ML20083D683

Forwards Complete Response to Noncompliance Identification Repts 006 & 007 Re Training of Const Personnel.Determination of Acceptability of Commitments to Resolve Noncompliance Requested

ML20083D683
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	12/09/1983
From:	Quamme D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:	Baranow S STONE & WEBSTER, INC.
References
NUDOCS 8312280205
Download: ML20083D683 (7)

Text

j m b C00SumBG o,,, o c, _,

\\Qj[) h0WO[

M' SwNmm Company Mid:and Project FO tom 1963. M.elane. m 4E640. A W 6 l ;.-

JF December 9, 1983

~

ED OW EJ_T h'd SD - M(a

(

.._ _ _. g-w Mr S W Baranow f7 --

ig 4-,

Stone & Webster Michigan, Inc P O Box 1963 Midland, MI 48640 MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER GWO 7020 NIR 006 AND 007 File:

0655 Bl.1.7 UFI:

99*08 Serial:

CSC-7077 to NIR 006 and 007.

Please advise if these Attached is our complete response commitments are acceptable to resolve these NIR's.

kM DLQ/DDJ/ kip

.cc:

RAWells, MPQAD w/a NIReichel, MEC w/a EHPeck, MEC w/a RJCook, NRC w/a JGKeppler, NRC w/a JJHarrison, NRC w/a 0$$b{ A PDR DEC 10 G33 DOh

i Bechtel Power Corporation ? J ( Pest Office Box 2167 I '. Mid!and. MicNgan 48640 December 9, 1983 i Censumers Power Company P.O. Box 1963 j Pddland, MI. 48640 Attention: D.L.~ Ouamme, Job 7220 Midland Project i CONSTRUCTION REIVEW OF STONE & i WEBSTER'S NIRS 006 & 007 BCCC 8604 i l

Dear Mr. Qua=me :

1 Eeference: CPCo Ltr. D.L. Ocamme to G. A. Hierzer dated December 7,1983 ..S.er.ia. l N_o. CS C.70 6 9- - - Outlined below is Construction's complete response and proposed corrective acticn for the subject NIRs. J 1. The discrepancies listed for the class attendance roster are acknow-ledged. The use of the class attendance rosters was effective on September 28, 1983 Each_ roster since that date will be reviewed and corrected in conformance with Attachment D to FPG-2.000. 1 2. (Reading Records) A. Illegibility occurs when the preparers run copies from poor masters instead of obtaining copies from the Training Department. I B. As noted on Attach =ent C, the forcat =ay vary as long as all inforcation is included. C. There is only one official training record and that is stipulated in paragraph 9 of FPG-2.000. The Tea: Record and the Team Status Report (TSR) are informal management tools and are not official records. The TSR is being replaced by the Training Exception 1 Feport Printout (TER?). Addressing the two specifics listed. 'Krant:felder - Completed FFD-2.000 at Level 5 on 8/18/83 i Paragraph 6.3, FPG-2.000 applies. +

• Hull - Spec. M-204 appears on the latest TERF (attached ).

This means he has net received the required training. 4 .--.,,w,,, -,,,-m,,, w-.-,-,w-.,,,n,,,,---,,. m ,,,.n_,,,-,,,..,,,..-,-.-,--.n-- --,~-,,-.,.,.----,,..,n

O Bechte! Power Corporation o.t. ma==e accc 8804 Page 2 3 (Inconsistenciec ) A. FPG-2.00Q is being revised to stipulate that all corrections will be a line out in ink. The corrector will initial and date. B. All entries will be cade in ink. C. Review specified in para.1 above will include the listing of all applicable documents en the class attendance resters. D. See para. 1 above. E. The Course Roster form is new furnished to the instructor with his copy of the Training Schedule to assure that the proper for= is used. 4. The referenced letter stated that our original response regarding the Training Records Group review of a 10% random sa=ple of the training files is unacceptable. We concur that a 10% sample is inadequate and regret the choice of words. In fact over 100% verification takes place. When training records indicate an in-dividual is 100% complete a verification cf '.ne record takes place. This may occur long before the individual is assigned to status assessment. In addition, the supervisor is provided with an exception report showing the training requirements cutstanding. Discrepancies between records which tay be maintained by the super-visor and the Training Records Group are reconciled on a continuous basis using this management tool. Requirements, therefore, ar e documented in the exception report. An additional 100% verification of records is made prier to an individual actually being assigned to status assessment by the Training Eecords Group. This occurs when the superviser presents a listing of individuals to be assigned. If you have any questione regarding the above, please centact E.H. Pillsbury at Ext. 7507. Very +ruly yours, JLkL u y G.A. Hier _r Site trana er $7W nP GAH/ MAD /BTF/lec Written Ees;cnse Eequested: No

Attachment:

S&W NIEs (Nonconfermance Identificatien Repert : Net. 006 & 007 CC: N. Feichel

a,v... v m: ~ 1 .u v. MI#i (U P: ??Di!CusiFOU'.'-lice IDE:;T) FI:AT::N :.EFO,.. neva:: n2 Fage 1 of 2 007 l DAT '. Of t?C??CO?iford'AtiCE: I;ovember 7, 1953 t;;g t;g; egg t IDEl!TIFICATION/LOCAT10ti 0F ITEMS: OESCR1FTION OF t Ot: COIF 0FPAt:CE: During the review of 834 non-manual Construction Training Records, two areas I-of dilcrepancies were observed which were not in compliance with the requirements of FPG-2.000 Rev. 5, "Traini59 of Construction Personnel." .(The fol.lowi.ng Teams were evaluates #24, Field Procurement, Sub Contracters, Managements, F.E. Staff, and CG50. (See attached for descriptions fo Discrepancies) 7 ' 10$ // [Lk.", "- FROGRAM M3Re g f J / ild il ATOR o CATE 1/o y m 6ca. 7. 192_3 DATE 5N E /fW l COF.RECTJYE ACT]Oti BY: N IDEliTIFY GEGANIZATJON TAKING CORRECTIVE ACTION l t l l VERIF] CATION SAT UNSAT NEW NIR# CONCURRENCE INITIATOA FROGRAM F.52 r ..... c.

n..:. I -

L.. I r_ f C. T.: '.'. :. R .a l l

N1R 007 1) Course Rosters Attachment D.to FPG-2000 exhibited cne or.. ore of the following discrepencies. EhTRYRECORDED BLOCK H0. ENTRY REQUIRED 1 CCP~ ~' D'n'G. No. F i o. No. Course Oo. 2 (a) Name of lesson Either a, b, or (b) Procedures

• c missing (c) Revision 6

Location of Sessi6n Sechtel In addition some entries were.left blank

2).In addition to these violations, inconsistencies were noted in 6 areas:

(1) M;odification to records, sc.me lined through, sioned ind dated and others simply lined thro' ugh. (2) Some entries'6n course Yegister are completed using pencil while most are in ink. '(3) Difficui,1yis experienced in determining the accuracy of~ records where attendance at a course carries credit for several others. (4) Sc'me entrie's carried the revision number to procedures'end some cmitted the revision. (5) Proper " Course Roster Form"' as listed in, Procedure FPG-2.000 were not utilized. (6) Some courses on Rosters cent'ain 2 nicrmat:on not identi-cal to matrix listing. It is recommended that the disposition to this NIR include a committ-ment to verify training records of each individual prior to sfatus ~ assessment assignment. =- 9 9 9 e 9 e 2

lU i r .c, 0,", ( ... n 'r.'..., T. :.." ?.". :. :...", i...:..~.- ~~ ' ' n.", 0 ~. ~ 15.01 Av e. 1 n....r....n 1 s.,.. -,...,,.. l,... l u- _... .3 7. -.,,.~.:.. r. u,.t un w un. ur.:n.: .t.r r -eevision 2 .PAGE 1 0F 2 A l.'IR fiUMEI 006 DATE Of fiCi!C0tiFORi1Ai!CE: .'O,T0,tR 4/, 1 c. _: L s U ] dei:TIF] CAT 101ULOCATI0ti 0F ITEt'.E:- EECHTEL DOCUME!?T C0tiTROL CEliTER DE5~RIPTIOll OF ;?O!!C0!?FORl1AtlCE: During the review of 205: non-manual Construc-ion Trainin; Records, three areas of discrepancies were observed which were not in compliance with the requirements of FFG-2.000 Rev. 5, " Training of Constructicn Personnel." (The following Teams / wers evaluated #5, 6, S, 9,12,13,16,17,19, 20, 25, 26, (27/28), 29, 30,31, 32/E3), EHD Team Staff. (See attached for descriptions of Discrepan les) 4 \\, 1 [ ./w '). t /! t w( 3.,~ 7 -.u n-.,n,,. p. r..,Jc. ' n /]p \\ s.. Lu nmc r.~ -..n. ilil I in I Ud 3 V l OAIE C"bdee ? /963 EAIE C## Ur hN Cr::rr_41,r m.: On" a, Y. u r-10EliTIFY OREAtlIZATIO" TAK!t?G COR;.ECTIVE ACTION l V:r.;. t.s i I GN SAT Ut?5AT r?EW i;IR# CD::en:::is.: -....r e FIN.~TIATDR FROGRAM MGR . D% n sns: l u- : i::

t

un 4 a tovo <..s.twitid--- a.- :

n..e.r...o - os r:me *u s n u s-s c w o'.

D s-D**

• } C ursm

.F.P. _ 7. n.~n a..v n. 3 - L c. e, -m-n r-s o .u .~ folfowing ciscrepancies. rls'*i ".y " A.l.!T - r D n 4.D.)* .0.;.r0 ph..r.D, i C [.nt.X o^U. o u u r n. 2M 1 CrP C... no r3t. 14 0. u au 2 (a) is,ame or. lesson -.ther a,.b, or c missing ci (b) Procedures lC) r.ieVision 6 Location of Session Bechtel 10 ( 2 ) ti nr'=tu' a Elther a or b m:. ssing r (b) Print Last ?!ame 5 Instructor fiame Instructor Department In addition many entries / were lef t blank

2) Reading' Records Attachment C to FPG-2.000 exhibited one or more of the following discrepancies:

..r-1 ( .ea o..ino Record . n.'.. c

1) Tne deparrrient and or' assignmt.t lines are illegible or incomplete.

i 1

2) Assigned reading perforce' cn October 11, 1952 and Se:.tember 29, 1953 were n:t documented en Reading Fom Attachment C, Rev. 5.

3) Team Re:crds and TSR (Training Status Recorr) show training ccmpleted r.3..,.,...,... _ u....., ] : 41 c_ e. e.. v.c..".

n o r=_ c.o. u' '. t. =.i. a. w. F.- = x =.....i n.- 4 e e 1 i 1,,n,,c.-

..r. u.. =

ir.n, I li I n e R C,n. I n.t. li. :. -. , n D.7.e C.:-

r...C).

r. .n Kranzfelder Management F?D-2.000 Code 2 !!c Record in _ File J. Hull 32/23 14-204 Code 5 !!o Record in File In additica to these violaticas, inconsistency was n:ted in 4 areas: (1) P.cdification to records, sc e lined throuch, sicned and dated and others simply lined thrcugh. (2) Scme entries on course reoister are c---l===d using pencil wn..l= .cs are in ink. (a.,) D n....T1culty is experienced in de-temining the accuracy cf records where attendance a: a course carries credit f or several cthers. (4) Scme entries carried the revision number to procedures and s=me emi'ted the revision. (5) ? roper " Course Roster Fe= as listed in ?rcredure F?C--2.0DD were not uti]ized. (5) Scme courses en Resters contain information not identical to matrix listing. It is recomended that the c"C aition to this fiIR in:lude a cc=ittment to ver17y training. records e' .cn ?nc2vidual prior to status assessment assignmen.u. .}}