ML20236B344
| ML20236B344 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1987 |
| From: | Joyce J, Walters R, Worthy J TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236B339 | List: |
| References | |
| 204.9(B), 204.9(B)-R, 204.9(B)-R00, NUDOCS 8710260091 | |
| Download: ML20236B344 (18) | |
Text
. -_. _ _ _ .
g.7
' ' j f *. . -
. TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER:. 204.9(B)
... -SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT TYPE: SEQUOYAH ELEMENT . REVISION NUMBER: 0
-TITLE: USE OF REVERSE PRINTS PAGE 1 0F 17 i
REASON FOR REVISION: ;
iI
'\
PREPARATION PREPARED BY*
.k
~'~
A j llL$ $~ $$ ~$ 7 DATE-
, . ,p, ~[' $IGNATURE <
.. n44 REVIEWS "2:y
. IEH COMMITTEE:
AW T AS *Sl g }0RE DATE TAS: g
.IC' /o[I3[87
- Mb(~~SIGNATUy / DATE CONCURRENCES
+ Druse 3/n/r7 CEG-H: ?^~3-I7
- SRP
- 0K' DJ & J0-tf 47 DATE SIGNATlpEF DATE SIGNATURE /
- a
- l. APPROVE BY'-
.. ')
~ E' CSP HXNAGER blX\l\' 1 l K NA MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE
, ~$AT("/
. {9,' CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY)
% l
- SRP Secretary's signature denotes SRP concurrences are in files.
l h02%Q h {
on -
. 4 7j v
- ' . - . ,- TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 204.9(B)n.
'. , 4 ,
SPECIAL PROGRAM .
./ '"'s" x o j I l' REVISION' NUMBER:< 0- ;
PAGE 2 0F 17
- o. > l t !
- 1. CHARACTERIZATION OF ISSUES:
Concern:' Issues:
IN-85-397-001 a. Unit 1 prints marked " opposite hand" ,j
" Unit.1 prints are being.used are being used for Unit 2 which makes ic for Unit 2 and are marked work more confusing for engineers '" d
' ~
opposite hand which makes work and construction' workers.
more confusing for workers
-and engineers." j
.i
- 2. .HAVE ISSUES BEEN IDENTIFIED IN ANOTHER SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS? YES EQ_&_
Identified by Net acolicable Date Not aoolicable
- 3. DOCUMENT NOS.. TAG NOS.. LOCATIONS. OR 07HER SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIVE IDENTIFICATIONS STATED IN ELEMENT:
i j., No specific identifications. l
?
-~n.v y 27
- 4. INTERVIEW FILES REVIEHED: ,
Expurgated file for IN-85-397 was reviewed, and no additional ,
unreviewed information was found. !
- 5. DOCUMENTS REVIEHED RELATED TO THE ELEMENT: ;
1 See Appendix A. !
l '
- 6. MHAT REGULATIONS. LICENSING COMMITMENTS. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. OR OTHER APPLY OR CONTROL IN THIS AREA?
4 See Appendix A.
- 7. LIST REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION. MEETIf?JS. TELEPHONE CALLS. AND OTHER i' QlS,CMSSIONS RELATED TO ELEMENL See Appendix A.
1
.,# 4 *
- .j bj.y QA 0697D (02/25/87)
- o REPORT NUMBER: 204.9(B) i
'TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS' g ', . SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION IUJHBER: 0, .
I L A \ f; PAGE 3 0F 17 g ,
y -
- 8. EVALUATION PROCESS: f j
a .- . Reviewed the hierarchy of applicable documents (e.g.,
10CFR50, ANSI N45.2.11. PSAR, FSAR) to establish criteria, !
requirements and pertinent TVA r.ommitments relative to the l
issues'in4Section 1.
- b. Reviewed engineering department procedurns and practices relative to design drawings.and design verification to ,
determine if they meet requirements.
