ML20198D585

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Withheld Assessment of Allegations AQ-69 & AQ-122 to Allegation Category Qa/Qc 7, QA Implementation Re Lack of Job Site Coordination Evidenced by Shoddy Workmanship, Poor Supervision & Unreported Defects
ML20198D585
Person / Time
Site: Comanche Peak  Luminant icon.png
Issue date: 06/07/1985
From: Livermore H, Wenczel V
NRC, NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198C597 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8605230330
Download: ML20198D585 (2)
v • d • e


Text

1. Allegation Category: QA/QC 7, QA Implementation

2. Allegation Number: AQ-69 and AQ-122
3. Characterization: There is a concern that there is a lack of " job site coordination" evidenced by shoddy workmanship, poor supervision, waste of material, and hundreds of defects not being reported (AQ-69); and that QA has been deficient because QC was not supported in the past (AQ-122).
4. Assessment of Safety Significance: In assessing the concern that there was a lack of " job site coordination" resulting in shoddy workmanship, poor supervision, waste of material, and hundreds of defects not being reported, the NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) reviewed many different examples of how coordination activities between site disciplines occurred. For example, Brown & Root (B&R) has a form for requesting information or clarification, which permits a person to obtain a documented inquiry of the requirements of an engineering document. In addition, many of T.he site memos raviewed cautioned employees about procedural compliance, encouraged the reporting of nonconforming conditions, advised the correct usage of measuring and test equipment, instructed on the protection of cable insulation, directed adherence to hold points, and urged the cooperation among craft, engineer-ing, and QA/QC personnel. Further, Texas Utilities Electric Company.(TVEC) developed a master data base early in the project as a means to identify and coordinate the completion of work activities.

To assess the quality of construction workmanship at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), the TRT evaluated as-built construction. (See

. QA/QC Category 8.) During these as-built verifications, the TRT found several examples of careless and incomplete workmanship. The issue regarding the quality of supervision was evaluated in QA/QC Category 7, allegation AQ-25, and was not substantiated. The " waste of material" issue is an economic problem, and as such required no TRT evaluation. In regard to the allegation that there were " hundreds" of unreported defects, the detailed TRT review of various allegations in QA/QC Category 50 shows that numerous nonconformance reports (NCRs) were issued to identify and correct deficiencies. Therefore, the evidence does not support the sub-stance of this allegation. Further, in NRC Region IV Inspection Report 50-445/79-22, NRC personnel noted that of all the defects this alleger l

had personal knowledge of, none went unreported.

l In assessing the concern that QC has not been supported in the past and i

that QA is generally deficient (AQ-122), the TRT interviewed the individual

who raised this concern to obtain more specific information. The individ-ual was a .QC inspector in the safeguards building whose previous experience was as a QC inspector in the Naval nuclear submarine shipyards. He was critical of the non-ASME program at CPSES, based on his experience with an undersize weld deficiency. After his initial inspection, he was repeatedly pressed for more information that required three reinspections before the inspection report was accepted. After a "long" period of time, an NCR was issued which accepted the weld condition "as is." The QC inspector was left with the " impression" that supervision did not want the deficiency reported. (The weld was located in an inaccessible area and that would make reworking the weld costly.) The allegation arose from the QC inspec-tor's impression that if other inspectors had to go to such lengths to

~e56I512 (I 0-239 m eessest._ .ros . 1. _ s h,. - -

do'cument an inspection, then the importance of the QC function was down-graded and lacked the required support to be effective. This impression was not supported by TRT interviews with other inspectors, as discussed above, nor could the concerned individual direct the TRT to another QC inspector who held the some impression. He acknowledged that with no other instances to follow up, Md lacking information about a deficiency knowingly unreported, he could not corroborate his impressions.

5. Conclusion and Staff Positions: In the evidence presented, the concern that there was a lack of job coordination (AQ-69) was substantiated only in the area of careless workmanship. The details found by the TRT indica-ting careless workmanship are outlined in the results reported in QA/QC Category 8. The TRT concludes, after reviewing the remaining items of AQ-69, that TUEC had adequate measures to assure good site coordination.

The TRT concludes that the concern that QC was not supported in the past (AQ-122) could not be substantiated by the reviews and interviews. conducted by the TRT.

The AQ-69 concern and issues came from an anonymous source; therefore, no closecut interview was conducted. On March 25, 1985, a closecut interview was conducted for AQ-122 with the individual who expressed these concerns.

No new concerns or issues were identified.

(

7. Attachments: None.

Reference Documents:

1. TUGC0 procedure CP-QP-3.0, Rev. 15, "CPSES Site Quality Assu,rance/

Quality Control Organization."

2. AQ-69: Unknown alleger statement, July 18, 1979, IR 50-445/79-22, page 3, Item 1.
3. AQ-122: Special Review Team Report, July 13, 1984, page 64.
8. This statement prepared by: 4t&r __

d[

V. Wenczel dTRT Date Technical Reviewer Reviewed by: ZA/4V22_ 6 ~/- S 3 H. Livermore, Date Group Leader Approved by:

V. Noonan, ,

Date Project Director 0-240 A

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20198D585&oldid=3008184"