ML20207A073
| ML20207A073 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Comanche Peak |
| Issue date: | 03/14/1983 |
| From: | BROWN & ROOT, INC. (SUBS. OF HALLIBURTON CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206S800 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-59 CP-CPM-2.2, NUDOCS 8607110405 | |
| Download: ML20207A073 (56) | |
Text
.
I BROWN & ROOT, INC.
PROCEDURE EFFECTIVE g
i Q
CPSES NUMSER REVISION DATE PAGE JOB 35-1195 CP-CPM 2.2 1
3/15/83 1 of 3 i
TITLE:
ORIGINATOR:
.8"8N v
DATE TRAINING OF lREVIEWEDBY: [
ZD J-@8
[
[
L SATE TUGCO-Qf -
REQUIREMENTS APPROVED BY AN I y,4 4 1 CONSTRUCTICN PROJECT PNiAGER CATI o.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE 1.2 SCOPE 1.3 GENERAL DISCUSSION 2.0 PROCEDURE 2.1 REVIEW OF PROCEDURES /INSTRUCTI0 tis AND REVISIONS 2.2 TRAINING NOT REQUIRED
. - 7.s,
2.3 TRAINING REQUIRED
~
2.3.1 Training Method 3.0 DOCUMENTATION Q., i
[h5 Ob
{
pk 4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES
'2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE 4
opy 5
This procedure provides direction for the review of proceaures and instructions, including subsequent revisions, by all department j
heads. This review will assist the department heads in determining which personnel require what training based on initial or changing j
This training shall be required for all newly hired assignments.
employees and employees changing departments or job responsibilities, l' and shall be accomplished prior to the employees performing the assigned tasks, t
Each department head shall prepare a listing of procedures and l
instructions for which his organization is responsible for impl ementing. Be specific; for example file custodians, DCP series; pipe craf tsmen, CPM 6.9, etc. And consider the interfa:ing precedures; for example electricians, CPit 13.1 (for checkout of M & TE and completion of tool issue cards). Only the procedures /
instructions on this list and their subsequent revisions need te i
j reviewed by the department head. Care should be taken to ensure
[OlR A ra
,a s g-f{"r._
g 71 g a 860627 a_/
h iJY d x,j ~ -
)
~
V GARDE 85-59 PDR
b
JOB 35-1195 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION Construction Procedure DOCUMENT CHANGE NOTICE NUMBER 1
Notice applicable to Construction Procedure No. 35-1195-CP-CPM 2.2 Rev.'
1 This change will be incorporated in the next revision of the procedure.
Change the procedure as follows:
Please replace the following page with the attached:
Page 3 of 3 Reviewed by:
Wh@B 4'-ff-AZ ihb c
'/
o v'
OMginator Date Brown & Root Quality Assurance Date d
,17 (Lb (
Y Sf s
~
cate Approved by:
~ TUGC0 Qtlality Assurance p-
. hA. ?:/Ct ?g 0-/f-54 4/18184 Construction Project Manager Date Effective Date
PROCEDURE EFFECTIVE BROWN & ROOT, INC.
NUMBER REVISION DATE PAGE CPSES JOB 3S-1195 CP-CPM 2.2 1
3/15/83 2 of 3 I
that all of the interfacing procedures are included. This list shall be submitted to the Training Department.
NOTE: This procedure does not apply to the QA Department. QrA training is administered in accordance with the imple-menting QA procedures.
L 1.2 SCOPE 1.2.1 This procedure applies to all department heads who are required to perform safety-related work and/or administrative activities
.(e.g., procurement, calibration, document control, etc.).
1.3 GENERAL DISCUSSION 1.3.1 All craft and non-craft personnel shall be made aware of procedures / instructions and subsequent revisions for which they are responsible for implementing.
2.0 PROCEDURE 2.1 REVIEW OF PROCEDURES / INSTRUCTIONS AND REVISIONS 2.1.1 Department heads and/or their designees shall review all newly published procedures and instructions, and revisions and change notices to those procedures / instructions identified in accordance with paragraph 1.1. The purpose of this review is to determine if members of their department require knowledge of the procedure, revision, or change notice to perform their tasks properly.
2.2 TRAINING NOT REQUIRED If, on review of the procedure or revision, it is determined training is not required, the department head will document the review and determinination by use of the form shown in Attachment 1.
2.3 TRAINING REQUIRED 2.3.1 If training is required, those to whom the procedures or revisions l
apply must be identified and the training conducted immediately by supervisors designated by the department head.
Training Method The information related to the procedure or revision may be pre-sented by either of the following methods:
s 4
BROWN & ROOT, INC.
PROCEDURE EFFECTZVE l
CPSES NUMBER REVISION DATE PACE JOB 35-1195 CP-CPM 2.2 1
3/15/83 3 of 3 1.
Orally by the supervisor.
2.
Copies provided each person to read.
3.
Irrespective of the method selected, the change will be discussed to assure common understanding or interpretation.
This discussion will be conducted by the supervisors and/or department heads.
4.
All training will be documented by use of a Training Record (Attachment 2).
't 3.0 DOCUMENTATION 3.1 Particular care must be exercised to properly and accurately identify the procedure and revision under discussion.
l 3.1.1 The Training Review Record (Attachment 1) will be initiated and signed by the department head when it is determined that training is not required.
3.1.2 The training record will be prepared to document any training determined to be necessary as a result of the procedure or the revision.
3.1.3 The training record will be prepared with the below listed infor-cation by the department head conducting the training.
1.
Date of training.
2.
Procedure and revision number and title.
l 3.
Signature, badge number, and social security number of attending personnel.
3.1.4 The instructor will sign the record, indicate the hours of training, time training session began and the department involved. An extension sheet may be used for large groups.
Upon completion of the record, the responsible department shall forward the record to the Training Department for filing.
4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 4.1 Department heads and supervisots are asigned prime responsibility for compliance with this procedure.
4.2 The Training Department shall be responsible for assisting in the training ef fort and monitoring compliance.
4.3 The Training Department shall be responsible for notifying departments that fail to submit copies of the appropriate docu-mentation within ten (10) working days following issue Of the change.
CP-CPM 2.2 Rev. I DCN di s/ta/84
$heet 2 of 2 U
6 i
PROCEDURE EFFECTIVE !
BROWN & ROOT, INC.
NUMBER REVISION DATE
}
PAGE
()
CPSES I
JOB 35-1195 CP-CPM 2.2 1
3/15/83 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT 1
\\
TRAINING REVIEW RECORD COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION I have reviewed the construction procedure / revision identified below.
I have also determined initial and/or refresher training is/is not required for personnel under my supervision, s
Department Head I
e 0
9
PROCEDURE EFFECT!VE BROWN & ROOT, INC.
NUMBER REVISION DATE PAGE CPSES
.Q I
l 1 of'2 JOB 35-1195 CP-CPM 2.2 1
3/15/83 ATTACHMENT 2 TRAINING RECORD Page CF TRAI.'t!.'3 KE:::E3 COPMC4! 7EAK STIA:t ELE 2:0 I A-Ott Prsject 25-113 5 CATE:
The tricarsigned ack.aowled;e riesi;: cf s;eciali: d : af ning in:
(ins:-.ct:r) t.".is data. 4:
Given by:
C:raaere Peak P-eftet (location).
NApt BA:3E o 2
..is:..:::r : a:;:4: :t 2..
H: -s :f Test-1.*;
ifra i
e$II$.YI e
I FROCEDURE EFFECTIVE BROWN & ROOT, IllC.
NUMBER
- REVISION DATE PAGE i
. O..s CPSES I
JOB 35-1195 CP-CPM 2.2 1
3/15/83 2 of 2 ATTACHMEt,T 2 TRAINING RECORD g
PAGE OF
[
e e
me et
- E tmi
$$ e M
r-s W
I..
e' O
e
-u-
...e
.n---
w O
i DQA-83095 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
' OFFICE AfEAf 0RA NDUAf To R. A. Jones Glen Rose. Texas March 16. 1983___
subject Startup/ Turnover Surveillance Stop Work Order No. 001 This stop work is being issued to prevent further performance of Special Prerequisite Testing activities and is in affect as of 3:00 p.m., March 16, 1983, in CPSES Unit No. 1.
This work stoppage has been issued due to failure to follow Startup Adminis-trative Procedures during performance of Special Prerequisite Tests of Instruments in CPSES Unit No. 1.
Specific deficiencies recently identified by Startup/ Turnover Surveillance Reports DSR-83-012, DSR-83-021, DSR-83-024 and Startup/ Turnover Surveillance Deficiency Reports STS-DR-83-005 and STS-DR-83-009 indicate the need for action to insure that the above described procedures are being complied with.
This stop work order will remain in effect until the following actions have been completed to the satisfaction of the Startup/ Turnover Surveillance Supervisor:
1.
Personnel involved with the performance of Special Prerequisite Test Instructions shall be formally indoctrinated in the require-ments of Startup AdministratPre Procedures as they apply to these testing ac,tivities.
2.
An evaluation of the adequacy of directions provided and controls utilized during the performance of Special Prerequisite Test Instructions shall be performed and documented.
The above subject was discussed in a meeting on March 16, 1983 with the Manager Plant Operations, Manager CPSES Startup, Manager, Quality Assurance, and Supervisor Quality Assurance Services in attendance.
l kN C. H. Welch Startup/ Turnover Surveillance 8
Supt.rvisor CHW/pr I
..~
z=t) cc:
R. J. Gary
!\\
D. N. Chapman
= h "" h' > -
4 B.R.lClements J. C. Kuykendall A. Vega J. T. Merritt l
R. E. Camp I
D. E. Deviney l
A.
O OTt: 's "
/
FE? *:
]&C ENGINEER p(teg TO:
'VIA:
I6C SUPERVISOR SUllJECT: RECURRENT TRAINING l
l.
The following information has been. revised or newly promulgated:
TPC 5b(OD.. t %&TP/d/W/DM 6/J C.P-3 D P ~ L'2-C P S AP- 0
-CP-SAP-Ik C.P SAP-9 l 9(1.CCEDc RM_
h+i!LD3DPHY rv-(TE Fce. k Poe.eass O F &^)DP(T!^M GPEO GL-92 #
2.
You are to read he forna' tion listed above; then print last name, then initials and initial in the space provided below to signify you have read and understand the information.
(see example) r.- -- _ - -
.g.%'5 Wh.--adL :*
av Wawi. 3. A. w
(%anse. /?, L % ~
Nec.nN. G.G. h
.G wnr36 dEY SYa]
McA} Y' cmusn
. m La c.
Gr &c kE /$dC AA-< le.E.x AA2-
$L 0 5251, N.a nuNt r. s. a a n Davis. M R.
h SoRo M,R.L h:6,0, L
ArG F.k if49 Cl/A N. A A GDP_
&n-1 KAf dABY
/
.[
4:7 t/
% wev, 0. t..
E n h e H 1r. F X X S&t\\e% Lh.hS99 m.
SHIRLEY. R. A. -bIl$
$M1a_is J.d. Id_
bMM w.TM.B Md L. 0ndb; A nSn.c.NW Wl 01'L/9'
/
gwss w
i Jerrv 14Hers est
-flu %a
'R.3. kL/)l-u.herti.T.,~%r!!h y
y g
i
&c& Ld:IK:
s..,
dcim'~m.r.
7neo May:,Lu. ms_
Xaw s dhcok -63 h'<1/j ^ L. s' Fg O
R. E. Cowan (Last) 8- -y
^-
l q
N$.O~,D()~;%U to Training Coordinator.
3.
Upon completion of above,. return j tl s o
?:!;. ?9b.K
(
[
TE:
1
,FROM:
16C ENGINEER 7
3 TO:
~
(
VIA:
. I6C SUPERVISOR
SUBJECT:
RECURRENT TRAINING I
1.
The following information has been revised or newly promulgated:
2.
You are to read the informa' ion l'isted above; then print last name, then initials t
and initial in the' space provided below to spgnify you have read and understand _
/
r--
the informat. ion.
(see example)
REEb. D M i
e m, - @. Q s d,ea,
- C~ -.
- n. lla 'c. c.
c.ca
- d. W. Jose.a 14L?d deu% 3d. %4 "Q/r/D.
Alk elF AhJh J Wan f
~
j
- d. b*e.o%
Jonsesl 8 $$
d 3-IV 'E DNC.,0,h.
8&iY12.t. R(/>
l Y b1YlY C VW pf).
R. E. Cowan (Last)
[8
_ f)-//f3 3.
Upon completion o f above, return this form to Training Coordinator.
B. B. Taylor I6C Ennineer
9 hTE:
3
/ / "c73
)
,*f,'..
~
FROM:
1&C ENGINEER TO:
'VIA:
I&C SUPERVISOR *
SUBJECT:
RECURRENT TRAINING l
1.
The following information has been revised or newly pror.ulgated:
T -t-C C/aj
.T,,do'c.tc,'n,9,'un o,
c P - sa:P -> 2.
C P - S A P-13 g P - Se P -t 6 c P-sM
- 2. I l
Pro ce ch ca I Pig I e sep y.
In r T E TN fa t~ foc e o 5 - [- o n & l, Spaaol fr *m T n ls lre Of mt then print last name, then initials 2.
You are to read the infoma' tion listed above; and initial in the space provided below to signify you have read and understand the information.
(see example)
}-
W:--
- n. lb c. c.
cce cl/ E sta. C. A. }'M v:c.c _ c.o.
/
ll$a tra n N f. /If/}1 (4lf/ DDA) S. $,
h D
n, L d l c.t.
Oh
%EN,X.
i l
v hAS % nnen.D.C Y %
[or,b(LL, 6. A A16bZc/ hc. A, av '
h d'$ff. /--
/-
kOA, /h. [ ' hh
{t)ws 3. A.
f/f y
h kson H ld E'I M P L E P lZ.pfd bSh SN-Da0wnN k.
%2 -
-I
_A M
-- CW.
MM fbdw /?.fI
$f
~
l0#$llln'Ir: f ]~ $flbl
$,m C. h. O..
c-t*
I'l.
4 N/vArutstn-A/bce,Tr %
A h A, AA% pr //)f/
R., E. Cowan (Last)
[b_ J-//fj l
3.
Upon completion o f above, return this form to Training Coordinator.
B.
B. Tayler T f (-
P..4-*=.-
i r
n
..'TSUd 3085 k-
^ '
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE AfEhiOR A ND USf Distribution arch M, M83 7.
Glen Rose. Texas -
Interim Change to CP-SAP-21, Revision 1 l
Attached please find an iriterim change to the subject procedure.
Insert the interim change into your manual and destroy the superseded pages.
i Remove: CP-SAP-21 Revision 1 P' age 6 of 10 Insert:
CP-SAP-21 Revision 1 Page 6 of 10 Interim Change
+
03/16/83 rrtz
- J J. T. Merritt, Jr.
Manager, CPSES Startup JTM/ REC /JEE/j g Distribution:
(See attached page) h 1.
0L u c uv,,,
}
t v,
r
. TSU-83085
(])
([)
- ]CP-SAP-21,Rev. 1 Page 2 4
B. R. Clements, IL, IA R. F. Cobb, Jr., IL, IA B. W. Nicholson, IL, IA
l J. C. Kuykendall, IL, lA R. G. Cockrel, IL, lA P. E. Olson, IL, IA -
R. E. Camp, IL, IA J. H. Collins, IL, lA J. H. Owen, IL, IA C. D. Smith, IL, 3A J. R. Cox, IL, IA R. D. Page, IL, lA R. A. Jones, IL, lA B. E. Crites, IL, IA D. A. Parker, IL, lA R. B. Seidel, IL, lA J. E. Delk, IL, IA M. D. Phalen, IL, lA D. W. Braswell, IL, lA J. A. Dittmar, IL, I A L. A. Porter, IL, IA R. L. Moller, IL, lA J. E. Echterhoff, IL, IA E. T. Posavac, IL, IA R. G. Tolson, IL, lA M. G. Eidson, IL, IA D. L. Powell, IL, IA M. J. McFaddin, IL, lA R. C. Farley, IL, lA J. C. Prevo, IL, IA R. G. Taylor, IL, lA K. E. Feltner, IL, IA C. M. Puffer, IL, IA D. E. Deviney, IL, lA S. M. Franks, IL, IA A. D. Quam, IL, IA R. D. Calder, IL, IA E. E. Freeman, IL, IA J. G. Red, IL, lA D. N. Chapman, IL, IA R. T. Furushima, IL, IA W. D. Reed, IL, lA R. E. Ballard, IL, lA E. L. Gastinel, IL, IA G. F. Riggio, IL, IA D. C. Frankum, IL, lA M. S. Harris, IL, IA D. F. Rohrer, IL, lA M. R. McBay, IL, lA K. E. Hemmila, IL, lA R. B. Russom, IL, lA D. L. Schoen, IL, lA J. G. Hennessy, IL, IA J. C. Sanders, IL, lA C. E. Scott', IL, lA T. L. Hinterscher, IL, IA G. C. Sandlin, IL, IA M. J. Riggs, IL, lA T. E. Hodge, IL, IA S. L. Siebenaler, IL, lA C. H+ Welch, IL, lA T. L. Hutson, IL, lA R. L. Siegel, IL, IA D. L. Kelley, IL, lA A. S. Jamar, IL, IA J. D. Skelton, IL, IA M. J. Michalka, IL, lA R. G. Johansen, IL, lA M. G. Smith, IL, IA C. L. Wilson, IL, lA W. W. Jones, IL, lA M. A. Sopko, IL, IA Shift Supervisor's Office B. W. Kaulfus, IL, IA I. M. Thomson, IL, lA (Control Room), IL, lA J. G. Kilpatrick, IL, lA T. J. Tigner, IL, lA D. B. Allen, IL, lA R. R. Komrow, IL, IA W. J. Turk, IL, IA G. M. Anderson, IL 1A J. J. Kreps, IL, lA R. J. Vander Grift, IL, la V. J. Baratta, IL, IA V.
Kuceravy. IL, lA J. A. Van Gulik, IL, lA C. D. Beach, IL, lA H. A. Lancaster, IL, lA Y. H. Vora, IL, lA K. 3. Becker, IL, lA E. W. K. Lee, IL, IA D. N. Walter, IL, lA M. E. Bernhoft, IL, lA A. C. Lilly, IL*, IA R. E. Walz, IL, lA S. J. Berra, IL, lA S. J. Loeper, IL, IA D. J. Weis, IL, lA J. L. Black, IL, IA D. A. London, IL, 2A B. B. Whitehead, IL, lA E. A. Blocher, IL, lA F. J. Lopez, IL, IA G. O. Wilkinson, IL, IA J. T. Bodnar, IL, lA J. S. Lowther, IL, I A J. D. Womack, IL, lA P. N. Boozer, IL, lA K. L. Luken, IL, IA J. E. Wooten, IL, IA D. E. Bradley, IL, IA J.
MacLeod, IL, IA J. C. Zimmerman, IL, IA B. J. Browning, IL, IA D. E. Mayer, IL, IA ARMS D. R. Burk, IL, IA J. T. McDowell, IL, IA J.
Cardoza, IL, lA D. L. McKibbin,,ll, IA J. E. Cates, IL, lA M. B. McLeod, IL, IA R. L. Chandler, IL, IA T. P. Miller, IL, lA H. J. Cheatheam, IL, IA J. W. Murphy, IL, IA M. S. Clark, IL, IA J. K. Newton, IL, IA I
I have received, read and inserted the updated material in Manual No.
l Name/Date e
. ~ _ _
r a
f p
l Q
l e
CT-SAP-21 4
Favision 1 dage 6 of 10 Interim Change 03-16-83 4.9.1 Review the status of the system and/or component tc be tested for conditions which would preclude performing the test.
l 4.9.2 Review the current revision of the test procedure.*
4.9.3 Review the system drawings and applicable design changes to determine that the as-built component / system will be adequately tested by the current procedure revision to demonstrate proper component / system operation.
4.9.4 Place safety tags per CP-SAP-5 or STA-605 as required to support testing.
4.9.5 Install temporary modifications in accordance with CP-SAP-13 or the approved test procedure as required to support testing.
4.9.6 Brief all personnel involved in the conduct of the test and provide a copy of the procedure to key test support personnel, as necessary.
4.9.7 Establish necessary communication channels to safely perform the test.
4.9.8 Obtain the necessary test equipment and verify the equipment g is functioning and within its calibration interval if the equipment is to be used to record acceptance data.
4.9.9 Prior to performing Prerequisite Tests, review the manufacturer's technical manuals for acceptance criteria, special instructions or precautions. When acceptance criteria is obtained from vendor instructions, the acceptance criteria shall be entered on the test data sheet.
I 4.9.10 Where the completion of.a test procedure is specified as a prerequisite to another test procedure, the STE shall verify
_ j that the test has been completed as required to support t
conduct of the. test.
1 l
4.9.11 Ensure that the applicable prerequisites specified by the test instruction / procedure have been verified to be l
complete.
I!
4.9.12 Ensure that electrical and/or valve lineups have been verified to be complete.
4.9.13 If possible, notify TUCCO QA Startup/ Turnover Surveillance personnel one hour prior to start of tests that surveillance personnel have requested to observe.
I 4.9.14 Prior to establishing plant conditions for Preoperational or Acceptance tests, the STE shall obtain authorization to perform the test as follows:
3 su-83tt4 TE%S UTILITIES GENERATING C IPANY OFFICEMEMORANDUM To._,,_,,,_. J11 Re n res,n T Ar' g TMot*n Tif* Pnvennnal
_ Glen Rose. Texas _
u,--h Subject __
!A,
- 901 9 e n vriin tac Riinnnre ninving ebo Po r f n r, n n e. n of Special Prerequisite Test Instructions (ST's) 1 Henceforth, the following method should be followed i of all Test Procedure Deviations (TPD's) generated for Spn the initiation a Instructions (Instrument Calibration procedures ecial Prerequisite Test
[
, ST's).
1.
All TPD's should be reviewed Bob Cowan or Bill Taylor for conformance with ICP SAP 12y the technic 2.
All TPD's should then be reviewed and signed by one I&C personnel:
of the following Startup Name Shift Hours Extension Charlie Puffer Mike Eidson 7 a.m. - 7 p.m.
X-3544 Fred Lopez 12 p.m. - 12 a.m.
X-3527 Alan Quas 12 a.m. - 12 p.m.
X-3568 George Wilkinson 7 a.m. - 7 p.m.
X-3632 Ed Pocavac 8 p.m. - 8 a.m.
X-3568 Jim Sanders 8 p.m. - 8 a.m.
X-3660 Bob Crites 8 a.m. - 8 p.m.
X-3660 Lon Chandler 3 p.m. - 1 a.m.
X-3567 Skip Reed 3 p.m. - 1 a.m.
X-3567 Joe Cates 7 a.m. - 7 p.m.
X-3566 Jim Delk 7 a.m. - 6 p.m.
X-3660 Jeff Newton 7 a.m. - 7 p.m.
X-3527 7 a.m. - 7 p.m.
X-3527 3.
If the listed Startup I&C personnel determine that L LSE approval for the TPD prior to further testingapproval up I&C Engineer will get i
Wh J. T. Merritt, Jr.
JTM/TPM/ CMP /j b cc:
R. A. Jones i
C. H. Welch l
h:k 1
- 3,
d
}l l
\\'
[e v
en
- ofi, i
i Y l
iM i
m w ~~~ =--
n
g O+
l u Startup Administrative Procedurb Training For I6C Technicians l
~
I.
Purpose - To indoctrinate TUGC0 I6C Technicians on the conduct of field calibrations during the Startup phase of plant operation.
II.
Scope - Field calibrations on installed I&C equipment utilizin'g Startup test numbers of the CP-ST-XXXX serie's are Prerequisite Startup Tests, and therefore are to be performed in accordance with applicable Startup Administrative Procedures (SAPS). This training will provide TUCCO and contract I6C technicians with an overview of the SAPS directly affecting field calibrations:
A.
CP-SAP-12, " Deviations to Test Instructions / Procedures" B.
CP-SAP-13, " Temporary System Modifications" C.
CP-SAP-16, " Test Deficiency and Nonconformance Reporting" D.
CP-SAP-18, " Control of System / Component Problems" E.
CP-SAP-21, " Conduct of Testing" ic III. Lesson A.
CONDUCT OF TESTING (SAP-21) 1.
Conflicts between procedures and vendors technical manuals require that the technician comply with the vendor manual, i
with STE concurance. Notate the conflict in the " Remarks" section of the data sheet.
1 Technicians performing field calibrations shall have a copy 2.
j cf the latest approved instruction / procedure in their possession during the entire performance of the test.
Tests and calibrations shall be conducted in a safe manner 3.
to avoid harm to persons or equipment. Testing shall be termi-nated if unsafe conditions arise, or when requested by others j
noting unsafe conditions.
4.
Procedure entries and test data sheets shall be completed as follows:
Make all entries legible with black ball point pen.
]
a.
b.
Fill in all spaces on data sheets.
If no data is to be re corded, "N/A" shall be indicated.
q f
6
L
[D
\\_s c.
Signatures on data sheets shall contain as a
~
minimum the first initial and the last name.
All signatures will be dated.
j c
i I
5.
Corrections to recorded data:
[
a.
Line through mistake once, date and initial
~
by the person making the correction.
k' b.
Data shall not be erased, nor shall white-out, correction tape, or any other_means of coverup be used.- If sufficient space is not availabble after the correction, new data entry shall be made in the remarks or other available space or on a new data sheet and notated to indicate the applicable procedure step or entry location.
6.
Prior to performing a calibration:
a.
Obtain necessary tools and equipment.
b.
Brief all involved personnel, establish communications as necessary.
c.
Review the procedure for acceptance criteria, special instructions, and precautions, d.
Install safety tags and/or_ temporary modifica-tions in accordance with station procedures.
Obtain Shif t Supervisor permission to perform e.
, test or maintenance.
7.
During calibration or maintenance:
Keep the Shift Supervisor informed of major a.
, test evolutions, including control room alarms and indicators.
b.
If test is ter=inated due to, equipment failure, initiate a TDR.
~
c.
Deviation from a procedure must be in accordance with SAP-12 (Later).
d.
Contact QA prior to a hold point or verification point.
l e.
If test equipment is replaced during the test, indicats in the remarks section of the data sheet the reason for the M & TE replacement, and which readings were obtained from a particular piece of test equipment.
j i
l i
9 t
+
,r-q--
y
-r-,-
l i
O o
l 8.
Completion of test or maintenance:
a.
Ensure all test procedare steps are completed, signed, and dated.
b.
Ensure temporary modifications and safety tags I
are properly removed.
c.
Return the completed data package to the shop promptly for review.
B.
DEVIATIONS TO PROCEDURES / INSTRUCTIONS (SAP-12), (SAP-18) 1.
Deviation - A departure from a previously approved. method, sequence, wording, or standard.
~
2.
When a calibration test procedure or instruction deviation is required, a " Test Instruction / Procedure Deviation" Form (TPD) shall be initiated.
3.
TPDs will be attached to the procedure / instruction.
4.
Assign a sequential deviation numbe,r to the TPD form.
Sequen-numbering will be specific to a particular procedure.
5.
Provide procedure number, revision and title of affected pro-cedure, and equipment ID number.
6.
Describe the corrected method, stating affected page and step numbers on the TPD form.
If additional space is required, attach additional pages.
7.
State on the TPD form the exact reason for requiring the deviation. The reason should be explicit, and identify the app' roved reference document or authority allowing,the deviation.
I 8.
Sin'gle line through the affected wording 'in the procedure, write "See TPD#
" and initial and date adjacent to the affected step.
9.
Deviations not affecting the intent of the procedure shall be signed by the initiator and an STE.
In the absence of an STE, a LEVEL I qualified person may sign the TPD.
IfltheTPDaffectstheintentofaprocedure, then an.LSE must 10.
also sign the TPD. An intent change is defined as:
I 1
I
i O
O 1
Changes to the test objectives.
a.
b.
Changes in acceptance criteria, i.e., data numbers.
I Changes in the methods or steps which may affect the c.
intent of the procedure / test.
11.
All problems in calibrations / procedures not covered by a TPD will be documented on a Master System Punchlist (MSP).
C.
TEMPORARY MODIFICATIONS (SAP-13) 1.
Temporay modications establish controls for lifting leads, installing jumpers, etc., as defined below:
S Temporary Modifiation - A mechanical or electrical change made to station components by normal means in order to by-pass, readjust; or obtain a special condition which will be restored to the original configuration when the condition is no longer needed.
2.
The STE will ensure temporay modifications are properly logged.
3.
Modifications specified by approved procedures do not require identification in the temporary modification log.
4.
Lifted leads shall be insulated from ground with electrical tape.
5.
Jumper wiring shall be of a contrasting color and of sufficient length to stand out from installed wire bundles.
6.
Modification tags and log entries will be handled by the STE.
3 D.
TEST DEFICIENCY AND NONCONFORMANCE REPORTING (SAP-16)
I Test Deficiency - A deficiency in the operating characteristics, 1.
test documentation or procedure compliance that renders the quality of an item or activity unacceptable or indeterminate.
2.
Nonconformance - A deficiency in the physical characteristics j
or vendor and/or construction documentation which renders the i:
quality of an item unacceptable or indeterminate.
3.
The above deficiencies shall be documented on a Test Deficiency Report (TDR).
4 l.
A TDR will be initiated and processed with STE concurance.
i
l 7
.t '
l :..
O Q
5.
TDR's shall be sequentially numbered for a given procedure.
y 6.
A TDR is not required to be issued for any failure of control circuits or equipment to pt [ form its intended function during the conduct of a fiald calibration if the
~
malfunction can be corrected by recalibration, adjustement, or incorporation of an approved desgin change.
7.' When a test deficiency 's identified which will preclude further component operation or create a hazardous condi-tion, the STE will reader the component inoperable and place safety tags as appropriate to prevent inadverdant use.
8.
When a test deficiency is noted and the component exhibits no adverse operational or hazardous conditions, the TDR may be processed immediately, or the testing may continue and the TDR processed as soon as practical.
~
~
9.
A TDR shall be processed when a calibration or test has not been conducted in accordance with the approved procedure.
. 10.
A TDR shall be processed when a component fails to function as specified by an approved procedure and the procedure is determined to be incorrect.
11.
TDRs shall be documented on a TDR form in accordance with SAP-16.
12.
TDRs shall be signed by the initiator, an STE or LEVEL I qualified individual, and an LSE.
4 I
- i il r
S 9
i
ap -
O
\\o 40S-83036 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR A ND UM March 16, 1983 C. H. Welch cien Rose. Texas
.g.,
Startup/ Turnover Surveillance Subject Stop Work Order No. 001 l This memo documents CPSES TUCCO Operations response to the subject Stop Work Order. For convenience of review, we have repeated the following actions outlined to be necessary before corrective action will be considered complete:
1.
Personnel involved with the performance of Special Prerequisite Test Instructions,shall be formally indoctrinated in the require-ments of Startup Administrative Procedures as they apply to these testing activities.
2.
An evaluation of the adequacy of directions provided and controls utilized during the perfor=ance of Special Prerequisite Test Instructions shall be performed and documented.
TUGC0 Operations ISC personnel and CPSES Startup personnel involved with the performance of Special Prerequisite Test Instructions have been formally indoctrinated in the requirements of Startup Administrative Procedures as they apply to these testing activities. This indoctrination involved a discussion of the attached material, "Startup Administrative Procedure Training For I&C Technicians." The attendance list for two training sessions conducted March 16, 1983, is also attached.
The directions and controls referenced in Item 2 are provided in SU-83184 (attached) to prevent confusion involving initiation and approval of Test Procedure Deviations (TPD's) generated for Special Prerequisite Test Instructions.
We have reviewed recent deficiency reports referenced in the Stop Work Order and conclude that some requirements in Startup Administrative Procedure CP-SAP-21, addressing the calibration of MSTE. are more restrictive than technically necessary. These requirements have been discussed with CPSES Startup personnel resulting in an Interim Change to CP-SAP-21, Revision 1, by TSU-83085. This interim change should satisfy both the technical and administrative requirements for the calibration of MSTE not used for acceptance data.
If you have any questions concerning the response, please contact this office.
?
Y R. A. Jonesj
(
gik RAJ/33T/ tc.- /ljd r~ n Attachments I
~ '
e-2,,
[
, l i: %
=
n
~
I
O
.)
O QOS-83036 March 16, 1983 Page Two cc:
R. J. Gary B. R. Clements D. N. Chapman J. C. Kuykendall A. Vega J. T. Merritt R. E. Camp j
ARMS 4
8 i
I l
t
(-
.v g
i n
DQA-83096 TN. AS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICt. MEMORA ND UM To R. A. Jones Glen Rose. Texas March 17 1983 Subject Startup/ Turnover Surveillance StoptjorkOrderNo.001 A stop work was issued on March 16, 1983 at 3:00 p.m. affecting the performance of Special Prerequisite Testing activities in CPSES Unit No. 1.
This work stoppage occured due to several deficiencies being recently identified during surveillance of this testing where personnel were not following Startup Admin-istrative Procedures.
Corrective action to evaluate the adequacy of direction provided to personnel performing these tests and to formally indoctrinate these personnel on Startup Administrative Procedure requirements was subsequently accomplished on March 16, 1983.
Personnel from the Startup/ Turnover Surveillance office attended these indoctri-nation sessions and reviewed the clarified methods to control these testing activities as identified in QOS-83036.
Based on the quality of the indoctrination sessions and the clarified controls in this area, I consider actions taken to resolve this work stoppage to be satisfactory. Therefore, as of 8:30 a.m., March 17, 1983, the work stoppage affecting Special Prerequisite Testing in CPSES Unit No. 1 is no longer in affect.
For those personnel involved with resolving this stop work order, your coopera-tion is greatly appreciated.
C. H. Welch Startup/ Turnover Surveillance Supervisor CHW/pr cc:
R. J. Gary B. R. Clements D. N. Chap =an J. C. Kuykendall f.
1' h y 4,
,,,, p A. Vega p
'j
.m g n y J. *i. Merritt JJ QQ q)gy s
R. E. Camp p
D. E. Deviney
(
ARMS w
i i
O h,lb33
-I t
CMuc<c ;$
h fr pd kh 0W m f
,w, &
HM
'3//s /V3 VJ A4.
GJW
&. 0 0.L w-x 0 & en, cGy MJfA AM
~ elo M L Q &< &
y S: 30-7:s
,w
&& xia%W lm
- ) ; 3 0 - /c3 : Sb Aq, w ~ an~
- v. w. z i, i z,, e ;, s.
w w m pm s-r 0A A y " A.
W f'W Oa U$%u A'u (H & q % W
& ud J
cctb~dd
.hdu.b2 y 7 Nv f &
aN Nu &,wA.
J y
.?%t 7A noaunk
&i p 2~g' 9 nd an Ly ~
~
usd.
q uis 8
e I
t
~
t i
- I l
r i
i l,.
a i e
a f
8 I
I i
f
O O
TEl.EPHONE CONVERSATION RECORD ocee /4#pel/Aff Time: /9R //a d*E9e.8 $m//I of 7/Agg g [ [
Call by:
i-- >
Answer by:hs/ WNMP/ll$cf X72/.k Jp jr],,
i~~t ic_,-
w Contract No:
- A Yeop ~ vpb es / n/
,,;m,,f,yn f Subject discussed:
o 60-J"AP-J' Svis, yw /
UMMARY CF CisCU$stCN, DECIstcNs AND CCMMITMENTs.
A8 E ONl Yt./
/2/k 2. f/'7s f
,g,asla//7 4.rg< <11:7kA.dw AM a m &,g,,.n 6p ?
es rn-a/ av,/
i
~
0 Y5l RAW z)
$/ 2 8 771 s
I n/as-I i
l
o i
Tug-1633 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMILY l
OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM To.
D. C. Frankum
._ Glen Rose. Texas.____ _ April 2 5, 1983 Subject Corrective Action Request dCAR-024)
Training The Brown & Root Quality. Assurance Manual required that all personnel are indoctrinated and trained in the implementing procedural requirements applicable to their activity prior to performing the activity.
In response to Monitoring Discrepancy Report 83-002, most departments have submitted a memo to the Training Department indicating the procedures their personnel are responsible for implementing.
A review of these memos indicates that many of the general and interfacing procedures have been omi;ced and not all memos have been specific as to which personnel require training in which procedures.
Training records reviewed do not show that personnel have received the required training on the procedures listed on the memos.
Please provide written response to this office on or before May 3, 1983, describing the action you have taken or intend to take in order to correct this problem including your action to prevent recurrence.
Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned or G. W. Parry.
/Au R. G. Tolson
.[
h/h TUCCO Site QA Supervisor RGT/GWP/GS/bil
~.
\\
j e
Yi 4,]
l p
- 1 b %I
- 1^Y D0%D
s.
. y; ;5;agp~ f-lg3.y31.%:.uns.,[.,
~
TUQ-1872 TEXAS ( flLITIES GENERATING COMP [ $
OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM T,
J. T. Merritt cien he. Tex. November 30. 1983 Subject ComDietion of Corrective Action foWCARid24+m Ref: CAR-024, TUQ-1699, IM-25767
"'"~"*
TUQ-1720,IM-25090,TUQ-1756 IM-26157 On April 25,1983, CAR-024 was issued concerning the lack of adequate criteria for the training of personnel and the lack of documentation to
. show what training had been conducted.
On June 27, 1983, memorandum IM-25767 was received in response to the CAR indicating that specific training criteria would be established and that comencing July 5,1983, all available training data would be input to a computer program to evaluate the need for additional training.
It was also indicated that by July 12, *.983, a date for completion of corrective action would be established.
On July 22, 1983, memorandum IM-25909 was received which stated that computer input would be completed by September 15, 1983, and evaluation of the data completed by September 30, 1983. On September 12, 1983, memorandum IM-26157 was received requesting a 30 day extension of the completion dates.
As of this date, neither the data input, the evaluation of data, nor any indicated training has been accomplished.
Please respond to this office no later than December 14, 1983, indicating the cause for the lack of progress in accomplishing the corrective action and the date of expected completion.
R. G. i lson TUGC0 Site OA Supervisor
/p RGT/BCS/bil cc:
D. C. Frankum
${[/'h09; s
\\
I OpR yf
e we 1
- AS UTILITIES SERVICES IN(
CPP-14656 OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM
_ To R. G. Tolson Cien Rose Texas __ December 7 1983
[
Subject Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Subj ect :
CAR-024 In response to your memo concerning lack of progress in the completion of corrective action for the subject CAR, the delay has been due to the large volume of items being input into the computer.
Contrary to the implication made in your memo, training data is being input as other priorities permit.
While the training requirements resulting from the evaluation of the input data have not been determined, we believe that this is a moot point based on reassignment of personnel under the task forces, and coupled with the daily training which is administered to the af fected personnel each time a procedure or revision is issued.
This notwithstanding, we anticipate having the input completed by 2/6/84 with the evaluation of the data completed by 2/29/84 Any required train-ing will be completed 30 days af ter that with an ensuing input of the data.
N
'. yert/lf
/ 12 1 J
T Jr. T
/
JTM/JPC/lg cc:
D. C. Frankum Ray Yockey 0
.p\\ 9
/(f f 's h I
LD
. _.. a.. aid.s.,. 2 :M.$:;&.:i.... n.e..:.
.. _. _..... p
(-
T00-1886 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMbNY OFFICE MEMOR A NDUM
...J_._,T. Me rri.ti,. Jr.
Ta
._.._.__... clen Itose. Texa,.. December 13, 1983 Lidwt Completion of Corrective Action
-*gNE024.v
~
~ ~ '
Ref:
TUQ-1872, CPP-14,656 Your response to TUQ-1872 has been reviewed by this office and is considered acceptable at this time.
Completion of corrective action will be verified on 3/29/84.
advise this office of your progress in this matter.
Please
/,);d
~;
R. G. Tolson d'1 TUGC0 Site QA Supervisor RGT/BCS/GWP/ GAS /bil
' (
l i
t (1!;
6 R
b(f I
I
=
l
. ;._,' m.y - ?? (- ~ w
~
.'.~,
7 g
EP own& Root,Inc.
P.O. BOX 1001 GLEN ROSE. TEXh$ 7M43 L;=/.?lf%Qp g lQfff
. m.. x._
.~
TO DATE CAit' oAW L_
_J 3-2 / - Pf'
$ wdd7L p'ascwX&.so yxn A dudAd~
?
xuAv2&-f y>s nmndsay a
pg.~
b lJ/f~
hh//
eu,wA nh, nr TN;,Hnf
_ZAb) Wh e+w&&<dedw/
,, f S w
eastewC?toase to tasseems amefevCfoosse to eECasysee e as=o to see eis s a se =o==.,e ano e.=a c o s e =.e= ca meo=.= v act a weies ases, a oarac=
99.
neue esai coe, ea rve===eva coe. 'o se =os e I
1 yN/ o)v.
h d'0h n
I
35-1195 l
Brownf5 Root.inc..
4-10-84 i
MEMO TO:
Construction Start-Up/ Turnover Surveillance FROM:
D. C. Frankum
SUBJECT:
CAR-24 Procedural training data input should be completed on Thursday, April 12, 1984.
Immediately following data input a print-out will be generated reflecting the desired data.
This data is expected to be available Friday, April 13, 1984.
0
. ek?' dim o t, :,-
D. C Frankum Project Manager DCF/ac l
h d4[
0 0
APRi L
4 3 :,g, ; :y,gl ;d:; '. w -, Y
~
35-1195
% gf u g April 18, 1984 MEMO TO:
Construction Start-Up/ Turnover, Surveillance FROM:
Di C. Frankum
SUBJECT:
CiR-24 Entry of procedural training data has been completed and a print-out generated reflecting the training each employee has completed.
As an exception that training completed in the last two weeks will not be reflected on the print-out but is in the process of being entered into the computer.
?
Request this CAR be considered offically closed.
b~ I? hrM'1< 5Mf D. C. Frankum Project Manager DCF/ac t
0 gd 1 d
ri yiil j\\-(I d)
Gl i
(d RECEIVED
IS E
l "l
PROCEDURE I
l
! REVISION
,, g NUMBER O
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO O,
CP.QP.15.6 1
l 1 of 5 l
JUL 2 6 %;
i l
i PREPARED BY:
hu &Edztz/to 7
.5" /J CATE SDAR STATUS TRACKING APPROVED BY:
h
/
OATE 1.0 REFERENCE I
1.A CP QP.16.1, "Significant Construction Deficiencies" 01 NFORMA 10N ON_Y 2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this procedure is to describe the method for the tracking of Significant Deficiency Analysis Report (SDAR) initiated in accordance with Reference 1.A.
2.2 RESPONSIBILITY The Site QA Supervisor has overall responsibility for timely responses to SDAR's.
The Non.ASME QA Supervisor shall be responsible for implementing the tracking system described in this procedure.
3.0 INSTRUCTION 3.1 SDAR NUMBER LOG l
An SDAR number log shall be maintained by the QA Secretary.
3.2 SDAR STATUS The QA Secretary shall maintain an SDAR Tracking Ma trix (Figure 1). The matrix shall reflect status and additional in fo nna tion, as required.
Each SDAR shall be assigned a i
sequential number from the SDAR number lor.
The matrix l
shall identify the following infonnation:
y/qq FO!A-85-59 TUGCC CA N
6 W
h~
f3,
- I PROCEDURE ISSUE REVISION PAGE NUMBER DATE TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.
t,.. -
JUl. 2 6 lop 1
'2 o f 5 a)
SDAR No.
b)
Issue date of SDAR c)
Due date for response to NRC d)
Response assigned to e)
Due date to Non.ASME QA Supervisor f)
Brief description of finding g)
Status of response 3.4 ASSIGNED RESPONSES After entering the item in the SDAR Matrix, the request for response shall be transmitted to the individual assigned that responsibility.
The transmittal shali show a required s
response date.
Nomally the required response shall be 15 days from the date of the transmittal.
Extensions to response dates may be made upon wr'itten justification to j
When the date requested exceeds the response due date to the NRC, the Site QA i
Supervisor shall formally request an extension from the TUGC0 Quality Assurance ":r.Ner or his designee, who in turn l
will request such extensions from the NRC.
3.5 OPEN ITEMS REPORT A report shall be generated providing a brief status of each open SDAR.
Tni s report (Figure 2) shall be published weekly.
Individuals assigned a response due date that falls during the week when the report is issued shall be verbally reminded that the response is due.
If a response is not received before the due
- date, a
fo m al request for the response shall be delivered to the responsible individual, requesting immediate action.
Any response overdue more than 2 days, without an approved extension,.
shall be brought to the attention of the Non.ASME QA Supervisor for resolution.
Items shall remain on the report until closed by the NRC.
TUGCO OA
PROCEDURE REVISION ISSUE PAGE NUMBER DATE TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.
JUL 2 6 ige 3 of 5 3.6 RESPONSE REVIEW After receipt of the response, the Non.ASME QA Supervisor shall review ~ the draft response for adequacy and upon approval shall forward the response to the Site QA Supervi sor for review and forwarding to the Manager, Quality Assurance.
J s
Form No. 3
"O oc" 6 Cm 5
w2 6Z Om ZCEmg 0 4m 4mym Cdrq amZ $>*ZO OO
~
ku$
n hiorG. u h.
O7o? m.*
A O+ c s
i f'
n Cm~
C T
R R
N O
P O
E E
T
.~
R T
A E
S D
T I
A S
E D
Y U
tY L
S E
A S
U N
I D
A
% r Y
I
- f,'gSs%
C l
A l
E I
C F
ED T
N A
C I
F l
i Q
I S
M E
T I
N EPO f
O O
N T
O I
D E
T E
T P
R D
I S
i A
Q R
U C
T A
S E
S A
D S
U E
T S
A D
D S
No8 o
'h zo u i1
)
PROCEDURE ISSUE REVislON PAGE NUMBER DATE TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.
CPSES 1
5 of 5 CP,-QP-15. 6 R 2 6 1983 l
l FIGUPI 2 1
4 OPEi: SDAR'S 7?-08 CE!-20 " Installation of liit ti Bolts" (Hilti Spacing)
Completion 7/1/81 - No report required unless completion date missed
??-09 flajor Conduit Supports Being Installed Awaiting NRC closure - 11/24/80 Taylor contac;ed
-s-
??-13 Concrete for Unit 2 Steam Generator
(
(-W)
Cor:pa rtments coepletion date - awaiting last repair 8?-35 Eroedment lengths of Hilti Bolt
>s in Floor Slabs 8/5/81 - Taylor will close
- h. 09 Diesel Generator pipe Supports
.)
10/3/81-received TXX-3415 to t;RC j~ l,j Hitti Bolts for Conduit supports (UT)
Completion 12/1/01 g
$!{,6 Instrumentation Supports Overstressed Completion 1/4/82 O
9 TUGCO OA 3
i L.
~~~
v s
V Si Brown & Root,Inc. east office Box 1001, Glen Rose, Texas 76043 i
gw p 7 W_ M 23 September 1983 All Electrical superintendents To:
FROM:
Charlie Britt
SUBJECT:
CPM 6.10, Issuance of IRN's The Electrical Department has received numerous NCR's for failure to issue This is in an IRN or rework traveler on previously inspected items.
direct violation of the subject procedure and adds unnecessary esperwork to both QC and construction, along with additional costs to the Client.
This practice cannot and will not be tolerated any longer.
Henceforth, any NCR's written because of the negligence of the area foreman to provide the proper pacerwork, will result in the termination V
In addition, the general foreman resconsible will receive a coun::,eling form and probable termination or reduction of grade of the foreman.
if'this problem continues in his area.
I expect each Electrical superintendent to read this requirement to his dhere to the requirments of-CoM,6.10.
a:g'eners.I.. foremen, ande foremen '.and a
.a all) L Charlie Britt General Electrical Superintendent y[qf F0h-86-59 NFORMAT ON eDADV VA/7Ji 1
a PPRV 1
i
(
mal m-4 h
b 4
OCT 3 1983 In Reply D To:
Dockets:
_: a5/83-2 50-446/83-14 s
Texas Utilities Generating Company ATTN:
R. J. Gary, Executive Vice President & General Manager 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Mr. L. E. Martin of this office during the period June 27 through September 16, 1983, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Perr..it CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 for Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2, and to the discussion of our findings with R. G. Tolson, and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
This inspection was the Region IV followup to the Construction Appraisal Team's (CAT) inspection as documented in NRC Inspection Report 50-445/83-18; 50-446/83-12.
The scope of this inspection was to perform a more in-depth review and evaluation of the " Potential Enforcement Findings" (unresolved issues) which were identified in Appendix B of the CAT report and referred to l
Region IV for resolution.
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examination of procedures 'and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.
These findings are documented in the enclosed inspection report.
Within the scope of the inspection, no new violations or deviations were identified, in this report.
Four violations were identified as a result of the CAT inspection and dccumented in NRC letter to TUGC0 of May 31, 1983, ar.d the attached Notice of Violation.
One unresolved item is identified in the Electrical and Instrumentation Construction Area of the enclosed inspection report.
The Region IV inspector reviewed the,/ post' construction verification programsf and procedures for piping and supports, electrical, and room walkdowns.
These programs and proced'Jres contain the app' opriate elements to ensure that the actual as installed components and systems will be in accordance with the latest design requirements.
The actual implementation of the post a
- construction Ver.ificatidn_pr_ogram,s will be followed through subsequent Region IV inspections on a room or area basis as required by the NRC tv g/
Inspection Manual, MC 2512.
f g
f0 b~Q,' :m "'*\\,, j
~' (:
,o
.C D yvf y\\
j rrr kPBl[
DRRP EP ',
I&E ES RPS-A LMaru n/dsm DHunnicu t GMadsen JGagl W do g' JTaylor 9/p/83 g 9/#/83 9/;;/83
/s/J /83 F r!
q 9/ 4 83 N
1 25 4
ANSI N45.2.6 and Regulatory Guide 1.58, Revision 1, establishes the qualifications (minimum) for inspectors but the documents do not address how to perform inspections, nor does it prevent a senior Level I that exceeds the minimum requirements from re/iewing inspec-tion results on simple "go-no go" type inspections.
ANSI N45.2.6 does not address when Level II inspections are required.
This is done procedurally.
The Region IV inspector reviewed several procedures and travelers that required Level II inspection.
Some typical exa'mples are solder-ing, NIS triaxial cable testing, penetration conductor inspections, and modification to panel CP1-EPBCED-06.
The procedures and travelers identify the specific activities that are beyond the Level I
' capabilities and must be accomplished by a Level II inspector. The Region IV inspector concludes that the " inspector of record" and the level of review is appropriate for the type of inspections in ques-tion and meets the general requirements and commitments of ANSI N45.2.6.
This item is considered closed.
[0ualitv-AsraraMej
- 1. ' CAT Potential Findina
" Contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVIII and FSAR Section 17.1.18, QA audits have not been conducted at a frequency or at suffi dent depth to identify and correct significant problems in various areas of construction; i.e.,
HVAC and electrical separation (Section VIII.B.2.b(5)(c))."
Section VIII.B.2.b(5)(c) - indicates that areas of construction were audited; however, the audits did not identify major construction problems in HVAC and electrical areas.
With regard to the major construction problem in HVAC, a viol.ation was identified as discussed in the " Mechanical Construction"! area, Potential Finding 3 of this report.
The licensee's response lis required to address the controls to be implemented to prevent recur-rence.
With regard to the major construction problem in the elec-trical area, the electrical and instrumentation construction area of this report adequately addresses the three " CAT Potential Findings."
The Region IV inspector was unable to identify a major construction problem in the electrical area.
No new violations or deviations were identified in this area.
This item is considered closed.
2.
CAT Potential Findino
" Contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI anc FSAR Section 17.1.16, audit findings related to maintenance instructions identified in 1979, 1981, and 1982, were not resolved in a timely manner (Section VIII.B.2.b(5)(C))."
26 F
Section VIII.B.2.b(5)(c) - indicates that three audit reports, TCP-5, TUG-5, and TUG-14, had identified a common problem concerning the incorporation of vendor / manufacturer maintenance requirements into the ongoing maintenance instructions.
"The problem was identified in 1979, and it has not been resolved as evidenced by the 1982 audit.
Thus, the effectiveness of the corrective action system for audits is not effective."
The Region IV inspector reviewed the following audit reports:
a.
TCP-5
~
This audit was performed on B&R construction and storage mainten-ance during the period of August 27-30, 1979.
Deficiency 1 identified a problem where the manufacturers long-term storage maintenance instruction had not been properly incorporated into the B&R maintenance Procedure MCP-10.
The particular problem identified involved the rotation of shafts on large motors.
The followup and close out of this deficiency was documented in Audit Report TCP-9.
This audit took place during the period of March 24-April 1, 1980.
The corrective action implementation and follow up audit were accomplished within 6 months after the initial audit report-was available.
b.
TUG-5 This audit was performed on TUSI startup maintenance activities during the period of June 22-July 2, 1951.
Deficiency 4 identified a problem where the manufacturer recommended operational mainten-ance requirement fer maintaining the qualified life of the equipment was not incorporated into the operational maintenance procedure, as required by the maintenance program.
This particular problem identified the cycling of the circuit breakers for the Class 1E battery charges under load every 6 months.
The followup and close out of this deficiency was documented in Audit Report TUG-8.
This audit took place during the period of Februa ry 22-26, 1982, here again the corrective action implementa-tion and the follow up audit were accomplished within 6 months after the audit report was available.
c.
TUG-15 This audit was performed on TUGC0 operations maintenance activities during the period of September 27-October 1, 1982.
This audit die not have a deficiency relating to failure to incorporate manufacturers instructions into site procedures.
However, the audit did identify a proc 3 dural seakness in that the Procedure MDA-301 did not make specific references to responsibility assignment and documentation of manufactures
27 instructions into the actual operational maintenance instruc-tions.
The audit identified that implementation of the manufacturers instruction was adequate, but the procedure was weak.
The follow up audit for this concern has not been completed yet, but it will be documented in Audit Report TUG-35.
The above three audits pertain to maintenance and maintenance instruc-tions, however, they do not identify the same problem or a failure to provide prompt or appropriate corrective action.
All three audits were of three different organizations at three different time periods.
The first two audits have some similarity, but involve two different types of maintenance procedures and two different disciplines.
The third audit and the identified concern is totally unique to itself.
This item is considered closed.
3.
CAT Potential Findino.a " Contrary, g r1 5 $ 2503 Apphn~ iK 3,"; Criterion VI, d
ellahd F,SAR.3 action 17.,1. 6, drawings yith;out-of-da+egvisfons and, ;r,24 N
/
drawingssith damaged.or unreadable title blocks were present.an_
c SconstrdctisfiSork areas (Section".YHi.B. 2. e7. -~E, -'
This potential finding was reviewed by the SRIC and determined to be a Severity Level IV Violation.
This violation was identified in Appendix A of the Region IV letter to TUGC0 dated May 31, 1983.
This item will be followed by the SRIC.
Desion Chance Controls and Corrective Action Systems 1.
CAT Potential Findino
" Contrary to 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, and FSAR Section 17.1.5, procedures were not adequa'te to assure design changes were properly transmitted to the quality control organization such that an appropriate inspection could be performed (Sections IX.B.1.b and IX.B.1.c)." 19/ (see Attachment)
The Region IV inspector has already acdressed many of the concerns with design change and corrective action in previous areas of this report.
The Region IV inspector has attempted to identify the specific concerns of the CAT inspectors in Section IX of the CAT report.
Many of the concerns the CAT inspectors had with regard to design change and corrective action were related to potential hardware problems in t,he clectrical. and mechanical areas and their concern with the "zir}terative design,, process" utilized at CPSES.
The.4t.erative design prgcess is.not unique with CPSES.
It has been utilized at many other nuclear projects.
The implementation of the iterative design process is somewhat unique at CPSES due to the type of design drawings provided by the architect engineer, G&H and by the actual time frame in which the design and construction was initiated (construction permit issued December 1974).
5
}
DY"- [}
2.L
&~
/*,.4m,,,. \\
2_ f
/
I UtdTED STATES
% e.1Y,:
NUCLDR REGULATORY COMMISSON g
esecreta, c. c. : us
-, e..p/,r-9.
c-e.
i
,i.
2, A.t g11*
- f..c.p 4
,.e.
a.
- 1. s.
w 2,
- 2. - t-o
',s 9
e
. e.,.t 15 '..i. i *1 e s.adn e ra i ng cmca ny r
s a
i 1:
A,r. R.
G. cary, :Xecu*1Ve i,1CS " r'*s t.,en :
anc Ceneral Manager
--r.,.
.r'/in : c'.ve r
..s..
2,
.,. x., s - - - m..
2en:.smen:
C nstruct,.cn Accraisa..nscection :.0-.../
a,
...c
- u ---o/
4 - a e......
i t c
.u: a..:
. -.. "... =. v...=. '#.#'..=
2
..n s.ru c. d. e.n, :s.a ~.
- d. e..= 1 i n s..=.. d....
ae.
,a. s s.,e.
.r. a.
(.ur n Januar/ 2
-scr;ary
, a anc -ecruary
.n
. scac:1Cn anc -n crcement
- =.1 1.'.:.
- * = x i...=.=.m..l a. r... '.. '... '... -..=...s'.".-
a. iar...~,.::'., a.
M..a.
r,, ~.m- = n c.. a.
s.
i n e go ns.,..,.e. w n,.-, r. 4. s a ~I
..a s.,..
(.,* i,.was w..... scc w:.
s
.v w -
-.7.ee.a 1 C :. :. $ e..,.
e
.. s.e.-.c e ". *. ^. #..f ~
8.9 d
.2 A1'.'". e r v- #... n t. u. *5,=. n 2.
i..s
- . e.. e.-. *. *. n. >., V a. r. e.,.*...c....,n i
.s c.. d. y d.. 4. 3 3
.s,J... c. #.
- . ^..,Y N E" v"o n s.". J '.'. v 7 2*'-..'.. '..I~7.~.~#."..
-/
.. c,a ; s c '!
. ns
- a.,..e.n s a e. s. s e.c:...... e.., -. i. n. e.
a e:,
.n.s e..2,..e.,.n
.s
..e s.ee. nw-e e..
...w
.....e'..d.-".
s.a.,.
7... #... r. :... e a..
T.. c.
- e. e "...e
-a4q;., t. 2 ". n e '. 3 v.". e w #. #. i. w.*,
o
- (
a v 2. " a *.
