ML20096A626
| ML20096A626 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 08/30/1984 |
| From: | Branch E, James Buchanan, Demoss D, Frankel M, Maurer B, Somsag M, Somsage M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, CHICAGO, UNIV. OF, CHICAGO, IL, CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, NY, HATFIELD ELECTRIC CO., HUNTER CORP., SARGENT & LUNDY, INC., WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20096A623 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8408310194 | |
| Download: ML20096A626 (83) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . - - _ _ _
RELAT2D CGJiFO.NDENCE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l DGCKETED USNR'~
In.The Matter of )
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY Docket *$1 sfgjr i 4 (Byron Nuclear Power Station, )
Units 1 & 2) )' h' 5}Li a
ERM;cy Summary Of Rebuttal Testimony Of Ernest-B. Branch I. Mr. Branch, an Associate and Mechanical Design Director of Sargent & Lundy, testified previously at the hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on Sargent & Lundy's evaluation of Hunter Corporation's ASME visual weld discrepancies and discrepancies of Hunter objective attributes.
II. Mr. Branen addresses the allegation by Charles Stokes that two ASME discrepant welds were measured by gauges that were insufficiently precise.
III. Mr. Branch, based on his expertise as a member of the ASME Code Committee for the provision of the Code that establishes the acceptance criterion for welds with undercut discrepancies, testifies that because the acceptance criterion for undercut is
- stated as a common fraction of 1/32 inch, a measurement within 1/64 inch of that figure, or 3/64 inch, will be in compliance with the code.
Because the measurements for the two welds are each less than that figure, the Code requirement is met.
IV. Mr. Branch also testifies that an engineering evaluation of the effect of undercut on these two welds was conducted. This evaluation demonstrated that the Code minimum wall requirement and the Code allowable stress criteria are satisfied.
V. Mr. Branch concludes that because the code criterion of 1/32 inch for undercut was met, and based upon the engineering evaluation of the welds, the reported weld undercuts have no design significance.
~
8408310194 840830 PDR ADDCM 05000454 PDR L
.: x '
- o m- - .-RELATED CO,Tm_CichudSCE .
i l
,' x UNITED.' STATES OF AMERICA 1 '
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-LBEFORE'THE ATOMIC' SAFETY AND LICENSING' BOARD htc
. In The Matter:of =)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON. COMPANY. Docket No 50-454 k N
. - - )
. (Byron Nuclear Power Station, gyp;g 00CXfr5cW [55-OL[{E
)
Units-1 & 2) ) BRANCH Rebuttal ~ Testimony Of Ernest B. Branch Q.l. Please state your full name and place of employment for the' record.
' A.l. Ernest.B. Branch. I am an Associate and Mechanical Design Director of Sargent & Lundy which is a Consulting l Engineering Firm, located at 55 East Monroe, Chicago, ,
l Illinois, 60603. t Q.2. . Please describe your job responsibilities.
A.2. As Mechanical Design Director, I am responsible
-for the overall coordination and management of two of
~
Sargent & Lundy's key mechanical divisions that have the ,
responsibility for piping design and analysis. These divisions
.-are the Mechanical Design & Drafting Division and the Engineering Mechanics Division. I am responsible for providing. leadership, overall management, direction, l 4 .. . supervision,: progress monitoring, and quality of design work for all,of the projects under design at Sargent & Lundy.
--,+,c.1 s,,,- -,y-- r_m.1,.g e-e_ .--,,,----,ev ..--ry,..-, .%-,,,.,,emwy-,,-u n w n-, .g - ,.p..,,,% --m cp y. .%.c,g.- ww w w% -,
L.. V 2 I am a member of the ASME Committee for Section III of the Code, which includes the Code provision establishing the acceptance criterion for welds with undercut discrepancies.
Q.3. 1 Are you the same Ernest B. Branch who testified at the hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on August 2nd and 3rd, 1984 on Sargent & Lundy's evaluation of Hunter Corporation's ASME visual weld discrepancies and
' discrepancies of Hunter objective attributes?
-A.3. I am.
Q.4. What is the purpose of your rebuttal testimony?
A.4. The purpose of my rebuttal testimony is to respond to Mr. Stokes' allegation that ASME weld nos. 62 (S-CC-100-llA) and 63 (S-CC-100-33) were impermissibly accepted because of the imprecision in the gauges used in measuring the weld undercut.
Q.5. What accuracy is required by the ASME Code for measuring weld undercut of this type?
A.S. 'The ASME Code does not expressly state a tolerance for the measurement of undercut. Mr. Stokes is incorrect when he states that "ASME requires machine shop type accuracy to the thousandths" to determine Code compliance. The
I !
[ ,.
l
)
I i 1
acceptance criterion for undercut is stated in ASME Section III, paragraph ND-4424 as a common fraction, 1/32 inch, which means thst tne Code intended the value to be treated as an approximate, fractional dimension. Whenever the Code intends exact precision, an acceptance valae is stated as a decimal value.
An acceptance criterion stated in terms of 1/32 inch has an acceptance level within 1/64 inch, that is, the Code is met if the measurement for undercut is 3/64 inch or less.
The undercut measurements of the two welds referred to by i
Mr. Stokes were .041 and .037 inch. Inasmuch as these values fall below 3/64 inch, the Code requirement is met.
The whole area of required accuracy for measurement of weld profile features is being reviewed by the Code l
Committee, of which I am a member, to establish clearly measurement criteria for weld profiles. For example, a Code case is currently being considered that will clearly state that piping fillet weld size dimensions specified on drawings are to be considered as nominal or approximate and that measured values within 1/16 inch of that nominal are acceptable.
Q.6. Was an engineering evaluation of the effect of undercut on these two welds conducted?
A.6. Yes. Although it was unnecessary, a calculation was done to establish the effect of the reported undercut on code minimum wall thickness requirements and code stress criteria.
~
I 12 7 . - Can you explain the evaluation?
A.7. Yes. The calculation ~was performed to answer two questions. First, is the depth of undercut sufficient to encroach on code-required minimum pipe wall thickness?
Second, is the stress intensification introduced by the undercut sufficient to cause code allowable stresses Idr moment loading.to be exceeded?
The calculation was conservatively biased in that it assumed that the undercut extended completely around the total weld circumference when it actually extended around only a portion of the weld circumference. In addition, the stress intensification factor for the undercut was multiplied by the intensification used in the original analysis for the weld joint instead of treating the effects separately.
Q.8. What was the result of the analysis? l A.8. The pipe wall thickness calculation showed that l l
the wall thickness remaining after deducting the maximum j undercut and the manufacturing tolerance was about 27 times the code required minimum wall. This is not surprising l because the service pressure for the system is 150 psi and schedule 80 pipe was selected to provide adequate mechanical i-strength for a power plant environment.
- . J' Q.9. What wasithe result of the stress intensification
- effect on moment loading?
.A.9. This calculation showed that even when considering-the maximum undercut to conservatively extend all'the way around-the circumference of th'e weld,.and multiplying the:
filet weld. intensification by the undercut intensification,
-code allowable stresses for the applicable loading conditions, including seismic load, were not exceeded.
Q.10. In summary, what is your opinion concerning welds 62 (S-CC-100-llA) and 63 (S-CC-10 0-3 3 ) ? ,
A.10. The reported undercut measurements satisfy the
-codo criterion of 1/32 inch. In addition, based on the-calculations performed, the code minimum wall requirement.
and the code allowable stress criteria are satisfied. For these reasons, the reported weld undercuts have no design significance.
1 .
- ,. ,. . . , - . . - --- ,, , . . , ,, ,,,-n -- -n . - . . . . , . . . , . , -n
e --
@: . nEL;JE0 CO:u5SPONDENCE I 3-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
$Rf In The Matter of )
) .g4 O 30 ' A10:06
~ COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-454-OL
) CFrieg J0g455-OL
.(Byron Nuclear Power Station, ) 00CMErpig4gyjj{'[
-Units 1 & 2) -) URANCH Summary Of Rebuttal Testimony Of Dennis DeMoss I. Mr. DeMoss is a Mechanical Project Engineer for Sargent & Lundy responsible for mechanical engineering and design activities associated with the Byron project.
II. Mr. DeMoss addresses Charles Stokes' allegation that the discrepant ASME and AWS. welds identified in Attachment 8 to his testimony were not evaluated by Sargent & Lundy under'the Reinspection Program.
III. Mr. DeMoss demonstrates that, with the exception of three welds that were not part of the Reinspection Program, all welds in Attachment 8 were, in fact, evaluated by Sargent & Lundy.
1 1
I
~ _
>' N -
. ; SCC
. g;g uD W"'
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ?
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION. l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
^0 TED LIn The Matter of )
) M AGO 30 No:og COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-454-OL
) .
(Byron Nuclear Power Station, ) nry$[Th[
50C _50-455-OL gh,jhy'lj.
Units 1 & 2) ) SRANCH REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF DENNIS'DEMOSS Q.l. Please state your full name and place of employment for the record.
-A.l. Dennis Demoss. I am employed by Sargent & Lundy, 55 East Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois 60603.
Q.2. Please describe your job responsibilities.
A. 2. - I am a Mechanical Project Engineer in the Project ,
Management Division. I am responsible for mechanical engineering and design activities associated wi th the Byron Project.
Currently, I am coordinating on-site mechanical engineering and design activities associated with the' construction of Byron. These activities include the design of mechanical
, piping systems and associated mechanical equipment and the resolution of field installation and system operation' problems.
I prepare and supervise the preparation of mechanical i' 1 calculations required by these design activities. 1 l
l l
- r. <
n.+
- J2 :
. 42 3.' IPlease. describe your educational-background 1 and work: experience.
6 A.3. I am a 1977 graduate of the. University of Cincinnati with a Bachelor.offScience Degree in Nuclear Engineering.
c I received a Master-of Science in Materials Engineering from the! University of. Illinois,~ Chicago in 1981. I began my 1 career with Sargent & Lundy in 1974 as an Engineering Coop student. My coop work experiences included sessions in Mechanical Design and Drafting, Mechanical Analysis, Nuclear Licensing'and Project Management. . Upon graduation I began full time employment as a Mechanical Engineer working on the design of a'BWR nuclear power plant. Subsequent assi,gnments included numerous plant betterment projects for three coal-fired generating stations.
In 1981,-I was assigned to the Byron nuclear plant as a mechanical engineer. My responsibilities included preparation of piping and instrumentation diagrams, equipment and pipe sizing calculations, preparation and evaluation of equipment procurement specifications, and the preparation and review of~ mechanical calculations.
I am a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and am.a registered Professional Engineer in the States of Illinois and Ohio.
Q.4. Are you familiar with the Byron Reinspection Program?
i 1
+ -
A.4. Yes. I-prepared and supervised the preparation of engineering calculations for the evaluation of mechanical-l type discrepancies reported by the reinspection program.
These' mechanical-type discrepancies included all ASME Code related discrepancies.
Q.5. Were you involved in the preparation of the report?
A.S. . Yes. I provided input into the formal report for mechanical-type discrepancies.
Q.6. What is the purpose of your rebuttal testimony?
A.6. The-purpose of my rebuttal testimony is to respond to the' allegation in Mr. Stokes' testimony that the discrepant ASME and AWS welds identified in Attachment 8 to his testimony were not evaluated by Sargent & Lundy.
Q.7. Please describe Attachment 8.
A.7. -Attachment 8 is an interim status report of the Hunter discrepancies identified under the Reinspection Program. I should emphasize that this document only lists 108 discrepant welds. The other 10 discrepancies are objective category documentation discrepancies.
Q.8. Were the 108 welds in fact evaluated under the Reinspection Program?
1 1
~
~ '
_4 A.8. With the exception of -three welds that were not _
part'of theT einspection R Program, all the welds in Attachment 8.to Mr. Stokes' testimony were evaluated by Sargent &
Lundy.- This can be demonstrated by a comparison of the drawing numbers'in Attachment-8 with the component numbers
-in'Sargent & Lundy document BRP-1, which is a summary I prepared of Hunter discrepant welds that were evaluated in the reinspection program. A-comparison of the two sets of numbers reveals that these are the same welds.
Q.9. How many of the 108 welds shown in Attachment 8 were ASME discrepant welds evaluated by Sargent & Lundy?
4 A.9. Of the 110 welds, 46 were ASME discrepant welds evaluated by Sargent & Lundy. Later in the program, three more ASME welds with discrepancies were submitted to Sargent
& Lundy for evaluation. This produces the total number of 49 evaluations of discrepant ASME welds testified to by Mr.
Branch.
1 J
k- 1
y.
'c '
RELATED CC3 ES?C!iDENCE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .
'BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY ~AND LICENSING BOARD IRC In The Matter of- )
) .g4 AGO 30, NO:07 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY- ) Docket Nos. 50-454-OL
) 'en re50.455-OL (Byron Nuclear Power Station, ) !'O - ' ,
Units 1 & 2) )
SUMMARY
OF THE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF MARTIN R. FRANKEL I. Dr. Frankel is a Professor of Statistics, Bernard' Baruch College, City Unitersity of New York and Technical-Director of National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago.
II. He defines some of the technical statistical terms pertinent to the Byron Reinspection Program, including probability sample, non-probability sample, random sample and systematic sample. He then describes the role of probability and non-probability samples in drawing mathematical statistical inferences from a sample to a larger population and the immateriality of the use of a probability or non-probability sample when no reliance is based on mathematical statistical theory for drawing such inferences.
III. He concludes that the procedures used to select inspectors for the Byron QC Reinspection Program is a judgment sample and not a probability sample.
Dr. Frankel concludes by discussing the role of-the sample statistician in determining the basis I on which inferences may be drawn from probability 1 samples and judgment or other non-probability L samples.
! I
- = m .
3
,; y E L/TLD w m,,
-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
' NYC In The-Matter of ')
) '84 llSD 30 A10:
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. _50-454 c: per c 50-455-OL OL d7 ,
) ^
'(Byron Nuclear Power Station, ) ' % i
s .
Units 1 & 2) ) 0: 1"i Rebuttal Testimony Of' Martin R. Frankel Q.1. Please state your full name for the record.
A.l. Martin R. Frankel
,. Q.2. Please describe your present positions and your job responsibilities.
A.2. At the present time I am Professor of Statistics, Bernard Baruch College, City Univeristy of New York, 17 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York, 10010. I am responsible for the teaching of all graduate and undergraduate courses in survey sampling. In addition I teach courses in general statistics and in computer languages. I have been i
at Baruch College since 1971 with the exception of a two l year period when I was an Assistant Professor of Statistics in.the Graduate School of Business of the University of Chicago.
w 1[ !
.g-
-2'
~ I also serve aus Technical- Director of -the National Opinion'Research Center, University of Chicago. In this
< position I am responsible.for'the statistical and technical
-quality of all" contract survey-research-conducted by the Center.
Q.3.- Please describe your educational and profess'ional background.
~A.3. ;I hold an AB degree in Mathematics from the University of North Carolina. I hold an,MA degree in Mathematical Statistics and a'Ph..D. degree in Mathematical Sociology from the University of Michigan. My doctoral dissertation was in the area of inference from complex probability samples.
This dissertation, which was published by the Institute of Social Research of the University of Michigan'under the title Inference From Complex Samples, is currently in its fifth printing.
I have been actively involved in the use of probability sampling techniques for a period of 19 years.
Over this time. period I have been involved in the design, selection and implementation of more than 100 different large scale samples. This work has been carried out for federal agencies, universities, an international organization and business firms.
The major professional organization for applied statisticians in the United States is the American Statistical Association.- I was elected a Fellow of the Association in u
1979 for my work in the' area of probability survey sampling.
I have served as Chairman of the Association's Section on Survey Research Methods and its Advisory Committee to the )
U .' S . Bureau of the Census. 'I also. served as an Associate Editor of the Journal of the American Statistical Association for a period of 8 years.
In addition to the title mentioned above, I am coauthor of 2 books in the-area of survey sampling. I am coauthor and author respectively of the chapters on probability sampling in The Handbook of Marketing Research (McGraw Hill, 1974) and the Handbook of Survey Research (Academic Press). I have published articles on survey sampling in various scientific journals. I am one of the four members of the Editorial Board of the'8 volume Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences (John Wiley and Sons) .
I was elected to membership in the International Statistical Institute in 1983. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached to my testimony as Attachment A.
Q.4. Are you familiar with the Byron Reinspection Program?
A.4. Yes, I have reviewed the Report on the Byron QC Inspector Reinspection Program (Reinspection Report), the Report Supplement, the testimony of Mr. Singh, Mr. Ericksen and portions of the testimony of Messrs. Tuetken, Del George and answers to certain written interrogatories.
t
7
_4-1 I have also held in person discussions with 1
Messrs. Singh, Del George, Tuetken,_Laney and counsel for l Commonwealth Edison Company.
12.5. Can you define some of the technical _ terms that you will be using in your subsequent testimony?
A.5. Yes. Four of the basic terms that I will be using in my testimony are probability sample, non-probability sample, random sample and systematic sample.
A probability sample is a sample that is selected
'by a procedure that gives each element in a defined population a known, calculable, non-zero probability of being included in the sample.
A non probability sample is any sample that does not fall under the definition of a probability sample.
The term random sample is often used three different ways.
In the formal theory of probability sampling it
.is used to describe a type of probability sample in which all combinations of elements of a given size in the population and all subset of this size have an equal chance of being selected into the sample. In this context, random samples of elements may be defined as " selected without replacement" or "with replacement".
In general statistical theory, the term random sample is used to describe a sample from a population that may be treated mathematically as the product of independent, i
i
1 ,
identically distributed random variables. As I will discuss
- later, there are numerous instances where samples which do
'not satisfy the probability sampling definition of random samples are' treated as random samples in various analytical and inferential-procedures.
The term random sample is also used by the general population and the media that serve this population. In this context the term does'not seem to have any clearly defined meaning.
The term systematic sample is used to describe a type of probability sample that is selected using a constant skip interval or pattern after a random start.
0.6. Can you describe the role of probability and non-probability samples in drawing inferences from a sample to a larger population.
A.6. The use of probability sampling methods generally assure that objective statistical inferences may be drawn about the larger population from which the sample was selected. More specifically, support for one of the assumptions that must be made in order to apply various theories of mathematical statistics may be directly linked to the sample selection process.
However, it is important to recognize that the lack of a probability sample does not mean that inferences can not be made from the sample. When a non-probability sample I is used in making statistical inferences, support for l
u _ _ _ . _ - . - , ____ __.
r=
i
-g-assumptions contained within the mathematical theory of
. statistical inferences must come from other sources. Typically the source for this support is an individual or individuals who~ possess relevant substantive knowledge. In these instances, the inference is supported on the basis of subjective judgment.
The methods and techniques of probability sampling were first introduced in the late 1930's and early 1940's.
While the use of probability sampling has generally increased over time, there are many areas involving both the public welfare and safety in which policy decisions are made on the basis of non-probability samples.
Examples of the use of non-probability samples in this context include the approval of drugs for general distribution and testing of products for the satisfaction of safety standards. The-benefits and effectiveness of various social programs are often evaluated on the basis of small scale experiments or demonstration programs which involve individuals. Most often, neither the selection of geographic sites for these programs or demonstration projects, nor the selection of individuals for program enrollment is carried out on a probability sampling basis.
In general, the use of probability sampling can often simplify the process of drawing inferences from sample to the larger population. But, the lack of a probability sample does not preclude this inferential process in either theory or practico, u----..._.--.
c'
- _ 4 G? -
]
,Mt @_ _ -
['; -
,3
'In'ferences may'be accomplished from non-probability
- samples-if: substantive subject' matter experts provide
^ '
- subjective support for assumptions linked to the general statistical. definition'of random sampling.- - For persons who doLnot rely on mathematical statistical theory for making;
< -inferences _from samples, the use of'a probability orinon- ,
probability sample is immaterial. In such a case the adequacy of the sample _is'a matter of-judgment on the part of the subject matter expert.
.Q.7. 'What is your evaluation of the procedures used to select inspectors for the' Byron QC Reinspection Program?
A.7. In my discussion of the sampling procedures used to select the sample of inspectors, I would separate the procedure used to select the initial sample which was based on every fifth name from the ordered list of inspectors, and the procedure for the addition of certain inspectors by the NRC staff. t Within the formal definition applied in the context of-probability sampling, the initial sample does not quality as a simple random sample. It more closely resembles a systematic sample with implicit stratification by contractor and date-of certification. It should be noted that systematic samples do qualify as probability samples and in certain e
instances may be more reliable than simple random samples.
The addition of names to the sample by the NRC staff does transform the resulting total sample into what
- .-... - - .~ _ .-..-.. ...... - ..
~
r
]
-g-
.is best described as a judgment sample. Judgment samples of this type are often used by auditors in order to subjectively maximize the chances of uncovering discrepancies that might be missed in simple random or systematic samples.
Judgment samples do not satisfy the requirements to be classified as probability samples, and thus, the use of this type of sample in drawing inferences must be supported by the judgments of individuals with appropriate substantive knowledge.
Q.8. Can you describe the role of the sampling statistician in determining whether or not inferences may be drawn from probability samples versus judgment or other non-probability samples.
A.8. A sampling statistician can evaluate a sample selection process and determine whether or not a sample qualifies as a probability sample. If so, then the sampling statistician is generally able to determine the type of inferential statements that may be supported for the sample data.
If the sampling statistician determines that the sample selection process does not produce a probability sample then the role of the sampling statistician becomes 1
much more limited. The sampling statistician can not, within the boundaries of his or her sphere of expertise, draw inferences from the sample. At the same time, however the sampling statistician can not, acting within the boundaries of his or her sphere of expertise, conclude that the sample
is. incapable of= supporting inferential statements based on the subjective evaluation of experts. The sampling statistician can work together with subject matter experts in determining whether certain assumptions required for sample inferences are satisfied, but the sampling statistician must depend on subject matter experts for the required subjective judgments.
The sampling statistician has no role to play when the individual drawing inferences to a population on the basis of observations of a sample does not purport to base these inferences on mathematical statistical theory.
t l
L
A g
6/1/84 CURRICULUM YITAE MARTIM RICHARD FRANKEL PLACE AND DATE OF BIRTH: Washington, D. C. - June 16, 1943 ADDRESS:
OFFICE: Department of Statistics Baruch College, CUNY 46 East 26th Street New York, New York 10010 (212) 725-3195 HOME: 52 Calass Lane Stamford, Connecticut 06 90 3 (203) 322-4533 EDUCATION: A. B. (Ma the ma ti cs )
University of North Carolina, 1965 M. A. (Mathematical Sta tis tics)
The University of Michigan, 1967 Ph. D. (Mathematical Sociology)
The University of Michigan, 1971 AREAS OF SPECIALIZATON: Survey sample design and analysis; multivariate analysis; demographic and mathematical models; statistical computer design and prog r amm ing .
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
PRESENT: Professor of Statistics, Baruch College, City University of New York.
~
Technical Director, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago.
1
l l
.e 3 1975-1979: Associate Professor of Statistics, Baruch ;
College, City University of New York.
1973-1974: Assistant Professor of Statistics, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.. ,
1971-1972: Assistant Profes sor of Statistics , Baruch i College, City University of New York.
t 1965-1970: Research Associate, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, the University .
of Michigan. (Research Assistant pre 1969).
PUBLICATIONS:
Inferanna fenn Survav Em=nlear An Ennirinal Invaatisation. Ann Arbor Institute for Social Reserach, the University of Michigan.
1971 (presently in fourth printing).
SEPPr Sa=nliam Error Franeam Pankama. Ann Arbor ,
Institute for Social Research, the University of Michigan. 1972 (co-author).
Total Survav Errarr Analinations in Innrave Health Survava. San Francisco: J os sey-B as s . 1979 ;
(co-author).
t CHAPTERS:
' Probability Sampling,' in Robert Ferber, Ed.
Mandhonk af Marketina Ramamenh- New York :
McGraw Hill, 1974. l
- Ascription in Magazine Audience Research,' in Henry, H., Ed., Randarahin Ramamenhr Thanry and Practica- l Londo n: Signatest, 1982. ;
" Probability Sampling," in Rossi and Andersen, Eds.
Handhank of Survar Ramanrah. New York: Acadesio i Pre s s, 1983 o
e 2
L.
l l
, ARTICLES:
" Balanced Repeated Replications for Analytical Sta tis tics,' Proceedinna of the Social Statisting Section. American (co-author) 1968. Statistinal Ammoeiation._
J
' Balanced Repeated Replication for Standard Errors,"
$ Journal of the American Statistieml Ammoelation.
1970, ii, (co-author).
I sl j " Inference from Cluster Samples," Proceedinna of \
) the Social Statistics Section. American Statistieml Ammoeiation. 1971.
4 Q
' Inference from Complex Samples (with dicussio n),"
Journal of the Royal Statistieml Society (Series gl, ,
]. Volume 36, No.1, 1974. (co-author).
- Evolution of Public Response to the Energy Crisis," i l
Science. Vol. 184, No. 4134, 1974. (co-author).
' Development of Broadcast Rating Standards for Standard Error Estimates," Proceedinam of the Social Statistica Section. American Statistical Ammoelation. 1975.
' Software for Surveys -- Are Existing Packages Adequate for Valid Statistical Inference?' Proceedinam of the Minth Interface Svmoomium on comouter Science and Statistics.
1976.
New York: Prindle, Weber-Schmidt, Inc.
"The Effect of Measurement Error on Dif ferences in Hospital Expenditures,' Medical Care 14, 1976.
(co-author).
'Some Recent Developments in Sample Survey Design,"
Journal 1977.
of Marketina Research. Vol XIV, No. 3,
' Informed Consent Procedures in Telepho ne Int erviews,'
American Sociolorical Review. Vol. 47, No. 3, 1982. (with E. Singer).
'The Effect of Interviewer Characteristics and Expectations on Response,' Public Ooinion Quarteriv. !
l Vol 47, No. 1,1983 (with E. Singer and M 01assaan).
o e
1 3
0
. l
. OTHER REPORTS:-
"The Health Studies Survey of Workers' Com pe n sa tio n Recipients," Research Renort of the Interdonartmental Workers's Comnensation Task Force. Vol 7, U. S.
Department of Labor, 1979 Himh School and Beyond - Samnle-Denian-Recort.
Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, 1981.
The Profile of American Youth! Technical Samolina Renort. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, 1981.
Arbitron Renlication II; A Study of the Reliability of Radio Ratinus, Fishergate Publishing: Annapolis, Md.,
1982.
SELECTED PR OF ES SION AL ACTIVITIES: Chairman, Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association (1975-1976).
Associate Editor, Journal of the American Statistical Association. (1973-1981).
Member of Editorial Board, Public Oninion Quarter 1v (1977-1983).
Member of Editorial Board, Sociolonical Methods and Research (1979-1983).
Chairman, American Statistical Association Advisory Committee to the U. S. Census (1981), Menber (1975-1981).
Member of Editorial Board, Encyclonedia of Statistical Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, ( 19 80-pr e s e nt ) .
Fellow, American Statistical Association I
Fellow, Royal Statistical Society l
N l
\
SELECTED CONSULTING l^ CLIENTS: AT&T, Long Lines l American Broadcasting Company l Arbitron Ratings Company l
BBM Bureau of Measurement (C a nad a )
l Broadcast Rating Council Campbell's Scups Company Dun & Bradstreet Hearst Corpora tion Madison Square Corporation I National Association of Broadcasters Newspaper Advertising Bureau P ep si co Simmons Market Research Bureau TPF&C Union Pacific Railroad Western Railroad Traf fic Association e
e 5
(R. ,~
'- ~ -
ggn en COOh_N l y-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD DOCMETED USHRC In The Matter of ) '84 AG3 30 A10:07
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY )' Docket Nos,.50-454-OL
)
(Byron Nuclear Power Station, )-
CC$dtN9kkN!h@h' ERANCH Units 1 & 2) )
Summary of' Rebuttal Testimony of Bradley F.'Maurer I. Mr. Bradley F. Maurer of Westinghouse Electric Corporation testified previously at the hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on the structural adequacy of main control panels that were designed and fabricated by Systems Control Corporation (" SCC") for Byron.
L
- II. Mr. Maurer addresses allegations made by Charlos i Stokes with respect to use of an epoxy resin i surface filler on two main control board panels j supplied by SCC and Westinghouse. Mr. Maurer also discusses comments made by Mr. Stokes regarding the failure of SCC main control board panels to meet AWS Dl.1 Code criteria for welds.
l III. Mr. Maurer testifies that the two main control board panels in question where the epoxy filler had been used were repaired with full penetration welds. He also states that a complete inspection
! of all main control panels found no other instances of tack-welded plates with epoxy filler.
IV. With respect to the failure of SCC main control board panels to meet AWS Dl.1 Code criteria, a complete investigation and analysis of all accessible welds was performed by Westinghouse.
The results of the investigation and analysis demonstrated that the actual as-constructed welds were acceptable, m
y "
1
~W \
? KJ C.;.... u?ONDENCt UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION *,.
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD If In'The Matter of )
) g A6030 Af0:07 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-454-OL
)
(Byron Nuclear Power Station, ) 5Ft.455-OL@.
4" Units 1 & 2) ) 00CEDiheh'C BRA 'l Rebuttal Testimony of Bradley F. Maurer Q.l. Please state your full name and place of employment for the record.
A.l. Bradley F. Maurer. I am employed by Westinghouse Electric Corporation, P.O. Box 355, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15230.
i Q.2. Please describe your job responsibilities.
l
- A.2. My responsibilities include qualification of various
- electrical equipment and devices by analysis and by shake table testing, and main control board qualification by analysis. I have performed seismic qualification of Class lE medium power transformers using a combination of shake table testing and analysis. I have conducted seismic testing programs on electrical components of the Process and Protection
-System. I have assisted in the analysis of main control boards for'several nuclear plants. In conjunction with
_______________l--__--_____________--_-_-__---_-------_----____________---_______--_-_-__
9.^
L l other. senior engineers in the Equipment Qualification Analysis
. group, I performed the structural analysis of the Byron main control board and other main control panels.
'Q.3.
- Are you the same Bradley F. Maurer who testified at the hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
.on August 2, 1984 on the analyses and inspections performed by Westinghouse to address the structural. adequacy of main control panels that were designed and fabricated by Systems !
Control Corporation (" SCC") for the Byron station?
A.3. I am.
Q.4. What is the purpose of your rebuttal testimony?
A.4. The purpose of my rebuttal testimony is to address allegations made by Charles Stokes with respect to use of an epoxy resin surface filler, commonly known as Bondo, on two main control-board panels, 1PMO2J supplied by SCC, and 1PMO5J, supplied by Westinghouse. I will also discuss comments made by Mr. Stokes regarding the failure of SCC main control-board panels to meet AWS Dl.1 code criteria for welds.
Q.5. With respect to the use of an epoxy resin surface filler on the SCC and Westinghouse main control-board panels, would you describe the purpose for its use?
I
ff *
-3_
A.5. Epoxy resin surface filler material was utilized by both SCC and. Westinghouse prior to painting the main control boards. The surface filler material was used to fill or glaze any marks or scratches'in the steel plate material. After filling these marks or scratches, the filled surfaces were then sanded, primed and painted.
Q.6. Are you aware of any instances when Bondo was used as other than a filler material to repair surface blemishes?
i-l
! A.6. Yes. During the course of human factors engineering modifications to the control boards under the direction of Westinghouse, it was discovered that a steel plate on the front of main control panel 1PMO2J supplied by SCC was not welded with full penetration welds. The steel plate was tack welded and epoxy resin surface filler had been used.
In addition, cracks at tack-welded steel plates were observed at two other locations in two panels, 1PMO2J and 1PMO5J. This matter was documented in a Commonwealth Edison Non-Conformance Report ("NCR" ) F-695, which was written on February 23, 1982.
Q.7. Were the panels repaired?
l l A.7. Yes. The steel plates which were tack welded and filled i
I with epoxy resin and the crackc mentioned in Answer 6 were removed.
l The plates were replaced using full penetration welds. In addition, a complete inspection of all the main control panels supplied by SCC and Westinghouse was performed. No other instances l
_4
- of' tack-welded plates with epoxy filler were found. The work was performed under the direction of Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
L 1 Q.8. Were precautions.taken during the repair of nain control panels to prevent warping of the material being welded?
A.8. Yes. The welding of the metal plates was performed
_; by adding only small amounts of weld at a time. Also,
. additional heat s i nks were applied at the locat ions being welded. Both of these techniques serve to limit the heat
- buildup from the welding process and thus minimize the
, potential for warping of the panels. After the welding was completed, the rewelded areas of the panels were checked for warpage. None was found.
Q.9. Is it possible for particles of epoxy resin surface filler to become lodged in a safety-related control switch?
A.9. No. All safety-related control switches are enclosed to protect the contacts from dirt and debris.
Q.10. With respect to the failure of SCC nain control-board panels to meet AWS D1.1 Code criteria, was an it.vestigation performed regarding these SCC main control panels?
A.10 Yes. NCR F-544 was written August 8, 1980, prior to the Reinspection Program, concerning the welding of
-5 structural members of the main control panels not meeting
.the acceptance criteria requirements of AWS Dl.l. An investigation of these panels was performed by Westinghouse.
Westinghouse's investigation included a visual inspection and evaluation of all accessible welds to determine the overall quality of these welds. Under the direction of Westinghouse, several welds were added to the Unit 2 main control board to make the unit consistent with Unit 1. An analysis was also performed to determine the structural adequacy of the control panel welds. The results of the Westinghouse investigation and subsequent analysin demonstrated that the actual as-constructed welds were acceptable. This Westinghouse inspection and analysis was specifically addressed in my prepared testimony under questions and answers 13-15 as well as in my cross examination.
Q.ll. Mr. Stoken asserts that in order to correct the situation under NCR F-544, SCC was allowed to write its own acceptance critoria. Is this assertion correct?
A.ll. No. SCC did not supply the acceptance critoria used to close out NCR F-544. The acceptance criteria were established by Westinghouse utilizing AWS D1.1. .
Q.12. Does this conclude your testimony?
A.12. Yes, it does.
i
y ,
N. - 'a * .
6 RELM U "
'---n MDENCE UNITED-STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' -
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD DOCKETED USNRC In The Matter of )
)
'84 ASO 30 TJ3:d5 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-454-OL
~
) 50-455-OL (Byron Nuclear Power Station, )
Units l'& 2) )
SUMMARY
OF REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF MALCOLM LEO SOMSAG I. Malcolm L.-Somsag is the Hunter Corporation Quality' Assurance Supervisor for the Byron project.
II. Hunter Corporation Quality Control inspectors at Byron were selected and trained in the same manner regardless of the type of inspection they were to perform.
III. Type, size, location and condition are the components or elements common to all quality control inspection tasks. ' Type' involves a recognition of the general characteristics of an item of hardware, as indicated by its form, identification, composition, or function.
' Size' involves a recognition of dimensional characteristics. ' Location' involves a recognition the item's placement in relation to other components or predetermined points of reference. ' Condition' involves a recognition of appearance in relation to predetermined indication, flaw, and defect criteria.
IV. Application of these four principles to inspections of various classifications of hardware is consistent.
The specific tasks performed by the inspector in applying the principles, however, vary depending on the specific characteristics of the item of
. hardware being inspected.
V. Hunter Corporation ' document inspections' occur in two steps. An in-process ' document inspection' collects in-process construction data. A final inspection report assures that all required data has been collected and that all required inspections have been performed and have yielded acceptance of the hardware.
v.-v --m ,
. u:,
el, , , 4= '
. N , y a ja d.: C:..sv. M U;;U W E h
-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '
, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,,
BEFORE THE ATOMIC' SAFETY AND-LICEMSING[ BEARD --
IRf In The Matter'of' ) - -
- COMMONWEALTH EDISON. COMPANY Docket Nos. -
4f r55
. 50-455-OL
)
(Byron 1 Nuclear-Power Station, ).
Units-l s.2)- .)
REBUTTAL' TESTIMONY OF MALCOLM LEO SOMSAG Q.l. Please state your name.
- 4
. A.l..
.Malcolm Leo Somsag.
J 1
Q.2. Did-you previously provide. testimony in this
- proceeding in.the spring of 19837 A
A.2. Yes.
4 4
Q.3. At that time, you stated that you were the Hunter i
Corporation Quality Assurance Supervisor for the Byron a
project. Do you still hold that position?
t
- A.3. Yes. The descriptions of Hunter Corporation, my
- background and my responsibilities as Quality Assurance Supervisor set forth.in may prefiled testimony submitted in the spring of 1983 are still accurate.
O w w e -- , s - .-,w ,.u_, -
9 . ,, pw%%.p ..~e .,.ey, e,y -w cru , ,py,..y,mt-c p g.-. ,p.. .c wg
. - - - - - l
' 1
. Q.4. What is the purpose of your. testimony?
A.4. The purpose of my testimony is to describe how
- quality control inspector candidates were granted official status as' inspectors, to~ demonstrate that the performance of any inspection enlists the same skills.that are necessary to perform any other-inspection, and to explain the purpose of
' document inspections' and why there.was a large population of inaccessable ' document inspections' during the M.R.C.
Reinspection Program.
Q.5. ~Please describe the process of selecting and screening quality control inspectors followed by Hunter Corporation at'the Byron Nuclear Power Plant project.
A.5. Hunter Corporation applied a consistent approach to supplying quality control inspectors at the Byron Nuclear Power Plant project. The manner in which quality control inspector were recruited and selected for development is as follows.
It is necessary to be able to readily qualify inspectors so that production activity increases do not spread existing Quality Control Inspectors too thin. Inspector candidates with a minimum of high school education or G.E.D.
equivalence were recruited from the on site production labor pool since these individuals are knowledgeable of work place terminology, logistics, and techniques of construction. In f
,...,..,e , ,, * - - '
3-
-some: cases,: recruiting-of-Quality Control' inspector candidates 1
, occured-th' rough recommendations from a bdilding or area-superintendent. . In such cases the individual was contacted and; interviewed.by Quality Control Supervision.. In other
~ cases 1the candidate was discovered by Quality-Control inspection personnel without such a recommendation. All candidates
^
- from the on site labor' force who;become inspectors were trained.to recognize that they are not to inspect any work
'.they' performed as. production workers. In addition, Hunter Corporation considered' off site applicants aus well. Generally, off site applicants would have to have had either previous experience as an inspector in an environment equal to the nuclear industry, or previous experience'as a production worker in the nuclear industry where that work was subjected to programmatic Quality Control Inspection.
All candidates were screened and tested in relation to their knowledge of basic construction terminology and techniques. Screening includes evaluation of the candidates' ability to embrace Quality Control and Quality Assurance
- principles. Selection of candidates for further development
- was based upon their observable attitudes and ability to expand their inventory of technical knowledge. Hunter Corporation Quality Control inspectors were expected to discharge their. responsibilities in a positive and. unbiased manner. Candidates referred by building or area superintendents, as well~as off site candidates with previous inspection
- experience, have failed during Hunter Corporation's application 4
- of this step. l 1
t-
- r
'"h --
v I-( ,-%.,.-<c-. , - , .,4-- ,,.p- ..p , ,,____y.,-,,,y.7 , , . ,, ,3.p,. ,
,we.p.,, ywy-a eg-- .yy..9wq ,m,pe-- y -
i i
-Q.6, How were these candidates-trained and tested by Hunter Corporation?
-A.6. Training of Quality Control Inspector candidates has'been performed in a manner that will progressively refine the individual's recognition and. decision making abilities. These two basic abilities are necessary to produce reliable inspection results regardless of the scope of any inspection that individual inspectors could be called upon to perform. Inspector candidates received both formal lecture / classroom and on-the-job training. Training was administered by' certified inspectors and Quality Assurance auditors. Lecture / classroom training indoctrinates the individual in the Quality Assurance program administrative and technical criteria. On-the-job training imparts proficiency in application of administrative and technical criteria through actual hands-on performance of inspections in the plant. The candidate performed inspections accompanied by a certified inspector, who commented on the correctness of his performance. ~T he certified inspector then performed'the inspection of record.
In order for a candidate to become a certified inspector he had to pass a vision examination as well as written examinations that evaluated his mastery of the classroom training. The latter examinations must be reviewed and approved by an A.N.S.I. N45.2.6 Level III inspector
. prior to the time they are administered. Additionally,
_ 1
.V .
l 1
certified Quality Control Inspectors conducted on-the-job evaluations of-the candidate's proficiency in relation to
_applicationLof administrative-and technical criteria. These evaluations were conducted prior to allowing the individual to perform inspections ~ unsupervised.
During~1982 we revised our inspector qualification procedure to formalize and refine the practices employed to select, train, examine, and certify inspectors. Examples of this would be formal verification of education,' formally
-establishing minimum hours of training required,. formally demonstrating level III inspector review and approval of examinations'to be administered and refinement of examination content.
Q.7. Are there components or elements common to all quality control inspections?
A.7. Yes. The scope of any inspection that could be performed is defined by four parameters: type, size, location, and condition. All Quality Control Inspector candidates have been exposed to the training and examination
.necessary to assure proficiency in this conceptual approach.
' Type' involves a recognition of the general characteristics i
of an item of hardware, as indicated by its form, identification, 1
-composition, or function. ' Size' involves a recognition of l
dimensional characteristics. ' Location' involves a recoanition l
l of the item's placement in relation to other components or I predetermined points of reference. ' Condition' involves a L
i
- - . , - , - -, ,- - *~ , -- --. -- , = ~ . , , -
recognition of the item's appearance in relation to predetermined indication, flaw, and defect criteria. An indication attracts the inspector's attention, a flaw causes the inspector to
' size' and ' type' its physical characteristics. This then results in a decision of acceptability or nonacceptability by the inspector.
Q.8. Please illustrate the application of this conceptual approach to some specific hardware inspections.
l l A.8. Attached to this testimony are five (5) diagrams (Attachment A). These diagrams refer to the corresponding inspection elements in Attachment B to the prepared testimony of Dr. Eugene P. Ericksen at pp. 5-6.
Diagram 1 Inspection Element 32 Diagram 2 Inspection Element 36 Diagram 3 Inspection Element 32 Diagram 4 Inspection Element 42 Diagram 5 Inspection Element 38 Each diagram depicts an application of the terms: type, size, location, and condition. In order to establish recognition of terminology on these diagrams, type is represented by
'T', size is represented by 'S', location is represented by
'L', and condition is represnted by 'C'. Corresponding documents which establish, in part, the formal record of the inspections are attached to each diagram. The hardware and inspections represented are typical of any hardware or inspection. I will discuss some of the inspections on diagrams 1 and 2 which demonstrate application of each of the four terms, type, size, location and condition.
Referring to Diagram 1,' pipe component and fit-up
- g. . .. _ _ _ _ - -
inspections apply the conceptiof ' size' during performance
'of such> inspections as fit-up gap, bevel angle, and preheat inspections. In each case ' size' is a recognition involving physical measurement. The fit-up gap is the space between ;
4
. the closest: surfaces of the parts to be welded together, and.
would be measured with a feeler type guage. The' bevel angle is-the sloping cut made on~each part so that.the weld can-be deposited, and would be measured with a protractor.
' Preheat is the process of applying heat to a predetermined
, level so that welding can be performed, and is measured with a standard' commercial temperature indication device.
Referring to Diagram 2',- hanger inspections apply 4
the~ concept of - ' size' during performance of extension piece 1
and pin to pin. dimensions. In each case the ' size' again-
. involves performing a physical measurement. The extension-piece is a structural extension of the assembly, and is measured with standard commercial rulers. The pin to pin a
' dimension is the distance between the centers of the pivot pins,'and again would be measured with standard commercial rulers.
Referring.again to Diagram 1, pipe component and fit-up inspections apply the concept of ' type' during
-performance.of identification inspections. The identification inspection verifies that the correct materials are going to be used or have been used and that the items display the governing drawing number, correct part number and weld number. Referring again to Diagram 2, hanger inspections apply the concept of ' type' during the performance of pivot
- -- , , , - - , , , p , . , ~ , . - - , - - ,---m.,---- - . , - - , --w -- , , - -w , , , , -- - - -g
~
- ay 1 m 2
pin-inspections. Thespivot pin inspections verify tha'tL the
. pin is either machined with grooves for. installation of
~
- spring clip locking devices to keep it-in. place,.or has-threads'for installation;of load
- nuts and lock nuts ~toLkeep ,
. : it in-place. -
Referring'again.to Diagram 1,-pipe. component and *
- fit-up inspections apply the concept'of ' location'-during
~
R
-performance of configuration inspections. . Configuration
- inspections verify that the itemsJto be. weld'ed together- .
~
exhibit the proper' spatial plane" relationships and that the connecting weld will be where it-is n'ecessary.
- Referring-again to Diagram-2,'h' anger inspections
, apply the concept of ' location' during performanceLof such inspection as chain dimension and angle orientation-' inspections.
Chain dimension is the_ relationship between the point of
' attachment on the pipe and a readily' identifiable reference point on the pipe, and inspection verifies that the point of attachment on-the pipe is correct. Angle crientation.is the geometrical relationship between moving parts when a pipe 3'
line is in a cold and stable state, and inspection verifies-that the assembly displays the proper geometrical values.
I Most ' location' inspections involve using standard commercial . .
- measuring devices, or reading scales built into the assembly. l Referring again to Diagram 1, pipe component and I fit-up inspections apply the concept of ' condition' during-performance of damage ~and cleanliness inspections. Damage
- is characterized by-structural degradation, and inspection 4
- . .. . . . - - .. - .,_-,-.,...-----.-.-._,..-....._...,-.-..1
- ~
_9 verifiesLthat it does not-exist to a' degree that compromises thA integrity of the. item.' -Cleanliness is characterized by the absence of gross foreign' material inside or_adheri.ng to othe item, and inspection verifies that the level of, cleanliness is appropriate for~the circumstance.
' Referring again to Diagram 2, hanger inspections apply the. concept of ' condition' during performance of such inspections as a. threaded connection locked-inspection.
Threaded connection locked is a characteristic wherein.the loadinut will not loosen, and inspection verifies that lock
~
nuts are tight or the threads to the outside of the load nut have been interrupted.
As the foregoing examples indicate, the application of the basic concepts is consistent. However, the examples also indicate that the scope of application varies among classifications of hardware.
Q.9. Please explain the role of ' document' inspection in Hunter Corporation's QA program.
A.9. Hunter Corporation chose to identify the topic of
' document inspection' during the N.R.C. Reinspection Program as a separate inspection attribute because documentation i
developed during the construction process is reviewed for accuracy and completeness during the performance of any in-process inspection. This same documentation has always been subjected to an overall inspection once production'elaims that the-work is completed on the corresponding hardware to
+
r., .-
y
.- _10 ;
thelextent necessary to perform the inspection and gain- )
, acceptance.
The ' document inspections' occur in two steps'so that two goals.are attained. The goals are to collect in process construction data, and to assure all required data has been collected and all required inspections have been performed and resulted in acceptance of the hardware. An example of attair.ing the .first goal can be given by referring to the component support process sheet attached to Diagram
- 2. All inspections called for'on the back side of this process sheet would be in-process inspections (i.e., those inspections conducted that lead to initial completion of the assembly). Performance of inspection number 2 would include inspector review of the other documents generated during t6e construction process for the hanger. This review would verify that such ' things as welder identification, welding materials used, and use of construction tolerances employed are properly recorded on the documents in the construction package.
An example of attaining the second goal can be given by referring to the component support / whip restraint /
jet deflector final inspection report attached to Diagram 4.
This particular checklist applies to all three classifications of hardware identified in the form title. I direct your attention to the area of the form titled ' Review of inspection type 2 documentation and and type 3 inspection'. These reviews would result in re-review of the documents in the construction package for the hanger plus expand the review
)
l
._11_ l
)
i
~
into documentation systems that would not be reviewable at the time of.the in-process inspections.
Regardless of the format of any document that could be inspected by-any inspector, the inspection would be similar 'in that it wouIld simply verify the collection of data so that status could be determined.
Q.10. Why were there a large number of inaccessible document inspections in the reinspection program?
A.10. The various individual ' document inspections' of in-process hardware are usually conducted by different inspectors. The completed document package is also usually inspected by different inspectors. The reason for a'large number of inaccessable ' document inspections' is that the documents had been subjected to the ongoing ' document inspections' by other inspectors and therefore could have been corrected and would not yield meaningful results from a N.R.C. Reinspection Program standpoint.
Q.ll. Have you reviewed the results of the reinspection program on Hunter Corporation inspectors?
A.ll. Yes I have. Attached to this testimony as Appendix B (previously identified as Applicant's Exhibit R-3) is a tabulation of those results and includes information in relation to date of transfer out of Quality Control or termination of employment with Hunter Corporation. The tabulation was prepared at my direction and the results are l
l 1
. it ' . . .
s m
accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. The
- . transfer and termination dates have been obtained from the Hunter Corporation payroll accounting department.
k 4
4 l
i I
l
ge. ,-
f" ad 6
ATTACHMENT A e
.m _
)P U
ri s f
(
t .
l i a a W r . (
e f N v . 7 A)
R' A e . U L e ((
J( if A
D l
s, s W
C dhJ f
g ,
["(
(
[2, P
g
?
j A
X (n P
U( )3 _
, T I
P
)
=
j 'y, e )(
C T
f hy R
e o
o.
p
(
) 5A 5 T M
" c E (. .
(N I 1i wl, l E.
r N f.
I A A M 1EE F
l T
t A L D
) )S DCI T (
(
) T c
(N) N I
HS F T
)eA ,
sT( M M NE (c mI r CAT &
N I
uF E I
l A
tnt N s O a aN-E P MrE t _
at n c. DI P M .
O C
E P
I P
_el c .
l
' !4 e ' g
r(
t CONSTRUCTION COPY
! ,,, No PROCESS SHEET (P-1-P-8 BUTT WELDS)
.- HUNTER CORP _O_ RATIO _N DESCRsPTION OF CUSTOteER @MMMEAJTH EDeSON CO ._. PROJECT U 4391 0 4392 LOCATION D JOS NO. C-TSMOS JOSSE - MT _._ _ _ _ WEA D NO __
OUAL6YY NECORD MATE RtAL CtASS MM NO'S O N/A O REOUIRED JOINT TYPE O OPEN BUTT D CONS INSERT O BACKING STRIP O FILLET..
PURGE D NOT REQUIRED WELDING "ROCESS ROOT D GT AW D _ , , _
GAS O REOUIRED PREHEAT TEMP 'F. TO 'F & FILLER METALS PASS O SMAW AWS e MAXIMUM INTER 2ND D OTAW D REMAININGO OTAW D PASS TEMP *F PASS OSMAW AWSe PASSES O SMAW AWSe _ . _ _ _
FLAT TOP Q NOT REOutRED PRIMARY MT PT RT UT SECONDART MT PT FINAL WELD O REOUIRED FINAL N D E O O O O O FINAL N D E D 0 -
REMARKS POST WELD D NOT Rh OUIRED HEAT TREATMENT O REOUIRJO O RELEASED FOR CONST.
PROCESS 56EET OA DATE A84 DATE REV. ENG. DATE DESCRIPTION OF REVISION PART OF UNE NO DWGNO ISSUED UNDER REY. __
SEO. OPERATION DESCRIPTION HOLD POlNT PROCESS PERFORMED / INSPECTED A.N.I NO. CRAFT INCLUDE INSPECTION AND NOE Q.C. A.N.I. SPEC NO. REV SY & DATE &DATE MATERIAL TO SE USEO sunoa BACKING STRIP (When Req )
1 O C. COMPONENTS INSPECTION. o eDENTIFsCATOON a DAuAoE o mTERNAL CLE ANLINESS D PROPER END PREPS
%'w '[ . . . _ . . . . - .
2 P.F. FIT-UP AND TACK PER WELD PROCEDURE. - ENTER MLDmo DAT A ON REVERSE SiOE COMPONENTe1 OC o PROPER rsTvP y P NUMBER P.F.F. RECORD MATR1 MK NO'S (IF REQUIRED) $I'f6 sy PfE SPEC. & GRADE 3 P F. ROOT PASS PER WELD PROCEDURE {$ ENTER WELDmo DATA ON REVERSE 5DE SIZE O C. o h NOMINAL THICKNESS 4 P F. SECOND PASS.PER WELD PROCEDURE: ]'E ENTER WELDmQ DATA ON REVERSE SIDE MINIMUM THICKNESS O C- o ( CUST. I D NO 5 P.F. REMAINtNG PASSES PER WELD PROCEDURE: Mj ENTER WELDING DATA ON REVERSE SfDE MK. NO O C. o OTHER S O C. FINISHED WELD INSPECTION O IDENTIFICAflON D CONTOUR O REINFORCEMENT O SURF ACE DISCONTINUITIES 0 REQUEST N O E 1r COMPONENT e 2 7 noe am ceae PERFORM PRIMARY N D E. sEE N D E REPORT SEE N D E. REPORT P NUMBER O C. ENTER ACCEP1 ABLE N D E REPORT e hf SPEC. & GRADE S ... con c PERFORM SECONDARY N D E. SEE N D E REPORT SEE N D E REPORT SIZE ON REVERSE OC ENTER ACCEPTABLE N D E REPORT e ,f ' hEDE P "A'PP T NOMINAL THICKNESS S P F. PERFORM P.W H T. (IF REQUIRED) ENTER WELDmo DATA ON REVERSE SsDE MINIMUM THICKNESS O C. O CHECR sti UP PER PROD APP WST CUST. I D NO 10 ANI FINAL VISUAL INSPECTION. (([ j[ [], %['[g,((/M MK NO HN 144 0 40) OTHER S
e O
9
a (n
+
t
<C
. wf i D coNficuRATiON WELD RECORD ~~
WELD ENTRVS (P tS ALWAYS THE TOP ON VFRitCAL WELDED j ' WELD MATERIAL __ _ . .,_,, ._,. __
8Y' SEO EY j '
, . Wf Llp JOtNIS LOOKING AI COMPourl41 REV. NO.
DATE TYPE S4EE LOT 900. REf=800. m = . * - - - a e DA{t -
e.
l l itAs FJUMDER 1. N. O. . w==- WELD--- DES - -MIPT_I.ON.m=
- = f_ e' w.m .,
it" IS At WAYS NORTH ON HORIZOrdi AL
- ~ ' ' - ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '"
. j./ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'
wt E D JOIN TS LOOKlNG IN THE PLAfJ vlLW. /
s'to/
s
- p. - _ + . _ .
wf t t) 11E CORD FORat USAGE IN THE FIELD / "~ ~
' ~ ' ' ~ ~
s 6 8 A * 'ee es Hee 9 Hve %Uf4 e5 RESPONSillLE FOR MARING A4 L DAf A 6 Niluf SUtd v.8 s f* "'"i .r4 *:DI ng teses ineng As Ffy g pws
~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,[#
. ene a it ue nam, latet wtd4DEd 5EUUENCE 2. 71W FIR 41 PAS $(HUQl3wE AM D #
.6. a g . s ' e see. '4 e emD e ARS wouLO f9f MEUULNCE 4. ANQ IDIE R$ MAINeNG
. 4 - e-. isle e. see J .#d eef 9 b f NttM IHF fit 4JI16Nt..$ NisWHf H f $ He Wf 6 U *# $
- e e. e .f e sy 4., e . .
~ - * ~ -' **** * * ~ *
- 4* e ts e.4 4 elLH 18@ l'UetTMN4 Uf fHE wtLD MADE SV THE wtLDtX
.s
.., . ee . . ..se . .r TO ..e.
,Nu H na st AuP easuRen te tHF wfiue n AtainAit --- --- -- -- - -- "
f '"~ - - ' - - - ..
t e .Asi..
es.1 e v ri gt f -
- * * ~ ~ ~ ~ ' * * "
" " * " " * ~ ~""~""~******'*"~* ' " ' '
e s .. . s .u-a, e seil H eest 8 vt9 l A W $ s t SilE HEAL feUMRER OR LOINUMHtH. - - - - ~ ~ - * ' - * ** 7* * * * " ' ~ ~ ~
- e . elv('t e' e s el I t t6 4 R I G H MP f At tiSED WHEN A 8 U1 NOMHf H IS et - ete.* *s leN wM5H IN89 M il eN%lf AD or fME. HF AI NtsMRER . . . , ... . '. . p. . - - - . - -~
3 -e n , .
- Rt'y w> (14ff R 1HE stEVl$40N NUMitEIq OF THt WELDING P8KM 4 - "~~~p'".n.- - . - - - - - - . - * - - - - - -
- .a * , . . r +# cm its a we IHE pse08 ESS SteEEI SIDE A$ THE WELD 6$ MADE. _ -.
- i t% f .F t r M TO H 919 5)fTftVfSORHA%FNTFRfD All f1ATA FtWtracts ,.
[ f
. . .e o+. ...e *Ai s .Nn f,a nAff In nAir t NiHv . -. _ _ - - - . - - - -
- .- 7
+ es t.' e 's t at PA(.st As.E)ENIER THF J f P NUMRfR A6LISTEDON iew - "
- "' 8 > *% '**
- 8 58a + . .
. . . . s.e s, e't *, t.... .e ut WI LDNIJMtif R A$L111FOON THE PROCE$$5Hf fl Sff4 j = '
" **" *- - --- ' ' ~* ~ ~ - - - - -
' - - * - ~" ^
e' .0 e e s.tr6 s eeW,f S D4Et DONLT SE MADE IF PO$f WELD HE A1 TRE AfME NT
erwM riI% Mt e n asus n
- ' " ~ ' ** * * " ' " ' "- - * * - -- - , ~ ~ - - - ~- - *- ~ --
- fW H,e f .i ' IA6 e .valH Ise Rt.Cs wtDf R CHART NUMBER /*
. w H e s wa mi Ns NUpe es.itu sHE GUENigFICAlpDN NUMBERS OF IHL CUN- " - - - - - - - -- r - - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - -. - - - - - -
- 7 s., eme R sofs nie nuncoin1ES e' e e e 44 t e H W ant p L*A f f f NTER lHE NAME OF THf EORMPMENf tif flea - ./* - - - - - - . - - - - - - --. . . .
i vi A,.. ne c.nfise a R.h .
. i t re s.ev s ww nm . nAT E .. iHe rRODuciusN suPERvt$0R ENTEH$ tWS NAsip - ---- -- -
f' - - - - --. - - - - - - - - - - --- .
. . e . .> , . , . . . . a wN g H,
. ..e. m. .t waivera. aNSPEClOR ts HEhPONSIBLE FUR HFvetw AND *, "~~ ~' ~ ' * ~ ~ "
. #: e ...e .w Le is a,Peux,ess $HLEI AND wf LD RECORD
- ~,./~ ~ ~ ~ '
PeeOE.f SS SHEET FORM USAGE IN THE FIELD , _ , , . , _
.e.*
- se a e .e se me d 4 tMwev de eb HE%PONSMILE FUR ftECORDeNG MA1f fitAL THACF - ,p#
. e siv .. es gwp a r omsWest ee$ MANtJF ACTt#RER$ EIEntAL NtJMIIFRS & F TC) We4 N " * * * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * " " " ~ ~ ' ~~* * ~ ~ ~
~
NOS *iti e N de IS CHECalf D ftEUuent D" UN Te# PHo.
.. d. taf f.;.a.4 4. AA I t.te A4. Mete ..eie u .oAi A rs iu tBE G Ni&Hf DUNDER 1HE " MATERIAL TU BE LM,Eu*
on e+ur. < re e v.ve t e ns iHE Mm No suRHE ADW4G AFTER IME maPER- Jff'NO _ . . . _ _ .
_. . , WELD NUMBER _. . P W H.T. CHART NO. _ - .
. e'iding
- re f f '...e.ee swe A. tot INTEh3 tes eNIllALS ASED THE DATE ted te# IT A
-..s. a e (.n v ti. e W t D f OR $EUUENCE 2 NEXT TD P F F ALL OTHEM SK tea P W H I' EuUtf'Mt N T NO(S) *- '
THE NOiNTES
~
erw= se f p tw tJLsALIf ? CONTRUL OR THE AUTHORe7Et) NLN A S AM hgg /NER t
MIL E m -e :f,f r
. .. DATE P W H T. ENTRIES BY - _ . . . _ IMTE
.u ., a ..e e r v. fmD SUPv
- a e.a w mre tew e*KunJCiwiN suPtrivissiR wiset saw RAsoc P W H T PF ATORMED BY . _.. .
.- n o . . .n s are . nr.N assf ra w;fivf fii AMueA teose ANDU C Nrff t,
. . ..s a c e w n a vo ewrir fv sen s p oAI A set Aieve vs we senro6 PNi&M . _ . . _ .. . . ... DA t t na sti,n n o we e tnama s'tuuAtaspf set a.w w as* *4 ut 'd iuPI f il ln efit st:FSS SHf E1 AND WLLD FtECORD AHHOVE D DY . U C (NSf.ECIOR .
gq, ,,,,,
, r . .s.. e. i 6 s.es ut A reUN fMJCS DE Net e
W
vsn s o run un* *- = UIAbHAtl Z '
(s)
DET^tL 'A' cgt.p ggy pjy (7)
THKUST wesMEE (C/s) 7dSITilmi (L) g Q - s .sisur ___ LOC. KIN & DEVJC.E (C) , . ~ ~ ~
g
. , h,
( N g
HOLE (L) ,', -l s /
(L)
~\
g
,~ ' / -
s -
/ s nu- 2 I.
- j f
~
f 0 { C I]; , ' he. [q ,
s g
/ .--
- DETAIL A" ,/
THKEAP \ /
DETAIL THREADED EAthAbEMENT
~ ~'
PIVOT VIN *$ CONNECTIMI (c)
(.T1 LocKEO ce>
-E.KTE NSIOM PIECE
- (s)
!i ~ @ @
Smim . . ._
m v
,: 3 M 3 Ml 11 !{
CMAIN DIM T M w
Q nnui,n>,) ..
T ettvArrau wgw bf cu moa n >
AMGLE OtlENTATIOM /
f ,
(L)
O HAN6ER INSPECTION FOR KEY PLAd MECHANICAL. SNLLBBER
(*)
s e
e e
0
I! ! i8s [~..
I !
list s 4 :;
I l
li .:
ion .t t
i I
i g
E ! !! ! l n- 3 I '
i' 8 ll. !!'"! E a i ; of I . ,
- ! [
U ij '
": x ~; !! !
! j: '
i lji;1 l i! I EU !'!
'i lij ggii; i
di "i oi i !..Il
- I j
' is ! I 'I l' 'I Is " i i
I Il.
t at e
g a
E !'
I i : 0l
!,* l
- o . I E l[ ;
'"[ [l. { I jl; I l; fi -
l I "" e ii .
i 8
- p. i a
[
- o. :
g ni ei j
i ,
j t i,1 j i 'i . i., i l
I - !i !!.! l l h !! !!.6 ,, !I !I L !, s x,;
3i , : =
= y i!:: : n ,g s!
'n,I
- i
- !! 2 g y u g a i3 c.-
d5 w 3 . h i 5 lg'g' lPh* ; ,i . ;)! , ;l *'5 .! .* . g c !* '
{E eE =l.
5 i.
xp,it1lp,l:al'11 I ii I5 F - :
,irD.! ,, s
-l, o;
,, s i. !
W W ;;g_g
. g I b~ p.
e ig g;ri , !g g t
- r os[
i, jg.g l, z
- g
- 5
! lg5rvi;,i;,rcaI o i5 , s l j!dl!! ! !jd!g'!2! '! !g s i 6:
m r
- ,1..!:g!l -
i illo!Ilibillo!IlliildliiI[!:,i;!!!y ,1 !!:;g!
a ,
t l
! s i o y. = 1 .
r o . r -
. ilp< ,n i a. 1ph .r. ... .. i e 88=- E ,l a
Ii !r'li n.
g gig, a
i g
__f_ ,'it,j-l i
I r
e-
.I .
e E' 2 < $ , .
O
- n. Eg E
! I 'I
- ll i!
- i ,t
! !. i "r
- i i
m m E 1
i 3 l l ,-
lii!! ;I Q.W 8 1 : > t ,
F ! I'
.l E 1" ?
!:[~ i t 'Eih'i l l!II ;
z N=
- i. lii i-l.,
! - e r, o !!
i.
ri ! Plt lasi s l 11 ' ll1l s! lll2 -
- n.
- i 2- it. na ji it i i Q
s _.
i- ;
i! :
F nr o I I I iI i
o E 1 8 15 i ;i 15: il
-i o s
- i g.. p. p .p. ni.'
el i.
E,. I - ! l. !!! 1l, : !!
u,
! !e,j i }s,'i i s
. 4 . ,,
E = li h iiI, i,N ! s [ h!'si . !* ! !!l!
i ,
5 l A,ill.. }:,ali"* EAD EasGAOEMENT l i e ALL mv0f mass SECumEO wtTH60CKassG DEvtCES e i i to ALL SPMEmlCAL BALL OUSMENGS MAve Thaust wASMEmS isOfw Ss0ESa e 1 e CIA TRAbELLEn COMPLETE sif ofeSTALLATIOsa CMPLOv5 CEAsa l i i 12 MOVING PamTS Amt useossTRUCTED iMGm FmEE TO FUNCTION PmCPEmLvl i e 13 TmAvf L STOPS Ife ANO SECusto ta mEAm enACKf7 PAAAuhL TO PimssG LUGS wiTheNG S*
'S ExTENSaOh NECE AseO1.OAO STEM weTHs4 S'07 MOUNTING eAAcalT 1e mv0f MN TO mg piMENSom PEm CONSTauCTION DAAwtNG j e ,
I T COLD POSeflom SETTt88G CommECT .
l i
'E AerTS PmOCESS SMEET COMPLETE s NSTALLATCN EMPLov$ As,Tel j (
'9 LOCATION COMP ADSLE UTIUZ'NG St.mmOGATE rLCUSl , i 20 PLAST'C wmAP Ap*UtO l
' . l I
'soNSPECTION ev 2 ATE INSPECTED to 2*e *NSPECTCN OV CATE *NSPECTED 'O 3re NSPECT@fe87 CATE INSPECTED TO C Af a ENTm:ES C*MP'.E'E AND 'NmPEC*CNS pgmFOmVfD AP**C /E3 E' was; := .a
..er ., a w , -+
) .
C
(
M 1
S o )5i 3 S T/
C
( NIC(
E AT ~
I F'
M EL GNT n
A AAN T R NEE .N 6 A L D L E A DC I I ..,
I AN .y T D - TO .
- - N EP I
_D)
Ns DMO ,
A
\y R Ai L
f C T
b 3 l.
C N
A S E
s j
/ ./ t s s
R Nx P I
H
.^ N
. W
N ,
x *
~
}N O I
T A
N 0
l T
A P
S S
E C
t 0 N TA I
6 f)s i
T /
I L
N M E
M F )L A hgs>
ED I
(TO N(EIt C
L C p c
' P P U
/
- l. t l
A G
T I
, A W )5
/ r e
t(- F
/ o T I
F
/ / E L I
E S A T _
E _
D
' L E _
N
-~ .
C < -
i I
CCNS TALCTICN COPY CATEGORYI b'b PIPE WHIP RESTRAINT PROCESS SHEET HUNTER COMPORATION J T P NO *ELO NO -
[ CUSTOutR CECO PmOJECy ! w l am LOC A f'one 32s 308 NO CJ5toos
' RECOnD UATERiAL JOINT C PA.4TIAL PENETRATiCN C FULLPENETmAYtON
! um NO S O N, A O REOuiRED TYPE O SACuiNG STaiP O FILLET O SINGLE 8EVEL GROOVE O Dou8tE SE%EL GROOVE
- uAIluuusNTER : wELOING PmOCESS O GTAw l PREMEAT TEup ~
- *F TO *F l PASS TEMP ap , & FILLER uE T ALS O SuAw AwSe UT PT NA MT PT RT uf .PCST wELO O NOT mEOuimEO
{'PASS ROOT NOE O O O FINAL N O E O O O O O i wEAT TREATWENT O REOusRED l pmOCESS SHEET ME ORAwiNG NO _ ISSuto UNCER REV LINE NO MATEmlAL TO BE USEO ! i i CouPONENT *e l l SPEC & CRADE i l
NOMINAL TH+CKNESS ,
g j I
we .
OTHER !
COMPONENTe2 SPEC & GRADE ! O I RELEASED FOR CONST NOMINAL THICKNESS 04 fgayElmEv ENG OATE f OESCptPTION OF mEvisiON uM NO mEuARuS BACMING Staip fwwf 4 mEO !
l OPE.1ATING OESCRIPfaON
- wCLO PROCESS "*i PERFORufD' INSPECTED
- i. SEO.
NO , l CRAFT -
rNCluCE IN$PECTiON ANO NOE 80!NT $*EC NO 8'4 OAYE 5
. e OC COMPONENTS INSPECTION O IDENTIFICATION OOAMAGE O PmOPER WELO PmEPS ',
2 pF
- FITOP AND TACK PER wfLO PROCEDURE .
evra weO=o o*** on as. ease see OC 'O PROPERFiTM8 O CONFIGURATOs ' ! 9 l PFF ' RECORO MATR L un NO S sip REOuimEOi /
V////
3 PF ROOT PASS PER WELO PmOCEDURE e tee meto o oara o= avveess see
- FOR FILLET OR SINGLE BEVEL WELDS. PROCEED TO SEO. NO 4 -
3A OC .NSPECT SECONO SiOE #FOR OOueLE BEVEu ! .an enocass V I O visual h f eOac"oe V '
i 38 PF SECONO SIDE ROOT PASS PER wELO PROCEOumE ! l "'" V/M eye.=e o c es.a o= .s.se s,es .
e OC 1 O visual C REOutST N O E E. D*/s' "' ' l VM s =a e co=t.neto. PEmFORu ROOT PASS N O E 'E.Y. Es* ****" t I SEE NO E REPORT l SEE N O E REPOR7 OC ENTER ACCEPTASLE N O E REPORT e ((/((((((M e PF ! REMAIN 4NG PASSES PER WELO PmOCEOURE evea meto.=o ca a os. as. ease sies .
7 OC I FINISMEO wELO INSPECTION k O aOENTIFICATION O CONTOUR ! I l c as =ecateus=e a svaeace siscontasuevet e neo =ce I e = 3 e convenctonI PERFORM FINAL N O E { { SEE N O E REPORT ! SEE N O E REPORT e OC I ENTER ACCEPTA8LE N O E REPORT e i /
V //(([ [ M g #F PERFORM P W H T [IF mEOuiREDI I l *aNe**sa s*oe~sM'$ =st OC CHECM SET OP PER PRCO APP INST l $ /
REuARaS.
u.
Ov&OATE U 2 O C W i
.c .
- i. . ..
4
,% ~
ac x
. A
. .$ ~
E s. 8 ws s s. . . . . . .
. n
.a .-
Obk
-u ,
i
-=c, l B
Ews
?
a a 1 Qi 3
" Z .
- . *O .n
" m B z . e I- < ;
- o . . =e <>
5m i
. . i
+
I
- a, w -
t t . -. .E s ,
1 z efo i
' w E 2-g"$> ,
I O jg3 a g
u EO a O' 5
-WoI w l
l I
'u i ' '
-* g :
. g 3 .
w e a e 8x i
O. . .
2 - *. >
- J ! I j . g e W.
3t r> . . .
i o
a w
I" I !,
O
. O 3 .
~
- ! E'
- . n
- 1 8 ' ' h w- '3
.s h
.' '.. \. . i. ',' 3-
. o 4 E O ' !\ ' \
O O' ! .g 4 1 o
w t' O ' '
\t si i '* l- '
ie i g s t g> - * .. .. E o
_".. ._.t.. 2 L_4.1. L 4 i .: . - 4
- i - - - =
is s
w g
O t :
, ., . 2 E t <
g t. L s ,
s t t == w b I t . m ,
s ' ' )
! l O- > 8 u
s 6R * *:ts
\
w s
' c
- O 3 w
s 2 V O y = z a
w 1 :: e~
E = s
. ;.,- ,.: . -C
.- - . w.. -. g. e -.
I.
o- .
- S %
.~
$or -
~
. :, r .; r ,
r *z,,,,2 ., .g.
- 2 t . : - ; -
e.- : r
.g::g"- !;?wit {. i
. 3 3 -
r 5: ; l- tr- 4 ; , - ? ? S ie r 8 .
f: u t' J ! ; - :
+ * - =
! ; . 2 . g
- .s g .
.- r, .: , - 4 < . * -
4:
v - 2
- ,3<7
. e
',s:*,.
- .,.s t , ,
.f.
f*-- T. .= c. : ::2 E : --
3 e
a E.
= ,;. g . - *<
a m 313'{s::- i. <a; 3 figs ey w - -
- - ja
- . r a, 1, ,. y **2 s - :. !! -: -
. W r -
s fw 85*~.'s: La..
- i s r: s :?:.?
15 E !!: .';-
- % ?!. * *
~
6 Y:* =? -
E%E'
- = =; : . c . . 13
.I ? - -: 2
-F. 5i . *
- s. 5 **
e
- gle5 s
- s. s : ., ..e ., s a . r,
'= z .s ,- ,r,3,g
=.w.sIs a 2g 3 3 . .-- ; t- -.* 4- '- *a w ta:e.g.,(;.--
- a. .. _ : ? .i ;
4 .
2 r
. z:.: ::*
, s2es r 3 - -
s ?! s* e- -:
. . O Mr *2 8*
=< g
$ '. ; ~5 l, ' . -s- -; iv ;
-5.4 w i. s f -4 ; ". C i if$ Ei$
- ,, =
- , .* * - ,Q,f.=:= q 3 1- ( .= ; .*
- e-a.7 s .- - i. 2 ;*
. r. =s: .e z =
= 3 4a(:r: 0 i t-gs::C.:,8-3 : ..s ..: -. ,I v...? - -,=... y?g,..,g.1.
. . , . .-. y. .
- ~ I. : 4 ," 55 4 d; 2 - s=
- 4*7 e!.2;.zgi *. Y33c.
$. $3 10 - .s. & 4 2= I2* *f .se -
g -; f *-
C g *a i., :. '. .Y
. ~5*t.: -
s
.* ;5 +
. ~ .. . -
- ^
- t
-e..-r*.z --
..~1
?
.,.w a ege
. - z
,x s*~i*:S."f.*re s.4;=.
->.s.x~
u w -' -- s - e;- -'.i; Y c . .- e.2 2 3;-ee.1,,.yg:15.
.a ::c,'.
= ., - ~. < r- ; - - <- - s ~ .. >, -
f i.s t =: --
i.;.e .. z.:.:- .- 3. r 1 , ,g:'s. ;,. . ' . ' .'.1 .s
.a : ;
.e , ,,:. . ,* . -;s'.
r g : *34 e; 2- Y o .y.1+z.-au m -s ..
g .! .- y .2: *' : *:
- t.,;5 - ?
ab -
E i < ,. . 2s..,.;..g ;y,..3.,. t a,,3, 4
- g
,-r..a4s.. . .. s. m.e- -
g .:g. } 3:; ~ t. .
. .- ,. . -. S,l,- s ;* e .s-s- s .,
,. ,.me. ~ ...: .. - .. 1 , =s.- m
- i . . ! y;f. 2. s . ! .*. .? <ge.
.- 3.;2 5 ;:
<..3 . --. *
[- 0a ;s .5
_z,.14:5 ,.:r:s ., ,. s. . ,
,, .g,.**. .
s .s , < r -: s e-
.r -
x--
- }e s,rf,. , Sg.{ !t .
.-- e t ,. <. .s. - . s, <
. .< .: .- :? w i. s s
- ::: ca h-v. .
DIAGRAM 4 DAMAGE (c) 9 NOTE:W emea*W5 p.sn m o for W 3
Q- -
, WHIP . RESTRAINT gp,MENseNAL o-sr TYPE 3 NOTE: & D*EM*+S MWMD ou asexrwrev maoim M tc M o
- L OCATION (L) ;
I g
i O ~
/
\ /
// bg N Og e o/ '
ringdimensional " T'"
typ.(4) (L) \
b/g tf
,I;; :
e 'w ' N o
1 .
- . y
. A-y l
1 -1.
' .M/;T
/ . CIWWENT SUPPORT /ISIIP RESTRAINT / JET DEFLECTOR e j w ., FIIIRL INSPECTIWI REPORT ,
4.e customer Csennum1tt! Edison " "
- Jet a4 C.751000 Hunter CCD Revision its. Used for Inttfatten of FIR: Hester A&E A 4 E hovisten - Hunter Revision Change -
astallat<te met Installation Not Affected Use Nevts"en Entered By Date of Entry New Revision Entered By Date of Entry REVIEW 0F IIISPECTION TYPE 2 D0CtMENTATION Ale TYPE 3 INSPECTION Note: Items 1 through 3 are the documentation of IBSPECTION TYPE 3 for Faulted Condition Restraints and Jet Deflectors when applicable.
QA QC I 1. Process Sheets and Weld Records Complete (Inspection Hold / Witness Points Coupleted.
Hetertal Traceab11 tty Data Cosolete. NDE Performed and Referenced When Required, PWHT Charts Couplete and Referenced When Requiredl...................................................
- 2. Installation matches CCD and/or as-built data supplied.......
- 3. Field Orders Included and couplete ..........................
- 4. Vertfy Type III Inspection Is Cosplete for _
Component Suppeats . . .t: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 5. Remork Requests Referenced and Closed Out ...
- 6. Ries Referenced and Closed Out ..............
I 7. NRs Referenced and Closed Out ............... .
- 8. Discrepancy Reports Closed ..................
Comments Inspector and Date IIISPECTION TYPE 4 (COMPONENT SUPPORTS ONLY) Drawing Revision No.
QC Inspector /Date
- 1. Ins ta ll ation in Pl ace , Intact and Undamaged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 2. No Hold Tags Attached .....................................
- 3. Travel S tops Renoved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comments Inspector and Date Ill5PECTION TYPE 5 (RESTRAINTS AND DEFLECTOR $ ONLY) Drawing Revision Es.
QC Inspector /Date
- 1. Installation in Place Intact and Undamaged ...............
- 2. No Hold Tags Attached .....................................
l Connants l
l -
l l FIELD SUPERINTENDENT / PROJECT ENGINEER Approval and Date-l CUSTWER REPRESENTATIVES Acceptance and Date .
Form m.198 (2 82)
)
(L 1
T e.
i r
l N
< \)V i
d $
d e
l O ,~
N.
/
v f
S ' /
M N -
y.
A 6 4yx -
ri e t_
PS X R M
EO H
E C T
E N R A C
N
_ y +y ,'
O -
C ,s
,c e n
_ d ,t(
aO e sP ingi ,
,iE l
r ,d l
en ee t p so j / //. .
g p0 a -
g (C ,
" f . '
" )
I _
f I( * .
a ,
ds E
~ k_
A ~
~
l N f n
i f
ob it i) a c
v
~
t S
9 nT e .
") d( d e
L
'! s i d
s *a.mbmus xen
/
obp t
d e
m e
" ouC E
V /l(
p ~ L -
l E .
^
g", s es tn )C L
i T h( < '
3 g .
- ig #
f ' t e
O A~ f( lI l !
3
. TRAVEL.LER NO. (Fcrm HC-106 2/83) HUNTER CCRP2RATEN-PART A: LAYOUT SUM 1ARY FOR SAFETY RELATED STRUCTURE
- 1. Support No. Quality Class
- 2. Area: O See Support Drwg. O Other Thickness of Topping Slab
- 3. Anchor Diameter Embedded Length Required Anchor Length No. Required Comments:
Prepared By Date PART B: QC CONCRETE VERIFICATION
- 1. 28 Day Cure Met O Yes O No QC Date If No, Document When Cure Will Be Met
- 2. Layout Over Concrete Repair Oyes O No QC Date PART C: INSTALLATION DATA Optional: Hole Depth QC Verification Date
- 1. Mark Applicable Box or Enter N/A JY!r! IE!!n m. or m. or m. or Eda "$li4E nS$nInn
,, g ogy ano l inn "s"' $25 ::a ,,, ,,,,,,,, , ,,,
- 2. Unused Holes Dry Packed O Yes O N/A
- 3. Slotted /0versize Holes and Required Washers O Yes O N/A
- 4. Beveled Washers In-Place Oyes O N/A
- 5. Concrete / Anchor Failure O Yes O No If Yes, Date Copy of HC-106 Sent to Owner
Comments:
Preoared By Date
' PART Di, INSPECTION DOCUMENTATION S
w n O l t- S W O O E v
i
< ac O O .O 1. Documentation (HC-106 completed)
OO O 2. ID (Support /CEA number marked on item)
O O -O 3. Length code (anchors are end stamped with appropriate code)
OO O 4. Anchor diameter (per const. dwg. or larger per SIP 20.513 or M919) 0O O 5. Embedded length ("LE", depth in concrete. 1/16" tolerance) 0O O 6. Thread projection (flush with nut, minimum)
OO O 7. Plumbness (beyond 30 but less than 100 requires beveled washer)
OO O 8. Washer quanity & distortion (max. of 5, nin. of 1; no distortion)
OO O 9. Plate size (per const. dwg. or larger per SIP 20.513 or M919) 0-O O 10. Spacing between anchors on assembly no less than or greater than "0S" (original spacing) plus or minus 2 anchor diameters.
OO O 11. Plate edge distance ("EP" min. distance between anchor & plate edae)
O .O O 12. Edge distance ("ED" center of anchor to nearest concrete edge or steel sleeve > 12" 9; "ES" center of anchor to nearest surface of steel lined opening < 12") Spacing ("S" center to center between anchor in adjacent assemblies)
OO O 13. Gap & load bearing: 1/32" cap considered "in contact". Gap alona the width or length of the plate is acceptable provided extention under the plate does not exceed 1" (for plates "W" and "L" < 15") or 2" (for plates "W" and "L" > 15") extention of gao beycnd above stated 1" and 2", is limited to 40% or less of plate length or width. (Not applicable for Rod Type Supports in vertical loading only.)
OO O - 14. Acceptable tack welds on shim (if applicable) tacked on two opposite ends.
OO O 15. Torque wrench ID No. # entered on HC-106 form.
OO O 16. Equipment use report (Form HN-29) was verified at time of inspection for torque wrenches.
INSPECTION NOTES: CEA size LE s ED Es EP s-1" 1/4 5/8 2.5 3.25 1/75 1/2 1.5 3/8 3 4.5 5 2. 5 " 3/4 3.5 1/2 4 6 7 3.5 7/8 5 5/8 5 7.5 8.5 4.25 1-1/8 6.5 1/4 6 9 to 5 1 */4 8 1 8 12 13 6.5 1-;/4 11 A. Tack welds on washer plates shall be on'two opposite sides 1 " long 3/16" fillets for 3/16" t plates, k" fillet for k"t or greater plates.
B. Edge distance to the side of embedded plates shall be the "S" dimension minus 1".
C. The "S" dimension between two anchors of different sizes shall be the average S.
Comments By/Date QCWI Acceptance Date Enter Acceptable Testing Report No. By/Date
'If Unacceptable Indicate Action Taken (Cackside HC-106 2/83) l l
x- a
- %dr my'. %ygMsv ,*4.r: v>
. g,, _ ' o-e-
t I .
f:
=.~
St r
i 1
{
f.
I' ATTACHMENT B
};
i s
b i
s b
i i
)
}
t 1
i-a k-
_ _ . _ . . . _ .. ._mo,...
Hunter Corporation Employment Status
^
Inspector Inspector Termination Date Subiective Obiective Pepitone A 01/78 Trans, to HC Prod. 98% -- <
Sturges B 06/78 Trans to HC Prod. 100% 9M Ooten C 04/78 100% 99%
Kilpatrick D 06/78 100% 99%
Tucker E 94% 9M Cantley F 01/80 9M 9M Young G 01/81 90% _100%
Madill H 09/80 89% 100%
Saunders -
I 99% 98%
Ferrigen J 05/13/81 Trans to HC Prod. (Term. 11/9/82) --
99% '
Campbell K 04/82 Trans. to HC Prod. (Term. 5/82) 9M 98%
Geursten L 100% 99%
Wyatt M 04/81 Trans. to HC Prod. --
9M Pelikan N 04/81 Trans. to HC Prod. (Term. 7/14/81) --
98%
Baker 0 12/81 Trans. to HC Prod. (Term. 4/15/82) --
98%
Kelly P 95% 99%
Milroy Q 98% 99%
Baker R 98% 99%
Wells s 100% 99%
Lindgren T --
99%
Wiedeman U 98% 99%
Burstein V 94g --
0091k e
D
)
,- -. .( . _ -
-..: }
,a Rili_iU LD wmiSPONDENCt.
LUNITED STATES OF. AMERICA ,.
1
-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -i
- BEFORE _ THE ATOMIC S'AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 00CMETED' USNRC
.In The Matter of'
~
) 84 AGO 30 N0:03
)
COMMONWEALTHLEDISON COMPANY- ) DocketrNos.e50-454-OL
)L 50-455-OL
- (Byron Nuclear. Power-Station,. )' -
Units 1 &l2) )
SUMMARY
OF REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF JAMES K. BUCHANAN I. James;K. Buchanan is the former Quality Assurance /
Quality Control Manager for Hatfield Electric Company at the Byron Nuclear. Plant.
'II. .Hatfield Electric Company followed a uniform practice in selecting and training its Quality Control inspectors at the Byron site regardless of the specific hardware items the inspector was to inspect.
III. Hatfield employed four basic inspection critera to all-inspections. The type of object being inspected would require one to identify a class, a kind or a group which is set apart from the other by common characteristics. The size of the. object being inspected would require o~ne to determine the physical extent, the dimensions or the magnitude of the item. The location is simply.its situation with respect to other items or its place. Condition refers to the possible state of degradation of an appurtenance: that is to say its acceptability with respect to its fitness for use.
L
.- , 4 I
RELATED COR7iESPONDENCK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE-'THE-ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'Nf0 In The: NMitter of ) 'Oh A gg30
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISCN COMPANY .) Docket Nos.,50-454-OL A!O:b3
) ;50-455-OL.
(Byron Nuclear Power Station, )
Units 1 & 2). ')
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF JAMES K. BUCHANAN Q.l. Please state your full name and business address for the record.
A.l. James K. Buchanan, P.O. Box 448, Byron, Illinois 61010.
Q. 2. - By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
1 A.2.
I am employed by Hatfield Electrical Company of Chicago, Illinois, as an Electrical Engineer at the Byron Nuclear site.
Hatfield Electric is the Electrical Contractor for contract Electrical Construction at the ".yron Nuclear Plant.
Q.3. What is your educational background and work experience?
l I
A.3.
I attended Eastern Washington State College and
- Purdue University, where I completed the majority of the
- g ' .D-
requirements for a degree in electrical' engineering. From 1959 to 1979 I was employed as an electrical engineer with a variety;of responsibilities, including project design, supervision and contract management, both~by public utility companies and private electrical contracting firms.
From November 1979 to the present I have been employed b'y Hatfield Electric Company at the Byron Nuclear Plant. From November 1979 until April 1981 I served as the Quality Control Engineer; .from April 1981 until April 1983 I served as the.QA/QC1 Manager; and from April 1983 until the.present I have served as an Electrical Engineer.
As QA Engineer my' duties included supervision of inspection personnel, preparation of procedures and review of documentation. As QA/QC Manager I was responsible for all-quality assurance and quality control functions for the electrical construction activities at the Byron. site. These functions include' drawing and specification interpretation, procedure preparation, scheduling of inspections, selecting and training of personnel, determining the status of construction activities, providing the point of contact with the Commonwealth Edison Quality Assuran,ce department and the USNRC Inspectors.
Q.4. What is the purpose of your testimony?
A.4. The purpose of my testimony is to provide information relating to the similarity of inspector background, training and certification, and to provide information about the similarity of inspection technique as it relates to differing components.
^
',- 7 .
)
e
\
Q .' 5 . . What. program has Hatfield Electric Company implemented in selecting and training its-Quality Control Inspectors at the Byron Nuclear Plant? l A.S. At the beginning of the project, in order to {
provide requirements to ensure satisfactory performance of our inspectors, we implemented a program which stipulated that the inspectors (1) shall be subjected to an initial determination of capabilty based on education and experience, (2) shall be physically capable of performing the tasks required and (3) shall be trained to perform the tasks required.
For entry into the QC program we required a minimum of a high school education and some experience relating to the inspections which we were required to perform, such as previous inspection experience or production experience. In lieu of experience a certificate from a technical training program was acceptable. Those individuals with education and experience levels which exceeded our requirements were preferred.
The physical capability requirements for performing the inspections were somewhat subjective. The necessity of inspectors to access items in difficult areas was explained to the individual; and if he or she was comfortable with same, his or her capabilities were acceptable to us. The only objective physical requirement was vision: this was determined by exam.
Once an individual was accepted.as having sufficient- i
.l education and experience for quality inspection tasks, he or "'
she entered a training'programLdesigned to. qualify him or hernto-perform the electrical inspections at the Byron site.
~
The training program for' inspection personnel included j I
a lecture phase and an on the job training phase, both of which followed the' format designated in the training program.
~
-The lecture phase consisted of formal classroom training, and was, occasionally, on a personal. basis. On-the-job training relates to " hands-on" training whereby the trainer
.and the trainee work together performing a given inspection task. To demonstrate the trainee's understanding of the tasks, and ability to perform same, standard written examinations were given to each inspector prior to certification. A score of 70% was deemed to be the minimum level of acceptability.
To ensure a continued uniformity of inspector performance, we required a periodic re-evaluation of the inspector's capability. Although this period was recommended i by others not to exceed three years, Hatfield stipulated the
, re-evaluation period not to exceed the annual anniversary of 1
certification or one year. After the USNRC inspection of March 1982, the Hatfield Electric program for selecting and training-Quality control inspectors became more rigorous.
Additional requirements for class room training and on-the-job training were implemented.
The-inspection personnel were selected and trained in a similar manner. The cable pan inspector or conduit inspector or equipment inspector underwent similar selection review and similar training.
- l
- m Q. 6. - Describe the[ inspection concepts applicable to
' inspection performed by Hatfield personnel.
- A.6. There are only two classes of inspection: subjective or objective. Subjective inspections are inspections _ that can not be truly measured and are dependant ~on humar senses and judgment. . Objective inspections are inspections that can usually be quantified or measured.. Objective inspections can be described in terms of four principal concepts: type, size, location and condition.
.The tZEe of object being inspected would require one to identify a class, a kind or a group which is set apart from others by common characteristics. The size of the object being' inspected would require one to determine 4
the physical extent, the dimensions or the magnitude of the item. The location is simply its situation with respect to other items or its place. Condition refers to the possible state of degradation of an appurtenance: that is to say its 3
acceptability with respect to its fitness for use.
Q.7. Please explain how the four principal concepts apply to a specific procedure.
A.7. As the four concepts arc applied to a specific electrical procedure, they result in individual inspection criteria which may be quite diverse. For example, electrical cable ' type' criteria require an identification of the cable with respect to the number of conductors in the cable and 4 y ,-.~e -.w., . , , , , , , - , -,--.,c-,, .---m.,,,ge.,u,.~,,..ev- ,-,----,--,,,,e -,m- -. .-,--m~-...., -
=.. -
-the insulation'- Itage rating of~the conductors. For this same cable;-the'I' size' of the conductors is determined by- .l g ,
'the.guage of the wire in.the conductor.' The ' location' is
' determined for.the cable as it'is situated in the building.
.The.' condition' criteria ofithis cable would examine its i ability to perform its function if it' were slightly damaged or dirty.
Q.8.- Can you further illustrate the applicability of the principal inspection concepts?.
I A.8. Yes. I have attached six- (6) illustrative sketches which depict the application of these concepts to specific inspections .(Attachment A) . If you will examine sketch #1, you will note there are two objects shown: a conduit and a a
conduit hanger. 'The conduit hanger has three basic parts:
the base, the strut and the clamp. The T and the arrow I pointing to the strut indicate a type of material from which
- the hanger component is fabricated. The illustration depicts i-a metal shape of a commercially available product known as Unistrut. The particular shape shown is catalog number i P1001. .Hence the-type material is P1001 Unistrut.
I Now examine sketch #3. Here you will find a major piece of equipment,,a cable with its 4 terminations and a termination lug depicted. You may note the letter T and its f arrow occurs three times. One points to the equipment identification which indicates the equipment type. The second is directed to the terminal lug which depicts a " ring tongue" type-lug. The third is directed to the cable type
g _7_
. code numbers 04146, which indicates a type of cable containing.
4 conductors. There is a unique type code for each type cable used at Byron.
.The size of the component used for the conduit hanger base in sketch il is shown by the letter S. The size criteria'for the base would include its height, width and
. length. In sketch #3 the S is shown twice; both refer to the size of the wire gauge. The size of the wire shown is 14 gauge and gauge is a size. The size of the gauge is determined by the cable code. The second S indicates the size of the terminal lug or what gauge wire it is designed to terminate. The gauge of wire is stamped in to the metal part of the terminal lug or is color coded into the terminal lug insulation.
The location of the conduit hanger in sketch #1 is shown with respect to a grid represented by lines A and 1.
In sketch #3 the location of the conductors is shown as-being on terminal 1, 2, 4 and 7 which are located on terminal board TB-1B which in turn is located in Panel 1PM09J. Both are unique locations.
The condition of the cable in sketch #3 and the P1001 unistrut in sketch #1 are examined by similar criteria.
Is the protective coating intact? The protection coating for the cable is a rubber like jacket. The protective coating for the P1001 is a layer of galvanizing.
l 1
Q.9. As the physical attributes of items become less similar can't the inspection attributes become less similar?
. .- c
._g_. }
_ . 1
' ' ~
.A.9. . -No. . I.have,already demonstrated that conduit can'
~
be compared to cable. The collective physical attributes of these objects are certainly not similar. Yet they have1been-
. shown'to have only 4 principal concepts to which the inspection-criteria.are distributed. The cable pan and conduit system with their respective subparts are certainly quite similar.
~
So are the cable terminations and equipment' modifications.
Yet each inspection attribute has a set of inspection criteria which requires the determination of type, size, location or condition.
Q.10. How does the documantation aspect of inspection activity relate to your 4. principal conecpts or to your sketches?
i i
A.10. Each inspection activity or procedure has an f
inspection checklist which provides a permanent record of the identity of the item inspected, the identity of the inspector, the date of the inspection and the acceptance or rejection of the item. The acceptance or rejection can occur throughout a number of criteria. As an example, form HP-201 (Attachment B), class I exposed condiut system inspection checklist would be used to record the inspection data or, in j QC terms, to document the inspection. For the conduit shown in sketch 1, the criteria are exemplified as follows:
Item 1 is a size criterion for Pipe Diameter i 7 Item 2 is a type criterion for Rigid Galvanized Steel '
Item 7 is a location criterion for Elevation i
}-
Item 5b is a condition criterion for cleanliness '
6 r
t
- ,-,%-r. . . . - - _ ----,r. ,ym,- .-,,r_,w. .__w,,gm------w..,w-e--e,ww,e..ew,, ,e-.-me--,,fww-,--,--%,,ee,myn.ww----sr.,,- v- rw -
i
- _g_.
I
.J This distribution of the 4 principal concepts occurs in all-
+
)
s documents.
i Q.ll. Have you examined the Hatfield Electric Comapny i
reinspection program results?
A.ll. Yes, I have examined the results of the Hatfield Electric Company Reinspection and I have determined the inspector employment status and their subjective and objective inspection performance. Attachment C (previously identified ,
as Applicants Exhibit R-2) has been prepared under my supervision ('
and lists these results in tabular form and these results are accurate.
I f
+
r- - ,, , , , , _ - - - ,, _, , , - . . - - ...,,e, - - , .,n_m.-, .w,, ,m.. -g, p. ,~ ,, ,-4,,m - w-- ~w-
g 4-
,e ' ! , A g .N-,
_y %%' *7 e.
3, .
9 _ a m
u ( ,
i Y i a1
- I g
4} f s
l I
i l
ATTACHMENT A
- i m_
- - - V' ~ ;~
-m = * *
- e'
- w. .-
~
.?
. i~- ,
- y 0 h
-y g
- s tJ v
J W
d
[
e 9
- f. o 4
j
\ (
[
, 1A
/ NL f p d
i .
A a
, ic
, f g,c 0
N.(
i i
' .a
. N
$i w
/ .
y J
't>'\ '
x.
\ e Xo
- \ .
1'
, 1 -
N O
\_- .
'+' i
',3.-
- 23; i l I,
.o'
" b?.h,
\ J @a+
m:
. res g K
~
t y ;y 6 Si o
f 5 5 o o
- \_
q g -e . . 4
]d
\ gM 4
'J .
% o 1
- e w
ID!
A ' j,,,
\ \ A.\.\ A A\_ 941
?
c .1 ag %WV\*\-\ i 4 e k[
h
\ 5..
V i 1
l O --
.OO *O Spqm m ."
4 g .
9 9
.bl
'f *
-$:$2dk
. t ..
m.us
- ' ?i
^** Adm
.[ J).[M.
.c' -
O .: r.L;
'd5y; \
g '
?
}
0
.n .
' DMdl .;
, _ e F
s.
44 9
=I E
J g
2
/ ]-
,. m
&Wh*%
4, wa ,
m N .:
48 w
m
\'
g s
c . . . . '.%
~m' T
/ h/.
\ itan
_M M
, ,v Y
,r-;+n >Rs
. ~ -.?
'if
. rum @t 7---.- - -- -
--.-.--.-._-.--,-.-.n., .
- , - ,v.--..,,- , ,n .n,.,.-.s.,.__-,,.,---.-_._,,,v.---,-..,.,,--_w..,e - -., , , - - -
a 5
J
\ T
\\ \ \
/ :q -
. @n' ,
/ /
- /
y Q
y ,- \,#. .
,i \'c;.
~, ""
C,/Q_ j (g/;f_#( g ,
\
- -h -
I J
- 1
\
-bs. 0 3
u
!\
N h f ,
'b
\
r
- t. 3 d( ",
E i j; .
\
-1 \
'%"CS '),,E
\
t \'N . 'lL= )
\
h :\ 4
\\ o y 41 Si s
\
1,
)* *
- 4*
- q=lIG /
-ilINE 1 k y . 4 i,, 'ist=
' \
gg i, 's, lig 1 g,\ bI,N,
- y s
% ---w 4
L
. si
+
4
- m* , h.
. g . ' -' r '
'd s ,, ,, 'y, ' '_ ls ~ ,
. ,y,s; - ;m ',76, ,y
'.'.3$ ,'fe[ , y;~ I. . ,
,+;
/
_ ,4
, -i.
sk' 1
l 8
Dato 3-15-84 F;ra 19-201 ,
File 13.20.01 Fora revised 3-27 .- .
Class I ; --_-- ' C = t'it System. . 4. 4
" ~
Inspection Checklist
- Report No.
nate:
QC Inspector: e,
- Cable No.
Conduit I.D.
1 Conduit from Conduit to 19-204 HP-206 Installation Drawing now.
HP-203 F
IBBPECTION l REDEPOCTION!
. l lAIUlW/hI w. w I DATE IOCIA1Ul I INSPECTI0tl Ii 6 1 l 1ll i 1. Conduit size per drawing ( in.)
i l Iii l0l1 il S li 1
lll
, i l l l l 2. Seg. Code markers installed l l lll [
l 3. Supports per drawings lgli i il c li I I IiI l I I III l 4. Complete conduit run less than 270 degrees lC I
l5l I l 1 1Ii lll 1
I or as eb==: on the drawinas
" 3! 6 b l l
! a, y 151 l C 1 i iiii 1 b. Clean 11r.x5 l t iII i c. covers installed l0li ilMls 1 i I i iiI l l ll l r
l 6. Sealtite installation per drawing l l ll l 1 7. Conduit elevation and installation lg ii li blI i !
III i
I per drawina l8.crandingprdrawing l6llTd!S l l
f l
!ll ll l l 9. Bushings, locknuts, fittings and lll l l lll l l J l couplings installed l0l IIil 7 li i i IIi
< l lll l l l lll
- 1 10. Conduit joints tight I I I I I IIi I l l l l ll l i 11. Segregation separation meets requirements li I I I I IIi J l l l l ll l l
l 12. Bolts torqued per requirements _l0ll l 3I ll l [ [ll i
Calib. Exp. Date I I I i l_
l Tool No. 11I 4
I Comments:
l 1Avel Date Inspection Accepted By:
Date:
Final Review By:
(IAvel II or higher)
Page of
,-n ,-
e,--ww,,v-----, .4, ,ne,~,g,,,--g v-v --~,---we- ^-~er we ._wn-m-w-=v*w-= w ww w v m , --w
. o
'd 4
u
- 1 .
\;t+
ATTACHMENT C
?
c
(
, p wgy - - - - - - .
..y # .
Yh fhh8[ ..
(
Hatfield Electric
\
myloyment Status subiective obiective
- Inspector Termination Data
' Imanector 96.5 96.4 i 06/06/19 -- 96.4 D. Rice A --
88.5
! Sneerson 3 Blount QC Inspector 100.0 C 03/XX/81 Transferred to HE Engr.
i Hoffman 04/01/83 91.7 99.6 N D JCI QC Inspector 99.6 5 08/26/82 --
- Getzelnen 07/17/81 93.5 98.2 Cripps F 96.9 l G 10/04/81 -
l . Buses H 94.9 i C1 gin 10/04/81 -- 96.1 I 97.8 Smith --
Naise J -- 95.0 l
K Neop -- 95.6 Nuhler L --
H 96.9 stoner 100.0 Wells N -- 96.2 Seca 0 -- 95.3 P 96.1 l tearsen --
Dehmlow 0 Trans, to HE Prod. 95.6 1
R 04/30/82 --
Perko -- 95.2
' 3 reterson 05/26/82 -- 94.9 Lindberg T 95.6 f U i Henson 90.0 G. Berry V l W 04/18/80 l
P. Lane 1
+
)
} 0091k ,
i .
a
'4A a
_ _ - - - - _ _ _ __ _ - . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _--