ML20236E298
| ML20236E298 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1987 |
| From: | Walters R TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236E191 | List: |
| References | |
| 204.7(B), 204.7(B)-R, 204.7(B)-R00, NUDOCS 8710290167 | |
| Download: ML20236E298 (19) | |
Text
_ _
.,e + -
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT. NUMBER: 204.7(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REPORT TYPE: SEQUOYAH ELEMENT REVISION NUMBER: 0
) -.
(- TITLE: VENDOR DOCUMENTS Legibility PAGE 1 0F 18 Dissemination System l
REASON FOR REVISION:
l
\
PREPARATION
~'
- h. ~
SIGNATURE W 00& z/Z 87
/ DATC
[/
REVIENS
'2/ 's's V/?-3/5(7 5' ~ ' ' > SIGNATURF/ / DATt /
TAS: V SIGNATURE DATE CONCUILRENCES dhYW 3l? 7lP7 fok 00 k 00 27 CEG-H:
2 - 27'N PDR -
y P
SRP:
DATE SIGNATURE
- DATE SIGNATURE APPROVED BY:
DATE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR POWER DATE ECSP MANAGER CONCURRENCE (FINAL REPORT ONLY) l l
w a . , sa .
., (
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT. NUMBER: 204.7(B).
SPECIAL PROGRAM' REVISION NUMBER: 0 PAGE 2 0F'18' 1.: CHARACTERIZATION OF ISSUES:
Concerns: Issues:
IN-85-505-001 a. Vendor drawings received by the Poor quality of vendor' drawings plant,from.EN DES for as-constructed that HBNP receives from EN DES drawings are of poor quality.
for as-constructed purpose.
IN-86-073-001 b. Updates of vendor' documents (e.g...
-Updates to vendor manuals are manuals) are sent to Knoxville or not-being supplied to the field Chattanooga Engineering, but they in a timely manner. For example, are not received at the plant in Foxboro revises their schematics a reasonable' time thereafter.
and transmits the changes to Knoxville or Chattanooga Engi-neering, but the revisions are l not received at WBNP. CI has no more information. NUC !
Power concern. Unit 1.
/
/
- 2. HAVE ISSUES BEEN IDENTIFIED IN ANOTHER SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS? YES NO X Identified by Not apolicable Date Not aoolicable
- 3. DQCUtlENT NOS.. TAG NOS.. LOCATIONS. OR OTHER SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIVE IDENTIFICATIONS STATED IN ELEMENT:
No specific identifications.
- 4. JNTERVIEH FILES REVI_EHED_;.
Expurgated files for IN-85-505 and IN-86-073 were reviewed, and no additional unreviewed information was found.
1 j
- 5. DQCUMENTS REVIEHED RELATED TO THE ELEMENT:
l See Appendix A. ,
08800 1
_ _ = _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ - - - - -_ .
a j 4 TVA-EMPLOYEE CONCERNS ' REPORT NUMBER: ~ 204.7(B)'
- .SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 0-PAGE 3 0F 18
( !
- 6. HH I REGULATIONS LICENSING COMMITMENTS. DESIGN RE0VIREMENTS.'OR OTHER i j
APPLY-OR CONTROL'IN THIS AREA?-
See Appendix'A. [
- 7. LIST REOU'ESTS FOR INFORMATION. MEETINGS. TELEPHONE CALLS. AND OTHER '
. DISCUSSIONS _REMT.fD TO ELEMENT.
See Appendix-A.
q
- 8. [Mll!6J_IDN PR0_ CESS;_ ;
i
- a. Reviewed the hierarchy of applicable documents (e.g., ;
10CFR50, ANSI N45.2.ll, PSAR, FSAR) to establish criteria .)
requirements and TVA commitments pertinent to the issues in l Section 1. !
-b. ' Reviewed Engineering Department procedures which establish review, checking, and distribution requirements for vendor ,
documents and manuals. l 1
- c. Reviewed Engineering procedures for requirements for vendors ,
to furnish legible reproducible documents. .l
.1
- d. Reviewed' Engineering document control procedures which cover ;
quality of vendor drawings transmitted to site.
