ML20024B313
| ML20024B313 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1978 |
| From: | Baker H BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| To: | Pryor C, Stanek L, Suhrke K BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| References | |
| TASK-*, TASK-GB GPU-2437, NUDOCS 8307080360 | |
| Download: ML20024B313 (2) | |
Text
,,
E
. I, w g
.. ;.w
_~
-~
- I L
l.
~
n TliE B18CCCX & Wit.COX COMPANY l
I PC'nIR GENERATION GROUP
~
To l
Dis tribution Free C
['
E. A. Baker, Mana;;er, Plant Equi; seat services (2212)gf
[
oos sas.s Cu s t.
/
File No.
f.
or Ref.
t All NSS-12 T3 Subj.
Gate f
b Ceneric SPR's May 9. 1978 g
m.. i w =.-.
{
Dis tribu tion:
C. W. Pryor L. J. Stanek C
K. E. Suhrke I
During the week of April 24, Mr. Ron Saunan of Consumers Power >Conpany along l~
vith the Consumer Project Managers from B&W net with Mr. C. M. Olds, Mr. R.
r; L. Pitt: san and myself. The purpose of Mr. Bas.=an's visit was to determine the mechanism by which 34W assures that all site problems at other sites are LT reviewed for applicability to his contract and that corrective action is taken where appropriate.
-As you are probably aware, this is now spelled out very specifically in the h
P latest revision of the $PR procedure (NPCD-0503-04 Rev. 5 dated August 1,1977).
This procedure uns covered in detail with Mr. Sau=an, and he appeared very satisfied that an effective pro'cedure was in existence and if followed, should assure that generic problems would not be passed over and reoccur on their sita.
L I
He did indicate, however, that the procedure places considerable emphasis on the 7
Task Engineer performing his responsibilities in handling the identified generic 5
PCA's.
In addition, it was pointed out that the failure of the project nanager I 1, to assure action could nake the ' system ineffective. This was of such a concern that he indic.ated a desire to audit the records of these identified generic I
PCA's in the near future.
He, of course, vanced to receive copies of 54*J SPR's b
but understood this was not presently allowable and therefora felt the audit would serve his purpose, f.*
t I understand that this is not the first expression of interest by a B&W customer I
and is not expected to be the last. I believe ve can expect an increased avere-ness on the part of everyone since it is of ten a subject provoked or instigated
[
by roving :2C representatives.
The point that I would like to bring to your attention is that the concern ex-pressed by Mr. Bauman is appropriate. Prior to the nesting, a spot check review of the effectiveness of the generic PCA's written a5ainst N?CD-0503-04 to date vea nade. At that eine, there were PCA's that had been recorded for several months. In the event of an ' audit, it would have caused considerable difficulty t,..
t j
l G
^ ^^
r 324 l0 7 2 3)
F15 F7 2 8 3J m
t a
,~1 I
1 8307080360 780509 PDR ADOCK 05000289 P
. HOL..
4 g
~. -
r
. e s.
.. ',. - -..gr e, *,
~
1'
_.. _ e T
~
a
^
O Baker to Distribution 2
May 9, 1978 explainins the inactions. Many of these are relatively trivial or difficule, and therefore are not always a Task Engineer's most pressing problem, never-theless, it ceuld become an important issue at some future date. We received the impression that some Task Engineers were ignorant of the procedure and the necessity for responding to the PCAs.
If you have not already done so, it would be prudent if you would review this subject with your organization to assure that R&W can stand up to any customer j
audits in this area.
HAS/cs
}
CC8 R. L. Pittnan P. J. Motisk.a C. M. Olds s
4 l
l P
L
?
f*
I f
/
?
P L
P 3
L L
i I
1 r
s h=
.4 c.
-~
e
% - __ F 15 h, 28 AJ h
a h%
m g
't *'
3241,0 7 2 41
~
n-
~~
~~
4 9
- ==