ML20087A920
| ML20087A920 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 02/29/1984 |
| From: | CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | STONE & WEBSTER, INC. |
| References | |
| CSC-7385, NUDOCS 8403080259 | |
| Download: ML20087A920 (4) | |
Text
', '
CONSUMERS PCWER COMPAlR MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER
.6D-dcW[
g 33 Transmittal No:
CSC-7385 7
Date: February 29, 1984 To:
Stone & Webstier P O Bcx 1963 Midland,'MI 48640
~-
)l t w, 17 Attached Ic:
1 Partial' Response To
. ~,q- ;{,
<Wrc;Ti~
[g, X
Complete Response To g
] Tor Your Information b{
((le j Q Other
==
Description:==
. Tracked Recommendation Item 057.
v Signature:
l JGKepplerpNRC Region IIIncw/a-s cc:
JJHarrison, NRC Region III w/a RJCook, NkC Site w/a RAWells, MPQAD w/a BHPeck,12C. w/a
> ~
NIReichel, !EC w/a DDJohnson, FEC w/a MAR 5 1984 8403000239 G40229 PDR ADOCK 05000329 J-S ppg j,
t p.,
-w
,m
~
Sheet 1 of f STONE & WEBSTER
*""""*ERlH LD POJNT NUMBER 9
CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTATION
, O TRACKED ACTION ITEM t
O TRACKED INFORMATION ITEM N/pl4NS nuclear pl4NTJ.O. NO. /4509 8 TRACKED RECOuMcNoAT:ON :TEu N E(S)
O DNTRACKED ITEM f
O HOLD POINT NOTIFICATION I
CONDITION DETAILS It was noted that a trainer evaluation was performed during the trainers first class he taught.
CIO however was informed that in future training this evaluation may not take place until after a substantial amount of classes have been taught.
This would result in training classes given previous to the evaluation being disqualified, if the trainers evaluation is not approved.
Since this evaluation is used as part of the trainers " approval to instruct", CIO recommends that evaluation be performed on no later than the first training class taught.
YES
'"".s',
NO wo ATTACHMENTS DATE RESPONSE REQ *D.
INITI ATOR/D ATE It' T T 4 APPROVED /DATE 2/24/84 M pi JL/7 5 $$ A /n /8y sak g//7/pf l
/
RESPONSE
l Reference Page 2 of attached correspondence, Serial 27325 dated February 24, 1984, GFEwert to BHPeck.
I L
I L
l (PAGE YES NO.*St NO ATTACHMENTS i
EST. CORRECTIVE ACTION
'RESPOE ct' TITLE DATE COMPLETION DATE f/
55 CU L[
ff
/
DATE RESPONSE ACCEPTED DATE l RESPONSE-VERIFIED / CLOSED l
l l
a p.
To EHPack 1
From r GFEwert CONSUMERS POWER Date February 24, 198'4 COMPANY MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER *.!ROJECT-
" Internal Subject CIO ITEMS 056 AND 057 Correspondence FILE -24.0 SERIAL 27325 CC DE5eaudoin GEParker
~
GFE 61-84 (6DJ7hE5E.~7 NIReichel HPNunes
.RAWells a
Following is MPQAD's response to the subject Stone.and" Webster CIO Items:
ITEM 56-
[
Part A This part reports that the MPQAD lesson plan for PQCI C-1.50 in the refer-ence document section referenced Revision 11 of Specification.C-306 while Revision 12 is the current issued revision. This is in keepinig with current pra'etice in the MPQAD Training Branch and'in no way impacts the validity of the training.
~ MPQAD lesson plans are developed utilizing various documents as references.
In ~ order to know the revision of the document when the lesson plan was develop'ed the revision number.is included in the lesson plan. Thereafter l
the revision number is only changed when a revision to the lesson plan is required.
Required revisions to~ lesson plans are determined by appropriate j.~
personnel and are based on changes to documents which impact lesson plan l'
source documents which in turn may impact information in the lesson plan.
In this case the revision of Specification C-306 from Rev 11 to Rev 12 did
~
noti result in a. revision to ;the PQCI.
In turn a revision to.the lesson plan was not required.
As a result there is no training impact and the training
~
-is acceptable.
~
~
,Part B This part reports that PQCI C-1.50 Attachment A Table B-2 is inconsistent with referenced Specification C-305 which has a Specification Change Notice No. 13007 against it.
This is also in keeping with current MPQAD practice and does not impact training.
In this case 'the' process outlined in the second paragraph of the response to Part A was also followed to determine if the lesson plan required revision.
Since the PQCI did not require revision due to the SCN, the lesson plan d'd.
i not require revision and there is no impact on training.
l The basis for not revising the lesson plan is that the SCN is clear and usable.by inspection personnel without additional' training or revision to the PQCI.
Inspection personnel are required by the PQCI ~ General j
instructions to research and utilize,the latest inspection criteria.
IC028'4-0003A-QLO7
-g 7
er e
q w
w- + - - -
-+.w-y 7-v.
. - -ww-y w-w v--yee-w-ww ww,<
w ww w--ri-
-o-i-
4-y,--
-w----------v-w-w.-
--vvv*yw w-w y--
-w yv-i.=w.-,w
- l...'.
e
. 2 e
ITD1 57
" This item recommends that evaluations that are used as part of the " approval,
. to instruct process" be performed on no later than the first training class,.
taught. HPQAD Training Branch practice is to evaluate on instructor the first' time that an instructor instructs a course (lesson plan or lesson plans). -This. in fact is required by Training Branch Instruction TBI 1.3.
. The TBI establishes a process by which an instructor becomes approved to instruct both a first course and additional courses. The TBI does'not
~
require that an instructor become reapproved each time a lesson plan is revised. This is not necessary as the instructor has demonstrated capa-bility through the original approval process.
The evaluation may take place doing a pilot clas's, on actual class, or during any other method that allows the instructor to demonstrate capability and be evaluated.
O e
=
,s e
g e
6
,9 4
e O
O e
0 e
5 g
e o
e q
e e
S a
G e
e 9
9
+
Ic0284-0003A-Q1.07 7
, -. -,,-- - - -, -.. - - ~,, -,,-
y-
-.--.m.
--3.,
r.. - - -, - -,, -,
e