- e. Reviewed' applicable practices for compliance to procedures; reviewed results of program audits by TVA QA, NRC, and INP0 j as applicable.
- 9. DISCD1SION. FINDINGS. AND CONCLUSIONS:
Chronoloav:
Late 1960s: Sequoyah (SQN) plant design begins l 10/15/68: SQN PSAR issued Mid-1969: Draft 10CFR50 Appendix B issued 03/27/70: 10CFR50 Appendix B formally issued 0880D i
__m_.m.__ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ . _ _ _ . _
- 3 --
...s ,
"j 9' ' '
REPORT NUMBER: 204.-7(8)
-TVA' EMPLOYEE-CONCERNS SPECIAL PROGRAM-
, . REVISION NUMBER:-:0 1
PAGE 4 OF 18
- (
A
'09/73 - . Division of Engineering Design'(EN. DES): Engineering 06/85: . Procedures (EPs) in effect 06/06/74L ANSI N45.2.ll-1974 issued 1
06/7'6: LTVA"conmits to Regulatory Guide 1.64 which endorses j ANSI N45.2.11-1974
'e 09/27/80: Operating License (0L) issued for SQN Unit l-
'09/15/81: Operating License -(0L) issued for SQN Unit 2 .l 09/84: INP0 Good Practices MA304, " Control of. Vendor Manuals," issued' 06/85 -- Office of- Engineering Procedures (OEPs) inf effect;.
.06/86:. supersede EN DES EPs 06/13/85: TVA receives employee concern IN-85-505-001
.08/12/85:' TVA: receives employee concern.IN-86-073-001 ,
~
- 7: 08/85: TVA voluntarily shuts down SQN Unitsil and 2 a
.09/85:' SQN Project Manual issued.(SQEPs and SQEP-AIs) 01/30/86: TVA. issues Corrective Action Report _SQN CAR 8601004' 03/07/86: NSRS Report I-85-473-NPS issued.
04/22/86: NRC Reports 50-327/86-11 and 50-328/86-11 issued 07/86- ' Nuclear Engineering Procedures.(NEPs) in effect; present: supersede _OEPs 01/03/87: SQEP-39, " Review and Approval of Vendor Manuals / Revisions," issued piscussion: ,
9.1 BACKGROUND
Sequoyah is a two-unit nucl' ear 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-I designed, built, and operated by TVA.
i 08800 !
1
. 5 =
n . . . . . .
, TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS- : REPORT NUMBER: '204.7(B):
i SPECIAL' PROGRAM '
. REVISION NUMBER: 'O PAGE 5'0F 18-w
]
- Because of _ questions about the environmental qualification of I 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 nuclearLprogram,
' 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
-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 the Sequoyah Plant to include all of the-new guidance published by NRC, unless there'are specific requirements or commitments
-to do.so.
l' Although the Sequoyah Preliminary Safety Ana' lysis Report q (PSAR):was released prior'to is'suance of 10CFR50 Appendix B, the Sequoyah engineering organization began to comply .with .
the applicable regulatory criteria uponlits issue as-a draft 4 ft document in mid-1969 Upon their subsequent issuance,_
10CFR50 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 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. ;
1 The issues identified in this element refer to the quality of vendor documents and the timeliness of distribution of vendor documents.
08800
. t l
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 204.7(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM !
REVISION NUMBER: O PAGE 6 0F 18 ,
h l l
9.2 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS {
The requirements applicable to the issues are contained in the following:
o 10CFR50, Appendix B " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants," f (App. A, 6.a) Criterion VI, Document Control l
" Measures shall be established to control the issuance 1 of documents, such as instructions, procedures, and drawings, including changes thereto, which prescribe all activities affecting quality."
"These measures shall assure that documents, including changes: l 1
Are reviewed for adequacy and approved for release by authorized personnel and are l Distributed to and used at the location where the j prescribed activity is performed." -
t o ANSI N45.2.ll-1974 " Quality Assurance Requirements for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants," (App. A, 6.b)
7 . Document Control
" Documented procedures shall be used to control issuance of design documents and changes thereto. These procedures shall assure that documents, including changes, are reviewed for adequacy and approved for release by authorized personnel and are properly distributed."
