ML20205C594
| ML20205C594 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1986 |
| From: | Dantonio A, Forrest F, Frazier T, Marcus G COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO., PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC. (FORMERLY PTL-I |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205C591 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8608120401 | |
| Download: ML20205C594 (150) | |
Text
,.- R
. u.
y.. _. 4.,,;
,,... 5
~
. g
. ;,.. u...
- s. -
. v
-,t 3
e
- t.. :..,-.
4 g4 -
.,. yy ' ' *.t. y s,,..,...
.o
.e
. ~
y 1
.4 9
^
/
~
g...
g 4
-.;ys
,.9,.
s.
g 9.
j.
ms,
,.,.l
/ y p
..4, 7-
. q 7.-
u.
..IE-J
.s
.u-*
i g
.p-
/
- >y_,j -
\\
^
q.
A 4-.s, ar go,
y.,
t, s
?
1
' at ' ' *
'. ?4 g
w.
~
+, ;,,. s '? ','
(
- i.N p.
1,
.F.
g 1
L...-
M
..t A
,b..g, '
q*,,'
o Is p,
-,4,
',2 e
j
. g.,.. _
-- '-y 3,- p4 i,
'(. '.
. - - _,. }._
~
.. d by f"e'p.
.. V g*,
- 'c
' ~ '
fe 9
- _8 hf
~
4*
F f
. L. ' l aR[,.,R.
- e
- t
..9 h dQ, '-
c a....,
,T r-Y ;a p ;'~y
',p
- 4.
. : ". ~,
1
~g
-t.
~
gW
,, '.,. ', 'f.
f
, %. t '. '.::. ' -
a
,,,. gf g
Iy,0.,.#
I i
At.
+ -
3 f,.4. f,:.
~
, 4.,. ;" <
If
^
'<I% ~ 6, f,
pk' p ; <, e e
4,,.
g e is
=1
'i".'.,*.,..'
..]....
.-f,
'.ge-.',. '. _ _
4?., 'a' I
.g
.' +.*
e a;... -
,g
,.+..
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-456
)
50-457 (Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2)
)
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF GEORGE F. MARCUS (ION ROREM Q. A. SUBCONTENTION 2)
(Harassment and Intimidation) v August, 1986 o
Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Q.1
.Please state your name for the record.
A.1 My name is George F. Marcus Q.2 By whom are you employed and in what capacity?
A.2 I am employed by Commonwealth Edison Company. My position is Assistant to the Manager of Quality Assurance and I am assigned to the Braidwood Nuclear Station Construction Site.
Q.3 What are your responsibilities in this position?
A.3 I am responsible for the oversight of the Site Quality Assurance activities for the construction and start-up of the Braidwood Units.
Q.4 What is the purpose of your testimony?
A.4 The purpose of my testimony is to explain the reasoning which led to the establishment of the overinspection program which included Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory personnel performing independent overinspections of completed L. K. Comstock inspection activities; also, to assess the results of the overinspections and describe the conclusions which I have reached based on the results of the overinspections.
i t
1 Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 2 Q.5 Please summarize your education, professional qualifications, and work experience.
A.5 I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology and a Masters Degree in Business Administration, with Honors, from the University of Chicago.
I am a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Illinois and am a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers.
I have received a wide variety of special training in Quality Assurance disciplines. This training included courses ranging from one day to two weeks in: Radiography, Ultrasonic Testing, Auditing, Pressurized Water Reactors, Boiling Water Reactors, NDE & Welding, ASME Code and Standards, Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment, ASME Surveys, and Lead Auditor Training.
In March 1974, I was assigned to the Quality Assurance Department.
My first position was Staff Assistant to the Manager of Quality Assurance and my primary responsibility was to work on the development of the Commonwealth Edison Quality Assurance Program for nuclear station construction.
In February 1975 I was appointed Director of Quality Assurance for Engineering and Construction of Nuclear Power Plants.
I managed the Q.A. Departments at the LaSalle, Byron, and Braidwood nuclear construction sites as well as the personnel who performed the Q.A. activities in the Station Nuclear Engineering, System Operational Analysis, System Material Analysis, Purchasing and Station Mechanical
f-Braidwood Hearings 1
Rebuttal Testimony of George-F. Marcus Page 3 Engineering Departments.
I was also responsible for the evaluation and auditing of vendors who performed work for our nuclear stations.
I held the position of Director of Quality Assurance for Engineering and Construction for over ten years, from February 1975 to May 1985. During this time frame I was actively involved in a Quality Assurance Management capacity for all three construction sites, however, there were periods when my direct attention was given to a single site and I had a less direct involvement with the others.
I always maintained the Corporate Q.A. responsibility for engineering, procurement and vendors which I described earlier.
For a five month period, beginning in hay 1985 I was assigned to the position of Special Assistant to the Manager of Projects.
I worked at the Braidwood Site and headed up a team of engineers doing special studies.
In October of 1985 I was assigned to my present position as Assistant to the Manager of Quality Assurance. Since then, I have been assigned to the Braidwood Site on a full time basis and am responsible for the oversight of the Site Quality Assurance activities for the construction, start-up, and licensing of the Braidwood Units.
m,
r.
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 4 During my earlier employment with Commonwealth Edison, from 1953 to 1974, I held a wide variety of engineering, supervisory, and management positions. The majority of these assignments were in engineering departments and involved the planning, design, and operation of the CECO electrical distribution system and transmission substations. This work included all lines and equipment from 138,000 volts down to customer utilization voltage.
Q.6 Please describe what responsibilities, if any, you exercised over time with respect to Comstock Q.A./Q.C. activities at Braidwood.
A.6 The L. K. Comstock Q.A./Q.C. personnel are closely monitored by the Edison Site Q.A. Department which has reported to me, directly or indirectly, for almost the entire construction period.
I have had extensive interface with our Site Q.A. personnel through regular telephone calls, field trips to the construction sites, meetings, and reports regarding the site contractors and quality aspects of their work.
Throughout the construction period I have received and reviewed site reports of audits and surveillances performed by CECO Q.A. of Comstock activities.
I used these reports in discussions with our Site Q.A.
personnel to aid me in directing site activities.
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 5 As Director of Q.A., I headed up audit teams from our General Office and conducted audits at the Braidwood Site about two to three times per year. Many of these audits directly examined Comstock activities.
I was personally involved in the resolution of concerns identified in these audits.
Thus, my responsibilities regarding Comstock were primarily on an overview basis, however, I had knowledge of the quality aspects of their work and was involved in addressing them, i
Q.7 Please describe what responsibilities, if any, you exercised over time with respect to PTL overinspections at Braidwood.
A.7 PTL reports directly to CECO Site Quality Assurance. As such, I had i.
direct or indirect responsibility for their activities for almost the entire construction period. The Manager of Quality Assurance, at the corporate level, established the guidelines for implementation of the overinspection activities in regards to percent of coverage, type of work to be overinspected, and commitment of personnel.
I worked in the General Office, reported directly to the Manager of Quality Assurance, and was involved in establishing these guidelines and was responsible for assuring their implementation.
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 6 Q.8 What, if anything, have you done to prepare yourself to give this testimony?
A.8 I have reviewed our Site Q.A. Department correspondence for 1977-1986 which gives instructions to PTL regarding the implementation of the overinspection program.
Under my direction the overinspection data for the period July 1982 to May 1985 was retrieved, assembled, and entered into the computer in order to clearly portray the data and enable quick and easier analysis.
This data previously existed in nard copy, the majority of which was in the PTL files and the remainder in the Comstock files. The overinspection data for the period June 1985 to June 1986 had already been entered into the computer. The two computerized files were then combined at my request.
t I reviewed the computerized data and where appropriate, the underlying PTL inspection reports to familiarize myself with the specific results of the overinspections for the stated time periods.
Q.9 Did you take any action to verify that the data from the PTL and Comstock files was properly retrieved and entered into the computer?
A.9 Yes.
I requested our Site Q.A. engineering personnel to conduct surveillances to verify that data from Comstock inspection reports was properly entered on the load sheets which were used for computer entry.
4 I
i Braidwood Hearings 4
Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 7 i
l
}
Surveillances were also conducted to verify data on the PTL load sheets i
{
which were used for computer entry and also the accuracy of the PTL l
j computer entry.
In addition, as Mr. Forrest testifies, PTL performed i
extensive verifications to ensure that data from the PTL inspection j
reports was properly entered on the computer load sheets and that the J
load sheets were properly entered into the computer. As a result of these reviews I am confident of the accuracy of the computer data and 1
i l
output.
3 I
Q.10 Why did the Edison Q.A. Department initiate the overinspection program l
at Braidwood?
l t
A.10 1
The overinspection program was initiated by the Ceco Manager of I
Quality Assurance in early 1977. This type of redundant inspection was
{
not a requirement of 10CFR50 Appendix B, the ASME or AWS Codes, l
{
recognized construction or national standards nor the NRC. The 1
i overinspection program was initiated by Edison in order to keep ahead of i
j known industry problems such as the deficient Q.C. inspections and i
- i failure of welds on the Alaskan pipeline project. Since the Independent i,
Testing Agency, PTL, worked for CECO Q.A., independent qualified Q.C j
inspection personnel were readily available to provide another level of 5
verification that the welding work was being properly performed and
)
j inspected by the site contractors.
I l
l
.i l
l j
i
- _. _ ~... -
i i
Braidwood Hearings l
Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 8 I
J Q.11 Why were such overinspections limited to welding prior to June 19857 i
4 l
A.11 As stated in my previous answer, overinspection was not a i
requirement but was chosen to be done by Edison in order to achieve 4'
another level of verification of work quality.
i j
It should be pointed out that when we initiated the overinspection
)
program in the mid-1970's a large majority of the work being performed i
at Braidwood centered on structural welding. Also, on a nuclear project j
an extensive amount of structural type welding is performed by the
)i structural, mechanical, electrical, and heating / ventilation /
a j
air-conditioning contractors who were the major contractors on site. At the time, welding was probably the predominate work activity at the l
l l
site.
It certainly is one of the most important aspects of construction 4
i i
and it is a work activity which requires special skills and l
l qualification. Thus, it was a logical work activity to select for additional verification of quality. As construction progressed, the i
overinspection program was expanded to cover other work activities.
i Q.12 Why did Edison's Q.A. Department increase the overinspection percentage from 10% to 25% in 1984?
A.12 As stated in my answer to Question No. 10, the overinspection i
program was established at the direction of our Manager of Quality i
l Assurance and it was not a regulatory requirement. As such, the Manager 1
of Q.A. gave overall direction to the program based on his perception of I
J t
i i
i
I f '
Braidwood Hearings l
Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 9 I
}
contractor performance at any specific time.
In July 1984, CECO responded to NRC Inspection Report 50-457/83-09 which identified six f
1 l
multipart violations. As part of the response, CECO stated that 1
"Overinspections by the Independent Testing Agency (PTL) at Braidwood f
are being increased from about 10% to a goal of 25%".
By November 1, i
1 1984, the overinspection level of 25% was implemented for Comstock work.
i l
i l
Q.13 Why did Edison's Q.A. Department authorize PTL to perform visual weld inspections through paint, prior to June, 19857 4
I l
t A.13 It should be emphasized that Comstock is responsible for the first line Q.C. acceptance inspection which requires that weld surfaces be free of paint and foreign material that would impair the performance of the visual inspection.
In contrast, the PTL overinspection is a sample 1
l recheck which is being performed to obtain a broader scope verification i
j of the Comstock Q.C. inspector's work. Also, when welds are painted, an i
j inspector is still able to verify many of those attributes which ars l
verified when the welds are unpainted.
In fact the Visual Weld l
i Acceptance Criteria for Structural Welding at Nuclear Power Plants which j
was approved by the NRC Staff in 1985 states that overinspection of j
welds through paint may be authorized by the engineer, even though it j
also states that "These Acceptance Criteria are to be used for the i
acceptance inspection of welds in the uncoated condition".
l i
[
i J
l 1
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 13 As a practical matter though, most of the Comstock welds were still unpainted during the PTL overinspection simply because the time lapse between Comstock's inspection and the PTL overinspection was usually short. As Mr. Frazier testifies, it was the PTL overinspection practice to indicate on the inspection report which welds were overinspected through paint. At my request, Mr. Forrest and Mr. Frazier and PTL employees under their supervision. reviewed their overinspection records for the period July 1982 through June 1986 and determined that 7% of the welds overinspected were overinspected through paint.
Q.14 For what purposes did Edison QA use the PTL overinspection results as those results were being generated?
A.14 In order to put the overinspection program in proper perspective it is important to understand what we were trying to achieve with the program.
There were many layers of checks of the quality of work being performed at the site, each type of check was performed in a somewhat different manner. For example, first line Q.C. inspections by the contractors were very formal, well documented, and controlled to assure full accountability for all work. On the other hand, Edison Project Construction Engineers and Q.A. engineers conducted surveillances in the field which were less formal, which examined a lot of the work in progress, made limited use of checklists in earlier years, and
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 11 served the dual purpose of keeping these cognizant personnel informed on a first hand basis as to the status and quality of the work.
Q.A.
audits resulted in in-depth checks but they were less frequent and examined smaller samples.
The overinspections were a regular, continuing reinspection of a fairly large portion of the work selected in a random manner.
I do not use the term " random" in its formal, statistical sense. From this, CECO Q. A. was able to get a good general picture of the quality of Comstock I
Q.C. weld inspection activities. During the period July, 1982 to May, 1985 that picture told us that there were minor deviations from the norm, which could reasonably be attributed to variations in judgment or human error by the Q.C. inspectors, but it did not suggest a significant departure from accepted work practices. The overinspection results were sufficient for this purpose. The identified deficiencies which were the by product of the program were reported to the Project Construction Department and to the contractor for disposition, and CECO Q.A. tracked the deficiencies to ensure proper disposition.
In June 1985 the overinspection program was modified to assure that the work of each active Comstock Q.C. inspector was overinspected.
Under the new method, PTL reviewed the work performed by Comstock on a j
daily basis to identify the work performed each day by each inspector.
l l
i l
Braidwood Hearings i
Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 12 Samples of work performed by each inspector were then selected for overinspection. This method assured that a minimum sample size was i
selected for each inspector as opposed to the previous method which used 1
samples based on the total population of work completed by Comstock
[
whereby some inspectors were sampled more heavily than others. However, l'
both methods satisfied our overall goal to obtain a good general picture i
j of the quality of Comstock Q.C. weld inspection activities.
i i
I j
Q.15 Have you attempted to determine what percentage of Comstock's welding 1
activities was overinspected by PTL for the entire period July 1982 l
through June 19867 j
j A.15 Yes.
At my request, Mr. Forrest and Mr. Frazier and other PTL employees performed a review of their records and overinspection logs.
Based on this review, we have determined that for the four year period from July 1982 through June 1986, welding overinspections were performed on about 7200 components, or about 28% of all the components accepted by j
Comstock QC inspectors. During the same period PTL overinspected about
(
28,400 Comstock welds, or about 10% of the total welds completed and 1
j Q.C. accepted during this four year period.
i i
j Q.16 Have you evaluated the results of PTL weld overinspections as a function of the time Comstock Q.C. inspectors performed their first line i
inspections?
I 1
i A.16 Yes i
1 1
1
)
I l
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 13 Q.17 How did you perform this evaluation?
A.17 For the time period July 1982 through June 1986 I reque.sted a computer run off which lists, by months, the agreement rate for Comstock Q.C. weld inspections. The agreement rate is obtained by dividing the total number of Comstock Q.C. accepted welds which were also found to be acceptable by PTL during overinspection, by the total number of Comstock QC accepted welds which were overinspected by PTL.
I then examined the results to determine if there were any months during which the agreement rate dropped below 90 percent.
The 90 percent threshold for welding reinspection is the same criterion which was used by Commonwealth Edison in evaluating the results of its Byron Quality Control Inspector Reinspection Program (QCIRP) which was conducted in 1983 and 1984. At Byron, both the NRC staff and the Licensing Board accepted this approach. After discussions 1
]
with Mr. De1 George, who is very familiar with the Byron QCIRP, I
)
concluded that a similar approach was appropriate for purposes of this testimony.
In the present context I used the 90% figure as a threshold for further investigation.
If the 90% threshold was met, the original inspector's work was judged to be acceptable.
If it was not met, then further analysis of the data was required.
i
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 14 The calculated agreement rate between original inspections and reinspections or overinspections is only meaningful if a sufficient number of inspections are being compared. For purposes of the Byron QCIRP a minimum of 50 inspections were considered sufficient to justify conclusions with respect to individual inspectors. After discussions with Mr. De1 George, I concluded that a similar 50 inspection minimum, applied on a monthly basis, and on a cumulative basis in assessing the i
performance of each inspector, was appropriate for purposes of this testimony.
The overinspection results for all Comstock inspectors are displayed 1
l in the bar chart marked as Attachment 2C (Marcus - 1), and the table marked as Attachment 2C (Marcus - 2).
The overinspection results for individual inspectors are shown in the table marked as Attachment 2C (Marcus-3). At Mr. De1 George's request I also had prepared J C (Marcus - 4), a table which shows the overinspection results for the group of 24 Camstock QC inspectors who took certain concerns to the NRC Staff on March 29, 1985.
I 1
j Q.18 Why does the data only go back to July 1, 19827 I
A.18 I was advised by Mr. De1 George that it was only necessary to compile 1
1 l
overinspection results from the present back to July 1, 1982.
-__-_.--_.m i
i j
J 1
Braidwood llearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 15 i
1 Q.19 Why is there a gap of two months in the chart in which no overinspec-tions were performed and also two other periods when the number of j
overinspections were minimal?
1 I
]
A.19 The gap in the chart during which PTL did not perform i
j overinspections of Comstock Q.C. inspections is for October and November i
1 1982. On September 20, 1982 Ceco Q.A. Instructed PTL to discontinue doing overinspection on Comstock work because of an additional work assignment being performed by PTL. That additional work assignment
\\
I required PTL inspectors to perform "first line" Q.C. inspections for Comstock on Saturdays. As a matter of policy we did not want PTL to i
4 j
perform overinspections of Comstock at the same time PTL personnel, on a l
i temporary basis, were performing first line Q.C. acceptance inspections
}
q for Comstock. This suspension continued until the PTL work assignment '
l 4
at Comstock was completed in November 1982. The overinspections were i
)
resumed in December 1982.
During the months of November and December 1983 overinspections of
)
Comstock work were minimal. This resulted because of instructions from I
j Ceco Q.A., effective 10-27-83, which stated that overinspections may be suspended, again because PTL inspectors were assigned to perform "first f
]
line" Q.C. inspections for Comstock. For work performed by Comstock i
beginning in January 1984, the overinspections were resumed.
1 i
1 1
i 2
i
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 16 The last period for which minimal overinspections were performed was May 1985. This resulted because of a combination of reasons. PTL was performing overinspections of Comstock work during the month of May; however, PTL had a sizeable backlog of Comstock work to overinspect. As a result, the overinspections performed by PTL during May were done on work performed by Comstock in earlier months. During June and the following months, PTL would have overinspected the work which Comstock had completed in May provided the overinspection program which was in effect prior to June 1985 had continued. The overinspection program, however, was revised by CECO QA in June 1985 and the new program required PTL to select work for overinspection from each individual Comstock inspector's current work.
Because of this change in June 1985, most of the Comstock QC inspections performed in May did not get included in the overinspection program.
Q.20 k' hat is the significance of the data marked " welds overridden" for the period June, 1985 to June, 19867 A.20 Since the revised overinspection program examined each specific Q.C.
inspector and technical judgements about individuals would now be routinely made, we wanted to ensure that the visual weld overinspection results were consistent and accurate, therefore, provisions were made I
l for a third party review of the discrepant results. The third party review was implemented by Sargent and Lundy Level III inspectors during 1
1
i i
l Braidwood Hearings.
Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 17 i
the June 1985 through June 1986 time period. Approximately forty
?
[
percent of the overinspected welds which were rejected by PTL were found to be acceptable by Sargent and Lundy.
This demonstrates that the PTL i
overinspectors were very conservative in rejecting questionable Comstock welds.
i 1
Q.21 Vist was the agreement rate for all Comstock weld inspections for the
{
petrod July 1982 through June 1986?
A.21 The overall agreement rate for the 28,422 welds which were overinspected in the July 1982 through June 1986 time period was 92.56%.
1 i
In addition, there were a high number of months for which the j
monthly Comstock agreement rate satisfied the 90% threshold. For 38 of i
{
the 46 months during which Comstock performed Q.C. weld inspections, I
.j which were overinspected by PTL, the agreement exceeded 90%.
For eight months the agreement rates were less than 90%. During
+
4 four of these months the agreement rate was within a couple of j
percentage points of the 90% threshold and for one month there was insufficient overinspection data to draw a conclusion.
i i,
l On only three occasions, the monthly Comstock agreement rate dropped I
significantly below the 90% threshold level. Those three months were j
September 1982, March 1983, and March 1986.
)
I i
I i
i i
l Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 18 Q.22 Have you attempted to find out why the monthly Comstock agreement rate dipped below 90% during the time period July 1982 through June 19867 A.22 Yes.
I examined the monthly Comstock overinspection re alts for each cf the months daring which the 90% threshold was not met.
I also examined the results for individual Comstock inspectors Attachment 2C (Marcus - 3), for those raonths to identify which inspectors contributed to the dip in the monthly Comstock agreement rate. Finally, I reviewed the relevant PTL inspection records.
1 As a result of my review, I was able to readily identify specific and unrelated reasons why the monthly Comstock agreement rate dipped below 90% for each of the seven months for which there was sufficient data for such a dip to be meaningful.
For each of the seven months there was a single, technical reason which caused the monthly Comstock agreement rate to dip below 90%. Each of the seven technical reasons occurred only one time in the four year period.
Fourteen Comstock inspectors contributed to the seven dips.
In certain months more than one inspector was involved and in other months only one inspector was involved.
However, none of the fourteen inspectors contributed to more than one of the seven dips.
1 1
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 19 Q.23 What did you find for September 19827 l'
A.23 September 1982 was one of the three months during which the monthly i
a Comstock agreement rate dipped significantly below 90%. Four inspectors j
were overinspect d during this month but only one, Bruce Brown, caused j
the monthly Comstock rate to dip to about 76%.
Mr. Brown was instructed to inspect welds for revision work on control panels 1DC10J and IDC11J which was performed as a result of NCR 235. At the time, Sargent & Lundy had approved Comstock Procedure 4
i j
4.8.16 which was used for the revision work. This procedure contained i
weld acceptance criteria which was established by S & L.
In June 1985 PTL overinspected this work to AWS D.1.1 criteria which were more stringent than the S & L criteria and, as a result, the original inspections were rejected. These two panels accounted for 60 of the 63 j
welds which Mr. Brown had accepted and PTL rejected through I
overinspection. Subtracting the 60 welds from the data improves the agreement rate to about 96% for Comstock and 96% for Mr. Brown. The j
basis for the S & L criteria used in 1982 and the subsequent use of AWS l
D1.1 in 1985 is documented on NCR #235. Clearly, the change in weld 1
l acceptance criteria was the reason why the LKC inspection and the overinspection were performed differently and this in turn caused the agreement rate drip for September 1982.
i l
i I
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 20 Q.24 What did you find for March,1983?
A.24 March 1983 was the second month during which there was a*significant dip. During the month, the Comstock agreement rate dropped to about 75%. A review of the overinspection results points directly to one inspection report by a single Comstock inspector, Mr. Holley, as the overwhelming reason for the significant drop. The particular report was signed on March 14, 1983 and covered the inspection of three remote control shutdown panels located on Elevation 383' of the Aux. Building.
The report included 454 welds and 204 of these were rejected by the overinspector.
PTL Report #3690 VW contains the details explaining why the welds were rejected by the overinspector.
It appears that the welder working on the remote shutdown panels had difficulty starting and stopping the weld, as a result, slag, overlap and incomplete fusion existed at the ends of the welds. The welds were repaired by grinding off the ends and then in some cases adding weld back to the ends. These repairs were promptly completed and the welds were reinspected by PTL and accepted on March 21, 1983.
A total of 174 weld rejects are attributed to the start /stop problem. When these rejects are subtracted from the data, the monthly agreement rate for Mr. Holley increases from about 62% to about 90% and for Comstock to about 91%, both of which are acceptable agreement rates.
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 21 Two other inspectors, Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Martin also were under the 90% agreement rates with individual rates of about 84% and about 89%
respectively. They had accepted a few welds, 6 and 3 respectively, with arc strikes and/or spatter. Although these attributes are cosmetic, they are required to be rejected by the overinspectors. Subtracting these 9 welds from the data increases the monthly agreement rate for Gonzales and Martin to about 92% each.
Q.25 Do you know why Mr. Mc11ey approved the welds on the remote shutdown panels?
4 A.25 It appears that the Comstock inspector judged, at the time, that slag at the start and stop of the welds was not a concern provided a sufficient portion of each weld was acceptable. The PTL overinspector disagreed with this judgment, which is why the welds were rejected in overinspection.
4 A further review of the overinspection results for the work performed by Mr. Holley from December 1982 through December 1985 showed nineteen months where data was available. His agreement rate exceeded 90% for seventeen of these months. The monthly agreement rate for the seventeen months ranged from about 93% to 100%. For eight of the months i
he achieved 100% and overall, excluding March 1963 data, his rate was about 96%.
Mr. Holley has a good record and the unacceptable
.-. - ~
Braidwocd Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 22 inspections which he performed on the shutdown panels, because of a difference in understanding regarding the acceptance criteria, appears to be an isolated case.
Q.26 What did you fitid for November 1983?
A.26 This was the month for which there was insufficient overinspection data to perform an adequate analysis. Overinspections were very limited during this month for the reasons discussed in my answer to Question No. 19.
Of the four inspectors who were overinspected in this month only Mr. Lesh, because of 8 weld rejects, did not meet the 90% threshold.
Mr. Lesh was certified as a weld inspector on August 10, 1983 and his employment terminated on April 19, 1984. A further discussion regarding the work of Mr. Lesh is included in my answer to Question No. 34 of this testimony.
Q.27 What did you find for February 19847 A.27 The monthly Comstock agreement rate of 89.34% was right at the acceptable threshold level and for all practical purposes does not 4
require further analysis. However, a quick review of the overinspection results will show that the three inspectors who contributed to the low i
s t
7 w
~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ~"~~ '
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 23 monthly rate were all newly certified inspectors. Messers. Bowman, Hutson, and Shields were certified as Level II weld inspectors on 12-17-83, 12-21-83, and 12-22-83 respectively. The overall agreement rates for the full term employment for each of these inspectors exceeds 90%. It seems likely that the reason the February 1984 agreement rate l
was slightly under 90% is that these inspectors were newly certified.
I Q.28 What did you find for April, 1984?
A.28 In April 1984 the agreement rate dropped to about 87%. Twenty-four Comstock Q.C. inspections were included in the overinspection population during that month and twenty-one exceeded the 90% level and one inspector did not reach 90% and did not have sufficient overinspection data to support an analysis. Twelve inspectors achieved 100%. The two remaining inspectors, Mr. Nemeth and Mr. Rolan, contributed to the dip.
Mr. Nemeth's inspections for this month were eventually subjected to a third party review by Sargent & Lundy in connection with Project Construction Department's disposition of the CECO Q.A. nonconforming report. All the welds were found to be acceptable and his acceptance rate improved to 100%.
A large portion of Mr. Rolan's inspections in April 1984 were i
rejected by overinspection because he had accepted welds which were not.
shown on the design drawings and thus were installed in addition to the t
1
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 24 drawing requirements. The welds were acceptable but not required per the drawing.
Mr. Rolan had an excellent work record both before and after April 1984. For the other twenty-one months during which his work was overinspected he exceeded the 90% threshold nineteen times and missed the 90% threshold by a few percentage points the remaining two months. For ten months he achieved 100%.
j When corrections are made for these two inspectors, to take credit for the override and delete the additional acceptable welds, the monthly agreement rate for Comstock increases to about 93%.
Q.29 What is the result of your evaluation for August, 1984?
A.29 In August 1984 the agreement rate was over 88% and here again it was close enough to the threshold such that further analysis is not required. However, further analysis shows a unique reason why the rate dipped even slightly. During August 1984 sixteen Comstock inspectors were included in the overinspection population. Twelve had overinspection agreement rates of 95% or higher. Four inspectors had agreement rates under the 90% level but for two of them the number of welds overinspected was small, that is, less than fifty. These two both had overall agreement rates of about 93% for their full term of overinspection data which spanned 12 months _and 6 months, respectively.
However, they accounted for only about 5% of the overinspection data for August 1984 and, as such, they had negligible impact on my analysis.
i j
l Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 25 The rsmaining two Comstock inspectors were Mr. Blake and Mr. Asmust.en. A review of the related PTL overinspection records shows that Mr. Blake had incorrectly inspected a junction box in the Unit #1 Feedwater Tunnel. The junction box was mounted using filler plates which are acceptable per the AWS Code but were not specified on the drawing. Twenty-six weld rejects resulted because of installing the filler plates. Adjusting the data for this single problem, by subtracting the results for the 26 welds, increases the Comstock agreement rate for August 1984 from about 88% to about 92%.
Mr. Asmussen had an agreement rate of 75% in August 1984. His rejects were due to a variety of reasons and generally his performance over time, as measured by overinspections during eight months, has been substandard.
Mr. Asmussen had minor impact on the monthly agreement rate but he has been identified as requiring additional evaluation ~and is discussed later in this testimony.
Q.30 What did you find for December 19847 A.30 The agreement rate for December 1984 was 89.73% which can properly be rounded to 90%. There were 14 inspectors who were overinspected this month. One inspector, Mr. Figlik, accepted 25 welds which were undersized. Nine of these welds were only 1/16" undersized which is a very diffictit judgment call to make. Subtracting these 9 welds from-the totals increased the monthly Comstock agreement rate to over 91%.
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 26 Q.31 What are your conclusions for March 1986?
A.31 In March 1986 the agreement rate dropped to about 85%. During the month, a total of twenty-three Comstock inspectors performed welding inspections which were rechecked by overinspections. Twenty of these inspectors were found to have agreement rates of 93% or higher, seventeen of whom had achieved 100%. One inspector had insufficient overinspection data for analysis. The two remaining inspectors, Mr. Arndt and Mr. Hunter, who had agreement rates of about 38% and about 34%, respectively, made the major contribution to the dip. These two inspectors accounted for 135 of the 143 welds which were rejected through overinspection. PTL rejected these welds because they were insufficiently clean. The two Comstock inspectors had inspected welds i
through paint. Comstock's procedure requires that "first line" visual inspections of welds be performed on clean welds which are free of paint and other substances that could impair the performance of the visual inspection. The two inspectors were subsequently terminated. When the data for the two inspectors is subtracted from the totals for the month, the agreement rate for Comstock for the month improves from about 85% to about 99%.
i Q.32 In your review of the PTL overinspection results for the three months with significant dips, and the four months with minor dips, did you identify any common problems in the effectiveness of Comstock weld inspections?
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 27 A.32 No.
I have concluded that the dips in the monthly Comstock agreement rate for each of the months were due to limited, isolated inspection problems and situations of the type which can normally be expected in the course of a construction project. The problems were never repeated, each inspector contributed to a problem only once, and i
there were no cases where a dip occurred two times in a row.
- Finally, there were only three dips of any significance and each were for totally 1
unrelated reasons. This absence of any common problem, trend or pattern leads me to conclude that no pervasive conditions existed which had an I
adverse impact on the quality of the Q.C. inspections.
Q.33 Have you reviewed the overinspection results for each weld inspector from July 1982 to June 19867 A.33 Yes.
For the four year time period I reviewed the data for each of 1
j the 100 inspectors who were included in the Overinspection Program.
I 1
identified all the inspectors who did not reach the 90% threshold when examined on the basis of the total overinspection data for each i
inspector.
I then regrouped these inspectors into one of the following i
three categories:
(1) Inspectors with minimal overinspection data, (2)
Inspectors requiring additional evaluation, or (3) Inspectors who had isolated months with low agreement rates which resulted in an individual overall agreement rate under the threshold of 90%.
l I
.I L
I
i Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 28 Q.34 Whr.t are your findings and conclusions?
A.34 The first category includes inspectors who did not meet the 90%
threshold and for whom there was minimal overinspection data (generally, less than 50 welds). A total of four Comstock inspectors were identified in this category. One of these inspectors, Mr. Arndt, had a total of only 56 welds. A review of his performance is discussed in my answer to Question 31.
For the remaining three, the number of overinspections performed of their work was very small and their contribution to the Comstock monthly agreement rate was negligible. Two of the three inspectors, Mr. Baxter and Mr McGuigan, have since resigned with the most recent resignation in April 1984. The remaining inspector, Mr Aclaro, performed a minimal number of inspections and was then assigned to work on walkdowns as opposed to first line inspections. As a result, I have concluded there is no information of substance which results from the inspectors in this category.
The second category includes inspectors who did not meet the 90%
threshold level for the total population of their work which was overinspected and who also had repeated substandard monthly agreement rates during the months they were overinspected. Only one inspector, Mr. Asmussen who had an overall agreement rate of about 74%, fell into this category.
Mr. Asmussen was discussed in my answer to Question No.
29.
In order to address this problem, I requested a third party review 1
4 T
F Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 29 on the rejected welds which had not yet been reworked. As a result of the third party review, twenty-four welds were overridden and found acceptable. This raised his overall agreement rate to about 83%, which still is substandard.
I have now requested Comstock to re-assess the training and certification for Mr. Asmussen.
In addition, I have requested PTL to perform 50% overinspection of his future work in order to obtain data for further action.
The third category includes inspectors who did not quite meet the threshold level for the total population of their work because of isolated months when their agreement rate dropped. Fourteen inspectors fell into this category with overall agreement rates ranging from about 81% to about 89%. For seven of them, Messers. Brown, Blake, Figlik, Holley, Hunter, Nemeth, and Rolan the assessment of their performance is discussed earlier in my testimony. Five of the remaining seven inspectors, Messers. Barker, Dunbar, Miller, Tyler, and Winckel had overall agreement rates for the total population of their work in the range of 91% to 99% when the lowest month is subtracted from the data.
None of the five inspectors had low agreement rates in the months during which the monthly Comstock agreement rate dropped significantly below the threshold level. Two inspectors, Mr..Lesh and Mr. Stout, did not quite reach the threshold level after their lowest month was subtracted from the data.
However, for both of these inspectors more than one half 1
-e-,.
r
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 30 of the welds rejected during overinspection occurred within the first month of their certification. Also, neither of the inspectors had low agreement rates in the months during which the monthly Comstock agreement rate dropped significantly. Since the inspectors in this category are very near the threshold level and the months in which each of them had low agreement rates do not coincide with the monthly Comstock dips, I have concluded that their low agreement rate months are isolated cases.
J Q.35 In your review of the PTL overinspection results for each inspector did you identify any patterns of poor performance which might be attri-butable to the effects of harassment and intimidation or production pressure?
A.35 As noted in my previous answer, no patterns of poor performance were identified for any inspectors other than the individual low agreement rate for the inspector in the second category. The work of this inspector will be subjected to increased overinspection before a final judgment is made regarding his continued performance.
1 Similarly there were no patterns of poor performance of the Comstock inspectors as a group when examined on a monthly basis. Even when the Comstock agreement rate dropped significantly for a particular month I -
could identify the inspectors contributing to the drop and the reasons why the drop occurred. For each month I studied, those reasons were
,y
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 31 unrelated and the inspectors involved were different. As such, I have concluded that there were no conditions in the workplace which had an adverse impact on the quality of the work performed by the L. K.
Comstock inspectors. Therefore, if undue production pressure, harassment and/or intimidation existed, it did not affect the quality of the Q.C. inspection work.
Q.36 Have you reviewed the PTL overinspection results for non-welding inspections by L. K. Comstock since June 19857 A.36 Overinspection of non-welding or objective type inspections have been conducted since June 1985.
As of that date, the data from the overinspection activities has been routinely computerized.
I have reviewed a listing of the agreement rates of the objective type 4
inspections on a month by month basis for the period June 1985 through June 1986. My approach to evaluating the results was the same as for the visual weld inspections except that a threshold of about 95% was used. The 95% level was used at Byron for the QCIRP program and is also applicable for this review.
Q.37 What do these results show?
A.37 The results from this review are shown in the chart Attachment 2C (Marcus - 5).
For twelve (12) of the thirteen (13) months listed the monthly acceptance rates are in the range of 94% to 99%. Although some I
l
Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 32 of these months were slightly below the 95% threshold, after discussing the matter with Mr. De1 George we decided that further review of the meaning of the results would have little value for purposes of this case.
For the month of June 1985 the agreement rate was about 90%. Five Comstock inspectors were overinspected in June and the number of elements overinspected for each of them was quite small. One inspector was overinspected for 39 elements and the other four all had fewer elements rechecked. As I have previously stated, in order to draw a meaningful conclusion a minimum sample of 50 elements per inspector is generally required. Even so, examining the data further shows that one inspector, Mr. E. Gonzales, caused the monthly rate to drop to the unacceptable range. He was only overinspected for eleven elements during June 1985 and five were rejected.
This same inspector continued to perform objective type inspections from July through December 1985 and for that period overinspections were performed on 207 elements which he had inspected. The acceptance rate for this period increased to over 95%. As a result of this review I concluded that the quality of work by this inspector, overall, was in the acceptable range. Also, I concluded that the 90% agreement rate for June 1985 did not point to any meaningful issue.
i l
I t
l Braidwood Hearings Rebuttal Testimony of George F. Marcus Page 33 i
i Q.38 What conclusion, if any, have you reached concerning the possible effect of production pressure or harassment and intimidation on Q.C. inspector performance during the period July 1982 to June 19867 i
A.38 The results of the overinspections clearly indicate that the quality of the inspections performed by the Comstock Q.C. inspectors was 1
consistently acceptable. Therefore, I conclude that whatever problems there were at Comstock, whether or not they included undue production pressure or harassment and/or intimidation, these problems did not result in any significant adverse impact on the quality of the inspection work performed by the Comstock Q.C. inspectors.
1 D
Q.39 Does this conclude your testimony?
A.39 Yes.
1 i
a f
BRIhf0IX PTL OVERINSPECTION
^ttact"ent 2c marcus-u 4
AOCE?T/RE J ECT/OVEPR ICC E'l FI:t k0llTH WELDS INSPECTED 1400 -
1300 -
(
]t 1200 -
i; 7
f I
1100 -
3 4
v W
8000 -
l l
x s
3 S
9 l
k soo -
l l
5 5
5 9
x i.'
u hg ll
.l 800 -
l l
l 9
l l
l W
700 -
l l
1 l
l R
R a
ii r
a 9
a i
l 0
l l
0 I
000 -
E 300 -
l 9
l l
l
[1 9
i 0/ )
b l l
l.
i l
9 l
i I
X l
i I
i H
i l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
i l
l l
l l
l Q
g l
l i
l l
l l
l l
l 4 oo.
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
p l
l l
l l
3 l
l
! l ! ! !,! !
l l
h P- [i l
l l
l k,,!
lI i
4 300 i
l i
i i
i a
w 200 -
l 9
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
I l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l
)
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l
?
8
}l t
l d
i i
803 -
l l
l l
l l l f I
l
! f f 3 l
l l
0 f b l'd b b l
,k ! !
l h.
15
! !.b b
l P
o I"1 n 0
JA30NDJFWAW J JAS0N D J FWAW J J AS0NDJFWAk s J A S O t. O J FWAWJ UUEC0EAEAPAUUUEC0 EAEAP AUUUEC0EAEAPAUL JEOCEAEAP AU LGPTVCNBRRYNLGPTV CHDRRYNLCPTVCN8RR?
- 1.3F T *< 0:40RRYH 88888888888888888 888888888888888882 6& 66 6E 664 8888 2222223333333333JJ4 4 4'
+2 44 42 4A 555 55555555556 6660 l
WG t4TH I
CODE ry :-r n A 0
ECTi'D R i
5 I
Attachmen 2C (Marcus-2)
(
y BRIMOIX PTL DVERINSPECTION 9:15 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 2
(
ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN ve.
OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS NUMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE am JUL82 296 19 0
315 93.97%
93.97%
AUG82 939 33 0
972 96.60%
96.60%
SEP82 223 69 0
292 76.37%
76.37%
OCT82 0
0 0
0 an NOV82 0
0 0
0 DEC82 424 16 0
440 96.36%
96.36%
JAN83 496 17 0
513 96.69%
96.69%
FEB83 613 38 0
651 94.16%
94.16%
JD MAR 83 728 247 0
975 74.67%
74.67%
APR83 337 19 0
356 94.66%
94.66%
MAY33 269 6
0 275 97.82%
97.82%
JUN83 328 32 0
360 91.11%
91.11%
dp JUL83 122 0
0 122 100.00%
100.00%
AUG83 420 37 0
457 91.90%
91.90%
SEP83 554 27 0
581 95.35%
95.35%
OCT83 487 40 0
527 92.41%
92.41%
gp NOV83 24 8
0 32 75.00%
75.00%
DEC83 24 0
0 24 100.00%
100.00%
JAN84 659 60 0
719 91.66%
91.66%
FEB84 1,081 129 0
1,210 89.34%
89.34%
gg MAR 84 1,247 78 0
1,325 94.11%
94.11%
/
APR84 1,033 150 0
1,183 87.32%
87.32%
MAY84 570 33 0
603 94.53%
94.53%
JUN84 1,001 83 0
1,084 92.34%
92.34%
() JUL84 829 55 0
884 93.78%
93.78%
AUG84 583 76 0
659 88.47%
88.47%
i SEP84 412 32 0
444 92.79%
92.79%
OCT84 799 85 0
884 90.38%
90.38%
() NOV84 491 18 0
509 96.46%
96.46%
(
DEC84 463 53 0
516 89.73%
89.73%
JAN85 483 40 0
523 92.35%
92.35%
FEB85 696 72 0
768 90.63%
90.63%
gp MAR 85 403 15 0
418 96.41%
96.41%
APR85 130 1
0 131 99.24%
99.24%
MAY85 53 0
3 56 94.64%
100.00%
JUN85 469 22 28 519 90.37%
95.76%
gp JUL85 867 17 24 908 95.48%
98.13%
AUG85 1,304 26 19 1,349 96.66%
98.07%
SEP85 984 23 25 1,032 95.35%
97.77%
-0CT85 918 30 36 984 93.29%
96.95%
gp NOV85 806 32 24 862 93.50%
96.29%
DEC85 453 2
9 464 97.63%
99.57%
JAN86 436 10 7
453 96.25%
97.79%
FEB86 846 7
23 876 96.58%
99.20%
gp MAR 86 788 143 4
935 84.28%
84.71%
APR86 628 7
4 639 98.28%
98.90%
MAY86 273 2
0 275 99.27%
99.27%
TJUN86 318 0
0 318 100.00%
100.00%
ARC 1)CCL3 4D
=
=
_________==-------- ______-
RF e-1
ED' BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:15 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 3 ()
ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS NUMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT g,.
MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE TOTAL:
26,307 1,909 206 28,422 92.56%
93.28%
6 k.
i L.
