ML20137K935

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Nuclear Engineering Audit,QAS-JPN-95-01,for June 1995
ML20137K935
Person / Time
Site: Saint Lucie  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 09/15/1995
From: Bruno T, Fuca D, Woodard W
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML17354B293 List:
References
FOIA-96-485 QAS-JPN-95-1, NUDOCS 9704070125
Download: ML20137K935 (20)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:... i i FPL Nuclear Division ] .. _ _.. ___ _ __ER L Quality Assurance Audit Report 4 \\ i i NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AUDIT QAS-JPN-95-1 June,1995 i i i 1 i 4 i 1 Audit Team: T. Bruno J. Crum D. Fuca L. Ryan G. Shrader W. Woodard / / /i 0020f381 9704070125 970325 PDR FOIA BIN DER 96-485 PDR

QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT REPORT-py:aL _ _._ QAS-JPN 95-1 e JQA-95-186 To: Distribution Date: September 13, 1995 From: R. A. Symes Department: JNA/JB

Subject:

FUNCTIONAL AREA AUDIT OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING OAS-JPN 95-1 Enclosed is the Functional Area Audit report for your information. There were no findings identified during the audit, therefore, no action or response to this audit is required. We apprec iate the cooperation we received from your staff during the course of the audit. Please contact me at 694-4287 if you have any questions. -Q ye Quality Manager Juno Beach RAS /WWW/crr 0030!381

1 l AUDIT REPORT QAS-JPN-95-1 ....._EPL...___.______._.._-___._________ _._ _ page Mf l3- -- ! I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Executive Summary............................................... 2 4 i l Details................. 2 ~- Audit Scope..... 2 Strengths. 6 i Self-Assessment 6 j NRC Inspection Reports, Operating, Experience Feedback System, In-House Events.. 6 i Corrective Action 7 i Satisfactory Areas 8 i 1 1 Summary of Post-Audit Conference 8 i Audit Participants 9 References 10 l 4 Signatures 11 Audit Distribution 13 4 1 I 4 4 I i 4 i, 0040f381

AUDIT REPORT QASJPN-95-1 _ _ _. _ p::pp..._ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ p,g,tuf _33 _ ) e EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This Functional Area Audit evaluated Nuclear Engineering (JPN) depanment functions required under the FPL Quality Assurance Program. The audit focused on engineering products developed by the Site Engineering and Production Engineering Group (PEG) organizations for the upcoming outages at their respective plants (PSL Unit 2 Cycle 9, PTN Unit 3 Cycle 15). The audit also ~ evaluated real-time support activities perforfned by the engineering organizations including Turkey Point Condition Reports (CRs) and St. Lucie Action Reports (STARS) dispositions ) involving Engineering. Current long term plant enhancement projects including St. Lucie 1 Steam Generator Replacement, St. Lucie 24 month fuel cycle, and Turkey Point Thermal Uprate, were also audited. The audit addressed all major processes used by the engineering organization to produce design output and provide plant support. In addition, the collective evaluations of site QA/QC and Juno Beach QA audits, inspections, surveillances, and performance monitoring of design control and configuration management were reviewed for trends and areas of emphasis in conducting the audit of Nuclear Engineering. Self-assessment, NRC Inspection Reports, In-House Events, Industry Events, and Corrective Actions were general categories evaluated by the audit team to j determine the Nuclear Engineering organization's effectiveness and responsiveness to improvement opportunities. There were no audit findings or concerns identified during the audit. Based on the activities and objective evidence audited, it was determined that the requirements of the FPL QA Program as described in the FPL Topical Quality Assurance Report and the Engineering Depanment Quality Instructions are adequately documented and implemented for Nuclear Engineering activities at Juno Beach and the Turkey Point and St. Lucie plants. DETAILS Audit Scope and Summary The audit team evaluated the Nuclear Engineering activities of Turkey Point Site Engineering, SL 1.ucie Site Engineering, and Juno Beach Turkey Point /St. Lucie Production Engineering (PEG). Current and inprocess design work for the upcoming refueling outage modifications at each plant provided a performance based focus for the areas to be evaluated. Real-time support w'ork was also included for review based on the complexity of the work to be performed and the scope of disciplines involved. Projects selected for review were chosen with input from the respective Engineering Managers during pre-audit meetings held by the lead auditor. Specifically, the following plant change / modifications (PC/M), with associated calculations and other supporting design inputs. were evaluated by the audit team: 0050i381