"7.1 Document Preparation, Approval, and Issue
" Personnel shall be made aware of and use proper and current instructions, procedures, drawings and inputs. Participating organizations shall have documented procedures for control of design documents and changes thereto to assure that current and appropriate documents are available for use."
0880D
TVA EMPLOYEE' CONCERNS REbikk3 UMBER: 204.7(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: 0 PAGE 7 0F 18 i
-t 9.3 TVA COMPLIANCE PROGRAM AND ENGINEERING PROCEDURES The Sequoyah PSAR (App. A, 5.f) and FSAR through Amendment 3, updated 04/86 (App._A, 5 9), specify compliance with the criteria of 10CFR50 jand ANSI N45.2.11 for-vendor document control. C gg The evaluation team first reviewed the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant -
Quality Assurance Manual (SQN-QAM App. A, 5.h) and the past and'present engineering procedures (EPs, OEPs, and NEPs) to-determine which ones' dealt with vendor document control and i the issues of this concern. 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.
All design engineering for the TVA nuclear power plants prior to September 1973 was performed by the engineering branches.
These engineering discipline groups designed several nuclear plants concurrently, beginning in the early 1960s. In
/ September 1973, an organization 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 i assigned responsibility for maintaining the design activities I 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 j 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 l
/sppendix A, 5.i . l In June 1985, new Office of Engineering Procedures (0EPs) became effective. The new OEPs reduced or eliminated most of l the administrative details previously found in the EPs. In l place of a stand-alone procedure with many instructions, the 0880D
n .,7 y l;;
L TVA EMPt.0YEE CONCERNS REPORT. NUMBER: 204.7(B) f SPECIAL PRC'; RAM REVISION NUMBER: 0 j
- PAGE 8 0F 18
\
OEPs referred the reader directly to other procedures that '
controlledLindividual activities. The end result was a series of single sentences that provided'anyone unfamiliar !
with the process minim W direction on how to accomplish a r
i bgiven activity. The OEPs reviewed in detail for this evaluation are listed in Appendix A, 5.j.
In July 1986,'the reorganized Division of Nuclear Engineering Procedures, NEPs, became effective. Although these procedures closely resemble the content, format, and_ brevity i 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 1 be done. The NEPs reviewed in detail for this evaluation are l listed in Appendix A, 5.k. l 94 INVESTIGATION' )
TVA procedures applicable to the issues were reviewed to determine compliance with the regulatory requirements (App. A, 5.h through n and r.through w).
t
- The TVA procedure for Contract Adndnistration handling of vendor documents (App. A, 5.w) contains adequate requirements to assure receipt of prints of good legible and reproducible quality. Ccpies of vendor prints are not distributed within TVA until they have been accepted by the Contract Administrator. However, EN DES is permitted to accept and ;
authorize distribution of vendor prints of questionable '
quality when schedule or engineering evaluation justifies ,
such a decision. Thus some prints were authorized for- I distribution which had some areas which were difficult to read. o Prior to November 1986 TVA procedures and practices did not establish adequate measures to effectively control the review, approval, and issuance of vendor manuals, vendor design drawings, and changes to the';e documents. Vendor documents at the jobsite and Knoxvi'.le and Chattanooga are l_
not always identical. Furthernbre, drawings in vendor manuals and other vendor design documents were not effectively controlled by procedural requirements to assure <
l that they were approved for use on SQN. In addition to the i EN DES authorization of distribution of vendor prints which j l were of poor or questionable quality, TVA reproduction j facilities on o"casion copied and distributed vendor prints ]
l of poor quality. These situations were often corrected by j recopying the print more carefully. Recognizing these )
anomalies, TVA has revised appropriate procedures as follows.
)
0880D L _
L <
}ii -
TVA. EMPLOYEE CONCERNS: REPORT NUMBERi 1204.7(B)?
s SPECIAL PROGRAM.
F REVISION NUMBER: i0-PAGE 9 0F 18
- Quality Notice NOAM (App. A, 5.m), Part 1 'Section ID-0AP-6.2 R0, " Quality Notice.- Vendor Manual Control" (ll/28/86)J
~
P Sequoyah Engineering Procedure (App. A 5.n) SQEP-39, R0, " Review and Approval of Vendor Manuals / Revisions"
'(01/03/87)
These procedures now'specify requirements for actions which, when fully implemented, should ensure receipt and distribution of vendor documents that are. legible. of good.
s quality,!and will provide satisfactory procedural control of ver. dor manuals and vendor prints' at the Sequoyah job site.
Audit RappItLand Memoranda (App.:A, 5.q and y through gg).
'A TVA. memo dated August 14, 1986,(App. A, 5.q) dealing with the Institute of. Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) corporate evaluation was reviewed. In this~ memorandum, TVA management accepts as valid the'following findings regarding vendor.'
manuals', e.g.:
Finding (2.6A-1): ' Vendor manuals' retained by_ utility.
off-site organizations are not maintained in a current.
status. .Some vendor manuals retained by' corporate document control personneland Engineering personnel contain outdated information. Addition.11y, information in some manuals is not'in agreement with that contained in the master copies of vendor. manuals maintained at the plant sites."
These examples verify that. vendor manuals within TVA are
. inconsistent. TVA's acknowledgment of the. validity of these
- findings.and narrative regarding on-going efforts within TVA relative to vendor manual control validate the issues of this concern.
The TVA memorandum (App. A, 5.q) also contains detailed plans for corrective measures, i.e.:
"Several efforts have been ongoing within TVA relative to vendor manual control at the plant sites and nuclear headquarters offices. These efforts and the current best industry practices have been evaluated as part of the ONP Configuration Management Plan development. This plan has been presented to senior management for review and will be used to develop the best method for ensuring vendor manuals used to perform or support plant activities are maintained current.
0880D
3 7
"fg# ,
f
> ., j
- TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS' CEPORT NUMBER: 204.7(B) r SPECIAL PROGRAM
.a .) REVISION,HUMBER: 0 m 6)'
7, ,~ ,
J c PAGE 10 0718
,_ s f ,
s
,tr-
, r -
1 "Until this portion of the.0NP Configuration yanagement
. A/; ' Plan is fully developed for implementation, vendor 4 manuals in the nuclear headquarters office document
" ~
~ <1 control units (DCU's) in Chattar,coga and Knoxville and
- / /,
those in the technical branches will be treated as !
J
^
Ek 'information only.' The plart vendor manuals will be considered the only current, controlled manual. To ~
prevent the improper use o'" manuals, nuclear ; {
headquarter'(manual users have been notified of the {
' information only' statt:s of all their manuals. Vendor manuals ussi to perform or-support plant activitios will be obtained from the plant DCU's through the nuclear J
head @arter DCU's u needed."
Whep fully implemented these measures should provide
- . effective vendor manual control.
TVA corrective action report SQ CAR 86-01-004 (01/30/86;.
DApp. A, 5.y) documznts noncompliance with TVA requirements for vendnr manual and-drawing control. "Certe n vendor manuals knd drawings contained in SQN Environment 0 Qualification (EQ) Binders do not match with plant' controlled vendor manuals and information identified in the Drawing Managemen, System (DMS)."
Nuclear Safety Review Staff (NSRS) Investigative Report I-85-473-NPS (03/07/86 - App. A, 5.cc) confirmed that vendor manuals were.found with drawings that did not meet the "as-built" plant hardware y' It also contained the following recommendation: .
" Additional written instructions should be developed which include how to 'as-construct' bills of material, vendor uanuals, and instrument t2 s. It should alsb include procedures for when a drawing is needed for operation, maintenance, or modification and is not in the Drawing Management System (DMS). Also, SON AI-25 should be revised to reflect these instructions as well as to remove the workplan cognizant engineer from'the responsibility of deciding plant configuration."
These audit reports and riemorenda document findings which are similar to the issues expressed by the concerned employees.
08800
t-TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: ~204.7(B) s SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION-NUMBER: O PAGE 110F 18 L
i I
1 fnterviews with TVA Personnel Interviews with engineering, construction,-and quality assurance personnel (App. A, 7.a through e) confirm that, in the past, procedures have failed to establish measures to adequately control the issuance of vendor manuals, drawings, and changes to these documents. Receipt of vendor prints of r
poor quality was also verified. On occasion vendor prints of poor quality were accepted for use by EN DES because of contract, schedule, and/or budgetary justification.
Sometimes preliminary vendor prints of poor quality were distributed for use_ prior to level A approval and sometimes TVA reproduction of vendor prints was faulty and resulted in reproduction and distribution of prints of poor quality.
This condition was often corrected by requesting a recopy of ;
the subject vendor print.
To correct deficiencies and to comply with the governing criteria, TVA needed to establish procedural requirements that address the following:
- a. All vendor documents and changes to vendor documents must be reviewed for adequacy and be approved for release by authorized Engineering personnel.
The approval status of reviewed documents must be clearly b.
identified,
- c. All reviewed documents should be distributed to, and used at, the locations where the prescribed activity is performed.
- d. All superseded documents must be identified and be removed from areas where they may be inadvertently used.
- e. Engineering and plant personnel must be made aware of and I use only current vendor documents which have been approved for use by Engineering.
- f. Vendor documents must be controlled to assure that all parties, i.e., Engineering, Construction, Procurement, and Operations, are using the same design basis.
- g. All vendor prints are evaluated upon receipt to assure ;
that they are legible and of microfilmable quality prior i to acceptance and distribution.
0880D
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 204.7(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM-f ;
REVISION NUMBER: 0 l l
PAGE 12 0F 18 When fully implemented, the recently issued Quality Notice ID-QAP-6.2 (App. A, 5.m) and SQEP-39 (App. A, 5.n) should assure that the above listed items are properly addressed.
findings:
- a. Vendor documents of poor quality and legibility were sometimes distributed to SQN. Prior to issuance of SQEP-39, R0, TVA procedures identifying responsibilities, authorities, instructions, and step-by-step procedures for vendor document control did not provide satisfactory compliance to the applicable regulatory criteria. NSRS Investigation Report No. I-65-788-WBN (App. A, 5.bb) documents weaknesses in TVA configuration control, and lists findings that substantiate issue "a."
- b. TVA Corrective Action Report No. SQ-CAR-86-01-004 (App. A, ,
5.y) confirms issue "b." The evaluation team found that !
vendor manual and document control is a recognized problem at TVA, and corrective actions are being implemented to provide ;
adequate control. SQEP 39, which provides procedures for ;
review and approval of vendor manuals and revisions, is not !
yet fully implemented.
l
- c. In addition, the evaluation team found that the Sequoyah Safety Analysis Reports (PSAR and FSAR) adequately respond to the applicable regulatory criteria for document control.
- d. It was also found that Nuclear Quality Assurance program (NQAM) Part I, Section ID-QAP-6.2, R0, complies with the .
relevant regulatory criteria.
. Conclusions :
The evaluation team confirmed that some vendor manuals contain drawings that do not agree with as-built plant hardware; that some :
vendor drawings received by the site are not legible and are of poor quality Some vendor updates were not sent to the site reasonably soon after they were received in Knoxville or Chattanooga. Therefore, issues "a" and "b" are valid.
These problems stem from the fact that in the past, TVA has not had a uniform vendor manual control program to process vendor manual revisions at the Division of Nuclear Engineering (DNE). The Office of Nuclear Power (ONP) and Office of Construction (OC) could not be assured of receiving the latest revisions to vendor manuals to be incorporated into their controlled copies in a timely manner. TVA has, however, committed to developing and implementing the ONP 08800 i
4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ )
I
-- ( E i
.i" . . .TVA' EMPLOYEE CONCERNS . REPORT NUMBER: 204.7(B)? >
d#
SPECIAL' PROGRAM .
REVISION NUMBER: 0 PAGE 13 0F 18
[.'
Configuration Management Plan,~which'should' correct these. problems and' ensure that1 vendor manuals are maintained current. ,
y - NQAM Quality Notice ID-QAP-6.2 and.SQEP-39, when fully 1 implemented and properly adhered to, should provide legible and ~ adequately controlled vendor documents. .
l' t
0880D
n .. .. ... ?
'*" TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS RENRbOMBER: 804.7(B)
'SPECIAL PROGRAM j REVISION HUMBER: 0:
PAGE'14 0F 18-APPENDIX'A-
,4
- 5. ~ DOCUMENTS REVIEMED RELATED TO THE- ELEMENT:'
- a. . Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, PartL50 ,
-(10CFR50),. Chapter 1,. Appendix B, " Quality Assurance Criteria.
for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants, .
Criterion XVI,' " Corrective Action" b.- 'ANSILN45.2-1971,." Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants"
.. c. -ANSI N45.2.ll-1974, " Quality Assurance Requirements for the L
Design.of Nuclear Power Plants,"'Section 9 " Corrective
' Actions"-
- d. ANSI N45.2.10-1973, " Quality Assurance Terms and Definitions"- l
- e. Regulatory. Guide 1.64, " Quality Assurance Requirements-for the Design of Nuclear Power Plants," R2, (06/76)
- f. Sequoyah Preliminary Safety Analysis Report' (PSAR), (10/15/68) y
- 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 4.35, R1 " Revising Vendor Drawings'"-(12/14/81)
EP 4.39, R3 " Routine Distribution of Prints and Microfilm Aperture Cards for Drawings Under TVA.
Control," (10/18/83) !
EP 5.14, R4 " Vendor Documents - Handling and Disposition," (03/28/85)
EP 5.11, R11 " Vendor Drawings - Handling and Disposition," -j (04/24/84) J i
08800 i: - _ _ _ _ -
t l >
I' TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 204.7(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM
! REVISION NUMBER: 0 PAGE 15 0F 18 APPENDIX A (Cont'd)
- j. TVA Office of Engineering (0E) Procedures Manual:
OEP-08, R0 " Design Output," (04/26/85)
OEP-09, R0 " Procurement," (04/26/85)
NEP-5.1, R0 " Design Output," (07/01/86)
NEP-4.1, R0 " Procurement," (07/01/86)
- 1. TVA TR 75-1A, " Quality Assurance Program Description for the Design,-Construction, and Operation of TVA Nuclear Power Plants," R8, (04/09/85) 1
- m. TVA Interim Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual (NQAM), '
(Ll6 860619 805):
Part I, Section 2.6, " Document Control," R0 (06/18/86)
Part V, Section 6.2, (ID-QAP-6.2) " Vendor Manual Control,"
(12/31/85) i 10-QAP-6.1, RO, " Configuration Drawing Control" (06/18/86)
Part I, Section ID-QAP-6.2, RO, " Quality Notice - Vendor i Manual Control," (11/28/86)
- n. Sequoyah Engineering Procedure SQEP-39, Revision 0, " Review ,
and Approval of Vendor Manuals / Revisions," (01/03/87)
- o. Sequoyah Nuclear Performance Plan, Volume II, R1, (07/17/86)
- p. TVA Corporate Nuclear Performance Plan, Volume I, R2, (08/13/86)
- q. TVA memo from L. L. Jackson to Those Listed, (A02 860813 012), " Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) Corporate Evaluation Responses," (08/14/86) 1 i
l l
l i
0880D
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS REPORT NUMBER: 204.7(B)
SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: O PAGE 16 0F 18 APPENDIX A (Cont'd)
- r. SQN Administrative Instruction AI-23, R21, " Vendor Manual Control," (11/20/85)
- s. SQN Administrative Instruction AI-19 Part IV, R16, " Plant Modifications After Licensing," (05/08/86)
- t. SQN Area Plan 1707.03.04, " Vendor Manual Program," (12/21/84)
- u. SQN Plant Procedure SQM2, R19, " Maintenance Management System," (02/27/86)
- v. SQN Plant Procedure SQM57, R4, " Preventative Maintenance Program," (01/03/86)
- w. OE-0I 4001 (RO) " Contract Administration - Handling of Vendor Documents" (07/01/85)
- x. TVA memo from P. R. Hallace to Those Listed (S53 850429 875),
" Schedule for Control of Vendor Manual," (04/29/85)
' y. TVA QA Corrective Action Report SQ-CAR-86-01-004, (01/30/86)
- z. INP0 Report, " Document Control," (LO44 850816 803), (04/85) aa. INPO Report, " Document Control " (02/84) bb. NSRS Report I-85-788-H8N, (12/18/85) cc. NSRS Report I-85-473-NPS, (03/07/86) dd. NRC Inspection Reports 50-327/86-11 and 328/86-11, (L44 860429 173) (04/22/86) ee. INP0 Good Practices Report CE-101, " Configuration Management Preliminary," (03/86) ff. INP0 Good Practices Report MA-304. " Control of Vendor Manuals," (09/84) gg. TVA memo from T. H. Roberts to F. H. Chandler, " Vendor Manual Control Program," (B42 851224 004) (12/24/85) 08800
c TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS RENRbuMBER: '204.7(B) -
SPECIAL PROGRAM
-REVISION NUMBER: 0
.PAGE 17 0F 18'
.(
(
APPENDIX A (Cont'd)
- 6. HHAT REGULATIONS. LICENSING COMMITMENTS. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. OR OTHER
' APPLY OR CONTROL IN THIS AREA?
