ML20084K076
| ML20084K076 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 01/12/1984 |
| From: | Delgeorge L COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20084K075 | List: |
| References | |
| 7936N, NUDOCS 8405110095 | |
| Download: ML20084K076 (114) | |
Text
_
/
Commonwealth Edison g
Ie
) One First Natiotal Plaza. Chicago. Ilhnois
, (/
Ny} Chicago, Illinois 60690 Address Reply to: Post Ofhce Box 767 v
January 12, 1984 Mr. James G. Keppler Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Subject:
Byron Generating Station Units 1 and 2 Inspector Qualification and Certification Inspection Report Nos. 50-454/82-05 and 50-454/82-04
References:
(a) February 23, 1983 letter from W. L. Stiede to J. G. Keppler (b) October 28, 1983 letter from L.O. DelGeorge to J. G. Keppler (c) November 18, 1983 letter from R. L. Spessard to Cordell Reed
Dear Mr. Keppler:
This letter provides a summary report of the actions taken to verify the adequacy of QC inspections performed during construction of Byron Generating Station. This reinspection program was undertaken as outlined in reference (a). Reference (b) provided a preliminary report. The enclosed report contains updated information and additional details requested by Region III in reference (c).
The enclosed report summarizes the results of the reinspection program described in reference (a). This report contains final data on physical reinspection activities for all contractors except one. The work of one Hatfield weld inspector is still being reviewed. The Hatfield data should be finalized by February 10, 1984. A supplement to this report will be provided at that time. That supplement will also document an additional engineering evaluation of the significance of some of the discrepancies encountered in the reinspection program.
The interim report provided in reference (b) documented the results of reinspections of the first three months' work of 104 of 356 QC inspectors involved in construction activities at Byron Station. Included in that report were the results of visual weld inspections made by a Commonwealth Edison Level III inspector. Our Level III inspector had reviewed some of the welds which were rejected by contractor Level II and Level III inspectors.
In some situa-tions the CECO Level III found the welds to be acceptable and his determinations were deemed to be conclusive in the results reported in reference (b).
In reference (c) the NRC instructed Commonwealth Edison to discount the results of 5110095 840203 ADOCK05000g rJ g zgg4
t J. G. Keppler
. January 12, 1984 the CECO Level III reinspections in preparing our report and to rely entirely upon the results of the independent Level II and Level III reinspectors.
Accordingly, the results of CECO Level III reinspections are not tabulated in the enclosed report.
When only the results of the reinspections by independent Level II and Level III reinspections are considered, the acceptance criteria established in reference (a) for the initial 3 months work are not satisfied for six QC inspectors. The reinspection program calls for reinspection of additional 3 month samples in this situation. Accordingly, additional reinspections have been undertaken for three contractors. The extra reinspection work is complete for two of the three contractors. As described earlier, reinspection of one Hatfield inspector's work is still in progress.
The results of the additional inspections are included in this report.
Also included in this report is a summary of engineering evaluations of the various types of deficiencies which were noted in the reinspection program. These evaluations showed that the type of deficiencies are insigni-ficant from a safety standpoint. Engineering evaluation of Peabody deficiencies is still in progress but those evaluations are not expected to alter this conclusion. These evaluations indicate that the reinspection program is confirming the quality of construction at Byron Generating Station.
To the best of my knowledge and belief the statements contained herein and in the attachment are true and correct. In some respects these statements are not based on my personal knowledge but upon information furnished by other Ccmmonwealth Edison and contractor employees and consultants. Such information has been reviewed in accordance with Company practice and I believe it to be reliable.
Please direct further questions to this office.
Very truly yours, L. O. DelGeorge h
Assistant Vice President TRT/im 7936N
i
's a
.t REPORT ON REINSPECTION CONDUCTED AS A RESULT OF NONCOWLIANCE ITEM 50-454/82-05-19 & 50-455/82-04-19 January 12, 1984
,7936N
e s
7 l
i I
CONTENTS l
I i
I SYNOPSIS II BACXGROUND i
III SCOPE IV DEPTH OF REINSPECTION PROGRAM t
V REINSPECTION RESULTS VI QUALITY ASSURANCE CONTROL OF REINSPECTION PROGRAi4 VII SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCREPANCIES APPENDIX A REINTECTION RESULTS BY TYPE / AREA 0F CERTIFICATION APPENDIX B REINSPECTION RESULTS BY INSPECTOR APPENDIX C SUBJECTIVE INSPECTION DISCREPANCIES - EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE APPENDIX D OBJECTIVE INSPECTION DISCREPANCIES - EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE i
7936N t
a
I.
SYNOPSIS l
l l
The reinspection program conducted as a result of concerns defined in IE Inspection Rooort Nos. 50-454/82-05 and 50-455/82-04 associated with the qualifi-cation and certification of inspection personnel is nearly completed. The results demonstrate the past and present capability of the quality control / quality assurance inspection personnel to perform the measurements (he quality ofinterp comparisons, and judgements associated with evaluetion of l
Installation of structures, components, and assemblies at the Byron Generating Station.
A preliminary report dated October 28, 1983 was submitted to the W clear Regulatory Commission Region III office. Comments en the preliminary report were Identified in NRC - Region III letter dated November 18, 1983. As a result of comment i of the November 18th letter, physical reinspection activitles are complete except for one weld inspector at Hetfield. The compilation and analysis
,cf dMe, and engineering analysis of the significance of discrepancies founo is l
complete. The results of the Program, which are discussed in greater detail in l
subsequent sections, are summarized below by contractor.
TA8LE 1.1 REIN 98ECTION PROGRAM Sthe4%RY (5)
Wmber of Reinspection Wmber of Reinspection Objective Results Subjective Results Contractor Reinspections Acceptable (l)
Reinspections Acceptable (2)
Blount 2,390 98.84 0
N/A l
Johnson Controls 7,812 99.44 1,499 95.54 Hunter 69,624 99.04 3,725 97.04 l
Nisco 2,792 99.64 229 100.04 Hatfield Electric 58,718 96.74 24,090(4) 92.64(4) l Powers-Azco-Fope 8,036 95.8%
6,648 86.04(3)
Pittsburgh Testing 7,269 99.14 5,662 87.24(6)
Peabody Testing 0
N/A 163 74.84(3) l Note (1): Program Acceptance Criteria is 95.04 (2): Program Acceptance Criteria is 90.04 (3): 100E of accessible work was reinspected for those Inspectors who did not echieve the required Program Acceptance Criteria.
l (4): All inspections included except the remaining 60 day of one weld Inspector.
(5): Results concurred in b/ Independent Third Party inspector.
l (6): Expansion made to include 1004 of reinspectable inspectors.
i
e A
f 0,
A large percentage of the deficiencies recorded in the reinspection program involved subjective attributes. Subjective attributes are those in which review of the work performed required the inspector (and reinspector) to make en item-by-Item judgment of ottributs quality based on visual observation, as opposed to the quan-tifiable characteristics ^ f objective attributes.
u Examples of subject! u attributes include weld overlap and undercut, while examples of objective attributes include component size and material type. A significant portion of the deficleocles identified upon initial reinspection involved subjective weld attributes.= In August, a review of the initial reinspection effort by the NRC staff' suggested that the inspectors performing the reinspections were Interpreting criteria in an excessively conservative manner.
Third party rev!r.w of initist reinspections or subjective weld attributes confirm the excessive conservatirm in applying criterlo for the acceptability of such attx1 outed. Thus in many situations attributes which were rejected upon initial reinspection nere found to be acceptable upon third party reinspection manaqed by Sergent & Lundy. Engineering analysis has demonstrated that even those sub;ective weld attributes rejected after both levels of third party review provide an appropriate factor of safety.
Section II, BACxrFOUNO describes the evolution of events which lead to reinspection program and provides a brief description of the reinspection program criteria.
Sect 1un III, SCOPC descrlhet, in brief form the quantity of features reinspected and prWlWs a brief description ov' the resources required to execute the reinspection effort.
Section IV, DCPfH Of RCINPCCT!CN M0 rpm provides data in a format which describes the voluGTMeiGRt"6TTEFTrInspection program.
Section V, RCINPCCTION nt"iULTS provides e sumary by contractor of the results
~
for the inspectors selected for rctnspection ngainst the threshold established by the criterla for demonstration of acceptnbility, j
Sectica VI, QUALITY AWMANt'C CONMOL OF RCINTCCTION PHOCRAM describes the Quality Asburance activities'perfortned to establish and vertry that the reinspection program was properly impleaented.
APPC OIX A, RCINPCCTION RCSIA,7C RV TYPC/AeCA Or CCRitFICATION and APPCNDIX ther,C"NPCCI'!ONRESULT5OYINMCTS(presentthedetailedstatisticscreatedby R
8 e..nspection program.
APPCPO!X C, StAUCCf!W INPCCT10N DISCRrPANCICS CVALUATION Or SIGN!PICANCC and APPCNDIX D, dDIM INTECTION OMMEPANCICS - EVAtuATION OF SI@IFICANCE
)
present a descri[pTIcn or die types oMiicrepancies Identirled in the reinspect program, the corrective actions taken, and engineering analysis of significance of the.1dentified discrepencies.
1 79HM
, II. BACKGROUND An NRC special team inspection was conducted at Byron Station during the period of March 29-31, April 1-2, 5-9,12-14, and May 11, h was an apparentDuring the 1982.
inspaction several violations were identified, one of whic noncompliance with the requirements for the initial qualifications of personnel who perform inspection, examination and testing to verify conformance to saccified requirements. The Notice of Violation dated June 24, 1982 identified ;his as noncompliance 82-05-19/82-04-19. The noncompliance letter also requested that Commonwealth Edison assure the validity of Inspections performed by quality control inspectors who were deemed to be improperly trained and quellfled.
The issue of noncompliance item 82-05-19/82-04-19, was one where the NRC Inspector found that the contractor programs for qualifying Q.A./Q.C.
personnel at Byron were inconsistent with the current NRC Interpretation of the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6-1978. Specifically the Inspector found deficiencies in the contractor's evaluations of initlal inspector capabill-ties, in documentation of initial certification, and in the criteria used to establish inspector qualification. The NRC staff did not find that these procedural deficiencies had compromised the quality of plant construction.
However, in issuing the violation, they made it clear that the qualification programs were to be upgraded and the quality of work already completed was to be verifled in some manner.
With the completion of the reinspection program outlined below, those obligations have been met.
Over the years, inspector certification practices have been continually upgraded to remain consistent with the changing interpretation of the applic-able standard, ANSI N45.2.6. Prior to this NRC inspection, Commonwealth Edison had re11ed largely upon reinspections, audits and surveillances to assure the effectiveness of contractor programs for certification of QC inspectors. As a result of NRC concerns stated during the inspection, on April 27 1982, the Byron site contractors were instructed to revise their certifica, tion practices to incotporate standard features and methods established by Commonwealth Edison. These features and methods were further upgraded on June 9,1982 based on comments from NRC Inspectors. Contractor programs were all revised by September 30, 1982.
In the bly 30, 1982 response to the Notice of Violation, Commonwealth Edison outlined a program which would validate previous QC inspections. This was to be accomplished by requalifying the inspector, reviewing the inspector's qualifications to new criteria, or by overinspection of a portion of the inspector's work. The NHC found that this verification program did not adequately address the quality of inspections performed early in the inspector's employment over the full course of the plant construction period.
Alternate verification programs were discussed with the NRC during several meetings. Options discussed included a " vertical slice" reinspection program j
s.
. involving complete multi-disciplinary reinspection of representative plant areas. Also discussed was a reevaluation of all inspectors' qualifications and experience according to a complex formula. Finally, an extensive program of reinspections was agreed upon and documented in a Commonwealth Edison letter dated February 23, 1983. A program of reinspections was initiated i
which would verify on a contractor-by-contractor basis the adequacy of past QC inspector training and certification practices at Byron Station.
A brief summary of:the reinspection program follows:
A(1) For 6 contractors, every 5th inspector selected (NRC Senior Resident Inspector added from 2 to '4 inspectors per contractor).
A(2) For 2 contractors, every inspector selected.
B~
For each selected inspector, each individual inspection performed during the inspectors first three months reinspected, where accessible.
l C
Reinspection conducted utilizing inspection criteria applicable to initial inspection period.
D(1) Inspections classified as objective require 95% agreement i
rate in repeat inspection.
D(2). Inspections classified as subjective require 9% agreement rate in repeat inspection.
D(3) Subjective inspections would be subject to independent third party review to establish true rejectability.
E When selected inspector failed to achieve 95% agreement rate on objective inspections, or 90% agreement rate on subjective inspections; then additional three months of inspection work reinspected for the type of inspection which failed to achieve required agreement rate.
F If selected inspector failed to achieve 95% agreement rate or 9% agreement rate, as appropriate, in second three month period, then all inspections performed by the inspector of tne type which failed would be reinspected; and the original sample size of inspectors would be increased by 5 %.
In an effort to identify deficiencies in certification programs, this reinspection program focuses on the quality of the work performed by QC inspectors immediately after their certification.
It covers the entire period of a contractor's work on site and it acknowledges that all inspections are i
repeatable in varying degrees, depending upon the subjectivity of the feature
r _
i.
, being inspected.
It contains conservative acceptance criteria. It also provides for higher level overinspections to compensate for possible excessively conservative application of acceptance criteria by reinspectors and provides for expansion of the reinspections when a deficiency in the contractor's certification program is apparent.
In the course of development and execution of the reinspection program, it became necessary to establish a minimum quantity of items to be reinspected by each inspector chosen in order to create an adequate data base for evaluation. When the minimum quantity established was not obtained in the first three-month period, reinspection went beyond the initial three-month period in order to achieve the minimum quantity.
In these cases where a selected inspector did not function as an inspector for a three month period and did not have the minimum inspection quantity in this period, the results of the reinspection were recorded and evaluated based on the population which existed. If,.in such a case, the inspector failed to achieve the threshold established by the criteria for demonstration of acceptability, the next (sequentially by date) inspector certified was added to the selected population.
In order to assure that reinspection results were consistent and accurate, the program accepted by the NRC provided for a third party overinspection of subjective attributes to review the determinations made by the initial reinspectors.
The provisions for the third party review recognized the judgmental nature of the reinspection of subjective attributes such as weld i
surface quality. As previously indicated to the Region III Staff, and as documented herein, Sargent & Lundy managed the initial third party review.
During the course' of execution of the reinspection activities, the NRC Region III staff conducted numerous reviews of the activities and maintained a relatively high level of involvement in the proceedings.
Inspection Report Nos. 50-454/83-26, 50-454/83-37, 50-454/83-38 and 50-454/83-39 summarize relevant site inspections, t
7
r 4
. III. SCOPE The reinspection program began February 22,.1983 by meeting with contrac-tors to identify purpose and content of the activities to be performed. The individual inspectors selected to be reinspected was established, and the process of record search to identify individual inspections to be reinspected was initiated.
The quantity of inspectors reinspected is presented in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Quantity Of Inspectors Reinspected i
Total Number Of Percent Of Population Of Inspectors Inspectors Contractor Inspectors Reinspected Reinspected Blount 28 8
29%
5 (1) 71%*
Hunter 84 22 26%
NISCo 8
4 50%
Hatfield Elec.
86 23 27%
Powers-Azco-Pope 21 19 (1) 90%
Pittsburgh Testing 85 23 28%
Peabody Testing 37 6 (1) 16%
TOTAL:
356 110 31%
r NOTE (1):
1100% of the inspector population was reviewed for performance of the reinspection. Those inspectors not included had no reinspectable items.
7936N
~
/
. j'
. The quantity of individual inspections reinspected is presented in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Quantity Of Items Reinspected Number Of Number Of Number Of Inspector Objective Subjective Months Contractor Inspections Inspections Reinspected
- Blount 2,390 0
89 Johnson Controls 7,812 1,459 22 Hunter 69,626 3,728 65 NISCo 2,792 229 12 Hatfield Elec.
58,718 24,090**
65**
Powers-Azco-Pope 8,036 6,648 149 Pittsburgh Testing 7,269 5,662 112 Peabody Testing 0
163 20 TOTAL:
156,643 41,979**
534**
The reinspection effort required a significant commitment of manhours and materials to execute. Af ter February 22, 1983 it took three weeks to search inspection records to establish the initial volume of individual inspections to be reinspected. Actual conduct of reinspection began March 14, 1983. The reinspections were performed by quality control inspectors who were qualified and certified by the contractors to the methods established as a result of the corrective action in response to noncompliance 82-05-19/82-04-19. Through December 23, 1983 thirty weeks of reinspection have been conducted with the accumulation of 1166 inspector weeks expended. In order to perform the inspections it was necessary to erect scaffolding, remove paint, fireproofing, insulation, etc. These activities through December 23, 1983 have accumulated over 3144 man weeks of craft labor support. The reinspection operation has been functioning nominally on 58 hour6.712963e-4 days <br />0.0161 hours <br />9.589947e-5 weeks <br />2.2069e-5 months <br /> work weeks.
Through December 1983 over 247,556 manhours of effort have been expended in the execution of the reinspection program.
- NOTE:
This is total amount of 3-month periods and any necessary expansion of original Inspector's activity.
- NOTE:
Inprocess; actual amount greater than shown.
D
+
4
, IV. DEPTH OF REINSFECTION PROGRAM The method established for selection of inspectors to be reinspected was
- formulated to be representative of inspectors over the duration of tne project from the beginning to the point where methods employed to qualify and certify inspectors were revised to address the NRC Inspectors concerns of noncompliance 82-05-19/82-04-19.
In order to test the selected population of inspectors relative to the areas of qualification of the total population of inspectors, a comparison was performed. The results of the comparison are presented on a contractor basis l
.in Tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5,'4.6, 4.7, and 4.8.
Table 4.1 - Blount Number Of Number Of Percent Area Of Inspectors Qualified Inspectors In Included In Qualification In Area Area Reinspected Reinspection Concrete 12 2
17%
Masonry 6
2 33%
Concrete Expansion Anchors 5
2 40%
Weld Inspection / Structural 11 4
36%
Post-Tensioning
- 10 0
0%
Cadwelding*
4 0
0%
Calibration
- 5 0
0%
Fire-Proofing
- 3 0
0%
Receiving
- 6 0
0%
NOTE:
- areas of inspection which cannot be recreated for a reinspection.
Table 4.2 - Johnson Controls Number Of Number Of Percent Area Of -
Inspectors Qualified Inspectors In Included In Qualification In Area Area Reinspected Reinspection Visual Inspection 7
5-71%
Table 4.3 - Hunter Number Of Number Of Percent Area Of Inspectors Qualified Inspectors In Included In Qualification In Area Area Reinspected Reinspection Piping / Hangers 57 17 30%
Piping 6
1 17%
Piping As-Built 21 5
24%
t m
e w,-r,-
w
,emo
,y r.---
i 7
i
! i Table 4.4 - NISCo Number Of Number Of Percent Area Of Inspectors Qualified Inspectors In Included In i
Walification In Area Area Reinspected Reinspection Visual Welding 6
4 6A Mechanical 6
4 67%
Table 4.5 - Hatfield Number Of Number Of Percent Area Of Inspectors Walified Inspectors In Included In Qualification In Area Area Reinspected Reinspection Visual Welding 20 8
40%
Conduit Installation 21 6
29%
Cable Terminations 21 5
24%
Equipment Installation 14 2
14%
Equipment Modification 12 2
17%
Cable Pan Installation 21 1
5%
Cable Pan Hanger 22 2
9%
Conduit As-Builts 28 8
29%
A-325 Bolting Insp.
11 1
9%
Table 4.6 - Powers-Azco-Pope l
Number Of Number Of Percent Area Of Inspectors Qualified Inspectors In Included In Qualification In Area Area Reinspected Reinspection Welding Inspector 20 19 95%
Receiving Inspector
- 2 0
0%
- Indicates areas of inspection which cannot be recreated for a reinspection
?
h I
t
P S
. Table 4.7 - Pittsburgh Testing Wmber Of Wmber Of Percent Area Of Inspectors Qualified Inspectors In Included In QJalification In Area Area Reinspected Reinspection Concrete Expansion Anchors / Structural 43 9
21%
Visual Welding 23 14 61%
Concrete-Field / Lab / Plant
- 93 0
0%
Soils - Field / Lab
- 29 0
0%
Cadweld*
10 0
0%
Post-Tensioning
- 3 0
0%
Fireproofing*
4 0
0%
- 2 0
0%
Calibration
- 17 0
0%
Electrical
- 12 0
0%
- Indicates areas of inspection which cannot be recreated for reinspection.
For example, inspection of fireproofing and coatings are performed on the surfaces to be coated and during the coating process rather than after the application is complete. Electrical inspec.tions were of cable tray cleanliness and cable pulling tension.
i t
m
~t v-w r-w
4 i
- Table 4.8 - Peabody Testing Number Of Number Of Percent Area Of Inspectors Qualified Inspectors In Included In Qualification In Area Area Reinspected Reinspection Visual Welding /
Structural Steel 6
6 100%
Concrete
- 28 0
0%
Soils
- 20 0
0%
Cadweld*
8 0
0%
- 1 0
0%
Calibration
- 1 0
0%
- Indicates areas of inspection which cannot be recreated for a reinspection In order to test the selected population of inspectors and their corresponding volume of time reinspected to the volume of time of inspections accumulated, a comparison was performed. The results of the comparison are presented in Table 4.9 TABLE 4.9 Percent of Total Accumulated Reinspected Inspection Inspection Months Inspection Months Months Reinspected Blount 424 89 21%
Johnson Controls 60 22 37%
L HJnter 1, 10 7 65 6%
l NISCo 51 12 24%
(
Hatfield Elec.
628 68 11%
i Powers-Azco-Pope 352 149 98%
Pittsburgh Testing 1,015 115 11%
Peabody Testing 181 20 11%
TOTAL:
3,618 540 15%
l l
Tables 3.1 and 4.1 thru 4.8 demonstrate that the sampling basis achieved the selection of a significant portion of the population of inspectors, and achieved the selection of a significant portion of the inspector population in an area of certification. Tables 3.2 and 4.9 demonstrate that a significant quantity of items and percentage of inspection activities were covered through this sampling basis. -Die sample of one out of five on a chronological basis I
was a technique which resulted in inspections of work of many types and of l
varied types being reinspected. Even though the percentages varied somewhat,
[
we are confident that the results are typical of the whole.
6
, V.
REINSPECTION RESULTS The results of the reinspection program are presented on a by contractor basis in Tables 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, and 5.8.
Performance of the individual contractors by type / area of certification can be found in Appendix A.
Performance of individual inspector by each attribute can be found in Appendix B.
Table 5.1 - Blount Inspection Status Of Type Reinspection Condition s
Objective Complete All 8 inspectors who performed objective inspections, acceptable at end of first 3 month period.
Subjective Not Applicable All inspections included in o
reinspection population classified as objective.
Table 5.2 - Johnson Controls Inspection Status Of Type Reinspection Condition Objective Complete 4 inspectors who performed objective inspections, acceptable at end of first 3 month period.
1 inspector who performed objective inspections did not have minimum quantity in first 3 nonth period, nor in second 3 month period, nor in total of inspections, all of his work was reinspected.
i Subjective Complete All 4 inspectors who performed subjective inspections, acceptable at end of first 3 month period.
,m-p--,-
,a9,e
-3
+-wa y,
y m
m-mm-s w
, Table 5.3 - Hunter Inspection Status Of
-Type Reinspection Condition Objective Complete 19 inspectors who performed objective inspections, acceptable at end of first 3 month period.
1 inspector who performed objective inspections did not have minimum quantity in first 3 month period, nor in second 3 month period, nor in total of inspections, all of his work was reinspected.
Subjective Complete 15 inspectors who performed subjective inspections, acceptable at end of first 3 month period.
1 inspector who performed subjective inspections and failed his first 3 month period did not have minimum quantity in his second 3 month period. All of his work was reinspected and an additional inspector was substituted.
The additional inspector's first 3-month's work was reinspected and found acceptable.
l Table 5.4 - NISCo 1
Inspection Status Of Type Reinspection Condition Objective Complete All 4 inspectors who performed objective inspections, acceptable at end of first 3 month period.
l Subjective Complete All 4 inspectors who performed subjective inspections, acceptable at end of first 3 month period.
l w
w am-w-ww
,-,-wrw-
F r
t
. 4 0
Table 5.5 --Hatfield Electric Inspection Status Of Type-Reinspection Condition l
Objective Complete All 16 inspectors who performed i
objective inspections, acceptable at end of first 3 month period.
[
' Subjective Inprocess 6 inspectors who performed I
subjective inspections, acceptable at end of first 3 month period.
1 inspector who performed
(
subjective inspection, failed to achieve the necessary threshold i
(85.9% versus 90%) at end of first 3 month period and had no more reinspectable work. An additional inspector was substituted.
t
[
Reinspection of the additional inspector's first three months work is about 50% complete and is i
expected to be complete in early February.
E u
4 P
e
?
f t
c ~,, -..
, - - - =, - - - -.. --,,
. - - ~. -
. Table 5.6 - Powers-Azco-Pope Inspection Status Of Type Reinspection Condition Objective Complete 12 inspectors who performed objective inspections, acceptable at end of period *.
2 inspectors who performed objective inspections did not have minimum' quantity in period *,
all of his work was reinspected.
5 inspectors who performed objective inspections unacceptable at end of period *,
all of their work was reinspected.
Subjective Complete 7 inspectors who performed subjective inspections, acceptable at end of period *.
2 inspectors who performed subjective inspections did not have minimum quantity in period *,
all of their work was reinspected.
10 inspectors who performed subjective inspections unacceptable at end of period *,
all of their work was reinspected.
- For this contractor, the period consisted of the first six month's work; that is, first and second three months results combined. A six month time frame was chosen due to the performance of original inspectors. The data generated during the reinspection program is not readily separable into first and second three month periods.
t 9
4
. Table 5.7 - Pittsburgh Testing Inspection Status Of Type Reinspection Condition Objective Complete 8 inspectors who performed objective inspections, acceptable at end of first 3 month period.
1 inspector who performed objective inspections, acceptable at end of second 3 month period.
Subjective Complete 6 inspectors who performed subjectiveinspections, acceptable at end of first 3 month period.
1 inspector who performed subjectiveinspectionswas unacceptable at the end of the first 3 month period but acceptable at end of second 3 month period.
2 inspectors who performed subjective inspections, unacceptable at end of first 3 month period, but did not have the minimum quantity of additional inspections available for reinspection in the second 3 mohth period. Additional inspectors were substituted as described below.
1 inspector who performed subjective inspections, unacceptable at end of both first and second 3 month periods; all of his work was reinspected. Because of this, inspector's work was not found satisfactory after reinspec-tion of his second 3 month period, the program required expansion of the sample by six inspectors.
Only four of the remaining population has accessible work so the first 3 months work of all four was reinspected.
The 4 inspectors added to the reinspection sample were acceptable at the end of first 3 month period.
t Table 5.8 - Peabody Testing Very few of this contractor's QC inspectors had reinspectable work. All of the reinspections involved visual welding. Because the quantitles were small, the work of all the reinspectable inspectors was reviewed in the
' initial sample.
Inspection States Of Type Reinspection Condition Objective Not applicable All inspection included in reinspection population classified as subjective.
Subjective Complete 3 inspectors who performed subjective inspections were not acceptable at the end of first 3 month reinspection period. None of these 3 inspectors had any additional work. All of their reinspectable work was reinspected.
3 inspectors who performed subjectiveinspectionsdidnot have minimum quantity in first 3 month period, nor in second 3 month period, nor in total of inspections. All of their reinspectable work was reinspected.
7936N
1.
VI. QUALITY ASSURANCE CONTROL OF REINSPECTION PROGRAM The Commonwealth Edison Quality Assurance Department has been actively involved in the re-certification of current on-site Q.C. Inspectors and the monitoring of the re-inspection of work performed by Q.C. inspectors who were omsite during the early stages of construction. In early 1982, Commonwealth Edison committed to re-certify all site Q.C. Inspectors to ANSI N45.2.6-1978, in accordance with guidelines and interpretations established by Edison. The Site Wality Assurance Department and Project Construction Department each assigned personnel to work full time with the site contractors to implement the re-certification program. The results of the re-certification program were, in turn, audited by the Edison General Office Q.A. Department to assure compliance to the Edison guidelines. As a result, it has established that the site contractors have properly re-certified their Q.C. Inspectors.
Audit of Re-inspection Program Implementation When the re-inspection program was established in February,1983, and re-inspections began in late March, the Site Q.A. Department performed audits and surveillances to monitor the re-inspection activity. The first audit was performed 4une 21 through July 6,1983, which was about the expected mid-point of the re-inspection program. The audit (#6-83-66) was conducted by a six man team and covered the activities of the following seven site contractors:
Hunter, Hatfield, Johnson Controls, Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories, Powers..
Azco Pope, NISCO, and Blount Brothers. The purpose of the audit was to verify that the re-inspection program was being implemented in accordance with the commitments made in the Edison letter dated February 23, 1983, from Mr. Stiede to Mr. Keppler. The audit examined:
1)
Re-inspection sample size 2)
Application of inaccessibility 3)
Third party review 4)
Disposition of discrepancies 5)
Documentation of inspection results 6)
Walifications of re-inspection personnel The audit identified two basic concerns. First, it was found that four contractors had not yet established the means for implementing actions to correct or disposition the discrepancies identified in the re-inspection process. The four contractors were Hunter, Hatfield, PTL, and Blount Brothers.
This was classified as a finding.
Second, it was found that there was some misunderstanding among the contractors regarding how to handle special problems. For example, in one case a component had been inspected in January,1980, and again in May,1982.
The contractor chose to classify the first inspection as " inaccessible"
I i
j without evaluating if the second inspection completely superseded the earlier Inspection. In another case a contractor had a Q.C. inspector who had been certified in several different disciplines within the first three months of his employment, but the contractor had only re-inspected the first discipline in which he was certified. In total, eight observations were identified which addressed issues, such as these, which needed clarification.
Overall the audit team concluded that the contractors were actively implementing the re-inspection program. The audit however, served the purpose j
of clarifying how the re-inspection guidelines were to be interpreted.
r Currently corrective action for deficiencies noted has been completed.
Contractors have dispositioned descrepancies and have or are taking the
[
appropriate corrective action. Secondly, the Project Construction Department l
has issued " Interpretations" to the contractors for areas in which clarification of the program was needed.
Special Audit af Hatfield As the re-inspection program progressed beyond the early stages, Edison Quality Assurance and Project Construction personnel became aware of problems at Hatfield in determining which welds were to be included in the r
re-inspection. These problems were primarily due to the manner in which Hatfield generated and maintained inspection records during the early years of construction. Also, the NRC advised Edison of concerns with the Hatfield inspection records. As a result, Edison Site Q.A. performed an audit to specifically address these concerns. The audit (#6-83-124) was conducted by a three man team during the period 8/24/83 through 9/1/83.
The scope of the audit included the following:
i 1)
Review documentation practices 2)
Correlation of weld record cards to welders and inspectors i
3)
Identifying the latest weld record 4)
Re-numbering hangers 5)
Re-inspection - incorrect assumptions i
6)
Procedures not being followed 5
It was found that, in some cases, it could not be determined which inspector originally. performed an inspection on a particular weld. As a result, the weld was removed from the re-inspection population in accordance with the guidelines of the re-inspection program. This helped achieve accuracy in associating weld inspections to the proper inspector. Because of y
the general manner in which the inspection records were kept, it was clear i
that personnel not familiar with all aspects of the record keeping process may
[
misunderstand the manner in which the weld traveler records were selected for t
the re-inspection program. To resolve these issues, Hatfield is currently implementing a computerized data base management system to reconcile weld 7
travelers to hangers. This should insure that the initial hanger inspections assigned to each inspector were correct and it should provide an accurate i
means for identifying those hangers which do not have complete inspection records..
..z B
_ Audit #6-83-124 remains open pending completion of corrective action.
Hatfield Electric.has completed the reconciliation of hanger and weld
-inspections (which are documented on the weld travellers). Those hangers of which there is a question of the completeness of weld travellers are being reinspected; this reinspection is expected to be complete on January 1984.
ADDITIONAL AUDITS Subsequent to the issuance of the Preliminary Report, an additional audit has been performed. Audit #6-83-93 was conducted on November 14-17,1983 to assure that conclusions drawn from the Reinspection Program would be valid and reliable.-
The scope of the audit covered the following areas:
t 1.
Accuracy of Reinspection Program results as reported to the NRC in the l
Interim Report.
2.' The design basis for the e@ineering evaluation of Visual Weld Inspection Discrepancies as described in the Interim Report.
3.
Qualifications of the third party inspectors.
4.
Documentation of third party inspections.
5.
Basis for PCD "Literpretations" in regards to the Reinspection Program.
' 6.
Correction of deficiencies identified as a result of the Reinspection Program.
The following fcur (4) areas were reviewed at each of the seven (7) contractors involved in the reinspection Program.
1.
Correction of discrepancies - All contractors with the exception of PTL and Hatfield Electric Co. were found to have identified and have or are correcting deficiencies in accordance with their approved nonconformance procedure. PTL and Hatfield have taken these actions on some deficiencies but have refrained on items in which an engineering evaluation is to be performed..
l l
2.
Expansion of an inspector's reinspection sample size and the number of _
L inspectors to be reinspected upon a failure as defined by the l
Stiede-Keppler letter of February 1983 - All contractors were found to have expanded sample size accordingly with those results given in the Interim Report.
l P
O l-i t.
[
. _.. _,__..._.-_.., -.._.,-. -.- _._.~.-- _ -, _ - _..,_.
1..
3.
Independence of the Reinspection Personnel - The reinspection personnel at each contractor were verified to have not been involved in the i
reinspection of work that they had originally inspected or had reviewed i
and accepted.
4.- Accuracy of results reported in the Interim Report - The items reviewed i
. during the audit at all contractors matched up with the exception of PTL.
During reiterations of the Reinspection Program, Pittsburgh Testing l
Laboratory overrode third party concurrence on some welding rejects.
After implementation of Interpretation 11 given in the Reinspection Program which changed the visual weld inspection criteria in the areas of l
overlap and undercut, a review was performed by PTL on reinspections i
performed for applicability of the interpretation. In this review, PTL changed the deficient status of some welds which were rejected for reasons other than those changed by the interpretation. The welds had already
. received third party concurrence for true rejectability as defined in the i
Stiede-Keppler letter of February,1983.
As corrective action, Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory will resubmit for concurrence by the independent third party inspector those PTL overcalls which changed the deficient = status of welds rejected for reasons-other than those addressed by Interpretation-11.
Also reviewed during the course of the audit were the following areas
- which were directed towards the Project Construction Department in their
-implementation of this program. -
The engineering evaluation of the Visual Weld Discrepancies performed by i
Sargent and Lundy was reviewed for adequate design basis. Calculations ~which ll support the evaluation were performed in accordance with appropriate
[
l
" Structural Design Standards" and the approved Design Control Summary. The.
j:
Design Control Summary outlines assumptions to be followed in performing the j_
. calculations. These assumptions appeared to be based on industry standards and practices.' This approach was presented to the NRC on September 22, 1983.
l i
i Those individuals who performed the third party review of subjective i
l deficiencies were properly qualified for the task. Additionally, adequate documentation of these inspections exists.
j i
L Lastly, those Interpretations offered by the Project Construction l'
~ between the guidelines of the program.
- Department during the Reinspection Program have adequate basis and fall l
l l
On the basis of this audit, QJality Assurance has concluded upon j
completion of corrective action for the deficiency noted that accurate and i
L reliable conclusions can be drawn from the Reinspection Program.
j l
I
.----r
R Qualification of Inspectors During Re-inspection In order to assure that Q.C. personnel performing re-inspections were fully
- qualified, Site Q.A. directed PTL to perform a surveillance to verify that their inspectors could independently arrive at the same inspection results as the contractors Q.A. inspectors who were performing the re-inspections. The surveillance ran from August 1,1983 to September 19, 1983. The results show a correlation ranging from 94% to 100% and it appears that the contractor's Q.C. personnel doing re-inspections are doing accurate and acceptable work.
Conclusion Based on the above information, Quality Assurance concluded the following:
1)
Edison commitments in the February 23, 1983 letters were properly implemented.
2)
Re-inspectors have done acceptable work.
3)
Based on results to date, Q.C. inspectors who were on-site during the early stages of construction did acceptable work.
I 1
l l
c
,~-
l
- l VII. SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCREPANCIES All discrepancies identified as a part of the reinspection are being corrected either by physical rework to correct the condition or by detailing the condi-tion on nonconformance reports to perform engineering analysis to determine acceptability of the condition without correction. The determination as to the course of action employed to disposition the condition is a function of the estimate of the more cost effective path to resolution. That is, when it appears that the cost to physically correct condition is less than the costs associated with detailing data and performing an engineering analysis, then physical correction is chosen, and vice versa.
In addition to the actiori taken to correct the individual discrepancies, an engineering analysis has been performed on selected discrepancies to establish their significance. The types of discrepancies identified are similar or identical to conditions which have previously been addressed in the history of the project and found acceptable. These types of quality
[
discrepancies are Insignificant from a safety stand-point. The results of these evaluations are provided in Appendices C and D.
As a result of comments 2 and 3 of the NRC - Region III letter dated November 18, 1983, the results of all the reinspections have been reviewed on the basis of inspection attribute to determine if additional inspections are warranted.
l For subjective attributes each contractor was analyzed in Visual Weld i
inspection using approximately 5 attributes. A total of nine subjective areas t
of certification were analyzed for the site contractors. Three contractors, Powers-Azco-Pope, Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL) and their predecessor
~
Peabody Testing Services (PTS), had problems in recreating Visual Weld
^ Inspection. -A lack of fillet weld gauge usage and length tolerances produced inaccurate inspections by some Powers-Azco-Pope weld inspectors. Presently both a dimensional tolerance and weld gauges are being used to make these i
inspections more objective. Both PTL and PTS experienced an undesireable l
failure rate for the attributes of undercut and overlap. Constant training during the Visual Weld Inspectors' tenure has much improved the consistency of calls made in the areas of undercut and overlap. Because these types of i
deficiencies were shown to be insignificant as discussed in Appendix C, no additional inspections are warranted.
l For the objective attributes each contractor was analyzed by area of certification each of which averaged approximately 5 to 10 attributes. A total of twenty-two objective areas of certification were analyzed for the site contractors. The final Hanger Inspection as performed by Powers-Azco-Pope showed approximately 73% of weld size and length accepted hangers were found to be rejectable. This problem was due to the lack of a length tolerance and fillet weld gauges during the initial inspection. Presently both a dimensional tolerance and weld gauges are employed by the contractor. No other objective inspections showed unacceptable performance. Because these types of deficien-cies were shown to be insignificant as discussed in Appendix D, no additional
[
inspections are warranted.
l v
e.i-_m.
,rv
-,g-
--,w-m-...
.-y-
.t-p.---
,.%.-,--erw
-m-gr r
-- - - ---- -?n--
. APPENDIX-A REINSPECTION RESULTS BY TYPE / AREA 0F CERTIFICATION A tabulation of inspection results by inspection type and by inspection area of certification is presented on a by contractor basis in Tables A.1, A.2, A.3,. A.4, A.5, A.6, A.7, and A.8.
Appendix B shows actual quantities of cceeptable and rejectable results by attribute. Expansion sample period rssults indicate results for the reinspection of an inspector's second 3 months work.
Table A.1 - Blount Bros.
I.
Results By Inspection Type Reinspection Results (Acceptable) l Level II I Independent Third l Type l
Reinspection l
Party Review l
I I
I Subjective l
(2) l (1) l l
l l
1 1
I Objective 1
98.8%
l (1) l I
I I
II. Results By Inspection Attribute l
Initial Sample Period l
Expansion Sample Period i
I I
I
_l No. Of I
l No. Of I
l People l
Final %
l People l
Final %
Attribute l Reinspected 1 Acceptable I
Reinspected 1 Acceptable i
I i
- 1. Weld Detail l l
l 4
l 98.7%
l (1) l (1) l I
I I
(Cbjective) l l
l l
- 2. Concrete l
l l
l l
2 l
10 06 l
(1) l (1) l l
l l
(Objective) l l
l l
l l
- 3. Masonry l
l l
l l
2 l
99.4%
l (1)
I (1)
I I
(Objective) l I
i l
l ll 1
- 4. Concrete 1
l l
l Expansion l
2 1
96.1%
l (1) l (1)
Anchor l
l l
l (Objective) l l
l l
(1) Not required (2) Not applicable
t Table A.2 - Johnson Controls I.
Results By Inspection Type Reinspection Results (Acceptable)-
l Level II I Independent Third l
-Type l'
Reinspection
-l Party Review
- I I
I I
Subjective 1
94.9%
l 95.5%
l 1
(1386/1459)-
l (1394/1459)-
l l
l l
Objective 1
99.4%
l (1) l I
I I
II. Results By Inspection Attribute l
Initial Sample Period l
Expansion Sample Period I
I I
I i
No. O f I
l No. Of I
l People l
Final %
l People l
Final %
Attribute Reinspected Acceptable 1 -Reinspected l Acceptable i
I
- 1. Visual l
I I
l Welding l
4 l
95.5%
l (1) l (1)
I I
I I
(Subjective) 1-l
- 2. Mechanical l
l l
l 4
l 99.4%
l (1) l (1) i I
(Dajective) l l
l l
NOTE:
- Results Cummulative. 73 Rejects Were Reinspected By Third Party Inspectors.
(1) Not required
i i
26 -
Table A.3 - Hunter I.
Results By Inspection Type l
Reinspection Results (Acceptable) l Level II l Independent Third l Type
-l Reinspection l
Party Review *--l I
I I
Subjective 1
96.7%
l 97.0%
I 1
(3604/3728)'
ll (3616/3728) l l
Objective 99.0%
l (1) l I
I
' I II. Results By Inspection Attribute f
I Initial Sample Period l
Expansion Sample Period i
i l
i I
l No. Of l
l No. Of l
People l
Final %
l People ll Final %
r Attribute Reinspected Acceptable l ~ Reinspected Acceptable 1
l
\\
- 1. Visual l
l l
l Welding i
17 l
97.0%
1 (1) l (1) i I
I I
(Subjective) l I
i I
I l
- 2. Documentationl-I l
l l
20 l
98.9%
1 (1) l (1) e i
I (Objective) l l
I I
- 3. Hardware l
l l
l l
17 -
l 99.3%
I (1) l (1) i I
l l
1 (Objective) l I
l l-NOTE:
- Results Cummulative. 124 Rejects Were Reinspected By Third Party l
Inspectors.
i (1) Not required i
t I
I i
,,,,e
-,w--,-
,,-n,.,-
,-,,,,.,--,--m-.
r
--y-,
-,-.,,e...,..,-e.-r
,-,-e.,--n---
~
i s
4 !
Table A.4 - NISCo I.
Results By Inspection Type Reinspection Results (Acceptable)-
l Level II l Independent Third i Type l
Reinspection-I
-Party Review I
I I
I Subjective i
100.0%
l (1) 1
-l l
I I
I I
Objective 1
99.6%
l (1) l I
I I
II. Results By Inspection Attribute 1
Initial Sample Period l
Expansion Sample Period i
I I
I l
No. Of I
l No. Of I
l People l
Final %
I People I
Final %
Attribute Reinspected Acceptable l
Reinspected 1-Acceptable l
I I
- 1. Visual l
I Welding l
4 l
100.0%
i (1) 1 (1) l I
I I
(Subjective) l l
l 1
l l
I
- 2. Mechanical ll l
l l
l 4
I 99.6%
l (1) l (1) l l
l l
(Objective)
I l
l l
(1) Not required i
A i
l
l.
a Table A.5 - Hatfield Electric
'I.
Results By Inspection Type (Subjective Inprogress)
Reinspection Results (Acceptable) l Level II I Independent Third l Type I
Reinspection i
Party Review
- I i
i l
i Subjective l
88.4%
i 92.6%
l l
(21296/24090)
I (22305/24090) l I
I I
Objective 1
96.7%
l (1) l I
I I
II Results By Inspection Attribute (Subjective Inprogress) l Initial Sample Period l
Expansion Sample Period I
I I
I t
I No. Of l
l No. O f I
i.
People l
Final %
i People l
Final %
i Attribute Reinspected l Acceptable 11 Reinspected i Acceptable i
- 1. Visual Weld 8
92.6%*
(1)
(1) f 1
l
- 2. Conduit l
l l
l 6
l 96.9%
(1)
(1)
I l
l
- 3. Terminations l l
l l
l 5
l 99.9%
l (1) l (1) l l
I I
I I
I I
- 4. Equip.
l l
l l
Setting i
2 l
100.0%
i (1)
I (1) i I
- 5. A325 I
l l
l l
Bolting i
1 l-100.0%
l (1)
I (1) l l
l l
l 1
l l
- 6. Equip.
l l
l l
t Modification i 2
1 100.0%
i (1) 1 (1)
[
l l
I t
l I
I I
- 7. Conduit l
l l
l As-built l
.8 l
95.9%
l (1) l (1) l l
l l
l (1) Not required i
i
c t
. II. 'Results By Inspection Attribute (Cont'd) l Initial Sample Period l
Expansion Sample Period l
l l
l l
No. Of l
l No. Of I
l People-l Final'% _
l People l
Final %
Attribute Reinspected l Acceptable l Reinspected l Acceptable l
I I
- 8. Pan l
l l
l Hangers l
2 1
96.9%
l (1) l (1) 1
-l
-l l
I I
I
- 9. Pan l
l l
l 1
l 100.0%
l (1) l (1) l l
l l
NOTE: *Results Cummulative. Includes All Work Except 60 Days Of One Visual Weld Inspector.
(1) Not required
J Table A.6 - Powers-Azco.-Pope I.
ResultS B'y Inspection Type Reinspectio,1 Results (Acceptable) l Level II I Independent Third l Type Reinspection h
Party Review
- l Subjective 85.9%
86.0%
-(5713/6648)
-(5717/6648)
Objective 1
95.8%
(1) l l'
l l
r-II. Results By Inspection Attribute-l Initial Sample Period l
Expansion Sample Period l
l l
l l
No. Of l
l No. Of I
l People l
Final %
l People Attribute Reinspected Acceptable l
Reinspected. l Final %
Acceptable i
- 1. Pipe Material l
l
. Verification l 19 l
97.7%
l l
(Cbjective)
- 2. Pipe Weld l
l l
I; Visual l
19 1
93.4%
l 4
l 88.7%
l (Subjective) l l
- 3. Henger/ Mount l
.I l
l Material i
19 l
96.0%
l 1
l 98.9%
Verification l l
l l
(@jective)
- 4. Hanger Weld Visual l
19 l
73.6%
l 8
l 83.0%
l l
l l
(Subjective) 5., Final' l
l l
l Henger l
10 l
73.5%
l 1
l 81.8%
l I
(Objective) l (1) Not required '
m-
r l
i t
, II. Results By Inspection Attribute l
Initial Sample Period l
Expansion Sample Period i
l I
I i
1 No. Of l
l No. Of I
l People I
Final %
I People l
Final %
Attribute Reinspected Acceptable l Reinspected I Acceptable l
l
- 6. Flex l
l l
l l
Hose 1
7 l
10 0.0%
1 (1) l (1) t i
I I
I (Objective)
- 7. Pipe I
1 Bend I
9 l
95.7%
l (1) l (1) l I
I
(@jective) l l
l NOTE: *Results Cummulative. 935 Rejects Were Reinspected By Third Party Inspectors.
(1) Not required
~-
t P
I l Table A.7 - Pittsburgh Testing i
I.