l AUDIT REPORT Q AS-JPN-95-1 _._-.. _ _ ppt._ .-~ ~P m ~--- ~~ ORIGINATING PC/M TITLE ORGANI7sATION St. Lucie Engineering 193-193 Containment Access Building (Design Pkg. 2.6) SGRP Team '~ 204-293 DDPS Corrections PSL Site Engineering i 105-294 PZR Pressure Loop Isolation PSL Site Engineering 028-295 Feedwater Acoustic Flow Meter PSL PEG / Site Engineering 151-193 SG 1 A Replacement SGRP Team 138-294 EDG, KLF Relay Modifications PSL Site Engineering 018-193 ICW Lube Water Supply Zurn Strainer Control PSL Site Engineering Panel Wiring 101-194 CW Pump Lube Water Globe Valve Replacement PSL Site Engineering 085-294 S/U and Aux. XFMR - Transfer Switch PSL Site Engineering Replacement 027-295 PZR Liquid Space Instrument Nozzle Replacement PSL PEG 036-295 Debris Filter and Continuous Tube Cleaning System PSL PEG Installation - Phase II 068-294 008-295, SG Wide Range Instrumentation PSL PEG Replacement of RPS NI Safety Drawers PSL PEG Turkey Point Engineering 95-040 In Place Abandonment of Various Boron Recycle PTN Site Engineering System and Liquid Waste Disposal System Components 95-055 SFP Bridge Crane Load Cell Computer Fuse PTN Site Engineering Installation 95-074 Modification of the SFP Bridge Crane Load. PTN Site Engineering Cells and Tool Transfer Bracket 95-017 Reactor Cavity Safety Cables PTN PEG 95-032 Emergency Bus Load Sequencer Mods PTN PEG 94-111 Rod Control CRDM Timing Changes PTN PEG 95-009 CVCS Blender Totalizers PTN PEG 94-066 Installation of CRDM Ductwork Hoisting Bands PTN PEG 9545 Replacement of MSSRV Discharge Piping PTN PEG 95,054 Temporary Containment Cooling PTN PEG 00GU381 A

9 AUDIT REPORT QAS-JPN-95-1 z_ __ _ _. _. _ _ _. _ _..g l The PC/Ms were reviewed for compliance to the administrative and technical requirements of the ENG QIs. These requirements included provisions for safety classification, design basis, design input control, design interface controls, design verification,10CFR 50.59 review, and design output controls. In addition, St. Lucie STARS and Turkey Point CRs assigned to the JPN organizations were reviewed. The following were selected and 6aluated by the audit team based on providing a breadth of review across disciplines located at the plant sites: CR/ STAR NUMBER TITLE CR 95-017 EDG Software Design Deficiency CR 95-053 RX Loops Filled-Decay Heat Removal CR 95-064 U-3 MSIV Solenoid Configuration Wrong in Drawing CR 95-085 U-3 Both EDG OOS - Plant Design Basis CR 95-092 U3 Gas Analyzer Drawings Missing CR 95-147 U3 N2 Bypass Valve Piping Specification CR 95-275 ICW Header Va2.s Maintenance Problem CR 95-298 U4 PC/M 89-512 Drawing Updating CR 95-411 ECC/CCW Return Line Valve Single Failure CR 95-015 U3 Control Valve Dump to Condenser CR 95-030 'U3 Load Center Room Chiller Use Ethylene Glycol CR 95-031 Valve 3-10-305 has Unisolable Steam Leak CR 95-045 New Fuel Handling Equipment Load Test Required CR 95-139 U 3 Fine Damper Inlet Vents Covered CR 95-247 Pass Chiller Uses Ethylene Glycol CR 95-274 TPCW Flow not Documented for CCW Basket Removal CR 95-323 Packing Leak on FCV-4-498 CR 95-506 Control Ruom Vent CR 95-507 Standby Steam Generator Feed Pump CR 95-235 Fire Protection System STAR 2-950407 Inadequate Mortar for Fire Door Installatinn STAR 2-950135 Incorrect Stacked Cage for LCV-2110 STAR 0-94120568 Guidance for Minimum Differential Temperature STAR 1-950105 Field Change of Bi Stable Modules STAR 0-950203 ECCS and C; Pump Code Runs l STAR 2-950108 RWT Operability l STAR l-950097 Shield Building Ventilation System STAR 0-950419 Safe Shutdown Analysis STAR 0-950567 Algor Software Analysis STAR 0-950664 IB EDG Failure PSL NCR 6946-3041E Corroded Conduit Supports 0070i381

AUDIT REPORT QAS-JPN-95-1 ,.____. _ __ p p L.. _ _._ ___._ _ __. _ _ _. Page 5 ~of 13 - l Condition Reports and STAR evaluations included operability assessment reviews, severity level designation, management interface where required, independent verification where design guidance is provided, and actions to preclude recurrence. Other design output documents included in the above referenced activities which were evaluated for design control compliance during the audit were as follows: DOCUMENT TITLE JPN-PSL-SEMS-94-023 System Integrity with Safety Relief Valve Set Pressure Wrong JPN-PSL-SEIP-95-034 Electrical Equipment and Instrumentation Used to Meet Technical Specifications (PSL 24 Month Fuel Cycle) JPN-PTN-SEIP-95-001 EDG Sequencer Software Operability i JPN-PTN-SECP-95-015 CCW Piping Analysis I.C. Support of the Turkey Point Thermal Uprate project by the Turkey Point Juno Beach PEG group was also evaluated during this audit. This project has involved extensive interfacing among FPL disciplines and with three major contractors (Westinghouse, Stone and Webster, Teledyne Brown Engineering). Documents reviewed indicated close overview by the Nuclear Engineering i disciplines and strict adherence to interface control requirements. This project was judged exemplary in its planning and management, particularly with attention to QA program requirements. This was evidenced by Quality Assurance representation from the onset on the project team. Also, audits at contractors have been well supported by technical specialists from ~ the specific disciplines needed. These audits have succeeded in. identifying potential problems i before critical path impacts. Formal interface controls, configuration management, QA program documentation, and independent verification were problem areas identified at contractors and resolved during the reviews provided by Turkey Point PEG engineers. Performance Monitoring and audit activities conducted by all QA organizations over the past two years of engineering and configuration controls were analyzed for areas of concern and special emphasis. Good practices and strengths from those previous reviews were communicated to the audit team to allow reduced audit attention of well controlled processes. All of the engineering work reviewed by the audit team was found to be satisfactorily performed and in compliance with the associated Engineering Quality Instructions. 00SM3Si

O ^ AUDIT TIEPORT QAS-JPN-95-1 _ _ _._ ppt,,__ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _.- Page-6mf - - Strencths In addition to the Engineering involvement in oversight of the IYTN Thermal Uprate Project, the Nuclear Engineering Quality Instructions (ENG QIs) were considered to be a strength. These quality program documents were rewritten in June,1994. The changed instructions, while maintaining the traditional processes, were upgraded with format improvements and written to be more effective and efficient than had resulted from years of " band-aid" revisions to the previous QIs. The effectiveness with which these instructions are implemented can be attributed to several factors: experienced personnel, on-going training, and self assessment. All of the individuals contacted during the audit displayed professionalism, solid knowledge of the subject reviewed, and a command of the process and documentation required. Training programs were noted to be conducted on a regular basis for changed instructions, technical alerts, a:.3 areas for corrective action. The self assessment program was noted to be actively implemented. Experience, training, and self assessment reflect management's commitment to not only meeting the immediate plant needs, but also their concern for improvements. Self-Assessment Nuclear Engineering self assessment was evaluated through a review of the Engineering Assurance group activities at Juno Beach. A review was performed during the 1994 Corrective Action audit (QAS-CA-94-1) and re-examined for this audit. It was found that Engineering has a strong self assessment program made up of eight elements. Six areas were reviewed: (1) Self Assessment Guides,(2) Technical Alerts,(3) Calculation Quality Indicators,(4) Design Reviews, (5) Functional Reviews, and (6) VP Quarterly Self Assessment Reviews. Each of these elements were noted to have been performed routinely and have resulted in incremental improvements to the organization's functions. At Turkey Point, the Configura. ion Control group has completed several internally initiated self assessment projects in the past, year. Examples include site inventorying of as-built drawings and controlled documents to ensure complete files are available at the designated locations. At St. Lucie, a " Design Review" was witnessed which generated action items that were documented in meeting minutes for all the concerns presented. The Calculation Indicator program was reviewed for St. Lucie calculations. Feedback of deficiencies was sent to the originating department to be included as lessons learned for future calculations. NRC Inspection Reports. Operatine Experience Feedback System, and In House Events Operating experience information (SOERs, NRC Violation Alerts, and SERs) are received, reviewed, and issued for information and/or action through the Feedback of Operating Experience (FOP) program at Juno Beach. Reports requiring site input are forwarded by the technical staff organization to the appropriate discipline. All of the engineering organizations are 009M381