1
- a. _10CFR50 Chapter 1, Appendix B. " Quality -Assurance Criteria ]~
for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants" -
- b. ANSI N45.2.ll-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)
- d. Sequoyah FSAR updated through Amendment 3, (04/86) .;
.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, t 1 -(08/13/86)
- 7. LIST RE00ESTS FOR INFORMATION. MEETINGS. TELEPHONE CALLS. AND OTHER DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO ELEMENT:
- a. Meeting with T. Clift, TVA, and D. Popham, Bechtel, regarding vendor document control,.IOM 517, (01/23/87)-
- b. Meeting with L. Belvins, TVA, and D. Popham, Bechtel, regarding TVA vendor document control IOM 517, (01/25/87)
- c. Meeting with R. O. Rudder, T. Clift, TVA and D. Popham, Bechtel, regarding SQN Employee Concerns, IOM 517, (01/27/87)
- d. Meeting with T. Fields, M. Anderson, T. Clift, TVA, and D.
Popham, Bechtel, regarding SQN Engineering Document Control Services, IDH 517 (01/27/87)
- e. Meeting with J. Perky, T. Clift. TVA, and D. Popham, Bechtel,
'regarding SQEPs IOM 517, (01/28/87) 1 0880D I
i 1
=. - - - - - _ - - _
w .
REPORT NUMBER:- 204.7(B)'
TVA EMPLOYEE CONCERNS
'~
i- -SPECIAL PROGRAM REVISION NUMBER: O PAGE 18 0F 18 C
(
CATD LIST The following CATD form is-included as part of this report:
204 07 SQN'01 (Findings "a" and "b")
i 1
08800
. 5 s
ECTG C.3 Attachment A Page 1 of 1 Revision 2 - A
(- ' ECSP CottECTIVE Action Tractint Document (CATD)
INITIATION j 1. Ipsediate Corrective Action Required: O Tes k . No Stop Wort. Reconssended: 0 Yes 2.
- 3. CAtD No.j D4 67 SON O/ % No 4 2NITIATION DATE A - / I-R 7
- 5. RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION: AllE-S$N 6.. PROBLEM DESCRIPTIO*.': O QR p NQR TVA -
J-M!E.NDY~ Full Y /MP1EN7FNTWn
.se r- p R 7 f?d//6fi) AN/Y APPN) val CF~
WMDn R Atha /UAL G/ Rs-VJ C/nMR +
/
~
.I J n. O AT'ACHMENTS-
- 7. PREPARED 1)Y: NA.ME D. A. Ro PN4#/ - . R DATE: ,a -/9--#7
- 8. CONCURRENCE: CEG-MV M f MfS/AF-#4P DATE: 3 / L1/Ti
- 9. APPROVAL
- ECTG PROGfAM MGR'. '/ / V DATE:
)RRECTIVE ACTION
( / -
- 10. PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN:
I D ATTACHMENTS
- 11. PROPOSED BY: DIRECTOR /MGR: DATE:
- 12. CONCURRENCE: CEG-H: DATE:
SRP: DATE:
ECTG PROGRAR MGR: DATE:
VEP!FICATION AND CLOSEOUT
- 23. Approved corrective actions have been verified as satisfactorily
__ implemented.
k SIGNATURE TITLE DA~E
_ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ - _ _