ML20072L774

Const Project Evaluation of Millstone Station 3

ML20072L774
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	12/21/1982
From:	MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20072L741	List: ML20072L763 ML20072L774
References
NUDOCS 8307140183
Download: ML20072L774 (166)

Text

_ . _ _ _

P 1

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT EVALUATION OF MILLSTOE STATION 3 r ,-

Prepared For:

NORTHEAST UTILITIES SERVICE COMPANY P. O. Box 270 Hartford, CT 06101 I

Prepared By Personnel From:

Yankee Atomic Electric Company Public Service Company of New Hampshire United Engineers and Constructors, Inc.

Management Analysis Company November 5,1982 (Findings Issued)

December 21,1982 (Corrective Action Added)

MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS COMPANY hhkDOC 0 3 A PDR

'_o

l J

e

}

6 d

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

! Man Egg, j

1.0 SUM M A R Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1

i 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................... 2-1 P

1 L 3.0 PROJECT STATUS AND ACTIVITY

SUMMARY

................. 3-1 4.0 TEAM ASSIGNMENTS ....................................... 4-1 t 5.0 SCHEDULE ................................................ 5-1 6.0 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 3

?,

LIST OF TABLES .

i h PEE.

i 3-1 PROJECT STATUS

SUMMARY

............................... 3-3 4-1 RIVER BEND PROJECT EVALUATION TEAM .................. 4-2 5-1 RIVER BENO CONSTRUCTION EVALUATION SCHEDLt.E ....... 5-2 A

f RE SU ME S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 e RePERENce OcCUmNTS .................................. e.1 l

(

l

{ .

(. _. .-

M 11029-2 1-1

]

5,

! 1.0 SLNMARY

~

This report covers the results of the construction evaluation performed on Northeast Utilities Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3. The evaluation was conducted under the format developed by the Institute of Nuclear Power j Operation (IbPO) and performance was measured against the Performance Objectives developed by INPO. The level of effort toward planning, training and j evaluation was comparable to the guidelines proposed by INPO in the methodology workshops conducted in Atlanta, Georgia.

1 1

The results of the evaluation identified areas of weakness, many of which were i minor in nature and should be correctable without any impact on project programs 2

and construction activities. In addition, good practices were identified that the

, evaluation team strongly urges to be continued. For each Performance Objective the relevant facts which support the findings and formulate the bases for developing a concluding statement appraising performance are listed in the Performance Evaluation Details. It is the overall opinion of the evaluation team that Millstone 3 is a well controlled and high quality project.

During this evaluation, full cooperation was provided by Northeast Utilities Services Company (NUSCO) project staff and by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (S&W) at the site and their Boston project offices. In addition, sufficient effort was applied to appropriately evaluate ongoing activities and to

. assess the quality of work being performed. Well over 100 project staff personnel were interviewed, approximately 75 pertinent documents referenced and

observations made of work in-progress for every major activity area.

l e

I i

J l

4 l

1

k-i 11029-2 2-1 1

1 2.0 PROZCT DESCRPTION 1

j This report covers a Construction Project Evaluation of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3 (Millstone 3).

b e

Millstone 3 is a pressurized water type nuclear steam supply system furnished by Westinghouse Electric Corporation, with a turbine-generator furnished by the General Electric Company (GE). The remainder of the unit, including a sub-atmospheric reactor containment, is designed and constructed by the architect-engineer (S&W).

The 500 acre site is on the north shore of Long Island Sound and on the east side of Niantic Bay, located in Waterford, Connecticut, 3.2 miles west-southwest of New London and 40 miles southeast of Hartford. The surrounding area is primarily residential with some commercial and industrial businesses.

Millstone 1 and 2 are already located on the site. Millstone 1 uses a single cycle j boiling water reactor supplied by GE with a rated thermal power level of 2,011 J

MW; the architect-engineer.was Ebasco Services, Incorporated. Millstone 2 uses a two-loop pressurized water reactor supplied by Combustion Engineering, Inc., with a rated thermal power level of 2,700 MW; the architect-engineer was Bechtel Corporation.

i Millstone 3 incorporates a four-loop closed-cycle pressurized water type nuclear

] steam supply system (NSSS); a turbine generator and electrical systems; F

engineered safety features; radioactive waste' systems; fuel handling systems; structures and other onsite facilities; instrumentation and control systems; and

% the necessary auxiliaries required for a complete and operable nuclear power h station.

L 9

The plant's major structures are the containment structure, auxiliary building, fuel 4

} building (including decontamination facilities), waste disposal building, engineered l safety features building, main steam valve building, turbine building, service E

building, control building, emergency generator enclosure, containment enclosure building, warehouse 5 (including the Unit 2 condensate polishing waste treatment

] facility), condensate polishing enclosure, auxillary boiler enclosure, and p circulating and service water pumphouse.

9 ,

}

l b

11029-2 l

3-1 l 3.0 PROZCT STATUS abo ACTMTV

SUMMARY

i During the evaluation period the following major construction activities were

! underway:

o Containment Area i

1 Construction of cubicie walls l ,- Rasetor coolant loop piping installation Installation of reactor coolant pump supports Installation of steam generator supports Cable tray and support installation 4 -

Instrumentation installation Piping and pipe supports installation 1

HVAC ductwork and support installation l

e Hydrogen Recombiner Building l

Electrical and ductwork I'

i e Main Steam Valve Building Roof reinforcing i

Piping and hanger installation l

Main steam piping penetrations l

l e Auxiliary Building 4

Piping and support installation j -

Cable tray and support installation Electrical penetration installation 1

Wall patching and painting l -

HVAC ductwork and support installation a f uel Building Wall construction Placing of spent fuel pool liners Piping installation e Turbine Building l

Cable tray installation Cable pulling i Painting I

--.-,-------,n- , - . - - - - , - - - - - - - --- . . , -- -,n-...n, , - ,, - - . - -. . , - - . - - - ,-.---,-nn.,-r-,,v-

N i

Ll 11029-2 3-2 n

Piping installaction

{

HVAC ductwork and support installation e Control Building Installation of duct bank Cable pulling Cable tray installation Setting of main boards Block wall construction HVAC ductwork and support installation j e Miscellaneous Activities

- Excavation Back filling Erection of various concrete structures

) -

Erection of storage tanks

- Pipe installation '

1 -

HVAC duct installation

/ {-

The overall status of completion of the Mllistone 3 plant construction is detailed h in Table 3-1. .

i e

I i

D v

I a

f e

l i

'}

11029-2 3-3 a

[ TABLE 3-1 s

PROECT STATUS

SUMMARY

I' Activity Area Approximate % Complete

! Civil i

Excavation and Backfill 85 Concrete Placement 80 Cadwelding Rebar >95 Grouting, Civil 80 Structural Steel Rigging, Bolting Welding >75 Masonry Seismic Wall Installation WO Application of Coatings 50

Mechanical Pips Erection 40 Installation of HVAC Ductwork 35 Instrumentation System Installation <10 Reactor Internals Installation >60 l Small Bore Pipe Fabrication 45 Equipment Grouting 45 Equipment Erection 45

, Electrical i

Cable Tray Installation >60

Cable Pulling 5

! Cable Terminations 10 Conduit Installation >30 i

l s

e

e 11029 2 41 i

4.0 TEAM ASSIGPSENTS i

! NUSCO management decided to perform their self-initiated evaluation of Millstone 3 by providing personnel on a swap basis with Yankee Atomic.  :

l l

{ Therefore, for the Millstone evaluation, personnel from Yankee Atomic, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, and individuals from the Seabrook Station AE (United Engineers and Constructors) were made available to form the evaluation team.

f 5

Management Analysis Company (MAC) was selected to provide team leadership i

based upon MAC's involvement at INPO in developing the Performance Objectives i and Criteria and applying these appraisal guidelines on three pilot plants. In

, addition to this experience, all MAC team members had just completed a previous self-initiated evaluation at an S&W design / constructor plant. The prime responsibilities assigne,d to MAC were the selection of evaluation personnel, formulation of team assignments, training of staff, and providing an independent analysis of the findings and conclusions.

Prior to the team member selection process, a meeting was held with NUSCO to clearly define project status and planned work-in-progress during the evaluation period. This information was then used as a guide in team selection to ensure there were experienced personnel in all work areas requiring evaluation. The resulting team organization is displayed in Table 4-1, and brief resumes of all participants are presented in Appendix A.

I J

ll

?

6 i

P l

l .

r i

h l

l f

- - . ~ -_ - - . - _ _

-c w

CONSTRUCTION 5 EVALUATION @

TEAM k Len Kube (Team Leader) i I I I I PROJECT SUPPORT DESIGN CONSTRUCTION O&A QA Dave Mercer Henry Wingate Chuck Meyer Chuck Meyer Walt Miller (Group Leader) (Group Leader) (Group Leader) (Group Leader) 1 (Group Leader)

Paul Moyer - Tom Clzauskas - Dean Bacon - As Required - As Required

. Walt Miller - Bob Melcher - Roland Witt Pete Nordone - Joel Blackman - Ed Desmarais

- Howard Adkins* - Harry Patel - Joe Katz

- Bob Fitzpatrick - Ed Shows*

- Bob Green *

• Group Training Parformance Objective Assignments (Primary Responsibility)

Group Performance Objectives Preject Support PS. 2, PS. 3, PS. 4, PS. 5, TC.1, TC. 2, TC. 3, TC. 5, TC. 6, CC. 7, TN.1, TN. 2 Design CC.1 DC.1, DC. 2, DC. 3, DC. 4, DC. 5 -

Construction CC. 2, CC. 3, CC. 4, CC. 5, CC. 6, PS.1, TN. 3, TN. 4 O&A GA.1,GA.2,QA.3 OA QP.1, OP. 2, OP. 3, QP. 4 TABLE 4-1 P n

MR.LSTOE 3 CONSTRUCTION PROECT EVALUATION TEAM

Ii 11029-2 5-1 l

5.0 SCHEDI LE 1, .

Following completion of the INPO pilot evaluations and workshops, NUSCO

] decided to perform their self-initiated evaluation under a joint agreement with Yankee Atomic. Since this resulted in committing Yankee, Pub!!c Service 1

Company of New Hampshire and AE persomel on a swap basis, appropriate front-

')

and planning was required to accommodate availability, current assignments, etc. The resulting schedule is described in bar chart format in Table 5-1.

i i

h e

e 4

'l x

j

)

i 1

J u

l il 1 '

J

i r

UO Y' "

2_

7. r I_

e b

u m e

v c o N

mI E m m E.

A t

s. D E

u 2

b t

O o

c r

e M

M F C

S N

O I

T A

U

_ L A

g V E

r T b

e g 1 C w m e 5 I

t p E D e L R S B P g A N t

T O I

T C

U

i. R T

S m N a a e O T C r 3 .

o )

f w e E c a p b u

i i v o O m t c u

o e r S T

- R p o S t l O s

- A n a s e t n L 2 i r

t n n R r C o L

- eo e e o o S i I et i

t i

t n t p U t a M .

c k c a u m a o f e N v ne al Mwe c u i t

a r R ( r -

YeS o l

a a D t n e -

a wi D v u f o b s

d d ev E l

a d a i O

v e a

n na i d v n r t z.

a rR n d n E a D c d .-

e r a a s d A n .

Cw

- vo g d n

g n e a .

g &e Of n s n a n a v t w n Ei e i n o i

d i r -

Urve t n s t o

i n ct i i o n g c p u n eu a t a

i n e e a ht jb r i F i r

l P

t n iI oi r r t T v r

t c

e e d n o r R -

wr ge Ps p e

s l l

t a

i F C l

a m yD i

o b o d p n a nb f hs O C i

l t

n o i

F r

g im t

i t d k a o e l e

o ee nn r t

o s n s e r eM ea o l t

a o e r

v e u s

a.

P M d I W i P D C P D I s

u .

L i

h a

I l

6 1

APPE}OIX A RESUMES i

9

.L 4

4 b

?

u i

i b

i i

n 5

l l

1 i

l l

r i

5 r

i l 11029-2 A-1 l

4 i

0 HOWARD E. ADKINS Consultant Management Analysis Company Mr. Adkins has over 15 years experience in analysis and applications of management

' techniques related to project management, construction, quality assurance, and

. Information systems. He has led and participated on numerous nuclear plant evaluations. He has a B.S. and an M.S. In Material Sciences and Engineering.

t 6

DEAN L. BACON Staff Engineer

Public Service Company of New Hampshire Mr. Bacon has six years experience at Public Service Company of New Hampshire including two and one-half years of construction management at the Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Polytechnic Plant. He has a B.S.C.E. from Northeastern and an M.S. from Rensselaer Institute.

s JOEL BLACKMAN Consulting Engineer I United Engineers and Constructors, Inc.

Mr. Blackman has 12 years experience in power plant engineering and design, ten years specifically in nuclear power plant engineering. This includes seismic analysis of structures, seia.mic quellfication of components, component supporta, piping systems, and computerization of design systems. He has a B.S.C.E. from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, an M.S. In Civil Engineering, New York University, and a Ph.D., New York F

University.

T. M. CIZAUSKAS Senior Mechanical Engineer Yankee Atomic Electric Company

' Mr. Cizauskas has 12 years experience in the nuclear field in mechanical design, analysis, thermal / hydraulic analysis at an NSSS vendor and a utility. He has a B.S. In Mechanical Engineering.

E. W. DESMARAIS

) Senior Mechanical Engineer j Public Service Company of New Hampshire I

Mr. Desmarais has worked in the power generation field for eight years. He is a B.S.C.E.

graduate of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a registered engineer in New York and

} New Hampshire.

I i

I .

I

) 11029-2 A-2 l '

ROBERT G. FITZPATRICK

, Technical Specialist p EDS Nuclear Inc.

j i Mr. Fitzpatrick has over 12 years experience in the nuclear industry in the areas of j electrical design, analysis, equipment qualification, and design review. Besides EDS Nuclear, he has been employed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory _Co_mmission and

(

Yankee Atomic Electric ramamy. MrAzpatrick has a B.S~and an M.S. In Electrical i

R.W. GREEN

] Consultant J

Management Analysis Company Mr. Green has over 26 years experience in project engineering and management. He has had job assignments which included coordinating the efforts of the A/E and subcontractor on major nuclear power plant projects. He has a B.S. and an M.S. In Nuclear Engineering.

JOSEPH KATZ

, Supervising Discipline Engineer United Engineers and Constructors, Inc.

i Mr. Katz has over 30 years experience in design and construction including working on 1150 MW nuclear unit for PSNH and 900 MW nuclear unit at Indian Point for PASNY plus experience on numerous fossil units. He has a B.S. and an M.S. In Civil Engineering and is a licensed professional engineer in six states.

s L. J. KUBE Consultant i

Management Analysis Company J

Mr. Kube has over 20 years experience in project management, engineering management, marketing and design engineering. He was assigned to IbPO to assist in developing the i Construction Performance Objective and associated criteria and has participated on all three pilot evaluations. Currently managing numerous self-initiated evaluations for utilities, Mr. Kube has a B.S. In Mechanical Engineering and an M.S. In Mechanics.

J F. R. MELCI-ER

] Supervising Instrument and Controls Engineer j United Engineers and Constructors, Inc.

Mr. Melcher has 20 years experience in instrumentation field encompassing design and engineering of all types of process controls including 13 years in nuclear power. He has a 8.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering and is a registered professional engineer in the states of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Texas.

i d

i

~

D

11029-2 A-3 l

I D.C. MERCER l Senior Project Engineer Public Service Company of New Hampshire l

Mr. Mercer has over 19 years engineering and management experience including nuclear plant design, construction, and testing. He has a B.S. In Marine Engineering, an M.S. In Nuclear Engineering and Nuclear Science, and is a registered professional engineer.

C.H.MEYER

, Senior Construction Manager i

United Engineers and Constructors, Inc.

4 Mr. Meyer has been employed by United Engineers and Constructors since 1948 in design engineering and progressive levels of responsibility on major nuclear and fossil i

construction projects of all types. He was construction manager on two 1150 MW PWR nuclear units for Public Service Electric and Gas Company of New Jersey, two 1200 MW PWR nuclear units for Washington Public Power Supply System. Mr. Meyer has a j

B.S.C.E. from Drexel University and is a licensed professional engineer in four states.

I I

WALTER J. MILLER

! Consultant i Yankee Atomic Electric Company Mr. Miller has over 30 years experience in the nuclear industry. For 12 years, he was i

Quality Assurance Manager for construction of nuclear power plants, responsible for the QA programs applied to the construction of the Seabrook Vermont Yankee and Maine j Yankee plants. Mr. Miller has a B.S. In Mechanical Engineering.

i P. B. MOYER Construction Method Engineer i United Engineers and Constructors, Inc.

l

[ Mr. Moyer has over 20 years experience in the supervis!an of designers and cont,tm:: tion '

i personnel at power plants, turboblower installations, and industrial boiler. plants. <

I Expertise includes the design of power houses and steam generating plants covering the l' l range of nuclear and fossil units.

i ^

L PETER E. NARDOff ,

Start-Up Manager

) Yankee Atomic Electric Company l

L Mr. Nardone has six and one-half years of nuclear experience in the instrumentation and

} control field. He was a member of the start-up organization at North Anna Nuclear Power Station #2 (VEPCO) and is presently assigned instrumentation and control start-up responsibilities at Seabrook Station (PSNH). Mr. Nardone holds a B.S. In Nuclear Engineering.

?

l

_._,_,--_.._,..,,,_.,fm.,__,,, .... ,-r _ _ , _ _ _ ,.,.,,__.,,,,,,_,,....,.,,_,_,__,,,y_ , . _ . , _ , ,,j,,,n, __ - ~ , _ , _ ,

h f 11029-2 A-4 f HARRY J. PATEl.

3 E 1 Mechanical Service Engineer  !

j United Engineers and Constructors, Inc.

?

i Mr. Patel has 13 years of experience with A/E firms in the United States, 9 of which were on nuclear power projects for facilities (HVAC and fire protection) engineering

, work. His overseas experience includes four years as Production Engineer for Fans and i Air-Handling Unita Manufacturing Company.

j f ED SHOWS Consultant

(; Management Analysis Company Mr. Shows has 32 years experience in construction and maintenance of power plants. He l was Construction Manager on two nuclear plants and has performed 10 evaluations of a nuclear plants under construction.

b HENRY WINGATE

! Senior Project Engineer

( Yankee Atomic Electric Company E Mr. Wingate has over 19 years experience,17 of which have been in the nuclear industry. He held QA and project management positions at General Dynamics and l Yankee Atomic Electric Company. Mr. Wingate has a B.S. In Marine Engineering.

I i

[ ROLAND D. WITT t Area Supervisor United Engineers and Constructor, Inc.

f l

[ Mr. Witt has 19 years of experience in power plant construction. He has supervised

[ construction activities from initial site work through plant completion.

l i

b I

I l

l i

l l

l I i

i

i 0

0 t

i

)

i l

i I

b i '

i e

d

)

e i

APPDOtX B a

rg i ~~

N 1

1 N

I r

l'

?

l l

l l

e ,

\

f

\n

\

h \

\ e s

M 11029-2 DRAFT B-1 l

J Construction Management Manual

,] NCR IE Inspection Reports 82-05, 06, 07, 08, 09 l

S&W Progress Reports #132,133,134 S&W Description of Work (BERM- 7)

]

J CMP Manual Book 21

FCP Book 1,2 j Engineering Assurance Manual Construction Management Manual Volume 1 j Quality Standards Volume 1 Quality ControlInstructions #2 Quality Assurance Directives (Administrative Volume 1)

Quality Assuranc's Directives (Technical Volume 1, 2, 3)

Company Quality Assurance & Control Manual-ASME Section III Quality Assurance Program Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 3 Nuclear Engineering and Operations Group j S&W Quality Standards NRC Monthly - Exit Interview 82-08 Millstone 3 Project Manual (S&W)

Construction Methods Procedure Title Material / Equipment storage May 21,1982 Construction Methods Procedure for Receiving Material / Equipment December 1977 Construction Methods Piecedure for Material / Equipment Maintenance March 1979 S&W - Field Construction Procedure for Equipment Storage History Card May 29,1980 S&W - Field Construction Procedure for Receiving, Marking, Storage and Control of Special Tools, Permanent Plant Test Equipment, and Consumable Material Received j with Equipment Orders Project Record Type List, Issue of June 9,1982 S&W Specifications - Specification number 2472. 800-943

)

) PSAR Volume 1-6 Areas V and VI Weekly Detailed Preg._.-

Surface Mounted Baseplates retained by Richmond Inserts and Hilti Anchor Bolts S&W Millstone 3 Specification Index l ' NUSCO Ceneration Construction Fat :edures Manuel f Engineering Assurance SEG Audita < sport 1-9 TS&W Spec 2199.150-282

]

S&W Spec 2361.900-921 j 7 S&W Spec 279 and 281 i j S&W Spec 2199.142-924

l

11029-2 ORAFT m

B-2 h S&W Spec 2362.050-483, 2332.910-530, 2274.117-942, 2361.900-938 j S&W Specification E & DCR's Spec. 999, PS4 and P's S&W Spec 967 j NUQAP T opical Document Control Drawing Log Training Film

).

FSAR. Volume 1-11, Volume 5 missing S&W Millstone 3 Specification Index (updated) 10/01/82 j SEG Memorandum Book no. 2 U

Engineering Service Scope of Work (ESSOW) for Pipe Support and Duct Support Design Spec. 2170.430-625

] Scope of Work for Dynamic Laboratory Soll Testing 2199.082-521 S&W Engineering Corporation Engineering and Design Coordination Report

] S&W Placement of Structural and Random Fill Spec no. 2199.101-967 Specifications for Concrete Masonry Spec. 2199.204-991

S&W Spec. 279 J M968 and M152 description -ITT Grinnell Insulation Protection Saddles i S&W Spec 2400.000-350 S&W Spec 2170.430-565 S&W Spec 2280.000-150 S&W Spec 2280.000-968 S&W Spec 2199.190-956 S&W Spec 2190.190-954 S&W Spec 2280.000-582 j S&W Spec 2280.000-627 l Quality Assurance Department Report Number 100 Millstone Unit 3 3

Engineering Assurance Procedure i S&W Spec 937 S&W Construction Safety Manual

) S&W Spec 294 S&W Spec 140 S&W Field Safety Manual #55 Volumes 1 and 2 f Notes of Conference Project Meeting Millstone Nuclear Power Station Unit 3 h S&W Manpower Report September 26,1982 S&W Manpower Report October 3,1982 S+Jnthly Pierj_-. Report - Period Ending August 31,1982 h Rate Ratio Charts - Millstone 3 Pipe and Electrical Summary Report P

S&W Spec 2199.201-986 m

J 11029-2 6-1 0

6M PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RESLLTS i

EVALUATION TABLE OF CONTENTS l PAGE l OA ORGANIZATIONAL AND ADMNSTRATIVE c OA.1 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5 Owner's corporate organization should ensure i

effective project management control 9

OA.2 MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT AND COMMITMENT l TO QUALITY ...................................... 6-10 Senior and middle managers exhibit interest,

] awareness and knowledge e

OA.3 THE ROLE OF FIRST-LINE SUPERVISORS AND MIDDLE MANAGERS ............................... 6-14 2

Qualified by verified background and experience e

and have neestsary authority DC A CONTRCL l DC.1 DESIGN INPUTS ..................................... 6-18

?

Inputs should be defined and controlled t .

