EPRI/SQURTS Process Test Rep Feedback Survey

Choose week number: Note: please select projects which you were witness of...
UtilityManufacturerDescriptionModelSup.DueRec'dSubmit'lTT Proj
FENOC / Davis-BesseLambda ElectronicsPower SupplyLXS-CC-28RTrentec5-Mar22-Decnever quoted
FENOC / Davis-BesseLambdaPower SupplyLNS-Z-15Trentec5-Mar18-FebCJ1401
FENOC / Davis-BesseAlco ControlsSolenoid valve240RA12T7-MTrentec5-Mar4-JunQuote#47169-no PO
FirstEnergy Corp (FE-BV)ATCRELAY, TIMING, 24 VDC, AND RESISTOR P/N: 3652602600365C300N30PXQualTech5-Mar15-Dec1-JunCJ752
PSEG-Nuclear, LLCGENERAL ELECTRIC CO.RELAY, MULTI-TRIP / AUXILIARY, 48VDC COILHFA53J44HQualTech5-Mar20-JanCJ1431
FENOC / Davis-BesseAutomation IndustriesPower SupplyCEA6A480Y252FLP3Trentec5-Mar22-DecQuote 21247-2905
UtilityManufacturerDescriptionModelSup.DueRec'dSubmit'lTT Proj
SRRCashPressure Control ValveG-60, Valve#10585Utility5-Mar4-Jan
SNC / GPC - Plant HatchGESelector Switch, Maintained Contact, 4 Position, w/ Yellow Ring, QualTech Prop #CQ1385CR2940UB207WQualTech5-Mar17-Nov
SNC / GPC - Plant HatchGErelay, 300V, 4pole, 3NO, 1NC contacts, 115-120VAC Coil, #CQ1547CR120A03102AA relayQualTech5-Mar17-Nov
XCEL / ProcurementStruthers DunnRelay & Socket219BBX222NE / 27390QualTech5-Mar4-JanCJ1363
SRRCameron/BartonDelta P Gauge227C w/224C DPU, 0-600 in wcUtility5-Mar4-Jan
SRRCashPressure Control ValveFRM-2 S1-S0 @ 160Psi, valve#10673Utility5-Mar4-Jan
SRRSpencePressure Control Valve#710EADE-A250 (250Psi)Utility5-Mar4-Jan
SRRCameron/BartonDelta P Gauge227C w/224C DPU, 0-600 in wcUtility5-Mar5-Jan
SRRCameron/BartonDelta P Gauge227C w/224C DPU, 0-600 in wcUtility5-Mar5-Jan
SRRRegoPressure Relief Valve#PRV19432T350 ASME SEC VIIIUtility5-Mar5-Jan
SRRCameron/BartonDelta P Gauge227C w/ 224C DPU, 0-600 IN WCUtility5-Mar5-Jan
Wolf CreekFisher ControlsREGULATOR, PRESSURE, 0-20 PSIG, 1/4 IN NPT, REDUCING, 250 PSIG MAX INLET, STAINLESS STEEL, WITH FLUOP/N FS67CR-205/V/VP/PM3Utility5-Mar10-Jan
SRRCPIPressure GaugeG-21, 2 1/2" Dial, 0-400 PsiUtility5-Mar4-Jan
Witness Information:
Witness Name:
Email:
Utility:

Test Item Submittals:
Were submittals received in a timely manner?:
Were submittals completed with required information?:
Did submittals adequately identified any needs?:
Was the information supplied on the submittals accurate?:
Comments:

Test Schedule:
Was the schedule developed and available in time to accommodate you?:
Was the schedule followed?:
Was your input solicited in schedule formation?:
Were your scheduling needs met?:
Comments:

Test Plans:
Were the plans submitted to you timely enough for review?:
Did the plans adequately meet your needs?:
Were sponsoring utility plan reviews and approvals timely?:
Were required plan revisions made in a timely fashion?:
Comments:

Test Setup:
Were Trentec supplied test samples avail. to support test schedule?:
Were utility supplied test samples avail. to support test schedule?:
Were utility supplied test samples packaged appropriately for shipment to Trentec?:
Were Trentec supplied fixtures available to support the test schedule?:
Were utility supplied fixtures available to support the test schedule?:
Were Trentec supplied hardware available to support the test schedule?:
Were utility supplied hardware available to support the test schedule?:
Were the tests set up and ready to go in accordance with the test schedule?:
Comments:

Test Performance:
Were all baseline functional tests performed in advance?:
Were all baseline functional anomalies identified and addressed?:
Were sismic operability tests performed in accordance with the test plans?:
Were items monitored appropriately during seismic events?:
Was the sponsoring utility contacted for any problems?:
If so, were the contacts specified on the submittal available and helpful?:
Were site-specific tests levels provided in case items did not meet generic levels?:
Did the seismic table perform without difficulty?:
Comments:

Test Sample Performance:
Did any test items perform abnormally?:
Were there any modifications required to make a test sample pass?:
Was the item description provided by the utility/manufacturer accurate and adequate?:
Were any lessons learned to help procure an item better?:
Comments:

Personnel:
Were Trentec personnel available and prepared to conduct and monitor tests?:
Were Trentec personnel technically capable of addressing problems?:
Were Trentec personnel courteous and helpful?:
Comments:

Overall:
Identify any strong points in this test sequence:
Identify any weak points in this test sequence:
General Comments: