ML20098A293
| ML20098A293 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1992 |
| From: | Martin J DETROIT EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20098A274 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-95-142 50647, NUDOCS 9509250002 | |
| Download: ML20098A293 (17) | |
Text
o.
1-
{r Detroit Edison - Fermi 2 1
1992 Performance Management Program Work Plan-Name Jim L. Martin ID Number 50647 Position QA Specialist Work Plan Period 1992 1.
Performance Expectations l Performance Results Major duties, responsibilities, and i
projects (include measures and l
targets Date l
l 1.
Monitor, evaluate, and assist Nuclear
- 11. Nuclear Engineering and Technical Engineering, and Technical Group, l
Group performance is positively in-acting as a positive catalyst to im-i fluenced by QE and QE contribution-proved performance (NGBP Hission).
I are recognized.
I 2.
Conduct audits and surveillances as
- 12. Audits and surveillances completed assigned and scheduled.
1A2, 1B3, I
accurately and on time, complying 2A1, 2B1, 4A1, 4A2, 4A6, 4B9 I
with the 1992 MP and FIP-AS1-01.
I
-c'4-w M,
3 Perform timely review and follow-up 13 o late / overdue:
on committed corrective actions.
l NGBP 4B2 I
- a. Observation requiring responses 1
4.
Minimize contamination and exposure to
- 14. Minimized contaminations and cummul-radiation.
1B3, NGBP, 1B1 and 2.
I ative individual dose is within I
established goals.
I15. fp W~Q 5
Monitor and promote Industrial Safety
- a. No safety rules violations in the workplace.
1A1, 1A2, NGBP 1, 2, I
- b. No lost time accident or record-3, and 4.
I able incidents.
I
- c. No restricted duty work related l
6.
Participate in training programs as
- 16. All training is completed satis-assigned. 4B7, 4B8, 4C4.
I factorily. M e I
W 7
Perform any other assignments as 17 Assignments are satisfactorily com-directed by the Supervisor - Quality I
pleted.
Engineering. 3A8, 4A4, 4A5, 4A7, 4A8, I
a,46 4B1, 4B2, 4B3, 4B5, 4B10, 4c1, 4c2, 1
SA2, SA3 I
8.
Perform surveillance to evaluate the
- 18. Provide Quality Assurance overview i
HOV G.L. 89-10 Program activities.
I and postive influence for implemen-1 l
tion of the HOV Program, j
9 Attend scheduled Tech Staff Training.
9 Satisfactor c t
g.
I W,
- 10. Maintain QE Status Log.
110. QA documents are tracked, closed and l
vaulted in a timely manner.
l
/--
-h &
_.j p *-
, - 9 3 - 0., >,
9509250002 950616 w
- [i
R_ P AGE (S)/M NARQUAR95-142 PDR C--
J
l 1
l Final Rating
=-
I Appraising Supervisor Da ts ' ' '
I Ill Excellent
[EmployeI////oI/ 93
-l_l Very good l.
Date l @ Satisfactory plus l
l l-l Satisfacto p,N[
l -
l l[l Marginal Woted 'by Next Level v
l Management Ill Unsatisfactory 1
2.
Update Meeting 1 (2nd Qtr 92)
- 13. Update Meeting 2 (3rd Qtr 92) l l
Meeting Notes Date l
Heeting Notes Date
']m {g g 9Ok fG(~0fWGf l-h
-- l$
w s'h --
i Ch_. H e hc>s camp \\ eka d 00s - m. n A j
planned ass'aymods fen l WWp q
l w wJa-a ysmey manner. H e a posihve acWh> to Q@l %,s a.x-p g -
tc is
.%p/sle>I T SSYP7 YrFl 9' g#m I
de J urm rw Gr Di= G lxs JJ y&
.( L e
\\=P /koli+hTL.
l, h,M ey l-we o
Na 4
i ~W. 7A m 9/-%t i-e.,~
'(D,g r
4.
Final Appraisal Meeting (Year End 92)
Meeting Notes Date Vb aY W
f
.s A A M - M. p & " $A&A
.Aay&&~Jnaq &
6 2/M 7+
PAGE A__ OF d P AGE (S) ~
fx 2
?
l 10-GLQAS
{
POSITION SLM4ARY j
POSITION TITLE:
Group Imad - Quality Assurance Specialist LOCATION:
Fermi 2 Power Plant JOB GRADE:
M-4 POSITION:
Revised ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT:
Nuclear Generation REPORTS TO:
Supervisor Inspection and Surveillance POSITION
SUMMARY
Coordinates and conducts surveillance activities to assess and assure that Fermi 2_
is operated and maintained in a safe and reliable manner in accordance with regulatory and DECO requirements.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS:
Education:
Bachelor Degree in Engmeering or related Science or an Associate Degree in Engineering or Technology.
~
-OR.
High school diploma or equivalent plus currently or previously certified to ANSI N45.2.6. - 1978.
Exp./ Tech. Knowledge:
A Bachelor Degree with a minimum of eight years' nuclear power plant experience in engineering, maintenance, operations, modifications, inspections, examinations, testing, radiation protection, radwaste, or quality assurance.
OR-C An Associate Degree with a minimum of ten years' nuclear experience.
-OR-A high school diploma or equivalent with a minimum of 12 years' nuclear experience and currently or previously certified to ANSI N45.2.6 - 1978.
Regulatory:
ANSI N45. 2.6 - 1978 MAJOR ACCOUNTABILITIES:
A.
Selects activities to be surveilled and assigns quality assurance specialist to cover.
B.
Coordinates surveillance coverage.
' C.
Accurately assesses and communicates through surveillances the performance of Nuclear Generation.
D.
Focuses surveillance in maintenance, modifications, operations, radiation protection, radwaste and technical areas to assure appropriate coverage of the right areas based on significance and performance.
E.
Causes improvements in quality and efficiency and minimizes regula ory concern.
-r g g 3 0 '.3 F"t!!"T I
dmJr*
g,ga w _hr-rem g/9 p.
s 7
Communicates clearly to Supervisor laspection and surveillance and plant management on the F.
performance of the orpmntion.
G.
Assists in preparation of reports in the surveilled areas.
CORE COMPETENCIES:
LCore Competency Specific Descripdon Weight Safety Maintains knowledge of all safety procedures and regulations. Performs all functions in a 3
Consciousness safe manner.
Teamwork Identifies with and supports team objecdves and goals. Takes a constructive and positive 3
approach to problem solving.
Results Plans for, communicates, implements and/or recommends and accommodates changes that 3
Oriented contribute to the achievement of Nuclear Generations Continuous Improvement process.
Flexibility /
Effectively responds to change in direction, priorities and personalities. Understands what 3
Adaptability implications changes in Nuclear Engmeering and the nuclear emironment may have and
~
adjusts priorities on short notice.
Communications Clearly and concisely expresses ideas, orally and in writing, in individual and group 3
situations. Listens, comprehends, processes information and responds to communication from others. Openly accepts positrve suggestions. Effecdvely urdim communication skills to keep work group informed when acting in a leader capacity. Takes constructive and positive approaches to problem solving.
Iadividual Identifies and acts to resolve problems without hesitation. Insures appropriate people who 3
Initiative are knowledgeable of the problem work proactively to identify solutions. Secures relevant information, relates and compares data from different sources, considers alternative courses of action, and makes sound business decisions. Assumes responsibility for resolution of the problem,if appropriate.
JOB SPECIFIC SKILL / ABILITY REQUIREMENTS:
Skill / Ability Specific Description Weight Decision Willing to make and support decisions, render judgment and take action. Evaluates, 3
Making / Creativity /
selects, applies and adapts technical and management techniques in making decisions.
Innovation Devises new innovative approaches to problems.
Technical / Business Understands the nuclear generation industry developments and trends. Understands 3
Knowledge nuclear generation in contributing to the safe and reliable operation of the plant I
Multi. functions Able to work across disciplines and functions to achieve the common goals and business of 2
the Company.
j Interpersonal Skills Establishes and maintains working relationships within Nuclear Generation and establishes 2
credibility. Relates to others in a positive, credible and mature manner.
j Trustworthiness Works effectively and with highest ethical and moral standards that contribute to the safe 3
and reliable operation of the plant.
Resource Plans, prioritizes, implements, controls, measures and communicates actions needed to 2
Management accomplish objectives.
leadership Effectively selects, develops, coaches and motivates employes. Guides and inspires others 2
to accomplish goals both individually and as a team. Defines and encourages high standards of performance: leads by example. Structures and delegates assignments to achieve maximum results at minimal effort and in m*mimal time.
10-GLOAS F W m er
/7 iw..L:.df r. nam
~
^
CANDIDATE IDEN CATION FORM
't
~
M LJ Pscition
Title:
Group Leader-Quality Assurance Specialist y
0-Temporary Grade: M-4 REQUIREMENT:Bachelorof REQUIREMENT: ANSI REQUIREMENT:
REQUIREMENT:
Q
, 9 Science Degree in N45.2.6.1978 b
- L Engineering or related 3
N Science or appropriate
)?
CANDIDATES acquired experience as rc Indicated on Position p
Surnmary e
s EI
~
- 1. Michael A. Oulnt
/
/
- 2. Kurt W. Sessions
/
/
- 3. John E. Heins
/
/
- 4. Jimrny L Martin
/
/
- 5. Don W. Dek
/
/
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
l 16.
17.
l 18.
l 19.
20.
C10GLOA.S
. ~.
e r
oc i
I k
@tGlH f
y 4
2 4
4 0
2 2
6 6
9 W
6 s
n 1
1 1
s
's o
t n
m
?
W
- b e
l e
_e A
e,D D L:
o
,c r
)
e n
5 H
n a
e r
e E
G i u rs g
h os a
n sA g
P h
iv n
r e
o e
e J
N p
r 3
3 3
3 3
2 3
4 3
3 4
2 2
u x
S
)4 e
m bA s
e a
r D
m.
oc d
r S
5 8
y n
e a
a s
I d
9 9
9 9
6 6
6 9
6 4
6 4
9 s
e o
n n
1 it o
- t m
s
- e W
m s
d m
e u
e
'c n
f a
)
e A
a B
n pn 5
t pa e
e C
e L
G 4u no P
r
- s y
r u
d "u. A W e
s n
e n
u u
r 3
3 3
3 2
2 2
3 3
2 5
3 2
N I
N J
x te
)4 y
b:o M
e j
r e
o l
A c
b 3
a R
e A
S 2
5 2
2 2
2 2
5 0
0 5
6 6
5 r
d 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
e G
n n
't m
1 o
o
^-
W n
O d
r a
e a
e o
e l
s
)
R m
s c
5 C
,u
,n P
e n
)
a a
9 e
K e
B S
G r
u I
NR s
t d
"wA r
s O T.
W ee e
h r
u t
u N
a r
4 5
4 4
4 4
4 5
5 5
5 4
4 K
F.
0-x
)
K 4
e A T Vr RC TE L
GE e
r NS o
o c
6 n
~
I S
2 5
t 2
2 2
2 2
2 9
6 6
6 6
3 F
n n
n d'
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
.s F
t i
o a t
A u m e W
n
^
e aa 5
n
)
e T
Q s
r s e e
pn e n S
A e nr n sa y o G 4u c
l A
e r
os t
n rs a
e e
e eA g
n t
i h d n h
b i
d e
t E
c u e t
r 4
4 4
4 4
4 3
4 4
4 5
3 3
m w e
N p
u i
c M
u ao r
i n
S x
n n
)
a 4
i o r
l u
le t
s n
s e
A m
t m
ee y
W e
3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3
2 2
3 2
2 e
m o
D o
t i
)
l 3
d a
g s
u h
n r
Q r
a.
w t
h o
r o n p
=
i, n
s p
S o
u h
is e
c s
s d
n e
s y
i, h
l v
s.
a 0
- s 6
e e
r
=
S.
a e
e s
)
d eg W n E
L
- s. 4 r e a
n p
r t
e u c r
u 7
o o u y
W e
r t
o gK
)
F a
c r
n S
2
-~
dk m
t o
G M
iB E
T s
i d n t
m
_ K aoi e u s
t s
y o
u -,
(
s l
O
(
l e
C, s
s y E t
d S E
e s
a n
p B r r.
, R e l
o r
e n
~
L o
A f
e t
d a s v
e i
s
._ Od n e g n k
e n e o t
n s S s
i S
i m
D o e
p it it k
TR a
ie i
is t
n wSn is A
l L
id
- e.
o Cs s
N d n
t d a n a o :
e o L N R.
t t
A s e
o a P r
-v.
"e.
ip
. L c d h e
e n
- i r
r
/
ic I
Mi M A
N AO wTAr d c
9 S o E
n g
y n a n -. a h
N D Os v c s a
r L
C u
w-u n a O
a..
i l i.
t g
e r N o R L
.r ts r
OI mo
- i. H u
e e Oh a
t ts lu a
. d a
=
lu
.r u e e C
d s r
t t
S F 0
y o d v
4 s
a o T O C A E
t l
8 R N So S
e s
b w
t
)
f c
a e
)
)
r 6 )7 8
0 C
I G T M n n
T R L
EO Oi
)
)
x 1
2 S T R
F I
1 Pc Pu
i ew N'
.x
_f l'*
f<'l O.L$e*
L g.'
s 2
t I
d
\\
9 r ec
- M l
n e
W%
e G
I e. - VL M
s e
)
e 5
W n
n a
H e
r G
u rs h
isA g
os 7
v n
r e
e e
p p
r
~
s x
S
)4 evobA e
e r
15 e
e T
ro u
d w
c ty n
S S
ae n
n d
W m
o a
't a
d
- e W
N a
r
== c e
)
e pn 5
e G
ne a
o R
r G
4u n
rs sA g
os e
iv h
n re s
k p
ru s
u a
e S
y
)4
- bo M
j e
le r
A o
b c
a R
S p
c ra G
n d
't n
s o
r O
d e
W o
ks a
_e C
n R
c
)5 e
re n
x
)
t PX n
,a 9
E F
e
- r I
NR G
1 us r
O T.
