ML20090M826
| ML20090M826 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1982 |
| From: | Renee Taylor CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20090M535 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-82-206, FOIA-82-A-11 NUDOCS 8405290208 | |
| Download: ML20090M826 (23) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:, . _ QUALITY CONFIRMATION PROGRAM STATUS (AS OF APRIL 30,1982)
=
- ~ . . . . - : ;
by Rodger N. Taylor , Director, Quality Confirmation Program .
* *- T e
O l e t
. . 8405290208 840329
. PDR FOIA PDR .-
DEVINE82-A-11 . .
. O
. _ _ _ . . . - - - . 2. J. . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . _. . . . . _ . , . .
e.
. e ,.
~--
- - .a
~ -
, .=. . :. + ~ - ca.. -
, . s. . ;.a ,;w;;. . .
- 9. . .
C l THE GOAL OF THE QUALITY CONFIRMATION PROGRAM IS TO CONFIRM THE QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE kH. H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION AND TO ENSURE THAT ANY DEFICIENCIES ARE PROPERLY ADDRESSED THROUGH ENGIN-EERING EVALUATION, ANALYSIS, OR REWORK.
.O 9
9 e S O e - 4 9 e e O 9 4 3 0 S 9 8 e I
~ o o
e 9 4 e e me
# e
- e e
, . . l 6 .
.- .---x...._........-...... . . . . . .
1
QCP PANPOWER SU!FARY
.
- t ADM1HISTRATION ...................................... 5....... 2 J
E N G I N E E R S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 . QUALITi ENGINEERS........................................... 121 1HSPECTORS.................................................. 18 , DOCUMENT REVIEWERS.......................................... 191 CLERKS....................................................... 4 . 4 9 k COM? UT E R S UP P 0 RT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 T0TAL..........................................:............. 73 o e e e e 9
- W i
+
m 6 e 6
. O **
* . e 4 . .
o
- 6 e
4 . g
- 8 e o
--w- - -.. e ,a .. + o. . ,,..mca._y. ,,w _ ,%,,,..., . .,g . ,p, -h
. p. .
. .- . ..- s . - -
7.-.
SUMMARY
OF THE , j
- "" ~
QUALITY CONFIRMATION PROGRAM TASKS
- 1. STRUCTURAL STEELe ~ .a.- .
II. WELD QUALITY .. III. HEAT NUMBER TRACEABILITY . IV. SOCKET WELD FITUP.~ . V. RADIOGRAPHS - ,
. VI. CABLE SEPARATION VII. NONCONFORMANCES ..
i
.VIII. DES'IGN CONTROL AND VERIFICATION IX. DESGIN DOCUMENT CHANGES . -
~
i . X. SU3 CONTRACTOR QA PROGRAMS 4 . XI. AUDIT'S ; -
. Q .
e e . p 4
~ .
e 8
. 9 ..
- s. .
= -
~ . _ ~ .~._.mm_..~. . ._..s . _ . _ _ . . . _ . ..s
u - - - - 4 WW :t yy
- g. -
t,. at.b. e Mkk4 J.i
.3:'t)W.r.;e .@gz. o.
- W.. . . . .
1 =
. t. -
596 .
?-
95 *
- ,3.s.
t*) .
.;7. .
. s, u.c; ,.)* Y.9 3 ~.. .
vM!; r-)f 40 MV m >+ ' f.# l ~.
- Wn, g ,
M. w. . .
'.2.*s ..-
%g^ g:' 7D . : M *h %. g, y
- M N sti.+,n ep - .
3<'%.*p%4 . ; @O - .. .
- c. y.y.4 y.2..<. ;. c. .. f
. w
-c; :- + _ ,
. p
. h. '.5,).;.)' . . .~w. ,
+ ,- W .
.a .
..i 55 .
. ~ is75)-
. r rn K
,:i'..;.r e.-
t 50 - o r
-)
\
u Jeg '49
- A CD.,y. .
,E
- *5:
r.g , 1 yh .4,* 40 . ,
.AM .~ , j'/t 37 14,, r
- L,y st.
,. :f-l} *
.. & .f;
- 34 .
.. ~ -
30 - . . .
~
- n, '. ., .::.a - 16
.: . r .. .
e a ,._
-,.s. 1 ; .
. \
I d ISVI
- . vsry.-
-{. Q ts)j 2 o '
h*f-d.i$ t ' ,mi- 1
'y.:399, '
+
wr :,r t.n^ 1,
-Q~gV A
, T. b o..)
.L.*
. ~. . .e... A. y. 10 . www '.
