ML19343C524

Final Deficiency Rept 2 Re Failure to Provide Recipients w/up-to-date Revisions of 12 CF Braun Specs & Associated Engineering Change Notices,Initially Reported on 810127 & 0203.Superseded Documents Replaced W/Current Revisions

ML19343C524
Person / Time
Site:	Hartsville
Issue date:	03/16/1981
From:	Mills L TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:	James O'Reilly NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
References
10CFR-050.55E, 10CFR-50.55E, NUDOCS 8103240430
Download: ML19343C524 (4)

Text

• ' TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE 374ot 400 Chestnut Street Tower II

~' -y March 16, 1981 #

HTRD-50-513, -519. -520, -521/81-05  ?,

t2 'r6' 23 t?g)# &

Ita . Jones P. J'Reilly, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Q

'A J

/

7 7

U.S. Nuclear Regulator"/ Connission FA i Region II - Suite 3100 101 "arietta Street h'

to p"

• Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Dear Mr. O'Reilly:

HARTSVILLE NUCLEAR PLANT - REPORTA3LE DEFICIENCY - DEFICIENT DRAWING AND DOCUMENT CONTROL - HTRD-50-518, -519, -520, -521/81-05 The subject -deficiency was initially reported to !!RC-0IE, Region II, Inspector R. W. Wright on January 27 and February 3, 1981, as PT-0-81-06 deficiencies 1 and 2, respectively. In cenpliance with paragraph -

50.55(e) of 10 CeR Part 50, we are enclosing the final' report en the subject deficiency. This nonconformance was resolved along with TVA's response to your letter dated January 30, 1981, Confirmation of Action. -

If you have any questions, please call Jin Dener at FTS 857-2014 Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY L. M. Mills,..anager Nuclear Regulation and Safety Enclosure cc: "r.

, Victor Stello, Director (Enclosure)

Office of Inspection and Enforcener.t U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cennission Washington, DC 20555-Bol'1 s

>l 8110324 0 %c An e=uai cr:::=<rmnity en prover b

ENCLOSURE HARTSVILLE MUCLEAR PLANT DRAWING CONTROL PROGRAM AUDIT HT-G-81-06 DEFICIENCIES 1 AND 2 10CFR50.55(e)

REPORT NO. 2 (FINAL)

On January 27, 1981, TVA informed URC-0IE Region II Inspector, R. W.

Wright, of a potentially reportable condition under 10CFR50.55/ e) regarding the recurrence of drawing control deficiencies. This is the final report on this deficiency.

Descri- ' n of Deficiency The T... ~0MST CA Unit at Hartsville performed an audit of the drawings being used on the site. The auditor surveyed 459 drawings being maintained by engineering and crafts personnel and found 26 drawings which were out of date and/or superseded..by later revisions. A similar finding was reported to NRC-0IE Region II on August 15, 1980, in which 30 out of 155 drawings were found to be superseded.

The auditor also surveyed controlled documents other tnan construction drawings'which are maintained in manuals onsite. This etrvev revealed that 12 C. F. Braun specifications and associsted Engineering Change Notices (ECN's) were not sufficiently controlled in that document , ,

recipients did not have up-to-date revisions and the DCU master file contained ~ superseded material.

Safety Implications It*any construction or inspection activities were conducted to the requirements of out-of-date or superseded drawings or documents, those activities may not conform to. current requirements. Therefore, this could have led to the construction of some plant feature in an incorrect configuration which could have . adversely affected plant I safety. S-Corrective Action.

1. The Hartsville Site OA Unit conducted a 100-percent audit of safety-related site-issued devrings. This audit revealed that out of_approxinately 40,000 drawings, 1155 superseded drawings were being. held by engineering'and quality control inspection

. personnel. An extended survey.of other selected controlled:

documents _was also conducted.' All superseded'drawines-and documents have been replaced with current revisions.

a 0

2. Of the 1155 superseded drawings -identified under action item 1, 16 were identified as being in use. Each case is described below.

4KE5603-2K-02 R3 - This drawing was used for acceptance (1 copy - inspections on shop-fabricated items. The assigned to change effected by revision 4 involves a QA Civii Unit) feature on the Mk. No. 4 frames. Mene of these frames were inspected during the time that this superseded drawing was in use.

S-515221FP1-1 RO - These were used to fabricate a single support.

S-515221FP1-2 R0 The support was installed on Aunust 19, 198,0.

S-525221FP1-3 R0 These drawings were revised on October 26, (4 copies each- 1980. Sequence Control Charts are being -

, assigned to changed to codify this support as required.

STRIDE Project .

Engineering .

Hanger Unit)

S-514A44FP1-1 RO - Member size was changed by revision 1 to a S-514A44FP1-2 RO smaller size. Since we are still fabricating (1 copy each - and installing this support, the design change assigned to will be implemented.

STRIDE Project Elgineerinz ,

Hanger Unit)

S321200AP2'R1

- No changes .:.n the fabrication or insta11atica of

-(1 copy - t' is support are necessitated by 'this change assigned to STRIDE Project Engineering .

Hanger Unit)

3. A team consisting of OA angineers from the staff of TVA's Office of Engineering Design and Construction (OEDC) and the Quality i- Assurance Branch of, the Division of Construction (CONST) ~

conducted an invescigation to determine why the brea'<down in drawing control occurred after full compliance was reported to -

have.been achieved as of October 8, 1930. The investigation was conducted on Fcb- arr 12-14, 1931. The following is a sunnation of the results 4 investigation.

. (a)-. No individuaf or organization was responsible for the entire

! drawing control process from receipt of-a. drawing until it.

was retrieved.

(b) There were too many individuals and stations where groups of

. controlled drawings were located which contributed tus the

.increasa in the nunber of drawings.

> i.

i

(c) No restraints were placed on persennel requesting drawings or

-complete sets of drawings from the Document Control Unit which also contributed to the increase in the number of drawings.

(d) Vendor drawings were not adequately identified and controlled.

( f) Construction working drawings were not identified as controlled drawings.

(g) Field Change Requests (FCR's) were not being incorporated on -

C. F. Braun drawings. ,

(h) The Drawing 7ndex was not maintained in an accurate status.

4 All TVA construction site QA units were directed to conduct audits to determine if the Hartsville ,drawihg control probicms existed at other TVA nuclear facilities. All audit scopes were exonnded beyond drawing control in order to evaluate other areas of document control, i.e., Field Change Requests (FCR's),

Construction Engineering Procedures (CEP's), Quality Control Instructions _(QCI's), etc. With the exception of Hartsville, there were no audit findings evaluated and deemed "significant."

Line and QA management reviewed the audit and investigation

'*indirgs on February 18, 1981. No document control procedure changes were necessary for. Sequoyah, Watts Bar, or Bellefonte.

The drawing control procedure did require adjustments for Hartsville, Phipps Bend, and Yellow Creek Nuclear Plants. A revision to Construction Engineering Procedure, CEP-6.01, " Drawing Control,," was drafted on February 26, 1081, and is intended to prevent recurrence of the causes of this deficiency listed in part 3 above. For all plants, line management emphasis is being implemented to achieve and maintain full compliance with j procedural requiremer,ts of drawing and docunent control, and accelerated auditing:will be used to assure compliance. We believe that the program adjustments, line management emphasis, direct supervision,' employee training and accelerated auditing will preclude recurrence of significart deficiences in our drawing and document control program.

3-O a