_.sA x~
uu t
/
g
~
a in l
N x
u r
4 E
NK AT W
/a
)4 n
RC TE L
W GE e
S o
r N
o n
c 9
I S
2 2
2 2
2 5
F 2 9 9
8 4
8 4
2 n
m
'd 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 s
F k
e t
t n
Wr W
e A
l e
e T
f e s s
m
)
r c
5 D e n
e m S
n a
y o
. e u
c J E W G r s n
a os e
r E
D u e
- 4 t
i n
e sA r
t o d iv b d
~
e i
r e
m v
e N
p u
4 3
4 4
3 4
4 4
4 2
5 4
2 u
r c o
,c S
n n x
n
)
i o
a 4
G r
o t
u ir s
e s
m A
t u
e te W
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
2 2
3 2
2 c
im a
y o
T D
)
i 3
d t
e l
g i
r m
a it e
e n
T u
r Q
o e
m n
p r
ty u
o p
n S
u u
r it s
c s
uy
'r e
l t
e y
s a
d
) s a
- e n
s s
a s
ta E
'a r
k e
a nWd L
v
~.
m na h
e p
u w
r l
y H
u
, "~
o r
E F
)
y c
a o
n C_
n r
a o
d e
n dn t n
G u
it S
s K
a0 e u s
E a
i
~
E s
s
(
6 d S G-o e
T e
e s
s i
u y
aE e
C n
p u
a R r e
n
- s e
B
(
v
/
L o
l v
d e
t 0
4 i
6 g
k s
e 6
Od T
e o B
i.
i m
n i S ls s
S s
t e
e T
L WSC s.
v e d
n m
A ic ET e
t M
ih ip
- L c d h
ta s
i e o t
- i l
l L
T n
L r
n a
o D
e e
t s
t I
M d
AN e
r o
a P r
r i
e o
N m
- k r
/A t
NE N m
g p
A A
la i
n a. i M-G.
hT t
e h
O f
s A
r r
d c n
t g
o c s r
D Os a r
e C
o
- u u
e e
r Oh n a ts s
r N O R S
w lt w
u e
OI w
d
. i I
f t
i a
t t
o d SF T r
m u
T O C A E
t 1
s s a v
d lu T
t a
s w d e
e r
RN S o G
u e
e C
)
t o
e e
) )
)
EO O n S
f.
T R
'F C
I D T M n T R L
67 8
n 0
I
)
I 1
1 PC Pu
[
',/
i
- i l-i G-f STAFFING TRANSITION PROGRAM o'
CANDICATE RATING FORM S
Cu ;
NAME I.D.#
POSITION INTERVIEW YES/NO N
b ts l
O J. Martin.
50647 Group Leader-Quality Assurance Specialist No Skills / Abilities Weight X Rating-Objective Business Explanation for Rating F
l Wt'd Score Safety 3X3=9 Jim is a safety conscious individual. For the types of audits that Jim performs, he is aware of
[
.I the safety procedures and regulations that are to be used and followed. Jim functions in a safe g$.
c Consciousness
- L manner.
Teamwork
- 3X3=9 Jim is what I would call an average team player. He does not exert himself. Jim will dojust what he has to do and no more. Jim does support the goals and objectives of the group &
plant but only to the point that he has to.
Results Oriented
- 3X3=9 As mentioned above, Jim will do just what he has to do. He is not a highly motivated individual. He comes up with suggestions & recommendations but not very often.
Flexibility /
3X3=9 Jim is flexible, but he will not volunteer his services as readily as other individuals will. Jim l'
Adaptability
- does understand the significance ofchanges in Nuclear Engineering or the environment, but he does not respaad rapidly.
Communications
- 3X2=6 Jim's writing and verbal skills are below average. Jim is a very quiet & shy person and when giving presentations, Jim does not come across in a very positive manner. Jim does not come across with confidence when making audit presentations, or even in group discussions.
Individual 3X2=6 Jim is a laid back individual, and is not a highly motivated individual. Jim will solve initiative'
~ problems but at times may not dig deep enough to get all the facts. Audit on yellow lining can be used as an example.
Decision Making /
3X2=6 It is hard for Jim to make a decision. He is somewhat at case when someone can make the Creativity /
decision for him. Jim does not have confidence in the abilities and strengths that he does innovation have.
Technical /
3X3=9 Jim does understand the industry developments and trends and what impacts, that are Business negative, have on EF2 and the Company. Jim is cognizant of what it takes to operate a Knowledge nuclear plant safely and efliciently.
Multi-Functions 2X3=6 Jim can work across various disciplines. but he is not the type of individual who is comfortable doing it. He would just as soon have someone else take the lead and he would just follow.
O
.m.
m..-
m
- u
_______--,e 2
+a4 -.a-
-w,,,
iv.
wr.
.mwe.-
w w,.
r- -, - - - -
-e,,-
s
~
- t.
u
{ ;-
- [.'
Interpersonal 2X2=4 Jim does have a good working relationship with whom he works with. Jim does not have O
Skills confidence in himself and thereby does not come across in a positive manner d
Trustworthiness 3 X 5 = 15 This is one of Jim's strong assets. He is a very trustworthy and honest individual. Jim does g
[.
perform his audits in a ethical and moral way.
Resource 2X3=6 Jim appears to plan his work well. Jim is the type ofindividual who is afraid to ask for help.
Management lie is a very shy and quiet person and would just as soon be to himself.
3 s
l Leadership 2X2=4 Jim is definitely not a leader. Jim does not motiate others to try and get things done. Jim
.bl would definitely be a poor example showing what qualities a Icader should have.
F Core TOTAL SCORE c
./
Competency
- 5' d
3-h.
L.
Evaluator: Robert J. Szkotnicki s
e t-a m
- m e
n-.-
-,-o w.
+ -
4~
,-err--,
,..-. - - - _mw w
m o
u
f g
6' t'If C<
CL STAFFING TRANSITION PROGRAM
{(
CANDIDATE RATING FORM D
t t.o s
NAME I.D. Number Position Interview Yes/No D. Delk 50815 Group Leader-Quality Assurance p
Specialist NO
.c Skills / Abilities Weight X Rating Objective flusiness Explanation for Rating p
3-Wt'd Score L
g-Safety 3 X 4 = 12 Don is a very safety conscious person and fully understands the safety procedures and regulations. Don Consciousness
- always follows the appropriate safety rules while performing his job activities.
Teamwork
- 3X3=9 Don is a team player, but at times he may annoy people by the way he comes across and expresses himself. Don does definitely support the goals and objectives of the group and the plant.
Results Oriented
- 3 X 4 = 12 Don is very results oriented. Don does continue to follow up on items that he uncovers during audits.
Some of the ways he follows up on an open items, may annoy the people he is trying to get results from.
Flexibility /
3 X 4 = 12 Don is very flexible and adapts to changes in direction or priorities. Don is a very hard working individual Adaptability
- who will change'if plant or work group priorities change, even suddenly.
Communications
- 3X3=9 Don's communication skills are satisfactory. Don's writing and verbal skills are adequate to get the job done. Don's written reports on projects that he has completed are very thorough and to the point.
Individual 3 X 4 = 12 Don does not hesitate to roll up his sleeves and solve a problem. lie is a very hard worker and uses all Initiative
- available resources when trying to resolve a problem. Don is very thorough and digs deep when trying to get information to solve a problem.
Decision 3 X 4 = 12 Don's creative and innovative skills are very good. Don is continually coming up with different Making / Creativity /
suggestions or recommendations on how to make changes that will make EF2 a better and safer place to Innovation work at.
Technical / Business 3 X 4 = 12 Don understands the nuclear generation industry developments and trends and knows the consequences to Knowledge EF2 if they are negative in nature. Don works hard in trying to solve problems to help EF2 become first in class.
Multi-Functions 2X4=8 Don is very capable of working across disciplines. This attribute is very evident in the types of audits he performs, and the results he gets when completing his audits. Don does have the work groups and company's goal & objectives as his common objectives.
Interpersonal Skills 2X2=4 This may be one of Don's weaknesses. Don is a very intelligent and hard working individual, but he has a knack for upsetting people by the way he tries to convey himself. Don comes on very strong and at times won't back down even if there is not a need to be hard nosed.
~^-
f s
1 gM yL -
- i
~
o c.
Trustworthiness 3 X 5 = 15 Don is a very trustworthy and conscientious individual. He works with the highest ethical and moral standards. He continuously strives to make EF2 a better and safer place to work. lie totally supports every effort to get EF2 to be the best in class.
Resource 2 X 4.= 8 Don does plan and prioritize his work responsibilities very well. lie plans his assignments so that he can Management meet the deadlines that have been established.
ji5 Leadership 2X2=4 Don is not a team leader. Rather than motivate a person, Don may turn him oft When Don tries to g.
_,;f
~
g convey a message or a direction, he may come on too strong and annoy the person, rather than trying to E
get the person's support.
O.
3 ;-
<~
t C.
Evaluator: Robert i Szkotnicki 1
1 l
i 9
9
..m
..-.m
. m -m
-mm mmm m.
.m.o...--..-w---
I t
-E to CD l
l STAFFING TRANSITION PROGRAM CANDIDATE RATING FORM h8 D
t-i NAME I.D. Number Position Interview Yes/No 9
- 1. Items 50463 Group Leader-Quality Assurance 9
Specialist NO bN Skills / Abilities Weight X Rating Objective Business Explanation for Rating
[
g Wt'd Score 3
t C-Safety 3X3=9 John is knowledgeable of all the safety procedures and regulations. As a radiation assessor, John performs Consciousness
- his work duties in a safe and reliable manner.
Teamwork
- 3X3=9 John could be considered an average team player. As Rad assessor, John will do what he needs to do to get by with. lie is not a highly motivated person. lie will not look for work. Ile will do only what he is told to do.
Results Oriented
- 3X3=9 John is not highly results oriented. John will do what it takes to get the job done, but will not make any extra effort to try and complete an assessment, etc. ahead of schedule.
Flexibility /
3 X 3a 9 John is Dexible and will adapt to change in direction or priorities, but may take him a little prodding to do Adaptibility' so. John realizes and understands the impacts on EF2 if the plant conditions change and short notice projects arise.
Communications' 3X3=9 John presents himself in a clear and concise manner when talking to or with a group. John appears to be a good listener.
Individual 3X2=6 John is not an individual that will go out and Hnd things to do. John is not a self starter and may take some Initiative
- doing to get him motivated. John just does what he has to to get by.
Decision 3X3=9 John's decision making, creativity and innovation skills are average. John will make suggestions &
Making / Creativity /
recommendations but not too often.
Innovation Technical /Buviness 3 X 4 = 12 Being the rad assessor, John understands the nuclear generation industry developments and trends and Knowledge their impacts on EF2 if they are negative in nature. John's work responsibilities are to ensure that EF2 is operated safely from the ALARA standpoint.
Multi-Functions 2X3=6 John can work across various disciplines & functions. John works toward the common goals of the plant and the company.
Interpersonal Skills 2X3=6 John maintains a good working relationship with the individuafs he works with. John is very knowledgeable in the area of radiation protection. John does present himselfin a positive and credible manner.
s.
9
~-
~
i l ul G
O<n.
I)
/
Trustworthiness 3 X 4,12 John is trustworthy and honest. If John comes across an item or concern during assessments, he will 5
inform others of his findings. John contributes to the safe and efficient operation of EF2.
Resource 2X2=4 John does not plan or prioritize his work as efficiently as he should. John is laid back and does not pursue D
,' y N
Management trying to get things done ahead of schedule. John is satisfied with just meeting the deadlines he has been Leadership 2X2=4 John doesn't present himself as a good example of being a leader. John is too complacent and has no desire
- Ql given. John is not a self starter.
g t
to motivate others.
Core Competency
- TOTAL
{
{
SCORE:
Evaluator: Robert J. Szkotnicki (Spoke with D. DeLong, E. Kokosky & R. Ebahardt before making this evaluation.)
I Oh l
6 w
e.e
- ~,, -
m.-
s-r-,-
u
I h
- t. :
0<
Q.
STAFFING TRANSITION PROGRAM CANDIDATE RATING FORM kA
'.'s
~
NAME I.D. Number Position Interview Yes/No
,k K. Sessions
$1764 Group Leader-Quality Assurance Specialist NO b%
Skills / Abilities Weight X Rating Objective Business Explanation for Rating P*
wt'd Score p
k Safety 3 X 4 = 12 Kurt is very safety conscious. Is very knowledgeable of all safety procedures and regulations. Kurt tu C-Consciousness
- performs all of his work duties in a safe and emcient manner. Kurt also looks out for the safety of his co-workers.
Teamwork
- 3 X 5 = 15 Kurt is a team player. Kurt in his present funciton as an auditor is always willing to help others both within and outside of his group to get the more dififcult projects completed on time or ahead of schedule.
Results Oriented
- 3 X 4 = 12 Kurt is very results oriented. As a lead auditor, Kurt has met all of his end dates that have been designated.
Kurt through his audits has come up with some very solid suggestions or recommendations to help Fermi 2's overall safety & performance objectives.
Flexibility /
3 X 4 = 12 Kurt is very flexible and adapts to changes in priorities or direction very well. Kurt as an auditor, Adaptibility*
understands what it takes to operate a nuclear facility in a safe & emcient manner. lie will adjust his schedule to accommodate the plant's needs.
Communications
- 3 X 4 = 12 Kurt communicates very well both in written & oral communication. Kurt's written audit reports are very well written and his presentations on audit results are well done. Ilis presentations are well acccepted by upper mapagement.
Individual 3 X 4 = 12 Kurt is dmd a highly motivated individual. Kurt does not hesitate to solve problems. When discrepancies initiative
- are found during his audits, he take immediate actions to the appropriate people to get them resolved. lie will then follow up and make sure they are corrected properly.
Decision 3 X 4 = 12 Kurt does not hesitate to make decisions, Kurt will stand behind the decisions that he makes. Kurt is Making / Creativity /
always looking for new and innovative ways to solve problems. Kurt uses good logic & common sense Innovation when working to solve a problem..
Technical / Business 3 X 5 = 15 Kurt fully understands what it takes to operate a plant safely & emciently. Kurt also understands the Knowledge nuclear generation's development & trend and what impacts they may have if they are negative in nature.
Kurt will do what it takes to keep F2 running in a safe emcient manner.
Multi-Functions 2 X 5 = l'0 Kurt is a well liked and well respected individual. lie can work across various disciplines and functions without any problems. Kurt, in his auditor functions, does cross disciplines on a day to day basis. Because people respect Kurt, it is very easy for him to get information when he needs it.
U.lilj,$h
./
~
w
~
t -
g -
4
(;
CL b
Interpersonal Skills 2 X 5 = 10 Kurt continues to keep a good working relationship within all levels of Fermi 2 organizations. lie presents.
x himself in a very profesisonal manner and has respect from all those people that he works with at all levels D
g of management and craft.
N
- O --
Trustworthiness 3 X 5 = 15 Kurt is very trustworthy, honest and conscientious. Kurt, during his audits and special assignments. always d
presents himselfin a positive manner Kurt continues to work with the highest ethical and moral F.
standards.
c.
.y Resource 2X4=8 Kurt plans, prioritizes and controls his work assignments in a very logical way. It is through his good (y [
C!
Management planning that Kurt is able to meet his groups as well as supporting the plants goals & objectives. Kurt is working hard to support EF2 becoming the best in class.
Leadership 2X4=8 Kurt works well with people and that helps to motivate others when he is working on a project with various people involved. lie is able to get people to work at their maximum level of potential. Kurt no doubt leads by example.
Core Competency
- TOTAL SCORE:
Evaluator: Robert L Szkotnicki (There were no others present while preparing this evaluation.)
i i
a
~.
b S
__.m.-m.-. - ~ _ -, - -,,,,. -. -
--4,-m
,.-v-
L i
'i i
(-
u
'CL STAFFING TRANSITION PROGRAM b
I CANDIDATE RATING FORM s
iD%-
p NAME I.D. Number Position Interview Yes/No E
g M. Quint 51766 Group Leader-Quality Assurance Ij O
Specialist NO
{
[
Skills / Abilities Weight X Rating Objective Business Explanation for Rating Wt'd Score Safety 3 X 4 = 12 Mike maintains a current knowledge of safety procedures and regulations while performing his Consciousness
- surveillances and inspection activities in the plant. Mike is very safety conscious and also looks out for the safety of others.
Teamwork
- 3 X 4 = 12 Mike is a team player. lie totally supports the plant and work group's goals and objectives. Mike works well with others. IIis approach to problem solving is good. Mike is a self starter and highly motivated.
Results Oriented
- 3 X 4 = 12 Mike is very results oriented. lie plans his work so that he can meet his work deadlines. Ile is willing to make changes to make EF2 the best in class. lie also makes suggestions and recommendations on how we can improve.
Flexibihty/
3 X 4 = 12 Mike is very flexible and adaptive to changes in work priorities or direction as a result of changes in plant Adaptibility*
conditions or assignments of higher priorities. Mike will do what it takes to get the job done.
Communications' 3 X 4 = 12 Mike expresses himself very well in oral and written communications. Mike's writing style has improved over the past few months as has been seen in the last two monthly Maintenance inspection reports.
Individual 3 X 4 = 12 Mike does not hesitate to resolve problems. Mike takes the initiative to resolve small problems or initiative' concems before they become problems. Mike gathers pertinent inform. on petaining to the problem or projects he is working on and does not jump to conclusions.
Decision 3X3=9 Mike uses good judgement in making decisions. This can be seen in his written inspection reports. lie Making / Creativity /
evaluates, selects and uses all the information he has before making a decision. Mike will take full Innovation responsibility for the decisions he makes.
Technical / Business 3 X 4 = 12 Mike fully understands the developments and trends within the nuclear industry and their impact on EF2 Knowledge as well as DECO. Mike continues to make suggestions and recommendations to make EF2 a better and safer place to work. Mike has a good handle on the various maintenance discipline work activities.
Multi-Functions 2X4=8 Mike is able to work across multiple disciplines very cf fectively. lie is constantly interfacing with maint.,
operations, llP, etc. during his surveillances and inspection activities.
Interpersonal Skills 2X4=8 Mike is a well liked and respected individual. lie presents himself in a professional, credible and mature manner. Ile is a very positive person. lie has a very good rapport with field supervisors, craft personnel and management personnel.
1 fr-bt w
O-
<C n.
Trustworthiness 3 X 5 = 15 Mike is a very trustworthy and honest individual. He is very straight forward and does not hesitate to tell 1
someone when they are doing something wrong. Mike continues to work well with everyone with the h'
4 highest ethics and moral standards.
p Resource 2X3=6 Mike plans his work well. Ele has on occasion filled in as a work lead in the surveihance area and has
_g I
Management done a good job. Mike communicates well with others when giving work direction. Mike's directions are usually clear and concise.
Leadership 2X3=6 Mike does not hesitate to get others involved with trying to solve a problem. Mike needs to work on
!N delegating work activities when he is put in charge of the surveillance group. Mike at times may do
'E uJ something himself rather than having to delegate it to someone else.
[,-
Yc w a.
- t i
I i-f Evaluator: Robert J. Szkotnicki (There were no others present while preparing this evaluation.)
f
(
3 I
t h
?
}
t
NOV 3 0 *93 '
m unirco srares 1
'o NUCLEAR RE3ULATORY COMMLION 3.,.
3 REGION lli o
y h~
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD L*
GLEN ELLYN, IL1JNOIS 60137-5927 November 23, 1993 Docket No. 50-341 The Detroit Edison Company ATTN:
D. R. Gipson Senior Vice President Nuclear Generation 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, MI 48166
Dear Mr. Gipson:
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-341/93 This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Mr. K. Salehi between September 16 - 24, 1993 at your' Fermi 2 Power Plant facility and October 18 through November 4,1993, at the Region III office.
This inspection included a review of activities at your Fermi plant authorized by NRC Operating License No. NPF-43.
At the conclusion of the inspection, tha findings were discussed with those members of your staff identified in the enclosed report.
Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report.
Within
-these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examinations of precedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observation of activities.
The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether activities authorized by the license were conducted safely and in accordance with NRC requirements, i
Based on the results of this inspection, certain of your activities appeared to be in violation of NRC requirements, as specified in the enclosed Notice of-Violation (Notice).
The violations were issued for not complying with procedural requirements and for inadequate corrective actions in response to generated deviation reports (DER).
The violations were of concern because they highlighted an inadequate response to conditions adverse to quality and several missed opportunities to take appropriate corrective actions.
Although 10 CFR 2.201 requires you to submit to this office, within 20 days of I
your receipt of this Notice, a written statement of explanation, we note that this violation had been corrected and those actions were reviewed during this 1
inspection.
Therefore, no response with respect to this matter is required.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of this letter, and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
rer
,11 3
. 9 3 - 0,.,-
.)._ GF ll _ PAGE(S)
P '.':
~~
% 3 l + 0 (o o t9 L.
t;C Ak
L 4
The Detroit Edison Company 2
November 23. 1993 We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely, M
v Mark A. Ring, Chief Operations Branch
Enclosures:
1.
Notice of Violation 2.
Inspection Report No. 50-341/93020(DRS) cc w/ enclosures:
John A. Tibai,. Supervisor of Compliance P. A. Marquardt, Corporate Legal Department OC/LFDCB Resident Inspector, RIII James R. Padgett, Michigan Public Service Commission Harry H. Voicjht, Esq.
i Michigan Department of Public Health Monroe County Office of Civil Preparedness -
T. G. Colburn, LPM, NRR f'/L!!98T _ 2 /
I' O F _
D ^ G E($)
~
NOTICE OF VIOLATION Detroit Edison Company Docket No. 50-341 Fermi 2 Power Plant License No. NPF-43 During an NRC inspection conducted between September 16 tnrough 24, and October 18 through November 4,1993, two violations of NRC requirements were identified.
In accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, the violations are listed below:
A.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, states, in part, " Measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and noncomformances are promptly identified and corrected."
Fermi Management Policy, Revision 8, Section 1.1.3 and Appendix B using FMD CA1 and FMD PM1 invokes compliance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion XVI.
Contrary to the above, as of the inspection conducted September 24, 1993, training required by FIP-TQI-16-SQ, Revision 2, to certify lead test personnel to ANSI /ASME N510 requirements for HEPA filter testing had not been provided to three (3) lead test personnel.
The failure to provide training constituted a condition adverse to quality identified in 1991 which was not promptly corrected.
This is a Severity Level IV violation.
B.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, states in part, " Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings."
Contrary to the above, personnel signing off as the lead test person for the tests conducted in 1989 on Division 1 and Division 2 Standby Gas Treatment Filters, and Control Room Emergency Filter were not certified to ANSI N45.2.6 as required by test procedures 43.505.001, 43.404.002, and 43.413.001.
Th's is a Severity Level IV violation.
The inspection showed that steps had been taken to correct the identified violations and to prevent recurrence. Consequently, no reply to the violations is required and we have no further questions regarding this matter.
Dated at Glen Ellyn, Illinois this M day ofAh m itA., 1993 rypimT _2 /
P;'..._h_C?_}{"'""
~
20L J 43/206ows
-~
w v-U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III-
,e Report No. 50-341/93020(DRS)
Docket No. 50-341 License No. NPF-43 Licensee:.
Detroit' Edison Company 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, MI 48166 Facility Name:
Fermi 2 Power Plant Inspection At:
Fermi 2 Site, Monroe, MI
~
Region 111 Office, Glen Ellyn, Il
~ Inspection. Conducted: September 16 through September 24, 1993 October 18 through November 4, 1993 Inspector:
w
,/m M//cPJ[f 'i'
~K.'5alehi /
/
Date NMJ[@
Approved By:
W_
E.Murgets, Chief Date Operational Programs Section Inspection Summarv 6
Inspection on September 16 - 24. 1993. and October 18 throuah November 4. 1993 t
(Recort No.- 50-341/93020(DRS))
Areas Inspected:. Routine, announced, safety inspection by Region III personnel of the' Quality Assurance Program.
Results:
Two violations were identified involving the lack of adherence to procedural requirements and inadequate corrective actions in response to a Deviation Report (DER).
t f/M80fT P:.?h. Y. G7_ ll " M'*1
j n
l DETAILS j
1.
Exit Meetina' Attendees Detroit Edison Company (DECO)
I D. Gipson, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Generation
- R. McKeon,.P1 ant _ Manager l
E
+D. Bergmooser, Supervisor, NSSS Technical Engineering l
T. Bradish, Audits Supervisor J. Bragg, Group Lead, NQA Audits
- J. Conen, Sr. Engineer, Licensing l
R. Delong, Radiation Protection Manager l
P. Fessler, Technical Manager i
L J. Flynn, Senior Attorney, Legal L. Goodman, Director, Nuclear Quality Assurance j
+K. Howard, Supervisor, Plant Engineering
+E. Juarez, Nuclear Training
+A. Kowalczuk, Director, Plant Support l
+P. Marquardt, Legal
- W. Miller, Director, Nuclear Licensing i
R. Newkirk, Supervisor, Licensing j
J. Nolloth, Maintenance Superintendent
- J. Nyquist, Supervisor, Safety Engineering J. Plona, Superintendent of Operation K. Sessions, Supervisor, Quality Assurance l
G. Smith, Director, Nuclear Fuels T. Stack, Supervisor, Nuclear Security
- R. Szkotnicki, Supervisor, Quality Assurance l
+J. Tibai, Principle Compliance Engineer i
U. S. Nuclear Reculatory Commicsion (NRC)
{
- W. Kropp, Senior Resident Inspector, fermi, DRP
+K. Riemer, Resident inspector, fermi, DRP Other J. Crews, Consultant
- Denotes those in attendance at the telephone exit on November 4 and the interim exit on September' 24, 1993.
+ Denotes those in attendance only during the telephone exit on November 4, 1993.
FYU*'Y dl 2
~
P.'
[_ c- ) I ruang
An '
(
4-2.
' Inspection Overview The objective of this inspection was to examine portions of the licensee's Quality Assurance (QA) program. The inspector interviewed staff, reviewed documents and made observations to accomplish this objective.. This inspection focused on QA activities performed during 1989 through 1991. Two violations of the NRC requirements were identified in this inspection for events that occurred in that period.
One violation was.for not meeting the procedural requirements and the other was for inadequate corrective actions.
The NRC inspector concluded that:
The QA inspectors and auditors were independent in their e
performance of their duties.
If safety issues were appropriately identified, the QA staff had documented the findings accordingly.
No safety-significant issues were identified by the inspector which were missed by the QA staff.
l
- ~
A communication difficulty between a supervisor and other QA l
staff contributed to inadequate root cause analysis and j
determination of corrective actions.
There existed a need to improve the DER process, the determination of root cause analysis / corrective actions, and the procedures for yellow lining drawings.
j 3.0 Inspector Evaluation The inspector inspected the QA organization and evaluated qualification I
and certification of testing personnel, independence of inspections, DER l
resolution'and corrective action, inspector knowledge concerning i
selection criteria of snubbers, organization and implementation of the fire protection program, control and retrieval of M&TE Equipment records and the adequacy of yellow line changes to documents.
Although the i
majority of areas examined did not show safety concerns, two violations were identified. Discussions of the inspector identified issues and the violations are addressed in the following subsections:
.3.1 Evaluation of ANSI /ASME N510 Oualification and Certification for Testina Personnel i
The NRC inspector examined the certification and qualification requirements / records for QA inspectors and auditors.
This examination generally covered the overall certification process.
Selective examinations of certification records for inspectors and auditors did not identify regulatory deficiencies.
In addition, the qualifications and training on ANSI /ASME N510 " Testing of Nuclear Air-Cleaning i
Systems," for personnel testing HEPA filters were reviewed.
Based on l
l t
3 p...o'r d/
i PVL..
.OF P A GE(S)
i
- y Y
a observations of documentation, NRC determined that HEPA filter l
surveillance tests, conducted in 1989 and 1991, were performed under the supervision.of certified inspectors.
Three different test procedures, 43.404.001. " Division 1 Standby Gas Treatment filter Performance Test", 43.404.002, " Division 2 Standby Gas Treatment Filter Test", and 43.413.001, " Control Room Emergency Filter l
' Test", required ANSI N45.2.6 certification for the lead test persons
. conducting tests.
To verify that each HEPA filter test was performed under the guidance of a lead. test person, each test procedure had a signature line for sign off by a certified lead test person.
j i
The signature line for the lead test person certified to ANSI N45.2.6,
" Qualification of Inspection, Examination and Testing Personnel for l
Nuclear Power Plants," during the above three listed tests conducted in 1989 was incorrectly signed by two individuals who were not ANSI N45.2.6 certified.
The licensee stated that the tests were performed j
under the observation of a certified contractor and another certified inspector from the corporate office. However, the signature line for the above three tests was not initialized or signed by either of the certified individuals.
Since the above three test procedures specifically required ANSI N45.2.6 certification, and since the lead persons were not certified, the licensee did not meet its own procedural requirement.
Failure to comply with HEPA filter testing procedural requirements, for signature of each test by a person certified to ANSI N45.2.6 requirements, is a violation of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion V (50-341/93020-01 (DRS)).
The NRC inspector evaluated test documentation and determined that the f
i tests were technically adequate based on the presence of a certified contractor and another corporate office certified inspector.
Review of the security log by the licensee confirmed the presence of the certified z
inspectors in areas where the tests were conducted. Quality Assurance management used the security log as evidence that the certified inspectors were present and monitored the three conducted tests.
Subsequent HEPA filter tests in 1991 and 1992 were conducted by the above uncertified individuals and completed satisfactorily. Completion i
of'these tests indicated an adequate knowledge level for the performance of HEPA filter testing. The licensee has implemented training for
{
ANSl/ASME N510 and removed ANSI N45.2.6 as a requirement. for HEPA filter testing.
This removal of ANSI N45.2.6 was subsequent to a statement t
from the ASME committee which confirmed the licensee's interpretation i
that qualification to ANSI N45.2.6 is only one method of many that could be used to meet the certification requirement of N510..Therefore the corrective action to the violation was considered adequate and no i
response is required.
in addition to ANSI N45.2.6 certification requirements, the above HEPA filter test procedures required ANSI /ASME N510 training for the lead test persons conducting tests.
Section 4.3 of the ANSI /ASME N510-1980, Page C-4, required in part, " Tests shall be made only by persons who have demonstrated their competence to satisfactorily make the specific i
rn-wr 21 P h.d. G N P G S)
I
p tests.in question, as evidenced by experience and training." The procedures required only the lead test person be trained on ANSI /ASME N510 and certified to ANSI N45.2.6 requirements.
In spite of the code and procedural requirements, the two lead test personnel who conducted the tests and signed off as lead test personnel, had not received L
training on ANSI /ASME N510. An audit of the test documentation by the QA audit organization was completed on June 24, 1991.
DER 91-0589 was generated and identified the inconsistency between lack of certification of lead test ' personnel and the procedural requirement to be certified and trained.
As part of the corrective action in response to DER 91-0589, the licensee deleted the ANSI N45.2.6 certification requirement from the procedure, but retained the ANSI /ASME N510 training requirement for lead test person.
Further, the licensee developed a training course for ANSI /ASME N510. However, the licensee exempted the training requirement for three lead test personnel (including the two who had signed off on the test documentation), principally because they participated in HEPA filter testing. Documentation of a waiver request made no reference to training conducted for these individuals.
Participation of these individuals in testing was not an adequate replacement for training as specified in the licensee's Management Directive and Fermi Interfacing Procedure FIP-TQI-16-SQ Revision 2.
This procedure stated that requests for waivers "shall be supported by certified or authenticated documents such as official transcripts, verifiable certificates of completion, etc.*
No such documentation was identified or presented to the inspector to justify waiving the training requirement.
Therefore, the licensee's previous action to waive the training requirement.in response to the DER constituted inadequate corrective action.
Inadequate corrective action is a violation of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B, Criterion XVI.
(50-341/93020-2(DRS)).
Although the three lead test personnel did not receive formal training on ANSI /ASME N510, plant records indicated that they had conducted the tests under the supervision of certified inspectors with ample familiarity with the ANSI /ASME N510 code.
That participation and subsequent on the job training for the three lead test personnel, who independently conducted similar tests appeared to be adequate. All other personnel associated with HEPA filter testing have also received N510 testing.