AUDIT REPORT QAS-JPN-95-1 . _._.. _ Jll:pL __.-Page-7mft3 - I required by the Engineering Quality Instructions to incorporate the operating experience feedback into design documents as appropriate. The Juno PEG originated PC/Ms reviewed by the team were analyzed for the need to incorporate industry events, and none were noted to be applicable. The forwarding of this information to the site engineering organizations was also reviewed. At St. Lucie, the engineering group was noted to have had response required for several procurement related issues; however, there were no design control industry issues. At Turkey Point, the site engineering group was noted to have resporr6cd to several industry events via plant initiated Condition Reports. These Condition Reports required engineering to perform operability assessments and reportability evaluations in several cases. QA audits at the plant sites and Juno Beach have previously reviewed the functioning of the operating experience feedback program, and deemed the activity to be adequately implemented by Engineering. Recent NRC Inspection Reports (PSL-94-25, PSL-94-06, and PTN-94-24) were reviewed as part of the Trend Data Report. Design verification at PSL and software verification at FTN were identified as areas to be emphasized in the audit. There were no deficiencies noted by the audit team in these areas. The NRC had also recently identified a weakness at St. Lucie that the STAR program was not proceduralized regarding engineering interfaces. A new ENG QI 2.9, "St. Lucie Action Reports (STAR)" was issued in response to that concern. Review of the actions taken to address the above NRC issues indicates satisfactory performance by Engineering. ~ In-house events were noted to be distributed through the FOP program, CR, STAR, or provided as a subject for a Technical Alert. A listing of Technical Alerts was noted to be updated regularly. Individual Technical Alerts were distributed through supervision to all engineers for their information and use. Corrective Action Corrective action systems in use by Engineering at the plant sites include the previously mentioned PTN CRs and PSL STARS. These systems both track items to closure and ensure generic implications and root cause are addressed where appropriate. Corrective action evaluation consisted of programmatic review at Juno Beach, PMONs at the respective sites, review of specific CRs and STARS during this Functional Area Audit (FAA), and the recent FAA of Corrective Action (QAS-CA-94-1). Through all of these evaluations, the Nuclear Engineering organization was found to be effectively implementing the corrective actions for the conditions noted and integrating them into their processes for future enhancements. Quality Assurance also has identified deficiencies requiring corrective action by Nuclear Engineering in recent site PMONs and Juno Beach audits. These corrective actions were verified to have been adequately implemented and tracked to closure as part of the respective audits. Juno Beach Condition Reports (JBCRs) involving Engineering were not reviewed during this audit but will be evaluated in future PMON or audit activity. There was insufficient engineering involvement in the area of JBCRs due to the newness of the process to make evaluation meaningful. 010U381

AUDIT REPORT QAS-JPN-95-1 - _ _ _ F;pL __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _. _ __ ____ --- Page' 8-d'M - ~ ~ ~ ~ The NRC has noted in recent inspection reports that actions taken by the engineering organizations to QA audits were effective. At St. Lucie, the most recent NRC report (PSL-95-05) concluded that the self assessment effons and QA audits / performance monitoring of engineering activities were effective in identifying areas for increased management attention. The report also stated that these efforts were a positive indication of licensee management's commitment to identify areas in engineering that need improvement in order to provide more timely and effective support to operations and maintenance. The inspector considered this to be a strength. SATISFACTORY AREAS

  • l Design Control Condition Reports Engineering Packages Safety Classifications Minor Engineering Packages St. Lucie Action Reports Change Request Notices Quality Assurance Records Calculations Controlled Document Distribution Discipline Standards Vendor Technical Manual Control Design Input Verification FSAR Updating Human Factors Design Basis Document (DBD) Updating ALARA Design Requirements Total Equipment Data Base (TEDB)

Environmental Qualification Computer Software Control Engineering Evaluations Organization 10CFR50.59 Screening / Evaluation QA Program Imp.. mentation 10CFR21 SSH Evaluation / Reporting Self Assessment Operability Determinations Training Non-Conformance Reports

SUMMARY

OF POST-AUDIT CONFERENCE The auditee and audit team were acknowledged for the efforts expended during the evaluation period. A summary of the audit process, areas evaluated and the satisfactory results obtained were presented by the Lead Auditor. Compliance with the ENG QIs was noted as a strength by the audit team and emphasized at the exit meeting. The auditee management congratulated the audit team for a thorough and experience driven review. 0110f301

'/ AUDIT REPORT QAS-JPN-95-1 . _ __..._ ___.. _ _ pll:PL_ -- - PireTbf 13 ~ ' ~ - AUDIT PARTICIPANTS Name Department / Group A B. C ~~ W. Woodard JNA/JB X X X D. Fuca JNA/JB X X T. Bruno JNA/JB X X L. Ryan JNA/JB X X G. Shrader JNA/PTN X X J. Crum JNA/PSL X X X R. Kundalkar JPN/PTN X X K. Mohindroo JPN/PSL X X C. Rossi JNA/PTN X X X D. Denver JPN/PSL X X J. Brannin JNA/JB X R. Noble JPN/JB X R. Leckey JNA/JB X X X R. Symes JNA/JB X X X W. Skelley PEG /PTN X X J. Por:er PEG /PSL X X C. Ferriday JNL/JB X X D. Baker PEG /PTN X K. Frehafer JPN/PTN X X C. Wasik JPN/PSL X T. Sweeney PEG /PTN X W. Busch PEG /PTN X D. Smith JPN/JB X D. West JPN/PFL X L. Elford JPN/JB X J. Vazquez PEG /PTN .V G. McKenzie JPN/PSL X Y. Krummins JPN/PSL i M. Tarascio JPN/PSL X R. Hand PSL X M. Williford PSL X J. Barbieri PEG /PSL ' X D. Becker PEG /PTN X S. Brain PEG /PTN X X C. Chartier PEG /PSL X R. Conte PEG /PSL X 01Di381

s AUDIT REPORT QAS-JPN-95-1 F P L- -- - -- - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Page 10 of 13' -~ l Name DepartmenUGroup A B C A. Dodd PEG /PSL X P. Dutt PEG /PSL X W. Edwards PEG /PSL " X R. Filipek PEG /PSL X D. Gates PEG /P$L X J. Granger JPN/PSL X S. Kloosterman PEG /PSL X l D. Koennicke PEG /PTN X T. Kulaga PEG /PSL X J. LaDuca PEG /PSL X W. Lewinger PEG /PSL X L. McGowan PEG /PTN X i B. Novak PEG /PTN X C. O'Farrill JPN/PSL X H. Schelmety PEG /PSL X C. Spalter JPN/JB X A. Zielonka PEG /PTN X D. Culpepper JPN/JB X X Kev: A - Attended Pre-Audit Conference B - Interviewed or Contacted During Audit C - Attended Post-Audit Conference ~ REFERENCES 1. 10CFR50 Appendix B 2. ANSI N45.2.11-1974 3. FPL Topical Quality Assurance Report 2 Nuclear Engineering Quality Instrue: ions (ENG QIs) 5. Corrective Action Audit Report (QAS-CA-94-1) (March 31,1995) 0130t381

AUDIT REPORT QAS-JPN-95-1 F P L.- Pa ge~ 1 T 6f T3 l SIGNATURES d tor: 98 Wallace Woodard Date Performance Assessment, Juno Beach 9 [3 Auditors: C Tdm Bruno Date Performance Assessment, Juno Beach l l Auditors: N 9. 12) 9 i Dominic Fuca () Date' erformance Assessment, Juno Beach o, x 9 /3 Y Auditors: Jd Larry Ryan \\) da'te ( Performance Assessment, Juno Beach l D, Au.ditors: l r. / Toy'ce Crum / Dat6 ~ 4[T; Quality Assurance, St. Lucie Plant V 01407381

e AUDIT REPORT QAS-JPN-95-1 ._ pnL --- ._. _ _.-Page 12 of13 - - -- ~ l 9 19 q( Auditors: i h1 Gary Shrader Date Quality Assurance, Tuttey Point Plant Reviewed By: f q )3fq( ~ Dominic J. Canazaro U Date Supervisor Performance Assessment, Juno Beach 4 i Approved By: C a M' y d de j,. -, g. 7g j for R6b'e}I AC5ymes d d Date Quality Manager Juno Beach 0150f381

s A.UDIT REPORT QAS-JPN-95-1 ._._._...._. F P L __ _ _ _ _. _ __. ---- '- - Page 13 of 13 -- AUDIT DISTRIBUTION i l CNRB ADDITIONAL DISTRIBUTION i R. J. Acosta J. H. Goldberg ~~ W. H. Bohlke 'T. V. Abbatiello J. E. Geiger L. W. Bladow D. A. Sager R. A. Symes \\ T. F. Plunkett D. A. Culpepper G. J. Boissy

  • QAD Files w/ Checklist & Audit Plan Dr. K. R. Craig Health Physics & Chemistry Related Audits Manager Nuclear Health Physics / Chemistry H. N. Paduano Emergency Preparedness Related Audits Dr. W. R. Corcoran Manager - Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Plant General Manager S. E. Scace Nuclear Division Staff Related Audits D. H. West
  • CNRB Files Nuclear 'I raining Related Audits K. E. Gutowski Manager Nuclear Training Plant Specific Security Audits Security Related Audits Services Manager
  • Manager Nuclear Security Plant General Manager Security Supervisor Nuclear Materials Management Related Audits Manager Nuclear Materials Management Audit Specific Distribution Fire Protection Audits S. Martin, Risk Management
  • Only Distribution outside the plant for Security Audits Containing Safeguards Information 01GU381

[ pst. !sro svc l Ol 3-PR/PSL-1 Revision 2B i r !N! 3! hb N, ' - @Pdge 31 Of 34 ,1992. 'g' 3, { i _g4 ATTACHMENT 5 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t --CRN FORM-u~ CHANGE REQUEST NOTICE SR g impwmansed try: CRN No.l?3-19 l ~353+ b CWO No-OR Pws Pege I at PCMNo j79q g P'Am Psc. um i NrWom.5878 NOR O a se O ~ Ret.Dmp.oraques. $ Rev. TTftE D C (cp,9 Q oakjA<q h M 123-191 REQUIRES THAT THE RELAY AS-FOUND CONDITION BE RessanterChengui PC/M VERIFIED TO THE VENDOR DRAWING REFERENCED BY THE PC/M CRAWING. THE RELAY A FOUND CONDITION DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE VENDOR DRAWING BUT HAS BEEN VERI TO BE ELECTRICALLY _ CORRECT. Change Asasusseetment (Amean e noosseeryle MAKE THE CHANGES TO THE DRAWINGS REFERENCED ABOVE AS SHOWN ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE(S). j SOURCE OP CHANGE: SCOPE OF WORK: APPROVAb8:Loee C< m._oe. 4 i 3 M3 i O -m Pnspen,d by: O enanmeme ano, qfn ,,,,,. 5 g i O in n seed 1 C fC Dessi O' [3 / 93 O Edetg Om eten C Deaseeed g pegg, m. O un w ausma son w_ 4/f1D e 3 Does O Conser.Corwardance @ Unchangeg O C Revlost O oemenennen ,,c,,,,,,,, gn_ o,, O Oiner ape.no h Pnussed h In Person AcnON SY ENWNEUUNG (PretWneryp TNeCRN hoebeenesaussedWtthhA C lRWfL of Engineming. Teleshens O Held O IMPACT OF REVISION CHECK SPEET ENGINEBWe3 DESPO6 MON (PInse: YES NO } S APPRovEn O NOT APPROVED