4
(
e i
l i
s l
l 6l i
ARococcy e:
1:
0' 9
4 I
F 4
4 n
- C (fbrcus-3) 111 hko~s,-g BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 101 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HElsS OF HELDS OF HELDS NUMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPIED REJECTED DV[RRIDDEN 01 HLLDS RATE RATE ACLARD,J AUG85 8
4 0
12 66.67%
66.67%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 8
4 0
12 66.67%
66.67 M
AR000C50 g
4 a4r
s lli BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 102 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "O7/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF MELDS OF MELDS OF HEL DS NUMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPILD REJECIED OVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE AHO,5 JUL85 1
0 2
3 33.33%
100.00%
AUG85 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
SEP85 40 0
0 40 100.00%
100.00*
OCT85 14 0
0 14 100.00%
100.00%
MAY86 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
JUN86 10 0
0 10 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 75 0
2 75 97.33%
100.00 1
I a
een AR000c51 i
ee lit i
BRIMOIX PTL OVERTNSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 103 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP 0F WELDS OF HELDS OF HrLDS NilMRFR AGRrrMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDLN OF HELDS RATE RATE ANDERSON,A J MAY85 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00x JUN85 12 0
0 12 100.00%
100.00%
SEP85 9
1 2
12 75.00%
91.67%
DCT85 25 1
0 26 96.15x 96.15%
DEC85 8
0 0
8 100.00%
100.00%
FEB86 2
0 2
4 50.00%
100.00x INSPECTOR TOTAL 58 2
4 64 90.63%
96.88 I
l aum AR000052000052t
i
I O
118 BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 104 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERfA LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HrtDS OF HTLDS NtlMBFR AGREEMENT AGREEMENT o
LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE
, S...-
ARNDT,R FEB96 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
MAR 86 20 32 0
52 38.46%
38.46%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 24 32 0
56 42.86%
42.86 AR000053000053i
i lH BRIMOIx PTL DVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 105 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBrR TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HEL DS OF HELDS Or ll!I DS NtlMBT R AGREEMENT AGRELMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDLN OF HLLDS RATE RATE
---- -------- - __ =-- --------- ---------- --------- ---------- ----------
ASNUSSEN.D JUN84 3
1 0
4 75.00%
75.00%
JUL84 51 18 0
69 73.91x 73.91x AUG84 51 17 0
68 75.00%
75.00%
SEP84 24 9
0 33 72.73%
72.73%
DCT84 8
0 0
8 100.00%
100.00%
FEB85 35 22 0
57 61.40%
61.40x MAR 85 8
0 0
8 100.00%
100.00%
APR86 7
0 1
8 87.50%
100.00%
e.-e.------
INSPECTOR TOTAL 187 67 1
255 73.33%
73.73 1
l
=
l AR000054000054s
s ill BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 106 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86*
NUMBER NUMBER HUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HElDS OF HELDS OF HELDS NifMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CGDE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED OVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE
's BARAN0HSKI,8 DEC82 2
2 0
4 50.00%
50.00x JAN83 12 0
0 12 100.00%
100.00%
FEB83 50 2
0 52 96.15%
96.15%
1 MAR 83 42 0
0 42 100.00%
1C0.00%
APR83 37 2
0 39 94.87%
94.87%
MAY83 1
0 0
1 100.00%
100.00%
JUN83 17 0
0 17 100.00%
100.00%
JUL83 5
0 0
5 100.00%
100.00%
AUG83 19 0
0 19 100.00%
100.00%
SEP83 61 1
0 62 98.39%
98.39%
DCT83 50 0
0 50 100.00%
100.00%
=__.
_= ---------- --------_ ______-
INSPECTOR TOTAL 296 7
0 303 97.69%
97.69 AR0000550000558
G
lll J
BRIMOIX PTL OVERIMSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 107 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86*
NUMBER NUMBER NtiM8FR TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF liflDS NUMBER AGREEMENT AGRELMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE BARKER D MAR 83 12 1
0 13 92.31%
92.31%
APR83 12 9
0 21 57.14%
57.14%
MAY83 7
0 0
7 100.00%
100.00%
JUN83 7
0 0
7 100.00%
100.00%
AUG83 1
0 0
1 100.00%
100.00%
JAN84 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 43 10 0
53 81.13%
81.13 7
AR000056000056
f BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28,'1986 108 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" i
NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP 0F HEt DS OF HELDS Or IIELCS tilft1BER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE BAXTER H JAN84 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
i FEB84 5
3 0
8 62.50%
62.50%
MAR 84 29 6
0 35 82.86%
82.86%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 38 9
0 47 80.85%
80.85 a
1 e
~
AR000057000057
?
I ill BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 109 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTN SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF NELD3 OF HEL DS OF HilDS NUMRER AGRrrMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN Of HELDS RATE RATE BISKEY.C APR86 16 0
0 16 100.00%
100.00%
k Ibb.00 k
h INSPECTOR TOTAL 1
0 0
AR000058000058l
O M
M 80 P
M
~
o 0
Oo 4
4 4OE
.0 O
E I
W >=
8 SE IM M M M M M M M M M M M M M M OWWle e c so O O O N O O O O O O llO w
O.
M.
O.
O.
M.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
o.
63 i@
M E.- 1 O.
i.
gWql EWEIO P O N O O O to O O O O O O WW IO a0 P O O
63 e an O e O O O O
! S0 E DC 3M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
ks 04 1
E@
O so l
M
>=
8 8
EO E IN N N M M M M M M M M M M M M iM W% WWlO e t O se e c O N O O O O O c IO LN E >= 0 O.
4 e.
c.
M.
C.
O.
M.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
I@
O I
ED Wg8 EE WEIc p O N O
O O
IA O O O O O O I@
O E
Ic so e O c c O en O
e o O O O 6 a0
> > = Q IM M
M M
M M
M M
M M
1 E O.J 4
1 i
CW M&W
>= M D-It t in N 80 N M c t M
00 4 e0 UE4 Mi N M O M N M
e0 t
M M
WMQJEQl M
t A
4 6.J l M > L t= O J l
'1 EOMCE31 M
E >= =
I I
E t-M Z.I e
6E O1 1
>CU CZW U.J EI I
lr eulo O c c c O O c O O O O O c c to
.J-E KomI i
b6 WwQl i
O O6M i I
QaE3EI I
M M C O.
EI I
M E ME 6.Jl I
CEE C>I I
EWW DI I
M > e=
ECM ONE 8 e3 M N O so O O O e O e O O O O
- w HU MQl M
i in 1.
O EGW6 W E W d e- 0 MOOWuI WME3W4 END 9i NUE6W3 kW OEI L.J WW UM 1*
t t N
N e0 to IA e W M
es ll N i
O MQl N M P M N M
t M
M
. M 4 EQWI W 4.- 1 OWLI 3 naJ l
.i ut i
60I g
i C4I l
A 1
MZI E e= 4m t t t t t t t t t an ne e e M Z l 80 80 e0 80 80 80 40 50 00 40 e0 e0 80 e0 C I >= E O E E > E
=J C b >
O E >=
UEIO 4 W 4 L 4 3 D D W O W 4 4 w
IC 7 6 E 4 E 7 7 4 M E 4 6 E E J
B LWI mci
=a 201 4
MWI
>=
O M
l E1 E
I O
O e-
>=
i i
Q Q
i WB W
A L
i si l
M E
IE E
M M
s
'W U
IW W I4
.J l d
i 10 t
I 9
~
Ill BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 111 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NIMBER NUMBER NtfMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HrlDS NitMRFR AGREFMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTN ACCEPIED REJECIED OVERRIDDEN Of IILL IIS RATE RAIE
_______________ ____ ________ _________ _________ __________ _________ __________ ___=
BLONE95,J JAN86 96 4
3 103 93.20%
96,12%
FEB86 139 0
2 141 98.58%
100.00%
MAR 86 36 0
0 36 100.00%
100.00%
APR86 28 0
0 28 100.00%
100.00%
MAY86 12 0
0 12 100.00%
100.00%
JUN86 20 0
0 20 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 331 4
S 340 97.35%
98.82 7p 9
l I
AR000cGo
i lli BRIM 07.X PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 pt0940At,* JULY 28, 1986 112 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VF:. RIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRIT _RIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NtfMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS HIfMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED OVERRIDDEN OF HELDS..
RATE RATE BOSSONG.L JAN84 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
FEB84 63 0
0 63-100.00%
100.00%
MAR 84 53 9
0 62 85.48%
85.48%
APR84 15 3
0 18 83.33%
83.33%
MAY84 41 1
0 42 97.62%
97.62%
JUN84 18 0
0 18 100.00%
100.00%
JUL84 8
0 0
8 100.00%
100.00%
OCT84 22 0
0 22 100.00%
100.00%
NOV84 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
MAR 85 23 0
0 23 100.00%
100.00%
JUN85 24 0
2 26 92.31%
100.00%
JUL85 3
3 0
6 50.00%
50.00%
MAY86 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 280 16 2
298 93.96%
94.63 4
AR00CC61 i
i f
M M
M e0 M
=
80 N
N LS 3a Q
D O
O
'>=
M E
4 E
.0 9
D E
I I
1 WW M M M M M M M M M M M M M M I
OZ
'M OWW O N O N
- O O O
O O
O O 80 O O
IM O.
te.
lf.t N.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O. f.
O.
O.
M.
M E *= '
O.
g W ag I
&WE O N O N N tt) e O O
O O O M e O O
W 8K O
90 O P 40 P O O
O O O O D D G
l P Z DO M
M pa M
M M
M M
M M
11
> 0 C at I
Il E@
O s0 EN l
1 M
1 4
50 E IM M M M M M M M M M M M M M M iM WN WWIO N O N O
O O
O O O
O so O O
IM O.
tf.l N.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
N.
O.
O.
I M.
A P=
E *= 8 O.
1 O W eg 1 OC E W QC i O N O N N tt)
O O
O O
O O
O O IP O
IO O P 80 O eD G O O O 80 O 80 0 80
> > = 0 iM
==
M M
M M
M M
M 1
E U.J aC 1
1 OW MLW
>= M p=
8>
N N M M M e0 e0 so M N te N It)
I a0 UZ<
MiM M N e ett N M
N lN IM M O.J E Q l M
L aC W.J l M > L >= O J l ll Z e8 M C. E 3 I
'l M
EP O I
E *= M Z -- 1 I
>l EWW OI M>>
ECM O N at IO M C M
M O O O O O O M e O N
kW MQl M
U OC Q W I W E W d e= I
=5 O O W U I WME3WI Sc w 2 7i NUE6W8 1
kW O QC i I
LW WW UM lP N N N P e0 80 80 M f N e N
- IM U
MO4M 80 N m 80 tr) N M
N M
< SC O J I i trn W.J
= 1 OWLI E3WI 5 OI i.
ELUl I
C aC l i
L 4
MZB E >= 1
- f f W f f W f W W
t#)
Ifn Ern M Z l 80 80 00 80 00 80 80 80 00 e0 00 40 80 80 so OIE en of GC >= Z
.J O E >= U A Je U OC U E I aC W < A at 3 D D W U W W D W A hs I => 6 E 4 E
")
=> 4 M O O M E O aC
.J l
LW8 MDI
=J EOI
- E MUi g
>=
SC E
O O
>U U.
y W
g.
A M
>=
ME 3
i a
M E
M
, og U
ht I me 1 0
g g6
=
6
-r- - - -, -
-e
4 1
1 6
8 9
1 3
8 6
2 0
Y 0
L 0
U J
0 R
Y A
AD NOM 8
0 9
N
=_
ET DN
- x x % % % % % % x % % % % % % % %
DEE 1
1 8
1 7
0 0
6 0 0 0 0 9 0 3 0 0
6 IMT - _1 9 6 9 5 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 0
8 REA RER 1
8 3 0 8 0 0 6 0 0
0 0 6 0 3 0 0
5 ER 9 9 5 9 9 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 8
H VG 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
T"OA N6 O8 M/
1 T
R0 N
% % % % % % % x % % % % x % % % %
- x E/ EE 1
1 8
1 7
0 0
6 0 0
0 0 9 0 3 0 0
- 6
- 8 P7 MT 1
9 6 9 5 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 0
EA-R ER 1
8 3 0 8 0
0 4 0 0 0 0 6 0 3 0 0
- 5 O"
R 9 9 5 9 9 0
0 5 0 0 0
0 8
0 8 0 0
- 8 TT G -
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
0 2 4 7
2 2 8 0 7 3 2 4 4
- 7 CNA S4 8 3 7 7 1
3 1
3 2 1
4
- 0 EIDLRD-1 1
- 7 P
AEL-SYPTBE-NBSOMH-I NTU RTI NF-ER O-VAC OHK CL N-L SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
- 0 TN RDD-PE ELD-D BEI -
D:MHR-XIAU R-IRINfE-ORR OV-MEE O-IVT RDI B/R
- 4 2 3 7 1
0 0 6 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 0
- 0 TC SD-6 1
- 0 C
RDE-1 ENELT -
JOBEC-EIMHE-RTU J-
/CNFE-TE OR-PL EE CS
- 1 2 3 0 9 2 4 1
2 2 8 0 2 3 0 4 4
= 7 C
SD 4 8 7 7 6 1
2 1
3 2 1
4
=_
0 A
RDE-1 6
ELT -
BEP-MHE-U C-NFC-OA-P SH-NT-2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 IN 8 8 8 8 8 8
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 OL G P C N B R N T N R R N L
T B R CM U U E E A E P U C A A P U U C E A K
J A S D J F A J D J M A J J O F M L
PE-SD-L NO-A IC-T O
T R-R O-O T
T.
C C
E-E P-P S-S N
5, N
I -
I
- N C-W K-O L
R B
l i
t
6 lll BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 115 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTN SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NilMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS NtJMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECILD OVLRRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE BUFFD S JAN84 10 0
0 10 100.00%
100.00%
FEB84 17 0
0 17 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 27 0
0 27 100.00%
100.00 i
AR000064000064
!Il BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 116 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTN SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DAT E LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER HUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HFtDS OF HELDS OF HI'LDS NtfMBFR AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPIED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE CONNER.N JANS4 70 5
0 75 93.33%
93.33%
FEB84 219 19 0
238 92.02%
92.02%
M4R84 38 0
0 38 100.00%
100.00%
APR84 49 0
0 49 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 376 24 0
400 94.00%
94.00 AR000065000065
BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 117 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTN SELECTION CRITERIAr LKC INSP DATE LT "O7/G1/86" NUMBER NUMBER NilMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS Of HrLDS NttMBIR AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE CORBETT,J MAR 86 32 0
0 32 100.00%
100.00%
APR86 36 0
0 36 100.00%
100.00%
MAY86 10 0
0 10 100.00%
100.00%
JUN86 14 0
0 14 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 92 0
0 92 100.00%
100.00 AR000066000066
lll BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JJLY 28, 1986 118 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTN SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HEL DS Or HELDS NtfMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPILD REJECILD DVERRIDDLN Of HLLDS RATE RAIE CRISPIN0.D AUG83 49 0
0 49 100.00%
100.00%
SEP83 91 3
0 94 96.81r 96.81%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 140 3
0 143 97.90%
97.90 i
AR000c67 l
l I
Ill BRIM 0!X PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 119 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86*
NUMBER NUMBER HUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP IKC INSP OF HEL DS OF HELDS OF HilDS NtiMBER AGREFMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPIED REJECTED DVERRIDDLN OF HLLDS RATE RATE DANIELS,R JUN85 12 2
0 14 85.71x 85.71%
JUL85 84 0
2 86 97.672 100.00%
AUG85 78 0
0 78 100.00x 100.00x SEP85 91 0
0 91 100.00x 100.00x OCT85 108 2
2 112 96.43x 98.21%
NOV85 80 6
2 88 90.912 93.18x FEB86 11 0
0 11 100.00%
100.00%
MAR 86 45 2
0 47 95.74x 95.74%
APR86 32 2
0 34 94.12%
94.12%
MAY86 12 0
0 12 100.00%
100.00%
= __________ --_.--___ _
INSPECTOR TOTAL 553 14 6
573 96.51x 97.56 4
AR0000Gs
Ill BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 120 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTN SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER HUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF Hf 1 DS MUMRrR AGREFMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MON 1H ACCEPILD REJECIED DVERRIUDEN OF HLLDS RATE RAIE DANIELSON.D AUG85 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
SEP85 31 0
2 33 93.94%
100.00%
OCT85 85 1
4 90 94.44%
98.89%
NOV85 6
0 0
6 100.00%
100.00%
APR86 14 0
0 14 100.00%
100.00%
1 MAY86 8
0 0
8 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 148 1
6 155 95.48%
99.35
lll l
BRIM 0!X PTL OVERTNSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 121 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER HUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HTLDS NilMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCLPILD REJECTED OVERRIDDLN OF HELDS RAIE RATE DUNBAR,T SEP83 22 0
0 22 100.00%
100.00%
OCT83 43 5
0 48 89.58%
89.58%
JAN84 19 0
0 19 100.00%
100.00%
FEB84 31 11 0
42 73.81%
73.81%
MAR 84 1
0 0
1 100.00%
100.00%
=-
_=
INSPECTOR TOTAL 116 16 0
132 87.88%
87.88 AR000nyo
lil BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY,. JULY 28, 1986 122 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH
^ s SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP GF MELDS OF HELDS OF HilDS NUNRTR AGREFMENT AGREEMENT l
LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONIH ACCLPTLD REJECIED DVERRIDDEN Of HLLDS RA1E RATE FIGLIK K MAY84 8
0 0
8 100.00%
100.00%
JUN84 24 1
0 25 96.00%
96.00%
JUL84 33 2
0 35 94.29%
94.29%
AUG84 49 2
0 51 96.08%
96.08%
SEP84 83 4
0 87 95.40%
95.40%
DCT84 82 30 0
112 73.21%
73.21%
NOV84 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00%
DEC84 96 29 0
125 76.80%
76.80%
JAN85 60 4
0 64 93.75%
93.75%
FEB85 2
4 0
6 33.33%
33.33x MAR 85 67 13 0
8n 83.75%
83.75x t
AUG85 82 0
0 82 100.00%
100.00x MAR 86 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
l
_. =___
INSPECTOR TOTAL 592 89 0
681 86.93%
86.93 6
AR000071000071~
.-~
lll BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JUL Y 28, 1986 123 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86".
NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS Of HI L DS NUMBER AGREFMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE FREN,A SEP85 7
6 3
16 43.75%
62.50%
OCT85 23 0
1 24 95.83%
100.00%
i j
NOV85 52 2
5 59 88.14%
96.61%
DEC85 132 0
0 132 100.00%
100.00%
FEB86 22 0
0 22 100.00%
100.00%
MAR 86 32 0
0 32 100.00%
100.00%
i APR86 29 0
0 29 100.00%
100.00%
i j
INSPECTOR TOTAL 297 8
9 314 94.59%
97.45 i
i 4
I 1
I i
i AR000072000072j
1 l
l Ill BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9808 MONDAY, JUI.Y 28, 1986 124 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS Or HELDS NUMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTN ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE FRISBY,R APR84 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
JUN84 10 0
0 10 100.00%
100.00%
JUL84 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
AUG84 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00%
JAN85 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
FEB85 63 16 0
79 79.75%
79.75%
MAY85 6
0 0
6 100.00%
100.00%
i JUN85 11 2
3 16 68.75%
87.50%
I JUL85 9
0 0
9 100.00%
100.00%
AUG85 31 2
0 33 93.94%
93.94%
SEP85 41 2
2 45 91.11%
95.56%
OCT85 21 0
1 22 95.45%
100.00%
NOV85 24 0
0 24 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 230 22 6
258 89.15%
91.47 i
AR000c73
b l
1 I
Ill BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 125 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER M0t*TH I
SELECTION CRITERIA 2 LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF WFL DS OF NftDS Or HrtDS NtIMRTR AGRFFMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPIED REJECIED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE MAR 86 29 0
0 29 100.00%
100.00%
APRS6 28 0
0 28 100.00%
100.00%
MAY86 6
2 0
8 75.00*
75.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 71 2
0 73 97.26%
97.26 4
i i
3 6
4 1
e
~
AR000074000074
BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9808 MONDAY,' JUtY 28, 1986 126 i
ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/0I/86" 4
NUMBER NUMBER NUMBFR 10TAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HfLDS NtJMBLR AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE GALLICK,R APR84 74 5
0 79 93 67%
93.67%
l MAY84 49 2
0 51 96.08%
96.08%
JUh84 26 0
0 26 100.00%
100.00%
JUL84 61 0
0 61 100.00%
100.00%
AUG84 22 0
0 22 100.00%
100.00%
SEP84 22 3
0 25 88.00*
88.00%
DCT84 37 2
0 39 94.87%
94.87%
NOV84 26 0
0 26 100.00%
100.00%
JAN85 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00*
JUN85 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00%
JUL85 38 3
3 44 86.36%
93.18%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 359 15 3
377 95.23%
96.02 i
1 l
i e
i ARLLtt75 4
ill ORIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 121 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NtfMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF MELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS NtfMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RAIE RATE GEIER,R NOV85 24 0
0 24 100.00%
100.00%
JAN86 12 0
0 12 100.00%
100.00*
FEB86 8
0 0
8 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 44 0
0 44 100.00%
100.05 l
AR000076000076:ll BRIM 01% PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY,?28, 1986 128 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTN SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER HUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HfLDS NtfMBf R AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE
= - - -
GERRISH,C MAR 84 11 3
0 14 78.57%
78.57%
APR84 76 8
0 84 90.48%
90.48%
MAY84 17 4
0 21 80.95%
80.95%
JUN84 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00%
JUL84 93 8
0 101 92.08%
92.08%
AUG84 24 6
0 30 80.00%
80.00%
OCT84 54 2
0 56 96.43%
96.43%
NOV84 28 0
0 28 100.00%
100.00%
DEC84 25 3
0 28 89.29%
89.29%
JAN85 52 2
0 54 96.30%
96.30%
FEB85 72 0
0 72 100.00%
100.00%
JUN86 32 0
0 32 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 486 36 0
522 93.10%
93.10 AR000r,77 s
J Ill 1
BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 129' ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTN SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC TMSP OF HEL DS OF HEL DS OF HFLDS NIIMR F R AGREEMENT AGREFMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPIED REJECTED OVERRIDDLN OF HELDS RATE RATE GONZALES.A DEC82 7
0 0
7 100.00%
100.00%
JAN83 28 0
0 28 100.00%
100.00%
FEB83 62 1
0 63 98.41%
98.41%
MAR 83 57 11 0
68 83.82%
83.82%
APR83 10 0
0 10 100.00%
100.00%
MAY83 13 0
0 13 100.03%
100.00%
JUN83 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 179 12 0
191 93.72%
93.72 1
leP.000978
s 2
III BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY,, JULY 28, 1986 130 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF WELDS OF HELDS OF HEIDS NitMBrR AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTN ACCEPTED REJECTED DVIRRIDDIN Of HELDS RATE RATE GOODHIN.R JAN86 21 2
0 23 91.30%
91.30%
FEB86 98 0
4 102 96.08%
100.00%
MAR 86 82 0
0 82 100.00%
100.00%
APR86 36 0
0 36 100.00%
100.00%
MAY86 6
0 0
6 100.00%
100.00%
JUN86 12 0
0 12 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 255
?
4 261 97.70%
99.23 i
I 4
m 1
AR00CC73
lif BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JUI.Y 28, 1986 131 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF NELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS NUMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONIN ACCEPTED REJECTED OVERRIDDLN DI HELDS RATE RATE GUBELMAN,D MAY85 3
0 1
4 75.00%
100.00x JUN85 54 0
0 54 100.00%
100.00%
JUL85 65 0
0 65 100.00%
100.00x AUG85 196 6
0 202 97.03%
97.03x l
SEP85 82 3
3 88 93.18x 96.59%
OCT85 110 0
0 110 100.00x 100.00%
NOV85 53 1
0 54 98.15%
98.15%
FEB86 21 0
2 23 91.30x 100.00%
MAR 86 29 0
0 29 100.00%
100.00%
APR86 20 0
0 20 100.00%
100.00x MAY86 3
0 0
3 100.00x 100.00%
JUN86 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00x INSPECTOR TOTAL 638 10 6
654 97.55x 98.47 W
6 AR000080000080
Ill BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDhY-, JLLT 28, 1986 132 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86*
NUMBER NUMBER NilMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP Or HELDS OF HELDS Or HrL DS NilMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN Or HEL DS RATE RATE HELLMER.M SEP83 70 5
0 75 93.33%
93.33%
DCT83 83 15 0
98 84.69%
84.69%
JAN84 102 6
0 108 94.44%
94.44%
FEB84 120 10 0
130 92.31%
92.31%
MAR 84 138 1
0 139 99.28%
99.28%
APR84 35 0
0 35 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 548 37 0
585 93.68%
93.68 l
1 I
AR000c81
ill BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 133 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC TMSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS NUNRER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED OVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE
=-----
HII,J SEP83 1
0 0
1 100.00%
100.00x OCT83 11 0
0 11 100.00%
100.00x FEB84 3
0 0
3 100.00%
100.00%
JUN84 8
2 0
10 80.00%
80.00%
JAN85 7
5 0
12 58.332 58.33%
FEB85 46 0
0 46 100.00%
100.00x
-= --
INSPECTOR TOTAL 76 7
0 83 91.57%
91.57 6
6 arc 00r,82
~
til BRIMOIx PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 134 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA
- LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF WELDS OF HI L DS NUf1BIR AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE MICTZ,M OCT85 32 0
2 34 94.122 100.00%
NOV85 71 0
1 72 98.61x 100.00%
DEC85 126 0
5 131 96.18x 100.00%
MAR 86 16 0
0 16 100.00*
100.00%
APR86 45 1
0 46 97.83%
97.83x MAY86 6
0 0
6 100.00%
100.00x JUN86 4
0 0
4 100.00x 100.00%
=- --------- ---------- --------- -----...-- = _-.___ _.
INSPECTOR TOTAL 300 1
8 309 97.09x 99.68 l
1 AR0000,83
5 3
1 6
8 9
1 8
2 4
Y L
8 JJ' 000 YA 0
D R
NO A
M 80 9
N ET DN
- x % % % % % x % % % 2 2 x 2 x x x 2 %
DEE 0
3 3 8 0
0 0
0 4 5 3 0 7 0 0 8 8 0
7
- 2 IMT 0 8 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 3 0 0 7 9 0 6 6
REA-RER 6 5 8 1
0 0 0 0 8 7 5 0 7 0 0 7 2 0 6
- 3 ER 9 9 9 6 0 0 0 0
9 9 9 0 9 0 0 7 9 0 9
- 8 H VG 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 T" O A N6 O8 M/
1 T
R0 N
.2 x % % % % % x % % % % x % % % 2 % %
E/ EE 0
3 3 8 0
0 0
0 4
5 3 0 7 0
0 8 8 0
3
- 8 P7 MT 0 8 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 3 0 0 7 9 0 3
- 4 0
EA-R ER 6 5 8 1
0 0
0 0 8 7 5 0 7 0 0 7 2 0 3
- 3 O"
R 9 9 9 6 0
0 0
0 9 9 9 0 9 0 0 7 9 0 9
- 8 TT G 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 NCL A OE IPE TST 0 8 8 2 9 7 9
3 1
3 2 9 8 3 7 5 7 4 0
- 5 CNA S5 4 5 5 5 1
4 2 5 9 7 3
1 4 5 6 6
- 6 EIDLRD-1 5
_ 4 P
AEL -
SYPTBE-1 NBSOMH-I NTU RTI NF -
ER O-VAC OHK CL N-L SE- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7
TN RDD-PE ELD-D BEI -
D: MHR-xIAU R-IRINFE-ORR OV-MEE O-IVT RDI B/R 2 2 2 1
0 0 0 0 1,2 3 0 1
0 0 0 4 0 2 0
TC SD-1 1
4 C
RDE-2 2
ENELT -
JOBEC-EIMNE-f RTt J-
/CNFE-TE OR-PL EE CS 8 6 6 1
9 7 9 3 0 1
9 9 7 3 7 5 3 4 6 3
C SD 4 4 5 4 5 1
4 2 5 9 6 3
1 3 5 6 5
- 2 A
RDE-1 3
- 2, ELI -
BEP-
_ 1 MHE-U C-NFC-OA-P SH-NT 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 IN 8
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 O
C N B R R Y N L
G P T N B R Y N T V C CM E A E A P A U U U E C A E P A U C O E K
D J F M A M J J A S O J F A M J D N D L
PE.
SD L
NO A
IC.
T O
T R-R O-O T-T C-C E-E P-P D,
S S
N N
I Y
I E
C L
K L
L O
N i
4
Ill BRINOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 156 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "O7/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NtfMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HriDS OF Nt L DS NifMBFR AGREFMENT AGREEMENT LRC INSPECTOR CDDE MONIH ACCEPIED REJLCILD OVERRIDDLN OF HELDS RATE RATE H0MLER.A FEB84 10 0
0 10 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 1
0 h
10 100.hb%
100 00 1
i 1
e AR000085000085
7 3
1 6
89 1
6 8
82 0
0 Y
L 0
U 0
J RA YADNOM 80 9
N ET DN
% x % % % % %
DEE 5 8 0 0
0 0
0 1
IMT 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 8
REA_3 RER 8 0 0 0 0 0 8
ER 9 9 0 0 0 0 0
9 N VG -
1 1
1 1
1 T OA N "6 O8 M/
1 T
R0 N E/ EE 5 8 0 0
0 0 7 2
P7 MT 7 2 0
0 0 0 6 6
0 EA-R ER 3 8 0
0 0 0 1
7 O"
R 9 9 0 0
0 0
9 9
TT G 1
1 1
1 NCL A OE IPE TST 6 8 6 6 4 4 4
- 8 CNA S1 5
4 1
2
- 6 EIDLRD-1 P
AEL -
SYPTBL-NBSOMH-I NTtl RTI NF-ER O-VAC OHK CL N-L SI - 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
- 2 TN RDD-PE ELD-D OEI -
D: MHR-XIAt R-f IRINFE-ORR OV-MEE O-IVT RDI O/R 1
1 0 0 0 0 0
_ 2 TC SD-C RDE-ENELT -
JOBEC-EIMHE-RTU J-
/CNFE-TE OR-PL EE CS 5 7 6 6 4 4 2
_ 4 C
SD 1
5 4
1 2
. 6 A
RDE_
_ 1 ELT OEP MWE U C NFC-OA-PSH NT 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 IN 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 O
V C N 0 R L G CM O E A E A U U K
.N D J F M J A L
PE-SD-L NO-A IC-T O
T R-R O
O T
T C
C E
E P
P S
S J,
N N
I R
I E
C I
K S
L OH 1
8 1
o.
1, lll BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTIDM 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 138 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART OY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86*
NUM0ER NUMOER NUMOER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LRC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HEL DS NtfMOFR AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONIH ACCEPIED REJECTED OVERRIDDLN Or HELDS RATE RATE N0STETTER.G MAR 85 35 1
0 36 97.22%
97.22%
JUN85 16 3
1 20 80.00%
85.00%
SEP85 36 0
0 36 100.00%
100.00%
NOV85 10 0
0 10 100.00%
100.002 JAN86 6
0 0
6 100.00%
100.00%
FEB86 17 4
0 21 80.95%
80.95%
\\
MAR 86 25 0
0 25 100.00%
100.00%
APR86 7
0 0
7 100.00%
100.00%
MAY86 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
JUN86 13 0
0 13 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 169 8
1 178 94.94%
95.51 f
i ens AR000087000087s
= -
1 j
lli 1
BRIMOIx PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JUL'f 28, 1986 139 2
ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTN SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86*
r NUMOER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LEC INSP OF WEL DS OF NFLns or Hrt DS NUMBFR AGRFFMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPIED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN DI HELDS RATE RATE MUNTER,R JAN84 22 15 0
37 59.46%
59.46%
FEB84 34 3
0 37 91.89%
91.89%
}
MAR 84 58 2
0 60 96.67%
96.67%
f APR84 110 8
0 118 93.22%
93.22%
MAY84 26 1
0 27 96.30%
96.30%
JUN84 119 8
0 127 93.70%
93.70%
JUL84 74 12 0
86 86.05%
86.05%
4 AUG84 14 0
0 14 100.00x 100.00%
SEP84 62 0
0 62 100.00%
100.00%
DCT84 8
0 0
8 100.002 100.00%
NOV84 34 2
0 36 94.44%
94.44x FEB85 39 1
0 40 97.50%
97.50%
i MAR 85 50 0
0 50 100.00%
100.00x JUN85 15 3
2 20 75.00%
85.00x I
OCT85 28 3
7 38 73.68%
92.11%
NOV85 64 le 2
76 84.21%
86.84%
FEB86 20 1
1 22 90.91%
95.45%
MAR 86 49 103 4
156 31.41%
33.97x INSPECTOR TOTAL 826 172 16 1.014 81.46%
83.04 1
J
~
ARC 00c88 1
4 lll BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY,; JULY 28, 1986 14C ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER Nt#fBER NtfMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HLL DS NilMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPIED REJECTED OVLRRIDDEN Of HELDS RATE RAIE HURh,C JUN86 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00%
---
INSPECTOR TOTAL 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00 AR000c83
)
e e
lil BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 141 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC.INSP DATE LT "07/n1/86" NUMBER NUMOER NtmBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP Or HELDS OF HELDS Of HI L DS NtfMBTR AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPIED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN Of HELDS RATE RATE NUTSON J JAN84 54 10 0
64 84.38%
84.38x FEB84 54 17 0
71 76.06x 76.06x MAR 84 102 13 0
115 88.70%
88.70%
APR84 55 0
0 55 100.00%
100.00*
MAY84 40 2
0 42 95.24x 95.24%
JUN84 16 0
0 16 100.00%
100.002 JUL84 1
0 0
1 100.00%
100.002 AUG84 74 4
0 78 94.87%
94.87x i
SEP84 55 3
0 58 94.83x 94.83x DCT84 16 4
0 20 80.002 80.00%
NOV84 39 2
0 41 95.12%
95.12x JUN85 12 0
4 16 75.00%
100.00x JUL85 10 0
0 10 100.002 100.00%
AUG85 11 0
1 12 91.67x 100.00%
SEP85 27 1
0 28 96.43%
96.43%
DCT85 11 2
2 15 73.33x 86.672
_ _ _ __ ---------- --------- _=
INSPECT 01 TOTAL 577 58 7
642 89.88x 90.97 Al!0000SO
!ll BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 194G 142 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTN SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUNSER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS Nt!MBFR AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE
________ ____ ________ _________ _________ __________ _________ _____=
JOHNSON,J JUL85 35 3
2 40 87.50%
92.50%
AUG85 8
0 0
8 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 43 3
2 48 89.58%
93.75 i
e e
AR000031000031
111 BRINDIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 143 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHARI BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA 2 LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMRER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HFt DS OF HIL DS OF Hrt DS HitMBFR AGREFMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED OVERRIDDEN OF HLLDS RAIE RATE KAST,M JUL82 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
=__
INSPECTOR TOTAL 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00 M
e AR000c32
9 9
M e0 M
a ON
=f Ve th C
C a*
C E
oa:
e 4
O P
R l!
W 9.
I SZ l-M M M M M M M M M M AWWl'O e O O
O O
O O O O
e MEM E W ag !i O. f.
C.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
Pm.
l' EWE O O O O O O O O O O l to WE O 90 O O
O O O O O O 1@
E
>0 M
M M
M M
M M
M s=e i
HB C4 I
Z@
O eo E N.e I
1
)
e
>=
1 I
I NO E IM M M M M M M M M M iM W%
WWlO P O
O O
O O
O O M l@
l i
- n. ~ E 9 O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
N.
4 N.
I O b ag i EB WEIC O O O O
O O
O O M 1 IA O
E IO 80 O
O O
O O
O O
> = > = 0 iM M
M M
M eo M
M 1
EUw <
l i
OW McW
>= M e=
1N em N N e0 en N e0 W lO U Z ag MI M
M M
M M
Ie W M A.J E Q l iM L
4 B
1 M )= L t. 6 J or. W I 1
i Ee0MCEE1 i
M Z >= D I
I E D= M E6I I
l
>I I
EWW D3 l
o e > >=
EDM S%K IO 80 O O O O O O O O h 80
>= U HQl ll U EGWI WEWJM i 9 0 en W U 1 W M E XteJl E >= D 9I
%UZ6Wl I
kW OgI l'
LJ WW UM 1N M N N e0 W to N 00 RA 1
M U
MOI M
M e=e em t M M
i so et EAWI i'M W w >= I SWL1 EXWI 3 UI ELUl 04i L
1 MEi EM iw f f f W to to to M Z l to e0 so 80 00 80 80 e0 to e0 Cl2 J
C L >= > U C L >
U F. I D D D W U C W D W O W
I9 7 4 M O E A 4 M E
=a I
LW8 MQl
.J E01 4
MUi
>=c
>=
1 EI E
Ol O
>= 1
>=
UI O
W9 W
LI L
Mi M
Ei E
M i9 M
I =
O1O
=
WlA JlM
$W l
to t
l l
1 lll BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 145 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HEL DS OF HFt DS OF HrtDS Ntir1R rR AGREFMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONIH ACCEPILD REJECTED OVERRIDDEN 01 HLLDS RALE RAIE KING,T JUN84 57 1
0 58 98.28%
98.28%
JUL84 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
i INSPECTOR TOTAL 61 1
0 62 98.39%
98.39 W
AR000cS4
lll i
BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 142 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUM8ER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP Or HEL DS OF HELDS Of HELDS NilMB ER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRilmLN OF HELDS RAIE RATE KLACHKO,M SEP82 56 0
0 56 100.00%
100.00%
DEC82 103 0
0 103 100.00%
100.00%
JAN83 119 9
0 128 92.97%
92.97%
FEB83 146 20 0
166 87.95%
87.95%
MAR 83 168 13 0
181 92.82%
92.82%
APR83 148 8
0 156 94.87%
94.87%
MAY83 128 3
0 131
'97.71%
97.71%
JUN83 125 3
0 128 97.66%
97.66%
JUL83 72 0
0 72 100.00%
100.00%
AUG83 131 3
0 134 97.76%
97.76%
SEP83 82 2
0 84 97.62%
97.62%
OCT83 99 3
0 102 97.06%
97.06%
JAN84 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
FEB84 53 0
0 53 100.00%
100.00%
MAR 84 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00%
APR84 6
0 0
6 100.00%
100.00%
MAY84 10 0
0 10 100.00%
100.00%
JUN84 1
0 0
1 100.00%
100.00%
JUL84 91 0
0 91 100.00%
100.00%
~
FEB85 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
MAY85 14 0
0 14 100.00r 100.00%
l
~
JUN85 68 0
0 68 100.00%
100.00%
JUL85 37 0
0 37 100.00%
100.00%
AUG85 100 0
0 100 100.00%
100.00%
AR0000350000357
O
til BRIM 0IX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 147 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86*
NUMBER HUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS Or Hfl DS NtfMBER AGRFFMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPILD REJECILD OVLRRIDDEN Of HELDS RAIE RATE SEP85 88 0
0 88 100.00%
100.00%
APR86 9
0 0
9 100.00%
100.00%
MAY86 28 0
0 78 100.00%
100.00%
JUN86 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00%
=
.=__
INSPECTOR TOTAL 1,894 64 0
1.958 96.73%
96.73 AP.000036 4
9 1
lll BRIM 0!X PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 148 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NtfMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS NtiMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECIOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECIED OVERRIDDLN OF HELDS RATE RAIE KOSIENIAK,P SEP84 6
0 0
6 100.00%
100.00%
100I00h IOb 00 INSPECTOR TOTAL 6
0 0
6 i
1 AR000097000097
lH i
14" BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBFR TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HEL DS Or Hrt DS Dr HiLDS NitHRE R AGRErMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCLPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN Of HELDS RATE RATE KRIZKA,D JUN85 1
0 1
2 50.00%
100.00%
JUL85 20 0
0 20 100.00%
100.00x 0
1 2h 9hk5%
10b.b0 h1 INSPECTOR TOTAL l
7 AP.000008 9
lll BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 150 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTN SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86*
~
NUMBER HUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HFLDS NUMBER AGREEMENT AGFEEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJEC1ED OVERRIDDIN Or HELDS RATE RATE KRUG,K JUL82 108 12 0
120 90.00%
910.00%
AUG82 69 1
0 70 98.57%
98.57%
DEC82 63 5
0 68 92.65%
92.65%
JAN33 20 1
0 21 95.24%
95.24%
FEB83 102 9
0 111 91.89%
91.89%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 362 28 0
390 92.82%
92.82 0
AR000099000099
ill BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 151 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTN SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NilMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HFLDS OF HEl DS NtfMMER AGRErMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONIN ACCEPIED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELES RATE RATE LAMB R FEB85 6
0 0
6 100.00%
100.00%
JUN85 16 0
0 16 100.00%
100.00%
JUL85 5
0 0
5 100.00%
100.002 o
0 2h IbO$00%
100.00 h
INSPECTOR TOTAL ARC 001oo
lll BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 13 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTN SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER HUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS HUMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED OVERRIDDEN of HELDS RATE RATE LANDERS,D JUN84 1
0 0
1 100.00%
100.00%
JUL84 1
0 0
1 100.00%
100.00%
NOV84 1
1 0
2 50.00%
50.00%
JUL85 13 0
0 13 100.00%
100.00%
MAY86 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 18 1
0 19 94.74%
94.74 AR000101000101o
BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 153 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER HUMBER HUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP Or HELDS OF HELDS OF HTLDS Ntit1BER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE LESN,T AUG83 72 16 0
88 81.82%
81.82%
SEP83 44 2
0 46 95.65%
95.65%
DCT83 12 4
0 16 75.00%
75.00%
NOV83 21 8
0 29 72.41%
72.41%
MAR 84 10 0
0 10 100.00%
100.00%
=_-- __-__-___ -_____--_- __-______ --__-_____ -_________
INSPECTOR TOTAL 159 30 0
189 84.13%
84.13 ARG00102 1
Il BRIM 01X PTL DVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 154 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86*
NUMBER NUMBER HUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HEL DS OF HELDS OF HELDS NUMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPIED REJECTED OVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE LGBUE S JUL82 23 1
0 24 95.83%
95.83%
AUG82 543 22 0
565 96.11%
96.11%
SEP82 33 0
0 33 100.00%
100.00%
DEC82 14 0
0 14 100.00%
100.00%
JAN83 27 0
0 27 100.00%
100.00%
FEB83 27 1
0 28 96.43%
96.43%
MAR 83 6
0 0
6 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 673 24 0
697 96.56%
96.56 AR000103000103
- ll i
BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 155 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NilMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HEtDS OF HELDS OF HELDS NitMBER AGREEMENT ACREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED OVERRIDDEN Of HELDS RATE RATE
- ----- ---- -------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- ---------- - - - - - - - =.
LOCKE,M MAY86 65 0
0 65 100.00%
100.00%
JUN86 14 0
0 14 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 79 0
0 79 100.00%
100.00 7
ARC 00104 O
9
til BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9iO'8 MdNDAY/ JULY 28, 1986 156 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTil SELECTION CRITLRIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NtlMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS NilMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED OVERRIDDLN OF HLLDS RATE RATE
_________ ____ ________ _________ _________ __________ _________ __________ _____=_
LORTS,M MAY86 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
k 100.00%
100.00 k
0 0
INSPECTOR TOTAL i
.m.
AR0001050001054
0
Ill BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 157 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86' NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS NitMprR AGRFFMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MOHIH ACCEPIED REJECTED DVERRIDDLN OF HLLDS RATE RA1E MARKS,R JUN84 1
0 0
1 100.00%
100.00%
JUL84 42 4
0 46 91.30%
91.30%
AUG84 4
4 0
8 50.00%
50.00%
SEP84 10 0
0 10 100.00%
100.00%
OCT84 46 0
0 46 100.00%
100.00%
NOV84 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
MAR 85 6
0 0
6 100.00*
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 113 8
0 121 93.39%
93.39 AR0001GG e
til BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 158 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86*
NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP tKC INSP OF H[lDS OF HELDS OF HILDS NitMBIR AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPIED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RAIE RATE
--------- ---------- --------- ---------- ----=_
MARTIN,R JUL82 79 1
0 80 98.75%
98.75%
AUG82 11 0
0 11 100.00%
100.00%
JAN83 16 0
0 16 100.00%
100.00%
FEB83 7
0 0
7 100.00%
100.00%
MARS 3 90 11 0
101 89.11%
89.11%
APR83 39 0
0 39 100.00%
100.00%
MAY83 29 0
0 29 100.00%
100.00%
JUN83 22 12 0
34 64.71%
64.71%
JUL83 12 0
0 12 100.00%
100.00%
AUG83 36 1
0 37 97.30%
97.30%
SEP83 57 8
0 65 87.69%
87.69%
DCT83 8
0 0
8 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 406 33 0
439 92.48%
92.48 AR300107300107O
111 BRIM 01X PTL OVERYNSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 159 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHARI BY INSPECTOR PER MONTN SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP Or HELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS NtlMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE MCCLOSKEY,P FEB86 117 2
3 122 95.90%
98.36%
MAR 86 87 2
0 89 97.75%
97.75%
APR86 32 0
2 34 94.12%
100.00%
MAY86 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00%
JUN86 50 0
0 50 100.00%
100.00%
- - - - = _________ __________ _____-
INSPECTOR TOTAL 288 4
5 297 96.97x 98.65 i
l AR0001']8 9
til BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9808 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 16G ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/0I/86" NUMBER NUMBER NilMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HFLDS OF NftDS NUMBFR AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE MCGRATH,G JUN86 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
f k
k00.00%
100.00 INSPECTOR TOTAL 0
W AR0001090001098
9 9
o.
til BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTIDN 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 161 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER HUMBER 10TAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS or Hrt DS NtiMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RAIE MCGUIGAN,H JAN84 11 5
0 16 68.75%
68.75%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 11 5
0 16 68.75%
68.75 l
9 6
ARC 00110
~
BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 162' ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER HUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HFLDS OF HELDS OF HELDS NI!MBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN Of HELDS RATE RATE MCLAURINE,J MAR 86 34 0
0 34 100.00%
100.00%
APR86 50 0
0 50 100.00%
100.00%
MAY86 12 0
0 12 100.00%
100.00%
JUN86 20 0
0 20 100.00%
100.00%
516 h
b 516 500$bb%
5bb.00 INSPECTOR TOTAL ggc00111 9
lll BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 163 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTN SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS Of HELDS NUMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPIED REJECILD DVLRRIDDLN Of-HELDS RATE RAIE MILLER,M FEB84 6
0 0
6 100.00%
100.00%
MAR 84 77 8
0 85 90.59x 90.59%
APR84 8
0 0
8 100.00%
100.00%
MAY84 34 4
0 38 89.47%
89.47%
JUN84 127 25 0
150 84.67%
84.67%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 252 35 0
287 87.80%
87.80 ARC 00112
f M
e0 P
O N
>=
JD 7
s O
4a w
W k
Co e0 O
O E
E4 E
I WW OE
,M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M I
OWWie O O so O O
O O
M O M e O O O O O fN MEM i a0 O O f C O O O
M e O O O O O O ac W <
EWE en O
O O O O N a0 M O O O O O O th WE 80 P O P O O O O
e0 80 00 O O O O O O P
E
>O Il M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
>0 Og Il E@
O s0 EN ll i
M I
NO E M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 1M WN WW e O O
M O O
O O
M O M O O O O O
O IN LN EMi 90 O
O f G O O
O M
M C O O O O O
1@
8
- O 6 C 'I j
EE W E l 40 O
O O O O N a0 M O O O O ED C
4 IA C
E I 80 P O P O O O
O 80 00 80 O O O O O O 1P
>> C i
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M i
E U.J C
l I
CW MLW
>= M M i ao O
M eo N f N f M N N f f N N I in U24 MiM to IA N
M N
N f M
N I@
W M Q.J E Q l IM L
CWJl 1
M > Lt= E W I I
ECMCEZl i
M E >= 0 0
1 E t= = E6I I
WK C1 i
>U eQI U ECW8 WEW
=1 7096Ul WWEEWI 1
KWD 78 i
NUE4WI I
kW CEI I
L.J WW UM i@ e0 M
N N f N f P N O f f N N i ek U
MClM f en N M
N M
M M
N ie 4 EA48 iM Ws=1 OWL 6 EEWG D UI ELU1 C4i L
1 MZl I
EM it f f f f f f f f f m m M m m m m M E 9 e0 e0 80 e0 e0 80 80 40 80 80 e0 00 80 80 80 e0 e0 C 1 sh E E >= E A
O M > U E E E J
C > U UEIW C L 4 3 D D U C W 4 aE D D D C W M
i6 E 4 E 7 7 4 C E O 7 E 7 7 4 E A d
i LWI M C.3 9
- .J ECi C
MUl
>O>
1 EI E
OB O
>= I U1 O
WI W
Li L
M8 M
EI7 E
=
M M i a
iE OIW Mi2
=J B M 4E I
l'.
6
=
-r---
rw
e
---,-n---+---
Ill BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 165 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NtfMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HEL DS NIft1BL R AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED OVERRIDDLN DE HELDS RATE RATE MURPHY,5 OCT84 14 0
0 14 100.00%
100.00%
NOV84 17 3
0 20 85.00%
85.00%
DEC84 45 1
0 46 97.83%
97.83%
JAN85 87 15 0
102 85.29%
85.29%
FEB85 86 0
0 86 100.00%
100.00%
MAR 85 16 0
0 16 100.00%
100.00%
SEP85 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00%
NOV35 6
6 0
12 50.00%
50.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 273 25 0
298 91.61%
91.61 AR000114000114
ll1 BRIMOIX PTL DVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 166 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIAt LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86*
NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS NttMRFR AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONIH ACCLPILD REJLCILD DVLRRIDDLN 01 HLLDS RATE RATE MUSTEREDeM SEP84 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00%
DCT84 62 0
0 62 100.00%
100.00%
NOV84 32 0
0 32 100.00%
100.00%
DEC84 25 1
0 26 96.15%
96.15%
JAN85 46 0
0 46 100.00%
100.00%
FEB85 98 0
0 98 100.00%
100.00%
MAR 85 22 0
0 22 100.00%
100.00%
AUG85 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00%
FEB86 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00x JUN86 1
0 0
1 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 292 1
0 293 99.66%
99.66 M
e AR000115000115e
e
111 BRIMOIX PTL DVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 167 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTN SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86*
NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP 0F HELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS Nt'MBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MCNTH ACCEPTED REJFCTED OVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE
- - _ - - - - ---- -- ---- -------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- -----==.
NEMETN,G JAN84 20 5
0 25 80.00%
80.00%
FEB84 6
0 0
6 100.00%
100.00%
MAR 84 49 4
0 53 92.45%
92.45%
APR84 100 29 0
129 77.52%
77.52%
MAY84 18 0
0 18 100.00%
100.00%
JUN84 44 0
0 44 100.00%
100.00%
JUL84 26 1
0 27 96.30%
96.30%
AUG84 24 0
0 24 100.00%
100.00%
SEP84 20 1
0 21 95.24%
95.24%
NOV84 8
0 0
8 100.00%
100.00%
JAN85 9
7 0
16 56.25%
56.25%
AUG85 2
1 0
3 66.67%
66.67%
SEP85 6
1 1
8 75.00%
87.50%
OCT85 3
1 2
6 50.00%
83.33%
NOV85 5
0 1
6 83.33%
100.00%
DEC85 32 0
0 32 100.00%
100.00%
JAN86 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00%
FEB86 16 0
0 16 100.00%
100.00%
MAR 86 14 0
0 14 100.00%
100.00%
APR86 14 0
0 14 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 418 50 4
472 88.56%
89.41 l
T AP.90C11G
lli BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 168 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "O7/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSF OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS NtiMRFR AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONIH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN Of HLLDS RATE RATE NOBLE.C OCT85 67 7
6 80 83.75%
91.25%
NOV85 34 1
0 35 97.14%
97.14%
JAN86 54 0
1 55 98.18x 100.00x FEB86 221 0
0 221 100.00%
100.00%
MAR 86 27 2
0 29 93.10%
93.10x INSPECTOR TOTAL 403 10 7
420 95.95%
97.62 l
)
7 ARS30117 l
Ili BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 160 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA
- LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP 0F HEL DS OF HELDS Or llELDS NtfMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN or HELDS RATE RATE NOLKER.B MAR 84 31 0
0 31 100.00%
100.00%
APR84 32 2
0 34 94.12%
94.12%
MAY84 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 67 2
0 69 97.10%
97.10
=
AF,000118 e
O N
l E0e M
=
80 N
>=
O
,D v4 T-l C
E OO E
E d
.e 50 m
e 2
1 1
WW 3
I CE IM M M M M OWWlO O O O
O O
M E t- 0 O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
gWqI WWElO O O O O O
WE 8O O O O O
IO E
>0 iM M
M M
M iM MS OC I
i E@
C ao EN 9
I M
W 4
Em E IM M M M M N
WN WWlO O
O O
O O
AN E >= 0 C O
O O O IC O
641 =
EE WE6O O
O O O O
O E
IO O
O O
O O
e-W C IM M
M M
M M
E U.J C
I CW MLW
>MM IM P N 80 e Ie UZ<
Ml M
M l@
W M Q.J E Q l i
L 4 6.J l 1
d >= L W E W 4 0
EndQEZl i
M Z >= 0 1
i M *= M Z-1 I
>C M C D EI I
M E M Z h. W D 1
OME C>0 i
EWW Ql i
M>>=
ECM m N OC 1O O O O O 1O MU MOI I
U ECW I
WEWw> II I
MOOWUl I
WME2W4 1
E >= D 9I I
NUEh W l I
WW CEI I
L.J WW um 1M e N e0 e l-@
U eQl M
M li @
C ECWI W.d >= 0 SWLI E3Wl D Ui E h. U l i
G48 9
I eZl 3M IM M to M M Z I 80 80 80 40 80 l
C A >= > U Z UE W U C W 4 E
'M Q 2 A 9
.J l
bW9 emI
.J EC1 4
MUi C
0-E E
D C
>=
W UI O
W W
L A
M.! A e
E e
E M
2 M
ig O'IE asc t<
.J O
I l8 E
G
BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 171 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NtlMB ER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS NilMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEH OF HELDS RATE RATE PARKS,D JUL82 28 1
0 29 96.55%
96.55%
AUG82 75 7
0 82 91.46%
91.46%
DEC82 101 0
0 101 100.00%
100.00%
JAN83 128 4
0 132 96.97%
96.97%
FEB83 48 3
0 51 94.12%
94.12%
APR83 1
0 0
1 100.00%
100.00%
MAY83 21 0
0 21 100.00%
100.00%
JUN83 47 0
0 47 100.00%
100.00%
AUG83 28 0
0 28 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 477 15 0
492 96.95%
96.95 ARC 00120 9
i l
Ill BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 172 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBLR NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS NUMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONIH ACCEPILD REJLCTLD DVERRIDDLN Of HLLDS RAIE RATE PARRISH,D OCT84 215 3
0 218 98.62%
98.62%
NOV84 28 0
0 28 100.00%
100.00%
DEC84 14 0
0 14 100.00%
100.00%
JUN85 9
0 0
9 100.00%
100.00%
SEP85 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00r JAN86 167 4
1 172 97.09%
97.67%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 435 7
1 443 98.19%
98.42 1
6 AR000121000121~
I 1
1:1 BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 173 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF l' ELDS OF NflDS OF WILDS Hut 1BER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJLCTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE PARULEKAR,A OCT85 15 1
0 16 93.75%
93.75%
FEB86 7
0 0
7 100.00%
100.00%
MAR 86 18 0
0 18 100.00%
100.00%
APR86 52 0
0 52 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 92 1
0 93 98.92%
98.92 i
tJ.C00122
~
Ill BRIMOIX PTL OVERTNSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 174 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HEL DS OF HELDS OF HFLDS NftMRFR AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPIED REJECILD OVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE PATEY,R JUN84 38 0
0 38 100.00%
100.00%
JUL84 34 0
0 34 100.00%
100.00%
AUG84 124 4
0 128 96.88%
96.88%
SEP84 14 1
0 15 93.33%
93.33%
DCT84 18 16 0
34 52.94%
52.94%
NOV84 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
JAN85 6
2 0
8 75.00%
75.00%
FEB85 8
2 0
10 80.00%
80.00%
MAR 85 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 250 25 0
275 90.91%
90.91 Doon3 O
5 7
1 6
8 9
1 8
2 Y
L U
J Y
AD NOM 8
0 9
N
=.
ET DN
- % x % % % % % % % x % % x x % % %
DEE 0 3 5 5 0 0 3
0 0
1 2 0 7 0 1
0 0 4
IMI - 0 3 4 6 0 5 0 0
0 8 1
0 7 0 4 0 0 9
REA-RER 0 7 3 5 0 7 0 0
0 6 8 5 6 0 8 0 0 5
ER 0 9 9 9 0
8 0 0
0 9 8 7 9 0 9 0 0 9
H VG
- 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
T" O A N6 O8 M/
1 T
R0 N
- % % % x % % % % % % % % % % 2 % %
- 2 E/ EE 0 3 5 5 0
0 0
0 0
1 2 0 7 0 3 0 0
- 4 P7 MI 0 3 4 6 0 5 0 0 0 8 1
0 7 0 8 0 8
0 0
FA-R ER 0 7 3 5 0 7 0 0 0
6 8 5 6 0 6 0 0 5
O" R
0 9 9 9 0 8 0 0
0 9 8 7 9 0
9 0
0
- 9 TT G 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 NCL A OE IPE TST 6 5 8 3 7 4 7 6 9 4 0 4 3 0 3 0 4
- 3 CNA S1 7 6 2 3 2 1
2 1
9 6 9 9 6 7
- 8 EIDLRD-1 1
1
- 0, P
AFL-SYPTRL-1 NBSOMH-I NTi f
RTI NF -
ER O-VAC OHK CL N-L SL- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0
- 1 TN RDD-PE ELD-D BTI -
D MHR-XIAU R-IRINFE-ORR OV-MEE D-IVT RDI B/R
- 0 2 1
1 0 3 0 0 0 3 9 1
3 0 1
0 0 4
TC SD-1 1
4 C
RDE-ENELI -
JOBEC-EIMHL-RTU J-
/CNFE-TE OR-PL EE CS
- 6 3 7 2 7 1
7 6 9 1
1 3 0 0 1
0 4 8
C SD 1
7 5 2 3 2 1
2 1
9 4 9 9 6 7 3
ELI -
0, A
RDE-1 1
1 BEP 1
MNE U C NFC-_
OA-P SH-NI 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 IN 8
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ON B R R Y N L
V C N 8 R G P T V Y CM A E A P A U U O E A E A U E C O A K
J F M A M J J N D J F M A S D N M L
PE-SD-L NO-A IC-T O
T R-R O-O T -
T C-C E
E L,
P-P SN S
NA N
I M
I Y
CR KR LE P
1 1
1 l
i
lll BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 176 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER HUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS N1'HR r R AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCLPIED REJECTED OVERRIDDLN OF HELDS RATE RATE e
PETERS,L MAR 86 44 0
0 44 100.00%
100.00%
APR86 28 4
0 32 87.50%
87.50%
MAY86 9
0 0
9 100.00%
100.00%
JUN86 10 0
0 10 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 91 4
0 95 95.79%
95.79 arc 00133 7
i N
N M
4 so P
M a
ao N
D ei=
s J
W D'
f_'
O
~
0 n.:.
C E
e.
O P
E I
I W>
I 1
QZ lM M M M M M M M M M M M M i
GWWIc O O c O o o o e M c O O Ie O.
G.
G.
1 P.
M E m i O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
C.
W 1
g W ag i
E W DC 1O O O o O O O
O O M O O O
'Ik W QC O
O C
O O
C O
P O O
O Z DC M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M
>= B C at i
Z@
C eo EN I
M
>=
1 EO E IN M M M M M M M M M M M M i M WN WWlc c c c c o c c c M N O C
e0 bN E m 1 C.
O.
C.
O.
O.
C.
C.
O.
N.
P.
O.
O.
P.
O c W ag 6 EB W QC 1 C C C
C C
O C O C M
O O
O P
O O
!P C
E 1
O O
O O
O
.Os M
M M
> = > = C 1
M M
M M
M EUJ 4 8
CW MAW
>= M W lN N 5 N M
N N M
N M C N
I@
U Z aC Mi M
M M
N M
1&
W m Q.J OC Q l 1M L
aC 6 J l l
M>LWEUl i
EOdQE3$
1
> Z p= = i i
CC e m 26 I I
WE C1 1
D eC U Q Z aC U.s 21 8
J MUBC O O O O O O O O O N O O IN
>= Z EQQl I
LW 4.J.J C i 8
Q O W== I Q*E3Ea i
M M cC O CC i i
M CC m 2 6 W B 6
CEE CDf 1
EWW QB l
M>>
SC O M ONE IN O O O O O O M
O M
C O O t
>= U MO1 O SC Q W l W Z W.J > 0 9CmWU1 i
WMEZWl F
GC w = 98 I
NUZ6Wl i
>= W G GC 1 i
LJ WW UM lC N
N N M
N N O N M M O N L M U
MQl M
M M
e N M
ll @
4 EQWI M
l.J e== l OWL 1 E2W8 5 US ZEUi I
C eC 1 i
A 1
MZl E>$@
e e en an to in to in en M Z B eo O e0 e0 to 80 90 80 80 e0 00 80 80 C12 IK OC > Z >= E Oc >= Z J
O L UEI4 4 A 4 3 U 4 A 4 3 D D W w
I7 E 4 E 7 O E 4 E 7 7 4 M
.J l
LW9 MQI
.J EO6 4
MU1
>=
Cm i
DC 1 GC O1 0
>= 1
>=
U1 O
WIQ W
bB =
A Mi2 M
ZlC Z
M4M M
iE OIW wle
.J l W 1A g
ge
==_.
6 b
e
C~
iilll 7
1 6
8 9
1 8
7 2
Y
. 2 1
L U
0 J
0c Y
R A
D A
N 9M 8
0 9
N ET DN DEE 0 2 1
1 7
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 8
IMT 0 6 3 2 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
REA-RER 0 7 5 8 2 6 0 0 0 0 0
0
_7 ER
- 0 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0
0 0
9 H VG
- 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 T" O A N6 O8 M/
1 T
R0 N E/ EE 0 2
6 4 8 0
0 8
0 0 0
0
_2 P7 MT - 0 6 0 6 4 0
0 3 0 0
0 0
_8 0
EA-R ER 0 7
9 4 3 4 0 4 0
0 0 0
_3 O"
R 0
9 8 9 8 9 0 8 0 0 0 0
9 TT G 1
1 1
1 1
1 NCL A OE IPE TST 6 2 4 8 5 0 3 2 3 8 8 0
9 CNA S1 4 6 6 1
5 4 3 9 4 3
_0 EIDLRD-1 1
1
_8 P
AEL-SYPTBE-NBSOMH-I NTU RTI NF-ER O-VAC OHK CL N-L SE 0 0 4 6 0 3 0 5 0 0 0
0 8
TN RDD-1 2
PE ELD-D BEI -
D: MHR-XIAU R-
!RINFE-0RR OV-MEE O-IVT RCI B/R
- 0 1
3 3 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
TC SD-2 C
RDE-ENELT -
JOBEC-EIMHE-RTU J-
/CNFE-TE OR-PL EE CS
- 6 1
7 9 6 1
3 7
3 8 8 0 9
C SD 1
4 5 5 9 4 4 2 9 4 3
5 A
RDE-1 1
7 ELT -
BEP-MHE-L C-NFC-OA-P SH-NT - 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 IN 8 8 8 C 8 8 8 8
8 8 8
8 OY N L
G P T V B R R Y N CM A U U U E C O E A P A U K
- M J J A S O N F M A M J L
PE-SD-L NO-A IC-TO T
R-R O-O T-T C-C E
E P
P S
S N
N I
_D I
C
_T K
N L
I e
P l
l I
O i
]!
j' l
til BRIMOI% PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 179 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF NEL DS OF HELDS Nt!MBIR AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPIED REJECTED OVLRRIDDLN OF HELDS RATE RAIE
=
=------- ---- =.
PISNNEY,E JUN85 43 0
1 44 97.73%
100.00%
JUL85 26 0
0 26 100.00%
100.00%
AUG85 66 0
2 68 97.06%
100.00%
NOV85 13 1
2 16 81.25%
93.75%
JAN86 6
0 0
6 100.00%
100.00%
APR86 26 0
0 26 100.00%
100.00%
MAY86 8
0 0
8 100.00%
100.00%
JUN86 12 0
0 12 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 200 1
5 206 97.09%
99.51
/J.0337.38 e
C l4 1llll1lll\\
I 6
8 9
1 8
2 9
Y 2
LU 1
J 0
0 YA 0
D R
NO A
M 8
0 9
N ET DN DEE 0
0 IMT- 0 0
REA-RER 0 O
ER 0
O H VG
.1 i
T" O A N6 O8 M/
I T
R0 N - %
h E/ EE 0 0
P7 MT -
0 0
0 EA-R ER 0 0
O" R
- 0 O
TT G 1
- 6 6
CNA S-EIDLRD-P AFL-SYPTBE-NBSOMH-f I
NTi RTI NF-ER O-VAC OHK CL N-L SE 0 o
TN RDD-PE ELD-D BEI -
D: MHR-XIAU R-IRINFE-ORR OV-MEE O-IVT R0I B/R 0
h TC SD-C RDE-ENELT -
JOBEC-EIMHE-RTU J-
/CNFE-TE OR-PL EE CS
- 6 6
C SD-A RDE-ELT -
BEP-MHE-U C-NFC-OA-P SH-NT - 3 IN 8 OC CM E K
- D L
PE-SD-L NO-A IC-TO T
R-R O-O T -
T C-C E-E P
J, P
S-S NS N
I - E I
- L CD KN LA - R l
- I i
l
~.
til BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 181 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF NELDS OF NELDS OF HELDS NUMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECIED OVERRIDDEN Or HILDS RATE RATE RICHARDS G NOV85 10 0
0 10 100.00%
100.00x DEC85 51 0
2 53 96.23%
100.00%
APR86 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00%
i INSPECTOR TOTAL 63 0
2 k5 hk$h2h 10b.00 1
9
N eD M
ep O
M a
i 40 t
M
=
n t-C, 4) a M
E t
e.
O E
1 W>
0 SE IM N N N M N OWW8O O o O
O O
O MEm1O O O
O O O O
E W aC I EWEIO O O O O O IO WE IO O O O O O IC E
>0
$m m m M
M M
iM
>= a C 4 I
I E4 O so EN O
I m >
0 i
Kc E iM N M N M M lN WN WWIe o e O O O 1O E e 1 o.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
I C.
&N I
W ag 4 O
Et WEIO O O C
O O
IC O
> = > C 8m m M
M M
M im EUJ C 1
1 OW MLW H M >=
1@ c w N M M ie U Z aC Mi m
M W M Q.J E Q l A
aC 6 W I M >= L > c w i EstMCEZl I
> E >= =
4 1
E >= = E64 i
WE C8 i
D eC U CZw U.d E9 i
w eIlc e c O O O Oc
>E ECCi 1
&W W.s Q l i
O eD w s=
4 1
Q ** E 3 % I I
M w aC 3 EI i
MEwE6Wl I
CEE O>l i
EWW Ql i
M D P.
KOM ONK IO O O O O O IO kW MQl i
U ECWI I
W E W J== 6 I
90cwu1 I
WMEZWl I
Ek2 7I I
NUE6WI I
kW OEI I
LJ WW UM Ie O e N M M 1O O
MQt M
iM at EQWt i
W w e= 1 SWA1 i
E3WI I
D Ui E6Ui C aC 8 A
I ME I
E *=
lM M M M M M ME 1 e0 e0 80 00 80 80 C
lE E >= E J
C UE 4 L 4 D D D E
E as E,, et j
W1 MQt W
ED1 4
mu8
>Q>
E E
O C
>=
l H
Ui U
W. >
W A'
b M
M M
E IC E
M E
M M
U
'E E
U
-J M
l' E
_=
I l'
s
-,-q
1 8
1 6
y 8
9 1
TO 8
O 2
C Y
D L
U
/,
J Y
AD NOM 8
0 9
N ET DN x % x % % % % x x % % % % % x % % 2 2 x %
DEE 3 4 0
0 0
0 0 8 0 0 0 4 3 0 3 9
1 4 6 0 0
6 IMT 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
3 0 0
2 3 0 8 5 4 9 1
0 4
1 REA RER 8
1 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 0 0 8 3 0 7 4 8 3 2 7 0 7
ER 9 9 0 0 0
0 0
9 9 0 0
8 8 0 9 9 4 9 9 9 0
8 H VG 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
T" O A N6 O8 M/
1 T
R0 N x % % % % x % x % x % % x x x % x x % % %
x E/ EE 3
4 0
0 0
0 0
8 0
0 0 4 3 0 3 9 1
4 6 0
0 k
P7 MI 3 0 0
0 0
0 0 1
3 0 0 2 3 0 8 5 4 9 1
1 0
kb 0 EA R"
ER 8
1 0
0 0 0
0 3 7
0 0
8 3 0 7 4 8 3 2 7 0
O R
9 9 0 0
0 0
0 9 9 0 0 8 8 0 9 9 4 9 9 9 0 k
TT G 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
7 6 1
3 4 1
4 7 3 0 4 0 6 6 7 7 3 1
9 1
3 CNA S
6 6 1
3 1
4 3 1
3 6 1
4 3 5 3 5 6 3 h
EIDLRD-1 1
9 P
AEL -
SYPTBE-NBSOMI -
I I
NTi l
RTI NF-ER O-VAC OHK CL N-L SE-0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TN RDD-PE ELD-D BEI -
D: iMHR-rIAt R-
!RINFE-0RR OV-MEE D-IVT RDI B/R 1
6 0 0 0 0 0 3 1
0 0 4 0 0 1
2 1
2 4 2 0 7
TC SD-1 8
1 C
RDE-1 ENELT -
JOBEC-EIMHE-RTU J-
/CNFE-TE OR-PL EE CS 9
1 6
1 3 4 1
1 6 3 0 0 0 6 5 5 6 1
7 7 1
k C
SD 5 6 1
3 1
4 3 1
3 5 1
4 3 7 3 4 6 3 k
A RDE-1 8
ELI -
BEP-MHE U C NFC OA P
SH-NT -
2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 IN-8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 O
G P C N B
R R Y N L
G P T N B R R Y N L
G CM U E E A E A P A U U U E C A E A P A U U U K
A S D J F M A M J J A S D J F M A M J J A L
PE-SD-L NO-A IC-T O
T R-R O-O T-T C-C E-E P-P S-S N
N I
I C
O K
L
=
l t
2 i
=
t a0 m
to 40 P
M
=
to N
O U
c1 e.
=>
g O
C.)
U*
E ee O
P E
1616-OZ M M M M M N OWW O
O O O O O
'O M E >=
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
l@
g W ag :
i e
EWEi.O O O O O O O
W 0c e
O O O O O O
T.
>Q M
M M
M M
M M
WB OC E0
\\
M ES E N N N N M M
' N WN WW O O O O O O l @
AN EM lO O O C e i W M.
D 6C1 1
- EE WE1O O O N
O O
e0 O
E 1O O O P O O P
>> C 1M M
M M
M E U.J 4
1 OW MLW 6-M p-1N N so oc l to UEC MI M N 1N W e= 2.J E O I IM L
4 6.s i I
m>Lt-OWI I
2 m M O T. 3 1 I
== Z >- O, 8
i Oc >= M E60 I
W DC O1 0
>4U O E as:
U.J EI I
J MW8O O O N O O IN
>= 2 EOQ1 1
&W W.4 Q l i
O O L== t 1
O ** E 2 DC i 1
M s= 4 3 EI I
M etM E L W I I
O E af O>0 0
EWW C1 i
M>p-EOM O%N lO O O O O O 1O
>= U MC1 i
U ECWl I
W E W a== 1 1
tOOWUl I
WM{3W1 1
EM-
"'t B
1 NUE6WB I
HW C DC 1 1
LW WW UM IN N to N to f I@
O MCI M s IN 4 NOWI IM W.s== 1 1
IWA1 XW' U
1 36WI j
C4i LME en in to E s=
l In ME
' E0 80 so so 80 so O
A >= U Z en DC UE W U W 4 W L w
.M o O => 6 4
.J LWI MOI
.J EOI W
MUi
>=
0
>=
E E
O O
> = -l 6=
>=
U U
1 m WilN W
AfU A
e1M M
EI2 2
MI W
M I
M U 'W W
M eJ DE e
O I
I'.
i C
BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 185 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER M0hTN SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER HUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF NELDS OF HELDS OF IILLDS NUMBER AGRFFMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPIED REJECTLD DVERRIDDEN OF HLLDS RATE RATE SCHREINER,B MAR 85 48 0
0 48 100.00%
100.00%
NOV85 27 I
o 28 96.43r 96.43r
~ '~
~~
~~~~~~~~~ ~
~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
=
INSPECTOR TOTAL 75
~[
0 76 98.682 98.68 4
l AP.000134 W
g
.=
I 80*
M a
80 N
.J D
"3 m
>=
4O i
E n
E YC'
~*
O E
O W h=
g SE M M M N M M M M M M M M
.O W W O e0 O M O O
O O O O O O M
M
.e E M I O.
O.
M.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
4
.0 g 8 J ag E W CC O
O e O O O O O O O O P
W OC
.O O P O O O O
O O O
O
!P E DC l
M M
M M
M M
M M
M M
i
>s Og 1.
I E@
O so EN 1
l M
>=
1 1
NO E IM M M M M M M M M M M M N
' so W% WWlO M O
O O
O O O O O O O AN K >= 1 O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
l 40 O Wql Ea laJ CC 1 O O
O so O O
O O
O O O O
' 40 C
E IO P O O O O O O O O O P
> = > = c IM M
M M
M M
M M
M M
E U.J 4
1 OW o= L W
>= M >
le N O GA M e0 th 40 0N U2C Mi M f lA 80 M
W M M N M
iM laJ M Q J GC C3 1 m
I en A
ag 6 J l 8
M )= L >= O W L 1
EOMOEZl i
M E >= 0 8
i CC >= M E6e i
W CC O1 1
>l EWW D1 M > >=
ECM e N GC 1O s=
m M
O O O O O O O O 1N
>= U MQl U OC O W 8 W E W s >= 8 "10 m W U l laJ M g 3 W 8 E k= - 9i NUE6WI
>W O OC I L.,J WW UM 14 N
GA en GO to 00 M
U MO1 N f 40 M M M N M
M 4 MOWl M
to W w >= 1 OWA6 EEW8 D Ul 26Ul O4i A I MEi E >=
en to en to to in to 4 4 4 ie e=e Z l eo 80 GO so 80 to to 80 40 00 80 so O
'E E
J O L >= > O m a >= E UE 4 D D D W U C W 4 En.
4 D M
I E
- )
- )
4 M C E b E 4 E "3
s awl I
MSt
.a
\\
EOl at MUl
>O
>=
\\
et N
1 O
O 1
l-
>=
U 0
W' W
Li L
L M
i
- M E
IN E
M
>=
M i
O ' *o' I
aC E
J U
.g e
E I
Ie e
lll BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 187 ACCEPT / REJECT / OVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTN SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NtmBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF WELDS OF HELDS OF HF L DS NtfMBER AGRErMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED OVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE SCOTT,5 FEB84 19 0
0 19 100.00%
100.00%
=_
_ _=
INSPECTOR TOTAL 19 0
0 19 100.00%
100.00 l
j t
AP.00013G
lll BRIMOIX PTL DVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 18[
ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NtMtBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS NUMBER AGREFMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MGNTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN Or HELDS RATE RAIE SHARPE.M MAY86 16 0
0 16 100.00%
100.00%
JUN86 20 0
0 20 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 36 0
0 36 100.00%
100.00 AR000137000137i
1 1
[
a 1
6 8
9 1
8 2
8 Y
3 L
x U
Y.
J YA
?.
DN k
OM 8
0 9
N ET DN
% x % % x x 2 x DEE 2 8 7 0 7
7 0
9 2
IMT 2 4 6 0 0 9 0 1
7 REA-RER 2 5 2 0 1
6 0 9 2
ER 9 8 9 0 9 9 0 8 9
H VG 1
1 T" O A N6 O8 M/
1 T
R0 N x % % % % 2 % x x
E/ EE 2 8 7 0 7
7 0
9 2
P7 MT 2 4 6 0 0 9
0 1
7 0
EA-R" ER 2 5 2 0 1
6 0
9
_ 2 O
R 9 8 9 0 9 9 0 8
__9 TT G 1
2 1
3 6 6 8 7
3 CNA S9 6 9 3 5 6 2 3
. 6 EIDLRD-1
- 5 P
AFL-SYPTBE-NBSOMH-I NTf t
RTI Nr-ER O-
=
VAC OHK CL N-L SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
_0 TN RDD-PE ELD-D BFI -
D MHR-xIAU R-IRINFE-ORR OV-MEE O-IVT R0I B/R 7 9 4 0 5 2 0 4
_ 1 TC SD-1 C
RDE-
_4 ENELT -
JOBEC-EIMNE-RTU J-
/CNFE-TE OR-PL EE CS 3 3 7 3 1
4 8 3
._ 2 2
C SD 8 5 7 3 5 6 2 3 A
RDE-1
__5 ELI -
BEP-MNE-U C-NrC-OA-P SH-NT
_4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 IN 8 8 8
8 8 8 8 8 O
N B R R Y P T C
K
-.A E A P A E C E CM J F M A M S O D L
PE-SD-L NO-A IC-T O
T R
R O
O T
T-_
C C
E E
P
_ R, P
S SN
_S N
I D
I L
C E
K I
L HS
Ill BRIMOIX PTL OVERIMSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 190 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS NUMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPIED REJECTED OVERRIDDEN OF HEL DS RATE RATE STOUT,H MAY84 10 0
0 10 100.00%
100.00%
JUN84 28 11 0
39 71.79%
71.79%
SEP84 7
0 0
7 100.00%
100.00%
OCT84 22 4
0 26 84.62%
84.62%
NOV84 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00%
DEC84 12 0
0 12 100.00%
100.00%
FEB85 0
8 0
8 0.00%
0.00%
ft4R85 19 0
0 19 100.00%
100.00%
i JUN85 8
0 5
13 61.54%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 108 23 5
136 79.41%
85.09 l
I 1
==
ARcooi39 9
e e
l l
l l
Ill l
l BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 19 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86*
NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF MELDS OF WELDS OF WELDS NUMBER AGRFFMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MON 1H ACCEPIED REJECTED OVLRRIDDLN OF HLLDS RATE RATE TAYLOR,G JUL85 85 1
4 90 94.44x 98.89x AUG85 96 5
2 103 93.20%
95.15%
SEP85 57 0
1 58 98.28x 100.00*
___=
INSPECTOR TOTAL 238 6
7 251 94.82%
97.61 i
l i
t t
AP.C'JC110 O
9
40 Pm e0 m
a 40 N
-J D
d Om 4O o
5 O
t a
DC e0 4
e 9
E I
WW I
GE IM M M M M M M M M M AWWlO e e e e e o e e e m
o= E > 0 m.
o.
e.
e.
e.
O.
80 C.
O.
e.
NW4I WWEIO e e e w O O 80 O O WE iO O O O M O O 80 e e 80 E DO 8m m m m m
og m m
>=8 0 4 1
4 80 I
m k I
f KO E IN N M M M M M M M M M
Ws WWie O
O O e O
O e o O ks t>to e O 8 e o e O O e.
o.
=
1 O W40 *
=
'O O O O
O O 80 O O I
O E
O O O O
to O O 80 C O 80
> >. O M
M m m m m M
E U.J 4
OW MAW
>= M r iN f >= f N e O N l >=
UE4 Mi M
m m M N
W M G.J E Q l
.m 4 6.J l M>L>EW8 i
EmMOEZl I
w E>=
l i
N e= m E u. I I
WE O1 1
>40 O Z hd U.a EI
.4 eWIO O O O O O O O O O
'O
>E ECO1 kW wwQl Q m 6 e==
8 O**E3EI Mwd 5 EI i
M E== E 6 W 8 i
OME O>0 0
EWW OI i
w>>
ECM S%K IO O O O e O O m O e
.N MU HO8 m
m W ECWI W E W.J p I "4 O e W U i WMEEWI E>3
- )
B
%UE6W8 kW OEI L.J WW UM I! N e e
- m W N e0 e N 4O N
m m M M
O eC1 4 ECW!
m We>'
IWL XWU 6U i
04 i
b I
MZ l
Em M M M M M M M f f V
)
mE1 80 80 80 80 00 00 80 80 80 O
E E >=
J A > E S E I
UE 4 L 4 3 W U 4 W 5 l
W E 4 E 9 4 M C 7 6 &
.J l
kW8 MQl
.J EOl 4
mWl
>O>
E i
E O
O U
U W
W L
i M
i M
E U
E m
a m
1 E OllW mt
.J
-d
>~
E I
l'.
l3 BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 193 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86*
NUNSER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF MELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS NilMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECIED OVERRIDDLN OF llLLDS R.lE RATE NALTERS.J FEB84 27 2
0 29 93.10x 93.10x MAR 84 73 3
0 76 96.05%
96.05%
APR84 70 3
0 73 95.89%
95.89%
l MAY84 8
0 0
8 100.00%
100.00%
JUN84 109 6
0 115 94.78%
94.78%
JUL84 31 0
0 31 100.002 100.00%
l SEP84 1
0 0
1 100.002 100.00%
DCT84 6
0 0
6 100.002 100.00%
NOV84 25 1
0 26 96.15%
96.15x 1
j MAR 85 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00x APR85 34 0
0 34 100.002 100.00%
i INSPECTOR TOTAL 388 15 0
405 96.28%
96.28 1
.i 4
AP.CDC142 i
3 i
Ill BRTMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 194 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART SY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF WELDS OF HELDS OF HELDS NUMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED OVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE MARD,D NOV83 1
0 0
1 100.00%
100.00%
APR84 33 1
0 34 97.06x 97.06x j
MAY84 5
0 0
5 100.00%
100.00%
JUN84 29 1
0 30 96.67%
96.67%
JUL84 17 n
0 17 100.00%
100.002
= = - - _ -
INSPECTOR TOTAL 85 2
0 87 97.70%
97.70 Aku-011:;
I e
111 BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 195 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATC LT "O7/01/86" NUMSER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HEL DS OF HELDS OF HELDS NIfMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE NATSON,C JAN85 69 0
0 69 100.00%
100.00%
FEB85 6
0 0
6 100.00%
100.00%
JUN85 2
2 0
4 50.00%
50.00%
JUL85 113 4
2 119 94.96%
96.64%
AUG85 13 1
2 16 81.25%
95.75%
MAR 86 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
---------- --------- ----=-
- _ _ =
INSPECTOR TOTAL 207 7
4 218 94.95%
96.79 f a s..' *. n g 1.,ai
,pe i
=
e
=
a
?
Ill 1
BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 196 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NtlMBER NilMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP GF HELDS OF HELDS Or HELDS NtiMRI R AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN or HELDS RATE RATE l
HHITCOMB V JUN85 11 1
5 17 64.71%
94.12%
JUL85 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00x OCT85 11 0
2 13 84.62x 100.00%
NOV85 49 1
6 56 87.50x 98.21%
DEC85 6
0 0
6 100.00%
100.00x FEB86 0
0 4
4 0.00%
100.00%
APR86 10 0
0 10 100.00x 100.00x HAY 86 8
0 0
8 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 97 2
17 116 83.62%
98.28 ARGong4;;
7
Ill BRIMOIx PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 197 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART 8Y INSPECTOR PER PONTN SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT '07/01/86" MUMOER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF NELDS OF MELDS OF HELDS MUMBFR AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HLLDS RATE RATE MICKS,R MAR 84 2
0 0
2 100.00%
100.00%
JUN84 18 0
0 18 100.00%
100.00%
APR85 96 0
0 96 100.00%
100.00%
MAY85 2
0 2
4 50.00%
100.002 JUN85 51 2
1 54 94.44%
96.30x JUL85 75 0
3 78 96.15x 100.00%
AUG85 80 0
1 81 98.77x 100.00x SEP85 40 0
1 41 97.56x 100.00*
OCT85 74 1
3 78 94.872 98.72x NOV85 41 0
0 41 100.00%
100.002 FE886 32 0
0 32 100.00%
100.00%
MAR 86 12 2
0 14 85.71x 85.712 APR86 16 0
0 16 100.00%
100.00%
MAY86 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00x JUN86 28 0
0 28 100.00%
100.00%
i INSPECTOR TOTAL 571 5
11 587 97.27%
99.15 M
g e#
a
BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 198 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTN SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86*
NUMBER NUMBER HUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HEL DS OF HELDS OF HELDS NUMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPTED REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HELDS RATE RATE WINCKEL,J OCT84 78 22 0
100 78.00%
78.00%
NOV84 64 0
0 64 100.00%
100.00*
DEC84 IS 9
0 44 79.55%
79.55%
JAN85 32 0
0 32 100.00r 100.002 2k0 87.08%
87.08 INSPECTOR TOTAL 209 31 0
4:1600147 O
9 a
Ill BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 199 ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC IN3P Or NFL DS OF NELDS nr Hf'LDS HHMBER AGREEMENT AGREEMFNT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPIED REJECTLD OVERRIDDEN OF HLLDS RATE RATE WYNTER,M JAN84 9
1 0
10 90.00Y 90.00%
=_
=_ =-=-
INSPECTOR TOTAL 9
1 0
10 90.00%
90.00 i
M e
itE00a118
. d 1
4 e
I
III BRIMOIX PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28, 1986 200.
ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" NUMBER NUMBER NUMBFR TOTAL OVERRIDDEN INSP LKC INSP OF HELDS OF HELDS OF NEIDS NtfMBER AGRFEMENT AGREEMENT LKC INSPECTOR CODE MONTH ACCEPILD REJECTED DVERRIDDEN OF HLLDS RATE RATE YEAROUT.V MAY85 8
0 0
8 100.00%
100.00%
JUN85 8
3 1
12 66.67%
75.00%
JUL85 4
0 0
4 100.00%
100.00%
AUG85 6
0 0
6 100.00%
100.00%
INSPECTOR TOTAL 26 3
1 30 86.67%
90.00 sk.00149 S
e
1 0
2 6
8 9
1 82 Y
LU J
0 YA 5
D 1
NO 9.
M 3
8 0
0 R
9 A
N ET DN
% % % % % % % % x % % % % x % % %
DEE 0 4 0 0
0 4 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
8 IMT 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
2 REA RER =0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 6
3 ER
- 0 9 0 0 0
9 0 0 6 0
0 0 0 0 7 0 0 9
9 H VG -
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 T" O A N6 O8 M/
1 T
R0 N
- % % % % % % % % % % % % % x % % %
E/ EE 0 4 0
0 0 4 0
0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 7
- 9 6
P7 MT- 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 n.
0 0 0 0 6 6
5 0
EA-R FR 0
3 0 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 6 6
2 O"
R
- 0 9 0 0 0 9 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 9
. 9 9
TT G 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
- 8 1
3 5 9 4 8 4 6 6 3 6 2 6 4 8 0
- 3 2
CNA S1 6 2 4 5 3 2 2 7 4 3
4 3
- 4 2
EIDLRD-
- 5 4,
P ATL-SYPTRE-8 NBSOMH-2 t
I NTi RTI NF -
ER O-VAC OHK CL N-L SE o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1 6
TN RDD- '
0 PE ELD-2 D
BfI -
D MHR-XIAU R-IRINFE-ORR OV-MEE D-IVT RDI B/R
- 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 7
9 TC SD-1
= 0
_ 9, C
RDE-
=
ENELT -
JOBFC-1 EIMHE-RTU J-
/CNFE-
=
- 8 7 3 5 9 1
8 4 7 6 3 6 2 6 3 8 9
_ 5 C
SD 1
5 2 4 5 3 1
2 7 4 3
4 2
_ 2 7
0 A
RDE-5 3,
ELI -
BEP-6 MNE-2 U
C-NFC-OA-P SH-NT 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 IN 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ON B R R Y N L G P T V C N R N L
G CM A E A P A U U U E C O E A A U U U K
J F M A M J J A S D N D J M J J A L
PE-SD-L NO-A IC-TO T
L A
R-R T
O-O O
T-T T
C-C E-E D
P-P N
S-S A
N-N R
I G
T, I
.e CH KC L-YZ l
l i
e
. 4 i
4 I,
lit I
BRIM 0!X PTL OVERINSPECTION 9:08 MONDAY, JULY 28. 1986 202 ACCEPT / REJECT /DVERRIDDEN CHART BY INSPECTOR PER MONTH SELECTION CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LT "07/01/86" CU ENDING PAGE OF REPORT Nw 4
l 4
I m
t i
AR0001310001314
l
~
l C 03 arcus-4)
[
DdANUAA FIL UvCKAR3rtb51UR AO345,MURNATp AUUU3 9p 17eo C
3
,\\.
$1 hj, a SELEdTIONCRITERIA
.LKC INSP DATE LT
~
07/01)S6*f,ih:.
ik> :'
I
~
9 t
y
=
OVERIfibhECTIONRhSUTSFOR24SEEbEDINSPECTORS
'y nunwik
,nu ;;n..
xvn
..isiAL, UvcNuauncR r
ti OF MELDS' OF MEonLDSN
- NUMBERf AGREEMENT AGREEMENT NONTH '0F MELDS P
t 1
ACCEPTED REJECTED OVERRIDDEN OF MELDS RATE RATE p
u----
JUL82 92 1
0 93 98.92%
98.92%
AUG82 70 1
0 71 98.59%
98.59%
SEP82 117 6
0 123 95.12%
95,12%
3
, 0 10 4)
O iO 2-167
'2 0
[ 149 98.82X 98.82%
}
MANB3 212 11 0
-225 95.07X 95.07%
__J rLoos are 44 u
499 vs.6ux vs.6ux MAR 83 603 235 0
838 71.96%
71.96%
APR83 247 8
0 255 96.86%
96.86%
MAY83 215 6
0 221 97.29%
97.29%
^ ^ ^ ^
i52 se i48 ~ 15.554 s5.55s
$, h, w,,..
a
.v yt
's 110
- li 110 100.00X 100.00X SJ f)IM* 232-s 14 <0 3: T 97.84%
97.84%
o-1 3'(?
227 j'1 T5 '7 ff
$^
1'"
277' 94.22%
94.22%
261 16 uussa zai 16 u
z3s vs.65x 95.68x NOV83 0
0 0
0 L'
DEC83 0
0 0
0
==
JAN84 264 27 0
291 90.72%
90.72%
w-n ano es.via es. usa 4jy.. $, 329 )t Q wi40 g9gi as a-i;
.g 0;<~g[;. M 569 92.97X 92.97X s
4fW^ -p' 490 ". ~ 4 107
@2-9 ' ' ;, "]' 355 '
4 1
'04 :.
597 82.08%
82.08X
+
'3 4~
332 d 23
~
_f 93.52*
93.52x I
o suRow 9ss 9e u
seu v1.vzx v1.vzx JUL84 550 26 0
576 95.49%
95.49%
AUG84 323 18 0
341 94.72%
94.72%
SEP84 190
_7 9
aso va.sca ya.sca 197 96.45%
96.45%
u, es.
_k. s.4 1 N 0
4
' 1199 %
+ .5 203 98.05X 98.03%
$"H 4 J$p :1 9?
4 185 I 89 95.51X 95.51X s
i e
W 5
208 12
'4 9:
~ 220 94.55Y-94.55%
f 9i1 96 u
sit v1. lux vr71ux MAR 85 159 1
0 160 99.37%
99.37%
APR85 96 1
0 97 98.97%
98.97X MAy85
_24 9
_2
_24 92.31%
199 99%
.a cuo o
as saa os.aon yo.aw4 WUL85 g 235 6 4 8
249 94.38%
97.59%
AMS <
- 334 5 a 2
341 97.95%
98.53%
E 5 400
- 3 1
34 x
406 :
98.52%
99.26%
z9s 11 19 zia vu.KVY~
95!97%
NOV85 302 13 6
321 94.08%
95.95%
DEC85 58 2
2 62 93.55%
96.77%
JAN84
_g g
g
_Q 77 77-1
.,aa so.can s,
EAA46((
61 "105 j
4' 17C 35.88X 38.24X
[] h0 'l i
~
r^ -
P ERIPIDIA PTL UVERIM5FEUI10N 16 8 Z5 riunvAT, AUUU31 4,i3 750 3
.,j
,(
g.
4 ;
p j[
d Q $5fLEICTIOH. CRITERIA:
LKC INSP DATE LTI"07/01286h (,%, O - E h }TE
)'
i ACCEPT / REJECT /0VERRIDDEN PER MONTH DVERINSPECTION RESULTS FOR 24 SELECTED INSPECTORS
.-r:.. -
- w.
_n,
- nt.
n
.,iveAL uvenuluutn
. c 0F HEGS
'0F idLDS :GF MELDS:
Nt9tBER
.. AGREEMENT AGREEMENT
. t H ' ACCEPTED
. REJECTED :. OVERRIDDEN,0F MELDS RATE RATE
.i;,
. I. {,<::
s
?
)
n 4.._.__.__
- )'. '
r t
APR86 29 0
1 30 96.67%
100.00%
MAY86 38 0
0 38 100.00%
100.00%
JUN86 63 0
O_
63 100.00%
100.00%
- O.;...__.. __ 6..;
.L_"
' r JSTAL:1, 10,299 952 24-60 11,311.
91.05x 91.58%
i 1
4
'kj k
..+ ) y g
.; 6 4 v.
(
'? p'; efW
- f.,
^
'[$. Jq
- &.. Q.$,. -
'g' 3
+
Y'
.d
,?
s: $,
if.
.t
$1
+
4 N
_.9N*
./
f 4.,. Sa4 f.
.1
'bE
^
3 k,
4
$4: W' !
/)^
^f d i ;{.y
?M /
Sn' TN' W' ^ "
9 4
5
'l
~:31
- ~
Y-s
~
dh 4
+
% $, g g,.
dmi <e AW I si jf, :Qi (
- A T -d M' lj
'i v 134
+
. s s.
4
_f e
m.g 1
1
- T 1
bi ~I:i
,. ').:.
Q. -
j
^
k$)
b' l>
t
- E;
+
s
.pM 4; ;,
y.;
q jp -
- a
^4 eM - pp t j
g i
e 1
J h' )l Ii' fh
, b.1 y
.g' w
a.
>$+
>3-g;: e ', 3 Jk.
o s
lJ >
h --
I"'
Attachnent 2C (Marcus-5) ffiMHI Pil DVfPINSff.Cff0ft -
- 1.. K. COMSiOCK DATCI@T/2NG's g-6t;t:f Pl/ItF.JF t.i I:ll6ft t FT R HON til l'Af.Lal NUMBER OF NUNDER OF TOTAL g
i E LE ME NTS ELEMENTS N11MPE R OF AGREEMF NT i
'~ PIONTH ACCEPTED REJECTf:D rt.E MI' N T T.
RAir y
7,_.._._.
r
- vi4 vo 48%
- - - - - - - - ~
JUL85 320 7
327 97.96%
g AUC95 536 78 564 95.04%
n SERB 5 "~~-~' '
~
354 ~ '-~ 10 364 97.2'3%
OC185 355 tt 3A6 96.99%
g
.i NOVHS 290 if 301 96.35%
at L,eo of 10
'~
g 761~ -' 9CJ 17%' _.
~~
~~
~~ "*
~-
"~~~~ -
~ ' * " ~ ~ ~
-~"
YEAR TOTAL 2,192 fl5 2,267 96.25%
,s
=
JAN06 3 79 4
383 96.25%
g a
FEPH6 352 22 3 74 94.12%
i.
nnP 0 6 * * ~ ~ ~
- ~~~' 5 4 4'
- '~~'~ ~ 3 3 '
577 94;28%
Al'R06 342 70 362 94.4n%
g MAYU6 356 18 374
?5.19%
- JtIH06
~^ 300 5
313 9 Fl. 40%
YEAR TOTAL 2,201 102 2.303 95.72%
+
1 D
- GRAND TOTAL:
4.463 107 4,650 95.90%
p l
i 9'.
j
-n.
g r
I.
> k M
I '
D p.J E
p D
i p :
ARC 00002 l
'I I
b L________________________________________
9 5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-456
)
50-457 (Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2)
)
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY J. D' ANTONIO, FRED D.
FORREST, AND TONY C. FRAZIER
(' N ROREM Q.A. SUBCONTENTION 2)
O (Harassment and Intimidation) 7 I
August, 1986
REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY J. D' ANTONIO, FRED D. FORREST AND TONY C.
FRAZIER ON PTL OVERINSPECTION OF L. K. COMSTOCK WELDING ACTIVITIES Q.
1.
Please state your names, employers, and business addresses.
l A.
1.
(D' Antonio)
My name is Anthony D' Antonio.
I am employed by Commonwealth Edison Company at Braidwood Station.
(Forrest)
My name is Fred Forrest.
I am employed by Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory (PTL) at Braidwood Station.
(Frazier)
My name is Tony C.
Frazier.
I am employed by PTL at Braidwood Station.
Q. 2.
What are your present positions at Braidwood?
A. 2.
(D' Antonio)
Since January 31, 1986, I have worked as a Staff Assistant in the Regulatory Assur-ance Department at Braidwood.
Prior to that date, I was the PTL Coordinator in the Quality Assurance Department.
(Forrest)
I have been the Site Manager for PTL at Braidwood since November 1982.
(Frazier)
I have been employed by PTL at the Braidwood site in various supervisory capacities since 4
1
e January 1979, most recently as Assistant Site Manager since February 1984.
Q. 3.
What are your educations and professional qualifications?
A. 3.
(D' Antonio, Forrest and Frazier)
Our qualifica-tions are described in the resumes attached to this testimony as Attachments 2C (D' Antonio-1), 2C (Forrest-1) and 2C (Frazier-1).
Q. 4.
Mr. Forrest, what work does PTL do at the Braidwood site?
A.
4.
(Forrest)
As the Independent Testing Agency, we report to Edison's Site Quality Assurance organization.
Under PTL's specification we perform first line inspections of structural bolting, soils and concrete, as well as nondestructive examinations (NDE).
In addition, we perform other inspections at the direction of Edison Q.A.
PTL has no responsibility for design or construction activities.
Q. 5.
Mr. D' Antonio, what is the purpose of this testimony?
A. 5.
(D' Antonio)
The purpose of this testimony is to describe the PTL overinspection of L. K. Comstock activities from July 1982, through June 1986. i
1 i
Q. 6.
Messrs. Forrest and Frazier, do you agree?
A.
6.
(Forrest)
Yes.
(Frazier)
Yes.
Q. 7.
Would you each please describe your personal involve-ment in the PTL overinspection program related to the work performed by Comstock at Braidwood?
A. 7.
(D'Antonic)
Upon my arrival at Braidwood in February 1984, I was assigned to the Independent Testing Agency group within CECO QA.
For approxi-mately the first two months I was familiarizing myself through orientation with the practices employed at Braidwood to conduct activities relative to PTL, the Independent Testing Agency.
At that time my title was Q.A. Nondestructive Examination (NDE) Level III.
In April 1984, I was given the assignment of Coordinator for PTL.
This assignment involved the coordination of PTL activities (both administrative and field related) while providing direction to the PTL Management Staff.
During this time, one of my i
main responsibilities included monitoring the PTL overinspection activities relative to L. K. Comstock, along with other site contractors.
My involvement in the overinspection program was to assist PTL in interfacing with site contractors to assure that the overinspections were carried out.
I !
On a daily basis, contact with PTL Management was required to monitor the overinspection program along with the other activities being conducted by PTL.
My responsibilities included:
reviewing and processing PTL procedures / instructions utilized to conduct the overinspections, providing direction (as necessary) relative to the program, reviewing reports generated by PTL on LKC welding activities, reviewing the results of the overinspection program, and distrib-uting the monthly CECO non-conformance report which tracked those overinspections found deficient through resolution and close-out.
(Forrest)
As site manager for PTL, I have had overall responsibility for the overinspection program since November 1982.
With respect to that program, my responsibilties have included:
directing the inspection activities of PTL, assuring proper imple-mentation of procedures and instructions, assigning qualified personnel to perform the overinspections, and reporting results from the program to Commonwealth Edison.
From November 1982 to June 1984, I personally reviewed and logged all non-conferming inspection findings and wrote and issued nec6ssary reports to Commonwealth Edison.
Since July 1984, to.the present 4-
(June 1986), results from the overinspection have been recorded by individuals who report directly to me.
All reports of overinspection findings are prepared
}
or, at a minimum, reviewed by me before they are transmitted to Commonwealth Edison.
(Frazier)
My involvement with the overinspection program has varied, to some degree, over my years being assigned to the Braidwood site.
As NDE/ Structural General Supervisor, January 1979 through February 1984, my duties included direct supervision of the PTL inspection personnel, review of associated reports, as well as conducting routine field supervision of inspection activities to assure compliance with the procedures and instructions.
I was also available to the inspectors to discuss any situations that may have arisen which needed clarifi-cation, further investigations, or upon occasions, field trips with the inspector for resolution of a particular problem.
As an Authorized Examiner, I conducted training and administcred general and practical examinations, which required my personal evaluation of a candidate's demonstrated abilities prior to PTL's certification of the individual as a visual weld inspector.
(I myself did not certify the visual weld inspectors prior to October 1984, when I was certified an ANSI N45.2.6 Level III.)
l l l l
In February 1984, I received a promotion to my current position of Assistant Site Manager.
While a shift of duties more to the administrative aspect occurred and another supervisor was placed in charge of the overinspection programs I still maintain a direct involvement in the training, evaluation and certification of visual weld inspectors.
And, again, I maintain a direct line of communication with the inspectors to assist clarification and resolution of any questions or problems that may occur.
Q. 8.
Mr. Forrest, would you please describe the qualifica-tions of the PTL personnel who performed the over-inspection activities?
A. 8.
All PTL inspectors involved in the overinspection program sinca July 1982 have been and are certified as Level II inspectors in accordance with the require-ments of ANSI N45.2.6 (1978).
Between July 1982 and the present, there have been continuing improvements in our qualification, training and certification program.
During this time period, all inspectors have received additional training and testing and have been i
recertified.
Q. 9.
Mr. Frazier, do you have an opinion as to the com-petence of the PTL inspectors who carried out inspec-tions of Comstock activities from July 1982 to June 1986?
A. 9.
(Frazier)
Yes.
I have high confidence in the competence of the PTL overinspectors.
As stated l
previously, my duties as NDE/ Structural General 1
Supervisor from January 1979, through February 1984, required a direct overview of all visual weld inspec-tors, as well as inspectors in other disciplines.
I was directly involved in the training, evaluation and certification of visual weld inspectors through my appointment as Authorized Examiner.
The duties of an examiner require that he insure that personnel are properly indoctrinated, receive an adequate amount of training and administer general and practical examina-tions for submittal to a Level III for certification.
Training during the above referenced period was either administered by myself or under my super-vision.
As for practical examinations the examiner must personally evaluate a candidate's abilities and performance under field conditions prior to recom-mending certification of the individual by the Level III.
After certification of each inspector, I made periodic field trips to observe the performance of the inspector to insure continued adherence to the instruction / procedures and to build a confidence level and working relationship with the individual. I
After my certification as an ANSI N45.2.6 Level III in October 1984, I became directly responsible for the certification of all PTL visual weld inspectors at Braidwood.
I feel that I have a very good knowledge of the abilities of all the visual weld inspectors currently certified by PTL.
I have personally administered practical examinations to a minimum of 50% of all visual weld inspectors certified by PTL since my arrival at Braidwood, which gives me a very high confidence level in the inspectors.
Q.10.
Mr. Forrest, please describe PTL's overinspection practices with respect to Comstock welding in July 1982.
A.10.
(Forrest)
In July, 1982, PTL was overinspecting a minimum of 10% of the welds accepted by Comstock Q.C.
This sample was selected by PTL from installations that were documented as acceptable by L.K. Comstock QC on a transmittal form called an inspection request, which also identified the total number of welds on the installations.
PTL personnel would then proceed to the field location and physically overinspect the selected welds.
If during the overinspection any weld was found j
by PTL to be rejectable, an additional 15% sample of the welds shown on the request were overinspected.
If any weld in the expanded sample was found to be 1
\\
rejectable, 100% of the welds shown on the reque'st were overinspected.
All welds rejected by PTL were required to be repaired and reinspected.
Q. 11.
Mr. Forrest, were there any significant differences in the way that PTL performed visual weld inspections for purposes of the overinspection program and the way Comstock QC inspectors performed their "first line" visual weld inspections?
A.
11.
Yes.
In the case of Comstock visual weld over-inspections, and prior to June 1985, PTL inspectors were authorized to over-inspect welds through paint.
Q. 12.
Mr. Frazier, is there any way to determine which welds PTL overinspected through paint?
A.
12.
(Frazier)
Yes.
The PTL inspector noted any weld that had been inspected through paint in the remarks sections of the PTL visual weld inspection form.
In response to a request from Mr. Marcus, Mr. Forrest and I and personnel working for us reviewed our inspection records for the period July 1982 through May 1985 and determined that approximately 7% of the welds overinspected in this period were overinspected through paint.
Q. 13.
Mr. Frazier, how does the practice of inspecting welds through paint affect the ability of inspectors to detect weld defects?
_9
A.
13.
(Frazier)
Depending on the type and thickness of the coating used, certain discontinuities could be masked when inspected through paint.
Of the 26 attributes that we normally inspect a weld for, five (cracks, incomplete fusion, lamination, porosity and slag) could be masked or in some situations, enhanced by the application of paint.
Q. 14.
Mr. D' Antonio, what changes have been made to the overinspection program since July 1982, as it relates to the electrical area?
A.
14.
(D' Antonio)
The percentage of work over-inspected by PTL has changed several times over the past four years at the direction of Commonwealth Edison QA, as shown in Attachment 2C (D' Antonio-2).
The increase from 10% to 25% in November 1984, was made for the reasons described by Mr. Marcus.
Subsequent changes in the specified Comstock percentage were made on the basis of evaluation of the overinspection results.
As the attachment indicates, there were two periods when overinspection of Comstock welding was suspended while PTL personnel were loaned to Comstock to perform first line QC inspections (September 20, 1982, to November 8, 1982, and October 27, 1983, to March 23, 1984).
The method of selecting the sample to be over-inspected was changed in November 1984.
Prior to that -
time, PTL's practice was to overinspect 10% of the welds on all Comstock QC inspection requests identifying accepted installations.
As Mr. Forrest had testified, there was a sample expansion feature in the event any welds were rejected.
In November 1984, PTL adopted the practice of inspecting 100% of the welds on 25% (or other specified percentage) of the installations accepted by Comstock.
The sample expansion feature was eliminated at this time.
Several major changes to the overinspection i
program took place in June 1985.
One of the June 1985, changes was the addition of a requirement that the overinspection be performed within five working days of PTL's receipt of the results of the Comstock QC inspection.
Prior to this time, a backlog had developed which meant that PTL was not always over-inspecting current Comstock work.
The program as revised in June 1985, also addresses overinspection of i
all the major activities of contractor QC personnel.
For Comstock, FTL now performs overinspections of objective attributes such as conduit / wireway installa-tion, equipment installations and junction box installation, as well as overinspections of welds.
A computerized data base is used for reporting and trending inspection results achieved under this new program.
With this new computerized data base, the --
I over-inspected program tracks the performance of l
individual Comstock QC inspectors, which was not done prior to June 1985.
In conjunction with the changes initiated in June 1985, PTL was no longer authorized to inspect welds through paint.
Moreover, an additional review was added consisting of an independent inspection by a Sargent & Lundy Level III inspector for all welds identified as rejectable by PTL personnel.
Q. 15.
Mr. Forrest, please describe in more detail how the overinspection samples were chosen.
A.
15.
There have been three different methods utilized by PTL in the selection of our inspections for Comstock:
1)
From July 1982, to November 1984, PTL received transmittal letters from Comstock (referred to as requests), which listed components that had received QC acceptance by their personnel.
The PTL inspectors would then arbitrarily select the appropriate per-centage of welds from each request for inspection.
i 2)
From November 1984 through May 1985, PTL's 1
selection process was based on components rather than total welds.
A PTL employee would log in all Comstock requests received.
From this log the PTL Lead Inspec-tor would select the appropriate percentage of com-ponents.
PTL inspectors would then be assigned to inspect 100% of the welds in those selected components.
3)
Beginning in June 1985, the program was changed to ensure that the specified percentage is over-inspected for each active Comstock inspector's work.
The selection process is as follows:
Each day PTL reviews copies of Comstock's previous day's inspection reports.
This work is then subdivided into inspection areas (i.e., visual welding, junction box..
installation, etc.).
The inspection reports are then subdivided by individual inspectors.
Then, an arbitrary selection is made by PTL based on a running log which shows for each inspector the cumulative percentage of his work which PTL has overinspected.
PTL inspectors are then assigned to inspect the installations selected.
Q. 16.
Mr. Frazier, during the period from July 1982 to November 1984, how did the PTL inspectors choose which welds they would overinspect?
A.
16.
Welds were selected from L. K. Comstock weld inspection requests which identified the components, the number of welds in each individual component, and the location of the installations.
Our inspectors were required to perform an overinspection of 10% of the total welds per a given transmittal.
In computing this percentage, they always rounded up.
As an example, if a transmittal contained five components with five welds per component, the inspector would select three welds to make up his 10% of that particular transmittal.
The inspector was free to select the specific welds which he was to inspect, but was also told that if upon going to the location of the component he noticed a bad weld or a marginal. weld on the component, that particular weld should be included in his sample.
If the inspector found that one or more of the three welds was rejectable, he would arbitrarily select four more (15%) to over-inspect.
If he found any of these four welds to be _
rejectable, he would end up overinspecting all 25 welds.
Q. 17.
Mr. D' Antonio, how were the results of the overinspection program used from July 1982 to June 1985?
A.
17.
(D' Antonio)
From July 1982 through May 1985 the results of the overinspection program were primarily used to assess the overall adequacy of L.K. Comstock welding activities.
Comstock welding activities were looked at collectively, rather than by individual QC inspectors.
During the period of time from July 1982 to November 1984, the PTL overinspection program included a sample expansion feature which essentially was a built-in mechanism defining the actions that were to be taken in the event weld deficiencies were identified.
For example, in March 1983 PTL's 10%
overinspection identified numerous unacceptable indications in the L.K. Comstock welding in three remote shutdown panels.
PTL overinspected 100% of the welds on those panels as a result of the sample expansion feature.
The results of the overinspection program have been tracked by CECO QA to assure that deficiencies identified are appropriately dispositioned.
To aid in the tracking of these deficiencies, the results were routinely tabulated on a monthly basis and reflected on a CECO QA document called a " nonconforming report."
This report was transmitted to the CECO Project Construction Department (PCD) which has direct responsibility for ensuring that the discrepancies are resolved.
Q. 18.
Mr. D' Antonio, prior to June 1985, did Commonwealth Edison use the results of the everinspection to assess the performance of individual Comstock QC inspectors?
A.
18.
(D' Antonio)
Not to my knowledge.
Among other things, prior to June 1985, the PTL overinspection reports did not directly identify the Comstock inspec-tors involved.
In addition, the PTL overinspection results for each month often involved a combination of past and current Comstock work.
As we found out in compiling the data base for Mr. Marcus' use in his testimony, tracing the PTL results back to individual Comstock inspectors and to the dates of the Comstock inspections involved a great deal of work.
Prior to the preparation of rebuttal testimony for purposes of this proceeding we never had occasion to do that work.
Q. 19.
Mr. D' Antonio, did there ever come a time when the results of a PTL overinspection were used to assess the performance of a Comstock QC inspector?
A.
19.
(D' Antonio)
Yes, as I previously testified in June 1985, certain changes to the program were made. )
i l
i
We began to use a computerized data base to evaluate the performance of individual Comstock inspectors as well as Comstock collectively.
With this increased capability, we can now readily identify substandard performance by individual inspectors.
Q. 20.
Mr. D' Antonio, what involvement, if any, did you have in the events leading up to the discharge by Comstock of Mr. Hunter and Mr. Arndt in March 1986?
A.
20.
(D' Antonio)
None.
I was no longer PTL Coordinator at this time, and I was not aware of the discharge of these Comstock inspectors.
Q. 21.
Mr. Forrest, what involvement, if any did you have in the events leading up to the discharge of Mr. Hunter in March 1986?
A.
21.
(Forrest)
I was on vacation the week of March 17, 1986.
On or about Friday, March 21, I checked in with Tony Frazier.
He (Frazier) advised me of the Hunter and Arndt situation, along with other ongoing PTL activities.
I told Tony that the proper 1
action was being taken and he could give me an update upon my return.
Upon my return to the site on March 25 I was given an update by Mr. Frazier and Mr. Rufo, of the PTL involvement subsequent to my telephone call.
A few days later I was informed that Mr. Hunter and Mr. Arndt had been terminated.
Q. 22.
Mr. Frazier, did you have any involvement in the events leading up to the discharge of Mr. Hunter?
A. 22.
(Frazier)
Yes.
I have been requested by Edison's attorneys to address this in separate testimony.
Q. 23.
Gentlemen, will each of you please explain what involvement if any, you had in the compilation of the PTL overinspection data base discussed in Mr. Marcus' testimony?
A. 23.
(D' Antonio)
As a result of my involvement with the coordination at PTL, Mr. Marcus asked me for certain background information relative to the L.K.
Comstock overinspection activities conducted by PTL.
On one occasion, I was also requested by Mr. Marcus to overview L.K.
Comstock's data retrieval to assure that the information provided for this use was being collected properly.
I had no other involvement in the compilation of the PTL overinspection data base discussed in Mr. Marcus' testimony.
(Forrest)
PTL was requested by Mr. Marcus to begin a document research program on our Comstock overinspection results for the period of July, 1982 through May, 1985.
This program included the development of computer load sheets and subsequent research of our inspection records i n order to complete the load sheets.
This data was entered in the Braidwood computer system.
As the PTL Site l
Manager I had overall responsibility for this program, including interfacing with my personnel on a daily basis.
(Frazier)
Mr. Marcus contacted me on June 10, 1986 and requested PTL to begin a documentation research project that would enable us to computerize our L. K. Comstock overinspection results for the period July, 1982 through May, 1985.
Subsequent to that direction, we developed computer load sheets and did a manual search of all PTL inspection results during that time frame to obtain the necessary information.
Q. 24.
Mr. Forrest, could you please explain how the PTL overinspection results for the period June, 1985 to June, 1986 were computerized?
A. 24.
(Forrest) During this period the inspection reports for these overinspections were typed into the computer by PTL clerical personnel on a daily basis, as the overinspection results became available.
Clerical and j
supervisory personal checked the accuracy of the data entry on a weekly basis.
f Q. 25.
During both periods (i.e., July, 1982-May, 1985 and June, 1985-June, 1986) what was the original source or sources of the PTL overinspection results which were entered by PTL into the computer?
1 A. 25.
(Forrest)
For both periods, the original sources were the completed PTL inspection records which documented the results of our overinspections.
Q. 26.
Mr. Forrest, as Site Manager for PTL, are you familiar with how those records were created and maintained?
A. 26.
Yes.
Q. 27.
Mr. Forrest, were these inspection records official.
PTL records created and kept in the ordinary course of f
PTL's b'usiness?
A. 27.
(Forrest)
Yes.
]
i 1
l Q. 28.
Were these inspection records created at or about the time of the PTL overinspections?
A. 28.
(Forrest) Yes.
l Q. 29.
Mr. Forrest, do you believe the PTL overinspection i
data base described in Mr. Marcus' testimony is accurate?
A. 29.
(Forrest)
Yes.
During and after the compilation of the data base we performed extensive verifications of our data.
I am very confident of the completeness and accuracy of the information we supplied.
Q. 30.
Mr. Frazier, do you believe that PTL overinspection data base described in Mr. Marcus' testimony is-accurate?
A. 30.
(Frazier)
Yes.
19_
i
Q. 31.
Gentlemen, does this conclude your testimony?
A.
31.
(D' Antonio) Yes.
(Forrest) Yes.
(Frazier) Yes'.
l,
' C (D' Antonio-1)
/
s
?
l ANTHONY J. D' ANTONIO 855 E. Pine Bluff Road Morris, Illinois 60450 Phone: (815)942-0128 PERSONAL DATA:
Birthdate:
12/29/55 Height:
5'11" Weight:
185 lbs.
Health:
Excellent Marital Status: Married with two children citizenship:
United States citizen EDUCATION:
Northern Illinois University. Dekalb, Illinois Major: Accounting - September, 1974 to May, 1976 Lewis University, Romeoville, Illinois Major: Undecided - General Education Requirements Completed.
Transferred May, 1974 Mendel Catholic High School, Chicago, Illinois College Preparatory Program, Graduated June, 1973 EMPLOYpBNT EXPERIENCE:
7/80 to Present Commonwealth Edison Co.
Chicaco, Illinois 60690 2/86 to Present Braidwood Station. Braceville. Illinois 60408 Regulatory Assurance Staff - Responsible for tracking, coordination, and resolution of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) items issued against the Braidwood Project. Direct interface with NRC Staff Inspectors both on-site and from Region III was part of routine functions.
2/84 to 2/86 Braidwood Station. Bracoville. Illinois 60408 Quality Assurance Coordinator - Responsible for overall coordination of the Indeper. dent Testing Agency (PTL) during the construction phase of the Braidwood Project. This included administrative, scheduling, cost, and field related activities. At the peak of construction, the Testing Agency reached a management staff of 12, field inspectors totaling 110, and a clerical staff of 8.
14571
9/83 to 2/84 Dresden Nuclear Power Station. Morris. Illinois 60450 Sr. Quality Assurance Inspector /NDE Level III -
Responsible for overall coordination of Independent Testing Agency (United States Testing /Calueent Testing) during the finalization of Three Mile Island (TMI) modifications. Also involved with the pipe overlay program which was utilized as a temporary remedy to Intergranular Stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC) associated with Boiling Water Reactors (BWR).
7/80 to 9/83 LaSalle county Station. Marseilles. Illinois 61341 Sr. Quality Assurance Inspector /NDE Level III -
Responsible for assuring that Nondestructive Examinations (NDE) specified via the Architect Engineer Specifications were being performed as required by the Independent Testing Agency (Conam). Later assumed overall responsibility for the Independent Testing Agency's activities.
In addition, directed the 4
implementation of an enhancement program to upgrade site quality control personnel to ANSI N45.2.6-1978 requirements.
7/80 to 3/85 Commonwealth Edison Co.. Chicago. Illinois 60690 Quality Assurance In-Service InsDection (ISI)
Coordinator NDE Level III - Concurrent with the other assignments in 94, responsibilities also included providing annual NDE training / testing to 94 personnel. Also served as the QA Corporate Office representative for ISI activities.
9/76 to 7/80 SuDerior Industrial X-Ray. Blue Island. Illinois 60406 Nondestructive Examination (NDE) Technician -
Responsible for the performance of NDE examinations in both fossil and nuclear fueled generating stations.
In addition, performed similar examinations on structural steel, castings, pressure vessels, and product forms.
During this time held ANST Level II Certifications in the following areas: Radiography, Magnetic particle, Liquid penetrant, and Visual Inspection; along with Level I Ultrasonic.
CERTIFICATIONS:
ANST-TC-1A Radiographic Inspection Level III Magnetic particle Level III Liquid Penetrant Level III Ultrasonic Level II 14571
\\
CERTIFICATIONS CONT'D:
AWS (OC-1)
Certified Weld Inspector
- 81050293 ASME III Nuclear Concrete Inspector Level I ASMB XI Visual Inspector VT-1 Level II VT-2 Level II VT-3 Level II VT-4 Level II ANSI N45.2.6 Welding Inspection Level III Mechanical Inspection Level III Calibration Level III ANSI N45.2.23 Auditing Lead Auditor TRAINING:
Xerox Learning Systems Seminar, Braidwood, Illinois Interpersonal Managing Skills October, 1985 - 40 hrs.
Technical Seminars Inc., Willowbrook, Illinois In-Service-Inspection of Nuclear Power Plants ASME Section XI, Division I April, 1984 - 40 hrs.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Chicago, Illinois ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code - Sections III & XI October, 1981 - 40 hrs.
Portland Concrete Institute, Skokie, Illinois Nuclear Concrete Training - ASME III Division 2 February, 1981 - 40 hrs.
Peabody Testing Services, Chicago, Illinois AWS Welding Inspector Certification - AWSDl.1 April, 1981 - 24 hrs.
Magnaflux Corporation, Chicago, Illinois Ultrasonic Weld Inspection Training March & April, 1982 - 80 hrs.
Maenaflux Corporation Chicago, Illinois Eddy Current Inspection Seminar August, 1982 - 8 hrs.
Superior Industrial X-Ray, Blue Island, Illinois Non-destructive Examination (NDE) Training -
Radiographic, Liquid Penetrant, Magnetic Particle.
Ultrasonic and Visual September 1976-July 1980 - 130 hrs.
14571 l
I i
.o e
TRAINING CONT'D:
Gamma Industries Baton Rouge, Louisiana Safe Handling and Operation of an Isotope September, 1976 - 40 hrs.
i J.T. Baker Chemical Co., Aurora Illinois j
Hazardous Chemical Safety Seminar February, 1984 - 16 hrs.
i Carboline Company, Chicago, Illinois Painting and. Coating Training Seminar November, 1981 - 8 hrs.
Commonwealth Edison Welding Seminar, Shorewood, Illinois Welding Technology as Applied in the Power Industry May, 1981 - 16 hrs. Hands-On, 24 hrs. Classroom commonwealth Edison Co., Chicago, Illinois Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Fundamentals Seminar March, 1981 - 8 hrs.
Commonwealth Edison Co., Chicago, Illinois Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Fundamentals Seminar February, 1982 - 8 hrs.
I TECHNICAL PAPERS:
" Nondestructive Examination (NDB) a Diagnostic Tool".
Audio / Visual Presentation - September, 1983 REFERENC2:
Available Upon Request E{4Pl:
Negotiable l
14571
. C (D' Antonio-2)
..__-_.-....._....._..-......i.._-.
l l - _....
]f$df hdfC L.
C#87dCfNGO
. -. fM6EYEk.70. /E&EOM.fiECTE)
.. )Y $.08k.SIY$Z"$lYOb
.50%.
ASA.
l
. #~1S%*
. 207a.
~107e~
/6~.2.
. /070 -
. 10 7o
/07.
MpKr*
STO.
eh
_e.
i w
.e y
e
.W
-+_..ee..
.. s-ays 75a,, r 9 - wnu l
g l,
t
~.
C (Forrest-1) 2.-
4 Fred D. Forrest RESUME OF QUALIFICATIONS 1712 Glenwood Ave. - #3 (815) 729-0077 Joliet. Illinois 60435 PERSONAL:
Born December 8, 1946... Height 5'9"... Weight 165 lbs.
Excellent Health... Single EDUCATION:
Rainier Union High School Rainier, Oregon Diploma..
1965 Portland State University Portland, Oregon Jan. 66 - Sep. 66 Portland Community College Portland, Oregon (Physical Science)
Sep. 75 - Sep. 76 ASNT Theory and Application Lynnwood, Washington of Ultrasonic Testing Nov. 79 (40 hrs.)
EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE:
Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory Nov. 82 to Present Site Manager. Assigned to Commonwealth Edison's Braidwood Nuclear Power Station (Unit 1 and 2).
Respon-sible for all Pittsburgh activities on site. Managing a staff of up to 135 Quality Assurance, Quality Control and NDE personnel. PTL activities on site include; Soils and Concrete Testing, Visual Weld Inspection, NDE Examina-tions (UT, RT, PT, MT), Structural Bolting, Calibrations, and other inspection programs as directed by the client.
Routine duties include, but not necessarily limited to; establishing manpower requirements, manpower scheduling, procedure development, implementation, and interpretation.
J Control of all administrative duties, including hiring of employees, payroll and invoicing, implementation and maintenance of personnel certification programs.
Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory May 81 to Sep. 82 I
Site Manager /NDE Supervisor. Assigned to Virginia Electric Power Company's Surry and North Anna Nuclear Power Stations. Responsible for all Pittsburgh activi-ties on site. Supervised a maximum of 35 Quality Assur-ance, Quality Control, and NDE personnel.
Conducted interviews and indoctrination for prospective and new employees. Maintained personnel qualification files.
Prepared billing for all Pittsburgh activities on site.
Maintained all records and files for Pittsburgh Site Office.
(Continued on Page 2)
l l
l Fred D. Fcrecst RESUME OF QUALIFICATIONS l
PAGE TWO 1
Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory May 81 to Sep. 82 (Continued)
As NDE Supervisor, coordinated and supervised all NDE inspections (RT, UT, MT, and PT) with a maximum of 18 NDE Personnel. Reviewed all NDE reports for completeness and accuracy in accordance with site specifications. Reviewed all radiographs (production welding and welder's qualifi-cations) for acceptability to applicable codes prior to N-Stamp review by Client, Insurance Carrier, and Nuclear Regulatory Comunission. EDE performed to AWS; ASME I, III, VIII, II, and II; ANSI B31.1 and B31.7.
Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory Feb. 81 to May 81 NDE Supervisor, Surry Nuclear Power Station, during and after the Steam Generator Replacement Project. Specific duties as above.
Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory Apr. 78 to Feb. 81 Portland District. NDE Technician; Level II MT, PT, and RT.
Performed various inspections in all areas of certi-fication. Major projects and clients: Trojan Nuclear Power Station (Portland General Electric, Prescott, Oregon), Satsop Nuclear Power Station (Washington Public Power System, Elma, Washington), Boardman Fossil Gener-ating Station (Portland General Electric. Boardman, Oregon), US '.ank & Construction Company, Northwest Pipe-line, Precision Castparts Corporation, Hoffman Construc-tion & Atlas Iron Works. Code familiarity: ANSI B31.1, B31.3, and B31.7; ASME I, III, VIII, II, and II; AWS D1.1; API 620, 650, and 1104; AWWA D100. Also acting NDE supervisor for Portland District during various periods due to vacations, etc. Supervised a maximum staff of 8 technicians: duties included scheduling work, inter-
{
facing with clients, and submitting bid proposals.
j Mon-related employment Aug. 75 to Apr. 78 Blasen & Blasen Lumber Company, Portland, Oregon (Fork-lift Operator, Re-saw Operator, Lumber Grader and Main-tain inventory of over 1 million board feet of Western Red Cedar.
Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory May 74 to Aug. 75 NDE Technician, Level II RT and PT, at Trojan Nuclear l
Power Station, Prescott, Oregon. Performed RT and PT on pipe weldments and valve connection weldments.
l l
1
Fred D. Forrest RESUME OF QUALIFICATIONS PAGE THREE United States Army Sep. 66 thru Sep. 69 Heavy Equipment Operator.... Supply Clerk.... Intelligence Specialist (Reconnaissance).... Company Clerk.... Secret Clearance.... Honorable Discharge.
CERTIFICATIONS:
SNT-TC-1A Level II; RT, MT, and PT ANSI Level II, Receipt Inspector i
1, C (Frazier-1)
Pittsburgh Testing pri. - mVRON/mRAIDWOOD Laboratory EXPERIENCE RESUME Name Frazier Tony Clark Branch Braidwood June 14, 1947 240-80-7229 Date of Birth SocialSecurity Number -
EDUCATION TYPE OF SCHOOL SCHOOL NAME AND LOCATION G D E?
Sylvan Elementary Elementary orGrammar Snow Camp, NC 9/53 6/61 General Yes Southern Alamance High High Grahar, NC 9/61 6/65 General Yes College or University Trade. Business, or Technical Correspondence School SpecialTechnicalor Post Graduate oTHER EMPLOYMENT HISTORY FROM TO TYPE OFORGANIZATION NAME OF COMPANY MO YR MO YR ANDJOB CLASSIFICATION U.S. Army 7
66 7
69 Flight Engr./ Aircraft Maintenance Sun Finance Company 8
68 10 73 Branch Manager Independent Test / Inspection Firm Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory 10 73 Pres.ent NDE Technician /NDE Supervisor QA Auditor / Branch Manger Assistant Site Manger
s EXPERIENCE RESUME (Continued):
Page 1 of 2 Nmne Tony C. Frazier Branch Braidwood (Give detads of rewvant work tustory only.)
1.
During Mr. Frazier's enlistment in the U.S. ARMY, his responsibilities included maintenance of aircraft in flying status, and supervision of maintenance crew. He attended the Army transportation school for Heli-copter Maintenance Personnel. Additionally, Frazier received instruction on the use and application of nondestructive inspection techniques in avi-ation applications.
2.
While employed by SUN FINANCE COMPANY, Mr. Frazier completed management training courses which included all areas of the loan industry and super-vised from three to five employees.
After initial training, Frazier was assigned as Branch Manager in Columbia, SC.
j 3.
Mr. Frazier joined PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY at the Crystal River, Florida Nuclear Power Project where he was initially trained, qualified, and certified 10/27/75 as a Level II Penetrant Testing (PT) Technician.
Additionally, he performed Structural Inspections to AWS D1.1, Mechanical /
Welding Inspections to the requirements of ASME Section VIII, ANSI B31.1, and ANSI B31.7, and Vacuum Box Leak Detection in the spent fuel storage area. He was assigned to the Radiographic Department as a Trainee, where he received formal RT training under the supervision of a Level II (800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br />). He received training in Magnetic Particle Testing (MT) (200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br />). He continued to perform MT, PT, and RT under direction of Level II site personnel.
In July, 1974, he was certified as Level II Radio-grapher, promoted to Lead Radiographer, and his duties included coordi-nating RT activilles for one to five crews, and supervising dark room operations. In October, 1974, Mr. Frazier was promoted to Nondestructive Testing Supervisor, coordinating all NDE activities and maintaining a training program for new personnel.
As a certified Level II Technician, Frazier performed MT, PT, and RT, served as Site Radiation Safety Officer, and coordinated all mechanical and NDE activities between PTL, JA. Jones Construction Co., and Florida Power and Light Company Construction Manage-ment.
(MT:
6 mos.; PT:
2 mos.; RT:
37 mos.)
Mr. Frazier was transferred to Savannah, Georgia 12/76 to assume duties as Branch Manager, where his responsibilities included supervising and in-structing lab personnel in all phases of lab testing. He instituted and maintained proper office procedures, and established a sales and promo-tional program to provide growth potential for the branch.
Additionally, he functioned as NDE Technician, Radiation Safety Officer, Shop and Field Inspector. Performed Structural Steel Shop and Field Inspections. Super-vised erection of Gold Bond Products Addition, including Visual Inspec-tions, Bolting Inspections, and MT Inspections.
Mr. Frazier's additional field experience includes:
RT and Visual Inspection of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ft. Stewart, Georgia Steam Distribution System; Carolina Power and Light, H.B. Robinson Station Radioactive Waste Storage Facilities and Boron Injection Tank Installation; Union Camp Corp. Anti-Pollution Stack Scrubber; Continental Forest Industries' Keystone Project; Kaiser Agri-culture Chemicals Project.
(MT:
2 mos.; PT:
2 mos.; RT:
24 mos.)
Continued on Page 2
s S
EXPERIENCE RESUZE (Continued):
p Tony C. Frazier Bruch Braidwood Nane (Give dotads of relevant work history only.)
i Mr. Frazier was transferred 1/79 to Commonwealth Edison Company's Braidwood, Illinois Nuclear Power Project as Site NDE Supervisor, where his responsibilities included Supervision and Coordination of all NDE activities and personnel. He was recertified 1/79 as a Level II MT, PT, and RT Technician per SNT-TC-1A.
Additional responsibilities included training and instruction of field personnel in various disciplines and Site Radiation Safety Officer, as well as supervision of Structural Bolting and Welding Inspection, and Wilder Qualifications. He was responsible for developing and implementing checklists and instruction sheet necessary for the performance of specialized tests and inspections.
(MT: 1 mo.; PT:
1 mo.; RT:
4 mos.)
Mr. Frazier was transferred 10/79 to the D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant as a Construction Quality Assurance Inspector / Auditor after a shutdown of the Braidwood Project. He was responsible for surveillance of contractor activities during the Unit 2 refueling outage, and prepared various NDE training guides for instruction of permanent plant personnel.
Following re-start of the Braidwood Project, Mr. Frazier returned to Braidwood 3/80 as NDE Supervisor, where he was responsible for all NDE, Mechanical and Structural activities and personnel, as well as Site Radiation Safety Officer. Frazier also assumed duties of Site Manager during the Site Manager's absence, and assisted Site Manager with various administrative duties.
Mr. Frazier maintains credentials with the American Welding Society as a Certified Welding Inspector (Certificate No. 79080031).
Mr. Frazier was promoted to Assistant Site Manager on February 19, 1984.
In this capacity, his responsibilities include those previously described as well as contractor / client liaison in matters involving PTL inspection /
test responsibilities, and to act in the Site Manager's behalf in his absence.
A history of Mr. Frazier's ANSI certifications /recertifications during his employmant with PTL follows:
Level II Structural Inspector 01/15/79, 12/17/80, 01/15/81, 12/02/82, 01/21/83, 01/13/84 Level II Visual Welding Inspector 01/15/79, 12/17/80, 12/02/82, 01/21/83, 01/30/84 Level II Button Head Inspector 09/24/79 Level II Concrete Field Technician 12/17/80, 12/02/82 Level III Structural Inspector 10/03/84 Level III Visual Welding Inspector 10/03/84
A 4
~* -
EXPERIENCE RESUME (Continued):
Tony C. Frazier Braidwood Branch (Gwe dotads of relevant work twstory only )
Mr. Frazier was recertified ANSI Level III Structural Inspecto
-t Mr. Frazier was recertified ANSI Level III Visual Welding Inspector-ilLdSS us d Mr. Frazier was certified as an ANSI L vel III Document Evaluation' Technician (A)on'2b{9(,
WM
.