The licensee has also reviewed the procedure addressing waivers and considered it adequate to preclude an inadvertent waiver without sufficient basis. Because the subsequent actions appeared adequate, the violation is considered as no-response violation.
3.2 Independence of Inspections and Audits Performed Durina 1989 to Present The NRC inspector interviewed approximately 40% of the total population of onsite QA inspectors and auditors, including those who were no longer in QA positions at this facility.
The inspector did not identify issues or receive any statement that implied management was directing inspectors and auditors to suppress safety issues.
For each QA inspector interviewed, the clear message communicated was one that MI F""wr w 1 c; D _ r ~
reflected the inspectors' ability to identify any unsafe condition, without reprisal from management.
Further, the NRC inspector did not identify any instances of safety significant issues or findings.
3.3 Review of DERs Although no safety significant issues were identified during this inspection, the results of the interviews and the review of selective documents generated a concern. The concern was that several DERs received less than adequate root cause analysis and determination of corrective actions.
Based on review of the below DERs, the inspector determined that the selection of a DER initiator and a DER reviewer received unnecessary attention, where more emphasis should have been placed on the root cause analysis and corresponding corrective actions.
DER 90-310 was related to missed documentation of inspection on a.
the Weld Process Control sheet.
The originator of this form had mistakenly entered "H" for " Hold" on line 2, for Pre-Fitup cleanliness rather than on line 3, Fitup. At the time the work was done, the QA inspector realized the error, and performed the necessary inspection at the Fitup.
However, he failed to document the error and that the inspection was conducted at the intended hold point, the Fitup.
Based on interviews and discussions with the auditors and supervisors, the inspector was told that the audit team and the supervisor spent much effort debating if it was a missed inspection or inadequate documentation.
In the process, the root cause and corrective action failed to address why the inspector had not documented that i
he had noted the error and the fact that he had conducted the inspection.
b.
DER 90-324 was related to an RHR LPCI loop line check valve.
A QA inspector missed yellow lining a drawing which indicated the removal of the valve counterweight.
Since the yellow lining had not taken place, the removal of the valve counterweight could not have been verified.
To ascertain the removal of the counterweight, the staff had to halt the operation and visually verify the removal of the counterweight.
To address this issue, a DER was generated. However, similar to the above case, there were difficulties concerning who should generate the DER to address this issue. Had sufficient attention been provided to the true root cause of this DER, which was inadequate yellow lining, other later problems which were attributed to inadequate yellow lining could have been prevented.
The NRC inspector evaluated management involvement in the close out of selective DERs generated by the staff.
This evaluation did 6
I"" M h/
P/4..)._ GF P t GE(S)
not identify any major concerns alluding to management suppressing or attempting to suppress generation or processing of DERs.
Further, the reviewed DERs were completed and closed within a reasonable time span.
Finally, the role of management in the review of findings was evident.
3.4 Adeouacy of Inspectors Knowledae Concernino Selection Criteria About Installation of Snubbers During the inspection and after review of documentation and interviews with plant personnel, the NRC inspector investigated the role of the QA inspectors in the removal of snubbers and installation of struts.
The QA inspectors were tasked with verification of which snubbers were removed and which were being replaced with struts.
Removal of the snubbers and installation of struts were in accordance with a schedule and guideline established by the design engineers responsible for the snubbers. The NRC inspector determined that the QA inspectors did not
~
need to have detailed knowledge of the selection criteria for removal of the snubbers. This responsibility was within the domain of the design engineering and system engineering staff. The responsible design engineer for this modification stated that the removal and exchange of snubbers was accomplished without any difficulties or error.
3.5 Oroanization and implementation of Fire Protection Proaram The inspector reviewed various past inspection reports and examined available documents pertaining to the fire protection program.
Based on the review and observations made by cognizant Region 111 inspectors, there were some minor problems associated with the licensee's fire protection program.
Both the licensee and the NRC Region III staff were aware of these issues and were following them consistent with their regulatory significance.
The fire protection program is subject to routine -NRC inspection.
3.6 Control and Retrieval of Material and Test Equipment (M&TE) Records from the Vault.
The NRC inspector evaluated only the retrieval and storage of H&TE records from the vault. This evaluation also included review of selected records and interview with responsible individuals.
There appeared to be no significant concerns or findings in this area.
The overall control of M&TE records had been previously inspected by the NRC and concerns regarding retrieval and storage of M&TE records had been addressed by the licensee.
3.7
.AAgquacy of Yellow Line Verification Reauirement The NRC inspector examined the effectiveness of the yellow line procedure. This procedure was an important portion of the validation of quality assurance.
Subsequent to a work order on a system the inspectors yellow lined portions of a drawing of the system which were affected by the work order. This implied that the inspections of that 7
rmfmT M PAGE /d GF l PAGE(S)
j.
portions of the system were completed.
If yellow lining were missed, completion of the work and the corresponding inspection would be in doubt.
Inadequate and lack of yellow lining were contributing causes of several different problems in the QA organization. Descriptions of two i
examples appear in the following subsections.
The NRC inspector evaluated the circumstances surrounding the swapping l
and installation 'of chart recorders in the control room and the simulator. The chart recorder in the control room should have been
+
installed in the simulator and the chart recorder installed in the i
simulator should have been installed in the control room.
This problem was previously addressed by the NRC in inspection report Number 50-341/930012 (DRP).
This and other similar issues were combined-into a violation of NRC requirements resulting in escalated enforcement.
Since this issue was previously addressed by the NRC, the inspector did not pursue this issue. However, since the root cause of this issue pertained to yellow lined procedures, the NRC inspector conducted l
interviews with the licensee staff regarding yellow line practices in the field. No violations of NRC requirements were identified.
DERs90-310, 90-324, and 93-363 were related to the adequacy of the yellow lining. This inspection identified that the licensee was aware of this problem. The review of several memoranda related to QSR-92-0149 indicated the licensee needs to improve the yellow lining portion of the QA program. Discussions held between the NRC inspector and the QA management organization concerning the yellow lining procedure clarified that the licensee was fully aware of this issue.
4.
Exit Meetino i
The inspector met with the licensee representatives (denoted in i
Paragraph 1) at the conclusion of the inspection on September 24, 1993, to discuss the scope and findings of the inspection. An interim telephone exit was held on October 20, 1993; and a formal exit which provided the results of the inspection was held via telephone on November 4, 1993.
The licensee representatives did not identify any document used during the inspection as proprietary.
putmT e3nt,jt_ ce S_ P AGE (S; g
r m
CASE No. 3 93 013R f....,,h j
United States i
"I Nuclear Regulatory Commission
,,,,,/
Report of Investigation FERMI POWER PLANT:
1 Alleged Employment Discrimination Against a Quality Assurance Specialist Office of Investigations Reported by 01: Rill
, l'f l
qhu-y' g y';.(o