. s r:%.a 3+
se.v.yp
? .m .,
;d%-3 4.5 '
.u. .
~J '4 5 7 8 8
- 10 11
..,Tui.4
. 1 2 3 5 ,
. TASK '
;.<4 d .
.h 3 . .
4 e * . o iua K r -* " ' " " " " - ^ -
{ ]
, , TASK I:
STRUCTURAL. STEEL :. Sui'#RY OF ' TASK , > 1. SOME NONCONFORMING WELDS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED
...2. SOME WELDS WERE PAINTED PRIOR TO INSPECTION ', ..
. 3. SOME BEAMS HAVE NONCONFORMING RE-ENTRANT INSPECTION * ,
- 4. SOME BEAMS INSTALLED.BUT NOT SHOWN ON DESIGN DRAWINGS
- 5. B,EAMS RECEIVED FROM UNAPPROVED VENDOR
- 6. HEAT NUMBER TRACEABILITY HAS NOT BEEN MAINTAINED FOR SOME BEAMS -
.. . AND STEEL PLATE ..
- 7. CABLE TRAY FOOT CONNECTIONS HAVE BEEN INSPECTED
~
^
. ASSESSMENT /RESULTS
- 1. 1685 NONCONPORMANCE REPORTS WERE WRITTEN IDENTIFYING 7170
, DEFICIENCIES. THE MOST COMMON DEFICIENCIES REPORTED INCLUDE F -
SLAG, ARC STRIKEST UNDERCUT, IMPROPER WELD SIZE, AND OVERLAP.
',. THESEJONCONFORMANCE' REPORTS W.ERE REVIEWED TO DETERMINE VALIDITY l OF REPORTED DEFICIENCIES. DUE TO INCONSISTENCIES FOUND IN THE l INITIAL INSPECTIONS, TASK I INSPECTIONS WERE STOPPED 4/8/82. ' -
l II. PROCEDURE 19-QA-06 REVISED TO INCLUDE NEW AND CLARIFIED INSPECTION .. CRITERIA. FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL SCHEDULED 5/4/82.- l III. PROCEDURE 19-QA-28 WRITTEN TO COVER REINSPECTION AND REWORK OF STRUCTURAL 6
. STEEL,IN CONTROL ROOM. FINAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL SCHEDULED 5/7/82.
IV. ALL Tt,5X I INSPECTORS ARE RECEIVING ADDITIONAL TRAINING AND ARE DEMON-
, STRATIliG THEIR VISUAL WELD INSPECTION CAPABILITIES UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF AWS CERTIFIED WELDING INSPECTORS. ,
1%N?OWER
SUMMARY
. ACTUAL ' -
ENGINEERS - 0 , QUALITY ENGINEERS . 5 . INSPECTORS 9 DOCUMENT REVIEWERS S CLERKS- - I -
.' 20 TOTAL _ ' 1 _ ._ . _. ._
-(
3,3,, TASr I._ fr~ - + . ' -"7 ' M .
- c
'~
SCOPE OF INSPECTION
~
CONNECTIONS INSPECTIONS AREA TO INSPECT PERFORMED FOOT CONNECTIONS '259- 259 (100%) . 7
. DRYWELL (LESS 525 EL.') 1610.' 'O REACTOR'& AUX. BLDG.- .
SERVICE WATER'SLDG. 5750 40 (0.6%) TOTAL . . . . ,_ 6619 299 (4.5%)' .
~
4
\
s . 9 *g
- 3. . .
2 m.A
~
q.
..g.
i
. l .
. . NONCONFORMANCE REP RT'(NR)
SUMMARY
g, . & QUANTITY NUMBER: TYPE OF DISPOSITION- ' NR'S' DEFICIENCIES DEFICIENCIES - ACCEPT AREA WRITTEN IDENTIFIED
- OISPOSITIONED AS IS REWORK REJECT REPAIR y.,
FOOT CONNECTIONS 253 975 , 242 139 88, 0- 15 ORY WELL 189 796 324 .139 29 1 12-(NOTE 1) . REACTOR & . AUX.-BLDGS 1243 5399 590 558 15 17 0 (NOTES 1&2) . < TOTAL 1605 7170 1156 979 132 18 27 - j -
- MORE THAN 04 DEFICIENCY PER NR
~
NOTES:
^~
- 1. ALL EXISTING NR'S HAVE DEEN PLACED ON HOLD FOR REINSPECTION
- 2. NRQ-QAD-82-2222-EkNITIATEDFORREINSPECTIONANDREWORK0FALLCONTROLROOMDEAMS. 68 DEFICIENCIES
- REPORTED-AFTER' REINSPECTION.OF 21 BEAMS - ALL DEFICIENCIES TO DE REWORKED. .
o __
l . . -1 TASK LII: WELD OUALITY
SUMMARY
OF TASK .. l
- 1. IN-PROCESS INSPECTIONS WERE NOT PERFORMED FOR SOME WELDS
., 2. THERE ARE- QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER- 0R NOT FIELD WELDS,1) AVE ,
BEEN MADE USING IMPROPER OR NONCONFORMING WELD' ROD [.
- 3. WELD ROD HEAT NUMBERS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE WELD ,
DATASHEET-(KE-1)BYINDIVIDUALSOTHERTHAN.THEQCINSPECTORS ,
.- WHO INSPECTED THE WELD- -
- 4. WELD INSPECTION CRITERIA DELETED FROM WELD DATA SHEETS FROM APPR0XIMATELY JULY 1980 TO FEBRUARY 1981.
ASSESSMENT /RESULTS
- I. 925 0F THE INACTIVE WELDING PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN REVIEWED.
=
APPROXIMATELY 5 PROCEDURES MAY NEED TO BE REQUALIFIED ON THE BASIS OF THIS REVIEW. (AMPERAGE RANGE EXCEEDED, INTERPASS
, TEMPERATURE NOT.SPECIFIED, RATE OF TRAVEL NOT RECORDED, ETC.)
II. REVIEW"0F1ELDE.R QUALIFICATIONS HAS BEGUN. GROUP 0F HJK AND . CGLE EXPERTS WORKING. JOINTLY TO EXPEDITE THE REVIEW (9 PEOPLE). THERE ARE APPj0XIMATELY 1800 WELDERS (APPROX. 4600 RECORDS) TO REVIEW. 1YS NkIbYdF WHICH 45 ARE IN FINAL ENGINEERING DISPOSITION , PROCESS. 550 WELDER QUALIFICATION FORMS (FOR 210 WELDERS) HAVE BEEN REVIEWED TO DATE. III. CANNOT TELL IF HEAT NUMBERS HAVE. BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM KE-2 FORM TO KE-1 FbRM BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE QC INSPECTOR OH0' INSPECTED T WELD. LOOKING FOR CROSS OUTS, WHITE OUT, ETC. WILL IDENTIFY DIS-CREPEliCIES DURING FIELD WALKDOWN FOR RESOLUTION VIA DOCUMENT DEFICIENCY NOTICE (DDN) OR NONCONFORMANCE REPORT-(NR) AS' APPROPRIATE. IV. EVALUATI G RESULTS OF REVIEW 0F STRUCTURAL KE-1 CARDS (WELD DATA , GENERIC NONCONFORMANCE REPORTS WILL.BE WRITTEN AFTER SHEETS). . DEFICIENCIES-HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED. - DEFICIENCIES INCLUDE LACK OF . l WELD PROCEDURE VERIFICATION AND LACK OF WELDER QUALIFICATION . VERIFICAT. ION , V. LISTING OF APPROOXIMATELY 29,000 SMALL BORE PIPE WELDS HAVE BEEN
., .. IDENTIFIED FOR REVIEW..
- . - _ _^-- _ -_ _
~-. -; -
- .~ ' ,.
,9
* ^
TASK II - (CONT'D) i
'MAi,'P0h'ER
SUMMARY
ACTUAL .
' ENGINEERS i -
2 QUALITY ENGINEERS , .
. ~
1 . . INSPECTORS- . 1
-DOCUMENT REVIEWERS CLERKS i
~
. -TOTAL 5 STATUS e_
THIS TASK IS, AP,PR0XIhATELY 34% COMPLETE (SCOPE OF WELDER QUALIFICATION REVIEWPROGRAMMUCHLARGERTHANEXPECTED) s . ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE OCTOBER 31, 1982 , 9 0 e e e e
- 9 9
~ o e
e 9 I e ag e 9 ee
- O s
- 4
, o S ' e * ,
.,,ya w.. pe e.e. w,.. e me 9 ,. -.o - .
b'-~ . .-- .m...*_..,_m% ., m ,g4 g_ .. e ,,.e. m e4,.manpo eeQw ; , y
- a-. e., %,_. e _i
- v , TASK III.: ' HEAT NUMBER TRACEABILITY SUM!QRY OF CONCERNS
- 1. SOME HEAT NUMBERS FOUND ON INSTALLED SMALL BORE PIPING D0 NOT ,
,- APPEAR ON THE RECORDS OF ACCEPTED. HEAT NUMBERS .. .
2A. SOME HEAT NUMBERS RECORDED ON" ISOMETRIC DRAWINGS DO NOT MATCH THE HEAT NUMBERS ON INSTALLED PIPING 2B. SOME HEAT NUMBERS RECORDED ON THE'IS0 METRIC DRAWINGS HAD BEEN . PARKED OUT AND INCORRECT HEAT NUMBERS RECORDED.
- 3. HEAT NUMBERS COULD NOT BE FOUND ON SOME INSTALLED Sl%LL BORE EIPI ASSESSMENT /RESULTS
.- I. HEAT NUMBER RECORDS RE BEING-VERIFIED AGAINST CERTIFIED'1%TERIAL TEST REPORTS. VERIFIED LIST OF HEAT NUMBERS WILL BE USED IN THE REVIEW 0F ISOMETRIC DRAWINGS AND FIELD INSPECTION RESULTS dVER 1900 DRAWINGS-HAVE BEEN REVIEWED. TRACF4BILITY DEFICIENCIES .'
(MISSING, HEAT NUMBERS) HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED ON APPROXIMATELY 20%
. OF THE DRAWINGS.
II. ASME CODE ALLOWS HEAT NUMBERS TO BE RECORDED ON PIPE OR ON RECORDS DIRECTLY TRACEABLE TO THE PIPE. IF THE HEAT NUi4BER IS ON THE PIPE ' OR ON RECORDS TRACEABOE TO THE PIPE, NO REWORK IS NECESSARY. THIS ITEM IS BEING ADDRESSED BY DOCUMENT REVEIWS AND FIELD INSPECTION III. Si%LL BORE PIPE: 248B DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN REVIEW [ED TO DATE OUT OF A TOTAL APPRO-
. 2615. .FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 14 DRAWINGS WERE REVIEWED.
XIllATELY 20% OF THE DRAWINGS CONTAIN HEAT NUMBER DEFICIENCIES. NONCONFORMANCE REPORTS OR DOCUMENT DEFICIENCY NOTICES ARE BEIN SINCE PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED WITH LIST. ' A' (ESSENTIAL) SYSTEMS,A100% REVIEW 0FLISTB(IMPORTANTTOSAFETY)SYSTEMSWILL BE PERFORMED.' ' IV. LARGE BORE PIPE: , DUE TO PROBLEMS IN OBTAINING' PROPER DRAWINGS AND DOCUMENTATIO , ACTIVITY HAS STARTED OVER. A LIST OF WELDS AND WELD DATA SHEETS
HAS BEEN OBTAINED 'FROM HJr, WELDING. THIS LIST WILL SIMPLIFY,'THE, REVIEW 0F THE DOCUMENTATION. - -
. S .
a - _ - - ._.m_- _a e. a- a
m - c- - -
., n -
. 1
.* 4 '
~ TASK III --(CONT'D)
MANY SPOOL .PIEC'ES FROM M.W. KELLOGG (PULLMAN) HAVE BEEN MODIFIED IN THEFIELD'.-THESESPOOLSPIECESWERESENTWITHANNPP-1CODEDATA A .
, , . FROM INDICATING ANI REVIEW OF MATERIAL' AND DOCUMENTATION.
POTENTIAL PROBLEM EXISTS IF THE MODIFICATIONS WERE N0'T PROPERLY
; DOCUMENTED (I.E. HEAT NUMBERS OR MARK NUMBERS TRANSFEkRED, FROM ONE SP00L' REPLACED BY A PIECE FROM ANOTHER SPOOL, ETC.) THIS
. . POTENTIAL PROBLEM IS BEING EVALUATED.. .
V. PURCHASE ORDER REVIEW: . .
- - A TOTAL OF 3206 PURCHASE ORDERS OUT OF 6792 HAVE BEEN REVEIWED.
983 HAVE BEEN REVIEWE'D THIS MONTH. THE CG&E VENDOR AUDIT GROUP
~
DEFICIENCIES WILL DETERMINE IF VENDORS WERE OR CAN BE. APPROVED. '
, INCLUDE UNSIGNED CERTIFIED MATERIAL TEST REPORTS AND NONESSENTIAL MATERIAL (VENDORS NOT. APPROVED'IO SUPPLY ESSENTIAL MATERIAL) BEI UPGRADED TO ESSENTIAL.
~
. MANPOWER
SUMMARY
, - ACTUAL ,
1 ENGINEERS 3 . QUALITY ENGINEERS INSPECTORS 2 DOCUMENT REVIEWET:S 7 . 1 CLERKS. TOTAL 14 . THIS TASV,IS 551; COMPLETE. , , ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE OCTOBER 6,"1982 . e 0-
.- y i
TASK IV: SOCKET WELD FITUP l l
SUMMARY
OF CONCERNS ,
" SOCKET WELD FITUP TO ASSURE DISENGAGEMENT WAS NOT , ,
VERIFIED ON SOME SMALL BORE PIPING ...
.y ASSESSMENT /RESULTS .
I. RECORDS FOR 28,277 WELDS OUT OF A' TOTAL OF 29,4B6 HAVE BEEN REVIEWED. DUE TO REVISIONS OF THE PIPING LINES, APPROXIMATELY 57,034 WELD RECORDS HAD TO BE REVIEWED TO COMPLETELY. ADDRESS THE 28,277 WELDS REVIEWED TO DATE. II. 457 WELDS LACKED EVIDENCE OF DISENGAGEMENT AND HAVE BEEN RADIOGRAPHED. 3 III. 73 0F THE 45f WELDS APPEAR TO LACK DISENGAGEMENT FROM RADIOGRAPH RE NONCONFCat%NCE REPORT
SUMMARY
56 NONCONFORMANCE REPORTS HAVE BEEN GENERATED FOR THE 73 WELDS. , NO ENGINEERING DISPOSITION FOR THE NONCONFORMANCE REPORTS RECEIVED TO D MANPOWER
SUMMARY
ACTUAL . ENGINEERS } i QUAL.lTY ENGINEERS . , INSPECTORS DOCUMENT REVIEWER 11 CLERKS i 3 .
. TOTAL CG&E LEVEL III RADIOGRAPHER IS ALSO PROVIDING SUPPORT .
(NOTINCLUDEDABOVE) .
~
STATUS , THIS TASK IS APPROXIMATELY 96% COMPLETE l ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE AUGUST 13, 19E2 - J
RADIOGRAPHS _ YASKV: I SU!d%RY OF CONCERNS
- THE RADIOGRAPH TECHNIQUE USED BY M.W. KELLOGG .
NOT MEET THE ASME CODE IN THAT THE PENETRAMENT DETERMINE THE FILM QUALITY OF THE RADIOGRAP i SHIMMED. ASSESSEMENT/RESULTS '
.m
^
I. ALL RADIOGRAPHIC FILM FROM M.W. KELLOGG HAS B (18,079 PIECES OF FILM FOR 4.134 WELDS) FOR THE AD,0VE II. MOST RADIOGRPAHS DO MEET OTHER CODE REQUIR
. AND SENSITIVITY ~
III. CODE INQUIRY BEING PREPARED FOR SUBMITT , MECP.ANICAL ENGINEERS (ASME) FOR CLARIFIC _ IV. LIST OF WELDS FOR R'ADIdGRAPHY HAS BEEN S . WELDS iDERTIFIED,18 HAVE BEEN RADIOGRAPHED AND 12 A .
!%NPO' DER
SUMMARY
PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO TASK III WILL SUPPORT THI . STATUS _ THIS TASY,15 APPROXIMATELY 95% COMPLETE ESTIPATED COMPLETION DATE OCTOBER 4, 1982 S 9 e g Y 0
. i l
' * -~
. . . 1 e .
, , 3 cu,- . , y,_,
"# ^ " .,
TASKV1/ CABLE SEPARATION
SUMMARY
OF CONCERNS. n
- 1. THE NRC IDENTIFIED SIX EXAMPLES OF FAILURE TO MEET CABLE --
SEPARATION 'C'RITERIA. 1;. '
~
- -- _a_. i
- . ~ -
i 2. VERIFY CABLE SEPARATION CRITERIA HAS BEEN MET
" 1 ASSESSMENT /RESULTS ~ - '
. \
4 LISTING l j
~ I.
. RACEWAY ANALYSIS
. , w. .-.FOR ASSOCI ATED CABLES
. . ~
- a. COMPLET OF 'ALL' CABLES ~ ANALYZED AND ACCEPTED TO BE FORWARDE II. A. SWITCHGEAR ROOMS t =
- 1. YELLOW:....;.' .'100%.
, ~,
%. r.>,. - u -
~ ~
- 2. BLUE........... .
70%1
- 3. GREEN......... 100%
B. C ABLE . SPRE ADI t1G - R00M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. ~
C. AUXIL-I ARY EQUIPMENT R00M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 . 0% 4 D. CONTROL R00M........................................ E. WALL PENETRATIONS & SLEEVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100%
*F. CLASS IE PANNELS (INCLUDING CABLES BETWEEN SPREADING ROOM & CONTROL R00M. . . . . . . . . . . . .
G. AS SOC I AT ED C ABL E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AREAS...............'..;.. 0%
*H. HIGH ENERGY PIPING / MISSILE
*I. APPENDIX R (SHUTDOWN) CABLES ....................... 0%
10% J. REVIEW EER RESPONSES............................... . K. REVIEW S&L RACEWAY ANALYSIS / ADDITIONAL '
~
T RAI N I N G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- EXPANDED' SCOPE ~ 0F TA,5K VI .
III. A TOTAL OF 466 NONCONFORMANCE REPORTS HAVE '- BEEN W FOR SEPARATION, IDENTIFICATION AND ROUT 1NG DEFICIENCIES. , 45 0F '. 106 NR'S DISPOSITIONED (6S REWORK, 41 ACCEPT AS IS). '
; THE 106 DISPOSITIONED NR'S HAVE BEEN CLOSED. . .
. 6
'. . A
~
k) , 1
. I a - .i l
- 4 I
.v j 1 B ' TASK VI - (CONT'D)
!.i .
W '- : T+ '
- .] MANPOWER
SUMMARY
i- ACTUAL t 5 3 ENGINEERS 3
- 31 --
sj QUALITY ENGINEERS . . 6 INSPECTORS N. . ,,
- r DOCUMENT REVIEWERS W '
- I Si CLERKS d .
W t ; lit TOTAL. l- . . . . STATUS -
- 49%COINETs'(EXPANDEDSCOPE) 'r 4 :
- ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE
*I JULY 30, 1982 (EXPANDED SCOPE) - a ;a e
e
- e.
4 4 . 5 * ' h. 4
,e e e.
I,
. O
, ' ' . * * * * * * " ' * * *
- c-.. o + , , , _
~ - y: 37 .;q # ---
- y = -
;r;&; - , - . - .
-*&*^ -
y v: TASK VII:' NDHCONFORMANCES_.
- s. j
~.
SUWARY OF CONCERNS -
~
q
- 1. NONCONFORMANCES DOCUM NTED'0N SURVEILLANCE ,;
REPORTS . j n
.e- ~ .. ,,, a _
~.. . ,s
- 2. NONCONFORMANCES ' DOCUMENTED g ON 4 PUNCHLISTS~ _
~. ~ -
- 3. NONCONFORPANCES DOCUMENTED ON EXCEPTION LISTS
. 4. NONCONFORMANCES . m y NOT DOCUMENTED [3 % '
3
?~
~5. NONCONFORMANCES'DOCUMEOTE'D Q~ . . gcxy: ~ ~ ;Q '
BUT 4-
- t., . NOT ENTERED p INTO ;" ?)' ' -
THE ,
- 6. NONCONFORMANCES VOIDED* RATHER THAN BEING DISPOSITIONED ~
ASSESSMENT /RESULTS ,' 3 x - .
. s:
e:& ... 7......'...:. c
'^
TOTAL SURVEILLANCE REPORTS;..... D.S .... - 3365
~.
1_ . _g ,
- I. -
_ .w , i SURVEILLANCE REPORTS REdDY FOR REVIEW COMMITTEE..... 2500 - SURV51LLANCEREPORTSTHATMAYHAVETO BE T R AN S F ERR'ED TO NR 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~~
II. PROCEDURF (11-QA-20) FOR REVIEW OF PUNCHLISTS,- TAXING NRC COMMENTS INTO CONSIDERATION, IN REVIEW AND COMMENTS III. EXCEPTION LISTS ARE A SUBSET OF THE PUNCHLIST AND WILL WITH THE PUNCHLIST . IV. INSPECTION /NONCONFORMANCE REPORTS WITH CONTROL NUM V. TOTAL N0!iCONFORPANCE REPORTS STAMPED VOID. . . . . . . . . TOTAL NONCONFORMANCE REPORTS STAMPED INSPECTION VI. APPROXIMATELY 327. OF THE VOIDED NR'S REQUIRE ADDITIONA IGATION BY HJK/QA. IMPOUND AREA FOR 1%TERIAL REMOVED DURING REW HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. VII. A SAMPLING OF 300 PROPERLY CLOSED NONCONFORMANCE THE SAMPLE R REVIEWED TO ENSURE PROPER DISPOSITIONING AND CLOSURE. PROCEDURE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHE,D AND DOCUMENTATION. IS BEING GATHERED. (19-QA-XX) BEING WRITTEN TO ' COVER THIS EFFORT. N0liCONFOR!%tiCE REPORT SUM!GRY 3B NONCONFORMANCE REPORTS HAVE BEEN WRITTE
~ ,
NO DISPOSITIONS T0 DATE b * # w + _ .m. _. _ _ _ _ _ , ,
. . ~o- .
= aa
- . TASK VII - (CONT'D) .
. g=
- PANPOWER
SUMMARY
' ~
- ACTUAL t.
~
ENGINEERS .
' ~ ' ~ ' 2 1 c. .--
- -QUALITY ENGINEE85' ...
. INSPECTORS ..
DOCUMENT REVIEWERS- ., . .: _ '
~~
m . - CLERKS _ 2 TOTAL . STATUS _ - - ~ _ . , ,, 4 THIS TASK IS APPROXIPATELY 66% COMPLETE t ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE . AUGUST 20, 1982 , 9 e
# 9 6
s
- e #
.k f e O
e
$ $ 9 6
ee . 8 9
- e e
0 W 9 6 e* p Fs O 0
, 4 O
$ e
pu . -
, y,. ;. ,
- - w<
, 3
*0*
i ii - 7 ,, , s TASX VIII: DESIGN CONTROL AND VERIFICATI0fi I
.A ., . . ... -
SUMMARY
OF CONCERNS (POTENTI AL PROBLEMS)' * .
- 1. SARGENT & LUNDY (S&L) HAD 'NO FORMAL' PROCEDURE RE VERIFICATION OF DESIGN CALCULATIONS FOR THERIML LO <
OF POWER SLEEVES,AND DEAD WEIGHT LOADING OF ALL TRAYS
- 2. THREE EXAMPLES WERE IDENTIFIED ' " *
- IN PHICH .
- " S&L DESIGN -
FROM THE F.SAR CABLE TRAY LOADING: DESIGN BASIS DIFFERED FROM THAT A)
- STATED IN THE FSAR _ ,Dn . ..,
2 ,
.~ . .
SEE TASK VI B) CABLE SEPARATION: C) WELD ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA: SITE PROCEDURE INSPECTION ACCEPTANCE FOR UNDERCUT. THE , TO AWS D1.101972 - ~ FSAR DOES NOT STIPULATE THE EXCEPTION
" ~
- 3. S&L 5D i10 FORMAL PROCEDURE FOR DOCUMENTING DESI IDENTIFIED BY ENGINEERS ASSESSMENT / RESULTS_ -
e
- 1. REVISED PROJECT INSTRUCTION TO EXPLICITLY I FOR THERt%L LOADING OF POWER SLEEVES AND
. TRAYS. NO PROBLEMS WITH PAST DESIGN CALCULATIONS
- 2. S&L DID HAVE METHODS FOR CONTROLLlHG DESIGN C THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED BY ENGINEERS.
CLARIFIEDBYISSUINGANEWPROCEDURE(GQ16.03). , METHODOLOGY DIFFERED FORM FSAR, HOWEVER
- 3. ITEM 2A ABOVE:
ACC.EPTANCE CRITERIA UNCHANGED .
- 4. ITEM 2C ABOVE: S&LHASENGINEERINGEVALUATIONTOJUS TO AWS CODE CRITERIA.
FSAR NOW ALLONS EXCEPTIONS TO BE TAK
- ON ENGINEERING EVALUATION.
e 0 e 0 e ; , e ' e e , e
'
- 8 e
n C ThSXVIII-(CONT'D)
~
- CONCLUSION .
THEIR
. , .t NO PROBLEMS.HAVE BEEN FOUND WITH THE QUALITY OF S&L WORK.
' ~
REPORT WILL BE WRITTEN SYSTEM HAS BEEF! MADE MORE FORMAL. e
,: , ,;., 1
.J'"
i" .. STATUS- .
+
THIS TASK IS @% COMPLETE ..
- u- ,.
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE_ . JUNE 1, 1982 ..
. s.
e e 6 e e g e 9 9 e t 9
- e
' a 5 ,
0 e DO
$ O .. s I
O
- e e e ,
'9 ,
' ' - - \
' ' TASKI DESIGN'D0CUMENT CHANGES _
~" ~
l J
SUMMARY
OF CONCERNS"' 1 SOME DESIGN DOCUMENT CHANGES (DDC'S) MAY Hf '
, UROUGH DISTRIB[UT10ft AND INSPECTION
. ~
~~ -
- 4. , ,
. ASSESSMENT /RESULTS 1.
CLASSIFICATION OF CG&E, S&L, AND HJK DDC'S AS ESSENTIALe - IS 955 COMPLETE. THE SCOPE OF THIS TASK IS BEING EXPANDE . BY WY&B AND OTHER >:: wSITE w . CONTRACTORS..
~~;n . . ,
..~ .
.= .,
- 11. REVIEWOFINSPECTIONDOCUMENTATION1522%CO 507 DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED FOR REPORTING VIA SCOPE.
ICIENCYNOTICESORNONIONFORIGNCEREPORTSASAPPLICA
~ ,
EiNG REMOVED FROM THE SCOPE OF THIS. TAS Ill. PIPE SUPPORT DDC'S ARE 1%NPOWER
SUMMARY
ACTUAL , 5 ENGINEERS - - . . . . , E
~
QUALITY ENGINEERS
~
INSPECTORS S* . DOCUMENT REVIEWERS ! i CLERKS 1 I 101 . .
. ' TOTAL ,
- 8 ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL FROM OTHER QCP TASK ABOUT 8/16/82 .
STATUS _ ,- THIS TASK 15 APPROXIMATELY 28% COMPLETE , ESTIl%TED COMPLET10ft DATE , BASED ON A 40 HR WOR,K WEEX, WITH CURRENT 1%NP - AVAILABILITY h5 NOTED ABOVE, THIS TASK WILL NOT BE */ COM 0F JANUARY 1983. THE USE OF OVERTIME (10 $RS/WK/l%N) WOUL '
.,' DATE TO THE BEGIltNING' 0F DECEMBER 1982 -
e , o _O <. - - --
+. . _ . __
TASK X: SUBCONTRACTOR OA PROGRAMS .
SUMMARY
OF CONCERNS _
- 1. THE BRISTOL PROJECT SUPERINTENDENT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR BOT THE STEEL ERECTION AND THE ERECTION QUALITY CONTROL '
- 2. THE BRISTOL FIELD INSPECTION PROGRAM FAILED TO DOCUMENT '
WELDS INSPECTED AND DETAILS OF THE INSPECTION - .
- 3. REVIEW PAST AUDITS OF SUBCONTRACTOR QA PROGRAMS
^
. ASSESSMENT /RESULTS -m ' ~
I. BRISTOL FIELD WELDS ARE BEING INSPECTED AS A PART OF II. ALL VENDOR AUDITS PRIOR TO APRIL' 8,1981 ARE BEING REVIEWED FOR SCOPE AND ADEQUACY. . .80 AUDITS IDENTIFIED FOR REVIEW.
. III. PREPARATJ.0N,,0F REVIEW MATRICES (WITH RESPECT TO 18 CRITERIA)
IS 100% COMPLETE r IV. PROCEDURE FOR INTERFACE WITH OTHER QCP TASKS TO VERIF
- EXPECTED COMPLETION 5/15/82 OF WORK IS BEING DEVELOPED. .
STATUS-
.THIS TASK I5 37% COMPLETE ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE LY 16, 1982 l .
s 6 o
. e
_.? r.-- - --
~ '
jf;'. . . , - - - - e ,-- ,, ' - _ g[__ . x-
. :~ma ' -
" TASV,XI: AUDITS
SUMMARY
OF CONCERNS- + : . a.x, _ _
. . . l. PAST AUDITS BY CG&E IDENTIFIED REPETITIVE PROBLEMS REGARDING
' DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND VERIFICATIONS NOT BEING PEkf0RMED CORRECTIVE ACTION BY SARGENT & LUNDY (S&L) AND FOLLOW UP B CG&E WAS NOT ADEQU'A'TE ,
.: . y ,,
- 2. CGLE HAD'NOT . m ,,
AUDITED S&Lw TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE x. WITH AND..THE W V s. EFFECTIVENESS OF~THE S&L NONCONFORMANCE PROGRAM-ASSESSMENT /RESULTS f- -
- 1. -
MANYAUDITSWEREVERYNARROWINSCOPE(I.E.ADDRESSEDASRECIFIC,
' QUESTION RATHER THAN ONE OF THE 18 CRITERIA) ~
II. MANY AUDITS WERE VERY 'SHORT (1.E. - FOUR OR FIVE QUESTI . LACKING IN DETAIL- - . III. 296 AUDITS 4tAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED , , IV. PREPARATION OF REVIEW MATRICES (WITH RESPECT TO 18 CRIT 100% COMPLETE. .- V. PROCEDURE FOR INTERFACE WITH THE QCP TASKS TO VERIFY ADEQU OF WORK IS BEING DEVELOPED. EXPECTED COMPLETION S/30/82 STATUS-THIS TASK IS 45f. COMPLETE ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE .
~
JULY 16, 1982 ,
,. j}}