Results By Inspection Type (Subjective Inprogress)
Reinspection Results (Acceptable) l Level II l Independent Third l Type l
Reinspection
-l
-Party Review
- l I
I I
Subjective 1
73.2%
l 87.2%
l 1
-(4147/5662) l (4936/5662)
-l l
l l
1 Objective 1
99.1%
l (1) 1
-l (7200/7269) l l
II. Results By Inspection Attribute (Subjective Inprogress)
}
I Initial Sample Period l
Expansion Sample Period
{
No. Of No. Of l
People I
Final %
l People l
Final %
Attribute Reinspected l Acceptable l-Reinspected Acceptable i
l
- 1. visual l
i Welding l-14 l
87.2%
1 96.4%
l 1
(Subjective)
L l
- 2. Concrete l
l l
l Expansion I
9 l
99.1%
l (1) l (1)
Anchor l
l l
l (Objective) l l
l l
NOTE: *Results Cummulative.' 1,515 Rejects Were Reinspected By Third Party Inspectors.
I
-(l) Not required i
l l
I
f Table A.8 - Peabody I.
Results By Inspection Type Reinspection Results (Acceptable) l Level II I Independent Third l Type I
Reinspection l
Party Review
- l l
1 l
Subjective 1
71.8%
l 74.8%
l l
(117/163) l (123/163) l I
I l
Objective l
(2) l (1) l I
I
-l II. Results By Inspection Attribute l
Initial Sample Period l
Expansion Sample Period I
I I
I I
No. Of l
l No. Of l
-l People l
Final %
l People l
Final %
Attribute Reinspected l Acceptable l' Reinspected l Acceptable I
I i
- 1. visual Welding l
6 74.8%
(1)
(1) l I
I l
(Subjective) l l
l l
NOTE:
- Results Cummulative. 46 Rejects Were Reinspected By Third Party Inspectors.
(1) Not required (2) Not applicable i
s f
, l APPENDIX B REINSPECTION RESULTS BY INSPECTOR l
A tabulation of detail inspection results by Inspec' tor and type of inspection is presented on a by: contractor basis in Tables B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5, 8.6, B.7, and B.8.
Results shown are complete and have had Independent Third Party Review when required.
Table B.1 - Blount Bros.
I Detailed Inspector Results Insp.
Attr. #1 Attr. #2 Attr. #3 Attr. #4
'A 636/640 B
70/70 C
437/440 D
427/443 E
253/255 49/51 F
75/75 G
335/335 25/26 H
55/55 Totals 1835/1858 145/145 308/310 74/77 NOTE:
No, expanded sampling was required.
Attribute 1 - Weld Detail i
Attribute 2 - Concrete I
Attribute 3 - Masonry Attribute 4 - Concrete Expansion Anchors k
i t
1
's
- iable 8.2 - Johnson Controls Detailed Inspector Results Insp.
Attr. #1 Attr. #2 A
25/28 8
222/230 3170/3178 C
628/660 2761/2781 0
80/84 499/499 E
464/485 1310/1326 Totals 1394/1459 7765/7812 NOTE:
No expanded sampling was required.
Attribute 1 - Visual Welding Attribute 2 - Mechanical r
F 4
k
-~
.v.
.v,-.
4 Table B.3 - Hunter Detailed Inspector Results Insp.
Attr. #1 Attr. #2 Attr. #3 A
47/51 B
14/14 134/138 C
34/34 1181/1186 D
33/33 101/102 E
283/301 2088/2144 61/64 F
208/214 40/41 258/265 G
116/129 161/161 21/21 H
49/55 19/19 12/12 I
315/319 47/47 129/133 J
2195/2269 7836/7893 K
334/344
.280/284 186/190 L
273/273 366/366 204/206 M
126/130 331/339 N-289/294 903/921 0
416/442 1246/1253 P
249/263 8143/8214 925/935 Q
383/392 6315/6381 5355/5372 R
232/237 8504/8520 81/81 S
181/181 329/331 949/952 T
1789/1804 6248/6323 U
803/822 3671/3759 8004/8032 V
62/66 Totals 3616/3728 36194/36632 32749/32992 NOTE:
No expanded sampling was required; a substitution (V) was made for (H) because (H) failed the first 3 month period but had no further Inspections to reinspect.
Attribute 1 - Visual Welding i
Attribute 2 - Documentation Attribute 3 - Hardware i
f i
. Table B.4 - NISCo Detailed Inspector Results Insp.
Attr. #1 Attr. #2
-A 103/103 930/930 8
69/69 1567/1579 C-32/32 165/165 D
25/25 118/118 TOTALS 229/229 2780/2792 NOTE:
No expanded sampling was required.
Attribute 1 - Visual Welding Attribute 2 - Mechanical l'
L I
l l
. Table B.5 - Hatfield Electric Detailed Inspector Results Insp.
Attr. #1 Attr. #2 Attr. #3 Attr. #4 Attr. #5 Attr. #6 Attr. #7 Attr. #8 Attr. 4 A
876/906 B
4795/4974 C
608/708 D
32/32 770/770 24/24 8/8 E
10659/11762 37/38 60/60 F
137/137 132/132 2/2 G
1135/1218 289/304 562/564 1/1 H
3985/4112 I
4381/4639 J
539/561 K
1019/1046 L
193/198 M
10952/11457 N
3516/3621 0
51/51 P
2001/2081 Q
4318/5055 R
11734/12205 2753/2879 S
1917/2014 T
8201/8208 24/24 U
1696/1752 80/80 V
W 1079/1185*
Totals 22305/24090*2053/2118 9725/9734 48/48 8/8 3/3 42955/44777 1889/1950 80/8C NOTE:
No expanded sampling was required, a substitut1un (W) was made for C jn attribute 1 because C failed the first 3 month period but had no further inspcetions to reinspect 1
Attribute 1 - Visual Weld Attribute 2 - Conduit Attribute 3 - Terminations Attribute 4 - Equipment Setting Attribute 5 - A325 Bolting Attribute 6 - Equipment Modification Attribute 7 - Conduit As-built Attribute 8 - Pan Hangers Attribute 9 - Pan
- -Inprocess, actual amount will be greater.
7936N
. Table B.6 - Powers-Azco-Pope Detailed Inspector Results Insp.
Attr. #1 Attr. #2 Attr. #3 Attr. #4 Attr. #5 Attr. #6 Attr. #7 A
23/23 11/11 6/10 5/8 B
54/54 34/35 24/34 11/11 C
52/52 108/117 37/48 47/74 C(exp) 85/93 33/35 D
1/1 16/18 193/195 50/52 E
47/48 275/328 111/114 87/121 2/2 E(exp) 19/21 11/12 F
152/155 208/262 95/97 36/61 F(exp) 60/72 23/29 G
67/68 330/351 62/62 39/54 3/3 2/2 H
10/10 24/24 68/68 43/55 I
40/41 259/286 240/242 38/72 11/22 1/1 5/5 I(exp) 9/9 3/10 J
47/59 163/178 139/142 97/112 1/1 K
108/108 99/101 262/262 68/115 7/16 2/2 K(exp) 3/5 L
137/139 83/83 213/221 36/40 8/18 5/5 M
295/302 536/546 858/946 82/181 16/41 2/3 12/12 M(exp) 555/561 208/246 18/22 2/2 N
231/237 468/484 503/508 172/218 0
359/370 379/404 793/823 197/272 2/2 8/10 0(exp) 5/7 P
11/11 11/12 8/8 4/4 Q
321/321 381/395 710/729 478/591 6/6 8/8 1/1 Q(exp)-
R 41/46 97/102 178/184 80/101 27/35 1/1 R(exp) 3/4 S
176/177 113/113 175/177 90/113 139/154 1/1 8/8 Totals Initial-2172/2222 3595/3850 4675/4870 1660/2255 219/398 17/17 44/46 Expanded-173/195 555/561 289/348 18/22 NOTE:
The "exp" designation represents the expansion of an inspectors sample period when the acceptable threshold was not met.
Attribute 1 - Pipe Material Verification Attribute 2 - Pipe Weld Visual Attribute 3 - Hanger / Mount Material Verification
. Attribute 4 - Hanger Weld Visual Attribute 5 - Final Hanger Attribute 6 - Flex Hose Attribute 7 - Pipe Bend
% Table 8.7 - Pittsburgh Testing Detailed Inspector Results Insp.-
Attr. #1 Attr. #2 A
1625/1875 8
404/445 C
62/96 D
18/18 E
522/524 F
-347/389 G
11/12 H
7/7 I
596/657 J
736/910 J(exp) 361/479 K
299/300 L
377/381 M
1057/1058 N
864/874 0
2218/2261 P
934/935 Q
883/890 R
46/46 S
109/113 T
68/69 U
482/482 V
78/79 W
31/31 Totals 7200/7269 4936/5662 NOTE:
Expanded sampling was required, T, U, V, and W were added due to failure of J.
The "exp" designation represents the expansion of an inspectors sample period when the acceptable threshold was not met.
Attribute 1 - Concrete Expansion Anchors Attribute 2 - Visual Welding
s l '
Table B.8 - Peabody i
Detailed Inspector Results Insp.
Attr. #1 t
A 14/26 B
13/.14 C
16/24 D
15/16 E
28/41-F 37/42 f
i TOTALS 123/163 l
NOTE:
100% of work was reinspected.
Attribute 1 - Visual Welding i
h I
l h
l t
t v
i
[
,--.an~.
--,n-,-,_--
.a.
... -n,,
,,,,,,,--,-.n,..,,-
t
. APPENDIX C SUBJECTIVE INSPECTION DISCREPANCIES - EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE The reinspection activity identified 3,659 discrepancies associated with visual weld inspection. The quantities by contractor are as follows:
Blount N/A Johnson Controls 65 Hunter 112 NISCo 0
Hatfield Electric 1,785**
Powers-Azco-Pope 931 Pittsburgh Testing 726 Peabody Testing 40 W*
- NOTE: Inprogress As identified below, for the engineering evaluation the weld discrepancies were categorized as:
Category A Arc Strike Convexity Spatter Category B Crater Incomplete Fusion Overlap Porosity undercut Underrun-Category C Cracks Of the 3,659 discrepancies,10 to 20 percent would fall into Category A, 80 to 90 percent would fall into Category 8, and less than 0.03 percent would fall into Category C.
t
. ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF WELD DISCREPANCIES The pure se of the engineering evaluation was to det' ermine the design impsct of weld discrepancies discovered as part of the reinspection of QC inspector work. The contractors included in the engineering evaluation were Hatfield Electric Company (HECo), Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL) and Peabody. The evaluation of the Peabody discrepancies is still in progress. The remaining contractors with subjective discrepancies have all been repaired.
Based on the total population of subjective discrepancies for HECo and PTL, e statistical sampling plan was developed for each contractor to perform an engineering evaluation. The statistical sampling plans shown below are in accordance with Military Standard 1050 for multiple sampling.
Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Contractor Sample Size Acceptance No.
Rejection No.
HECo 50 4
100 2
5 50 2
6 200 3
7 250 5
8 300 7
9 350 9
10
- = Acceptance not permitted at this sample size.
Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Contractor Sample Size Acceptance No.
Rejection No.
PTL 32 2
64 0
3 L
96 0
3 i
128 1
4 160 2
4 B2 3
5 224 4
5
= Acceptance not permitted at this sample size.
l L
l l
_. ~ - -. _ _ _.. ~..
. In order to insure a conservative engineering evaluation, the first 50 welds chosen for each contractor were those welds which the independent third party inspectors identified as the welds with the most weld quality discrepancies.
The results of the engineering evaluation of the first 100 welds were documented in the " Preliminary Report on Reinspection Conducted as a Result of Noncompliance Items 50-454/82-05-19 and 50-455/82-05-19" dated October 28, 1983.
The remaining welds to complete the sample were chosen based on random numbers in accordance with the statistical sampling plans. For Hatfield Electric Co, the minimum sample size at which acceptance is permitted is 100 welds with no more than 2 rejects. For Pittsburgh Testing Lab, the minimum sample size at which acceptance is permitted is 64 welds with no more than 0 rejects.
Once the additional welds to be evaluated were determined, all discrepancies which did not meet the AWS weld quality acceptance criteria for visual inspection, as included in the project work specifications, were indicated by the inspectors on weld maps. A weld map is a detailed sketch of the as-built weld, showing size and location of all weld discrepancies.
The weld maps were separated into one of three categories, based on the type of discrepancy reported. This categorization was used to quantify the significance of the weld discrepancies. Weld discrepancies that were considered structurally acceptable because they did not reduce the load carrying capacities were placed in Category A.
The AWS weld quality criteria considered in Category A consist of arc strikes, convexity, and spatter. Arc strikes and spatter are cosmetic discrepancies and only have impact on weld strength when they appear in an extreme case. If the extreme case appeared, it would have been reported on the weld map and the weld discrepancy would have been re-categorized.
In this evaluation, there were no discrepancies reported associated with arc strikes or spatter. Convexity is only considered a potential problem in fatigue design of welds. Fatigue is not an applicable loading condition in the design of structures / supports where AWS welding is,
specified.
If th.e reported weld discrepancy resulted in a reduction to the size, length, or capacity of a weld, it was placed in Category B.
This category included all weld quality discrepancies which caused portions of a weld to be considered ineffective. The AWS weld quality discrepancies considered in overlap porosity undercut, CategoryBincludescraters,incompletefusion,luateweldswithdategoryB and underrun. The design procedure used to eva discrepancies was to consider these portions of the weld to be totally ineffective and then calculate the section properties of the remaining acceptable weld. This is a conservative approach because discrepancies only reduce tha capacity of that portion of the weld where discrepancies are locateu, uot there is always some reserve capacity even with the presence of the weld quality discrepancy.
Category B welds were further subdivided into Categories 81 and 82. Category B1 welds were those welds whose capacity, after subtracting weld discrepancies from the weld length, was reduced by less that 10%. Category B2 welds had capacity reductions greater than 104 after subtracting weld discrepancies from the weld length. This subdivision was used to quantify the significance of Category B discrepancies.
n
, The last category used in the weld map classification was Category C.
Welds in this category were considered to be unsultable for load transfer and were rejected. A crack in the weld was the only AWS weld quality discrepancy considered for total weld rejection.
f Only one weld was found to be in Category C.
This was one of two " hold-down" welds for a cable tray to a cable tray hanger. Since both welds are part of the load transfer system, both were mapped by the independent third-party inspector.
It was found that after subtracting the entire length of the cracked weld, that the other weld was sufficient to transfer the design loading. Thus, the load could be transferred as designed since only one of the welds was actually required.
The results of the engineering evaluation are presented in tabultr form below. Since no weld rejects resulted after engineering evaluation, conformance to the statistical sampling plan was achieved for the 100 sampled Hatfield Electric Co. and 64 samp h d Pittsburgh Testing Lab welds.
Contractor Weld Quality Category A
B1 B2 C
PTL 13 14 37 0
HECo 5
31 63 1
Total 18 45 100 1
Based on these results, it can be seen that 38% are in Categories A and 81.
In other words, approximately 1/3 of the worst welds resulted in less than 10%
weld capacity reduction. For 62% in Category B2 & C the factor of safety against the original weld design criteria is greater than one and in fact averages approximately three.
This factor of safety is calculated as the ratio of allowable stress to actual stress wherein actual stress accounts for the weld discrepancies by subtraction from length of acceptable weld.
It is the conclusion of this engineering evaluation that the types and magnitude of weld quality discrepancies which were not reported under the original QC inspection are insignificant and do not compromise the safety of the plant.
r o
I h APPENDIX 0 OEUECTIVE INSPECTION DISCREPANCIES EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE The reinspectlon activity ident1 fled 3,130 discrepancies associated with objective type inspections. The quantitles by contractor are as follows:
Blount 28 Johnson Controls 47 HJnter 681
'NISCo 12 Hatfleid Electric 1,957 Powers-Azco-Pope 336 Pittsburgh Testing 69 Peabody Testlng 0
l 3,13 0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF OBJECTIVE DISCREPANCIES The purpose of the eng1neering evaluatlon was to determine the design impact of objective discrepancies discovered as a part of reinspection of QC inspector work. This approach was established in Appendix 0 of the i
" Prelim 1 nary Report on Reinspection Conducted as a Result of Noncompilance Items 50-454/82-05-19 and 50-455/82-05-19" dated October 28, 1983.
The table below shows, by contractor, the population of objective discrepancies line items and the sample size for engineering evaluation.
Population Of Contractor
_ Objective Olscrepancies Line Items Sample Size BBC 25 25 PTL 45 45 Hunter 681 125 JCI 42 42 PAP 336 80 l
KCo 1,628 200 l
NISCo 12 12 l
l l
. The sample size for Hanter, PAP, and Hatfield are based on statistical sampling plans in accordance with Military Standard 105D for single sampling.
Each sampling plan is delineated below.
Contractor Sample Size Acceptance No.
Rejection No.
HJoter 125 2
3 PAP 80 1
1 HECo 200 3
4 The results of the engineering evaluation are sunmarized in Tables D.1 through D.7 for BBC, PTL, Hunter, JCI, PAP, HECo, and NISCo respectively. In all cases the objective discrepancies have been dispositioned as acceptable based on evaluating their impact on design basis requirements. These objective discrepancies were similiar to conditions previously addressed throughout the construction stage of the project.
It is the conclusion of this engineering evaluation that the types of discrepancies which were not reported under the original QC inspection are insignificant and do not compromise the safety of the plant.
I TABLE D.1 - BLOUNT BROTHERS CORPORATION
~
CANDOM DISCREPANCY
' POPUL6 TION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION BBC-1 Q3-699 Cont. #1, El. 420' O R2 at Pt. #7, Det. 1017.
F42243 Yes Stiffener plates on Detail FCR 598, 3/4" x 7" x 12" stiffeners on the R1 1017 not required.
side of column R2 are not level.
CBC-2 Q3-700 Cont. #2, El. 382' 2-3/4", R23 9 Pt. #49, Det.
N/A Yes Change in clearance does 1009.
Detail calls for 1" clearance; actual not significantly affect clearance is 5/8".
Not per detail although beam.
clearance is present to allow for any axial lengthening requirements.
BBC-3 Q3-701 Cont. #1, El. 401', R15 0 secondary shield wall, F42458 Yes Top plate works despite Pt. #33, Det. 981.
Detail calls for 3/4" x 8" being 3/4" short, weld top plates. In field, top plates are 3/4" x at 1/2" overlap in place on 7-1/4."
Top plates should overlap flange by 1/2".
bottom of flange; no change Top plates don't overlap at all.
required.
BBC-4 Q3-702 Cont. #1, El.
407'-6", R15 9 secondary shield F42457 Yes Top plate works despite wall, Pt. #2, Det. 981.
Detail calls for 3/4" being 1" short.
x 8" top plate.
In field, top plate is 3/4" i
x 7",
not installed to detail.
CBC-5 Q3-703 Cont. #1, El.
407'-6",
R9 0 secondary shield F42457 Yes Top plate works despite wall, Pt. #5, Det. 981.
Detail calls for 3/4" being 1" short.
x 8" top plate. In field, top plate is 3/4" x 7",
not installed to detail.
BBC-6 Q3-704 Cont. #1, El. 407', R3 9 secondary shield wall, N/A Yes Connection works without Pt. #2, Det. 981, (Dwg. AB E117). Not installed missing weld.
l to detail. Missing 3/8" fillet welds top &
bottom flange to 3/4" plate.
Right and left i
vertical side plate should be on piece.
BBC-6 Q3-704 Both plates are cut into two pieces in field.
Cutting of plates not Horizontal 1/2" plate should be installed.
critical.
1/2 " plate A bent plate installed in field.
not required.
OO22p
TABLE D.1 - BLOUNT BROTHERS CORPORATION
~
N00M DISCREPANCY Lf. TION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY MBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION BC-7 Q3-705 Cont. #1, El. 407' 6",
R4 0 Col. Pt. #15, Det.
N/A Yes Change in clearance does 1005.
Detail calls for 1" clearance; actual not significantly affect clearance is 5/8".
Not per detail although
- beam, clearance is present to allow for any axial lengthening requirements.
BC-8 Q3-706 Cont. #1, El. 382' 2-3/4", between R15 & R16 at N/A Yes Change in clearance does secondary shield wall, Pt. #3, Det. 1002, not significantly affect Detail calls for 1" clearance from W12 to embed.
beam.
In field, clearance is 1/2", not installed to detail although enough clearance is present for any axial lengthening requirements.
C-9 Q3-707 Cont. #1, El. 382' 2-3/4", R15 0 Col. Pt. #11, N/A Yes Change in clearance does Det. 1005.
Detail calls for 1" clearance from not significantly affect W14 to column R15 flenge. In field, clearance
- beam, is 3/4".
Not installed per detail although enough clearance is present for any axial longthening requirements.
C-10 Q3-708 Cont. #1, El. 382' 2-3/4", R16 0 Col. Pt. #14, N/A Yes Change in clearance does Det. 1009.
Detail calls for 1" clearance from not significantly affect W14 to column R16 flange.
In field, clearance
- beam, is 5/8".
Not installed per detail although enough clearance is present for any axial longthening requirements.
3C-11 C3-709 Cont. #1, El. 382' 2-3/4", R10 at secondary F42406 Yes Change in clearance does shield wall, Pt. #16, Det. 979.
Detail calls not significantly affect for 1" clearance from crown of wall embed to beam.
Reduction in edge of W14 flange.
In field, clearance is 3/4".
length is not a problem.
Detail calls for 8" clearance from crown of wall embed to back of horizontal plate.
In field, deistance is 7".
Not installed to detail.
l TABLE D.1 - BLOUNT BROTHERS CORPORATION CANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULCTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY N'JMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLtTTION BBC-12 C3-710 Cont. #1, El. 382' 2-3/4", between R9 and RIO at N/A Yes Change in clearance does secondary shield wall, Pt. #17, Det. 1002.
not significantly affect Detail calls for 1" clearance from W12 to embed.
beam.
In field, clearance is 3/8", although enough clearance is present for any axial lengthening if required.
BBC-13 Q3-711 Cont. #1, El. 382' 2-3/4", between R8 and R9 at N/A Yes Change in clearance does secondary shield wall, F't. #20, Det. 1002, not significantly affect Detail calls for 1" clearance from W12 to embed, beam.
In field, clearance is 1/2", although enough clearance is present for any axial lengthening if required.
BBC-14 Q3-712 Cont. 41 El. 382' 2-3/4", R8 at column Pt. #23, N/A Yes Change in clearance does Det. 987. Detail calls for 1" minimum clearance not significantly affect from W14 flange to column R8 flange. In field beam.
clearance is 3/4". Not installed to detail although enough clearance is present for axial lengthening if required.
BBC-15 Q3-713 Cont. #1, El. 382', 2-3/4", R8 at column Pt. #23, N/A Yes Change in clearance does Det. 1005. Detail calls for 1" minimum clearance not significantly affect from W14 flange to column.
In field, clearance beam.
is zero. Not installed to detail.
BBC-1G C3-714 Cont. #1, 422' 11", between R17 and R18. Diagonal N/A Yes As-built drawing does beam at secondary shield wall, Pt. #25, Det. 1003.
not show split plate No top split plate present as called for by detail.
for this connection.
In addition, the hottom plate overlaps the embed Overlap does not affect by 3-1/2" on one end and 4" at other end.
Not capacity of stiffener installed per detail, plate.
(
422p
TABLE D.1 - BLOUNT BROTHERS CORPORATION RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULCTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION BBC-17 Q3-715 Cont. #1, El. 425' 10-1/2", between R17 and R18 at N/A Yes Change in clearance does secondary shield wall, Pt. #25, Det. 1002.
not significantly affect Detail calls for 1" minimum clearance from W12 beam.
beam to embed.
In field, clearance is 1/8".
Not installed to detail.
BBC-18 C3-717 Cont. #1, El. 425'10-1/2", at secondary shield F42411 Yes Top plate works despite wall. Detail calls for 3/4" x B" x 8" bottom being 1" short.
plate. In field, top plate is 3/4" x 6-3/4" x 9-1/2".
Not install per detail.
BBC-19 C3-718 Cont. #1, El. 425' 10-1/2", R3 at secondary wall, N/A Yes Change in clearance does Pt. #10, Det. 1002.
Detail calls for a minimum not significantly affect 1" clearance from W14 beam to embed.
In field, beam.
clearance is 5/8".
Not installed to detail although all axial lengthening requirements are met.
BBC-20 C3-719 Cont. #1, El. 425' 10-1/2", R5 at wing wall.
N/A Yas Change in clearance does Pt. #2, Det. 1002.
Detail calls for a minierum not significantly affect 1" clearance from W12 beam to the embed.
In field, beam.
clearance is only 3/4".
Not installed to detail although all axial lengthening requirements are met.
BBC-21 C3-723 Not installed per detail. Installed similar F41970 Yes Block wall tee to Det. A-464-1.
capacity acceptable.
BBC-22 C3-724 Not installed per detail. Installed similar N/A Yes Block wall tee to Det. A-464-1.
capacity acceptable.
BBC-23 C3-725 CEA installed with insufficient Le.
N/A Yes Deviation will not affect anchorage of rack to the floor.
0022p
TASLE D.1 - SLOUNT GROTHERS CORPORATION
~
RANDOR DISCREPAECY POPULATION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNOY unpWER ELNSEE DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION INNWER YES OR NO RESOLUTION BSC-24 G3-727 Mot installed per detail. Installed similar N/A Yes Block well tee to Det. A-464-1.
installed according to schedule.
l l
l i
l I
(
)
4
)
i l
1
- 922p
~
TABLE D.2 - PITTSOURGH TESTING LASRATORY Concrete Emmension Anchors For 81ount Bros.
RANDort DISCREPANCY POPULATION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY IRRGER InsWER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION PTL-36 PTL 12805 Washer does not completely cover hole.
Yes Plate assembly will work even if one anchor is neglected.
PTL-10 PTL 4948 Some concrete expansion anchors in blank off Yes Forces on CEA's on plates either rejected or inaccessible.
blankoff plates do not exceed pullout capacities.
OO22p f
TABLE D.2 - PITTSBURGH TESTIW3 LABRATORY Concrete Expansion Anchors For Johnson Controls RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULC; TION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY NLMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION PTL-2 PTL 11847 One concrete expansion anchor violates requirement Yes Plate assembly works with for embedded length, three of four CEA's.
PTL-31 PTL 9819 One concrete expansion anchor out of eight in an Yes Plate assembly works with anchor plate violates out of plumb requirement.
seven of eight CEA's.
PTL-34 PTL 12139 Two concrete expansion anchors out of five in an Yes Plate assembly works with anchor plate were rejected for embedded length, three of five CEA's.
l l
OO22p
TABLE D.2 - PITTSBURGH TESTING LABRATORY Concrete Expension Anchors For Powers-Arco-Pope CANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULCTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY NLNSER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION PTL-21 PTL 6146 Concrete expansion anchor does not meet require-Yes Anchor satisfies torque-monts for bolt projection beyond nut.
ing requirement, therefore sufficient capacity is developed by nut.
i i
i i
l y22p
_ _ ~
TABLE D.2 - PITTS8URGH TESTING LA8RATORY
~
Concrete Expansion Anchors For Hatfield Electric CANDOR DISCREPANCY POPULCTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT?
SARGENT & LUNDY NLMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION PTL-13 PTL 5040 Two holes in plate not covered by washers.
Yes Holes have negligible effect on plate capacity.
PTL-15 PTL 5042 Two holes in plate not covered by plate washers.
Yes Deficiencies not of a magnitude to affect plate capacity.
PTL-17 PTL 5044 All four concrete expansion anchors in an anchor Yes Hanger loads small.
plate assembly have reduced embedded length.
Anchor capacity is sufficient.
PTL-18 PTL 5048 Hole not covered by washer. Welds on three washers Yes Deficiencies not of a violate location requirements. One standard sized Magnitude to affect plate plate washer coped.
assembly capacity.
Deviation is acceptable.
PTL-39 PTL 20047 Six holes in plates not completely covered by Yes Washers off center of
- washers, normal sized hole.
Discrepancy not of a magnitude to affect plate assembly.
PTL-28 PTL 7091 Two concrete expansion anchors have reduced No One plate assembly with two length. One anchor rejected due to plumbness, concrete expansion anchors bolt projection and torque requirements. One unable to establish Le.
anchor rejected for torque requirements.
- OO22p
e TABLE D.2 - PITTSBURGH TESTING LABRATORY d
Concrete Expansion Anchors For Hatfield Electric l RANDOM DISCREPANCY WPULCTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY l NUMBE7 NUMBER
- DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION PJUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION PTL-30 PTL 7255 Four of six concrete expansion anchors are Yes Bearing capacity of nuts rejected for washer requirement.
directly on plate is adequate.
PTL-1 PTL 11725 Two concrete expansion anchors rejected due Yes One anchor plate assembly to no end code. One CEA violates plumbness and out of two works bevel washer requirement.
PTL-7 PTL 4797 One concrete expansion anchor violates out of Yes Anchor bent beyond nut.
p'umb requirement.
Bevel washer not required.
PTL-O PTL 4800 One concrete expansion anchor violates 1/4" Yes Sufficient capacity is projection beyond nut requirerent.
developed by nut.
PTL-11 PTL 5031 Two concrete expansion anchors out of four in an Yes Plate assembly works with anchor plate have reduced embedded length and a reduced anchor hole not cocipletely covered by a washer.
capacities.
PTL-12 PTL 5039 Two holes in plate not covered by washers. Two Yes Plate assembly works with concrete expansion anchors have reduced embedded reduced anchor length.
capacities.
PTL-1">
PTL 5043 All four concrete espansion anchors have reduced Yes Hanger loads small. Anchor embedded length and one washer does not cover a capacity is sufficient.
slotted hole in the anchor plate.
Deviation acceptable.
022p
?
9.
TABLE D.3 - HUNTER CORPORATION RANOOM DISCREPANCY POPULCTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY INSWER NUPWER DISCREPANCY LFS_CPlP_TTON NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HC-8 Support 1CCO6045R "M" shope substituted for PMD CALC Yes NR 534 was dispositioned "W" shape.
PSAG-24 by ECN's 8542 and 8595.
HC-O Euoport ICCO6045R - angle cut 120 out of PMD CALC Yes Same as HC-8.
tolerance.
PSAG-24 HC-11 Support ICCO6C45!! - missed elevation dimension PMD CALC Yes Same as HC-8.
of pipe.
PSAG-24 HC-13 Support 1CC2SOO5S - pin to pin d raencion of I'-4" PMD CALC Yes Does not adversely affect not shown on as-built.
PSAG-24 piping analysis or support design. Actual pin-to-pin is 1*-4".
HC-10 Support ICVO7046S - location of rear attach PMD CALC Yes Within design tolerances.
No. 1 is 20 off true vertical.
PSAG-24 HC-20 Support ICVO70'.6S - location of rear attach PMD CALC Yes Within design tolerances.
No. 2 is 20 off true vertical.
PSAG-24 l
HC-21 Support ICVO7046S - location of pipe attachment PMD CALC Yes Within design tolerances, off by 1/2".
PSAG-24 1
HC-26 Support ICV 51006S "C" connection on snubber is PMD CALC Yes Clamp securely attached to stripped.
PSAG-24 function adequately for pipe load of +/- 60 lbs.
HC-31 Support IMS92010X - location of pipe attachment PMD CALC Yes Within design tolerances.
0 is off by 1/2" and 2 perpendicular.
PSAG-24 HC-34 Penetration - 1PC-97 dimension of sleeve PMD CALC Yes Within design tolerances.
projection of by 1/2".
PSAG-24 HC-48 Support 2FP14056X - missed elevation dimension PMD CALC Yes Elevation dimension with-of pipe (5/8" off).
PSAG-24 in M-919 toleranco. See ECN 8235.
OO22p
(
l TABLE D.3 - HUNTER CORPORATION NMXFI DISCREPANCY POPULCTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY NWWER NWWER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR ND RESOLUTION HC-49 Support 2FP14056X - strut snap ring broken.
PMD CALC Yes Snap ring non-load bearing.
PSAG-24 Type 4 inspection would find this.
HC-50 Support 2FP14062R - missed elevation dimension PMD CALC Yes Elevation dimension within
'of pipe (1/2" off).
PSAG-24 M-919 tolerance. Sec ECN 8918.
HC-59 ISO. SCC-100-10-A excessive bend, pipe ovality PMD CALC Yes NR 604 accepted by calcul-(9.7%) 3/4" pipe.
PSAG-24 ation PSAG-22 dated 11-7-83 HC-60 ISO. SCC-100-52 excessive bend, pipe ovality PMD CALC Yes NR 604 accepted by calcul-(11.21) 1 1/2" pipe.
PSAG-24 ation PSAG-22 dated 11-7-83 HC-60 ISO. SCC-100-53 excessive bond, pipe ovality PMD CALC Yes NR 604 accepted by calcul-(9.41) 1 1/2" pipe.
PSAG-24 ation PSAG-22 dated 11-7-83 HC-66 ISO SCV-OO1-120 dimension off by 3 1/4".
PMD CALC Yes Within design tolerances.
PSAG-24 HC-71 ISO. SSX-100-65 dimension off by 2 1/4".
EMD CALC Yes Accepted by EMD CALC 041953 041953 11-9-83 within design tolerances.
HC-77 Whip restraint 1FWR-17 dimension off by 11/16".
SED CALC Yes Minor dimensional 19.1.3 discrepancy.
HC-79 nRiip restraint 1FWR-17 grinding below minimum SED CALC Yes Same as HC-77.
well on rods.
19.1.3 HC-C2 Whip restraint IMSP-11 weld configuration drawn SED CALC Yes See FCR 18606 for incorrectly.
19.1.3 correction. Same as HC-77 OO22p
f TABLE D.3 - HUNTER CORPORATION RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULATION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY PUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DCyCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HC-86 Whip restraint 1MSP-11 dimension off by 1 1/2".
SED CALC Yes Same as HC-77.
19.1.3 HC-87 Whip restraint 1MSP-14 dimension off by 5 3/4".
SED CALC Yes Same as HC-77.
19.1.3 HC-90 Whip restraint IMSP-6 incorrect dimensions.
SED CALC Yes Same as HC-77.
19.1.3 HC-96 Whip restraint 1MSP-32 dimension off by 11/16".
SED CALC Yes Same as HC-77.
19.1.3 HC-99 Whip restraint 1RC3-1 dimension off by 2 5/8".
SED CALC Yes Same as HC-77.
19.1.3 HC-107 ISO HFSK-137 dimension off by 1 1/2".
EMD CALC Yes Same as HC-71.
044953 HC-116 ISO SAB-100-47 dimension off by 1".
EMD CALC Yes Same as HC-71.
044953 HC-126 ISO SCC-OO1-18 dimension off by 3/4".
PCM CALC Yes Within design tolerances.
PSAG-24 HC-128 ISO SCC-OO1-19 dimension off by 3/4".
PCM CALC Yes Within design tolerances.
PSAG-24 HC-131 ISO SCC-OO1-19 dimension off by 2 5/8".
PCM CALC Yes Within design tolerances.
PSAG-24 HC-135 ISO SCC-OO1-19 dimension off by 1".
PCM CALC Yes Within design tolerances.
PSAG-24 022p iI
TABLE D.3 - HUNTER CORPORATION RANDOM DISCREPANCY
'ULATION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY P
IUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HC-142 ISO SCC-OO1-20 dimension off by 5/8".
PCM CALC Yes Within design tolerances.
PSAG-24 HC-154 ISO SCC-OO1-39 dimension off by 3/4".
PCM CALC Yes Within design tolerances.
PSAG-24 HC-157 ISO. SCC-100-11 A dimension off by 5/8".
EMD CALC Yes Accepted by EMD CALC 044953 044953 11-9-83 within design tolerances.
HC-160 ISO. SCC-100-22 North direction arrow shown PMD CALC Yes Drafting error.
Column incorrectly.
PSAG-24 lines were shown and and dimensioned correctly.
HC-164 ISO. SCC-100-78 dimension off by 11/16" EMD CALC Yes Same as HC-157.
incorrectly.
044953 HC-189 ISO SCV-100-80 dimension off by 2".
PMD CALC Yes Within design tolerances.
PSAG-24 HC-190 ISO SCV-100-83 dimension off by 15/16".
PMD CALC Yes Within design tolerances.
PSAG-24 HC-198 ISO SCV-100-29 dimension off by 11/16".
EMD CALC Yes Within design tolerances.
044953 HC-201 W scope incorrect dimension ISO SI-1-5.
PMD CALC Yes Within design tolerances.
PSAG-24 HC-214 ISO SSI-OO1-80 dimension off by 1 3/8".
PMD CALC Yes Within design tolerances.
PSAG-24 2p
r--------------------------------------
y TABLE D.3 - HUNTER CORPORATION RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULf. TION REPORT FCR ACCEPT?
SARGENT & LUNDY f' UMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HC'218 ISO SSX-100-18 dimension off by 1".
EMD CALC Yes Accepted by EMD CALC 044953 044953 within design tolerances.
HC-222 ISO SSX-100-24 dimension off by 13/16".
EMD CALC Yes Same as HC-218.
044953 HC-226 ISO SSX-100-67 dimension off by 3/4".
EMD CALC Yes Same as HC-218.
044953 OO22p s
. TABLE D.3 - HUNTER CORPORATION I
DISCREPANCY
- ON REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION dimension not as-built.
CTB 4943 Yes Installed within design tolerances.
Cut to suit dim. not as-built.
CTB 8275 Yes Installed within design tolerances.
40 rotation of tube steel not as-built. CTB 10259 Yes Installed within design tolerances.
Cut to suit dim. not as-built.
CTB 10259 Yes Installed within design tolerances.
Cut to suit dim. not as-built.
CTB 9074 Yes Installed within design tolerances.
Note: NR473 El. documented incorr., tack welds rotated.
Yes Installed within design was initat-See NOTE for non-related discrepancy.
AB 36563 tolerances.
ed for 2 Hatfield eupports cttached to hgr.
This would have been ident-ified at Type 4.
Incorrect as-built.
Deleted per S-1661 Rev.
J.
Yes Installed within design tolerances.
7 Offset dim. not verified.
Yes Dim. not required as it can be mathematically verified by as-built linear dim.
e
- TABLE D.3 - HUNTER CORPORATION RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULATION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD COMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HC-212 Offset dim. not verified.
Yes Dim. not required as it can be mathematically verified by as-built linear dim.
HC-03 NR 483 Hanger installed 3/4" off of design location.
NONE--NR 483 Yes NR 483 - initiated use initiated as is, use as is.
H-256 Insp. did sign off loc. but didn't check accept Yes Check entered by QCWI C. H.
box.
7-9-83 per acceptable sign off, of 09-23-81.
H-257 Insp. did sign off loc. but didn't check accept Yes Check entered by QCWI C. H.
box.
7-9-83 per acceptable sign off, of 10-01-81.
H-258 Insp. did sign off loc. but didn't check accept Yes Check entered by QCWI C. H.
box.
7-9-83 per acceptable sign off, of 10-13-81.
H-262 Insp. didn't sign off process sheet for FW 1 & 2.
Yes FW 1 & 2 inspected and Daily surveillance indicates he did perform insp.
05-26-83.
accepted by QCWI S.
R.
H-274 Insp. didn't sign off final review of doc. on comp.
Yes Signed and accepted by supp. process sheet.
Daily surv. indicates he did QCWI R. M. 07-13-83 per review JIP, daily surv. of 10-16-81.
H-278 Insp. didn't sign off final review of doc. on comp.
Yes Signed and accepted by supp. process sheet.
Daily surv. indicates he did QCWI R. M. 07-13-83 per review JIP.
daily surv. of 10-16-81.
OO22p
TABLE D.3 - HUNTER CORPORATION RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULATION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION H-282 Insp. didn't sign off final review of Yes Signed and accepted by QCWI doc. on comp. supp. process sheet. Daily R.M.
7-13-83 per surv. indicates he did review JTP.
daily surv of 10-21-81.
H-295 Prod. entry on process sheet ref.
Yes Entry initial and dated applicable ECN, not initial & dated.
by Prod. foreman S. G. 7-9-63 H-296 1.Concreto expan. anchor report No. not entered on Yes 1.
form HC-106 CEA number entered by QCWI L.V. 8-24-83.
2.
Insp. didn't ref. doc. utilized for loc.
Yes 2.
acceptance on process sheet.
Location inspected per Rev. 2 by QCWI S.
R.
7-14-83 H-299 Insp. #1130 didn't ref. doc. utilized Yes Corrected per reinspection for loc. acceptance on process sheet, by QCWI S.
R.
5-9-83 utilizing F9654 which is referenced on checklist acceptance by insp. #1130.
NOTE: D.R. QC-QC-2FP-12-OO2 incorrectly entered on this line. See line HO29 on hardware reject document 0146H, for same support.
H-310 Prod. foreman didn' t enter applic. weld proced.
Yes Applicable WPS revision rev. No. on weld record of process sheet.
entered by QCWI C. H.
Insp. missed this at Type 2 inspection.
7-11-83.
H-315 Inspec. didn't sign Type 3 final insp. report.
Yes Inspector #1533 should have signed FIR, however Level II QCWI J. C. did sign 11-10-81 to indicate acceptable inspection.
OO22p
TABLE D.3 - HUNTER CORPORATION RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULATION REPORT FCR
' ACCEPT 7 PCD NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUM8ER YES OR NO RESOLUTION I
H-320 Prod. foreman didn't enter appli. weld proced. rev.
Yes Applicable WPS revision No. on weld record of process sheet on entered by LQCWI FTIT (3) entries. Insp. missed this at Type 2 7-11-83 inspection.
H-322 Prod. foreman didn't enter appli.
Yes Applicable WPS revision weld proced, rev. No. on weld record of entered by LQCWI PT1T process sheet. Insp. missed this at Type 7-7-83.
2 inspection.
H-328 Inspector didn't check identification Yes QCWI R.W. physically box on finished weld inspc. entry of FW 853.
verified system and weld I.D. 7-11-83. Entry corrected by LQCWI FT1T 07-11-83.
H-329 Prod. foreman didn't initial lineout for requ.
Yes Entry initialed by area no. on weld record for FW 5718 insp.
foreman R.L.B.
7-11-83 missed this at type 2 inspection.
H-331 Prod. foreman didn't initini lineout for mat.
Yes Entry initialed by area traceability record on item #1 for FW 5718 foreman R.L.B.
7-11-83 Inspector missed this at Type 2 inspection.
H-336 Insp. didn't verify dim. between FW3866 Yes Dim. as-built at O'-5 1/8"
& 3867 at Type 2 inspection on CV24-1 Rev. O.
and verified by QCWI's M.B. & M.M.T.
2-14-81.
DR-QC-CV-24-OC1 initiated to revise iso. CV-24 to reflect as-built conditions. CV-24 Rev. SL closed out D,R.
,OO22p
I TABLE D.3 - HUNTER CORPORATION i
RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULATION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION H-3CO Prod foreman didn't enter perf, by and date on Yes Performed by and date weld record entry for FW 79. Inspec. missed this.
entered by production foreman M.D. 7-8-83 H-346 Insp. didn't sign off Part "D" of HC-106.
Yes Signed off by LQCWI M.M.T.
7-15-83 per inspector #1130 daily surve. of 4-7-81.
H-350 Insp. didn't enter not applicable on Part "C" Yes Entry completed by Bldg.
line 8 of HC-106.
Supt.
A.F.
7-15-83 H-353 Prod. Foreman didn't date lineout on weld record Yes Corrected by Bldg. Supt.
i for FW 580, in weld desc. entry of Seq. 4.
A. F.
7-15-83 Insp. missed at Type 2 inspection.
1 H-356 Insp. didn't sign const. copy dwg. at Type 3 insp.
Yes Corrected per Type 3 inspection performed by QCWI G.I. and QCI D.N.
6-11-83.
H-360 Prod. Foreman entered incorr. date on weld Yes Corrected by General record of process sheet. In entrys by & date Foreman C.P. 7-14-83.
column for FW 164 inspec. missed at Type 3 review of Type 2 doc.
H-362 Prod. Foreman didn't date lineout on weld record Yes Corrected by General of process sheet. In weld proced, rev. no.
Foreman C.P.
7-14-83.
column for FW 164 inspec. missed at Type 3 review of Type 2 doc.
I H-365 Prod. Foreman didn't enter cust. id ent. no. for Yes Entered by General comp. no. 2 on process sheet of FW 1616.
Foreman F.G.
7-16-83.
Inspec missed at Type 3 review of Type 2 doc.
tOO22p
- I
. ~
TA8LE D.3 - HUNTER CORPORATION CANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULATION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD EUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUM8ER YES OR NO RESOLUTION H-368 Rod Issue Stat. attendant, issued weld mat. stores Yes Entry corrected by weld requis. no. 138139 with a write over on MRR entry.
dept. J.F. 7-18-83.
Insp. missed at Type 3 review of Type 2 i
documentation.
I H-370 Rod Issue Stat. attendant, didn't make entry for Yes Entry corrected by weld I
mk. no. on weld mat. requis. no. 138165.
dept. J.F. 7-18-83.
Insp. missed at Type 3 review of Type 2 documentation.
l H-372 Rod Issue Stat, attendant, issued weld mat. stores Yes Entry corrected by weld requis, no. 138169 with a write over in rod caddy dept. J.F. 7-18-83.
no entry.
Insp. missed at Type 3 review of Type 2 documentation.
l H-388 Prod. lined out Seq. 4 (second pass weld) on Yes Line out dated by Prod.
l record of FW 447 & did't date the line out.
Area Foreman F.G. 7-16-83 H-390 Prod. lined out Seq. 5 (remaining passes) on Yes Line out was dated by weld record of FW 448 & didn't date the line out.
Prod. Area Foreman F. G. on 7-16-83.
H-392 Prod, issued WMSR 138156 on 3-24-81 but prod.
Yes Prod. area foreman F. G.
foreman M.C.C. entered 3-23-81 for welded corrected the date by & date on FW 449.
on weld record to read 3-24-81 on 7-16-83.
H-397 Prod, lined out weld proced, that was entered Yes Line out was dated by under weld requis. & did not date the line Prod. Area Foreman out on FW 453.
F. G.
on 7-16-83.
o OO22p i
- - ~
I TABLE D.3 - HUNTER CORPORATION CANDOM DISCREPANCY POPUL?. TION REPORT FCR ACCEPT?
PCD NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLtfTION H-399 On weld mat. stores requis. 138163 the mk. no.
Yes N/A was applied by J.F.
didn't have an N/A on the required line.
of the weld. dept.
on 7-18-83.
H-(01 On weld mat, stores requis. 138173, the mk. no.
Yes N/A was applied by J. F.
didn't have an N/A on the required line.
of the weld dept.
on 7-18-83.
H-410 Insp. didn't show verification of dim on CCD Yes Dimensions verified by Rev. O.
QCI D.N. on 5-19-83 by a later Type 3 inspection.
H-412 Insp. didn't sign CCD after perfor. Type 3 Final inspection report inspection, was signed by his walkdown partner QCI R. M.
on 3-2-81 verifying inspection.
H-419 Insp. didn't sign CCD after perfor.
Yes Final inspection report Type 3 inspection, was lost in process A later Type 3 was performed to verify insp.
by M.P.P. QCI on 5-16-81.
H-431 Inspec. didn't sign CCD after perform.
Yes Inspector did sign final Type 3 inspection.
inspection report validating the Type 3 inspection.
H-432 Inspec. didn't sign final inspection report after Yes Final inspection report perform. Type 3 inspection.
was signed by R.R.C.
LQCWI on 6-25-81 for inspector (9357) G. F.
22p
TABLE D.3 - HUNTER CORPORATION RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULQTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION H-033 Inspector verified config. during Type 3. Valves CCD was changed on Rev.
on CCD were facing south instead of north.
48 to show valves facing north.
H-442 Inspector didn't sign CCD af ter perform. Type 3 Yes Inspector did sign final inspection, inspection report on the same day, thus verifying inspection.
H-051 Inspector didn't sign CCD after perform. Type 3 Yes Inspector did sign final inspection.
inspection report on the same day, thus verifying inspection.
H-455 Inspector perform, review of Type 2 package didn't Yes New final inspection initiate new final inspection report.
report, not required.
FIR signed by L.E.H.
LQCWI on 3-28-81 is still valid.
H-465 Inspc. didn't sign const, copy dwg. at Yes Corrected per Type 4 Type 4 inspection.
inspection performed by QCWI H.H. 6-19-81.
H-468 Inspc. didn' t sign const, copy dwg. at Yes Corrected per Type 4 Type 4 inspection.
inspection performed by QCWI H.H.
6-19-81.
Final inspection report for Type 3 accepted by LQCWI R.R.C.
3-14-81.
OO22p
TABLE D.3 - HUNTER CORPORATION RANDOM DISCREPANCY
- POPULQTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO-RESOLUTION H-077 Inspc. performed Type 3 inspection 3-14-81.
Yes Inspei: tor did sign final But didn't sign const. copy dwg. until 3-25-81.
inspection report 3-14-81, validating this i
inspection.
3 Verified per Type 4 inspection performed by QCI L.L. 5-6-83.
H-081 Inspec. performed Type 3 inspec. 3-14-81, but Yes However, LQCWI R.R.C.
didn't sign const. copy dwg.
signed final inspection report 3-14-81 validating this inspection. Verified per Type 4 inspection performed by QCI D.N. 5-3-83.
H-082 Inspec. performed Type 3 inspec. 3-14-81, but Yes However, LQCWI R.R.C.
i, didn't sign const copy dwg.
signed final inspection report 3-14-81 validating this inspection. Verified per Type 4 inspection performed by QCI D.N. 5-3-83.
H-493 Inspector didn't enter his name on his daily Yes Entered by LQCWI j
surv.
R.J.W.
7-19-83.
l H-096 Inspector didn't sign const. copy dwg. at Type 4 Yes Corrected per Type 4
)
inspection.
inspection performed by QCI D.N.
4-30-83.
H-518 Inspector didn't date const. copy dwg. at Type 3 Yes Inspector did sign final inspection, inspection report 5-2-81 validating this inspection.
OO22p
TA8LE D.3 - HUNTER CORPORATION CANDOM DISCREPANCY
" POPULf, TION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD FUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION H-541 Insp. didn't check surface discont. box for Non NF Yes Physically verified by weld entry on comp. supp. process sheet. Insp.
QCWI G.I. and 1782 performed final review of doc. & missed this entered 7-9-83, error.
t H-542 Insp. #1090 didn't check ident. box for Non NF Yes Entered by weld entry on comp. supp. process sheet. Insp.
QCWI G.I. 7-9-83.
- 1782 performed final reveiw of doc. & missed this error.
H-553 Insp. #1562 didn't check connection accept, box Yes Physically verified by for loc. accept. on comp. support process QCWI G.
I, and sheets. Insp. #1782 performed final review of entered 7-16-83.
doc. & missed this error.
H-558 Prod. foreman didn't initial & date entry Yes Entry initialed & dated of appli. ECN 44607 & CT82035 on comp. supp.
by QCWI G.I. 7-12-83.
process sheet. Insp. # 1782 performed final review of doc. and missed this error.
H-502 Insp. #1638 didn't check weld size box for FW 1 Yes Physically verified &
on comp. support process sheet. Insp. #1782 entered by QCWI G.I.
performed final review of doc. & missed this error.
7-7-83.
H-588 Prod. foreman didn't comp. entrys on Part C, Yes Entrys made by QCWI G.I.
line 10 on CEA traveler form HC-106.
Insp. #1782 7-7-83 per acceptable missed this error at Type 2 inspection.
NDE report no. CEA 10344 dated 7-23-82.
H-590 Insp. #1213 didn't check loc. accepted box for Yes Physically verified &
loc. insp. on comp. supp. process sheet. Insp.
entered by QCWI G.I.
- 1782 performed final review of doc. &
7-14-83.
missed this error.
OO22p
~
. TABLE D.3 - HUNTER CORPORATION WDOM DISCREPANCY iJLCTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD LJMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION H-5 2 Insp. #1092 didn't check accept box for loc. insp.
Physically verified &
on comp. support process sheet. Insp. #1782 entered by QCWI G. I.
performed final review of doc. & missed this error.
7-9-83.
4-507 Insp. #1226 didn't check loc. accepted box for Yes Physically verified &
loc. insp. on comp. supp. process sheet. Insp.
entered by QCWI G.I.
- 1782 performed final review of doc. &
7-16-83.
missed this error.
1-604 Insp. didn't check connection accepted box for Yes Physically verified and loc. insp. Insp. missed this at Type 2 inspect, entered by QCWI G.I.
7-13-83.
1-612 Insp. didn't sign process sheet for loc.
Yes Location accepted by acceptance.
QCWI T.R.J.
1-29-83.
1-623 Insp. didn't sign off process sheet for FW 1 as Yes FW 1 was re-inspected by daily surv. indicates.
T.R.J. QCWI on 3-22-83.
1-022 Insp. didn't sign off loc. on process sheet as Yes Original location daily surv. indicates, inspection by M.S. QCWI on 6-11-80 is still valid.
1-626 Insp. didn't sign off loc. on process Yes Orignal location sheet as daily surv. indicates.
inspection by R.B.S. on 4-9-82 is still valid.
1-028 Insp. missed weld tolerance for add, weld.
Hanger was re-worked to (weld had add. reinforc).
ECN 48894. Re-inspected by V.T. QCWI on 10-10-83.
'A
h TABLE D.3 - HUNTER CORPORATION RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULGTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTIOtJ NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION H-629 Insp. signed off wrong process sheet.
Yes 52 Entrys on large bore thru piping process sheet H-680 due to inspector signing wrong process sheet.
52 rejected attributes were given. CA Inspector S.S.B.
corrected 1-29-82.
FW 601 was accepted by QCWI L.E.H. 4-17-79.
1 M22p
TABLE D.4 - JOHNSON CONTROLS RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULQTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION JC-1 AA-6 fit up gap between L and CEA is 1/8" and weld SED CALC Yes Reduced weld stress is 1/4" fillet.
19.1.3 calculation perfort. sed and accepted.
JC-2 AA-10 Same as JC-1.
SED CALC Yes Same as JC-1.
9.6.3 JC-3 AA-70 Same as JC-1.
SED CALC Yes Same as JC-1.
9.6.3 JC-O AA-6 Loose tube track bolts.
N/A N/A Tube track was removed by other contractors and temporarily reinstalled.
Reinspection did not reflect original install.
Johnson Controls final inspection prior to system turnover would identify condition and rework would occur.
JC-5 AA-32 Loose tube track bolte.
N/A N/A Same as JC-4.
JC-6 AB-9 Missing bolts.
N/A N/A Same as JC-4.
JC-7 AA-41 Tube track damaged.
N/A N/A Same as JC-4.
JC-8 AA-44 Tube track damaged.
N/A N/A Same as JC-4.
JC-9 AA-6 Same as JC-1.
Yes SED CALC Same as JC-1.
9.1.3 JC-10 AB-7 Missing weld across unistrut.
Yes SED CALC ECN 5573 makes weld 9.1.3 across unistrut optional.
- GO22p
TABLE D.4 - JOHNSON CONTROLS RANDOM DISCREPANCY SULATION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY WUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION JC-11 AB-6 Same as JC-10.
SED CALC Yes Same as JC-10, 9.1.3 JC-12 1AB33/35 Tube track joint weld was ground flush.
SED CALC Yes Weld is through full 9.1.3 thickness of tube track, crown was removed.
JC-13 1AB13/14 Loose tube clamps.
N/A N/A Same as JC-4.
JC-10 1 AB14/15 Loose tube clamps.
N/A N/A Same as JC-4.
JC-15 AA-11 Loose tube clamps.
N/A N/A Same as JC-4.
JC-16 AA-32 Loose tube clamps.
N/A N/A Same as JC-4.
JC-17 AA-38 Loose tube clamps and part of 1 clamp N/A N/A Same as JC-4.
is missing.
JC-18 AB-7 Loose clamp.
N/A N/A Same as JC-4.
JC-19 AA-7 & AA-9 Tube touching tube track.
N/A N/A Same as JC-4.
JC-20 1A8-151 Hanger attached 2 1/4" off of beam.
SED CALC Yes FCR F17114 approved beam 9.1.3 off center attachment.
JC-21 1AB-146 Gap between end of unistrut and end of SED CALC Yes FCR F16313 approved gap connection plate (1/8" to 1/4").
9.1.3 max. load 71bs.
JC-22 1AB-148 Same as JC-21.
SED CALC Yes Same as JC-21.
JC-23 1AB-149 Same as JC-21.
SED CALC Yes Same as JC-21.
JC-20 1AB-142 Same as JC-21.
SED CALC Yes FCR F17001 similarity.
9.1.3 Hanger was subsequently deleted. Gap acceptable.
22p
. TABLE D.4 - JOHNSON CONTROLS RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULGTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY FUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION JC-25 1AB-143 Same as JC-21 SED CALC Yes Same as JC-24.
9.1.3 JC-26 AB-3 Hanger is welded to embedment plate SED CALC Yes Detail shows only beam.
instead of beam.
9.1.3 Embedment plate is sufficient to carry unistrut load.
JC-27 AZ-1 Lack of weld penetration.
SED CALC Yes Lack of penetration is 9.1.3 normally limited to either first and last 1/4" (or both) of weld. Weld was checked for reduced length.
JC-28 AZ-Z Lack of weld penetration.
SED CALC Yes Same as JC-27.
9.1.3 JC-29 AZ-3 Hanger installed with 1/4" gap; base metal SED CALC Yes Gap between plate and Gouged.
9.1.3 beam.
JC-30 AF-1 Hanger stiffener missing.
SED CALC Yes FCR F15400 addressed 9.1.3 missing stiffeners.
Load is 12.
JC-31 AA-1 Missing weld across unistrut SED CALC Yes ECN 5513 makes weld 9.1.3 across unistrut optional.
JC-32 AB-3 Same as JC-26.
SED CALC Yes Same as JC-26.
l 9.1.3 i
JC-33 AB-3 Same as JC-31.
SED CALC Yes Same as JC-31.
9.1.3 l
JC-34 AK-1 Z bar weld made only an weld outside of SED CALC Yes Eliminated weld accepted flanges overlap.
9.1.3 by FCR13514. Overlap not j
l critical.
OO22p n
1 TABLE D.4 - JOHNSON CONTROLS CANDOM DISCREPANCY
'OPULLTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY FUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION JC-35 AK-2 Same as JC-34.
SED CALC Yes Same as JC-34.
9.1.3 JC-36 AM-1 Tube steel 47 1/4" long instead of 36".
SED CALC Yes Longer cantilever avail-9.1.3 able.
Hanger was deleted.
JC-37 AF-1 Gap between end of unistrut and end of SED CALC Yes See M-3393 Sht. 4.
Reduced connection plate.
9.1.3 weld thickness is acceptable.
JC-38 AB-4 Same as JC-21 SED CALC Yes Same as JC-21.
9.1.3 Load 11 lbs.
JC-39 AC-2 Base metal gouged.
SED CALC Yes Angle weld checked for 9.1.3 reduced length due to base metal gouging. Load 12 lbs 75% of weld length considered.
JC-(.O AC-12 Ease metal gouged.
SED CALC Yes Same as JC-39.
9.1.3 JC-41 AC-19 Base metal gouged.
SED CALC Yes Same as JC-39.
9.1.3 JC-42 2VXO43 Relocated 1"-3" due to blockwall column FCR Yes Minor relocation due to interference.
19720 block wall column interference.
122p
TABLE D.5 - POWERS-A2CO-POPE CANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULGTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY NLMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION PAP-8 Hanger 1PI-SXO19-14 Size substitution.
SED CALC Yes 2 x 2 x 3/8 angle used 9.1.3 instead of 3 x 2 x 3/8 angle. Load 8 lbs.
PAP-35 Hanger 1PT-SIO48-12 Hanger configuration.
SED CALC Yes Stiffener omitted.
9.1.3 Load 39 lbs.
PAP-41 Hanger 1PT-SIO48-18 Hanger configuration.
SED CALC Yes Stiffener omitted.
9.1.3 Load 72 lbs.
PAP-54 Hanger 1PT-SIO48-32 Incomplete weld.
SED CALC Yct Incomplete weld acceptable 9.1.3 per ECN 4835.
PAP-64 Hanger IPT-SIO48-35 Incomplete weld.
SED CALC Yes Incomplete weld acceptable 9.1.3 per ECN 4835.
PAP-120 Hanger IPT-546-1 Hanger Configuration.
SED CALC Yes CEA relocation acceptable 9.1.3 per FCR18163.
PAP-162 Twisted flex hose 1FT-426.
SED CALC Yes Flex hose twist due to mis-044953 alignment of anti-torque 0
lines (approx. 20 ).
PAP-180 Hanger 1PI-SXO19-12 Hanger Configuration.
SED CALC Yes 2 x 2 x 3/8 angle used 9.1.3 instead of 3 x 2 x 3/8 angle. Load 8 lbs.
Pf.P-182 Hanger 1PI-SXO19-14 Hanger Configuration.
SED CALC Yes 2 x 2 x 3/8 angle used 9.1.3 instead of 3 x 2 x 3/8 angle. Load 8 lbs.
PAP-197 Hanger 1FT-444-14 Size substitution.
SED CALC Yes Acceptable per M-919 Sht 9A 9.1.3 tolerance dwg. item 3 R 1/2 x 4 x 10 changed to 1/2 x 4 x 6 attachment plates moment decrease.
OO22p
l TABLE D.5 - POWERS-AZCO-POPE CANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULCTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPnNCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION PAP-233 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
OPC-WOO 19 Hanger #6.
PAP-320 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
ILT-503 Mount.
PAP-309 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
ILT-459 Pipe mat.
PAP-145 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1LT-539 Hanger #22.
PAP-207 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
IPT-RHOO2 Pipe mat.
PAP-156 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1FIS-646 Hanger #23.
PAP-159 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
ILT-557 Hanger #35.
PAP-212 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
IPDS-DOO64 Pipe mat.
PAP-295 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
OLI-WOO 10 Pipe mat.
PAP-87 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
OPI-WOO 26 Hanger #2.
PAP-119 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
IPR-02J Hanger #10.
PAP-314 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
ILT-930 Hanger #1.
OO22p f
TABLE D.5 - POWERS-AZCO-POPE CANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULGTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD NtmBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION PAP-60 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
IPT-SIO48 Hanger #35.
PAP-187 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1FT-436 Hanger #16.
PAP-326 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1FI-SXO37 Pipe mat.
PAP-291 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1PT-MSO43 Hanger #7.
PIP-83 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
IPI-WOO 26 Hanger #1.
l PAP-308 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
ILT-459 Pipe mat.
PAP-78 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1FI-SX104 Hanger #5.
PAP-139 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
ILT-503 Mount.
J PAP-96 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
OPI-WOO 26 Hanger #4.
PIP-86 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
OPI-WOO 26 Hanger #2.
PfP-325 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1FI-SXO37 Piping.
PAP-222 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1FIS-646 Hanger #2.
OO22p i
.l TABLE D.5 - POWERS-AZCO-POPE RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULATION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD 1
NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION PCP-2OO Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1FT-688 Hanger #2.
PAP-184 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1PI-SXO19 Hanger #5.
PAP-330 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1PT-SIO48 Hanger #27.
PAP-170 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
IPT-SXOO7 Pipe mat.
3 I
PAP-171 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
OLI-WOOO9 Pipe mat, j
PAP-92 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
OPI-WOO 26 Hanger #3.
]
PAP-333 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
IPT-SIO48 Hanger #27.
PCP-136 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only, i
OTS-SXO90 Hanger #218.
I PCP-204 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1FT-618 Hanger #13.
PAP-327 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1PT-SIO48 Hanger #24.
PAP-183 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1PT-964 Pipe mat.
l i
PAP-329 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
IPT-SIO48 Hanger #27.
l.
!OO22p
_ - - - ~
1
TABLE D.5 - POWERS-AZCO-POPE i EANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULATION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION i
PLP-82 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
OPI-WOO 26 Hanger #1.
I l
PT,P-198 Material Verification error / class "D".
Material N/A Yes None/ Material removed &
~ installed 1/2 x 1/4 compression fitting.
replaced with class
'H' i
fitting. Would be ident-l ified during final QC review.
(FIS #1936) t PAP-228 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1FT-AF011 Mount.
PAP-190 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1FT-522 Pipe mat.
PAP-219 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1FT-AF013 Hanger #15.
l PT.P-304 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only, 1LT-459 Pipe mat.
i PAP-44 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1PI-SIO48 Hanger #21.
PAP-312 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
ILT-459 Pipe mat.
I PIP-174 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1PI-SXO19 Hanger #5.
PAP-305 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1LT-459 Pipe mat.
PAP-298 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1PI-SXO19 Hanger #16.
OO22p
I TABLE D.5 - POWERS-AZCO-POPE RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULATION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION PAP-307 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
ILT-459 Pipe mat.
PAP-256 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
ILT-518 Pipe mat.
1 l
PAP-101 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
OPI-WOO 26 Hanger #8.
PAP-259 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1FT-444 Hanger #18.
PAP-62 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
IPT-SIO48 Hanger #35.
PAP-74 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1FI-SX104 Hanger #9, PAP-164 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
ILT-932 Mount.
PAP-21 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1FIS-610 Hanger #10.
PAP-201 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
IPI-DOO10 Hanger #5.
PAP-235 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
IPI-SXO2O Hanger #4.
PAP-17 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1LS-DOO23 Hanger #6.
PAP-328 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1PT-SIO48 Hanger #24.
OO22p
TABLE D.5 - POWERS-AZCO-POPE RANDOM DISCREPANCY
- POPULCTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION PAP-313 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1FT-445 Hanger #14.
PAP-244 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1FI-SX105 Mount.
PAP-149 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1LT-503 Hanger #4.
PAP-191 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1PT-RYO2O Pipe mat.
PAP-116 Documentation Error - Material Verification.
N/A Yes Records correction only.
1PR-02.7 Hanger #9.
OO22p rt
i TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY CANDOM DISCREPANCY
' POPULCTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-3 2295 (1) Conduit bends.
Yes (1) Excess bends OK (2) Ground jumper.
(because allowable cable (3) Missing WS hgr.
pulling tension was not exceeded.)
(2) #2 AWG jumper OK for 1/0 AWG power corducter per I
NEC.
(3) Missing hangers OK because installed hangers I
temporarily removed due to anchor failure.
HE-14 2337 LX length less than allowed.
Yes Short length OK because two ends of flex supported from same surface; i.e.,
flexi-bility not required.
)
HE-29 2264 Hgr. type / configuration.
Yes Installed plate size meets design requirements.
HE-32 2273 Hgr. type / configuration.
Yes Shorter tube-steel I
installed meets design requirements.
i HE-34 2274 Hgr. type / configuration.
Yes Installed plate size meets design requirements.
)
HE-70 2267 Aux. steel length.
Yes Shorter tube-steel installed meets design requirements.
HE-76 2894 Dimensions out of tolerance.
Yes Installed hanger dimensions meet design requirements.
1 OO22p
TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY
~,
CANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULCTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY NUPBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-79 2908 Location out of tolerance.
Yes Installed hanger dimensions meet design requirements.
HE-04 3686 LX longer than allowed per EB-146 (Hatfield Yes Flex length added to Dwg.
NCR #776).
6E-1-3312 (Rev. BD) - Reso-lution required no hardware change.
HE-123 2193 J. Box cover missing gasket.
Yes No gasket required because no terminal blocks in box 1
- resolution required no hardware change.
HE-311 2089 Incorrect conduit size recorded.
23148 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
HE-322 2170 Incorrect conduit bend radius recorded.
23154 Yes FCR approved - resolution j
required no hardware
]
change.
HE-326 Incorrect dimension recorded for HBT-SOO.
22324 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
t j
HE-414 2129 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23129 Yes FCR 23129 rejected because correction previously cov-21809 ered by FCR 21809 (approved) - Resolution required no hardware l
change.
HE-551 2850 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23574 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
OO22p
. TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY
'!ANDOM DISCREPANCY Y 'PULATION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-594 3034 Incorrect plate size recorded.
23618 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
HE-611 2498 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23421 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
HE-611 2499 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23421 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
HE-611 2500 Incorrect dimension recorded.
Yes Dwg. revised to correct draf ting error - reso-lution required no hard-ware change.
HE-622 2477 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23421 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
HE-628 2513 Incw rect Atachment recorded.
Yes Design was changed after, but not as a result of, reinspection.
Installation would have been changed independent of discrepancy.
HE-632 2516 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23421 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
HE-676 3050 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23619 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
OO22p L
i.
TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULf. TION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY NUMBER NUMBER OISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-725 3018 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23616 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
HE-726 3018 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23616 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
HE-727 3018 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23616 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
HE-755 3022 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23616 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
HE-762 3023 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23616 Yes FCR approved - resolutior required no hardware change.
HE-819 3375 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23811 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
HE-863 3379 Incorrect conduit size recorded.
23811 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
HE-870 3399 Incorrect conduit size recorded.
Yes Discrepancy report incor-rect; i.e.,
previously resolved by ECN-2756, no hardware change required.
HE-934 2808 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23577 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
OO22p 1
TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY RNDOM DISCREPANCY LJL6 TION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNDY LMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-1111 2511 Incorrect anchor size recorded.
Yes Paper error only.
Dwg. &
installation now agree.
Installed anchors meet de-sign requirements.
HE-1115 2542 Incorrect conduit bend radius recorded.
23417 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
4E-1153 2517 Incorrect segregation code recorded.
Yes Drafting error - Seg. code corrected to "KLR" on dwg.
1-3352 - resolution required no hardware change.
4E-1159 2485 Incorrect tube-steel dimensions recorded.
23407 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
1E-1229 2351 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23413 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
E-1235 2357 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23413 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware I
change.
l
[E-1415 3117 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23617 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
CE-1422 3170 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23680 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
L Pp
i TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY RANDOM DISCREPANCY DPULQTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 SARGENT & LUNTY NLMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-1089 3296 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23723 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
HE-1505 3334 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23807 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
HE-1530 2235 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23251 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
HE-1540 2064 Incorrect attachment elevation recorded.
23111 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
HE-1508 2066 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23111 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
HE-1553 2067 Incorrect dimension recorded.
23148 Yes FCR approved - resolution required no hardware change.
HE-1562 2088 Incorrect dimension recorded.
Yes Conduit support (as in-stalled) meets design requirements - resolution required no hardware change however, missing support will be replaced.
HE-1570 2170 Incorrect conduit bend radius recorded.
Yes 10" radius is acceptable sidewall pressure is not a limiting factor.
022p
. ~.
L
i TABLE D.6 - HAT.'IEL D ELECTRIC COMPANY
~
PANDOM DISCREPANCY SULATION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD BUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-1090 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J" acceptable.
HE-057 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-683 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-221 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-685 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
4HE-1339 N/A Incorrect attachment recorded, n'/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
I jHE-621 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
l 6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-482 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
l
!HE-295 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
(
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
l
TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULCTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD F UMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-1434 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-842 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Row "J"
acceptable.
HE-306 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-824 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-672 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-239 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-866 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1256 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
i acceptable.
HE-137 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
OO22p
i TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY RANDOM DISCREPANCY CPULf, TION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-521 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1288 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-925 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V' Rev "J" acceptable.
HE-1007 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-465 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-933 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-504 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-13?,2 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-934 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
'22p m
I TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY CANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULGTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD NLNWER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-1C30 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-733 N/A Incorrect attachment description.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-507 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-257 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-987 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J" acceptable.
HE-1401 N/A Incorrect attachment description.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-1127 N/A Incorrect attachment description.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-324 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1110 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-224 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
0022p I
- C7 -
TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY RANOOM DISCREPANCY POPULCTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-C89 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J" acceptable.
HE-1370 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-904 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J" acceptable.
HE-1190 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-554 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J" acceptable.
HE-427 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-409 N/A Incorrect attachmeist recorded.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-173 N/A Incorrect dimension recortied.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-513 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A.
Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
OO22p
C
- C8 -
TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY l
CANDOM DISCREPANCY
'POPUL$ TION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD NLMBE"?
NUMBER DISCEEPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-1367 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable, f
t j
HE-1271 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
i acceptable.
J HE-1C78 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
f acceptable.
l HE-914 N/A Incorrect attachment recorded.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-1447 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable, j
{
HE-1221 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
j 6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
]
acceptable.
I HE-349 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
{
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-902 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
l 6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
4 I
HE-801 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
t 6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
,OO22p m
- CO -
TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY EANDOM DISCRTPANr(
POPULCTION
- REPOr, FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-CIO N/A
- ncorrect attachment recorded.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-103 N/A Incorrect attachment recorded.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-299 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J" acceptable.
HE-864 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-C24 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1357 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-386 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J" acceptable.
HE-1035 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-548 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
>22p
b
- 101 -
TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY RANDOM DISCREPANCY
,POPULCTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD Nt#WER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-1292 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10 Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1012 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
]
acceptable.
HE-552 N/A Incorrect attachment recorded.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-576 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-833 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-550 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10. Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1005 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-822 N/A Incorrect attachment description.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-1523 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
l acceptable.
OO22p
- 100 -
TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULCTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD N4#BER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLtJTION HE-C89 N/A Incorrect dimansion recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J" acceptable.
HE-139 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-249 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-703 N/A Incorrect dimonsion recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-562 N/A Incorrect attachment recorded.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-C53 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-993 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-978 N/A Incorrect attachment recorded.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-532 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
0022p
\\
J
- 102 -
TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY RANDOR DISCREPANCY POPULC. TION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD NigBER INSWER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NLFWER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-1354 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10 Dhag.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "3"
acceptable.
HE-1408 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dhsg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1329 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dhsg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-939 N/A Incorrect attachment recorded.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-742 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dhag.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-244 N/A Incorrect attachment recorded.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-318 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "3"
acceptable.
HE-207 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dhsg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-917 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dhag.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
OO22p
- 103 -
g TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULC. TION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD
_aMNWER NUPSER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-022 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-760 N/A Attachment Description incorrect.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-500 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1405 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1525 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1059 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-575 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1248 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
8 HE-702 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
022p
- 104 -
TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY EANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULOTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-076 N/A Incorrect attachment recorded.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-1031 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1201 N/A Incorrect attachment description.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-369 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note.?10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-592 N/A Incorrect attachment recorded.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-983 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1461 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-262 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1022 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-351 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
OO22p A
)
- 105 -
TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULOTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD NUMBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-1056 N/A Incorrect dimension reconfed.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-452 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-657 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-334 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-563 N/A Incorrect attachment recorded.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-1003 N/A Incorrect dimension reccrded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-2OO N/A Incorrect attachment recorded.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-1550 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-815 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-642 N/A Incorrect attachment recorded.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
OO22p 1
I i
- 106 -
TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULC. TION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD NWIBER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-1169 N/A Incorrect attachment recorded.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-1223 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1014 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-905 N/A Incorrect attachment recorded.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-540 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1441 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-410 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1558 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10 Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-942 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
OO22p
- 107 -
i TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULCTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD NLMBER NLMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTIOsd NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-1039 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-216 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1284 N/A Incorrect attachment description.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-1209 N/A Incorrect attachment description.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-861 N/A Incorrect attachment description.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field, o
HE-969 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1454 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10 Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-013 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1016 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10 Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1482 N/A Incorrect attachment description.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
3022p 1
I T
- 108 -
TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPtALTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD Nt#BER IN#WER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-729 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-241 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1450 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1565 N/A Incorrect attachment description.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-1522 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1409 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1224 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-188 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J" acceptable.
HE-1446 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J" acceptable.
OO22p 1
t
- 109 -
TABLE D.6 - HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY RANDOR DISCREPANCY PCPULCTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD eRFWER NINBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION BRMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION HE-1112 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J" acceptable.
HE-C12 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-0-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-498 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-1313 N/A Incorrect attachment description.
N/A Yes Attachment correct in field.
HE-418 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J"
acceptable.
HE-01 N/A End of hanger not galvanized.
N/A Yes Paint end of hanger.
HE-580 N/A Incorrect dimension recorded.
N/A Yes Per note #10, Dwg.
6E-O-3393V, Rev "J" acceptable.
OO22p
- 113 -
~
TABLE D.7 - NISCO RANDOR DISCREPANCY POPULCTION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCD h
NWWER NUPSER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION CISCO-1 NCR-103 3/16" x 1" x 12" Stainless Steel shin on Transfer N/A Yes Accept as is.
System track per C8E-FDR-10010.
Shim to be welded with a 1/8" fillet, 1" long every 3" - actual length of fillet 3/4" long.
CISCO-2 NCR-103 3/16" x 1" x 12" Stainless Steel shim on Transfer N/A Yes Accept as is.
System track per CBE-FDR-10010.
Shim to be welded with a 1/8" fillet, 1" long every 3" - actual length of fillet 7/8" long.
CISCO-3 NCR-103 3/16" x 1" x 12" Stainless Steel shim on Transfer N/A Yes Accept as is.
System track per CBE-FDR-10010.
Shim to be welded with a 1/8" fillet, 1" long every 3" - actual length of fillet 7/8" long.
CISCO-4 NCR-103 3/16" x 1" x 12" Stainless Steel shim on Transfer N/A Yes Accept as is.
System track per CBE-FDR-10010.
Shim to be welded with a 1/8" fillet, 1" long every 3" - actual length of fillet 3/4" long.
CISCO-5 NCR-103 3/16" x 1" x 12" Stainless Steel shim on Transfer N/A Yes Accept as is.
System track per C8E-FDR-10010.
Shim to be welded with a 1/8" fillet, 1" long every 3" - actual length of fillet 3/4" long.
CISCO-6 NCR-103 3/16" x 1" x 12" Stainless Steel shim on Transfer N/A Yes Accept as is.
System track per CBE-FDR-10010.
Shim to be welded with a 1/8" fillet, 1" long every 3" - actual length of fillet 3/4" long.
CISCO-7 NCR-103 3/16" x 1" x 12" Stainless Steel shim on Transfer N/A Yes Accept as is.
System track per C8E-FDR-10010.
Shim to be welded with a 1/8" fillet, 1" long every 3" - actual length of fillet 7/8" long.
OO22p
- 111 -
(
M
~
TABLE D.7 - NISCO RANDOM DISCREPANCY POPULATION REPORT FCR ACCEPT 7 PCO NUPWER NUMBER DISCREPANCY DESCRIPTION NUMBER YES OR NO RESOLUTION NISCO-8 NCR-103 3/16" x 1" x 12" Stainless Steel shim on Transfer N/A Yes Accept as is.
System track per CBE-FDR-10010.
Shim to be welded with a 1/8" fillet, la long every 3" - actual length of fillet 7/8" long.
NISCO-9 NCR-103 3/16" x 1" x 12" Stainless Steel shim on Transfer N/A Yes Accept as is.
System track per CBE-FDR-10010.
Shim to be welded with a 1/8" fillet, 1" long every 3" - actual length of fillet 3/4" long.
NISCO-10 NCR-103 3/16" x 1" x 12" Stainless Steel shim on Transfer N/A Yes Accept as is.
System track per CBE-FDR-10010.
Shim to be welded with a 1/8" fillet, 1" long every 3" - actual length of fillet 3/4" long.
NISCO-11 NCR-103 3/16" x 1" x 12" Stainless Steel shim on Transfer N/A Yes Accept as is.
System track per CBE-FDR-10010.
Shim to be welded with a 1/8" fillet, 1" long every 3" - actual length of fillet 7/8" long.
NISCO-12 NCR-103 3/16" x 1" x 12" Stainless Steel shim on Transfer N/A Yes Accept as is.
System track per CBE-FDR-10010.
Shim to be welded with a 1/8" fillet, 1" long every 3" - actual length of fillet 7/8" long.
OO22p 0
.