ML20203L269
| ML20203L269 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1998 |
| From: | Walker D DUKE ENGINEERING & SERVICES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203L159 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9803050423 | |
| Download: ML20203L269 (72) | |
Text
l l
DUKE ENGINEERING & SERVICES ASSESSMENT PROCESS REVIEW REPORT Process Review Dates: January 26 - February 6,1998 Organization Reviewed: Quality Assurance Services Depanment in Bolton, MA
[formerly cart of the Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) hoclear Services Divisto.n]
Business Unit Manager: C.R. Clark Activities Reviewed: The assessment process (audits, surveillances, self assessments) implemented by Yankee Atomic Electric Company for 1995,1996, and 1997.
Team tender:
k.
hb 2 lh 9I c
Pr{nted Name/ Signature /D kte (
Approval: M b bA M 6DY Mb[N!2[/6[9$
QA Man'ager/ Signature /I26 Report Date: 21 ib il I
i e
3 94
{
DO OO 1
.._._...m._
1.0 PURPOSE As stated in the Assessment Process Review Team (APRT) Charter, Revision 0 (Attachment I to this report), the objective was to validate that assessment activities (audits, surveillances, management assessments, etc.) were in accordance with accepted industry practices, specifically:
Assessments demonstrated a regard for and acherence to applicable industry /NRC requirements; Assessments were performed in accordance with approved procedures by qualified l
individuals; Individuals leading assessments were appropriately trained and knowledgeable of the QA program; Assessment documentation was accurate and complete; Management involvement in the assessment process was evident; and Assessments covered both programmatic requirements and technical work processes.
~
2.0 SCOPE The APRT's scope included a review of assessment related documentation completed over the past three years by the YAEC Quality Assurance Services Department (formerly part of the YAEC Nuclear Services Division).
The APRT had complete access to all company personnel and documentation. For the purpose of this review, company personnel included, but were net limited to, employees, suppliers, j
subcontrac,rs, consultants, and temporary employees. The APRT utilized a combination of document reviews and personnelinterviews. Documents that were of primary interest to the APRT included assessment procedures, qualification records for assessment team members, QA i
training records for assessment team leaders, assessment reports, assessment checklists (when i
applicable), and assessment corrective action and close-out documentation. See Section 5 of this repost for specific areas reviewei 3.0 TEAh!
4 The APRT team consisted ut the Team Leader and two Quality Assurance individuals. The team members were independent of the assessments reviewed. The APRT team and assignments follow:
David Walker, DE&S Team Leader:
Responsible for ensuring that team members reviewed the Assessment Process Review Charte: end understood their assignments.
G-2
.mmamu.
Responsible for requesting documentation to be reviewed and coordination of revicw effort.
Reviewed QA Training of assessment team leaders to the YAEC QA Program.
Reviewed qualifications of assessment team members to ensure compliance with assessment procedures.
Reviewed assessment reports to ensure the following:
Manas.
mvolvement in the assessment process Depth o.
assessments (programmatic and technical work processes covered).
Responsible for preparation of this report.
Jonathan Gerson, DE&S Team Member, reviewed:
Assessment reports to ensure procedural compliance including:
A selection of assessment checklists, when applicable, and i
A selection of assessment corrective action documentation to ensure appropriate.'ose-out.
Phil Horsmon, DE&S Team M :mber, reviewed:
The QA Manual sections on assessments and assessment procedures for compliance with regulatory requirements.
Team Experience (See Attachment 5 for details.)
Mr. Walker has over twenty five years of Quality Assurance experience in the manufacturing, construction, and operation phases of commercial nuclear power projects. Sixteen years were with management / consulting responsibilities and eight years as a Quality Assurance Manager.
Mr. Gerson has over twenty-three years of experience in the nuclear field. He has held positions as Quality Assurance Engineer, Technical Analyst, Quality Control Engineer and Procedure Writer. He is experienced in Quality Assurance, procedure writing, training coordination, Quality Control, audit rqus tracking, procurement documentation reviews, and receipt inspection.
Mr. Gerson has also assisted in the development of planning and integration strategies and performance milestone assessments.
Mr. Horsmon has over twenty-one years of experience in the nuclear field. He has held positions as Technical Specialist, QC Inspection Supervisor, QC Planning Engineer, and Senior QC Inspection. He is experienced in the field of nuclear power plant construction and inspection activities as well as Quality Assurance programmatic requirements related to 10CFR50 Appendix B and NQA l.
tmwnw.m G3 l
J
4.0 PERSONNEI, CONTACTED
^
This review was conducted from DE&S's Charlotte, N.C. office; therefore, the Team Leader obtained documentation from personnellocated in the DE&S Bolton, MA office. Most of the documentation was provided by Janet Allen. Other personnel contacted during the review were:
Steve Bibo l
David Karr Walter Peterson Frank Sabadini Steyr White 5.0 REVIEW SUhlhi ARY Rgylew OA hf anual Section on Assessments and Assessment Procedures for Comnllance with Regulatorv Reaulrements The following is a summary of documents reviewed for compliance to regulatory requirements:
Operational OA hianual YOOAP.I.A. Rev. 27 The following sections of this manual were reviewed:
Policy Statement Section I, " Organization" Section 11, " Quality Assurance Program" Section XVlil, " Audits" As a result of this ieview, there is one observation in regard to the Policy Statement. The Policy Statement addresses 10CFR50 Appendix B as the governing document.Section I of the manual references ANSI N18.7-1976 in addition to 10CFR50 Appendix B (see Observation No.1).
Yankee Atomic Ouality Assurance Procedures h1 nRal 4
OQA XVlli 1, Rev. 9. " Auditor Training and Qualification" This procedure was reviewed for regulatory compliance against 10CFR50 Appendix B, Criterion I,11, and XVIII and ANSI N45.2.23-1978, and was found satisfactory.
OO.A XVill-2, Rev. 27,"Audi Program" This procedure was reviewed for regulatory compliance against ANSI N45.2.12-1977.
One observation was noted during this review. Section 5.0 of ANSI N45.2.12 1977 requires audit and personnel records to be collected, stored, and maintained in accordance with ANSI N45.2.9. There is no reference to this requirement in the procedure (see Obsenation No. 2).
m.m. m.
G-4 i
I
3 Yankee Atomic Oualliv Arsurance Procedures hianual OQA XVill 15. Rev.1,"%ternal Audit and Surveillance Program" This procedure was reviev,cd for regulatory compliance against ANSI N45.2.12 1977, although there is no reference made to this standard in the procedure (see Observation No. 3). Assuming that the procedure was prepared in accordance with ANSI N45.2.12 1997, there were no issues.
This review area is considered satisfactory.
Review OA Traintne of Assessment Team Leaders to YAEC OA Program QA training records were reviewed for twenty three Lead Auditors and five Auditors (see for listing of names). Qualified Lead Auditors are required to lead audits and surveillances per YAEC procedures and both Lead Auditors and Auditors are required to have QA training. This review resulted in one finding. The finding identifies that orientation training records to applicable standards and QAD procedures could not be located for one Lead Auditor and four Auditors (see Findiag No. I for details).
Self assessments per Yankee Atomic Electric Company Technical Administrative Guideline No.
22, Revision 2,"Self A.;sessment Program," does not address QA training requirements for team leaders / members; therefore, none were reviewed.
With the exception of Finding No.1, this review area is considered satisfactory.
Review Oualifications of Assessmertileam hfembers to Ensure Comnllance with Assessment Procedures Qualification records for twenty-thrt;e Lead Auditors, five Auditors, and thirty three Techr.ical Specialists were reviewed (see Attr.chment 2 for listing of names). Per YAEC procedures, team members participating in audits ar.d sm veillances are required to have a qualification record. This review resulted in one finding. The finding identifies incorrect qualification records for five Lead Auditors, missing qualification records for five Auditors, and missing qualification records for seven Technical Specialists (see Finding No. I for details).
Ytakee Atomic Electric Company Technical Administrative Gc..deline No. 22, Revision 2 "Self Assessment Program," does not address special qualification requirements for assessment team members; therefore, none were reviewed.
With the exception o. r"nding No.1, this review area is considered satisfactory.
.mmm.m a G-5 n
Review Assessment Renorts to Ensure Procedural Compliance includine a Selection of Assessment Checklists and a Selection of Ascessment Corrective Action Documentation to Encute Appropriate Close out The following were reviewed covering assessments from 1995 through '997 (see Attachments 3 and 4 for deteils):
25 Audit Reports including 9 for audit plans and checklists m
25 Surveillance Reports 115 Summary and Status of Conective Action (SSCA) Reports including 76 from inception to closure 24 Event Reports (ER) 37 Condition Reports (CR) 1 Vendor Surveillance Finding Report (VSFR) 1 Root Cause Analysis The review noted that the YAEC assessments (audits, surveillances, self assessments, etc.)
followed their respective procedure requirements, and were thorougn in their investigations. The reviewed documentation was accurate, complete and was detailed enough to be able to follow the assessment process from start to finish.
Four observations were identified during this portion of the review. The details are in Section 7.0,
- Observations," Observation No. 4 involves surveillances which identify "uasats" without any form of findings generated. Observation No. 5 involves an undocumented mechanism to extend due dates for CRs. Observation No. 6 identifies what appears to be a high overdue rate of SSCAs.
i Observation No. 7 involves numerous self assessment findings.
This review area is considered satisfactory.
Review Assessment Renorts to Ensure Manacement Involvement and the Depth of the Assessments (Pronrammatic and Technical Work Processes Covered)
Twenty-five audit reports, twenty-five surveillance reports, and two Functional Area Assessment reports (1996 and1997) were reviewed to ensure management involvement and the depth of assessments (see Attachments 3 and 4 for complete listings of reports reviewed).
Management involvement was evident in all three types of assessments based on the dn,tribution lists for reports. Audit and surveillance reports were distributed to the YAEC President, responsible Vice Presidents, and responsible management. The two Functional Area Assessments were provided to the YAEC President. Management involvement was also evident by reviewing G6 mamovens l
entrance and exit meeting attendees listed in audit reports and by reviewing corrective action responsibilities for both audits and surveillances.
The depth of assessments is adequate. The following programmatic criteria applicable to Engineering activities were covered in most audits:
Organization QA Program Design Control (including computer software controls)
Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings Document Control Corrective Action Quality Assurance Records 1
In addition, Procurement was covered at least annually. Due to potential conflicts Audits was covered annually by Joint Utility Management (JUMA) audits.
(
Functional areas were covered on an annual basis by audits and included reviews of technical work processes. Technical Specialists were used on audits to perform technical work process reviews and identify deficiencies in technical areas (see Attachment 3 for examples).
This review area is considered satisfactory.
6.0 FINDINGS Finding No.1 This Finding involves missing or incorrect documentation supporting the qualificadons and training of certain individuals who participated in audits and surveillances reviewed. Items listed are contrary to Yankee Nuclear Services Division Quality Assurance Department Procedure OQA-XVIll 1, Revision 9. " Auditor Training and Qualification."
Part A Lead Auditors Alan M. Abrahamovich - Contrary to Section IV.B.2.c, the five audits listed on the Record of lead Auditor Qualification were dated in 1995 after the original certification date of 1/15/95.
(Note: A corrected copy of Mr. Abrahamovich's qualification record, changing the audit dates to 1994, was provided to the Team Leader curing this review. The corrected dates were matched against dates in the reports for the audits in question and were found to be correct. This was a typing error and no further action is required.)
James E. Behm - Contrary to Section IV.B.2.a, the Record oflead Auditor Qualification indicates 9 total points instead of the required 10.
Sphen L Bido - Contrary to Section IV.B.2.c, only two of ten audits listed on the Record of 12au Auditor Qualification had been performed in the three year period prior to the date of certification as required.
cum.,m ms G-7
Michael P. Saniuk Contrary to Section IV.B.2.c, only four of seven audits listed on the Record of Lead Auditor QualiDeation had been performed in the three year period prior to the date of certification as required.
Allen E. Winegard - Contrary to Section IV.B.2.c, only four of ten audits listed on the Record of lead Auditor Qualification had been performed in the three year period prior to the date of certification as required.
Allen E. Winegard - Contrary to Section IV.B.l.a orientation training records to applicable standards could not be located for this individual.
Nett: See Attachment 2 for list of audits /surveillances performed by the Lead Auditors.
Part B Auditors 1 Buck. J Frothingham. D. Head. C.Rowe. and 1hiarchi-Contrary to Section IV.C.2, auditor qualification records (Form OQA XVill 1.3) could not be located for these individuals.
1Frothingham. D. Head. C Rowe. and LMarchi-Contrary to Section IV.B.l.a, orientation training records to applicable standards and QAD procedures could not be located for these individuals.
Nnic: See Attachment 2 for list of audits /surveillances participated in by the Auditors.
Part C - Technical Specialists Contrary to Section IV.C.3, Technical Specialist Orientation Training, and Instruction forms (Form OQA XVill 1.4) could not be located for the following individuals / audits:
Technical Specialist /(Audit Number)
LDallman (NSD 9717)
D.Danielski (NSD-97 17)
C.Everline (NSD-97-17)
E.Ferat (NSD 97-17)
G. House (NSD 97 06)
K.MichalskI(NSD-97 06)
R.Petrone (NSD 96 04) 7.0 OBSERVATIONS Observation No.1 The Policy Statement in Operational QA Manual YOQAP-1-A. Rev. 27 addresses 10CFR50 Appendix B as the governing document.Section I of the manual references ANSI n 18.7-1976 in addition to 10CFR50 Appendix B.
G-8 omewma
Obsen ation No. 2 Section 5.0 of ANSI N45.2.12 1977 requites audit and personnel records to be collected, stored, and maintained in accordance with ANSI N45.2.9; however, this requirement is not referenced in OQA XVill 2, Rev. 27 " Audit Program."
Obsen ation No. 3 It is assumed that ANSI N45.2.12 1997 was used as a basis for preparation of procedure OQA XVill 15 Rev.1," Internal Audit and Surveillance Program." However, the standard is not refer:nced in the procedure.
Obsen ation No. 4 Some surveillances identified "unsats," but did not generate any deficiency reports or a clear explanation as to why none were generated.
Obsen ation No. 5 It was not?d that CRs do not have a documented mechanism to extend due dates (responses, corrective action completions, etc.).
Obsenation No. 6 Of the 76 SSCAs followed to completion, approximately 21r/c were overdue at one stage of the process.
t Obsen ation No. 7 l
Seventeen deficiency reports (SSCAs, CRs & ERs) were generated from May 1996 through November 1997 dealing with self-assessments over a wide area of departments and some repeat areas.
8.0 CONCLUSION
STATEMENT Overall, the assessment process implemented by Yankee Atomic Electric Company for 1995, 1996, and 1997 was found to be of high quality and in compliance with regulatory requirements and internal procedure commitments. The review resulted in one finding. Although the finding is not considered significant, it does identify missing or incorrect documentation supporting the qualifications and training of certain individuals who participated in the audits and surveillances reviewed. It is recommended that the documentation identified in the finding be corrected and a corrective action response provided to the Review Team Leader by March 2,1998. The response should address the extent of the problem identified and any impact the finding may have on the audits and surveillances. Seven observations were also identified which do not require a response.
G9
.mimm.ma
APPENDIX G ATTACHMENT 1 ASSESSMENT PROCESS REVIEW TEAM CHARTER emmwms G-10
4 Revision 0 CHARTER l
ASSESSMENT PROCESS REVIEW TEAM Purpose The Assessment Process Review Team's (APRT) objective is to validate that assessment activities (audits, surveillances, management assessments, etc.) are in accordance with accepted industry practices, specifically:
assessments demonstrate a regard for and adherence to applicable industry /NRC rec,uirements; f
assessments were performed in accordance with approved procedures by qualified individuals; i
individuals leaSng assessments were appropriately trained and knowledgeable of the QA a
program; i
assessment documentation is accurate and complete;
. management involvement in ihe assessment process is evident; and assessments cover both programmatic requirements and technical work processes.
Scope The APRT's scope includes a review of assessment related documentation completed over the past three years by the Quality Assurance Services Department (formerly part of the YAEC Nuclear Services Division). -
The APRT shall have complete access to all company personnel and documentation. For the purpose of this Chaner, company personnel include, but are not limited to, employees, suppliers, subcontractors, consultants, and temporary employees. The APRT will utilize a combination of document reviews and 4
personnelinteniews. Documents that are anticipated to be of primary interest to the APRT include assessment procedures, qualification records for assessment team memben, QA training records for assessment team leaders, assessment reports, assessment checklists (when applicable), and assessment corrective action and close out documentation.
G.I 1 v,
.n.
-c
Reviews shallinclude the following as a minimum:
1.
Review QA Manual section on assessments and assessment procedures for compliance with regulatory requirements.
2.
Review QA Training of assessment team leaders to YAEC QA Program.
3.
Review qualifications of asserment team members to ensure compliance with assessment procedures.
(
4.
Review assessment reports to ensure procedural compliance and the following:
management involvement in the assessment process depth of the assessments (programmatic and technical work processes covered) 5.
Review selection of assessment checklists, when applicable, to ensure procedural compliance.
6.
Review selection of assessment corrective action documentation to ensure procedural compliance and appropriate close out.
Team The APRT team consistr of the Team Leader and two Quality Assurance individuals. The team members are independent of the assessments being reviewed. The APRT team is:
David Walker, Team Leader, DE&S Jon Gerson, Team Member, DE&S Phil Horsmon, Team Member, DE&S The Team Leader is responsible for ensuring that team members have reviewed this Charter and understand their :ssignments. Technical Specialists, independent of the issues being reviewed, may be called upon to determine technical adequacy, if determined necessary by the Team Leader.
immw am G-12
Deliverables The APRT shall prepare a stand alone report that, as a minimum:
1.
Describes the purpose and scope of the review.
2.
Desenks the background of each APRT member and the role assigned to each during the review process.
3.
Identifies personnel contacted during the review process.
4.
Identifies documents reviewed (including document number, date, title, and document type).
a 5.
Desenks findings, recommendations, observations, and includes a conclusion statement which addresses the objectives listed in the Purpose section of this Charter.
Schedule The APRT schedule is:
i I/26/98 - Begin review 1/30/98 - Ead review 2/6/98 -Issue final report N
' M.L. Sanger, QiQcS QA Manager 1
G-13
.meuro nn,
I l
ASSESSMENT PROCESS REVIEW DOCUMENTATION PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS i
Neene Level Lead Auditor Coenments Audits Performed Serveillances Perfernied Qualified (L=traJ)
(L= Lead)
I Duck,J.
A+xlitor NSD 'X -(E Frothingham, John Aixlitor NSD-96-01 IIcad. D.
Atalitie NSD-97411-01
{
Rowe,C.
Auditor NSD-96-I 6 l Marchi, J.
Atmlitor NSD-95-03 k
Abrahanmvich, Alan M.
lead Auditor IN9 - 1Il5NS NSD-9545, NSD-Wi-06 (L),
NSD-97-02-01 (L)
NSD-97-I7. NSD-97-I N l
Batenun, S. W.
1c:ul Auditor IN9 - 3/17N7 NSD-9645, NSD-%-I 2.
NSD-97-01-02 (L), NSD-97-02-02 NSD-97-10. NSD-97-17, (L). NSD-97-04-01 (I.),
NSD-97-I N (L)
NSD-Wi-03-01 (L). NSD-97-13-02 l
Bearham, Fral Irmt Atahtor SNM-5/IN7 NSD-97-07-03, NSD-97-14-01 (L)
Dehm, Janss E-lead Auditor INN - 11/4M6 NSD-96-03-01 (L) i Ilibo. Stephen L lemi AixDor IN9 - 7/IN6 NSD-97-13 (L)
NSD-97-01-01 (L)
Bourassa, Joseph F.
lead Aixlitor IN9 - 12/20/K9 NSD-95-12 (L), NSD 06-US Uo/ck, Imcas X.
Irad Atalitor IN9 - 118/79 Evaluated every Iwo years NSD-964M (L) i between 1/8/79 and I/3/N3 i
i l
j Chilldrey.s,T. A-tem! Atalitor IN9 - 3/lI/85 NSD-95-13 (L) l 4
j DiNun/io, Camillo A.
Irm! Auditor IN9 - 4/21NS NSD-95-01, NSD-95-07 NSD-97-07-01 (L). NSD-97-07-03 NSD-96-01 (L), NSD-Wi-(M.
(I.), NSD-97-I l-01 (L),
NSD-96-07 (I.) NSD-96-08 (L).
NSD-97-13-01 (L), NSD-97-13-02 NSD-Wi-15 (L). NSD-W>-16 (L),
(L)
NSD-97-06. NSD-97-10 (L),
NSD-97-13. NSD-97-17 (L),
NSD 1 M g
t G-14 i
m m.. n a m
ASSESSMENT PROCESS REVIEW DOCUMENTATION PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS i
Nanie Level Isad Amlitor Comtrents Audits Perfernied Sei -Z_
.m.,
Pn f.a.:
Qualified (I.=trad)
(telead) llall. Bruce. E.
Ital Atmlitor try) 10/31N7 NSD-97-17. NSD-97-13 NSD-97-024M (L) NSD-97417412 (L). NSD-97-07-03. NSD-97-12-Oi i
(L). NSD-97-13-02 thw m:r Jr Ever -
trad Atalitor IN9 - 6/I3N7 NSD-97-17 Karr. David P.
Ira 1 Auditer IN9 - M/23N6 NSD-96-12 (L), NSD-96-13.
l NSD-97-17 i
j Martin R.1.
lead Auditor IN9 - 1/20/76 Evaluated every Iwo yem NSD-954% (L) NSD-95-07B (L) i J
between I/20/76 and 1/1 I/78, not evaluated again till I/2/31
[
Petermn. Walter l'-
Ir:xt Auditor IN9 - M/IN4 NSD-95-07 t
Ramsdell Roy A.
Ir:al Atahtor IN9 - 7/8N4 i
Sahadini 1: rank II.
Irad Auditor IN9 - 10/2/M6 NSD-95-02 (L). NSD-954M (Ls, NSD-97412-03 (L). NSD-974M412 NSD-95-07. NSD-%411 (L). N5D-974)641I (I.).
NSD-96412 (L). NSD-96-15.
NSD-97-tm-02 (L). NSD-91-0640 f
VY-96-25 (L). NSD-974)6 (L).
(L). NSD-97419-01 (L),
g NSD-97-17 NSD-97-15-Ul (L) i l
Saniuk. Michael P.
trad Atahtor IN9 - 7/6N6 VY-96-25 I
L l
t j
Syciw vsky. Anthony trad Auditor IN9-9MN3
{
n j
Spell. Thomas J.
lead Auditor INN - 12/4M5 NSD-95-tu (L) NSD-96-13 (L)
(
Walu'ik. Robert J.
Irad Atalitor IN9 - I/13N7 NSD-96-DI. NSD-96-12 NSD-97-08-01 (L) i White. Steven C-trad Auditor 1f71 - IN/84 NSD-95-07 (L)
-l White 'llumtis P.
trad Atalitor INN - 3/2NS NSD-95-01 (I.)
?
1 2
1 l
Winegard. A. E.
Irad Auditor IM7 - I I/7NS NSD-96-10 (I.)
f 4
I L
G-15
.m m...na
- !![ll!l!
lIf.i;i!
((I';i[l[i[f;i}l
- {)(
r
[!I f;h!!
d e
in re fr) ed P a sr et c
ne at(
lli evre S
d e
7 3
n 1
1 s
r) od 7
6 N
f a 9
9 r
O ee D
D Pt S
S IT s
iO N.
N.
s A
t T
d 6
2 2
3 2
K, 6
v.
2 6
7 7
7 6
I I
I 0
0 2
2 0
U 0
0 N
u U
5 I
1 O
J 5
5 1
1 1
1 1
(
2 i
7 7
7 6
4 5
7 6
6 5
6 7
6 6
5 E
A 6
S 9
6 W
9 6
6 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 13N 9
D 9
9 D
D D
D D
D D D
D D
D D
D D
D UO D
S Y
S S
Y Y
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
CT O T N
V N
N V
V N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N D A
~
C WF I
E I,
I I
b V A E U s
~
R Q n
t S
e SI E E m
n CN eo ON C
RO PSR T E NP E
IS I
S i
r 2
o I
S d
t i
S d e A
uir.
Al a d u aQ e
L t
t t
t t
t t
t t
t t
t t
t t
t t
t t
i l
i li4 i
l l
la a
la l
l, i
l i
li i
la l
l s
s s
s s
s s
s s
s s
s s
s s
s s
s s
i l
i i
i li i
i i
l i
l la a
a a
la a
a a
a a
a a
l i
i i
a a
a i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
c c
c ic c
c i
i i
ic c
ic ic c
c c
c c
c c
l c
c c
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e v
p p
p p
p p
p p
p p
p p
p p
p p
p p
p p
e S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
S L
h h
h h
h h
h h
h h
h h
h h
h h
h h
h h
c c
c t
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
t c
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
e e
T T
T T
T T
T T
T T
T T
T T
T T
T T
T T
n w
d N.
G.
t e
s s
c i
G.
e l.
k K
a J
n N
d J.
J.
iD.
v a
r J.
C.
c a
c I
b, u
J.
o i
s n
e D
E ir k
I.
n I
n k
G.
P.
u c
n r
l J,
n s
A.
le u
q n
g s
s e
i C
h le i
S.
s n
te f
i E
I s
s a
n t
s e
t s
a o
a r
n
=
i i
r r
a l
ic is te lr a
l i
e e
w y
ht i
la a
e i
e r
t n.
i n
b a
c ic l
k r
s e
r r
n r
r a
l s
r r
o i
e e
t e
a v
e o
2 l
i i
i av D
B D
D D
D E
F G
l I
l I
I I
J 1
k h
h h
P P
o m
I i
l,
<l
ASSESSMI'NT PROCESS REVIEW DOCUM ENTATION PERSONNEI, QUALIFICATIONS Navne level lead Anditor Connesents Audits Perforsned Serveillances Perferwied
[
Qualified (I,=Ixsd)
(telesd)
Petrime. R Teth Specialist NSD-96-tM Phelan, P.
Tec specialist NSD-95-04 Rmsman. R.
Tech 5, riahst NSD-95-07. VY-96-25 NSD-97-01-0I
[
Salim.Tanvir Tech Specialist NSD-964)I l
Scint, M.
Tech Specialist NSD-95-0.)
i Sheridan, R.
Tech Specialist NSD-95I2 marled as NSD-96-12
" DECO'(A IL) but not
{
sixmn in ATL Position Strum, M.
Tech Specialist NSD-97-10 Tedeschi, J.
Tech Specialist NSD-95-02 Tucker. M Tech Speciali4 NSD-96-02 I
i Vanvolkinburg. S.
Tech Specialist NSD-9540 f
Volk. M.
Tech Specialisl NSD-954M l
t Weyman, D.
'cch Specialist NSD-96-12. NSD-%-13
)
Yasi D.
Tech Specialist NSD-95-07 t
I I
i i
t i
f k
G-17 l
. ro m.,. n, l
i ASSESSM ENT PROCESS REVIEW DOCUMENTATION AUDITS y
Report Date Area /Activitics Covered (D)dkk.c3/
Finding /0hwevation Descriptiest Number (0)hservation (see notes No.
NSD 95-01 Jul 17 - Aug 4. I 1.1995 Mainc Yankee Project Design Pnwess - Verify SSCA 0624 (D)
Files containing Safeguards material were found the implementation of ele QA program for to he incorrtetty sitved on a kwal PC hard drive design and design change controls, and to assess N an uncontrolled Ik py disk i
tim alcquacy of the program to nect regulatory C/A ctwnmiturnts and internal Yankee Nuclear I
services Division (YNSD) engineering procedures SSCA (E25 (D)
Docunentation of tie analysis of the scisme integrity of a transmitter in EDCR 95-54 was nit included in tie design change
)
SSCA (M26 (D)
In-prucess clunges to quality (kwunwnts are being ingnyctly nude
[
SSCA(E27 (D)
Numerous alministra6ve deficiencies were identified in MY Pnr;cct calculations i
SSCAtm28(O)
"lle cITects of the impact of no kmger having tic Steam Generator blowskiwn function are not discussed in the Sarcty Evaluation associated with EDCR 94-50 SSCA (m29 (O)
~!here is em pntcss for revising calculaditms that f
love been superseded to akt a reference to tie t
nwwe current calculatitm i
SSCA(630 (O) individual training files being nuintained by both fle Maine Yankee Project and tic Training i
Dept. are duplicative and incimpletc 4
i G-18 i
wWMtssimwm stM i
.a
ASSESSMENT PROCESS REVIEW DOCUMENTATION AUDITS Report Date Area /Activitics Covered (D)eficiency/ -
FindsapT)baervation Description Nuneber (O)hservation No.
(see notes NSD 95-02 May 15-19.22-23 Jun 2 Vernumt Yankee Project - Verify timt SSCA (K4)3 (D)
St CAD files were mg properly sitwed 1995 engineering activitics performed by the Vernumt Yankee Previcct (VYP) meet procedural requirenwnts established in tic YNSD CIA Engineering Manual (WEs); focus em 1&C calculations amt Engineering Design Change Requests (EDCR)
ESCA tW4M (D)
Calculatiims are m4 being turned over to RMS within the required linefrancs SSCA (WA)5 (D)
No EDR was generated wlen Cale VYC-293 Rev N was revised to cwrect an enginecting delkiency SSCA IKdW> (D)
Sortware usage within Cale VYC-1053 did m4 meet tie requirenwnts described in Rev 15 of WE-103 SSCA (Wdl7 (D)
EDCRs generated did m4 folk >w W-1(x) requirenr its SSCA (Wd1N (D)
EDCR page numbers were lacking liw certain enclosures ami sketches SSCA IWA)9 (D)
Clunges to QA requirenects in EDCR 94-4(M simuki have required a nujer ECN SSCA 0610 (D)
Sonc of the review cmnments vc re m4 incorporated into an EDCR cven tInnigh tic preparer luul signed oIT tlut all ciwnnems lave been incorporated into text and drawings SSCA IW>lI (O)
Cross-cuts in calculations whilate WE 103 requirenents l
t G-19 wivu use mwa n;5
n ASSESSMENT PROCESS REVIEW DOCUMENTATION AUDITS Report Date Area / Activities Covered (D)eficiencyl Finding /Ohgervation Degeroption Number (O)hservation (see notes No.
SSCA 0612 (O)
EDCR 94-102 i&ntified that temperature hyging of a cim&nsate pump discharFe line wi!I be added as an EDCR open item. It wasn't SSCA 0613 (O)
TAG I4, Rev 6 skes not provide sufrecient detail as to how the various gnmps within YNSD procedurally cimtrol the handling of SI SSCA 06l4 (0)
Procedural enhancements to the WEs have been providctl due to the review of engineering skwunxntation SSCA GSIS (O)
Enhancenents fuve been provided to the VYP by the amlit technical specialist for cimsideration (traccability and reusability of cimiputer files)
NSD 95-03 Aug 21-24. 29-30 Scabnok Project Verifyimplementation of the SSCA 0634 (O)
Minor inadequacies with calculations were Oct 27.1995 Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) identified Operational Quality Assurance (Q A) Program for Scabnek Project activities: determine cifcctiveness of the program in achieving quality and operational objectives SSCA 0635 (O)
Calculatiims tarked infornation needed for a reviewer to umlerstami the calculation during an iwApenlent review NSD 95-n*
Dec Il-17.28-29.1995 Yankee Rowe Project - Review of SSCA 0656(D)
Calculations do not docunent reviewers plant-generated documentation for design and cimunents and their resolutiims im Fiwm design change controls and to assess tic WE-103-3 adequacy of the program to meet regulatewy conunitments and interna Yankee Nuclear Services Division (YNSD) enginwring pnredures G-20
.no w
. nu
i ASSESSMIWT PROCESS REVIFW DOCUMENTATIDN A1IDITS Report Date Area /Activitics Covered (D)criciency/
Finding /Observatier
-iption l
Number (O)hservation i
(see notes No.
l SSCA 0657 (D)
Calculations have noted procedural issued j
i identified r
SSCA 0658 (D)
Supporting calculatisms did not skicument fully tic computing envirienent SSCA 0659 (D)
Calculation simws a structural wcld inowrctily annotated on sketch L
1 SSCA 0660 (O)
Verified amiputer code was not documentet:in calculatism SSCA 066l (O) 10CFR50.59 SE within EDCR 95-302 does tw sulliciently docunent engir. ting judgenent f
SSCA 0662 (O)
TAG I4 reawnnends Ih a list be nuintaimM for Safeguards infornution (SI) reposittwies.
'this slumid he implemented in the YRP NSD 95-06
.lan 15-24, lib 6,1995 Norticast Utilities Project - Verify cifcctiveness SSCA 0572 (D)
The Departncnt Manager did not indicate I
and implenentation of the Yankee Operational amcurrence of wtwk scope on tSc Task initialism Quality Assurance Program (YOQAP) as Menn prior to start of work Itw two tasks approved by NU for amiracted QA Category I design and engineering support activities smcc l
j Sept 1993 I
SSCA 0573 (D)
No WE-103-3 calculation review rivm signed by
{
the reviewer for a calculation SSCA 0574 (D)
Neither the Project Manager new Engineer Manager initiated a note to life for autluriratism to work p6 y Io receipt of a puttiuse order SSCA 0575 (0)
Drawing referenced in three calculations are tlated af ter Rev 0 of the calculations were I
revitwrd t
f G-2 i wavampan nz, 1
t ASSESSMENT PROCESS REVIEW DOCUMENTATION AUDITS F ding /Otiservation Description Report Drte Area / Activities Covered (D)eficiency/
m Number (O)hservation No.
(see notes SSCA 0576(O)
P.O. required impicmentation of Rev 23 of tic Yankee Operational QA Program when Rev 24 was in cited SSCA 0577 (O)
No documented evaluation of outstanding Soilware Problem Reports for a WO ami cale.
SSCA 0578(O)
Work for a PO was incorrect! -!s' icd as v under the Yankee QAP da wtO ws s.ictually perftwmed umler the NU t SAP SSCA 0579 (O)
There was a NilY form inse 'M in VI.O Kl96 Calculation NUC-:49 NSD 95-07 May9 30,1995 Nuclear Engineering Department - Assess the SSCA0590(D)
NED calculatiims not following WE-ei?
adequacy of NED procedures used to perform procedural requirements C,C/A analyscskalculations and to evaluate the clTectiveness of their impicnentation SSCA 0591 (D)
Two-y ar reviews of Els were mW perftwmed SSCA0592(D)
Pmject Manager did not ruwify plants or plant spmvw personnel of potential engistring deficiencies SSCA 0593 (D)
Non-Spesor and mm-allifiate outside wiwk is mit being initiated by ESD in acawdamt with approved prmcdures SSCA 0594 (D)
PO did not cimtain right-of-access and noncumfirmance clauses as required SSCA 0595 (D)
Transient Analysis Grimp guidelines do mi: nrct the requirements ofTAG 21 G-22
.ninw. wna
ASSESSM ENT PROCESS REVIEW DOCUM ENTATION AUI)iTS Report Date Area / Activities Covered (D)eficiency/
Finding /Ohservation Degeription i
Number (O)hservation No.
(see notes SSCA 05%(O)
Suggested that WE-lon be clariikd to pmvide guidance for dwumenting the engineering application aml/or limitations of a canputer cixic as established by verification and/or validalism SSCA 0597 (O)
Various SRs used to initiate work at YAEC the not crmtain the sane information, nor are they prtressed/controIIed through similar appmval cycles SSCA 0598 (O)
WE-205 thrs not ckarly define the applicati<m of QA requirements, mw does it pmvide for QAD review of pnxurement documents to assure pmper designation of QA categtwies on purchase twders SSCA 0599 (O)
Els describing design input have cimilicting requirements regarding the apprmal of design input SSCA(Kd10 (O)
Several NED ctmiputer cixle verificatiim repswts were mg on miemillm SSCA (WA)I (O)
NED grimp guide!ines stamg#N<m-Q'* are mit signed / approved ami, in some cases, are not consistent withTechnical Administrative f
Guidelines NSD 95-07B I ch 27, Mar I-3,30 Engineering Services Departnrnt - Verify SSCA 0616 (D)
ESD pmcedure for order entry does not deline Apr 13-14.19,24,27, ellectiveness amiiniplenentation of tic Yankee the scope to which it applies ami luis not l cen 28 May 10-12,1995 Operational Quality Assurance Program implenented since March 1994 l
l C/A (YOQ AP) appmved by outside clients for contracted design ami engineering s'.ppewt services G-23
..,...s.
.na
AUSb5MNT PROCESS REVIEW DOCUM ENTATION
~
AUDITS Report Date Ares /Activitics Cs,rered (D)ereciency/
Finding /Otseervation Dewription Number (0)tiervation No.
(see notes SSCA 0617 (D)
Five of Seven contracts requiring Yankee Operational QA Prograc, plenentation did not uwnply with ESD pmecdure for establishnent of QA requirements SSCA 0615 (D)
GE SBWR purcluse order QA requircrients were not satisfied, i.e. QA Plan, yearly QA repswt.and 1994 annual audit SSCA 0619 (D)
Ciwrective action for deficiencies identified in 1993 are innlequate in tlut tie sane types of deliciencies were identified in this atxlit SSCA 0620 (O)
ESD files are disawganised with retrievability minimally acceptabic NSD 95-12 Oct I6-25.27,1995 Envinmmental Engineering Department (EED)
SSCA 0639 (D)
Control of reciwds is not sulHeient to ensure all and Environnental Laboratory - Evaluate QA reawds are properly identified and clicctiveness of the EED programs in amtrolling camin>lled saf:ty and non-safety related activitics; assess the adequacy of the programs in meeting licensing conunitnents, regulatory requirements and AP,C C/A y'ulity objectives SSCA 0640 (D)
De Engineering Design Clunge Request and Plant Clunge Request review pnsrss was mit fully implensnted NSD 9513 Mar 20-22. 28-29. 31 FucI Managenent Departnrnt - Verify SSCA 0553 (D) i+1D is not nuintaining training files 1995 implementation of the QA Program to control C, C/A safety related and mm-safety related engineering activitics within the Fuct Management Department SSCA0534(D)
I'ive out of seven pnwritures/ guidelines luve excretled their two year revier cycle G-24 miiv-= n a
i 4
{
2 ASSESSMENT PROCESS REVIEW DOCUMENTATION t
AUDITS l
i Report Date Area / Activities Covered (D)eficiency/
Finding /Otmevation Desceiption Number (0)triervation l
(see notes No-f I
i SSCA 05M5 (O)
FMD pmcedures/ guidelines slo at reflect tie current ciwnpany twganisation Appendix R Aug 2M - Sep 15.1995 Vernm>nt Yankee - Determine why Vernumt ER-0460 (D)
Control of valves required for Alternaec Root Cause Yankee Fire Pnwettion is not in full compliance Shutthiwn, mg assured Analysis Task with tic requirements of 10CT'R50 Appemlis R:
I; wee why run addressed previous identified nim-annpliance, why "Imt sluwts" continue to be unresolved; why previous audits did not identify j
thesc t
ER-0471 (D)
Inadequate design ofcold shutdown repair y
activity ER-04M4 (D)
RCIC in Alictnate Shotskiwn nud: me assured l
for a fire in RB-3
[
y ER-0507 (D)
SRV solem>id cahics susceptihic to single twM t
s!wwt i.
1 ER-0533 (D)
Insufficient time to initiate Alternate Sh sidown j
system prmr to ciwe uncemy 1
ER-0534 (D)
Use of RCIC no guaranteed for fire in RB-2 l
NSD 96-01 Oct 7-10.1996 YNSD Maine Yankee Project Engineering -
SSCA 0752 (D)
YNSD calculations mg umforming to the Verify implementation oIdesign activitics on the requirements of WE-I'13 YNSD Mainc Yankee Project following sie requirenwnts of 10CI'R50, Appemlix B (Criteria
[
AP,C C/A 1.2.3.5.6.15,16, & 17), YOQAP Sectiim 3, i
YNSD procedures aml ANSI N452.1 l l
SSCA 0753 (D)
EDCR 96-36. ECN Rev 0 didn't adequately specify special comletions in open item Sectiim l
9.0 ami the Maine Yankee CED independent
-l review did not identify this diwrcpancy f
u i
G-25 en m e. n;s 1
I i
ASSESSMENT PROCESS REVIEW DOCUMENTATION AUDITS Report Date Area / Activities Covered (D)criciency/
Findinp)Obgervation Description Number (O)hservatinn (see notes No.
SSCA 0754 (D)
Discrepancies for the review of design documents subject to the requirements of 10CIR50.59 SSCA 0755 (D)
Maine Yankee Pmject is not thrumenting fiwnut self-assessnrnes SSCA 0756 (D)
In tall.ition of an adlitional penetration on the outside of a pump nuwn was not evaluated umler the environnwal scetion of the EDCR: may inmatt IIELD analysis SSCA 0757 (0)
Incimsistem ics with inylementation of project procedures SSCA 075M (0)
Training pmvided to YNSD engineering arxl surgwwt persimnel thes not meet retguirements set fiwth by INPO SSCA 0759 (0)
Recimmemlations for ingnning the scII-aswssment pmcess within the YNSD organization NSD 96-02 Nov 4-8. I l-13.1996 Vernxmt Yankee Design Engineering - Verily ER 'X,-ID74 (D)
Calculatiim deviated Inwn Irwiustry Standards AP. C. CIA implenentation of the QA program liv design witimut thrumented justificatism and design change controls at YNSD ER tX3-1075 (D)
Calculation does not li>llow accepted irxtustry practice liv analysis of AC circuits witimut providing micquatejuntification for tin-deviation ER 9fe1076 (D)
Calculatiim did rmt luve the calculation / analysis review form cumpleted ER 96-108I (D)
Pntedure WE-loo rmncompliances G-26 wni,,snm = na
.... ~
ASSESSMENT l'ROCESS REVIEW DOCUMENTATION AUDITS Report Date Area / Activities Covered (D)cficiency/
I%ehnWoleervation Descripties Noenher (0)tm rva esi (see notes No.
ER %1082 (D)
Calculation had noncompliance issues per WE-103 ER W1083 (D)
Several EDRs assigned to Vermont Yankee Design Engineering Gnmp have mt been congleted since 1995 ER WIfM4(D)
Cakulation had no:nctmpliance issues per WE-103 ER W1085 (D)
Calcul,ition lacked certain e vracies and compic*eness ER %1086 (D)
Calculasium cimtained an incorrect assumptism ER %1087 (D)
Vernmet Yankee calculations sangled mg approved simr 1992 and certain appmycd calculations have not been turned over to RMS in an expeditious manner ER %l088 (D)
Scif-,ssessment perfirmed by thc Vernumt Yankee design Engineering gnep did mg mcci TAG No. 22 requirenents ER W 1089(D)
EDCR 95-4N indicated open iterm in the text of the EDCR, yet See ion 6. W ltems Section" did un list any c..cn items ER W1090 (D)
Mseagement attenthm i. warranted due to tie I WE-100 and 103 procalural mmeimpliance issues identilied during tic audit of the Vernumt Yankce Design Engineering Gnmp aintit, NSD
% 02 NSD %04 Dec I6-20, ItrX, Yankee Rowe Prisect - Verify implementation SSCA0808(D)
Inconsistencies identilied relative to revit-ws of Ap C, C/A of the QA pmgram for tksign and design change Engineering Design Change No,%303 ca.ntrols at YNSD C-27 wmnm.m. nis l
I
ASSESSM ENT PROCESS REVIEW IsOCUM ENTATION A U Di'IS Report Date Area / Activities Covered (D)eficiency/
FindingMbervation Dewription Nennher (0)lmervation No.
(we notes SSCA 0809 (D)
YRC-1066. Rev I aml YRC-1088 Rev I Imth use Stardyne 4.10 but Stanlync has never been verified in accordance with WE-108 SSCA0810(D)
Finding SSCA 0658was closed by OAD hased on lim][ wirer congletion of corrective actions, specifically the YRC-10M9 verificatism of Stardyne 4.10 included :...i,qs reference to the
.nse of a WE-108 verified cale that did mW cxist SSCA 08II (O)
Preventative action resguired by EDR 96-32 was due on 10/25fXi. luwever the EDR is still open and simuki be identified as an open item in EDCR 96-303 SSCA UMI2 (O)
There is no index Ior Safeguards information reposittwics within YRP SSCA 0813 (O)
Calculatiam ami accinnpanying sketch incimsistencies SSCA 0814 (O)
Five rectmmwmlations pertaining to Self-asm _nent are olTered for managenent consideration NSD tXi-06 Sep 9 M. 30.19%
Engineering Services Departuent. Plant Support SSCA 0734 (D)
Original cimtract skvmmerws are mW being Departnent, ami Purchasing Department -
transmiticd to RMS for storage untiljob closcimt Verify adcttuacy and effectiveness of perftwming safety related activitics in accordance with tfr Yankee Operational Quality Assurance Program AP. CIA (YOQAP)
SSCA 0735 (D)
Attachnent to drawing not properly camipleted SSCA 0736 (0)
Process for chising out etmaracts and/or purchaw onlers was not delineated in ESD Pnicedure ESD-111M P-01 G-28
.,,0.
nn
E ASSESSMENT PROCESS REVIEW DOCUMENTATION e
AUDITS Report Date Area / Activities Covered (D)eficiency/
Finding /Otmervation Descriptiwi M-Number (0)tnervation (set notes No.
SSCA 0737 (O)
The Sect rity ami Building Services Dept. did not have in process in-place to ensure that all individuals requiring TAG I4 training are complying with the 30 day "r.:ad ami sign' requirement SSCA 0738 (0)
ScII-assessment perform.d on NDE qualiikati<m records was not docunented S5CA 0739 (O)
Original Vernumt Yankee drawings stored in tic Drafting Dept. had conflicting revisicms numbers on the same draw %g SSCA 0743 (O)
Individuals initiating supply requisitions did mg appear to be aware of tic requirement of WE-205 and QAD 96-039 NSD 96-07 May 13-24,1996 Nuclear Engineering Departnwnt - Verify that SSCA 0709 (O)
Calculations were not in accoru.mcc with the established programs and pmcedures were being nonmandatory supplemental guidelines cITectively implemented in the areas of Vernxmt Yankee (VY) Reactor Stability,10CFR50 AP C/A Appendix R.and less of Coolant Acci<knt (l.OCA) Analysis by the Nucler '.-,incering Department SSCA 0710 (O)
Calculations supporting menoranda forwarded to plants were rmt property reconciled NSD 96-08 Apr 22 - Apr 30,1996 Self-Assessnrnt - Assess the c!Tectiveness and SSCA 0707 (0)
Five recomnemiation to impmvc TAG-22 implementation of the Scif-Ass Pmgram SSCA 0708 (O)
Recamnendations to improve company-wide self-assessment prtress G-29
.m m,m.na
Y ASSFSSM ENT PROCESS REVIEW DOCUMENTATION AUDITS Report Date Area /Activiti s Covered (D)cticiency/
Finding /Olmtvation Description Number (0)lmrvation (see notes N(
NSD 96-12 Sep 30 - Oct i.1996 Envinmnwntal Engineering - Evaluate SSCA 0746 (D)
All Emergency Planning procedures were not clTectiveness of the EED progrann in controlling reviewed at least every two years safety and rum-safety related activitics and AP, C. C/A nreting Technical Specification commitments, regulatory requirenrnts and quality objectives SSCA 0747 (D)
AtARA training is not presented to newly hired YNSD engineers SSCA 074H (D)
Safety related calculations are not always h
performed in accordance with WE-103 SSCA 0749 (O)
Route tir Technical Administrative Guideline revisitm description to pers4mncl f<w read and sign SSCA 0750 (0)
Improve procetture by including a specific EED docunent nutrix as an attachment to better clarify records nmintenance requirements SSCA 0751 (0)
Recomnendations to enlunce the Engineering Guidelines NSD 96-l 3 5kay 25-29. Apr 1.1996 Fuel Managenent Department (FMD)- Verify SSCA 068I (D)
Procedures / Guidelines lacked the name of the implementation of the Yankee Atomic Electric preparer and in one case, lacked the signature Company (YAEC) Operational Quality docunenting the independent review Assurance (QA) Program by the Fuel M.magement Departnent (IND); evalua:cd air elfectiveness of FMD program liv the control of fuct reloads SSCA 06H2 (D)
Two procedures exceeded their two year review cycle SSCA 06H3 (D)
Control of Pn.prietary and Confidential I ifiwmation is ruit nuintained in accordance with TAG 16 requixnents G-30
.m.,s. co m. ms
ASSESSMFNT PROCESS REVIEW DOCUMENTATION AUDITS Report Date Area /Activitics Covered (D)eficiency/
Findinr/Olmervation Description Number (0)lnervation No.
(see notes SSCA 06M4 (D)
Copies of Special Nuclear Materials (SNMs)
Inventories scheduhd to be performed at Verramt Yankee in 1995 are m4 nuintained im fde with the Central Accountability Ollice SSCA 06M5 (D)
EDR procedure fails to ensure that EDRs are treated as QA records SSCA 06M6 (D)
Indoctrincion of Personnel ami training Rectwds are mg nuintaiacd in accordance with WE requirements SSCA 06M7 (D)
Self-assessment activities performed by the l'MD are not meeting management expectations outlined in TAG 22 SSCA 06MM (O)
Administrative cimtrols for department procedure revisions should be enhanced SSCA 06M9 (0)
Incew, orate the Fuel Design Qualifications Program into priretlural guidelines for Fuct Managenent Dept. Procedure FMDP-02 to enhance procedural guidance for Engineering Design Reviews b 'D 96-15 Dec 29,1996 - Jan 12.
YAEC NSD Nuclear Enrineering Departnrnt VSFR 96-tMIS-O s An uncertainty factor used by ABB-CE for small Feb 26,1997 (NED) Engineering to Suppoit Maine Yankee (D) break analysis was mW in accordance with I
Startup/Cyc!c 15 - Document results of the YAEC p:ovided documentation.
YAEC QAD overview of the NED cnpincering l
activitics required n response to allegations concerning IDCA an:dysis for t!c Maine l Yankee plant i
i G-3 I
. m..sm-n:s
l ASSESSMENT PROCESS REVIEW DOCUMENTATION AUDITS Report Date Area / Activities Covered (D)cficiency/
Finding /Otmervation Degeciption Number (0)inervation (see notes No.
NSD %-16 Apr 8-9,1996 YAEC NSD, Nuclear Enginecting Department SSCA 0702 (0)
Mmlify WE-108 to asst.re that code changes and FROSST11Y-2 Computer Software - Verify affecting licensing documents are evenmunicated Nuc1 car Engineering Dept.'s (NED) use of tie to the appropriate regulatory agencies FROSSTTiY-2 computer code to generate design input with Westingimuse (W) fuel data and to provide results cf the analysis to Siemens SSCA 0703 (O)
Docunen?. the time line for the clTcetivity dates of cales..'c date of cinanges, and the date of resolution of error reports in relation to tic transmittal ordesign input between YAEC and SPC SSCA 0704 (O)
Suggest that tic verification ofImtrmi.fumipulcr cale withi". MY-1707 include nere than one test case SSCA 0705 (0)
Suggest that Maine Yankee and Yankee define tim "cvaluation model" for SDLOCA at Maine Yankee per 10CFR50A6 SSCA 0706 (O)
Recommend that tic basis and source of several assumptions and certain results within Calculation MYC-1707 le stated either in tic calculation or in a letter frinn SPC NSD 96-17 Sep I 1995 - Aug 31, YNSD Functional Area Assessment - Review ncme 1996 Yankee Nuclean Services Division (YNSD) performance arni determine the level of future oversight; review I'unctional Arca Assessments:
Administrative Services Department.
