ML20086G749
| ML20086G749 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 01/03/1984 |
| From: | Quamme D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | Baranow S STONE & WEBSTER, INC. |
| References | |
| CSC-7127, NUDOCS 8401120387 | |
| Download: ML20086G749 (3) | |
Text
r V'\\3 Consumers O
~jj 90Wer y;" :
Company uma ~u j
Mdand Project: PO Box 1963, Mdand. MI 48640. (517) 631 8650
< PRldCIPAL STAFF January 3, 1984 y aA ',4f;p apr(p SL)- 3 # l 3/R^
3E p
A/HA JN4SF D
-(C ON4A PA0 SCS 3M Mr S W Baranow 3GA
.1C
/ _,
Stone & Webster Michigan, Inc lENF Fi10 Mf/P P O Box 1963 Midland, MI 48640 MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER GWO 7020 UNSATISFACTORY CONDITIONS ON TRAINING MATRIX, NIR-008 File: 0400.2, Bl.1.7, 0655 UFI: 06*02, 99*08, 53*50*04 Serial: CSC-7127 Attached is a letter from Bechtel dated December 29, 1983 regarding the five unsatisfactory training level assignments identified in NIR-008.
The scheduled date for completing a review of the entire matrix and issuing a new revision is mid January 1984.
/~
DLQ/DDJ/ kip cc: JJHarrison, NRC Region III w/a JGKeppler, NRC Region III w/a RJCook, NRC-Site w/a BHPeck, MEC w/a RAWells, MPQAD w/a NIRei'hel, MEC w/a c
8401120387 840103 PDR ADOCK 05000329 b@
PDR f
ob
[t' lM-gp CCh. #rRS FOWtk CO.
Bechtel Power Corporation Site Mg".
Post Office Box 2167 Midland, Michigan 4864o IAidland Project
,h U
December 29, 1983 Jus l Consumers Power Company VMs l P.O. Box 1963 TAa l Midland, MI 48640 Rrt: i
- I Attention:
D. L. Quamme "I
i Site Manager te l E
Job 7220 Midland Project NJ5 l NIR-008, OBSERVATION #34 Ju-/uld UNSATISFACTORY CONDITIONS F.1E NO.
ON TRAINING MATRIX BCCC-8838 t
Dear Mr. Quamme:
The review of a sarapling of the training matrix by Stone & Webster
- uncovered five possible unsatisfactory conditions.
The conditions are inconsistencies between the levels and areas of Orientation and Indoc-trination (0&I) Training that,the systems teams receive.
The assignment of the level and area of O&I training is based on judge-ment as to what the requirements are for bringing a qualified employee up to speed to accomplish the CCP.
This judgement was made by various l
groups who established the levels for their respective areas, using some general guidelines. With this approach, there is a chance for I
inconsistencies due to difference of opinion and judgement.
One item sited by Stone & webster was the lack of O&I training for a welding engineer on the electrical support drawings (E-039).
Even though these drawings have welding symbols and sizes on them, the group establishing the levels of training made the determination that these drawings, as well as many other drawings, do not have to be included in the 0&I training for welding engineers.
Another item involved an inconsistency between some members of a team receiving a level 2 (read only) and others having level 3 (read and review with supervisor) on the same procedure (Preparation, review and routing of Field Engineer's Report).
This is an inconsistency though not serious, and t' e matrix is presently being reviewed to i
eliminate this. type.
The other three unsatisfactory conditions involved leaving off some 4
members of a team from an 08I training requirement of level 2 (read only) on two general procedures and failing to require 0&I training for the welding engineer on piping specification M-214 (Piping system erection fit-up control requirements).
e,<
re,,.,
---,.---m.o,,._,
e,,
.-w,,m
w
....-,-,.---enea-
,ve,---,,,-
-n--
w-
,e---m,--
Bechtel PbwerCorporation t.
D. L. Quamme BCCC-8838 Page Two In regard to the piping specification, it has almost no involvement with welding or welding fit-up and is a pure judgement call as to whether welding engineers should-be required to have 0&I training on the speci-fication. Of the other two procedures, one obviously should have been included as a systems team requirement (FPG-9.700, System Team Charter) and the other is a matter of judgement as to who requires O&I training on the "Bechtel Assigned (PTO) Work" procedure.
In summary of the five items noted by Stone & Webster, two are clear inconsistencies and the other three fall into an area of subjective opinion.
To eliminate our inconsistencies in levels and areas of 08I training, we have a committee reviewing the entire matrix with the goal of issuing the next revision by mid January 1984.
Very truly yours, b dl 8fh G. A. Hierzer Site Manager GAH/EK/jke Written Response Requested: No l
l l
. -. _,. _,, -. _ _.. -..,. _ _. -