- i....~."..'".. e.q..S. *. * *.q
...a.. 2. c. s ".. e a. "...-"...-.I w #. I I b.e u s c-'.
..".e s a i n s - a.'..'. *. n t
.= #. e.... $..o r.. 4.. n
,a. c.d. y..i a. s 2 r.. *.". a.
-"a'.i."
C.
- 2....t.'.".*.*-
, I 2.. *. 2.
d j
- w.. a.
g r..s =.c
- a. x s.m.. i. a. m. e....e-.
....o j. e.. a. r.. e...
I
.a.
- s. n. e.,. $ a e.
-c. a.c r. i. e a.q.d. J o. a..e
,, j... 4..q
..q m. e. g
.s co. m. $,
...a 3 4 J.
- F. C. n e. '. s *..s.e.
^ #.
e. 5 4. *. *. '. i.. s. e r.. '... "... ' 33.'.8"...".
p w
8
-...a..*.'".*.*..*.*'/*.
- * '/ ". %..
a *..*,e a r*.
- '.' w's a".' ' e r.....
w' u a' I. #. *.'/ C. n w*-I.
'..*. s *.* e r.. #. '.'.1 '.,.
a
.w
- s. J.
-...e r.o - s. $
- 3..r.
, e. r.. e...,..- s c.ro s.
,;c... r. s t. d.."f ;. $ 2 g ri.n-s..y.s.,
- s. y.s...W.. r..s. J. e. e.
w.
e
.y aC-iVities anc.nter"/iews ni'.n anzga"en; arc c:..er ;'o*;crrel 4
J
!iCn ^,f nor%
. J.
...s 4.
e-e..
- - m. a..n.c i.z 1
..*1 i s. a....s e.
j s
,s.n s r....e. y e *,....s. r./
- m. J...m. e. e s. c.o. i.2 a
4 t
a
. a.
w
.w
. #. *.e
..s..=r..
'. e. r.. e a.r* >
.i.n.a.nc of w nclus'...s.e.>.-..
a v.. 4. s - #. #. '. c.e.
w
..gki system, ceficiencies nc ac fr 9
rea:1'ng, ven 1.a:1cn anc a1r ccnc1 cmng n
- . '. l u *. *. e.
... =. =..e.. a. s.... '...
,". n s... l a. ". '..a r e a r=.
.d. -
'.... "... '.. - - a.. v =. s i. v a.
,n :ne..L,C sys:am, a creaxccon in -cr< anc :ual::y instai.ation recuirements.
n centrcl was icenti#iec. NRC :.egicn PI nas ciscussac..is ma :er niin feu anc
- 4.. ' s cu r u n c e. a..'.n c d. a. ;
...5.
W...s...a...=.
r a. r..s. v a.
- i..... e M.. =...=
- s. c. *
.1
.v.s e. u
.2...
i w. 9.*. '...-. s ~..~'
- s. v 2. 'i '.'.2. 5 2.a.
.". a. s a. -.. '.. '... e..
".t.
O. a ". ' -. '. 'l
'.v i '
,V C ' *.
. c. g.s = - r..
.s.. s.r...
r.
.-a-
.m
. g
- e...... i. g. e..e... gj.,..,..p..
O,....
.... d. r. y a.
p. c.
w.
.... s e..s...s.j*.g.
.g F.e. d. a n. e.
- 2. e.
- 4.. a. r.. d 4 J :. r..o. r.
....s
- t. r. e s e.. e.. q
- e.
- s..e. }... a a.
- J
.. c. r.e. e..
a a gu$.
..g 7. y.
a. e.. a. s..- e.
J.u n c
- .1.9
.a.:e.- se. c.s.e.
. q.
s.-
.-. m. g. qt(
.2
...t a s_ v-. - -,. 3.... e.
J.-*.
...a
.. J..e r.,., g., e.. 3,.
-4.-nr.
'.n. -..
.m 4.n i..$
J. n g. a.,. 4.
n
- e. J ev.
sc 3
. #. 3.C. *C's.'.'.-*..'...
.--.v'.*
- V'w'*."".*
- i. - i. e
,s. p g e.s.-..m. } a. $
- s. p. e. a r...: s.
..4.s.
.s.a n. s. 2 n.
VI!!. QUALITY ASSURANCE A.'Cbiec:ive The objective of this review was to de:annine :ne adecuacy.of the 9-d licensee's Quality Assurance (QA) Fr: gram. The prcgram was reviewed ::
determine if it was accrcpriately esta:lished in instructions anc manuals; and if the ccastrue:icn an:c cualf y. assuranca effer:
2 was menitored through audits and other managemenr. actions.
In addition, a saccling review of spec...ric s ecs taken :y One-licensee regarcing the eversignt of.contrac:crs, control of measuring and test ecuiement, cccument control, anc c:ntroi cf OA re: Orcs was mace :: catarmine if s:ecific parts of the program were implemented.
- 3. Discussion
- 1. Pr: cram Recuiremen:s The OA pregram is cefined by a managemen: encersec hierarchy cf general directives and imclemented by crececures at the corporate anc site' levels :c con:r:1 c:nstrue:icn activ: les.
inese prececures were implementec to sa:isfy the licensee's final Safety Analysis Re:cr: (FSAR) c:mmitments.
- 2. Procram Imolementation Implementation of this portion of the pr: gram was ce:armicec casec
- n reviewing the organi:stienal structure, incut #r:m ::her NRC CAT inspectors, :he constructicn audit program, saccling rawing revi-siens in tne ::nstruction work areas, and reviewing ne centr:1 of measuring anc tas: ecui: ment.
4
- a. Or ani:ation The QA organ':atien includes the sita c nstruction cuality i
c:ntrol organi:ation which is incecendent fr:m the site c:nstruc-tien management. The cuality assurance crganization re:cr:s t:
the Vice Presicen: for Nuclear Cierations, wnese resconsibilities include the construction and oceration of the Ccmanene Peak Steam Electric Staticn (CF5ES). The autnerity anc duties of ne
- csitions involvec were cescritec in ne 75AR anc c:r:cra:a manuals.
The auc;; crgani:ation aas *,cca:ac a: ne r;crata Headcuarters in Dallas. 4Qeylyrganj:a: cn.was found~.:Je in e f
g;;c rcancasi:n,'4RC--recuirements -arc :neyesc- ;;1cn ::n. ainec jn i 'AESAR.4-Organi:it;cnas caarts :nc;Ead :na a um:er cf staf#
cesitiens were vacan; and hac :een f:r an ex encee :ericc.
I e
IfI...
.see w
.~
y
- s. 3 N~
i.i 3
g <e O.
t
- 6.,
- 5. aucits
[
The licensee's audit program.was reviewed. At least 15 audits d
cut of c0, :er Or ec between 1973.and 1983, were selec:ec and rev1ewed w1:n emanasts on the relicwinc ma,;cr areas: pudi;;r-
~
4;3ua73ILiititudinCc]er:))icatj,cns; audi planning and scheduling; aucit instr cti:ns and cnecx snie:s; 'audi re:cr:s; audit results
- (
- and follcwup; and the ovarali effectiveness of -he auci: ;r gram.
(1) r trcitor4ualificaticns and Iertifications3 e
-~
(a,, The 1,.censee cuallrica: en and certa.rtca::cn program for audit:rs and lead audit:rs was estaclished in QA 4
, recacure DG1-QA-2.1 " Qualification of Audi: Perscnnel".
P
^.5
(~ ) The certification rec r:s f:r en lead audit:rs were o
y reviewec. The lead audi::rs ce: the TUGC0 anc ANSI H
4 N45.2.23 requirements. The review revealed, newever, j
that acci: Ors not mee-ing -he ex:erience requirements f:r w
~
the leic auci:cr pcsition hac been assigned as " Acting
~
t.ead Acciter", but the limits of an acting lead auci; r's autneri y and the suicance provicec was nc: cefined.
d (2) Audit Planninc and Scheduline w
(a) Occumen reviews anc interviews revealec -ha; audi
- lans a
. ~ '
were deveic;ed anc a system Of cneck shee s wer.e usec as guides :: the auditt.,rs ensure :na s ecific :cin s were reviewed. 0:en aucit fincings were also reviewec during :ne audit.
It was revealed :na: One check snee:S were caveicped by the acci:Or assignec tne audit or by
?
the auci grou su:erviscr but were not accrevec by :ne QA Ser/ ices Manager.
Inter /iews revealed na: audit schecules were ceveiccee j
using :revious audi findings, schecules, ex:erience, and
,j discussiens with c.:nstructicn site su erviscrs c.:ncerning c:nstr.:::icn prec i ems.
..a nere were, nc_ renc anaiyses -cr f g5riitfr:tten scnedules :revicec -to-ne,QA.;rganitatiqn -J
~
scur:es of in-g.ne~s::el-.' tere #dre, :nese j :cpanL-rc,r:a-i:n were
- -- ---.cu i e. s nisc, :nere was no ya ;r:cecure :: cescr;:e tne me:nce ::
be usec :: develc; auci: scnecules er ana-managemen:
accrevais :he scnecule sncuid receive.
(3) Audit Recerts Audit re:cr.s providec a descri::icn of ne auci sc :e; icentifica :n cf audit:rs; :ersc1s ::ntaccec; a sumary f results an: a cescri::icn Of any def'ciencies or fine:ngs.
1$ I I.. I. r.
s
. m eme amus..
.p-r
.s (a)Audi: Deficiency Recortine and Felicw-uc Audit deficiencies were clearly wri :en anc requirac ' imely response by the management cf :ne auci ad organization.
The
.c. mpletec ceficiencies were reviewed by -he aucit team leader 70r acequacy. Deficiencies were rev.1ew..
audits for c moleteness. fFremc ccrre e.c in suosecuen:.
. c:1.ye._ action wa
~ 71_n.c.; ng s. s p ee r a rs c. ra p n,. 2.~3,,'s. '. no t
,qyw,ays t..aken 'c.n._a_u.d a. :
r.
s s:) -~
-e s cwt. -
(5) Procram Effectiveness Althcugh the audit pr: gram was in olace, there were several weaknesses in the cr: gram na: cecreased its effectiveness.
(a) Audit Effort The aucit organi:a:icn is lccatec 1: ne TUGC0 cffices in Dallas. All aucits are perfccmec frem :na: location.
There are eic.h: audi: ors in the audit section. Alth
-m-audit teams are sometimes su;;lementec cy personne. c. ugh r-i trem other sections of the QA crgani:atien, :ne eignt mem:er audit secticn is assigned :: ;erfcrm audits of succiiers, subc:ntrac:ces at One construc;ien site, c:nstruc icn g
activities and startuc. Of tne eign; audit:rs in the audit organization, fcur hac tecnnician backgr und and four had a general ncntecnnical backgr:unc. 'icne of ne audi ces assigned to tne grou: ' ac engineering bac:<grounc n
or experience.
Inter /iews reveaiec na ac;reximately 1200 man days were s:en: :recaring fer, concucting anc re;crting audits a: One site in 1952. A review of the 32 audits performed in 1982 reveaiec na accu: 330 man cays were spent cn site :erfcrming nese audits. This a:: ears to be a small percentage of the to:ai auci effer consicering tne level of effer; engoing a :ne site.
Interviews revealed tnat five acci icnal auditor positions hac been au ncri:ec for more than cne year but tne ;csitiens were still vacant.
(b) Audi-F-scuency
- terviews and cccumen rev'ews reveaiec ::a :
n Twelve auci s of c:nstructicn activi-ies were :erf:rrec in 1981.
Of :nese, six were of engineering anc acm nis-tra:1ve areas suen an auci s of 'E Eulletins, anc Or:-
curement anc six were of c:nstruction fiele activities.
Thirty-two aucits were :erformec in 1982. Cnly nine :f the audits were of c:nstruction fiel t activi-ies, :ne
-l r i. r. *-
- m.. w. -.-
~
.j.;.'
A
- s l
4 id~.
?
3 s'
b
."4
- ner 23 audits were perfccmec of engineering activities i
and other succor areas. Cf the audits of c:nstruction y,
- ield activities: cne audit was performed of mechanical
?.!
. piping activities, one of restraint anc snucber instal-laticns, two or e actrical work, one of civi work, one a
of instrument and c:n:rcis, and nree of protective-u?. -
c:at.ngs application.
N.4 7
ine trecuency of audit; cf construe:icn activi;ies has been 9
very icw anc may have c:ntributad :: :ne pr:oiems in the u
k' technical disciplines identifisc in secticns II, II*, anc IV 4
of this report.
B d
(c) Audit Effecti;/eness i
Areas of the constructicn activi y were auditec; hcwever, tne audits dic not icentify major c:nstrue:f on pr: gram preolems, for exam le:
S a
.0...n e.
Sannsen Ser/icas was aucitac yearly sinca,i: 9 2
las audit was in April 1982. Al ncugn race 1ca:icn and 1,
installaticn activities and cersennel qualf r,ica-icns were in the scope of the 1952 auci, sucn qC CAT identified itams as undersized welds, cu: or toleranca
'i dimensional characteristics, and an inadecuate struc-
?
tural welding ins;ecticn cr: gram were not icentified I
and resolved.
u The electrical area of c nstructi:n was auct:ad cnly f ur times sinca 1980. The audits did not identify the ca:le
.r separation issue as discussac in :ne Electrical Cens ruction Section (Section II) of :nis recert.
.a.
9 Ineffective c:rrective action has been taken af a result of
'I audit. findings; for examole:
Ecuf: ment maintenance was audi:ac in August 1979 (auci:
nuccer (TC?-5)). An audi finding.icentified :na: vencer instructions were not being incor: orated in:: cng ing main anarca instructicns. The July,1931 OA auci cf s..:'--"- =ctivi-i es ( TUG-5 ) inc.ne June * ?EZ Cuality au rvei. l anca s.urmary, n<e,,...n-cc-uca, icen-,..,ac acc1 ;0nai i
pr:biems si n ensuring :na: manuf acturers recuirements anc cualification escer; requirsments had teen inc:r-
- cra
- ac in : ne railtananct program. An Oc:::er 1982 audi (TU3-12) icentified :ne c:ncarn :na ecuitren:
cualification recerts were nc: reviewec curing ne crocass cf estaciishing maintenanca recuirement:.
The
/.ee t
g D
.e a -sem
s
.~.
' - a.= dums.t&y49hMW, a '. '...;.
i 'h*"N,
. r v-4.'
(
{
TUQ-1950 TEXAS UTII,ITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMORA NDUM To J. T. Merritt Glen Rose. Texas February 20, 1984 subject -
Corrective Action Reouest i g,{CA..R);:r. 034 g,, 3 3-Your response to the subject Corrective Action Request has been reviewed and found to be acceptable.
Please consider this item closed.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
ej j Jd
~
j R. G. Tolson
,f, Site Quality Assurance Supervisor RGT/BCS/GWP/pr f
9
.., ~
, 'll'b.Y N' ".
. ~ ;, ;7..:.%C.L.-.a:M*.. tr.%?Zn4 ~ *
~'!. < *.
~.,
- 5..
.. ~
-..*:..-l.
.r.
E Bravnf.rRoot.Inc.
INTEROFFICE MEMO IMI/ :
26678 DATE: 1/17/84 TO:
R.C. Tolson FROM:
J.P. Clarke III
SUBJECT:
Response to CAR-034 Discussions with your personnel indicated the subject CAR was written because they felt inadequacies existed in training and involvement by supervision.
In response to this CAR and the aforementioned concerns, the following actions have been taken.
Tra ining This has been addressed in the response to CAR-24.
Supervision's Involvement The attached memo was issued by the project inspection by supervision prior to presenting the itemmanager mandating for inspection.
to QC
'f 3
u l
.P., Clarke III JPC/la cc D.C. Frankum C.W.
Parry e
fY:
p BrownCrRoot.inc.
35-1195 1/17/84 T0':
Distribution FROM:
D. C. Frankum
SUBJECT:
CAR-034 Interoffice Memo The subject CAR records a high rejection rate of items turned in to QC for inspection.
Discussions with QA personnel indicate that many of the rejections are not due to flagrant violations, but are caused by minor inconsistencies or mistakes by those doing the work Sometimes the " doers" are two close to the problem to really see it.
As corrective action for this CAR, all foremen are directed to ins work for compliance with all of tne requirements before requesting QC ins pect the ction.
It is expected that this approach will provide supervision 'with an pe-objective look at the work before the work is presented to OC for inspect thereby allowing discrepancies to be corrected and the rejection rate red ced.
u-L, D. C. Franium
~~
Project Manager DCF/dc CC: All Superintendents All Foremen
..,..s. W. ? @ % 4 "d k. 5 $ $p..N h l
. a..
- 3
.m..,.e
, s...
os c
G TUQ-1881 -
TEXAS ~ UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM
. To J. T. Merritt Glen h. Texa.,_ December 6, 1983_.
subject _..
.._._ Corrective Action Recuest r O34~,
Control of Deficiencies Re:
Corrective Action Report Third Quarter 1983
_-2. CAR _=0_24-Tra ining.. _... _.... ".. ' - - - -- "?
g A review of the third quarter trend e.nalysis indicates that the percentage of inspection reports documenting deficiercies is unsatisfactory in several areas and appears to warrant corrective action.
The following data lists the type of work inspected, the percentage of inspection reports documenting deficiencies, the major deficiency trend categories, and, based on discussion with inspection supervisors, the apparent causes fer the deficiencies:
Conduit Supports showed an unsat rate of 23%.
The prevalent trends
- 1) out of location with respect to S-910 requirements; and, 2) were:
improper dimensions.
These trends appear to be caused by:
1.
Failure of supervision to assure the work was complete prior to request for inspection.
2.
Lack of understanding of requirements (Re: CAR-024) 3.
Design changes (CMC's and DCA's) not available at time of installation.
Instrumentation reports showed an unsat rate of 17.5%.
These unsats were primarily for tubing and support installation.
The apparent causes of these deficiencies are as follows:
1.
1001 and 1002 are complex and installation personnel appear to lack familiarity with the installation requirements (Re:
CAR-024) 2.
Failure of supervision to assure work is complete prior to request for inspection.
Class 5 Pipe Supports showed an unsat rate of 24% largely due to dimensional errors and welds.
The apparent causes for these deficiencies are as follows:
1.
Hanger packages do not always contain the latest design information (CMC's and DCA's).
Failure of supervision'tkassure work is complete prior to request for 2.
inspection.
.6%
- .
- .Q...
,.5
'l
. __. h: -.;3?l',':... ^ "" 5. l lG;iidi W G.O.*v n:~~r-^r % h 3 2Xi'.".
'."EGi%i.f.'
(
...(..
J. T. Merritt TUQ-1881 December 6, 1983 Please provide a written. response to this office on or before December 20,
.1983, describing the action you have taken or intend to take to correct these problems, and prevent recurrence and your estimated date-of completion.
J R. G. Tolson gg TUGC0 Site QA Supervisor RGT/BCS/GWP/ GAS /bil cc:
J. D. Hicks l
t l
fI2
~
.f.u
Qpr&l%91
% yr23mMpg h
_ un - -.. _.. _ -..
TExna un su i)co ucacnnt mu comrdG, g
y
,p DQ.-84074 d-E OFFICE MEMORA ND UM 3
l April 5, 1984 To J. T. Merritt Glen Rose. Texas Corrective Action Request (CAR-009) l Training of Construction Personnel y
Subject I
Ref: MDR-83-002 CAR-023 CAR-024
[
CAR-025 CAR-029 I
CAR-032 CAR-034 l
To verify corrective action implementation for the ref erenced reports and conformance to the Brown & Root Quality Assurance Program, on April 2, 1984, a surveillance of the Brown & Root Training Program was initiated. The Training Department was requested to supply dccumentation for training required and training accomplished for twenty-five (25) persons selected from field personnel. The Training Department indicated that.the docu-1, mentation was not available because the computer input of training data was not complete.
Please respond to this of fice on or before April 12, 1984 indicating the actions you have taken or will take to correct this matter and the date E/
of expected completion of corrective action.
nk glH. Roberts construction Startup/ Turnover Surveillance Supervisor JHR/pr cc:
B. R. Clements D. N. Chap =an C. H. Welch ARMS al
}%
~ $]
P 1
- e
-.E
- g 4
4
- _
- . : -..~.
g.:
. J3c
.,1 p.
.;,. :.8,.,.
..,~:.
o.
y ro ;.
. ~... -... - -. - -
..a L
...s.
5?,,
Y
.Q m
~..,.
,~
1 M/P/( 7} WM
,..*e.%.g$h
.f.'
l7 8 h"M
.?. [..
+ j.
/
- c. s...,...
e n....
. ~,
....F
?
h
$h.. r :
C/)f Y )
y_
i., ~
. i.
0OY 0;Q y/ s 2/? u
- 1.
r.
0 C23 o/ '" -
i
..J i
699 C-h.: '
I / /J I
- s..
\\
s r,
O ~,$ $
Y.C h*G-af l < o !
5 4, /O J U/.?
l V
~
c,
\\.
g)u csp]
? ? qw
. 1
.\\.
o-
,t.
._..e..
t i*
l a
e-4
.j.
l
.t
..s p
. v..-
7 t.
a
.t.
o
- c..
.I.
.L '
1' I
I w
J#
J.(, ' *,
(*
i I
j go
- .2.
s s
,. 3, 1
m...
,#.-..',..-.'w.-..,m-; -~ &m g,., m..'.;.
- .,.a..
%..,.if, : <
.... c. w,... : s..,
e,
, n.m T:
, a.M *.e.
. ~.
,~..-n w "v
?..c h<,%. &.,. :..,4w :,$
~
~-. -
,v.
$..x&.,:&..., -:..%. ; p.w.? '.$0
.W
- . y, >. l;.< ',,- &.5,$n,$,..N u:&,4 '.W u.
- -~ rm -
k :[:. u.-
ik t. *Q:0
.~
e n
n
- n. g;:n.g. s m,7
.n
- ,%,.> f..g.
.... >m.,c.p.. e
- <r.
. ~t. n. % ;..
n..,..> g qt. t.,,.,.
~.
m.
g
- =
w:
+w
.....s.:v v
- a..,. a, - +. n.. v.
-. L' W h. g.:p
- ..u.
...4.1,....e..
.,..,.u,.y
..t.
,u
.a.
r
-..,.., ~
..;.w. -:,5 4,
" ".,.. a., l. c....%;
~. u
. %.qw:.
~
i u..
y c:
en,. e n,....,c.., e.
gffg. s.,.r.n. - ? '. ' W.o(. h:.
,pQ b.a.,..
'~:','
,%::' ~
e '.O 1
- M W:w.m.a n.
.L -
o.:
'. 3 '?;i* ?} *.l. < ~; ' **
r,,'
- A N'
.Q 4
- f a.%y df,.h. /.".(..*; r T
- 2 :-
p% -*W ',' %
a
.S
..,6 Mn.,,
.t
+
.x ~.n...s t a.
s. a
~s
' -,:, m, ; m e
..n. :,. ? a
%,$.t.e,$,<..':I:b...
,W, P&,,.%... ~,Y,,x~
r
- e
' s ' c ' e, 5...i. ',?; w.. \\.;,~L.. q '..
y.&,w.j$,,'M&. W,...
?$
Q
- \\ s. ; L F.f. *
- .:. *._dil, 52:1 I
....b p-.' - ! '. >. -
- 1..
..,,s,--.. +.
p,..y.
y a.;;..
..s
.. >. a,
. n;,,
4..m
....,4
..g..
uf p-s i
0.'
b
" 3 : c +... *
%.M)nrtn.'g%,.'s.v&.6.,r&F w%
.,n 4 v -
'M, W
.p?...W.+. :7. c.
e, pr,~ + w.
