ML20074A771

Affidavit of RP Tuetken on J Hughes Allegations Re Welding. Welding of Brace to Pressure Pipe Proper,If Performed Per Design Specs.Util Conducting Reinsp of Work Performed by Contractor QC Inspectors

ML20074A771
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	05/11/1983
From:	Tuetken R COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:
References
NUDOCS 8305160060
Download: ML20074A771 (3)

Text

.

i 3N4 g,

~

uwawu & $ W

>Y 9

//A

" P ' 'ITIL FAC..,,,,,mm#

77 V-la AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD P. TUETKEN 4,

k 2,

'~

4 q

%G*$aky ll I,

Richard P. Tuetken, state on oath:

p My name is Richard P.

Tuetken.

I am the Assistant Superintendent, Project Construction Department, at the Byron Station, and in that capacity I exercise supervision, both directly and through Commonwealth Edison Company engineers, of the contractors performing work at the station for Commonwealth Edison Company.

Among the contractors that I supervise is Hatfield Electric Company.

I am familiar with the allagations concerning welding made by John Hughes, as those allegations are set out in the handwritten statement submitted by Mr. Hughes to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on April 25, 1983.

The following paragraphs are in response to those allegations.

1.

Because Mr. Hughes' assertions with regard to welding do not identify specific instances of the problems he raises, I can respond to them only in a general fashion.

With regard to Mr. Hughes' assertion concerning the welding of a brace to a pressure pipe, such welding often is proper, for any number of reasons -- the configuration could be per design, the pipe could be temporary only, etc.

If such a configuration were improper, subsequent inspections would identify the problem and resolve it.

EXHIBIT A i

8305160060 830511 PDR ADOCK 05000454 0

PDR

i 2.

Although Mr. Hughes asserts that he saw welds with uneven profile, excessive undercut, and " pinging of welds," the design specifications for such weld character-istics may be different than those Mr. Hughes found in his earlier employment.

Without knowing the specific welds to which Mr. Hughes is referring, I cannot determine whether the characteristics discussed by Mr. Hughes are outside of design specifications.

3.

In response to NRC Non-compliance Item 454/87-05-19, 455/82-04-19, which involves the certification of contractor quality control inspectors, Commonwealth Edison has undertaken to conduct a reinspection of the work performed by such inspectors of all Byron contractors, including Hatfield.

It provides that for every fifth inspector each inspection performed by the inspector during his first three months on the job will be reinspected.

I f' an inspector's work fails to meet the established accepta-bility level, the next three months of the inspector's work will be reinspected.

If this work also fails to be accept-able, the original sample size of inspectors (20%) will be increased by 50%.

This reinspection program includes review of Hatfield inspections, including inspections of welds.

It now appears that an additional sampling of Hatfield inspec-tors' work might be required to be reinspected because of the possible failure of two Hatfield inspectors to meet

' )

1 I

3-I acceptability criteria with regard to thsir inspection of,

welds.

ny p oi>5e..s involvin'g' QaYds' will he identified and apprcpriately resolved.

[

l t

i Gah.4_..

? [$nr/1oje:s

[

alehard F. Tuatkan E

d

.s

. Subscribed and sworn to i

before tre this /MS dav i

~

of

'h.L 1993.

f.i

)

~1 Y

g/ '

s

-in -

f f f. -.

+

N0tiry Public

,'s-c :., ;. );j s 'l ;,.

e.,

i t

i,

,. ; i

\\ s. \\ t ci;. ; c.

l

%'. Y..

s

. /

• t

'l i

c l

t s

s b'

• t 4

s t

s 1

=

e i-s i

fe-9-e er' = e p

• w-wy e

T-r-.mgww.--w we-. iy gew.ycw-r9--,me2 weger=egp p,wweee.,93g-*g*"3

- eeW

-vg-eem em

-.--we%we g

w.-

y-w<wgm*Nep N m ea-l-7+y--r----7w1 gr N'w-yr-T-M

_