. ; was reviewed onsite by TOI and an authorising official.
X g- . In ESP.S's opinion that saould be sufficient to satisfy QA requiresients and the RD should be sent directly to
**
- the stanuf acturer.
Vith regard to the second argument, NSF.S views that as
.l*
a completely separate issue. If an iten or service is *
. i
- p, to be procured that was not initially centracted f or
.e. and a change of contract was required, then it should
- go through the review and approul process as a new i :
.'s.- procurement.
,' The additional review of all EDs by the central of fice
- only resulted in additional verbiage added to the RD si vnich was already contained in the IC. This was cua-sidered redundant, unne ce s s a ry, a nd res ulting is need-less ti.me delays of 20 days o r mo re . The eliminatie.
(. . i of the central of fice review ty E1C F1 abesld eltat ute
- the pru lee prevleed that in transf erring the central
~. 5 offire poettices to the sitas the p relen was sat
- q. g. - tramaferred as wil. That t rans f e r vs4 aset evslanted
>< -- *a a po rt o f tA l s rev i ew .
& . .j ' ,
m/'::a -,. , . In t h.e p r =<e u o f eva l ea t LM rt erstwe st e t th attes , a er ef da rvet rt.a rp r rec,rriuscu f og wl m
$4
,'- # .- l
- Y 5.,."[,C.'N.y,r3 ~ X , .j. T
- F ,,
- ~
- ., ; '.11 k
- J . '* . . :,p g ;
.c 'n , f,,
'C' ' '. e .
ob s e rve d at each site. It would appear that an ICT
','i'
]A.{,J. ,][~. ' .9. , '
- g,.~...- '
centract would be bensticial f er thoss.
'C .. ', ,y. ': ; ' ~. " w . ,
;Y 9 ? .' *- '* A pr bles with IQ!s developed and was apparently solved Auring this review. It was determined by OGC that EDs )
I.[. .J ' 3reater than $1C,000 would require a dv e rtis ing in 3 . 3
- t. Come.erce Busiocas Lafie as if it were a new pur-p'
<I.f 4'dC[ ' I:.f-;, y;-(J:.. .
cr.a s e . OGC nater cetermined according to M T1 Pe r-would be U.r " N.Y - Ir^" sonnel that a periodic generic aevertisement sufficient to satisfy ?-deral procurement re gula tio ns . h'd;- D j .h;, ,g%?s . -- -
~
- c. Transfers h,!!<').1 f.
Although the transfer of material within 77A is not a
' Yj, .'f .
procurement in a true s e n s e o f t.b e ve rf. , transfers do {
.,~, provide another co-only used mechanism of introducing g rg,
,C '
new materials to a site. Am such, tra ns f e rs were 4 T' ^ reviewed as if . bey were procurements from outsic;e h2 l' .. vendors. D-4 it' 2 vw E Ma=y items have become available f or transf er due to
- .q $. the cancelle d units and are abapped to all nuclear g3"h ,'
sites f rom ETH. Other transf ers occur vnen ene eperat-g
- i=g plant or construction site has usumed ma te rial which can s>e e t an emergency need at another site.
ep . C: Transf er i f electrical cable was not pur-8 I. . ' - succ by the review team at this time. I>cth ETE
**' and SQN personnel ide=tified documentation prob-less occuring with cable vtich resulted is a large "
0.p, cumber of conconformances being written. Easic .
-. t'.
- problems as told to NSP.S stensmed free lack of
* /f: ,
! coordination between the Office of L:gineeri=g e ./ ; 6 - i: . ,,
(Electrical Engineering Branch) and the site and h
~
7'h.. ,/ l
*
- er ccecus docu=ectation accorpanyicg cable tra=s-F . ' '.*a ferred from F X. Most participa:ts were already
- i. aware cf the proble= and appeared to be wort.i.
- 3 cc a solution. The i=pleme:tatice cf the solutie -
will be suy eet to review in Pr.ase II cf the NSFJ,
- c. -
procureme t review. D r}k, *- .,. Toru ~VA 4139, "F.equest for Shipment of Material," is 3 M J.' used as the means to transfer items between divisiens The form includes descriptive I*'L (Fit: PR and CONST). f < information of the ites, Part 21 applicability. TOE signeff, and otter miscellaneous signatures. II-QAP 4 4.3, '"!ra ns f e r of items," states that tse following f - stsps a re to occur in an inte rdivis ional tramater:
.\-
(1) Ergoestitg organis.stion establisbes a ses. rte of *
- 5. . .' '
availahle items. T.
.6
() Re ,=ritiat e rg tai sa tioe preyerva rteers t ! etr 3 g. treaster. 2: , a ..: . . - 1I _
.1 b
? .a . .. . s. . :. ..r yg ._c r.,. . -
v_,*. ; g;; . . . . ;,.u.. i.,. . . r.
. t.,. r .. s. , , < .
,. ,;,, 7., 7
.,;. s.. ..
,4
* ,4 .
.t
~O C A #' .,
(3) Requesting organisation reviews original contract -
'9:';, T.'fc !
- for technical and QA requirements.
M .T .%. . .b.
.: 4. ; , ,
(4) Copies of all appropriate records are transferred I 1
~;tN-n , . . fi '
on the requested itec.
%- 5.p:'ffy,}/....*.i/M _. ..
GrQ , U_ Z .W .:ip * ($) Source organisation transfers materials to re* T +. f ." ,." questing organization.
' 4*]:%",: .: .*/. .Ml? b W
~
~.}e,.,V
; . ... ' No objective evidence of a technical review ocentring j n
'74f ,., ' . p., ' ,
u utilizirig the original contract could be identified. In actuality, the original contract (or copy) was not Q'g$'.il , , - i y[ '- Q *' p . ':,,, 0 even requested of the source organization. Site pre- . l cedures and transfer requisitions we re not specific m
.-{.if. ~ ' ' *
,- enough in stating what doctanentation was to be sent.
, y. 7 . . ., y 3,Q.11. ' The statement generally found on all transf er rwquisi-
'tions was, "all applicable do cuume nta tion" to be im-g.'.l-] .
f 'i,J . . ' . . cluded. The employee perf orising t.he receipt inspection j 73 -2.~.y,' - *
- cannot discern if all appropriate documenta tion has ;
,' ; f.q:. j ,
been received if it is not known what the contract 5 required. The decision as to what was applicable
,J.N(,-
(~. . ,
. docusienta tion was the responalbility of Power Stens
., iJo,d. . personnel transferring .in d receiving the ma te rial .
?
$* Quality level material with COCs and OGa weru among
. ,f , ,
the items Power Stores w.a s allowed but not trained to j$ y,' ,. receipt inspect,
,gt; ;. s .-_
.R.. -d.' ,
Another concern identified by NSP.S involved the sign.i- . M .1 ,' ficant number of nonconformances written against mater-ial shipped from cancelled units, usu. ally due to the
,g g}-!/ '
absence of the original receipt inspection report or a disagreeeants between the material shipped and the 25 .. T.7 / In some cases Q .'-M .- - criginal receipt inspection report. materials have been . transferred th.at are si.milar to
% *7.';.' p,.;,. '*. ' ,
M I items requested but tech.nica lly not the same and u.se-
~
'less to the requesting c ranisations. Site employees Q j.'@ l- l expressed concern in utilizing G as a source cf W ; *. .
e.aterial. Easically, they had no assurance that the JW k, ,.2,. ,
,*. ' ., material received on a transfer would be vaat was originally requested. Although the G shipping pre-
.d , '* cess wasn't reviewed, NSRS identified enough nenco - .
e ; ,* . , w -,,*i formed material to substantiate the concern. Control-ling cf the G warehouse will be transferred f rois
$ D ~,. -
M '.,$t : , Cons truction to Power Stores in the future and Power - Stores will establish it as a distribution center, 7) til(a - similar to the present Power Stores distribution center located in Chattanooga. The documentatioc problem on .
. traca f erred ma te rials was not limited to G. In46e-
'. qua te* docu=entation s imila r to that found fras EI .
*cestred from other plant sites transferring materials.
3 .
~,..._'*-
J;,
' td. .
e e i
+ ..
4 ,~ -
~ - . . .
.. f. ,
... l
= - . !
e
. . \
L f
~* - ,
**a'
)
m e e .
- sl i - W'-
- d. TVA Tseriested touts eot W ,
.n 7. . % @
- Another mechanism to introduce quality equipment into g
, .[U, ;l.
the plants was for TVA to manufacture the part from
/EJ'M "[. .I. ? ' stock material. This review bad planned to include d
f.NO.P.1 * - $i
% #fi[;,.h."/
- work performed by the Power Se rvice Shop for the nuclear plants as if the abop were another vendor. Th.is
. i. '. .'
was eliminated from the scope of the review af te r the y M,p[a. ".. F.TN review s e gme nt be ca us e o f stme cons trainta . g y fw t'f.\ fld l, *,p~ , '; jf before the TVA-fab.r.ated equip =ent was removed from Y.NI'[ the review, ope re: ,. console cables and control fes- q A T h'i 'i' toons for the BTN refueling platform aci jib crane were yh.'/-[ * - identified to NSRS as being tabricated by ETE electri-
"A P.., i' -
u h deal maintenance personnel. Completed contr,ol cables -
'.5.? 2 .
Amd festoons were classified as QA level 1 items and j'.T -) ^ ' . . ' ' 6 f7 Ntocked within the Power Stores w a rehous e . Doevnenta-9 zo '
~}; tion was obtained on the manuiseturtta proces s and h f . q:'," 7 i
materials used to fabricate those itema. It was datar-y fS i..j-p/.(.,i
. h [N ,, hmined p,
t
/level that ea ch cable and f estoon was manuf actured f rom 11 parts and nothing could be found that h
3* 1 * . p QA M-h
*g h showed bow the assembling cf CA Level II parta produesd h g l'.7; j.**,' y g[ a QA level 1 finished product. L' ben identified to PIN %
g , .*, , * {l f /,,r,
' ma na g eme nt , they assured XSRS the matter vanld be y ], J , corrected.
;M;W:.,"N . ,.
- h4!
s
.J
- 5. Feceirt Innocetion Prorran y ...j,- .. %
L" . . .The NSP.S review of the rereipt inspection pro gram was
& :c ~ . -
- linited to a review of receipt inspection reports and asse- @$
cisted documentation. Actuai receipt inspections being qF wo ;:, :, , performed were not observed. The review ef f ort consisted of
- J.: r . selecting requisitions at rand.m from the Power Stores files , ,
' and verifying that all docu:nents requested in the contract
.W
..t..l[,
I had been received. The ' proper group pe rf orcant receipt yy
*j l inspectics as required by the QA level assigned to the iten p
- wa s noted, i.e. , Power Stores persor.nel only or Power Stores pr essisted by TOI inspectors. Selected persennel from Power D .^
M Stores and TCE were interviewed to verifs their understand-ing of receipt tnspection p rocedure s . Those interviewed appeared knowledgeable of the N'X PR requtrements and site h g procedures. M
/. The receipt inspection progras at the nuclear plant sites F ', . * >
y was directly linsed to t.b e quality level assigned to the 1 *
- ma te rial being received. As such, material vtti higher h 4 '? . .
4 g. quality Icerls was inspected by IQE inspectors and asterial with lower or no quality level was inspected by Power Stores b *
'~
clerha. The types of inspection performed in those groups ] N - k.ad va rytag degrees of dif ficulty associated witA thms, and the re f o re , the inspeetor training was significant.ly diffar-
.., ent betwees T".E and ?ews r 3torve persome1.
V e-
- Q < t'l;g s-U %
n.[* 3 . g a
I G
~ .. g
. t ,...
. . , . .; .c,
. .,..#. -._s ME inspectors according to the 00AM perform receipt inspec- (it,=* **
tien of all GA level 1, level 11 substituted items those ast,<l y substituted by the vender as being equivalent to p for), level II and 1 3 items to wtaich 10.II:1 arplies and Th8 whica ars' shipped from the vendor directly to YUC TR.
. (-
Tct inspectors receive formal training and certification ,. % through t.be Powe r Training Center th.a t meets require = ants ,
- established in Regulatory Cuade (RC) 1.58 (wttch endorses h ,,
rad
- MS! 45.2.6). @
cleras according to the OCAM perf orm g certified Power Stores of CA level II con-10CTR.21 items, GA levul III, y
- inspections -
g . - . , CA leeel IV, and E3 material transferred to I'DC FR from :3
.- *a .,
D.~'/I@.Y CONST regardless of the QA h vel. The Power Stores recrie-ing clerna sunt be certified by the plant QA supervisors. @$ . To beco.e certified, 550 hours of oc-the-job trai=1cs ==.tst L7 be coatleted and ac examinatics passed with a secre of 70 [1 percent or better. Recertification was required at inte r- M ..... vals not to exceed 18 months. Power Stores persocnel were h MDN.N.TU also delegated (by the Topical Report) the responsibility of g inspecting commercial grade itema. % . . . .
~.
y
. /,hk '
The separation of TQL versus Power Stores perf orming receipt 4 . inspection occurred at CA 1.evel II and was deterr.1.ned by the ~f '.f.* applicability of ICCTTal, " Reporting of Leiects and Noc- 2 W
, *; ',7 '; ;/,.
compliances," to the ites procured.
?E can I
h o .. The documentatier. associated with the QA level II items M 7. N M D ~ vary from certificate of conformance (CDC) andDu.certified rang the k W,MNd?.if ma terial test reports (Ch 1) to pacneg slips. $ course of the review, no concistency could be established { -
* 'for docu=enta tio:i required of QA level II items. For example, QA level II items with Part 21 applicability could , .y' . . ,
require certificates of cor.formacce p nvided by the manufac-l* turer and/or certified caterials test . eport a . Contracts k h y . ,,, f or QA level II, Part 21 cet applicable, coel'. also have tae
/
7 <v- -.- N prev'ious easie requirements and/or a packing s 1p. R M' If a packing slip is the ecly documentation requested on a $ requisition, the inspect- is essentially a cumber check
- W and the on-the-j ob" Power . . ores traicing is acceptable to 0 perform the inspection. however, the appropriateness of h Power Stores personnel performing document reviews (such as CMa and CMTRs) that they hav
- cet been trained to perf ern [$
Gj assinat material received is etuestionable and of cancern to IJ n4NM . ,,. i-S FSR$. Samples of Power Stores receipt inspecting C 3 a en $
*4. 4 n, ic.
QA level II (Part 21 N/A) material were identified at FIX. 9 fiatari.al requested was to be either ASTTi A336 or A479, type $" 316 s tainle s s s te el . The CM*R received with the material k specified results f o r AST71 A 76, type 316 e tainle s s steel. The i'm w rwn' t c.a n eca f o rmed. ~'h e di!!arvues in material wee beina enlasted by ETX P*)A Staf f at the conclusies of the ret t ew . d w 26 g a
q %~" ~_
~ Q~~
sp _ msp=me w=
-- _ m_a g m- -
m m - - , _ . - -
,- ~ [^% gW =&- . W \
l R,Q
^
W QL_k_
- ": .R ,4 &
,,,,, Gknmar" 4. ? ^ ^ ^
5 l m _ _ -- ,y g.se-. 75V&w_? "
=ps" m g
l,
$wn s m m W-h es m w a m a " m m=- mm %: e "h - - - -ie-RBr --
. N*M e- __
TM- _ -- m' M Q @RD
~~
-r -
31s - ,
~_ __
wm '% mirviend.w.,ma
}! w M
.M @f o,1.JN54 hre ,'.tCQN$ic&},U,Y1agl!N Tha M '
l pers'i- a
~'
.' "flaescon rmed.ibpSQW **(referenceiftV oiidel *IMIIdh I . l Yg.Wr'a
.re, r-taylii*tede
.7:< W ve,s i. b - %t.alnad (by'.J Powir~25 tare @EI
,*. ..-wy p , ' . . .;. .' -.
- r.m::,7 - < w. y * , .#.obapit 7 1,,)k..h'*
A basis for ICCTR21 nonapplicability, in the NUC P1 'struc-,, **EEb@,N.
,
- J
. / ,3. . ; /; , O vture, was the determination of an itam to be " commercial .
l i
.:', 's
g grade." A consercial grade items is coesidered to be ma
- 1
..'. OV industry manuf actured standard product with sufficient use
' '4* . g.-
,& history in non-nuclear applications to justify its use in a
*..1.; '.
1'
, il nuclear application. hhen Part 22 was determined not appli- *
- cable. Power Stores receipt inspected the item. k
, :. ~ ,
v) *. . . ANSI 45.2.6, "Ouslifications of Inspection, E.zamination, and . l
' Testing Personnel for Nuc1 car Fo-er Plants," defines inspec-l.,' *
- tion as
' ~
- g.; .j.b - .If '** .
A phase of quality contro1 which by means of Waa-N'.* .. tion, aba ervation, or me.asurement detemmines the con-g.R 'u.'i 3 formance of materials, supplies, parta, componesta,
- . l appurtenances, systems, processes or structurus to i
, M. . ' I . .
- predetermined quality require ents.
i [**,,
- The personnel vbo perform those inspections are required to .
af ;. .
**4 also meet the established stas.darets of inspectors as speci-j .
fied in ANSI 45.2.6. 1',r,ll g % y' : ,* . If an item has no predeternio.ed quality, then an inspection , ,a
~ j,y' .5 as defined above wouldn't apply, and the Power Stores clerka j performing receipt inspection wouldn't have to be trained to g.*f;g.'
y,dN. I ) ., '. ANSI 45.2.6' requirements. l
}
i k.- p ft'7'N. .. . I I ' Q' *
- The inspection and treatment cf a commercial grade itan d 2/..' . I .
takes on new meaning and becomers quite important if the item IZ h* I,*?.'. I is subsequently used as a b.esie component. The Code of i
,hfy%g*((7,,',*. . I
, Iederal Regulations in Part 21, " Reporting ef Defects and ,
Noncompliance," s tate s that a coanercial grade item can be . {.. 14: r . .p., , y,, . ,-
* *' designated for use as a ba s ic componer.t through "dedica- ... ,
%c- tion." The dedication process is basically 77A accepting **
. .' * . ,' r :
p B 1 y(N:Q.'".J ,'"',**'.
-g.f.'.. .
l ,5.. . *. **
,l,*9:
responsibility for the quality anit performance of the dedi- . cated co=nercial ites. When TVA necepts that responsibili-ty, there should lee some dorusi..nte.1 assurance of the quality of the items. I tj That assurance could be estalslished through means such as
,- f,- N. . , . .
the followings , y .* . / b (1) sedit of the supplier
',-f* ,.
[
.i*
* * * (2) testing of the item (r.M
's-
..,.. (3) verific.aties of certificate of cocformance ! W:
?:r **.* (4) susist.aialag recorda docume sting surplier history
.! J.. *
- I i .' *l .
- . . t. .
y1 25
. 1. .
\
e I
. f -
.f-y;a. M. .1), <rf. , *. .k p n . .vza.. . *..' S..? f. * . . A L.
2!
%. ' . .. . I * %.) ; M. .". L '~ J. . * - . . .'.Y..
WWEON', Q. '+g:* *
^
. wp, . . -p..
+~. ..
- t. *r. .v. t .f,p. r.. .n. .,. , .. - . .
- ..,.r.....v.,.
~
.r L,
. . .* . . ;/.
n . u, ., 9
'.$; .m 2
- a,.O. - T,.c... id . .. /. 'D* Previonaly identified concern of Power Stores persecsal w 48.'6'(
1,p,g. r
,,g 3 g.,.- , - i .f g.,g, .,
',,7. -
Performing re ceip t inspection on s6a t e ria ls and related
**cunentation with minimal training becom.se more Lacertant r 3-g h :jyp.s . '
gcW p i ' f ,, ,' *,
",. ~ S wmee twallains t. hat commercial grade materials can be dedi- .
. - cated as basic compocants. .. ,
. &u ,.V,r. s W.Q
. .y *y i
< gD s'acy cases, the Power Stores clerk is the -. only coe who
,g..p6./ M (.
- c. . ~.. . . .
has evaluated the quality of an item before use. The impo r-k.3. 2.h'. y' tance of the inspection has gone beyond the ba s ic invwn to ry h'
.JG. .
Of itema received versus items ordered and shos.ld be per- // . 78 I ! {.N,'fl! *
,' . i' ~.c,d J
. f ormed by TQE inspectors who have been trained La t.be review N
- G, c, ,, .,,,.; . of documentation related to procured . items. h
, 2 r.. .=> ((. ;i.c..,, . ' ... Q qF.* . . . Eovever, it also should be emphasized that the TCC inspector receiving the certificate of conformance is basically look- h 4 ch t.. . int for a signature. The review team did act purs ee the l i
}fg- '. h.3 /
l
't validity of CDCs but did observe the followi.ngs Q
ie. 1 g m' n
. . . .-C1 hq 2, ,
(1) No testing is routinely performed oc material te verify y 4 ' . s. d. . material properties as s ta ted by the mamafactarsts. ed , {P 7.. l (TQT., f orua1 training doean't inc1wie te. sling sethods.) ,' i g . d- . g (2) Fot all vendors who provide CF.a with com sercial grade
} f i
s$ h,3 '/@[ N i i
' s.aterial have been a udited by TTA. The re f o rm , the / [3
} I g# , value of the COC would be in question. d 3 W i. P-j
$ ..v..- (2) Supplier and product history has not been meizt.ained ce D,@.d ' . . materials received and used o ns ite . The re f o re , no
'. r M.
$(*,,"; . documented bases exist to substantiate the acceptabili-
.' M
..NiWD . ."
ty of an ites on that has is. .3 h *
.l?.
. ~.N' .; ".,"E.
'~ * ;f f,
- As a result, for true commercial grade items sc; plied by a .
~7,Q-,.. vencer vi*.hout an approved QA program and with oc sc7 porting -
. g wt,,g, *,y ,-), .
CA documentation, the only as suring activity rtmatt.123 for ' tp v~y.M,* .
':TA is t e s ti.n g of the ites. No program was identified that * :"' $
. '.$f,@'.3TR.'(./- 1 tested items upes receipt. As identified in section Y.C -..
... i'.f ."
l there are no TVA controls over the manuf acturing process or l'
' Mh M P ma te rials f or true CDemercial grace items that Con 1d assurt *
- N gP * [ ' -
- that the materials of cons t ruction and eperability cf an .' ~ [
g,f ., - item is acceptable for its intended purpose or its e viron-
- g Ae. Q; .l. '. . , , . mest cf cperation.
7' -
* *.r
. e, gT. . .
.~ *. ..
rial FUC PR personnel stated a functional test of equi;=ent was {
.;L
.gry[-[y:,,. if , *[-[. ' ., d .vide
- 4 required vten repaired or replaced. That test shonld pre- .' -F g;.v..
- s uita bl e evidence that the itee functions p repe rly ' ; *'.Y1
~ 5.W.'! under normal eperating conditions. That test will not, '1 .[4*
s j] v .# '-( bowever, provide any assurance or demonstrate an ability of Y5 @
./? .
that itas's functionability with respect to time or enrires- G.*E
- MM].m Q,:
mental conditions present during .in accident. As such that %- lf6
~
e 7:'7 ,,,,. femetieaal test is unsuita bl e for assurica a eassesreial */O - grade itse used as a basic ccr vosest will function as 7 ' ;%M i 1 .'WrM' re9 aired earing accidest conditions. ,
**1- Q l
&. W.M.),!. -
gQc..-:. :.; .M. . . .: r. -
.4 Q m l *?Qm;. , ~ .
tr%;, .:~3* .
%. .a Q , .
- < -
- :* * .. M ~ %
w :3 . ' . +4 .)- - S Ao - ; ,
' . ' /.7 11
1
.- l
- 6. Storaee ar.d Reo rde r o ' Shelf Life Items a
The complete storage program for all procured materials was i not reviewed at this time due to the amount of work already performed in this area by other TVA organizations. Some ; inadequacies and noncompliance to DPM requirements have already been identified through audits performed by OQAB of l the storage program (reference nudit report BT-8400-03). BTN and SQN are currently planning and building larger storage f acilities whic:. will reduce some inadequate storage conditions. Follow-up activity related to the OQAB audit should include a review of the entire storage function on ; all procured materials to verify compliance to DPM N82A17
" Equipment and Materials Storage Requirements for Nuclear Power Stores ."
The NSRS review team limited the storage portion of the review to an area not emphasized in previous audits, but one that presented problems in the accessibility of materials. A basic problem identified by site employees was the unavailability of routine inventory items, with limited shelf Itfe, when needed for tsaintenance. Examples told to the review team at both SQN and BFN involved rubber products such as 0-rings and gaskets and chemicals reaching their expiration date with no suitable replacements available in
,, stock. A limited review in the storago area was performed W" " p te address the specific problem of shelf life items. The storage requirements reviewed include the OQAM Part III.
Sections 2.1 and 2.2, DPH N82Al7, DPH N77A2, ET16.4 and SQA45. Discussions were held wit h Power Stores representa-tives who have the respcasiM11ty of performing the inspec-tion on shelf life items a r.d the subsequent reordering of materials. Records were also reviewed for completeness and accuracy of previous inspections performed. The N-0QAM addresses the inspection of shelf life items in both Part III, Section 2.1, " Procurement of 11sterials, com-ponents. Spare Parts, and Services," and in Part III, Section 2.2, " Receipt and Inspection, Handling, and Storage ff of Materials, Components, and Spare Parts." y Part III, Section 2.1, e paragraph 3.2.3.4, " Limited (or y Shelf) Life Material," states t h.e t "For additional guidance y in NUC PR's policies with regard to limited shelf life or ,;p natural aging life refer to DPH No. N77A2, ' Storage and 5 Shelf Life Considerations for Materials with Natural Aging gf Life.' This document covers requirements for procurement,G recnipt inspection, periodic inspection, and disposition." While DPM N77A2 previously contained shelf life requirements its revision los under the entry of March 21, 1983, stated that the " Revision removes requirerients for periodic inspec-tion of materials with limited shelf life." It did, how-ever, contain a requirement to reorder shelf life material
\
27
- 6 e.
- l. :. "
..4. *;,;.-e - . Y, g, - ,'.,% ,
, ( :.
p' . f .
. . *' .' ' i .'r , y ,
.. . 1
... at least three months prior to their erpira tion da te. As
. stated in section V.R.1, three non-ha smay be an inadequate ,-
lead time. f ~ ~ . " - .. Part III, Se ction 2.2, pa ra g ra ph 4.3, Inspections ," s t.ated . [- f. .- that In s pe c tion s shall be performed and documented on a ' ' ' {.' P, 'Mi pe riodic basis to ensure the integrity of the i tem and its .# . '
-*4 . conLainer la being maintained . . . specific ina P'e tion D
- require.ents for equipment and material are delineated in D . .* ' q. DPM NE2A17." That DPM, which did not cover all items with * "
- '. ,J shelf life, was revised on September 7, 1984 re=ortng the inspection criteria.
4
- Consequently, whatever inspectaan process was intended by h *,p~ the OQAM reference to lower tier document requir==amta was m lost with the revision of both DPhs.
F M The Power Stores personnel at SQN and EU had different ,,. c..." procedures for inspecting and reordering ma t.crial wit.h a + ff(($i. 5*.., sheif life. Materials were being inspected at SOE swear the erpiration date and then reordered. ETR wa s perf orming an - A - inspection ween material reached about one-aalf its speci-l M .' S1 fie.1 shelf life but assigned a low priority to the recroer-ing of those materials. i w-y * *
.' $0.4 Power Stores personnel did state that a sb. elf life its.
,* inspection program would be initia ted in t.he smar intes . 9
. - .,.; but no specified date was identified. The progarn described d
would provide an inspection at six montaa p r.' o r to the expiration date.
;3 ..
..t ;
, The ETN site procedure ET16.4, ** Materials, Components, mod
,3 O.,
g . Spare Parts Receipt, Handling, Storage. Issuing. Return to ,
'1j 7 , Store Roon, a nd T ra r.s f e r ,',' wa s reviewed. ET16.4 referenced g]a,. y},1.*
incorrectly DPM N77A: for the storage and inapection re-y
- 2. , , .,- , quireme ts of shelf life items. ET16.4, section 4.8, was - .
. ! consistent with EPM N77A: and required the reorder of shelf -
i i g
;,j 4./ '. ~
5- I'.', life material at least ltee montha be f o re the erpiration date. l
~~
*ad N.. . ~
! .. . . In order to verify compliance with the ET16.4 ins pe ction -
.f.'
requirement, three months of computer pratouts (Ma y 19 84
's * '" i -
. through July 1984) were reviewed that listed all shelf life g stock items due to expire durini the month. A checkmark fu a -
M) had been placed by each ites t7 Power stores personnel l ht verifying that an inspection had been perf ormed. That type e f documentation did not meet the requirement of OQAM Part Section 2.2, parastspb 4.3, which stated that a form I, g Q "" ar ze att.achment 4 of that OOAM section should be u. sed ' N. p fea Lampections.
,k At RIT five i ta-o were selected iros the June 19&4 cmtar 1,T ,. listing to arvaluate t.be s he l f lif e i ns pe ction p roces s. Of . 's
,,, ,.' f theed , taae itame werv jedred by RTI te t>e La a ecep tab 1e ,.'
^
.T,,,, 2, 4 . .I M w* u r_
n% :::.1 ,_ -
. . .m2
, ~g -
gg .. r _wa 1 -
~
us J 9 m.s-6 w -
~ '
4 :.sj g
- y g .i %.. ?.w; :- - .
3-M -.b. ,,..m:n... .. ,.xr.o . .u.. .n .
. n;ffl7&:..D.b
*. r ; :
' \*, o . -
u .9 7, i.LC. M.?*. .c, .n.'ei
.Id;Y.h condition and their shelf life did not erpire for another y l
$[.pQ'; &;, ,,,$ t ,' [
year. Therefers, no reorder was required. In contrast. - m tAree of the items were due to erpire wi thin th re e montha . and had not besc ordered, i.e., a purchase request had no t ,,.
%gjY
- u::,.'. ,' ,
. ' .j;;', . ,i- been written. -
)j
.H M..r." V It was espbasized by Power Stores th.at those small quantity -..',
.y
,bh ,'f,,',;A
;,' ] items were not beleg reordered until a larger qu.antity ortier could be made. Ce rta in constraints regarding the m i n t = ==
T rp dollar value of orders were imposed by P'JROX and enf actar- .7 [y,.K . . " . ,' ers. Vhile the size of an order aLay be relevant, me te rials @ ff , '.
, D. ?* * 'f should also be ordered in a timely mac.ner. The consolida- ,
tion of orders to make '* quantity orders" was t.be respanai- . I s n ., . bility of P.SS. (See V.C.1 f or details.) . 2 .. 3. . SN. Vben asterial esceeded its specified s helf life, whict
" , a ppea re c; to be a cesson occurrence, specific apprtreal bry j.. POR: was required at each site to use t.be outAated i tas .
y . ., ; - here recent industry philosopby regarding ma te rials with
- g. g P,. , ,
shelf life is centained within ANSI /AS".I VA-1-1979, &cpple-yc .7 5,s meut 85-1. That standard requires that abelf life itene be
- 2. 4 : i. identified and controlled to preclude t.h e une of i t ,-s h"
a pe /. '" ..
, czeeeding their shelf life. As such it appears inappropri-ate for TVA to remove requirementa regarding abelf life
- . [ 7' "
inspections, and to co=tinue the practtee of recr6erlag
- . , material as the shelf life erpires or without s ufficien t
' . . .~. lead twe to assure a supply of f resh material.
C ',. . - q,; g - - C. Power Steres
.):. 6 u
, . .f .
- 1. M ar.d SOV Fewer Stores
.. .r,.s'.
~
q ., ., y r . De initial review time in Power Stores was spent gainica an .
, underst.anding cf the ba sic nechanics of s ite prorurements ..'
Y ,. (ferns used, terminology, coordinatice required, time D'. ,. I delays, etc.) and reviewing procurement files. Power Stores 6 . l maintains a file on each p ro cu r ement, which includes all
*'}(S.
,'; . , ',' , "[ available icformation relating to the specific procu.reme=t '..
[.,. (request, requisiticc, receipt icspection report, etc.). '
.* k, . : Thosi files be came a maic source cf icformation for the review tese and, with a few minor exceptions, were essen-L *g.' , tially complete recorda. Various person =e1 were intervieved '* '.s to as cer*.ain their understanding of the total procurement
, . system and to identify their specific responsibilities and - problems within the procurement systes. Those interviewed i appeared conscientious in the performance of their under-
- sto.d responsibilittes and de onstrated a willing ne s s to
- e '.
assist the review teem in lurating documents relating to ( specific p ro cu r emen t s . Areas reviewed inrluded t.be aute- % A '* m.ated re ordering of stock itesa, the utilisation of the Wm ,g
;., , d.a ta ba s e , the shelf life ites inapection program, the Power M.
-i S ta tes receipt inspection program, a s s ocia t ed t ra tr.ita , mm.4 h a d li.s g of re co rds . (The receipt inspeettom p rog ram and
.d
' 7.. s ta r a ge ei shelf life strus were previessly disessM ia '"J:
.', sectroaa V.R.5 and V.R.6 resp.eetively.) R.
* * ~
M . a b .* 4.'. og
- . , - y - . - - - - - - - - , , ,,-- - n - .. - - . - .na
of i N y. g y SYf g /,,a*f,. - ., a,',
...,.a,...
l.8'p,Y';..**(,y
. P; -W. **
e . . > r .: . I h i $2': g . e. r . . .;
'.'O !. b Power Stores p e r s o n.n e l we r e responsible for typing requisi-l ~~~' e' tions and coordinating all the required s i g na t u re s . Thsy r alou helped locate needed materials within TVA by stilistag .
l .'..$jd 7* . ..'.k. - available in f o rma tion on the Matt 3 systes and eastated in
' Q M,.
- coordinating transfers of materials between divisiens and .
iv4 ((*,, P'$<. ether storeroces. Reorders of stock i tama ve rs als o initi-ated by Power Stores. 4 { g .h," ,
~
J;.*:<
.~ * \ .be utilization of the MAMS da ta ba se ens ite was coctrolled * @ 'L' i .t ..f[
I by Power Stores. Basic information on stock itane was I
^'
E d ." ' available through that system which luncticoed on a Reorder D $ . . ' . Foirt/ Reorder Quantity (ROP /ROQ) concept. In principle a , .; V ~.2
- ma z a s:um (MAX) inventory level was es tablished f or eaca itme , t to support plant needs wit. bout e.acessive invwntory. A j 3 ,
O -
}}.;
, mintmum level or RCP was also est.ablished which allewed .l sufficient time to order and receive repla creents without ,
'l exhausting the inventory. Vben the stock level reactwd th i
~ . R0P (MIN) amount, an order could be pla ced f o r the 30Q ta !
7 g.. ~; bring the i=ventory back to the tiA% level. The fW:5 system l 7 also contained data as to the d.a te and a-t of as item (%,, a
;[4 ,,
withdrawn at that time, i. e . , a us a g's h.is to ry.
- V *
{
' s u \
1 E ' The developme=t, maintenance, and changes te the MA::3 rystam with inputs from Power Stores and NUC FR are the respocai-bility of the Materials Management Services S t.a f f Q2:53 ) . , The MA%-MIN levels have been evaluated by the **:::2 in an .
.. atterpt to better utilize stock inventories, either increas-
.[ .
ing or decreasing as ne c e s s a ry. site personnel A basic probles f a ced by was caused when MM55 reduced stock levels 1 based on inceaplete information. Piccurements throngn f : ,'i,' emergency and field purchases on a specific item were not
- v. C inc luc e rt in the twiS usage history and theref ere were not
.4 ,
incluced in the eva lu a ti c r.. Both users of MAX 5 and ??:::.5 . .
= q. ,
personnel effered explanatices cf why and how stock short-i s' . ages of certain items occurred. NSES decided that ascer- I
.* t taining the validity of the crplanatiens would get be {
e *' li fruitful, as Tower Stores and M*.$5 were well aware of th problee and appeared to be cooperating in establishing 'I l.
>ea ning f ul usage histories to base stock reductions a n.d i . increases on. L:r.f e rt una t e ly , the originatcre at f45 and FJN *- felt they were being harpered in their work by not having
- 1
. )'. basic materials available when needed. Wey cenaldered ti".!S "]
the problem because MAX levels weren't high enough. A j' probles, resulting from the s hort a ge of materials in stock , and tbc MAX level being too Inw, was identified at both 2JN l and SQM and involved the boarding of materials. .l l >
,4
. l . In an atterpt to ensure adequate supplies wten needed, user d 1 organizations would " buy out" certain itema as they arrived 4 1 in the stockroom, thus forcing t he reo rde r o f tha t itam. 1 Fower stores pe r s onne l s ta te d tha t on some specific it ,
]"
,( ,
** ema tte r wt.a t the tiAI level was, ts ,y CWd er % q
;. material in stect. Those ita=a varied f rom acre and cleea- ..
124 8"TFl l's 18 F l astic bottles as>4 electrical 9 P. -t, f 30 .' i _ _ - -- _- , ~~ --c. . - _ _ _ - _ _ _. ,_ _ - - . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ - __ _ . - _ _ . - _ _ - _ - _ - _ _
. g
.I .
I
. .. L
(* v*w 4e-~ Y.t..'. . .W ~$..P..~. W~' . ...
. . . . ..s.
- r
$s,.4.. . :. . .:,,',<.......
f*, I..N. .. . ' ../ " ". .
~.y
.e .,,, .u...e. :, . . . . s. .
',' h.' :. .il.C 7 *t: .
Q;f * . . . .. d ' .'* ; f .**:.r i - . U ;.f 9,.
. q F
, ' ,d Power Stores is responsible for issuing ma ta rial wtas ,
h~ih.N+.2.0 c.j,';$ t. j . .'i ' r w ested and not for questionics the usage of matarial. 2_ G .
'f)ff.$.'U.M ;'tQ," V The boardias of materials demonstrated the f rustration level Wb
.f.W.
- g P p . d d s
..,(
Qi 3.'.Y., W..!,,jf. . ,
.erperienced by maint enance and modification pe rs onnel and , . g. g]
j#;"h*.$.h their lack of confidence in the procurweent syntau. The .g
' e. 4
.$.'$ 'M{.f..s... boa rding problem was discusse 1 with Power Storse Personnel '
'gg ' W., at Lbe central office. Plans we re described for better . ,r
-97',
.#,J.T.k.Q.*
IM:'d utilisation of the Power Stores Distribution Canta r in I
~~'
Chatta noo r s as a source of beavy use stock ita-a. Plan.s . ". 1b [k '[M~
- f. also included the e s ta blis tment o f the ETI warsbouse as a [ q n'.i . * .ya
~
,W. .yr ,. .
' ,.ff, [ * . .
Power Stores Distribution Cente r. . ' ..
.p.+.... ,s. ' e. a u'/v % 8.J Contained within the MAMS sys t em was the capability of titSS :: - .Q-y ,* t s d...i. ' in Chattanooga to monitor atoek leeels at all Fvwer Stores '(-
( ai j h i;. .Yri
- locaticos and to automatically reorder ma terial as the '
$ ,'.M.*.....,
reorder point was reacted. tW:S also had the capability of .< g;s
. /Od:D. f. ' combining orders of like material, but 22'.53 perscanal stated . i. '"'
. W. '
- they were prohibited from using that feature by OGO. The ' !3 '
I [ff-. ,$'%,*g[,:;,[f,
,jfa reasoning 5t hind that prohibition was not pa.rsmed. -
h
.~ !
m )
...,.h,'
jft; 4 While the MA".S system has an automatic reorder feature, it. , i.. ( a j g%Q2.j7. p.. el/* .f *I was not being utilized because t.he pl. ant TUE was regired hy the OQA". to review and approve all procurements (boti (A and 7 k Q,",'.R . ",' .r . non-QA). Consequently, all inventory reorders wer* Frepared .6 h 1
.hg . ,.,.. by hand and the combination of like orders by 12ES was g
','e^...~** performed by hand. Rationale for not using the automatie '.
G y
"'! .* [.' , ,, s 7';d reorder systen was that the MA".S system was not a QA systru ;; A UI.
dw;.J..( ' and changes to the inf ormation within F1AMS (material speci-fications, CA level, etc.) could be made without CA know- '] C7
. . . '.6 '
ledge or approval. In f o rm.a tion was provided 35ES which
- .19k it, erplained eff orts underway to develop a procedure acerptable *
.N
./j.D,.;, . to QA which would protect the 21AMS system f rom u.nauthorized ..
CA changes.
. (.:;. . ,
,, NSRS highly endorses that effort. Upon com- J' pletion of that feature the PW15 systes should b.e n. sable to p ,l '.', / , ".2* .
t y*
- g,.
9 a larger t.ztent, thus alizinating the censiderable ma:Pever requirements currently required to manually reorder 12.ven- " W.f, (,,,, A, , - teried material. T. h M *. ,- f< p".'y . *6 d is, 1. Power Stores Distribution Center I d M. , f -
-' q p ;5- The review of the distribution center in Chattanooga and the
- Investment Recovery Program (IRP) warehouse at D was
* /"$,'%,
9 ,, . limited to discussions with Power Stores personnel. y
- * < uj,m
,e m
O *'. ., Power Stores currently has a distribution center warehouse .
. j.I 'r , 'J in Cha tta noo g a . At the time of this review ovwr 100 items ** #
'Q*, , .
were being stocked there. The basic concept of that center
- 4. . ,* wws to provide a warehouse of inventoried itame that the
- I plaata stectroces could draw f rom. I>escribed plana inclahd g.
3 sumistaimi.ng a 6-month suFply of ita=a, thereby allowing the '. h[.~.*- (f Pl mets te reduce their inventory and associated s to ra re *
. T E #'/. ,
Sj' regeiramenta. In coece.p t that idea appea rs fumetionally ' .E'% : 3 [J "' sa'end but will revirv the csaeperatite o! a11 twecareed te I'# k Q a a-Y
,, b '.
31 ;-
.:sem ;,. = N-
&m l
. e
/. , t l .
l
~
l .. h
&. $.*.."['
3_- f.39 . t, J. Work within the system. During this review, Powe r S to r e s * [%r M
% was having difficulty maintaining a stock of seps, for .
h-Q. d*%.i . ., W) - wcene ve r a celivery was made to BTN to replenish t.beir inventory, plant personnel would " buy ou t ** the maps and _;
-. j board them. That process created a real shortase within the
- .!* C 9% * . , ..i u
.$ Powe r S to re s' s ys tes based upon a perceived shortage by the +
'i, !kf[' ./'. " Y h d'.V
- users. : 7, ~
G+f g' i. .. ,- l
'Mi he distribution center did not have a QA program, but Power T-O . . .* . . '-..'
( Stores personnel stated that one was t>eing developed. At
- e
'[$
AY.
~.
the ti.me of this review the only QA material stored at the center consisted of welding ro.1 and dye penetrant. As Pow r -( * *
"h.f.
-- ., Stores personnel were not ANSI F45.2.6 trained receipt -
..*A
[ :l. . M inspectors, any quality ma te rial received at the center ,
,.g " * * *, required an TQE inspector to go from SQM to the cestar to g ;j. ,
i . Perform the receipt inspection. .
- .v. 2
,[
I . **pl c * .y-- The IRP associated with TVA's canceled r.uclear plaats pre-j" j d:, vided a vast supply of materials to the remaining nuclear .- pW ,.Q..
- plants. Power Stores was in the process of t.aking enetrol ... .,
- *~
.M * * .
4 m . '. of the h~X IRP warehouse operation. It was described as containing caterial with an acquisition cost of approzi-i , W. f. , mately 100 million dollars including approximately 23,000 u l .- N.* I'l valves. Approximately 40 percent of that material had 04 i documenta tion sufficient to support us e in a OA rystem a.nd I '$ * *
- g [Q4.? >, .
the remaining 60 percent was suitable for non-CA systems or a g 17 N./, fossil plants. I.ike the Cha ttan oo g a distribution cantar, Power Storts described plans to keep t.de CN facility as a ' , 4,*p.:, distribution center for large items. The L"X f acility was g 7 .fi . also having QA and preventive maintenance procecures M ( !g?'-@.j(,- . .. prepared. h b *, *
, .'.(9 %
D. Central Offfee- ,. @y@ hd *- .*
. The central of fice portion of the procurement review primarily involved the following groups: Nuclear Central Office Quality h
f.tfj*;*.
,1*>
Assurance kracch (N00 QEE), F00 tia te rials Mana g ement Section
!- W, . . (MMS), Central Power Stores, and the Materials hanagement Ser- - O vices Staff cf Operations Support.
f.] ;w-
-c 5/. *.f. .I.
The OQAM (Part III, Section 2.1) was the reference used to define l b ~D' . . . 9 - I the responsibilities that each of the above groups had in the f ,]l ?. . p rocurement cycle. Tlowcharts which correspond to the OQA.5-
.d(.
defined responsibilities were found in DPM N7 A14 Requisitions
$.ps[,fg.* for cA level I and II (Part 21 ap;1 cable) e.sterials and services
- U~
M i J', l *
- were reviewed try various groups in the NCO. Power St. ores and S . : ., l * . 2233 basically reviewed requisitioni. for inventory items. Ieple- t G .n.
mestation of these documents was evalua ted with or.ly a f ew excep.
? 4*.
tiens to comp 11aace identif ted. '.I
- 4. .
It shoeld be smoted t.ha t many of the N00 procurement responsibili- ,
\. ties and a s e. cia ted pe r s ee.se l ha d been transferred to the plant .J f4 N. V. * .
sites se Oct**er 1, 1984, and t he o rg a nisa tion reviewed by X*l2" one the see in plecs prior te October 1,1984 A.a t.he fnettlema
, *U
.J Q.} l m '
;$D( . . :: ..'; ;
2 :. . .;; . , e
- ~ . . _ . _ . . _ . - _ _
- t. . .
4 m "
.e. w- -
MJ ;* . ; ** .
~'
,~ i,W..T ?-* s* :-)l.,4*J.'Y.* ;.: NIi,$. ,(a':' * * "
~
y
- l. ad & mx:',;j,.T .'. *
. y,8 .h. 'e,V:';,- . . ,A; *M.*g,: * ~. ; . .
~
J M W,%.. t L' ; . .: , ; ... [4.,;O. q: ". ;.w.6, 7,gA. -}* .- v;, w y .
.. e ~..r..', .
' ;. 'ad resp 00sibilities no longer asist at the N00, sa individual . . "j3
- i f
- Q.'.l ' ,
b re a kdown of each organisation and associated problems will not -
, &udg,, ? . Le .. . ,.r ..,;;p e, - . . .
be presented but an overall s-ry is previdad.
'.. , .'.; .'.. p. %. .
,5.N.k' T If$fdi. 5. ~
- S.
lProcurements of CA level I and II 10"TK Part 21 applicable ma te rials and se rvice s were circulated f or review and aFyrtreal .I "
; ; 4-N
'.'"~' b h.i.' h.t'h....,, *
.. i ' throutbout the N00 groups identified above. The er.ly group erith .
' '. ',',$j'/.? j
$2 D.*,i ht.y@,}.:(C' f-
- any visable tapact upon a procurement packase was the N00 Qt2.
*.WOf, $,,.9'siscatures
', . * .
- 7 1, F .. Other aroups provided of approval or acknowledr===nt .g
*@f'* .- T Q. * - or were within the distribution cycle due to the namiia tes - of e . y ,cp g b,',70 1.j .97.J .. p ,
organisational communications. The value added to the procure -. , .g
.t yf.M1,;.{l,..,tQ ment documents by Cg8 on tne 21 procurements f ollowed f ross the ; ..
IM.y. *
- y. &;'.D l. * *.A; ; .' ~ .
. sites through the NCO was minimal. For the most pa rt CD changes d '.fl' )
h*{.G*[:;-ll!-* ,. . were editorial rather tha n substantive (e.g., chansiac the ,)
-J
{ W;Q .j f g ,
,iN.. verbiase specifying 200TR Part 21 was applicable). Technical review of procurements were also being perf ormed t y C'F.. both , [lj; , - N, 3;W: r,: .. I the 00M and DPM N72All. specified it was to be performed try the l?4 % ~'/.Q j-.
- g. g/gg'. >
.: , ; yjflis" N00 technical branches when required. R$25 found that the ta.2-
.nical branches who were previously performing most of the tsch- *@
F l nical reviews were no longer doing so and it was being performed t 4 C." } 3,p*i: a ; .i. .)3 .% <. ' by an 50-2 mechanical engineer in QEP.. /J?
.C l h
y d , k )j ' ,. ,) U .."[ The responsibilities of the P.*.S were essentially clerical. They were to " coordinate central office NUC TR procut-t ethca- ' 3 , p,3 g',7 l *; tions among the nuclear plants, Power Stores, and the E:0." j- (OQAM Part III, Section 2.1, 0.0.1) They also performed a revie e .. 9l *.. .J., 6, Qy.}; of requisitions for "a cainis t ra tt ve correctness and eng lets-cess." (0QM, PART III, Section 2.1, paragraph 3.1.2.10) The .l T.' f
* 'g ,, ,. ' .
. review was similar to others perf orme<t by the site and not eve-
4 'ype;/
, , sidered necessary by NSRS. Th e M*.S s e rv e d a s a paper coordinator 4-t *
.- , that moved f)A levels 1 and Il requisitions between Pow.er Stores, i
M f.C'*, * .1,3 ' ,F'..' N00 CIE, and the teettnical branches. Tiles had also been main- l i N f ,.f '., 'tained on specific requisitions, but these files were not evalu-
;*l~. l t' ' I '. . i atetf f or coepleteness because, they we re being transf erred to the i
. 7 1 ant sites. The ?O'.S also *interf aced eith c ther p ro cr rement *t
}s~W.
*y .'*h / groups on IQT contracts. The IQT tractics cf available funda an.d 6 E D g ...; ;. .'f' ',. administration of IC* ontracts were f unctiens still performed ty ./.#
l g ( the 20'.S af ter the Oct er 195!. reorganination. .,y
',,c.*,'
- l ;.vi.,_ j Tindings retardir.g ler.gth of tic >e to prepare, review, ar.d approve
- D procurements within NUC ?R can be sumarized as icilows:
v' * , %,. * + uJ ': 1. Ne rmal direct charge procurements took 4. days to prepare Y, ': 3
- and apprewe at tbc sites and conths to review and approve . L~.
Rr*.' *
. in the N00. '9'e
@. 4, , . .:T-e
,f,{, ,F. 2. Emergency direct charge procures *nts took 4 days to prepare ,.y
. a nd approve at the sites and 7 days to 1 mont.h (15 d.sys
- l.
;%, everage) ,for the NCO to review and approve. )%.
I,P 6 b. . . . . C. .
; 5.- 3. Zmergency 1scuests for Lelivery took I da y to p repa re aamd , *; r eppreve oc.sita and 8 to 14 daya !oe the Irll0 to rvview W '( ..
.l,?. .[ *
[(%.0,Q*i.'
^ '
ayy revs .
,Gl.
My; ' * . . , ni hy ~-;#pf .. 3
~ . ' u.
3E $c. l.' . l-
- 4. hors cocplacated non r rm t i ne procurement took 1.5 months for th. rite to prepard e i.J approve and 7 accthe for the NCO to
- t. L.r ,. :tove. '
(
\
- ,; a: .ced that the NCO provided little azaistance en >
,n. . . . c.1 cae procurement o f se rvice s to decontamisstr
. ,y..r a "et.in. house CCP motor for SQ.4 was reviewed whers ca. 41
- ser,tl, r:0 f.elp and input was praivided; however, consider-it s ill the procutearnt dccuments reviewed, the value added by the i:3 could not support the continuation of several weeks or -
nonths delay between preparation at the site and t ransmitting the procurement package to vendors for hids. The NCO was not provid-ing a service the plants could not provide for themselves with proper training. NSRS supports the hTC PR decision to eliminate the NCO from the procurement review cycle provided the function was not just transferred unchanged to the site. E. Of fice of Enrineering - The Office of Engineering (CE, formerly Engineering Design) was [ reviewed from the standpoint of their involvement in the procure- f( ment process for operating plants. Their involvement primarily consisted of design work on modifications. As a general rule if a modification involved the procurement of engineered items (vs1ves, pumps, etc.) OE would procure those items. hTC PR would procure .any rernaining stock type items (steel, pipe, conduit, etc.). A part of the modification package consisted of a Bill of kS;9. Materials which listed all the asterials needed for the modifica-tion and identified by procurement contract number those pur-chased by CE. A problem expressed by NUC PR, but not pursued as a part of this review, was that the Bill of Materials did not necessarily arrive onsite in time for NUC PR to know what mater-ials to buy. As a result, modifications were sometimes started not knowing if all the required meterials were available. Inconsistencies between OE and RttC PR terminologies and proced-ures were identified which could present problems. One such inconsistency involved the QA level assigned procured material. Within OE material was either QA material or not and if it were QA material 10CFR Part 21 was applicable to the vendor. NUC PR, on the other hand, had four different levels of quality within the QA materials it purchased and non-QA material. Within the four QA levels two had optional 10CTR Part 21 applicability. Consequently what was designed and constructed as either a QA system or a non-QA system was being maintained and modified using six different QA classifications and no QA. This is not to imply either is more or less correct, but to point out an inconsistency within TVA of doing work that really should not be there. Another problem was ide tied in that the nomenclature used to define the various design classifications for piping systems were different for each plant and no official definition for the classifications could be found. As. engineer within OE provided a list he developed for his own use. Engineers at the plants have 34 j'
OP
.\ -
4
.j o . 41 -(if, ,
w
;tr...
f I
. L :: l
' b
- a problsa k.newing what a piping classification means en a modif f- .
{ . , cation drawing because the plant engineers don't classify their s ys t ema tbs same way as CL. That problem results in the Plant U .' g engineer having to c oasrunica te with OZ for an in te rp re ta tion j { . [f,, ' ' bef ore material is bought so t.be appropriata e6ste rial sp.ecifica- g
'g;.[.L . ; ' " ,
Etion can be placed upon t.be ites procured. 4
,N J 'F. - 7 % & '::l Regarding CE procure ents, one good practice was identified in }
h.. y, .- 4,that Raquests for Delivery on an IQ7 contract could be issue o riosa Another review practice, wtLiand ch g
** N he .k [ .'
approval process employed by NUC FR, 7 [ s * '. will be discussed furtber in section V.fi, of questionable validt- , 6 ty'was islentified. Where a large com ponen t was assemeled from g b j% sf *[d,J. :rI ,; g " ", coeree rcia l grade parta (parts not requiring an AE3I 3M.: QA g II
"* % ^ ' 7- an II enviroemment.
o
- 4. . ' \7 program over manuf acturing) and qualified tacom=crcial grade and v [
h CE centinues to procure replacement parts as
).$. ?"' -
+
assumes the cotrponent maintained its 1T, classificatloa. areas for improvement specific to CT. were ioentified la th l' O
- h. No ls.mited aress reviewed. g>
Sy, v y. 7,,, , y: . T. Pur cka s iD r. N
. .?.
M.- in ?G3 involved gaining an understamdiat W
- The review time spent gp i. :,. of the laws pertaining to Federal procure =enta. identifying LA*
g g.'.' , ., purchasing agents' (PA) re s pons ibili ties and their specific proe.- g . , less within the procurement cycle, and t racting specific requist- y Tu p ,-'
- tions through the bid process and award of contract. Specific d
%,.~ internal FG2 procedures were not revteved or evalo.ated cme to W- time constraints. The pas appeared conscientons and professional $
".y I -
%.f.; , in the perfor=ance of tneir responsibilities and cemos.strated a
, i ,
willingness to help in improving the procurement systan. They $ d ' i v censistently erpressed ce=cern over the excessive u.s e cf emer- . h de
,..el,.
g( . seney purchases and unrealistic *want" cates and bow these affect
.= A credibility with vendors. The pas also stressed the need to h
d
,d
. be l te chnically accurate en all specifications found ir. rep.isi-
[(. . .$ tions. In the PA's opinion, too :any specification problems were gy
-.' *, being identified by venders and not within the T7A review cycle.
..{.
i m Coe review area involved obtaining a general underst.anding cf the N f. legal constraints placed en Federal procurements, hany were j - identified including low bid and TEC and small basiness require-
+
5 g ' menta. Many of these requirements, including their impact t:pon I t % the procurement process s uch a s time d e la y s , we re unknowv. to s ite j i Q ,,'. technical and FCC personnel. A relatively new constraint, Publie Law 96-70 and the associated requireeent that procureme=ts of
$10,000 and over be acvertised in the coeacree Business Dailv ,
i (g prior to the bid process were known by site persensel and pre-sented more consternation than any of the others discussed during f 1 a
', . i .r this rettew. That law allows all interested venders the equ.al l erpertun,ty t o bid on an ites and delayi bid opening of items t.:p to 4
'(; d.ny s . Unfortunately, cue to the great n. saber required E
l
to be sovertised in the Ceweeree Busines. *aily t y all Teoe ral
'T
?! l e
M*. sa
' h
& .. g r E
- l
- tint p e t . ..I re. ult 1 t t' e D> par'-
e
...c J .s ,).c.J. . .t pr. ..t.J ,
ei 1 y 11 n .1 : of 1 n. thy proce .
.s .J L's trvin Le a Cl ths 4b=l f [
, 1.% r s V t a W i r e n < .. a of the waitit.a ,'
it inates.. II.J they bacs avera of t' - a
.o r s . 4 0.1 to e:sp e c t that that ti o to the ordarin2 lead titas becausa no *
..u.. . ctor.d in aither by the ori:inator or
;rce r <nt procasa.
, !. ce identified by the pas was the amount of tima
- i :, solution of problems identified on a requisition
..:<,;iona tchen by vendors when submitting bids. The PA utd r:t connon t c a t e directly with the originator. In fact, the PA typically did not know who the originator was. The signature of the originator was not on the requisition. Therefore, the PA had to rely on someone else (possibly irom Power Stores or the Materials Unit onsite or NCO) to coordinate resolution of prob-less identified with the requisition after the bids were received. The agents varied as to the method used in the coordination process although all 'we r e aware of the resultant time delay.
Another problem identified by the pas was the time delay involved in getting bids approved by the NCO QA Staff. The " review" per-(@np,; formed by NCO QA (when no exceptions to the contract are taken)
consisted of stating which of the low bidders were on a list of vendors with a TVA-approved QA program. The process of PURCH sending the bids for review was extremely cumbersome and time consuming. FURCH sent the bid to Management Services, who sent it to Materials Management, who sent it to QA. After approval the process vas reversed. If an exception was involved, QA would send the exception to the site and coordinate approval between PQI, Materials Unit, and originator as necessary. ,
The time delay resulting from the seemorandums and paperwork generated in stating which of the lowest bidders had a TVA-i approved program was considered excessive and unnecessary by NSRS. In many cases the PA had worked consistently with a parti-cular cocnodity and was knowledgeable of the approved vendors. To eliminate time delays and excess written comusunication, it would appear prudent to establish guidelines to allow pas the task of selecting the lowest bidder from the approved vendors list. That responsibility would be applicable for cases only in which no exception was taken by the vendor. The PURCH portion of the review occurred a few days prior to the October 1,1984 transfer of NCO procurement responsibility to the sites. The pas had limited or no information concerning the changes which would af fect the procurement cycle. Although some time is required in a transition stage to incorporate changes, the review team considered this symptomatic of what appeared to be limited communication occurring between NUC PR and PURCH.
- 36
. 4 a
- e. . * ~
h
,s -.r.M:e. . ,W' r wN3..'r w m.~.
.w.
.i ., .g ? p#.F.4 45 t w ' *~ c-( qu' c._Q. 3
- .A. ..y
. . . .x,.S,Y L; 9'. ..~.
1 2 -
- .%. s . . . T ->., ir.'.. ' . s.
g.:. *;'. = * ' D n ' wE.y'MW
. :. ~ %a t4'.C:
- g. ._ '. - Y,e i ' ' c,,h t r.
.. . , .". ~ . - p C*
{k ,.jf'.y:a .;.,t] wg[.f./ C'sa 11 t
- A a s u r a o ee t< I D S KRO regulations and TVA procedura recognize t. hat basic cow .
ys% U /U }. . y[)p f. , ats can beve varying degrees of quality placed upon thee de- _
*-*Ak jO@$.' 1-0..ai.;W. . Pending upon their importante to safety. ne OGAs e s ta blishe s i
p ^ four GA levels (level I, II, III, and IV) to etich itens or '.; QT, *' -g{l.'lg. 9. .' , s e rvice s for CSSC may be assigned. Guidelinas in assigning ,
': ' * /,
O levels are lis ted in pa ragraph 3.2.5.2 and a re identical to these :'
, ~; .: ;
lis te d in ANSI 14 5.2 1971. Dese are is t.a rp re ted by ESR$ to 2 s range froe items requiring considerable OA a c tiviti e s to the w . j.' . p. . . .;
- requiring little or no QA, i.e., con-ercial gra6e items of stan6-ard design which have proven successful for sury yearn in '-
- f. 'nf . 3reviewing 1 5.1, it the QA Ictels 1.n OQAM, Part III, S.ection 1.1, paragrape is f ound that each apply to C350 vith OA level I , x '* gh #
~'
basically applying to, among other thi.ngs , A.T:7. Co6e watarial amid , itema procured to a standard unique to the nuclear Astry and , 7 ; decreasing in safety importance to QA level IT witn no s4fety-M._f p.m
,4 . . ,
related fusction.
- a. ' - - .'
Reviewing the definitions contained wit nin 1D"TU I, 10CT15C and associated appendices, regul a to ry guides, and t.be 074, it wa 3.s .DN f[ clear t.nat n'A has equa ted t.be f ollowing ta rma: J
- 1. Easic component.
~
%. 2. Critical - *ess, structures and componecta (05a").
, 3. Structures, systems and c c=rponen ts impo rt. ant to safety.
T 4 Saf ety-related s tructures, systema and components. nose defin.itions being equivalect are used throcshout the CCA5 S .- { it a variety of contexts and introduce con.flict a.nd cocfr.sion. A contradiction is introduced in the description of GA levala III
,g, ~
and IV. b.". ? In the OQA.". both levels III and IV are described as **
- : ' being for C 50 items, but elaewhere the ora". specifies that . ,
v levels III and IV are not for basic co-pocents. { h'. ;- / l The use of commercial grade items in association with QA levels
, $ ' .' presented confusie= and contradiction. Cce=ercial grade it.eme
=-
Q ' were allowed to be purchase.1 by the OOV!, Part !!!, Section 2.1,
- g- paragraph 3.2.5.2 with QA levels 1 throwab IV. h cnre ve r , DGA." ,
' W.b :
Part Ill, Section 2.1, paragrapha 4.3.1.7 and 4.5, excluded level II as ac option f or purchas ang cossaercial grade itema. In addi-p -( tion the OQ A"., Part III Section 2.1, A;pendix T, paragraph 1.1, M4
;,y .'. stated commercial grade itrue were not basic corper.er.ts. .,
N'~ Items preenred with quality level I and II desigsations require 7'" - cecaiderable documented quality control unless procured as ece- ,
.6 7,* -
- percial grada. A commercial grade quality level I or II procr.re- .
*y-h 3-rq J. C -
-Q ;, , ocat could be f rcus vendors with an unapproved GA program, require no deconce ted quality a s s ur ance , and receipt inspected by hmr storrs persecael. Altnough allcmd by th.e C%'t most but a,et all k
] ,,;, Freesr==ent.a E:25 ==r re retst red to of CA level I and II come.ercial gra6e items sees by -
T' Y g ,' be ! roe venoo rs with M5.2 aryrev ,4 j tretr===.
+Q N
;.:u.. . s i
w -
".- b$
M .- - b .* : .. . . , , , f
- i ,/
\
h ..
, ^ RJW ~ Q+ w w ,7 _
I
. I
- -- 9%- et'&
- sh[x opws. .. _ %
1**{"W. &y g g x; "r l,
'-R
- 4 ,Q. .1.r q.,.< . ]; ~. H ;*. ~*..
.u .. v. w .
! a:V.:. * ,.
**;.* t T- .
~.:;.'l', ' .. .
Uf'.f-lf" I D'Y U t '. . , ' - E As the QA requirements are all essentially the same for coer-
. Nf,"
- t . . a*ertial trade items , NgRg be lieves thers is a fallacy la trying l it' 3 0 . ., to pigeor.nole purchased ccwrcial grade itema ints a variety of *
- 7. r 7M.7 I;)' 'E CA levela. N orisin of this f allacy appeared to stem f rom the -
- application of 100TR11 to itema procured to either QA level I or , m .h.i .' II. WA, in the CQA."., stated that the determination of Part 21 8Pplicability applied only to QA level I and II procursements.
W.* *
- J % f dCy.'t} -
Deternitation of Part 21 applicability was contatnad within OQAM,
- h. .; .Q., Part Ill, Section 2.1, Appendia T. In order f or Part 21 to be
- i. j deterutned not applicable, the item treios purchased must have 3.- g:,f., been a co==ercitl grade ites, must not have been a ec'emplete basic m p, g . c wponent, or several other criteria. Appendix T, Attarha-at 1
**s a form, "Letermination of Part 21 Applicability," which wtman "Q
e j ,Da *
- coupleted became a QA document. The first questtee asked was "is
- . N " f,*: the iten 'coeurercial grade' (yes or nol. . ." If the anever was J*/ .
Yes, Part 21 was not applicable and any remaining que stiona
' 4 remained unanswered, suen as, could i ts failure camme a basic 1
component not to perform its required saf ety function. DC Ill QA Personnel agreed this was a problem. y:.s: '>- i Q.'i ., Considering whether or not a commercial grade item could affect 1 G ..~ *+ ff the ability of a basic coeponent to pe rf o rm its sa f e ty f unction 3 '; .. was addressed by the h*R veen Part 21 was developed. In its
'.* , first publication of Part 21 as a proposed rule on Barch 3, if 71, ; the wording was auch that Part 21 could be cocaidered applicable to off-the-abelf or catalog items. In response to iaquiries and * *,- public meetings, b'R amended Part 21 on Octob.er 19, 1971, and 0
- f. recognized that cocnercial grade it. ems could be purchased withoct 2- the Part 21 requirement to report de f ects and t.hs associatmi
.. liabilities for not reporting thess. This recognized tAat camer -
'l,3;~, cial grade itens could be purchased for use as a basic component
. and Part 21 would become applicable a f ter " dedication" of the .
, 3j '
- part as a beste. component. Eased on discussicos with 77A O!!iev -
..7 * *
. of the General Counsel (000), this dedication means to put inte ;
use and at that time Part 21 reporting requirements becomes the 1 responsibility of TVA. Consequently, the h"At has allowed the use
*L' . ,e l of' items with a variety of QA levels including commercial grade as basic components. However, the use of commercial grade iteins with Part 21 not applicable does not eliminate the need for so-e level of quality, rather it shif ts the burden of assuring quality r, *q , and the continued ability of that item to perform its safety .
.s, function from a ,)o int manuf acturer/WA responsibility to TVA's r' sole responsibility. Thst is, if WA procures a co-mercial grade :
7 , ,, ites f or use as a basic component, it reus* either assure quality
. during the manuf acturing or through receipt ir.spection, tasting, c or other means. for a true cowrcial grade item that is pur-
,e chased off the shelf by part number with no documcated quality, the er.ly avenue available to TVA to assure quality is through
, , receipt inapection an.d testiris.
-p Ia 0%!!, Part III, Section 2.1, Appendix T (2.3.1) the statement i' .i
. 1a made, " Spec 1fie eoepooeata, o y a t ese , and atrvetarea 11sta4 on /j -
p.' ) .** this C150 11at arv beeie responesta by de!Iaitiea malesa yr* cured l ,
, se caemus r c La 1 3r ses ." The rsia 11*a tbe f a11eey. A b.e s i t tow = )
. - . t
]A n .
F e Mr
-4 , - . - - , . - -.- -,-,---,,,--,----9---1----.--,--,-w- ,-,.-w.-y - - , . , p.m~f , , _ , , . . , ,---,_---.,-..-,.-.m. . - - - - - - , -
-.-er --
--p
.e **
m,
\
sM a W.*T. %.n.%..? A m :.. ;c .
, < ? . .. :. : [g a L ,
, .y;- el'Q.~. 'e ; *f ' . .'. &: ' .).
' =
.g' . h , ,N, f . ,
- n. , M - a w ' ' <
'h..$. bf.y., l W . ..:..
.'.h . , ' - '
- h. ' ,,
peaent remains a basic compensat wtetbar or not it is trplaced' _J. 7
, 6 i . M with a pedigreed item or temmercial grade item. -
< @': .h '.(- .
'L Part 21 specifies I:1.3(a)(4)) tha t "a commercial grada itse is t
" * * [l s; N)Z . t.b .I' M . ' - '
seet a part of a basic component until after dedication." I t d oe s
- ~
not stats that a basic compenent ceases to be a basic co-poeent if supplied as'a c o== s t e t a l g ra d e ites. A commercial grade itse TQ t -g,'
;
- d,...h lf S.**$T ,.' '$,
'$,.[
A s ,,. can be used as a basic component once dedicated, a nd it ca.n t>e
' ', .,, 'd used where its failure could cause a basic component not to l h!
h)*'".'N,;f'.68 ,Y. ' . ' perform its required safety function. All the Part 21 arpliC8* ' *{ r lLN * ~.'. bility means for a co w rcial grade item is if WA f1mia it . .. g Ji p$}. t p.c '.; . W. * . defective at so=c point in time. WA mus t repo rt the defect to *
'l-
[(.i
- NRO just as the vendor or WA would have to do if a defect wars O. 3}
Y found on an ites waare WA imposed Part :1 upon a -f a cture r. %% 4%tekr $C." "J
- p.S' .g M,3 In de te rmining Part 21 applicability one criterion f or ,j u41ging l N,;
hl,; d ' ',
*V- . Part 21 not applicable is by identif ying the iten as a cormmercial q l.i:- ,
grade item. Most Part 21 not applicable de te rmina tioe.a seen lz q 'M- . during this review were because the item was identified as bei.ng
]l % .Q. O# ,
commercial grade, hat determination has resu.lted in what E323 { ' concludes as a -mi_e s pplica tion of theAf AniMocLef comeercial { 3fN.M
?. ;.
l f".;.
.g.,.; . .
7,
~ ' grade. One exarpAe as cafered tn support of that conclr.aios g l MJ* ,
Fequisition number 951134 from SCX was writte.n to procure .
~- . abeetmetal f or ICN 2761. De metal was to be w ufacturvd 'I D,"'.'. to ASO! specifications and required the manuf actarer,
~~
. [.l$.* ' .. t!. rough Appendix I Att.achment 8, to have a qu.ality assurance .
,C .. program that met the requirements of AMSI P AS.2-1971. De P
- d. '/ ' ' items being procured were classified as c-retal grada and .
- assigned a QA level I Part 21 not applicable.
.!;;!..J.. .. ' ,
.f qu@Q (;. ,.* +.
Purchasing that material to an ASU! Standard and requiring an N45.2 QA program is certainly more restrictive and prescriptivu
~
c Ml jv). '. . than purchasing an item to 4 catalog number. It t.heref ore should M#9 .yf: ,.'i ' g .
* * ,1 -
I not be classified as cosroercial grade. Part 11 may still not be
! applicable, but for different reasons such as it would not ...
.j;',. .~. ;. adversely affect the performance of a safety function. ,
, 3 ,
l E.:lC It appears that a s i tua tion occurred where material was being j
. j ',, , procured not for a basic corponent but for an applicat.on that ..
still required QA level I attention. As the A;pendia I. ; art 21 ',t.
, j* .
i *. . . - applicability form first questioned voether or not it is c-r- .
- ?.
44,',; *. . . . cial grade. it appeared that personnel completing the fers were 't
,.,. .. taking the easy way of determining Part 21 not applicable by
,..,,/*
calling it commercial grade thereby avoiding the evaluation of T. , Ml,' other significant qualif ying f actors. . .' ll g 'f.. It cuald be argued that it ma ke s no dif f erence if Part 21 is 4 1}g *
,, decla red not applicable by either calling the item e - retal grees er by deciding it is not a basic compoocnt. De arguserst
* ' j, ' ,' . ,
f ,..
> rea km d.wn, bewevi r , wt.es , ae a ta t ed y rvvioua ly , it ia ree***
- t. li
,(f. ,'; , M i
,\ ,
at W that the me mal a c tari ng a f c e=== re t a l g rade items tv pirve [. . Z - as a W QL pregran er T'N rettipt inspecties mile ether ,R l :
, p.t 4 -
.~7
- .w **..a r .;,
.C*' .71 -
p, ' o n
N \ i
~
A , e w , ' . g ., , ;.. y, ~ . . . .;
. ...s.-
i g ,[.-;. i' , .; . . ,, . ~h
'Q.'. yl . '
K .E e,
. - e .7 5
l a==e-C130 itone may r" quits considerable CA with s py reve d pre-
, ",h ,; ,, . ~. l .
"' As am m le of a deterimined seabaste eeeeeoant psrchase y
.scena. ..
U , '+. U .'e ' V-,', id.'.'4,.7. . trita e,aflicting Part 21 deterutnations is as felle.ws: 1
?Qt;i:e -- r
' N~W,$k'.
- f ye kequisitten number 343910 from sat was writ tan to procure p b.b.'.h .h .' . , . . : reactor coolant p ump seal parts. Specific inf ormation was - %]
p rtrvided en the bre s ting bo us e p uerp and tAs pa rts tre re y r" .. h.* lh.w , J,y/.c.,;;' .
.'i oT l-[" ' a i '. '
required to be manuf actured im accordance with the origin.al requiremasta of the be s tinshous e 1-epecificattoe 677355. gl. !
*. 7'. ? , .m . The plant TQE s t.a f f originally classified the procurennt as -u j
s, ' h*7,0.I ' '- QA level II, Part 21 applicable, but NCC revised the pre-W J. 9' ' .,. curement to be QA level II, Part 21 not applicable be ca us e ,, i
, [*.N '. E. .d%.
- they were not on the CSSO list and would not affect the .- ', , ,
,j C safety function of a basic consponent. Coca16ering ti.at the Gmh ."-1 p]./l
- V'M " JW P.* :f :.' specification used for the seals was developed try the mann- ., 9 j .?*,, J '.
facturer (bestinabouse) of t.be main coolant pump, it could j', { w=ll be a specif6 cation unique to t.be nuclea r indsatry. A.a q [.'.n; Q. M/ suct, the procurement should probably have been identified g g[ ^ kr,((, ' an a basic cowponent and designated Part *1 applicable. J 3 ^ ". .--#? u " 6,i i. * ' - Vnen bestanth ouse supplied the parts they incluoed the Part y gJ .C:. b,, " '., ,, 21 applicanility. - g [ ..
, In other cases the use of a CA level I or II for a et===e rcia l
] '.N , . grade ites may be inappropriate and irply a level of gulity that . k y, a, is just not present. yor ezanple: , p
.:..' u .,gr ,[.?
Requisition number 93M25 f rom EDI was written te proces a % M m' . f selector switch f or I3 I.2115. It was ordered by the mann- t; M*f f% 'l.' r it was assigned a CA level !!, and it d
,, M,i/ facturer requiredpart number, a packi=g slip f or documentation. i
?. ,G g ... li - gr,)GWr%s it was purchased from a supply house with no unique CA tv-
- jl W^'," it is censidered by I5PS to truly . *d
,{. *' (/t.p -[' g.} ,quirement or nuclear standards, be a come-rcial grade item. As such the CA level II is con- -
3
.g ,3 y h' sidered artificially high implying quality that may not be fee- f
'g. yl# That switch was to be used f r-
- panel that was qulified, A ;* j ttual. ;*:
,y lalong with tha t yd e lgylt e h ,' .b y TVA ,.t o lE requirements. It %
N #. g..p , ref ere% ea c Ay ta-4s into toe category o f comme rcial g ra da
- l.; , items dedirated as a basic component.
,.~.
- 9
- ./ . CE has made a decisica regstding commercial grade lE equi;mect.
~~' f 5,e Basically s ta t e d , if a cowpenent is a s s emble d vitt courne rcial H M
h 'i..-- h grade items (such as a s>otor control center) and that component is physically tes te d to 11 require.eic ta and is qualified, than f.
^
h s.
; G the qualif ica tion o f tha t componest will remain if replacement 4 d f
.E[
pa rta a re t.he s ame (same stock number) or equal. I M t' Q .
/, * .
Eews thesi g h ecanertial grade items are allcwed to be Laef. as beste compementa, in d o in g s o TVA a s s ume s a d d ed re o pen.s ib ili ti e s .
]p h,f ,' , . e4Lich it is met adequa taly f ulfilling. Escogsizing, for azample, y
?{ ,
that TVA had qs.alified, at some point in time, a etmene rtial g ru ee
? *
( .' itse for use as a basic ce=renant er a part of a basic ,_ , .. t . , - g 7TA currwetly has me prvrran to a s s are th.a t 1 stare rirplaeeesegta -' 4 . i. I ., ;
~. l' 4,
i .* s'
, . I H
g p
@q=.. .; :.c . .
9 s
.1 A
u
e . '
- y
, , u* p. w . v ;r. ,= w
} y. v .<...>.<
. y ,.u. -z. : . .
]<. ' Q h . (,.. .1 i .*, ..Y.. - i
!.* ,s,b,i b.,Y ?. '" -
. ) n %~
. ?: .. ~
$m;;,; '3{',"l:*;d.Sd; pill ta:*f act - t abetaersetly_ the same as the one qualified, aed there-f _
l t Is - ' f o re ma a n tnat jualification. IT a true c ommie r cial g r a o.e } .
,j ."
- i*':*
ny, g , p , n. . ,4 gy p a r t s e>e rTroe a ma nu f a c t u re r o r s upp li e r , , (, ' k, . .ly p.;'/g "'P " the manatacturer or su; plier is not required to have an sypremed - i OJ .~ i * . OA pristas, and WA only receipt inspects the itas to a s s u re tha t , d,G[., dD,.
- t.he pa rt sumne r . is correct. There was ne testing or inepectioe j jg'4 'by TVA letantified that would assure that the ites would Perform j i ..MS;%Y
- as required or tha t de trimental changes to the itse o c cur red e r '; .
Mpf,4lL , did not secur. W: PR does perform a f unctional test of asvly ;
' * % : a ",".. , installed equipment which should prvvide some a s surance that it . .,j
<N '.'1$Q
; ',' will perform during routine operations. That test, however, will T "
not provide any assurance that tse ites will perf orm as requirvd ", ,
' Jp.,
h@y.1,! *g'; .--h,,.. under accident conditions. *ht_syeu__far*
. m -* e'_S ~ * *! F = 01
. ,}
% items are un d e r n e_.,o b lj,g a t i o n o r a u t.h o ri ty_t o i6entif y changes. 'g
- -g *.:C,',W$ . U TSRS was informed that enanges gent;cally are a ccompanaefiry a ,
$lJGl."M.' part number ebenge by the manufacturer. That, howeve r , is try ']j
- p. ? p '.' ' convention rather than by requirene.mt. Additionally, what wottld ,
constitute a change would probably differ from a m.factarur to h M.M *- M,,D.h,jruq manufacturer, and a change as subtle as using a dif f'arent labri-
,)
U. 7]. 7 cant (which could have a very detrimental ef fect cnder actickesi ,) (i' ,, . j,li. ,Gy, ..;'U .,^ : : .* , conditions) would probably not be cenaidered a ch. ants t y any ', l manufacturer. b- l
% 4.S .r .t . 4
.. O
')~dO.7, *. r 2 CI personnel interviewed stated that scoe manuf acturers will act f ,
% ~
U. '. v. h sell c ourse r e s a l grade jtess to a nuclear plant. OE pe rs ommel
? I. : J'. stated that if certain manufacturera received an or6er f or a
. ~ 'j ' . commercia l gr ade part and k.n ew it wan to go, e.g., to !C , they
- would automatically provide Lbe QA documentation on the itan,
[ '. 'd * *
] T., ,, ,
delay shipment about six sect.hs vnile assembling the documenta- .i.
' ' 'J g ' : , , Mor., and would charge ten times the amount they weald charge for ,
\tse same item if it were con =nercial grade. OE stated no value -c as added to the part, it saa not manuf actured any differently
s . s
. .V y $ w,han t the cocr.ercial grade iten, and TVA already 1.ad the item so ,
, . Q. ,
f g-Tf. a defect were found TVA would receive its 10:77. Fart 21 '- 3
.ep , ,
c cotification on the previous or cristnal orders. To avoid wr.at 'r
*
- censidered czercitant p ricin g, an ordering p ro cedure was d y .. . T.
Cd '[.
,/ '
l devised when ordering par ' rom certain manuf ac';urers wders the E] t' Fever Stores Distribution Cei *r was the recipient of the coemer-
- 4
.. . cial grade iten. Specilie in=tructions were provided to I".R3 cm
" ; './. ' '
the Purchase Requisition not to mention IC;TR Part 21, 11 quali. *) 3 7 . fication, or nuclear plant. At the time the Purchase Eequisition was prepared, a Trans f er Requisit ion was preparrd f or the use of
* .-)
f.,;,i . 1 4 the Power Stores Distribution Center vnen the iten was received. 1 5 l... * - That Transfer Requisition chansed the class.ficatien of the i
* . y.* , . commercial 3rade iten to a QA item and directed shipment to the I 7 j,, ,.
apprvpriata nuclear plant. jj
.i f. . : . ,. . '
- .1 That procedure had treen reviewed and approved by both OGO and I./
.[ OGA. Discussions with Divisien cf Quality Asst.rante, Procurement
., i its1mation Branch, person.nel revealed that tae manuf actu.rer in /
.U g=estirpe did, according to OQA audits, have diff erent productica h ff
,k* '
ruas and GA requirements for items going to enclear plantal fg fM o
% a a- i therefort, it appears that some value was added to the ctummercial a l-f grade itmo f o r the inc re a sed f ee .
_*%.e2
. ..;* e4
*x:q
. f. *
.L I
.- 4
=
. . l .
w 4 I
,.1 q ; ;,,% . ..,. . .' g
' , y :'
- J-
).;'.;:.
t .. [.4 , w :7. ~~,
- L. ! '
* - ^-
l ...; 03-5 ; l p( [ ;,~.~, This entire question was set pursued any further as a part of NEAS has serious re s e rve t t ens re g a rd tag this
.s ts this review. ,
. h*W. * * , *
. p ra ctics and reserves final judgement until it can be evaluated ,,
E Q'. D farther. Latil that time it would be considered prudent oc the
~
Q~g e'.$f l parts of OL and ,WO F1 F13 to evalusta this practice on their , Q.",Wi -
**E. . ;
9 g._. , i t; , W , y . ,. ' . With the conflicts, conf usion, and f allsey described abees, the , .c " h ik'M p M ' ' situation has developed where th e QA level syst is being j ' $h. M ' ' , f urther divided within the levels I and II, throush the use of Part 21 applicability, to acco==odate co==ercial grade items. In 7
- - m}Jg W.,Nay ,-
M ( .~;J ,' . doing so en artificial QA level is 1= plied for a comrcial grada
-W M'f/l * .p' item (i.e.i co-wercial grade item purcha s ed with no OA and assigned a QA level of I or II), or items appropriately pure.hased y fr v 'M e c -Q{l .,'. * - - with a QA level and requirements are called commercial grada. It .
is cr.nsidered more appropriate and less subject to errorn if the p 'll " . s Ne#5:4 c'g,y. ;j ' . commercial grade items are recognized for what the y a re , either -
,3 4 QA level IV or non-QA, and procurement of CA level I and II -
T .e, ,g ';, ,* . - p] " co-mercial grade itema should be prohibited. In addition, all OA I level I and II items regardless of the Part 21 applicability
%'V .-~~**
~ - cZhdX.,. ,",I should be receipt -inspected by TUL. Fu rthe r , the quality
,'n, y ., [ requirements associated with an iten adequa taly pe rf o rm1.ng or 5
. . .'J l *'
affecting a saf ety function need to be separated f rom the Part 21 4, . ' (,ff,4 coesse rcial grade determination which has nothing to do yith ' t:9.h quality. Vbetber the quality assuring activities for sa itas's MTH ability to perform a function is jointly shared by t.be -f ac- { turer and WA or solely by WA, is irrelevant to the retsirvd
'lhP m;p. .
b:s quality aetivities. , y ., , s n - There is a basic philosophical probles with the OA progree f or I
~
',3/,,-[;*2 yl.; -
' # items purchased as basic coarpone nts versus items parcassed as
.. a @
- comercial grade but dedicated as a basic component. WA's
( , , : Wr ' procureme=t QA program for basic components is based upon adding
- l ,
$l# *
- a dditional WA quality assurance activities vte re the re is l '
, Iquality assurance to begin with in tme manuf acturing process and j
2 hc.L 6.t],-
!have no quality where there is no verifiable quality in t.be s.anufacturing process.
' ' *'N . *
..- To fulfill its responsibility when using comercial grade items l~, ,
as ba sic coerponents , T*,'A will have to develop some mechanism to f
', ; . qualify replacement commercial grade items such as a receipt in- ... + Cl, spection and testing prograre that is more stringent than what is -
I y * ,+ currc.ntly in place f or QA items requiring TQI receipt inspection. (for additienal suggesticas and information on receipt inspection ,
)
(
,h.-
see section V.E.5.) I *
-=
*( *.. With regard to the CA program associated with procuremer.t. the ,. ,
d'
'y- CCAM was found cumbe rs ome a nd s om e time s contradictory, ICCT741 / .
*'.. ^
applicability was being used incorrectly as a de te rair. ant in I
. ' "', C f
- establishing QEality levels, and the Appendig 7, Attactraegt 1 .
t'
.. . form, for 1CCR21 arplicability was ina pp rep rie ts and be ing g
% . i'- misesed. In a dditio n , co-mercial grade itews wa rs being givve ,'
implied quality t y assigntag a quality levil to them, and WA had I *( id,0 , 3 wi r' seeAasise to assere a commercial grade item used as a basic M $', % ___t wee ld f wet t oe webes needed curia 4 octieest testitis4. ; g::: A l ' .,:g, u .-
- 2 :. ~..... - .
= '
,s, ;
-- \
bMMEMiEMM
-5 I. M PT Protyrveest Prebles Test Teree" i ,t -
- h. .
The retire tesa in t e rviews d two of the three*=e der IVC F1 .
, . Prweu . e t Problem Test yorce to esto an unde rstandtag o f the p'. .,,",'..,.. . ,, QJ, ..,
, K,,p',. . e' perrsieed problems within the procurement system. The task force k.W .'_ *
,,. . rvye rt a nd re commenda t ions we re t e e un d s ub s e qs.e nt ly o n Au rna t 10, 3
'llli is a report f ree Eric gwaven to Jim LarlLag (140 840810 .
w3
.f.[*g'(i ., # ~ '
j 't. '. l 214). That report was reviewed by 55R3 considering all meterial ;;
- M# . . . .L'; - . "' ! ," ersts lated during the procurement review. The ma j o r ru cch-
[
- E, . - '.'
- Lisas identified in the ha na g eme nt S m ry of the task f o rce ..
m
.[E,-[.ly.'.',
r
's .
Ol, ,. - / . report were to Q&' $.ki.'r .
&,D[2*p;f-5
.. s (1) Istablish an adequate planning group at the plant.
7
' Qa., 'h.* ..q,'. ..,' (2) Implement status tracting systema. ' ;'
- 5. t. . ,t. ,
.e..
- e. r- . .
Set goals for turnaround time for each review /*rpreval
*z ~ e,y,p.' " (3) 'J C7cle sLep.
Sky _r f.dyk,,,',,;,
.- .t . .. .
- " , , (4) Improve and add adequate resources f or expediting efforts, 7/r{
a- 'yh. .,_, . . . l' , hg.$,R ' (5) leprove connunication between Pt:R 2 and the site.
# 2:. . ; - .
. @,[),' ..' 'C (6) Eliminate all unnecessary steps in tne p rocur==ent cycle .
l 'y ' . with the goal of placing very f ew, if any, s teps between the . g requisitioner and the purchasing agent.
% A,,t. ,',. .., .y ., .
.?.e .. 1 .
.g *.
- (7) laprove the inventory stock out problem.
~
.p a '.R . I; . (8) I>etter utiline the automated systems. .
... .. .. .s .
(9) Levelop improved QA procedures and training,
- q. , .
e.-
*D, ,10)
( Redefine QA responsibilities for procurement. -
,i p[l.r.
?
.' , /
lThe following cbservaticos were made concerning the ' preposed
,. :l * *. .' *,
w . . . recoscendations: l.g i ":te (, . (a) Items 1 through $ above have a basic emphasis of incorperat-ing more people into the procurement c7 ele by adding variona v *'g, expeditors, trackers, and designated contacts f or F*.33 and **
. , DT. interface. The basic premise is to eliminate the delays. .
!' . ;7,] <, . It should be emphas tred though that time delays at the site The caly
*y . could not be substantiated by the review tess.
consistent time delays involved procurements which traveled
' ie ' through the Central Of fice. Those time delays st.-amed f rom
.h ( *,' t.
I t the amount of bandling a requisition received traveling ,
- 1
.; te twee n the ha te ria l s ha na g eme nt IJnit , N 0 QA, Peve r S to re s , -
,, 4; .' , rms , and I .*,R2. The Central of fice OA review wes elimi- ,
~
. nated in October with all reviews now pe rf o rmed a t each site. Adding more resources to the cycle to pe rf orm tme .
'( y,J.i * .
;, - re c o== mend ed innetions will not elimina ta a basic isherent yre.bles of too many people already in the pr$<stement eTCle.
.' N.
- a. C f'p.,,a-: *, -
.. p : ..
- 43
. 4 . ;,,.- .
O
~ ~~ a.. . ,,
~ .
~.
\
l N
. m h jf 1
g b, m A a h .,
., (b) AI N esk fles 6 recommends the sliainatten of all maneces-sary steps la the precurement cycle. the steps are not
-h f;. . , g .i .s readily identified in the report. It appears that L t>e .* *
. . . ,T L .;j,,. ., g artensive tracting proposed would be establiebed to f ollow a r
E J' '
'c7tle stallar to what presently exists. Tha tracking would
,!**j/
i M.dk'.(l. .. .
-5, s' . appa re ntly sta rt .with the procurement request and be main- .
L v$* . /I.k. .. f:,. q.(, f'.. tataed until the iten is received, set aside, and finally , y
% j , '?. ' i ' .
- maed. Some tracking may be appropriate and effectivu, but l, /, ,
g ' .? .ft. q
.J ,',' y ;
the eauphasis appears to be to find the people who a re not y y Ins te a d of devoleping a 3 L ' ' . ' -- ,, f ' '. pe r f o rming tbstr job properly. method to track all the reviews , more ewphasis is p*eded 1.n
- 4. .
'. ,.g
$il
- stsplifying the present ayates, i.e., identifying the ! .. 4 h h* ?.'. .,* ;.~. ' ' ~. ,,' ,' ' '.
reviews not needed and better utilization or elt=inittoo of
.,. g
- Q' b.".' ti. . . .
- resource people presently available within the erstem. g y
. . ,"T W i .(c) Necessary action on iten 7 was observed during the rvview. " ~
f '.f./.d ' I*./dd'A, .,' ..
*,Q f .'
To alleviate the stock out problem, more emphasis was being [ V ?.. i' placed on having accurate usage his tory available. ft*.*,5 a nd . r. hg
. D : ."f' - .,, ,, . Y<i [,' . . -'[
Power Stor es were coordination that effort. An addittoaal y 0
' f ' ' 1,'.,'. J .*j. / * ,
Task yorce report recoseendation to allevista the stock o=L problem was the increased us .s g e of IQ7 con tr a cta . I::Z3
' , ' ,h
. W 3 . n i r':- o b s e rv e d , under the current WO TR s y s tem, no benefit in -
**h d'
j y. , i .1
't,3,f.'5 '.' # e: ,* ' j , ,. - using IC's to reduce time delays due to t.be EO es as ICT* '
'
- h-being treated as a new contract, i.e., going thrsagi the J
M
'h *f ,.
/J L.' " ' t .
same review cycle every time an RD is to tae used. A def1= nite benefit can be realized if NLM TR uses the IQTs sa
.. .' 7y*j @,
intended and prescribed in the Procurement riannal. Another *
* %,k, {;;;1'; . leprovement can be made if site Power States order part.a as j
r;;.g- .. inventories become low and not save them up for a big order. , 'j
- b; ;. . . '<. - -
3 ( 3 +. ' / (d) Item 8 is highly supported, and establishing a ualform y"
] *!.5 *.%
database wit.h QA control could er.able the use of the auta=
$$(*f[a !
*] mated system for reordering of all inventory itene bet.h CA
.E y QG I
N'r**'{'** . and non-QA. This would be an effective method to eliminata .
,A v,.4 0 ,*,* ' the unnecessa r7 site review . performed on an iten e a ch timme ,
& *k. . *..;l Iit is reordered. Current emphasis by ti15, Power Stores, and - *
.h. *? d
! WO TR should remain on QA program development.
l'. i i, .(.* %" .
# 'r ,,. - -
(e) Albugh items 9 and IC appear to be directed toward 04, the * ' M .p,.,, report substantiates the need to train all peraccaal in the
't w
* ; *f.
procuresent chain and to revise and standardize all proced- ' @'
. { ' ,, utes. NSP.S fully agrees with this recoemeadation.
- i l*'. ;>,.t -
.. )
r
'/,,?; ,
, The Task Terce report identifies some real probles areas in the .'
h
't . ..
procurement cycle and saaes many valid reco==endations. Immedi- **
.,LQ a ls emphasis should be placed on the more simplified solutions . '
' , . *l.,Y like eliminatimg ur.necessary steps that could provide significant .
'l.' ! ,
improvements in the present system. An HSP.S suggested solution . d to the problems with procurement is presented 1.n Atta c1=est 1. ,. W - t j$ eq 1 . 'p-ffl . 2, ;. g ' N.:y fe *< I t:
.- M
.:a t
, e a: ~
e
-~.
N
"'YY .
y
.[.N".Zl,{.'j)*.?.?'ll. -
r
=
hbaY k h Yrh$&W[cfhhW b
.h :s: a -,t 9 & n...? . -> . . . . F y:;.
O.
.q-- .. :-
;W E,; .N . .', .4;?;;. . . .c -
d g A. t.
/
.,.q9,.c.. . n, m% - h ,S.C -
M
- r"
'O e
, g & :.'N,p:53'".?):iJ.8 .: s.v;:. . - Pu = It ewtA:Tu '- .
,w, p. ^j. : .. .w,f:.:t .y -,w,,e- A. Ir a e reee, wue1,.e piaoe- ,. ,
. g
] -
..:D.'.k.'i".('I*).[.
'Qd J! ..*i ; .
R. E. butsa
- J. A. Ceffey Crcup b ad Inatauseat nainteaanee '
Site Director . '. b
. 5 f., .,;. ' * ^
g
'* '
- t ad, Electrical Nintenance Group '
c l'" t",** s' p,t."* *p.'.' --.8 Supervisor, haterials Unit , ;; ,
- t. E* y, Johneon g ,1ggy g,,,,,,,,gegg3,,, . -
T L, g ;L . t **31 " . , ' *
,.. C. .. Jan." Plant hanager ,
M. C. Le ?
, ;y. 9.}. r. .,',.. ~
. 3 47 '
- Chemical Engineer A R. E. habr7 D. C. Mina bteriale Of ficer, Power 8 tores j? '.5.,9'.i;;,. y.?pp.f 'r, 4
had, Erigineerios Group y
- J. R. h bris Supervisor, nodi fica tions Section ' d.
l .' +*, . - *
- E ' b'n heteriale Of ficer, Fower Stores .-
DM.% Is.';g..' t G **.'N,,. y.,. Percle
- Supervisor, 1;lectrical Section ,...t W
p d' .*dlQM, t*,. ,y, O - J. R. Pittman A.,. intent Plant Manager, Maintenance ,e.. Q R. D. Putman A. tatant Supervisor, Power Stores G'. %
?es.%'.i'M;I'~??, S. W. Solley Ilectrical Engineer, Electrical natatanance
"/
V. C. Thomisen . ,l". 'E '1 Supervisor, Engineering f'. f *d (.; ,.-.* * ,
- V. M. Vargas Specifications Engineer, Support 54rvicoe
,/ 3 C. C. Wages had, Mechanical haintenance .@
1@.W *
- 1. H. beets r," d
.t.I p' . * . * '
- Supervisor, Power Stores
- 7. T. Ziegler Branch Chief, Site Services l,';;',.'p ' '
V. P. Item >e rm4m {} W
.=-
. 2. ~,:' . haterials O!!1cer. Power Stores 4
.s w
;.r c. . . ..p,, ,, ' ..
.s.
- 2. Seeuevah Nuclear Plant ." }
g Q g e
'..'*;j'!,*
.t 6.; . s ,
L. E. Alexander Supervisor, Mechanical Modificatics F.. E. Alsup.. -m %., C. L. Brannon Section Supervisor, Compliance Staff pi
*/j M" 4 T. L. Eurse Supervisor, Fower Stores hechanacal Engineer J
=$
# .I'.@ i r ' i,'
M ' 5. Butler (e'ft
'9.
' M. L. Campbell Acting Supervisor. Tield Csality Engineering .
- f,'. 5. B . Ca ep be ll Mechanical Engineer Mechanical Lagineering LY.it haterials Of ficer, Power Stores .
O i
."t 9 * ,
' *
- E. L. Crane R. D. Ibel Unit Supervisor, haterials Unit, Tield Services .- g -e d Materials Clerk, Power Stores ,N E. V. Fortenberry Supervisor, Engineering .
ad .S ' L. J. Treeland d p '* r J. R. L atiton Material Officer, Fuwer Stores 4 ";~, -
- b. Supervisor, Tield 4411ty Engineering P[
$ P. E. Eltcacock Mechanical Engirieer , l. ')
2' 3. A. Einsey Electrical Engineer -
.H
?I '~ C. L. l. eve Supervisor, hechanical haintenance E.cgineering
< d. i
- Section ,
'E
' . v *'
C. V. Fetty haterial Officer .$
- J. Rekinsen Croup head, Modifications .l 9
},L.* .
J. R. Stalry Supervisor, Fever Stores '
- d C. R. Stats (sality Assurance Engineer T01 5
- 1. W. Vi c to ry ,
! *r. '
F. R. Va11sco heterial Officer, haterials Lt.it . [ e-T1 ant Eanager
,d "
i.b v e. y
} r. .s . .
' 0 xa3 s
E . ,_g d
.e4
. ,s ; . .e l
m**% ( \ 1 .s ., .- - . '
..,'z-m. . * ., . ,. i '" * > .. M * ~ ;
T.a
*', . - (*, .*,, ,a 1. * ' E D k * .
ll.,-'. .
- . . l, ,.- - .. rv.;; -* ?;., '. i
. . .A ,.r u...,;,..
~ *
.'., S ,\
- A'*:'*I T* .
J..; ;4 L f;~~N.:. [a' i. ' .C.
~ 1 ; s, ',.i .
Iee t 40,ff,t e,e j $,]d;I)" .,. D. A. Carter
-y d,. .'iM.k.he.,/. ,l, h,'..j 1, ,
_r. C. R. Favreau R. D. Eicts haterial Officer, Materials haamgement heccanical Engineer
- s, 4[h h. *j . ,.*" . , .J. Hood heterials O!!!cer, haterials hanagement h .f,h.4 yr * ," ',,,.
E. A. Jew'11 Swpervisor, Nuclear Pcnrer Stores Aa st s tant Supe rvisor, Power Stores i
, w. .,, 4ai.e.. . . . M. D. Kelley *' ..3 ,r f.,.
g . g . ;,,
- Chemical Engineer
!$.4 g %g -;[ .
.- I. M. a,ewis Branch Chief, Quality systems i
- e,Q( ;,;p5.. j .,;,.: Supervisor, Quality Assurance p% ,: . y#, -
,., . J. V. Mabee c E. h,. hansfield had, Laternal supplier Realuation Crwrp 1
. Noerland Supervisor, Power Stores .j
.. .,C.,*'.', E. J. Mullin Supervisor, haterials Manage
- sat .
EA%g :fr.,y;. * , :. .. . D. C. howading Director, Division of Quality Assurancs
*r % J w'U.i".".!' ,
Eteach Chief, Ntarials Manage-ent Servicee ]' .i hb p% $7;: 'i' ... gr.. ,g - C. Odell staif Supervisor, Manage ent Services Staff 4
. .i
' E. C. Pa rker
- h. ..\
?. Annistant Director, Division of Quality
+3
;p:,",," ; D. R. Pa rks Assurance 1 ' y ,- ' J. R. Pratt Supervisor, Materia ls Analysis -'
. ?['3,',7,: , ' ' , , ' K. R. b asey ha terial Officer, hatarials haAagemant >
Quality Assurance Engineer
,8.h er.g .? e-. . . , -v., ,
E. K. Sliger Supervisor, bdiologic.41 Imertenry tq w - +- - 7 d h;j-5,../. Freparedness Group J. K. Vatson 2h =*f."*',. C. L. kortman Csality Assurance Engineer heteriala Officer, haterials hasagement
, t. Purcha,1er f.
v jd ' h*i. 1.. K. Arms *
' D :t'.
Purchasing Agent, Nuc Aea r Tuels f.ection ..
; *.,}, ' ' D. A. Blachell Supervisor, hechanical f'lant Equi;=ent *- 1 ? i ;, * -
and Special Projects Sections C. R. Dobson Supervisor, Nuclear Twels Seetten
.[..'
' L V. hannah Nrenaming Agent, Cten hartet Electrical
- r#
- i." ' s
, J. 1. henerar Section N retasang Agent Cc=ponents LYit
', i ,
u **.' .. C. I. henry N 7'. *~ '
, i.
l E. C. X1dder Csality Assurance Instneer Supervisor, Ctality Assurance ,
." T. A. 1. eve .7*." V. E. Ma ry Assis tant Director, JU"3 Wrenssing Agent, C 7 en hartet Electrical scetion 3
C. hen Ad.assistrative Assistant, Iquarment Procurva '
. - . swnt Branch .
3
,. , ' ' ' C. S. N ensby A!.ministratave Assistant, haterials Procurea .,
awat Branch
. r* *
..' 3. V. Falmer Nrenasing Agent C7en harket Censtruction L* '* *- Section , ,
7,. C. D. Settles Supervisor, Open hathet Construction Sectica ' L D. A. fweith Nechasing Agent, huelear f uels Section g J. M. Smith' . ,'
- p. '
b rchasing Agent Open haraat Ilectrical ~~ v f.ettlea E. I. Sam.ie rla nd Chief Procure =,at Surp*rt 8taf f ( ,,, ,
,'y '
ilR$ 9%
~ 'iG >.
C g . IN. i
* '* , i e
e e ~
\.
" - *t
,' . I ..
.n > , -
..3...s.. . -
'M
* . l.
n:
.!W $, *
#4 L ;. . . . . ...; ; J.
* .. . . . e ,i '. .' .
f Se, s '*,' i l.'. . ". ' /.';; 1. Of flee *f ledteeef f el ss .
*S
' ..*d*h*,
. .';1.l ,,1; t ,j-'.C,L.' A. r.*Johnesa C. T. r= s, t e, Eleetrice1 Oraat -
- i. In31 seer hachaatta1 Laginaer, 7ae111ty 8upport
;Sg.!l.. 'e aad s.rvieee * ,,
M
'ingh' ,.,'y*d[,,i
, , , A. V. Levie Nuclear 1:staaer, FII, Design Support
# N ' ; :- T. E. Orr
- h u el e a r Laa tae a r RIS , Le s t en s a;.po rt .
, E ",
8
'f057,(,'h"
,k. . .
J. 1.. Purney Supervisor, Tacility Support and f>ervices
,r
~. I
'.I t'::: A. C. Robertson Bupervisor, hechaalcal section 2 * '
- 21' .'O*..'*, i .'< * ',- T. 1. Rosensveig Supervisor, Cable and tiiscellaneoua '
D[ - Equipment
? s'
, -$d' f,g f.W';$.*[" ' E. R. Taylor becaanical Lasincer, RIA, Special Su; Tort W. C. b'y11e l Electrical Lagineer 7 ) .~ . **
f,q ,,}... .". '
.. t .
$-' ,* j M.,,,,j f.3.- p/;,. ,'; ';. T. Of f tee of the General cousee!
..s.
, j.
V. V. 1.aRoche Atto rney l
$$ 9.
6
,. . . % . n. ,. , . - ..
7:1. Io:ms Tszv:EsT.o i p
,e,,"yj:p.., . A. M utettiens (Esch requisitten listed includes all associated documen-
; . J..a.t.[i..,, .
tatson.) 3 y . s
." 171173 225401 538284 g
M 'I,h', 943tL4: h 7 '; : . ' . 931129 h M 290:05 9:1526-2 938298 945707 951133 - d
~
l .l,'.h r. n* 3*:C:6 334177 930478 93189 940060 9447's 951134 j 940163 947434 151144
- 5 '.'.. ' , 341:10 931941 940125 947454 951819 -
ite ' :- k- 343910 l 9329:5 94C::: 930415 935163 ep
,g n.',,f ,
215456 3:041 .. 93:973 93:99: 94C:76 94:9:3 950509 931e19 1561C1
,3,c:3
. k" j
'*(.I,. '.' ;.-
233678 935570 94:9(: a 951c 3 939104 ,p , 1347C5 935718 94:988 951c:s
, <. e
. 2347C6 9391:.: ;
j r ,, . .'$ .
.y B.
f Perulatiene Steedards a n d tyge;.* i e r le eu.,e t e .a b,g 1
*: * ' . , , . * ; , a l IC 77.*1, " Reporting of Leferta ang honrompliance" 3 l
Y l,?, , ,', ICOT7.$C, "Looestic 1,1cenoteg of Freduction and !!tt11:stien
,g8 ..,,< Tacilities" 3 4.,. .. l i
l,,*' . ..-
; ,. Regulatory Calde 1.28, Quality Assurance Fregram Fequirements .' l (Lesign and Ctr.struction)" l
. I g, '. .
Regulatory Culde 1.29, "3eismic Lesign Classificatica" k .
.' legulatery Culde 1.33, "Qwality Assuracte Proggas Eequirements l
.,1 .? . (Operatiese1)" ,
j p>' Es tu l e ta ry Ce i de 1. 38, *Qwa l i t y As s u r a n c e F e q u i r r** n t s f o r P a c ke Las , Shirytag,14ceteias, St orage, and handling of liene f or heter-C*elet k i heeleer fewer risats" .,, i 4: J i l 4
. J 1 ;
e
. w
.rwg . ,. ; - A .. g
>we .% -
Y .i ' ~U* rvi cr
']b
*i, Replatery Guide 1.38, " Qualification of Nuclear Plant Inspection, f
7,_.i. ' ,," , Lamain4ttoa, and Testing Personnel" (
' NL h,;.d [' [ ."'. .
begulatory Guide 1.39, "Quellfication of Class !! Iquip. ant for -
. Beclear Pow,r Plant "
s ~_ N.., . ,$. ,,7 , .[ * .
'h.7. I. ; . '
, h e
Replatory Culde 1.1:3, " Quality Assurance Eequirementa for Centrol -gy 'h.%.1l.1 "tr . of Procure ent of Items and Services for hu: lear Power Planta Q
- ,3 p . :v
, r}r .
m$'l , .h n: RIG 0302, "Aemarks Presented (Questions / Answers Discussed) at .. p ['} ' # .!,-" / ~~;h[.c.cTk3 J to Discuse Regulations (10CTR Part II) , Public Aestenal haetings e
, , ;,4[ ,'., *' for Reporting of Lef ects and hencoerpliance"
.ge, M.l ? .t .- lf d . . -
. . /, .. ,3 .e i .,
g3e;.c3gt, " Interim Staf f Position on Envirocumental Qualification ,i,. c@.w N $i.::p..'[r"J m * .. *- ' ,I of Satety Aeleted Ilectrical Equip.ent"
- f. :f . #
4 7 2
' c . [,, , ,
It Bulletin No. 79-01B. "Inviron. ental Qualification of Class 11 19ulP*ent" k
' ~.. gl,' -
{'f'*1 ", ,,C, *
- II Information Nctice be. 83-79, "Apparently Inproper L*se of '
g y Cosamercial Grade Coerponente in Saf ety-Related Syst me"
.: . . g 4g ..l '*[G.. :,H b.'. ; l.y IIII Standard 3:3A-1975, "IIII standard for Ouaistytra Class it Iquipment f or buclear Power Generatir4 Stations" &g;
& }; ' ,@s ',I. s*X IIII Standard 308 1980, "IIII Standard Criteria for Class II
; ?. :,%
- Power Systems f or Nuclear Power Generating Stations" $ e
[$ Q '.;",- B:i.W FF IIII Standard 236-1980, "!EII Standa rd Installation, Inapection, at Tr b, N." .j .' and Testing Requirements for Class IE Instrumentation and Ilectric Iquipment at buclear Power Generatana Stations" d m
% . .; i ,
P
?
y$ ', l'. l ' , IIII Standard 467-1980, "!III Standard Ous11ty Assurance Prograa
*h j.,... , . 'l, . ,, Eequiree. ente for the Les tan and hanuf acture of Class 1E Instrweeta= ,
q 3. S
- tien and 11eetric Iquipment for, buclear Power Generating Stattoos"
=
q
, 7 y *'**,,
- IEII Standard 444*19 73, "IIII $tandard tiethod f or Identification h r
M.
. ,. L. **.
of Lacuments Felated to Class 11 Equipment and Systems for huclear Power Generating Stattuns" 7 ay 1 6 .h ++ g a j" IIII Standard (27-1980, "ILII Standard for Design Qualification of Safety Systems Iquipment Used in Nuclear Power Generating Stations" - f "(- IIII Standard 344-1973, *IIIE Eerousended Practices for Seismic
?
#' Qualification of Class II Equipment f or huelest P'our Gene sting N 3 #
S ta tions " 11 i ..(.- d M3! M45.:-1971, " Quality Assurance Progree Requirements for s q Emelear Pever Plants"
'j 'o ' g . 'd M3!/AS?2 745.:.2-1978, *Pecassinn, Shipping, neceiving, storage, a nd E.a mdli n g o f I t e.* \ ler Butleet Pcwer Plants" , M@
p ~3. Ms t/A1T 845.:.6 19 78, "Qua ll f le .s11*ne o f I nsporties Laasine t tu, ' p 4-
.l a.4 Trettsg Perseemel for Dweless Pow r Planta" "
g
,t . a -
w I- . N 4
~.-
.s - s v '. .4 ' j kh ',*h . .
2 1? . P M . r h:g) t.. w M . - - AXS!/A2.'2 W41.2.9 19 79, " Requirements f or Collection, s tora se. ( M . and Maintemente of Quality Assurance Records for nuclear Power Plaats" g 1
$ y,'I.G , ,
.h o* $. ,fl *i ,
- - 'A.K31 M41.2.13 1576, " Quality Assurante Require.ents for Control of Precurement of Items and Services for nuclear Power Plants" (%
y[ei. *',Dl
. 1 ..
. l.,. . ,.,.'. ' - ., .
l>.
-ckd t : - *.', J ; ' - MEI 18.7-1976,
- Administrative Controls and Quality Assurance Q" g ,
% ..{ ,. / , , ' '
for the Operational Phase of buclear Power Planta" J hh h ,' ,,f *', ' ANS!/A$fC NOAal.1979, " Quality Assurance Program Requirements for
-g ,in%. 3 .g huclear Power l'1 ants"
,#4 ,
.f)6:"*,'.*/. . i .. Topical Report **.*A TR75 1, Fevision 8. "Ous11ty As surance Prog ram hr D O.i f ,, .., Lescription f or Lesign Construction and Operetter." '. p 1 !f. ' Operation Quality Aasurance Manual, Lec.=mber 31, 1983 * $y
;%,:.-F'.y N. Q 6 /
Procurement hanual, June 11, 1984 3 .. . . .
- f 'g?c s.'. ID-QAP 4.3, "Transf er of itema " Septemoer 21, 1983 $;]
#. b ,,* . . ,.
- R. Divistee of Nuclear Power Precedure b oua l
.,e .. . . f.j. fr7. . " N7*A14. " Procurement and nateriala Su;' port Prograa," March 30, 5 19I3 %w .& .l-l .?,. Q< N77A2, " Storage and Shelf I.ife Consideration for hatarials with #
%jgsf'{f .. ' *r,...'. Natural Aging 1.ife," March *1,1983
-> s ,- *,
M
+y 1*CCRCS (H77A1&), "lCCTK*1 Evaluation and Reporting Requirements," r
- n
".[.
*q .
October 26, 1983 s y
~1 ; */: ;.*
16C1.C: (N73CISR), " Nuclear Plant heltal!! sty Data Syntes ( NPMS ) , . F
*.'~.,- . Maintenance Htatory and Class IT. Tracking and Trendina - Reporting ".ME y'1, **
, Pailures of Components and Systems," Lecemeer 9,1923
*. v y ;r; . .
. f u ,-
.* 75 C1.CC.C8.14.C3 (Nf3".2), "Invirormental Qualification of All
- r' g ,;y',
s Safety-Related Electrinal Equipeient (II Bulletin 79-CIB and 3 . ; ,, Ft*F.tG-C588)," July *1, 1984
- j y ,*'*'
, .. 776A4, " Standards and bubstitutions Guides for Quality Assurance '* *l $p 5 M. ,. , I.evel III Items," June 9,1982 m i '"-
Q 1 'a l ** .
- F76A10, " Purchase Specifications for C350 hetallie haterials, ; w i
. Wire, and Cable 1)aed Inside Primary Containment, Velding, and ,' ; d i
"[ ,.
* . , Brazing heterials, Valve Parts, and Purp Parts," January *C,1984 . ,.:* s
)
] .*j pt:A17. "1guir.ent and Material Stora ge Requrie. ente f or butlear .,
j s' - Fever 8 tores," July 29, 1983, and September 7, 1984 ',
\, Diele i eti of Nuclear Powe- Quality Control Inspector Training '. n y , ., ' . na ama l, Sep tembe r 30, 196 : q E, j .',%'J. c' d , .j ,' , y
- :. . e, a
' 7: A
-.f.~ .. .
?q
.3.. .
,a s,
I : Neg ., 1. T -- k{hM1 --- y g!~ , .
.2 ~
., 3 y.a . . .
- l gg9 ',- 1 J', C. Browns ferrv Nuclear Plant Procedures .
l p'"' ~ ' 6 17 16.1, "P ro c u r eme n t ," June S , 19 8 4
, r P.c.'3
., ,.". . -., i . .
.h ,, ' .! ' RT 16.3,
- Quality Cont rol of fiato rial Co*ponents , Spa re * - 's. sad .,
u ; %... ,.- s.rvie.s ," July :c,19s: . I
"~
[f 2716.4, "!taterial Cowponente and Spare Pa rts Receipt, bndlins. - l fh [j h'. ." T.' :.1 ..['. 8'*""'2""***'""'5'*""""#*"'"~ ' i
- h. Sit. . ' ~N , P.T 16.9, " Procurement, Shipment and Receipt of Services and ,
.0 @**M**[a 2
~
-v. . ** .['p .Nterial Involvtag Power Service Shop," July 5,1953 ..'
* ,q
[ h..;,%5 C ET 6.1C, *TVA Tabricated Parta ilaed in CS50," June 29,1982 j
..;: <- #(( . r' c
\ <
~
- t. .. ?
BT E.5141, " Electrical Maintenance lostruction 41, kalpeling M. . g .. . ..'lG' * . N 3 E3 / Platf orm and Jib Crane Checnout," Revision in ef f ect on Jane la, h [, ji [$
? b ,. * . ,'b, 1979
)s j
Q,**.U;q,, 8 7 C. Seeuevat Wuelear Plant Procedurei W y *.si ' SQA45, " Quality Control of Maternal and Parts and Services," H g t ',(? ' ".' , tiay 3C, 1984 ) p g 'ig.( . AI-11. " Receipt Inspection, Nonconf orming items, CA W1/Lescr1F* 3 31 lr. , e tica Changes and Substitutions," tiay 21, 19R4 y ^* " E. Offlee cf Infineerint $recedures ; @ p. . D ',$' , C *8, "Coastruction of Piping Systems inr Eeiling bater Leseter Nuclear Power Plants," Letecoer 30, 198 d
.c*
h j'$,).$. . ., 5I Elt.!!.04, " Quality' Assurance Requirement for Electrical or *
- Mechanical Equipeent Requiring Setssic Category 1 (1.) G%alifica. y
.L
' .;P .1 3 . ' tier.," June 19, 1984 a 3
,A . g 4 . , . * .,9 E3*I18.10.01, "Invirerviental Qualtiscation Requirements for Sa'fety- l I-- .'.
. /..*,,., Related Ilectrical Equtpment," Augu,,t 29, 1954 i I
y * ' "'s 55-118.11.C:, " Quality Assurance Requirements for Safety-Related n j (. Electrical and Meenanical (hen-AI." Section ::I) Equip =ent," ... 1 lA . June 19,1964 y l y .' -; 23-E18.11.C1, " Quality Assurance Requirements for A*ME Code, Section Ill Centrol Valves," May :6, 1983 l d ..:
- C 53-t18.!!.C3, " Quality Assurance hequirements (Certificate of l 0 Conf ormance) " June 19, 1984 i d ." '
? - !"P N 31.C$. " Preparation and Processing of Preliminary Lesign CAange Sequests (P DCR)," Nay 9, 1983
,\. *
[ b I- !*P R 51.C3, " Modification !=ple entation and Centrol Modificatica l Tracties Prograa," January 11, 1984 l +
- 10 b
-I. d . u
.,, '.,, . J e
l \ Q t . p&,,, ta' . 3 , 3 l , IOP*A $4.01, "M,': PA Procure.ent Request to U DE8," Nr 9,1983
~..,. ='
8:1.'..J . .. IDP N SC.C:, " Division of huclear Power and Engineerios Desisu " Interf aces," N rca 1,1984
.%..';.$-lK.
.1 ..
- Y' g aM w. D N, [ 2. *' ', ' .
- 7 ID-QAP 2.4, " Control of Modifications ," N rch 30, 1984 .,
N [*[. ;. . ,. . ', *. KKI EP 23.5.5, " Specification of tjuality Assurance Program Esquire-enents f or MIB hequisitions," Ny 27, 1983 . 7- " .~ .,,-
.,,7, ,
', }?., T. Certeependence and Kererts p&] }. [ . . ., : ?*
3 b'. Chandler to J. A. Emulaton dated Aursat 13, W ,.lA ; t * *
. , Nr orandum tros T. .
l ; 19 84, " Browns Terry huclea r Plante Dnite 1, 2, and 3 - kaport to
%* '-b' '/.t.' $. ,.'>. ' ' * ,
FR* Resulting Tro. FRC tweting of Ny 24, 19&4, on TVA's Lavirce-hg C.g '/ , ' mental Qualification Program," including a tta chmen ta QA ,, (T.IB 840813 938)
. g. .. "@O * *t .- '
7est Feport 17503-1 f ree Wie Laturatories d.a ted Janaa ry 6,19&4, -
'I
- Control Equipment Constating of Therm 1:6a1 Blocts. Psahdettae Ctera = l tors, Selector Switches and Contact Elecca and Various Cables"
.,y,'.*e
,= N..
. , .d * ' .
gl Letter from Rathard T. Trosclair to N. M. Sprosse dated A.pril 10,
?
1972." Contract 71C-3-54360, 700-61-54041 and 69C3- R %5"
.s, Test Report 33598 dated hovember 19. 1971, Inland Testing Labora-
%[rfe;* *.*lf:* .
, : ?l ' , tories, Inc. , " Report of *est on (20) Switching C.osspoonata f or Cutler ban,*r" q' *. '
,p e
*',* Memorandum from Eric Fvaven to James P. ILarling Asted Angsat 10, eW . ,
1984, " Report of the Task Terce for Studying and Selvist Procure-
% . . , ment Problems in the Oflice of huclear f ewer (EUC FR)"
p, jia., . (L00 840810 294)
.n..
- Letter from R. H. Ector to George J. O'Lell dated April 6, 1984,
'yAh ;3'*
. "1rief Procures $ent Process Analysis of Tield Services trantA Purchase Requisitions Otaginated June 1 to Lecember 31,19t**
.,, (Ll* 84040$ 813) 4 Iseport Cli*t:00-14 dated Tebrua ry *5,1923. "Invironmental Quali-
'J i ;
fication Program." by Office of }ower Quality Assurance and Audit , Staff (OQA 23C**$ 7C3) P ., [b Q **,* Mee'erandum from F., J. Creen to R. L. Lwrpkin, Jr., dated Nr 10, i f 1923, " Quality Program Audit Report No. Cli 2:00*l4" (0QA 23:$11 7CC) Ferort BT-8400 C3, dated Nrch 1,1984, "Arevfie Terry Mutlear Flant J Procurement /Stierage Activit6es" (00A 840:*0 701) d,
,cr .
s'- he=orandum from M. N. Sprouse to H. J. Creen dated hovember 6, 1981, "Procurcewns of N terials, Composents, Spore Parts, and .
'(L..
i Services, h 00AM Part !!!, Section 1.1, dated April 17, 1981" l'
'.. (Lt3 411110 91*)
r',', , 3 .s l .
}
,' hl S. ,
t
. *< .' : '. ,/ !
,e, f
, .* 3
- g. .,.e . .
c.... - ~ t .
~ 4, 0' '
NJ e v 4, s . Y .. , .: O. - h-eeraetan f ree C. A. Eeller to Electrical' Engineering Tiles !
.. ~
N . U dated Aaavat 23,1983, "All huelaar Plants
- 1,evelepoest of a *
,'. : ,',, e. ;(*' . [,. , ..,. . P ' . Ceeprohessive lavireasental balltscatica Program (CIqP)" .
[ < s ,4 . ,n: r : ,. .
+
$.I[,J$?W ,-
.6', P.".'s , . . home ra eh f ree T. C. Canpbe 11 La iboa e 11 e t e d da Led Sep tembe r 14, ..-
a '.
,,1983, "Procur==est of Cla ss It luipment ' All Muclea r Flasta - .'N.
R
,e . 'U ..jl... **
. ., ~r . .q':. *. . -. %...
Tield. services"
. re . ;; .. (L:3
, f'; 830313
. 834) '
., o ,
c*' I *
? .' /. Noorandue free *.1. Spink to OQA2 Tiles dated October 19, 1983 '
- e -
~.'.'..
'.'.' %eting of Special Evaluatten ;ess . Environmental balification
. of Saf ety A .eted Equip =ent with Duke Power" '
* [, .':.. .l . :
- ' ' 'd.
. .,'r,' hewerand w frue . T.. Spink to DQA3 Tiles dated October 19, 1983, j ',s * ' . . .e
" Meeting of Special Evaluation ;eae . Environmental Walification -
g y* , s of Safety.nelated Equip =ent with Co==eowealth Edison Campany (CECC)" g . l '" ,' ' Memorandum f rom E. J. Creen to James P. Larling, et al, dated $, . . . , , - July *S,1983, "Arovns Terry and sequeyah butlear Laf ety Aeviev
..;.. y.. ' y, boa rd s ' Annual Arpo rt f o r 19 8 " ,
1 r ., (h ' N emo ra nd ue f ree R. L. Luarp kin, Jr. , to T. A. 12 cte s Pa na t.1 da ted [,n. .[2 rom August 16,19f3 "Arowns Terry and Sequoyah Nuclear Safety Aaviev
+
t,.
* ?.. ,
boards' Annual Report f or 198:" (OQA 430816 7CO) ' P
.. . , Memoraoh f ree E. J. Green to James P. Larling, et al, September .., s ,
1923, "Arowns Terry and Sequoyah huelear Safety Keview Searaa' 3
, [ +,,
(NSRB) A.r.ausi Aeport for 19t*" (L69 830916 200) 1, ,. i #. , ' t].1 ',. Q,., hesierendue froei P. K. kallace to
- hose listed dated February 11 1984, " Browns terry, Sequoyah, and batta Bar hwclear Plants =
h,j q
..i .
hasntenanre' Act ivity of Cleas 10 Equips.nt" (Cf.5 840:09 CO2)
,b 4
gp k.,.,'= $.43 .h 4 g'm heserandue f ree, herold R. Centon, Mt", to Villiam J. Dircks, b'R:, , A.... da ted, Janua ry 21, 1983, "Lqwipeent Qualification Program Flan" *
- '.- .', p '?
j~s;f)
, Toru n'A 45 from Cecrge J. Odell to Dick $sith dated Letember IC, ,' , u, , , . 1984,' "r.ateriale Management $ection Training Sessicas" ', ?
Memorandum free James L. Villiams, Jr., to *bese listed dated
- June 4,1986, *fremoting a better Lederstanding of D'A's Purchasing
' k'
,:f f k-rh Innett e n"
, -..,/ .. a .! 1 5 . *
*'a
. he orandue f ree Kerbert 3. Santer, Jr., to V. T. Villis dated E' ',:e", ,
., Detetwr c,19P3, "Public Law he. 98 72 = handatory 4$.:.ay halting . ,
Persed
- Precurement and Peteenal Services Contracts" l be=arandom f ac= V. T. Villie to These listed dated October 31, . w *.i 198 3, "reblic Isv Be, *i= 72 = riarata to ry 4)*Cey ba tting Pe rled Ac; - ArPla ca u ee to tr ece r e.en t a nd Pe r s **a l Se rvices Centreets"
. as .c. ~ J N== r e h f re J e s L. V1111.=e , J r . , te s a d e o f C f f i c.e e.4 '
g , Pi e t a l ees da t ed neveeme r 3, 19 8 3, "Poo l s e L e se . 34 72 = neede- ,,
~,
tery 65.twy his tues Pe rsed - Pre <ere-est Caetsects" ,.. y p g,i
. , , .r:v
$J d.N
.(
w. M.. y,&a,1
* * . A '
9 g 9) t t$, TY ~ f sg Q
. i .
b lhusper ah f ree he rkrt 8. Seeger, Jr. , La naes lis ted da ted
- y
. > hevgebe r 4, 198 3,
- Pub li c La w N o . ' 9 8 72 = N ads te ry d)* Day hittas bried Act - Estaat of WA's Velmatary Compliance for O [
' .L. , hwer Program Centracts" .
p,..,. , *h. : [.,'; . ...q ,. . r p. .-li. . ' ,. .,.se:.*.., ;;.r m.... a-ar f r n. n. cri.e, Jr., t. noes u.ted d.ted nee -eer 1:, g,, 4,g nW j
'r *. 1M3, '?mb11e Lev 5*. 98-72
- Mandatory AS* Day Westieg Ferted
* 'L'.'
1
- 3 5 *.' * . c
. j, ., '. ( ls , ' .,'Act , t,*regatest
' e ts " og WA's %eluntary Ceepliance f or Power tresres
*., .,.' , f . y,'
- C==
r
, ' . . ' . = ..;l * : ',r : . '..-^.,,,,r,=,',
heeerendum f ree V, y. Willis to These listed dated Tebruary 3
~
- D ,. .
- e. j y8 19 84, "Public 1.av 98 72
- PLandatory 43=lJay ba tting Pe riod =
,, * * ' ,! e ,,: ., 'a$) t'. .,9 APP 11tation to Precurement and Personal Services Centracts" * *
[a t
' :.' ( ". s.'.
j ,.
* .y' , j f,'3 , ;', , hamarandum f rom J. A. Cof fey to Those !!sted dated February 29, 19&4, ' Pub 11t 1.av 18*7
- Mandatory 4$. Day Wa tt1 rig f orto4 *
.r .e b i
Application to Division of Nuclear Power Procurements" d c,J 't. t r. . , (LOS 44C301 460)
. 7' .. : -
Me==rsedum f rom J. C. Helsea , Jr. , to H. 3. Sanger, Jr., da ted l
'1'?*I. harth 13, 1984, *Public 1.aw he. 98-7
- Nodatory 43 Lay batting y ' .'., .,
Period Act = f.atent of TVA's Voluntary Compliance for Power Progree Centracts" (1.C0 840319 474) F[ h7
.v,~.., .Y n .: .
A:.,= 5)~
',' d.':. .v," . , %.
i*-2,%
' *1**
,;.s
- ';f .
. :.'.'., 4 ., i
- 1' ' s'.
WM
*o.,
e s: , ~.,se .
' ' .f;* *,.- *
. M.Ay
. . t m in.p
* * .a
, , 'p ' -
I.
, rce ,
. .y -4 a
g 29 i ...,- *
. i
.B ,3 s
tr . q
.E**
a- . n
. b
- I ,. ,t e .
t ge
$)
- b
. f.Qg 2p-- v
.a s
2.= ... o* q e.
- l
,as, .
.~
h [
# s F*
.n g '.~ ~
N 6 IN,
~ds
. )
sak ATTA 2'2KT I -- A R ~ h.A' " S. 7 .. 500 2 271 EOWOE To tmX".22.'2KT FRO 1*.L'i
- ee s, ,n. m,, s, i c h-.
,'f,'N' f. ,,.,Q$f',.*[l. R21 of fers an oppruch 'to selving WC T1 procurement problems s ta rtin g .
m itp .,c; re.e with the haaie p rocurum est tuotties. h f.'U.6 2,aT.", . mase rey the pr+c m eest of items to consteered for wtsat it ie--a ve ry An etsituAa c hang e should occur Wf %d.*n ,,' *. oilk taperteet f un ctions. Procurement within TVA is not s taple and requires a .- 4"1,;. lowel of espertise es d knowledge not inherent in soy positten currently at - {, j'<; [hi 'I'e!,jih t.'.l,'d,7 eJ
- 6
".h';;.k * .[y'.>the pisets.the '
The knowledge time andina6equacLei delays and erperience saa areeeseociated t be taughttoand learned. a large
", h g
l" g g }3; ' -[*'f'..ftt+eetly.
'N
, ,etent with landividuale lea rning en thei r owei how to procure t hi ri s s . h5KS ,J E*)
2 .. :ewatenda tha t procure ent of items should be elevated in stature and a, gg,, i.h i: *, * *
,;',' ' ,, . '* 1meertance to a professininal level.
- e t'+* .
To make the concept work, W" ?R should change its practice that everyone h .i[M ' esa and should be able to procure materials to one where a dedicated and [d~ trained staff provides all procurement services. Feeple need to know how h W ' .~
-a .' . #' '
ta procure thinas before they are f aced with the task. Vith proper traic- E {k' ' ,N. ist, a significant ru=%r cf learning errors could be el'.minated asd the I3 vsality of the procurement process, both from a staterials standpoint as
- g .%,7 well as a time delay standpoint, could be improved. A training program on
*
- the entire prseurement process to include TVA's procedures, quality requitverata, put: basing requirenents, and Tederal procurement require ests b
I i i@t'd. . , abmld be develtped and provided to personnel perf orming a procure ent '
,' y',..' , , -
fasetion. $stisf actory completion of that training should be a requirement (_,,;
'l il.) , befert an individual is allowed to procure anything,
- 3. 4tn *. . g h ! ,
Aa estenelen to the training requLtenent could be the establishment of a
,3, j 'gl , ' r '. ',* , ,
Stoup whose responsibility is the procurement of materials. In that con-
'4 td evyt, engineers requiririg items or services would go to the procurement
)
' Q*J. ' '
?
greep and specif y what was ne e d e d'. That group staffed with the cetessary Q J; [t ^,,
*2Pe rt is e would "in turn, prepare the neces sa ry protutement documents, -
M. deflabe the e6a te rial s pe itations, quality requirements, and provide a pf g 4*. i cwyleted procurement ps -ge ready for the approving official, be it the y y ,N', , ,,' . . i , - i Flaat fianager' or the 7,oerd of Directors. That staff would be responsible :-N for assertag that the procurements were correct and require no further n *:,Y. *, ' , review or apprtrval with the caception of the authorining efficial(s) and . h 4 7 9 interface directly with T'*R2. Power Stores personnel cod their ordering M
) . E. -
- e .
of stect items would not be included in this staf f but would work closely s'itA them on procuremesta of stocted quality level materials. M d
$. M 3
9
*. .s. .
pe
,. j b%: -
L% i ,' < 6 - M L ~$ y3 . p h a~
- y. i
,Y, A ,.
r.3 N
, - I ATTACHMENT D CONCERN IN-86-Oll-003/0E-O".S-1 BACK-UP-DATA i
A02830302008 2/24/83 NRC IE Info Notice 83-06 OQA830225703 2/25/83 QA Audit Report CH-8200-14 A02840705005 6/29/84 NRC IE Info Notice 84-52 Q01850312051 3/12/85 NSRS Report R-84-17-NPS QO1350312050 3/12/85 K. W. Whitt to J. P. Darling B45850521603 4/18/85 S. Johnson to Watts Bar Nuclear files A02850513006 5'/08/85 NRC IE Info Notice 84-52-S-1 L12850520800 5/21/85 J. P. Darling to K. W. Whitt Bandwritten Memo 8/12/85 J. Gilbert to K. Brown 322850925002 9/25/85 N. R. Beasley to C. R. Ball U00851025804 10/25/85 A. M. Qualls to J. C. Standifer 325851029003 10/29/85 J. P. Vineyard to N. R. Beasley 321851031002 10/31/85 J. C. Standifer to N. R. Leasley R32851105869 11/05/85 J. D. Carlson to C. R. Hall
,,; E22851106023 11/06/85 W. 3. Hopf to Erown Ferry Eng.
. R45851031878 11/07/85 R. L. Lewis to C. R. Hall L0485118933 11/22/85 P. R. Wallace to H. E. Rankin
. 325851129015 11/29/85 J. P. Vineyard to N. R. 3easley L16851220825 12/20/85 J. E. Law to G. R. Hall R25860122878 1/21/86 F. R. Er.11 to N. R. Seasley 301860506002 5/06/86 F. I. Dicola to W. C. Drotleff L15860429801 -
5/21/86 ' S. A. White to "Those Listed" 341860606014 6/06/86 R. O. Barnett to C. A. Chandley ! , i W. S. Raughley I B44860619171 6/23/86 W. C. Irotleff to "Those Listed" L298160701846 7/09/86 J. E. Millet of J. P. Stapleton 167860722863 7/02/86 S. A. White to "Those Listed" . 345860725000 7/24/86 F. E. Dicola to "Those Listed" (Draft NQAM Procedure) B70860806005 8/06/86 W. L. Elliott to 2. Iabiri D. Reia
, 322860808015 8/08/86 J. P. Stapleton to "Those Listed"
{ tv
A~TACEMENT E e CONCERN XX-85-116-008 BACE-UP-DATA
- 1. Appendix "B" to 10CFR50, Criterion XVIII, Audits.
N 2. NQAM, Part III, Section 5.1, Audits.
- 3. DQAI - 310; DQAI - 313, Rev. O and Rev. 1, DQAI - 104, Rev. O and Rev. 1
- 4. Q. A. Reader Files, January through Dece=ber 1985
- 5. Q. A. Reader Files, July, August and September 1983
- 6. Sequoyah Audit Reports:
SQ-8400-10 SQ-A-85-0003 SQ-8400-14 SQ-A-85-0008 SQ-8400-06 _- SQ-8400-09 SQ-8400-13
- 7. Hulit-site Audit Reports:
CH-8500-01 CH-8400-20 CH-8400-14 CE-8400-07 CH-8400-18 CE-8400-06
- 8. Watts Bar Audit Reports:
W3-8500-02 W3-8400-02 QW3-A-85-0013 W3-8400-04 W3-8400-03
, 9. Browns Ferry Audit Reports:
,L.f.h 3F-8400-04 3F-8500-03
{J7V'7 ' 3F-8400-14 Q3F-A-85-0006 37-8400-08
- 10. He=o to Site Directors fro = E. C. Parris, dated 6/13/84.
- 11. He=o to W. C. Bibb fro = c. W. Killian, da:ed 12/7/85.
- 12. He=o to R. J. Mullin from G. W. Killian, da:ed 5/30/85.
- 13. Me=o to Quali:7 Audit Branch fro = G. W. Killian, da:ed 11/14/85.
- 14. He=o to H. L. Abercro=bie fro = G. W. Killian, dated 9/23/85.
- 15. He=o to C. W. Killian fro = E. L. Abercro=bie, dated 7/31/85.
- 16. He=o to E. L. Abercrc=bie fro = C. W. Killian, dated 9/23/85.
- 17. Me=o to Q. A. Audit File fro = C. E. Bosley, C. E ., Whitte= ore, and W. I. Aslinger, dated 6/10/85.
- 18. He=o to Quality Audi: 3 ranch fro = G. W. Elllian, da:ed 11/14/85.
i
- 19. Quaterly DQA, Quali:y Proble= S:atus heeting Minutes, da:ed 6/17/85.
- 20. He=o to "2ho'se Listed" fro = C. W. Killian, da:ed 4/19/85.
- 21. Intereffice Mailing Slip, 45D, to all QA3 fro = 0. W. Killian, dated 5/10/85.
O 1 ( N , .' ' i ~' i i l
A
' 3 .
. . . . . '1 i .
,. 'c , ATTACHMENT F .'
ECSP CORRECTIVE Action Tracking Document (CATD) INITIATION 1. 2. Ic: mediate Corrective Action Required : d/ Yes /[/ No Stop Work Recommended: /~/ Yes /I/ No
- 3. CATD No. 80101-SON -01 5.
- 4. ~ INITIATION DATE 9/8/86 I PISPONSIBLE ORGANI.".ATION: Office of Nuclear Power
- 6. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: /I/ QR /[/ NQR Procurement erogram did not assure-safety related materials. com-ponents. devices eouiement. systems etc., orocured by the Power Stores / Nuclear Plant Power Operations Process comolied with acolicable reculatorv, design bases and aualification recuire-ments. (Concern OE-0MS-1)
Action is beine taken for the cresent erocurements. however. the documentation reviewed and discussions held did not indicate wnat action is being taken on erevious procured items. Attaen=ent - Element Report 80101-SON
/ /ATTACR.".ENTS
- 7. FFIFARED BY: NA"2 k' . E. Becanson B. DATE: c /9 / 8'
, . . CONCURFINOE: CEG-H #Y/ /M = '
DATE: G /r, / yp L,ji.::, 9. APPROVAL: ICTC PROGRAM MOR: / '
.c.s ; .y DATE:
_ .}';) COPD20TIVE ACTION
- 10. PROPOSED CORF20!D'E ACTION PLAN:
/X/ATTACuygg75
- 11. PROPOSED BY: DIFIOTOR/MOR: DATE:
- 12. CONOURFINCE: CEO-H DATE:
SRP: DATE: ECTG PROGRAM MGR: DATE: VERITICATION AND CLOSEOUT 13. Approved corrective actions have been verified as satisfactorily i=plemented. SIOtu,TUF2 TITLE
- DATE t
!.s . e-cj
A!!AtP#.E!.! w 8hh J70102-801
~
,7' g 37A;rs covEnt: M Ct:T TENNESSEE REEY AU30PrTY
'ICm O 7 C H d MM ONF, 1
E. Brown, Jr. , Program Manager, E.mployee Concerns Tast Group. ro 4, Seguoyah Nuclear Plant Vatts Bar Nuclear FlantSite Director, ONP, O&PS E. L. Abercrombie, TROM
- January 6, 1987 DATr ELEMENT
- EMPLOYEE CONCEFJ!S TASK TION GROUP (ECTG)
SUB.f ECT: SEQUCIAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQfi) REPORT B01.0 PLAN (CAP) Iour memorandum to me dated September 9, 1986,Element " Watts Bar
Reference:
- E.mployee Concerns Test Group (ECTG)
Nuclear Plant Report 80101-SON - Quality Assurance Program Adequacy (Sequoyah)" (I25 860909 967) I acknowledge receipt of your element report and in accord request (see reference). applicable corrective action. i CAP, By way of this mencrandumIractingI a.mDocument endersing the site line No. 80101-SQN, and crganizat e returning your Corrective Attic:: This CAP h a reste.rt attaching the CAP fer your review / concurrence.
} requirement.
If you agree with the proposed CAP, please sign the ECTG cc::c P tracking below item 9 on the CAP tracking checklist and return the CA checklist. . . 9 e
$ $ {k '
~
E. L. Abercrem: 2e
... [ REOEIVED ECD:JOS:JS:CS ,
- . - e
,tyg ( g. /
Attach:te nts cc (Attachments): ,. l P'MS, ME 4N 721-C (E25 '861:31 011) *:$. igg: g Tux l T. C. Price, 5- 12 SE-E 18 N e l4 * ,,.- : 44 a. ._. C507I
. *:2 i :
. i ,
l
. h)Ola'S!.M,'
- 9. - t
. , . . s !
; l
, as b' ' ( * !
. .r ; I
]
n w 3
--a-**
i i !rl~ *.T'
-" p w]: l{ .6
. ui's 1
F *: .. AC ACE."lNT G e .. . . ECSr CORRECTIVE Action Trackine Document (CATD)_
)
I ttITI AT1014 ~
/Y/ Yes / / No
- 1. Immediate Corrective Action Required:
Stop Work Recommended: /~/ Yes /I/ No
- 2. _4 . INITIATIoti DATE 9/8/36 CATD tio. 80101-Sort
3 . Office of Nuclear Power 3 PISPONSIBLE ORGA!Il!.ATION: /I/ QR /;/ NQR
- 6. PROBLD1 DESCRIPTION:
Procurement orocram did not assure safety related matertsts, com-conents. devices coulement, s y s t e rcs etc.. comnited orocuredwith bv the Power_ Stores / Nuclear Plant Power Oeerations Process aoolicable reculatorv. cesien bases and oualification reoutre-inents. (Concern OE-Ot!5-11 Action is berne taken for tne eresent orocurements, however. the ilocumentation reviewed and discussions held did not indteste what action is betnt taken on erevious orocured trees. Attachment - Element keocrt 80101-SON
/ / ATTAC)1?!ENTS _
k' . E. Be:anson DATI: c/v/f%
,7. FFIF ARED BY : NAMI - .<(/ / M -
' DATE: M / c / f (/
(S .' CONOURFINCE: CIC-H / DATI: _' S. AFFROVAL: ICTO PROGRAM MOR: __ CORFICTIVE AC~I0t! Teer
~~ T#6~ bS [ S'/TX'/_f[cD
- 10. PROPOSID CORFIOTIVI ACTION PLAN:
376 ? % / 2. ~;;.1 (3 / / BV M d~.M:CA ub u Asf
... /X/ ATTA !L'!ENTS u 6 NE /4., DATE: / 7-87 [
FROFCSED BY: DIFICTOR/MGR: f DATI: 'Z- / 7 ") ~"7
}}.
1.a COSOUEFINCI: CIO-E ^
'#6Me/ /&~ DATE:
SFJ: 9 DATI: IOTO FROORAM t!OR: VIKITICATION Al;D CLOSECUT as satisfacecrily Approved corrective actions have been veri *ied 13. i=plemented. DATE TITLE SIGNATUFJ ]
)
- A CACP.".ENT C 3 of 33
-ee
,9.aQ o. T ,
,, ., u . . . . . -y .
..q p gT;.;CS COVERh'TIEN -
L ' oo 2 2t ny
- o=ilOl'*~'A
- 3, .
-.S$O?U U-- h.3P'L$bhL IE y y Q Q *)& .
B20 I .
~
T C. Denney, t=pleyee Concerns Special I cject Itanage , C!!OS " F , OSC-I. C-I,[Y Sequoyah Nucles: Plant
.-o O!I E, Sequoyah Engineering Projec:,
rno.st : ::. V. Wil son, P:cject Plant Engineer, Sequoyah Nucles: DATc : 00 (ICTC) ELE!: t:0 D:C
$bUCYAH _o 1 19r. I?UCLEAR T1.A!:I (SQl:) - E".F1.0YIE 11: Fl.All Cof;CIRf:S (CAP) TASK. CR suBJrOT: KITOK!5 - KIPOK! 501.01 SO N - P.!v;I*.* N:D CORRECT;VI AC 0 IN!!IA~10N -
hou dated Septe=ber
- Flease ref erence the =c=crandu= to 2. P tabiri f.;cm . .
- a. 19 26 (503 E 0913 EM).. CAP and copy cf the exis:ing c:
- ached is the subject Per you: reques:, C ir,:iating ec::ee:ive action documentation. * .
y
$v h /\ Y hWJ
~
'D. K. Wilse: .
. *)I' j$~~J * , .,,. ..
,(,TII :1.JJ .
f '. * *
- A::t ch= en:s .
.a -
.. c: '(A::a ch: ten: s ): - .
)
- t y.S , SL 26 C-X A .
l 'Abe [::=bie, 'CN?, O&?S-4, .Sequeysh (v/c. . ::a ch=en:s ,
. , ~
. F.. O&?i-3, Sequoyah -
I*
~ 7. I. A=drevs. 0801 01.?5-3, Sequeyah (w/o A::ach=en- s) ;
C. R. Eu:h:nzn, CSP, * ** . 7 V. Ol sen, DHC,' SE-2, Sequoyah ~ *
' T. C. ?: ice, W10 A57 C-K
. T.. D7*Pudde:, Dl?I, ~:S C-I, Sequey:h
.u
- J. S cr u gg s , US 3121 C-I ,. .
J. F Sullivan, CHI, 51-0, Sequeysh .. s.
- , c,,
Spink, Ixtensic . 7160' g, I-inzipily Ireptred by . I. * .* e
. . 8,
.e. , . ,
. o* .
" *f j* *-
.a .
*be
. p.*)
M r** h me
*.. r
.a*, .. e. . j g,.4.,y* ,
l* of 35
~
. AnACEMENT C %
t *
.e
, Standard Practi:e Pace 8 SQA166 Revi:1cn B s
Attachment A Page 1 cf 2 Corrective Action Plan of Employee Concern Investigation
'.--.,~.
Tracking Checklis:
- - . ~ ~. -
_;*..... ICC Report /CA!D Nw.ber 801.01 50N/80101 - SON I,ead Orcanization Responsable for Corre ::.ve A ::en Plan DNE Initiation Date Novamber 74. 1086 CORR.rCIVE AC~ICN P' AN (CAP)
- 1. Does this report require corrective actien? Yes y No
^^' (If yes, describe corrective action to be taken, if no, provide lustificanzen)
See Attach-ent
- 2. Ident:.fy any similar item /:.nstances and corre::ive act:cn taken.
CAO recentiv issued a: Bellefente. Cerreedve Ae M c- u-V-et-
.., g 2. Will c=rre:,1ve acticn preclude recurrence cf f.indings? Yes v No
- 4. Does t.his repe-: centain findings that are cenfitiens adverse to : :alitv (CAQ) as defined by AI-12 er Ep e,17 yrs , No
- 5. II a CAQ : nditien exists, what CAQ d : ment was initiated?
NRC Aceert (50-327, 328/86-611 dated Neve-be- 14 'on' fan
- n'o ^^*$
- 6. rrnien site sectien/crpani:stien is responsible fer : rre::ive a :icn?
D t'v - Veelreerert Itere t-er e-
- 7. Is corre::ive action ree: ired fer restart? Yes ___
+ No (This deter =inatien is to be cafe using Attachment C cf SQA166.) .
- 8. F2 : ne nu-Eer for restart cerrective actien? :=ne 14
- 9. Istirate ===pletien date fer correction a :icn. Ilon
~
Cc=pletedEy - /W , a4'- '/ 'Date / /;* c 8's X; proved Ey le F/I4 F M Date ; -/: ? C, , IC G Cen:ur:en=e %/ fcW/fe Date 2 /W?7
- i e
O O O W . s
$ b C9N$
- e. b o as .m.e e
- . . ~ . . . . . - -.- _. . _ - - . . -- . . . _ - . _ - - .- . - _ _ - . - .
A~~AcmCH: C- . 5 of 35
- Standard Practi:e Page 9 eye.6o, ,
nev:::cn 8 I . - . -w
- n. . n - -. . . n Pape ef 4
i
.a ur .
r
- 10. Was your corrective action ir.itiated and ccepleted in ac:=rtance with Do
- ep 17 Yes 4
- 11. "f r:ep 10 is no, describe the corrective acticn taken.
I e yes no
- 12. Is the correct:ve act en a.ple:nen atien complete? ,
No Yes l 13.* !s t.he ec,rrective action do:u nentatica closed?
- 14. What de:.:3ents were used to i.~.plement the corrective acti=n?
Date l, C:mple t ed' By: " Cate Verified 37: Date I-~:;d C1csure: .
- s p e s. -. .: ; ..: .- .
1, - (5s.ee. yo. } J J. . if 4 .i
- a. .-
i 4 . t
. -sf .~.
d
. .. . . . , .r
~
. , . . . .. .... .. c. v.i .;
- .:?..
.. ..3. ::
t . w. t ..->...
. f wr...
- 3. . 9. . .
, n . ,
, ,* *f ,
*s . ~ . ' . f.
~ *
~ . .-. .. .- .-
. ' ~" -. . . *..'s..7.
;;, '~;
- -. . . :(- ..;.,.
C ' 0 ' 5 / '- -
. . , 3 j
f l 1
. + , ,-,e. . . . -,-._.v.-- - - . , , - - , ,_ym.~e.,, , ,p,, , , _ , . . , , , , , . _ , , , , _ . , _ _ - . , .,.
.. . . n w. . . . .
. e
=
..- w -
)
w u = m m : m8: m n e c
.. w ,u, .
- u.
- . . u e -z
-: :: : < - e
. .. .a c
o Y Y - E ! r l l .i..i .j _r-= jltil :- p:- -, 1 - .
- ,c
- t .r !.
r i i
;:1j.u;
, ill g1llil , g: ' -
i _ ' u
- i i
1 } i i -: i
- j i i
- . = :. 6 i
- . i i
i
.-. .__..r ,
O ' E$"r h.~. l. h. g
. , .. g .. . .. i 1 ,. -. > >
- .g .. t 5 j Er.: a; .n.
.. < ( ::. -I-i ! .
TE. at. - - . Eli.
.. + , i
..3: ..c
_. i
.::,, .- .., .. , . - i -u s
I-
.I i
.;I -
- .14
-ert
- v. s i
- . .- . i u; ) r l l .si i. ;., i i
l t-* :,- : :* . kJ j 2 _ -.z; E: tr = g ..::. er. -- -, a s.
,g g p
IE" a;g ;; d
. .= =. :
a . g
.- 1 ,r,
-- su g
-e o : . -
c- l :.: g- . g .:=.. - O * * *
- C3 I 1
~
C. I
.2: I 1 ... rs-1,;S
. o.g is ..sf. .r G..
2 .
.=5 : ..
.E.s g .. --
3 -, : _.- . . . -
- zov s.E.:3. -
hii
- ss -
l
.-- :n.
a e:=. *
.-g i 1 l t
.I ., _s.-
h.
-,2c5 . g.s. -
- a5
-s..
y ze- .. . v i.
.. E .
~' . . .
y .
- s. - --
g I
= :,,
=--
..i.-~.*.
*
- l ..::. .. .
'~
., ";.,.a;
*) 3-
.m.s w
i 3 I e * * . ... e
; D. h.: ,
2 ;~--g g Ei .
. . - . .:- .' - =.-5. ~V ~: -
- - s
- :::
' w.:: .-c -
.. 5
- e. a..:.3
- . , . ad u,
*u N ..,a
...amw
==
ao 5; 6.:.e J
.*w *
- e. 15-E E % e.soo co .
au-
=
- m=. P. : .- .
-e wt... D%* eu --rw . . . . .... .. . ..,; .a ..
. ...=.
.,..:2 :, *. t.a
* ..co . e -
). .> ... ..a.
1 t
- s v .r . . ..- . . r- *. *Es -:. .
Q-k
*N b ...s.-
s..s= .w ..s.
. . -..O
.s..
.D E
**m..**
p
- se-
- Q . o n . .e . Co . - ,
-. eece .* .v'=
- . . t
[ e
.=tE&ws
--*.hS a
C.co .2 . . .. ,," *
, l ...eoe e . e e t. h. m. s
.~ : -
gy .- e
~ . _ . - .
v -
,n --=------e-g- y-, e we - gn y- ,r+ wc , . - - v a-
1,, 7 0F 35 ATTAC*dMI!C C < Attachment
) REPLACEMENT ITE.".S FROGFJ".
a The purpose of the Replacement Items Program is to develop and implement
- commercial grade dedication program and evaluate selected replacement part installations to determine their~ adequacy for use in safety related A
applications. The attached Figure 1 is a flow diagram of the program. d more detailed description follows. A new procedure to establish a TVA process for the dedication of commercitl grade items for use as basic components has been issued in the NOAM, Part I,
. Section 2.7.2.
Both DNE and Site procedures are being developed to implement the NQAM requirements. A DNE technical procedure is being prepared to establish the process fer the engineering evaluation to develop the requirements for Ultimately, dedicating a ec=mer'ciil. grade ite= as a safety related item. this procedure will be issued as an NEP, establishing a generic technical process for dedication _throughout ONP. SQN Site procedures in the area of procurement; storage, receipt inspection, maintenance, and reporting are being revised to reflect dedication recuirements. Project procedures are being developed to control installation document identification and review i tasts as well as other pertinent activities. O N s g r,-gg .g 4y..p_ . _ , ___p . _.m,,_y. - , , - ~ _ - .y 9 .,_m___ ,_. __ q . ~y yg,3, _ _ _ # ,,7pp p _. _m. 7,g-.y 79-
ATTACH _X,I.NT G P CL 0 Of 35 A conditional inventory issue program will ensure that current replacement A tracting program was implemented on November 25, 1986 parts are dedicated. . When dedication procedures are to identify replacement part usage. developed, inventory issuances will be screened by engineers with dedication documentation prepared within 30 days. Additionally, all new receipts will have dedication initiated at receipt inspection. The Procurement Program is being revised to initiate dedication at the requisition stage for new safety-related procurements. 1 Prior to restart, replacement parts for 10 CFE 50.49 (Invironmentally 4 Qualified) equipment will be identified and dispositioned with the i preparatice of dedicated doct=entation as appropriate.
~.
As a longer ter: effort, the e:isting Power Stores inventcry will be evaluated and. appropriate dedication documentation prepared. Any ite: with a 1 J potential safety-related application which cannot be dedicated will be reviewed for past.. unacceptable usage and corrective action will be initiated I 1 t if required. i,
- I l
Ultimately a mini-specificatien progra= will result in a centrelled l engineering output in the form of pre-engineered specifications detailing ( part technical requirements, source audit and inspection requirements, i receipt inspection requirements, part conditioning require =ents, and if l
" applicable, part maintenance testing require =ents.
t 0064 t
.-_.,_____m____,._.,_ _ , _ _ _ _ _ - - ~ . . . _ , . , , , . , _
..,.._m, . , . . , , , _ . , _ , _ _ . _ _ _ , _ , _ , . . . . , _ , -
CAEC 0 .,,, M of 25
.,;y..iios+osics
*+.ne
~
At2 561119 001
' otti!TED STATES COVER;;MC??T .
- - --- ,s m. ,- , L .i . num
, . . . 9 7a,j-,i Isa, . 7s.
. , taans M, gm O1'd n C u m _.
._ j TO : IhC5' IISE'd C. C. Mason, A: ting Manager of liu: lear Power, LP 6f! 3CA-C TECM DATE : NOY 2 4 SUEJECT: REPLACEMEfTI EIMS TASK TORCE -
17, 1986, I am establishing a Replacement items Tast Effective Force. flovemberThe primary fun:nion of the Iast Force is to develop and ensure seismic and environnerrtal i=plementation of a program to verify that been and will not be degraded. gualificarica of installed equipment has not Specifi: ally, the Iast Tcree will develop measures to control fut pre:urement,
' verify a :eptability of instr.11ed items.
A preposal feb verification of installed items shouldand be prepared approve.1 by De: ember 10. Pre:edures governing the verificatic: schedule will be included. disposition of the findings must be developed prior to initiating work. A preposed program fer current inventory a:d items procured Inprier to ha dedicatien program fully operable should be sut=itted by December 15.
- r. dedication pregran to govern future precurement
( parallel to this effort, 31, 1987. should be i=plemented ne later than Janur.ry letter f = The attached flow:barts and the fluelear. Regulate.y Cem=issie:will provid Tayler to '.thite dated 0 :cber 21, 1986, Ter:e. Initially, the Replacement Ite=s !ast Terce will consist cf the f ellowing
=c=bers: ..
Divisien e[ !!u: lear Engineering Representative, T. E. Dicola J Eeplaceme::t Ite=s Progrs= Manager, T. E. Spint j' . Tinancitl and Planning C. Starf E. M:VnerterQur_lity Assurance Espresentative, I. E Divisien of 11u:ler.: - > - ,
' . c.,
ITA Purchasing Eepresentative '- b M.. at Division of flu:ler: St.f ety and Licensing Representative- 1,.Ae4 Plc.nts Site Representr.tive fre= Sequoyah, Erecs Ferry, and ',Jatts Era JJueler.: t . t', , , , R
).g.A.c.8- t y,m'.t
~ Fer these cesanizatiens without nr.med representatives, you sbeul T. E. Spint of their designation. Terce.
who pe.rticipated in the " piece parts" effe'rt will serve en this Iast at . t['p- ~, , tv U.u.L N h 0.v.t $~pa i.S . /j.T. i?%).1 - i e C
.r*
t. vo 1 D q ;6
e , ~ A- ACD'.I!C C FAL 27 of 35
., 3 ,.
Those listed ' ~ _) 80V 2 41E-REP 1ACEMEF.'I ITEh5 TASK FORCE half time for Task Force Mr. DiCola should be made available at leastlead for verification an activities since the organizational the Division of Nutlear Engin,eering (DNE). hree-pronged effort i T. E. Spink will be a f ull-time program manager f or th s tization items. impleme and will be responsible f or ensuring line organand future replacement current, approved measures for handling past, d d for support of T. E. Spint has euthority to obtain additional resources nee eFor effort. the Test Force report to R. V. Cantrell, Acting Director, DNE.
*rY S h/
H. L. Abercrcmbie, ONP, Sequoyah-T. E. DiCola, V12 A6 C-K E. V. Cantrell, V12 112 C-E J. P. Darling, ONP, Se11ef onte C. E. Fo:, Jr., LP 6N 381-0 E. L. Gridley, LP 5N 1575-0
'(_ J. L. McAnally, LP SN 381-0 C. E. 3:Wherter, LP 2N 1665-0 E. C. P trker , .L.P 4N 451 C. '
E. P. Porrehn, Erowns Ferry - T. I. Spint. 15 AN SEE-C (
'J. W. Thcmpson, E12 C31 C-K G. Toto, ONP, Vatts 5ar J. L. Willi 49s, Cr. ,17 0CD CIT 2-0 TEJ:CLS Attachments .
c: (Attachments): A02 861023 C1c) EIMS,.52 AN 721-0 (Ee: E. C. Steffy, ME 6N 115-0 4 4 G N
tm 28 of 35-
' A n A: EF.Er;; G
' ., . s s .
) Verify Acceptability of Installed Equipment
~
Determine Scope {* of Review of
- Installation Documents u . .
.- 7. Accept As Is
----R e w o r k
' Disposition '
-Iest Item Installation Replace
& Evaluate Against Restart Criterie [N Inspect nalyte A
7 Develop Procecur.e f
~
for Review of
- nstallatien Documents
%n, k
Terify Acceptability of I e=s in Current Inventcry . t Deter :ne scope . , er Review D i Identify / j Cen,. a . .-. .agne Se;reEEtel - Ee=ove Ite:5/ l -
, Reorder s
~
f l pevelch ProceC"res for Assessint *
~
Current _IDV'"5I
\_%
A11/ 2 . .
-' / ( .-
\", 'a 'i . _, .
l **:, ! i Es t.abli sh E s t ab'l l s h' Estabitsh Es t abli s ti
- "Dodication" . .
Inventory Issuo Installation Program to Inventory Storato l Control Futuro Controls Proc. Controla Controla t Dowelop and . Develop and I" Issue flQAll 1riplemen t , implement Pro.oduro procod'ures proceduros to , l to assure assure that j procured Items Iesued ., Issue dodication frern Power Stores - { items are for use in safety- ' Sito f ldont!Ilod as rolsted appil-i . Implementing such and cations are L} Proc duro acceptable for {g sor.regated from -
- 14 non dedicated that use item (dedicated). il Develop "
" Controlled .
Commercist Implemont Controls Ggodo Items to assure that 1,l u t" 575's contain all necessary traceability 7/ referonces f.} Organlan and Staff o Site procurement,
- i Engineering Function .
O t 9 e
- l. , ' ,i
, a t t l p'l> f\ n z C f
. I
* 'e *
/ ,
, ~ .
E gJ L
- B l . .,
A ' . 1, T l0 l
, F
,l E l $
$ C Al l
; T t C tl Ci L !
f-l I
! C s A . jA F ll I6 U i I s 0I l f I U l 5 LC loDi sat 0A
't CC 4
. t n
A 1 S ET l E T Cli r0 ' i1 _/ I A A A t U. l I nl iC t t u C C O A C f
] r t
'l V oO U EC i
e e
) -
{
- o c
a'
- h (
e I D a L
< I l
. t A lo s T I & Y l
AI S e l EI E I l Y L 1 I T CE Y CEl A i 1 WI R DA l t R C - ll EA C I] E ti EA t 5 e R l le nI CD i lnD L C lo t t 1 lo C C
'E t rI i o l D
. 3 lo l
i ll E l P h l
-(j l
lC - o A E T & V T 0E A 1 T ll Y T 1 1 C 7 CE 0 1 E I 0 EA 5 Al 1 I T 11 6 Kl CiU Rl {% }I d A&l C lE V .RL.F ER E l l 0 D - T A ol I RCE t Au l
. T Cl 0
1 1
- 0. A
. . e
_ .3 , ,jb Ts 01 C C A r, i
- 1 1 1
r lt t l rI U.EA A5 IC T
/ls Iol l
?
l l E l n A l
.I
\
cl U.
' t AS P t
- V/ i oA , EQl DV _ . E E .
. i.
. L l l
io i t t l i l t A A. i l l I. il l E . l l A A t sC t lU a nt l OI t x
n=aum c .
- s. c.:. o - -
A02 S 6 1 1 1 ,s - vo
,; . '_ om.s
. . /' ' '. . , ,. - % 'e, UMTED Tt.TEs E~ ~ C /r;
-% fJUCLEAR REGULATORY COf.iM!SSIOfJ
- O l c
-~ . . r wasmucion o. c.::sss .
- =N , Wl ~=-
- w< flovember 14, 1930
- s. e.....- ..
Docket fics.: 50-227
. and 50-32S Tennessee Valley Authority ATTH: fir. C. C. Mason Acting Manager of Nuclear Fower
'e
6H 38A Lookout Place 1101. Market Place Chattanooga, Tennessee 27402-2801 d *
. Gen:lamen:
5 This refers to the inspection perfc: ned by Messrs. E. T. Baker, J. C. Harper, and J. J. Petrosino of the Vender Program Branch and Mr. S. R. Stein of the Reat:cr Construction Programs Branch on September 15-19 and September 26 thru 0 :cber 2, 1985, a :ne Secuoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. The inspe::ict related to activities authorized by NRC License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79. Our findings were discussed with Mr. H. L. Abertrembie and others of your staff at the con:lusion of the inscettien and were the subject of the 0:::ber 21,1985 le::er from
) J. M. Taylcr to S. A. White.
The purpesc of this inspecticn was to review Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) . corree:ive action to Nuclear Safety Review Staff (? SRS) Reports R-St-17-NPS, I-E3-13-NPS, and E-85-07-NPS. The inspe:: ion included a review of ::ntrat:s . for criginal and replacement epuipment, maintenance recuests, cuality assurance
. ,. progrrm recuirements, site procuremant procedures and pra : ices, and asse:iated documenta:1cn. sne findings in the areas of procurement of safety-related e:uio-ment, record storage and re:-icval, and receipt inspection indicate a failure to .
.. take acecuate corre::ive a -icn to these previcusly icentified ::n=e-ns. In
-. particular, y:ur program has allowed previcusly cualified e;uipment (ssismic and
,1 :- environmental) to be degraded by purchasing replacement ::=enents and par:s as
- =ercial grade, without documentation of its cualifica:icn, and witneut ace:;uate -
. .- dedica:icn of the items by TVA. In aedition, retrieval cf cuality assurance records fer installed e uipment was extremely difficult and in some instantes, l .
where the e uipment did not have a unicue picnt identificatien number, the records : uld n'ot be retrieved. Further, in s:me cases receipt inspe:: rs
-have not been provided with acecuate instructions to enable them to perform meaningful inscettions. 'These defitiencies nave been classified as a single Pctential Enforcemen: Finding (50-227, 22S/85-61-01) c:ncerning failura to
, take adecuate corrective action. , .
- C E.y 2 y n
., }CZ.Cr.woooA.g,,a d I
%g o 91 in.n..u n t )'
1 r r wrw *:. r , 3 L-- =~~ snw.-.. _
- 4 =-
l y lb W y -
CACPFN: c 1_ 10 of 35
~.**.*,. %
- Tennessee Valley Authority November 14, 1936
__ \ l s; . The Potential Enforcement Finding is being referred to the URC Region II office . for their review and approcriate action. Your corrective action for Seoucyah and assessment of the applicability of the identified deficiencies ,f or other TVA facilities should not await further NRC action. Should you have any questions o'n this matter, we would be pleased to discuss them with you. Sincerely.
. y4_ . w w- A Brian K. Grimes, Director Divisien of Quality Assurance, Vendor
~
and Technical Training Center Programs , Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
- 1. Potential Enforcement Finding 50-327, 328/86-61-01
- 2. Inspection Report No. 50-327, 328/86-61 cc w/ enclosures:
- H. L. Abercrombie, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Site Director -
Post Office Box 2000 Soody-Daisy, Tennessse 37279 P. R. Wallace, Plant Manag,er Pos: Office Box 2000 ' Soddy-Da.isy, Ten,nessee 37339 J. A. Kirkebo, Director
- Nuclear Engineering .
Tennessee Valley Authority -
- 400 West Su=mit Hill Drive, W12 A12 '
Taoxville, Tennessee 37902 - R. L. Gridley,' Director Hucicar Safety and Licensing - Tennessee Valley Authority ~ SN 2573 Lookout Place
.' Chattanooga, Tenness,ee 37402-2P.01 ,
., M. R. Harding, Site Licensing Manager Tennessee-Valley Authority SN 157B Lookout Place
) Chattancoca, Tennessee 37402-2801
PACE 11 of 35 ATTAcEMDi! G
', 8 POTEflTIAL EflFORCEliElTT PINDING
( Docket Hos.: 50 3Z7/3:5 Tennessee Valley' Authority License !!cs. - DPF-77/79 1301 tiarket Place 37402-2801 Chattanooga, Tennessee Potential Enforcement Findinc 50-327. 328/E6-61-01 As a result of the inspection conducted on September 15-19 and September 29-October 3,1986, and in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C (1986), the following Potential Enforcement finding was identified. 10 CFR Appendix B, Criterion XVI, states, in part, " Measures shall be estab-lished to assure that conditions aoverse to cuality, such as f ailures, malfunc-tions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and noncon-formances are prcmptly identified 'and corrected." I Contrarv to the above, TVA has failed to correct deficiencies in the areas of procure'nent of safety-related ecuipment, storage and retrieval of cuality assur-ance records, and receipt inspection of safety-related ecuipment wnich were ioentified in Nuclear Safety Review Staff Reports R-84-17-NPS, I-E3-13-NPS, ' and
\s- R-E5-07-NPS. .
4 8". t* O 9 4 9 . Y
% =
- A ;Acmm;; c h. 1: of 35 4
- Report 1:o.: 50-327/86-61 and 50-3:S/E6-61 h -
Tennessee Valley Authority Licensee: 6N 3EA Lookout Place
\
1101 Market Street Cha ttanooga, TN 37402-2801 50-3Z7 and 50-328 License Nos.: DPE-77 and DPR-79 Docket Nos. . Facility Name: Secuoyah Nu Tear Station Units 1 and 2 Inspe : ion Cencutted: September 15-19 and September 2g-October 3, 19E6
- g. t inspectors: b bdW l'5 Da:e
- .. eaKer, s e a> ees cer
) / ',\
- R Ghg' c L,4 L <
Da:e fJ. V. Petres1nc, uuailty assurante Spe: 1alts-l I
//h/gf n fn-w /. /W
'5. R. Stein, Eie::rica l Engineer Da:e
/k% I' $/.
Da"e A J. C. harper, lie:Ellur~1:al Engineer .
// /j/ /
Approved by: .
~
/! // r P4 ba:e .
E. W. Merseno 1, C sex , heat 1ve inspe: son
- Se::icn, Vendor' agram Branch SUMMAF,Y 5 pe: This w> s an -announ:ed reactive inspe:: ion which was tendu::ed at the Secucyah Nucle' a r Station c determine the effe::iveness of TVA's : rre::ive at: ion for problems identified in Nuclear Safety Review Staff Reports K-Sa-17-NFS, I-E3-13-NFS, and E-E5-07-NFS concerning past precurement and reccrd storage pra:: ices. Areas inspected included precurement actions :f ken the
. fer replacemen; of safe:y-related electrical and mechanical systems; a sample of procurement actions identified by TVA's review of Class
' 1E replacement devices; a sample of precurement actions taken on e:uipment sele::ed during a plant walk-through; MDE ;;ersonnel cualific: icns; and F wer Stores receiving inspe:: ion pra:: ices.
Results: One P:tential Enf or:eren: "inding was iden:ified. g 7 - g h {l $ {y _
' A!!A:P.MIt*T C FACE 13 of 35 REPORT DETAILS I
\.
- 1. fersensCentacted:
Licensee Emolovees_
*H. L. Abercrombie , Site Director E. Anorews, Site 0uality Manager
*W.
*J. Blankenship, Information Of fice Panager L. D. Brewer, Control Shif t Operator R. Bruce. Program and Stancards Se:: ion Supervisor
*R. H. Buchnoi:, Of fice of nuclear Projects (ONP) Si te Representa:ive
+5. K. Chapman, Elce:rical Maintenance General Foreman H. Crane, Site Services Procurement sucervisor
'D. C. Craven, Quality Assurance Manager
-M. R. Harding, Site Licensing Manager R. Jenkins, Divisien of Nuclear Engineering (DNE) Supervisor
'I. M. Kabiri, Site Services Manager
'J. W. Kelly, EA Engineer G. Kirk, TVA Comoliance T. Kontovich, Ele::rical Maintensnee Engineering Supervisor
*J. E. Law, Chief Quality Systems Branen a
*A. 5 Lehr. Instrument Maintenance Group Engineer
'M. R. Matthews, Restart Task Force
'B. Patterson, Maintenance Superintenden:
" ' G. W. Petty, Materials Officer N-H. L. Pope, OC Supervisor .
'M. A. Purcell, Licensing Engineer
*B. Schofield, Licensing Engineer
'J. R.'Staley, Power Stores Supervisor C. Stu::, CA Engineer
*P. R. Wallace, Plan: Manager
'J. R. Watson, CA Engineer
-W. J. Wilburn, Site Maintenance
'L. J: Wheeler, Materials Manager
'C. R. Wher:er, Materials and Pro:ureman: Services Stzff Chief
- Thelnspe: ors also conta::ed or interviewed other licensee personnel from the ccerations, training, m.aintenance, and technical staff.
Other Or:ani:ations_ R. V. Matheisen, Westinghouse Site Representative
.. HRC -
i
'P. E. Har=:n, Resident Inspector
-X. M. Jenison, Senior Resident Inspe:::r
* 'D. P. Loveless, Eesioen: Inspector
.-E. W. Mers:heff, Chief, Rea::ive Inspe::icn Section
! )
- attended exit meeting
.(_
2
' AM AO&iEN~ C TAbt. Il* cf 35 c.
ry i *- Intervitw
) The in5pection secoe and findings were summarized andThe ciscussed with team memoers
\ those individuals icen:1fied in paragrapn 1, above.
describec the areas inspected and discussed the inspec;1on fincings The licensee did not icentify as proprietary any of the listed below. materials provided to or reviewed by :ne inspectors curing this inscet: ion. .
- 3. Licensee Action en Previous Enforcement P.atte,;s This subject was not addressed in this inspection.
- 4. Unresolved issues No unresolved issues were identified during the inspection.
- 5. . Backcround
- TVA's Nuclear Safety Review Staff (MSP.5) performed in-depth audits of TVA's The results of these procurement system anc recores retentien system.aucits These re:or:s are high-doc dated March 8, 1985 and R-E5-07-NP5 dated July 5, 19E5.
lighted programmatic deficiencies without providing specific examples of the problems found. One of the more significant findings related to the use of components purchased "cc=mercial grade" and used in safety-related systems
' without any additional determination by TVA of thesignificant Another cocoonents' cualifica:icns finding ceal for use in safety-related applications.
'- with the difficulty or inability to retrieve cuali:y cssurance records in a timely manner. TVA took corrective action in response to these findings -
to improve their procurement and record storage programs to prevent similar However, these corrective actions did net a:cear problems from: recurring.to aedress the effect past procurement practices m of installed equipment. This inspection was conducted to determine how procurement practices for original and replacement ccm:cnents and parts aff ected the original cuali-fication or design recuirements of safe:y-related ecuipment installed in the plant or if record storage practices prevent determining whether or ne The inspection the cualification of equi; ment has been adversely affected. utili:ed :nree separate methods for selec:ing ecuipment fcr detailec i . review:
- c. A sahole of electrical, mechanical, and instrumentation ccmponents was selected during a, plant walk-through for a review of the related procurement documents. Ecuipment was selected based on problems
' iden:ified during previcus inspections of licensees and venders.
. Prcblems noted in paragraph 6.b.7 were identified for an item frem this sample.
N 9
.x
.2 c: ;2
=,
ATTAcu.MIt;; G ~ A ccmouter listing of maintenance recuests (URs) initiated curing b.- the time perice 1980 to 19C4 was obtair.ed for selected systems ar.d l- prs were selected from these lists for follow-up based on whetherPrchlems no s, or not a safety-related component was r eplaced. paranraohs 6.b.1, 6.b.6. 6.b.9, 7.a. and 7.b were icenti fied f or items crawn f rom this sample,
- c. TVA began an ef fort in July 1986 to evaluate th a total of approximately 125,000 MRs, theyAt identified the time238 MRsinspec-of this unoer which Class IE devices had been replaced.
' tion TVA was in the process of determining the status of seismic E qualification for a sample of 50 prs which represented Class l This inscection replacement devices . supplied directly f rom s:cch.
reviewed several MRs from the 228 that were not part of TVA's sampl Problems noted in paragraphs 6.b.2, 6.b.3, 6.b.4, and 6.b.5 of 50. were identified for items drawn f rem this sample.
- 6. Review of Precurement_
- a. Procram Review The team reviewed Part III, Section 2.1, " Procurement," of the ,
Operating Quality Assurance Manual; 50A 45, "Ouality Centrol of Materials, Parts, and Services," Secueyah's site specific recuire-ments for procurament; and Seoucyah's Acmini Substitutions and CA Level / Descriptions Changes." - A rately review of the reflected thedefinitions NRC's intent section of 50A for the terms J5 shows
" basic that compenen
" Class -1Ei" and "::=mercial grade item," terms c:mmonly used when discussino procurement. Three other cefinitions of interest " Level to II the team were, " Level I Quality Assurance Material," and Quality Assuranc'e Material," ::mmenly referred to as OA Level I -
and OA Level II, and " Critical Stru: ures, Systems, and C =cenents (C550).", A significant part of the problems discovered during
*this inspection stem from the definitions given for 0A Level I iVA's definitions for these terns
- and .0A Level II and their use. -
are as follows: . Level I Duality Assurance Material--(1) These CISC Bater1ats, components, anc spare parts which are a
'part of and whose failure would violate the reactor l -
coolant pressure boundary; (2) these other CSSC items
- that cannot be bought by incustrial standards End reference I
- part number; (3) certain items that must be specifically l
.~ bought as Level I as required by Attachment 21 (reference l DP N75A10) of this standard practice, and (4) electrical i '
equipment defined cs Class IE. l i-I - 1 1 s ! N_ s l ! a
~ . _- . . . - - - -- ---- .- - -- ._- - -- -
s
- A TACEMEh*: G PACE 16 of 35 c- Level 11 Cuality Assurence--C55C materials, c;mponents.
anc spare parts :nat can ce purcnasec by positive icentifica-l ) tion, provided that these items are not CA Level 1. 0A Level
' 11 permits in-kind replacement of items when :ne srecified.
industry coce er standard provides positive icentifica: ion. 1, Pesitive identification is established f or an item by using one of the following methocs: i
- a. Documents:4cn supplied with the original ecuicment and/or f rom nameplate / tag information attached to the equipment.
- b. The item's description as specified by the enoineering i
drawing bill of material, provided no special process i , is performed due to drawing notes, etc.
- c. The item's description as specified in the procuremen:
' technical specification.
- d. The item's noun name and part number when su plied by
, the original supplier, manuf acturer, or vencor. 1 These definitions are atypical of what is normal industry practice i in that they describe what equipment falls-into ea ca tsoo ry. Appendices' to Attachmen: 20, " Specification of CA Program Requirements for Nuclear Power Recuisitions," of 50A-45 contain th
) actual quality assurance requirements. e.g. , Appendix 1, " ASME for particular categories of ecuipment,
\-
' Section III Materials;" Appendix 2, "ASME Section III Valves;" Appendix 5, " Class IE Haterials ,and Ecuipment;" Appendix S Code Items Uhich .Have Unique Nuclear Requirements." A note which is pertinent to the findings of this in:cection accears l
' under the title of Accendix 8 as listed on page 250 of the 7/12/B2 -
- version of SQA-45. The note reads as follows:
f ,
..."UsedforprocurementofQALevelsIandII[10CFP.21 ~
. Applicable] basic components which have unioue nuclear
~
recuirements, including Seismic Category I Application - and equipment used in Class IE application [ device as a whole which recuires qualification by supplier or l , manufacturer] wnich are not ASME Section III Coce."
- A cursory reading of this note'by someone not f amiliar with TVA's in crpretation of the phraser. "10 CFR 21 Applicable," " Seismic
** Category I Application," and " Class,1E application," would lead one to believe that electrical and non-ASME. mechanical ecuipment that was recuired to operate during and af ter a seismic event as However,
! would be subject to the requirements of Appendix 8. i- w the next two paragraphs show, this is not the case. l I j 5
A ;AtttKD;T G b-- C Of M
- f. , , .
When TVA procedures discuss recuirements fornecessarily Seismic Cateocry I
, , _ . Plication, they are no: fun:: ion
) acclication and Class IE a:
l referring to tne specific pieces of ecuipment whicn mus:"cevice as a wnnie The s ta tement, ( during or after a seismic event. f t er," , which recuires qualification by the suoplier or manu ac urAs explained by TVA pe appears in the note cuoted above. iLed in during the inspection and as can be seen from the examples t paragraph 6.b. below, TVA personnel interpreteo this to mean that seismic and IE cualification was only applicable to ifthe Thereicre, a assembly cualified and supplied by the manufacturer."wholeuireo. device" (e.g., mo was replaced, seismic Qualification of the replatement was rec However, if a subcomponent of the whole device was replaced (e.g. , relay, circuit breaker, air starter motor) seismic oualification t was not recuired for the replacement, regardless of whether orThe no the replacement had to function during or.af ter a seismic event. reason given for this practice was that TVA was however, This practice was not adecuate to assure a cualified part, nce because the procurements were "like-for-like." made OA Level that the replacements were in fat: The procurement of safety-related ecuicment recuiring f seismic and environmental qualification as CA Level 11 occurred because o two problems. The second statement in the cefinition OA Level I
}
and the definition by a unicue of OA manufacturer's partLevel numberII allcw and are items produced which ca to indu
-(b standarcs to be procured as OA Level II recardless of the safety The other -
funt:icn of the item or the industry standard invoked. ll problem is that rather than basing quality recuirements
~
lity so e y on the importinte of the item being procured, form forTVA base the item. This problem was c mpounded by the f act that the11 to 50A-45, determining Part'21 applicability, A::acnmen: . towar,ds not imposing Part 21 on anything less than a whole d Therefore, a piece of e:uipment which was originally supplied il by the manufacturer as' seismically cualified could be repla cd by a c:mmerc a ' crade item without appr priate encineering analysis because l II, TVA s procedures allowed the ecuipment s be classified as OA Leve Part 21 Not Applicable. Paragraph 10.3 of ANSI M5.2.13 states that equipment may be at:ep by source verification, re:siving inspection, e uipment suppli l
** As the examples in paragraph 6.b.'show, TVA chose to at to The :
based on receiving inspection and post installation testing. receiving inspecticn performed by TVA during the time period lego_ ICE 4 consisted only of a che:k for shipping damace and cleanliness, i and a comparison of the cart numoer on the item to the number. that the piece of e visment will function durino normal operation.
! However, receip; inspection and fun :icnal testing in-situ cannot
( 6
CA:!L". INT C h. 18 ef 25
.., . ~
' validate the ability of a piece of ecuipment to function curing The other or
-- 7 af ter a scismic event or exposure to a harsh environment.
I methces of acceptance available to TVA were source verifica icn ano N supplier certificate of conformance. The " source verification
- recuireo" block and the " documentation reovired" block were marked M/A for all CA Level 11 procurements reviewed, although some manu.
4 f acturers submitted certificates of conformance (C of Cs) anyway. l- However, in arcer to take creoit for C of Cs, paragraon 10.7 of An5I
, N45.2.13 recuires tha: the purchaser have a means of verifying the validity of the C of C. The means permitted by paragraph 10.2While are audits of the suoplier or independen; inspections or tests. , TVA performed independent inscettions and tests, these tests could not be used to validate a C of C for seismic or environmen:al cuali-fication since they only involved funt:ional testing during normal operating conditions. TVA also performed audits of the suopliers of most of the equipment for which documentation packages were reviewed.
However, a review of those audits indicates that the programs reviewed were the nuclear outlity assurance programs and not the commer:ial Pased on previous NRC vendor inspe:: ion experience, grade programs.if the nuclear cuality assurance program is not invoked in :ne
' procurement document, the items being procured are usually Iherefore, no manufactured under the nuclear cuality assurDnce program.which invoked the co a C of C re:cived based on a con:rsc:
i grace cuality procram can only be consicered valid if the commer:ial crace program has been audited and found acceptable.
- b. Procuremen: Imolementa ti on s.
The followine describes the results of the review of MRs, procurecon: l documents, receipt inspe:: ion recorcs, and other associated de:vment- - ation 'for' selected ecuipment.
- 1) Steam Generator Level Solenoid Valve (2-L5V-003-174):
.i MR A-592379 was issued on 12/2/E5 to replace the coils in f *:nis ASCO solenoid valve (mecel 205-3El-2RVU) whien provides The a control fune: ion for the Main Steam Isola:icn Valves.
valve being worked on, S/N 43243J-90, was an environmentally '
- and seismically cualified valve, purchased unoer ::ntra::
EOKJ3-00327551, whi:h had imposed 10 CFR Fart 21 and an j Appendix B quality assurance program on the manufa::urer.
' The valve lo:ation is the West Valve Re:m, a harsh environ-eent.
Beersuse of this, the maintenance was being con:r:11ed under tne Oualified Maintenan:e Data system (CMOS) and the MR was marked "QMD5" and "10 CFR 50.49 Device."
- As stated above, the original 5:cce of work was to repla:e i
the coils in this valve. However, because the craftsman could not rcmove the coil subassembly with the :cols 2
' supplied for the job, the whole valve was replaced with ;
- another fully qualified valve, 5/N 84146U-C.
i r l i
.9 of 25
..~... ,.
( A- AciDC!T! C L ,, t . installing
]f the craftsman hao not encountereo difficulty the replacement coils, the cualification of the original
*- ) valve would have been inoeterninate since the coils were 1
\- procured as pietercr s, OA Level II, no documen:ation
' required, and no review of the effect of the commercial grade coils on the seismic and environnental cualifica: ion of the original valve was made.
Reactor Trip Bypass Breaker B (2-BKRC-00c-XH/319-G): ,
- 2) .
The uncervoltage trip attachment (UVTA) on thison Westinghouse June 24, 1e55. DB-50 oreaker was reolated unoer MR A-101112 i The UVTA withdrawn from stock was one of 22 UVTAs pur: based under contract 84P64-342921 in November 19C3. The contrac: , icentified the UVTAs as OA level II, and did not impose OA, l 10CFR21, seismic or documentation recuirements on the suoplier. However, the supplier (Westinghouse) modifiedThe themicrofilmed original bid and contrat self-imcoseo GA and 10CFR21 recuirements. file at Seo from Westinghouse for ten UVTAs, but only four of the ten listed 24P64-342921 contra correspond to the UVTAs delivered uncea As and the UVTA installed on this breaker is not one of them. I 1 l' there is no document'ation to suoport evalification of the UVIA, the cualification of the breaker assemoly is indeterminate. 4
- 3) Normal Feed Breaker to Rea::or Vent Board 25-3 (2 t J
The Reactor Vent Board IB-B was originally pur:hased with the i
, 450V motor control centers unoer contrac: 71CI-54752, cated .
i
\'- The contract recuireo a cuality assuran:e program May 5, 1971. testing and qualification for the safety-related and seismi: The seismi: tes. ;
l me:or ' control centers listed on the contract. ! recort, dated Mar:h 1972, also cocumented su::essful separate ' tes:ing of internal comconents, including a circuit interructer
- of the type specified for the motor control center feed breakers. .
D'n De: ember 25, 1978, Pur: base Recuisition 272524 was issued to pro:ure a replacement for the Rea::or Vent Board The pur:hase ZF-B normal fe
. bretker and two additional overload trip units.
l ' recuisition and con:ra:: classified the items as OA level 11, did not imoese OA recuiremen s en the su:olier, did not recuire l any cuality co:umentation from the su:olier, and The determined re:eivingthat 10CFR21 was not applicable to this pro:urement. j inspection con:isted of a c:mparison of nameplate data to the ! - pur: nase documents.
** One of the two overload trip units was withdrawn fr: s:::k en i
- September 8, 1970, and installed on the normal feed breaker for the R'ea::or Ven: Board 2F-B under P.R 00225. As there is n l
do:vmented evidence of qualification for the trip unit, it I , rencers the cualification of the feed breaker and the safety- [
~
- related motor control center it services inceterminate.
N C
. _ _ _ _ ~, ____ _,_ ,______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _____,,_ _ _____, _ _ _ , _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ .
~
ATTA RMENT C Pact 20 of 25 Auxiliary Relay in 6.9LV Shutdown Logic Eclay Cabinet 2A-A
~
4)
- S (2-FMLE-202 5C-A):
\w This safetv-rciated logic cabinet was criC nally purchased in i
June 1972 uncer contract 72C02-E3aC3, which recuired a full PA Contrac 7CP15-24575, cated program Septemocrand 29, seismic 1979, cualificaticn. purchased as OA level II,15 relays of various styles without imposing CA, 20CFR21, seismic, or quality cocumentation requiraments on the supplier. One of the replacement relays was withdrawn from stock and installed in the 6.9hV Shutcown Logic Relay Cabinet 2A-A under MR A-019523 on May 2C, 1982. As there is no cocumented evidence of oualification for the relay, it renders the cuali-fication of the safety-related. relay cabinet indeterminate. During research of the contract files for this panel, the origi-nal seistic repor: and adcitional corresponcence was found to indicLie problems with the seismic testing of two types ofAl relays, thou gn including the type of relay replatec uncer MR A-01oE23. a letter from TVA indicates accectance of aeditional seismit testing of the relays, the report do veenting the additional testing could not be located in the cc umcn; con rol system curing the three week period over which the inspe:: ion v:as concucted but was later cbtained from an engineer who had retaincd a personal ccpy. 5) ooric Acid Transf er Pump Motor (2-MTRS-62-230-A): s, s The original pump and motor assembly The applicable was su: plied uncer Westinghouse spe:i-the M5 contract with Westinghouse. , fication (677123 Rev.0) imposed seisnic recuirements for the assembly and renuired the supplier to provice cc proviced Wes:inghouse umented prcof of c mpliance to these requirements.cated January 9, 1974, as cocumenta Ouality Releas'e 11255-1, bly met the
,that the beric acid transfer pumo and motor 677123, Rev.0.assem requirements of Spe:ificatien 13, 1952 under
- A replacement pump motor was purchased en January *
- Although TVA classifies the motor as cen:ract $2P54-323717.
Class JE, the centract identified the pur:hase as CA level II and did not impose CA, seismic,102FR21, er cc:veentation A motor different than ordered was
. supplied.
recuirements en the vendor.A TVA substitutien evalu Attachmen: 10, Appencix A Rev.10) was completed on Augus: 9, 1952, but the engineering con:urrence for 13, Class IE substitutions 1953, the repicce-
was marked as not acclicable. ,0n January ment motor was installed. As there is no documentation to support qualificatien of the pump meter, the qualifica:icn of 4 the pump m: tor esseroly is indeterminate.
9
m ___
~' AT AcEMIN: O 4. 21 of 33
_' 6) Diesel Generators: i The diesel generators were procured under contract 71C61-92552
' f rom Bruce-GM which reovired manuf acturing unoer a 10 CFD 50.
Appendix B ouality assurance pronram and seismic ovalification of sil ecuipment. Under RD-5794S9, dated 6/6/77, to contrac: 73223-65906, TVA procured replacement air starter motors from TVA Ingersoll Rand as OA Level II, no documentation recuired. has replaced these air starter motors numerous times either with motors procured from Ingersoll ' Rand or rebuilt by Seouoyah clant personnel. As there is no documentation to support cualifica:icn of the replacement or rebuilt air starter motors the cualifi-cation of the air starter motors and the diesel generators in which they are installed is indeterminate. Shutdown Board 2A-A logic Relay Panel (2-BDA-202-CO-A): 7) Items selected by the inspection team durino the plant walkcown included two Agastat time delay relays from'this safety-related Class IE panel. These were Agasta mooel number 7012PD relays, serial numbers .(5/Ns) 81031110 and E03622t.2, and are in the control logic circuits for the essen:ialTherawmarkings cooling on water and these two the component cooling water systems.manuf actureo as qualified relays indicate that they were no: proceeced by Class IE components since the model number is no: an "E." This was subsequently confirmed with the relay manu-facturer, Amerace Corp. When contacted after comcletion of803622 the 2 inspection, and 81031110, Amerace Coro. indicated that the relays, . six:h week of 1980 and the thiro week of 1951, respectively. Although requested during the first week of the inspection, TVA was unable to identify or produce the procurement cocuments for these' relays. However, since these relays are not uniously identified oy TVA as Class II devices, the ins;ection team - assumes that they were procured as piece par:s, OA Level II, vit. cut
- the imposition of CA or cocumen:arion require = ants on the suppiier.
qualification of the
" As there is no documentation to succor:
~ relays and the vendor's records incicate thtt
- hey were no supplied as cualified devices, the cualificatien of the
. relays and shutdown board in which they are installed is inde terminate.
- 8) Containment Isolation Valve (2-FCV-32-103):
.' This air operated globe valve is required to close on a Class B isolation signal and is listed in Table 9.3.1-2 cf the FSAR as
. a seismic cc:egory I valve. This valve was chosen during the
, walk-through by the team to trace the procurement chain from
- an installed ccndition back to the documentation, and was also
- incluoed in the :tmple of itens for which the maintenance history s
10
'., A gggs; G L- 2 of 35
- was reviewed. The valve was ordered as an ASME Class 2 valve, seismically cualified, under contract 73C34-83577, cated 3/15/72,
-I ' f rom Masoneilan International Inc. The serial numoer of the traces back to a valve cata packace
~ installed valve, fl00137-21 4,However, a valve data orcering sheet couid for valve PCV-32-103.
not be -located for either PCV-32-103 or FCV-32-103 under contra:t 73C34-83577. A review of'the maintenance history for this valve indicates that the valve f ailed its local leak rate test and was repaired under MR A-081510, dated 8/1/E3. The MR indicates that the soft The rubber seat had been damaged in service and was replaced. seat.was procured DA Level II, no documentation recuired, unoer contract 79P14-278023 along with two other items. Because the seat was classified as OA Level II, the receipt inspection cid not include characteristics such as material type, cure date, durometer standard, estimated shelf life and storage conditions, all of which should be verified for this type of material.
~
c) Control Valve (2-FSV-32-1031): This ASCO solenoid valve, model 206-300-2RVU, serves a control function for air c:erated containment isolation valve 2-FCV-32-1 and is listed in Table 9.3.1-2 of the F5AR as a seismic category
~I valve. This valve was chosen during the walk-through by the team to try to trace from the installed condition The back valvethrough (serial the procurement chain to the cocumentation.
3 number 6E337K), was purchased unoer contract 82FK1-330545, cated
- d 4/B/E2, from Mills & Luoton Supply Co. as CA Level 13, no do v- ..
mentation required. Also purenased as CA Level II undar this contract were replacement coils and repair kits for this mocel v alv e'., Although no cocumentation was racuested and the re:cict inspet: ion report for the valve had the " Certifying Document No." block marked "H/A," a Certificate of Comoliance for tne . valve-certifying its compliance to IEEE-323 and IEEE-344 was in the - contract file. ,
- c. Conck$'sions Drawn from insce:: ion Findines '"
10 CYR 50, Appendix 3, Criterion XVI recuires that':enditions adverse - However, although to cuality be promo:ly icentified and corre :ed. i ' N5RS Report R-EL-17-HFS, cated March 12, 19E5, pointed out th:: TVA was usino commercial grade items as basic components without ceter-minino the effect on the safety function of the com:encnt or system
' in which it was installed, TVA has not initiated an effort to identify
[ i eouipment which may be in nonconformance with seismic or environmental
,' qualification recuirements as a result of this practice.
f
- Secuoyah personnel have start:d However,a review of' Class the effect of usinc1Ecommercial replacement dev i.
for seismic cualification. i
- crace piece parts on seismically and environmentally cu51ified devices I
ned net been considered at the time of the inspection. i f 6 11
. C ACHP.IN: G Fm_ 23 of 35
. ~
. . The me: nod used by TVA to identify their samole TVA's sele : ion process started with b )
\ pressure, or tempera ture switches.eouioment identifica However, TVA's icn numoer 10 CFR 50.49, or had a saf ety train designation.
program only icentifies "those devices cualified As as a as being Class IE or affecting the qualification of the device. a result, many safety-related electrical items such as circuit breakers, relays, and solenoid coils are not classified as 1E and therefore were not included in TVA's original sample. TVA management stated tha: they intended to look at the 238 MRs icen-tified as involving Class IE covice replacements rather than only t sample of 50 as originally intended. i l the piece part replacements for saf ety-related ele :rical or mechan ca equipment which comprise the majority-of the replacements perform The concerns icentified abuve constitute examoles 50-327, 323/86-51-01, inaceoutte which suc Finoings. Potential Enf orcement Findino Corrective Action to Previously Icentified HSR5 Precuremen:
- 7. Record Retrievability At the start of the inspe :icn approximately 30 components we This by the inspec: cts during a planhardware was tracaabie back lt of :he to th
} was in addition to the equipment occumentation recuested as a resu N review of MRS.
In addition to examoles 7.a and 7.b below, which involve record retr bility, parEgr$phs 6.b.2), 5.b.4), 6.b.7), and 5.b.8) above provide of record retricvability in sedition to procurement problems. a) Resioual Heat Reinoval Isolation Valve (2-FCV-74-1): MR A '10737, for the fabrication and in::allationAlthouch of sixteen no 1-3/4" x 8" bonne: stucs, was is:ved 8/20/E3
- procurement deficiencies were The noted, MR .a recorda visual recuired retrieval or -
accuracy problem wcs identifiec. Insper: ion repor: R-05E5, dated
- examination of the studs.
S/20/E3, Revision 4. referenced visual inspe : ion procedure N-VT ' of the pr:cecure wis requested, but TVA was unable to produce i 1 :. t Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Fump Motor (2-FMP-74-10):
. ** b)
MR A-050564, dated 3/15/E3, requested that the 2A-A RHR p shaf t material be verified.
, material was the application of a copper sulf ate solution, which in
-::mbina:icn with visual observation, can be use l
steel. Secuoyah Nuclear Power personnel performed the test nd ceter-y mined th : the material was stainiess steel. i a
A A:EMC r .. . 21. of 35 k ,. ,. ,
- - Uhen the inspector recuested the protecure for performing the test, iVA could not produce it. As a minimum, there should have been
) written instructions concerning the strength of the cooper sulf ate
' solu: ion, the leng:n of time between application and evaluation, temperature of the material prior to applica:icn, method of appli-ca: ion, and evaluttion criteria.
Several completed Power Stores material receipt inspection packages that were ready to ,be micro-fisched were reviewed. The review revealed that some packages f or safety-related ccmoonents did not contain the recuired objective evidence of acceptability, i .e. , manuf acturer's ca:a Certificate of Conformances and the component fun::ional tes: sheets. Discussions with Division of Nuclear Engineering (DNE) personnel determined that separate organi:ational files of these documents were kept' by DNE. Therefore, several areas would have to be researched before the recuired objective evidence of acceptability for an item was available. As an example, package #539407, for eight nuclear grado Agastat tir.e delay relays (Mocels E7012/E7022) procured by CNE, contained a closed OC inspection repor: that acceoted the relays based onthe a har.owritten manufacturer's note from DME stating tha: DNE intended to accept data sheets were C of Cs. The reovired~ manufacturer's functional tes: the test data ; hee:s not in this package, but TVA personnel stated tha:When asked how were in a DGE file. tracked until DNE approved the C of Cs, Secuoyah personnel and no stated tracking tha
' no accitional. controls were placed on the eouipmen system existed. If DHE eventually decided that the C of Cs were no:
Similar
~b -
acceptable, the epui;: ment may have already been installed. . examples were found in package E35674 for four nuclear grace Foxboro differential pressure transmitters, and package C36394 for Atwood*and MorriT1 ASME See: ion III diesel generator plug valves.
- The lack of objective evidence of acceptability in the closed procure-ment and receipt' inspection packages appears to have been caused by.
the following items. (Items a) and b) were addressed in the U5ES reports.) Failure to establish a procedure, including at:: stance criteria, a). * 'for closed package review to ensure that the ne ersary cocuments' - are in:1uded in each package. r b) Lack of adecuate TVA orcanizational coordinction, c:=unica:icn i ' and/or procedures to pr5 vide one central focal point for review . l and storage of quality related documents.
.* c)
Failure to establish a tracking system to assure re:sipt inspet-tion package: eventually conta'in all necessary documentaticn or l a reference to where the documentation is located. l d) Failure to adecua:ely review and approve the c;mpleted OC l - inspe : ion rt; orts by the OC inspe : rs immediate management, l 13 l L
r-AT:ApKMINT C h 25 of 25
~? S.
o .. ,
- 10 CFR 50, Appendix B. Criterion XVil recuires :nat retorcs be identi-7 fiable and retrievable. ANSI N45.2.9, paragraph 6.2, recuires that
.I records be retrievable without undue celay. However, recoros f or installed equipment which do no have a unicue plant ioentifica:icn numoer (i.e. , piece parts) could not be identified or retrieved curing the three week period between the time the inspection started and :he exit interview. Additionally, certain records could not be located through the record retrieval system and were located only by contacting an engineer in the Division of Nuclear Engineering who hao a personal copy.
This problem was previously identified in H5RS Recor:s 1-E3-1 -P5 and R-85-07-NP5 and provides an additional examole of TVA's f ailure to take aceouate corrective action to MSR5 findings. The concerns identified above contributed to Potential Enforcemen: Finding 50-327, 328/B6-61-01, Inadecuate Correc:ive Action to Previously Identified H5RS Procurement Findings. B. Receiot Insoection Receipt inspection packages for both past and present procurements and the associated versions of Acministrative Instrue: ion Al-ll, "Receip: Inspection, Handling, and Storage of CA Materials, Al-llsSubstitutions, At:a:nment 1,and OA Level / Description Changes," were reviewed.
" Materials Receipt Inspe:: ion Report," is a listino of types of inspec-tions such as shipping camage, markings, cleanliness, dimensional, 9
' el. ectrical insulation, etc. , with three check-off thecolumns, inspector"Yes,"
is respon- ". ," and "N/A." Paragraph 2.4 of AI-11 states tha~
' ' ~ - sible for determining wnich of the twen:y inspection requirements a: ply. .
Paragraph 2.4.1 of AI-11 states that if any inspe : ions in acci-ion :: the twenty listed are needed, the originator of the purchase recues is However, resp:nsible-for, preparing appropriate inspet icn instructiens. Al-11 does not contain or reference any cetailed inspe:: ion or tes: procedures which would tell receipt inspe : cts what dimensions or any other characteristic to chedk, what tools or eouipment should be used, cr what the at:eptance criteria are. The inspet ion report does net provide any space for recording the results of any inspections ether than "Yes,"
"No," and "M/A."
10 CFR 50,' Appendix B, Criterion V, recuires that activities affe::ing .
- cuality be prescribed by documented instructions or protecures tnd include appropriate cuan-itative or qualitative a :eptance criteria for determining that activities have been satisf actorily act:mplished. .
Contrary to the above, Sepucyah has not established detailed receipt
- inspe : ion proteoures which provide appropriate guidance to the receipt inspectors. This lack of instre :icns contributad to the problem
.- discussed in Section 7 of this report contarnino closine of incompletc ~
- receipt in:pe : ion folders without a tracking system to assure that C of Cs are eventually approved.
~
.~
" This problem was previously identified in NSRS Report R-E'-1-17-NF5 and pr vides an aceitional exanole of TVA's f ailure to take aceouate corre :ive action to N5RS fincings. The concerns identified above contributed to
.. h Potential Enforcement Finding 50-327, 325/06-61-01, Inadecua:e Corre ive
/
- A:-ion to Previously identified MST;5 Findings.
U
- _ - - - - - -}}