. s-., :....., * ' e,~ m..
m.,w.w
. s.
y
.m s
m :-
. ~. p x:, '.
r g: <
..:.y;<.~, n y.?
....,.~.i_*.
4 9~ r.,,.m.
V.;p.p:.':s
~,>..f., yn..w.
....o.,.. W. t <..- s'y
- e
- n*,, s.,~,.y ~.cW,....
<&. r-+
m m
- .w., t. '.
v-
. * ~.
.'1.
i.,/.. 5-
.., v.3.,. s.p,.t c
y
. q/ r.". v v.,l Kr 3.. n <*. 7.i. +.y:%,:N - t,J b, c,
~. :.s.-.m
.. m p:-*-
p
,..i; f'.,-*-
f.,.- 4 '; *'. i.i a *
, ;% Q.?.
.. t.
5:44 u
9 o
- lA Q,.3 : ~5. ;
s 3~
' ~-.
V..:s 4 y
~.
'.,t.
'n.e,;
? %: @.,.n;' [).'d'n.'.*i.'(;... Q[.m r.
o
@.. F. %.' ; h ' % +
. m;.
&,,k.i).,.
.9'N.,)
i ~,. ?.:.
W.4.v.o.i;.Y'J,t ' w;.'
i.'-..
. Wl..,.~.
s
. p ur.v".a.r h
- .R 1 2. *.**
i'sM.
M.:
w W,,.. %.. c:..m...M.... 7,.W:
ne=
- ~
..,.... w.,,..
m....
u,.
..x.~;.c :e. w' e..
%.: Q.x,m., ; ~,,,:
-..c
- . e >-
,O.
' *./. q t...
w,:.g ?.u.l
?
",; ?:
s c..
.4
-. v..
. mc,,..
+c..w....
- f.. m.
..x..,-
y-n..5.g
+ ~.v. m s. ' '
e t. n
.r.A.6 6.
.t'
[.w;.e s.....y.w m
- i. v..
4g... W ;.,.... "'
., v.f.c.. 'r..9 a
dk,.,s:;&.... : :..e. f.%e o.,e,e i.)n.,,A..r.y:...'v.c..e y.;
s.
s.<
.,..,, L.. /. m,..d, %....
.w M
- . c.,
. 9 M. M~ T A.
v.-c 3
wm 4
..ns. n,.?.W.[. &
N.M. W.. - F.
- u-
r Jr 9 :
' 9.. T. 4.. J "
- t..;;...
C. W.. e.-@.;
i
'IUG'U ENGINEERING DIVISION PFOCECUPE PEVISION ISSUE PAGE
+
CCTI.Or.trnjk@fiy)}ii[iAIOk 0$N[
r CP-EP-16.3 3
06-15-54 1 of 6 CCNTPOL CF e
PREPARED BY dt FEPCRI'ABLE CEFICIENCIES APPPOVED BY
[
//
1.0 REFERENCES
1-A 'IUGCO 03 Plan 1-3 Title 10 ' ode of Federal Regulations Part 50.55(e) 2.0 GENEPAL 2.1 REPOSE To define the actions and interfaces required to report apparent or potential deficiencies. 'Ihese measures are established to assure positive control of the provisions of Paference 1-A and 1-3.
2.2 SCCPE
'Ihis procedure shall apply to all activities performed during, fer, or as a result of the desien a d procurement of CPSES.
The provisions of this procedure shall not te applied to generic deficiencies not specific to CPSES.
2.3 FESPCNSIBILITY All personnel involved in the design and procurement of CPSES tre responsible for the L plerantatien of the measures described herein.
The Managers of the respective crgani::aticns chall te respcnsible for the imple.Tentation of this procedure accordingly.
2.4 CEFINITICtiS A. Significant Deficiencies - Ceneral Peference Attachment 1 B. Significant Construction Ceficiencies Reference Attach.T.ent 2 C. Significant Engineering Deficiencies Feference Attachment 3 3.0 PrOCECUPS 3.1 CCNTFDL GF FEPORT AND E'/ALCATION ACTIVITIES Cren the initial observatien of a deficiency potentially retort 2Cle per the guidelines establiched par Reference 1-3, the applicable manager ('I';E, CPPE, or Prcje'ct Support Services)chall b? infc:-nd n
Qj h(
Il a b,(r
....n L
- n>,.;uJ.,J v.
86660303@3 -6y
a It'GCO EI;GINEERING DIVISICt1 PRDCEEURE REVISIOtl ISSUE PAGE DATE CP-EP-16.3 3
06-15-84 2 of 6 through the organization structure. We manager shall review or direct the review of the deficiency within a time frame not to exceed twenty-four (24) hours past the initial observation. The results of the review shall be documented per Attachaent 4.
te manager shall refer findings of the review to the Assistant Project General Manager who.shall provide the primary NRC interface -
the itJGCO Site CA Supervisor or designee.- with all pertinent evidence of the deficiency.
Findings shall also te simultaneously forwarded to representatives of the responsible corporate officers.
htere specific individuals are identified in this procedure, it shall be specifically meed ag:ropriate levels of management shall be substituted er delegated.
In rc event shall the reporting cycle be delayed due to the absence of designated personnel.
3.2 FOLION-UP If applicable, corrective actioris shall be as specified in the f
carents secticn of the review. As a miniam, the design process shall te evaluated and corrected if related to the cause or origination of the deficiency.
3.3 RETENTICN Prior to plant cperation, duplicate files of these evaluations shall be forwarded to the TUGC0 Operations Group responsible for coordinat-ing similar evaluations during cperations.
3.4 TRAIND G To ensure ccmpliance with this procedure, all personnel at the appropriate supervisory level shall te, indoctrinated in the provisions established herein. Records cf this indoctrination shall te maintained by the respective organization manager.
-w-v
,mae a,e m me
,y
--e,.,._,,.,_,_,
E'GCO ELGINEERIt1G DIVISION PPOCEDURE REVISION ISSUE PAGE DATE CP-EP-16.3 3
06-15-M 3 of 6 ATrACh3ETf 1 SIGNIFICANP CEFI.CIENCIES - GENEPAL (EXCERFIED FPO4 REFERENCE 1-B)
If the permit is for construction of a nuclear pawer plant, the tolder of the permit shall notify the Comission of each deficiency found in design ard construction, which, were it to have remained uncorrected, could nave affected adversely the safety of operatices of the nuclear power plant at any time throughout the expected lifetime of the plant, and which represents:
(a) A significant breakdown in any porticn of the quality assurance program conducted in accordance with the requirements of Appendix B; or (b) A significant deficiency in final design as approved ard released for construction such that the design des rot conform to the criteria and bases stated in the safety analysis report or constructicn permit; cr (c) A significant deficiency in construction of cr significant 6: rage to a structure, system, or certponent which will require extensive evaluation, extensive redesign, or extensive repair to met the criteria ard bases stated in the safety analysis report er construction permit or to otherwise establish the adequacy of the structure, system, or ccmponent to perform its intended safety functien; or (d) A significant deviation frem perfor:rance specifications whien will require extensive evaluation, extensive redesign, er extensive repair to establish the zdequacy of a structure, system, or component to met the criteria and bases stated in the safety analysis report er constructicn permit er to otherwise establish the adequacy of the structure, system, or component to perform its intended safety ' function.
m IUGCO EIGINEERItG DIVISION PFOCECUPS PEVISION ISSUE PAGE CATE CP-EP-16.3 3
06-15-24 4 of 6 ATTACHMair 2 SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCIES Significant construction deficiencies are " product" nonconformances whis may be reportable. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
a.
Product failures substantially below specified acceptance criteria; b.
Apparent product deficiencies er da: rage to safety-related structures, systems or components for whid there is no readily obvicus routine rework ce repair procedure available or specified; c.
Prcduct deficiencies discovered subsequent to final accectance by responsible CC personnel; d.
Construction deficiencies which clearly require engineering analysis for resolution; e.
Ccnstructicn deficiencies which will require further testing er evaluation in order to determine the significance of the nonconfor:rance, including inadequate records.
!e I'
'IUGCO CiGINEERItiG DIVISICN PFOCEDUFS REVISICM ISSUE PAGE ILTE CP-EP-16.3 3
06-15-84 5 of 6 A'ITACIDEC 3 SIGNIFICAtC DiGINEERING DEFICIENCIES Significant engineering deficiencies are " design". concerns which may impact the integrity of engineering cbcuments previously issued in accordance with design control measures. These include, but are not limited to the following:
a.
Errors discovered by the A/E(s) revealed through subsequent analysis; b.
Vendor correspondence describing generic product deficiencies; Vendor correspondence describing ~ breakdowns in established engineering c.
control programs; d.
Errors in safety class classification identified in reclassification evaluations; l
e.
Vendor 10CFR Part 21 notices.
e
r-TUGCO ENGINEERING DIVISION PIOCEDURE REVISION ISSUE PAGE
- ~
DATE 06-15-84 6 of 6 CP-EP-16.3 3
A'ITACEMENT 4 DEFICIENCY REVIEN REPORT DRR I.
IDENTIFICATIQ1 Design Construction A.
Description:
Procure: rent Date Ident.
Date Distr.
B. Basis:
II.
EVAWATICH Yes No Unknown A. Deficiency identified in constructicn process B. Deficiency violates technical specifications C.. Deficiency requires further testing / evaluation D. Deficiency generic cn other plants E. Deficiency warrants extensive rework III. PRELIMINAFY CCNCLUSICN Yes No Potentially Deficiency Ibp3rtable IV.
EVALUATICN PERSCMIEL Identified By:
NAME ORGANIZATICN
~
Na:re Crganization i
V.
CCW.ENIS VI.
APPPOVED Organizatien Manager Date APPFOVED Assistant Project Ceneral Manager Cate VII.
DISTRIBUTICN CRIGINAL - FILE cc: TUGCO Site CA SuperviscrAtanager Assistant Project General Manager Corporate Pepresentatives l
.w 7-7+----
,y-
..y+y y
w -- -
,,,._,__,,,_y.,,,._,,,m
,_.y y-c-~,
M f
f jgy A r-o t h e r incident which I believe shows a f a i l u'r d ' o r/
the part of upper-level management to follow nuclear resulatory guidelines and a lack of commiitment on the part s
of management to an adequate QA/QC program involves the breakdown of ferroresonant' transformers provided by Vestinshouse..
In February of 1983, twe of the transformers failed on same weekend and a' third t r a n s f o r m e r'.. f a i l e d,
^
I one month of that time.
There are four inverters wi*t,h i n and each inverter has its own transformer.
If any two of the transformers fail there is an automatic scram and the plant shuts down.
Although these problems occurred in February of,1983, it was not until February of 1984 that I
TUSE filed.a report pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.55(e) with the O-y NRC.
This delay is particularly dis ~ concerting since shortly after the Mailure I conducted an inforu.a1 telephone survey of other nuclear plants and found the Westinghouse transformers had a 60 percent failure rate. I wrote several Start-up Memos on this problem, which were distributed to Engineering, the Electrical Testing Group, Impe11 and TUSE.
Although the survey was not scientifici the circumstances surrounding these transformer failures were similar enough to cause me concern particularly since Westinghouse 13 jf 47 - // 8 Y. A c K of Cs h* tu o Nm e uh es> fon/?.7 of mw a s ehf nr -ro na Megunre. Ost a c W0" : A Lm iemi +& & S Y (e) a re m An 6eev Am Le d Ly 2amAgwa
/g fT '
a q pq
.m
V DO NOT DISCLOSE AFFICAVIT OF i
gympagne maintained that no other nuclear plants had reported having that is,also my belief It problems with the transformers.
the transformers at Comanche Peak failed, h
after discovered s othe #efective transformers i n its t6 Vestinghouse v
factory.
h.
S e
s 8
o O
e O
e h
O