DC.2 DESIGN INTERFACES ................................ 6-28 External and internal interfaces are identified g and coordinated f DC.3 DESIGN PROCESS ................................... 6-32 j Management of the design process in compliance with design requirements DC.4 DESIGN OUTPUT .................................... 6-36 j Documents should specify constructable designs 3 DC.5 DESIGN CHANGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-39 f Changes controlled to ensure compliance with l design requirements J

1 1

J i

e e I i

L r

L 11029-2 6-2 f'

F EVALUATION TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 6 e PAGE CC CONSTRUCTION CONTROL t

CC.1 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING ...................... 6-43 y Controlled to consistency with basic design criteria u

CC.2 CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT . . . . . . . . . 6-46

, Planned, acquired, installed and maintained l

CC.3 MATERIAL CONTROL ............................... 6-49 Inspected, controlled and maintained CC.4 CONTROL OF CONSTRUCTION PROCESSES . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-53 Monitor and control processes to ensure completed to design requirements CC.5 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY INSPECTIONS .............. 6-57

, Verify and document that product meets designs and quality requirements

] e CC.6 CONSTRUCTION CORRECTIVE ACTIONS .............. 6-61 Evaluate audits, inspections and surveillances and take corrective action CC.7 TEST EQUIPMENT CONTROL ......................... 6-64 9 Equipment should be controlled

)

, PS PROZCT SUPPORT PS.1 INDUSTRI AL SAFETY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-68 g

i Program should achieve high degree of personnel safety

(

PS.2 PROECT PLANNING ................................ 6-72 e

Ensure identifying, interrelating and sequencing tasks PS.3 PROECT CONTROL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-76 S Ensure objectives of project plans are met through use of project resources PS.A PROECT PROCUREMENT PROCESS .................. 6-80 g Ensure equipment, materials and services meet project requirements l

a

l 11029-2 6-3

)

EVALUATION TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

PS PROZCT SUPPORT (Continued) l PS.5 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-83 Methods for administering and controlling contractors and managing changes PS.. xcu-NTATION MANAGE-NT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-..

l Effective control and coordination of documentation TN TRAINING TN.1 TRAINING MANAGEMENT SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 6-92

)

Effective program for indoctrination, trmining and qualification TN.2 TRAINING ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION ..... 6-95 Ensure effective control and implementation TN.3 GENERAL TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-99

Employees receive indoctrination and training required to perform effectively i

l TN.4 TRAINING FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL . . . 6-102 Support and enhance training activities i

QP QUALITY PROGRAMS j QP.1 QUALITY PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-105 Program appropriate, defined clearly and understood

GP.2 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-111 QA and QC functions support and control project

( activities k

QP.3 INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-115 Effective, independent assessment of project activities i

[ QP.4 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-118

[ Corrections or improvements resolved in effective l and timely manner l

i

, - - - . . = , - - - - - , - , . .nn-- .n-~~ - - ,------,. . --.s---,-- -- - - - . , - - - - - - - , . _--n., - - , - , , - - , , - , - - - - , - , - - , -

i 11029-2 6-4 EVALUATION TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) i PAGE TC TEST CONTROL TC.1 TEST PROGRAM .................................... 6-122 Verify the plant's capability to operate as intended i

TC.2 TEST GROUP ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING ......... 6-125 Ensure effective implementation TC.3 TEST PLAN ......................................... 6-129

( Plan and schedule support major schedule milestones j TC.4 SYSTEM TURNOVER FOR TEST ....................... 6-132 Process controlled effectively l 1

> TC.5 TEST PROCEDURES AND TEST DOCUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . 6-136 Provide direction and verify operational and design features

)

TC.6 SYSTEM STATUS CONTROLS ......................... 6-139 1

Method to identify status of system or component and i organization holding contro!

i i

f

[

i l

e

_ - - - , . _ _ . - - - - ... , - - , . . , - . - . . _ - ___.y _. _-,. .--. , ,,, , , , , .,,

L sh N

i

[

l

}

I l

a p .

11029 2 65 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3

! Performance Area Organizational Structure Objective No. OA.1 t

Evaluator (s) L. Kube and C. Meyer L Performance mjective ,

l I The owner's corporate organization and all other project organizations responsible l

, for the design, engineering, planning, scheduling, licensing, construction, quality {

l assurance, and testing of a nuclear plant should provide an organizational l j structure that ensures effective project management control. I

! IL Scope of Evolustian I

j The evaluation in this area involved a review of the NUSCO corporate

organization chart with particular emphasis upon the line of responsibility and j

authority for the Millstone 3 Project.

j Interviews were conducted with the Chief Executive Office, the Senior Vice

. President of Nuclear Engineering and Operations, the Vice President of j Generation Engineering and Construction, the Vice President of Nuclear and i Environmental Engineering, the Millstone 3 Project Manager and the Director of i the Generation Construction Department pertaining to their direct participation j in the Millstone 3 program, and their involvement in assuring the construction of a quality facility.

j Approximately 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> were devoted to preparation, interviews and discussions, j with various levels of NUSCO management.

i.

1 IE. Conclusion NUSCO's corporate organization and project organization directly responsible for this project have a clear understanding of their authorities, responsibilities, and accountabilities. The Project Manager is the focal point for all project direction and control. Also, NUSCO corporate management take a responsible position in keeping abreast of the state-of-the-art in the nuclear industry and applying this to Millstone 3.

9 0

_ _ _ _- _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - .. - - - - .-- , .--._--,.--,--.--._...,n-,.__,,--.---,._--

11029-2 66 I

] PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 1

J Performance Area Organizational Structure Objective No. OA.1 Evaluator (s) L. Kube and C. Meyer

. IV. Areas of Weaknaam and Carrective Actions Good Practices Finding: The following good practice was noted:

(OA.1-1)

The NUSCO Corporate organization participates actively in

, numerous industry-sponsored nuclear organizations to assist in evaluating new developments for the benefit of the industry. They apply this knowledge gained to their design and construction of Millstone 3.

2 Finding: Position descriptions for all Corporate organizations supporting the

] (OA.1-2) Millstone Project have not been issued.

3 Corrective All position descriptions for the Nuclear Operations Division and 3 Action: the Nuclear Environmental and Engineering Division have been j signed off and issued. Only the position descriptions for the  ?

Generation Engineering and Construction Division remain to be issued. Most of these position descriptions have been written and p 'J[

forwarded to the Human Resources Group for final approval and

! lasuance. Only position descriptions associated with recent organizational changes require preparation. It is our intent that all i

position descriptions for the GE&C Division will be formally issued

by the first quarter of 1983.

., We are presently working with old position descriptions for the various people supporting the Millstone Unit 3 project and these position descriptions do not vary substantially from the new ones.

Therefore, all groups within GE&C division understand their

] responsibilities towards the Millstone Unit 3 project.

l 3

1 a

i d  ;

],

i L 11029-2 6-7

/

) <

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAILS

, Northeast Utilities i Millstone 3 l I

l. Performance Area Organizational Structure Objective No. OA.1 (title)

2. Provide Factual Informatlan That Supports the Performance Evaluntlan Summary

1. The NUSCO Corporate management organization is clearly defined as pertains to the Millstone 3 project on organization charts 1, 2, 2G, 3, 38-2 and 21 dated September 1982.

2. The NNECO/NUSCO Chief Executive Officer (CEO) heads a monthly meeting with the Senior Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Operations, and the Millstone Project Manager to review the status of the project. l

3. The CEO maintains contact with developments in the nuclear industry by participating as Chairman of INPO.

4. The Senior Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Operations (NE&O) is responsible for the Corporate QA Program. He issues and receives all communications with NRC pertaining to Millstone.

5. Administration of the QA Program is delegated to the Vice President of Nuclear and Environmental Engineering, the Director of Nuclear Engineering l and Operations Services, and the Corporate Manager of QA.

6. The Vice President of Generation Engineering and Construction (GE&C) assists the Millstone 3 Project Manager in setting goals, delegates appropriate authority and provides necessary support to the project manager for effective project performance.

7. The Senior Vice President, NE&O, and the Vice President, GE&C, make individual trips to the project site approximately once a month to participate in project planning meetings and to tour the project with the site construction manager to assess the physical status of the work.

8. The Vice President, GE&C, meets with the Vice President of Nuclear and j Environmental Engineering on an "as necessary" basis concerning the J operation of the Corporate QA Program.

9. The NUSCO Project Manager for Millstone 3 has been delegated responsi-

[ bility and commensurate authority for all aspects of the Millstone 3 Project. He sets project goals and oversees the performance of all project

assigned managers and of the Architect-Engineer (A/E).

I l

i E

P

---

,.,-.3 ,,-ea,,,-,----__-,---~,w---,--,--m--,ww,,,,---,v-w~,m,w,,,---,mm--w

) .

11029-2 6-8 I

} PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAILS Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 n

1. Performance Aree Organizational Structure Objective No. OA.1 (titl6)

L

, 2. Provide Factual Information That Supports the Performance Evaluntlan Summary (Continued)

10. The NUSCO Project Manager is recognized by corporate officers, discipline managers and the A/E as the responsible leader and authority for the 9 project. He exercises control of all corporate supporting departments in their activities pertaining to the project.

11. The project manager prepares the Project M< ..hly Executive Summary ,

Report and reviews the data with the Vice Presit.,t, GE&C, the Senior Vice

)

President, NE&O, and the Corporate CEO.

k 12. The project manager receives a monthly report of all nonconformance } g reports encountered by S&W QC inspections and NUSCO QA auditors. He summarizes the data in the Monthly Executive Project Summary Report for zcM i

f ,

upper level management and monitors the corrective actions for timely s resolution.

l 13. The project manager visits the construction site about two days per week to 4 participate in site planning and progress meetings and to be advised of current problems that require prompt resolution.

14. The project manager requires each project staff engineer to visit the site one day a week to provide prompt answers to specific problems to support economic and quality construction of the facility.

15. The project manager oversees the activities of the site construction operation through the NUSCO construction management staff.

16. The project manager initiated the Construction Management System (CMS) with the A/E to reasonably measure the current status of the construction work performed and the Engineering Management System (EMS) to measure f engineering progress.

17. Position descriptions for the Corporate organization were not available for all branches of the organization.

18. Specific involvement in the day-to-day administration in the QA Program was not clearly evident above the QA manager level. QA program monitored by exception.

l I

11029-2 6.9 f

i PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAILS Northeast Utilities Millstone 3

1. Performance Aree Organizational Structure Objective No. OA.1 (title)

2. Provide Factual Information That Supporta the Performance Evaluation Summary

( (Continued)

19. Individuals in the corporate staff maintain contact with industry problems

, and developments by direct participation in industry-wide nuclear i organizations such as:

a. Chairman of INPO group l

b. Chairman of Licensing Evolution for AF

c. Chairman of NRC interface for Appendix R

d. NRC interface in equipment qualification

e. Member of fiUTAC {

f. SPDS working group {

g. Human factors working group

h. Emergency planning working group

?

I L

1 l

1

}

e

)

11029-2 6 10 i

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities j Millstone 3 Management involvement Performance Area and Commitment to Quality Objective No. OA.2

) Evaluator (s) L. Kube, C. Meyer, E. Desmarais and D. Mercer L Performance misetive 5

Senior and middle managers in the owner's corporate office, designer's office, and at the construction site who are assigned functional responsibility for matters relating to the nuclear project should exhibit, through personal interest, aware-ness, and knowledge, a direct involvement in significant decisions that could affect their responsibilities.

IL Scope of Evaluatlan The evaluation in this area focused primarily upon the senior and middle managers at the site. This included the NUSCO Superintendent, New Site Construction, the A/E constructor's resident manager, general construction superintendent and

assistant superintendent, auxiliary building.

Approximately 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> were spent in the various interviews, discussions and observations of construction planning meetings related to this performance objective.

a J

k

?

III. Conclusion 1

d 1

Senior and middle managers of both NUSCO and A/E construction take an active role in monitoring work performed by actual inspections and participate in the various regularly scheduled construction review and planning meetings as required 1 to coordinate and control the construction. Senior and middle managers take j frequent tours of the plants (planned and unplanned) to view work in-progress for conformance to quality. Management closely monitors problem areas to ensure k

corrective action is being taken and there is a plan to prevent reoccurance.

l

) ~

i t - -. - - - _ - - _ . . _ _ . _ . - - - _ - _ _ -.-

l 11029 2 6-11 7

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 5L.NMARY Northeast Utilities

.i Millstone 3 Management Involvement

} Performance Area and Commitment to Quality Objective No. OA.2

)

Evaluator (s) L. Kube, C. Meyer, E. Desmarais and D. Mercer

N. Areas of Weaknese and Carrective Actions Good Practices No findings i

i A

e 9

l J

) -

1 4

ti l

J 1 ,

3

11029-2 6 12 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAILS Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 Management Involvement a 1. Performance Area and Commitment to Quality Objective No. OA.2 (title) a 2.

Provide Factual Inftirmation That 5% the Performance Evaluation St.. .ai

1. NUSCO corporate officers who are directly responsible for the quality of d construction for Millstone 3 are all aware of procedures and policies issued UJ for the project.

79 2. The Senior Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Operations (NE&O), and.

y the Vice President, General Engineering and Construction (GE&C), maintain close communication with the project manager in the development of policies and procedures for the project and monitor the appilcation toward station design and construction.

5 3. The Vice President, GE&C, meets with the operating company, NNECO for operating data that will influence design and construction and informs the project engineering staff through the project manager.

. 4. Corporate staff members who participate in industry forums provide

) comparative data on trends from other utilities to benefit the operating quality of Millstone.

7 I 5.

To assist construction progress and to control costs without compromising quality, the project manager has instituted a change control system that f requires all changes that impact cost and schedule to be justified, reviewed b and approved by a management committee.

~ 6. The project manager has set a goal to reduce E&DCR process time. Faster

[ issuance of E&DCRs to construction is necessary to support scheduled construction progress.

7.

The project manager, with the concurrence of the Vice President, GE&C, t and the NUSCO site construction superintendent established a target for I

H construction completion of 60 percent by December 31, 1982. The target set for December 1983 is 80 percent. These were viewed as optimistic targets, intended to develop teamwork and provide incentive for all

) participants to work together toward the goals.

8.

Senior and middle managers, through project meetings, develop working schedules and progress milestones.

r

11029-2 6 13 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAILS

h. Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 Management Involvement

1. Performance Area and Commitment to Quality Objective No. OA.2 (title)

2. Provide Factual Information That Steparts the Performance Evaluntlan Summary (Continued)

9. The NUSCO site construction superintendent conducts scheduled meetings at the site with appropriate members of his staff, the engineer / constructor and QA personnel to review progress and problems, and to plan progress and corrective actions.

10. Site project planning meetings are also attended by NUSCO and A/E representatives.

11. Regular weekly construction progress and planning meetings are conducted 3

by the contractor's area superintendent and are attended by involved area supervisory personnel. These meetings are also attended by the NUSCO area supervisor and the constructor's general superintendent of construction. The level 3 construction schedules are reviewed for achievement of scheduled weekly progress and planned future activity.

12. Site tours are made delly by the NUSCO site construction superintendent and lead supervisors. .

13. Site tours are also made by the construtor's resident manager, general construction superintendent, the assistant construction superintendents (ares superintendents) and chief discipline supervisors to assure construction performance is in compliance with project goals, objectives and policies.

( 14. The constructor's assistant superintendents are given the responsibility and authority to manage all work activities in their respective areas. They are

! supported by appropriate levels of higher managementof NUSCO and A/E.

h l

1 9

4

11029-2 6-14 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 The Role of First-Line Super-Performance Area visors and Middle Managers Objective No. OA.3 Evaluator (s) C. Meyer, L. Kube, E. Desmarais, R. Fitzpatrick, R. Melcher, D. Mercer, W. Miller and P. Nardone L Performance Objective The project first-line supervisors and middle managers should be quellfled by verified background and experience and have the necessary authority to carry out their functional area responsibilities.

IL Scope of Evaluation The evaluation in this area involved contact with a representative sample of first-line supervisors, primarily chief discipline supervisors and area supervisors. These people were interviewed in their respective base offices and questioned concerning their supervisory qualification, work responsibilities and authority to accomplish the work associated with their respective areas.

They were also questioned as to their opportunities to contribute toward work planning and success in performing the work in accordance with the plans.

Approximately 35 man. hours were expended on the evaluation.

IIL Conclusion The chief discipline supervisors and area supervisors are quellfled by training and experience to supervise the trades in the performance of their work responsi-bilities. They have the authority to initiate any actions necessary to achieve a quality installation. Middle management is actively and personally involved keeping a close monitor on supervision work assignments to ensure they have appropriate time available for direct supervision of craft activities.

1

?

J 11029-2 6-15 s-PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Mllistone 3 J i i

The Role of First-Line Super-Performance Area visors and Middle Managers Objective No. OA.3 Evaluator (s) C. Meyer, L. Kube, E. Desmarais, R. Fitzpatrick, R. Melcher, 3

D. Mercer, W. Miller and P. Nardone IV. Areas of Weaknees and Corrective Actions Good Practices i No findings J

1 J

1

)

'l IJ 1

}

s i

J l

b n

N J

3 Il ti Y

l

11029 2 6-16 h

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT l

DETAILS r , Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 i

s The Role of First-Line Super- ,

1. Performance Arom visors and Middle Managers Objective No. OA.3 )

(title) l 4

I 2. Provid ' Factual Information That Supports the Performance Evaluatlan Summary

)

1. Chief discipline supervisors (i.e., electricra, civil, mechanical, piping,

) welding, etc.) are the first-line senior construction supervisors designated to

) oversee the performance of supervisors assigned to the various designated work areas.

i

2. The chief discipline supervisors provide technical guidance to the ares supervisors, coordinate manual labor requirements between areas and look-ahead to future construction planning as indicated on the Level 3 progress

{ schedules. They requisition materials, construction equipment and drawing

, releases to permit the work to proceed to meet schedule commitments.

. 3. The chief discipline supervisors keep up-to-date on all document issues and

[ revisions for each area of the total project.

4. The chief discipline supervisors monitor site productivity of the workman

( performing the work of their discipline in all areas through the use of the e

current weekly issues of the unit MH report printout and review excessive cost figures with the area supervisors for corrective actions.

} 5. The chief discipline supervisors visually inspect all ongoing work activities pertaining to their discipline for work quality as required by construction

, specifications and procedures.

6. The chief discip!!ne supervisor monitors the nonconformr.nce and disposition (N&D) printouts for quality discrepancies discovered by the QC inspectors and assures that proper corrective action is taken by the appropriate area

{

, supervisor.

7. The area discipline supervisors initiate the employment of additional supervisors for the various work areas, review resumes and recommended 8

employment to the chief discipline supervisors and general construction superintendent.

8. The chief discipline supervisors attend area planning meetings conducted by the area superintendents for first-hand knowledge of work planning, area

problems and planned activities. They provide assistance to the area j discipline supervisors.

1 I

f _ _ _ . . , - -

3 0 11029-2 6-17 l

h.

? PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROECT DETAILS

} Northeast Utilities j Millstone 3 9 -

} The Role of First-Line Super-

1. Performance Aree visors and Middle Managers Objective No. OA.3 9 (title)

}

I

2. Pr, vide Factual Informetlan That Supporta the Performance Evaluntlan Sanmary (Continued) 1, 9. The general construction superintendent conducts a weekly meeting with all j chief discipline supervisors to review overall progress, problems and sponsor corrective actions.

1 i 10. The chief discipline supervisors are quellfled by training or experience to be the senior supervisor over each work type. They are selected by the general

, construction superintendent with approvals by the resident manager.

i

) 11. The discipline supervisors are aware of their responsibilities and authority by verbal direction of the general construction superintendent.

12. The area discipline supervisors are assigned to work under the direction of an assistant superintendent with responsibility for the area.

I 13. The area supervisors provide first-line input to area Level 3 working i

schedules (five-month look-ahead) and direct the performance of the work s

scheduled.

j 14. The area supervisor tracks the units of work Installed for reporting to the cost group. Quantities reported are checked by the cost group.

15. The area supervisors have received training and experience in this or other 9

nuclear projects in document and material control and in GA/QC procedures and requirements.

9

} 16. All supervisors receive non-manual project indoctrination at the training center upon employment at Mllistone.

1 1

)

s f .

1

)

1 l

)

h a

h i

e

?

h

J 11029-2 6 18 i

) PERL'ORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities 9 Millstone 3 a

Performance Area Design Inputs Objective No. DC.1 Evaluator (s) T. Cizausks, J. Blackman, R. Fitzpatrick, H. Patel, R. Melcher and H. Wingate I L Performance mjective e

Inputs to the Design Process should be defined and controlled to achieve complete i and quality designs.

)

9

)

IL Scope of Evaluntlan 9

i The evaluation of this area involved the entire team. The team reviewed all aspects of the Design Control Objectives DC.1 through DC.5 and Construction

, Control Objective CC.1. Approximately 340 man-hours were spent interviewing

design personnel at the SWEC Boston and SWEC Site Engineering Offices.

J Another 520 man-hours were spent reviewing procedures, drawings, specifications, E&OCRs and other material relevant to the investigation.

/

i 1

1 l

}

a

?

i IIL Conclusion

?

O The design control procesa dealing with inputs generally meets the criteria of this performance objective. Comprehensive procedures and effective project management tools are being applied which was identified as a good practice.

However, weaknesses were identified in the areas of documented assumptions and

cognizance of SAR commitments.

P 0

i l

) 11029-2 6-19 b

] PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT l

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities h Millstone 3 3

Performance Area Design Input Objective No. DC.1

~

) Evaluator (s) T. Cizauskas, J. Blackman, R. Fitzpatrick, H. Patel, R. Melcher J and H. Wingate _

l IV. Areas of Weekness and Carrective Action Good Practices J

Finding: Several cases were found where design basis ass _umptions and lnput 4 (DC.1-1) values were unverified.

Corrective Corrective action for this finding has been constructed to address q Actions specific details. Therefore, the details are repeated, followed by

) the specific corrective action being taken.

Detail:

1 j The surface-mounted plate qualification procedure was reviewed in detail. Sources of input information were reviewed. The following comments are the results of this review:

A. Input values for concrete stiffness and bolt stiffness were obtained informally and the source was not referenced in the l calculation. In addition, no distinction in bolt stiffness for Hilte j

KWIK or Richmond Anchors is made.

Corrective Action:

An appropriate modulus of elasticity for concrete was ut!!! zed

, as input to calculate concrete stiffness using the Baseplate II

program. The reference for the stiffness used will be added to s

the calculations. The differences in tensile stiffnesses for a one-inch diameter Hilti bolt with 3000 psi concrete, and one-inch diameter Richmond anchor are not significant.

'l B. The methodology used by the computer program for qualifying n

the plate itself is to compute the principal stress in the plate.

While an EMD report was available to the staff covering this topic (EMTR-612, dated October 17, 1977), a untaxial bending stress allowable was used (AISC, Seventh Edition) without any 1 formal justification.

J Corrective Action:

t The auditors reviewed a unique analysis performed in accord-ance with Stone & Webster calculation procedures. This i

analysis was outside the scope of EMTR-612 and thus the report

] could not be referenced.

8 1 .

4

l J

11029 2 6-20 1

4

) PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities

] Millstone 3 J

Performance Area Design Input Objective No. DC.1 S

Evaluator (s) T. Clzauskas, J. Blackman, R. Fitzpatrick, H. Patel, R. Melcher d

and H. Wingate i

j IV. Areas of Weakness and Carrective Actions Good Practices (Continued) j Detail

)

Procedures for qualifing electrical cable tray supports (PTR No.19) 3 were reviewed in detail at SEG and the home office. The following a comments are the results of this review:

J A. The closely spaced mode provisions of NRC Regulatory Guide j 1.92 were not followed even though the use of this regulatory j guide represents an SAR commitment.

7 Corrective Action:

J All cable tray supports designed per PTR-19 include the effect of closely spaced modes in the model responses.

B. The first 10 modes were extraced and used in an SRSS summation. However, it was noted that responses at

frequencies greater than 33 hertz were included in the

, summation and additional model responses were not included if the rigid range was not reached at the tenth mode.

) Corrective Action:

J In seismic / dynamic analysis, most of the response effect is in the first three modes.

For the design of members and supports, reactions from the

, first 10 modes are enough to account for 95 to 98% of the energy of the system.

Thus, it is not detrimental to use the first 10 modes for the 1 design of members and supports to cover all the model J responses up to the cut-off frequency.

3 A dynamir model for a rigid system, if assigned enough degrees i of freedom, would cover the 33-Hz range using the first 10 J modes. the cable tray system is in the semi-rigid range such l that the dominant frequencies do not cover the full 33-Hz 1 range. However, the consideration of additional modes out j through 33-Hz does not contribute significantly to the dynamic l response.

l1 1

)

Y .

1

11029 2 6 21 i

j PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities s

Millstone 3 I

e l Performance Area Design Input Objective No. DC.1

} Evaluator (s) T. Cizouskas, J. Blackman, R. Fitzpatrick, H. Patel, R. Melcher J and H. Wingate IV. Areas of Weakness and Carrective Actions Good Practices (Continued) g C. Cable tray support qualification was performed assuming that cable trays are seismically decoupled from the supporting 3

structure. However, no evidence substantiating this assumption was offered by SWEC.

j Corrective Action:

The methods utilized for cable tray support qualification are J

based on the results of three-dimensional seismic studies of cable tray support systems.

The studies show the tray modes were isolated from the support j modes.

' D. Cable tray mass considerations were included in the support quellflation. However, since cable tray natural frequencies may .

no be in the rigid range, consideration of additional model response due to cable tray participation should be considered.

No evidence substantiating this consideration was offered by SWEC.

a Corrective Action:

Since the trays are decoupled, inertia effects of trays have been included at supports for design.

i s'

Detail:

Clear space requirements between adjacent components,

, systems and structures are influenced by seismic motion (" shake space" requirements). Various groups indicated an awareness of L this requirement, but a comprehensive, project-wide criteria for H

evaluation was not evident.

9

! C'o rrective Action:

1 J Components, system and structural spacings are governed by

)

individual guidelines and specifications which adequately cover these spacing requirements.

j p

l?

l u

11029 2 6 22 1

) PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 s

Performance Area Design Input Objective No. DC.l_

1 Evaluator (s) T. Cizauskas, J. Blackman, R. Fitzpatrick, H. Patel, R. Melcher

9) and H. Wingste l

j IV. Areas of Weakness and Carrective Action Good Practices (Continued) q Details i

' EMD-79-15 is used by the piping analyst as a guide to determine if branch piping should be included or decoupled in the run pipe

) analysis. When the ratio of moment of inertia of run pipe to j branch pipe is more than 10 to 1, the branch can be excluded from the run pipe analysis. Based on the present industrial

• practice, a ratio of at least 20 to 1 is appropriate. Discussions with division personnel Indicate that this ratio was based on

" engineering judgment" and not verified by parametric studies.

, EMD also specifies an exception that division personnel believe

will alert the analyst when this ratio is invalid. "If an anchor or l rigid constraint on the branch pipe is located near the run pipe and significantly restrains . . ." There is no guidance to define "near" or "significantly restrains".

Corrective Action:

[ The use of a moment of inertia ratio of 10 to 1 for determining when branch piping can be decoupled in the analysis is an (

acceptable guideline. The terms "neer" and "significantly restrains" are used because some degree of enginesting

judgement is required by the procedure and the engineers who perform and review these calculations are quellfled to make such judgements.

s The statement that a ratio of moment of inertia of run pipe to t branch pipe of at least 20 to 1 to permit decoupling is standard I Industry practice is in itself judgemental.

J l Detail:

Because of the nature of the facilities-related design work, the input to various HVAC calculations, including pressure drop

(' calculations were found to be based on assumed parameters.

Procedural provisions are available to assure that assumed i values are later verified as reccrded data. Calculation sets 226P(B) and 674P(B) did not follow the procedural provisions.

)

I f

E i

t 11029-2 6-23 d PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT l 5UMMARY Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 l J

l Performance Area Design Input Objective No. DC.1 Evaluator (s) T. Cizauskas, J. Blackman, R. Fitzpatrick, H. Patel, R. Melcher

• and H. Wingate l

j IV. Arena of Weakness and Carrective Actlery Good Practices (Continued) 3 Corrective Actions d

Calculations 226P(B) and 674P(B) still require confirmation of input assumptions in accordance with S&W Engineering I Assurance Procedures.

]

Detail:

i The design input for fire hazard analysis, such as combustible loading for various areasiwas unavailable at SWEC, Boston.

Corrective Action:

The design data for the fire hazard analysis were extracted from machine location drawings, panel and cable drawings and memoranda, all of which are available in the project files.

Finding

Several examples were noted in which the use of SAR by engineer.

(DC.1-2) Ing personnel was weak.

Corrective All lead and principal engineers have been formally reminded of Action their responsibility for assuring that design changes are properly reflected in the SAR. The requirements and responsibilities for processing E&DCRs are promulgated by EAP 6.5 and NEAM-38. In

addition, EAP 2.9 was amended to reflect its use in documenting changes to the PSAR during FSAR development. NUSCO plans to I

review samples of future work to assure that the corrective action has been effective.

, Finding: The following good practice was noted:

(DC.1-3) a Comprehensive procedures and effective project management tools g are being applied by engineering.

Li

\,

i L

k 3 11029-2 x 6-24 J .

PERFORMANCE EVALUAT10N CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

[ DETAILS ,

[ Northeast Utilities L Millstone 3

1. Performance Area Design Inputs Objective No. OC.1

( (title) i o

j 2. Provide Factual Information That Supports the Performance Evaluatlan Summary  !

1. The surface-mounted plate qualification procedure was reviewed in detail. )

s Sources of input information were reviewed. The following comments are the results of this reviews

a. Geometry input information, such as bolt location, attachment location ,

] and centerline information is properly documented. j 1'

b. The geometry input information is accurately input into the Cybernet 1 Baseplate II prcip-i. which is used to qualify the plate. '

)

4 e

c. Input values for concrete stiffness and bolt stiffness were obtained informally and the source was not referenced in the calculation. In 1 addition, no distinction in bolt stiffness for Hilte KWIK or Richmond Anchors is made.

l t d. The methodology used by the computer program for quellfying the plate itself is to compute the principal stress in the plate. While an EMD report was available to the staff covering this topic (EMTR-612, dated October 17, 1977), a uniaxial bending stress allowable was used (AISC,

, Seventh Edition) without any formal justification.

2. Procedures for qualifying electrical cable tray supports (PTR No.19) were g reviewed in detail at SEG and the home office. The following comments are

the results of this review

, s. Six E&OCRs covering crW of e@ port designs were reviewed and the i following problems wert en 4A I

e The closely spaced mode provisions of NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92

)

were not followed even though the use of this regulatory guide represents an SAR commitment.

e The first 10 modes were extracted and used in an SRSS summation.

However, it was noted that responses at frequencies greater than 33 hertz were included in the summation and sdditional model responses were not included if the rigid range was not reached at the l tenth mode.

A r

i L - - -. ._. . _ . . - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

11029-2 6 25

} PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAIL 5 1 Northeast Utilities j Millstone 3 k

6 1. Performance Area Design Inputs Objective No. DC.1 (title)

2. Provide Factual Information That Supports the Performance Evaluntlan Summary j (Continued)

b. Cable tray support quellfication was performed assuming that cable trays are seismically decoupled from the supporting structure. However, no evidence substantiating this assumption was offered by SWEC.

! c. Cable tray mass considerations were included in the support qualifica-

! tion. However, since cable tray natural frequencies may not be in the rigid range, consideration of additional model response due to cable tray participation should be considered. No evidence subatantiating this consideration was offered by SWEC.

3. Design inputs for SEG-generated isometrics are properly identified and

controlled.

4. Clear space requirements between adjacent components, systems and structures are influenced by seismic motion (" shake space" requirements).

Various groups indicated an awareness of this requirement, but a G

comprehensive, project-wide criteria for evaluation was not evident.

5. An " Excluded Equipment List"(NEAM 31) has been developed for the project

,, and tracks all project commitments to preclude the use of unacceptable equipment. The list is updated and distributed regularly. Lead engineers are j charged with follow-through responsibility to assure that thasa items do not j, become part of the design.

6. According to the SWEC project engineer, the following mechanisms exist for company and industry feedback:

a. The nuclear project engineers meet every two months to compare notes r and identify problem areas.

b. Construction personnel from the various SWEC nuclear job sites are brought to Boston every six months to meet and discuss problems.

h

) c. Corporate level task force groups are formed to oversta generic problem I areas (e.g., pipe stress).

1 j d. Problem reporting system (EAP 16.1).

l

?

a l

b .

4 a

k 11029-2 6-26 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT f DETAILS Northeast Utilities

, Millstone 3 r

P L Performance Area Design Input Objective No. DC.1 (title) s e 2. Provide Factual Information That S% the Performance Evaluation Summary (C .upued) s

e. NRC deficiency reporting system.

J f. Project sponsors (usually SWEC vice president) meet and communication project information.

1 l 7. EMD-79-15 is used by the piping analyst as a guide to determine if branch piping should be included or decoupled in the run pipe analysis. When the ratio of momeret of inertia of run pipe to branch pipe is more than 10 to 1, the branch can be excluded from the run pipe analysis. Based on the present industrial practice, a ratio of at least 20 to 1 is appropriate. Discussions with division personnel indicate that~ this ratio was based on " engineering

] judgment" and not verified by parametric studies. EMD also specifle,s an j exception that division personnel believe will alert the analyst when this ratio is invalid. "If an anchor or rigid constraint on the branch pipe is located near the run pipe and significantly restrains . . ." There is no

]

guidance to define "near" or "significantly restrains".

8. Because of the nature of the facilities-related design work, the input to

,' various HVAC calculations, including pressure drop calculations were found to be based on assumed parameters. Procedural provisions are available to assure that assumed values are later verified as recorded data. Calculation b sets 226P(B) and 674P(B) did not follow the procedural provisions.

d 2

9. The design input for fire hazard analysis, such as combustible loading for various areas, was unavailable at SWEC, Boston.

, 10. The HVAC system descriptions reviewed were written per procedural format

! (NEAM 105).

1

11. Discussed with the cognizant engineering the function, responsibilities, etc.

J of the Stress Task Force. The design input for Category 1 systems is being updated and sent to the cognizant design groups to verify original design assumptions. If deviations are found, the group relates the impact to the v

Task Force. The Task Force has a preliminary charter which is not yet approved by the project manager, customer, etc.

i 4

J l .

J

?

I l

p 11029 2 6 27 h

d PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 7 DETAILS Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 h

h 1. Performance Aree Design Inputs Objective No. DC.1 1

} (title) '

p 2. Provide Factual Information That Supports the Performance Evolustion Summary (Continued) h 12.

The PSAR was formally amended until issuance of CP. After that time, charges and additional licensing commitments were assembled in the

_ Licensing Commitment List (LCL). Field changes are handled by the E&DCR procedure per EAP 6.3 and NEAM 38. Item 18 of the E&DCR form requires the " responsible engineer" to review the PSAR and LCL for any significant impact to these documents.

a. Two out of six principal engineers were not aware of their responsibility concerning Item 18 of the E&DCR form.

b. A review of the Engineering Assurance Croup audit repo-ta indicatas 1 several instances where changes to the PSAR were made and not 1

documented. In one case, the structural damping values used in a calculation were different from the values committed to in the PSAR.

This change was not listed in the LCL.

] c. The LCL is updated and issued every six months.

13. Various NSSS instrumentation loops were investigated. The design inputs for these loops provided by the NSSS Vendor (W) included several documents I such as flow diagrams, equipment specificatTons and instrument specifica.

., tion sheets.

la 14. The design input documents were reviewed by all disciplines in accordance with the project Manufacturer Drawing Handling Procedure NEAM 5.

15. For all safety related instrumentation, the instrument tubing Isometric drawinga are generated by the Site Engineering Group (SEG). The design Input documents for these isometric drawings consist of documents generated by the home office which have been completely checked,

{ reviewed and approved. The tubing will be routed, supported and analyzed by SEG in accordance with ETM-25.

. 16. SEG personnel indicated that telephone discussions and agreements serve as clarifications of home office documents which are used by SEG as design 3 inputs. These discussions and agreements are formalized by the home office

! on an appropriate form MAM-2 and are used to update project drawings via an established procedure EAP 6.3.

1 W

b 11029-2 6-28

$ i

) PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT l

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities M Millstone 3

]

Performance Area Design Interfaces Objective No. DC.2 i Evaluator (s) T. Cizauskas, J. Blackman, R. Fitzpatrick, H. Patel, R. Melcher and H. Wingate 1 L Performance mjective t)

Design organization external and internal interfaces should be identified and H coordinated to ensure a final design that satisfies all input requirements.

l.

IL Scope of Evaluation 1

~

The evaluation of this area involved the entire team. The team reviewed all aspects of the Design Control Objectives DC.1 through DC.5 and Construction Control Objective CC.1. Approximately 340 man-hours were spent interviewing j

design personnel at the SWEC Boston and SWEC Site Engineering Offices.

J Another 520 man-hours were spent reviewing procedures, drawings, specifications, E&DCRs and other material relevant to the investigation.

1 i

4 a

i j

l J

I

15. Conclusion h

L The project engineering organization has, well defined charters and procedures which address responsibilities and authorities for internal and external interfaces.

3 However, several. situations were identified where engineering was not imple-h menting these instructions in a consistent and comprehensive manner.

?

l a

r l

1 11029-2 6-29 9

i J

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities i Mllistone 3 j

Performance Area Design Interface Objective No. DC.2 Evaluator (s) T. Cizauskas, J. Blackman, H.Patel, R. Melcher, R. Fitzpatric

] and H. Wingate IV. Areas of Wealmess and Carrective Actions Good Practices Finding: It was noted during the evaluation that SEG and SWEC, Boston had (DC.2-1) different understandings of the review process for E&DCRs.

Corrective NEAM-103 delegates to the Superintendent of Engineering and SEG Action: head engineers the authority of their headquarters counterparts, 3

including the authority to fully disposition E&DCRs. The only exception to this policy would be if the Superintendent determines that the subject cannot be dispositioned by the SEG. In this case, the disposition and review would be performed by headquarters

• personnel.

It is unclear from the back-up information whether the SEG

] personnel required were on the head level. In any event, SEG personnel have been reminded that full site dispositions are not revised at headquarters.

Finding: It was noted during the evaluation that the transfer of design res-(DC.2-2) ponsibility from one engineering organization to another organization was not controlled in a comprehensive manner.

Corrective The transfer of primary design responsibl!!ty for cable tray sup-Action: ports was affected in mid-1981 in order to reduce the number of groups involved in the production drawing process. This transfer has resulted in more efficient drawing review and a more uniform appilcation of support design criteria. NUSCO will confirm that this transfer is fully effective and that future personnel responsi-

- bilities have been clearly defined.

3  :

U l

l 5

a 1

i

, l H

l i .

l l

F 11029 2 6-30 b

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT Ut:.I AIL 5 Northeast Utilities Mllistone 3 l

1. Performance Area Design Interface Objective No. DC.2 y (title) e

\

r 2. Provide Factual Information That 5% the Perfumence Evaluntlan St.. .a,-

1. SWEC is responsible for the technical administration of the NSSS contract.

An engineer in Power is assigned the responsibility for coordinating the in-

], house and external interface required to control the NSSS contract.

a

2. Responsibilities for each of SWEC's design groups are documented in

] I

" charters" provided in division standards and project procedures.

3. SWEC, Boston has contracted with SWEC of Canada to perform design work, primarily duct support design. An ESSOW is written to define the

" contractual" requirements, " task packages" provide specific scope and technical criteria. An "intersquad review" is performed in the Boston office of work performed by SWEC of Canada. Performance audits have been

] conducted by Engineering Assurance and corrective action initiated to

rectify problems noted.

, 4. There are three distinct Equipment Qualification Groups (Electrical, Control j

J and Power), all performing EQ on a specification basis. The coordinator is the focal point for the three groups. There is no formel mechanism for having the three groups interface with one another.

j 5.

The comments on various vendor technical documents and design drawings reviewed by interfacing discipline are some times ignored (e.g., electrical q comment on 3HV-ACU.48, Vendor Drawing 2908 1 3, Revision 4, Contract i 648).

6. It was stated by SEG people that since all E&DCRs were sent to the home

]; office for incorporation into the formal evaluations, a monitoring of their engineering judgments is performed. However, the home office people do not review the E&DCRs but rather simply incorporate them into the affected documents. Hence, this cannot be considered as monitoring of engineering quality.

7. The transfer of engineering responsibility for cable tray support was 1

effected 13 months ago by moving responsibility from EMD to Structural 3 Division. However, structural is still in the process of collecting and evaluating information and is not versed in many of the germane details necessary to implement complete design responsibility.

~

H 3 -

L e

v. y + _ . - , - - - . - - - _ _m. - . - -

,w. - -y.em,.e...----- .y.,s,,. 5., ...w-.-w.,

4 4

8 11029-2 6-31 i

} PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAIL 5 j Northeast Utilities

] Millstone 3 v 1. Performance Aree Design Interface Objective No. DC.2 (title) s 2. Provide Factual Information That SN the Performance Evaluation Summary

( G ainued)

)

8. Teledyne has been contracted to provide thermal transient analysis of Class 1 1 piping by NUSCO. NUSCO has assumed responsibility for QA follow.

9. NSSS drawings are pi-:- ::::j by means of the Manufacturer's Drawing

! Handling Procedure fCAM-5, when distributes the drawings to the disciplines for review.

i t

I r

r n

i i

?

• l l

L 11029-2 6-32 x

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 F

l Performance Area Design Process Objective No. DC.3 l Evaluator (s) T. Cizauskas, J. Blackman, R. Fitzpatrick, H. Patel, R. Melcher h and H. Wingate L Performance Chlective The management of the design process should result in designs that are safe, l reliable, verifiable and in compliance with the design requirements.

3 1

1

)

IL Scope of Evaluntlan

". The evaluation of this area involved the entire team. The team reviewed all aspects of the Design Control Objectives DC.1 through DC.5 and Construction Control Objective CC.1. Approximately 340 man-hours were spent interviewing design personnel at the SWEC, Boston and SWEC, Site Engineering Offices.

Another 520 man-hours were spent reviewing pix 4res, drawings, specifications, E&DCRs, and other material relevant to the investigation.

.I b

.A 1

j IB. Conclusion 1

j The design process used on Millstone was found to be controlled by comprehensive generic design procedures and standards. In general, personnel were cognizant of

.)

this process and appropriately monitored its application. With the recent y expansion of SEG a minor weakness in supervision strength was detected but this f was being corrected. However, weaknesses were detected in the areas of handling non-generic problems and in the process of handling design assumptions.

il l>

I 1 .

ll g

> 11029-2 6-33 L

I _ PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

f nrtheast Utilities q Millstone 3 U

Performance Area Desion Process Objective No. DC.3 Evaluator (s) T. Cizaskas. J. Blackman. H. Patel. R. Melcher. R. Fitzpatrick and H. Winoste ,

IV. Areas of Weakness and Carrective Action Good Practicos Finding: A systematic approach for handling non-generic design items was 1 (DC.3-1) not evident.

J Corrective Nongeneric designs are supported by specific calculations. Such

, Action: calculations are prepared by qualified individuals and reviewed by qualified individuals. In instances where a design is safety-related,

] an independent review is performed. Project management will assure that all individuals are knowledgeable of these design

} applicatluns.

i Finding: An instance was found where design assumptions were not verified.

(DC.3-2)

Corrective The generic stiffness values in EMO 80-02 are considered to be Action: conservative and reasonable values for seismic evaluation of piping systems.

a The values were arrived at based on evaluation of common supports j and the judgment of engineers competent in their field.

1 f The generic stiffnesses assure satisfactory pipe stress values and support leads for thermal growth and differential anchor movements. Adequate dynamic responses are assured by using conservative input load designations, load combinations and low damping assumptions.

)

, Final evaluation and reconciliation of assumptions of the designed pipe supports to the pipe stress analysis is the responsibility of the q Responsible Engineers and Principle PSAS Engineers, as defined in j EMD 80-2.

I

[' i l

J e

L 1

s

• j

)

7 11029-2 6 34 e

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

~

DETAIL 5 Northeast Utilities

, Millstone 3 l

c 1. Performance Area Design Pim.a Objective No. DC.3 l

, (title) l

s q 2. Provide Factual Information That *- rts the Performance Evaluation Summary

1. Electrical Group personnel have been assigned specific responsibilities on the i project by the lead electrical engineer. This was done in July 1982. A similar d memo for the SEG Electric Group was issued by the SEG Principal Engineer on July 14,1982.

2. Equipment qualification is processed on a specification basis per NEAM 112.

] EAM 112 is a comprehensive detailed guideline which specs out this design process. Scheduling constraints are developed based upon " System Tumover i Packages" and their schedule at the job site. MTM 26 controls the

.] development process for the environmental envelopes for the various plant u areas.

~i 3. Currently, cable procurement activities center around the need to buy more j

^ cable of a given type as opposed to new types of cable. S&W has divisional guidelines that determine what type cables are to be used in any given m,

application. Estimates of lengths were developed early in the project and the l cable was procured. Cable usage is monitored and projected quantities are

% recalculated periodically. When a short-fall is recognized, the Electrical

! Group specs out an additional amount of cable of the given type and sends p this to NUSCO for approval. Procurement is a well defined and controlled L activity.

4.

A task force was formed for verification and modification of the various fan J

.) selections to suit the end product of the system design.

5. EMO-80-2 is used by the piping analyst as a guide to determine support

?  !

stiffness to be used in his piping model. Resulting reaction loads from the '

piping analysis are used to design the supports. EMD-80-2 indicates that it is not necessary to verify by calculation the original assumed stiffness once the a support is designed. No guidance is given for an acceptable deviation from

]

the assumed stiffness. In addition, the support is assumed to be rigid (i.e.,

above 33 Hz ). There is no requirement to verify this design assumption.

6. Comprehensive generic design procedures and standards exist for such items a

as cable tray supports, conduit supports, duct supports, I&C supports and pipe supports. These documents can be applied in the majority of cases. Instances

] were noted where special case designs were required and extrapolation of the j base design was made. However, the extrapolation was improperly effected due to the absence of basic design guidelines for handling such cases.

/

- - , - . -,,._..,-nn, _.-----,,mn.---..nr--- ------..__a, . , _ , - . - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

i L 11029-2 6-35 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DF. TAIL 5

} Northeast Utilities g Millstone 3 P

1. Performance Area Design Process Objective No. DC.3 (title)

- 2. Provide Factual Information That 5% the Performance Evaluetlan Summary (C..;irused) a

7. The SEG roster has expanded from 15 people two years ago to approximately 350 presently. Two observations are evident:

a. Direct supervision of production personnel by experienced individuals

, is liralted.

I

b. The familiarity of the general staff with the details of the design

, procedures was found to be limited. Required reading lists and limited

formal classroom sessions are the training methods used.

J

8. The Engineering Assurance Program at the site and home office is effective, 1

well run and used by management to help improve the overall quality of the j engineering effort.

9. Lead engineers are aware of design process problems and take steps to Improve the effectiver me of the organization.

10. The Problem Reporting System (EAP 16.1 and NEAM 31) includes investi-gation of all NRC, industry and project-generated lists of potential

problems. Specific items verified to be problems at MP-3 are developed into problem reports and are provided with formal resolutions.

11. The plant model is used as an effective design aid. It is particularly useful in minimizing interference and is a construction planning tool.

] 12. The instrumentation and controls design methods were investigated in both j safety-related systems and in non-safety-related systems. It was determined that the design was generated and checked by quellfled personnel using established project procedures and divisional standards at j the home office.

13. Safety-related tubing routing will be performed to tubing isometric drawings 1

sh.owing complete dimensions of the routing and the exact location of all

} tubing reports. The process is controlled by p.m.. dure NETM 25.

1

11029 2 6 36 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 5UMMARY Northeast Utilities i

Millstone 3 l

Performance Area Design Output Objective No. DC.4 t Evaluator (s) T. Cizauskas, J. Blackman, R. Fitzpatrick, H. Patel, R. Melcher and H. Wingate L Performance Chjective f

Project design documents should specify constructable design in terms of complete, accurate and understandable design requirements.

IL Scape of Evalustian The evaluation of this area involved the entire team. The team reviewed all aspects of the Design Control Objectives DC.1 through DC.5 and Construction Control Objective CC.1. Approximately 340 manAours were spent interviewing design personnel at the SWEC Boston and SWEC Site Engineering Offices.

Another 520 man-hours were spent reviewing procedures, drawings, specifications, E&DCRs and other material relevant to the investigation.

15. Conclusion The design output documentation was found to b comprehensive and complete.

As a result there was a minimum of coordinatir.: or iiterpretation required by the construction organization. This fact was ' arifled by evaluators investigating construction activities (CC.1 through CC.7). One good practice was identified.

L i

LJ 11029-2 6-37

, I i

j PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities 1 Millstone 3 1

a Performance Area Design Output Objective No. DC.4 Evaluator (s) T. Cizauskas, H. Pstel, J. Blackman, R. Fitzpatrick, R. Melcher and H. Wingate j IV. Areas of Weaknees and Carrective Action; Good Practices Finding: The following good practice was noted:

1 (DC.4-1) d The standardization of specifications and use of equipment specialist and standardization of calculation format was found to be excellent.

J l

')

'I i

1 u'

i

?

I

}

l l

l J

l 1

J l

'+a d

. I 1 , . ,

J l

___ - ---l

I e

i 11029 2 6 38 4

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAIL 5 ,

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 i

1. Performance Area Deslan Output Objective No. DC.4

( (title) i q

2, Provide FactualInformation That Supporta the PerfU mance Evaluntlan Summary

1. PES-800 la the master equipment list for the project. This document is f

y controlled and processed via the PES Manual. This is a company-wide tool made available to the various SWEC projects. This output document is a computer printout which lists all equipment by specification, location, t category, EQ status, manufacturers data, etc. All engineering groups that j specify equipment have input to this document.

2. The SEG Electrical Group creates and controls the BE-52 series drawings.

hi These drawings provide the details for project standard hangers for cable tray, conduit and electrical boxes. These drawings are geared to

$ standardization and constructability.

1 3. Equipment quellfication design output consists of a detailed checklist (plus all backup documentation) for each specification which shows that the equipment in the specification is quellfled and/or what follow-up action is required. The 3 completed documentation package original (master copy) is sent to client who

'; has responsibility for maintaining it current through the plant lifetime.

Required signoffs are delineated in FEAM 112.

] 4. The standardization of specifications, the mandatory use of equipment j specialists and the standardization of calculation format was found to be effectively utilized.

j 5. The use of a computer program (APEC Superduct Level I) to achieve uniformity in the duct system pressure calculations was found to be as good engineering practice.

I 6. TSKs are a series of piping diagrams marked up to show hydro test boundaries and pressure. The diagrams are prepared by Advisory Operations and approved by Power. MTP-3 defines. hydro pressure criteria. The criteria includes provisions for static head differentials and components design f pressure.

h I

i 1

\ 1 h

t li d l 11029-2 6-39 i k

Il i Ll PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT '

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities a Millstone 3 Performance Area Design Changes Objective No. DC.5 l Evaluator (s) T. Cizauskas, J. Blackman, R. Fitzpatrick, H. Patel, R. Melcher, H. Wingate and L. Kube L Performance Objective

}

f Changes to released project design documents should be controlled to ensure that ll constructed designe comply with the most recent design requirements.

J h

J p- IL Scope of Evaluation 1

The evaluation of this area involved the entire team. The team reviewed all aspects of the Design Control Objectives DC.1 through DC.5 and Construction

, Control Objective CC.l. Approximately 340 man-hours were spent interviewing i design personnel at the SWEC, Boston and SWEC Site Engineering Offices.

J Another-520 man-hours were spamt reviewing procedures, drawings, specifications, k E&DCRs and other material relevant to the investigation.

1 l-J .

u

)

.s l

i i

Il J

Il J

IIL Conclusion 7

J The general control and implementation of design changes were found to be adequate on this project. Practies were observed where good control was being exercised but the formalization of the process lacking. A weakness was noted regarding the timeliness of processing changes.

J l

I

l J

11029 2 6 40 4

.i PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 5UMMARY Northeast Utilltles 1 Millstone 3 J

Performance Area Design Changes Objective No. DC.5 Evaluator (s) T. Clzauskas, J. Blackman, R. Fitzpatrick, H. Patel, R. Melcher, H. Wingate and L. Kube 1

j IV. Areas of Weakness and Corrective Actions Good Practices Finding: Issuance of approved E&DCRs need to be expedited to support (DC.5-1) scheduled progress of construction.

J Corrective Prior to the time of this finding, the processing of E&DCRs had Actiom been given increased management attention in order to minimize the impact on. construction of the E&DCR process. Weekly, a status summary of outstanding E&DCRs is reviewed by the project

, engineer and the superintendent of engineering and problem areas pinpointed for follow-up action. Critical E&DCRs which are identified as having extreme impact are walked through the response and approval process. In addition, biweekly meetings are

held with construction, during which time E&DCRs which directly

impact near term construction schedules are highlighted to the project and assistant project engineers for priority action.

, Trending charts of outstanding E&DCRs are evaluated by project

management at the monthly NUSCO site meeting.

N 1

p.

I 1

l

')

}

j l

r .

11029-2 6.41 j PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 5

DE TAIL 5 5

Northeast Utilities

{ Millstone 3

( -.

1. Performance Area Desimi Changes Objective No. DC.3 5

(title)

)

)

L Provide Factual hformation That *% the Performance Evaluetlan m '-- 1 i

s 1. Design changes resulting from the issuance of a problem report are brought about via the E&DCR process. The problem report coordinator in Boston is 1 charged with follow-up responsibility to assure these changes are actually j completed at the site. BEAM 31 provides the mechanism for this tracking.

2. In the context of equipment quellfication, when a purchased piece of equipment turns out to be unquallflable as purchased, NEAM 112 specifies a number of remedies including relocation, added shielding, replacement,

' additional testing, etc. SWEC provides NUSCO with an optimum recommendation; NUSCO makes final decision as to course of actic:1.

.i

3. The E-350 specification (installation of electrical equipment)is revised every

) six months to incorporate outstanding E&OCRs. The SEG provides a draft i form of the revised specification to the specification coordinator in Boston for review, concurrence and reiswance of the specification.

4. Principal engineers with SEG Indicated the following with respect to the design change process:

1 a.

Design changes are required by the E&OCR procedure to be reviewed by

' all affected disciplines; however, in reality, the lead group makes these judgments. No formal guidelines exist.

b. Consideration is given to constructability, operability and maintain-ability; however, this is by experience of individuals, not by formal guidelines.

c. Consideration is also given as to how future similar problems could be avoided, but again this is based upon the experience and maturity of key individuals.

5.

In order to facilitate plant construction, interim issue drawings can be released to expedite construction while final approvals are being obtained.

, 6. The interface review on changes related to duct supports are based on the principal engineer's judgment only. The review responsibility is not clearly defined.

• 1

11029-2 6-42 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAILS Northeast Utilities Millstone 3

/ -

1. Performance Area Design Changes Objective No. DC.5 (title) f h 2. Provide Factual Infbrmetlan 1 hat Steparta the Performance Evaluation Summary j (continuedJ

7. The practice of marking duct pressure drop calculations in accordance with s the changes in the duct system as " confirmation required" is a good engineering practice. This practice permits completion of duct calculations after "as-builts" and confirmed vendor input data becomes available.

1 j 8. The project manager has set a goal to reduce E&OCR process time. Faster issuance of approved E&DCRs to construction is necessary to support scheduled construction progress.

J 1

'b 1

I il J

p l

1 h

I l

4 I

l-I f

I i

3 l

f 1,

B h

1' 1

k s

i .

b 1

i

I l 11029 2 6-43

)

j PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities

[ Millstone 3 Performance Area Construction Engineering Objective No. CC.1 Evaluator (s) T. Cizauskas, J. Blackman, R. Fitzpatrick, H. Patel, R. Melcher and H. Wingate L Performance Chlective Engineering and design performed under the authority of the construction organization should be controlled as to consistency with the basic design criteria to ensure compliance with applicable codes, standards and replatory commit-

, ments.

3 IL Scope of Evaluation The evaluation of this area involved the entire team. The team reviewed all aspects of the Design Control Objectives DC.1 through DC.5 and Construction

} Control Objective CC.1. Approximately 340 man-hours were spent interviewing -

j design personnel at the SWEC Boston and SWEC Site Engineering Offices.

Another 520 man-hours were spent reviewing procedures, drawings, specifications, E&DCRs and other material relevant to the investigation.

1 1

i a

d 1

J 3

m. Concio. ion l This project utilizes an integrated site engineering and field engineering i

organization. As a result, there was explicit understanding of the basic design criteria to ensure compilance. Procedures. guidelines and processes were clearly understood and applied.

(

11029-2 6.44 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 Performance Area Construction Engineering Objective No. CC.l_ _

Evaluator (s) T. Cizauskas, J. Blackman, H. Patel, R.Melcher, R. Fitzpatrick and H. Wingate N. Areas of Weakness and Carrective Action Good Practices No findings.

i i

i a

e 1'

u l

l lj l

9 1

1 9 e i l

? l

11029-2 6-45

( PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT l

DETAILS Northeast Utilities Millstone 3

1. Performance Area Construction Engineering Objective No. CC.1 (title)

2. Provide Factual Information That Sieparta the Performance Evaluetlan Summary

1. Review of a representative sampling of E&DCRs indicated conformance with the requirements of EAP 6.3 (E&DCR control) and in a manner consistent with sound, timely solutions.

2. All aspects of the surface mounted plate qualification effort (MTM-28 and the Baseplate II computer program) were reviewed. The procedures were well formulated and technically comprehensive. The use of the program handles a broad range of cases and is responsive to the needs of construction.

3. Within SEG ltself, there is a reliance placed upon certain key individuals and their collective experience and good judgment. There are a number of

, important tasks that are informally handled by these people. Examples

Include:

l.

a. Identifying existing problems at stages to minimize impacts on construction cost, quality, licensing, etc.

b. Determining "affected disciplines" for design changes.

c. Assuring that constructability considerations are factored into the design.

d. Reviewing design changes for generic implications and trends.

4. Design outputs (e.g., E&DCRs, N&Ds, instrument tubing isometrics) are sent to document control to be issued for construction. These documents are kept current through the document control process. .

5. The SEG principal engineers report administratively to the site superintendent of engineering and technically to the lead discipline engineers

, in Boston.

j 6. During interviews with several SEG principal engineers, knowledge of any I established written guidelines which defined the scope of SEG and their

[ responsibilities was not evident. Boston personnel of equal or higher position stated the EAM 103 addressed this subject.

7. The SEG program for routing, qualifying and preparing shop fabrication drawings of small bore piping, instrument tubing and hanging of conduit is well conceived and efficiently run.

[

I k

I l 1 - _

}

11029 2 6.46 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

)

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3

/

l Performance Area Construction Facilities and Equipment Objective No. CC.2

, Evaluator (s) __ R. Witt, C. Meyer and L. Kube L Performance Chlective Construction facilities and equipment should be planned for, acquired, installed and maintained consistent with project needs to support quality construction.

IL Scope of Evaluation Approximately 20 man-hours were expended. Observation of this activity was through interviews with project management, supervisors and craftsmen and walk-

?

throughs of all facilities and the site with the responsible supervisors and review g of applicable procedures.

i o

\

3 o

I h

1 1

, IIL Conclusion

) The project has a detailed site plan addressing construction facilities and equip-l ment and is adhering to this plan in the scheduling and control of related

[

activities. As a result full compliance with this performance objective was y observed.

,I J

l t

a h

t 11029-2 6-47 i

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 Performance Area Construction Facilities and Equipment Objective No. CC.2 Evaluator (s) R. Witt, C. Meyer and L. Kube IV. Areas of Weaknees and Carrective Action; Good Practices No findings.

i 1

f l

i e

l f

s I

)1 L

s E

1 r

l e

i J

( l

}

11029 2 6-48 J

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

+

OETAILS Northeast Utilities Millstone 3

1. Performance Area Construction Facilities and Equipment Objective No. CC.2 (title) s

2. Provide Factual Information That Supports the Performance Evaluation Summary

1. A site plan exists for the location of facilities and procurement of equipment '

} to meet project requirements.

}

2. Management is involved in controlling the procurement of equipment i requested for construction needs.

I

3. Warehousing, craft shops and storage areas are properly located for receiving materials and equipment. Access road and areas are properly maintained.

f 4. Craft shops are laid out with adequate working space for an efficient wvking environment, materials and finished items are properly identified and stored.

1

5. Permanent plant equipment used by construction and construction equipment

) is inspected and meintained to the specific requirements. Complete history

, and current maintenance records were available.

1 J 6. A periodic surveillance of equipment on site is performed to insure it is being used properly and efficiently. Proper equipment is acquired to meet j construction needs.

4

7. Rigging equipment is inspected and maintained to the specified requirements. All chockers and lifting beams are properly identified and controlled. Testing and lifting records are used in accordance with specified a procedures.

8. Bulk storage facilities for argon, map gas, oxygen and air are provided for construction use. Distribution stations are installed throughout the buildings to meet construction needs and are properly identified and maintained.

W f

M 4

11029 2 6 49 m

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT e

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 o

Performance Area Material Control Objective No. CC.3 9 Evaluator (s) R. Desmarais, R. Witt, C. Meyer, D. Bacon, J. Katz, H. Patel

] L Performance Gloctive 4

Material and equipment should be inspected, controlled and maintained to ensure i the final as-built condition meets design and operational requirements.

e l

}

, IL Scope of Evaluation l

The entire construction team provided input for the evaluation of material and equipment control and maintenance. Approximately 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> were spent in observations, interviews, tours and review of this performance objective.

J Construction supervisors, area engineers, FQC supervisors, FGC receipt inspectors and warehouse personnel were contacted to investigate the inspection, control and maintenance of material and equipment.

i t

)

7 ..

1 I

J o

n IE. Conclusion The project has comprehensive systems in place to effectively schedule and monitor material control activities. However, several cases wars ncted which - -

1 reflected improper execution and requirs corrective action. Other than these j cases, material and equipment is being inspected, controlled and maintained in compliance with the performance criteria.

1

i

) l 11029-2 6-50 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT L

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities l

Millstone 3

('

Performance Area Material Control Objective No. CC.3 L Evaluator (s) R. Desmarais, R. Witt, C. Meyer, D. Bacon, J. Katz and H. Patel j IV. Areas of Weakness and Carrective Actions Good Practices

?

Finding: The following good practice was noted:

1 (CC.3-1) .

1

1. Comprehensive systems are in place .and effectively applied to  !

schedule and monitor material control and preventive maintenance

, activities. These systems bring violations to the attention of l supervision on a regular basis.

o Finding: Some site personnel are not adequately trained in material and 3 (CC.3-2) equipment control procedures.

Corrective Only those personnel who require training in material and equip-

, Action: ment control procedures are so trained. A formal program exists i for determining each individual's training requirements based on his J

Job requirements and past training history. NUSCO will investigate the effectiveness of this program and if necessary will mandate

?

retraining.

~

Finding: The site should reinforce its procedures to identify and control (CC.3-3) scrap, surplus or damaged permanent plant material in the field.

Corrective NUSCO will determine whether procedural changes and/or Action: increased personnel training is required to properly implement the program.

i l

J 5

1 3

2

{

V

L i 11029 2 6 51 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION _ CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAIL 5

. Nertheast Utilities Millstone 3

1. Performance Area Material Control Objective No. CC.3 (title)

2. Provide Factual Information That Supports thr, Performance Evaluatlan Summary

1. Warehouses 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 have controlled access, are adequately fire- and weather-protected and environmentally controlled where necessary.

2. The cable yard is well organized, fenced, locked and the surface area covered with stone. The reels are properly stored on dunnage and chocked on a random basis. End seals are used on cable ends.

3. Computerized inventory control exists for every major area but electrical.

Inventory reports are updated through material received reports and stored requisitions. Use of these reports la limited. There is no written procedure to cover the inventory control system. Electrical materials are reordered when the supervisor sees that stock is getting low.

4. SWEC Boston, Procurement GA (PGA) performs all Boston purchsaed material and equipment surveillances and releases. This process greatly reduces field receipt inspection requirements.

5. Area personnel are not completely cognizant of storage requirements. An area engineer was not fami'.far with storage level criteria, permanent plant material separation and identificati:n from construction material and the responsibilities for preventive maintenance. The area engineer stated that the limited staging and building areas cause stcrage problems which are beyond his control.

6. Teamsters perform material receiving duties for all locally purchased material. l~QC performs receipt inspection as required. The teamsters did not mark cable reels with appropriate information.

7. Observed damaged cable tray (permanent plant equipment) used for construction and piled in the laydown area. None were identified as scrap and identified per the applicable FCP. All still had QC, Category I accept stickers.

8. Electrical materla! not requiring Level A or B storage is directly stored by the electrical supervisor. No one person controls electrical material. There is no inventory system for it. All cable tray, condult, consumables, grounding cable are purchased to the came criteria.

9. Temporary equipment is usually painted yellow or is a different brand from permanent plant equipment.

e. ., -'

? ,i 't >* 4 ,,w 'g ',- , .'* l Q, M

_..P ee , ,-

b 2 y ,,, .. y

'_'). . , ,,-

L -

4

)

l 11029 2 6 52 5 -

ll f

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAILS Northeast Utilities f Millstone 3 I

J

1. Performance Area Material Control Objective No. CC.3 (title)

2. . Provide Factual Informatlan That Supporta the Performance Evaluatlan Summwy (Contirund)

10. Site engineering approves all testing results of consumable materials used on

site per the 915 specification and the administrative requirements of CMP 1.3-3.79.

11. A warehouse supervisor did not notify FGC of material on site for several days. This material was observed on makeshift plywood tables in the aisles of warehouse 7. This area was not designated as a QC hold area. FQC receipt inepection was unaware of recently received material stored in this fashion for days at a time.

12. Stainless steel material in warehouse 7 is stored directly in metal bins or wire cages contrary to site procedures.

13. Warehouse personnel administer the equipment preventive maintenance program using appropriate craft personnel. FQC has 100 percent review and concurrence over scope and implementation. The client's computer is used for weekiy maintenance / surveillance scheduling. Records of maintenance and surveillance are kept on individual equipment history cards and a controlled copy of the maintenance surveillance schedule. Newly received equipment maintenance / surveillance requirements are identified and enacted as soon as physically possible. Delays in identifying requirements are brought to management's attention.

14. Weld material control complies with applicable procedures. Material is effectively controlled from original receipt through return of unused material by each welder.

15. Observed stacked, crated permanent plant material in warehouse 5 marked "do not stack".

16. A chief supervisor expressed concern with the available space and ability to properly store material in certain buildings. He also stated that proper material storage problems are compounded by some area personnel misusing the CMS to receive production credit for having material in the building. __

17. Observed a Level 2 receipt inspector performing the receipt inspection function of a Category II item. The inspector was well-versed in all aspects of receipt inspection.

t b

11029-2 6 53 n

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 a

p Performance Area Control of Construction Processes Objective No. CC.4

Evaluator (s) D. Bacon, E. Desmarais, J. Katz, C. Meyer, W. Miller and R. Witt l

} L Performance ONective The construction organization should monitor and control all construction

processes to ensure the project is completed to design requirements and that a

high level of quality is achieved.

9 l

IL Scope of Evaluation k

More than 160 man. hours were expended in observing work practices at various locations on the project. Schedules, drawings, specifications, instructions and l procedures obtained from cognizant supervisors, engineers, inspectors and 3 Document Control were utilized to provide sufficient detail of activities prior to I performing most observations. An additional 100 man-hours were devoted to

, follow-up discussions with various levels of supervision / management and review of I related documentation. <

b r

I, i

IIL Conclusion A significant number of construction activities were observed to evaluate the construction process control for compliance with requirements. Except for several isolated cases which were identified ts findings, control was being exercised in construction processes consistent with performance criteria.

l

i a

11029-2 6-54 1

3 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 Performance Area Control of Construction Processes Objective No. CC.4 Evaluator (s) D. Bacon. E. Desmarais J. Katz, C. Meyer, W. Miller and R. Witt

] IV. Arses of Woolmees and Carrective Actions Good Practicos

)

Finding: Construction supervisors did not inspect rebar location and clear-7 (CC.4-1) ances with respect to formwork drawing and specification require-ments.

J Corrective The Construction Field Engineers have the responsibility for

] Action: drawing and specification compliances. The final inspection is also j performed by QC pre-pour inspectors. This is an independent check to insure compliance. NUSCO will confirm that all personnel are conducting these inspections and that all acceptability criteria are J

understood and met.

Finding: Craft personnel were using vibrators to transport concrete in 1

(CC.4-2) excess of distances allowed by specification.

Corrective in the instance cited, supervision did not enforce the requirement

] Action: for a maximum five-foot transport. The concrete supervisors, area j supervisors, field engineers, and craft foremen have been reminded of their responsibility to insure proper concrete vibration methods are followed.

This is considered to be an isolated occurrence. Numerous NRC audits of concrete placements have never produced a similar finding.

Finding: Construction supervision improperly permits the use of embedded

, (CC.4-3) conduit projections as anchoring points for chain falls /come-alongs.

Corrective To adhere to good construction methods and to prevent possible i Action: damage to embeded conduit stub-outs, the practice of their use as

] anchor points has been discontinued. All supervisors and craft

! foremen have been so instructed.

Finding: The following good practice was noted:

~

(CC.4-4)

Precise preplanning by management and supervision prior to work

( being performed was evidenced in the duct and cable tray support 1

hanger installations in the control building.

f

(

)

i l

s l

1

b,

)

11029 2 6.55 s

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

\ DETAIL 5 Northeast Utilities f M!!! stone 3 L

W

1. Performance Aree Control of Construction Processes Objective No. CC.4

! (title)

}

2. Provide FactasalInformation That Steparte the Performance Evolustian Summary 7

1. A welder was observed using an unstamped, unsigned yellow technique sheet i wnlle making a weld in the auxillary building. The technique sheet was found

) to be applicable and all other items in the weld package were in accordance with project procedures.

2. Chief supervisors provide ares supervisors with needed technical assistance, handle major labor problems, provide supporting help from fabricating shops

and maintain close control material quantitles installed and the associated

! costs.

)

3. Precise preplanning by management and supervision, prior to work being performed, was evidenced in the duct and cable tray support hanger

^

, installation in the control building.

. 4. Two scheduled concrete placements were observed. Several weaknesses were i identified:

i

s. GC inspectors' did not conform to procedural requirements.

t c b. Testing equipment was calibrated by user.

c. Vibrators were being used to transport concrete beyond the five-foot limit stated in project specifications.

d. Visual observation of grout and concrete placement at bottom of lift was

! inadequate.

5. Electricians were observed using embedded conduit stub-outs as an anchor point for come-along sling. When this was discussed with chief electrical supervisor, he could not site any procedure that prohibited this practice.

6. Construction activities are identified in the Level 3 area schedules as a result of weekly meetings with area supervisors. Work is performed in accordance with drawings, instructions, procedures and specifications. Supervision inspects all work for conformance. QC provides backup verification of work performed. Supervisors try to have the proper tools and equipment available in the quantitles needed to meet instrumentation requirements.

l

- . , , - , , . . , . , - - - - , . - - . - - , , - - - - - , - . , - - - _ . . . , - - . , ._-,....,-_--,.,.,--_,,.-,,..,-.....n,. . , _ . . . , . . - . . . . , . , , . - - . - - - - -

k

.) 6M 11029 2 I PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DE. TAIL 5

" Northeast Utilities Millstone 3

)"

1. Performance Area Control of Construction Processes Objective No. CC.4 (title)

L Provide Factual hformatlan That 5% the Perftirmance Evaluation Summary (continued)

7. Observation of granular full placement along CW discharge tunnel was noteworthy. Fill was conveyed to deposit area by a motor driven belt conveyor and distributed very efficiently in eight inch layers by a " swinger" conveyor with a rubber elephant trunk. Labor crew foreman was aware of specification requirements and QC inspector was constantly observing the work and making density tests in accordance with Specification 907.

8. The installation of supports for ductwork and cable tray was observed in the i control building. The coordination, preplanning and preparation of both the '

electrical and HVAC craftsman was apparent.

L J

J l

9 P

i 4I t

s l

% 4 a

w-- - mg.,---c y -.- - -

7 . m,- ,m.. -m..# - - - - -

11029 2 6 57 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 l Performance Area Construction Quality Inspections Objective No. CC.5 l

Evaluator (s) D. Bacon, C. Meyer, R. Witt, E. Desmarais, L. Kube, J. Blackman, H. Patel, J. Katz and P. Nardone I. Performance Objective Construction inspections should verify and document that the final product meets the design and quality requirements.

Y U. Scope of Evaluation The evaluation of this area involved two-thirds of the entire team. Approximately 120 man-hours were expended in observing work practices, interviewing personnel and reviewing design documents and construction records.

P a

III. Conclusion The project has the practice of completely and accurately defining the inspection process prior to start of work. As a result, inspections are integrated into the construction process. Other than one identified weakness, construction quality inspection practices were in compliance with performance criteria.

l

. o __ _______ - - - - - - - - - - _ - . - -- - ------ - - - - - ------------J

Q i

11029 2 6-58 0

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities

. Millstone 3

)

. Performance Area Construction Quality Inspections Objective No. CC.5 Evaluator (s) D. Bscon, C. Meyer, R. Witt, E. Desmarais, L. Kube, J. Blackman, H. Patel, J. Katz and P. Nardone IV. Areas of Wealmees and Corrective Actlang Good Practices Finding: The following good practice was noted:

(CC.5-1)

FGC inspections and construction processes are integrated. The

, coordination between FQC and construction is handled in a very professional manner.

Finding: Quality standards do not specify how long after an inspection is (CC.5 2) conducted that an inspection report must be generated. As a result, some close-outs are not timely.

Corrective I~leld quality control inspectors have been reinstructed, that Actions upon completion of an inspection whether the results are satis.

factory or unsatisfactory, that inspection reports must be submitted as soon as possible.