- c. Reviewed applicable practices for compliance to procedures., ;
i are reviewed results of program audits, by TVA, NRC and INPO as applicable.
i
- d. . Conducted interviews with engineering, construction, craft and Quality Assurance personnel regarding the validity of
.this issue and its impact.
i 9;, DISCUSSION. FINDINGS. AND CONCLUSIONS
,4h Chronoloov:
.Qg Sequoyah (SQN) plant design begins J
Late 1960s:
10/15/68: SQN PSAR issued mid-1969: Draft 10CFR50' Appendix B issued 06/27/70: 10CFR50 Appendix B formally issued 07/70-- SQN-QA Manual, through R12 Constitutes Engineering 12/75: Design Procedures in effect 09/73 - Division of Engineering Design (EN DES) Engineering l
06/85: Procedures (EPs) in effect l 06/06/74: ANSI N45.2.11-1974 issued f
1975: Topical Report TVA-TR75-1A initially issued 06/76: TVA commits to Regulatory Guide 1.64 which endorses ANSI N45.2.11-1974 09/27/80: Operating Licenses (OL) issued for SQN Unit 1 j
f 06970 (02/25/87)
y,.
.j/
h.
r." TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT NUMBER: 204.9(B)
REVISION NUMBER: 0 .
PAGE 4 OT 17 1
I 09/15/81: Operating License (OL) issut d for SQN Unit 2 1
.04/09/85: Tcpical Repsrt TVA-TR75-1A, R8, issued 06/85-06/86: Office of Engineering Procedures (OEPs) are in effect; supersede EN DES-EPs 06/26/85: 'TVA' receives employee concern.IN-85-397-001
.08/85: TVA voluntarily shuts down SQN Units 1 and 2 09/85: SON Project Manual issued (SQEPs and SQEP-AIs) 11/01/85: TVA presents its Corporate Nuclear Performance Plan (initial issue) and Sequoyah Nuclear Performance Plan (Draft).to NRC 03/10/86: . TVA-Corporate Nuclear Performance Plan (CNPP)
. Volume I, RO, submitted to NRC 05/01/86: . Formal Design Baseline and Verification Program for Sequoyah, R0, issues
^ d$g,19) 07/86: TVA CNPP, Volume I, and SQN Nuclear Performance Plan, Volume II, revised'and issued as R1 07/86 to Nuclear Engineering Procedures (NEPs) in effect;
.present: supersede OEPs.
08/86: TVA CNPP, Volume I, ' revised and issued as R2 Discussion:
9.1 BACKGROUND
Sequoyah is a two-unit nuclear power plant. Each of the two units employs a pressurized water reactor (PHR) nuclear steam supply system (NSSS), with four coolant loops, furnished by Westinghouse Electric Corporation. The plant has been designed, built, and operated by TVA.
l r,!G; -
n.x 0697D (02/25/87) l I
y t F >w(.
- f, >
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 204.9(B).
,'m SPECIAL PROGRAM 7 REVISION NUMBER: O p
[',. PAGE 5 0F 17 L ,
l ' Because of. questions about the environmental qualification 'of L
electrical equipment at Sequoyah, TVA voluntarily shut down Unit 2 on August 21 1985, and Unit-1 on~ August 22, 1985.
.These questions. and other events which reflected adversely upon the quality of performance of TVA's nuclear. activities, have' led to a thorough evaluation of the TVA nuclear program, including its management and operation of Sequoyah.
The Sequoyah: plant design was begun in the late 1960s when implementation of regulatory requirements was 'not required to
.be well documented. The majority of the SQN licensing-l commitments were made in the late 1960s-and early.1970s, and
-some.of the present day regulatory requirements do not pertain'to Sequoyah. It is not necessary to update ti,e Sequoyab Plant to include all of the new guidance published by NRC, unless there are specific. requirements or commitments to do so.
< Although the Sequoyah Preliminary Safety Analysis Report ,
(PSAR) was released prior to issuance of 10CFR50 Appendix B, l the Sequoyah engineering organization began to comply with
- , 3
.the applitable regulatory criteria.upon its issue. as a draft
'~% document in mid-1969. Upon their subsequent issuance,
- Q,y' l10CFR50 Appendix' B, ANSI N45.2.11,'and Regulatory Guide 1.64 were also complied with by TVA. .
TVA Engineering Quality Assurance program policy-directives and Engineering implementation procedures'for the Sequoyah 1 Nuclear Plant specify requirements.to comply with the applicable regulatory criteria and are comparable to those used by other utilities in the nuclear power industry.
The issue in this concern addresses the confusion caused by the use of Unit 1 plant drawings markea " opposite hand" for Unit 2, during construction and startup of SQN. H u
9.2 REGULATO'tY REQUIREMENTS The applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to the issues are contained in the following: l o 10CFR50, Appendix B " Quality Assurance Criteria for ;
Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants," )
(App. A, 6.a) i j
0697D (02/25/87) d l
.]
l I
n I
n ..
l . .
TVALEMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 204.9(B)
'f c SPECIAL PROGRAM j REVISION NUMBER: 0 l I
, PAGE 6 0F 17 j I
Criterion V. Instructions, Procedures and Drawings
" Activities affecting quality sull be prescr 9ed by documented instructions, procedures,.or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances. . . ."
o ANSI N45.2.ll-1974 " Quality Assurance Requirements-for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants," (App. A, 6.b)-
Section 6. Design Verification
" Measures shall be applied to verify the adequacy of design."
Design Reviews. " Design reviews are critical
- reviews to provide assurance that design
. documents such as drawings, calculations, j analyses or specifications are correct and satisfactory."
m 9.3 -TVA COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS AND ENGINEERING PROCEDURES t=?M VB/ The-Sequoyah PSAR (App. A, 5.f) and FSAR through Amendment 3, updated 04/86 (App. A 6.d), specify compliance with the criteria of 10CFR50 Appendix B and ANSI N45.2.11-1974 for design control and design verification.
The evaluation team first reviewed the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Quality Assurance Manual (SQN-QAM App. A, 5.h) and then the past and present engineering procedures (EPs, OEPs, and-NEPs) ;
to determine which ones dealt with the use of Unit 1 drawings marked " opposite hand" for Unit 2. The procedures reviewed cover the period of time from the development of the Division of Engineering Design Engineering Procedures (EN DES-EPs) in ;
1973 through the current Division of Nuclear Engineering '
(DNE) Nuclear Engineering Procedures (NEPs) issued July 1, 1986. j All design engineering for the TVA nuclear power plants prior j to September 1973 was performed by the engineering branches. i These engineering discipline groups designed several nuclear i l
l l
1%
kh 0697D-(02/25/87)
7
. TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 206.9(B)
.,. SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 0 PAGE 7 0F 17 plants concurrently, beginning in the early 1960s. In September 1973, an organi?ation change at TVA resulted in the establishment of the Division of Engineering Design (EN DES). At that time a project system was established that assigned engineers from the various engineering branches (Civil. Electrical, and Mechanical) to work exclusively on a specific project, such as Sequoyah. The Sequoyah project engineering team members, under a project manager, were assigned responsibility for maintaining the design activities related to Sequoyah, including any needed design changes.
Concurrent with establishment of the project system concept, new division-wide procedures, called EN DES-EPs, were established and were in effect from September 1973 to mid-1985. The EPs were quite detailed and prescriptive, and included many administrative controls in addition to addressing quality assurance requirements. The EPs that were reviewed in detail for this evaluation are listed in Appei,11.x A, 5.1.
In June 1985, new Office of Engineering Procedures (0EPs)
- 7. % became effective. The new OEPs reduced or eliminated most of
<~ m the administrative details previously found in the EPs. In 69 place of a stand-alone procedure with many instructions, the OEPs referred the reader directly to other OEP procedures that controlled individual activities. The end result was a series of single sentences that provided anyone unfamiliar with the process minimal direction on how to accomplish a given activity. The OEPs reviewed ia detail for this evaluation are listed in Appendix A, 5.j.
In July 1986, the reorganized Division of Nuclear Engineering (DNE), Nuclear Engineering Procedures. NEPs, became effective. Although these procedures closely resemble the content, format, and brevity of the OEPs issued a year earlier, there are some exceptions. These current procedures require the active use of other referenced NEPs for full understanding of what is to be done. The NEPs reviewed in detail for this evaluation are listed in Appendix A, 5.k.
0697D (02/25/87) e
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 204.9(B)
(7 SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 0 PAGE 8 0F 17 9.4 INVESTIGATION The Sequoyah nuclear plant was constructed and startup was completed using Unit 1 prints marked " opposite hand" for Unit 2. On transfer of systems from Construction to .
Operations, the design drawings (with appropriate as-constructed design changes) were copied, and one set of wash off mylars was given to Operations. Thereafter two drawing systems were maintained. One set of drawings was maintained by Operations and was identified as "as-constructed;" another set was maintained by EN DES and was identified as "as-designed."
Seauovah Enaineerina Proiect Procedures (SOEPs)
Sequoyah Engineering Project procedures (App. A, 5.1) applicable to these issues were rev.ewed. These procedures provide-design change control and configuration control.
When these procedures are fully implemented, they will in -!
time, phase out the current two drawing system.
,s. o 'SQEP-13 defines the design change control process used at ed_ Sequoyah in the transition between the past design change-E.d control process and the permanent Plant Modification Package (PMP) system.
o SQEP-17 describes the process used at Sequoyah to develop the original issue of the Configuration Control Drawing (CCD). This process will convert the present two drawing -l;
("as-designed" and "as-constructed" versions of the same drawing) systems to a single drawing ("as-configured")
system.
CCD represents the " single-drawing" concept for SQN. The information on the CCD will reflect the latest installed, ;
and engineered configuration of the plant. Drawings that ;
are determined to be required for operation, modification, or maintenance of the plant will all become CCDs.
, Coroorate Nuclear Performance Plan (CNPP)
The TVA CNPP (App. A, 5.p) rontains details for improvements ,
in the control of design changes and plant modifications 1 i.e., q t-ln i j- @
j 0697D (02/25/87) '
1 l
l- l
[
p ,
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 204.9(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 0 PAGE 9 0F 17
" Responsibility for all of TVA's nuclear engineering activities is being consolidated in the Division of Nuclear Engineering. Among other things, this i consolidation will help assure that design changes are l reviewed and approved by engineering personnel for compliance with technical specifications and other regulatory requirements and Commitments. In particular, all design changes authorizing modification of a nuclear plant's configuration will be approved by the Division of Nuclear Engineering prior to implementation."
" Additionally, responsibility for the control of l
'as-constructed' nuclear drawings is being reassigned from plant operations to the Division of Nuclear Engineering. Engineering will validate the as-constructed drawings and control changes to them as modifications are approved and made in the plant configuration. By placing this responsibility within the Division of Nuclear Engineering, TVA will help assure that. nuclear plant modifications receive appropriate engineering review and approval."
My Seouovah Nuclear Performance Plan (SON NPP) w:s
~
In the SCN NPP (App. A. 5.o),Section II titled " Conduct of Sequoyah Activit'.es," paragraph 3.0, TVA management acknowledges proolems with design change control similar to those expressed in this issue:
"Sequoyah has experienced problems with the control of design changes and plant modifications. Heaknesses have been identified in the depth and documentation of engineering work for design changes and in maintaining consistency between 'as configured' and 'as designed' information."
" Problems with control of plant design changes have been recognized and a long term improved design change control program is being implemented. In the interim and prior to plant restart, a change control board has been established to review proposed design changes for approval and a transitional design change program will be put in place."
i s 1 06970 (02/25/37)
7; ,
~ '
u '
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNSL REPORT NUMBER:: 204.9(B)
, 'f.- SPECIAL PROGRAM ~
REVISION-NUMBER: 0 PAGE 10 0F 17-
> l
- Section III- titled "Special Programs" also acknowledges-
- problems-with design _ control and includes the following:
~
3 "Special programs which have been identified as important to be' resolved priorL to restart include verifying the adequacy of past design modifications due to inadequate design control programs'. . . ."
Corrective Action Proarams
- The SQN NPP also contains corrective action programs for Design and. Design Change Control anomalies. One of these - J programs is the -Sequoyah Design Baseline and Verification Program (DBVP, App. A','5.q).
'The essential elements of the overall program.are as follows:-
o l" Verifying and establishing the plant configuration" o " Reconstructing the design bases" IW" 'o
" Reviewing and evaluating modifications since OL issuance against the-design basis" o " Performing ~ the required tests for modifications developed from this review and evaluation" The implementation of this program has been structured into:
, twol phases. The pre-restart phase is to carry out the ,
U program for the systems required to mitigate FSAR Chapter 15 accidents, provide for safe shutdown,'and maintain the plant c in a safe shutdown condition. .,
.The post-restart phase will continue the engineering activities to complete engineering documentation and evaluations for the remaining safety-related systems.
Special programs which have been identified in addition to the DBVP as important to be resolved prior to restart include: completing the documentation and resolving equipment environmental qualification questions; reexamining cable tray support analysis for weaknesses in analytical basis; completing an electrical system' analysis where design- :
requirements did not exist in the past; verifying adequacy of !
nontigorously analyzed piping and supports where alternate l
~. analysis methodology had been improperly applied; resolving n.
hhh:
W 0697D (02/25/87)
m
} .
. TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS- REPORT NUMBER: 204.9(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 0 PAGE 110F 17 the effects of increased temperatures during main steam lines !
breaks due to revised vendor analysis; examining issues e identified by expressed employee concerns; resolving identified areas of noncompliance with 10CFR Part 50 Appendix R fire protection requirements; and assessing the adequacy of' the welding program at Sequoyah raised through the employee concern program.
Interviews with TVA Personnel Discussions with TVA personnel substantiate the issue in this element. Construction problems, primarily in the mechanical systems area, (e.g., piping in congested areas, mechanical equipment locations, positioning, connections, and valving) resulting from erroneous interpretation of drawings have occurred at Sequoyah. Review of a series of these documents indicated that the quality of initial construction, as well as the' cost control, would have been improved if the practice of using Unit 1 drawings marked " opposite hand" for Unit 2 had been discontinued and unitized drawings been prepared and utilized.
O Interviews with engineering, construction, craft, and Quality 2n.l Assurance personnel confirm that the use of opposite hand drawings was not cost effective and resulted-in rework during ,,
construction. Construction workers and construction engineers spent considerable hours using light boxes and window panes to trace drawings on the back of the sheet to get'" proper hand" configuration. Errors resulting from the use of these drawings include improper positioning of Unit 2 Reactor Vessel supports, and Number 3 heater drain tank fabrication errors. Although the end quality of Sequoyah was probably not compromised, some problems during construction, test, and startup would have been eliminated if unitized drawings had been prepared and been used rather than the
" opposite hand" drawings.
All TVA personnel are now fully familiar with the use of )
" opposite hand" drawings. Operations personnel state a preference for them as opposed to preparing new, unitized drawings. Because construction is now complete and personnel are familiar with " opposite hand" drawings, their continued use should no longer be detrimental to quality.
80 m.
06970 (02/25/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 204.9(B)
,- SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 0 PAGE 12 0F 17 f l
Findinas:
- a. The use of Unit 1 drawings marked " opposite hand" for Unit 2 construction and startup of Unit 2 did make work more confusing for construction engineers and construction workers.
o Interviews with engineering, construction, and Quality Assurance personnel indicate that the use of " opposite ,
hand" drawings was not cost effective and resulted in rework and time delays during the construction of Sequoyah.
o Regulatory requirements do not preclude using Unit 1 prints for Unit 2 with suitable notations.
o TVA engineering department procedures comply with regulatory criteria.
Conclusions:
The evaluation team concludes that the practice of using " opposite
,, hand" drawings did make work more confusing for construction 1 ,:1 engineers and construction workers. The issue is valid.
yp However, SQN construction and startup are now completed, and all personnel are now fully familiar with the use of " opposite hand" drawings. Operations personnel state a preference for opposite hand drawings as opposed to preparing new, unitized drawings. The continued use of these drawings should not now be detrimental to quali ty. TVA Management has committed in the SQN NPP to implement improved design control and review programs, which will phase out the current two drawing systems. Sequoyah Engineering Procedures for design changes and revisions are now being implemented which will complete this commitment.
Although " opposite hand" drawings were used for construction and startup of SQN, there were " checks-and-balances," such as inspection and testing, and design change control procedures (e.g., ,
FCRs, ECNs, etc.) in place to ensure that necessary safety aspects were evaluated and corrected as required, on a case-by-case basis.
Even if some discrepancies occurred, the system walkdown/ transfer program, preoperational testing, startup, and completion of the DBVP should detect and correct all safety-related systems anomalies, s
M ,
I 0697D (02/25/87) i
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 204.9(B)
- - SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: O PAGE 13 0F 17
- 10. CORRECTIVE ACTION:
No corrective action is required.
'E.h
..a l
l
.k
<jf 06970 (02/25/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 204.9(B).
9t SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 0 PAGE 14 0F 17 APPENDIX A
- 5. . DOCUMENTS REVIEHED RELATED TO THE ELEMERI-
- a. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (10CFR50) Chapter 1. Appendix 8. " Quality Assurance Criteria For Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants;"
Criterion XVI, " Corrective Action"
- b. ANSI N45.2-1971, " Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants"
- c. ANSI N45.2.11 - 1974, " Quality Assurance Requirements for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants," Section 9. " Corrective Actions"
- d. ANSI N45.2.10-1973, " Quality Assurance Terms and Definitions"
- e. Regulatory Guide 1.64, " Quality Assurance Requirements for the Design of Nuclear. Power Plants," R2 (06/76) g f. Sequoyah Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) y,.4 Q/ g. Sequoyah Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) updated through Amendment 3 (04/86)
- h. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Quality Assurance Manual (SQN QAM),
R12 (12/31/75)
- 1. TVA EN DES Engineering Procedures Manual:
EP 3.10, R7 " Design Verification Methods and Performance of Design Verifications" (04/25/85) :
EP 4.14 R3 "EN DES Typtcal Drawings and Standard.
Drawings - Preparation, Review, Approval, Distribution and Revision" (08/10/81)
EP 4.11, R1 " Combined - Design Drawings and Project Standard Drawings - Preparation and Use" (07/11/78)
OEP-08, R0 " Design Output" (04/26/85) l OEP-10, R0 " Review" (04/26/85)
.. OEP-il, R0 " Change Control" (04/26/85) t 0607D (02/25/87) l
. ,? TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 204.9(B)
,- ~ SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 0 PAGE 15 0F 17 APPENDIX A (Cont'd)
NEP 5.1, RO " Design Output" (07/01/86)
NEP 5.2, R0 " Review" (07/01/86)
NEP 6.1, R0 " Change Control" (07/01/86)
- 1. Sequoyah Engineering Project Procedures:
SQEP-13, R2 " Procedure for Transitional Design Change.
Control" (12/22/86)
SQEP-17, R2 " Procedure for Origination and Categorization of Configuration Drawings (CCDs)" (01/14/87)
- m. _TVA TR 75-1A, " Quality Assurance Program Description for the Design, Construction, and Operation of TVA Nuclear Power Plants," R8 (04/09/85)
- n. TVA memo from L. . L. Jackson to Those Listed (A02 860813012),
.M,7 " Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INP0) corporate
\" .
evaluation responses," (08/14/86).
- o. Sequoyah Nuclear Performance Plan, Volume II, R1 (07/17/86)
- p. TVA Corporate Nuclear Performance Plan, Volume I, R2 (08/13/86).
- q. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant - Design Baseline Verification Program, Rev. 1 (02/11/87)
- 6. WHAT REGULATIONS. LICENSING COMMITMENTS. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. OR OTHER APPLY OR CONTROL IN THIS AREA?
- a. 10CFR50 Chapter 1 Appendix B, " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants"
- b. ANSI N45.2.11-1974, " Quality Assurance Requirements for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants"
- c. Regulatory Guide 1.64, " Quality Assurance Requirements for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants," R2 (06/76) l .. d. Sequoyah FSAR updated through Amendment 3 (04/86) ch
'0697D (02/25/87)
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 204.9(B)
,* SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 0 PAGE 16 0F 17 APPENDIX A (Cont'd) ,
- e. TVA Division of Nuclear Engineering (DNE) Procedures Manual NEP-9.1 R0, " Corrective Action" (07/01/86)
- f. Sequoyah Nuclear Performance Plan, Volume II, R1 (07/17/86) '
- g. TVA Corporate Nuclear Performance Plan, Volume I, R2 (08/13/86)
- 7. LIST RE00ESTS FOR INFORMATION. MEETINGS. TELEPHONE CALLS. AND OTHER DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO ELEMENT:
- a. Telephone call from T. Clift and J. Perky, TVA, to D. Popham, Bechtel, (01/23/B7)
- b. Telephone call from R. Corbitt, TVA, to D. Popham, Bechtel, (01/26/87)
$k c. Meeting with A. C. Robertson, TVA, and D. Popham, Bechtel, WV - (01/28/87) IDH 691
- d. Meeting with R. O. Bernell and T. Clift TVA, and D. Popham, Bechtel, (01/27/87) 10H 691
- e. Meeting with J. McReynolds and T. Clift, TVA, and D. Popham, Bechtel, (01/27/87) 10H 691
- f. Heeting with P. Hetcalf and T. Clift, TVA, and D. Popham, Bechtel, (01/27/87) 10H 691
- g. Meeting with H. D. Davis and T. Clift, TVA, and D. Popham, Bechtel, (01/27/87) 10H 691
- h. Meeting with C. F. Bowman and T. Clift, TVA, and D. Popham, Bechtel, (01/27/87) IOM 691
- i. Meeting with S. F. Stout and T. Clift, TVA, and D. Popham, Bechtel, (01/27/87) IDH 691
- j. Heeting with R. D. Rudder and T. Clift, TVA, and D. Popham, Bechtel, (01/27/87) IDH 691
. k. Meeting with H. H. Brown and T. Clift, TVA, and D. Popham, g ;., Bechtel, (01/27/87) IOM 691 06970 (02/25/87) l
- - --- \
.. TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 204.9(B)
'e
, SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 0 PAGE 17 0F 17 APPENDIX A (Cont'd) l 1. Heeting with J. Haddox and T. Clift, TVA, and D. Popham, Bechtel, (01/27/87) IDH 691
- m. Heeting with R. Corbitt, TVA, and D. Popham, Bechtel, (01/28/87) IDH 691
- n. Conference telephone call, T. Clift, T. White, S. Hiller, TVA and D. Popham, Bechtel, (02/12/87)
- o. Telephone conversation J. Haddox, TVA and D. Popham, Bechtel, (02/23/87)
Ql5:?h x: -*
0697D (02/25/87)