ML20205T451
| ML20205T451 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Kewaunee, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1982 |
| From: | Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Jordan E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205S388 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-344 NUDOCS 8811140260 | |
| Download: ML20205T451 (53) | |
Text
_ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .- __ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ .
, cu2a . M Gy'.s e .
poo % anwese svaras j
=
\ OfUCLEAR REOLM.ATORY 000mM8840N
- sesso= w. -
4 as ao-smr a.ao
- a . su.v .ue .
4 .....
(
2 Il0V 2 3 982 -
l l
I i
MototANDON FOR: E. L. Jordan Director Division of Engineerias and - ~'
! Quality Assurance II l
)
h F30ti: C. E. Morelius, Director, Division of Engineerias
) and Technical Programs l
I i
- inner
- imrf mul:Tur rzar noou -
l on May 12, 1982, Eevaunee submitted a 10 CFR 21 report which stated that unqualified bullet resistant fire dMrs were installed at the plaat (copy
{ attached).
1 i
j Yne NRC requirements delineated in 10 CFR 73.55, and 10 CFE 50 Appendix :
i A, Criterion 3 (Guidance docment Appendix.A to Branch Technical position i
j 9.5.1), specify a bullet resistant physical barrier against high powered rifles and a 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> fire resistant penetration barrier on .certain openings
] in vital areas of nuclear plants. To meet both of these requirements, it j 4
\(- sppears that the door manufacturer took his fire door product and other door manufacturers products and modified them to produce a single component.
1 I
This io:.avation antailed structurany combining bunet resistaat armor l piste to labeled 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> fire resistive doors dich had been tested by (
4
. Underwriters laboratories, Inc. ,
I As modified, the subject doors appear to have questionable engineering '
parameters. The modifi=ation to the doore were act part of design spec- i j
ifications for the original door product supplied by the fire door :
i manufacturer. The Rewousee plant committed to comform to Appendia A of l 4
Branch Technical position 9.5.1, which specifies that fire doors must be ;
j
. tested and approved by a nationany recognised testing laboratory. Devever, 1
the door manufacturer refuses to submit the modified doors to applicable l j ' testing, and the Reveunee plant has been unable to produce acceptable !
j certified test data to show that the doors meet the required level of {
i fire resistance.
l Region HI'c inspection staff has confirmed that the bullet resistaat fire j !
doors installed at Duane Armeld, palisades Prairie Island, Westicano, l j and Davis-Besse are also unqualified for the same reasons as Isumanee. 1 4
i Bone of these plante could establish objective documentary evidense that the oubject door qualifications had been determined by perforassee of the required testias. -
(
4 Fern-N'i4y 0011140260 001013
{
- g3 NURPHY00-344
,- , - - , -- --_-_ --- ---_-- - - - . _ . ~ -.
1 s -
l 1
E. L. Jordam NOV 23 382 Ik -
poderwriter's Laboratories, lac. letter of November 13, 1981, to Wisconsin Public service Corporation regarding Eswaumes, stated. *an investigation of our files revealed that the products of two companies are tavolved. American Welding @mweld) and Masafecturias Coupsy of Riles, Chia, is alassified by U.L. for labeling hon ow metal fire doors. Protective Materials, Inc. of
! seabrook, 5.5., is listed by U.L. for labeling bullet resistive door and i frama assemblies. What appears to have happened is Protective Materials Company has taken Anwald's and possibly other manufacturer'is alassified fire j doors and modified thes...U.L. has no way of judging whether' the modifica-
- times affected the listing ta any way. Thus, the V.L classification marks
) attached to your docre any no lommer be valid."
l In a letter of October 11, 1982, to the NRC regarding Davis-Besse. D.L.
states in part, "We reviewed rr ;ecords to determine if we had authorized the field appliestion of two c.. .ssification marks for special purpose type ,
i fife doors and one listing mark for bullet resisting asterial to the doors 3 at the Davis-Desse facility. Our records do not show that we have author-ised the field application of these labela, and Protective Materials Co.,
- has been notified that the labals must be removed. The Anwald classification ,
j marks which are on the doors cover the composite type fire door. The field
! addition of the steel armor to the doors is not covared by the Ameld I Classification Mark." ,
Underwriters' Laboratories has informed us that prior to November 1977, it had never tested a single product as a bullet resistant fire door. The l 1 category of sp'acial purpose type fire doors in their building Materials ;
- Directory has never imeluded a classificatics for such a product. Bowever, l in povember 1977, a single product designed u a bullet resisting fire door i i was submitted to U.L. to undergo a full scale fire test. On March 20, 1978, l
! D.L. issued soccessful test data to Chicago Bullet Proof Equipment Company l of park porast, Illinois se a siasle door which passed the fan scale test t l sad had previously received a bunet resistive rating for high powered rifle ;
2 (EFR) . As a result, U.L.'s "fonowup and labeling department" agreed to !
- , combine the text of the two labels that would moraally appear os such a i i product into one label that can be affixed to bullet resistive fire doors l l
manufactured by Chicago,5ullet Proof Equipment Company. l l Bowever, this product is not listed in the U.L. Daildias Materials Directory j under the sategory of special purpose fire door because U.L. has met yet .
established a classification for a "bullet resisting
- fire door. I i
b The suppliar has indicated that this untested fire door product has been l
, supplied to plaats in Lther tagions. We have contacted cognisant personnel l in other Bastens and are providing a proposed informatien notice for your !
use. l i, !
'i
- z. L. Jordan N0Y 2 3 882
- (
For further information please contact C. C. Williams (FTS/384-1398) or W. 'S. Little (Frs/384-2578) of this office.
I A41 A . Morelius, Director Division of Engineering l
and Technical Programs Attachments Draft Information ,
l Notice .
ce: Banda11 Eberly, WRR r D. J. Kubicki, KIK J. 7. Stans, Jr. , NFJ.
J l
I e
[
I 0
I l
I l
I l
j
\ (
! l i y l k
t 1
1 3
. -._._,-___.,______._i
( .
I..*
Information tiotice No. Possible uneualified Penetration Fire Sorriers
([ireDoors)
Addresses:
All Nuclear Power Plant facilities Wolding an Operating 1.icense !OL) er l
Construction Permit (CP). .
i' i
Purposes '
9 i
1 bis infore.ation notice is provided as an early notif' cation of potent-istly significent problems pertaining to the design and con 6truction of
(('
fire doors, modifications of fire doors and euelification testing. The '
potential safety significance and related generic implications of this problem as it applies to operating plants and plants under combt ruction l' I are stiLL under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Coesission (WRC) staff.
- 11 the NRC evaluation so indicates, further Licensee action may be reevested.
In the interim, we espect the recipients of this Information Notice to 4
i revf ew the information herein for applicability to their facilities and j to take approp iate actions.
! I Description of Circumstances i
j i l We have setermined that certain buttet resistent fire doors actine es
( pe..ttration fire barriers in vital areas of nocteer plants are in non-il senfermance with the applicable NRC testing reautrements. 10 CPR 73.55 1
(
I j
l - . . ..
.. 1
t
. ~
r
( reeutrec positive sentret of att points of personnet and vehicle access and bullet resistant physical barriers in vital areas of nusTear plants. !
10 CPR 50, Aer,endia A, Criterion 3 and Appendia A to Bronch Technical i
Positter,9.5.1. reavire evalified penetration fire barriers tested by 1
a nationalty recognized testing Laboratory to *Vnimise t.he pron.sility i
) and efiects of fires and emplesions within vital areas of such facilities.
. I J
i Innovat ions t net coebine bullet resisting materiets to previously tested l 1
and arprevec fire resistant deers may invalidate the previous fire resis- f tant rating. Such a nodified product should be retested by a nationally A recognisee testing laboratory in accordance with specified testing methods af ter coerlotion of modifications. The door manufacturer's certification ,
1
(( attesting to design in accordance with specifications is not by its sets
{ acceptable eddence of the required level of fire resistance. Verification
' of the esistance and adequacy of actual fire test data is necessary end !
l I
reevirec. The tsmeercial availability of a fire tested and gustified j
- product is a
- :arent Ly Limited. I f
i leveral butlet resisting fire doors supplied by Protective Materials Company, l Inc. to the D ane Arneld, Palisades, Prairie Island,'Montisettu, Kewames, and Davis-tesse :ites have been idintified as beving been modified after passing their original fire tests, and not being subsequently tested as >*
3 reewired.
- I <
{ You are renwestes...eammine any such dual purpose fire doort. for modifisa-l tiens which may have invalidated the required fire resistant rating that ,
( .
+
. _ . _ . _
1 l . .
k( is attested to by permanently affined labels or certified test data. If
! it is determined that your soors are uneualified, e' 41 qualiff sation sen not be clearly estabtir,hed, you are reo 9sted to submit any reeMJf red report to NRC and respond to the reouirements of your technical specification.
e t
8 i
l j l l
l i
f i I j l
- ( ;
I l
.,.._ . _.-___ ..._,_-_. _..- _ _.m_ _ . _ . . . _ _ . - . . __ , , _ . _ . --. .- , ._ _ . _ , . - . _ . _ _ , _ _ _ , - _
g---
,3 ) -
8YRON SITE Q.A, SURVEILL ANCE i
v 1 h5 t' QF: 2790.22,2,1 i ,
4' Report No. 4L11 Date: 06 07-83 i
! Contractor / Organization : Hatfield Electric Co.
1
] .
l SU8 JECT: QA/QC Qualifications 1
j OBSERVATIONS:
A surveillance was conducted at Hatfield in the area of QA/QC Quali.
fications. The following inspectors were examinsd:
j Date of Inspector P roc edure Level Certification J. Elgin 20 I 12/22/82 ;
J. Hardenbrook 9A, 9E, 9F II 8/30/82 J. Hayes 11, 12, 12A II 10/18/82 R. Quijas 13AA-13AE II 1/1' '82 E . Se rver 19 II 1/. 13 E. Server 10, 11, 12A II 10/18/82 D. Stoner 20 II 10/04/82 .
I D. Nicholson 2, 3, 20, 24 II 5/06/83 W. Humphrey 13AA-13AE, 24, 26 II 4/18/83 R. Montgomery 7, 29, 30 II 5/03/83 1 R. W1111ams 7, 29, 30 II 5/03/83 j J. Wood 9A. 98, 9C, 9E 24, 30 II 5/09/83 J
G. Ekern 2, 3, 20, 24 II 5/18/83
- 8. Weldon 20 I 5/19/83 S. 81ndenagel 10, 11, 12, 12A, 16 II S/16/83 ,
19, 24, 30 l F
M. Olson . 7, 29, 30 - II 6/01/83 I
- All inspectors were certified to ANSI N45.2.4 aucept for G. Ekern, who i has 2 years 4 months experf snce but received additional 07T training in Procedure 20 of 699 houre Chis addition 07T training is acceptable per 2,8.
Kli ngle r.
i All inspectors have taken an eye exam and received a passing grade except !
for R. Williams. Mr. Williams was examined by Dr. D. W. Cruden, Optometrist. ;
on 3/11/83 and found to hav a blue purple violet deficiency. Procedures 7 '
29, and 30 do not require proficiency in ihr hiue purple violet light I s pectrum. This is acceptable. !
All QC inspectors are graduates of high school or GED equivalent with the applicable diploma or letter on file. !
?
t i
Fo2 4 5+3W !
) (0785S) j j..
E/=1 y A
s !
. . o
- - Survoilltnco R port No. , 4684 ,
Page 2 j
Hatfield Electric Co.
All have attended training classes, taken general exams and general and practical enams in the certified areas. All tests must have a passing grade of 80% or better. Failed emens are saved for information and are marked void.
All inspectors have training outlines. All classroom training lectures and procedure training are included in their personnel folder.
All were acceptable.
This surveillance is closed.
......................... .................................................... I Reported by M_ _ Date 4 /1 Approved by ., .M
_ At e Date 7,/Y3 f 4
MVD: Jc:0785S l cc: W.J. Showski/J.S. Bitel CA Supt./ Site Q.A. File
(
L Contractor i PCD Supt j MVD l 1 ,
i
'l 1
I
) l I
4
, e i i 4
l
}
}
L A
1 4
1
. l-E 'r'E M .
W8/S 3
$47~FtElD -. /8Efit!e's/w W o6/2%t-._.
- // L] fh h b, froe reLrre We 3. I ~] 6 //I'-// 7 Nou . Ogs ~A#K_Mddl./ 8 my.ap-ka A, rL-w n. .c - e f% t-pc .w.- ~d et
- we cr.fsJit. -/4 +
L hee ~V 7fe.e in a &d . . Jayc.he>-
>~. c>C 4 c... ~7fG.f-. w w .r Lr y - My.. . .
I facecin # // - CYss cal /I $ N - froa e s p ,-. ._
l & >~~-}/2.-iff.. -[w 8&n _~ _- - f% ~- c314 r
- ; N F-// c _ "_ . _
1 -
C 6 / y-. Cat
< ' .- A f'.-(L7- E4 L..Zf<c huu . > Co 4 4 r A c' j -. . .A ,, A ., s .
~ _ E45
.StL f <c. E.29'kC> ;
S&L Nr f4 -(t/ J [n 1/2 s // 7 / / k I) /2 P.- l
/V) 20C,, 207, 2 cat, 2'T, 29/74 E6 ,gi EO-no l C i C kSNr . C-2 32l, .C Ev?, EMdo R.?( ;
rm arys _
l
_ Ar4-re- J W 5/af
_. _ _ . __ J~ .
o . ,
, e l
I a
.w e me o e
&,y s~ B y .
1 a
r _#
- Y k 4d jp, H"- /er Jo 7 + 7yfs u
/4/C;A/ .2o2 + t,.:p5 .n.
L t- . 2,,g + as-70 7 :
. I P~ers ifee. -Pp. .. . /ae2 -_ .~ coy, .2z !
M s ~ A r t . i ~ A .- . -.. 1 x % , (
. Ntr e o ,2o % + /ue ya v l l 772- /Pa kdy > fo L P12 9R SL.yoYa xs/s l j - .. -
7,_ y a . g O kven l- of 3 yee.lu ,s w l a .re g wa rfe is Jo.
- ye v,<we J . -
I i .= Er d -J A palab." . - ._ .-
1 . 1. N 6 e & _. A a e _ o .4,ia n. M n y & A 3 c L M r.
_.. e u er 4-- . % t- G _
_ 3'_ m y a.l a r V L e e.r A s < af8 e
. s n.-, a ..,
l . n is,e ,- y . . >,x w. u, - i.
, sa, s l
. / - ,$/E*YL ..iup/c ou Ju,-
- dd m f- m.-t fs c m h-.1.
r.A..sy = __,~c - a G
--JCf~. Jay *eal&.... _ - .. . . . . . _ _ .
i j
e NhC . GAtfwYf ba ble . S** he b {. ) -- . .$e t 'r i ..
_p ,
M SM ud< Ju sTc* \ .ryl Yg va -* ~
t'r
~
_-- 1
U, 6 0 e e e
- D low k "T;p.da /)hiduk k i +, vec hous fy/4 Tu sps!a by - Ns_ 47 AMA Lynte d Refwis
- g 4h&
am -
m.m a w
=m. me w me.e
-- g Weds -we*--p Me NmN ehN.
w e w =
-y a eb + _h a e N- 6 w W- o g &
.e. m -h N
- . - a m . _ ._ .-.- ._
O
. e t
i t o m t. . . _. . .
/ Y h Y
. 2 R4u s , ~
w d /L F /Cm f}s b%ld + A <. '
&y W tueM>
lj a vec.d l ./ __ . - _. .. . .
i
., . . . MM ~~ M* Y-i 2r M AGth1 A, > lm . l t
,e M . . . . ( ..Qw . j .. ... -
..t t f
. r t
r n -
1
(
r I
4 ,
y .....e**eese* A "-.=*c'**++*.r*** * * * ' * * * = * " " - *****N w*t IP4-'e .N . * =
l l j ___ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ . - - . . . _ _ - _-- - . - _ . - . . . ._. l l
.,_ , . . . . _ . . ...-,..=.-e-- -.= -.- .=.. . . m d !
, t
_ ._, . ~_ _ . . _ . - - . . - , . . - . . _ _ _ - _ . , _ _ . - .. .
l J l I I 1
- I
_ . ~. --
b 1
1 w. ..e., wg.. _ -., e ..- . *- a .* - - = - - * * * =
}
h
, . . . . . . . .. . . - . - ~- - - - _ .
4 :
, .. _ . . ___... __ _ . _ . . ._ . _ . - _ _ . . -_ ._ - . i I f 9
t
- i
(
I i, e I
f
- 0 e h 4
m.- . .
f5 b W 1, i As LA Sk- L L - > -
7- do w ~ ~ /a (v ~ k- M x- J - f'
,.6 4 s-J- - /u GLN & Ve v7
%k.
r- 4,. . - rs L_ A-- /uoLa oe., c
_-.i h
t l
l _ _._. _ . _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ ._._ ._ ___._ _ _ _ . - _ . _ . _ . . _ _
- ww. m.e,.w.---e.m++.Am p _4 -
w g 4mm e m eum.6 e L3-Me - . e=>h - .
.m..e-
+ A-ma mm. - .
g= - = .s *=g -- - 9 * --
- m. N 4 Ju- - aw % = e e r - -ND
+-
-4 ey -N- e --
ei.+ q i gsg
m - . ._m a .#- . . . m .i.-...,_
- ..' i
. . 1 I
. e.
e mam f 4
a b
& ek. 1 i
- /sh ( ,
40 a., & C ./I .wk .. . = -..
~ M G d;7 -.-. .
- . . - . - .. i
?
7# __ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ ._ . .
/.
Nh'N $ .mme g .
I V.Wel /4 Alw tw. &v y -
. ~
. 6 t .
i + - . . . . -
...._-,...-...---..-.-~~-4 l ._ . . . . .
. . l
(
+
- se. me . *-.m
- o. -
O .- ..
4
- . - , - -. , ~ . ~. .
d i
5 h
l l I 1 I 1
i 1 .. __.
j ;
I , . _ . . ... !
j _ .
i 5
i
[
(
W a
E
- i
- . . . . 1 4' -l I s
. l
.. . .- - c.
1 t i t a _ . _ - - i
' {
I t
f'
}3 4 -
i b a
i
_ - , , . _ . . _ . - _ _ , . _ . _ _ . . . _ - _ _ _ _ , , , , . . . . , , , , _ , - _ . _ _ , , , _ ., _ . . -_. ,_ ,,,___,,,.__,.,,,,,.._,__,..,m____ ___. . - . . _.
_ _ _ _ . . _ - _ __._m- - . . _ _ _ . _ _ _
o , ,
, e 4 8
r Harneu) . . ._
t I
- M' k d
Y J
- fa- -.f/csla5.- . - . . . -..
I es e,n,, ;
-i'Ti ;i .~T' lam es S c.G a a 1 - - h 8o ~ f.S~fBo. S" 3 8e - e., p. Y//s _ _ 'fdr/r 5 ..- .
._ o - A'p - . . .. .. . .. _. H8/t- t l
-j l
_. -. . . . . . .. . p~ o t
j f YC 1J% ,,.
O . .. Ms . [ * // 7 ,
t; 4 - % y fi, 1 few a l Ae-<y ,
o /4- n .
'4 V* ;t. .- .. .-. z.-- . --. ..-.. w f(
l i'I*.-b Vr, W . .. / . Yy (~
l Se ~h[*.k
- u. __ _ _ . . . . . _ _ _
l k l
I . . _ . _._.__._ . ,
I. .. .
i o
i
, i E
i 1 ;
! l
e d ,
e a
) p I
d W ... . . . _.. . . _ _ _ .. . d 83 i
S'5"sje & ?- f,lomm
+ 4/l8l/6 ? 3 I
. . . . . . - - - - _ . . . ~ . . - - - . . . . . . .. ..e , , .
NATRLs2
/a '# /A #C b/ de c . . P" f. b, e O" el J.
- n, cpahu:, e .i: a .ce s % b a we r J. , e v >p/cd j l . . .. s-<. 4 > f- .. . :. ..
A _i n -e T . . _ l ..._.
m._..__. _ . _ . . .
I s .
f[ms (?/?.,)L., wN C D.L h3 A m .ZL 4 ,t >
' ~
._.K GL,, .T yk .. ?
. . . _ - . . . _ _p u sm .
l J i j .
% . C -- ML . ... _ .. _ . ._ _ . _ - . _ . ... .
n
\ 1. ge 2- 9 Lxa-u_xw.,J
- u. ,sy .dh ryL.xenu v_wy a t .
J . . ._
7mf ) .. . . _ . . .
/ eve][ _d.. 20 .c m$5. W){ w -~< 0 >
.-. ~c,. L > eye 3-.k..-9 AtLGa? ;
y<. ~ _ . -. . . - - - . _ .
. . /'
- .-_{}%p y--pa L. rcearJa - -.l
__ i 4
-l M =
-m e h 8' ' ***
.._ _G r-E _Z: m.aL .
l d
e eri e
4 0
3
)
i $rret o . ._ -
60 . !V - .f M + _.Y . _._
Sy4 , a
_? #e- - 6. . _E r_2 . ..
oy- m., - . _ .
.- i% M .:2n L .r~
v-
.a_ / ~ % 2. n s_ u ._. g?.2o3 s~ en g .. . . ._ gg, l 8 /.,? W.. ,. 2 0 7.. , . A '.O . . _, . 71/
1
- ... . - _ _2.3_"?- 2_.s _3 __ _ _.-__ ____. _
Y
/bI i
CFG, e 5% EH 57~ t, ER s'P ~ '7 1 __ _ . _ . .
& l h
- N YO$d (7 6 /m-J g - m do y~ c-7. M l i, & cs .. . . . . .
<. At. .__ _ _. ._.
o -g . swa. -e +w , +
+==+-e- .
- w. 4 - -e4.+ . e e - au >=- -ee.. - go+4e me,, gpee _ _ e. . m.,
1D -
9 m- e M h 6
- w--
t=wun> aum.. --e..--.--e== @ b-9 M .se6 m e 6 4* e.hm. ,
w e ee _m.gg4,.ggy,4 - eep
- h 44 -N e-w e -
=ga w .e+
9 8 e e e we a o o w .e-. e e I
)C M#rna.o _
. . (/9_a.x. -
, , , _ . .-.. e. . **
4
- *= * ' " " ' *
- I
. m e -
e $ M *
. . . _ _ _ . AA h f'7'& 4./< y. q kg ~
. , ;- 6.
~- kr . --
O e 2dA d. _ _ . . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _
c 4 7-.L.__.
i f
. . s, a. _. 4 .sie_Lt in -)v O '*
( . .. . .. . - - .
. {U7c> .. $12e c?al WW _ .
(
Gefe . h> sh/1 .r.&dJ %d - StL. - . ! '
x.w ' M .. J%hw ,_
.~ u.- ;
,Lyym ,eL h.Gatw q
0 *
. . . . - . , 4 - h D_ ..
E#
..b .dehs a< e. L.1 .L & .
l . . . . . .
! . . l 1 i i
I l
t i
Aso's :
g . w a e_
l Nhd hr e .e s n.tr.,, e v
! h.,y., L , P., . Tr., Po h,,, n & ~,. IrmL Tr.,, A Im N -
Wese Im 13 323i i f,',*s'E 11W 77i'3
- +3M N gg,f gg l i
g i. ,e6 I t
I Tien...>.<.,i in I l 633 9378 (9o ggro
! 8(44 6 !
se .
1 Eos , Sce- it 3 2M 4
g 3 gg zy o
- t
. ~.
- i. * ,
f **ia N'S it A 3 3 3 .y y a 1
,. ~ e-
- ,4 j
. . , . . . - te
,, A, gin sf
@ , i
', : . . s.,; , s u .x r7. Ite i Sr * %~
c
- 41 f f .1 7? i l A.-3;.. ' to Il f* 4 '4*9 ** '
g 1o68 7 m .
f e s.s
- h 4p E. , 9A 189 t I t 'i ss9 tH 65 97:
w 4 Pa. is
- I l B So & Bo 60 i i,- ,
A-325 s ,,ir [
l t 3
L 8 L e B o i
l i
(' N 1( "Y
$ $b$ gggqg ,
~
J
. d' hh i j /(>\ >
l 4 Staltp.- -
}W ya*" e p)*1 t I
is>', p e l i r
\$ @bfY t * 'l'
\
3' gk alf , fJ j e >-
i W~
, - - . - - - - , , - . . -----p----c--. ---.y. - - - - -
,rr- . - - - - - , - , - - , - - - , . . . . . ~ . , , -- %- - - - w,- =, y +.-r--=-- ~ - -
. , I 1
t
. l l
l 1
1 A s 0':
f=*f*##
ae R....... a A n,,,,, %,& Trw P., L ,..n e ~ . Ir.- M Tran kr In Rg J1 8*-*
Yt 40 bes t - II 323l g ', gy l L i 'i UI$ g g g,
- ==7 e
,, ,e6 638 9318 Sqo ggro $44 4
i 6
(** e i 3 2M E c*s, $rr- \\
y y 3 g by o
- r. i t
I to
- i -
! fo i., N.a it A S S 3 '3 3
- l Ef 1b y' 4g9 L'l S'*
i C., . . r se 7t ae56 e .. . ;, a m CC o
) 8t It8 .f
- 0 it ? f .' 17
- A -3;.r* to It'i ""L' **" 3 lod 87 m .
J
! .- i. 6 Pa= H a, a . qA j 2.69 1759 2,3 g iw g i, , a 63 l'
e**
- i R. is B Bo B B* &*
- i i _
i <** *
\ h
- 31s B.. . sr g
,, ,. e , ,
I l eo ,r w, nci ,,,,,
?
I j "'
Ib a
1 l l
1 i
4 l
J
, . .(.
..___ i .
FJLE t)wg. Arca R477 h LLEC1RIC C0FJ'ANY I 0;d.
. EYit'..' k";ITS 1 l. 2
!L.] M .) s
- 0 nw P.IV. ' arEnn EXPOSED C0!,),.'. 7,IJS PECTION CHECKL1ST AREA DRAWINC _ ,,_, 4A/QC INSFEC7t)R _ , _, . . .,5 l COMPLETE O DATE FARTIA1. Cy _ _ . - . . -
t*
INSPECTION RE I NS PECTIO.'s ITgg - -- A- p g/g CO.'1'.IhTS AND/OR DAT.E . . A C, QA/QC
. CORRICTIVE ACTION I
-. .v._ ,
14 conduit sites (List conduit inspected on reverse - 1 0
Use.a cable 1.D. and Seg. Code for each.)
- 2. Conduit Type
- 3. Condition of conduit 5
. 4.'tocating j Dimensions
- 5. Field Cuts square and l Reased ,
I
- 6. Field cut t hread I l
Condition ,
, 7. Field Cut .
Thread l 3
Painting
- 8. Conduit 1
Couplings * )
- 9. Exposed Aread '
Protection f
l
- 10. Conduit Bendet
- s. Degress f
- b. Radius .
1 1. Conduit Ends
(
4 r i ;
l l . A=ACCITTABLE I
- U=UNACCEPTA3LE gryggutD 37
J N/A=NG.T APPLICABLE '
DATE:
e,. .- * **
~n s
1%M ,F M g
- MATFIElb E11CTk!C COM 'iY -
BYRON UNITS 1 & 2 ,
wy . 0_
EXPOSED CONDUIT INSPECTION C .tCKL1st DATE M/77 *
(Cont'A.)
- .. mig
- QA/QC INSFEC701 ,
I'ARTIAL O
. i. . - ~
RElHSFECT10*;,_,
IHSFECTION COW 2.vts A!;D/OR DATE A 0 A U N/A QA/QC
- I TC. ccRric tvE ACTzon __
I .
- 12. Conduit
- Attach 7 nts to supports
- 13. Junction Boxes &
- ,1 l Cabinets
?
- 14. Full Boxes l
- 1. Flexible
! Hecal Conduit
- 16. Terminations I a. At Cable .
I Fans
- b. At Misc. l no es j 'c. At Equip.
mest - .
- d. Tlemible i Metal r
Conduit ,
Termination e i .
i
- 17. Temporary End l Caps /Flugs t
- 18. Caps /Fluss es Spare Sleeves i 19. Embedded Ccoduit Mandrelled
)
A EACCETTAI,1I D=U::ACCETTALLI KEVIECD EY ,
s'la=*.*3? a*ri1 /.5LE ,,,,
i -
. .'s -
~
O
- M7T3Elb E1ICTMIC COWANY TOR}l u p. 2 M .1_
.: .... BYP.ON UllI75 1 4, 2 gry.
, 0
, EXP0('gD CONDUIT INSPECTION CHECKLIST A ON 7,7_
(Cont'd.)
AREA DRAWINC QA/QC INSPECTVR , , , ,
COP.ft,ETE O DATE PAATIAL Q - -
e, i
INSPECTION AI!NSPECTION ]
1 l 17E.'; li/A Cott4ENTS AliD/04 A D. QA$ , DATE. A D CORAT.CTIVE ACTION t .
- 20. Field Changes '
I Required,
- Including Additional Pull Boxes (Attach 8' Approved I
Documents.) O
.i l -
l 21. Other (Specify)
[
S Gde !
I d
l 1 ,
I 1
+
1
]
1 !
}
1 :
! . f 1
- l i
]
I : '
I l
t j t i 3 ;
i l !
I j A =ACC EPTAB LI DsUNACC E P7/.51.E REVIEWED SYt i
N /A=:007 APPLICARLI DATE:
. ,s. -
vo . .>
REV. 0 '
f
- l . DATE - 5/?7/f t .
1 . 1 HATFIELD ELECTRIC COMPANY . t Byron Units 1&2 ;
Claus I ExToced Conduit Syr. tem !
Support Inspection Checklist ,
DATE _REPORTl O.C. Inspector: ' >
f Dwg. Rev. ; 2 3 4 Coment l
Conduit I.D. Hanger Nr. 1 H -
or *E+ $ $
Cable e on m en + o -
P j * !
1 _ l 4 -
1 1
=
1 _
j ... !
J l
l --
=_.
l ;
1 5
^
j i
- )
I
[
], .
t 1 .
l
{
. i t
I l
SEF. 'PPE?E X B IN FROCEDITRE 20 ,
FOR ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA i
"U" Unacceptable # Reinsp. Accept. N/A not app. ;
a /" Acceptable .
t 1
f COMMENTS:
8
(
1 l
a
) EVIENED BY: LEVEL II DATE ,
i e l j
a i
l
_ .-- _ = - .. .
.. ~ I *s ! .' s*. . . . . .. ;
.. w c'.i;;; 1 *, il
. e d : . :. .' ,$ .
I
~0 *v.v
. .1, Qt,: toptrvisor r g,M J . v. ?.,ci a na n, Q A /QC P.en a ger '
- 47t .ber 17, 1 Mi3J1CT: f. n Insp ect ion l I
\ / nce Si testaning the cable pan reinoneet tot we have had a policy for acceptance [
,h* cf hengers which have a connection asserbly which is covered by fireproofing, i I
a.aking it inpessible to verify the cor nection detail, ' 1 as reconfireing this f helicy. . .
}
l Vhen. inspectors are performing pan hanger or conduit hanger inspections they are [
required to verify the connection detail is as specified by the Architectural l t Engineer. i should the hanger its connection detail rendered 1.'accessable by fireproofing, !
the inspector *.hould research the weld inspection fin for the related weld
.:,,pl{ inspection for a given hanger. If the veld traveler has beef i
.. t.
inspector shall note the traveler on the hanger inspectic.s repirt and shal. .
accept the detail. .
I i
This acceprance is based on the f act that the weid inspector to required to i j identify the type connectian detail for each veld. By virtue of this identification [
the welding inspector has confirmed the use of the correct detail by his !
acceptance of the wel !. j i
- , If there is no we' d inspection in the file for the sp eifled hanger, the fireproof 1at !
shall be rer.oved and the required tospection performed and documented. (See P.ers 214) l l
j should 3cv er your inspectors have any questions concerning this pol'scy, please see me. ;
1 g v J. Suchanan l cct J. O. Einder !
C. Vanderhei . l Tile 9.12 l
\
l t
l l
l
Fhv ..1 0215 di'd2L+
1rY ,. 2, .
Eatfield Electric Company Byrom Units 1 & 2 . .
Class I tuposed Conduit Systea laspection Checklist i
e Q,0. Inspectest Dates Report No.
N N M 4 e
- y 9 m e ,
1, 4 3 1 .
g do aes- j d - - $
a a .
.g maws D D 2 af Is~lJ N J es ]
c 3
4
]
0 y
g j 4
Cocme nt e 0
i i
i' I ,
I
?
i I ARE ALL llANGERS INSPECTED YES NO IT NO. LIST UNINSPECTED llANGERS ON FORM HP-203 REPORT NO. i Torque Wrench I.D. Date next calibration NOTE: Acceptance Criteria for numbered itene above is oes App. B.
" V " la numbered bones = acceptable"U" la adered bones = unacceptable.
'*sJP'" la numbered bos = acceptable af ter re-inspection. I i
"M" in adored boa = Not applicable. I i
Comewats Reviewed by: Datett i (Q.C. Level II or above) l 1
J
O e e q l
l l
i Ea, e x a.m t' fM . . . .
< M .p/t-~
~
/I,,f, c. . - _
- Ov~ a1 - . - . .
.Nf ALed W !l$ fe P W $~ M \
1 /%w/. Ly ( .A~ j% ge -,) L /< G La b krs- si l
,9 fe. <~pda Cy/%%s 2 es.s, ~ s Ly pi fcm l favked. a 4-- ~
/4f9.N - lueA \
l G~.do !
\ .
l 8.e r - C- u- Ln
- d- - :
6.11 i As l ose .Ey- @ /erm, b ,
- Wiwr
//i
@t __
As,N - ;
i _
_p _ c c.+P !
l
_TfI l -
- l><Nm2.a~
7i '
Cn.t cnar fc~,1s
~
7"t, b '
l efn.-, w en L r J o J. .
I Doev[Sa-./,,-
%. NL eb 4c6 f% ._ No gm J fr.a /.- ~ hak a F p M , C64 4 -
_ No no,oq .
g4/e ex A r . .
Ceco A,.i,s _n c _ cony
.- > A i & c ..J. u y !
.7 ,n'Sc jokes A o/n I
J ._ _ _.
1 )
\
- , _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _m . ._m_-4_ , . _ . __ _
g l l
M . _ ..____. _ _ . . . . . _ . . _ . /U M p p r e r. e . . .. - - - . .
% C.3 & l%N
{ */h 5/' o :
i
.. he e Le.- #M -. . -.
i
$hek
- 2c% -/&u_Q LeM/ '*'el.,
- .R 5' 14% . Le L i ll /W- < ' / > h/ er.
) tr.l> k l
sec ch itiC ._ .. EfC& C . .2. 2 7 3 -
. _ &e - LM.,4s c77 .. . - . - - . - . _ - .
. . . . ._ Ws GE-e-hn .- R., ~ && -p syto .
l f $ , f E
- C' O T y I j
vy( / *t r in ~p~&
sq< Llt<~ym a
r p t ,- ar- y .~ r frCm -yer p k ,
l l!, n & b/Jr-<? G~~- r
- - i
. _ I
[
i p
I 1
l M _
I r
j !
- b W e O e e'd W - Wm [_ t* t.
c a . e % . A ,_ Em ._,4 h~ n _
1 1
SS 4 i
t Ms M _~
\ .
? _ . . . -. - . . . . . . . -- .
5m. g .
$0 * :
. n . . - .
g *' 9 ,. C )yp d, o ,.cs/
$ $,' f.AY,v' m .f' J y ' f 4 6' 9 q' g- , ,
=
- M . /,.* i' .2 r vt 7 v44; 7 '
q4' "' ' v ss 3 111 vh/n e,.
ss crrl yk/r3 / _
/ V / ""*
\ ss arVir Wyb3 -
/ / o. w I
- Ykh.s / / / V 3'.'E ss rot n.
wu ss pers o --
dyh3 / J / / / / WA
-is ss ustr dv/n / / YI.'"
i os zorro v/v/n / /
so Jo n3 vh/13 / /
l .
to a re3 vhh3 /
\ ao zm. v/r/r> < l
< 0 2 FV?o 4/rl13 V l
\ no arv> v v/ths / i l Re tras vir/r3 / / .l '
1 to 2rs,s ylis/r3 d !
20 J ol st, Virt/n / .___
i --c ru,+ - - _
co_ 2ert.c v/itirs _ .& = -
= __
l f At 302 VL l 4/oth)
- a w.a v
} Re paa n v/orIn / / J 1R I to arut v/n/n / = .l 4
j go arsst V/olu / '
l eo 1rrn -- -v.43./n / \
l tq .t ! 4 L t V/n/11-./ - _
l
.. f.!L &f.V!s.- .2lDl1.L ._ _ -
/ .- .. j Rt J o.a so VI's/n _
_d _. , . _ . , _ . ,.
4b>lt3 V l
i --@_R.I11.Y17 'u
-- .* - I . Asl .A ./ \/ hp
j / '4
/
/
f b, 'y
.? ,
s
/, o
, .c.
} '
? ./,, }
h '>Ag. #' )E f /.. .lY>
l s ,a ?O '
f
- Y7 Lf i 10's'(%Lw.3 sh.hr _-. -. . _ .
i
\ #o viu shJn / '
l l l te vn. ,hJn _
1 (te ctoi sh.ht l ^a. -~h h .n n sinin v l to u so alnin / -
4 l N >>oo aln/rs /
to nn 2ln/r> J /
AJW J/)/_ _j//[M V ' > 'f1 bN 1
Oh OOO 1 YY] Ll _
_I / .a > e.h g t^ >A.
cm .u n thyh3 / \ W .
1
.rw asv ahdr> -
-rt.) ?*a s '
.thth) . - .
ok n 6 6&
, .t .w >- vh>hs / us.L %."
' '~ e u
on sen v/u/n V \ " ..
= .
[
l b
1 I lI .I i
I
, _ .. l j !
i '
. t
) .
, I - .k f ,
... _. ____ _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ - . ._ . u f
.. ._ _ _ . . - _ - . . t i,
l l l l ._. . l ! l l !
/ / ,
i j .. 1 p%cY , isd G
.? h .o / , . /.!
A :.s ,
/ / .
} .f .'? s .E' s Q{S f if['s's.Ifp J e lAj7 $ U p-/ f Q' bumu -
- * ' ' ' ' ' r?o I 19& n ,th a s' ' . _. .' . . -
om /o r slo /n _.
/./ - __
o7s /rt> 7 3/oln <
p2m /96/f 3lL)/t)L _
___ _LL ,
bTm (9&lf 3ln/)) V 03m /f G J 7 .1l1}hi d _..
o rm tr a n > lain , /
sr.w L9 0s ph rh) / . . .
l's rn, m er 2/n/n _.
\ orm is e p 2ho/n I
\ on _ tbs u 1hr/n V .
A azm /9a t 3hr/n v
/ m /pc o- 3h//n
N ont 19s n sho/n v v W $W M*
l l j.
i , i WWW
- N 9 esen .
N- 9M @_- _ m 4
- - - * = - ._
- = = ==
e _
l I ! I I
p
,v /, -'
/
/ l b \
yo d.'
s $ .e ,i * . s/ .i fQ4 9 8 t 6 *' '
,p ,Y T .,vf j
f 9 p p se 3 7 pg4 s h [,4 ff 4
6 d'# f
' W,- _,
l
> [/e l to Ja3 3ll*ln .
./ s e
, f a?S7 WMbk _
Os PCH Vll1lF) ./ / / /
03 ArLLc c/bsh) / V .
v 9
/ / / / /
n so,13 alisin / T4 ams V m4_.g++gy, g ih>/n_ -_ os m rs v/n/n / s a WL b3 ) flo f f Yff)ff) l , l / l s/ $a >
/ / J NYno DI Jo7CV 4ln/t) altJ
's 0% )o7Y) Vft1lf] V'/ / / j gfl n Dom v/n/n / / / /
bs JD9 M y/nlH V __ dQ 2c.14t. y/n/n _ _ .
' / .
h asrr3 Yh>!n s> fQ 2 osbP V/n/t) / s/ / d0 )os T1 VlH//) .d , __. . _ _ . O mod vA>/n / / ) If Q- Jor7/ V/l)/D / __ _ te.,tr o .1 vhrh3 / . ..) . . Art DTM 50'1S[_ YIf)(}_ l __ 1 l O b' a
- c. w e, b7M ). /'t, f a Yffflt3 _
/. V *C1 c.-<<c
. S ,,
d /
.. 01 - Ifl1L V/11lH .___
ge>w/ V
. . - - vli&> . - - . _. _ . . . - _ _ _.... ..
l
. . . lo. 2mv l
v/ithe .. .- - _ , . _ .
- l l I I I
- 1. , - -
STAT 11S OF 90 DAY REINSPECTION PROGRAM Week ending COMPLETED
- REPORTS.-. ITEMS.. .. ITEMS NAME-REPORTS - . 11 EMS .
REJECTED
- COMPLETED ACCEPTED.
Y
, D. OFFMAN lO >&~ $ *
$YCApp3l
""~**'
3a c'nesg
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ~
M (12-5-78 to 3-5-79) h 38bh85 / / 3 IWI'4 9 # 7'7 ?o o467 Wald Inspections i, .*f ' y1 %.e r
.,E. DUMAS (2-27-81 to 5-27-81) O f.
[o 8
, O E 'S 2 #
Procedure 11 72 N $ '2 ' O , o M' Frocedure 12 O Q. O l h O - I b > prorAnre 12A I
/ 7,,/
r,s c g 4 0 '; / f y 3 */, l Weld Inspections # a cr,
- t. Procedure 20 l9 d l90 / 6 / 3L / f / ,
- n Total / .
e-ff"V 469 j 371c.une M Moos \
- i. T. SKITH 6/7 l 4 G, t*1 ,,, ,, Q - - - -
*J/ - - -
(5-13-81 to 8-13-81) o Weld Inspections f. T cb wiL03 8 /#/ wsass / ggy ' 33 s 3J
.. H. HOLZE d #
(6-26-81 to 9-26-81) M / 4 j Procedure 20
$ g; g g\ j g /
g m v-
- e. J. ELCIN k
(12-18-81 to 3-18-81) Procedure 20 As-built /00 l M hJ -)).7 /3 ~ /
% l
- i. D. STONER (10-5-81 to 1-5-82) M NU / ) *
$) g /07 d /9 af T.'ocedure 20 As-built _ _ , '. R. DtERSON y 'Jilk "
(12-16-81 to 3 16-82) , 4N d Procedure 20 As-built [s3 ! & '
\
- 1. D. PERxo . it. W " *
(L i i (12-18-81 to.3-18 82) h Procedure 20 As built
**f llo, h.dp o- - - - -.-- - --
, . , , . , -, , _ , _ _ - . - - - - _ - - . . - - , . ___-.--....0
l*.. STAnl5 0F 90 DAY
- REINSPECTION PROGRAM Week anding COMPLETED NAME-REPORTS ITDiS - REPORTS - - ITEMS * - ITEMS COMPLETED ACCEPTED REJECTED c
- 9. Ri PETERSON (12-18-81 to 3-18-82) ,ygt.,
Procedure 20 As-built h/ M
- 10. D. DE}0tIDI C (12-18-81 to 3-18-82) qgSg Procedure 20 As-built OO J :$%:frs) 1/ Vos'r> /73 J
- 11. C. LINDBERG -
(12-28-81 to 3-28-82) 2pfi
- Procedure 20 As-built Q/ 3ce):;T.
- 12. J. ANDERSON (12-16-81 to 3-16-82) sonf Procedure 20 As-built / j gg 401** AI As-built Total g
- 13. F. KEEP
'" g2.) l y 7E ej j 6
s
/ 2,og / g/ .6 (8-10-81 to 11-10-81) y . gg /
4 Procedure 20 7h N- l/ L{ j O/
- 14. C. SARVER (9-8-81 to 12-8-81) l Procedure 12
- 15. T. WELLS (o83 gg < B0 y; J
(11-2-81 to 2-2-82) l Weld Inspections g 19 7 / ! 30 6tui / //d L6. H. RANSON , (3-24-82 to 6-24 82) : Procedure @)1 3 3 O i 9<ouhn Il y .g
.. l
.,,4" '
STAT 11S OF 90 DAT REINSPECTION PROCRAM Week ending v COMPLETED NAME ' REPORTS ITEMS' REPORTS - ITEMS ITEMS - COMPLETED ACCEPTED REJECTED
- 17. G. BERRY (6-24-82 to 9-24-82) ,3'Q o ~ , a,, ,. . o n NJ ))*H
- 3Y V 4~)) J b2' O ~/
Pr n e a rf o r e 9B P V 90 F- v fo V u qIrl f' 18 ., E. CETZZIl4AN * (5-12-80 to 8-12-80) J. Procedure 20 / d )'
/ ) J 37 / 4 Procedure 11 /0 b 00 / 10 h 6o / 0 - C#'T i#4 1st 90 days 4 g e t.,,F ,,{ 1:4'i gs Jopme fra edes Wald fyP syp3 7 % nos 188jo ff Inspection 2nd 90 dan y#$3N ,un- ,' ht 9 -
t/ e4aos y Tots 1
- 9. K. CRIPPS (2-9-81 to 5-9-81)
Procedure 11 ? 2. M 13 2. 2.1 h 132, J o / d.ompktG Procedure 12A T~~ L t. - comp fN t Procedure 20 f0 L G 1' _J $~ d TG l '.
.. J '
M f* Tofatl
- 0. J. BUCIIANAN
*(1-14-80 'to 4-14-80)
Pr o c e rtu r e 11 Yd 770 ~3 ,5" d J yo J c; / (emple.k Proce dure 12 - b I 3 1" _ o A Proedure 20 0- # 'l0 J D / ps *****" 3 3-) / Procedt.re 25 7 k 2 A C t a r" ' ' Total
.. A. KOCA (12-5-81 to 3-5-82) C f /g -
W31d Inspections
- 9 77 to 11-19-77> y , , , . . .,
Wald Inspections ,, p. 9 h,4 S/tagspf/ A.ND TOTAL
., , , . - . -4
~
i t Q.P. FORMlf-b -
.i Commonwealth DATE 8/4/81 Edison Company l l
l QUALITY ASSURANCE MANUAL ' AUDIT REPORT
- Byron Reinspection Program Audit '. <:
#6-83-66 - '/' -
Type Audit: L,,,fProgram Audit D Product Inspection Point
/ Records
/ g /Special To: (As Listed on Distribution Page)
Project Byron Visit Date- 6 Report Date 7/18/83 System Various- Component Identification N/A Material Description N/A - Vendor Site Contractors ,
,,, Location Byron Subcontractor N/A Location N/A Contacts See Attached Reports C' P.O. No. vn M nnn Spec. No.__ Various
- 1*
Recommended Inspections: 6 mos 3.mos 1 mo Other As Scheduled For items listed in the report as requiring a written Notes: i.esponse, please respond by 8/05/83. Responses to Findings and
- 1.
Observations will include the following:
- 2. Corrective Action action recurrence.
to prevent and results achieved. .
- 3. Date of Atl1 compliance.
* (As required b e con Auditor _ /d / awn + n) of each item) Date -NI///f
(, Reviewed M,_ w v Date18//b 'l AJR:je:0221A ' 5q Attachments \ cc: Manager-GA \ Manager-Prebeets Profeet-Hanagep ! b "' eeer$!A$censtruction (As Listed on Distribution Page) - i e natnet&on Superintendent. Auditee 31ttr ek-Supervisor E
. 2 . . . .- "':.F
DISTRIBUTION PAGE f- , C0f110NWEALTH EDISON AUDIT OF THE BYRON REINSPECTION PROGRAM I',' '
~
,ss TO: M. L. Somsag Hunter Corporation S-u ~
J. T. Hill Hatfield Electric Company' , ' "
- 8. Shah Johnson Controls Inc.
M. R. Tallent Pittsburgh Testing Lab. R. P. Larkin Powers Azco Pope R. Allen NISCO R. H. Bay Blount Brothers Corporation e cc: Manager QA Manager Projects *
! Project Manager Eng. Manager .
Director QA Construction Site Construction Superintendent Site Q6 Auditee Site QA Supervisor Director Nuclear Licensing
/QA ANSI N45.2.6 Coordinator s
a 6 i . .
}
l 1 (0221A)
i , LIST OF AUDITEES l (I Contractor P.O. Specification Hunter Corporation 207010 5739 -
'2790 Hatfield Electric Company 197131 -
Johnson Controls Inc. 213415 '2783fr,5t Pittsburgh Testing Lab. 216025 2850 Powers-Azco-Pope 222445 2906 NISCO 213839 2834 Blount Brothers Corporation 181186 2722 e a s (. i (02214)
. - - - - .-. , ._,---v- , , - - . - , , _ , _ .- - , - - - - - - -- , , , , , - - . . - -
s COMMONWEALTH EDISON AUDIT OF THE
- BYRON REINSPECTION PROGRAM AUDIT No. 6-83-66
.i%:
Purpose:
'. . ' c ,' l . ,* 1. #.(
.h..s; -
To observe, assess and verify the impleme'ntation of the Reinspectiori Program at Byron as performed by on-site contractors and directed by C.E.Co. Project Construction Department. A description of the reinspection program and the audit methodology is included in this report. Description of the Byron Reinspection Program: In March of 1983, a reinspection program was instituted to validate the certification programs of the Byron on-site contractors as they relate to Level I and Level II QC inspectors. The program was outlined in a letter.from W. L. Stiede to J. G. Keppler dated February 23, l'983. (See Attachment). The
- mechanics of the program were directed by Commonwealth Edison Project Construction at Byron.
\
Description of the Reinspection Program Auditj, . The audit was conducted between 6/21/83 a"xi 7/06/83. The auditors observed all contractors involved in the reinspection program for the items listed under scope. The reference document for the audit was the W. L. Stiede letter dated February 23, 1983, which was the response to I&E Inspection Report Numbers 50-454/82-05 and 50-455/82-04. Deficiencies or items of ( concern identified during the audit are listed in the. appropriate portion of the audit report. With each deficiency, the organization responsible for response is listed. All responses to items identified in this report will be . reviewed by Commonwealth Edison Quality Assurance Department to determine t acceptability, Several items identified during the audit were closed prior to or at the exit meeting. These items are presently acceptable and are not classified as deficiencies in this report. In most cases, these items required c.larifying information to be resolved. A section of the audit report labeled "Items
. Dispositioned during the Audit" describes these items and their respective dispositions.
ScoDe' The audit examined the following areas:
- 1. Reinspection sample size of inspectors and inspection items. l 1 2. Items determined to be inaccessible, i
- 3. Third party review of potentially unacceptable subjective type inspections.
- 4. Dispositions of nonconforming conditions discovered during the .
f reinspection program. '
- 5. Adequate documentation of the reinspection program as implemented by
( 6. the contractors. Qualifications of inspection personnel performing reinspection. . (0221A)
.-. }
'~
- Audit Report N3. 6-l 66 I Page 2 -
Byron Reinspection Program Audit Team: ,,
,f. *-
The reinspection audit team consisted of the following personnel: A. J. Rosenbach Lead Auditor QA Inspector .* . yron . L. A. Simon Auditor QA Engineer ' 9 8yron S. A. Altmayor Auditor QA Engineer. - Byron P. T. Myrda Auditor QA Supervisor - Byron C. J. Nagel Auditor QA Engineer - Byron M. A. Stanish Auditor QA Superintendent - Byron Summarv: VV An entrance meeting was held on 6/21/83 at the Byron Quality' Assurance Department. Attendees were as follows: ,
,(.
P. T. Myrda C.E.Co. QA 4 M. A. Stanish C.E.Co. QA ' A. J. Rosenbach C.E.Co. QA L. A. Simon C.E.Co. CA C. J. Nagel . C.E.Co. QA S. L. Bindenagel Hatfield Electric ~Co. T. Maas Hatfield Electric Co. J. D. Spangler Hatfield Electric Co. ( M. R. Tallent B. Shah Pittsburgh Testing Lab. Johnson Controls Inc. [ L. E. Hadick Hunter Corporation ' D. L. Smith Pittsburgh Testing Lab. N. L. Somsag Hunter Corporation R. P. Larkin Powers-Azco-Pope G. Cason Hatfield Electric Co. R. B. Klingler C.E.Co. PCD ' Bob Allen NISCO : C. C. Novak NISCO Ghaus Mohammed Pittsburgh Testing Lab. S. A. Altmayer C.E.Co. QA Two exit meetings were held, one on 6/30/83 and the other on 7/06/83. Attendees were as follows: 6/30/83 exit with C.E.Co. PCD: 1 R. P. Tuotken C.E.Co. PCD R. B. Klingler C.E.Co. PCD M. A. Stanish C.E.Co. QA E. L. Martin C.E.Co. QA P. T. Myrda C.E.Co. CA . K. J. Hansing C.E.Co. QA i L. A. Simon C.E.Co. QA { A. J. Rosenbach C.E.Co. QA l i
! i (0221A) ;
l
udit ReporQ No. 6 . 66 i Page 3 Byron Reinspection Program 7/06/83 exit with Byron Contractors: , , .q. A. J. Rosenbach C.E.Co. QA . 'O ' gl y9:'.d. 'iN . R. H. Bay Blount Brothers CorpT N 0* L. E. Hadick Hunter Corpor. tion 4 ?[df J. T. Hill Hatfield Electric Cd." 'f " K. J. Hansing C.E.Co. QA E. L. Martin C.E.Co. QA M. R. Tallent Pittsburgh Testing Lab.
- D. L. Smith Pittsburgh Testing Lab.
R. P. Larkin Powers-Azco-Pope S. A. Altinayer C.E.Co. QA M. L. Somsag Hunter Corporation , jR. B. Klingler C.E.Co. PCD R. P. Tuetken C.E.Co. PC.1 At the exit meetings, deficiencies ard items Cf concern were discussed to , assure understanding by all involved rarties. The auditors would like to express their appreciation for the level of cooperation exhibited by contractor and PCD personnel during the audit. The Reinspection Audit resulted in a total of one (1) finding and eight (8) observations. Findings and Observations are listed and discussed in Part A of this audit report.
- k. Responses are required from the following organizations as delineated below: ,
Finding #1 Hunter Corp., Hatfield Electric, PTL, and Blount Brothers Observation #1 Hunter Corp., Hatfield Electric Observation #2 Hatfield Electric Observation #3 Pittsburgh Testirs Lab Observation #4 Powers-Azco-Pope Observation #5 Hunter Corp., NISCO Observation #6 Blount Brothers Observation #7 Powers-Azco-Pope observation #8 Hatfield Electric (0:21A)
PART A AUDIT No. 6-83-66 Fli 'inq #1: Contrary to 10CFR50 Appendix B, Crite* ion XV, certain contractorshwere not taking appropriate measures to identify, document, segregate,-disposition,- and notify affected organizations of nonconforming items identified under..the. . reinspection program. ~fe , t '.L . ,; 7 c
~
~.-.-~-
Discussio'n: Finding #1 Part A (Hunter Corporation) - {. Lou.A., 58 9'} During the reinspection program, nonconforming conditions were identified which did not result in discrepancy reports being initiated. Problems with component support 2FP12016 were documented on Field Problem Sheet #FP109F rather than on a liscrepancy report. No DR was issued for rejectable items associated with component support 2FP14056X because Hardware Removal Report #1380 has been initiated due to ).d ECN 52901 dated 6/22/83.'-The , reinspection for 2FP14056X was prior to the issuance of the ECN. The following mechanical joints failed to meet the specified torque of 70% of the initial value when reinspected: SSX 100-23 MJ177, SSX 100-23 MJ178,.SAB - l 100-43 MJ23, SD0100-34 MJ49; these joints were retorqued by production - immediately following inspection. No DR's were issued to document this. , Olscussion: Finding #1 Part B (Hatfield Electric) M C204 Rl During the reinspection program, nunconforming conditions were identified which did not result in discrepancy reports being initiated. Field Problem ( Sheets were bcing implemented to resolve reinspection items in the conduit and terminations area. The Field Problem Sheet is not proceduralized. Discussion: Finding #1 Part C (Pittsburgh Testing Lab) (f.cu4 44'S'l At the time of the audit, PTL had not yet transmitted open inspection reports generated because of the reinspection program to the appropriate contractors. Therefore, no corrective action has been taken for the apparently nonconforming conditions. l Discussion: Finding #1 Part 0 (Blount Brothers Corporation) h sN1 l ) At the time of this audit, Blount Brothers Corporation had not yet generated any OR's or ORC's for rejectable items discovered as a result of the reinspection program. l l l l 1 l k - 1 i (0221A) ' ' e .. l 7 .
Page A2 (' observation #1: Applicatien of the term "inaccessible" to those items whichireceive . multiple inspections does not correspond directly to the definition:of ?
"inaccessible" offered in the Stiede-Xeppler letter dated Februaryn3;"1983.
...: W .i P.
Discussion: Observation #1 Part A (Hunter Corporation)'[ .h*j _ ~ ,6tf 8 According to the Stiede-Keppler lettec, "Inaccessible shall be defined as: condition where dismantling would be required to gain access, or condition *
- whero process was an event which can not be recreated." ,
When inspections of the same type occur after that inspectio'n to be' # sampled in the reinspection program, the item of the original. inspection is , labeled by Hunten as inaccessible. For example, if.a Type'3 inspection is . .. - performed in January,1980 and a subsequent Type 3 performed .in May,' 1982, -the
- one in 1980 is termed inaccessible. This is done without research:to c.', i - ,
determine if the later inspection occurred as a result of.'raworkrete: thus
- making the original inspection unrecreateable. . *f,3y.O g 6 "
_ .y 7 , . .
^
Discussion: Observation #1 Part B (Hatfield Electric) -(,h a a A 5 21o According to the Stiede-Xeppler letter, "Inaccessible shall be defined as: condition where dismantling would be required to gain access, or condition where process was an event which can not be recreated." Hatfield was using ( the term inaccessible to disposition reinspections to which this definition does not apply. The example noted during the audit was, Hatfield had &.ermed those items with subsequent inspections as inaccessible without determihN if ' the original inspection was an event which cannot be recreated because of rework, design change, etc.
- Observation #2: (Response: Hatfield Electric Company) M 5'a H Hatfield has not performed an evaluation of QA/QC Memorandum #295 for its potential effect in the reinspection program.
Discussion: Hatfield Electric Company QA/QC Memorandum #295 dated 9/17/82 states that an acceptable weld inspection of cable pan or conduit hangers implies verification of the correct connection detail. This manner of acceptance ! occurred when the cable pan or conduit hanger inspection could not verify the detail due to the presence of fireproofing. Due to the fact that the reinspection program requires re-creation of the original inspection, a i determination must be made as to what type of inspection, either weld or hanger inspection, originally included the connection detail. After this 3 determination is made, the connection detail can be included as an element of the proper type of reinspection. . . 4 (0221A) . Mh~
*; k.
l
. - }.Wj.' ,, a.
. .- 1 Page A3 . l
( Observation #3: (Response; PTL) (M 49 % , l Pittsburgh Testing f.aboratory is not reinspecting each inhivid l'.. . inspection performed during the inspector's first three (3) . month ~ ~ 6 7 y83 accessible. "
' '- Wi(2
*M% e p T M .X N -
Diseussion:
. CN't.',
'C .
. 'Til's *E.'."J. -
'Jh:ps.C hy.. ,
for inspectors certified in several c'i'ciplines within the three month M t'I time frame, only those inspections in th .rea of the original certification ?' ' during the first 90 calendar days were reinspected as opposed to "each y At :tM-individual inspection performed during the inspector's first three months"~as .? cited in the Stiede-Keppler. letter dated February 23,' 1983. . this situation would be f ' M inspector was originally certified in one typeQ of inspection certification and,later was' certii ed reinspected Theinsecond a second type type of inspection,*:the of inspection was:not M *f T firsty# g reinspected even though cert >, Nation and inspections.within that area:may. have taken place during the inspector's initial 90 days. .l gQ 3?f C e E[ d .
. y . pQ.' ".
Observation #4: (R"ponse: PAP) - The status of a)ected reinsiection items is not determinable. Discussion: ( The reinspection sample record does not note the FIS report number which is used to dispot. tion nonconforming installations. Without this information supplied, the status of the open items could not be determined by PAP at the time of the audit nor could the auditor assure a discrepancy report had been initiated for tbpe items. Observation #5: For some ir.spectors, the number of items reinspected, though in agreement with the Stiede.'<eppler letter, do not provide an adequate sample size.
, Discussion: Observation #5 Part A (Hunter Corporation) M stig Commonwealth Edison's Project Construction Department verbally directed all contractors, with the exception of PTL/ Peabody, to provide a minimum !
sample size of fifty (50) items. ,
\
Of the 'five (5) Level II CC inspectors reviewed during the audit. three . (5): P. Pepitone, S. Kilpatrick, and J. Ooten, didn't have the minimum of ! fif ty (50) items reinspected. l ( . N,k..h-I;*4 (0221A) Y?. $ d.k't Y_
.. MA ? r%4.? ,: . ,
o
o . [.. i Page A4 Discussion: Observation #5 Part 8 (NISCO) ~C.
-)
Commonwealth Edison't Project Department verbal?.y direct kk acYors it , with the exc. otion of PTL/ Peabody to provide a minimum cample $1ie'"frfifty Wh.nf. (50) attributes. .. ....3.,
. . y. : e. ,, _ w .,7 f.4,$p.'5 v- '
The following inspectors were reinspected X.
'nu'.'.[th for less thari'50 , W .' ** .
16 Inspections . + R. Schultz ,- 39 Inspections D *bl*. Mf-M. Weir T. J. Priutt 30 Inspections ; hl,@. h'?*4 .t".'4M@
. - .. >. . gu.,--y N bT.g]y.g+ &~ f;,, -
The number of items per inspection cannot be determine'd fro 5 '3
, provided, i*
J fi444 gj{w 9 2..
-gg . .
0b_,servation #6: (Response: Blount Brothers Corporation) 3 b
;.', g.) .. J. .
One inspector chosen for the reinspection program was not reviewedMn.all J areas of inspection activity during his first three (3) months' ofh,cidWSJ:i o-certification. - {.-:7:q J .?
..,y.
Discussion: i, : - ;.:f. R. H. Bay had performed masonry inspections during his first 90 days of ' certification at Blount Brothers Corporation; these have not been reinspected. (. , Observation #7: (Response: PAP) b.1 End S(x (6) months as opposed to three (3) months of 'an inspector's work was 6tU reinspected in the original sample. . Discussion: Because of a misuruferstanding, PAP considered the six month time period to be the original sample; failure to meet the acceptable quality level after this time frame, resulted in an additional 90 days of reinspection rather than 1 the entire remainder of an inspector's work as specified in the Stiede-Keppler l letter. l
- j
( ' i
. .~- :;2v.~L A
'5h " -
3 (0221A) ' , ' , 5-!n e
, :, . N . ,%, :. ' % .g
^
e 3 Page A5 ( Observation #8: (Response: Hatfi' eld Electric Company) ('Qaaa1 6 Ato Hatfield Electric could not determine if a portion of the conduit inspection is subject to the reinspection program.' . . . ,l _.
':,C.
. .. ..p- .
i Discussion:
** . . 41- T ' '
.- ~ ;; - .
g.. Torque checks in the conduit area were determined to be non-reproducable
~
inspections; dispite this, bolt counts were taken during reinspection. The bolt count was included in the original conduit inspection to determine the proper number or torque checks to perform. Differences in bolt counts between the original inspection and the reinspect (on are being entered as rejectable items in the reinspection program. These items are remaining open due to confusion on how to disposition them. Hatfield Electric Company needs to determine if bolt, counts should be a part of the reinspection program and, if so, how to resolve these items. ' ac ( .
- b b
4 e 4 e (C221A) a . ..
. i
.. a., ** >
- 5 Page A6 {
- l !
Items Dispositioned during the Audit ( .
.During the audit, several items were identified which were dispositioned . ;
prior to or at the exit meetings. Because these items no longer exi'st,at the ' time this report is being written, they are not considered deficient # . 4 -
., . n !L .,*). sf a . _
j During the audit, it was noted that the population of Pittsburgh. Testing ' Laboratory inspectors changed due to factors such as inaccessibility and the ' minimum number of required inspections. It was also noted that it could not i 4 be determined which inspectors were replaced and for what reasons they were replaced. Before the exit meeting, a list of Level I and Level II initial and subsequent inspectors selected was provided. The list developed included l . inspector's level of capability and reasons for all inspector's chosen. Due ' I to the acceptability of the PTL inspector list provided, .this< item requires no , response. ,'
,t , ,
e .. y., , g .,
. . . sj ..,
- Additionally, it was noted that the status of PTL. reinspection reports ~to W be submitted for third party evaluation was difficult to determine. Before ~
L l the exit meeting, PTL provided a form which included the steps necessary:to . procure reinspection reports. The PTL form is acceptable.
~
J l
. Powers-Azco-Pope's inspectors were included in the reinspection program i only if their certificatico date fell before March 1982. PAP's new ;
certification procedure was' accepted in July,1982. R. Sutherland was PAP's only QC inspector certified between March and Suly. His qualification package 4 ( was reviewed by C.E.Co. QA on Surveillance #4624 dated 5/25/83; it was acceptable to current criteria.
~
l , As a result of the audit, it was determined that Hatfield Electric Company i 4 CA was not aware of the proper number cf additional inspectors to include in i the reinspection program. Per the Stiede-Keppler letter, when a failure in ' the reinspection program occurs, the population of additional inspectors , should equal 50% of the initial number of inspectors chosen to be J reinspected. Due to the fact that the results of the reinspection program have not yet been analyzed, no additional inspectors have been selected. Prior to the selection of additional inspectors, C.E.Co. PCD will provide j Hatfield Electric Company with the proper number of inspectors to include. 4
- Also identified, two of Hatfield Electric Company's reinspection inspectors did not meet the experience / education requirement at the time of
! certification. Hatfield Electric Company failed t. verify high school education or its equivalency for D. Moehling and D. Mccerty. This item was identified and followed by C.E.co _CA Surveillance #4750. Their
, certifications were revoked prior to any inspections being performed.
- Presently, McCarty has his high school diploma on file and Moehling a copy of j his GED. Both individuals have been recertified.
! (, l 1 9 (0221A) , 1 _. q
.- )
\
t [ Page A7 , At the time of the audit, C.E.Co. Site C4 has not completed review and I ( verification of all qualifications of those QC inspectors performing reinspections. This item was previously identified and being followed by Finding #4 on General Office QA Audit of Byron Station Construction,. June ' 1983. Review of these qualification packages isicurrently underway.~ . If any deficiencies are noted,. these will be tracked on the surveillance documenting ; the review. .
. ,. i g ,,.'
, .g Problems with Blount Brothers Corpot atfor not properly documenting all
- facets of their certification orogram for their reinspection inspectors are documented on Byron Site QA Surveillance (4699. Resolution of these problems ,
will be through this mechanism. i
}
9
?
S b l i 4 f (0221A)
, ,- - -- , n. , - - - . - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - . - -, -, - , - - - - - . , - - - .
o Page A8 l l Summary and Assessment, Byron Reinspection Program Audit
$P The audit team found that all contractors involved lare in the process of implementing the reinspection program described in the Stiede-Xeppler letter dated February 23,.1983. The audit team also found that in some cases clarification is needed to provide tSe reinspect' ion' program withl continuity. - ,
It is suggested that all clarifications and directions required be'put in l writing. The audit team found that in the past, verbal. direction had resulted in differences in interpretation a~nd implementation of-the Stiede-Xeppler i letter. In order for C.E.Co. Project Construction to perform a meaningful < analysis of the program results, differences in implementation should be eliminated. . j As a result of this audit, a total of one (1) finding and eight (8) . observatiohs were ,' identified. .The only potential QA program violation . identified was tho finding which concerned identification of non-conforming conditions. The audit team felt'that this finding resulted from difficulties , incurred when attempting to combine a special program with the contractor's . regular program. This finding applied to four.of the-seven contractors audited . The observations identified in this report were,.for the most part, i the result of different interpretations of the Stiede-Xeppler letter. These i differences resulted in discrepancies in such areas as sample size, both initial and expanded, of inspectors and inspections to be reinspected. Another example of a difference in interpretation is the application of the term "inaccessible" to items which do not fit the description of "inaccessible" offered in the Stiede-Xeppler letter. { ' Because the audit occurred while the reinspection program was in progress, ths results of the program could not be analyzed, the audit team felt that j this situation provides an advantage as it will provide Project Construction with a list of items that could, if not resolved, impact the analysis of the l results of the program. This fact is evidenced by the number of items ' resolved both during the audit and at the exit meeting: Resolution of the finding and observations identified in this report should provide the
. reinspection program wilth sufficient clarity and continuity M enable Project i d
Construction to identify the adequacy of the contractor's past QC inspector : certification programs. The reinspection program is expected to be complete j in September of 1983. The audit team hopes that this audit will assist i Project Construction in fulfilling the commitments ende in the Stiede-Xeppler l 1etter. . I 1 i 1 1 P.?tA) - I i
=
, . l A
y ',*;. 4 (Q/ Acaron Rters Post OH<c G W cnicago. unno 0690 Arroel,aem)r, bh r- 6 -es-u,
, . February 23, 1983
,3
* - L'- 1
- 4:P W' Mr. James G. Kepp'ler, Regional Administrator Directorate of Inspectlon and
' 'f 55? N, M&EA'.
% M'), M Q Enforcement - Region III . -.
- A' C'.."
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-J -
. %$..F n gN 799 Roosevelt Road -
M '? .'.. - g .yy," Glen Ellyn, II. 160137 , ,
. g *.
Subject:
Byron Station Units 1 and 2 . : <2./ o I & E. Inspection Report Nos. '
% ' / + Tl
. .} 50-4 54/82-05 and 50-4 55/82-04 , ','.," j -fM f, . . '
- References (a-):
~
June to Cordell24, Reed 1982 letter from'C.E. Norelius f,$-
":j,r,c . ".? .5 .
4. (b):_ ' July 30' 1982 letter'from W.L.'.Stiede . . :'. . s Q ,f;'; .i :-_ , e
. to J.C. Keppler .
, (c): Sep'tember 22, 1982 letter from C.E.
Norelius to.Cordell Reed '
,(. (d):
November 5, 1982 letter from W.L. Stiede i
. to J.C. Keppler .
Dear Mr. Keppler:
This letter provides a revised response'to an item of noncompliance at Byron Station which was identified as Violation 2 in refe'rence (a). In references (b) and (d) we proposed actions to be taken to provide additional assurance that contractor quality control inspectors were properly trained and quellfled or to assure that their inspections were valid. the previously This letter proposed documentsprograms. an alternate plan which supercedes in pait We believe this plan will satisfy NRC congerns presented with Region III personnel. in references (a) and (c) and clarifled in discussions During the subject inspection the NRC found that the co'ntractor programs for qualifying Q. A./Q.C. personnel at Byron were inconsistent with .their interpretation of the requirements of ANSI N45.2.6-1978. Specifically, they found deficiencies in our contractor's evaluations of initial inspector capabilities, in documentation of initial certificatiori, and in the criteria used to establish inspector qualification. The NRC did not und that these deficiences had compromised the quality of plant ($nstruction. In issuing a violation, however, they made it clear that
%ie ccmpletud qua.*tifjwas cation to be programs verified in were some to be upgraded and the quality of work manner. .
\
~**
. l
. .s
- p. I J. G. Keppler February. 23, 1983;
('
. . .N.
N45:1.6 specifically states that the parameters. contained there are recommended and that alternate means are acceptable. ..EThe . standard' .
. limitations provides no so guidance on development' the contractors each developedof.'t'heialternsteripar,ametersifah thesef ' ' procedures and methodologies set forth by the variou,di,f,ferently,f6 sccontractors-havei.T S .,,
been reviewed, approved and audited for compliance.bylCoridnbnwealthMu
- Edison. They all con form to ANSI N45. 2. 6-1978. As ,a :mresult'Jo f.hvarious t.
other inspection and audit results we are confident'.that' the"inspbctions: were and are being performed in an acceptable manner .e 4.,,,;./jhd@gg>.
. t w eh To address the inspector's concern, however, minimumgaTiin'eteNA:.
and limitations were established .in April 1982 to institute ~a common " % -
, basis fqr inspector certification requirements for-the various' '#
With dnput from NRC inspectors these: requirement .were
~
contractors. U N.' further enhanced an'd reissued to the contracto'rs.on June 9,12.1982 '#[
! applicable site contractors' procedures for qualification .andler fl f cation of inspectors were. revised between . July and September'1982 l I ', .
Incorporate these new requirements. 4; ' -j..f J l To summarize, our contractors' inspector qualific'a'tioind certification activities have been Npgraded to remain consistent.with the changing interpretation of acceptable application of ANSI N45.2.6. The pertification upgrading activities do not imply deficiencies in work
.eviously inspected. This"conclusion has been verified through 'over-(heck c inspections, , audits, and surveillances. ~ ~ " -
Proposed Corrective Action . In responding t.> Violation 2 in reference (b) we established a program for assuring.that all current inspectors are cectified to . upgraded requirements established in new contractor procedures. That program is not changed by this letter. A new plan has been developed to address the NRC's concerns regarding work perrnrmed by inspectors no longer on site or inspectors - who cannot presently be shown to have been qualified. Details of this' plan are provided in. Attachment A to this letter. Generally, we are
- proposing various reinspections which verify the adequacy of past QC inspector training / certification practices employed at Byron. For each site contractor we have delineated the manner in which construction quality would be reverified through reinspection of representative portions of the accessible work. In some cases reinspections which would '
accomplish this goal have been completed or are in progress. For other contractors new inspection programs are described here. We have delineated the scope of reinspections to be performed and the accept ~ ance criteria paen set. which would be utilized. Schedulas for, this work have not yet In the few cases where all of a contractor's work is ( accessible for reinspection we have highlighted the oversight inspections and testing which provide addition assurance of quality. i
- l
. 1
\
. .}}