D 4

m i

? -

l 11029 2 6 59 1

J PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT a DE. TAIL 5 h

J Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 1

3

1. Performance Area Construction Quality Inspections Objective No. CC.5 (title)

2. Provide Factual Information That Supports the Performance Evaluatlan Summary

1. The inspection process is defined accurately prior to the start of the work.

The specifications spell out the inspection requirements. For example, Specification 350, Electrical Installations, requires inspection of all Categories I, II and III installations. This requirement has been modified by NUSCO such that fleid quality construction inspects 100 percent of Category I electrical installations and 20 percent of all Category II and III electrical installatioons. Specification 967, Placement of Structural and Random Fill, identifies requirements for inspection of various types of backfill operations. ,

. Stone & Webster quality standards establish programs that indicate how the requirements of the specifications will be implemented. For example, the following electrical quality standards satisfy the requirement of Specification 350:

QS 10.51 - Electrical Equipment Installations QS 10.52m1 - Raceway and Cable Installations

- QS 10.53 - Cable Terminations and Connections

2. FQC inspections are performed using written procedures called QA

directives. The QA directives define when the inspection is to take place and what attributes are to be observed during the inspection. The electrical GA

, directives are:

4 QAD 10.11 - Electrical Equipment Installations Inspections QAD 10.17 - Cable Termination and Connection Inspections

! QAD 10.18 - Raceway and Cable Installation Inspections i 3. Inspections are integrated into the construction process. The QA directives n identify when the various inspections have to take place. A data sheet or i ticket is used as a vehicle for integrating FQC inspections and construction.

/ Welders were observed with proper welding documents which had FQC signatures at the designated hold and check points. Concrete pours were I observed and the placement cards had been signed by the responsible personnel. Backfill operations were observed in which the backfill tickets were signed off. The electricians use raceway tickets, cable installation ,

5 tickets and termination data sheets. These tickets are being signed off by '

', construction and FQC in the appropriate places.

I

11029-2 6-60

' \

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT  !

OETAILS I Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 7

9 a

1. Performance Area Construction Quality inspections Objective No. CC.5 (title)

D l *

2. Provide Factual Information That 9% the Performance Evel ation Summary (Continued)

] 4. Tools used by construction and FQC have been found to be in calibration.

5. An effective system is in place to encourage reporting degraded quality.

Each inspection by FQC results in one of two possibilities: A satisfactory inspection report or an unsatisfactory inspection report. The FQC inspectors have a good working relationship with the construction forces. In

~

, many instances, construction will correct deficiencies on the spot as FQC personnel identify them.

6. During FQC inspection of caMe terminations, two loose terminations were discovered. Inspector did not document inspection of these terminations as either a satisfactory inspection report or an unsatisfactory inspection report. Inspector ' eft the matter for the second shift inspector and second

, shif t electricians to correct. Due to a misunderstanding between the two inspectors, the loose terminations were not corrected for five working days.

7. In one case, a torque wrench was found to be defective. FQC personnel knew what procedure to follow and implemented corrective action.

[ 8. The QC inspectors are separate from construction.

1 -

! 9. The tickets and data sheets have spaces on them for signatures, dates and 2

inspection report numbers, where appropriate.

10. FQC documents go through two reviews before final filing.

9 L

11. In addition to performing inspections called for in the attributes, FQC p personnel conduct walk-throughs to keep current on construction progress.

j R

h u

s

.- __ - ._. ._. _ _ . - - _ _ _ . .__ _ _ _ = _ _ _ . - _ _ -. _.

11029-2 6-61 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 5UMMARY Northeast Utilltles Millstone 3

Perfarmance Area Construction Corrective Actions Objective No. CC.6 J Evaluator (s) D. Bacon, W. Miller, P. Nardone, C. Meyer, E. Desmarais and J. Katz L Performance Objective The Construction organization should evaluate audits, inspections and l surveillances; process replies and follow-up; and take corrective action to prevent recurrence of similar problems.

i i

IL Scope of Evaluation The intention of the evaluation area was to determine to what degree all parts of i the Construction organization track audits, surveillances and nonconformances.

The extent of the evaluation involved interviews with NUSCO QA, S&W FQC and

, S&W Construction personnel. Other levels of the Construction organization were evaluated by reviewing project reports. Approximately 100 man-hours were expended in this evaluation area.

Y d

3

m. Conciosion S

Construction is very conscientious regarding corrective action and has instituted i'

processes to not only assure corrective action is properly being implemented but root causes for non-compliance are being identified and corrected. As a result, a good practice was noted and no areas of weakness were identified.

lt i H

l l -

( - . . _ _ .

11029 2 6.62 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3

, Performance Area Construction Corrective Actions Objective No. CC.6 l Evaluator (s) D. Bacon, W. Miller, P. Nardone, C. Meyer, E. Desmarais and J. Katz IV. Areas of Weakness and Carrective Actions Good Practices Finding: The following good practice was noted:

(CC.6 1)

A new Field Construction Procedure (FCP) presently in the draft stage, would establish an on-site committee chartered to evaluate

, trends in nonconformance reports (N&Os) and identify root causes.

f k

P i

.i I

1 3

i 1

s l l

k l

! l 11029-2 6 63 l

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJEg I

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 l

1 1, Perforenonce Area Construction Corrective Actions Objective No. CC.6  !

(title) l 1

2. Provide Factual Infbrination 1 hat Steparte the Performance Evaluation Summary h

1. The following audits and surveillances were discussed with construction i personne;:

NRC Audits

, NUSCO GA Surveillances S&W Engineering Assurance Division Audits

S&W Quality Assurance Division Audits

2. All facets of Millstone 3 track audits ami surveillance as they may apply to j their department or organization. NRC unresolved items are assigned a unique number and tracking is facilitated with a computer-based program.

3. Both I-QC and SEG have hired personnel to track audit and surveillance items in their respective departments.

1 4. Responses to audita and survelllance items are reviewed by each department or organization before being forwarded to the appropriate party.

. 5. Audits and surveillances are reviewed for generic problems. The computer-based program that tracks NRC unresolved items also aids in analyzing generic problems, i 6. All facets of Millstone 3 track nonconformance items (N&Ds). FQC is

, implementing a computer-based system for identifying generic problems in l N&Ds.

L

[ 7. A new FCP, presently in draft stage, will establish a committee that will look f at trends in N&Ds and look for root causes.

1

8. Changes to design documents or construction procedures as a result of audit or surveillance dispositions are disseminated to the construction forces I

through Engineering and Design Coordinetlan Report (E&DCRs) and revised h proceduras, respectively.

]'

9. Management involvement in N&Ds is evident at several levels. The general s superintendent of construction reviews N&Ds. The clients request weekly j status reports on the N&D hacklog. Personnel have been hired to expedite

) audit and surveillance items.

i l .

)

- - _ . -- . - . , . ~ . - - _ _ . _ _ - - - - - - - - - _ - -

1

) 11029-2 6-64 P

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT l

SUMMARY

Northeast Utlittles Mllistone 3 4

Performance Area Test Equipment Control Objective No. CC.7 3 Evaluator (s) P. Nardone and L. Kube 3

L Performance Chlective j Measuring and Test Equipment (M&TE) should be controlled to support construction testing effectively.

1 J

t

IL Scope of Evalustlan a

Approximately 30 man-hours were expended in observing, interviewing and reviewing this performance objective. Individuals contacted during this evaluation included the metrology lab technicians, the FQC supervisor responsible for the a

program and other FQC inspectors. In addition, a NUSCO QA inspector who audits the program was contacted. Hydrostatic testing of various piping systems was observed for compliance with the program.

-' NOTE: M&TE used after system turnover for Pnases I through IX testing by the NUSCO Start-Up Department comes under the program used on their operating '

plants Millstone 1 and 2 and was not evaluated.

1 J

Il 3

)

1 m. C m .n J

The control of M&TE for ongoing work by S&W during the construction phase satisfied all the criteria for establishing a program and procedures for test equipment control. However, in the execution of the program two areas of j weakness were identified.

l h

I

'l' 11029-2 6-65 u

)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 Performance Area Test Equipment Control Objective No. CC.7 1

Evaluator (s) P. Nardone and L. Kube

]

i 1% Areas of Weakness and Carrective Actlang Good Practices Finding: The notification to FGC for out-of-tolerance M&TE by the metro-

, (CC.7-1) logy lab is not being accomplished in a timely manner. The S&W u

calibration manual states "promptly," yet, the example cited spanned ten working days.

Corrective Calibration personnel have been instructed by the responsible Action: Senior Engineers that notification of out-of-tolerance M&TE must be accomplished in a timely manner. This situation will be monitored by NUSCO to verify that correction action has been Implemented.

i Finding:

The corrective action instituted to minimize overdue M&TE has not 1 (CC.7 2) effectively resolved the problem.

I f Corrective Return of measuring and test equipment for recalibration has Action: improved in the past few months. A continuing effort by construc-tion supervisors is needed. All supervising personnel have been instructed to pay closer attention and take disciplinary action, if required, against offenders. This situation will be monitored by NUSCO to verify that corrective action has been implemented.

J e

1 J

i

?

e

~

1 1

2 11029-2 6-66 i

j PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PRO.]ECT DETAILS 1 Northeast Utilities j Millstone 3 I

1. Performance Area Test Equipment Control Objective No. CC.7 (title) l l J

2. Provide Factual Information That Supports the Performance Evalustian Summary

]

d

1. A senior S&W FQC inspector has overall responsibility for the M&TE program during the construction phase.

J 2. The S&W Calibration Manual is the controlling document for the M&TE program. It details major items such as recalibration intervals, tool

] calibration procedures, standards control and storage requirements.

J

3. Two FQC personnel are assigned to the metrology laboratory. One is

., experienced in M&TE calibration while the other is in training. They were l found to be knowledgeable of all aspects of the calibration program.

J

4. Tha matrology laboratory was found well lighted and orderly. It was outfitted

1 with working standards traceable to the National Bureau of Standards.

j Laboratory temperature and humidity was controlled and logged daily.

q 5. A tracking system exists for M&TE leeued to construction via a four part a

lasue slip and filing system. Each piece of M&TE has a unique serial number scribed on it as well as a history folder containing all pertinent information for that tool. Review of the overdue file showed one wrench over ten

(' working days late. Notificatien from the craft almost three weeks after it j was due later showed the tool was lost.

p 6. S&W FQC inspectors are required'to be present during activities that require j the documented use of calibrated tools. During witnessed hydros, all M&TE f items were satisfactory.

1

. s

) 7. S&W FQC inspectors and metrology laboratory personnel were found to be

) knowledgeable of actions to be taken if a calibrated tool was found to be l defective or out of tolerance during a witnessed activity.

l 8. On October 11, 1982, a defective torque weech (No. 05397) was returned.

f Investigation found the proper action was taken but necessary follow-up paperwork slow in coming. '

a. An out-of-tolerance report had still not been issued by laboratory personnel to FQC ten working days after the wrench was returned. This j was described as normal by the FQC supervisor in charge of the M&TE j program. The Calibration Manual states "premptly" with no time frame specified.

1 e

e

11029 2 6-67

?

j PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAIL 5 Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 i

l 1. Perfcrmance Area Test Equipment Control Objective No. CC.7 (tttle)

I i 2. Provide Factual Information That *% the Performance Evaluation Summary 1 (Continued)

I

b. The green " return" portion of the issue tag (used for tracking purposes) l did not accompany the defective wrench. Verbal communication, i followed later by a written memo is the normal action on a suspected tool. The written memo was not received until nine working days after t

this tool was brought in. Using this alternate method of documenting the defective tool instead of the green " return" slip is adequate but does not comply with written procedure.

c. The technical in-training personnel did not have sufficient knowledge to i

determine the extent of the damage to the wrench or how to repair it.

The senior technician later repaired the tool and issued it to construction.

9. FGC has a computerized tracking system using their inspection reporting s

method to determine where a calibrated tool was used. This allows for proper identification of work that might require corrective action (rework)

If a particular tool was found to be out of tolerance.

10.

Reviews of records of overdue M&TE indicates that the number of overdue M&TE has decreased from approximately 15 or so in recent months to 3 cases.

l J

s

'l i

d w

l b

i 4

PROZCT SUPPORT J

I J

I t

>4 7

4 d

I 1

i 1

)

k i -

L. .-. . . .

11029-2 6-68 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities

}: Millstone 3 Performance Area Industrial Safety Objective No. PS.1 Evaluator (s) R. Witt, C. Meyer, J. Katz, D. Bacon and E. Desmarais

- L Performance Chjective' The Construction Site Industrial Safety Ng. n should achieve a high degree of personnel safety.

l J

a IL Scope of Evaluntlan The evaluation of the safety program included review of the safety organization and its responsibilities; interviews with management and their involvement witn

, the site safety program and review of the field safety manual. In addition all t evaluators paid special attention to industrial safety practices being exercised in J the field and provided input to this evaluation. Approximately 30 man-hours was expended in observations, conducting interviews, reviewing procedures and-

] records, and preparing results.

a 1

F4 il l

.b L,

15. Conclusion 1

l} The overall safety program has clearly defined policies, procedures and schedules f and is administered by highly quellfled personnel. Project management and associated supervision has active involvement in the program.

l 1 .

J

t 11029-2 6-69 l

5 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 Performance Area Industrial Safety Objective No. PS.1 l Evaluator (s) R. Witt, C. Moyer, J. Katz, D. Bacon and E. Desmarais s

IV. Arees of Weaknees and Carrective Action Good Practices f Finding: The following good practice was noted:

y (PS.1-1) i The S&W company wide safety award has been presented to this

! site four out of seven years for having the highest degree of safety performance. There have been no fatalities on site and injuries are five times lower than the national average.

1 l

1 4

)

9 1

1 9

1 i .

11029 2 6-70 a

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PRO.ECT DETAIL 5 9

Northeast Utilities j Millstone 3 L

1. Performance Area Industrial Safety Objective No. PS.1 o

(title)

I 3

2.

Provide Factunt Information That 5% the Performance Evaluation E .

g i

i 5

1. The Project Safety Program is the responsibility of the senior construction site representative. He is the chairman of the safety committee which I meets quarterly.

J

2. The chief safety supervisor has responsibility for the administratien of the site safety program.

3. A monthly safety record is compiled by the chief safety supervisor and his staff. This report is given to management and craft supervisors for their

] review. Reports of all injuries shows five times lower than the national

average.

4. Each new employee la given the S&W General Safety Rules Handbook. To

" verify they have read the contents a sheet in the back of the book is signed and turned in to the safety department.

5. Safety training sessions are set up with the training supervisor and a monthly agenda is distributed to employees. Attendance for the sessions is low.

1 6. The Chief Safety Supervisor appoints a weekly safety committee to tour the j site which is conducted by a safety supervisor. The findings are used as the agenda of the weekly project safety meeting and the tool box safety L

meetings. Weekly project safety meetings are attended by craft general foremen, supervisors, and all contractors.

l 7. Tool box safety meetings are arranged by the general foreman for each 1

craft. They are held mornings at the beginning of the shift, using the weekly J safety meeting notes for discussion.

2 8.

The fire protection program is set up with the local fire department. They l

have a current site drawing locating all hydrants. The on-site fire brigade is

[

well trained and meets every two weeks. The safety department is

(

I Inspecting the site for fires 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day, seven days a week.

i 9. The first aid facilities has properly trained personnel and meets all requirements and standards. The facilities provide first aid for all S&W a employees and contractors.

l i

10.

All safety supervisors have the required safety training and are emergercy medical technicians. They are certified to render first aid in the absence of j ~ _ .

11029 2 6-71 1

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

, DETAIL 5 l Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 n

1. Parformance Area Industrial Safety Objective No. PS.1

, (title) o i 2. Provide Factual Informatlan That Supports the Performance Evaluatlan Sinnmary j (Continued)

- 11. A 100% eye protection program is not implemented on-site at this time.

l From reviewing records for doctor and first aid eye cases from January 1, J

1982 to June 30, 1982 results were one eye case resulting in a doctors visit every 69,933 man-hours worked, one eye case resulting in a first aid case every 08,834 man-hours worked.

12. Hazardous materials and waste are properly marked in containers. A waste 4

disposal storage area is located on-site and is properly monitored.

1 J

13. A tagging procedure is properly utilized and the tagging system is displayed with the types and a description of what each tag represents.

.) 14. The S&W company wide Safety Award-William Patton Trophy was awarded to this site 1974,1976,1979, and 1981.

' 15.

" Housekeeping in craft working areas was found reasonably clean and safe working conditions was maintained. General housekeeping in all areas was

, very good.

4 a

i l

1 F

6 L

l l

j 1

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 Performance Area Project Planning Objective No. P5.2 Evaluator (s) D. Mercer and C. Meyer I. i-..w Objective Project plans should ensure completion of the project to the highest industry standards by identifying, interrelating, and sequencing the tasks of the project organizations.

II. Scope of Evaluation Available master plans and schedules were reviewed. Implementation of master plans via construction schedules was reviewed. NUSCO and SWEC personnel were interviewed to determine how schedules were initiated, implemented, followed, and updated. Available project policies and procedures were reviewed. Interviews were conducted to determine the extent to which policies were known to project personnel and the degree of implementation to support the overall project plan.

Approximately 35 man-hours were applied to this evaluation.

III. Concluelan A project master plan exists in the form of a project summary schedule and is effectively implemented via detailed construction schedules. Project planning and scheduling generally supports the performance objective. Although lines of authority and responsibility were understood, they were not clearly documented so tnis was identifled as a weakness.

. _ _ - _ - _ . - - _ .- - - _ _ - . - ~ .- _~ . - - - _ _ . - - - . _ - . - _ _ - - - . _ _

N

" I 11029-2 6-73 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities a Millstone 3 4

Performance Area Project Planning Objective No. PS.2 Evaluator (s) O. Mercer and C. Meyer a

IV. Areas of Weaknees and Carrective Actions Good Practices 3

Finding: The following good practice was noted:

P (PS.2 1)

A comprehensive Construction Management System (CMS) is in use by SWEC Costs and Planning to ensure that the overall project summary schedule is effectively implemented by detailed construe.

N tion schedules. CMS reports are regularly generated in terms of o

actual and planned progress and costs, and this information is made available to NUSCO/SWEC management and supervisors to control work.

Finding: Documentation on interfaces with SWEC and project policies is not (PS.2-2) concise, in the form of NUSCO project manual or similar docu-

', ment. Available procedures (NUSCO Generation Construction Procedure Manual) and personnel responsibilities (position descriptions) are in use but not formally approved by NUSCO for current use since they are being revised.

Corrective The NUSCO Generation Construction Procedures Manual is an 3 Actions approved set of procedures which are still applicable to NUSCO personnel assigned to the Millstone Unit 3 Project. These procedures are being rewritten and will become part of a new manual titled " Millstone Unit 3 Project Procedures Manual". The changes being made to the existing procedures are primarily

" editorial in nature arid were necessitated by a NUSCO reorgan-ization. These procedures are subtler procedures to assign and define responsibilities in ac,cordance with the NUSCO GA Topical

? Report Program.

To develop a NUSCO Project Manual to define interfaces among i

NUSCO and SWEC construction, engineering, and project office is not required since this would only serve to duplicate existing documents which adequately address this interface. As noted in item 15 of section 2 of PS.2 a SWEC Project Manual exists which i '

identifies the SWEC and NUSCO interfaces. This manual reflects y the NUSCO direction given to SWEC since the start of the Millstone Unit 3 Project. Other interfaces are identified in various 1 SWEC field procedures. Therefore, it is our position that a NUSCO J Project Manual addressing the SWEC interface is not needed.

ll y

P 0

7 .

I b l

1

.i j 11029 2 6 74 1

p PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAILS

?.

Northeast Utilities

[ Millstone 3

1. Performance Area Project Planning Objective No. PS.2 (title)

]

S 2.

Provide Factual information That 5% the Performance Evaluatlan St.. .ri

1. NUSCO does not have overall project policies and procedures (e.g. a project manual) which define interfaces among NUSCO and SWEC construction, 1

engineering, and project office work efforts or similar interfaces within NUSCO.

t NUSCO interfaces between the project office and the construction effort on site are defined for specific tasks and work efforts in the NUSCO Generation Construction Procedure Manual. This manual does not provide I,

h the general overview policies for the project but does provide direction, responsibilities, interfaces, etc. for various efforts. For example, these procedures include detailed information on how the NUSCO project engineer l will coordinate reviews of SWEC design documents but does not provide

?

more general policies on how NUSCO project management interfaces with

, SWEC.

, 3. The NUSCO Generation Construction Procedure Manual is being rewritten to l

coincide with recent changes in the NUSCO organization.

4. A review of NUSCO position descriptions available on site indicates that these documents do not have management approval signatures. The NUSCO 3

Construction Superintendent indicated that all position descriptions are currently being revised and of these descriptions has been formally approved by NUSCO management.

5. A current project master plan exists in the form of a Level 1 project

(, summary schedule which provides major project milestones. Level 1

schedules are regularly reviewed and updated.

6. Level 1 schedules are implemented via Level 2 and Level 3 schedules for b construction work, testing, etc.

7. Level 1, 2 and 3 schedules are prepared by SWEC. NUSCO does not formally i concur with these schedules, but does provide Input to Level 1 schedules and

], actively reviews and follows Level 2 and 3 schedules.

8. SWEC Cost and Planning maintains a detailed series of computer; zed CMS g, reports (Construction Management System) to monitor progress via actual li versus planned installed quantities, manpower and similar information. CMS P

information is distributed to construction management, is used in regular 3

b management and supervisory meetings on site, and is factored into regular updates and reviews of Level 2, Level 3 schedules. NUSCO actively follows

) SWEC Cost and Planning Efforts.

o

11029 2 6-75 1

l PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PRO. JECT DETAILS l Northeast Utilities U Millstone 3 H

J 1. Performance Area Project Planning Objective No. PS.2 (title)

).

?

b 2. Provide Factual Information That Soporta the Performance Evolustian Summary

, (Continued)

-, 9. Overall planning has not specifically included formal records turnover to j '

NUSCO. Level 3 schedules are being developed for system turnover.

Although system turnover includes planning for records which must be available, this planning is not part of an overall, integrated plan for 3 turnover.

10. SWEC Cost and Planning reviews material availability on site, availability of h approved drawings, fabrication status and similar areas of preparation for j planned construction to foresee and avoid interfaces.

, 11. SWEC Cost and Planning consult " Hold Logs" maintained by SWEC Site Engineering to avoid potential rework. SWEC Site Engineering insures that

-. construction management and planners are made aware of potential hold areas well in advance of actual holds, where possible.

n j

~

12. SWEC Site Engineering regularly reviews Level 2 and Level 3 schedules to ensure that engineering supports construction.

3 13. SWEC Cost and Planning is not involved in GC holds. Scheduling holds for a required and planned inspections is coordinated directly between field GC and construction supervision using Level 3 schedules.

O j 14. NUSCO and SWEC have obtained agreement on a general philosphy for as-built documents. Planning has not included allowances for the as-built q effort. Specific procedures are now being developed for this program.

15. A SWEC project manual exists and is in use on site for SWEC work efforts.

L" This manual provides specific procedures for various efforts and identifies SWEC and NUSCO interfaces.

16. Interviews with NUSCO management, supervisors, and assistant project

$ engineers indicated key NUSCO personnel appear to understand their responsibilities and interfaces with SWEC and within NUSCO but were

}' generally unaware of any compilation of general NUSCO procedures and policies covering these areas. NUSCO personnel stated a belief that overview policies and interfaces probably were documented in various j

letters early in the project but these types of general project policies were b not in use for day-to-day work efforts.

l

~

s l

11029 2 6-76 1

i PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT '

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3

, Performance Area Project Control Objective N:2. PS.3 t, Evaluator (s) D. Mercer, C. Meyer, R. Fitzpatrick, R. Melcher, D. Bacon, E. Desmarais, H. Wingate and T. Cizauskas

} L Performance Chjective s Project scheduling, work planning and coordination should ensure that objectives

, of the project plan are achieved through efficient use of project resources.

m II. Scope of Evaluation

[ Available project controls were reviewed. Available schedules and Construction Management System reports were reviewed. Interviews were conducted with

, NUSCO and SWEC personnel to determine project awareness of schedules and '

, reports, awareness of the need for project controls, and the use of available information to update schedules as required to properly control construction

_ work. Approximately 40 man-hours were expended on this evaluation.

1 2

1

?

1

)

1 Y

l N

B HL Conclusion f

Overall project controls are affective in implementing project schedules and plans l In accordance with the performance objectives. Project management 9 demonstrated a positive awareness of the need for project controls and actively

applied these tools to control and monitor activities.

+

1 .

3

11029 2 6 77 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 Performance Area Project Control- Objective No. PS.3 Evaluator (s) D. Mercer, C. Meyer, R. Fitzpatrick, R. Melcher, D. Bacon, E. Desmarais, H. Wingate and T. Cizauskas IV. Areas of Weaknees and Carrective Actions Good Practices Finding: The following good practice was noted (PS.3 1)

SWEC and NUSCO effectively use information developed from the various Construction Management System reports in conjunction with regular meetings on-site to review construction progress to update schedules and progress construction work within estab!!ched cost and manpower restrictions. NUSCO and SWEC management and supervision at various levels exhlbit a positive attitude concerning project controls and are closely involved in follow up of work progress.

l

h 11029-2 j 6-78 L

f PERFORMAtCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PRO.]ECT

( DETAILS Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 s

i

l. Performance Area Project Control Objective No. PS.3

, (title) i

)

1 2. Provide Factual Information That Supports the Performance Evaluation Summary

]

1. Interviews in the site engineering group electrical section indicated s

personnel who were unaware of any written guidelines for the scope of the

] electrical section or formal guidelines for coordination with other disciplines.

1 2. Discussions with construction supervision in the electrical area indicated ,

that material procurement lead time of three or more months had occasionally affected material availability on site. It was also noted that a i

material control supervisor is not assigned in this area as required by the SWEC electrical installation specifications.

3. Coordination between GC personnel and construction has occasionally affected timeliness of conduit support weld inspections in the hydrogen recombiner building.

4. Weekly project engineering meetings at SWEC, Boston are conducted to discuss and resolve current problems, interface items, and schedular items.

These meetings involve lead engineers, support groups, and project

, personnel.

i a s

5. A computer aided drafting system is in use by SWEC ' Site Engineering to facilitate development and revision of small bore piping isometrics to

? . support construction schedules.

t

6. Although NUSCO personnel are actively involved reviewing and following 3

the progress of various areas of SWEC work on site, NUSCO project policies have not been formalized to' define the scope of these efforts, interfaces within NUSCO, and interfaces with SWEC. <

7. SWEC and NUSCO have obtained agreement on a project record type to assign responsibilities for maintenance, storage, retrieval of various project records.

} 8. More than 30 regular reports on, work status, schedule and cost information, etc. are generated by SWEC and distributed to SWEC and NUSCO manage-

. ment and supervision for detailed '

follow and progressing of construction work.

P l t  ;

{ 9

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___[__.._____._--_--_--.----_-- - - -

11029-2 6-79 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAILS Northeast Utilities Millstone 3

1. Performance Area Project Control Objective No. PS.3_

, (tl,tle)

2. . Provide Factual Information That Separts the Performance Evaluation Summary

, (Continued)

, 9. One week look-ahead summary schedules are prepared by SWEC Cost and Scheduling based upon detailed Level 3 schedules when requested by area construction management. In areas where these summaries are not requested, area construction management's review of all available Level 3 schedules affecting an area are relied upon to define work scheduled for the coming week.

10. Detailed Level 2 schedules are prepared for each building and for overall yard work covering all work through completion. These schedules are updated monthly.

11. Deta!!ed Level 3 schedules are prepared for each system, work effort, etc.

supporting each Level 2 schedule. These schedules are updated weekly and used regularly in management and supervisory meetings to control work.

12. . SWEC and NUSCO have obtained agreement on a philosophy for as-built documents. Specific procedures to implement this philosophy are being developed. Present detailed schedules do not include provisions for as-built documents.

13. SWEC planning engineers regularly review interface areas such as purenasing, site engineering, etc. during weekly updates of Level 3 schedules to avoid rework and interfaces.

. 14. SWEC Cost and Planning do not attempt to schedule GC holds. This scheduling is done by field QC and construction supervision using available Level 3 schedules.

15. NUSCO V.P. of Engineering and Construction maintains close contact with

, the NUSCO project manager to follow project schedule, achievement of milestones, and proposed corrective actions where needed.

16. NUSCO and SWEC management and supervision at the various levels express a positive awareness of the need for project controls and actively utilize available schedular information, Construction Management Systems reports, etc., to monitor and control project progress.

_ _ _ - _ _ - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - ' - ~

k .

11029-2 6 80 h

PERFORMArCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT c

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities

] Millstone 3 i

c Performance Area Project Procurement Process Objective No. PS.4

! Evaluator (s) P. Moyer, J. Katz, C. Meyer, D. Bacon and E. Desmarais e

) L Performance Objective i'

The project procurement process should ensure that equipment, materials and services furnished by suppliers or contractors meet project requirements.

i

)

l II. Scope of Evaluation SWEC, NUSCO and craf t personnel were interviewed to evaluate the procurement process and effects project work efforts. The individuals contacted during this evaluation were construction superintendents, supervisors, procurement agents, buyers and expeditors. Selected purchasing records were reviewed on this evaluation and approximately 30 man-hours were expended.

i l

III. Conclusion

., Project procurement complies with the performance objective. The SWEC purenasing agent and .NUSCO are fully informed of their responsibilities and s perform accordingly. All persons contacted were executing their duties in conformance to project procurement directives.

e 4 s * ..

h

[

i, 11029-2 6-81 a

.i PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities 1 Millstone 3

! Performance Area Project Procurement Process Objective No. PS.4 j Evaluator (s) P. Moyer, J. Katz, C. Meyer, D. Bacon and E. Desmarais

,: IV. Areas of Weakness and Carrective Action; Good Practices

.i I' No findings.

h I,

h k

f 4

e t '

C t

l.3 h

n u

i l

11029 2 6-82 J

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

, DETAIL 5 '

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 1

1. Performance Area Project Procurement Process Objective No. PS.4 l (title) 3

2. Provide Factual Information That Supports the Performance Evalustian Summary

~

1. The procurement. of plant equipment, temporary construction items, GA Category I items and changes are processed through this department. SWEC does all purchasing for this project.

L

2. Sealed bids are required for any commitment with estimated value of $2,000 or more. Standard SWEC purchasing procedures are adhered to for opening and recording of sealed bids.

i

[ 3. NUSCO reviews and approves all purchasing by SWEC over $5,000 to maintair. awareness of all purchase activities and to assure conformance to l

procurement policies. NUSCO's approval is also required for the purchase of l any Category I engineered item, regardless of cost.

4. Responsibilities of the SWEC Field Purchasing Department are well-defined on their organizational chart. Responsibilities for agents, buyers, i expeditors, typist, clerks, etc., are also clearly defined.  !

5. SWEC management reviews and controls material and labor requisitions prepared by craft supervisory personnel for conformance to project i procurement directives. This review helps prevent the duplication of various L

ltems and the excessive amount of material stored on the project.

b

6. From the time the purchasing department receives the P.O. request to the <

approval of the recommended sealed bid evalued supplier is three weeks.

[ However, in case of emergency, this can be done in a minimum amount of time. Some ersft supervisors have complained about the length of time it takes to purchase material and resulting effects on their work efforts.

i p- 7. NNECO and SWECO, Boston are actively working on identifying and procuring spare parts for system start-up and initial operation of Unit 3.

, This process is keyed to the start-up schedule and tracked on NNECO y computers for part commonality between all three units.

11029 2 6-83 i PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities L

Millstone 3 Performance Area Contract Administration Objective No. PS.5 l

Evaluator (s) P. Moyer 1

L Performance Objective l l

Methods for administering and controlling contractors and suppliers and for  !

managing changes to their contracts should ensure effective control of performance.

II. Scope of Evaluation Interviews were conducted with SWEC and NUSCO personnel to determine available procedures and policies for contract administration. Individuals contacted were supervisors, contractors, client representatives, and department heads. Items reviewed were awarding of contracts, department functions, organizationai interfaces, and contractor performances. Approximately 35 hours4.050926e-4 days <br />0.00972 hours <br />5.787037e-5 weeks <br />1.33175e-5 months <br /> were expended on this evaluation.

III. Conclusion l Contracts for the project are administered and governed by SWEC Contract Policy and Procedure and support the performance objective regarding controlling

, contractors and supplies and managing changes to their contracts. SWEC was observed properly implementing this work. The client is kept fully informed and participates in efforts of this department.

r*

1

• 3 J

11029 2 6-84

?l l

P PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities 1

li Millstone 3 P

Performance Area Contract Administration Objective No. PS.5 Evaluator (s) P. Moyer

} IV.

Arses of Weaknees and Corrective Actions Good Practim_

)

No findings.

I 4

f b

l l

l a

i 9

e l , g

?

1 e

n 1,

11029-2 6 85 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

, DETAILS l Northeast Utilities

> Millstone 3

1. Performance Area Contract Administration Objective No. PS.S '

(titie)

2. Provide Factual Information That Supporta the Performance Evaluntlan Summary

1. SWEC has established policies and procedures for contract administration in the form of a Contract Policy and Procedures Manual issued by SWEC home office. Each SWEC project has appropriate contract administrators and supporting staffs.

l 2. SWEC, Boston and SWEC, site initiate and award contracts for permanent plant equipment, structures, temporary facilities, services, etc., to support the project in accordance with established SWEC procedures.

1

3. After a contract is awarded, the contract administrators hold meetings at the site with contractors and site personnel and tour unit sites to follow contractor progress and compliance.

4. SWEC contract administration holds regular weekly and monthly meetings s with NUSCO on contract items including contractor performance and j schedule.

t

5. SWEC field quality control monitors contract work as appropriate per a

, given contract specification and monitors contract woric even if the contractor has a quality control organization.

J

6. Contract performance evaluation sheets are maintained and periodically forwarded to SWEC home office for follow-up and future use.

7. NUSCO follow-up and review of SWEC contract administration is guided by tne NUSCO Generation Construction Procedures Manual.

);

8. NUSCO reviews contractor performance, schedule, payment requests,

)

, change orders, etc., and works with SWEC as appropriate.

i

) 9. NUSCO receives contract specifications for review and comment before 3 these specifications are included in contract documents.

10. NUSCO does not have a specific program to document the history of performance on contracts and corrective actions taken during a contract for

use in evaluating future contract proposals.

I i

)

?

,5

L L' 11029-2 6-86

, PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 s

Performance Area Documentation Management Objective No. PS.6 Evaluator (s) D. Mercer, E. Desmarais, H. Patel, C. Meyer, H. Adkins and R. Witt I. Performance Objective The management of project documentation should support the effective control and coordination of project activities and provide a strong foundation for the documentation /information requirements of the plant's operational phase.

u i

II. Scope of Evaluation 1, Available records management procedures were reviewed and interviews were conducted with records management supervision and personnel as well as site engineering, construction, and quality assurance management and supervision.

l Document control center operations were observed and spot checks of records at J work stations on the site were completed. The GA records vault was inspected.

Planning for records turnover to NUSCO was evaluated. Planning for the as-built 1

document program was reviewed. Approximately 45 man-hours were applied to this. evaluation.

1 J

s

(

I l

)

L III. Conclusion y

Overall documentation management program has the necessary records manage-ment ingredients to effectively control and coordinate project documents and records. However, several weaknesses were detected in the implementation

) processes indicating that some aspects of the program were ambiguous and could

/5 be misleading. Although not identified as a problem currently, the development of a specific plan and schedule for records turnover should be pursued in the near future.

a s a

l

< l 11029-2 6-87 i i

I

) PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 Performance Area Documentation Management Objective No. P S.6 Evaluator (s) D. Mercer, E. Desmarais, H. Patel, C. Meyer, H. Adkins and R. Witt

, IV. Areas of Weakness and Corrective Action; Good Practices a

Finding: The following good practice was noted:

(PS.6-1) j An effective system is used to distribute construction drawings to a j large number of drawing stations on site and to maintain these drawings in current status. Procedures are in place, including a drawing color coding system, to ensure drawings are controlled for -

} construction.

Finding: Training in the use of the drawing control requirements and proce-(PS.6-2) dures is not fully effective to ensure that all personnel using jl construction drawing stations understand and implement proce-dures.

Corrective Personnel responsible for craft direction and for quality control are Action: trained in the use of the drawing system. However, there is no

, program which prevents the use of a drawing control station by an b; individual who has not received this training and no such program is planned since the current training program is sufficient to minimize the likllhood of drawing control induced problems.

1 j Finding: The drawing record card . ,Jtem employs an unconventional use of (PS.6-3) the designation "NA" which is causing construction personnel to 3 incorrectly assume that references affecting drawings are not applicable.

]

Corrective The use of "NA"in the drawing record card system was superfluous

] Action:. and has been deleted.

f Finding: Personnel at the site do not fully comply with established drawing W (PS.6-4) control procedures which ensure that all drawings at construction areas are properly color coded or stamped to preclude the use of unapproved or out-of-date drawings.

Il Corrective NUSCO will re-emphasize that reproduction facilities clearly

) Action: stamp all white drawings "Not for Construction". NUSCO will l determine whether the indistinct color coding noted was an isolated a occurrence or a generic problem, and will take appropriate action.

b i

)

I J

l 4

1 l

(

~

11029 2 6 88 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAILS Northeast Utilities Millstone 3

1. Performance Area Documentation Management Objective No. PS.6 (title)

2. Provide Factual Informetlan That Steparts the Performance Evolustian Summary

1. Several instances of informal, uncontrolled, or improperly controlled drawings were observed at construction areas. Examples are as follows:

a. Several white check prints were observed at a drawing station at the Intake Structure. Only one of the eight drawings of this kind were stamped "not for construction" as required by document control procedures. L

b. Informal, hand drawn piping isometrics were observed taped to walls at the primary drain transfer pump cubicles. These sketches were not p numbered, signed or stamped in any way.

]

j

c. A few instances of indistinct drawing coloration were noted at drawing stations. In these cases it was not possible without close examination or removal of the drawing to natural lighting to determine if the drawings were the correct color in accordance with the approved color coding i system in use at the site.

2. A large number of controlled drawing stations (approximately 118) are main-tained by site docurnent control to support work at the site. A full audit of

, all drawing stations is completed each week by document control and quality control to ensure that these drawing stations are maintained up-to-date.

m Stations are regularly checked to replace damaged drawings. .

p 3. An effective drawing record card system is in use at all drawing stations to

~ provide correct drawing revision status and (sther outstanding documents impacting drawings. Documents affecting drawings are provided at each

, drawing station.

?

h 4. The following problems were noted with respect to the implementation of

[

the drawing record card system:

L, a. An electrician who used a drawing station could not explain the use of the record card system and stated that he had not been trained in the g use of the system.

1 '

l

• e

~

~

11029 2 6-89 a

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAILS Northeast Utilities Millstone 3

1. Performance Area Documentation Management Objective No. PS.6 l (title) '

Y

2. Provide Factual Informetlan That Steparta the F'wformance Evaluntlan Summary (Continued)

4. b. Two document control employees and three craft persons at a total of three drawing control stations could not correctly interpret a particularly confusing aspect of the drawing record card system.

Specifically, all of these people incorrectly assumed that the o designation "NA" on the record card indicated the material so designated was not applicable to the drawing. In fact, such material is applicable.

c. Neither document control nor training personnel has a program to ensure that all persons using the drawing stations have been trained on the record card system or that training has been effective and retained.

5. Random checks of work stations and document control center master files

~

l for drawings, specifications and manuals indicated that proper revisions of '

this material were being used.

J 6. Procedures in use within Site Engineering Group for processing Nonconfor-mance and Disposition reports and used in conjunction with document control center procedures for these reports are not approved or controlled

]j by the document control center.

, 7. The document control center issues uncontrolled yellow copies of drawings.

Procedures allow the use of these drawings for construction so long as construction supervision reviews the latest controlled copy of the drawing

, daily and designates on the uncontrolled copy that this daily review has been completed.

~ .

8. A large quantity of radiographs were stored in envelopes on shelves in the  !

QA records vault. The preferred storage method per ANSI 45.2.9 is in metal j file cabinets.  !

I I

9. Site and audit reports indicate that humidity control features for the QA i

)a records vault are marginal since humidity has occasionally exceeded the I recommended range for film.

[

1 r

L ,

11029-2 6-90 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAILS Northeast Utilities Millstone 3

1. Performance Arne Documentation Mansaament Objective No. PS.6 (title) 9

- 2. Provide Factual Information That 9== -ts the Performance Evaluation 9ammary i

(Cantinued)

10. The specification index of September 21, 1982 was incomplete. Specifi-cations for the Category I concrete and for masonry wall materials were not included in the index.

d 11. NUSCO and SWEC have agreed upon the general scope and philosophy for

~

the as-built document program. Specific procedures to implement these agreements have not been developed to date.

12. NUSCO and SWEC are developing a detailed project records type list <

defining cognizance for various records prior to records turnover to NUSCO, records retention requirements, responsibilities for filming and indexing for 1 computer retrival, and similar records management information. Records j management procedures have been developed and implemented on site.

_ 13. QA records are not being captured, filmed and indexed by document control as these records are received. Instead, these records are forwarded to GA for processing and storage. These records will eventually be returned to the document control center for filming and indexing. There is no schedule for completing this effort and document control has no method to ensure that

, records received and forwarded to QA are eventually returned for filming and indexing.

i 14. The project does not have a schedule or specific plan for turnover of records f to NUSCO. The SWEC records manager indicated that this information was L being developed in terms of the project records type list.

15. The records type list does not'specifically establish that all required records l

L are available. However, this list has received extensive reviews by NUSCO and SWEC and has incorporated experience gained by both organizations with previous nuclear plants.

I L 16. With the exception of GA records which are in the custody of the GA i

department, the, document control center procedures are effective in L

receiving, capturing, and distributing plant records. The project records type list defines records which are under the custody of the GA depart-ment. The GA department has established procedures to handle these records within the overall project record management system.

1 e

y , , - - , , - - - , , - - - - , - - - , , , . . , ,--n,.., , - - - - . _ . . , - , . , . - , , - - - , . .--,vn,- , , - , . _ _ , . , , , , . , . ,- - - --,,- ,- - ,.-- -,. --,- - , ~ -n - -n.w,

(

11029 2 6 91 l

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PRO.]ECT

, DETAILS Northeast Utilities y Millstone 3

1. Performance Area Documentation Management Objective No. PS.6 (title) n 2. Provide Factual Informatlan That Steparta the Performance Evaluation Summary (Continued)

17. Maintenance surveillance schedules are not being maintained as controlled i documents by the site document control center and document control 3

management was not aware of proiect procedures requiring these records to be maintained in master files as controlled documents.

1 3

D ,

l

)

)

)

C e

I

1 3

J C I N

L U

r b

i i

J 3

J D

1 4

t 0

l J

e

6 11029-2 6-92

=

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 o

Performance Area Training Management Support Objective No. TN.1 Evaluator (s) P. Moyer, C. Meyer and D.C. Mercer L Performance Objective 9

Management should ensure that an effective program exists for indoctrination, training, and qualification of personnel involved in the project.

1 J

U. Scope of Evaluation 1

') Interviews were conducted with training program managers and individuals who have received training to determine the effectiveness of training relative to

)

project work efforts. The evaluation team expended approximately 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> interviewing managers, supervisors, craft people and non-manual employees.

l I

J

) ,

90 l

1

m. Concio. ion

, A training program has been developed and executed effectively with appropriate management support for the indoctrination training and qualification of personnel performing duties on this project. One area of weakness was detected dealing

} with formalizing a segment of the program.

9

)

i '

J I

h x

11029-2 6-93 PERf ORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 Performance Area Training Management Support Objective No. TN.1 Evaluator (s) P. Moyer, C. Meyer and D.C. Mercer p

IV. Areas of Weaknees and Corrective Action; Good Practices Finding: There is no formal program to assess training effectiveness or the 3

(TN.1-1) need for refresher training.

Corrective The effectiveness of construction training is monitored by the Action: quality of construction performance. Although this has not been designated as a formal program for assessing training effective-

ness, quality deficiencies are trended and feedback is an input in determining the need for training. Effectiveness is also demonstrated by other means, e.g., quality index, reject rates, NRC monthly audit reports.

t l

1

)

I e

j t

l '

J P, .

l 1

11029 2 6 94 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ~

DETAILS Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 d 1. Performance Area Training Management Support Objective No. TN.1 (title) s

2. Provide Factual Information That Supports the Performance Evaluation Summary

1. SWEC managers and supervisors are involved in the development of a training program for their department and overall project requirements.

- 2. All manual and non-manual personnel receive indoctrination and training on the site. Managers and supervisors assure that all personnel receive training

] in appropriate subjects.

3. Persons in supervisory levels of SWEC and NUSCO organizations are required to attend programs where the Massey Tapes are shown i (motivational training).

1

4. SWEC management and supervisory construction personnel attend training

) meetings in the Boston offices.

5. NUSCO representatives attend appropriate training sessions, i.e., when SWEC holds training for FQC department personnel, NUSCO personnel also attend the meetings.

]

6. SWEC General Construction Superintendent participates in designating

] Individuals to attend training sessions.

J

7. To date there is no formal program to follow up on training to determine training effectiveness.

8. There is no program to look for effectiveness problems before an actual disruptive event occurs on site.

9. There is no spec!fic program for scheduling refresher training outside of areas where refresher training is required by regulations, corporate policy, etc., i.e., there is no refresher training for the drawing control system.

10. The training department can at any time review their records and report the amount of training site personnel have received in any construction training. l

- 12. The training building is a facility that can be used for NUSCO personnel af ter construction personnel have left.

12. After slide or video presentation the training instructors do review the subject program with the attendees; however, sometimes they do not have

, the physical object available to show or pass around for inspection.

i . .

J

L i l

9 11029-2 6-95 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 Training Organization i Performance Area and Administration Objective No. TN.2 P

Evaluator (s) C. Meyer, H. Adkins and P. Moyer I. Performance Obiective p The training organization and administration should ensure effective control and implementation of training activities.

II. Scope of Evaluation Interviews were conducted with the training organization to ensure the effectiveness and implementation of the training facilities. Items reviewed were structure of organization, procedures, and administration of training.

Approximately 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> were expended in this evaluation.

f

.1 l

J j

1 t

u i

s 9l J

., IH. Conclusian ll l> The administration and execution of training is determined by SWEC corporate l" policy. The training organization is ensuring that an effective program meets and satisfies the requirements of the performance objective.

1 1

7, 11029-2 6-96 l

)

f PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT h

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities 1 Millstone 3 M -

l Training Organization Performance Area and Administration Objective No. TN.2 l

Evaluator (s) C. Meyer, H. Adkins and P. Moyer p rv. - o, w~ an. C.r . = o d pr u

% No findings r

n lJ l

u L)

J I

d 1

1 2

J l) i I

l l

K

)

U L

q l

t 1

')

-. _ - = . .. ._

11029-2 6-97 l

f~

i p PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAILS k Northeast Utilities I

, Millstone 3 k

Training Organization <

l. Performance Area and Administration Objective No. TN.2 (title) '

2. Provida Factual Infcomation That Supports the Performance Evalustian Summary

1. SWEC organization uses QS 212, CMM 9.1 (adapted) as guides for training.

l

2. The training organization is in a separate building with adequate facilities.

The training policies are administered by quellfled instructors.

3. All persons employed on the Millstone project receive training.

4. Notices via memorandum are sent to the respective department heads, j requesting persons listed in the memorandum to attend a training program at a designated date and time.

i

5. The training organization has a general monthly schedule which shows the

proposed training programs for that period of time. A detailed listing of l

daily construction training confirming date, time, location, and names of k craft persons who should attend the training course is issued.

I

( 6. Attendance at the training programs is monitored by instructors and tracked

( by computer. The training administrator can determine through cross y referencing the attendance records of non-manual and manual people on the project site.

7. Managers and supervisors provide input as to what training is needed on the h

a project. When the subjact course is determined, the training administrator makes up the package and craft supervisors add specific requirements to l.

satisfy project conditions. The training administrator then reviews the J course, with a selected supervisory audience, requesting comments on the course presentation. When all refinements have been incorporated in the program, the course will be given to the respective persons.

Es. All new personnel within 60 days after starting work receive a list of documents to read, assigned by the applicable supervisor / lead engineer.

Documents are in a matrix. The form, Record of Assigned Reading, is to be signed by the reader and forwarded to the project administrator for filing in

) Job Book 32 (training).

] 9. A computerized system is used to track cases of craft persons being j upgraded to foremen, ensure the training organization is advised and appropriate training is established.

