ML20205T537

Trip Rept of 830126 Meeting in Bethesda to Discuss Question of Corrective Actions to Be Required of Util Re Finding of Uncertified QC Inspectors at Site

ML20205T537
Person / Time
Site:	Byron, 05000000
Issue date:	02/15/1983
From:	Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20205S388	List: IR 05000454/1983038 ML20205S384 ML20205S395 ML20205S410 ML20205S434 ML20205S462 ML20205S613 ML20205T369 ML20205T392 ML20205T405 ML20205T451 ML20205T469 ML20205T526 ML20205T531 ML20205T537 ML20205T542 ML20205T548 ML20205T563
References
FOIA-88-344 NUDOCS 8811140278
Download: ML20205T537 (2)

Text

. . . _ . . .- _ _ _ _ . _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ _

i '

f . . :$. ~ .

o u- .g .

February 15.1."B3 l!EH0lMDUll FOR: James G. I'.eppler, Regional Admirelstristor j FROM:

Charles I. Morellus, Director, Division of Project and Resident progran

SUBJECT:

TP.np REPORT - MEETING WITH IE JANUARY 26, 1983 ,

.~- -

On Januer7 26, ISB3, Bill Forney, D. Hayes, W.'Little, and I met with J. Taylor, Director, Division of Quality Assurance, safege rds, and Inspection i progranis; T. Haryster, Chlef, Quality Assurance Branch; and others of the IE QA staff In Sethesda. The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss i the question of correct.Ive. actions to be required of Connonwealth Edison j regarding a finding of uncertified QC Inspectors of various contractors at l

the Byron alte. Further, the meeting expanded to the general question of the extent that reinspections should be required of completed work when

• findings are made regarding the lack of QC Inspections or inspectfons by

. uncert1 fled or amquallfled personnel. ,., l

( '

As background Information, the construction assessuunt team !nspection at syron, cmducted during 1982. Identified that savaral QC Inspectors for contractors were not properly cert 1 fled and possibly not quallfled, and this was included as an item of noncompilance In the Notice of Vlotation. The IIcensee's response addressed their plans for correcting the problem, but l did not fully address action taken to provide assurance that inspections, '

and therefore the work Inspected, In the past by uncertified or amquallfled i

. Inspsetors was adequate. Subsequent to that Inspection, we 1er.rned that Ceco did not have a program for assuring the proper certificWlon of QC

< Inspectors by contractors at Byron. Some contractors, however, had connitted to follow the ANSI standard. In March 1981, Ceco revised their In

, Topical Report and connitted to follow ANSI N45 2.6 (1378), for cartification of Inspectors, although a program to implement this counttment was not developed until June 1982, in response to this inspection.

on December 13, 1982, gill Little and Duane annlalson met with site representatives and generally agreed upon an approach to recertify inspectors back to March 1981, rilaspecting the work of those who were not certlflable, and reinspecting the work done prior to March 1381 by randomly sampling all contractors and crafts since constructirm began. Subsequsntly, on January 4,1983, a meeting was held with Ceco management In Region III at their request. During this meeting, Ceco presented an alternet1ve plan by

, which thy scald certify, after the fact, QC nnspectors based I on education, training, experience, or some combination of these, according

- 0911140270 001013

) PDR FOIA  !

i MURPHYGO-344 PDR

- 8 ...................................i . ............ ....................................... ............................

t l

n - 1 l

J e r.,c s G . lcppler !cbrutty Ib 1503 to e prescribed formula. They proposed a sampling reinspection (a,pproximately ont month's worib) for Initlt1 Intrections by Intpt.ctort not certified under this prograra. .

At the January 26, 1983, meeting with IE, It was agreed that + e. should not accept the Ceco propossi for certifying Inspectors bas *.d on the formuis provided. There appeared to be no sound basis for accepting a proposal which lowered the requirements fror. Gose standards that were in place and should have been adopted prior to 1981 or from those prcposed by the company In 1981. The criteria to be used in judging the certifiability  !

- of QC Inspectors should be the some as that now developed by Ceco in June 1982. (The earlier standard N45.2.6 - 1973 version cras s6mewhat more stringent than the 1978 varston which they comitted to.) J. Taylor also '

sumarized the situation for Mr. DeYoung, Director, it, and later reported that he supported this position. LEco will be advised of our position. ,

The speelfic question of what degree of reinspection should be required at Byron was not resolved. it was agreed that the key question relates to l Hbow good is the work," but that the actual reinspection effort to shed i light on that question depends on a number of other factors. Wo. plan to request CECO to submit such a plan for our review; the 12 staff offered  ;

( their assistance in promptly revlowing such a proposal.

• The general question of the degree of reinspection effort to be vequired 1 to provide assurcace of past construction adequecy when QC Inspection l sf fectiveness is in question was discussed. We discussed the types of i variables that need to be considered in eating such a determination. I I plan to develop a listing of Itens that should be considered in such  !

decisions. i Charles E. Norallus Director Division of Project and Resident Programs cc A. s. Davis R. L. Spessard .

W. Forney i , i

! (  !

\ l l l

.or

...................................... .....-............ ........u....

. '83 "" "" " " " "" " " " " * " " " "* " " " " " " " " - " " " " " " " " ~ " " " - " " " """"""""

-- _ _ _ _ . . , . . - . . -,---n--- - - . - - - - - - , - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - - - "-" ~ ~ * ~ " ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ^