ML20138H464
| ML20138H464 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1985 |
| From: | Dupont R AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., DR. R. L. DUPONT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138H418 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8510290049 | |
| Download: ML20138H464 (132) | |
Text
_ _ _.
RELATED Cohr<t_wu.wu, October 25, 1985 C'w'
- - i 1.
,i/
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
\\
'\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Op'l l? q, 'n
{
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD'
^*
p,
\\-
In the Matter of
)
2:s
)
NC.d J _
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
)
and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN
)
Docket No. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY
)
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
)
Plant)
)
4 L
APPLICANTS' TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT L. DUPONT, JR.
ON THE EFFECTS OF EMPLOYEE DRUG USE (CCNC CONTENTION WB-3) l i
i r
i l
4
Q.1 Please state your name, occupation and business address.
A.1 My name is Dr. Robert L. DuPont, Jr.
I am Vice Pres-ident of Bensinger, DuPont & Associates, Inc., 6191 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
I am also President of the Center for Behavioral Medicine in Rockville.
Q.2 Please describe your professional and educational background.
A.2 I am a psychiatrist certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology and a Fellow of the American Psy-chiatric Association.
I received a bachelor's degree from Emory University and a medical degree from Harvard Medical School.
My post-graduate psychiatric training was at Harvard and the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland.
From 1968 to 1970, I was Research Psychiatrist and Direc-tor of Community Services (parole and halfway houses) for the government of the District of Columbia.
From 1970 to 1973, I was Director of the Narcotics Treatment Administration in Washington -- a program that treated 15,000 heroin addicts dur-ing that period of time.
From 1973 to 1978, I was Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the federal government's principal treatment, prevention and research agency in the drug l
cbuse field.
From 1973 to 1975, I was also the chief White House advisor on drug abuse.
From 1978 to 1994, I was Presi-dent of the national nonprofit American Council for Drug Educa-tion.
From 1982 to the present, I have been Vice President of -
Bensinger, DuPont & Associates, Inc., a national consulting firm specializing in the problems of drug abuse in the workplace.
As President of the Center for Behavioral Medicine, I have an active clinical psychiatric practice and regularly treat drug users.
I am also Clinical Profesnor of Psychiatry at Georgetown Medical School and Visiting Associate Clinical Pro-fessor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School.
I have written more than 125 professional articles and four books, including Gateway Drugs, recently published by the American Psychiatric Press.
A copy of my curriculum vita is Attachment i
1 to this testimony.
Q.3 What is the purpose of your testimony?
A.3 The purpose of my testimony is to respond in part to the allegations in CCNC Contention WB-3 that drug use at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant may have affected the quali-ty of safety-related construction.
As background for my as-sessment, I will describe briefly the patterns of drug usage in American society and the medical effects of the most commonly abused drugs.
I will discuss the typical effects of drug use en work performance and will address the questions of whether drug related errors differ qualitatively from errors resulting l
from other types of impairment.
This relates to the issue of j
whether the quality assurance program at Harris is likely to identify drug related errors.
l 1 f
Q.4 What 11. legal drugs are most frequently abused in the United States today?
A.4 Marijuana and cocaine are by far the most frequently abused drugs in American society.
It is my understanding that these drugs are also the focus of allegations about drug use among the Harris work force.
In 1982, 64% of 18 to 25 year olds had used marijuana at least once in their lives and 28%
had used it in the month before the survey.
By comparison, 23%
of those 26 years of age and older had ever used marijuana, and 7% had used it in the month prior to the survey.
The equiva-lent percentages for cocaine, the second most commonly used 11-legal drug, were 29% (at least once) and 7% (in the previous month) for 18 to 25 year olds, and 9% and 1% for those 26 years of age and older.
By way of comparison, alcohol, a legal drug intoxicant, had been used by 91% of 18 to 25 year olds at least once and by 66% in the last month.
Those persons 26 years old and older reported that 88% had ever used alcohol, and 57% had used it in the month preceding the survey.
Other intoxicating drugs are used far less frequently.
For example, among the relatively high drug-using 18 to 25 year old group, the following percentages reported at least one non-medical use of the following drugs during the month prior to the 1982 national survey (that is, they were " current users" i
of these drugs):
other stimulants 5%, sedatives 3%, tranquil-izers 2%, hallucinogens 2%, and heroin less than 1%.
, l
Q.5 What are the typical patterns of drug use?
A.5 As the above figures indicate, drug use is most prev-alent among young persons in the 18 to 25 year age group.
Young males have the highest rate of drug use.
National data show that with any drug the most common pattern is relatively infrequent use, with relatively smaller percentages of users using at greater frequency.
Typical are the most recent data on marijuana use by American high school seniors taken from a 1984 National Institute on Drug Abuse survey.
While 60% re-ported use of marijuana at least once in their lifetimes, only 34% reported use within the past month, and less than 6% re-ported use every day.
Q.6 Where does drug use usually occur?
A.6 Most drug use occurs in a social setting, usually.in the evening or on weekends.
Drug use on the job site is much less frequent.
In this respect, the use of illegal drugs is like the use of alcohol.
While I understand that alcohol abuse is not at issue here, alcohol use is familiar to most Ameri-cans, including those who do not use illegal drugs, and even to-those who do not drink.
Consequently, it may help to relate my point to patterns of alcohol consumption.
Among those who drink, by far the largest percentage of their drinking of alco-hol occurs off the job.
Most users of alcohol do not use at
.all on the job.
Even among those who do use on the job occa-cionally, the large majority of their alcohol use occurs off the job.
This relationship is even more pronounced for high-dose use of alcohol or other drugs -- it is rare on the job.
This is the result of many factors, including the employee's own concerns for his productivity and his concern for negative consequences resulting from on-the-job use (being criticized, reprimanded, arrested or fired as a result of using intoxicating drugs, legal or illegal).
It is far " safer" for the employee to use drugs or alcohol off the job.
This is es-pecially true in an environment like the Harris Plant where the employer has an active, ongoing program to control drug use.
The same is true for drug sales.
Risk of exposure or arrest is generally higher at work than away from work.
This does not mean that drug use (and sales) cannot occur on the job, only that, among those who use drugs, they are much more likely to occur off the job than on the job.
Q.7 What are the medical effects of the most frequently abused drugs -- marijuana and cocaine?
A.7 Marijuana (derived from the cannabis sativa plant),
as well as its principal active ingredient, delta-9-Tetrahydro-cannabinol (THC), produces an intoxicated state marked by altered time sense, euphoria, and -- at high doses -- halluci-nations.
Marijuana and its derivatives act similarly to hallucinogens, but possess also the elements of stimulation and depression.
The effects of marijuana use, like all drug ef-fects, are complex and for any particular individual use not entirely predictable.
The effects are dose-related:
higher doses produce more profound effects.
They are also related to
_.___..~.m
{
the past experience of the user with that drug at that dose.
In addition, the effects are influenced by the expectations and the setting in which the use occurs, and most particularly by i
the demands.placed on the intoxicated user.
Again, the alcohol t
experience, being more familiar to most adult Americans, is in-
^
structive.-
The more a person drinks the greater the effects of his use on his behavior.
People with a personal history of al-cohol use are relatively less affected by a particular. dose than are those who have been less exposed to alcohol.
A rela-5 tively low level of alcohol use may lead to no detectable ab-j normality in behavior under routine circumstances, but if the mildly intoxicated person is confronted by an unusual or emer-gency situation his behavior may be markedly affected.
For ex-ample, a person who has drunk several beers within a few hours
-of-driving may show no abnormalities in driving unless he is confronted with an unexpected stress (a child runs into the path of his car) at which time a drug-caused defect may become grave.
Similarly, a dose of alcohol which produces no behav-ioral toxicity in one setting in one mood may be profoundly hazardous in other settings or moods.
Typical for alcohol is-the experience of anger which may be easily managed with a clear mind, but which may produce serious results with rela-tively mild intoxication.
These same factors apply to marijua-l na intoxication.
The most notable effects of marijuana use on work perfor-mance come from the drop in motivation and memory (in contrast to the more commonly observed effects of alcohol intoxication of poor coordination and aggressiveness).
Thus, marijuana's effects are more likely to mimic the effects of lack of sleep or exhaustion and low morale, leading commonly to low output and sloppy performance.
I call marijuana the "I don't care" drug for this reason.
Cocaine is a stimulant drug.
The most prominent effect of these drugs is their ability to stimulate the central nervous system, producing euphoria, hypersensitivity, insomnia and ap-petite suppression.
Stimulants increase a person's alertness, activity, and excitement by speeding up messages to the central nervous system.
The aftermath of stimulative use is depression
-- exhaustion of the drug-stimulated nervous system.
The higher the high is, the lower will be the subsequent low.
Cocaine, in contrast to marijuana, produces a stimulant effect with common work-related problems being overtalka-tiveness and poor concentration on the task because of easy distractability or, paradoxically, inappropriate preoccupation with a particular detail of the task to the neglect of the com-plete picture.
Cocaine when used at work tends to give users the feeling that they are working faster or better.
In gener-al, this is an illusion, as the critical faculty is suppressed i
by the drug use.
In addition, when the user comes off a co-l caine run he is exhausted and depressed, so his work perfor-j
,mance suffers because of this, much as it would for someone with a serious illness who has not been able to sleep odequately..
Q.8-While it has not been identified nearly as much as marijuana and cocaine, " crystal" or methampetamine was pur-chased by an officer during an undercover investigation at the Harris Plant.
What are the medical effects of this drug?
A.8 Methampetamine is one of a large number of closely related synthetic drugs which produce effects similar to co-caine.
The two principal differences between this stimulant and cocaine are first that the stimulant of a single dose of methampetamine lasts for several hours compared to the approxi-mately 30-minute period of effect for a single dose of cocaine.
The second difference is that, unlike cocaine, methampetamine is effective when taken by mouth.
Q.9 How does the use of illegal drugs affect work perfor-mance?
A.9 Drugs affect work performance primarily by decreasing the functioning of the central nervous system.
The negative effects of drug use on the work output include reduced produc-tivity, increased errors, increased accidents, and a variety of safety problems (such as faulty driving of autos and dangerous operation of equipment).
None of these is a sure sign that they are caused by drug use (that is, they may all be caused by drug use or by something else).
In fact, even experts, when interviewing drug-intoxicated individuals, often have difficul-j ty being sure of the cause of the disorders observed.
This is the reason that supervisors are typically trained to spot poor or dangerous work performance and to refer the worker to i l l
4 1
i
professional assistance rather than to attempt to make a " diag-nosis" of drug abuse.
Usually it is necessary to take a blood, urine or breath sample to accurately determine the probable role of drug use in the aberrant behavior.
Q.10 Given the medical effects you have described, is the casual off-site use of marijuana, cocaine and crystal less likely'to result in impairment of job functions than on-site usage?
A.10 Yes.
Casual low-dose drug use can cause impairment, but it is far less likely to do so than high-dose usage.
Off-site drug use may cause work performance to decline, but it is much less likely to do so than use on the job site.
Im-L pairment is most likely to occur when drug use is great (e.g.,
at a high dose) and when it is current (e.g., when the user is intoxicated).
The greater the intoxication, the greater the risk of impairment and work performance decrement.
On the l
other hand, some drug-caused work impairment can occur at low doses of use, and some impairment may occur even hours after use.
An analogy to alcohol use is appropriate.
It has been shown that a driver with a hangover is more likely to have an l
accident than is a driver who has not drunk heavily, even l
l though the hung over driver no longer has any alcohol in his body.
On the other hand, the acutely drunk driver is far more likely to have an accident than is one with a hangover.
Q.ll Is the likelihood of construction defects resulting from drug-impaired employees influenced by whether work is done in isolation or by groups of workers?
A.11 Yes.
Work that is done in isolation and not checked by others is more likely to be affected by drug abuse (and other peformance impairments) than is work done in crews and work that is systematically checked by coworkers.
In crews, the non-impaired workers often do the work of impaired workers so that the negative effects of their impairment are reduced or even eliminated.
This is done by non-involved workers on the crews out of concern for the impaired worker and out of concern for the integrity of the work.
It is highly characteristic of any work force and any impairment, including impairment caused by drug abuse.
My understanding is that much of the construc-tion work at the Harris site is done by work crews of several persons.
Consequently, I conclude that the likelihood of seri-ous construction defects caused by drug use is diminished ac-cordingly.
Q.12 If there are some persons who use drugs on a work site, does that mean their work will be impaired?
A.12 Not necessarily.
Even if a worker uses drugs (such as marijuana or cocaine) on the job site, it is by no means certain that that worker will be impaired or that his work will I
be flawed on any given day.
Just as with alcohol, the risks are relative and they are, for each individual, uncertain.
Workers who use small doses, workers who work in crews and whose work is frequently checked, will be less likely to pro-duce drug-caused work site problems.
Nevertheless, any drug i
use, off-site or on-site, will increase the risk of job-related crrors..-
Q.13 Does drug use result in errors that are qualita-tively different from errors caused by other types of im-pairment, such that the Harris quality assurance program would be less likely to identify the errors?
A.13 No.
Drug abuse does not cause unique kinds of work-related problems.
Aside from sales of drugs and overdose reactions (the former of which does not have direct effects on work performance, while the latter is relatively easily de-tected because the user is usually unconscious or acting bi-zarrely), the effects of drug use are of the same kind as are produced by a wide variety of other causes, ranging from alco-hol intoxication to fatigue, and from mental illness to conficts with supervisors and coworkers.
From my experience, it is my professional opinion that drug users would not, for example, be more likely than other workers to attempt to sabo-tage their work or conceal errors so that the quality assurance program would be less likely to identify them.
In fact, if one were to study incidents of sabotage or ac-tive coverups of poor quality work, I expect that a smaller fraction of them would be caused by drug abusers than by employees who made more routine errors or had more routine problems in work performance.
There is a simple explanation for this conclusion.
Drug abusers tend to be sloppy and poorly cotivated.
They are often preoccupied with drug use itself.
They are seldom involved in active sabotage or mischief (except for income-generating theft and drug sales) because of the Gffects, direct and indirect, of their drug use.
l -.
f Drug use does cause an increase in many common work-related problems, all of which can occur in the absence of drug use.
Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that routine l
supervisory practices and quality assurance measures will iden-tify drug-caused failures at about the same rates as other sim-ilar errors are identified.
This means that an unusual in-crease in drug abuse will show up in an unusual increase in the usual sorts of problems found on the work site.
Q.14 What is your conclusion, then, on the effects of employee drug use on the quality of safety-related construction at the Harris Plant?
A.14 Since we do not know the precise number of employees who have actually been involved in drug activity, or the cir-cumstances surrounding any drug consumption (e.g., timing, dos-age, setting, tolerance) by those identified as possibly in-volved in drug activity, I cannot be precise about the work impairment effects, if any.
Based upon our understanding of typical patterns of drug use, however, it is fair to conc 1.ude that many of the identified employees only consumed drugs off the job and were not impaired at work, and that bncause of low i
dosage consumption and tolerance levels, some consumers on the job (depending on the complexity of tasks involved) would not be impaired such that work results would be affected.
i For the employees consuming drugs in a way that impairs performance, crew work situations will often result in on-the-spot corrective action.
Where this does not occur, I am -
confident that the errors generated by an impaired employee would not be different in kind from other errors which are identified through the Quality Assurance program.
i l
l l
l P
r l
6 i
I i
}
i
\\
. \\
\\
i I
March 1985 CURRICULUM VITAE NAME. DATE OF BIRTH Robert L. DuPont, Jr., M.D.
March 25, 1936 CURRENT POSITIONS President Vice President Center for Behavioral Medicine Bensinger, DuPont & Associates, 6191 Executive Boulevard inc.
Rockville, MD 20852 6181 Executive Boulevard (301) 468-8980 Rockville, MD 20852 (301) 468-6903
- EDUCATION June 1963 M.D. - Harvard Medical School Boston, Massachusetts June 1958 B.A. - Emory University Atlanta, Georgia POST-GRA00 ATE TRAINING 1966-1968 Clinical Associate Laboratory of Clinical Sciences National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Maryland l
1964-1966 Psychiatric Resident and Teaching i
Fellow in Psychiatry Massachusetts Mental Health Center Harvard Medical School Boston, Massachusetts 1963-1964 Medical Intern l
Cleveland Metropolitan General Hospital Western Reserve Medical School Cleveland, Ohio i
i l
l l
2-CHRONOLOGY OF PAST EMPLOYMENT 1981-1984 President Phobia Society of America Rockville, Maryland 1980-1984 President American Council for Drug Education Rockville, Maryland 1978-1979 Family Psychiatrist, appearing regularly on
" Good Morning America" ABC-TV New York, New York 1973-1978 ofrector National Institute on Drug Abuse U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Rockville, Maryland 1973-1975 Olrector Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention The Whlte House Executive Office of the President Washington, D.C.
1974 (2 months)
Acting Administrator Alcohol Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Rockville, Maryland 1970-1973 Administrator Narcotics Treatment Administration Department of Human Resources Government of the Olstrict of Columbia Washington, D.C.
1968-1970 Research Psychiatrist and Acting Associate Director for Comunity Services l
District of Columbia Department of Corrections l
Washington, D.C.
i l
1 % 5-1966 Senior Psychiatrist l
(part-time)
Massachusetts Department of Corrections Norfolk Prison Norfolk, Massachusetts l
. _. '1961 (3 roonths)
Ressarch Assistant Tuberculosis Laboratory Consnunicable Disease Center I
Atlanta, Georgia 1959 (3 months)
Epidemiology Trainee California Department of Public Health Serkeley, California C0NSULTANTSHIPS. 80ARD MEMBERSHIPS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES 1980-Present Board of Directors Phobia Society of America Rockville, Maryland 1979-Present Member Cosmos Club Washington, D.C.
1973-1978 Chairman World Psychiatric Association Section on Alcohol and Drug Dependence 1976-1978 Chairman National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Washington, D.C.
i 1974-1978 U.S. Delegate to United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs Geneva, Switzerland 1976-1977 Chairman Cabinet Committee on Drug Abuse Prevention.
Treatment and Rehabilitation The Whlte House Washington, D.C.
1972-1973 Membe r National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse Prevention A Presidential Appointment Washington, D.C.
1971-1972 Consultant j
Special Committee on Crime Prevention and Control American 8ar Association Washington, D.C.
_ - ~..
__ _- =
-k-FACULTY APP 0INTMENTS 1980-Present Clinical Professor of Psychiatry Georgetown University Medical School l
1978-Present Visiting Associate Clinical Professor of Psychtstry i
Harvard Medical School 1972-1981 Associate Clinical Professor of Psychlatry and Behavioral Sciences George W shington University Medical School a
1970-1972 Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychlatry George Washington University Medical School 1964-1966 Teaching Fellow in Psychlatry f
Harvard Medical School
_,, HONORS 7
1978 Public Health Service Superior Service Awards r
Highest award given by the U.S. Public Health l
Service, presented by the Surgeon General, i
i Julius 8. Richmond, M.D.
1978 The Alcohol and Drug Problems Association of North America Annual Award for Outstanding Leadership and Service 1978 National Association of State Drug Abuse Coordinators Annual National Award for Outstanding Contributions to Drug Abuse Prevention 1973 Meritorious Service Award, District of Columbia Government, presented by Mayor Walter E. Washington 1971-1972 Melvin C. Hazen Award to the outstanding Young Man in the Olstrict of Columbia Government MILITARY SERVICE i
l 1966-1968 Senior Surgeon U.S. Public Health Service i
National Institutes of Health
?
Sethesda, Maryland 1
l PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES Academy of Behavioral Medicine Research (Fellow and Charter Member)
American Psychiatric Association (Fellow)
Behavioral Medicine Special Interest Group Pan American Medical Association Society of Behavioral Medicine (Fellow)
Washington Psychiatric Society World Psychiatric Association MEDICAL LICENSE District of Columbia Maryland V!rginia California CERTIFICATION 1970" American Board of Psychiatry'and Neurology
~
Olplomate in Psychiatry civic ACTIVITIES 1980-Present Member, Advisory Board Parents Council Washington, D.C.
1977-1979 Member, Board of Advisors l
Women's Work Inc.
Washington, D.C.
F 1972-1976 Member, Board of Directors Washington Society for the Performing Arts Washington, D.C.
1972-1976 Member, Advisory Comittee Washington Junior League Washington, D.C.
I L
l i
t f
April 1985 l
PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS OuPont RL and Grunebaum HU: Willing victims: The husbands of paranoid women. American Journal of Psychlatry 125: 150-159, 1968.
OuPont RL: An imposter In psychotherapy.
Psychlatric Opinion 6: 38-43, 1969.
DuPont Rt.: The imposter and his mother. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 150: 444-448, 1970.
i Brown 95, Markman EM, OuPont RL: Released offenders' perceptions of community l
and Institution.
Corrective Psychiatry and Journal of Social Therapy 16:
88-96, 1970.
g Urban crime a' d the rapid development of a large heroin addiction l
l DuPont RL:
n treatment program.
Proceedings of the Third National Conference on l
Methadone Treatment, New York, 1971: 115-120.
Orown 85, OuPont RL, Kozel NJ, $pevacek JK:
Staff and client views of the l
role of the correctional client:
Conflict and its Implications for treatment.
Social Psychiatry 6: 83-88, 1971.
I DuPont RL, Grunebaum HU, Ryder RG: An unexpected result of psychosts in l
marriage.
American Journal of Psychiatry 128: 735-739, 1971.
(
DuPont RL:
Profile of a heroin-addiction epidemic.
New England Journal.of Medicine 285: 320-324, 1971.
l l
OuPont RL, Katon RN Development of a heroin addiction treatment program Effect on urban crime.
The Journal of the American Medical Association 216: 1320-1324, 1971.
DuPont RL:
How corrections can beat the high cost of heroin addiction.
Federal Probation 15: 43-50, 1971.
l l
OuPont RL, Katon RN Physicians and the heroin addiction epidemic. Modern Medicine 39: 123-139, 1971.
j t
DuPont RL: Veteran heroin addicts in Washington: A preliminary report.
Medical Annals of the Olstrict of Columbia 40: 521-523, 1971.
I Brown 85, OuPont RL, Kozel NJ, Spevacek J0:
Staff conceptions of Inmate i
characteristics: A comparison of treatment and custodlal staffs at two l
differing institutions., Criminology 9: 316-329, 1971.
I I
l
-. ~ _ _ _ _ _. - _ _ _
l DuPont RL: Neroin addiction treatment and crime reduction. American Journal of Psychiatry 128: 856-860, 1972.
DuPont RL: The Olstrict of Columbia experience treating heroin addicts.
Public Macagement $4: 7-9 March 1972.
DuPont RL: Treating heroin addicts in Washington. Delaware Medical Journal 44: 35-37, 1972.
I Brown SW, OuPont RL, Bass UF, Glendinning ST, Josel NJ, Meyers MS:
Impact of a multimodality treatment program for heroin addicts. Comprehensive Psychlatry 13: 391-397, 1972.
Mosel NJ, DuPont RL, Brown 05:
Narcotics and crime: A study of narcotic involvement in an offender population.
The international Journal of the Addictions 7: 443-450, 1972.
Sherwood, GK, McGinnis, MN, Maton, RN, DuPont RL, Webster JB: Negative direct Coombs' test in narcotic addicts receiving maintenance doses of 4._
_ _methodone.. Blood 40s.902-904, 1972. _._ _._..
Bass, UF, grown 85, DuPont AL: The use of heroin by an offender population.-
l a report over time.
Corrective Psychiatry and Journal of Social Therapy 18:
24-30, 1972.
I trown 85, DuPont RL, Nolf! RJ: A reexamination of the use of Illicit drugs by methadone maintenance patients.
Proceedings of the Fourth. National i
Conference on Methadone Treatment Washington, D.C., 137Z: %3-472.
Brown BS, DuPont RL, Glendinning ST:
Narcotics treatment and behavioral change.
Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Methadone Treatment.
Washington, D.C.,
1972: 163-16N.
hton RN, DuPont RL, Rubensteln RM Methadone detoxification of heroin addicts.
Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Methadone Treatment, Washington, D.C., 1972: IIII-156.
Webster JB, Katon RN, DuPont RL:
Multiphasic screening of Inner-city heroin users revealing some of the social, physical and chemical characteristics of this population.
Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Methadone Treatment, Washington, D.C., 1972: 511-513 OuPont RL: Trying to treat all the heroin addicts In a cormunity.
l Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Methadone Treatment, Washington, D.C.,
1972: 77-50.
4 Brown 85, DuPont RL, Morel NJ:
Heroin addiction in the city of Washington.
Drue Forum 2: 187-190, 1973.
f I
i L
i l
l t DuPont RL: Coming to grips with an urban heroin addiction epidemic. The 1
i j
Journal of the American Medical Association 223: 46-48, 1973.
Brown 85, Kozel NJ, Meyers M8, DuPont RL: Use of alcohol by addlet and nonaddict populations. American Journal of Psychiatry 130: 599-601, 1973.
~
l j
DuPont RL, Piemme TE:
Estimation of the number of narcotic addicts in an urban l
j area. Medical Annals of the District of Columbia 42: 323-326, 1973.
Brown BS, DuPont RL, Bass UF, Brewster GW, Glendinning ST, Mozel NJ, Meyers MO:
impact of a large-scale narcotics treatment program -- a six month experience.
The International Journal of the Addictions 8: 49-57, 1973.
Greene MH, DuPont RL: Amphetamines in the District of Columbla.
- 1. Identifica-i tion and resolution of an abuse epidemic.
The Journal of the American Medical Association 226: J43J 1449,19JJ, i
Greene MH, Rubenstein RM, DuPont RL: Amphetamines in the District of
- Columbia,
- 11. Patterns of abuse in an arrestee population. Archives of i
General Psychlatry 29: 773__776,_19Z1 i
Chalbalko J. LaRosa J. DuPont RL:
Death of methadone users in the District s
of Columbia. The International Journal of the Addictions 8: 897-908, 1973'.
.l q
l DuPont RL, Greene MH:
The dynamics of a heroin addiction epidemic.
Science 181: 716-722, 1973.
DuPont RL, Greene MHz Patterns of heroin addiction in the District of i
Columbia.
Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Methadone Treatment, Washington, D.C.,
1973: 756-793.
I DuPont RL: Where does one run when he's already In the promised land?
Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Methadone Treatment, l
Washington, D.C.,
1973: 1394-1402.
Perpich J DuPont RL, Brown 85:
Criminal justice and voluntary patients in i
treatment for heroin addiction.
Proceedings of the FIfth National Conference on Methodone Treatment, Washington, D.C.,
1373: 75-54.
Lloyd RA, Kat.
RN, DuPont RL, Rubenstein RM Detoxification: What makes the difference? Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Methadone Treatment, Washington, D.C.,
1973: 275-Z53.
Greene MH, Luke JL, DuPont RL: Acute opiate overdose A preliminary report on mechanisms of death.
Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference.on' Methadone Treatment, Washingtori, D.C.,1973: 330-334.
.k.
Greene MN, DuPont RL: Medical complications associated with the use of methodone: Methadone related mortality.
Proceedings of the FIfth e
National Conference on Methadone Treetment7 WeshTngton, D.C., ly/J: 8: 1-822.
Greene MN, DuPont RL: An outbreak of Intravenous amphetamine abuse In heroin addicts.
Proceedings of the Fif th National Conference on Methadone Treatment, Washington, D.C., 1973: 776-755.
Cochran, DA, DuPont RL: A statistical history of the Narcotics Treatment Administration.
Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Methodor a Treatment, Washington, D.C.,1373: coy-eye.
Amos ED, DuPont RL, Lau JP: The management of large multimodality, multi-clinical drug treatment programs and management information systems.
Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Methadone Treetment, Washington, D.C.,
1973: 575-555.
DuPont RL, Greene MHz The decline of heroin addiction in the District of Columbia. Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Methadone
_.._ Treatment, WashTngton. D.C.,_1573:.1.474-1951 Lloyd RA, Katon RN, DuPont RL:
Evolution of a treatment approach for young heroin addicts.
Comparison of three treatment modalities. The intec-l national Journal of the Addictions 9: 229-239, 1974.
Greene MH, Turner N DuPont RL: Amphetamines in the Olstrict of Columbia.
Ill. Stimulant abuse in narcotics addicts in treatment with an emphasis on phenmetrazine. The International Journal of the Addictions 9: 653-662, 1974.
Greene MH, Luke JL, DuPont RL: Oplate overdose. deaths in the District of Columbia.
1.
Heroin-related fatalities. Medical Annals of the District of Columbia 43: 175-181, 1974.
Greene MH, DuPont RL:
Heroin addiction trends. American Journal of Psychiatry 131: 545-550, 1974.
DuPont RL, Greene MHz Beginning to dissect s heroin addiction epidemic, in Addiction: 101-112.
Edited by Sourne P.
New York, Academic Press, 1974.
Greene MH, Luke JL, DuPont RL: Oplate overdose deaths in the District of Columbia.
11.
Nethadone-related fatall tles.
Journal of Forensic Sciences 19: 575-584, 1974.
DuPont RL:
The evolving federal substance abuse organization. American Journal of Drugs and Alcohol Abuse 1: 1-9, 1974.
i 1
Greene MM, DuPont RL (eds):
The epidemiology of drug abuse. American Journal of Public Health, Part Two 64: 1-56, 1974.
J i
)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Greene JH, DuPont RL: Heroin use -- a communicable disease. Conunittee on Problems of Drus Dependence 1974 -- Report of the.36th Annual scientiric Meeting, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, National Research Council, Mexico City, 1974: 605-629.
DuPont RL:
The future of the federal drug abuse program.
Comittee on Problems of Drug Dependence 1974 -- Report of the 36th Annual Scientific Meeting. National Academy of Sciences. NatTonal Academy of Engineering.
National Research Council Mexico City, 1974: 42-47.
Greene MH, DuPont RL: The treatment of acute heroin toxicity, In A Treatment Manual for Acute Drug Abuse Emergencies: 11-16.
Edited by Bourne P.
National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)75-230.
Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975.
DuPont RL: Overview of drug abuse.
Rroceedings of the First National Drug Abuse Conference. Chicago Illinals. 1974, 1375: 25-31.
DuPont RL:
Licit opium production and Illicit heroin uses What Is the relationship? Proceedings of American Medical Association Symposium on Suppiles of Opium for Medical Use, WashTngton, D.C.,13/3 30-33
~
DuPont RL:
Federal government efforts to provide a solution: An overview.
Proceedings of American Medical Association Sympostum on Supplies of Opium for Medical (Tse, Washington, D.C.,1975: 62-67.
DuPont RL:
The future of federal drug abuse research -- how can we best maximize scarce resources? Drug and Alcohol Dependence 1: 223-240, 1975-1976; also published in ProbTems of Drug Dependence 13/5 -- Proceedings
(
of the 37th Annual Scientific Meeting. Conunfttee on Problems of Drug Dependence, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.,
1975: 55-73.
DuPont RL:
Drug abuse in the United States:
Possible implications for Nigeria.
Nigerian Medical Journal 5: 285-288, 1975.
Brown BS, Glendinning ST, DuPont RL:
Instances of treatment for oplate and nonoplate drugs in one urban comunity.
The International Journal of the Addictions 10: 801-813, 1975.
Greene MH, Nightingale SL, DuPont RL:
Evolving patterns of drug abuse.
Annals of Internal Medicine 83: 402-411, 1975.
Greene MH, Brown BS, DuPont RL:
Controlling the abuse of Illicit methadone in Washington, D.C.
Archives of General Psychiatry 32: 221-226, 1975.
Brown BS, Greene MH, DuPont RL:
lilicit methadone abuse in Washington, D.C.,
f in Developments in the Field of Drug Abuse: 444-460.
Edited by Senay E, Sho7ty V Alksne H.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, Schenlunan Publishing Co.,
Inc., 1975.
DuPont RL: "ADAMHA:
State of its institutes and relationships to states."
Summary of Proceedings -- 1975 Annual Conference of the State and Terri-torial Alcohol. Drug Abuse and Mental Mealth Authorities, Washington, D.C.,
November 1975: 31-37.
l
. I Nightingale SL, Dormer RA, DuPont RL:
Inappropriate prescribing of psycho-active drugs. Annals of Internal Medicine 83: 896-897, 1975.
Nightingale SL, Dormer RA, DuPont RL:
Emergency services and drug abuse.
Annals of Internal Medicine 83: 569-570, 1975.
Bass UF, 8 rock VW, DuPont RL:
Narcotic use in an inmate population at three points in time. American Journal of Brug and Alcohol Abuse 3 375-386, 1976.
DuPont RL: Marihuana: A conversation with NIDA's Robert L. DuPont.
Science 192: 647-649, 1976.
Graham TG, Brown BS, DuPont RL: Characteristics of new admissions to a narcotics treatment program:
1970-1974.
The International Journal of the Addictions 11: 967-976, 1976.
DuPont RL:
Equality for women in drug abuse, in A National Forum Source Books 7-13.
Edited by Nellis M. Washington, D.C., National Research and Comniunications Association, Inc., 1976.
DuPont RL: Polydrug abuse and the maturing national drug abuse data base,
~ ~In Annals of the New york Academy of Sciences 281: 311-320.
Edited by Vessell ES, Braude MC, 1976.
DuPont RL: NIDA is comitted to research.
Problems of Drug Dependence 1976 -- Proceedings of the 38th Annual ScTentific Meeting. Comittee on Problems of Drufl Dependence, National Academy of Sciences, Richmond, VTrginia, 1976: 44'-444.
DuPont RL: ADAMHA:
State of Its ;nstitutes and relationships to states.
Summary Proceedings of the Third ADAMHA Annual Conferencer of the State and Territorial Alcohol. Drug Abuse and Mental Health Authorities, Denver, Colorado, October 1976: 50-55.
DuPont RL:
Treatment as prevention.
Summary Proceedings of the Tripartite Conference on Prevention, Elkridge, Maryland, 1977: 69-74.
j DuPont RL: National strategies for drug abuse prevention: The United States 3
experience.
Proceedings of the 25th tranian Medical Congress, Ramsar, j
fran, 1977: 60-73.
I j
DuPont RL:
Just what can you tell your patients about marihuana? Medical i
Times 104: 120-131, 1976i also published In Resident & Staff Physician l
E T03-110, 1977.
Korel NJ, DuPont RL:
Criminal Charges and Drug Use Patterns of Arrestees in the District of ColumbTa.
National Institute on Urug Abuse Technical Paper, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)77-427,1977.
DuPont RL:
Opening address in Proceedings of the CADAP-CCMEF Bi-Nettonal Conference on Drug Abuse, El Paso, Texas, Southwest Training institute, Inc., 1977: 3-6.
i
. l i
I i
Nurco DN, DuPont RL: A preliminary report on crime and addiction within a community-wide population of narcotic addicts. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2: 109-121, 1977.
i Mozel NH, DuPont RL:
Trends in drug use and crime and their relationship in an arrestee population. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 4:
i i
413-430, 1977.
)
Nightingale SL, DuPont RL:
Drug abuse and role of physicians, in Drue Abuse:
l
)
Clinical and Basic Aspects: 37-45.
Edited by Pradham SN, Dutta 5N.
5t.
l Louis, C.V. Mosby Co., 1377.
1 DuPont RL:
Learning from failure and success.
Evaluation 4: 150-151, 1977, e
DuPont RL:
Current national heroin trends. World Journal of. Psychosynthesis 9: 44-50, 1977.
[
DuPont RL: Collaboration problems and opportunities.
Proceedings of the International Seminar Consnemorating the Designation of the Addiction Research Foundation as a Col'aborating Center of the World Health
^
4 f
Organization, Alcoholism & Drug Addiction Research Foundation, 1377: 193-2027 j
DuPont RL:
Science, values and the marihuana issue.
Problems of Drug Dependence '977 -- Proceedings of the 39th Annual Scientiric Meeting, t
Consni ttee o,. Problems of Drug Dependence, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, Inc., 1977: 41-48.
t I
j DuPont RL: Marihuana Our next step.
Drug Abuse and Alcholism Review 1: 14-L 19, 1978; also slightly modified versron published in Addictions 5r: 4-9, 1977; and Focus on Alcohol and Drug issues 1: 7, 1978.
i j
DuPont RL:
The drug abuse decade.
Journal of Drug issues 8: 173-187, 1978.
j DuPont RL:
You alone can do it, but you cannot do it alone.
Proceedings of j
the Second World Conference of Therapeutic Communities, Part I, 1375: 34-40.
j t
Nozel NJ, DuPont RL:
The heroin use and crime controversy -- the issues and j
j some research conclusions.
World Journal of Psychosynthesis 10: 42-49, 1978.
l i
i DuPont RL: Getting it together for the long haul.
Drug Abuser Modern Trends, l
Issues and Perspectives -- Proceedings of the Second NationaT Drug Abuse l
j Conference, New Orfeans, LouisFana, 1975, 1975: XilT-XXIX.
l
.{
DuPont RL:
The drug abuse legislative agenda -- 1975.
Drug Abuse Modern j
i Trends, issues and Perspectives -- Proceedings of the 5econd National Drug i
Abuse Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1975, 1975: 905-911.
l i
I i
4
. -, - - - - - ~, - -
.,n.--,.--e,.~_.
g,
__.,-_,,_,,.,-,-.v,,,,--------w,
.--.ar
OvPont RL: Bridges between alcohol and drug problems.
Proceedings AOPA 28th Annual Meeting. Alcohol and Drug Problems Association or north America, September 25-29. 1977, March 1975: 18i-19.
DuPont RL: New directions for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, in A Multicultural View of Drug Abuse -- Proceedings of the Fourth NationeT Drug Abuse Conference. San Francisco. CallTornie, 1377: F1-ZZ.
Edited by SmFth DE, et al.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 5chenleman Publishing Co., Inc.,
1978.
OuPont RL: Marijuana smoking: A national epidemic. ALA Sulletin 66: 2-7, September 1980.
i OuPont RL: Marijuana update.
The Medical Letter,1980.
OuPont RL: The future of primary prevention:
Parent power. The Journal of Drug Education 10: 1-5, 1980.
OuPont RL: The evolution of drug abuse in the United States in the last ten
- years.- Grassroots, Epidemiology - 211-28,-September-1981r--Presented at ---
conference, " Drug Abuse in 1981:
Social Refusal or Acceptance?" Paris, France, March 16, 1981.
DuPont RL:
The American response to marijuana.
Submitted to Swedish Journal on Alcohol and Drugs, Swedish Board of Education, September 1351 DuPont RL: Chapter in Drugs and Civillration, Pergamon Press, September 1981.
Gibbons C, Brown BS, Greene MH, DuPont RL:
Initiation into heroin use.
International Journal of the Addictions 16: 933-937, 1981.
OuPont RL:
Drug abuse:
The role of the family. Phi Delta Epsilon-Scientifle Journal 73: 10-15, 1981.
DuPont RL:
Sexual effects of marijuana.
Medical Aspect
- of Human Sexuality, April 1, 1982.
i Uhde TW, Soulenger J, $ lever LJ, DuPont RL, Post RM Animal models of anxiety:
Implications for research in humans. Psychopharmacology Bulletin 18: 47-52, October 1982 OuPont RL, Basen MM:
Control of alcohol and drug abuse in Industry: A i
literature review. Managing Health Promotion in the Workplace: Guldelines for implementation and EvaluatFon, Parkinson, Palo Alto,
- aIIrornFa, Rebecca S. Hayfield Publishing Co.,1982: 194-217.
9 DuPont RL: Problems of using cocaine as an aphrodisiac, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, March 1983.
OuPont RL: Teenage drug use:
Opportunities for the pediatrician..The
~
Journal of Pediatrics 102: 1003-1007, June 1983.
DuPont RL:
Phoblas in children. The Journal of Pediatrics 102: 999-1002,
~
June 1983.
DuPont RL: The dangers of " success" against drugs. Journal of Drug Education 13: 201-205, 1983.
OuPont RL:
Points of view In Mental Health Care and National Health Insurance by David Upton, New York, Plenum Press, 1953: 205-200.
DuPont RL: Olagnosis and treatment of phoblas.
Directions in Psychlatry 3: 1-7, 1983.
DuPont RL:
Practical pharmacotherapy for phoblas. Directions In Psychiatry
.J; 1-7. 1983.
DuPont RL:
Bullmfat A modern epidemic among adolescents.
Pediatric Annals 13: 908-914, 1984.
DuPont RL:
The treatment and prevention of substance abuse in adolescents.
Of rections in Psychiatry 4: 1-7, 1984.
OuPont RL:
Substance abuse.
Journal of the American Medical Association (in press).
DuPont RL: Marijuana, alcohol and adolescence: A malignant synergism.
Seminars In Adolescent Medicine (In press).
DuPont RL:
Saying "no" to heroin addicts:
A dilemma in a free society, introduction to The Compulsory Treatment of Oplate Addiction.
Edited by McGlothlin WH, Anglin MD.
(In press).
Apri1 1985 GENERAL PUBLICATIONS OuPont RL: " Narcotics Treatment as Crime Reduction and Human Resources Strategy." Trends, 1970, pp. 1-8.
OuPont RL: "The Treatment of Heroin Addicts: A Historical and Personal Review." Career Of rections,1972, pp.12-25.
DuPont RL: "How to identify Heroin Problems." Justice, 1972, pp. 10-12.
DuPont RL: " Criminal Justice Clients u/ the Narcotics Treatment Adminis-tration."
instituto Notebook Olstrict of Columbia Superior Court Sentencing Institute, January 1973.
Wilson JQ, DuPont RL: "The $1ck Sixties " The Atlantic Monthly, October 1973, pp. 91-98.
~.__._.
DuPont RL: " Drug Abuse Education a Failure So Far."
Los Angeles Times, January 25, 1974.
DuPont RL: "The Rise and Fall of Heroin Addiction." Natural History, January / July 1974, pp. 66-71.
l DuPont RL: " Pott Mild intoxicant or Serious Menace?" The Sun, Baltimore, MO, December 4, 1976.
DuPont RL: " Interdependence in Principle and Practice." Drug Enforcement.
l 1977, pp. 14-16, 34.
OuPont RL:
"Is U.S. Secoming a Drug-Ridden Society?"
U.S. News & World l
Report August 1978, pp. 30-31.
l DuPont RL: " Drugs Are Not Kids' Stuf f." _Sidwell Friends Bulletin, Sidwell
' Friends School, Washington, D.C., May 5, 1373 DuPont RL:
Nuclear Phobia -- Phobic Thinking About Nuclear Power. Washington.
0.C.:
The Media Institute, March 1950.
OuPont RL:
" Phobic Fear as a Nuclear Health Hazard." The Washington Star, July 20, 1980.
{
DuPont RL:
" Nuclear Phobia Phobic Thinking About Nuclear Power." Nuclear Power in American Thought. *lidison Electric Institute,' Decisionmakers, 5: 23-41, 1951.
i
~~-,,,-------4m.,.,,,n-,
,-e,
-,-m.,,,-,,
4..,---.r,,
.g-r,
-.v------e,,,ev,.e.,.._m,,.,,,--,--w,
,--,-----w,
-enw -y, -- - - - w re-.mv-- c
-w-e-
--e----
DuPont RL: " Sounding the Alarm." PTA Today, May 1981, pp. 3-5.
DuPont RL:
"A Fresh Perspective for the War on Drugs." The-Washington Star, Comment Section, July 2, 1981.
(Re: Carlton Turner appointment).
DuPont RL: " Fifty Million Frenchnen Have Few Nuclear Fears." Electric Perspectives, Edison Electric Institute, Fall 1981, pp. 33-36.
DuPont RL: "The Nuclear Power Phobia." Business Week, September 7,1981, pp. 14-16.
(Reprinted in Congressional Record, September 15,1981.)
DuPont RL:
"At 18, You're an Adult." The Inquirer, Hartsdale, NY, December 24, 1981, p. 7.
DuPont RL: "Why 1 Changed My Mind About Marijuana." Listen, 1981, pp. 12-15.
DuPont RL: " Learning From the Past to Cope with the Future." Orug Abuse in the Modern World, New York:
Pergamon Press, 1981, pp. 267-z71.
F DuPont~RLf ~ " Psychological'Traume and Nuclear Emergency Pfar..ilng: The Value of Confronting Fears." Are Current Emergency Planning Requirements Justified?, (Workshop Proceedinss),NucTear Safety Analysis Center, January 13, 1982.
DuPont RL: " Drugs and Kids:
New Hope." Synergist, published by Action, April 1982, pp. 21-22.
DuPont RL:
"Ma r i j uana." World Book, 1982.
l DuPont RL: "Should the Military be Allowed to Conduct Mandatory Random Urine Tests for Illicit Drug Use?"
U.S. Journal, Point / Counterpoint, March 1983.
DuPont RL: "Should the Military Test Urine for Drugs?"
U.S. Journal,
~~~
March 25, 1983.
DuPont RL:
" Helping Kids (and Parents) Survive the Drug. Alcohol and Related ' Revolutions.'" Parents Council Newsletter, Spring 1983.
DuPont RL: " Awash in Alcohol." Listen, October 1983.
l i
=
1
April 1985 UNPUBLISHED PAPE45 DuPont RL: "The impact of Psychosis on Merriage." Presented to the American Psycholq ical Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, September 196a.
DuPont RL:
"A Short-Term Training Group for Parole Officers: An in-Service Training Experience." January 1969.
DuPont RL, Grunebasse H: "The Sex Life of Married Paranoid Wbmen."
September 1969.
DuPont RL: " Individual Psychotherapy in Prisons." December 1970.
DuPont RL, Greene, MHz
" Methadone Overdose Deaths in Washington." September
._1972..
r__
DuPont RL, Greene, MHz " Heroin Addiction Epidemic." November 1972 DuPont RL, Greene MH: " Heroin Addiction -- Light at the End of the Tunnel."
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
Honolulu, Hawall, May 1973 DuPo.it RL: "The Vital Link: Drug Abuse Treatment and the Criminal Justice System." Presented at the First National Treatment Alternatives' to Street l
Crime Conference, Washington, D.C.,
September 1973.
DuPont RL: " Alcohol Problems of the Drug Abuser." Presented to the Alcohol and Drug Problems Association of North America, Bloomington, Minnesota, September 1973.
DuPont RL: " Future Olrections." Presented to Drug Enforcement Administration News Correspondents' Seminar. October 1973.
DuPont RL: " Perspective on an Epidemic." Presented to the Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies, Washington, D.C., October 1973.
DuPont RL:
Comments presented to the international Conference on Alcohollsm and Drug Abuse, San Juan, Puerto Rico, November 1973.
l DuPont RL:
Remarks before the Polydrug Conference, Denver, Colorado,.lanuary 1974.
J DuPont RL:
U.S. Statement on Drug Abuse before the Third Special Session, U.N. Commission on Narcotic Druts, Geneva, Switzerland, February 1974.
I
l l
l
, l DuPont RL: "New Directions in Drug Abuse." Presented to the 1974 Conference on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, San Francisco, CA April 1974.
DuPont RL:
Speech to the National Coordinating Council of Drug Abuse l
Education, May 1974.
DuPont RL:
Remarks before the U.S. Conference of Mayors, San Diego, CA, June 1974.
DuPont RL:
Discussion dialogue between Robert L. DuPont, M.D. and partict-pants of V0A Editors' Roundtable, Number 12, October 1974.
DuPont RL:
" Marihuana: An issue Comes of Age."
Presented to the inter-national Conference of the Pharmacology of Cannabis, Savannah, GA, December 1974.
DuPont RL:
"A New Reality for Drug Abuse Prevention." Presented to the North i
American Congress on Alcohol and Drug Problems, San Francisco, CA, December 1974.
-DuPont RL:
Statement on drug abuse before the 26th Session, U.N. Commission on Narcotic Druts, Geneva, Switzerland, February 1975.
l DuPont RL: " Worldwide Heroin Problem." August 1975.
DuPont RL:
"U.S.
Drug Abuse Priorities in a Latin American Context."
Presented at the Regional Narcotics Coordinators Conference, Caracas, Venezuela, November 1975.
DuPont RL:
"Guldelines for National Health insurance as it Affects Drug Abuse Services." Presented to the New York Council on Alcoholism, Inc.,
ACCEPT, New York, NY, December 1975.
l DuPont RL:
"The Current Status of Methador,e Treatment." Presented to the Wayne County Medical Society, Detroit, MI, December 1975.
l DuPont RL:
"An American View of the Mexican Drug Abuse Connection."
Presented to Luis Echeverria, President of the Republic of Mexico,and the Mexican Cabinet, Mexico City, January 1976.
DuPont RL:
Statement on drug abuse before the Fourth Special Session, U.N.
Comission on Narcotic Drugs, Geneva, Switzerland, February 1976.
l DuPont RL:
" Understanding Drug Abuse:
A Problem of Mutual Concern."
l Presented at the National Colombian Media Seminar on Drugs, Palpa, Colombia, March 1976.
i l
l
.__m_. ~,..,.. _ _,
7
,_,.._.,,-_...,...--_.-_-,.1_
DuPont RL: " Observations on the Changing Heroin Problem in the District of Columbia." Presented to the Metropolitan Washington Health Association, ArIIngton, VA, March 1976.
DuPont RL: "The View Around the Corner." Presented to the National issues and Strategies Symposium on the Drug-Abusing Criminal Offender, Reston, VA, April 1976.
DuPont RL: "The Global Heroin Problem." April 1976.
DuPont RL, Kozel, NJ: " Heroin Use and Crime." Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, Miami, FL, May 1976.
DuPont RL: Discussion dialogue between Robert L. DuPont, M.D. and partici-pants of the Council of International Programs at the National Drug Abuse Center for Training and Resource Development, Arlington, VA, June 1976.
DuPont RL: " Philadelphia as a Leader in Drug Abuse Prevention: A Bi-centennial Perspective." Presented before the Philadelphia Forum of
_ Drug _and Alcohol Abuse.Progr_ams Philadelphia P_A,_ August 1976.
t DuPont RL: " Heroin Maintenance: A Discussion Paper." August, 1976.
9 DuPont RL: " Demand Reduction Role in United States International Drug Abuse Prevention and Control." Presented before a meeting of U.S. Narcotic Control Officers, London, England, September 1976 DuPont RL:
Informal remarks presented at the 25th tranian Medical Congress, Ramsar, Iran, September 1976.
DuPont RL:
" Drug Abuse Research -- The Federal Role." Presented at a sym-posium at McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, October 1976.
DuPont RL:
Remarks before the Annual Meeting of the Florida Drug Abuse Treatment and Education Association, Tampa, FL, October 1976 DuPont RL: "The Nature of the Problen and the Response to Drug Abuse in the United States." Presented at the Pan American Medical Association Golden Anniversary Congress, Hollywood, FL, October 1976.
DuPont RL: " Drug Abuse -- A Global Epidemic." Presented at the W'rld o
Psychiatric Association Symposium, Ibadan, Nigeria, November 1976.
DuPont RL:
Informal remarks presented at the World Psychiatric Institute and the Association of Psychiatrists In Nigeria, Ibadan, Nigeria, November 1976.
't ?
DuPont RL: Statement on drug abuse and measures to reduce demand before the 27th Regular Conference, U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Geneva, Switzerland, February 1977.
Du.*ont RL:
Informal remarks presented at a conference of the International
' Association of Chiefs of Police, Phoenix, AZ, March 1977.
DuPont RL:
"An American View of the British Heroin Scene." Presented at the informal Symposium on Coordinating the Response to Changes in Drug Abuse, Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence, London, England, May 1977.
DuPont RL: " Heroin Maintenance: A Discussion by Robert L. DuPont, M.D."
An edited version of remarks presented before the National League of Ci ties Conference, Washington, D.C., June 1977.
DuPont RL:
Informal remarks presented at the European ond Near East Narcotics Coordinators Conference, Rome, Italy, Septemmer 1977.
DuPont RL: " Operation Trip-Wire: A New Proposal Focused on Criminal Heroin
~~ A~ddicts." Presented at the 1977 Annual Convention of the Federal Bar Association, Washington, D.C., September 1977.
DuPont RL: " Cocaine, Latin America and the Reduction of the Demand for Drugs." Prepared renarks at the ARA Regional Narcotics Coordinators Conference, Miami, FL, November 1977.
DuPont RL: "NIDA -- A Status Report to the States." Prepared remarks for the Fourth Annual ADAMHA Conference of the State and Territorial Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Authorities, Washington, D.C., November 1977.
DuPont RL: " Drug Abuse: Assessment of the U.S. Problem and Measures to Reduce lilicit Demand."
Informal remarks presented at the Fifth Special Session, U.N. Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Geneva, Switzerland, February 1978.
DuPont RL: Welcoming remarks at the National Drug Abuse Prevention Conference, Washington, D.C., March 1978.
DuPont RL: " Drug Abuse Prevention:
Bright Past; Brighter Future."
Informal renarks presented at the Fif th National Drug Abuse Conference, Seattle, WA, April 1978.
DuPont RL: " Policy implications of 20th Century Rates of Oplate Dependence in the United States." Presented at the Psychiatric Institute, Washington,
.D.C., May 1978.
-S-i DuPont RL:
Informal remarks presented at the 40th Annual Scientific Meeting 6f the Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence, Inc., Baltimore, MD, June 1978.
DuPont RL:
Remarks on the occasion of the ceremony to present the Public Health Service Superior Service Award to Robert L. DuPont, M.D.,
Rockville, MD, June 1978.
DuPont RL: "NIDA -- Adult identity Crisis at Age Five." Presented to staff of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD, July 1978.
DuPont RL: "Why i Changed My Mind on Marijuana." Presented at Awareness Banquet of Straight, Inc., May 23, 1979.
DuPont RL: " Understanding Fear of Nuclear Power." Presented at the Inter-national Conference of the Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc., Washington, D.C., November 18, 1980.
DuPont RL: " Straight Ahead Introductory Remarks." Presented at Second Annual Awareness Banquet of Straight.. Inc December 10. 1980._ _
o DuPont RL: Mamaroneck Keynote Address, presented to Community Conference Day on Substance Abuse, Homnocks School, Mamaroneck Public School System, NY, January 24, 1981.
DuPont RL: " Focus on Heroin Addiction:
Keynote Address." Presented at city-wide conference, " Drug Abuse in the District of Columbia: Where Wu Are and Where Are We Going?" March 6, 1981.
DuPont RL: "How The American Council on Marijuana Can Help the Parents' Movement." Presented at Seventh Annual Southeast Drug Conference, Atlanta, GA, April 2,1981.
DuPont RL: " Lessons from France:
Fears of Nuclear Power." May 4, 1981.
DuPont RL: " Perspectives of Nuclear Risk:
The Role of the Media." Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Nuclear Association, Ottawa, Canada, June 9, 1981.
DuPont RL: " Phobic Fear of Nuclear Energy -- Why Don't the French Have it?"
June 12, 1981.
DuPont RL: "The Drug Dependence Syndrome:
Implications for Alcohol Policy."
Presented at Conference on Control issues in Alcohol Abuse Prevention, Charleston, SC, September 28, 1981.
.-m-
-w, DuPont RL: " Straight, Inc. -- Atlanta." Presented to First Annual Awareness Banquet, Atlanta, GA, October 17, 1981.
DuPont RL: "The Press isn't to Blame for Nuclear's Problems!" December 20, 1981.
DuPont RL: "Can Prevention and Treatment Co-Exist?" Presented at Eighth Annual PRIDE Conference, Atlanta, GA, April 2, 1982.
DuPont RL: Report to the Board of Straight, Inc., July 30, 1982.
DuPont RL: " Presentation of Second Annual Drug Abuse Prevention Award from-the American Council on Marijuana and Other Psychoactive Drugs, Inc. to General John W. Vessey, Jr., Chai rman, Joint Chiefs of Staff." 78th Anniversary Dinner of the Navy League of the U.S., Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York, NY, November 3,1982.
DuPont RL: " Bulimia: A Modern Epidemic " Presented to the symposium on Adult Eating Disorders sponsored by the Crisis Center of the Psychiatric
. Institute and the Psychiatric institute Foundation _,_ December 9,1982.
DuPont RL: " Rediscovering Aesculapius' Second Daughter." 1982.
DuPont RL: "The Dangers of ' Success' Against Drugs." February 4,1983.
DuPont RL: "The Role of the Corporate Medical Director in Coping with the Drug Dependence Epidemic." Presented to the New York Princeton Club, March 10,1983.
DuPont RL: " Global Trends in Drug Policy: Dangers and Opportunities."
Presented to PRIDE Conference, Atlanta, GA, April 1983 DuPont RL:
"Is the Media Giving Proper Coverage to the Risks and the Benefits of Nuclear Power?" Presented to American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, June 29, 1983 The Most Serious New Threat to Americans' Lungs."
DuPont, RL: " Marijuana:
Presented to Board of Directors, American Lung Association, Miami, FL, December 9,1983 DuPont RL: " Core Curriculum Multi-Audience introductory Speech." 1983.
DuPont RL: " Focus on Fear."
Presented to the Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.,
Washington, D.C., November 14, 1984.
i
\\
l
\\
April 1985 i
t FOREWORDS DuPont RL: Foreword to Alternative Pursuits for America's-3rd Century,
)
National Institute on Vrug Abuse, DHEW PublFcatTon No. (ADM)73-9155, i
Washington. D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974.
DuPont RL:
Foreword to A Treatment Manual for Acute Drug Abuse Emergencies, National institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW PublTcatTon No. (ADM)75-23D.
Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975.
DuPont, RL:
Foreword to Operational Definitions in Socio-Behavioral Dcug Use Research, Research Mon 6 graph Series 2, Rational Institute on Drug Abuse, NitFTuTlication No. (ADM)76-292. Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documerits, U.S. Government _,Pr_inting_ Office,197.6._
DuPont, RL:
Foreword to Young Men & Drugs -- A Nationwide-Survey, Research Monograph Series 5, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No.'
(ADM)76-311. Washi.ngton, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, February 1976.
DuPont RL:
Foreword to Medical Care at Large Gatherings, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Pubilcation No. (ADM)76-267. Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1976.
Dupont, RL:
Foreword to Carnabinoid Assays In Humans, Research Monograph Series 7, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)76-339 Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1976.
DuPont RL:
Foreword to National Directory of Drug Abuse Treatment Programs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEV Publication No. (ADM)76-321.
Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1976.
DuPont RL:
Foreword to Rx:
3x/wk LAAM-Alternative to Methadone, Research Monograph Series 8, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No.
(ADM)76-339 Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing Office, September 1976.
l DuPont RL:
Foreword to Medical Treatment for Complications of Polydrug-Abuse, Treatment Manual 1 National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW PubiTcation No.
(ADM)76-336. Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govern-ment Pringing Office, January 1977, l
l
4 5
-2_
2 DuPont RL:
Foreword to Marihuana and Health Sixth Annual Report to the U.S.
Congress, National Ins ~titute on Drug Abuse, DHEW PublicatTon No. (ADM)77-443 Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government i
Printing Office, March 1977.
1 DuPont RL:
Foreword to The Therapeutic Consnunity, Services Research Report, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (AUM J / /-464 l
Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
)
Office, April 1977.
DuPont RL:
Foreword to Manual for Drug Abuse Treatment Program Self-Evaluation, Treatment Program Honograph Series, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)77-421. Washington, D.C.:
Super-Intendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1977.
DuPont RL:
Foreword to Guide to the investigation and Reporting of Drug Abuse Deaths, National InstTtute on Drug Abusei, DHEW PublicatTon No. (ADM)77-356. Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1977.
~ ~ ~ ~ '
DuPoni RL:
Foreword to Addicted Families and Their Children, Services
~
Research Report, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No.
(ADM)77-480. Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing Office, June 1977.
DuPont RL:
Foreword to Drugs and Delving, Research Monograph Series 11, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)77-438.
Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1977.
DuPont RL:
Foreword to Cocaine: 1977, Research Monograph Series 13, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)77-471. Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Print!ng Office, June 1977.
i DuPont RL:
Foreword to Marihuana Research Findings: 1976, Research Honograph Series 14, National Institute on Drug ~ Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)77-i 501.
W shington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government a
l Printing Office, August 1977.
l DuPont, RL:
Foreword to Conducting Follow-Up Research on Drug Treatment Programs, Treatment Program Monograph SerTes 2, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)77-487.
Washington, D.C.:
Super-intendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1977.
j DuPont RL:
Foreword to Employment Discrimination and How to Deal With it, i
Services Research Rep 6rt, National InstTtute on Drug Abuse, DHEW PubiFcation No. (ADM)77-532. Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
l Government Printing Office, October 1977.
i i
I er y
yww---p- - -
_y.--y-p.-,.
--,-sn
,._--.,,,,,_,,w-,
,p.
i
- i l
DuPont RL:
Foreword to Referral Strategies ~for Polydrug Abusecs, Services Research Monograph Series, National Polydrug CoTlaborative Project, Treatment Manual 3, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No.
4 (ADM)77-515. Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing 0ffice, November 1977.
DuPont RL: Foreword to Review of inhalants:
Euphoria to Dysfunction, Research Monograph Series 15, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DMEW Publication No.
(ADM)77-553. Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Doctanents, U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, December 1977.
DuPont RL:
Foreword to Assessment of Local Drug Abuse by Hunt LG.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath & Co., 1977.
DuPont RL: Foreword to The Epidemiology of Heroin ands 0ther Narcotics, Research Monograph Series 16, National Iristitute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)78-559 Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1978.
DuPont RL: Foreword-to Sedative-Hypnotle-Drugs-:--Al-sks--and-Benefus r-National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADMJ75-592.
Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1978.
DuPont RL:
Foreword to Drug Abuse Prevention, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)75-555. Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1978.
DuPont RL:
Foreword to Drug Abuse Prevention for Your Community, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADMJ75-556. Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1978.
DuPont RL:
Foreword to Drug Abuse Prevention for-You and Your Friends, j
National Institute on Drug Abuse, DMEW Publication No. (ADMJ/5-553.
Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1978.
i DuPont RL:
Foreword to Drug Abuse Preventlon for Your Family, National 1
Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. _( ADM)75-554. Washington, i
D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, j
January 1978.
{
DuPont RL:
Foreword to Drug Abuse Prevention for the Media, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)75-557. Washington, D.C.:
Super-j intendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1978 1
i j
i l
! DuPont RL:
Foreword to La Prevencion del Abuso de las Drogas, National Institute on Drug Abyse, DHEW Publication No. (ADR)75-555 Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1978.
DuPont RL:
Foreword to National Survey on Drug Abuse: 1977. National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)75-615 Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1978.
DuPont RL:
Foreword to-Drug Addiction and the United States Publ-le-Health Service, National Institute on Drug Abuse, DHEW Publication No. (ADM)77-434. Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1978.
DuPont RL: Foreword to Bibliography and Abstracts of Papers Emanating frem the Addiction Research Center 1935-1975, National Institute on Urug Abuse, ifHEW Publication No. (ADM)77-435 Washi'ngton, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1978
_ JuPont RL:
Foreword _to..The Pleasure Addicts _by_ Hatterer_LJ.,___New Yor.kt _
A.S. Barnes & Co., 1950.
DuPont RL:
Foreword to The Substance Abuse Problems by Cohen S.
New York:
Haworth Press, 1981. -
DuPont RL:
The drug abuse epidemic.
Foreword to Drug Abuse: Theory, Research and Practice, by Eiseman S.
1983.
i DuPont RL:
Drug abuse background.
Foreword to Clinical Perspectives on
- Drug Abuse, by Smitit DE, Wesson, DR, s
4 1
- e i
. - -., ~ _ _., _ - -
i i
i, April 1985 4
i i
l PREFACES DuPont RL: Preface to Quick Evaluation Methodology, Special Action Office Monograph Series A, Number 2.
Executive Office of the President, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Dctober 1973.
i l
DuPont RL: Preface to A Guide to Urine Testing for Drugs of Abuse, Special l
Action Office Monegraph Series 8, lumber 2.
Executive Office of the l
President, Spec.ial Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 3
i November 1973 l
DuPont RL: Preface to Central Intake Unit Manual Special Action Office i
Monograph Series C, Number 1.
Executive Office of the President, 1,
_Special Action Office for Drug. Abuse Preventlon. Washi_ngtonD. C,3 _. ___ _ _. _.
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1974.
DuPont RL: Preface to The Media and Drug Abuse Messages, Special Action Office Monograph Series D, Number 1, Executive Office of the President, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention.
W'shington D.C.:
a Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,f April 1974 DuPont RL: Preface to The Vietnam Drug User Returns, Special Action Office Monograph Series A, Number 2.
Executive Office of the President, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1974.
DuPont RL: Preface to Drug incidence Analysis, Special Action Office Monograph Series A, Number 3 Executive Office of the President, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Of fice, August 1974.
DuPont RL: Preface to Estimating the Prevalence of Heroin Use in a Community, Special Action Office Monograph Series A, Number 4.
Executive Office of the President, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1974.
DuPont RL: Preface to Outpatient Methadone Treatment Manual, Special Action Office Honograph Series C, Number 2.
Executive Office of the President, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention.
Washington, D.C. :
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Governmer.t Printing Office, August 1974.
1 1
j
2-DuPont RL:
Preface to Residential Methadone Treatment Manual, Special Action Office Monograph Series C, Numb ~r 3 Executive Office of the President, e
Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Washington, D.C. :
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1974.
DuPont RL: Preface to Outpatient Drug-Free Treatment Manual, Special Action Office Monograph Series C, Num5er~4.
Executive arrice of the President, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Washington, D.C. :
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1974.
DuPont RL: Preface to An Assessment of the Diffusion of Heroin Abuse to Medium-Sized American Cities, Special Action office Monograph Series A, Number 5 Executive Office of the President, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention.
Washington, D.C. :
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1974 DuPont RL:
Preface to Residential Drug-Free Manual, Special Action Office Monograph Series C, Number 5.
Executive Office of'the President, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention.
Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent
_of_ Documents, U.S. GovernmenL Printina Office. October 1974.
DuPont RL:
Preface to An Epidemiologic Study of Heroin Use Patterns and Trends in Four Cities on the Mexican-American Border, special Action Office, Monograph Series A, Number 6.
Executive Office of the President, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention.
W'shington, D.C.:
Superintendent a
of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1975.
DuPont RL:
Preface to Looking Ahead:
The Youth Health Center, Special Action Office Monograph Series E, Number 1 Executive Of fice of the President, Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention. Washington, D.C.:
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Of fice, June 1975.
April 1985 i
BOOKS i
DuPont RL, Goldstein A, O'Donnel J:
Handbook on Drug Abuse, Rockville, Maryland: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1975 DuPont RL (ed):
Phobia:
A Comprehensive Sumary of Modern Treatments.
New York:
Brunner/ Mazel, 1952.
Weissman JC, DuPont RL:
Criminal Justice and Drugs: The Unresolved Connection.
Port Washington, NY:
Kennikat Press, 1952.
DuPont RL: Getting Tough on Gateway Drugs: A Guide for the Family.
Washington, D.C.:
American Psychiatric Press, 1954.
M 9
April 1985 800K REVIEWS DuPont RL: Review of Methadone Maintenance, edited by Einstein S.
In Hospital and Community Psychiatry 22: 322-323, 1971.
DuPont RL: Review of Methadone:
Experiences and Issues, edited by Chambers C, Brill L.
In FederaT Probation 37: 52, 1973 DuPont RL:
Review of Licit and Illicit Drugs, by Brecher EM and editors of Consumer Reports, and review of Guide to Drug Rehabilitation: -A Public Health Approach, edited by Meyer RE.
in Psychiatry:
Journal for the Study of interpersonal Processes 36: 351, 1973.
DuPont RL: Review of Narcotic Antagonists (Advances in Blochemical Psycho-pharmacology - 8), edited by 8raude MC, Harris, LC, May EL, et al.
In
-The-Journal of Nervous and Mental-Diseases-50:-57-587 1975.
DuPont RL, Ginzburg HM: Review of The Effectiveness of Drug Abuse Treatment, Vols. I and II, edited by Sells S.
In Contemporary Psychology 21: 500-501',
1976.
DuPont RL:
Review of Drugs, Alcohol and More Confusing Data, edited by Chambers CD, inciardi JA, Siegal, HA.
In Contemporary Psychology 22: 65-66, 1977.
i AprIi 1985 1
LETTERS TO EDITORS DuPont RL: "The D.C. Heroin Epidemic:
Progress Report." Letter to the Editor, The New England Journal of Medicine 287: 1154, 1972.
DuPont RL: " Epidemic." Letter to the Editor, The Journal-of the. AmerI<ari Medical Association 227: 1380, 1974.
~
DuPont RL: " Legal Marijuana:
Bad idea Getting Worse." Letter to the i
Editor, New York Times, December 12, 1982.
1 DuPont RL: "Sometimes Coercion is the Only Way."
Letter to the Editor in response to " Drug Abuse Treatment and Coercion," May 30, 1983, ~The Washington Post, June 11, 1983.
3 DuPont RL: "Two Prongs in a Winnable Assault on Drugs." Letter to the Editor, New York Times, September 26, 1984.
DuPont*RL: " Fear of Nuclear Power:
Dr. DuPont Replies." Letter to the Editor, The Washington Post, November 3,1984.
l
--er
-,-ro<m,n
.----g-,--r,w w
~, - -, - - - - - - - - - -
m..m n
.---,-e--.-ee
Apri1 1985 MISCELLANEOUS DuPont RL:' Comments on Senate Bill 151 (An Act Concerning Alcoholic 8everages, Legal Age Altered -- Dual System Retained), January 23, 1981.
DuPont RL: Quoted in " Teens:
Schooled on Pot and Peers." Style Plus, The Washington Post, December 9,1981.
DuPont RL:
Statement before the Consnittee on Science and Technology, Sub-consnittee on Energy Research and Production, U.S. House of Representa-tives, Washington, D.C., December 15, 1981.
DuPont RL:
Statement to the Consnittee on Foreign Affairs (Ret Drug Problems in Society), U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., April 20, 1982.
DuPont RL:
Editorial: "Marijuanar." - WRC-TVrAprti--1982.---
- ~ -
DuPont RL: Quoted in "How Drugs Sap the flation's Strength," U.S. News and World Report, May 16, 1983.
DuPont RL: " Principles for Parents and Teenagers Dealing With Drugs and Other Problems."
(Hand-out), May 1982.
DuPont RL:
Radio Consnentary: American Voices.
- 1) Marijuana; 2) Families Fight Back Against Drug Abuse; 3) Cocaine.
July 19, 1983.
l
~
Aj p4>
W
.p APPLICANTS' EXHIBIT s
j l'
-d' Q
OCT P B ' ' ~
- ul e I y_
t---
u.
CL J. ;
./
p
'c4
,,/
-s
/ gyj j i) * '
REPORT TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF OF EVALUATION AND REINSPECTION OF WORK PERFORMED BY EMPLOYEES AT THE SHEARON. HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PROJECT WHO HAVE BEEN IMPLICATED IN POSSIBLE DRUG ACTIVITY l
I t'
s l
Revised 10/15/85 L-
n-D
, t,% e l
REPORT TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF OF EVALUATION AND REINSPECTION OF WORK PERFORMED BY EMPLOYEES AT THE SHEARON HARRIS ~
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PROJECT WHO HAVE BEEN IMPLICATED IN POSSIBLE DRUG ACTIVITY Table of Contents Page Section I Introduction 2
Section II Analysis by Individual Case 3
Section III Descriptions of Safety-Related Plant Component i
Inspection Programs 13 A.
Pipe Hanger 14 B.
Instrumentation Erection 16 C.
Pipe Welding 18 D.
HVAC Installation 20 E.
Civil 22 F.
Electrical 33
_G.
Safety-Related and Seismic Category II Equipment 43 H.
Nonconformance Control Program 45 Section IV Quality Activities of the Nondestructive Examination Program 46 Section V Quality Activities of Start-Up Group 47 Section VI Reinspection Activities and Results 49 Section VII Summary 54 Appendix A Job Descriptions A-1 t
i i
n Y
P Section I INTRODUCTION This report summarizes information requested by the NRC staff relating to the contention concerning alleged drug use at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Project (SHNPP). The contention alleges that drug use is widespread among construction workers at the SHNPP with the potential implication that drug use has compromised the quality of construction at the SHNPP and the ability of the plant to be operated in a safe manner. The information provided in this report demonstrates that the quality of construction has not been compromised.
Of the more than 26,000 individuals who have been employed at the SHNPP site since 1978, as of October 15, 1985, only 218 individuals have been identified as having, or as suspected of, some level of involvement with controlled substances - either on site or off site. Of these 718 individuals, none are currently employed at the SHNPP. This report provides job employment information for each individual terminated for drug-related reasons, information on safety-related work or inspections performed by these individuals, and a general discussion of those quality assurance programs and/or reinspections which ensure tbat all safety-related work meets stringent quality guidelines. Where a quality control (QC) or construction inspection (CI) inspector or an engineering support person has been implicated as a possible drug user, the report provides the findings from reinspections of work performed by such individuals. In addition, as a result of a settlement agreement with intervenors, this report provides an evaluation of the work of five employees of Conam Inspection of Richmond, California.
The report is organized into seven sections, the first of which is the introduction.Section II provides data in chart form by individual and indicates whether the individual performed safety-related work.Section II also includes a discussion of the review process for safety-related work and the basis for confirmation of the quality of each individual's work. Sectior III provides a general discussion of the inspection and quality assurance programs which cover each safety-related construction activity.Section IV discusses the cuality assurance activities of the nondestructive examination (NDE) program.Section V provides information on the activities of the plant start-up group to ensure that completed systems and equipment function properly as installed.
Section VI provides the results of reinspections.Section VII is a summary.
D
?
Section II ANALYSIS BY INDIVIDUAL CASE This section provides information in " matrix" form, as requested by the NRC staff, on individuals terminated or removed frcm the SENPP site since 1978 for drug-related reasons.
Chart II-1 provides summary information by individual employee.
An explanation of each column in Chart II-l follows:
Column A - Individual Rnference Number Each individual is identified by a unique reference number to protect his or her identity.
Column B - Pasis of Drug Inv'olvement The information available regarding the basis for identifying an individual with drug involvement has been summarized into six categories:
" Suspicion" indicates less than actual proof of drug involvement (search or testing not performed).
" Possession" includes individuals who were found to be in possessicn of a controlled substanco on site.
" Positive test" indicates the presence of drugs through urinalysis drug screening.
" Arrest - off site" indicates individuals who were arrested away from the site as a result of police activity.
" Arrest - on site" includes those individuals who were identified in the undercover drug operation.
" Refused test / search" indicates individuals who refused to submit to a urinalysis test or a search of their person, property, or vehicle.
Column C - Employment Duration (Months)
The length of employment in number of months is provided for each individual.
Column D - Job Classification Job classifications for each individual are listed.
Appendix A to this report includes a detailed job description for craft workers, including carpenters, electricians, utilitymet, pipefitters, field engineers, ironworkers, a
P
\\
painters, instrument workers, truck drivers, rebar workers, sheet metal workers, concrete finishers, and equipment operators. Also included are job descriptions for Daniel overhead personnel, individuals identified as "other",
inspectors, and Conam eddy current examiners.
Column E - Safety Vork Performed This column contains four entries: yes, possibly, unlikely, and no.
These terms describe the results of evaluations to determine if the subject employees were involved in safety-related work. A "yes" or "no" entry means that available records and/or discussions with the individual's supervisor (s) confirm with a high degree of certainty whether the individual was involved in any safety-related work at the SHNPP. "Possibly" means that the individual's training and job classification would allow the individual to perform safety-related work but records do not disclose that such work actually was performed.
"Unlikely" means that available information suggests that the individual did not perform any safety-related work but that the possibility at some time during employment cannot be eliminated.
Column F - Quality Confirmation Basis Safety-related craft work is subjected to multiple checks and cross-checks, first by supervision, and independently by the Quality Assurance (QA) organization. The work of involved individuals was evaluated to verify that the work was subject to quality confirmation. Records identified specific inspection activities for inspectors and work performed by engineering support personnel and Conam eddy current examiners.
The quality confirmation basis entry in Column F is used to reference information in Sections III or VI.
Section III provides descriptions of safety-related plant component inspection programs.Section VI describes the results of reinspections or other evaluations of involved individuals.
Column G - Comments This column provides additional descriptive information to enhance job classification entries listed in Column D.
For example, review of Chart II-1 provides the following information about individual number "17" (Column A): the individual had a positive drug screen test (Column B); was employed for sixteen months (Column C) before termination or removal from the site; was classified as an instrument worker (Column D) described more fully in Appendix A; is indicated as "possibly" having performed safety-related work (Column E) described more fully in Appendix A; is refererced as being covered by III B-Instrumentation Inspection Programs (Column F); and was a welder (Column G).
, l
Y The information in Chart II-1 is of a summary nature based on the best available records or information. However, determining with certainty all work or even all systems or components on which work wat performed by an individual craft worker is not possible.
Time cards are not sufficiently detailed, nor verified for accuracy of work descriptions, to-serve that purpose. QA records are, in almost all caces, keyed to systems, components or structures and not to individual craft workers. A reasonable insight into a worker's activities can be obtained from his job classification and interviews with his supervision. However, the information available is not always sufficient to eliminate the possibility that he performed safety-related work which may not be identified.
Therefore, in evaluating whether safety-related work was performed by a craft worker, CP&L generally assumed that the craft worker may have performed any work for which he was qualified within his job classification.
In evaluating craft workers, helpers were determined to be working under the direction of qualified journeymen who were held accountable for quality standards. In fact, the majority of craft work is performed in teams where one worker's performance is subject to the scrutiny of fellow workers. The work of the journeyman craf t werker is reviewed by his foreman before being turned over to the QA organization for independent review. Much of the work is subject to in-process inspections as well. Certain foremen and general foremen were also identified as implicated with drug involvement. While these supervisory personnel do not actually perform quality work, where they were identified, it was arsumed-that their supervisory role possibly could have implications for the quality of the work performed.
In all cases, safety-related work was found to be subject to walkdowns, inspections, and, on a sample basis, third-party audits. For safety-related tests within each job classification, the work is subject to quality review as described more fully in Section III.
Where individuals implicated were inspectors or engineering support personnel, and in the case of Conan eddy current examiners, the task of identifying their work was possible and was accomplished. -Available records allowed identification of tasks so that reinspection plans could be structured. Reinspectione i
performed pursuant to site procedure CQA-7 are described in Section VI and results are provided. In certain cases, evaluations demonstrated that reinspections were not warranted. These evaluations are also described in Section VI.
l l
l Charts II-2 and II-3 summarize and categorize certain information contained in Chart II-1.
Chart II-2 provides a breakdown by job classification for the 218 employees terminated.
Chart II-3 provides the reasons for termination by job classification.
l
.._m
~
f
?
l C-ART II-1 A
3 C
3 e
a BASIS DPLOYMENT GUALITY INDIV.
DRUG DURAT:CN JC3 SA:ITY WCRK CC'5IR?ATICN C:X S TS REF.ND.
INVOLVEMENT L"CNihS)
CLASSIF:CATICN PERFCRyED 5 ASIS 1
POSSESSICN 1
UTILITY NO N/A
'2 PCSITIVE TEST 17
' INS *-2 0R YES VA 3
SUSPICICN 5
OTHER YES VI D 4
SUSPICIGN 17 ELECTRICIM NO N/A prJER 5
REFUSED TEST / SEARCH 9
DANEL OVERHEAD NO N/A 6
SCSPIC:0N 9
E.ECTRIC:M POSSIBLY III F-EECTRICAL 7
POSSESSICN
'2 P!PE Fli'ER PCSSIBLY
!!! A,B,ll S
S'. SPIC:CN 8
E. ECTR:CIAN PCSS iLY -
I.. r :.:c. DICAL 9
REFUSED TEST / SEARCH 34 IRLCX CRIVER NO.
N/A 13 PCESISSICN 4
!NSPECTCR POSSliLY VI 3 11 RE:LSED TEST / SEARCH 3
INSPEC CR PCES:EY V! 3 12 SLSPIC:CN 14 PIPE FIT ER PCSSIBLY
!!! 4,3,C 13 SUSPICIO 9
DANIEL CVERrEAD NO N/A 14 -
POSEESSICM 1
UTILITY
\\0 N/A 15 SLSPICICN 30 DANIEL OVE~viEAD NO N/A 16 SUSPICION 24 PIPE FITT3 PCSSISLY lI! A,9,C -
FCRPP.
17 ~ ' POSITIVE TEST 16 INST D ENT
" CSS: SLY
!II 3-INSTRU S ATIC%
L.E.'E:
18 -
PCSSESSICM 7
E.ICTRICIAN PCSSIS.Y
!II F 3.ECil!CA.
19 SUSPICION 6
D MIEL OVERFEAD CNLIFILY III E-C:VIL CLEN 29 -
POSSESSICM 4
UTILITY NO N/A i
21 REFUSED TEST / SEARCH 16 INSPEC'OR YES VI A 22 SUSPICION 14 ELECTRICIAN NO N/A
-EJER 23 ARREST /CN StiE 6
ELECTRICIAN YES III F :LECTR: CAL 24 POSITIVE TEST 1
INSPECTUR N3 N/A TRAINEE 25
'SLSPICION 39 CP&L NCN-INSPECTCR h0 N/A 25 REFUSED TEST /SEPRCH 3
CARPENTER DLIKELY III E-CIVIL 27 SLSPICION' 16 ODER YES VI D 28 SUSPICION 52 PI?E FITTER PCSSIBLY III A,3,C 29 SUSPICICt 54 CP1L NCN-INSPECTCR NO N/A 33 SUSPIC:0N 38 ELECTRICIAN' PCSSIBLY II: F-ELECTR: CAL 3E\\ERt 33E4%
31 SLSP:CION 13
- AINTER PCSSIBLY III E-CIVIL 32 SLSPICICN 29 IRON WCRXER PCSSIBLY III E-C
- V!L
- UEci 33 REFLSID TEST / SEARCH 6
INST D ENT POSSIBLY III 5-!\\STRL S ~AT:CN 34 ARREST /CFF SITE 32 DANIEL GVE eE U NO N/A 35 SUSPICION 19 IRCN WORMER PCSSIBLY III E-CIVIL F EQ J
36 SLSPIC:UN 27 CP&L NON-INSPECTCR NO N/A 37 POSSESSICN 22 PAINTER NO N/A rEJER 38 SUSPIC:GN 5
E.ECTRICIAN
?CSSIBLY I!! F-E.ICTRICAL i-39 PCSSESSICN 4
ELECTRICIAN NO N/A rEJER 44 POSSESSICN 6
ELECTRICIAN NO N/A c LPER 41 SUSPICIGt 15 INSPECTCR POSSIBLY VI B l
42 REFUSED TEST / SEARCH 23
- TRUCX DRIVER NO N/A 43 -
SUSPICION 5
ELECTRICIAN OCSSIBLY III F-ELECTRICAL
[
44 SUSPICICN 11 ELECTRICIAN NO N/A
.-EJER 45 -
SUSPICIGi 5
ELECTRICIAN PCSSIBLY
!!! F-ELECTRICAL 46 PCSITIVE TEST 11 INSPECTOR PCSSIBLY V: 8 47 SLSPCICM 65
- C;RPENTER YES III E-CIVIL 3EiE;AL :3 P P.
48 PCSSESSICN 32 ELECTRICIAN PCSSIBLY I:I F-ELECTRICAL 49 POSSESSICN 1
GTHER NC N/A 54 PCSSESSICN 17 UTILITY W.IKELY II: E-C!V:L 51 PCSITIVE TEST 37 CP&L NQN-INSEECTCR NO N/A l.
52 SLSPIC:UN 5
PIPE FITTER POSSIBLY III 4,B,C 2
l 23-Cet-55 1.;
........ ~. - -
l-
.. ~. -...
m_
e
?
CFART II-1 A
B C
D E
F 3
' BASIS EMPLOYMENT GUALITY INDIV.
ORU3 DURATICN
.!CB SAFETY WCRX CCNFITdATICN C"xvENTE REr.NO.
INVOLVEMENT (McNThS)
CLASSIFICATICN TERFCR?.ED EAS:S 53
'PCSSESSICN 11 ELECTRICIA1 NO N/A HELPER o
54
- 0SITIVE TEST 8
CPIL NCN-INSPECTCR NO N/A
$5 SUSPICION 15 PIPE FITTER ha N/A hELFER 56 POSITIVE TEST 38 CP&L NON-INSPECTCR NO N/A 57 SUSPICICN 22 OTHER YES VI D 58 ARREST /0FF SITE 5
UTILITY UNLIXEY III E-C!VIL 59 SUSPICION 14 ELECTRICIAN PCSSIBLY
!!! F-ELECRICAL FCRE'AN 64 SUSPIC:CN 9
E.ECTRICIAN NO N/A
-E.;ER 61 PCSSESSICM 15 FIELD ENSINEER POSSIELY
- I E-C:V L
'.STtvE.T?AN 62 RF512ED TEST / SEARCH 55 C?ti NCN-INSPECTCR NC N/A 63 POSITIVE TEST 14 INS;ECTOR YES VI A 64 PCSSESSIGN 12 UTILITY LN.I:ELY
!!! E-CIVIL 65 SLSPICICN 18 ELECTRICIAN NO N/A FEL;ER 66 '
SUSPICICN 8
GTHER YES VI D 67 SLSPIC!CN 15 CANIEL OVERFEAD NO N/A 68 SUSPICION 54 ELECTRICIAN PCSS!BLY
!!I F-EECTRIC?L 69 SLSPICICN 8
PIPE FITTER POSSIBLY I:: A, B, C
. 73 ARREST /CN SITE 19 EEC*RICIAN YES III F-E.ECTRICAL l.
71 POSSESSICN 6
ELECTRICIAN PCSSIBLY
!!! F-ELECTRICAL 72 POSSESSION 32 IRON WCRKER POSSIBLY II! E-C:VIL k-C ER 73 POSITIVE TEST 27 CP&L NCN-INSPECTOR NO N/A 74 SUSPICIGN 12 PAINTER POSSISLY III E-CIVIL 75 SLSPICION 6
INSTRUMENT NO N/A
-EL;ER 76 REFUSED TEET/ SEARCH 21 TRUCK DRIVER NO N/A l
77 REFUSED TEST / SEARCH 21 CP&L NCN-INSPECTOR h0 N/A 78 ARREST /CFF SITE -
26 PIPE FITTER NO N/A
- E.PER 79 POSITIVE TEST 27 INSFECTCR YES VI C
- 88 SUSPICION 36 ELECTRIC:AN PCSSIBLY III F ~LEC'RICAL 81 PCSSESSICN 14 ELECTRICIAN PCSSIBLY III F-EECTR! CAL
.82 REPJSED TEST / SEARCH 32 INSEECTOR YES VI C 63 PCSSESSICN 13 ELECTRICIAN PCSSIBLY III F-ELEC RICAL FCRE??.
84
. S;. SPIC CN 5
GTFER YES VI D 85 ARREST /CN SITE 14 ELECTRICIAN L%IXELY III F-ELECTRICAL 86 PGSITIVE TEST 61 C?tL NCN-INS;ECTCR NO N/A 87 SUSPICION 73 RESAR PCSSIBLY
!!! E-CIV;L FCFE'A1 88 PCSSESSION 5
UTILITY UNLIXEY
!!! E-CIVIL
- 89 SUSPICICN 6
ELECTRICIAN PCSSliLY II: F 4 ECTRICAL 94 SUSPICION 9
OTHER NO N/A 31 POSSESSIGN 32 IRON WORKER PCSSIBLY III E-CIVIL
.E0ER 92 FCSSESSIGN 4
CARPENTER NO N/A
_PER 93 SUSPICICN 8
OTHER YES VI D 94 HEFUSED TEST / SEARCH 10 INSPECTOR PCSSIBLY VI B 95 POSSESSION 18 PIPE FITTER POSSIBLY
!!!A,B,C FCRE?AN l.
SUSPIC:CN 6
GTHER YES VI D i
'57-ARREST /CFF SITE 43 '
DANIEL OVERHEAD NO N/A 98 SLS?!C!CN 9
INSPEC'OR YES VI C 99 REPJSED TEST / SEARCH 16 INSEECTCR YES VI A 126 ESPICION 4
UTILITY UNLIXELY
!!! E-C!VIL 181 SLSPIC:CN 16 ELECTRICIAN POSSIBLY II! F-ELECTRICAL F3E?fN 182 PCSSESSION 27 S E T METAL POSSIBLY
!!! D-6AC LE.CER 183 REFUSED TEST /SEATG 28 IhSTRU?ENT PCSSIBLY III B-:NSTRL?ENTATICN 134 POSITIVE TEST 6
INSEEC'CR YES VI A 23-Oct-85 2 '
L._
=.
C, ART !!-1
- A B
C D
E F
3 BASIS DPLOYMENT GLALITY INDIV.
DEG DURATICN JC3 SAFETY ER4 CCN ! PAT:3 CNEVE REF.NO.
INVCLVEPENT (MCNTFS)
CLASSIFICATI3 PERFCDED BASIS 125 SUSP:CICN 21 GTF.ER YES VI D 186 SUSPICION' T9 DSPECTOR PCSSIBLY VI C
. 137 SUSPICIQ1 37 INSTRUMENT PCSSIBLY III B-IhSTRUNEN~AT!3 GEERA. GP4 138 SUSPICION 5
EECTRICIAN POSSIBLY
!!I F-EECTRICAL
' !$9 ARREST /CN SITE 6
ELEC RIC!AN h0 N/A rEGER
!!8
. REFUSED TEST / SEA D E8 INSTRUMENT W)
N/A WE;ER 111 SUSPICION 2
PIPE FITTER PCSS!BLY III A,9,C 112 1EFESED TEST / SEARCH 4
~ UTILITY DLIXELY II: E-C V:'.
113 PCSSESSICN 114 SUSPIC:CN 7
CANIEL CVERFEAD NO N/A 7
EEC'R:CIAN
? CSS!3LY II F-E.ECTRICA.,
115 SLSPICICN 22 INSTRUMENT NO N/A
-EJER-11S POSSESSIGN 1
UTILITY UNLIKELY
!!! E-C:VL 117 ARREST /0N S:TE 5
PIPE FITTER DLIKELY
!!! A,B,C
!!8 ARREST /GN SITE 8
EECTRICIAN UNLIKEY III F-ELECTRICAL 119 SUSPICICN 17 DiiER YES VI D 128 SLSPICICN 24~
DANIEL DVERuEAD NO N/A 121 POSSESSICN 31 CAR; ENTER UNLIKELY
!!! E-CIV!L 122 PCSSESSICN 13 SFEET S TAL NO N/A
.E.,CER 123 REFUSED TEST / SEA D 38 PIPE FITTER L'.NLIMELY III A,B,C
-E?ER 124 PCSSESSICN 6
ELECTRICIAN NO N/A
-E.;ER 125 SUSPICION-5 ELECTRICIAN NO N/A FEPER
~125-ARREST /CN SITE 29 EECTR:CIAN U.NLIKEY III F-ELECTH:CPr.
127 SLSPICIQt 93 IRCN WCRKER PCSSIBLY III E-CIV!L F3 PAN 128 PCSSESSIGN 3
D O IEL CVE.'vEAD NO N/A 129 REFLSED TEST / SEARCH 59 DANIE OVERFEAD NO N/A 138 SUSPICION 53 PAIN'ER "NLIKELY III E-CIVIL CRP4 131 SCSPICICN 75 ELECTRICIAN PCSSIBLY-III F-EECTRIC;.
132 SUSPICICN 29 EECTRICIAN PCSS:BLY III F-E.ICTR! CAL
.133 -
POSSESSI3 37 PAINTER PCSSIBLY II: E-C V:L 134
- CSSESS!3 19 I D WCRMER YES III E-C
- VIL
-E.:Ei 135 ARREST /CN SITE
-ELECTRICIAN YES III F :LECTRIC?L 136
.PCSSESS!CN 7
3I?E FITTER DCSSISLY II: A,B,C 137 SLSPICICN 27 UTILITY UNLIKELY III E-C:VIL
.138-SUSPICION 57 PIPE FITTER
?CSSIBLY
!!! 3,B,C 139.
PCSSESSICN 45 PIPE FITTER POSSIBLY II: A, B, C 148 POSSESSICN 6
P!;E FITTER
- CSSIBLY
!!! 4,5,C
.141 PCSSESSICN 12 ELECTRICIAN PCSSIBLY
!!! F-ELECTRICAL
- C;P;N 142 DCSSESSICN 5
ELECTRIC:AN POSS:iLY III F : ECTRICat '
- FP;N 143 POSSESSION 57 ELECTRICIAN PCSS!!LY III F-EECTRICAL 144 REFUSED TEST / SEA O 59 EECTRICIAN PCSSIBLY
!!! F-EECTR:C%.
145' REFl.3ED TEST / SEA D 14 ELECTRICIAN POSS!BLY
!!! F-ELECTRICAL 146 REFUSED TEST / SEARCH 9
EECTR:CIAN NO N/A NIJER l'
147 POSITIVE TEST 12 FIELD ENSINEER PCSSIBLY III E-CIVII
!'.STt?ENT?AN I
l 148 REFUSED TEST / SEARCH 16 ELECTRICIAN POSSIBLY III F-ELECTRICAL i
149 REFLSED TEST / SEA D 1
SHEET E TAL NO N/A FEJER i
158 REFUSED TEST / SEARCH 32 E.ECTRICIAN POSSISLY III F-E.ECTRICAL 151 REFUSED TEST / SEARCH 18 IsST D ENT PCSSIBLY
!II B-NSTRU'ENTAT!CN
.152-REFUSED TEST / SEA Q :
3 INSTRUMNT PCSSIELY
!!I B-!NST U ENTAT:CN WE.CEi 153 RE:USED TEST / SEA D 3
INSTRu?ENT
? CSS:BLY
!!! 2-IAST U ENTAT:C:
154 E:LSED TEST /SEAO 34 E.ECTRICIAN 3 CSS:3LY III :-E.ECTRICAL 155 LPCSSESSICN 27 INS;ECTOR YES VI B 156
'R~ LSED TEST / SEA D 16 E.ECTRICIAN 2 CSS!B y III :-E.ECTRICA.
23-Cet-85 3 ;
l
~- l
a CHART II-I l.
A~
B C
D E
F 3
L BASIS E.R OYMENT GLALITy DDIV.
DRUG DURATICN JCB SAFETY WCM CCNFIPATION C:y s 3 RE:.NO.
INVOLVEMENT L'CNTrS)
CLASSIFICATICN PERFCRMED BASIS e
157 REFLSD TEST / SEARCH 21 CAN:EL GVEE{AD NO N/A 158 POS!iIVE TS T 21 DM:EL CVEI,EAD NC N/A l
159 REFUSED TEST / SEARCH 23 INSPECTOR NO N/A 164 REFJSED TEST / SEARCH '
44 DSPECTOR PCSSIBLY VI C 161 REFUSED TEST / SEARCH 6
PIPE FITTER POSSIBLY III A,B,C 162 REFUSED TET/ SEARCH 12 SV.ET META.
PCSSIBLY III D-hVAC 163 StSPICICN 5
OThER NO N/A 164 PCSSESSION 17 PIPE F:TTER 3 CSS BLY
- A,B,C IE5 SLEPICION 29 CTi-ER s3 N/A lC'.?E: ;E! EiER 155 PiREST/CF: SITE 6
DANIEL CVEacEAD
.2 N/A 157 SLSP!CICN S
DS;ECTOR YES VI C ISa SLSPICICN 3
DANIEL OVER.-IAD NO N/A 2 0::,3 DETR.; ;;
169 SLSPICICN 14 P!;E FITTER POSSIBLY III A,B,C 173
?CSSESICN 18 ELECTRICIAN NO N/A
-~L3ER 171-SLSP:CICN 31 PI;f FITTER POSSIBLY III A,B,C 3D ERAL :C;EJ A 172 SLSPICION 27 CP&L NON-INSPEC*CR NO N/A 173 PCSSESSICN 1
IRON 6CRKER NO N/A.
rEJER 174 POSITIVE TEST 32 INS?ECTOR YES VI C 175..
SLSPICICN 14 OTHER YES VI D 176 REFJSED TEST / SEARCH-34 CARPENTER UNLINELY-III E-CIVIL 177 SLSPICICN 3
INSPECTOR YES VI C
'178 POSSESSION 18 DANIEL OVEE4AD NO N/A j
179 REFLSED TEST / SEARCH 16 ELECTRICIAN PCSSIBLY III F-E ECTRICAL 123 SUSPIC CN 3
ELECTRIC:AN NO ^
N/A rEJEt 101-SLSPICICH 33 ELECTRICIAN PCSSIBLY III F-ELECTR! CAL FCiE?AN
-182 -
POSSESSION 29 IRCN WORKER YES III E-C~VIL
.E :ER 183 PCSSESSION 29 UTILITY LNLINELY III E-CIVIL
!$4
.SLSPICION 7
OTHER NO N/A I
185
~REFbSED TEST / SEARCH 5
IRCN WORKER PCSSIBLY III'E-C:VIL
,EGER l
156 PCSSESSION 24 EEC*RIC:AN PCSSIBLY I!! F-EJC*RI"A;.
137 POSSESIGN 3
UTILITY LN.!KELY III E-CIV!L l
188 REFLSD TEST / SEARCH 33 PIPE FITTER PCSSIBLY III A,B,C i
189 PCSSESSION 1
ELECTRICIAN.
NC N/A
' E'JER j
190 _
PCSSESSICN 1
IRON WCRKER POSSIBLY.
III E-CIVIL
'nELDER 191 FOSSESSIGN 29 SFEET METAL PCSSIBLP III D-uVAC 192 POSITIVE TEST 18 IRCN WCHKER 3CSSIBLY III E-CIV:.
I
- 193 PCSITIVE TEST 24 INSPECTOR POSSIBLY
. VI B 194 REPJSED TEST / SEARCH 6
INSPECTOR PCSSIBLY VI B l
195 -
REFUSED TEST / SEARCH 4
UTILITY 1A1.IKELY III E-C:VIL 1%
POSSES $10N-1 ELECTRICIAN NO N/A
-ELPER l
197 POSITIVE TEST 7
ELECTRICIAN PCSSIBLY III F-ELECTRICAL 198 POSITIVE TEST DANIEL OVERHEAD W
N/A RECGES C.ER 199 REFLSED TEST / SEARCH 10 DANIEL OVERHEAD NO N/A RECGES CLEM 200 REFUSED TEST / SEARCH 10 DANIEL OVEI4AD NO N/A REC: E S C;E E 291 POSSESSION 28 UTILITY 1'.LINELY III E-C:V:L N
202 SUSPICION 27 BSTRU.*ENT PCSSIBLY
!!I 5-BSTRLPENTAT:CN 293 PCSSESSICN 1
UTIL!iY NO N/A l
294' PCSSESSION 6
SrEET PETAL YES III D 235 SLSPICICN 7
ELECTRICIAN PCSS:BLY I:I :-E ECTRICPL 286 -
?OSITIVE TEST 1
UTILITY NO N/A EJ7 REFLSED TEST /SEAct 36 EOLIP O T CPERATCR NO N/A l
238 ARREST /CFF SITE 11 INSEECTCR YES VI C 23-Oct-85 4 l
q b
e.;.M fi.4*? .?
s 6.
a g
e
.J 3
.! a ?. ? e t.w r.) wr."l.
veo..r*v e
- 4.*
k.....
asa
?. L P, **/.
9 "". eaJ
- N ' $ *l..a.4
,3
- g*;.r l,;.g pe ur..w e,
- f. ],
.... u.r..,:..
- s
=
.wo n...?
e w.c a s..e t i-s..
.?.*.*-
?'.r fl,t 'f..urt*
( u..".u. *l a;.*I N.$ O * *l. ed *t. n.
rr
- a
. r 7 7/
- u..r.i.
21:*e p
%at
.n o
n...
-.....................................................,............ =
..4
- r.r *c "*
- s.*c *t;d er t aau.
- lc ;r.e r/#
r*
.l.?
^^
^*
n hv.
.o s.
e.
a s.e e
... v e s e
e htr),s2 1.e....A.pd.
6.3 3,s
.g og
..y,..
.see....
...d..,
. l!.'.; hu 4.
Iait ris.ti f)ss19L!
sie 0,v
.t.r.*;w..*3. *1.re *i p vC"ADou.
a, fc ft
.-)..
6Ies 6 av.u..r"?
vec a'.i t r te t *ti 3.fl efCt'a*.fdt i. g*3 4. 6l aw.
- 6
.de
.i s it.
s 6
s nw 6
..t.a
- 3:
- r ?q ?.a. 6*
J ri re*T* * *
- A' y llA t' / m Jr! tr.a
- 4. A
's.
s.
.t
.h.w u ;.a w A s
.t
..a h
T.,a,,,p-=g)LibrL EL)y 4
9.,
v..
p y
.s Lpe a.e er n eL3 ss a suf LU l G3 see 3.?,e
';t".e.r.t 'i s. 4 f.o.r a. e.g 6.
ra*
r
^m
- 4 i 4v..s4Tra 3
t. c,e ** 1 Y
.f.f ?4 L.C.r /.*I
. r.
s...
.. rs v,.e
- re. *..i t
- A r ag 397; ?.? !
ubq '..t.".: <. \\
- .s L....
- J e...
v e t.
6..
.A
- ' r..* ' "/..
=a
....r * : 4 n eu..r..u...?.;;..r;..
?. er *:,,
.ner-
- '"t. t 2
ens...
s.
? ".* r ? -*.
- ee* f e..a t ?r.t.1
- r =*t**a afes**e...
.r t
- w u...
.*e nu
.. l. s.. i.
no..e
,s
......e
.e,.
. -.. s y'i n
.t.
...fL i).
..I, t rw.
6.,
/* i.
? * *
- l.1. 4 *. * /..i 9
e..,n.' 4.y. r. g.a.?... f r.
.ul.
4'
..t*.
s * = t *- **
o..
r.'. S.t. a *i..,u.
a 1 *-
.*:z.e4' u
.y Ah Aat ti
.d.
to-a 9*
e ea L L.:c i.a* * * * *. - * * -
- e. *..*"e..e. ?..*..
L,.u.Lw. r. igm. v te..aatx
- t s/ *. r
.. r. c*pa ar.n.....,
7**
.a t * * ; r a 4. ?..*. 4.4 a 3.p e.y I At.o,.rr 1* 7
.ees......,.7 ve.
n
- s. ? * *: t g*! 1 "I t.
e 'st s 3 L yd.4..?.tir a un e/'.7
- ?.
+3 e
. c.. a. t.- *.
i
=
a,.
nr.
- .c-*.-
1e sw u',m l
l l
l
-I,
r
..e e..y..
y-
+
7
--Mt
n
.s.
i Chart II-2 Breakdown by Job Classifications CP&L Employees not Working as Inspectors 11 Daniel Overhead and Clerical 19
-Daniel Craft Carpenter 5
Electrician 57 Utility 18 Pipe Fitter 23 Field Engineer 2
Iron Worker 11 Painter 6
Instrument 12 Truck Driver 3
Rebar 1
Sheet Metal 6
Concrete Finisher 1
Equipment Operator 1
Subtotal 146 146 Inspectors CP&L 5
- Technical Service Division 8
Daniel 14 Subtotal 27 27 Other Contract Employees 15 Total 218 l
l l
- Technical Service Division is a division of Daniel International, 7
t ___
Chart II-3.
' Job Classification by Reason for Termination 1
2 3
4 5
6 Total CP&L Non-Inspectors 5
2 0
4 0
0 11 Other~ Contract Employees 0
0 2
13 0
0 15' Daniel overhead 2
5 3
6 3
0 19 Craft Carpenter 0
2 2
1 0
0 5
Electrician 1
8 17 2 ?.
0 7
57 Utility 1
3 11 2
1 0
18 Pipe. Fitter 0
4 7
10 1
1 23 Field Engineer 1
0 1
0 0
0 2
Iron Worker 1
1 6
3 0
0 11 Painter 0
1 2
3 0
0 6
Instrument 1
7 0
4 0
0 12 Truck Driver 0
3 0
0 0
0 3
Rebar 0
0 0
1 0
0 1
Sheet Metal 0
2 3
0 0
0.
6 Concrete Finisher 0
0' 1
'O O
O 1
Equipment Operator 0
1 0
0 0
0 1
Inspectors CP&L.
4 1
0 0-0 0
5 Technical Service Division 2 3
0
~3 0
0 8
Daniel 4
5 1
3 1
0 14 Total 22 48 57*
77 6
8 218 l
Reason for Termination 1 - Positive Test Results 2 - Refused Test / Search 3 - Possession 4 - Suspicion 5 - Arrest for Off-Site Activity
[
6 - Arrest for On-Site Activity i
l
- ' Thirteen individuals of this number were established as using drugs on site.
i t
I r
l l l i.
.. ~
r Section III DESCRIPTIONS OF SAFETY-RELATED PLANT COMPONENT INSPECTION PROGRAMS This section provides a description of the inspection programs which cover safety-related plant components. The inspection programs discussed include pipe hanger; instrumentation erection; pipe welding; HVAC installation; civil; electrical; and safety-related and seismic Category I equipment installation.
Included is a discussion of the nonconformance cor. trol program that is implemented in all of safety-related inspection programs as described.
Each of these inspection progrt u is subject to audits and related inspection efforts to ensure compliance with specifications and procedures. Certified inspection personnel are frequently updated on changes to applicable procedures through training classes and programs. Certified inspectors are subject to monthly, audits by supervisors to ensure that overall performance is_ satisfactory.
In addition to the formal inspection program, system walkdowns jointly by Construction, Start-Up and QA personnel prior to turnover for start-up testing verify that the system and components have not bee inadvertently damaged or altered since the final inspection.
The start-up testing program itself provides assurance and verification that completed systems and components perform in accordance with design criteria and regulatory commitments.
Various organizations, both internal and external, audit or evaluate both the construction and inspection process. Periodic reviews are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors and Region II Inspectors.
In addition, there are evaluations, audits, and l
surveillances by such groups as CP&L Corporate QA and on-site QA, INPO, and NRC-CAT. The Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI) performs periodic audits to ensure applicable pipe erection work is being performed and inspected in accordance with the ASME Code. These audits provide an overview of work in progress and a review of documentation for compliance with de, sign and procedural requirements.
l i i
6 A
PIPE HANGER INSPECTION PROGRAM
- The quality program for pipe hanger erection and inspection is a multi-faceted program which involves engineering, craft, quality inspection, and document review personnel. Pipe hanger engineering personnel have the responsibility for reviewing design drawings and developing a pipe hanger package in accordance with site work procedures for each pipe hanger to-be erected. A hanger engineer is
. assigned to the daily activities. required to build the hanger, to obtain acceptable inspections, and to resolve any problems following
- fit-up and before final welding.
A welding engineer assigns welding procedures and-hold points in. a weld ' data report in accordance with site work procedures. - QC then performs a welding review of the weld data report for accuracy and assigns additional holdpoints as needed. When a. complete pipe hanger package has been developed and released to craft personnel for erection, the craft superintendent and. foreman lay out the work and provide specific direction to'the support craft for material and erection requirements. These requirements are specified in site work procedures. When a hanger is erected, the foreman and crew review the hanger to ensure that it is built to design specifications. At.this time, the welding engineer will perform a preliminary weld inspection in accordance with site work and welding procedures.
After this review, the package is returned to the engineer for concurrence. When the pipe hanger is determined to be ready for inspection, a site-certified inspector assembles the required information and performs an in-depth inspection which covers approximate;y fifty attributes. Welding attributes such as type,
-size,. profile and porosity are inspected by certified QC welding inspectors. Attributes such as dimensions, geometry, location, bolted connections and material identification are. inspected by CI h
inspectors certified for such inspections. When any rejections found by QC/CI inspection have been corrected and accepted, the QC-welding final inspection is performed in accordance with corporate and site procedures.. If the attributes meet the design document requirements and.the acceptance criteria, the package is signed off as complete and returned to the hanger engineer'for review.
Documents containing design information, as-built data, process l
l control data, and inspection and testing data, as required by
. procedures applicable to the completed work item, are assembled and i.
. reviewed by qualified personnel. The review ensures that the
~ documentation is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with
'QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the l-
. review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is submitted to QA.
~ Large frames and whip restraints are handled in a similar manner.
' 3 e
p n-m r
e
~.v v
w-3 y
N-
,~,e w,....
,-,e
,n~+--,w
,ee-+,mem- - -,.
.-v
--,---,--w-,-
co The following typifies the quality attributes for installation of pipe hangers that are verified by quality inspectors to be in accordance with the applicable drawing, specification or procedure.
.1.
Identification of items 2.
Location / elevation 3.
Dimensions of steel plates and shapes 4.
Struts / snubbers a.
Pin to pin dimensions b.
Washers at load pins.
c.
Grade of load pins d.
Gap at load pins e.
Sight hole engagement f.
Alignment g.
Cotter pins and clips 5.
Geometry of parts 6.
Pipe clearances and shims a.
Clearance around pipe b.
Shim alignment and contact 7.
Fasteners a.
ASTM symbols / site markings b.
Tightness / torquing c.
Edge distance 8.
Steel Attachments a.
Member to member identification b.
Attaching tolerance c.
Threaded stud engagement d.
Member overlap 9.
Physical Integrity a.
Damage to items b.
Cleanliness c.
Removal of temporary steel d.
Potential interference 10.
Welded Connections a.
Fit-up b.
Pre-heat c.
Type, size and configuration d.
Discontinuities 4
i h.-_--, - _
9 B - INSTRUMENTATION ERECTION INSPECTION PROGRAM Construction instrumentation engineers develop work packages in accordance with site work procedures and ensure that the work package contains the design criteria necessary for the installation of tubing, hangers, instruments, and components needed to meet ASME code requirements. Engineering personnel route the work package to welding engineering, the QC document review group and the Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI) for initial review and then ensure that necessary inspection holdpoints and required signatures are on appropriate documents in the work package.
Construction personnel requisition the necessary materials for the installation and issue the material to the craft organization for installation. Craft personnel locate the area where the material is to be installed, prepare the material for welding, fit the material together, weld the material, and request QC inspection when required inspection hold points are reached. Craft personnel proceed with installation when inspection hold points are signed off by QC.
The QC inspection group performs the required inspections in accordance with site technical procedures and identifies problems and potential problems to appropriate individuals for resolution.
. Inspections include pre-fit, fit up, pre-heat, material verification, welded and mechanical joints, location, configuration, identification, physical damage, nondestructive examinations (when required), and review of documentation to ensure acceptance' signatures from welding engineering, QC and the ANI.
Documents containing design information, as-built data, process control data, and inspection and testing data, as required by procedures applicable to the completed work item, are assembled and reviewed by qualified personnel. The review ensures that the documentation is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is submitted to QA.
The following typifies the quality attributes for installation of instrumentation that are verified by quality inspectors to be in accordance with the applicable drawings, specification or procedure.
1.
Instrument and Components Inspection a.
Identification of items b.
Mounting details c.
Torquing of fasteners d.
Damage to items l 1
~.
n
. 2.
Lines and Tubing Inspection a.
Identification of items b.
Routing and slope i
c.- ' Origin and destination
. d.
Thermal expansion / process movement legs e.
Damage to. items
. 3.
Flanged Connection Inspection a.
Identification of items b.
Mating surface condition c.
Gasket rating, size, type and condition d.
Bolting material size and type e.
Orientation and flow direction.
' f.
Flanges aligned, parallel and clearance g.
Fasteners torquing and torque sequence.
h.
Damage to items 4.
Threaded Connection Inspection a.
Identification of items b.
Condition of threads
' c.
Thread removal,(seal welded) l
. d.
Damage to items i
l-5.
Supports Inspection
~
a.
Identification of items b.
Location c.
Configuration d.
-Sizes and dimensions l
e.
Plumbnesc/ levelness C
f.
Damage to items l
l 6.
Tube Track Inspection l:
~ Identification of items
- a.
b.
Torquing of fasteners c.
Spacing between attachments-d.
Damage to items 7.
Tube Welding a.
Identification of items b.~
Joint configuration
~ '
c.
Scribe marks (socket welds) i d.
Root opening (butt welds) i e.
Purge checks f.
. Welder symbols.and field weld numbers i
g.
Weld size, configuration, defects and suitability"for nondestructive examination
- h.
-Damage to items i
i-.
l r
,.r
.r m.
.m.,.3,
,c.--
e,--..u_.
l C - PIPE WELDING INSPECTION PROGRAM l
Mechanical engineering personnel are responsible for preparing the piping installation work package and incorporating the design requirements for material. The' package is forwarded to welding engineering to assign site welding procedures and appropriate hold points. The package is then forwarded for the QC initial review group to verify that applicable design requirements have been incorporated and to assign any additional hold points necessary for inspection verification.
As specified by procedure, certain items are sent to the Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI) for review of completeness and accuracy and for assignment of hold points for verification.
At this time, the package is forwarded to craft personnel as outlined in the work package. Craft supervisory and field personnel review the work to ensure that no interference problems exist.
Craft personnel prepare items for installation by cleaning, marking, scribing, bevelling, etc., as required and notify the QC inspector for verification prior to fit-up.
Following pre-fit verification and acceptance, craft personnel perform fit-up and notify QC for inspection as required by design and applicable codes for the particular item. The QC inspector verifies material type and inspection points, such as verification that an item is adequately supported or that mating surfaces are free of damage. Visual inspections of interim and completed welds are performed to ensure that welds comply with applicable codes.
If required by ASME ccde or site procedure, preheat and post-weld heat treatment is performed and documented by QC inspection personnel.
If required by code, the inspector requests that applicable nondestructive examinations be performed.
In addition, QC inspectors observe and document the torquing of bolts in a mechanical connection.
Documents containing design information, as-built data, process control data, and inspection and testing data, as required by procedures applicable to the completed work item, are assembled and reviewed by qualified personnel. The review ensures that the documentation is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is submitted to QA.
A walkdown inspection by craft supervisory and field personnel is performed after work completion to check the system and components for damage that may have inadvertently occurred since final QC acceptance. Discrepancies are repaired in accordance with site procedures and documented by QC inspection personnel.
A system hydrostatic test is performed to ensure that there are no weld or connection leaks. QC personnel are present during testing, and, if required by procedure, ANI personnel are also present.
o-i The following typifies the quality attributes associated with I
pipe welding (code system) that are verified by quality inspectors l
to be in accordance with the applicable drawing, specification or procedure.
1.
Pre-fit Inspection l
a.
Cleanliness b.
Scribe marks (socket welds)
_. c.
Material markings; correct parts are being joined d.
Material acceptability and traceability; heat numbers 7
2.
Fit-Up Inspection a.
Material markings and correct parts are being joined b.
Heat number on item and on documentation c.
Joint configuration d.
Correct withdrawal (socket welds) e.
Tack welds are prepped; no cracks or discontinuities f.
Application of weld number and welder symbol on the iten g..
Purging of oxygen h.
Prehearing 1.
Number and revision of welding procedure specification j.-
ANI hold points have been satisfied k.
Filler material per the Weld Data Report 3.
Final Visual Inspection a.
. Application of weld number and welder symbol on the item b.
Weld size and reinforcement c.
Weld free of rejectable discontinuities d.
Weld suitable for the required nondestructive examination e.
Preparation for the required post weld head treatment (PWHT); monitor the PWHT cycle for correct application; and review completed PWHT records to verify correct application was achieved i ~-
D - HVAC INSTALLATION INSPECTION PROGRAM
. Engineering personnel review design documents, such as design drawings, specifications, fabrication and erection drawings, and design changes prior to compiling the work package which the craft personnel use to install components. Engineering also initiates special reports which are required for seismic welding. The mandatory hold points (e.g., fit-up inspection for full penetration welds and final inspection for seismic welds) are specified by engineering.
The work package documentatfon is submitted to the quality control reviewer who checks for technical data and verifies that
- mandatory hold points have been entered. At this time, any additional hold points, if necessary, are added in accordance with site procedures.
The craft foreman receives the installation package and assigns the work to the appropriate craft. The craft fabricates and/or installs the components in accordance with the drawings and instructions in the package.
If problems with the fabrication and/or installation occur, engineering is consulted and a resolution of the problem is developed. When inspection hold points occur, the craft may not proceed until a satisfactory inspection has been made by QC and the appropriate inspection report filed.
Inspection hold points include material identification, physical integrity, alignment, correct bolting material, configuration, weld joint fit-up, and final weld. The attributes inspected cover the mechanical and welding work performed by the craft in accordance with approved site procedures.
,e i
Documents containing design information, as-built data, process control data, and inspection and testing data, as required.by procedures applicable to the completed work item, are assembled and reviewed by qualified personnel. The review ensures that the documentation is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is submitted.to QA.
The following typifies the quality attributes for the installation of HVAC duct and supports that are verified by quality inspectors to be in accordance with the applicable drawing, specification or procedure.
1.
HVAC Duct Inspection ~
a.
Material types and sizes b.
Bolting: bent or skewed; spacing: thread engagement; tightened i
i 1 _
c.
Flanges alignment; gaskets installed d.
Duct components identified by piece number e.
Configuration and orientation f.
Tie-ins, cross-ties, stringers and reinforcements installed per drawings g.
Damage to duct and components h.
Welded joints 2.
HVAC Supports Inspection a.
Support material size and thickness b.
Support orientation, configuration, location and elevation Support attachments per design; thread engagement; minimum c.
weld distance d.
Support plumbness/ skewness Bolted connection material size, grade and tightness e.
f.
Damage to support g.
Clearance between support and piping h.
Welded connections 1
( I-l-
A y
--gr--
=-
~W
-p'
-*M-M
0 E - CIVIL INSPECTION PROGRAMS For the civil discipline, the Harris Plant Engineering Section (HPES) has responsibility for providing design specifications and establishing quality attributes. These items are coordinated through the architect-engineer and are the basis for site work procedures developed by construction engineering personnel.
Construction engineering interfaces with HPES.to resolve field problems associated with construction. Design engineering personnel review procedures for compliance with applicable Corporate QA program requirements prior to issuance of these procedures for work activities.
Quality control organizations perform quality attribute inspections in accordance with site quality control procedures and CI technical procedures which are based on design requirements, industry standards, and regulatory guidelines. Specific inspection programs for the civil discipline are discussed below.
E-1 Excavation and Backfill Placement Inspection Program Craft supervision are required by work procedure to coordinate excavation and backfill of seismic Category I areas with construction inspection personnel. CI inspection personnel visually inspect the area and prepare a report which gives approval for work to continue in the work area. Typical inspection points include excavation, subgrade condition (if approved for backfill), moisture content of fill material, placement lift thickness, density and moisture content as placed, and compaction method. These inspection points are monitored during the backfill placement for compliance with design guidelines and technical procedures. If a field inspection test indicates an out-of-specification condition, backfill is suspended in this area un;il the area is reworked and the nonconforming condition is evaluated by construction and/or design engineering. Daily field inspection reports are prepared for the work areas.
Documents containing design information, process control data, and inspection and testing data, as required by procedures applicable to the completed work item, are assembled and reviewed by qualified personnel. The review ensures that the documentation is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is submitted to QA.
The following typifies the quality attributes for excavation and backfill placement that are verified by quality inspectors to be in accordance with the applicable drawing, specification or procedure.
1.
Pre-Placement Inspection a.
Borrow source soil quality (visual and lab testing) b.
Receiving area preparation (clean, dry and firm subgrade) 2.
Placement Inspection a.
Soil type (from borrow source) b.
Moisture of borrow material c.
Placement fill layer thickness d.
In process compaction monitoring e.
In place density testing E-2 Structural Steel Installation Inspection Program Inspection requirements for structural steel installation are defined in site technical procedures. These procedures are reviewed by QA engineers for compliance to codes and design specifications prior to issuance. Craft ironworkers erect and bolt-up structural steel and install miscellaneous structural steel according to design specifications and site work procedures which are based on design specifications. CI performs work inspections according to site technical procedures, design specifications, and drawings. The inspections include review of structural supports erection (fit-up),
alignment, mating surface condition, torquing of bolt and materials, and miscellaneous structural steel installations.
In addition, CI verifies that bolting and structural steel materials are suitable according to design specifications and drawings.
QC inspects structural steel welded joints.
Inspections include fit-up and preheat (where required by specifications) and visual examination of completed welds.
Documents containing design information, as-built data, process control data, and inspection and testing data, as required by procedures applicable to the completed work item, are assembled and reviewed by qualified personnel. The review ensures that the documentation is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is submitted to QA.
The following typifies the quality attributes for installation of structural steel that are verified by quality inspectors to be in accordance with the applicable drawing, specification or procedure.
1.
Pre-Installation Inspection a.
Support anchor bolt damage b.
Cleanliness of base plate surfaces 2.
Fit-Up Inspection a.
Identification and location of members b.
Bolt hole diameter and edge distance c.
Mating surfaces condition d.
Damage 3.
Bolting Inspection a.
Unfair / oversize holes b.
Redrilling of plug welded holes c.
Hole edge distance d.
Mating surface gaps e.
Bolt type, diameter and length f.
Bolting configuration g.
Reuse of bolts h.
Bolt tension 4.
Welded Connections a.
Fit-up b.
Pre-heat c.
Size and type d.
Configuration e.
Discontinuities E-3 Reinforcing Steel and Embedded Items Installation Inspection Program Rebar craft perform the installation of reinforcing steel in accordance with the design specification for this material. Rebar work activities are delineated in site work procedures. CI performs inspections of work done in accordance with appropriate technical l
procedures. CI inspectors and field engineers independently verify l
rebar quantity, type, size, length, projection, lap splices, l
location and cover. Each bar is also checked for placement within specified tolerance, cleanliness, freedom from corrosion, cracks, l
dents, cut or burned areas, arc strikes and gouges.
Inspections of embedded plates, penetrations and anchor bolts are performed by CI inspectors in accordance with site technical procedures for these 4 !
items. CI checks these items for location, size, type and material.
CI prepares reports to document that field verification itens are installed in accordance with applicable site technical procedures and design drawings.
Documents containing design information, as-built data, process control data, and inspection and testing data, as required by procedures applicable to the completed work item, are assembled and reviewed by qualified personnel. The review ensures that the documentation is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is submitted to QA.
The following typifies the quality attributes for installation of reinforcing steel and embedded items that are verified by quality inspectors to be in accordance with the applicable drawing, specification or procedure.
1.
Reinforcing Steel Inspection a.
Quantity b.
Type (bar mark and manufacturer) c.
Size (diameter) d.
Length (compare to bar bending schedule) e.
Projection (from existing concrete) f.
Lap splices (lap length) g.
Location (within tolerance) h.
Concrete cover (for fire protection) 1.
Clearance J.
Support i
k.
Anchorage 1.
Cadwelds (paint to show previous acceptance) m.
Cordition (cracks, dents, corrosion, cut or burned areas, are strikes, gouges) 2.
Embedded Items Inspection a.
Type b.
Material l
c.
Dimensions d.
Location l
l l
E-4 Concrete Masonry Wall Construction Inspection Program l
l Bricklayer craft perform the installation of concrete masonry walls in accordance with design specifications and work activities as outlined in site work procedures. Using design specifications, site technical procedures are developed by CI and work procedures are developed by construction engineering.
CI performs inspections l
l.
.O D
in accordance with site technical procedures. CI is responsible for inspecting each Type II seismic hollow core block wall; Type II non-seismic block wall; safety-related, solid, shielding block wall; and Type IV seismic, solid, shielding block wall. Each wall under construction is inspected periodically during daily construction.
Inspection checkpoints include contact surfaces, proper materials, wall reinforcement, proper cure, plumbness, and alignment. There are approximately twenty-seven quality attributes which are inspected for each wall.
Documents containing design information, as-built data, process control data, and inspection and testing data, as required by procedures applicable to the completed work item, are assembled and reviewed by qualified personnel. The review ensures that the documentation is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is submitted to QA.
The following typifies the quality attributes for construction of concrete masonry walls that are verified by quality inspectors to be in accordance with the applicable drawing, specification or procedure.
1.
Pre-Placement Inspection a.
Contact surfaces b.
Proper materials c.
Placement report signoff 2.
Placement Inspection (Start of Shift, mid shift, end of shift) a.
Ambient :emperature (above 40*F) b.
Mortar mixing (type, proportions and temperature) c.
Proper block type d.
Mortar joints e.
Mortar bedding f.
Mortar fill (type II only) g.
Block placement h.
Wall reinforcement i.
Hardware cloth (type III only) j.
Anchors k.
Ties 1.
Proper cure m.
Miscellaneous steel n.
Fireproofing l
o.
Structural steel 3.
Post-Placement Inspection a.
Cleanliness b.
Cure c.
Repairs
d.
Mortar fill e.
Partition height f.
Plumbness and alignment g.
Debris and equipment removal E-5 Cadwald Installation Inspection Program Ironworker craft personnel are trained in accordance with site procedures and are responsible for installing cadwelds for mechanical splicing of concrete reinforcing steel. Cadweld splicers are periodically reviewed by QC to verify their qualifications.
During the cadweld installation process, QC is responsible for monitoring splicer qualification status, monitoring prefabrication, visually inspecting splices, status marking, identifying splices and location, tensile testing, and performing technical reviews of cadweld documentation. For every splice, there are six primary cadweld splice checkpoints, including splicer identification, splice centering, and acceptable limits of voids.
In addition, a sample from each splicer's work is cut out and tensile tested to destruction.
Documents containing design information, as-built data, process control data, and inspection and testing data, as required by procedures applicable to the completed work item, are assembled and reviewed by qualified personnel. The review ensures that the documentation is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is submitted to QA.
The following typifies the quality attributes for cadweld splicing of reinforcing steel that are verified by quality inspectors to be in accordance with the applicable drawing, specification or procedure.
1.
Pre-Installation Monitoring a.
Sleeves free of loose rust, mill scale and other foreign i
material on inside diameter b.
Preheat of graphite molds c.
Preheat and power brushing of bar ends d.
Scribe marks for centering of sleeve e.
Alignment of mold to sleeve l
2.
Installation Inspection i
l a.
Splicer's symbol on sleeve b.
Sleeve centered on bar ends c.
Voids in filler material (both ends and tap hole) d.
Filler metal leakage l
o e.
Gap between bar ends f.
Slag or porosity in filler metal at tap hole E-6 Penetration Seals Installation Inspection Program Penetration installation craft personnel perform installation of penetration sealing materials in accordance with design specifications furnished by HPES and site work procedures prepared by construction personnel. CI performs inspections of in-process work and testing of seal materials, such as cleanliness and density, to ensure that the quality of construction meets or exceeds drawings, specifications, and procedures by visual observation and hands-on testing of seal material according to site technical procedures. There are three primary inspection hold points:
cleanliness, seal material installation, and final configuration of penetration filling. Inspection reports are prepared by CI and enclosed in the work package.
Documents containing design information, as-built data, process control data, and inspection and testing data, as required by procedures applicable to the completed work item, are assembled and reviewed by qualified personnel. The review ensures that the documentation is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is submitted to QA.
The following typifies the quality attributes for installation of penetration seals that are verified by quality inspectors to be in accordance with the applicable drawing, specification or procedure.
1.
Pre-Installation Inspection a.
Cleaning of seal depth b.
Cleanliness of boot seal materials c.
Measurement of seal depth and sealing of materials d.
Batching / blending of sealing material 2.
Installation Inspection a.
Application of sealing material (in-process) b.
Curing of sealing material c.
Final configuration and quality of the seal l
l
' l
E-7 Protective Coatings Application Inspection Program -
Service Level I Protective coating craft personnel complete surface preparation prior to coating application. After surface preparation is acceptable and the prime coating application is completed, the application cure time is checked before subsequent coating is applied. The coating craft is responsible for all coating preparation and application according to site specifications.
CI is responsible for surface preparation inspection and acceptance prior to coating application. The coating material mixing is also inspected and recorded by CI on inspection forms.
Prior to subsequent coating application or final acceptance, CI performs a dry film thickness check to ensure coatings were applied at the proper spread rate for steel surfaces.
In-process wet film readings are taken on concrete coatings during application. CI checks for visual defects prior to releasing the surface for subsequent application or for final acceptance and records information on an inspection report. Visual defects could include, such items as missed areas, run/ sags (heavy build-up), improper adhesion, or embedded particles which may have fallen into previously applied coatings.
CI verifies that the painter has met certification requirements prior to allowing application of approved coating material. Any violation of requirements during the in process coating activity is documented on the appropriate report by CI and is evaluated by the engineering group for resolution.
Documents containing design information, process control data, and inspection and testing data, as required by procedures applicable to the completed work item, are assembled and reviewed by qualified personnel. The review ensures that the documentation is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is j
submitted to QA.
The following typifies the quality attributes of protective coatings that are verified by quality inspectors to be in accordance l
with the applicable drawing, specification or procedure.
1.
Pre-Cleaning Inspection a.
Ambient conditions (air and surface temperatures) b.
Sand dry and r.ot contaminated l
l c.
Air quality (noisture or oil)
J l,
l l
l
O 2.
Post-Cleaning Inspection a.
Surface profile (steel) b.
Ambient conditions (air and surface temperatures) (steel and concrete) c.
Degree of cleanliness (concrete) 3.
Apolication Inspection a.
Mixing of materials (quantities, shelf life, pot life) b.
In process application c.
Ambient conditions d.
Wet / dry film thickness e.
Final quality attributes (runs, sags, contaminants, holidays, adhesion)
E-8 Safety-Related Expansion Anchor Installation Inspection Program Craft personnel, trained to site procedures, are responsible for installing wedge anchors for the securing of safety-related equipment and fixtures to hardened concrete. CI is responsible for providing visual inspection of drilled-in expansion anchor installations to ensure that procedural requirements are met and that the quality attributes required by design documents are attained. Anchor placement documentation is initiated by the engineering personnel and is forwarded to the construction engineering craft, field engineers, and CI for appropriate preliminary sign-offs and notification of scheduled placement.
Following construction inspection sign-off, craft personnel are approved to lay out and drill the expansion anchor holes.
If there is a discrepancy with hole locations, holes are relocated by the craft and the discrepancy is resolved by design engineering personnel. Following completion of drilled holes, a preplacement inspection (e.g., cleanliness, diameter, hole location)
A. performed by CI, and craft personnel are released for anchor acquisition. At this point, CI inspects such items as expansion anchor quality, anchor length, certification of the anchor installer, anchor installation tools, and concrete placement date. During and following the installation process, CI verifies attributes such as anchor torquing, orientation, and plate contact with concrete surface. CI notes completion and approval of the anchor placement by applying an inspection indicator paint on the nut-washer interface.
In addition, the indicator paint serves as a checkpoint to detect any tampering following installation. Upon completion of an anchor placement installation, the traveler and inspection reports are completed by CI.
Documents containing design information, as-built data, process control data, and inspection and testing data, as required by procedures applicable to the completed work item, are assembled and reviewed by qualified personnel. The review ensures that the documentation is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with
QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is submitted to QA.
The following typifies the quality attributes for installation of expansion anchors that are verified by quality inspectors to be in accordance with the applicable drawing, specification or procedure.
1.
Pre-Installation Inspection a.
Drilled hole location, size, depth and edge distance b.
Rebar damage c.
Placement location, orientation and dimension d.
Anchor type, diameter and length 2.
Installation Inspection a.
In process work b.
Torque wrench and hydraulic ram calibration c.
Torquing / tensioning of anchors d.
Anchor embedment depth, thread projection and skewness e.
Shim material type, size and tightness f.
Gaps between fixture and concrete surface g.
Surface conditions and dimensions in preparation for grouting E-9 Concrete and Grout Placement Testing Program Concrete craft personnel perform the placement of concrete as identified in site specifications according to site work procedures.
QC and CI inspectors approve the concrete placement by inspection report sign-offs. The QC batch plant inspector monitors the batching of concrete by verifying that the correct mix design is used and that batch quantities are within tolerances by initialing concrete batch tickets. CI performs craft work inspections in accordance with site technical procedures and signs off the inspection checkpoints on appropriate inspection report forms. CI performs preplacement inspection to ensure the placement area is free of such items as debris, install, embedded items, and reinforcing steel.
When the batch of concrete is received, CI checks the proper mix design, the truck drum counter and the number of revolutions since the concrete was batched. CI records this data on inspection documents and observes the concrete for approximate correct slump.
At this time, quality control concrete test personnel take required l
initial samples of concrete at the point of placement in accordance with site quality control procedures. Test batches of concrete are determined from intervals based on quantity of concrete placed (e.g., the first batch and each fifty-yard interval thereafter).
Results of the above tests are provided to the CI inspector. The
[ i
c f
r required tests include concrete temperature, slump, unit weight, air content and casting of test specimens for compression testing. Test results are recorded on the concrete batch ticket and on appropriate i
quality control inspection forms.
Documents containing design information, as-built data, process control data, and inspection and testing data, as required by
. procedures applicable to the completed work-item, are assembled and reviewed by qualified personnel. The review ensures that the documentation is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with i
QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems,'the documentation is submitted to QA.
The following typifies the quality attributes for placing of concrete and grout that are verified by quality inspectors to be in accordance with the applicable drawing, specification or procedure.
1.
Pre-Placement-Inspection a.
Surface preparation and clean-up b.
Formwork c.
Pre-wetting / pre-heating of placement boundary 2.
Placement Inspection a.
Batching and delivery of mix b.
Field testing (temperature, consistency, slump, flowability, air content) c.
Free fall height d.
Rate of rise e.
Layer thickness f.
Consolidation g.
Integrity of forms h.
Formwork venting (grout placements) 3.
Post-Placement Inspection a.
Curing (moisture, compounds, temperature and duration) b.
Surface defects l
c.
Test cylinder breaks
\\
l
F - ELECTRICAL INSPECTION PROGRAMS Inspection programs for safety-related electrical components at the SENPP are discussed by component in the following paragraphs.
F-1 Electrical Cable Pulls Inspection Program Upon completion of designated raceways, construction personnel issue cable pull cards to the field to begin the cable-pulling process. Construction personnel are responsible for providing the information needed to pull the cable, such as applicable design drawings and procedural instruction sheets. Craft personnel receive the installation cards, pre-cut and pre-reel the cable, and transport the cable to the designated area. Cable reels are then set-up by the craft to facilitate the pull, the cable serve is made, and CI is notified to perform the necessary inspections. After inspection, craft personnel pull the cable through the designated routes with a CI inspector present. Upon completion of the cable pull, the cables are tied down to the cable trays in the applicable places, and the cables are sealed on both ends and supported. CI is present during the entire process of pulling the cable and verifies that quality attributes (such as pull tension, bend radius, burrs and sharp edges, correct routing and separation) identified in site inspection procedures are acceptable. When the pull is complete, any unsatisfactory conditions are resolved, and nonconforming conditions are properly documented, the inspection reports are signed by the CI inspector. The inspection reports are forwarded to the first-line supervisor for review and approval in accordance with approved procedures. Cable pull cards are signed by the inspector after the inspection reports are signed.
Documents containing design information, as-built data, process control data, and inspection and testing data, as required by procedures applicable to the completed work item, are assembled and reviewed by qualified personnel. The review ensures that the documentation is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is submitted to QA.
The following typifies the quality attributes associated with the pulling of cables that are verified by' quality inspectors to be in accordance with the applicable drawing, specification or i
procedure.
l l :
1
1.
Pre-Pull Inspection a.
Designated raceways for the pull have been accepted by the raceway inspector b.
Cable pull installation card, the maximum allowable pulling tension sheet, the pre-reel request and the inspection report have the required pre-pull information entered c.
Cable serve (cable-to pulling-device connection) makeup 2.
Pull Inspection a.
Cable type b.
Routing of cable c.
Cable tensioning d.
Damage to cable e.
Des igned cable separation F-2 Electrical Safety-Related Cable Termination, Safety Cable Penetration Termination, Conax Seal Installation Inspection, and Fire Protection / Detection Cable Termination Inspection Electrical engineers have the responsibility for preparing, reviewing, documenting, and issuing installation forms for accomplishing scheduled work activities. When installation forms are prepared, they are checked against design documents prior to issuance to craft personnel. Scheduled work assignments are controlled by in process inspections performed by CI inspectors, at established hold points. As work activities are completed, the CI inspector completes in.pection documentation, documents nonconformances, and verifies that concerns are resolved, that work is complete, and that relevant data are correctly recorded prior to signing the installation forms. Inspection hold points include cable number, cable end to be terminated, equipment identification, magger test results, continuity test results, use of correct tools, and cable separation. The inspector reports inspection results on appropriate forms which are submitted for supervisor review.
Documents containing design information, as-built data, process control data, and inspection and testing data, as required by procedures applicable to the completed work item, are assembled and reviewed by qualified personnel. The review ensures that the documentation is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is submitted to QA.
l l l
.a The following typifies the quality attributes associated with the termination of cables that are verified by quality inspectors to be in accordance with the applicable drawing, specification or procedure.
1.
Cable number and cable end 2.
Use of correct tools 3.
Witnessing of cable testing (e.g., meggering, continuity and hi-pot tests) 4.
Termination lug type and crimping 5.
Termination per design 6.
Hardware per design and installation documents 7.
Cable termination supported 8.
Cable bend radius 9.
Cable separation at panel entrance and within the panel F-3 Electrical Equipment Installation Inspection Engineering personnel have the responsibility for initiation of the electrical equipment installation traveler in accordance with specifications, procedures, vendor instructions and drawings.
Engineering provides step-by-step instructions for completion of work including appropriate installation hold points. Engineering issues the traveler to the craft responsible for the installation.
The craft is responsible for performing the installation of the equipment in accordance with specifications, instructions and drawings provided by engineering on the traveler. At noted hold points or upon completion of the installation activity, craft personnel are responsible for notifying CI to perform an inspection.
CI reviews the installation traveler and initiates an inspection report corresponding to the traveler hold points. CI inspects the equipment installation in accordance with specifications, vendor instructions and drawings as referenced on the traveler. The results of the inspection are recorded on an inspection report.
Inspection hold points include equipment identification, location, equipment damage, material traceability, separation, cleanliness, and clearances.
Documents containing design information, as-built data, process control data, and inspection and testing data, as required by procedures applicable to the completed work item, are assembled and reviewed by qualified personnel. The review ensures that the documentation is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is submitted to QA.
l l
l l
ly l
The following typifies the quality attributes associated with the installation of electrical equipment that are verified by quality inspectors to be in accordance with the applicable drawing, l
specification or procedure.
L 1.
Equipment identification; proper for installation
- 2.
Equipment location 3.
Traceabiliev of material and components 4.
Fit-up, boicing and torquing 5.
Grounding of equipment 6.
Field +.erminations made (reference cable terminations) 7.
Damage to equipment F-4 Assembly, Disassembly, and Modification of Repair of Safety-Related Equipment Engineering has the responsibility for preparing a work package according to design documents. Craft personnel are responsible for
. performing the work in accordance with site work procedures by utilizing the information and instructions provided by engineering and the referenced documents listed in the work package. Craft personnel are also responsible for notifying CI prior to the start of work.
CI is responsible for reviewing the work package and for preparing an inspection report in accordance with specified L
inspection hold points. CI is also responsible for inspecting to ensure that work is performed according to site procedures, specifications, and design documents referenced in the work package.
l Inspection hold points include electrical cable traceability, meggering, continuity, material identification, location, and cleanliness. Following completion of the. inspection report, it is forwarded to the CI supervisor for verification of completaness and accuracy. The CI inspector transmits the inspection report to engineering for inclusion in the work package.
l Documents containing design information, as-built data, process control data, and inspection and testing data, as required by l
procedures applicable to the completed work item, are assembled and l
reviewed by qualified personnel. The review ensures'that the l
documentation'is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is submitted to QA.
l
) :
~ -.. -. - -._.
The following typifies the quality attributes for assembly, disassembly, modification or repair of equipment that are verified by quality inspectors to be in accordance with the applicable drawing, specification or procedure.
1.
Equipment and material identification 2.
Location 3.
Damage and cleanliness 4.
Traceability of components and parts 5.
Electrical wiring, connections, separation and support 6.
Flexible conduit installation and fastening F-5 Electrical Raceway and Support Installation and Inspection Program The term " raceway" includes electrical conduit, cable trays, and boxes. Engineering responsibilities for raceway installation include providing design criteria for installation and inspection, controlling and maintaining the installation documentation system, resolving nonconformances, and resolving design and field-related problems.
Construction personnel are responsible for installing the raceway in accordance with the approved design documents.
Construction craft personnel perform the installations, notify engineering when there is an installation problem, and notify the inspector when the raceway is ready for inspection.
CI inspects the installation to the design requirements. CI is responsible for documenting the results of the inspection and identifying any nonconformance with the work. Inspection hold points include type, size, location, attachment, spacing, aeparation, and interferences.
Documents containing design information, as-built data, process control data, and inspection and testing data, as required by procedures applicable to the completed work item, are assembled and reviewed by qualified personnel. The review ensures that the documentation is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is submitted to QA.
- i l
i
The following typifies the quality attributes for the installation of electrical raceway and raceway supports that are verified by quality inspectors to be in accordance with the applicable drawing, specification or procedure.
1.
Raceway Inspection a.
Identification, type, size and labeling b.
Location c.
Galvanizing of items d.
Couplings and fittings (conduit), and splices and accessories (cable tray) e.
Routing, bending radius and maximum 360 degrees of bend between pull points (conduits) f.
Raceway free of burrs g.
Drain holes (boxes) 2.
Raceway Support Inspection a.
Quantity, size, thickness and orientation of support members b.
Connecting hardware type, quantities and tightness c.
Overall configuration, plumbness, skewness F-6 Electrical Support Welding and Inspection Program i
Enginee,, ring responsibilities for electrical support welding include providing design criteria for welding and welding procedures, resolving nonconformances, and providing assistance with welding design and field problems.
Construction personnel are responsible for welding the supports in accordance with the current approved design criteria and procedures. Craft personnel notify engineering when welding problems are encountered and notify the inspection unit when a weld is ready for inspection.
QC inspects the welding to the latest design and procedure requirements and monitors in-process welding activities. The inspector is responsible for documenting the results of the inspection and identifying any nonconformance with the work on appropriate inspection and nonconformance forms.
Inspection hold points include pre-heat temperature, fit-up, material identification, geometry and completed welds. Completed inspection reports are forwarded to supervisory personnel for review and sign-off.
Documents containing design information, as-built data, process control data, and inspection and testing data, as required by procedures applicable to the completed work item, are essembled and reviewed by qualified personnel. The review ensures that the..
documentation is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is submitted to QA.
The following typifies the quality attributes for welding of electrical supports that are verified by quality inspectors to be in accordance with the applicable drawing, specification or procedure.
1.
In process Monitoring a.
Fit-up b.
Specified filler material c.
Preheat technique and temperature 2.
Final Weld Inspection a.
Weld profile b.
Undercut /overgrind c.
Weld size d.
Blending to base metal e.
Discontinuities F-7 Electrical Instrument Inspection Program Engineering has responsibility for preparing the installation form for electrical instruments and for providing a complete work package which includes applicable design documents and special installation instructions. The assembled work package is transmitted to the field to be worked by the electrical craft.
The electrical instrument installation work is done in accordance with site work packages by following installation sheets and design documents step-by-step through completion. Completed work packages are returned to engineering, and CI is notified that the installation is ready for final inspection.
Inspection points and attributes are assigned to the instrument installation inspection report based on data taken from the installation sheet.
Inspection hold points include material identification, location, cleanliness, and separation. CI performs the installation inspection and completes an inspection report. Following completion of the inspection r, port, the inspection supervisor reviews the report for completeness and accuracy and signs-off the report.
Documents containing design information, as-built data, process control data, and inspection and testing data, as required by l
procedures applicable to the completed work item, are assembled and reviewed by qualified personnel. The review ensures that the documentation is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with i l
l
QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is submitted to QA.
The following typifies the quality attributes for installation of electrical instruments that are verified by quality inspectors to be in accordance with the applicable drawing, specification or procedure.
1.
Instrument identification 2.
Location 3.
Cleanliness and damage 4
Crimping of cable lug to conductor 5
Mounting and termination hardware is correct 6.
Wiring is supported 7.
Flexible conduit installed and supported 8.
Electrical separation maintained F-8 Electrical Embedded Items Installation Inspection Program Construction engineering has the responsibility for researching the design drawings to determine which embedded items must be installed and for preparing a concrete placement card which records the placement area and the items to be inspected prior to concrete placement. Craft personnel are responsible for researching the design drawings and installing the embedded items in accordance with the design drawings and site work procedures. When the installation process is complete, CI performs inspections in accordance with site technical procedures and design drawings.
Inspection checkpoints include size and type of conduit, method of support, conduit ends capped, and location of horizontal and vertical sections.
Inspection checkpoints are documented on inspection reports which are signed by the CI inspector and the supervisor who perform a review for completeness and accuracy.
Documents containing design information, as-built data, process control data, and inspection and testing data, as required by procedures applicable to the completed work item, are assembled and reviewed by qualified personnel.
The review ensures that the documentation is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is submitted to QA.
l !
The following typifies the quality attributes for embedded electrical items that are verified by quality inspectors to be in accordance with the applicable drawing, specification or procedure.
1.
Conduit size and location 2.
Boxes, manholes and handholes size and location 3.
Grounding cables size and location 4.
Conduit connections tight 5.
Securing / anchoring of embedded items F-9 Electrical Separation Inspection Program The Electrical Separation Inspection Program was initiated as a result of a change in design criteria by engineering which required a re-verification of separation distances on electrical installations. The inspection responsibilities for this program consist of a final inspection of required separation distances between electrical equipment, raceway (cable tray, conduit and boxes) and exposed cable which have been previously inspected. The results of the inspection are documented on the applicable inspection reports.
Inspection checkpoints include separation distance between Class 1E and non-Class 1E equipment, Class 1E raceway, Class 1E and non-Class 1E exposed cables, and Class 1E cable and Class 1E raceway. The completed inspection reports are reviewed by CI supervisors to verify completeness, legibility and accuracy and are signed-off to indicate acceptance.
Documents containing design information, as-built data, process control data, and inspection data, as required by procedures applicable to the completed work item, are assembled and reviewed by qualified personnel. The review ensures that the documentation is complete, legible, accurate and in compliance with QA records processing requirements. Following completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is submitted to QA.
Construction and inspection procedures have been revised to incorporate the new design criteria for ongoing construction and inspection activities.
Installation and inspection of ongoing activities require consideration and evaluation of previously installed items which were inspected for separation under this program. This overlap in inspection activities increases the confidence level that the separation inspections performed under this program are acceptable, i
l i
The following typifies the quality attributes' associated with electrical, separation of equipment, raceway and cable that are verified by quality inspectors to be in accordance with the applicable drawing, specification or procedure.
1.
Separation distance between Class IE equipment and redundant Class IE.or non-safety related equipment 2.-
Separation distance between Class IE equipment and redundant Class IE or non-safety related raceway 3.
Separation distance between Class tE equipment and redundant Class 1E or non-safety related exposed cables 4.
Separation distance between Class 1E raceway and redundcat Class IE or non-safety related raceway 5.
Separation distance between Class 1E raceway and redundant Class 1E or non-safety related exposed cables 6.
Separation distance between Class 1E exposed cable and redundant Class IE or non-safety related exposed cables t
i i
l -
l G - SAFETY-RELATED AND SEISMIC CATEGORY I EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION INSPECTION PROGRAN Engineering and construction personnel have the responsibility for establishing procedures, as required by regulatory guidelines, to provide instructions and documentation for the storage, transport, and installation of equipment. These groups research manufacturer storage requirements and ensure that these requirements are met from the time the equipment arrives on site until the equipment is turned over to start-up personnel.
In addition, they ensure that vendor requirements are followed while transporting equipment to permanent plant locations. Design documentation associated with particular equipment is compiled, and written instructions for installation are provided to craft personnel based on research of r'equirements. Engineering and construction personnel resolve problems encountered during storage, transport, or installation which are detected by craft or inspection personnel.
Craft personnel have the responsibility for providing maintenance of equipment during storage as prescribed by engineering, installing equipment based on design information provided by engineering, and sequencing work activities in order to allow inspections on quality attributes.
Quality assurance and quality control personnel are responsible for ensuring that equipment installed by craft is in accordance with design drawings, site procedures, and ins ~tructions provided by engineering. These groups ensure that quality meets or exceeds design and regulatory requirements, identify and report problems encountered during installation, and document inspections as required by site procedures. Typical inspection checkpoints are setting area, foundation, alignment, mating surface cleanliness, material verification, and clearances.
Upon. completion of installation activities, the documentation is submitted to first-line QC supervision for review and sign-off for completeness and accuracy.
Documents containing design information, as-built data, process control data, and inspection and testing data, as required by procedures applicable to the completed work item, are assembled and reviewed by qualified personnel. The raview ensures that the documentation is complete, legible, acct: ate and in compliance with QA records processing requirements. I611owing completion of the review process, and resolution of identified problems, the documentation is submitted to QA.
y
.=
The following typifies the quality attributes for the.
Installation of equipment that are verified by quality inspect to be in accordance with the applicable drawing, specification or procedure.
1.
Preparation of mating surfaces prior to being made inaccessible 2.
Transfer of material identification or the use of bagging and tagging to maintain traceability of materials and items 3.
Equipment identification, location and elevation 4.
Anchor fasteners type, size and tightened 5.
Components are correct 6.
Alignment (pump shaft) 7.
Orientation of equipment 8.
Shim material acceptable and installed 9.
Clearances I
s i
i l
ll' o
5 s
! l
H - NONCONFORMANCE CONTROL PROGRAM The nonconformance control program establishes requirements and guidelines for the identification, control, disposition and notification to affected organizations of nonconforming items. The program covers safety-related plant components at the Harris Plant project and provides that QA/QC/CI supervisors and Inspectors have the responsibility and authority to stop nonconforming work or to control further processing or installation of nonconforming items.
The identification of nonconformances is through the use of a formal nonconformance report (NCR) for significant items or tha use of an in-process type document (when so used, referred to as a subordinate nonconfornance document).
In each case, the program provides controls to ensure that the nonconforming conditions are properly identified, resolved and documented as such.
Control of nonconforming conditions by the inspector is through the issue of a stop work order, application of " hold" togs and/or by delay of inspection sign-off until the nonconforming condition has been resolved. Nonconformance reports provide a means to keep the nonconforming condition visible for tracking during the resolution and closing process.
Disposition of nonconformances is through rework, repair, reject (return to vendor or scrap) or accept-as-is (based upon engineering evaluation for acceptability). Dispositions are reviewed for compliance with program requirements, and the item is inspected to verify that the approved disposition was, in fact, accomplished. Both dispositioned NCRs and in-process subordinate nonconformance documents become QA records and ere processed into the QA records system.
Affected organizations are notified of nonconformances through craft / inspector interface during the installation and inspection process and through formal distribution of NCRs. Nonconformances are subject to the trending process, with affected organizations participating in the analysis of adverse trends to determine causes and the need for preventive measures. Significant nonconformances and conditions adverse to quality require the determination of cause and the need for preventive measures, independent of the trend analysis process.
Section IV QUALITY ACTIVITIES OF THE NONDESTRUCTIVE EXAMINATION PROGRAM (NDE)
Nondestructive examination (NDE) of construction activities is an integral part of CP&L's quality control activities through performance of systematic and orderly inspections in accordance with site-specific programs and regulatory requirements. The examinations are primarily designed te detect and identify inherent process flaws as well as those which may result from improper construction activities. NDE is performed and documented in accordance with written procedures by certified NDE personnel as identified on process control documents.
In order to ensure that nondestructive examinations are performed properly, there are a number of activities undertaken to ensure inspector proficiency and to provide consistent results during testing. NDE inspectors perform examinations in accordance with comprehensive written procedures which detail each step to be taken during the examination and provide clear written acceptance criteria to be used in evaluating examination results. NDE is comprised of two basic types of examinations: surface and volumetric. Surface inspection methods are magnetic particle and liquid penetrant testing and are used to detect surface imperfections. Volumetric inspection methods are radiographic, ultrasonic, and leak testing and are used to detect physical evidence of internal weld and material characteristics.
NDE inspectors are subject to stringent certification requirements prior to being allowed to perform independent NDE inspections. Prior to certification, NDE inspectors are required to meet specific training requirements involving both classroom training and on-the-job training. They must pass comprehensive certification examinations which are mandated by the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and the American Scciety of Nondestructive Testing. There are specified minimums for the number of training hours for classroom work dealing with theory and application and for on-the-job training and experience.
In addition, NDE personnel certified under CP&L's NDE procedures are recertified every three years through written examination. The work of an individual NDE inspector is reviewed by other NDE personnel, as well as by Authorized Nuclear Inspectors, corporate auditors, NRC personnel and other site QA and QC organizations. Completed examination results are maintained as part of the QA records.
NDE results identifying unacceptable conditions are processed in compliance with site programs and procedures to effect necessary repairs. Reinspections of repaired areas are also conducted in accordance with procedural requirements.
s.'
Section V QUALITY ACTIVITIES OF START-UP GROUP The SHNPP start-up testing program, as a key element in overall site quality assurance activities, provides assurances and verifications that construction work has been accomplished.in a quality manner and that plant oquipment and systems perform safely and as designed. This program is conducted by members of the operating plant staff in three sequential sub-programs: the component testing and initial testing program, the preoperational
. test' program, and the start-up power. test program. The component testing and initial operation program is conducted during the cons.truction-phase when equipment and systems are completed to the point that. testing can begin. Systems are tested functionally by' simulation. Systems and equipment are cleaned by flushing before hydrostatic' pressure tests are' performed. The preoperational test program begins when equipment or systems are completed according to construction specifications. This program verifies that specific
. systems and equipment perfora as designed and installed.
Preoperational tests are' detailed and step-by-step-tests of major equipment components and system functions. The start-up power test program begins with~ initial reactor core loading. It verifies the ability of systems to perform as designed and to operate within the specified parameters.
The control of activities which affect quality during start-up testing is provided by the Start-Up QA Program. This program operates-under approved procedures. Start-Up procedures which involve-safety-related systems are' reviewed-independently by QA personnel.
When a system or a piece of equipment is completed, it is released-for testing by construction to the start-up group. Any work done after this' release is controlled by appropriate l,
construction procedures and with the use of the Construction Work
[
Request and Authorization (CWRA) or by appropriate maintenance procedures and with the use of Maintenance Work ~ Request and' Authorization (WR&A). In order to maintain necessary controls, work on systems after release is processed through a central coordination authority, the system start-up engineer. Any request by~the start-up engineer to maintenance personnel for repair work is done through a WR&A. The start-up QA group reviews WR&A's, makes l
additions or deletions to instructions and assigns QC hold points as necessary.
If' additional construction work must be performed on a system, such work is controlled by a CWRA. When this occurs, the l'
approved construction ~ procedures are utilized to perform the work, and the requirements for CI or QC inspection are invoked as if it l
-were new work.
i.
, 1 i
L:
, The following is a step-by-step description of the activities which occur during the start up of a component or system:
1.
Start-Up engineers assure completion of the equipment or system through a walkdown and verification of any remaining work that is listed as an exception.
2.
Start-Up engineers write necessary procedures which include, as applicable:
a.
Equipment checkout instructions.
b.
Procedures for flushing or cleaning.
c.
Procedures for hydrostatic-testing.
d.
Preoperational test procedure.
3.
QA personnel review these procedures prior to performance to assure appropriate requirements are included.
4.
Start-Up engineers perform tests and checks including:
a.
Motor tests.
b.
Verification of pump output (pressure / flow).
c.
Continuity of wiring checks.
d.
Instrumentation calibration and tests.
a.
Verification of control circuits.
5.
QC inspections are performed during each of these tests.
6.
QA surveillance, such as monitoring, observation, and reviews of completed documents, is performed for key tests and checks.
7.
Preoperational tests are reviewed by a team which consists of the Manager - Start Up, Manager - Operations, Manager -
Engineering, and Director - QA/QC prior to performance and after completion. The final review verifies that test cojectives and requirements were met and that the system or equipment performs as designed.
c l
A i.._
=
I
.y Section VI REINSPECTION ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS This section addresses reinspection activities and results for NDE inspectors, CI inspectors, QA/QC inspectors, and engineering support personnel. Even though the work of these individuals has been subject to rechecks and audits by others, there has been a i
project determination to reinspect a statistically significant sample of their work to provide an additional layer of confidence that there were no quality-related problems. Sampling methodology and acceptance criteria, which are based upon Mil Standard 105-D,
' are contained -in site procedure ~CQA-7 entitled " Evaluation of Program Effectiveness" and served as a basis for the reinspection process. The results of our reinspections demonstrate that the overall. acceptance rate of 99.6% for the work of the inspectors in question is comparable to that for inspectors whose work has been reinspected for other reasons.
-In addition, this section discusses the reanalyses to date and the planned reexamination activities for eddy current examinations performed by five contractor personnel who were eddy current
. examiners employed by Conam Inspection of Richmond, California.
While these five individuals did not provide construction services, they are included here.as a part of a settlement arrangement with intervenors.
A.
NDE Inspectors
'Within the group, three NDE (nondestructive examination)
' inspectors have been terminated because of positive drug screen test results and two have been terminated for refusing to take the test. Four of the inspectors performed Liquid Penetrant
-Testing _(PT) and Magnetic Particle Testing (MT) examinations.
- Reinspection of the PT and NT' examinations have been completed in accordance with site procedure CQA-7.
The-following
-reinspection data pertain to these four inspectors.
i T
5
' l~
)
4 Individual Number of Items Number of Number Reference NDE Originally Items of Number Method Examined Reinspected Deficiencies 21 MT 65 13 1
i PT 218 38 1
99 MT 47 8
0 PT 496 66 1
104 MT 5
2 0
PT(S/R)*
68 16 0
PT(W/W)*
232 48 0
63 MT 81 13 0
PT 714 80 1
- Solvent Removable (S/R) and Water Washable (W/W) are two techniques for liquid penetrant examinations.
The four noted deficiencies were corrected by minor buffing and were reexamined. All four deficiencies were found to be acceptable without repairs. The results of these reinspections confirm proficiency and reliability of the inspectors' work, and no further reinspection or analysis was deemed necessary.
The remaining inspector, as well as three of the four mentioned above, performed Radiographic Testing (RT); this work was not reinspected for the following reasons:
1.
Certified as Level II - Limited (Shooter Only) in RT, these individuals participated as members of two-man teams in making radiographic set-ups and film exposures; they did not perform interpretation of RT film for final acceptance or rejection of items radiographed.
2.
RT film is subject to two separate reviews /
interpretations by other Level II personnel qualified for film interpretation.
B.
CI Inspectors Within the CI organization, six electrical inspectors were terminated for one of the following drug-related reasons:
positive test, refused test, possession of drugs or suspicion.
One civil inspector was terminated for refusing the drug screening test. A reinspection was performed on all seven of the subject CI inspectors in accordance with site procedure CQA-7.
The following reinspection data cover the six electrical inspectors and the one civil inspector who performed the referenced quality inspections.
1 i
l 1
Number of Number of Ind.
Originally Reinspected Number of Ref.
Type of Inspected Items Items Deficient No.
Inspection (Attributes) * (Attributes)*
Attributes
- 41 Cable Terminations 64 (710) 13 (146) 2 Cable Pulls 45 (490) 8 (88) 0 94 Cable Terminations 49 (530) 8 (87) 1 Cable Pulls 71 (710) 13 (130) 0 10 Cable Pulls 13 (130) 3 (30) 0 193 Cable Terminations 4
(44) 2 (30) 0 Cable Pulls 85 (850) 13 (140) 0 194 Cable Terminations 15 (165) 3 (70) 0 Cable Pulls 44 (530) 8 (98) 2 46 Cable Terminations 29 (380) 8 (107) 3 Cable Pulls 148 (1690) 20 (229) 0 11 Drilled-In Expansion Anchors 20 (260) 5 (65) 0
- Attributes are quality-related characteristics which are checked for each item.
The results of the reinspections were reviewed and evaluated by CI supervisory personnel. Deficiencies were identified on nonconformance reports for disposition. The most serious of the deficiencies was a conductor connected to the wrong terminal. However, the pre-operational testing program is designed specifically to detect this type of deficiency.
The eight deficiencies had no safety significance.
The work of each of the seven inspectors in question clearly _ exceeds the minimum acceptance standard of 95%
established by site procedure CQA-7.
The overall acceptance rate of the seven inspectors is 99.3%.-
This confirms the proficiency and reliability of the inspectors' work and no further reinspections are deemed necessary.
C.
QA/QC Inspectors Within the QA/QC inspection organization, fourteen certified inspectors and one inspector-in-training have been terminated because of positive drug screen test, refusal to take the drug screen test, or arrest off site. Reinspections have been performed in accordance with site procedure CQA-7 on eight of the inspectors who performed safety-related functions.
The results of the reinspections are as follows.
J,
Number of Number of Ind.
Originally Reinspected Number of Ref Type of Inspected Items Items Deficient No.
Inspection (Attributes)*
(Attributes)* Attributes
- 79 Pipeweld 120 (1800) 20 (300) 0 177 Pipe Hanger Veld 30 (2282) 30 (2282) 17 82 Pipe Hanger Weld 49 (2960) 49 (2960) 22 98 Mechanical 739 (2934) 80 (599) 0 167 Structural Weld 373 (approx. 40,000) 51 (6496) 4 155 Pipe Installation 7 (157) 7 (157) 0 160 Cable Terminations 1 (16) 1 (16) 0 160 Cable Separation 824 (approx. 13,000) 130 (2120) 4 160 Embeds 22 (22) 3 (5) 0 160 Raceway 186 (approx. 550) 33 (97) 0 160 Equip. Installation 164 (approx. 1200) 25 (186) 0 208 Pipe Hanger Mech
& Weld 422 (approx. 2400) 52 (1056) 2
- Attributes are quality-related characteristics which are checked for each item.
The decisions to reinspect 100% of the pipe hangers accepted by Reference Numbers 82 and 177 were based _on finding weld deficiencies in two or more of the initial reinspection samples. A total of 39 minor weld deficiencies were identified during this 100% reinspection of two inspectors' work and were reported on nonconformance reports for disposition. The deficiencies included several slightly undersize welds, small amounts of weld porosity, small areas of undercut and some cases where the weld configuration did not reconcile with the design drawing. None of the deficient attributes uncovered during any of these rainspections were determined to be safety significant; however, they have been or will be reworked to maintain design conservatisms.
Reinspection results show that the work of the eight inspectors in question exceeds the minimum acceptance standard of 95% established by site procedure CQA-7.
The overall acceptance rate of the eight inspectors is 99.7%.
This confirms the inspectors' proficiency and reliability and no further reinspection is deemed necessary.
The inspector-in-training was never certified. Therefore, no reinspection was required because safety-related inspections were not performed by the individual.
Of the remaining six QC inspectors, one field-tested concrete and performed sieve analysis, grout testing and cadweld inspections; he was terminated for positive drug screen test results. There are no safety concerns with the employee's assignments in field-testing concrete, grout testing or sieve analysis, since final acceptance of concrete and grout is based on meeting the designed strength as determined by later
. 5-r testing. A statistical' sample of the cadwelds in concrete reinforcing steel bars subjected to cadwald inspections are cut out and subjected to tensile testing. The high success rate of rebar and cadwelds subject to tensile testing (only 8 out of the total 2,764 cadwelds tested failed to meet minimum tensile requirements) and the large margin by which those test.results exceed design requirements independently confirm the quality of cadweld splicing and cadweld inspections. Consequently, no reinspection has been performed for this inspector.
Another QC employee was a field concrete tester who also perforned rebar and cadweld tensile testing, sieve analysis and grout testing; he was removed from the job for suspected drug use based on information provided by a reliable source. For.
the reasons discussed above, there are no safety concerns with this employee's work in concrete and grout testing or sieve analysis. While this employee actually performed tensile testing, his results are consistent with the results of tensile tests performed by others, as determined by a comparison of a statistical distribution of his test data with that of the remaining inspectors. Because of the uniformly high success rates of such tests performed by all such testers and in. light of the satisfactory.30. supervisory audits of this inspector's work, it was concluded that there was no reason to doubt the validity of his tensile test results.
Recently, three additional inspector personnel have been identified as having suspected or confirmed involvement with d rugs. Evaluation of their work is still in process.
Another inspector was assigned to perform final system walkdowns with representatives from the system turnover group, construction engineering, and start-up personnel. This assignment did not require the individual to review documentation or inspect' systems to determine quality or acceptability. In addition, the inspector was not solely responsible for any aspect of his assignment, and the turnover documentation packages were reviewed by a supervisor. -For these reasons, no reinspection or re-verification of this inspector's work was required.
D.
Engineering Support Personnel I
l:
Engineering support personnel perform original calculations and revise calculations in accepting ongoing and final as-built field conditions. Other engineering support personnel verify these evaluations and review and check calculations and revisions.
Ten engineering support individuals who perform design-related work have been implicated in drug involvement. Of these, five individuals were evaluated in accordance with site procedure 4
' CQA-7, and their work was found to be acceptable with no
- discrepancies. The other five were evaluated as performing acceptable work because their work was evaluated by independent,
m
,_-__.,____,7 e
,r.
p m,
.[_-
_,+,.%.
m.,
,w,,_,-_,m.
1 reviewers who provided quality verification. None of the independent reviewers were under suspicion, were arrested, or were terminated for drug activity. Therefore, the work which these engineering support personnel performed is considered reliable and does not require re-evaluation.
E.
Conam Eddy Current Examiners As a part of a settlement arrangement with intervenors, CP&L agreed to treat five contractor personnel who were eddy current examiners employed by Conam Inspection of Richmond, California, in the same manner as the identified employees for purposes of reevaluating their work. There is no proof available to CP&L to substantiate that any of these Conam personnel were involved with drugs while they were associated with the Harris project.
One Conam employee was a trainee who performed general support functions for qualified examiners. This individual's duties included such activities as equipment set-up and carrying tools.
The other four employees performed baseline preservice eddy current testing and examination of heat exchanger tubing including the Harris Plant steam generators. While these individuals did not provide construction services, as a result of a settlement agreement with intervenors, CP&L agreed to reexamine three percent of the tubes in each steam generator.
Techniques, procedures, and equipment to be utilized in the reexamination process will be comparable to those employed by Conam during the initial baseline testing.
A five percent random sample of the data acquired and analyzed by Conam was re-analyzed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) at the NDE Center in Charlotte, North Carolina. EPRI used the same procedure, data analysis system and calibration system as those used by Conam personnel. Based on its review of the data on the tapes, EPRI concluded that the data acquisition had gone very smoothly and validated Conam's use of procedures, selection and application of the defect sizing criteria and interpretation of the eddy current signals.
Thus, EPRI confirmed Conam's eddy current testing and examination results.
The results of the reexamination will be compared to the original data recorded by Conam and to the sample of the data re-analyzed.
F
s
- o Section VII
SUMMARY
There is not a widespread use of drugs by employees at the SHNPP. Of the more than 26,000 individuals employed at the SHNPP since 1978, 218 individuals have been identified as having, or as suspected of, some level of involvement with controlled substances.
Over half of the 218 incidents involved circumstantial information or refusals for whatever reason to subject to a search or urinalysis test. Only thirteen individuals have been established as using drugs on site. None of the 218 individuals are presently employed at the site.
Many of these 218 employees did not perform safety-related work. Some were utility workers, truck drivers, clerks or painters.
Most were craft employees; only 17 were foremen or construction supervisors. Only 27 QC or CI inspectors have suspected implication in drug activity.
There has been no confirmed incident of a significant quality deficiency attributed to craft personnel, quality inspectors, KDE personnel, or engineering support personnel identified or suspected of drug involvement. CP&L reviewed the job classifications of implicated employees and conferred with supervisors as appropriate to ascertain, to the extent possible, on which systems and compo-nents the employees worked. CP&L has determined that craft work on safety-related systems was subject to multiple checks and cross-checks by peers and supervisors while being performed and by QC and
.CI inspectors after completion. Safety-related systems are further verified for proper construction by walkdowns prior to turnover and start-up testing. The ability of the inspection programs to assure quality construction has been confirmed by on-site QA audits, Corporate OA audits, NRC I&E inspections, INPO audits and NRC-CAT inspections. Even postulated drug use by all 218 implicated em-ployees would not challenge the quality assurance progran.
A statistically representative sample of work performed by those CC and CI inspectors implicated in possible drug involvement has been reinspected. The basis of the sample size is Mil Standard 105-D, as adopted in CP&L's site procedure CQA-7.
The results of these reinspections, which are set forth in detail in this report, confirm the quality of the inspections performed by 24 of the 27 implicated inspectors in that no significant deficiencies were found. Reinspections of the work of the remaining 3 implicated l
inspectors are underway as of the date of this report. Furthermore, l
the QA attribute surveillance program which was initiated by the on-site QA unit - not specifically motivated by the drug problems -
has identified only 269 discrepancies out of 54,560 attributes reinspected. None have been determined to have safety significarce after evaluation. !
l-
_.. - -.... -_.---_=.-.
. t All ~of this information provides reasonable assurance that the
- QA program is working to detect discrepancies in construction activities.- whether related 'to drug use or otherwise - and to ensure the quality of construction at the SHNPP.
i t
! l f
f e
--y..e 4
- v. w g e--.,
- +
..---3
---+
-p
-,-y.=,
.-%.m 2
-_.---.y
S I.
Appendix A JOB DESCRIPTIONS i
Job Description Pm Utility Craft A-2 Rebar Craft A-3 Ironworker Craft A-4 Carpenter Craft A-5 Painter Craft A-6 Pipe Fitter Craft A-7
. Instrument Craft A-8 Sheet Metal Craft A-9 Electrician Craft A-10 Truck-Driver Craft A-11 Field Engineer Craft-A-12 Concrete Finisher-A-13 Equipment Operator A-14
' Daniel Overhead-A-15 Other A-16 Inspectors A-17 Conam Eddy Current Examiners A-18 i
l A-1
o Utility Craft Non Safety-Related Activities Perform general cleanup (tools, equipment, materials and work
-area)
Perform reading and driving of grade stakes Perform leveling of earth to grade specification using a pick and shovel Mix and rough-smooth concrete using proper hand tools Assist with preparation of concrete or metal surfaces (scaling)
Assist in the positioning, joining, aligning, and sealing of pipe sections Assist in the erection of scaffolding, shoring, and braces Mop, brush, or spread paints or compounds over surfaces for protection Spray materials such as water, sand, steam,. vinyl, paint, or stucco with a hose to clean, coat, cure or seat surfaces Apply caulking compounds by hand or with caulking gun to seal surfaces Assist and/or perform grinding, sanding, or polishing surfaces such as concrete, marble, terrazzo, or wood flooring using abrasive hand tools Perform sawing of rough lumber Perform dismantling of forms from set concrete Assist in the mounting of pipe hangers Assist in the demolition of temporary buildings or structures Assist with the handling of building materials and tools Assist equipment operators in the alignment, movement, and adjustment of machinery to grade specifications Assist in the installation of waterworks, locks, and dams Stretch tight line Flag traffic Assist in maintaining project roads, parking areas, and walkways Rope off unauthorized areas used by utility craft Perform dewatering operations 1
Perform fire watch duties Distribute potable drinking water as required Assist in securing project for inclement weather Perform basic rigging Potentially Safety-Related Activities Install wedge anchor bolts i
I A-2
a Rebar Craft Non Safety-Related Activities Perform general cleanup Perform tying operations Perform unloading and storing of rebar.
Perform craft-related math Perform rigging or rebar Perform hand carrying of rebar Use craft tools Use burning torch Potentially Safety-Related Activities Perform preassembly of.rebar (mats, columns, walls, beams) steel Perform placing of rebar Perform identification of rebar Perform lap splicing Use bending machine and shear Perform cadwelding Install wedge anchors 1
f I
l l
l l
l A-3 I
i
- , ~. p Ironworker Craft Non Safety-Related Activities Perform general cleanup in work area and miscellaneous duties
-Use and care for craft-related hand tools Assist with crane movement and set-up (learn hand signals)
Assist with portable power tools Use shop power tools and portable power tools Perform cutting torch operations Assist in scaffold and/or float erection Change crane boom or cable Perform installation of grating or decking Perform rigging Perform scaffolding inspection and/or erection Perform permanent handrail fabrication and installation Potentially Safety-Related Activities Perform bolt-up operations Perform layout and fabrication Perform Nelson stud welding Perform erection and connection of structural steel Perform erection of miscellaneous steel Perform plumbing operations Perform welding 5
l L
A-4 i
e
o.
N Carpenter Craft-Non Safety-Related Activities Clean, inspect, repair (if necessary) and stack forms Identify common. form components Perform form removal
' Perform form installation Maintain clean work area Identify carpentry tools Use non-power hand tools, measuring tools, portable power tools Perform basic layout operations Interpret basic job prints and sketches Fabricate forms (not in place)
Fabricate forms (in place)
Install shoring and bracing Select, measure and cut material Assist in fundamental rigging Use shop power tools and explosive power tools Erect and disassemble commercial scaffolding Fabricate and install job built scaffolding Perform detailed layout Perform framing and proper installation of framed openings Installation railings and/or steps Use man-lifts (contingent on project certification)
Welding - temporary l
Potentially Safety-Related Activities Install anchor bolts Install wedge anchors l
Install permanent doors i-t r
l l
l t
A-5 l'
' Painter Craft Non Safety-Related Activities Perform general cleanup and miscellaneous duties Assist with or maintain cleanliness and operating condition of equipment and tools Operate sandblasting equipment Mask-off protected surface areas Use and care for surface-preparation tools and equipment, i.e.,
side grinder, wire brush, and sandblasting equipment Maintain equipment (including disassembly and reassembly)
Store, handle, and use chemicals Perform basic rigging Potentially Safety-Related Activities Use paint equipment and/or spray pot in the application of coatings Apply primers Apply finish coatings Prepare surfaces; i.e.,
sandblast, patch, grind, wire brush, chemically treat, etc.
Mix, store and transport primer and/or finish coatings i
i A-6 l
t
2 Pipe Fitter Craft Non.9afety-Related Activities Perform general cleanup and miscellaneous work Use and care for hand tools and measuring devices Thread pipe Install terra cotta, ceramic, rubber reinforced or epoxy joined pipe and fittings Install pipe with screwed fittings Perform rigging and transportation of pipe, valves, fittings, etc.
Potentially Safety-Related Activities Cut pipe Cut and install gaskets Install pipe with flanged fittings Install pipe hangers Clean, bevel, prepare, and install pipe with weld joints Bend pipe Install valves, traps or strainers Lay out pipe- (to include use of templates)
Perform welding Install wedge anchors P
i i
i l
A-7 l
l L
l
f Instrument Craft Non Safety-Related-Activities Perform cleanup during and after completion of job Perform cutting, threadtng and installation of screw pipe Layout, fabricate and install hard-drawn copper tubing and fittings Use and care for hand tools and power tools Potentially Safety-Related Activities Perform cutting, cleaning and preparing materials Perform drilling, tapping holes and setting anchors Fabricate pipe hangers and other supports Perform hydrostatic and pneumatic testing Install multi-tubing and junction boxes Layout, fabricate and install tube tray and supports Perform layout and mounting of panel instruments and devices Petform lay ut, installation, and bending of tubing Layout, fabricate, and install instrumentation systems Perform pipe assembly for socket weld pipe, tubing and fittings Perform pipe assembly for butt-weld pipe and fittings Install hand valves Perform welding Install wedge anchors A-8
N I
i Sheet Metal Craft Non Safety-Related Activities Perform general cleanup and miscellaneous duties Use and care for hand tools and measuring devices Use and care for power hand tools Use and care for shop equipment Perform basic soldering operations Perform rigging and installation operations Potentially Safety-Related Activities Perform cutting, cleaning, and preparing materials Assist in and/or perform fabrication of brackets, braces, and other supports Assist in or perform fabrication of patterns (to include punching, drilling and riveting operations)
Assist in or perform edging, notching and seam folding operations Perform forming, crimping, beading and grooving operation Perform miscellaneous fabrication and installation operations (to include pocket locks, drives, and companion angles)
Assist in and/or perform fabrication of duct Perform welding Install wedge anchors 1
i I
A-9 I
=
Electrician Craft Non Safety-Related Activities Bend conduit Install lighting systems Install heating equipment, grounding equipment, and branch circuits Megger wires; identify and tag wires Install temporary services and outside branch circuits Potentially Safety-Related Activities Run conduit, including flexible conduit and other fittings Install hangers, brackets and braces Install batteries Install cable tray Pull wire Terminate wires and/or cables Perform tying cable in wireways and/or cables Install fuse devices Install DC and AC motors and/or generators
. Perform sizing and wire routing Install cranes, hoists, elevators and associated equipment Install remote control components (signaling devices)
Install switches Install switchboards and panelboards Install high voltage systems (600 volts or more)
Install low voltage systems (600 volts or less)
Install electronic control systems Perform welding Install wedge anchors I
l 4-10 1
+
Truck Driver Craft Non Safety-Related Activities Carry out duties as assigned by supervisor Operate assigned vehicle safely Perform daily service and maintenance checks l
I
)
A-11
l, t -
l' i-i Field Engineer Craft s
Non Safety-Related Activities Care for and use survey instruments Potentially Safety-Related Activities Establish reference monuments, lines and grades Perform measurements and checks on work in progress Perform measurements and as-builts on completed work D
b l
A-12 e
i
= _.
3-
'e Concrete Finisher Craft Non Safety-Related Activities Perform general cleanup and miscellaneous work Transport concrete to pour site (wheelbarrow, buggies, or other equipment)
Place flexible control joint strips Assist with assembly, operation and disassembly of concrete conveying devices Potentially Safety-Related Activities
- =
Perform spreading, compacting, and leveling of concrete to
-r:oper grade Perform smoothing operations with use of bull-floats, darbys or other similar devices Perform patching and follow-up operations with use of chipping hammers, power saws, hand chisels, and cement grout Perform finish operations with machines and/or hand trowels Perform curing oporations Use epoxy bonding compounds t
t v
A-13
.o Equipment Operator Craft Non Safety-Related Activities Inspect safety equipment on specific piece of equipment Perform general cleanup of machine Perform daily service and maintenance of machine Assist with scheduled service and maintenance requirements Observe and control basic rigging operations Perform or assist with machine setup for operation Perform safe operation of machine i
L l
l 4
A-14 l
L
,c
,-r.
r 7
d%
l Daniel Overhead Included within this classification are:
-hourly ~ overhead'(clerk)
-non-exempt personnel (aide)
-engineers:
-specialist
-technician
-secretary This classification will encompass a variety of work functions
~which may involve as few as one or as many as all of the.following' activities:
Non Safety-Related Activities Type File Answer telephone Prepare change request Develop basic programs-Prepare material requisitions Evaluate technical aspects Supervise personnel Develop construction problem resolutions Perform studies of construction practice and procedure Potentially Safety-Related Activities Prepare / review work packages Prepare / review documentation Prepare / review non-conformance reports Write procedures Determine / interpret quality standards
(:
(
i j
A-15
Other Included within this classification are janitors, drafters, engineering support personnel and document reviewers.
Janitor Non Safety-Related Activities Sweep, dust, collect trash in office and common areas Wax and polish flocrs Clean restrooms Drafter Non Safety-Related Activities Reads engineering sketches Utilizes drafting techniques Prepares engineering drawings Engineering Support Personnel Potentially Safety-Related Activities Interpret problems encountered by construction personnel Create or process field change reports to reflect field problems Develop viable solutions to resolve field prcblems Perform calculations necessary to support solutions Verify calculations developed by other engineering support personnel Develop design changes supported by calculations Document design changes in accordance with procedures Interface with field craft personnel to ensure design change is workable and is carried out Document Reviewer Non Safety-Related Activities Follows site work procedures Checks documents for completeness, accuracy, and traceability l'
l A-16 l
l
i Inspectors Construction Inspection and Quality Control inspectors are hired based on previous experience and training pertinent to the intended assignments.
Inspector candidates are indoctrinated to project procedures, policies and specifications and are assigned to on-the-job-training with certified inspectors for prescribed periods of time to gain proficiency and demonstrate ability prior to being considered for certification. When required on-the-job training requirements are met, inspector candidates must pass written and oral examinations in the certification process.
CI and QC inspectors work to approved procedures and inspect for quality attributes developed by design engineering.
In addition to physical attributes, inspectors check for other items important to quality such as: use of latest revisions of drawings, procedures and specifications; qualifications of cadweld splicers, protective coating applicators and welders; weld material control; cleanliness of controlled work areas and material traceability.
Inspectors are assigned to perform prescribed monitoring and inspections in the following general areas of activity:
Civil and Structural Concrete production and placement Concrete embedments Reinforcing steel placement and splicing Structural steel placement, bolting and welding Soils placement and compaction Electrical Equipment setting and installation Cable pulling and termination
' Cable tray, conduit and raceway installation Penetration installation, sealing and maintenance Material Control Procurement and receiving Lifting and handling Mechanical Equipment setting and installation Piping and HVAC duct bolting and welding Seismic support installation Pressure testing systems and components Nondestructive examination (NDE)
A-17
Conam Eddy Current Examiners Eddy current examiners are hired based upon previous experience and training pertinent to their intended assignments. Eddy current examiners are subject to stringent certification requirements before being allowed to perform independent eddy current examinations.
Prior to certification, eddy current exam;ners are required to meet specific training requirements including both classroom studies and on-the-job training. There are mandated certification examinations required by the ASME Code and the American Society of Nondestructive Testing.
Examiners are indoctrinated to applicable project procedures, policies and specifications and are assigned to perform independent examinations for which they are qualified and certified, including but not limited to, eddy current testing.
The eddy current examiners work to approved procedures and perform independent eddy current examinatiens to detect and identify inherent anomalies in heat exchanger tubing and other materials.
Eddy current examiners are assigned to perform independent examinations in the following general areas of activity:
Mechanical Eddy current testing of heat exchanger tubing Examinations of pressure retaining components and systems Conam Eddy Current Trainee Trainees in eddy current examination perform general support functions such as setting up equipment, carrying tools, and other support work for qualified examiners.
A-18
APPLICANT'S EXHIBIT
_,sn esm o essn~cvmes CAROLINA POWER & LIGIT COP #iY
' flARRIS NUCLEAR PLN4T PR01CT QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONSTRUCTION SECTIQNS s,
\\
~1 GCT : 3 -
23 t
l
.L i
b.
d-;_/
I EVALUATION OF PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
{
l l
1 l
PROCEDURE NltBER:
INITIAL ISSUE DATE:
CQA-7 June 20, 1984 i
CONTiiCLLED [0CLFENT -
CAROLINA PCwER & LIGHT CCFPANY HARRIS tiUCLEAR PLANT PROJECT Niy:Eg pgvis t.cn nn:
~
CUALITY ASSLR ECE 2.';D CONSTRUCTION SECTIONS CQA-7 1
4/5/35
~1 TITLE: EVALUATIO:I 0F PROGRAM EFFECTIVE:!ESS REVISION APPROVAL RECORD THIS REVISION APPROVAL SHEET IS TO BE RETAINED BEHIND THE TITLE PAGE OF THE PROCEDURE UNTIL A SUBSEQUENT REVISION IS ISSUED.
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL-BY:
i d ll ff.C 4
"r' A,
DIRECTOR - QA/QC HARRIS PLANT
' DATE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY:
V / d5 i
c' 4.
MANAGER -
NSTRUCTION INSPECTION
/ DATE APPROYAL BY:
i
- 8) ~
MA AGE - QA/
PLANT
' DATE l
APPROVAL BY:
mw/
+Mw I
DATE PROJECTGENERALpAGER-CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL BY:
I Y$
, b A. L i.('t~
DATE PL, ANT GENERAL MANAGER APPROVAL BY:
Gkkr I
MANAGER'- PARRI PLANT ENGINEERING
/DpTE l
APPROVAL BY:
I
&M
+*h/s5 i
PROJECT GENERAL MANAGER DATE COMPLETION ASSURANCE
C0tliRCLLEO [COEli CAROLINA PCWER 3 LIGHT CCteFAt#
HARRIS tlUCLEAR PLANT PROJECT
. lise =q pcvisrc.i nn:
~
CUALITY ASSL:x::E 2 0 CCNSTRUCTION SECTICNS
. )
CCA-7_
1 e/5/35 i
TITLE: EVALUATION OF FROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS i
I REVISION RECORD i
The following is a list of the pages and paragraphs affected by this i
revision. Changes or additions are indicated by a vertical bar in.
l the right-hand margin of the revised page(s).
Manual holder is to j
replace affected pages only. This record is to be retained behir.d the title page of the procedure until a subsequent revision is i
issued.
Page(s)
Paragraph (s) u 1
1.1; 1.3 2
3 2; 4.1; 5.1 l
5
+
3 5.1.4; 5.2.1; 5.2.1.1; 5.2.1.3 4
5.2.1.4; 5.3.1; 5.3.1.1; 5.3.1.2; 5.3.1.3; 5 3 2 5
5.4 ; 5.4.1; 5.5 ; 5.5.1 ;
5.5.1.1 T
6 5.5.1.2; 5.5.1 3 I
)
Revised Appendix A i
Added Appendix B l
i c
i I
l
\\
l l
4
CCtfiRO I FD [CGPENT CARCLINA PCWER 8 LIGHT CCMPANY HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT PROJECT CUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONSTRUC ION SECTIONS CCA-7 1
i TITi.E:
EVALUATION OF PRCGRAM EFFECTIVENESS l
LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Page No.
Rev. No.
1 1
2 1
3 1
4 1
5 1
6 1
Appendix A 1
Appendix B 0
l l
l-4 l
i i
CONTRCLLED00CiFENT CARCLINA POWER & LIGHT CCrfANY -
'NUfGER REVISICN HARRIS NUCLEAR PLAfii PROJECT CUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONSTRUCTION SECTIONS CCA-7 1
TITLE: - EVALUATION OF PROGRAM EFFECTIVE.'!ESS l
1.0 SCOPE 1.1 This procedure defines, or gives guidance to, the methods to i
be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the overall program (or segments) or personnel performance in fabrication, installation, inspection, and field data
. collection / verification activities.
1.2 At the discretion of management, the procedure may be used when there are allegations or audit findings (NRC/CQAA) directed at the effectiveness of program or personnel performance, or as a management tool at anytime desired.
1.3 In addition to ascertaining the quality status of the product, this procedure provides a means to protect fabrication, installation, inspection and field data collection / verification personnel from exposure of allegations (and resulting intimidation) based upon insignificant attributes that might have been overlooked and later found to
' be deficient.
2.0 REFERENCES
2.1 CQA-3, Nonconformance Control 2.2 AP-IX-08, Evaluating Inspector or Vendor Weld Visual Inspection Performance on Welded Structural Fabrications 30 DEFINITIONS
-The following terms appear in this procedure and are used in the manner described:
31 Inspection This is the verification of a single quality attribute.
These attributes will be identified in the process of establishing parameters for a sampling inspection plan.
The attributes will be those found in project drawings, specificatior s and procedures, and which are related to quality of fabrication, installation or inspection activities. @
l
CCNTROIF0[0ClFST CARCLINA POWER & LIGHT CCPPANY NUMBER REVISION HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT PROJECT l
CUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONSTRUCTION SECTIONS CCA-7 I
TITLE: EVALUATION OF PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS 3.2 Field-Data Collection / Verification Those activities necessary to document the as-constructed condition.
3.3 Objective Attribute This is an attribute that is measurable and can result in a quantifiable record (e.g. member dimensions, elevations, etc.).
Repeatability for objective inspections is expected to be high (at least 95% for a proficient inspector).
3.4 Subjective Attribute This is an attribute that is qualitative in nature and subject to interpretation, and results in a
. qualitative record (e.g. weld overlap, surface profile comparitor).
Repeatability for subjective inspections is expected to be high, but somewhat lower than for objective inspections (at least 90% for a proficient inspector).
4.0 GENERAL 4.1 The cognizant Resident Engineer / Unit Manager and the cognizant QA/QC/CI Unit Supervisor, in consultation, as necessary, with l
the Manager - Harris Plant Engineering Section are responsible for administering this procedure.
(See Appendix A for flow chart.)
4.2 The Harris project, especially during the construction phase, may be the target of criticism that individual personnel performance, or the overall program, is ineffective.
This criticism may be based upon inspection re'ect rates, nonconformance history, or deficiencies discovered after an item has been inspected and judged to be acceptable.
The criticism may be directed at the overall program, a segment of the program, individual inspectors / craftsmen, or specific groups of inspectors / craftsmen.
5.0 PROCEDURE 5.1 De fining the Area to Be Evaluated l
Upon direction by management to implement this procedure, assigned personnel shall initiate an investigation to establish the scope and limits of the evaluation.
Consideration shall be given, but not limited, to the following:
l
_2_
l l
CONTRCUID00Cl19T CAROLlNA POWER & LI.GHT CCffAPN NUfEER REVISION HARRIO NUCLEAR PLANT PROJECT CUALITY ASSURAACE AND CONSTRUCTION SECTIONS CQA-7 1
T!TLE' EVALUATION OF PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS 5.1.1 Work / inspection history of individual / groups of inspectors / craftsmen to attempt a correlation with other work by the same personnel.
5.1.2 Training records of the personnel to attempt a correlation with dates of training (basic and additional).
5.1.3 History of the governing procedures to determine if improvements in the work / inspection process could have improved performance after a given time.
5.1.4 Time, type, method, procedures, etc. of fabrication installation, inspection and field data collection / verification activities.
5.2 Establish Parameters for Data Collection 5.2.1 When the evaluation area has been defined, assigned personnel will implement a sampling plan designed to capture data that is representative of the condition.
The following shall be the basis for the sampling plan, unless special circumstances suggest an alternate plan.
Any alternate plan will.be developed in collaboration with the Industrial Engineering Unit or the QA Engineering Unit.
5.2.1.1 The sample size meets or exceeds that defined
.in Appendix B.
l 5.2.1.2 The sample population includes activities performed early-on following qualification of personnel.
5.2.1 3 The samples will be selected at random; except that suspect performance, conditions, etc. (as determined through bracketing, above) will be included in the samples.
There may be l
situations, in which du'e to accessibility l
l problems, the requiements of randomness in choice of samples cannot be totally sa tis fied.
In such cases, suitable justification will be provided regarding the choice of samples and analysis of the results.
3 l
l t
CONTROI A CCCLPENi CARCLINA POWER & LIGHT CCffANY NUfSER REV!SION HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT PROJECT
-CUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONSTRUCTION SECTIONS CCA-7 1
- TITLE:
EVALUATION OF PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS 5.2.1.4 Individual attributes of the fabrication, installation, inspection or field data collection / verification involved that are related to quality shall be identified.
These attributes will be categorized as either objective or subjective; or not categorized (see 5.5.1.3 note).
5.3 Field Evaluation and Data Collection 5.3.1 The cognizant Resident Engineer / Unit Manager and QA/QC/CI Unit Supervisor shall designate an evaluation team to collect existing data and/or perform / lead an inspection / evaluation of the selected samples.
The following shall be the basis for performing the sampling inspection:
5.3 1.1 The evaluation team shall not consist of any l
member that is implicated in the audit finding / allegation.
5 3.1.2 The evaluation team members shall be qualified l
through certification for the activity involved, or through education, experience and any special instructions deemed necessary.
5.3.1.3 Detailed records of the sampling inspection measurable results shall be kept to permit comparison to the results of. prior inspections (if conducted).
These records cre not considered QA Records unless they are included as part of a package which will become a QA Record (e.g. NCR closeout).
In this case, control and review of the QA Records shall be in accordance with applicable site procedures.
5.3.2 The evaluation team shall ensure defects identified during sampling inspections are processed in accordance with Reference 2.1 1
CCNTROIFD EC G 9 T CARCL MA F0WER & LlGHT CCrfANY PUABER REVISION HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT PROJECT
-CUALETY ASSURANCE AND CONSTRUCil0N SECTIONS COA-7 1
TITLE:
EVALUATION OF PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS 5.4 Evaluation of Sampling Results for Significance to Nuclear
- l Sa fe ty 5.4.1 The cognizant Resident Engineer / Unit Manager.or the QA/QC/CI Unit Supervisor in collaboration, as necessary with HPES shall initiate / perform an evaluation of the sampling inspection results to reach one of the folicwir.g conclusions:
5.4.1.1 Defects identified have no significance to nuclesr. safety, and are acceptable as-is (not reportable).
5.4.1.2 Defects identified have no significance to nuclear safety, but will be repaired / reworked to restore design safety margin (not reportab le).
5.4.1 3 Defects identified have significance to nuclear safety, and require rework / repair to meet design requirements (reportable).
5.5 Evaluation of Sampling Results for Effectiveness of l
Program / Personnel 5.5.1 The cognizant Resident Engineer / Unit Manager and QA/QC/CI Unit Supervisor in collaboration with HPES, as necessary, shall perform an evaluation of the sampling inspection results to determine effectiveness of the progrtc/ personnel.
Effectiveness shall be judged to be satisfactory provided that all of the following determinations can be made (as applicable to the evaluation):
5.5.1.1 There were no defects identified that are significant to nuclear safety (i.e. those defects reported on subordinant nonconformance documents and NCR's evaluated as not l
reportable in accordanc'e with Reference 2.1) l !
CONTRCLLED COCLPENT CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT C0ffANY NUMEER REVISION HARRIS NUCLEAR PLANT PROJECT CUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONSTRUCTION SECTIONS CCA-7 1
TITLE:
EVALUATION OF PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS 5.5.1.2 The inspection / verification proficiency was I
not less than 95% for objective attributes; and not less than 90% for subjective attributes.
5.5.1.3 The fabrication / installation proficiency was not less than 80% for objective attributes; and not less than'75% for subjective a t tributes.
Notes:
1.
In cases where attributes have not been categorized as either objective or subjective, the most co.nservative acceptance criteria shall be utilized (i.e. 95% for inspection / verification and 80% for craft).
2.
Proficiency shall be calculated using the results of the sampling inspection, as follows:
ACCEPTABLE ATTRIBUTES ATTRIBUTES SAMPLED l
5.5.2 The inspection team shall initiate nonconformance reports in accordance with Reference 2.1 when the effectiveness of the program / personnel has been judged to be unsatisfactory.
5.6 Evaluation Reporting 5.6.1 The cognizant Resident Engineer / Unit Manager and QA/QC/CI Unit Supervisor shall provide copies of the evaluation report to site management of construction, engineering, operations, QA/QC and CI, as appropriate, for use in:
5.6.1.1 Responding to audit findings / allegations.
5.6.1.2 Nonconformance disposit' ion and corrective action (Reference 2.1).
5.6.1.3 10 CFR Part 21 and 50 reportable item processing (Reference 2.1).,
6 -
L CCA-7 l
Appendix A Rev. 1 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT FLOW CHART l
DEFINE THE AREA TO BE EVALUATED u
SET PARAMETERS I
FOR EVALUATION u
CAPTURE SAMPLE DATA 1 r ANALYZE DATA I
+
+
NUCLEAR SAFETY PROFICIENCY MARGIN MET LEVELS HET YES BOTH YES 4
YES' NO NO INITIATE PRODUCT EFFECTIVENESS INITIATE PROGRAM /
CORRECTION IS SATISFACTORY ~
PERSONNEL CORRECTION SUBMIT EFFECTIVENESS O
EVALUATION REPORT C
(
I s
CCA-7 Appendix 3 Rev. 0 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT e
LOT OR BATCH SIZE SAMPLE SIZE l
2 to 8 2
3 9 to 15 16 to 25 5
26 to 50 8
51 to 90 13 91 to 150 20 151 to 280 32 281 to 500 50 501 to 1200 80 1201 to 3200 125 3201 to 10000 200 10001 to 35000 315 35001 to 150000 500 150001 to 500000 800 L
500001 and over 1250 l
(1)
Based on Military Standard - 105D, General Inspec' 'on Level II i
i i
l l-