IR 05000390/2014611
| ML14135A428 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Watts Bar  |
| Issue date: | 05/15/2014 |
| From: | Haag R C NRC/RGN-II/DCP/CPB3 |
| To: | Skaggs M D Tennessee Valley Authority |
| Michelle Adams | |
| References | |
| IR-14-611 | |
| Download: ML14135A428 (19) | |
Text
May 15, 2014
Mr. MichaelSenior Vice President Nuclear Generation Development and Construction Tennessee Valley Authority 6A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801
SUBJECT: WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 CONSTRUCTION - NRC PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION INSPECTION REPORT 05000391/2014611
Dear Mr. Skaggs:
On April 25, 2014, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection of construction activities at your Watts Bar Unit 2 reactor facility. The enclosed inspection report documents the inspection results, which were discussed on April 25, 2013, with you and other members of your staff. This problem identification and resolution (PI&R) inspection examined activities conducted under your Unit 2 construction permit as they relate to identification and resolution of problems, compliance with the Commission's rules and regulations, and with the conditions of your construction permit. The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel.
No findings were identified during this inspection.
In accordance with 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of the NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).Should you have questions concerning this letter, please contact us.
Sincerely,/RA/ Robert C. Haag, Chief Construction Projects Branch 3 Division of Construction Projects
Docket No. 50-391 Construction Permit No: CPPR-92
Enclosure:
Inspection Report 05000391/2014611 w/Attachment cc w/encl: (See next page)
SUMMARY
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit
NRC Inspection Report 05000391/2014611 Introduction This inspection assessed implementation of the corrective action program for the Watts Bar Unit construction completion project. The inspection program for Unit construction activities is described in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2517. Information regarding the Watts Bar Unit Construction Project and NRC inspections can be found at http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/wb/watts-bar/construction-insp-info.html. Inspection Results
- In general, the threshold for initiating problem evaluation reports (PERs) was low and PERs were appropriately categorized. For the majority of PERs reviewed, the inspectors determined that problem evaluations were effective in identifying corrective actions that addressed the problem. [Section Q.1.1]
- The inspectors determined that adequate measures have been established to evaluate and incorporate applicable operating experience into the corrective action program. [Section Q.1.1]
- The inspectors determined that TVA and Bechtel have established an acceptable program and environment for allowing employees to identify quality or safety-related concerns. [Section Q.1.1]
Table of Contents I. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM .....................................................................................
Q.1 Quality Assurance Program Implementation .................................................................
Q.1.1 Implementation of Corrective Action Program During Construction (IP 35007) ...............
V. MANAGEMENT MEETINGS ..............................................................................................
X.1 Exit Meeting Summary .....................................................................................................
REPORT DETAILS
I. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM Q.1 Quality Assurance Program Implementation
Q.1.1 Implementation of Corrective Action Program During Construction (Inspection Procedure 35007)
a. Inspection Scope
The inspectors assessed the adequacy of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and Bechtel program for identification, evaluation, and corrective action of conditions adverse to quality during the period since the previous problem identification and resolution inspection in April 2013. This was accomplished by reviewing selected PERs, verifying corrective actions were implemented and attending meetings where PERs were screened for significance to determine whether the licensee was identifying, accurately characterizing, and entering problems into the Corrective Action Program (CAP) at an appropriate threshold. The inspectors reviewed a sample of PERs and Service Requests (SRs) selected from the applicant's CAP for Watts Bar Unit 2. The sample included problems addressed by a diverse selection of plant departments and problems classified under all of the significance levels. The sample also covered a diverse selection of sources, including problems identified in audits and assessments, nonconforming results from inspections and tests, findings from NRC inspections, concerns from anonymous sources, and concerns identified as adverse trends. Most PERs were reviewed after corrective actions had been implemented; however, some were reviewed after the corrective action plan was developed but prior to implementation. The inspectors also reviewed the applicant's alternate issue tracking systems that address issues that were not classified as conditions adverse to quality. This review targeted verification of appropriate characterization and closure of issues managed outside the corrective action program. The alternative issue tracking systems that were sampled included Test Deficiency Notices (TDNs) and Quality Control (QC) Rejects.
These systems were defined as corrective Work Processes approved to track/implement correction, according to TVA's CAP procedure (NC-PP-3, Revision 15). The inspectors reviewed applicable portions of TVA's and Bechtel's Quality Assurance Program (QAP) implementing procedures in order to ensure that commitments for the identification, evaluation, and resolution of conditions adverse to quality had been adequately addressed. The inspectors' review evaluated the applicant's consideration for extent of condition, generic implications, common cause and previous occurrences (trending), including the identification of root and contributing causes along with actions to prevent recurrence for significant conditions adverse to quality. The inspectors reviewed TVA's and Bechtel's respective programs for resolving employee concerns. The inspectors interviewed TVA and the major contractor's (Bechtel) employee concern representatives, reviewed a sample of PERs referred to employee concerns and PERs initiated as a result of employee concerns. The inspectors also reviewed several anonymous PERs to determine if they had been adequately captured and addressed. The inspectors reviewed and evaluated the adequacy of the programs, which provide employees with an alternate method to identify quality or safety-related concerns. The inspectors also reviewed surveys and assessments of the employee concerns programs. The inspectors reviewed a sample of the applicant's management and quality assessments, audits, and trend reports to verify adverse results were properly evaluated and dispositioned within the corrective action program. The inspectors reviewed the revision history for corrective action program implementing procedures and assessed the integration of industry operating experience into the corrective action process. Direct observations by inspectors included meetings of the Project Review Committee (PRC) and the Construction Completion Management Review Committee (CCMRC) as they screened newly reported problems and reviewed dispositions for selected issues. Specific PERs and other documents reviewed are listed in the attachment.
b. Observations and Findings
No findings were identified.
The inspectors made the following observations as a result of their inspections:
(1) Effectiveness of Identifying, Evaluating, and Correcting Problems Identifying Problems The inspectors determined that, for the most part, the applicant was effective in identifying problems and entering them into the CAP. PERs normally provided complete and accurate characterization of the subject issues. Employees were encouraged by management to initiate PERs.
Evaluating Problems The inspectors attended several meetings throughout the week, including the PRC and the CCMRC. It was determined that the applicant had adequately prioritized issues entered into the CAP consistent with established procedures. SRs that were being initiated and discussed during the meetings were being appropriately dispositioned. The inspectors determined that the threshold of closing items as SRs, closing items to a work order (WO), and creating a PER when necessary was adequate.
Correcting Problems Based on a review of numerous PER corrective actions and their implementation, the team found, for the most part, that the applicant's corrective actions developed and implemented for problems were commensurate with the safety significance of the issues.
(2) Use of Operating Experience The inspectors determined that the applicant's measures used to identify, evaluate and incorporate applicable industry and operating experience (I&OE) information into the corrective action program contained processes for including vendor recommendations and internally generated lessons learned. The I&OE information was collected, evaluated, and communicated to the affected internal stakeholders as specified in TVA and Bechtel procedures. The inspectors determined that appropriate corrective actions were developed and taken for the sample of I&OE problem evaluation reports reviewed for the Watts Bar Unit 2 Construction Completion Project.
(3) Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE) The inspectors reviewed several anonymous PERs and PERs that either referred to the employee concerns program (ECP) or PERs generated as a result of employee concerns. Employees interviewed expressed knowledge of the employee concerns program and the ability to raise safety related concerns through various available means. The inspectors also interviewed senior employee concerns coordinators from both TVA and Bechtel. The inspectors determined that TVA's and Bechtel's employee concern programs were adequate. The senior employee concerns coordinators expressed knowledge of the ECP and the ability to raise safety related concerns through various available means. The inspectors noted that the ECP staff provide several training sessions, they provide ECP information in newsletters, and they also walk around the site frequently, talk daily to staff, and attend several meetings to ensure that staff are aware of the ECP and know how to raise concerns if necessary. Also, there appeared to be strong management support for both the Bechtel and TVA ECP.
(4) Corrective Action Program Performance Insights The sample of audits, assessments, and surveillances reviewed by the inspectors confirmed that management and quality personnel actively conducted observations and effectiveness reviews of the corrective action program. These program assessments concluded that overall, the corrective action program was effectively implemented. The applicant continues to track and trend issues, run summary reports on the trend data, and present results to management in several meetings, such as the site status meeting, CCMRC, etc.
(5) Corrective Action Program Effectiveness As discussed above, in general, the applicant's CAP was effective and adequate. The inspectors determined that the applicant has maintained implementation of the CAP at an effective level since the last NRC PI&R inspection (April 2013).
c. Conclusions
As documented above, the inspectors determined that implementation of the CAP for the Watts Bar Unit 2 construction completion project was generally adequate. The threshold for initiating PERs was appropriate, PERs were categorized in accordance with their significance, and problem evaluations were effective in identifying appropriate corrective actions.
In regards to maintaining a Safety Conscious Work Environment, the inspectors determined that TVA and Bechtel had established an acceptable program and environment for allowing employees to identify quality or safety-related concerns.
V. Management Meetings X.1 Exit Meeting Summary On April 25, 2014, the inspectors presented the inspection results to you and other members of your staff. Proprietary information reviewed during the inspection was returned and no proprietary information was included in this inspection report.