IR 05000391/2011611
| ML111810632 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Watts Bar  |
| Issue date: | 06/28/2011 |
| From: | Haag R NRC/RGN-II/DCP/CPB3 |
| To: | Bhatnagar A Tennessee Valley Authority |
| References | |
| IR-11-611 | |
| Download: ML111810632 (17) | |
Text
June 28, 2011
SUBJECT:
WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 CONSTRUCTION - NRC PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION INSPECTION REPORT 05000391/2011611
Dear Mr. Bhatnagar:
On May 20, 2011, 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 May 20, 2011, with Mr. Ed Freeman and other members of your staff.
This inspection examined activities conducted under your Unit 2 construction permit as they relate to identification and resolution of problems, compliance with the Commissions rules and regulations, and with the conditions of your construction permit. The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel.
On the basis of the sample selected for review, there were no findings of significance identified during the inspection. The team concluded, in general, that problems were properly identified, evaluated, and corrected within the problem identification and resolution program (PI&R).
Based on the corrective action program being deemed effective, the NRC will no longer perform follow-up inspections on all non-cited violations (NCVs) in accordance with Inspection Manual Chapter 2517, Watts Bar Unit 2 Construction Inspection Program. NCVs will now be closed based on you entering them into your corrective action program, and follow-up inspections will occur on a sampling basis.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRCs 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
NRCs 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).
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 05000391/2011611 w/attachment
REGION II==
Docket No:
50-391
Construction Permit No:
CPPR-92
Report No.:
Applicant:
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Facility:
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2
Location:
1260 Nuclear Plant Rd
Spring City TN 37381
Inspection Dates:
May 16 through May 20, 2011
Inspectors:
A. Hutto, (Lead) Senior (Sr.) Resident Inspector, Reactor Projects Branch 1, Division of Reactor Project, Region II (RII)
C. Julian, Construction Inspector, Construction Inspection Branch (CIB) 1, Division of Construction Inspection (DCI),
RII P. Van Doorn, Construction Projects Branch 3, (CPB) 3, Division of Construction Projects (DCP), RII
E. Heher, Construction Inspector, CIB2, DCI, RII R. Lewis, Resident Inspector, CPB3, DCP, RII
Accompanying
Personnel:
L. Dumont, Construction Inspector (In Training), CIB1, DCI, RII
Approved By:
Robert C. Haag, Chief
Construction Projects Branch 3
Division of Construction Projects
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2
NRC Inspection Report 05000391/2011611
Introduction
This inspection assessed implementation of the corrective action program for the Watts Bar Unit 2 construction completion project. The inspection program for Unit 2 construction activities is described in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2517. Information regarding the Watts Bar Unit 2 Construction Project and NRC inspections can be found at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/plant-specific-items/watts-bar.html.
Inspection Results
- The inspectors determined that implementation of the corrective action program (CAP) for the Watts Bar Unit 2 construction completion project was effective. In general, the threshold for initiating problem evaluation reports (PERs) was low, PERs were appropriately categorized, and 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)
REPORT DETAILS
I.
Quality Assurance Program
Q.1 Quality Assurance Program Implementation
Q.1.1 Implementation of Corrective Action Program During Construction (IP 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 August 2010. This was accomplished by evaluating the thresholds for problem identification, the effectiveness of immediate and preventive corrective actions, the accuracy and thoroughness of problem documentation, and the adequacy of corrective actions for previously identified compliance issues. The inspectors conducted reviews to evaluate management/quality assurance oversight of the corrective action process.
The inspectors reviewed a sample of over 85 PERs and Service Requests (SRs)selected from reports of plant problems at 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 applicants alternate issue tracking systems which 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 TVA Over, Short, Damaged, and Discrepant (OSDD) report was reviewed to verify that items in the report were appropriately evaluated for potential inclusion in the corrective action program. The OSDD report documents unsatisfactory, overage, shortage and damage (UOS&D) deficiencies during material receiving process.
The inspectors reviewed applicable portions of the applicants 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 applicants 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 TVAs and Bechtels respective programs for resolving employee concerns. This review covered documents and reports, some of which were documented in previous NRC inspection reports. The inspectors interviewed TVA and the major contractors (Bechtel) employee concern representatives, reviewed a listing of new employee concerns, and reviewed corrective actions for selected concern files. 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 the provisions provided for workers to report conditions that may be adverse to quality. The inspectors reviewed several anonymous PERs to determine if they had been adequately captured and addressed.
The inspectors reviewed a sample of 10 management and quality assessments, audits, trend reports, and focused surveillances to verify adverse results were properly evaluated and dispositioned in 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 documents reviewed are listed in the attachment.
b. Observations and Findings
No findings of significance were identified. The following observations were noted:
- (1) Effectiveness of Identifying, Evaluating, and Correcting Problems
Identifying Problems
The inspectors determined that the applicant was effective in identifying problems and entering them into the CAP. PERs normally provided complete and accurate characterization of the subject issues. In general, the threshold for initiating PERs was low as evidenced by the continued large number of PERs entered annually into the CAP.
Employees were encouraged by management to initiate PERs. Site management was actively involved in the CAP and focused appropriate attention on significant plant issues. The inspectors independent review did not identify any significant adverse conditions which were not in the CAP for resolution.
Evaluating Problems
The inspectors found no significant issues with the evaluations provided for individual PERs and determined that the applicant had adequately prioritized issues entered into the CAP consistent with established procedures. This was confirmed through the review of audits conducted by the applicant and the assessment conducted by the inspection team during the on-site period. Generally, the applicant performed evaluations that were technically accurate and of sufficient depth. The inspectors determined that site trend reports were thorough and that a low threshold was established for evaluation of potential trends. Use of trending at the site was comprehensive and effective in identifying areas for improvement.
The team determined that the applicant conducted an adequate number of root cause analyses based on the overall number and significance of issues entered into the CAP.
The classifications were consistent with established procedures. A variety of causal analysis techniques were used depending on the type and complexity of the issue. For root causes that were identified, the applicant appropriately developed corrective actions to prevent recurrence (CAPR).
The team did identify one example (PER 247196) where the completion of the root cause analysis did not meet the applicants timeliness requirements; however, immediate corrective actions and the extent of condition that was performed was sufficient such that there were no adverse consequences from the late root cause.
The inspectors also identified one example (PER 268797) where the development of the corrective action plan had not been completed within the assigned due date and no extensions had been initiated. The inspectors found three examples of C Level PERS (287646, 323361, and 356557) that identified corrective actions to address the identified issue, but did not evaluate potential underlying process weakness that could have contributed to the issue. For C Level PERs, this type of review is not required; however, the inspectors noted these PERs represented opportunities to better understand process weaknesses.
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 timely, effective, and commensurate with the safety significance of the issues. Effectiveness reviews for CAPRs and audits were generally of good depth and correctly identified issues.
The inspectors did find several examples where the documentation of corrective actions were incomplete or inaccurate. One example (PER 262178) failed to document the completion of an effectiveness review that was completed two months previously and the open corrective action status was a month past due. Two examples were identified (PERs 326539 and 335991) where corrective action status was incorrect. One PER (321209) closed out a corrective action plan to an email that contained little documentation as to what was done, and the associated corrective action within the PER remained open. The applicant corrected these issues at the time of the inspection.
- (2) Use of Operating Experience
The inspectors found that the applicants measures to evaluate and incorporate applicable operating experience into the corrective action program contained processes for including vendor recommendations and internally generated lessons learned. The industry and operating experience (I&OE) information was collected, evaluated, and communicated to affected internal stakeholders as specified in TVA procedures, and appropriate corrective actions were developed for issues applicable to the Watts Bar Unit 2 Construction Completion Project.
- (3) Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE)
The inspectors determined that TVAs and Bechtels employee concern programs were adequate with significant improvement noted for the Bechtel program, in that the program procedure had undergone significant improvement and use of employee surveys had resulted in improvement initiatives. Employees interviewed expressed knowledge of the employee concerns program and the ability to raise safety related concerns through various available means. Generally, there appeared to be a low threshold for initiating PERs with strong management support for the program evident.
- (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 which was consistent with the inspectors observations and assessments during this inspection.
The sample of reported problems reviewed by the inspectors, interviews with responsible personnel, observations of program activities, and evaluation of program trends identified the following insights:
- The corrective action plan and corrective action (CA) backlog was relatively high due to extensions and late actions as identified by Bechtel trending in these areas. As a result, an action plan has been developed to complete development of overdue and extended corrective action plans and to schedule realistic completion dates for CAs tied to system schedule milestones.
- The CCMRC provided an appropriate level of management focus and input to the CAP.
Committee members were engaged and their review of PER categorization and corrective actions was critical and probing. This level of management involvement in the PER review process provided added value and illustrated managements commitment to improving the CAP at Watts Bar Unit 2.
- There were opportunities to perform an increased number of apparent cause evaluations for Level C PERs. The inspectors noted several examples were Level C PER corrective action plans only addressed the problem identified but did not address potential process breakdowns that led to the problem. Only 16 Level C PERs written since the last PI&R inspection were determined to require apparent cause evaluations and this potentially represents missed opportunities for additional improvements that could be realized from the CAP.
- PER 247196 was a Level A PER associated with potential falsification of quality records involving electrical cable determinations and measurements. This PER was initiated on August 31, 2010. The inspector noted that the Root Cause evaluation was not completed until March 31, 2011. The applicant indicated that one of the delays was because the potential personnel issues required special investigation. The inspector was concerned that technical aspects of the problem may not have been addressed in a timely manner. Further inspector review showed that sufficient actions had been taken to address the technical issued in a reasonable time before the Root Cause was completed. These included an extent of condition review which consisted of reviewing all work performed by the individuals and evaluating whether any other problems existed. None were found. In addition, the applicant held briefings with the affected department personnel. Additional training was implemented after the Root Cause was completed. While the applicant did not meet the timeliness requirements of the applicable procedure, management had made a decision to delay the final evaluation so as not to prejudice the investigation, and sufficient intermediate actions were taken to address prevention of similar problems and evaluate if any others existed.
- (5) Corrective Action Program Effectiveness
As discussed above, the inspectors found that the applicant had conducted program assessments and focused assessments which addressed effectiveness. The inspectors determined the implementation of the CAP since the last NRC 2010 PI&R inspection (August 2010) has improved. Problem areas identified in the 2010 report associated with the identification and corrective action components of the program were not observed to the same extent and significance during this inspection. The CAP improvement appears to be a result of increased management attention and resources to the program and the communication of program expectations to the staff and contractors.
c. Conclusions
As documented above, the inspectors determined that implementation of the CAP for the Watts Bar Unit 2 construction completion project was effective. 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.
The inspectors determined that adequate measures had been established to evaluate and incorporate applicable operating experience into the corrective action program.
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.
Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC), 2517, Section 10.03 contained a provision to stop the NRCs practice of performing follow-up inspections for all non-cited violations when the applicants corrective action program is deemed to be effective. Based on the results of this PI&R inspection, the NRC will not be required to perform follow-up inspections for all non-cited violations. Corrective actions for future non-cited violations will be assessed on a sampling basis by NRC inspections, including PI&R inspections.
V.
Management Meetings
X.1
Exit Meeting Summary
On May 20, 2011, the inspectors presented the inspection results to Mr. Ed Freeman and other members of his staff. Proprietary information reviewed during the inspection was returned and no proprietary information was included in this inspection report.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Partial List of Persons Contacted
Applicant personnel
- B. Crouch, Licensing Manager, Unit 2
- D. Stinson, Vice President, Unit 2
- D. Charlton, Licensing, TVA, Unit 2
- D. Fink, Corrective Action Manager for Construction, Bechtel
- E. Freeman, Engineering Manager, TVA, Unit 2
- M. Grohman, WBNPP Unit 2 Site Coating Superintendent
- M. Hickey, Project Director, Bechtel
- B. Perkins, Lead Civil Engineer, Bechtel
Inspection Procedure Used
Quality Assurance Program Implementation during Construction
List of Items Opened, Closed, and Discussed
Opened
None
Closed
None
Discussed
None
List of Documents Reviewed
Problem Evaluation Reports (PERs) and Service Requests (SRs)
PER 218423, Results of the Unit 2 Use-As-Is Special Program Self Assessment
PER 220664, NRC EN 45722 - Part 21 Defective Stud Attachment to Embed Plates
PER 241073, Associated with NCV 05000391/2010604-01
PER 241128, Historical Issue: CCE SYS WBN061 2-TE-0210F has damaged cable
PER
2183, RCP 2-1 Upper Internal Package Contacted Transport Support Box
PER
2243, Document Discrepancies for ASME Work
PER 243266, Breaker Setting Incorrect
PER
243564, Pitting Found in Loop 4 Piping
PER
243566, Bypassed QC Hold Point
PER
243568, Wrong Documentation used and QC Verification not Performed
PER
243577, Unacceptable PT Indications on Loop 4
PER 243695, Associated with NCV 05000391/2010603-08
PER
244088, Adverse Trend for Verbatim Procedure Compliance
PER 244458, PER 178558 Corrective Action is Ineffective, Design Control Audit Finding
PER
245011, Welding Inspection Hold Points Bypassed
PER
245256, Failed PSI Inspection of Valve Bolting
PER
245304, No Accurate Accounting for Historical DCNs that Modified Unit 1
PER 245934, Near Miss: Electronic Dosimeter Alarmed During Radiography Activities
PER 246355, Class 1E Cables not Installed Correctly
PER
246373, Bypassed QC Hold Point
PER 246901, Associated with NCV 05000391/2010607-01
PER
246942, Welding Performed without QC Fit-Up Inspection
PER
247196, Potential Discrepancies Between Cable/Wire Lift and Re-Land Sheet and Field
PER
247409, NSRB Observations/Comments Relating to Unit 2 Transition Activities
PER 247634, PER 241128 Inappropriately Closed Without Completed Actions
PER
254366, Craft Working Outside Scope of WO and Procedure
PER 255649, NRC Indentified - Corrective Actions in PER 218423 not Completed
PER 255663, Associated with NCV 05000391/2010605-03
PER 258316, The 1E Classifications are Listed Incorrectly
PER
261401, Unauthorized Material Substitution for Valve Diaphragms
PER 262178, Trend in Red-line Process Issues
PER 263619, NRC EN 46289 - Dresser Masoneilan Part 21 Report Model 77N-40 Air
Regulators
PER
266487, Missed QC Hold Points - Welding
PER 268797, Plant Design Rework
PER
2446, Possible Unit 1 Calculation N317R Error
PER 274554, Someone Signed My Signature on a Legibility Stamp Falsely
PER 280760, Anonymous PER: Bechtel Management Lack in Resolving Issues
PER 280777, Associated with NCV 05000391/2010604-01
PER 284106, Associated with NCV 05000391/2010607-01
PER
285467, Hot Pipe Clearance Violation between New Conduit and CVCS Piping
PER 287616, Associated with NCV 05000391/2010605-04
PER
287646, Undocumented Valve Disassembly/Pipe Min. Wall Violation
PER 293078, Anonymous PER: QC Inspected Hanger without Workers Present
PER 293175, NRC Part 21 ENS 46449 - Rosemount Model 1152 DP Transmitters
PER 293689, Replacement for PER 148667 - RV Arc Strike
PER 296266, Associated with NCV 05000391/2010602-01
PER 297661, Anonymous PER: QC Final Inspections without Craft Present
PER
297689, Trend of QC In Process Rejections
PER
305879, ABSCE Valves Found Open
PER
307957, ABSCE Valves Found Unlocked
PER
309775, During Movement of the 2A Safety Injection Pump the Pump Slid Forward
PER
316584, Personnel Signing for Items they are not Qualified For
PER 317273, Anonymous PER: Non-conformance of Procedure 25402-000-GPP-000-N1106
PER 317321, Anonymous PER: Procedural Non-compliance 25402-000-GPP-000-N1206
PER 320066, Associated with NCV 05000391/2010605-04
PER 320115, Associated with NCV 05000391/2010602-02
PER 320145, Anonymous PER: Quality and Safety Concerns, Non-compliance of Procedures
PER 320700, Anonymous PER: Closing Partial Work Orders Procedure Violation
PER 321201, Anonymous PER: Being Told to Violate Procedures to Close WOs
PER 321209, Anonymous PER: Procedures Being Violated to Close Sys 067 PERs and
Actions
PER
21876, New Conduits Installed Below Flood Level
PER
23361, Weld Documents Changed after QC Verification
PER 324535, Associated with NCV 05000391/2010605-03
PER 324537, Associated with NCV 05000391/2010605-04
PER 324539, Anonymous PER: Work Order Procedure Violation Issues
PER 325633, Associated with NCV 05000391/2010602-02
PER
26529, Anonymous PER: Why Cant Bechtel Hire Qualified Planners and Engineers
PER
26559, Copper Identified in Concrete Core
PER 327495, Anonymous PER: Procedure Non-compliance 25402-000-GPP-000-N1206
PER 330701, Observation of Deficiencies While Performing Inspections
PER 332015, NRC EDSFI Inspection - Electrical Cable Separation Inside Conduit Vault
PER 335354, 2-FCV-67-107 and 2-FCV-67-112 Power Cables Rolled
PER 335991, Anonymous PER: Unqualified People Are Making Bad Decisions
PER 335999, Anonymous PER: Power Cords Wrapped Around Equipment
PER 338918, Anonymous PER: Violation of Procedure
PER 339694, 2V3039A & 2V3082A Cable Pulls not Documented
PER 341467, PERs Closed without Addressing Open NDRFs
PER 341471, Anonymous PER: Adverse Trend in Safety Related Valves Turned Over to PSE
PER 342101, Cables 2V9059-B and 2V9060-B not Terminated as Required
PER 345792, Anonymous PER: Major Problem with Retaining Engineers
PER 343923, Clearance Related Water Spill ERCW U-2 713 Pen Room
PER 352247, NRC IDVP Inspection - ITE EF3 Type Circuit Breaker Interrupting Capacity
PER 352630, Associated with NCV 05000391/2010602-01
Quality Audit, Assessment, and Surveillance Reports
25402-WBN-SR-11-1556, Surveillance to evaluate closed level C system 67 PERs, dated
2/11/2011
25402-WBN-SR-11-1633, Surveillance to evaluate open nonconformance disposition forms
against closed PERs, dated 04/13/2011
25402-WBN-SR-11-1647, Surveillance of corrective action program monthly review, dated
04/07/2011
25402-WBN-SR-11-1655, Surveillance to evaluate nonconforming material handling and
disposition, dated 04/14/2011,
25402-SA-MGT-10-002, Bechtel Self-assessment Report, Safety Conscious Work Environment
- Non-manual Pulsing Survey Assessment of TVA Watts Bar Unit 2 Safety Conscious
Work Environment, dated 04/11-15/2011
NGDC-WB-11-001, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 - Quality Assurance Assessment Report -
Corrective Action Program, dated 04/05/2011
WBN2-QA-11-1, Corrective Action Program Problem Evaluation Report Closure Self
Assessment, dated 05/06/2011
Bechtel CAP Status Report, dated 4/30/2001
Day & Zimmerman NPS CAP Status Report, March 2011
Procedures and Programs
2504-MGT-0003, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Construction Completion Project - Corrective
Action Program, Rev. 10
25402-MGT-0004, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Construction Completion Project - Incident
Investigation and Root Cause Analysis, Rev. 2
NGDC PP-3, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Construction Completion Project - Corrective
Action Program, Rev. 7
NGDC PP-8, Operating Experience/Construction Experience, Rev. 1
25402-000-GPP-0000-N6104, Watts Bar Nuclear Unit 2 Construction Completion Project
Procedure-Materials Receiving, Rev. 6
25402-000-GPP-0000-N3525, Valve Refurbishment (SR/QR), Rev. 2
Bechtel Project Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual (PNQAM), Rev. 8
TVA-NQA-PLN89-A, Nuclear Quality Assurance Plan, Rev. 24-A1, September 2010
Other
SR
219408, PER 241128 Inappropriately Closed Without Completed Actions
SR
213137, NRC EN 46085 - Part 21 re Rosemount Pressure Transmitter Model 3051N
111749016
TVA Over, Short, Damaged, & Discrepant (OSDD) Report
ALARA Preplanning Report, April 2011-011, Rev. 0
Radiological Work Permit Number 10200182, Rev. 2
OE Screening Teleconference Log, 4/21/11 - 5/2/11
OE Screening Teleconference Log, 5/17/11 - 5/19/11
Bechtel PER Backlog Corrective Action Plan
List of Acronyms
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
Corrective Action Program
Corrective Action to Prevent Recurrence
CCMRC
Construction Completion Management Review Committee
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
I&OE
Industry and Operating Experience
IMC
Inspection Manual Chapter
IP
Inspection Procedure (NRC)
Nonconformance Report
NRC
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Operating Experience
Over, Short, Damaged, and Discrepant
PER
Problem Evaluation Report
Problem Identification and Resolution
Project Review Committee
Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance Program
Quality Control
Safety Conscious Work Environment
SR
Service Request
Tennessee Valley Authority
UOS&D
Unsatisfactory Overage, Shortage and Damage
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
Work Order