  1. ^ '

Coop== oemen Oro. (coo) t oe=en sem or Anwra Anecad. O E l g Proceredby 71*- MA Dese V /2/f7

2. Soloty Evensson Anemed.

O E / 4; (#7/1 Dets f / / /9 f

3. PDMDe or SRDe Funcsonesy A1, ected.

O E / l Verded try 4 8W OP'88""' Md"*"'"

  • O E

Approvedby dI'/l d-osse 4 / m / 9/ Ragusernerse AAsand. l JPN Of not COO) Date /> Remenm@eme for Olencerson: 4 cee A 1a 6 /e S o /a f /aa +c a S fo u e / wetin- /? e o H p t PUWT* WORKED CRN { j BACKRT CRN

MPLEMEMATION ADEOUATE BUDGET IMPL DEPT. SUPV.

OUWTY COMRO. : g 2 h ///A: f-ioL _ L. O do; -< 1 +/ + 5 TlON i Sagreess Den sonsare Dem i Sche"8* ' 0=* Q ;y?Q - \\'L'5 - R \\. O \\ \\ (2 6Y. C {hV

C.20 - ) z.3 - p; [ - s53+ I PPrG,1. L oF 7_. @ 2U308 a li -R 51 -{_jp;g[h" 1;.gg g;gg4 AF i

  • "8 10 - PLil J

m i, gne

9. E g..._

',?: oP g: =, nict::Mo <- = => e ou 11 1,. c, -.

2 =. u 4 :'f gg'g, L',: 't hi C2 58J AE -

- Iht,4 (g 4 g.r5T I! ! _' =st : : ::tt'

tiir
n. iue zil :1_: !A kin?- 11:itit t.

v a V V BE96RE. d f 1 i e @ 2U308 "II -fd_o:F "l a sh4-if _ El: i. twf .s i-AF 4 4 6c -!si_+ n=

"r

c [e'1.s u &. W e- ,, m ov. m - u 4 ~ r li - o ca. u,,

7. re 7w AEZ - {L in 1 [g II T

uAh l 21181~1::;: &,7 51 i:ttir n tue r!!st: th, I gin?-'11:itif i ="

== l 1 ~ 'y V ._ Q Q V j ATTER )

CE.G 113 t,;_33i? P 4Q E. Z. c p 1 i 2 RC/853 Erw + 2PGA6T tuto mi OV Ef 4. EF84 cs o cs c1 C1 E 773. [A3 C2 EA 4 P a a a a 4 W 1 i l 2RC/853 gny i MA6 T + l 1"to M '- oy. 4.EFB4 C' i c. E TZ7 EA3 2: + W D

w o-r-rv r-cu-i Revmon 28 F3L th.. _. s...' November,1992. Sf Page 31 of 34 &i iR _7_ _ _ _ _ CRN FORM l ~ DCC J i CHANGE REQUEST NOTICE CRN N is-19 l-35W l g .,,se,rien .y: f Pcma-)15,on m CWO Ns. og Q pwg 0 Pop l ,b PLANT pgg,, LSST g N N 5 6 'l 8 NBR O som O i Rd. oim. - an== R=. Tm.E Dc ( ee 4amexm ha Resean ter Qungo: PC/M 123-191 REQUIRES ~" RAT THE RELAY AS-TCUND CONDIT:ON BE VERIFIED TO THE VENDOR DRAWING REFERENCED BY THE FC/M ORAWING. THE RELAY AS-FOUND CONDITION COES NOT AGREE WITH THE */ENDOR ORAWING BUT HAS BEEN '/ERITIED TO BE ELECTRICAI LY CCRRECT s l Chen,e Roseisemen (Ansen if noosenery): a j MAKE THE CHANGES TO THE DRAWINGS REFERENCED ABOVE AS SHOWN ON THE 1 FOLLOWING PAGE(S). l i SOURCE OF Q4ANGE. SCOPE OF WORK: APPROVAbS: 4ei /% L o e e Cc A =_ c-Done P'*'ad *y: O -m w Eow De, E/ m Pnone 525i

  • ====8 4/) 1 O Doorensed lengt. Dept. I o-Date O

us== mes mon 4 / 7-./ D Coner.Convenlance %g QC Review k-- Does Deep evens" m. Conn.s e. OA I Dess / / O Omnt w in Person h Proceedh ACTION SY ENGDEEf4NG W weC e.sa.se.se.e.n h a 6 oat,En ar T een.no O Now a j ENGINEEFUNG DISPOSmON (Pkie0: IMPACT OF REVISION CHECK SHEET i l E APPROVED O NOT APPRCMED MN Deste Org (CDO)

1. Dessp Seele or Anahme Affected.

Q 2 l I Prepared by b [ Dess V/ /2 /M

2. Safety Evatusalon Aflemed.

S 'Vensedtry MMM Deas V /1(,,fM

3. PDMDe or SRDe Funnlonomy Allected.

O E Approves .R M-Does 4 / / 3 / 'r 7 O ^ JPN Of not CDO) Dans / /' Remensteme)or Disocoman: A ee e4 / o (, /e 6 e /u / <. o

  • a af - #o u /

wreon-79eo +t# n. j a4CmfCM PLANT WORKED CRN l l j 6 IMPLEMENT m ADEOUATE BUDGET IMPt. DEPT. SUPV. QUAUTY CONMOL i v Ym AL A PR pern BMM MM ~ nON S,., esse De,e S,.,.e,e Do. '=. i l w w -m - m. cn2. 21v o 4 1 1

O

c. c. e cs mi 3sW Pag t
s1 31 2L/310 4 6.-m

>01 A[ i ~ L

  • l
  • f s

g f

  • -:-[

1. 't.2 ,3 2 L a4 i

~,2 g

2 me y .: Pt** I bC l 0 bC e g k et.2 ,) {

  • L ad 1 t632 t~

.ec.: s u s, ,0 - ( 66 c,'3 8 ...., ' ". c "- ,. ' 6 i l P._ ' - u a e, e c v..., '~ 1( r_lQ 586 11 - L 8 e I l I s l l l C1. c g f g 4 gnag_ ,y, g g s, J $ 0 0 C2 O 5 AEC2 fle Pt. + 1A8 's I bl

  • b*)

b.2Atov) b l l l l -....s .C

- nm 3 L c.,>

s m-n

o. cut

%~m r-~ n ' *- L ( 3 )*tn. l^'*~

      • lbl u :-

a u ? -ue : . u v. o o-t sin ,y ~ -CKO y kMR e

khh ~ i e later Offlee Correspondence _ FPL JOS-93-077 To: J. B. Hosmer Date: February 26,1993 From: R.A.Symes Department: Quality Assurance-JB

Subject:

Quality Assurance Audit of Nuclear Eng!neering Report,. Reoort No. O AS JPN 92 3 An audit was performed of Nuclear Engineering in the following areas: Organization, Procedures & Instructions, Training, ASME Section XI, PTN PEG (Safety Classifications, Safety Evaluations, Design Inputs, Design Bases, Design Analysis, and Minor Engineering Packages), Special Processes & Welding, CA Records, Document Control and Intemal Commitments. The attached report describes three (3) findings. 1. Procedures,. training and implementation supporting the OA Records and Document Control Centers are not always in compliance with OA Manual Requirements. 2. Inconsistency in NDE training procedures. 3. Follow-up by Document Control of receipt acknowledgments after 30 days is not always performed. The findings were discussed at the Post-Audit Conference. In accordance with the FPL Quality Assurance Manual, OP 16.1 and 18.1, please provide this Department with a written response to the findings noted in this report by March 26, 1992. Your resoonse must orovide the followina information: The results of the review and investigation of the finding, including identification of probable a. root cause(s); b. a determination of the generic impact of the finding, i.e., whether it extends to other areas, rystems, drawings, procedures, etc., or whether it is isolated to those examples cited in the report; j c. actions taken and/or planned to correct the finding identified and to prevent recurrence of the deficiency; d. date when corrective action was or will be achieved; e. identification of the individual (s) responsible for the corrective action. We sincerely appreciate the cooperation we received fromyour staff during the course of the audit. Please contact me at 694-4287 or R. L Simpson at 694-4303 if you have any questions. ( l R.A.Symey Ouality Maru r Juno Beach p RAS /RLS/lh h -}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20137K935&oldid=4211186"