1 b

9 .

i

. - - . - - v-. . - - -, r, -e,-.- -g-w --- - . - , .,,,m,,.,-.e - - g---w- , - - - ,,m-,-y y -, , pg,-.s w- w-g- w-' -

h 11029 2 6-98 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT r DETAILS Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 I

5 Training Organization

1. Performance Aree and Administration Objective No. TN.2 (citle)

2. Provide Factuel Informetlan That Supports the Performance Evolustian Sannmary (Continued)

10. During interviews instances were noted where personnel were confused by monthly versus weekly training schedules and arrived for training at the wrong times.

h u

r i

}

N o f

l a10%9-2 6-99 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 Performance Area General Training and Qualification Objective No. TN.3 Evaluator (s) E. Desmarais, R. Green, J. Katz, C. Meyer, P. Nardone, R. Witt and D. Mercer L Performance Objective The training program should ensure that all employees receive training required to perform effectively, and are qualified for their assigned responsibilities.

IL Scope of Evaluation i

Discussions with the various manual /non-manual personnel, including supervisors /

managers, regarding methods, frequency, quality and effectiveness of the training l sessions developed for use on the project site involved more than 50 man-hours.

An additional 30 man-hours was devoted to interviews with the Supervisor of Training, review of training documentation reports and attendance at some of the various training sessions presented during the evaluation period.

i

\

l I

?

t J

l l

, m. Concio. ion I

}

Criteria evaluated within the scope of tnis performance objective are l satisfactory, however, several areas of weaknesses were identified which need l 1 correction. One good practice was also noted.

.i I

\

k A1029-2 6-100 h

.i J

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT *

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities

[ Millstone 3

( \

1 ,

Perfctmance Area General Training and Qualification Objective No. TN.3 L Evaluator (s) E. Desmarais, R. Green, J. Katz, C. Meyer, P. Nardone and R. Witt IV. Areas of Wealmens and Carrective Actions Good Practices Finding: Training session leader could not respond to queries from attendees (TN.3-1) does regarding techniques and terminology utilized in audiovisual presentation.

Corrective Leaders are expected to be able to address routine questions arising Action: in a training session. In the event that the question is of a more

. technical nature, it is forwarded to appropriate personnel for a written response. This response is then distributed to all attendees

] at the training session. NUSCO plans to monitor future sessions to g assure that this is the case.

l l Finding: Welding foremen do not receive training in project welding pro-0 (TN.3-2) cedures.

1 Corrective Welding foremen supervise and allocate manpower and are not res-

} Action: ponsible for the welding process and thus welding foremen who are not welders do not receive training in welding procedures. Both welders and the appropriate supervisors do receive this training.

.l t

Finding: The following good practice was noted:

(TN.3-3)

FGC receipt inspection new hires receive on-the-job training for two weeks under the direction of a Level 2 Inspector and are

! required to pass an oral exam on applicable procedures before

! performing responsible inspections. Yearly re-qualification is mandatory and classss are conducted to cover new requirements.

?

i i

j 2

l a

I 3

l 8

].

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. _ . , - - _m _ -.- _ _ - - ---_y -y -, y

a 1102.9-2 6-101 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT i

DETAIL 5 Nortneast Utilities Milletone 3

[ 1. Performance Area General Training and Qualification Objective No. TN.3 (title)

2. Provide Factual Informatlan That Steparta the Performance Evabetlan Summary

1. Engineering Assurance procedures require the estchlishment of a training matrix for engineering personnel in all divisions. A review of this f requirement with the E.A. Supervisor indicated that the engineering training matrix was not available (at the site) but could be provided.

U 2. The QC Inspector and materials supervisor utilized an uncontrolled white j print marked "Not for Construction" to verify dimensions and weld sizes of Fish Barrier Frame delivered to the site.

3. Training on material control storage is conducted by the material control supervisor for material control personnel only. There is no formal re-evaluation or re-training.

a J 4. Training sessions are conducted by training staff personnel who could not 5 respond to relevant questions related to techniques and terminology utilized h in audio-visuals.

l f 5. Training sessions on " confined space hazards," " drop-in-anchor bolts," " weld P, material control," " drawing control" and "non-manual orientation" were i observed. Instruction evaluation sheets were not utilized at the end of each session.

k 6. Weld procedure training is given to welding supervisors only. Foremen welders to not receive the training.

7. Five people, who had been trained in the correct use of "NA", could not l

1 remember what "NA" signified when interviewed.

h 8. Pipefitter welders are being trained in a welding school in Saybrook,

[ Connecticut which is sponsored by the pipefitters union. SWEC provides a

full-time QC inspector and a welding' supervisor at the school on a full-time basis.

(

l 9. Newly hired material receiving inspectors receive two weeks of on-the-job f training by a Level 2 inspector and must pass an oral exam on procedures.

b Re-qualification is required yearly and classes are given to cover non- l requirements. ,

s

) '

j '

j J

i

+

11029-2 6-102  !

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Training Facilities,

, Performance Area Eauiomamt and Material Objective No. TN.4 Evaluator (s) R. Witt, J. Katz, P. Nardone and D. Mercer I. Performance Objective The training facilities, equipment and material should support and enhance training activities.

II. Scope of Evaluation j Approximately 15 man-hours were spent during the evaluation of training facilities including a tour of the facilities, interviews with training personnel, and i

observations of training sessions.

L 1

i l

IH. Conclusion The training facility is appropriately set up and administered to meet site training needs as specified in this performance area. One good practice was noted.

l l

11029-2 6-103 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PRCICT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstona 3

) Training Facilities, j Performance Area Equipment and Material Objective No. TN.4 Evaluator (s) .R. Witt, J. Katz, P. Nardone and D. Mercer t

IV.

Areas of Weakness and Carrective Actions Good Practices Finding: The following good practice was noted:

(TN.4-1)

Management and support personnel are actively involved in assisting the training department with appropriate equipment and materials for personnel to receive training in subjects of importance related to construction of the project.

l uG29-2 6-104 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAILS Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 f

Training Facilities,

1. Performance Area Equipment and Material Objective No. TN.4

} (title)

2. Provide Factual Information That Supports the Performance Evaluation Summary

1. The training facility is located on-cite and has two classrooms, relatively quiet with appropriate lighting, and adequate seating for attendees.

2. The site training needs matrix is developed by the Training Supervisor based on input from craft supervisors, non-manual supervisors, and management.

} This matrix establianes the training requirements for personnel to accomplish

/

their job assignments.

1 3. Audiovisual equipment is used in training sessions. The Training Supervisor

) acquires the audiovisual material as required. When material is not available, the Training Supervisor work with other supervisors to set up site developed 1 training materials.

4. The Training Supervisor is on distribution to racsive the latest revised field procedures and documents needed for training. All reference materials are I up-to-date and accessible.

}

S. Each month the Training Supervisor prepares and issues a training schedule j based on current input from construction supervisors and management.

A

6. The Training Supervisor in conjunction with each supervisor develops a training assignment roster dedignating appropriate personnel to attend each training session.

V

7. A computerized printout of attendees for all courses is maintained by the 3 Training Supervisor. - This record indicates the title, number, time and date l for each training session attended by the employee.

a Y

?

?

)

l e

( , l

)

k i

6 i

f 1

am.nv mam,.

0 1

)

l 1

1 ,

j D '

3 1

l f

b 11029 2 6 105 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities i

i Millstone 3 y Performance Area Quality Programs Objective No. QP.1

[i Evaluator (s) W. Miller, H. Adkins. L. Kube, C. Meyer and E. Desmarais l  !. Performance Gjective J

The quality assurance program scope, content, and applicability should be

appropriatas, defined clearly, and understood.

IL Scope of Evaluation

) This performance objective was assessed primarily by one person. Additional members participated by reviewing QA and QC programs and procedures and by 1

interviewing NUSCO management concerning their participation. Input was

! provided by others as a result of reviews in related assessments. A total of approximately 60 man-hours were devoted to interviews with NUSCO and S&W 3 GA, QC, construction and management personnel.

1 9

@t

?

k f

L HI. Conclusion

) Tne quality assurance program satisfactorily documents project requirements and l metnods for quality related activities. However, several specific weaknesses were identified which deal with scope limits that, if applied, would restrict the P

application of the program. Also, staffing limitations were identified which appear to namper full implementation.

1 o

-. - - - , - - - . - _ - - , , - - . , - - - - - - - . - - . - - - , - - - - , - - , , - - , . . - - . - - - - ~ , , - - , . - - - ,_

J 11029-2 6-106 9

)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities 1 Millstone 3 i

Performance Aren Quality Programs Objective No. QP.1 Evaluator (s) W. Miller, H. Adkins, L. Kube, C. Meyer and E. Desmarais 1 IV. Areas of Weakness and Carrective Action; Good Practicea

'I -

Finding: The FGC program to evaluate non-safety related equipment may l 3 (QP.1-1) not adequately cover this equipment since the equipment has been  ;

pre-selected and documented, and 80 percent will not be covered by the program.

] Corrective As a minimum, 20 percent inspection of Non Category I work is j Action: required, however, all Category II designated concrete, including grout, soils, weld rod, embeds, reinforcing steel, and structural i

steel, and waterproof membrane, is 100 percent inspected. All welding performed on or to fluid carrying systems is 100 percent inspected including the Main Condensor. All welders are quallfled to ASME Section 9 requirements independent of what category of

)j work they will be assigned to. The Turbine Generator has a modified G.E. GC program that assures a 100 percent inspection.

Receipt Inspection is performed on a 100% basis for all equip-ment. All electrical and mechanical systems are assured to have a minimum of 20 percent on each system, i.e., cable pulling, termi-nations, alignments, etc. Although 20 percent is a mandatory number, the actual percent of IR for Non Category I work for field installation is 37.5 percent, but when coupled with the 100 percent J

requirements, the total overall effort approximates 60 to 65 percent. It should also be noted that document control is 100 l percent verified.

Finding: NUSCO FQA work load has increased without a corresponding in-

)

(QP.1-2) crease in staff.

} Corrective NUSCO l-QA staff is currently being increased by the addition of Action: four contract engineers / specialists for the duration of the peak

] construction effort.

Finding: NUSCO GA limits the scope of its evaluations to comply with 1

QP.1-3) requirements and does not independently evaluate adequacy, l

needed improvements, or changes. '

Corrective This is true of the site effort, however, the licensing / regulatory Action: requirements are reviewed routinely in the Berlin office and g programmatic changes initiated as necessary with program revisions. NUSCO QA is not responsible for the design of the plant.

h i

e l

l l

I i

11029 2 6-107 i

l n

l f PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAIL 5

! Northeast Utilities j Mllistone 3 l

l 1. Performance Aree Quality Programs Objective No. QP.1 (title) l l

2. Provide Factual Information That Supports the Performance Evaluation Summary l

1. From a review of documents defining Millstone 3 Project requirements and methods it appears that these documents provide satisfactory definition of ,

project requirements and methods for quality-related activities. The procedures for quality control (GC) and quality assurance (GA) activities of Stone and Webster (S&W) and for NUSCO personnel meet their respective l program commitments.

r

! 2. Based on observations of QA and QC activities, reviews of documentation j resulting from QA and QC, and construction activities, and/or discussions l with personnel performing the activities, it appears that the requirements i

and methods are understood and ccmply.

3. Quality programs are an augmented surveillance in-process verification of I sensitive or suspect areas. The auditing and surveillancs schedules are l influenced by the schedule and extent of the activities being checked.

, 4. Reports are submitted by S&W on a regular basis and are sufficiently

! informative to permit evaluation of the S&W QA program controls by j NUSCO. These include Activities Reports, Audit Reports, Inspection l Reports, Nonconformance (N&O) Reports. NUSCO site management meets

! regularly with S&W and quality-related problem areas are discussed.

j NUSCO site management is emphasizing the need to improve problem areas -

with follow-up letters and day-to-day communications. This is especially apparent concerning the participation of the Superintendent, New Site Construction and his staff.

5. Senedules oi' construction activities are sufficiently informative, timely, and i reliable to permit planning QA and QC activities. Communication between construction and QC personnel is satisfactory and a reasonably small number of cases (nonconformances) were noted when inspections were missed (i.e.,

pre-grouting). Construction management, in general, reports cases when construction activities are held-up by inadequate QC performance.

l l

l

. p l

n d

.a 11029-2 6-108 l

J

. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT q OETAILS j Northeast Utilities l i' Millstone 3 7

J

1. Performance Aree Quality Proarams Objective No. QP.1  !

(title) a

2. Provids Factual Information That Simports the Performance Evaluation Summary s (Continued)

? 6. NUSCO has initiated a yearly evaluation of their QA program's effectiveness y through a Combined Utliity Assessment Program. Of the 11 areas assigned to the team by the Senior Vice President (NE&O), all addressed NUSCO's

, functions and one involved a S&W item (NUSCO " Review and approval of j

S&W nonconformance and disposition reports" which are dispositioned "use l

" as it" and " repair"). A combined utility assessment concluded that NUSCO should add three men with technical expertise, and expedita hiring to

] support GA programs. NUSCO is evaluating these recommendations.

7. The responsibility for action was clearly placed on various heads of Sections, 3 Departments, etc. Where an assignment was directed to either Director 3

(NE&O Services), or to VP (NE and Engineer) it was directed to both. The status of dispo41tions is updated periodically.

Q 0. The records for S&W QC personnel qualifications were reviewed and i

discussed with S&W QC, NUSCO QA and construction personnel, and with l Westinghouse representatives. Inspectors experience meets minimum requirements, though often marginally. Qualification by demonstration and 1 subsequent work assignments relies on proper judgment of supervisors.

Although non-FQC personnel have voiced critical comments about FQC qualifications, it appears that FGC is conservative and requires rigid

]. compliance with specifications, drawings, etc.

J

9. NUSCO QA staff qualification records were reviewed and discussed with the 1 FQA Supervisor. The staff has been doubled (now ten plus Construction GA j j Supervisor) within the last four months. Most of those added have consid- '

f erable technical experience. l

10. Only in the cases of very important problems, or where resolution is not a

agreed on, or the case requires high level resolution, are they processed as "Stop Work" items. Normally, work stoppage is a result of Inspection Report

, findings of part of the processing of Nonconformance and Disposition (N&O)

reports.

6

11. NUSCO QA audits by both the Berlin and Fleid QA groups are performed to establish the degree of compliance with established requirements. They do i not evaluate activities for tecnnaal adequacy or effectiveness.

e 7 ,  !

J 5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . __ _ , . _ _ , _ _ _ . _ _

q 11029-2 6-109 n

i i

J PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT L DETAILS l

Northeast Utilities J Millstone 3

l. Performance Ares Quality Programs Objective No. QP.1 3 (title) l

?

i 2. Provide Factual Infbrmetlan 1het Seeports the Performance Evaluation Summary j (Continued) 7

12. Reviews of controlling documents such as the Quality Assurance Program Topical Report and NUSCO Quality Assurance Section Procedures specifi-r t

cally define the scope of the programs to be limited to compilance with requirements. The applicability of some points in the Topical to the Millstone 3 project is not apparent to a person not fami!!ar with the project

activities. Responsibility for preliminary testing (prior to pre-op) is not l identified (QAP-11.1 identifies NUGAP as the organization for construction tests).

13. A NUSCO Construction Area Superintendent provided the INPO team with

, an obsolete Applicabliity Matrix for S&W GA Directives. i

14. The source of quality classification was identified in S&W Report 303 CMS-Material / Equipment Specification and QA Code Status Report, dated July 14,1982.

15. The SWSQAP is upgraded yearly to current Regulatory Guide ANSI Standards. Upgrading Millstone programs as approved by NUSCO is done yearly.

16. Although some documents and communications to be directed to the Senior i Vice President (NEO) are specified, there is no distribution list indicating j what is to be passed routinely on to him, the VP (N&EE), or the Director (NE&O) Services. A review of reports distributed to these positions and to the Manager, QA indicates that pertinent information is available to them.

17. Corporate management in NUSCO-Berlin appear to communicate routinely in meetings and through personal contacts with each other. The Director (NE&O) Services holds weekiy staff meetings and frequent one-on-one conversations. The Vice President (NEE) is kept informed on GA matters but is expected to act on GA matters only in the absence of others. The Senior Vice President (NE&O) is informed and active in the management of ,

licensing matters and problem areas. He interprets the policy (providing '

Manager-GA access to him) when problems cannot be resolved at a lower level. '

l' l

9 i

n ,

1 1

,s 11029-2 7 6-110 h PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAILS Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 l

J p 1. Performance Arem Quality Procrams Objective No. QP.1

} (title)

.)

1

2. Provide Factual Information That S E-

) a the P i-..-s Evatustian Sigr .

(Contie M ) i 18.

The following items were noted as relevant to the NUSCO FQA work load

, with the present staff:

a.

Construction staff and work load has increased by about 25 percent

, since the present NUSCO FQA staffing requirements were established.

b.

] Addition of a second work shift has increased NUSCO FQA work requirements.

J c.

NUSCO FQA has initiated activities to analyze findings for trends.

19.

In response to a NUSCO position that an average of 20 percent of non-safety-related activities be covered by FQC, SWEC has established a specific list of equipment which will be covered by FQC programs. That is, a specific list of equipment to be covered by FQC has been selected and the remaining 80 percent will not be covered by FQC programs. Twenty percent of the non-safety equipment will be fully covered by the FQC program and a

80 percent will not be covered at all.

i L

u 1?

1

1 i.

11029 2 6-111

=

I PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities

! Millstone 3

Performance Area Program Implementaticn Objective No. QP.2 j Evaluator (s) W. Miller, E. Desmarais, P. Nardone, C. Meyer and L. Kube l L Performance Objective Quality assurance and quality control functions should suppcrt and control the quality of project activities.

l t

IL Scope of Evaluntlan This performance area was evaluated by one member of the evaluation team, but observations were also made by other members during their reviews of related functions. Approximately 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> were devoted to discussions with QA, QC and l construction personnel of various work levels and to reviews of related procedures and documentation.

t t

S

( I IIL Conclusion

[ The QA and QC functions are performed in a manner that supports and controls I

the quality of the project. Organizational structure and associated charters for l key members are defined clearly to ensure independence. Appropriate training and monitoring is performed to confirm implementation of quality requirements.

l l

e I

. - . . _ ,-- - ___ ._ . _ . - - _ , . . . _ _ - , , - _ _ , _ , , , , . . ,_----__,__.nn,

I 9

i s

11029-2 a

6 112 I l i \

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

5UMMARY Ncrtheast Utilities l 3

Mille one 3 3 Performance Area Program Implementation Objective No. GP.2 1

Evaluator (s) W. Miller, E. Desmarais, P. Nardone, C. Meyer and L. Kube

! IV. Areas of Weakness and Carrective Actions Good Practices Na findings.

i e.

h p

4 5

\

1 I

b I

I

?

I i

n

~. . _ _ _ _ - - - _ _. _ . _ . - .- - - -.

l i

11029-2 6-113

~

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 4 DETAILS Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 t

1. Performance Area Program Im plementation Objective No. GP.2

= (titme)

2. Provide Factual Information That Supports the Performance Evaluation Summary

1. The organizational positions and the functions of the S&W GA and GC groups 1 are defined in manuals and procedures. These specifically provide j independence from production and construction functions. They define interfacing of GA and GC activities with other quality-related activities.

2. Technical matters are resolved by engineering personnel. This approach J provides independence from proouction pressures. Independence of the QA branch for assurance of quelity compliance is clearly provided.

I

3. The S&W W-FQC procedures address attributes requiring checks to assure compliance with specifications. The attributes, as identified on Inspection q Reports, are often brief and require that the inspector be knowledgeable as

, to where detailed requirements are specified. Training lessons and on-the-job training are provided accordingly to quality inspectors.

1 4. One case enarging FGC harassment by NUSCO construction personnel has J been pointed out to management. NUSCO area superintendents voiced objection (during interviews) to the extent of detail and " paper" required by

, FQC. The Superintendent of FQC, assistant superintendents, senior i j engineers, and all inspectors expressed confidence that inspections are being made without influence from others. The INPO evaluator was advised that this issue was not documented and was dropped.

s 5. Cooperative relationships facilitate scheduling and performing QC.

Interfacing documents (i.e., N&Ds) are processed with reasonable h promptness.

6. NUSCO auditors audit for compliance with established requirements and are L not evaluating the adequacy of activities or the need for other or different

'l controls. This approach does not provide a means for identifying quality snortcomings involving omission during specification and procedures l preparation, lack of erroneous code-related detail on construction details,

] code requirements (e.g., weld termination in boring wells) for special cases B

(e.g., welding with special accessibility difficulities, or with special shapes like squewed welds).

7. S&W QS 18.1 Scope requires the audit program to evaluate effectiveness arid f determine compilance with the GA program.

42 Y

l:

• a 11029-2 6-114 L

q

( PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT l L DETAIL 5 l r Northeast Utilities L Millstone 3 l

l . l

1. Performance Area Program Implementation Objective No. QP.2 L (title)

I d

{ 2. Provide Factual Information That Supports the Performance Evalustian Summary

, (Continued) q

8. One case was identified (by others) where the S&W vendor qualification

. process was improper (i.e., subvendor not committed to vendor's a

commitment).

9. Where S&W suppliers have provided unsatisfactory items and documents, j augmented shop inspection has been provided (i.e., Thames Valley Steel and i NEVCO).

] 10. One hundred fifty-one items received via S&W, Boston P. O. had a 17

/ percent reject rate (including id for unsatisfactory documentation and six L

for ID/ markings). In August 217 items received via local P. O. had 36 percent reject rate. The Superintendent of FQC informed the Manager,

.' FQC in Boston and the applicable site supervisors of the need for corrective action.

1 j 11. Auxiliary Boric Acid Transfer Pump, three CHS P2A was noted to have a receipt inspection accept tag and a reject tag (applied late). FQA L subsequently removed the accept tag.

e I

a H

I H

lls a

u k,

i 1

4

]

• u l

I e

11029-2 6-115 I

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities

] Millstone 3 1

Performance Area Independent Assessment Objective No. GP.3

~

Evaluator (s) W. Miller, L. Kube, C. Meyer, H. Adkins I. Performance Objective Management should provida an effective, independent assessment of project 3

activities affecting the quality of the project.

IL Scope of Evaluation 1

This performance objective was assessed by one member of the assessment team, although other members of the team contributed as a result of observations made during program reviews and interviews. Thirty man-hours were devoted to

] assessment of this project objection.

I s

u 4

1 3

III. Conclusion i

g A review of the latest independence evaluation indicates that all performance objectives and associated criteria were satisfied. In addition senior management were familiar with the results and appropriate action implemented.

f a

u l

P

]

11029 2 6-116

{

~

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 Performance Area independent Assessment Objective No. GP.3

}

6 Evaluator (s) W. Miller, L. Kube, C. Meyer and H. Adkins IV. Areas of Weakness and Carrective Actiant Good Practices No ,indi o .

W a

d i

1 J

l 1

4 4

r

I J

11029-2 6-117 o

. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT n DETAILS Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 e

1. Performance Area Independent Assessment Objective No. QP.3 (title) p

2. Provide Factual Information That Soports the Performance Evaluation Summary

1. The NUSCO Topical Report commits to a Quality Management Review to evaluate the effectiveness of the NUSCO QA Program. The Senior VP y (NEO) is responsible for the evaluation. Based on his knowledge of project activities, problem areas, and project requirements, he selects functions for

, which he requires clarification or evaluation to complete his evaluation of

! the program effectiveness. These functions are being assigned to Combined a Utility Assessment Team assigned by the Senior VP (NEO). The specific basis for Senior VP (NEO) selections for the 1982 assessments were not

'l apparent. The eneck lists used by the team were not available for review.

1

2. The 1981 assessment by the Combined Utility did not address Millstone 3 matters.

J 3. There is no requirement for an independent assessment of the effectiveness of the contractors' QA programs. All S&W quality-related functions are

] being audited, including the audit functions. Since S&W auditing includes J evaluations for effectiveness of controls, and since NUSCO does audit for compilance (in thl'. case, for the evaluation attribute), independent 3 evaluations are tving provided. In addition, S&W corporate audits are j performed whiQ address QA functions applicable to Millstone 3.

( 4. Of the 11 areas assigned for assessment, ten related to Millstone 3, and one j of these related to S&W activities. NUSCO disagreed with the recommen-J dation that personnel with considerable expertise in several areas be added to the FQA staff. Actions on other findings appear to be adequate.

! 5. Responsibility for resolution of the Combined Utility Team were assigned by

~

Senior VP (NEO), and those responsible for non-QA activities.

/

6. The status of resolutions are report'ed periodically.

7. The members of the Combineo Utility Team meet with the NUSCO qualifi-

, cation requirements for Lead Auditors.

'!J u

E h

F P

3

- _ , - - - --s ~-- - - - - -"

(

11029 2 6-118 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities I

Millstone 3 Performance Area Corrective Action Objective No. QP.4 Evaluator (s) W. Miller, H. Adkins, C. Meyer, H. Wingate and D. Mercer

, I. Performance Objective t

Conditions requiring corrections or improvements should be resolved in an effective and timely manner.

l J

l a

IL Scope of Evaluation

' Three members of the team evaluated this performance area. Approximately 25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> were devoted to interviews with QA, QC, projects, and construction personnel and to review related procedures and documentation.

b J

l

}

)

l 1

}

l

~

III. Conclusion r

(! The requirements of the performance objective in this area are satisfied. It was P

observed that management of all project organizations were taking an active role in correcting the root cause of problems. One weakness was identified which deals with approach used by NUSCO in reporting deficiences to SWEC.

4

!9 i

j '

-.____.a

11029-2 6-119 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities

$ Millstone 3 I

Performance Area Corrective Action Objective No. GP.4 Evaluator (s) W. Miller, H. Adkins, C. Meyer, H. Wingate and D. Mercer

m. - .- _ee. A.e._ee j

Finding: NUSCO QA does not always provide SWEC with a detailed listing of (GP.4-1) specific deficiencies found but instead, provides a general listing which requires SWEC to search for specific deficiencies. This

/ technique may be counterproductive and may not foster a spirit of cooperation between NUSCO QA and SWEC construction manage-

', ment.

1 Corrective The formal audit report does not provide a listing of specific deft-

Action

ciencies. This is done intentionally as experience indicates that only the listed items would then be corrected and the overall problem would remain unsolved.

! Additionally, however, the specific deficiencies are available to I S&W FQC management upon request and are routinely provided aside from the formal audit report.

o i

+

l I, .

.i j

ll i I

l C

6

$ e

h 11029-2 6-120

/

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT l OETAILS Northeast Utilities Millstone 3

1. Performance Area Corrective Action Objective No. QP.4 (title)

2. Provide Factual Information That Supports the Performance Evaluation Summary

1. Planned NUSCO and CWEC inspection, verification and audit systems are in effect to identify conditions and to preclude repetition. Each is adequately reporting findings identified both in-house and in organizations for which they have a responsibility.

2. NUSCO is auditing and otherwise verifying SWEC compliance with require-ments in SWEC, Boston, at SWEC vendor shops, and at the Millstone 3 site.

SWEC is performing the site inspections and performing audits of all quality-related activities within their contract scope, including vendors.

3. The findings are being adequately processed to facilitate correction via inspection reports, nonconformance reports, audit reports, etc. These are being adequately distributed to organizations involved, and adequate status i tracking systems rare being used.

4. NUSCO expedites the resolution of findings as required. Although some items remain unresolved longer than desirable, the systems are not out of control. Projects, construction and QA personnel of both organizations are emphasizing the need to reduce the time required for resolution.

5. SWEC, Boston and FGC categorizes the unsatisfactory conditions addressed in Inspection Reports, and Nonconformance and Disposition Reports in 18 activity types (e.g., concrete, mechanical inspection, receipt inspections, in-process verification, pipe welds, structural welds). This helps identify problem areas, and the trend for the area. Further analyses identify the root causes of the problems. Problem areas in August include Mechanical (30 percent rejects for physical problems), Receipt (25 percent rejects for ID and documentation), Electrical (physical damage when pulling cable),

Storage and Housekeeping (25 percent). Documentation at S&W, Boston indicates that instructions have initiated to analyze and correct conditions.

6. The need for correction of the root cause of problems is being emphasized by SWEC, Boston and FQC, NUSCO Construction and Projects. FQC also identifies abnormal areas. These are emphasized at regular staff meetings by Projects and by the Superintendent New Site Construction who reviews the cause of problems and the corrective actions.

t e

t 11029-2 6-121 I

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAILS Northeast Utilities y

Millstone 3 0

1. Performance Area Corrective Action Objective No. QP.4 (title) t b

. 2. Provide Factual Information Tnet 5% the Performance Evaluation Sw Tey

(Continued)

7. Trends are also identified by SWEC, Boston where data is analyzed and corrective action is initiated as necessary. FQC has requested that the due

! date be included to help flag overdue resolutions.

! 8. A computerized analysis procedure has been drafted by FQC, designed to

, plot problem areas by root causes.

9. NUSCO - FQC has initiated action to computerize their findings to facill-j tate trending by root cause. At present it categorizes items by the 18 1

criteria of Appendix B. The Construction GA Manager has said that he intends to break down the root cause categories into additional categorise to

] make the system more usable.

)

10. The NUSCO GA Manager and Construction QA Supervisor stated that speci-i fic items found deficient within a group of items are not identified to ,

responsible parties. They are told that deficient items exist, and to find and correct them completely. They feel this has not caused problems and is possibly advantageous.

i 11. Discussions with SWEC area supervision indicated dissatisfaction with the NUSCO QA technique of not identifying all specific deficiencies to SWEC for resolution as detailed in item 10. SWEC' area supervision considers that ~

3

• this technique is counterproductive and results in undue expenditure of manpower to find the specific deficiencies.

l o

e 4

J E ,

I O

(  :

9 l

I 1

l l

e 1 l

l.

l 7

I J

, TEST CONTROL I I

.) \

i

'i 1<

'I.s 9

=

i l

's 1

1

!) 4 9

1 i.

h

't

't s

I

+

s

L l 10029-2 6-122 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 o

Performance Area Test Program Objective No. TC.1 Evaluator (s) P. Nardone I. Performance Objective l

1

)

The test program should verify the plant's full capability to operate as intended by l

, testing the plant's systems functionally.

2 l

J II. Scope of Evaluation I

The Millstone 3 test program was evaluated by reviewing various plant documents as well as interviewing several members of the Start-up organization. Even q though the Start-up Manual is still in draft form, the program is essentially h establioned.

J Approximately 25 man-hours were expended for the evaluation.

Il

)

1 0

.b I

1 I

i

?

l 1

1 III. Conclusion

' The Start-up Program and the personnel comprising the test force satisfy the requirements of this performance objective. One minor problem area was

., identified that requires corrective action.

i 0

J

3 10029-2 6-123 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Nortneast Utilities Millstone 3 Performance Area Test Program Objective No. TC.1 Evaluatorts) P. Nordone

, IV. Areas of Weshness and Corrective Action; Good Practices o Finding: The Start-up program documentation is fragmented requiring refer-1 l

(TC.1-1) encing numerous documents for pertinent information.

l

Corrective it is true that the Millstone 3 start-up test program is fragmented.

Action: This is, in part, a necessity and, in part, a recognized inefficiency.

3 l This unit is committed to verifying the plant operating, emergency and surveillance procedures in conjunction with the test program.

To fulfill the intent of the commitment, station requirements

} (Administrative Control Procedures) are invoked wherever

) possible. It is understood that this approach will result in a  ;

program with administrative overlap, but there is a greater q advantage to be gained by identifying any procedural problems at

) this time.

g A rewrite of the draft revision of the start-up manual (which was i

not complete for review by the evaluation team) has partly addressed the problem of fragmented start-up program documen-tation. Also, there is a program to incorporate as many unique start-up requirements as possible into a single start-up document.

1, This program is scheduled for completion by January 1984.

However, there will be circumstances where Preservice Unit or 3 Departmental Instructions may be required and they will be utilized on an individual case basis.

?

I L . .

1 I

1 1

}

e i N

1

10029-2 6-124 v

) PERFORMANCE EVALUATION I CONSTRUCTION PROJECT {

DETAIL 5 '

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3

1. Performance Area Test Program Objective No. TC.1 -

(title) .

l i

2. Provide Factual Informatlan That e m the Performance Evaluation Summary i

! 1. The FSAR and QA Topical Reports describe the overall organizational responsibilities for the preoperational test program.

! 2. The NNECO Start-up Manual (draft version) provides further organization breakdown and detailed test information. Component testing prior to system 9 testing is addressed in this manual. It also integrates S&W Advisory i

Operations documents into the test program.

3. Both NNECO and S&W have additional documentation that provides detailed

} guidance not defined in the Start-up Manual.

1

4. The NNECO Start-up organization will be utilizing NSSS engineers to assist in primary plant testing and provide technical knowledge in procedure writing.

5. The Start-up organization has committed to an extensive use of Plant

Operating Procedures during their system testing prior to hot functional testing.

6.

A computerized system has been developed that will track all nonconforming items associated with turnover and subsequent testing up to final system acceptance by the c!!ent. The program will be implemented prior to the first system turnover.

]* 7. S&W FQC backed up by NUSCO Construction GA follows all quality aspects of construction prior to turnover at which time the NUSCO QA, under the

, Operations organization, takes over that responsibility.

8. The Start-up Program is only generalized in the Start-up Manual and uses a multitude of documents to provide detailed guidance for conduct of testing.

Examples include:

l A '

a. Preservice Unit Instructions (PUI) (NNECO)

b. Memorandum clarifying Puls

c. Administrative Control Procedures (ACPs) (Operations)

, d. Project Test Program Directives (PTPD)(S&W)

P u

' All these documents eventually tie together the test program, however, they are still very fragmented.

3 I

. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . , - _ , , , - - , , .----------.-%%,, m,m %_p.,-,#,-,---9.w ,.,,,,y,_ , , _ _ - , , ,

,,3- w,,__,7_.,,,,--._. - , , , -4.,-.,, , ,,,

.J 10029-2 6-125 PERI ~ORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 Performance Area Test Group Organization and Staffing Objective No. TC.2 g Evaluator (s) P. Nardone L Performance Objective The Test Group organization and staffing should ensure effective implementation

. of the test program.

)

1 4

II. Scope of Evaluation 7

[j Approximately 35 man-hours were expended observing, interviewing and reviewing this performance objective. Individuals contacted during this evaluation included 3 lead engineers from both S&W and NNECO Start-up organizations, as well as 4

! various start-up and turnover engineers in both organizations. In addition, start-up support supervisors responsible for turnover and for various component testing

, activities after turnover were contacted.

1 7

}

j 7

0 l

J i

3 III. Conclusion The Start-up organization under control of NNECO is more than adequately f staffed and qualified to carry out systematic and thorough testing of Millstone 3.

b One support group involved in system turnover was identified as a problem area.

L il

'k

1 i"

10029-2 6-126 9

\

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities l Millstone 3 i

Performance Area Test Group Organization and Staffing Objective No. TC.2 Evaluator (s) P. Nardone

IV. Areas of Wealmees and Carrective Action; Good Practices Finding

The Construction Coordination Group, which heavily supports Advi-(TC.2-1) sory Operations in the system turnover process, is significantly l understaffed.

t' Corrective Adequate staffing of tne CCC is important to proper turnover pro-7 Action: gress and completion. Two additional personnel were on requisition

' at the time of evaluation; one reported in November and another is expected in early December. NUSCO considers that this staffing

, level la sufficient at this time. As the turnover workload increases, additional personnel will be added to the CCC staff. This is evaluated at each monthly project meeting.

\

s i '

s a

ll P

1,

?

r O $

4

__, - - , _ y- ., - , . _ . . . - - - --

10029-2 6 127

?

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAILS Northeast Utilities Millstone 3

\

1. Performance Area, Test Group Organization and Staffing Objective No. TC.2 (title)

/

2. Provide Factual Information That Supporta the Performance Evaluatlan Summary I i

1. NNECO Test Group organization and structure are defined in the Start-up

) Manual. Detailed position descriptions of key personnel are contained here.

2. The NNECO Start-up organization is responsible for all Phase I through Phase IX testing (component testing through 100 hour0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> warranty run at full

{ power).

r L S&W Advisory Operations also has details of their organization and position descriptions in their project Test Program directives.

4. NNECO approves all S&W Advisory engineers brought on site. These engineers are basically used for turnover of systems and hydrotesting prior to turnover.

5. NNECO will be using selected engineers from S&W Advisory Operatons to supplement their start-up engineering force.

6. NNECO has and will continue to draw experienced people from their three operating plants (in all areas of work) to support the start-up effort.

7. The NNECO start-up supervisor has a good handle on his staffing requirements. The S&W lead advisory engineer is knowledgeable in his effort to support NNECO and turnover.

8. Procedure writing is the primary offort of the NNECO Start-up Group at i this time. The present schedule shows all procedures necessary to support l testing to be approved well in advance of the actual test. .

9. The only pre-turnover testing by S&W ongoing at this time is hydrostatic I testing of piping systems. Several hydros were witnessed and test personnel involved conducted these tests smoothly.

h 10. Both S&W and NNECO personnel flies were found up-to-date and I comprehensive. The background and talent of the start-up engineers, as well as many support people, is above average in both groups.

( 11. If key test personnel were to leave tomorrow, there is sufficient depth in the organization to fill those positions.

[

l 1

l ,

[

1 10029 2 6-128 l I

)

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAILS l Northeast Utilities i Millstone 3

)

1. Performance Area Test Group Ori;anization and Staffing Objective No. TC.2 (titles 1

2. Provide Factual Information That Supporta the Performance Evaluntlan Summary

( (Continued)

12. This Construction Coordination Group, a support group critical to system turnover, is severely understaffed. This organization, which now has a staff of three, requires a large increase in experienced personnel to support the turnovers scheduled in 1983 alone. Supervision is having difficulty locating

qualified personnel to staff this group.

r e

i i

l 1

9 4

J t

I e

l 1

10029 2 6 129 I

I PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities  !

l Millstone 3

)

Performance Area Test Plan Objective No. T_C.3 Evaluator (s) P. Nardone L Performance Objective The test organization should prepare a plan and a schedule that describe the sequence of system or component testing.

i 1

IL Scope of Evaluatlan

~

I

, Approximately 15 man-hours were expended interviewing and reviewing this performance objective. Individuals contacted during this evaluation included NNECO start-up personnel directly responsible for scheduling and S&W advisory

) operations engineers.

1 l

t l

?

I f

e s -

M. Conclusion >

The start-up schedule being used and updated at Millstone 3 satisfies all criteria of this performance objective. A good practice was identified which deals with the comprehensiveness of the test plan and the experience level of_ the personnel.

9#

1 l - <

i

-,-.r- - . - - - - , -.-----ea w.. --Mi ---,- , gy.t** 't w'++-T'-- " + -WW'm-pv~ e'*r-"*^--wey-M*'-gTWW"# 'h N"*'*WT '-'-f9'-'71f "'TN*W

l U

10029-2 6-130

(

g -

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION r CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities i Millstone 3

)

Performance Area Test Plan Objective No. TC.3 3

} Evaluator (s) P. Nardone f

3 IV. Areas of Weaknees and Corrective Action; Good Practices 1

(' Finding: The following good practice was noted:

, (TC.3-1) j A comprehensive program with appropriately experienced personnel la in use to schedule and track testing and testing preparations and to integrate testing schedules into the overall project schedule.

e

)

I J

i s

=,

)

3

.I -

s i

7 M

s 9

J e

W - -

h

/ 10029-2 , ,

6-131 PERFCRMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

, DETAILS Northeast Utilities

, Millstone 3 l

1. Performance Area Test Plan Objective No. TC.3 (title) l

, l

$ i 2.

Provide Factual Information That 5% the Performance Evaluntlan SurTai ,j i 1. NNECO personnel involved in planning Phase I through IX testing have previous start-t.p planning experience from Millstone 2.

2. NNECO has put the S&W Level 3 schedules into their computerized Project 2 Scheduling program. The responsible system start-up engineers reviewed and modified the Level 3s. The Project 2 program is used to confirm Level 2 test l schedules from these Level 3 schedules.

3. The Project 2 program can put the schedule in table or graphical format. In table form it can be accessed, by early turnover, by system, by critical path, ietc. '

4. ' Systems we:e,secped into " testable" turnover packages by S&W Millstone 3

' Projset (Bostonbin tua early stages. Since then S&W site advisory operations engirwacs have revised these to support the start-up schedule and the construction schedule. These scoping documents can be changed to accommodate construction problems.

5.

. Changes in turnover date that affect the schedule must be approved by upper I level management in construction, S&W advisory operations and NNECO i

i before that turnover can be ellowed to slip.

6.

The NNECO Project 2 program will allow the status of testing to be tracked and, as it is comoleted, input into the computer. Any schedule changes resultbg from' early or late items (i.e., turnover, test completion) will be reflectsd'in the updated schedule.

/ 3

7. Hydro testing, the only S&W testing done prior to turnover, is performed as  ;

piping systems are completed by construction. Therefore, hydro testing < 4

fodows and supports the turnover schedule. "

} 3

/ ,

't d

2 i'

I ,

+ ,  :

, . _ . , - _ i- . _ _ _- 1

i 10029-2 6-132 l

L

/

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 i

Performance Area System Turnover for Test Objective No. TC.4 Evaluator (s) P. Nardone L Performance Objective i

The construction testing and turnover process should be controlled effectively to ensure that program objectives are met.

l II. Scope of Evaluation The Millstone 3 turnover program was evaluated by reviewing the S&W turnover procedure, as well as interviewing a number of S&W turnover engineers and the construction turnover supervisor. Approximately 35 man-hours were expended for this evaluation.

l l

i I

i l

l '

III. Conclusion The Millstone 3 turnover program and implementing personnel satisfy the requirement of this performance objective. Two good practices dealing with the system turnover organization were identified and one problem uncovered in the implementation process.

?

3

.__.x--, ,- ---,,_-,.,,,--m,-_, , . . - , ,-n , ,_m.,--,

1

's l

/ 10029 2 6 133 h

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 Performance Area System Turnover for Test Objective No. TC.4 1

Evaluator (s) P. Nardone IV. Areas of Weakness and Carrective Actions Good Practices Finding: The following good practice was noted:

(TC.4-1)

The formation of the Construction Coordination Group is a positive l

step towards assuring that a good turnover program is established and construction and start-up milestones are met.

Finding: The following good practice was noted:

(TC.4-2)

Handling the first planned turnover, a Category III system, as a Category I system for turnover purposes is an effective method to ensure a valid turnover process for critical Category I systems.

Finding: The Site Engineering Group participation in turnover meetings has l (TC.4-3) not been effective in supporting the preparations for system turnover.

Corrective A SEG turnover coordinator has been appointed. He will attend all r Action: turnover meetings and have appropriate technical support persons also in attendance to insure that all turnover items are properly statused and action taken on these items.

l 4

I m

l

? .

1 10029 2 6 134 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAIL 5 Northeast Utilities Millstone 3

1. Performance Area System Turnover for Test Objective No. TC.4 (title)

, 2. Provide Factual Information That 5% the Performance Evaluation Summary

1. The only construction testing done prior to turnover by S&W is hydrostatic testing of piping. All other testing is done after turnover by NNECO personnel.

2. Hydro testing is controlled by advisory operations engineers. Modified piping drawings were generated specifically for hydro testing with boundaries and test pressures specified.

3. The controlling document for turnover is a S&W advisory operations Project Test Program Directive (PTPD). It is a detailed sequential procedure to facilitate the orderly turnover of systems to NNECO start-up.

4. The turnover PTPD clearly identifies participants, duties, responsibilities and documentation necessary for the turnover process.

5. Documentation to be supplied with the turnover package contains all the necessary items to assures

a. The boundaries of the turnover are identified.

b. The system is " testable" with no more than 100 deficiencies identified.

c. Adequate information to support component testing.

d. All materials and equipment are identified.

6. A computtrized tracking system is established that will identify all items affecting a turnover. Items will be tracked after conditional acceptance of the turnover until all can be resolved.

7. Final acceptance turnover will occur after NNECO was completed; component and system testing.

8. The advisory operations turnover engineers have a good working knowledge of their responsibilities. They will coordinate FQC, NNECO and the Construction Coordination Group to assure that the turnover occurs with the minimal amount of deficiencies and occurs on time.

d

i i

10029-3 6-135

! PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAILS i Northeast Utilities 1

Millstone 3

1. Performance Area System Turnover for Test Objective No. TC.4 (title)

2. Provide Factual Information That Supporta the Performance Evaluation Summary (Continued)

9. A Construction Coordination Group has been established to track construction starting 12 months prior to turnover. At this time, work is shifted from the " area" concept to the " system" concept to support the system turnover. This group works closely with advisory operations. During

( weekly progress meetings, construction and engineering personnel resolve 4 problems and identify upcoming trouble areas.

10. Site engineering support at the weekly turnover meeting has been inadequate. Area supervisors have numerous items that require resolution by engineering to either start work or finishing work in progress. SEG has not been able to give solutions or a timetable for resolution of items.

11. NNECO will accept responsibility of maintenance and cleanliness of turned over areas and systems.

12. Advisory operations has accelerated the first system turnover (water treatment) up to January 1983 to support flushing by NNECO. Although this sytem is Category III, it will be treated as Category I. This is being planned as an exercise to " proof" the turnover program well in advance of any critical turnovers.

i t

f

l 1

l 10029-2 6-136

{

l PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities

[ Millstone 3

\ -

, Performance Area Test Procedures and Test Documents Objective No. TC.5 f Evaluator (s) P. Nardone and P. Moyer L Performance Objective l'

Test procedures and test documents should provide appropriate direction and should be used effectively to verify operational and design features of respective systems.

IL Scope of Evaluation To determine if test procedures and test documents provide direction and can be used effectively for testing the systems, the evaluation team expended approximately 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> interviewing and examining the documents in their draft status.

4 f

I i

L l

l III. Conclusion I

[ The ongoing procedure effort is satisfying the criteria of this performance l

objective. One good practice was identified which deals with the advantages of early preparation of operating procedures and their application in preparing test procedures.

P O

e

10029-2 6-137 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 Performance Area Test Procedures and Test Documentation Objective No. TC.5 Evaluator (s) P. Nardone and P. Moyer IV. Areas of Weakness and Carrective Action; Good Practices Finding: The following good practice was noted:

(TC.5-1) '

Millstone 3 operating procedures are available and used extensively in system preoperational test procedures.

4 t 0 4

i

i 10029 2 6-138 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DETAILS Northeast Utilities

Millstone 3 h

1. Performance Area Test Procedures and Test Documents Objective No. TC.5 (title)

2. Provide Factual Informetlan That Sieparta the Performance Evaluation Summary

1. The test procedures required during the nine phases of the start-up program have been identified. Eighty percent of the component tests have been drafted and 10 percent of the system preoperational tests have been drafted.

2. The latest procedure preparation schedule shows the work effort on target.

This will allow all procedures to be approved in advance of their intended use.

3. NNECO's engineering library assures that the latest technical data is made available to the start-up engineers for test preparation.

4. Preoperational test procedres will satisfy FSAR requirements and verify technical specifications, as well as NSSS specifications.

5. Engineering instruction approved by top management detail procedure format as outlined in the FSAR. Review and approval cycle of the procedure and of subsequent test results is also specified.

6. A test procedure, regardless of type, will receive an independent review and approval. The same will hold true with the subsequent test results.

7. The only testing ongoing at this time is hydrostatic testing. It is being accomplished in accordance with an approved S&W procedure. Several hydros werb witnessed.

8. Changes to tssted systems will be tracked so retes*. requirements, if any, can be ide~nti(lad.

9. The start-up procedures will use the Millstone 3 operations procedures extensively getting operations personnel involved in the early stages prior to hot functional testing.

i

10029 2 6-139 I

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT l 5UMMARY Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 Performance rea System Status Controls Objective No. TC.6 Evaluator (s) P. Nardone and P. Moyer I. Performance Objective j

A method should exist to identify the status of each system of component and the organization holding control or jurisdication over that system or component to prevent interference and ensure equipment and personnel safety.

II. Scope of Evaluation Interviews were conducted with SWEC and NNECO personnel to review the documented system which ensures knowledge of the status of system and identification of the organization controlling the system to prevent interferences and to ensure equipment and personnel safety. Approximately 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> were expended in this evaluation.

1

(

I l .

III. Conclusion k System controls are defined by SWEC in their project test program directive and are currently being effectively implemented. The performance objectives are satisfied.

I I

10029 2 6-140 1

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION CONSTRUCTION PRO,3ECT

SUMMARY

Northeast Utilities Millstone 3 P&rformance Area System Status Controls Objective No. TC.6

{

Evaluator (s) P. Nardone and P. Moyer

, l

. IV. Areas of Weekness and Carrective Action; Good Practices No findings.

i J

i 1

i,

-, _ _ ~, - . _ - - - . - - _ - - - - . ,

_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _