ML20214U502
| ML20214U502 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1986 |
| From: | Murphy M, Russell J, Danni Smith TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214G966 | List:
|
| References | |
| 308.05-SQN, 308.05-SQN-R03, 308.05-SQN-R3, NUDOCS 8612090288 | |
| Download: ML20214U502 (8) | |
Text
r..
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:
308.05-SQN SPECIAL PROGRAN REPORT TTPE: Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Element REVISION NUMBER: 3 TITLE: Naintenance Training REASON FOR REVISION:
To incorporate SRP and TAS comunents Revision 1 To include added concern Revision 2 To incorporate SQN corrective action response Revision 3 PREPARATION e
PREPARED B t f
// 4'/
/ftW'/ A J/-)Y-Sb W
/G RE DATE REVIEWS _
l
/l-/h8$
SIGNETURE DATE
$Y li fl/ W SIGNATURE DATE l
CONCURRENCES
// h h ggg_gt_
k $$$ ll*20*K SRP:
e_vL SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE
- DATE j
APPROVED BY:
Yh /2 ll'$D 'O N/A l
ECSP' MAN 44ER DATE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE l
CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)
- SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.
2288T l
TEKNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT EMPLOYEE CONCERNS TASK GROUP OPERATIONS CEG Subcategory: Maintenance Element: Naintenance Training Report Number:
308.05 SQN Revision 3 SQP-85-004-005 EAC-85-004 Evaluator:
4Y' 7
//-/ ~Ib N. Agp Date
//~/-b Reviewed by:
A OPS CEG Member Date 0.2. L i t-i n _ m Approved by:
W. R. Lag $ dren Date ~
1085T
o L,
R2 vision 3 g _. _
~
'I.
TCRANE SIDE PULLS
~
~
This report evaluates the issue of the performance of crane side pulls
~
at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. The evaluation determines whether or not side pulls are performed, evaluates the training crane operators receive 1
concerning side pulls, and evaluates the safety considerations involved with side pulls.
II.
SPECIFIC EVALUATION NETHODOIAGY This report evaluates two concerns, SQP-85-004-005, which states:
" Cranes are performing side pulls which is in conflict with crane-operator training," and EAC-85-004 which states: "Nonorail cranes 1
in auxiliary building elevation 714 are sometimes side loaded while IR2 handling missile plugs from filter cubicles."
l Perceived issues involved'with this concern are:
(Side pulls and side loading are synonymous) lR2
[
1.
Whether side pulls are performed.
l 2.
Whether side pulls are in conflict with crane operator training.
l 3.
Whether side pulls are in conflict with regulatory requirements.
To evaluate this concern for which no previous investigations have been performed, interviews with cognizant personnel at Sequoyah and Knoxville were conducted, regulatory requirements were reviewed, and applicable
.TVA procedures were reviewed.
i III. FINDINGS Operation of cranes, specifically with regard to side pulls, is addressed in Sequoyah Standred Practice SQN-31, which references l
ANSI-830.2-1976. Both of 'hese references strongly recommend the avoidance of side pulls and state that before the performance of a side pull, an evaluation by a qualified individual must be performed to determine that the crane will not be overstressed and that no damage will occur as a result of the side pull. A memorandum (revision 6) from B. N. Patterson to Robert N. Harris l
i documents the site understanding that such evaluations are to be lR1 r
conducted as an engineering evaluation.
l A review of crane operator training lesson plans NTU-ENT-30.1 through 30.6 revealed that the crane operators are instructed that crane side pulls ere prohibited by " law,"(OSHA). The lR1 understanding of this requirement is further emphasized by a safety bulletin which has been issued by TVA and the wording
}
in the lesson plans used in crane operator training is verbatim j
from the safety bulletin.
Page 1 of 5
4
~
Revision 3 e
Interviews with four Sequoyah crane operators indicated that side i-pulls are commonly performed with the Turbine Building crane and occasionally with the Reactor Building polar crane, although they' l
emphasized.this is not the case when making critical pulls. All lR1 four expressed confusion about whether side pulls are allowable and I
if allowable, what limitations are to be applied. This confusion apparently stems from the fact that their training was emphatic in stressing that side pulls are not allowed, whereas, they are allowed if an engineering evaluation is performed. In light of this and the fact that foremen receive no formal crane operator training, all four crane operators indicated that conflicts with the foremen have occurred concerning the issue of side pulls.
During the evaluation it was discovered that a program has recently been set up to evaluate the use of cranes TVA-wide.
This is the Crane Consistency Program (CCP). The CCP-Special Project has been chartered to resolve issues of crane operations
?
and has identified side pulls as a significant part of their charter. Ongoing inspections and resolution of problems found are currently being scheduled. This program is relatively i
new and has not issued any formal recommendations on side pulls lR1 as yet.
1 Discussions with personnel on the CCP-Special Projects indicated hat evidence of side pulls had been discovered and documented at Bellefonte and Watts Bar while the inspections at Sequoyah indicated potential damage because of side pulls, although there were other factors masking the evidence. The damage noted is relatively minor at this time, but i
long-term effects were expressed as a problem.
j These discussions also revealed that the only evaluation of a side pull i
requested to date was for the removal of the generator rotor at i
Sequoyah. No other side pulls indicated by the crane operators were evaluated.
Impact of the potential side pulls was evaluated against the i
Heavyloads Program as required by NUREG 0612. No indication, either by interviews or documented inspection, was found that side pulls were performed which would affect spent fuel 1
- assemblies or CSSC equipment. Also, Sequoyah Maintenance Instruction MI-9.4 requires inspections of the cranes prior to use. These inspections effectively preclude use of a damaged I
crane. Copies of inspections were obtained and reviewed. The l
inspections noted crane damage that was apparent at the time, IR1 i
and documented repair or justification for non-repair prior to l
use.
l Crane operators perform these inspections and crane operator i
training on inspections was reviewed and found to adequately IR1 cover the required areas of inspection.
l l
(
i Page 2 of 5 l
. = _ _
Revision 3 Conclusions Concerns SQP-85-004-005 and EAC-85-004 were determined to be valid IR2 in that side pulls have been performed in conflict with crane operator training. Foremen at SQN have not had similar training and the interviews indicated the foremen direct crane operators to perform side pulls. Further, it was determined that the required l
engineering evaluation was not performed for the majority of l
these side pulls. This is in conflict with the requirements of lR1 ANSI-830.2-1976 and SQM-31.
l Based on the interviews with crane operators, the results of l
Inspections performed by CCP-Special Projects and the inspections l
of cranes prior to use, no evidence could be found that side lR1 pulls have been performed on safety-related lifts. However, the l
findings of this evaluation concludes that programmatic 1
deficiencies constitute a safety-related finding.
l While the long-term issue of side pulls will most likely be resolved by J
CCP-Special Projects, short-term resolution needs to be addressed as indicated by the confusion among the crane operators.
IV.
ROOT CAUSE The perceived root cause of this issue is the failure to ensure l
that craft foremen receive the same information (training) that is lR1 provided the craft personnel.
I V.
GENERIC APPLICABILITY Concerns SQP-85-004-005, EAC-85-004, and the findings of this report.
lR2 should be considered generic to all sites as indicated by the results of inspections performed by CCP-Special Projects at Bellefonte and i
Watts Bar.
1
(
l f
I l
l Page 3 of 5
..____,m____._,
Ravisien 3 VI.
REFERENCES
'1.
~'
2.
Sequoyah Standard Practice SQM-31 Revision 4 4.
Lesson Plans NTU-ENT 30.1 through 30.6 Revision 0 5.
Safety Concern dated September 20, 1985 6.
Memorandum from B. N. Patterson to Robert M. Harris dated March 6, 1986 (SS3 860117 885). Response to reference 5 a
Page 4 of 5
._...___.,-..,_-__._...._____m.,
._._.___..,-,.m..-,_-
1 6
. 4 Ravisicn 3 VII. PROPOSED INNgDIATE OR LONG-TERN CORRECTIVE ACTION SQN response to CATD 30805-SQN-01 and 30805-SQN-02 is as follows:
1.
The CCP.Special Project Manager will immediately issue a Bulletin l
to each site identifying the danger of side pulls.
Instructions l
will be given to disseminate this information to the operators, I
foremen, general foremen, and rigging personnel. The Bulletin l
will state that side pulls will not be made unless authorized by l
the Division of Nuclear Engineering who will evaluate the effects l
and approve side pulls considered necessary to perform essential l
tasks. This is required by ANSI B30.20.
l l
2.
The CCP Special Project was chartered to develop an ONP procedure l
to ensure safe crane operations. This procedure is presently being l
developed and will replace some existing operation instructions and l
will incorporate others. The procedure requires certification or l
oualification of all personnel directly related to makinz lifts.
l lR3 This certification / qualification requires extensive classroom training l
as well as a demonstrated skills test. The required training modules l
to accomplish certification / qualification have been identified I
and includes the module " Proper Overhead Crane Operating Practices" l
which addresses side pulls among other topics. This Module is one l
of 7 required to certify an operator, and is also required to certify l
Riggers, Supervisors (1st and 2nd Line), Crane Coordinators, Flaggers, l
Annual Inspectors, Certifiers, and Annual Maintenance personnel.
l l
The course content currently being developed is the responsibility of I
the ONP Training Office, but it will be reviewed and approved by the l
CCP Special Project. Periodic evaluation of the training program and l
implementation of the Crane Operations Procedures will be conducted by l
DNR in order to measure the effectiveness of the program.
l l
l l
The CCP Crane Operations Procedure is under development and its l
anticipated completion is January 1987.
l i
I I
i
/
I l
Page 5 of 5
D RUNTIM PAGE viits:tute
- scrS1203-LCPS121C TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTNORITY IRLQtJLnCY
- REQUEST OFFICE OF NUCLEAR PDHER RUN DATE~- 18/
g DNP - ISSS - RitM EMPLOYEE CONCERN PROGRAM SYSTEM (ECPS)
LIST OF EMPLOYEE CONCERN INFORMATION l
CATEGORY: OP PLANT OPER. SUPPORT SUBCATEGORY: 30505 TRAINING PROGRAM DEFICIENCIES S
GENERIC KEYNORD A y
H APPL QTC/MSRS P
KEYWORD R CONCERN SUB R PLT BBSH INVESTIGATION S
CONCERN KEYWORD C HUf1B ER CAT CAT D LOC FL03 REPORT R
DESCRIPTION KEYHORD D EAC-85-004 OP 30805 H SQN NNNN NS MONORAIL CRANES IN AUXILLARY BUILDIN K-FORM G ELEVATION 714 ARE SONETIMES SIDE L DADED HHILE HANDLING MISSLE PLUGS FR OM FILTER CUBICLES.
g SQP-85-004-005 OP 30805 N SQN YYYY SS CRANES ARE PERFORMING SIDE PULLS WHI SAFETY PROGRAM T50233 REPORT CH IS IN CONFLICT HITN THE CRANE OPE SAFETY CONDITION:
RATOR TRAINING. NUCLEAR POWER CONCE CONSTRUCTION l C)
RN.
CI HAS NO FURTHER INFORMATION.
EMPLOYEES NO FOLLOH UP REQUIRED.
4 D
2 CONCERNS FOR CATEGORY OP SUBCATEGORY 30805 i
O j
D i
t D
t D
i c
j e
s j
9 l
7:
() -
W G
4
.