Regulatory & Industry AlTairs, and Nuclear Engineering,
G-32
.isnius= = ms l
ASSESSMENT PROCESS REVIEW DOCUMENTATION AUDITS Report Date Area / Activities Covered (D)eficiency/
Finding /Olmrvation Description Number (O)hservation (see notes No. -
VY-96-25 Apr 22 - May 10,16 Environmental Oualification (EQ) - Verify that
- 10. 96-0277 (D)
The VY EQ Document Revision Instruction 1996 an appropriate design basis has been established (EQDI) pmcess allows for EQ Program and maintained for fix: VY EQ Program revisions witiumt YNSD review and approval ER *X-0292 (D)
"Ihc VY IAC Group's Service / Qualified Ufc Tracking Repwt does not ir.clude tic replacement requirements for the Technipower power supplies as docunented in QRD 32.1 ER 96-0293 (D)
A complete set of calculations was not found to denmnstrate the adequacy of all temperature setpoints ER 96-0294 (D)
Inconsistent results for the Reacts: Buikling I(RB) post-LOCA one-year integrated gannna air dose have been identified ER 96-0295 (D)
Appemlices to calculations lave been Fenerated, reviewed, and approved, not microfilmed S
NSD 97-06 Jan 13-17,20-23,1997 Fitness For Duty (FFD) Access Autixwiration SSCA 0M17 (t>)
POs issued without certain reqairements
( AA) Procurement - Verify adequacy and cfTectiveness of the ITD/AA and Procurement Programs i.nplenented by YNSD SSCA 0818 (D)
Certain individuals have not met the requirenwnts for CBOP training SSCA 0H19 (D)
ITD collector is not asking the client to list all prescribed over-the-counter medications em IIe chain ofcustody form SSCA 0M20 (D)
Collection site personnel accept less llan 60ml ofurine G-33 m
us.- na
' ASSESSMENT PROCFSS REVIEW DOCUMENTATION AUDITS I
(D)eficiency/
Findinst/Otmevation Dewription -
- Report Date
' Area / Activities Covered Number (0)hwrvation (seenotes No.
i SSCA 0H21 (D)
Permanent Record Book and Collection Site Pnredure No.12.4 asks kw initials of collect <w onlyand not the signature SSCA 0822 (D)
Unauthorized ju m-m: were in the collection area SSCA OM23 (D)
Performance data was being submitted to the NRC greater than M) days SSCA 0824 (O)
Smith Kline security containers were mx appnyriately secured to the collection buikling SSCA 0825 (O)
De ranthem alcohol testing process at YNSD is' inylemented with only one evidential grade breathalyrcr SSCA 0826 (O)
Routinc and periodic self-assessnwnts are not being perforned, tracked and tremkM by persor.nelin the Administrative Services Departnwnt including ITD/AA and Purchasing functions SSCA 0827 (0)
WE-205. " Procurement," does not identify the '
criteria for determining the safety classirecation ofitems and savices SSCA 0828 (O)
Enhancements to the FFD/AA Policy and Procedure-sor consideration NSD 97-10 Nov 4-7,1997 Envinmmental laboratory - Effectiveness of CR 97-0180 (D)
/pproximately 75 E-lab procedures which have AP, C implenenting the E-lah QA/QC Manual and not been reviewed within the two-year period -
suppwting pnretlures CR 97-018I (D)
Superseded pnredure found in use C orummen ms
ASSESSMENT PROCESS REVIEW DOCUMENTATION AUDITS Report Date Area / Activities Covered (D)eficiency/
Finding / Observation Description Number (0)hservation No.
(see notes CR 97-0182 (D; Training folder missing reawds for annual Chemical flygiene and Laixwattwy Safety Training CR 97-0183 (D)
Two interim prtredure changes for a pristdure exceeded the specified duc date NSD 97-13 Jun 1.1996 - May 31.
YNSD Functional Arca Assessnrnt - Review rume 1997 Yankee Nuclear Services Division (YNSD) performance and determine ifr level of future oversight; review Functional Area Assessnrnts:
Nuclear Enf ncering Department.
i Environnental Engineering Departnent, and Fuct Management Departnrni NSD 97-17 Jun 25 - Aug 25,1997 YNS.) Gers e i Engineering Support Services -
CR 97-89 (D)
EED administrative personnel incos.cctly Assessment of implenentation of YNSD identified Reg calculation as a Non-QA reciwd procettures. Evaluated the Nuclear Engineering.
Foci., Managenent. Environnental EnF ncering.
i Plant Support and Information Resources hw AP, C activitics associated with Criteria 1 CR 97-90 (D)
Radiological Engineering Group Procedures were not being reviewed at least once every two years CR 97-91 (D)
'Ihere is littic lormal training for personnel as to the programmatic requirements of the WE-103.
Revisions not always read by stalf CR 97-92 (D)
Incorrect software ode cited in sakty-related calculation SilC-X20 CR 97-91 (D)
No written documentation to supp<wt interfxe resguirements called for in the WE-002 G-35
. nni m,m.. ms
- ^~
ASSESSMENT PROCESS REVIEW DOCUMENTATION AUDITS Report Date Area / Activities Covered (D)cficiency/
Finding / Observation Description (CJ screation h
Number No. -
(see notes CR 97-099 (D)
Action items identified during NED self-assessments not tracked on the corporate scif-assessment tracking system; and completion dates are being extended by NED wittmut concurrence by appr:1wiste management CR 97-l(X)(D)
Calculation SBC-819 Rev 0 is missing Figure 13.2.8 which contains the "kcIF values used fiw processing ctwnputer code 'shtdwn6. f CR 97-101 (D)
Verification of computer code EIM2 is not clearly docunented in calculation SBC-765 Rev i
CR 97-102 (D)
Verification of computer code AOCOMP is mit clearly documented in calculation SBC-826 Rev 0
CR 97-103 (D)
Calculation SBC-H22 Rev 0 needs to be clarilcd further to explain why 80 fresh assemblics (CYCW 6A) u. used in the analysis and applicable for CYCW 6C instead of 84 fresh assemblics (documentation probicm)
CR 97-104 (D)
Calculation SBC-788 Rev 0 and SBC Rev 0 (both applicable to CYCW 6C) need to be clarified fiw use of CYCW 6B core nulcis rather than CYCW 6 core nulet3 CR 97-105 (D)
The Approver dates (and in some cases the Preparer and Reviewer dates) indicated on several calculation cover shectr. occur aller t!c date indicated in the standard menm transittal of tir calculation results G-36 l
.com m.. ms
- ASSESSMEf4T PROCESS REVIEW DOCUMENTATION AUDITS Report Date
- Area /Activitics Covered (D)cficiency/
Findina/ Observation Description Number (O)hscrvation No.
(see notes CR 97-106 (D)
SIMULATE-3 Version s3ss50102t was used in Scabrmik calculation SBC-R19 althemgh it had not been validated 8ir use with the Seahnmk nulel CR 97-0107 (D)
Ixk of Inter or intra-departmental end-user mwilication of subsequent revisions to critical input parameters CR 97-0108 (D)
Assessnent of the poteritial impact of amputer ctule tir ernws on analyscs not completed within 30 days.
CR 97-0109 (D)
Imk of training. Ixk of omsistency in planning and documenting. lxk of understarniing the expectations fiw perf<wming, and inadaluate pncedure liv perlivming self-assessnents CR 97-0110 (D)
Ciwrective actions (k.vchiped in response to SSCA 0747 and thrumented as cimiplete were not completed CR 97-011I (D)
QA reciwds related to the c<mtrol and accountability of Special Nuclear Material (SNM) training reawds. EDRs and EDNs are not maintained in acciwdance with regulatory and YARC program requirements CR 97-Ol l2 (D)
IND self-assessments (ki not nect YAEC Self-Assessnent Pnigram requirenents arn!
managenent expectations CR 97-0113 (D)
Implenrntation of etwrective actions within I'MD is less than satisfactory l
G-37 m.,,s== n is L---_
s
ASSESSM ENT PROCESS REVIEW DOCUMENTATION AUDITS Report Date Area / Activities Covered tD)cficiency/
Finding / Observation Description Number (0)bservati:n No.
(see notes CR 97-0114 (D)
Contrary to requirements,ihe self-assessment plan for IRD ducsn't identify specific areas to assess or schedules to complete elem by CR 97-0119 (D)
A self-Assessnrnt plan has not Iren devchyrd by the Plant Support Department as required by the Technical Administrative Guideline No. 22 NSD 97-18 Oct 20 - Nov 21,1997 YNSD Projects and Support Services -
CR 97-0187 (D)
ATD*s A1 tracking system skxs not accurately Assessnrnt ofimplenrntation of YNSD reflect current duc dates procedures. Evahiated the Automation Technology, Engineering Services, iluman Resources and Devchipment Departments, and the Northeast Utilitics.SeabrimL.
Decommissioning ami Boston Edison projects CR 97-Olh8 (D)
Checklist Fr m WE-(MO-1." Indoctrination of Personnel," tor a sta!Tnember was inaccurately completed CR 97-01K9 (D)
ATD scif-assessnrnt activitics do not nect tic requirements delineated in Technical AJministrative Guideline No. 22 CR 97-0190 (D)
%c Functional Area Assessurnt (FAA) Report prepared by the Automation Technology Department does not include all attributes required byTechnical Administrative Guideline No.22 CR 97-0191 (D)
Automation Technology department protxdures are not being controlled and maintained as required byTechnical Administrative Guideline No. 21 G-38 mnmomm. ms
ASSESSM ENT PROCESS HEVIEW DOCUMENTATION AUDITS Heport Date Area /Activitics Covered (II)criciency/
Finding / Observation Description Number (O)hscrvation (see notes No.
CR 97-0192 (D)
Nort:. east Utilitics Project Department self-assessment activitics do not meet the requirenwnts delineated in Technical Administrative Guideline No.22 CR 97-0193 (D)
Engineering Services Department did md complete any scII-assessment during tie last year. Corrective actions within the ESD were determined to be unsatisfact<wy since self-assessnwnt corrective actions from previous limlings were overduc CR 97-0194 (D) inconsistencies in Imw Form WE-*AO-01 was filled out ami also in the required training CR 97-0195 (D)
One of the corrective actions identified in Part I F of CR 97-0019 was nmdified witimut review committec approval CR 97-0196 (D) llRD scif-assessment activities do not meet ihe requirenrnts delineated in TAG No.22 and manager's expectations CR 97-0197 (D)
De Functional Area Assessment (FAA) Report prepared by llRD does not include all the attributes required by TAG No. 22 Notes:
AP = Audit Plan reviewed C = Checkhst reviewed C/A = Deficiencies reviewed for proper corrective action anil closure (as applicable) s G-39 wm m m,. ms
ASSFSSM ENT PROCESS REVIEW DOCUM ENTATION SURVEILIANCES Report Number Date Activitics Covered Finding No.
Finding Descriptiem (see note below)
NSD 96-03-01 Nov 29 - Dec 7,1996 Northeast Utilitics Project - Design Engineering N/A Activitics NSD 97-01-01 Jan 17-19.1997 Mainc Yankee Project - Revie.s of USNRC G.L SSCA OMIS Observation - Testing Package revision & review C/A 96-01 Activitics ccmccrns C/A SSCA 0816 Observation - Project clarification concerns NSD 97-01-02 Mar 25-28,1997 Maine Yankee Project - Design Activitics SSCAOM31 Calculation deficiencies CIA NSD 97-01 03 May 8-12.1997 Maine Yankee Ilatch V Design Interfire Control N/A
,NSD 97 02-01 35450 Vernxmt Yankee Project - Design and Scif 4-UNS ATs - Self-Assessment (references ER-10MM)
Assessment Activities NSD 97-02-02 35474 Vernmnt Yankee Project - Org:.nizational Interfaces I-UNSAT-Corrective Action and Corrective Actions NSD 97-02-03 35659 Vernont Yankee Fioject - SI Review of I&C N/A Record Turrmver VY Design Engineering Group NSD 97-02-04 Sep 16-29.1997 Vernmnt Yankee Cycle 20 ReloaJ N/A NSD 97-03-01 35472 Northeast Utilitics Project - Design Activitics N/A NSD 97-04-01 Apr 28 - May 2.1997 Yankee lowe Project - Design Acti iiics/Sohware,h/A l
and Errty Reports NSD 97-04-02 Nov IM-20.1997 Yankee Rowe Final Status Survey (FSS) Data fix.c N/A Managemer.t System (DilMS)
NSD 97-06-01 Jun 9-1 I,1997 YNSD - Fitness I;w Duty (FFD)/ Access N/A AutImri/ation ( AA) Proctdures NSD 97 P6 02 Sep 9-12,1997 YNSD - ITD/AA Documentation Folder Review CR-97-0141 llackground investigations did not meet criteria for unescorted access NSD 97-06 03 Oct 20-21.1997 YNSD - Fitness fiw Duty (ITD) Rected Review CR 97-0175 Irxlividuals exacd 15-nmnth refresher training NSD 9 /-07-01 Ja 20-22.1997 NED-REIAP5YA Self Assessment N/A NSD 97-07-02 May 6-7,21-22.1997 Maine Yankee Ilaich V Design Inteilisce Control
?>/A G-40 wrunwimw n;s
' ASSESSMENT PROCESS REVIEW DOCUMENTATION SURVEILLANCES Report Number Date Activities Covered Finding No.
Finding Dewrlption (see note below)
NSD 97-07-03 Oct 6.1997 NED Document Control and Review of Calculations CR-97-0165 Inaccurate Records leg for enles__
NSD 97-08-01 Feb 74.1997 Engineering Services - Self Assessnent SSCA 0829 No Scif-Assessments have Acn perftsmed closed per CR 97-0193 C/A NSD 97-09-01 Feb 24-25,1997 Plant Support Departnent (PSD)- Document N/A Control / Record NSD 97-11-01 35439 YAEC - Self Assessment - Envimnnental N/A Engineering Departnent NSD 97-12-01 Apr 23-24.1997 Maine Yankee Batch V Design Interf ace Control N/A NSD 97-!3-01 Mar 27 - Apr 24.1997 YNSD-Corrective Action-SSCAs & EDRs 2-UNSATs-Corrective Action NSD 97-13-02 35691 Corrective Action - Condition Reports 1-UNSAT-Corrective Action NSD 97-14-01
.'s5537 QAD Scif-Assessnrnt N/A NSD 97-15-01 35464 Generic Concern With YNSD for ~hir Control and N/A Application of Calculation revisi ins : 2 Associated Note:
C/A =
Deficiencies reviewed for proper corrective action and dosure (as applicabic)
I G-4 I w nin m m. u x
DAVID ALAN WALKER DUKE ENGINEERING & SERVICES,INC.
SUMMARY
Mr. Walker has over twenty-five years of Quality Assurance (Compliance) experience in the manufacturing, corstruction, and operation ; bases of commercial nuclear power projects. Sixteen years with management /consuhing responsibilities and eight years as a Quality Assurance (Compliance)
Manager.
EDUCATION / TRAINING B.S.. Business Management, University of North Carolina at Wilmington (1975) 12ad Auditor per ANSI N45.2.23 (since 1977) l Graduate of Crosby Quality Management College (1990) -
Advanced Leadership Development Program (ABB Impell 1993)
EXPERIENCE Senior Technical Specialist 08/96-Present Duke Engineering & Services QA responsibilities for the Nuclear Group's Northeastern Region offices and the Federal Group.
Responsibilities include: QA reviews and approvals, internal QA audits and surveillance, supplier aadits, interfacing with clients and supporting client audits.
Quality Assurance Manager
- 01/88-08/96 VECTRA Technologies,Inc. (formerly ABB Impell), Atlanta, GA Responsible for developing and ensuring compliance with the VECTRA QA Program for the Nuclear Engineering, Fossil Engineering, Government and % aste businesses throughout the United States.
Mr. Wr.lker was responsible for the direction and performance of all QA activities including: training, client audits, internal audits and assessments, supplier audits, computer software verification approvals, reviews, etc.
s In addition to his normal responsibilities, Mr. Walker supported the development of the QA Program in ABB Impell's office in Manchester, England, and joint CE/Impell offices in Juno Beach, Florida (FPL) and the Calvert Cliffs Site Office (BG&E). He also performed compliance assessments and consulting for Southern Company Services.
Mr. Walker's most notable accomplishments as Quality As"..irance Manager were operating with minimum staff / budget without sacrificing quality to clients and greatly reducing the number ofinternal audit deficiencier through implementation of c Quality Improvement Process. In addition, Mr. Walker's record of successful NUPIC and client audits was excellent year after year.
David A. Walker smuura m G-42
l Mr. Walker was previously a Lead Senior Engineer in the QA Section for seven months. In that position, Mr. Walker's primary responsibility was ensuring compliance with the Quality Assurance Program by performing internal / external audits and surveillance. Mr. Walker also participated in a Safety System FunctionalInspection at the Savannah River Plant and maintenance assessments of Georgia Power Plant's Hatch and Vogtle during his first months at ABB ImpM1.
Principal Quality Specialist 1981-1987 Gilbert Commonwealth, Columbia, SC Before joining ABB Impell, Mr. Walker worked with Gilbert Commonwealth for over six years. His last assignment with Gilbert was for five years at a Southeast Utility (SCE&G) in a staff augmentation position where he was responsible for providing QA Program support to the client's Quality Engineering Group during operation of their V.C. Summer Nuclear Station (including participation in four major cutages). His tasks included:
Reviewing / approving technical requirements and adding quality requirements to safety /
quality-related purchase requisitions for spare / replacement parts and plant support services.
Working with suppliers in identifying " critical to function" items, establishing dedication methods and developing / improving their overall spare / replacement part programs.
Developing / approving inspection and test methods to be used in dedicating commercial items for use in nuclear safety-related applications.
Reviewing / approving Engineering dispositions of nonconformances which occurred at the operating plant.
Reviewing / approving proposed design modifications at the operating plant.
Performing surveys / audits of suppliers as a Lead Auditor.
Senior Quality Specialist Gilbert Commonwealth, Mexico City, Mexico Mr. Walker's first assignment with Gilbert was as a consultant to the Mexican Government on their Laguna Verde Nuclear Project. QA Program management responsibilities included assisting in the development of quality programs and procedures, performing evaluations and audits of suppliers and contractors to assess compliance of quality programs, and assisting in the training of client personnel in quality assurance functions.
Quality Assurance Audit Supervisor 1979-1981 Brown & Root, Bay City, TX Responsible for coordinaticn of site audit activities and the supervision of eight site auditors. In this role he developed site audit schedules, selected audit teams, approved audit plans and reports, conducted David A. Walker
.mwm.,m G-43
audits as a Lead Auditor, maintained audit status records, and kept current on segulatiom. He also had extensive interface with subcontractors, the client (HL&P) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on compliance issues.
Quality Assurance Engineer 1976-1979 Babcock & Wilcox, Lynchburg, VA Responsible for the evaluation of Quality Assurance programs for suppliers of various nuclear products and the review of QA manuals, deficiency reports, and other correspondence concerning suppliers. He was responsible for scheduling, planning, conductinZ, reporting, and performing follow-up of supplier,
- internal and site audits.- Other duties'at B&W included the review and approval of quality documents, ensuring that contract submittal requirements were met, writing and updating administrative and inspection procedures as needed, recommending corrective actions for nonconformances tw.d working on special projects.
Quality ControlInspector 1971-1976 General Electric Company, Wilmington, NC Responsibilities included setup and inspection of a wide variety of materials, parts, and assemblies, utilizing all types of stan 'srd gauges, instruments special gauges and equipment specified in inspection instructions. Other duties included completing detailed reports concerning all nonconforming material, training and directing subordinate personnel and maintaining auditable records, t
David A. Walker emwm,= wn G-44
\\
JONATHAN S. GERSON DUKE ENGINEERING & SERVICES,INC.
1 1
Title:
Quality Assurance Engineer Years:
23
SUMMARY
Mr. Gerson has more than 23 years of experience in the nuclear field. He has held positions as Quality Asstrance Engineer, Technical Analyst, Quality Control Engineer and Procedure Writer. He is experienced in Quality Assurance (QA), procedure writing, training coordination, Quality Control (QC),
audit status tracking, procurement documentation reviews and receipt inspection. Mr. Gerson assisted in the developrnent of planning and integration strategies and performance milestone assessments and was instrumental in the preparation of computer generated visual aids for a variety of DOE presentations at the Richland Office.
EDUCATIONfrRAINING AutoCad/ Computer Networks, Columbia Basin College Statistics - Tarleton State University Quality Engineering Refreaner Course - American Society for Quality Control Fundamentals of Nondestructive Testing - Metal Engineering Institute Basic Welding - Oswego County BOCES Probability & Statistics Graduate Courses, State University of New York BS, Civil Engineering, Northeastern University,1971 Associate of Applied Science, Math / Science, Dean Junior College,1966 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS / CERTIFICATIONS Member of the American Society of Quality Certified Quality Engineer, American Society for Quality Control,1984 EXPERIENCE
' Quality Assurance Engineer 12/97-Present Duke Engineering & Services (DE&S)
Responsible for Quality Assurance (QA) of the Western Region of DE&S. Duties include reviewing project plans, design specifications, procurement documentation, and performing audits, surveillances and supplier surveillances.
Quality Assurance 'dngineer 09/97-12/97 Duke Engineering & Services Jonathanfl Cerson
.mm. m.
G-45
Performed Project Plan reviews and QA audits of various DE&S field offices in preparation for assuming l
QA responsibility of the Western Region of DE&S.
l Quality Assurance Engineer 06/97-08/97 Duke Engineering & Senices Deployed to Lockheed Martin at the Department of Energy (DOE), Idaho Engineering & Environmental
(
Laboratory (INEEL), and designated as the National Spent Nuclear Fuel (NSNF) Training Coordinator responsible for ensuring that all NSNF Quality Assurance personnel nationwide were properly indoctrinated and tramed to NQA-1 and DOE /RW-0333P requirements. In addition, reviewed and revised various quality assurance program documents.
Procedure Writer 04/97-05/G7 Wastren Technical Services, Inc.
Updated and modified Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) Basis for Interim Operation (BIO)
Administration Controls and created TWRS Cross-Site Transfer Line Diagrams for the Department of Energy (DOE), Richland Office (RL).
Quality Assurance Engineer / Technical Analyst 11/92-10/96 Vectra Government Services,Inc. (formerly Asea Brown Boveri(ABB) Government Services,Inc.)
At the DOE RL, assisted in the development of planning and integration strategies and performance milestone assessments. Developed and wrote the Planning & Integration (PID) Statement of Work RL Directive. Taught the DOE-RL " Statement of Work" course. Assisted in the development of the RL Self-Assessment Program. Developed and produced computer generated visual aids for the Office of Planning & Integration's Management Systems training. Provided computer assistance and instruction to users of software applications. Published the Government Support Services Contract employee's newsletter for three years.
Quality Assurance Specialist 08/89-11/92 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC)
Developed, wrote and maintained the DOE-RL Quality Assurance Branch NQA-1 procedures.
Performed and tracked quality assurance surveillances on a variety of contractor NQA-1 procedures and compliance requirements including safety, procurement, and storage systems. Software Accountability Manager responsible for controlling all the computer software used by SWEC at RL.
Engineering Technical Specialist 03/89-08/89 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation Investigated the adequacy of the SWEC training program of QC personnel performing NQA-1 and 10CFR50, Appendix B, criteria inspections at Florida Power & Light's Turkey Point Power Station.
Assisted in creating computer generated graphics for the formal presentation to win the prestigious Deming Pfae.
Jonathan S. Gerson omtm,,m G-46
.O
Quality Control Engineer 05/86-03/89 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation Wrote Texas Utilities (TU) Electric Engineering Assurance procedures at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Station construction site.
Quality Control Engineer 11/81-03/86 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation At Niagara Mohawk's Nine Mile Point 2 Nuclear Power Station project, conducted quality assurance surveillances of piping, hangers and valve installation. Prepared and maintained 10CFR50, Appendix B, criteria surveillance checklists, and performed quality assurance verification of subcontractor programs.
Created and maintained a departmental information flow network to update surveillances, audits and inspections status.
Quality Control Engineer 10/77-11/81 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation Performed 10CFR50, Appendix B criteria and purchase specification specified safety-related vendor documentation resiews. Reviewed subcontractor piping and hanger planning packages. Performed contractor monitoring, receipt inspection, ASME mechanical (piping, hangers, valves, and welds) and electricalinspection.
Quality Assurance Engineer 08/74-10/77 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation Assisted in writing the SWEC Quality Assurance ASME III Manual and related procedures. Performed final safety-related vendor documentation review for the North Anna I and II Nuclear Power Station project.
Engin~
10/71-08/74 Stor.
,ter Appraisal Corporation Puv.ma technical data research incirding field surveillance for the commercial appraisal of buildings and structures for utilities and industry. Initia*.ed and developed computer programs for appraisal analysis.
Jonathan S. Gerson
.mwnwma G-47
PHILIP R. HORSMON DUKE ENGINEERING & SERVICES,INC.
i
Title:
Technical Specialist II Years:
21
SUMMARY
Mr. Horsmon has more than 21 years of experience in the nuclear field. He has held positions as Technical Specialist, QC Inspection Supervisor, QC Planning Engineer, and Senior QC Inspector. He is experienced in the field of nuclear power plant construction and inspection activities as well as Quality Assurance programmatic requirements related to 10CFR50, Appendix B and NQA-1. Mr. Horsmon has been responsible for as many as twenty nuclear inspectors, written inspection plans, written quality assurance procedures, and is a certified lead auditor. He has also been involved with numerous readiness review teams on the High Level Waste Program for the Department of Energy.
EDUCATION / TRAINING e
West Nottingham Academy,1971 English Major, Elon College (three years)
Business Administration and Marketing, Strayer College (one year)
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS / CERTIFICATIONS ANSI Certified LevelIIInspector Quality Assurance Lead Auditor EXPERIENCE Tecnnical Specialist 01/97-Present Duke Engineering & Services Provides quality engineering for DE&S corporate and satellite offices. Responsible for providing and assisting in all quality related matters for the Advanced Nuclear Group. Current responsibilities include maintaining a PIR tracking data base; performs QA reviews associated with the PIR process; issues monthly QA status reports; maintains ongoing QA commitment tracking data base; issues annuai QA Program Status Report; conducts QA source surveillances including scheduling, approval of checklist, reviewing reports and SDRs; schedules and conducts supplier evaluations. As lead auditor, duties inclade developing audit plan, checklist, audit reports, and followup on corrective actions. Participated in thirteen audits and led seven to date.
Philip R. Horsmon wmeow.m G-48
Technical Specialist 11 11/95-12/96 Duke Engineering & Services Provided quality engineering support to the Zaporozhye Spent Fuel Nuclear Project in Energodar, Ukraine. Performed audits to place suppliers on DE&S approved suppliers list for project related activities. Conducted source surveillance inspections on vendors that fabricated components for the spent fuel storage system. Also responsible for QA support / consulting, QA training, internal audits and surveillance as well as assisting in the development of workplace procedures for DE&S project personnel.
Technical Specialist II 05/94-10/95 Duke Engineering & Services Provided quality engineering support to the readiness review team for TRW on the High Level Waste Project for DOE. Responsibilities included advising and assuring the team leader that reviews were being conducted in accordance with applicable procedures, tracked open item reports until closure, reviewed all reports for accuracy and completeness, coordinated and reviewed the interim / final report for accuracy and completeness before approval by the Readiness Review Chairperson.
Participated in audit < for the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program. Responsibilities included writing checklist, verification of program requirements, writing audit reports and followup on corrective actions-Participated in a surveillance at the Defense Waste Processing Facility (Fitrification Plant) at the Savannah River Site for DOE. Duties included comparing O/ programs between the RW Group and EM Group to find where discrepancies were in the two pyres and documenting the differences on a checklist.
Served as a proposal manager for the National Enviromnental Group. Duties included assisting marketing directors to coordinate and assemble information that was critical to RFP requests. Also was a lead project contract r.ninistrator. Duties included coordinating and communicating contractual obligations with clients, approving all invoices prior to processing, forecasting billing estimates and advising personnel associated with contract work.
Technical Specialist II 03/94-04/94 Duke Engineering & Services, Inc.
Provided quality engineering support to DE&S. Duties included participating in audits and surveillances (internally and externally) for DE&S, developing marketing / strategic plans for the Quality Assurance Department and resolving quality issues within DE&S.
Philip R. Horsmon s=meo,m ms G-49
Technical Specialist I 04/9l-02/94 Duke E igineering & Services,Inc.
N Responsible for writing, coordinating, reviewing, and implementing M&O Quality Administrative Procedures. Provided support to QA audits and management surveillances of system activities, site l
activities, and system engineering support to DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) as requested. Maintained the Corrective Action Data Base for tracking and statusing of Corrective Action Reports. Provided quality assurance technical expertise to OCRWM Management for the temporary and permanent storage facilities for spent fuel storage.
Inspector A 03/88-04/91 Duke Power Company Performed inspections underground for the Bad Creek Pump Storage Project. Inspections included verifying that all rebar, embeds, electrical and piping have been installed in accordance with design drawings, specifications and procedures. Also conducted testing of concrete in accordance with design specifications. Responsible for the installation / inspection and test results of the piezometer, slope indicators (inclinometer and sondex) vertical settlement devices and observation wells instrumentation.
Agent 02/87-03/88 MonumentalInurance Company Responsible for debit / agency to service, sell and collect premiums. Coordinated and resolved problems between cF-ts and company headquarters regarding personal insurance programs. Assisted clients with financial planning for education and retirement.
QC Inspection Supervisor 10/84-05/86 Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
Supervised twenty inspectors in the Structural Electrical Hangar Department which included raceway, studwelding, drilled-in-anchors, tray hangars and conduit support inspections. Duties included reviewing and closing inspection reports, nonconformance reports, rework control forms, work tracking documents and writing / revising inspection plans.
Philip R. Horsmon
.meum,.ms G-50
QC Senior Inspector 06/82-10/84 Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
Responsible for the inspectio i of rebar, embeds, formwork, etc. prior to placement of concrete in accordance with design drawings, specifications and procedures. Also, conducted inspections on tray hangars and conduit supports in accordance with design drawings for verification oflocation, size, crientation, material and torque values for high strength bolting.
QC Planning Engineer 05/80-06/82 Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
Responsible for writing / revising civilinspection plans for inspectors use. Content of plans were taken from design drawings, design changes, specifications and procedures. Updated inspection handbooks and reviewed inspection reports for final acceptance prior to client turnover. Reviewed design changes and n:aconformance for 10CFR21-55E. Also assigned design changes for work verification prior to incorporation into design drawing and/or specification.
Senior QC Inspector 01/81-06/81 Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
Responsible for the inspection of rebar, embeds, formwork, etc. prior to placement of concrete in
- accordance with design drawings, specifications and procedures. Also responsible for three inspectors conducting preplacement inspections in the civil discipline.
QC Inspector II 05/80-01/8i Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
Responsible for the inspection of rebar, embeds, formwork, etc. prior to placement of concrete in accordance with design drawings, specifications and procedures. Also conducted other civil / structural inspections as required.
QC Inspector I 02n8-04/80 Brown & Root Inc.
Responsible for the inspection of rebar, emMds, formwork, etc. prior to placement of concrete in accordance with design drawings, specifications and procedures.
QC Inspector I 04D6-OlD8 Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
Responsible for the inspection of rebar, embeds, formwork, etc. prior to placement of concrete in accordance with design drawings, specifications and procedures. Also performed inspections on cadwelds including qualification, location, size, material and acceptability, niilip R. Horsmon s u m. un G-51 h
QC Ins'pector I 1 IDS-03D6 l
Bechtel Power Corp.
l
. Responsible for inspection of concrete placement in accordance with design drawings, specif'ications and j
procedures.
j Philip R. Horsmon G-52
.mm...
APPENDIX H VERMONT YANKEE SAFETY ANALYSIS ASSESSMENT
SUMMARY
.mmaesms
APPENDIX H VERh10NT YANKEE SAFETY ANALYSIS ASSESShfENT SUhth1 ARY H.1 INTRODUCTION Scientech conducted an independent technical assessment of Duke Engineering and Services (DE&S) work in progress or recently completed in support of Vermont Yankee. The assessn'ent was performed by two teant ofindependent experts, a transients and accident analysis team and a containment team. The teams spent approximately 40 staff days on site at DE&S offices in Bolton, MA conducting the technical assessment. During that period DE&S personnel were interviewed and work products and reference materials were examined.
H.2 ASSESShiENT TEAhi 51EhfBERSHIP Two teams of experts examined work in the areas of transients and accident analysis and containment. The transients and accident experts were Ben Gitnick, P.E., and Dan Prelewicz, P.E., Ph.D. The containment experts were John Atchison and Robert L. Tedesco. These two teams have a combined experience in the nuclear power industry of more than 100 years.
H3 APPROACH The specific areas for the independent assessment included:
Basis for Maintaining Operations (BMOs),
Key Input to the Reload Analysis, and Containment Analysis Supporting the Torus Temperature Limit.
To guide the technical assessments, the checklist in Table H-1 was used in the evaluation of each analysis. While reviewers were free to pursue an independent approach to assess the technical quality of work products, the reviewers completed a checklist for each work product. Interviews were held with the authors and/or reviewers of a number of the work products to obtain information needed for the assessment. The interviews afforded the opportunity to obtain additionalinput on the experience and knowledge of the work product authors and reviewers.
H.4 CONCLUSIONS The conclusions of the Scientech review team are summarized below.
The quality and professionalism of the work was found to be very good. No safety-significant problems were identified. Several poter'ial problems were identified in the documentation and traceability of work, particularly for BMOs. Recommendations for improvements were identified regarding follow-up of action items identified in BMOs and the approach used to address 10 CFR 50.46 related issues.
Strengths which were readily apparent as a result of the assessment include:
.mmowms H-1
1.
The calculations and engineering analyses reviewed vere of a high quality and were at or
[
above the standard for comparable industry calculations. A number of procedural and documentation problems were found, but no significant technical errors were uncovered.
2.
The DE&S authors and reviewers demonstrated a very high level of competence and knowledge of the technical areas. Questions were answered accurately and correctly without hesitat' ion. Detailed technical explanations were provided without recourse to reference materials and knowledge of the plant and industry practices was evident.
Available references and backup materials requested were provided promptly.
3.
No significant technical errors were identified during the assessment of each of the specific areas described in Section H.3, attesting to the care and competence of the staff performing the work.
4.
A conservative approach was evident in the work.
Weaknesses and Observations were identified in three areas:
1.
Although the basis for all BMOs reviewed was assessed to be appropriate, there is a need to document additional information and refer-es whi-h support the judgments presented for a number of the BMOs. In most cases, the mformation existed and could be provided by the BMO authors. However, the information was not archived, and therefore it will likely become more difficult to retrieve as time passes. Including the information either in the BMO directly or in an archived form referenced in the BMO would preserve the supporting information for future retrieval.
2.
Most of the BMOs list required follow up action items. There were some indications that the timeliness of completion of certain action items could be improved.
3.
Statements made in the NRC Demand for Information (DFI) letter of December 19,1997 may be interpreted to mean that 10CFR50.46 ECCS related concerns should only be addressed using an approved evaluation model. DE&S has addressed 10CFR50.46 concerns in BMO 97-38 based on a calculational estimate, i.e., an undocumented calculation using the NRC-approved VY plant model. While internal procedures (NED-5) were followed, in light of the NRC interpretation of 10CFR50.46, DE&S should back up the estimate with a documented evaluation model calculation.
Some of the work which was reviewed was in-progress. In these cases, comments and suggestion < were provided to assist DE&S in delivering a high quality product.
H-2 mtsm..ms
TABIE H.1 3
Technical Assessment Checklist Criteria 1 - Technical Adecuacy of the Work Product Are the purpose and intended results of the analysis clearly stated?
Were the :orrect inputs used?
Are the reference sources identified?
Did the inputs corre from approved sources?
Was the most recent controlling information available and used?
Are the inputs consistent with the plant design basis?
Are the inputs reasonable and consistent with inputs to comparable calculations?
Are the assumptions of the analysis stated?
Are the assumptions appropriate and justified?
Is the technical approsch conservative, or were uncertainties in results evaluated, particularly in cases where margins are small?
- Are the formulas, correlations and models used appropriate for this analysis?
Were formulas, correlations and models referenced to acceptable sources?
How do the methods used compare to generally accepted industry practice?
Have any problems encountered with computer code results been clearly identified?
Are the results reasonable and consistent with results from comparable calculations?
Criteria 2 - Contnliance with the Governing DE&S Engineerine Procedures and Guidelines Which specific DE&S procedure (s) apply to this work?
I Was the information needed for the analysis transmitted to the preparer in a controlled manner?
If a computer code was used, was the code verified and validated in accordance with WE-103 or WE-108 for this type of analysis?
mteam. mms H-3
0 TABLEIL1 (Conthtued)
Technical Assessment Checklist Were all applicable error reports available to the code user?
Was the computer code referenced on the calculation cever sheet?
Did the analysis identif, all applicable engineering dccuments requiring revision / review as a result of the conclusions, and have the revisions been made?
Was the required independent review performed and properly documented?
Was the review adequate to assure the validity of the concliisions of the analysis?
l l
Were the required appro..is obtained?
i
(
e m m ew= mi H-4
TABIE H.1 (Continued)
Technical Assessment Checklist Criteria 3 - Comnlianer with Rerulatorv Reautrements What regulatory requirements apply to the work?
What are the current design bases and assumptions?
Have the SER limitations for any codes used been clearly identified and addressed?
Are any limitations on the use of the results clearly identified?
Did the preparer assure that all regulatory requirements have been met?
Did this work result in a change in the current design basis documentation?
.=wm.s.
H5
APPENDIX 1 SEABROOK SAFETY ANALYSIS ASSESSMENT
SUMMARY
. mt,m*m ics
I APPENDIX {
SEABROOK S hFETY ANALYSIS ASSESSh1ENT SUhth1 ARY I.1 INTRODUCTION Scientech conducteu., * 'ependent technical assessment of Duke Engineering and Services (DE&S) analyses provided to support North Atlantic Energy Services Company (NAESCo)
Seabrook Station. The assessment was performed by a team of three knowledgeable and experienced Scientech engineers. The team spent approximately 20 staff days on site at DE&S offices in Bolton, MA conducHng the technical assessment. During that period DE&S personnel were imerviewed and work products and reference materials were examined.
I.2 ASSESSh1ENT TEAh! h1Eh1BERSHIP A
The assessment was conducted by Thomas R. Hencey, Donald E. Palmrose, Ph.D., and David G. Vreeland, Ph.D. This team has a combined experience in the nuclear power industry of more than 60 years.
I.3 APPRO Cli 2
The primary objective of this effort was to assess the effectiveness of the Duke Engineering &
Services Inc. (DE&S) analyses wl.ich have been performed to support North Atlantic Energy Services Company (NAESCo) Seabrook Station. The technical assessment focused on selected analyses and their translation into licensing and design documentation, using the guidance provided in NRC Inspection & Enforcement ManualInspection Procedure 93809, Safety System Engineering Inspection (SSEI) inspection Procedure.
Reviews and assessments were conducted of eight calculations and associated calculation revisions which have been performed in support of the operation of Seabrook Station. The verification activities employed to assess these analysis files were specifically designed to determine:
1.
Whether the calculations, analyses, and documentation provided by DE&S establishing the design bases of the plant are accurate and complete, and 2.
Whether the processes used by DE&S and NAESCo are effective in maintaining the design bases plant documentation, and assuring that effective communication links are established to translate design bases information into appropriate licensing documents.
The specific assessment questions appearing ia Table I 1 were used as a guide in performing the evaluation of each analysis file. Each of the indicated analyses were revicxed against the assessment questions identified. Interviews with DE&S and NAESCo personnel were also conducted to ascertain the answers to the assessment questions.
unummmi 1-1
I.4 q}NCLUSIONS 1 he quality and accuracy of the work an t the professionalism displayed by it was found to be good. No safety-significant problems were identified. Strengths of the analyses and the program that were noteworthy to the review team are highlighted below. Some documents that were prepared prior to 1991 could have designated the final analyses and results more clearly to provide for case of review and reference. While there was no evidence to suggest that this has caused inaccuracies in work or any quality problems, these instances are classified as weaknesses si.cc there is some possibility that this type of documentation could cause an improper reference to occur in the future. Recommendations for improvements were identified that could strengthen the program by building links between analysis files and supplementary, related reference material.
Strengths which were readily apparent as a result of the assessment include:
(1)
The DE&S authors and.eviewers demonstrated a very high level of competence and knowledge of the techaical areas. Questions were answered accurately and correcily i
without hesitatbn. Available references and backup materials requested were provided promptly.
(2)
Calculations, analyses, and documentation provided by DE&S establishing the design bases of the plant are accurate and complete. No significant technical vrrors were identified during the assessment, attesting to the care and competence of the staff performing the work. This conclusion demonstrates that Objective 1 of the Safety Analysis Assessment, as summarized in Section 1.3, has been met.
(3)
Processes used by DE&S and NAESCo are effective in maintaining the design bases plant documentation and assuring that effective communication links (people and process) are established to translate design bases information into appropriate licensing documents.
This conclusion demonstrates that Objective 2 of the Safety Analysis Assessment, as summarized in Section 1.3, has been met, in addition, the NAESCo 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations reviewed by the team were found to be comprehensive and are ranked among the better facility evaluations in the industry which have been seen by the review team.
Analysis apport and documentation required for these evaluations is frequently provided by the Engineering staff of DE&S who were the subject of this review.
(4)
A conservative approach was applied and, when required by the analysis, proper assumptions were made for each of the analyses. Where appropriate, analyses were verified through the use of parametric studies, as well as through comparisons of the resuhs of analysis calculations with plant testing and operational data. These DE&S practices compare well to generally accepted industry practices.
W-at neues were identified in the following area:
As stated in the summary above, some documents that were prepared prior to 1991 could have designated the final analyses and results more clearly to provide fer case of review and reference.
The two instances identified were:
4 mmmwm I-2
b (1)
Two radiological dose calculations performed in 1980 and 1981 were reviewed. They were prepared using Standard Review Plan (SRP) analysis approaches and criteria. One calculation has been expanded through several revisior.s. adding additional applications and results. The other calculation includes an attachment which compares results to a later NRC Brar.ch Technical Position that amended the SRP. Multiple revisions can be an effective documentation approach for an experienced team, but do not present the results in the clearest fashion.
(2)
Documentation of some thermal-hydraulic calculations includes sections describing analysis approaches, data sets, or computer runs that are not used to derive the final analysis and results. It is good practice to retain such information. However, consideration should be given to developing a better systern to retain this information. There was no evidence to suggest that this practice caused inaccuracies in work or any quality problems.
It is classified as weakness since it creates the possibility that, in the future, an engineer unfamiliar with the calculation could reference the wrong information.
The following observatinm of the review team are provided to assist DE&S and NAESCo to improve their processes:
(1)
The files prepared in the last few years are generally more complete than the older files.
The current DE&S QA procedures and engineering practices produce documents that are comparable to the documents produced and used by other organizations. Based on the review of a recent calculation, it is concluded that use of these practices and procedures can yield calculations that are traceable for future reference.
(2)
Backup materials and references to support the assumptions and judgmer:s presented in the analysis files completed prior to 1991 were not always included or detailed in the file.
In most cases, the materials were provided by the authors during the review. There were no deficiencies in quality identified in this process; yet there is a reliance on experienced staff to tetrieve this information. NAESCo should evaluate whether these older files should be updated to current procedures and practices to reduce the time devoted to retrieval.
(3)
An evaluation performed to determine the post LOCA boron concentra:bn requirements to maintain core suberiticality, and the time required to transition to hot leg recirculation to prevent boron precipitation wasjudged to be technically correct and accurate. The review team recommended that an analysis be performed to validate assumptions
- egarding the sensitivity of results to the decay heat and initial boron concentration input values.
. m m o m eci 13
TAllLE 1.1 Analysis Files Technical Assessment Ouestionnaire Tech rical Adecuary of the Analyses 1.
Are the purpose and intended results of the analysis clearly stated?
2.
Were the correct inputs used?
3.
Are the reference sources identified?
4.
Did the inputs come from approved sources?
5.
Was the most recent controlling information available and used?
6.
Are the inputs consistent with the plant design basis?
7.
Are the inputs reasonab!: and consistent with inputs to comparable calculations?
8.
Are the assumptions of the analysis stated?
9.
Are the assumptions appropriate and justified?
10.
Is the technical approach conservative, or were uncertainties in results evaluated, particularly in cases where margins are small?
i1.
Are the formulas, correlations and inodels used appropriate for this analysis?
12.
Were formulas, correlations and models referenced to acceptable sources?
13.
How do the methods used compare to generally accepted industry practice?
14.
Have any problems encountered with computer code results been clearly ic'entified?
15.
Are the resuhs reasonable and consistent with results from comparable calculations?
16.
What regulatory requirements apply to the work?
17.
What are tt : current design bases and assumptions?
18.
Have the SER limitati>ns for any codes use i been clearly identified and addressed?
19.
Are any limitations on the use of the results clearly identified?
20.
How did the Preparer assure that all regulatory requirements have been met?
s m w w.m n I-4
TABLE I.1 (Continued)
Analysis Files Trchnical Assessment Ouestionnaire i
Effectiveness of DE&S and NAESCo Adoninistrative Controls t
l.
Was the information needed for the analysis transmitted to the Preparer in a controlled manner?
2.
If a computer code was used, was the code verified and validated in accordance with WE-103 or WE-108 for this type of analysis?
3.
Were all applicable error reports available to the code user?
4.
Was the computer code referenced on the calculation cover sheet?
5.
Did this work result in a change in the current design basis documentation?
6.
Did the analyt.is identify all applicable engineering documents requiring revision / review as a result of the conclusions, and have the revisions been made?
7.
Was the required independent review performed and properly documented?
8.
Was the review adequate to assure the validity of the conclusions of the analysis?
9.
Were the required approvals obtained?
10.
If applicable,is the FSAR description of the calculation / analysis consistent with the analysis file?
11.
Was any associated 50.59 safety evaluation (if applicable) performed in a rigorous manntr?
12.
Was the UFSAR change procedure utilized (if applicable)?
womw.ms I-5
APPENDIX J RESUME OF WILLIAM H. RASIN
.mmoe.a
WILLIAM H. RASIN DUKE ENGINEERING & SERVICES, INC.
SUMMARY
Senior Executive with high!y diversified experience in the Nuclear Industry including operations, maintenance, training, research, engineering, licensing, government / regulatory affairs and policy making.
Well known for leadership and team building skills as well as technical competence and professional integrity, Demonstrated ability to communicate with a wide variety of audiences.
EDUCATION / TRAINING BS, Nuclear Engineering, University of Virginia Registered Professional Engineer EXPERIENCE Management Consulting 1996-Present Duke Engineering & Services, Inc.
Providing management consulting services to selected clients.
Served as Depurv Project Director, Technical Baseline, for the Hanford Spent Nuclear Fuel Project while reorganizing the engineering function, resolving major technicalissues and reducing capital cost.
Led a multi discipline, multi-national group of experts to review the design bases for the spent nuclear fuel environmental restoration activities at the Hanford sit.
Provided organizational and quality management oversight for the new Hanford contractor.
Provided senior independent review of nuclear ver. dor design basis reconstitution projects.
Senior Vice President, Technical / Regulatory Division 1994 1996 Nuclear Energy Institute, Washington, DC Directed the resources of the Nuclear Industry in resolving generic technical / regulatory issues with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, the Congress and others.
Organized and staffed the Division.
Saved the industry several billions of dollars in regulatory related costs.
William H. Rasin 1
smwoomms
Developed the process by which the Nuclear Industry reaches consensus on problems of national impact.
Initiated industry wide efforts to define a new, performance based approach to safety regulation and achieved Nuclear Regulatory Commission acceptance of this approach.
Obtained practical regulation providing for the renewal of nuclear plant operating licenses allowing continued operation beyond the original forty-year limitation.
Served as principle liaison with the Institute of Nuclear Power Operat' a and th Electric Power Research Institute.
Served as the industry spokesman with key government officials and Congressional staff on industry technical / regulatory affairs.
Vice President and Director, Technical Division 1987-1994 Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Washington, DC Directed the resources of the Nuclear Utility Industry in resolving technical and regulatory issues with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy.
Organized and staffed the division as the first director.
Resolved long standing safety issues remain.. n from the Three Mile Island accident.
Resolved long standing concerns with the seismic safety design of nuclear plants.
Initiated industry proposed changes to government regulations and achieved more cost-efficient safety regulation.
Developed and implemented numerous industry self-initiated programs to resolve real or perceived safety problems.
Section Head, Nuclear Plant Analysis 1977-1987 Duke Power Company, Charlotte, NC Directed several groups of en.aeers performing systems and safety analyses for nuclear electric generating plants.
Organized cnd staffed the section to provide independent nuclear safety assessment for nuclear power plants.
Led the development of"in house" capability with probabilistic safety analysis.
William H. Rasin 2
.m-ms
4 Worked with NASA to interchange safety approaches between the space shuttle program and the o
commercial nuclear program.
Group Head, Nuclear Engineering Directed groups of engineers with responsibility for nuclear engineering activities of the Design Engineering Department during the design and construction of several nuclear power plants.
Testified as lead technical witness at Atomic Safety and Licensing Board proceedings.
Dispatched to Three Mile Island as team nuclear expert immediately after the accident.
Supervisor, Nuclear Fuels Analysis Supervised nuclear fuel procurement, contract negotiation and new and spent fuel storage design for new nucicar power plants.
Managed a $2 bimon nuclear fuel budget.
Designed new and spent fuel storage for four nuclear power plants.
Research Reactor Engineer / Senior Reactor Operator 1971-1977 University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA Directed the use of the university research reactors by student und faculty researchers.
L' censed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a Senior Reactor Operator.
Constructed, licensed and started up a low power student training reactor.
Crew Training Coordinator, S IW Prototype 1963-1971 United States Navy Directed the training program for Naval ofncers and enlisted operators for nuclear powered vessels.
Achieved Engineering Watch Officer quali6 cation as an enlisted man.
Achieved a 100% graduation rate for a troubled operator qualification program.
Nuclear Reactor Operator l _
United States Navy Served on the construction and initial operating crew for a fleet ballistic missile submarine.
l i
William H. Rasin 3
l cmemmus l-
APPENDIX K LIST OF ACRONYMS IM NN D
______._.a
APPENDIX K LIST OF ACRONYMS F_
Best Estimate BMO Basis for Maintaining Operation CAD Computer Aided Design CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPARs Core Performance Analysis Reports CR Condition Report CRRC Condition Report Review Committee DE&S Duke Engineering and Services, Inc.
Demand Demand for Information DFl Demand for Information Duke Duke Energy Corporation ECCS Emergency Core Cooling L stem EDR Engineering Deficiency Report EPRI E:ectric Power Research Institute ESD YAEC Engineering Services Department FAA Functional Area Assessment INPO Institute of Nuclear Power Operators ISAT Independent Safety Assessment Team JCO Justification for Continued Operation JQAG Joint Quality Audit Group JUMA Joint I lity Management Audit LBLOCA Large Break Loss of Coolant Accident LOCA Loss of Coolat;t Accident MYAPCo
' Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company MYAPS Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station NAESCo Non:1 Atlantic Energy Services Company emww.ms K-1 1
BE Best Estimate NED YAEC Nuclear Engineering Department NEl Nuclear Energy Instituto NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NSARC Nuclear Safety Review Committee NSD YAEC Nuclear Services Division OlG Office of the Inspector General PCT Peak Cladding vaperature PSD YAEC Plant Support Department QAPD Quality Assurance Program Description QATC Quality Assurance Training Coordinator SBLOCA Small Break Loss-of Coolant Accident SER NRC Safety Evaluation Report SSCA Status and Summary of Corrective Action SSEI Safety System Engineering Inspection UCS Union Of Concerned Scientists VQA Vendor Quality Assurance WANO World Association of Nuclear Operators WE YAEC Engineering Instructions YAEC Yankee Atomic Electric Company K-2
- m. asosw ias
_