ML20205T542
| ML20205T542 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1982 |
| From: | Forney W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Danielson D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205S388 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-344 NUDOCS 8811140280 | |
| Download: ML20205T542 (43) | |
See also: IR 05000454/1982005
Text
.. . . . . . . .
% *
LMis D STAT 15
/pe msg e h WClE AR RECULATORY COWitst0N
- naum ati
f *3 ,,
'
g ; '15 ! [ m noosivtL1 meAo
- , *
-
.i'f f
a
otn attyw, stui,ois sont ,
l
(, *v /
- '*
.
Novenber 30. 3982
i
'
,
7-
M ORAE UX POR:
LN Danielson, Chief, Materials & Processes section .
"
-
W7Ch
D. Hayes, Chief, Projects Section 1B ,
'
rRON:
W. Torney, Senior Resident Inspector, Byron ,
,
SvaJBC7s BYKE STATJOR LEITS 1 AND 21HSPECTION REPORT N05. ,
50-454/82-05 AND 50-455/82-04' E+
,
peference (a) forwarded 1rioistions identified in the subject inspection ,
reports.
Coatswealth Edison responsa to reference (al forwarded by
f
,
reference (b) was reviensed, f.wna to be unacceptable, and rejected by L
reference (c). Reference (d) provided additional information regarding
,
l ,
.
[
j
oorrective actions taken in response to violations at Bfron Station g
identified in reference (a),.and aSarasses the NRC cosaments contained-
l ,
j in reference (c). ,
-
-
A review of re'eranoe (d) revealoo -unacceptable commitments in response - . *
- to violation 2. Wese unacceptable commitments are identified below: *
k The Ceco causitmeot to review training /qualif * ,Lon/ certification
1.
records of quality control inspectors includie. Oose of,
contractors do have coppicted their scope of wa and no
longer have personnel on site for contractors performing
safe y-related work af ter March 16, 1981 is unacceptable.
20 basis for considering the time franc limitation unacceptable
is the high percentage of improperly trained / qualified / certified *
,
quality cont.rol inspectors identified in refererce (a), und the
nore stringent re p irements identified in ANSI M45.2.6-1973
which would have bean the controlling doceent for certification
of quality contry.1 inspectote prior to March 16, 1981. CB00
should be required ta connit to,a review of all quality control
,
'
,' 36, 1981 ,
inspectors tiilised for safety reisted work prior to March
in accordance WPh AXII W45.2.k19'/3.
!
A review of previou XIC-Region n! inspections indicates that
during an inspection in 1979 (!&E I.Ri 79-14) scoe training /
qualification / certification review was conGucted by Mr. John
- Buerzanns however, a telephone conversation with hir4 on ,
Wovember 23, 1962, identified the inspection to be non-progrannatic ,
,
in nature consisting of a maall sample sise of a limited ntamber )
of contractors on site at that time. Mr. Suermann stated the . ,
inspection did not include a 6etailed review of training / qualification /
certification metho5alogies. Mr. Emermann stated that the scope'
L
I
>
l
I
g
8011140.700 001013 6
MURPHY 00-344 pen F
l
i
i
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ - ~ _ , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ , _ . _ . _ _ ,. _, _ - - - . - - - _ - - - . _ - . _
. _ _ _ _ _ . .
..
. ,
&
<
w .
. 1
~ \
.2 11/30/82
D. Danielson _
-
.
A
of his inspection would not have determined the existence /non- #
existence of problemas such as those identified in referen*Nr (a)..
2. The Ceco casitzent to establish acceptability of in7pections
,
performed by an inspector sere the review process establisher
inspector certification is unacceptable by performing.a re- .
inspection of the features inspected by the subject inspector
for the 'first month after initial certification is an
unacceptable methei, logy. Ceco has not established a basis
of f act that a token one month tine period fcr reinspection '
is adequate to ensure the inspector knew what he was doing
nor does it tako into account that the iwWor' may not *
have performed inspections of scene festarea. Ceco should
.
,
have to provide in their response a basis of fact why all F
_
features inspe:ted by an inspector dose certification is *
unacceptable should not be performed frue the time of initial V
unaooeptable certification until proper certificat;1on was - :
established. %:SI B45.2-1977, Sect. ion 11 states in*part ,
p .
" .. 4where a saople is used to verify acceptability of a -
-
grw.sp of itesas, the sampling procedure shall be based co .
recognised standard practices and shall provide adequate * ,
.
justification for the ' sample size and selection proosss.* ,
. ,
l ' -
'
rA' ,,
,
.
.
.
.
,3 -
Ser. lor Resident pector '
,
s
kyron Station ,
soferences (a): June 24,1982 letter from C. 2. Norelina
to cordell Reed
.
(b): July 70, 1982 letter from W. L. stiede ,
to J. G. Keppler .
,
(c): Septanber 22, 1982 letter frcza C. E. Morelius
to entdell Rond
(d): August 17, 1981 letter fras L. O. De1 George
to D. G. Eisenhut
cci J. Winde .
-
Braldwood SRI .
O
'-
.
.
.
V
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
. .
/Id d M
~
- * ' ' '
- Ll/ ff2,3
,
-
OTER CONTRACTC9S
(Lfp f~r u ~ Wo
~
. O
Blount Bros. Plant Structures
Hunter Corp. Piping System
Installation
Hatfield Electric Electrical Installation
Nuclear Install. Ser. Co. NSSS Assembly
Peabody Testing Independent Inspection
Pittsburgh Testing Independent Inspection
SAMPLING PLAN
1. SELECTEVERYSTHINSPECTORFRbACHRON014GICALLISTINGOFALLINSPECTORS
WHO HAVE WORXED ON TE SITE SINCE TE START UP OF'TE JOB.
'
2. REINSPECT ALL OF TE FIRST 3 MONTHS OF ACCESSIBLE INS?ECTION WORK OF THOSE .
INDIVIDUALS SELECTED. -
3 EVALUATE ACC&TANCE OR TJJECTION OF SUBJECTIVE PARJETERS (WILDING)
SEPARATE FRO 4 ALL OTHERS. .
- ; b. EACH RE-INSPICTION MUST ACHIEVE A 90% ACCIPTANCE RATE FOR FUBJECTIVE
PARAETERS AND A 95% ACCEPTANCE RATE FOR ALL OTER PARAETERS.
5 REJECTIONS GREATER THAN 10% FOR SUBJECIIVE PARAMETERS AND 5% FOR OTER
1
PARA! TIERS WILL BE EVALUATED TO DETEPJtDIE TRUE REJECTABILITY.
6. WERE TRUE 2tEJECTABILITY IS GRE.'.TER THAN 10% FOR SUBJECTIVE PAhAMETERS
OR 5% FOR OTER PARAMETERS, TEN AN ADDITIONAL 3 NONTHS OF INSPECTION
WORK VILL BE RIINSPECTED FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL FOR TE TYPE OF INSPECTION I
l
ELDENT BEING REJECTED.
I
7 IF TE REJECTION RATE RD4AINS GREATER TSAN 10% FOR SUBJECTIVE PARAMETERS l
OR 5% FOR OTER PARAMETERS AFIER EVALUATION OF ADDITIONAL REJECTIONS,
THEN VE WILL INSPECT ALL THAT INDIVIDUALS ACCESSIBLE WORK FOR THAT
TYPE OF INSPICTION ELDENT MR THE RDIAINDER OF TE JOB AND, WE WILL
INCREASE TE SAMPLE SIZE OF INSPEC%RS BEING REVIEWED BY 50%. "
(
.
't
.
4
- .
j
_. _ _ __ _ _
. .
.
.
.. <
.
CONTRACTORS WHO PERFORMED SAFETY-RELATED INSTAL *.ATIONS
.
Chicago Bridge & Iron Containment Liner )
Chicago Bridge & Iron Field Erected Tanks ) All inspectors certified
Pittsburgh-Des Moines Stainless Steel Liner ) to SNT-TC-1A .
Ebasco Inservice Inspection )
.
Delta-Delta Hidstates Reinforcing Steel ) All work is encased
' or buried and therefore
Contracting & Material ESW Make-Up Line )
Ceramic Cooling Towers ESW Cooling Tower Acces. ) not accessible.
7eliance Truck Transport & Lif t NSSS ) Scope of work was
rigging, transporting,
and lifting operation
.
and therefore, have no
inspection elements
which are reinspectable.
'
Reliable Sheet Metal HVAC Installation ) 'Jork is presently being
,
reinspected to revised
techniques which Lee
I more complex than
previously employed.
American Bridge Structural Steel Frection ) Structural steel
installations are being
reinspected on a
sampling basis
Midway Industrial Field Finish Coating ) The concrete coatings
work has been overview
inspected by the i
Commonwealth Edison l
Operational Analysis l
Department. No re- !
inspections are warrented.
I
Johnson Controls HVAC Controls ) Reinspections where
Powers-Azco-Pope Instrumentation accessible, are being
Installation ) performed on the individual i
inspections of all
inspectors for the first
three. months post
certification.
l
l
l
l
l
'
,
y , -- - - -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
.
- -
- u
e & ,
. . y.g .? o
ac j e
.? ,',* o .lg ~
, e
e .., 2# e.! ~. e
(
HWTER CORPORATION E dd R U ,,
- s.
Level II [J p.=0 d[ 4, [
sd .,,
- * 2 6Y Z o s
4 .- es %g .?g ~E g ?Ue j &e
'g E'r s ESga
~ ~
~
. ; ,
. . .. E . . . . . u
e.
. . . .
J. Lanpher 02/06/80 C 5 40 Yes
W. Madill 06/06/80 C 15 104 Yes
F. McChee 01 /77 Yes C 24 25
J. ?!cVeigh 03/23/82 C 22 6 40 Yes
R. tuiroy 08/17/81 C 12 16 20 Yes
. W. M112er 04/02/81 C 6 7 80 Yes
'
J. Ooton 11/03/77 C 54 11 120 Yes
J. Phelps 04/23/81 C 5 64 Yes
F. Pilipit 01/15/80 C 14 144 Yes
T. Price 07/24/30 C 12 15 112 Yes
D. Robbins 06/05/80 C 80 Yed l
{ D. Rockenbach 03/23/82 C 5 52 Yes
N. Russell 05/14/79 C 5 64 Yes l
E. Saunders 10/02/80 Yes C 104 22 56 Yes
,
)!. Schram 05/12/80 C 6 80 Yes
R. Sipe 02/17/81 C 10 48 Yes
R. Sturges 07/11/77 C 18 10 96 Yes
M. Tobbert 11/03/80 C 10 72 Yes
W. Tucker 02/05/79 C 5 88 Yes
L. Voss 06/08/82 C 18 5 88 Yes
M. Wells 01/20/82 C 7 40 Yes
W. Whittaker 04/07/80 Yes C 36 15 117 Yes
C. Viedeman 06/14/82 Yes C 30 21 40 Yes
R. Vilheln 05/22/78 Yes C 114 6 80 Yes
'
L. Yarrington 10/13/80 C 6 72 Yes
0. Young 04/08/80 C 6 7 160 Yes
R. Jensen 1/77 25
R. tilpatrick 08/08/78 C 5 48 ,,
(
A. Klischuck 05/04/81 C 5 32 Yes
M. McGhee 05/03/77 C 40 Yes
-2- ,
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- - - -
-
. .
.
.
,
-
. .
-
-
e
y o
!r % o.
a t
'
f fe
E.r*e /
a.
,
el gs ' ' e.r5 ?, 4*
C
ETTER CORPORATION ,I c ,I, o . g
Level I g4 'y 4 pp[ gg f @
rJ ?21 .y o n e L~ -
11 1/1 s/f s/ s" /.r
"
k'. Bake r 04/01/81 C 9 no 2 yr Yes
R. Becker 04/01/81 C 3 10 Yes
D. Bruni 02/05/81 C 7 48 hrs Yes
C. Burns 12/09/81 C
-
15 104 Yes
'
D. Byrne 02/11/82 C 12 22
. P. Cacciatore 04/01/81 C 9 1 Yes
G. Ferrigan 01/19/81 C 3 5 18 Yes
-
F. Figes 04/01/81 C 13 Yes
H. Fiorino 04/01/81 C 9 3' tes
L. Lindgren 02/11/82 C 9 1
'
D. Losurdo 05/15/81 C 8 2 10 Yes
! R. Marks 01/20/81- C 8 3 Yes
P. Peaslee 04/01/81 C 6 3 Yes
M. Pelikan 04/01/81 C 6 Yes
,
A. Rentauskas 04/01/81 C 26 Yet
'J. Ripp 04/01/81 C 3 18 Yes
J. Schuh 04/01/81 C 4 !ss
C. Szczepanski 01/20/81 A 8 1 Yes
5. k'yste 04/01/81 C 3 1 Yes
5. York 04/01/81 C 3 Yes
.
ts
-1-
(
__ __
-
.. . .
'
.
. . . .
- , , J 4 .E$ ?
s
- b S E m l
,( -
s i:: .N. s!U t l ! /
HUNTER CORPORATION ia d g.I. L ,
,
Level II 8[ ',* J [ gffy,,[), d ,y
4
[ *
n' t
- U$h % EO 52
'g g * 'C y a b' $
i e
U.
f ** g
0 E . 2.% e a le.?A 6 .l j_' . . _
J. Arnold 06/26/78 C 10 yr 64 hr Yes
12/28/31 152 Yes
J. Baker C
05/14/79 12 mo 11 58 Yes
C. Batchelder C
05/12/80 5 96 Yes
H. Brimer A
' 136 Yes
J. Brown 03/24/78 C 24 10
06/16/80 17 88 Yes
-
S. Burstein C
12/10/80 9 104 Yes
S. Buta C
J. Campbell 02/05/31 C 8 40 Yes
R. Cantley 09'/28/79 9 120 Yes
C .
03/09/81 12 56 Yes
U. Christie C
R. Clark 12/10/80 8 48 Yes
C
f R. Cotton 09/23/77 C 30 3 96 Yes
R. Dodson 02/11/80 C 102 14 40 Yes
M. Dre11cibeis 10/02/81 C 36 7 152 Yes
W. Tol 02/24/81 C 6 88 Yes
- R. French 09/12/79 C 6 l2' 72 Yes
L. Geursten 02/17/81 C 12 15- 64 Yes
L. Hadick 10/24/77 C 12 10 72 Yes
R. Hanekamp 03/04/81 C 12 8 40 Yes
l
C. Hernande 06/18/82 C 18 4 120 Yes
C. Rimelrick 10/02/81 C 84 11 72 Yes
l
05/25/81 20 72 Yes
6. Hunt C l
G. Inboden 07/31/80 C 24 6 104 Yes
'
06./04/79 3 6 32 Yes
R. Johnson
06/22/82 6 4 76 Yes l
T. Johnson C
T. Kelley 04/02/81 C 18 15 40 Yes
S. Korsberg 06/06/80 C to 40 Yes
,
T. Landers 06/22/82 C 30 5 168 e. t'e s
i
< >
( J. Lincoln
R. Lowden
01/20/82
07/07/80
C
C
12
17
7 128
120
Yes
Yes
.
!
'
'
-1-
l
s
- - ~ -
. . . . *
__
_ _ _ _ . , . _ _ .
.
. .
I.,,. -1- O.Gv ./Id'r'rTS
,
.
'
REINSPECTION PROGRAM
/{akdouh
'
(ref: 82-05-19/82-04-19)
N<e b CEcaf!E
1. Background
.
2. Scope
3. Preliminary Results
.
4. Analysis of Discrepancies
-
5. Analysis of Inspectors Performance
. ,
8
l
e
.
.
u. l
(
'
i
1
'
1
RT/.1wp-oo21p ,
1
. . ,
.
I'. ..
-2-
-
. .
.
BACKGROUND
1. CAT inspection March 29-31 April 1-2, 5-9, 12-14, and May 11, 1982.
Apparent noncompliance with the requirements for the qualification of
inspection personnel.
2. Noncompliance transmitted by letter dated June 24, 1982 (Norelius to Reed)
and identified as noncompliance 82-05-19.
June 24, 1982 letter contained e stipulated requirement to undertake
,
action to assure that inspections performed by quality control inspectors
that were demed to be improperly trained and qualified were valid. .
3. Proposed corrective action to noncompliance 82-05-19, and proposed
corrective action to the stipulated requirement were transmitted by letter
dated July 30, 1982.' (Stiede to Keppler).
corrective action to stipulated requirement was found !
"
4. Proposed
unacceptable by letter dated September 22, 1982 (Norelius to Reed) and
required further action be accomplished.
'
5. Subsequent meetings with NRC St3ff yielded direction that further action
required to address stipulated requirement must contain a program of
. reinspection. .
!
6. Revised proposed corrective action was transmitted by letter dated
{ February 23,1983 (Stiede to Keppler) and contained commitment to execute
a reinspection program.
A brief of the reinspection program is as follows:
A. (1) For 6 contractors, every 5th inspector selected (NRC SRI added
from 2 to 4 inspectors).
A. (2) For 2 contractors, every inspector selected.
B. For each selected inspector, each individual inspection performed
during the inspectors first three months reinspected, where
accessible.
C. Reinspection conducted utilizing inspection criteria applicable to
initial inspect.on period.
D. (1) Inspections classified as objective require 95% agreement rate
in repeat inspection.
D. (2) Inspections classified as subjective require 90% agreement rate ;
in repeat inspection.
-
i
D. (3) Subjective inspections would be rtubject to independent third l
party review to establish true rejectability. j
.
,4
(
,
t I
,
.
.. _ . .
_ . _ , _ , , - _ , _ _ - _ , , . . . . , - _ . . _ _ _ . , _ , , , _ - - _ . . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ - , . , - _ . , . _ . _, _ _ , _ _ _ . - . . , - , _ , . _ . _
-
.
. . .
.
l,, .
-3-
-
.
'
.. E. When selected inspector failed to achieve 95% agreement rate on
objective inspections, or 90% agreement rate on subjective
$nspections; then additional three months of inspection work
reinspected for the type of inspection which failed to achieve
required agreement rate.
F. If selected inspector failed to achieve 95% agreement rate or 90%
agreement rate, as appropriate, in second three renth period. than
all inspectior}s performed by the inspector of the type which failed
would be reinspected: and the original sample size of inspectors
would be increased by 50%.
7. NRC Region III Staff have conducted numerous reviews of the reinspection
activities and have maintained a estatively high level of involvement in
the proceedings. ,
The following presents the status and results of the program to date.
.
9
!
r
.
0
4
1
f.
(
I!
I
RT/,1wp-0021p
.
.._ _
,
_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _, _ _.___
- - .
. . . . . . . .
, _ _
.. .
. .
SCOPE
1. The program began February 22, 1983 by meeting with contractors which
established the population of selected inspectors and began records search
'to establish individual inspections to be repeated.
2. A. Quantity of Inspectors Reinspected
.
Total Number of Percent of
Population Of Inspectors Inspectors
Inspectors Reinspected Ettnspected
81 cunt 28 -
8 29%
. JcI 7 5 *l 71%
-
Hunter 84 21 25%
Nisco 8 4 50%
HECo 86 22- 26%
PAP 21 19 *3 90%
PTL 85 19 22%
Peabody 11 .1 *1 191
$
TOTAL: 356 104 29%
2. B. Quantity of Items Reinspected ,
Number of Number Of Reinspected
objective Subjective Inspection
Inspections Inspections Months
Blount 2.390 0 83
JCI 7.812 1.459 18 ,
Hunter 69.626 3.662 62
NISco 209 *2 35 *2 12 *2 ,
HECo 56.495 *2 24.162 *2 54 *2 l
PAP 8.144 6.936 149
PTL 7.269 *2 4.158 *2 49 *2
Peabody 0 108 17
TOTAL: 151.945 40.520 444
NOTE *1 - 100% reinspected: those not included had no reinspectable items.
NOTE *2 - Reinspection data still being analyzed. !
Mao son e reisyen. tim w r q=m s. a s
_ ..
l
.. i
+
l
.
l
'
,
l
l
_ _
-
!
-
.
.
. .
-5-
,
.
2. C. Manhour Expenditure
'
Reinspections began 03-14-83.
Thru 09-27-93 27 weeks of reinspection have been conducted with the
accumulatim of 1166 inspector weeks expended.
With the neeC to erect scaffolding, remove paint, fireproofing,
insulation and tre like over,3050 man weeks of craft support.
We have been functr ning.on nominally 58 hour6.712963e-4 days <br />0.0161 hours <br />9.589947e-5 weeks <br />2.2069e-5 months <br /> weeks.
Thru 09-27-83 we have expent over 240,155 manhours.
i
.
I
i
e
i
,
1
l
l
4
-
l
1
1
1
t.
l
l .
'
l
l
i
_ _ _ _ _ _
_
- _ l
.
-
I
' , ,
-6-
. ,
O +
l
'
INSPECTOR RESULTS (Preliminary)
Inspection Status of -
Type ReinsDection Condition
Blount objective complete All 5 inspectors who performed
objective inspections, acceptable
at end of first 3 month period.
Subjective complete All 4 inspectors who performed
subjective inspections,
acceptable at end of first 3
month period.
JCI Objective Complete 4 inspectors who performed
'
objective inspections, acceptable !
at end of first 3 month period.
1
1 inspector tho performed
objective inspections did not
have minintas quantity in first 3
month period, not in second 3
month period, nor in total of
inspections, all of his work was
,
'
reinspected.
subjective complete All 4 inspectors who performed
subjective inspections,
acceptable at end of first 3 <
'
month period.
.
i
4
.m l
a
, 1
i
l
I
1
at/jwp-oo21p l
.. l
_ _ _ _
.
.
_7
.,
,
. . I
Inspection Status of
.
Tvoe Reinspection Condition
Hunter objective Complete .
17 inspectors who performed
objective inspections, acceptable
at end of first 3 month period.
1 inspector who parfqrmed
objective inspections did not ,
have minimum quantity in first 3
i
month period, nor in second 3
month period, nor in total of
inspections, all of his work was
reinspected. ,
subjective complete 15 inspectors who performed
,
subjective inspections,
acceptable at end of first 1
month period.
. 1 inspector who performed
subjective inspections did not
have minimum quantity in first 3
month period, nor in second 3
month period, nor an total of
. inspections, all of his work was
a reinspected.
,
.I
Ntsco objective Complete All 4 inspectors who performed
objective inspections, acceptable
'
at end of first 3 month period. t
,
Subjective In progress 2 inspectors who performed j
'
-
subjective inspections, i
acceptable at end of first 3
month period.
1 inspector who performed
subjective inspections have not
had independent 3rd party review
completed.
! -
!
i .
i
1
1 l
.
-
..
.
l t
l l
'
i
i
'
-
.
l
1 RT/jwp-0021p
..
- - , - - . - __ ,. -. ,, ._-_mm,, ,.-_.,,.,y. , , . , . . . . , , _ . . . . , _ . , . _ _
--
-
t
1
.
'
. , , .
-8-
-
. \
'
Inspection Status of
Type Reinspection Condition j
(s .
HECo Objective In Progress 11 inspectors who performed
-
objective inspections, acceptable
at end of first 3 month period.
2 inspectors who performed
objective inspections have not
yet had their first 3 month
period inspections completed.
Subjective In Progress 3 inspectors who performed
-
subjective inspections,
acceptable at end of first 3
month period.
'
. 4 inspectors who performed
-
subjective inspections have not
had independent 3rd party review i
completed.
~ f y g eh weld.s 77<=bl b 7 No bN *
l
i
%j eeyhWe 6 y /% 3
f& 'f**h l
.
-
l
.
I
l
,
,,
!
'
- RT/jwp-0021p
. . , __
.,
--_-e--- = . - - - ------y -. ,-
-- ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
. , , . . , , . . .
t
- - 9-
- -
..
l ,
i *
Status of
'
Inspection
.
Type Reinspection Conditio.n
,
'
PAP objective Complete . 5 inspectors who performed
objective inspections, acceptable
at end of first 3 month period.
1 inspector who performed
objective inspections did ' not
have mini' sura quantity in first 3
month period, nor in total of
inspections, all of his work was ;
reinspected.
.
-
6 inspectors who performed !
objective inspections, acceptable
'
,
- at-end of second 3 month period.
4 inspectors who performed
objective inspections
unacceptable at end of second 3
month period, all of their work
was reinspected.
Subjective Complete 1 inspector Ago performed
subjective inspections.
,
acceptable at end of first 3
months.
4 inspectors who performed
subjective inspections did not
have minisum quantity in first 3
month period, nor in second three
month period, nor in total of
inspections, all of their work
was reinspected. ,
1 inspector who performed
subjective inspections,
acceptable at end of second 3
month period.
13 inspectors who performed
subjective inspections
unacceptable at end of second 3
month period, all of their work
,
was reinspected.
i
A )
,
)
.I
-
1 i 1
RT/jwp-0021p
. . . . __.
, ,
- - - - - - - -- - - - - ,---r --
re - -- ~ ew -
,- -P - - -- - - - - -
_ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-
.
l .
- .
'
l , ,
- 10 -
,
.. ,
9
l
Inspection Status Of
Type Reinspection Condition
PTL' objective Complete . 8 inspectors who performed
objective inspections. acceptable
at end of first 3 month period.
1 inspector who performed
objective inspections, acceptable
at end of second 3 month period.
Subjective In Progress 5 inspectors who performed
-
-
subjective inspections,
acceptable at end of first 3
month period.
5 inspectors who ' performed
subjective inspections have not
had independent 3rd party review
,
completed.
Peabody objective complete None of the inspection population
had any objective inspections
which were accessible.
Subjective Completed 6 inspectors who perforwd
- subjective inspections did not
' *
have minimum quantity in first 3
month period, nor in second 3
month period, nor in total of
inspections, all of their work
was reinspected.
,
s
- l
J
u.
,
.
- rr/jwp-0021p
..
a.,w ,
- - - - - - - _ , - , . , , , , ,- - - - - -
.,ayw-- ,, - -,.
. .
.
.. ,. - .
MAYcc
,
. . SEPTEMBER 22, 1983
,
-
PAGE 1 0F 3
REINSPECTION OF QC INSPECTOR WORK
- "h#
9ft.2 fbi
"
ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF WELD DISCREPANCIES r/ar
.
SCOPE
-
.
PTL - 50 WELDS WITH MOST DISCREPANCIES
. .
HEC 0 - 50 WELDS WITH MOST DISCREPANCIES
-
WELD ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
.
-
.
PROJECT WORK SPECIFICATION REQUIRES AWS Dl.1 STRUCTURAL
'
WELDING CODE FOR VISUAL WELD INSPECTION.
'
AWS WELD 00ALITY
'
CATEGORY A ARC STRIKE
CONVEXITY ,
'
SPATTER
l
CATEGORY B CRATER
INCOMPLETE FUSION
OVERLAP ,
-
POROSITY
UNDERCUT
'
UNDERRUN
'
'
-
CATEGORY C CRACKS
I
'
, \
'-
- l , !
'
i ;
a
,
i
1
. 1
- -y f e'h Nt' fl O 1
__ . . -_ _. .- _
. _l
-
.
-
.
..
.... .
0 ,
,
- SEPTEMBER 22, 1983
( '
PAGE 2 0F 3
ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF WELD DISCREPANCIES
-
ENGINEERING DISPOSITION OF WELD OVALITY DISCREPANCIES
'
CATEGORY A WELD DISCREPANCY IS STRUCTURALLY ACCEPTABLE. ,
..
.
'
s
.!
'
~
CATEGORY B ' WELD DISCREPANCY RESULTS IN. REDUCING THE .I
WELD LENGTH TO PERFORM A STRENGTH CALCULATION. d
.
.
.
$
c,4
'
B1 WELD STRENGTH PROPERTIES REDUCED wi
(
LESS THAN 10%
~ifi
- id
.
ini
B2 WELD STRENGTH PROPERTIES REDUCED
- M
~,-
GREATER THAN 10%
i
CATEGORY C WELD DISCREPANCY RESULTS IN WELD REJECTION. ,3 l
- .
-
.
'
} . 7 ,
f.is! ,
-
. .. = %
'
I
$!!
..
e.m
5. . I
- 1
f '
. p. l
.
.-
- .,
e
g
h
8 l
- _ _ -
-_
, _ . . . .
-
, .. 1
.
-
.
I
f ......
I e
'
.
.
.
.
( '
.
SEPTEMBER 22, 19:
PAGE 3 0F ?
.
ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF WELD DISCREPANCIES
.
.
' .
'
RESULTS .
"
-
'
WELD CUAllTY CATiGORY
CONTRACTOR
f.
'A B1 B2 C .$..
.
-
w.
2
Di k -
PTL , 13 6 31 -
-*W=g.*-
s -
.
'
'
'
( HEC 0 1 12 37 -
y?'
4.-
s. .
. ' TOTAL 14 18 68 -
., t. . .
. ,
-
'
'
2:
..,
.
FACTOR
0F - ALLOWABLE STRESS 1 1.0 -
ACTUAL STRESS 3
- '
SAFETY
I
n
v;
3.
!
'
FSAR COMMITMENT HAS El BEEN COMPROMISED. .
i
.. .
_
l
-
x
-
8
-
..
-
<
-
I. g; \ ,
_.gl
. /1
-
- ra. '.-
, . ,
,A
.. ..-
. , , - - - . - - - , - . , , - . , - , - . - , - . - - , , - , , - -- - ,
'. '.
.
. .
.
, ' ' .f.
,
1-27-84
-(
C
BYRON REINSPECTION PROGRAM
REVIEW FOR NRC STAFF
JANUARY 27, 1984
1, INTRODUCTION
( II, BACKGROUND
111, SUMMARY OF RESULTS
IV, CONCLUSION
.
I
fo1. A - 99 19y
E/46
-
.
. .
'
..
, ,
.,
'
1-27-84
'(
i 1. INTRODUCTION
>
'
QBJECTIVE
1. REVIEW REINSPECTION PROGRAM AND
RESULTS TO FACILITATE NRC REVIEW
< .
1 2. EVALUATE PROGRAM RESULTS
-
l
3. PRESENT PROGRAM CONCLUSIONS
>
.
l
t
i
!
1
i
!
1
.! f
P
.
! ;
i ,
'
l i
!
- - - _ - - --- _-__ __ -__ . . - - . -- -_ - __. - ___.- -____ ._
'
. .
.
.
- 1-27-84
'
, REINSPECTION PROGRAM RESULTS
.
-
INSPECTOR
'
CONTRACTOR OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE QUALIFICATION BASIS
BLOUNT 100% PASSED N/A EFFECTIVE
JCl 100% PASSED 100% PASSED EFFECTIVE
HUNTER 100% PASSED 100% PASSED EFFECTIVE
NISCO 100% PASSEc 100% PASSED EFF ECT IVE
-
HATFIELD 100% PASSED IN PROGRESS * EFFECTIVE
,
PITTSBURGH 100% PASSED 92% PASSED EFFECTIVE
.
- **
PEABODY N/A 100% PASSED
P-A-P 60% PASSED 42% PASSED
(
E0IE
' ' *
FOR HATFIELD
ONE INSPECTOR IN PROGRESS. ALL OTHERS PASSED.
1
- '
FOR PEABODY
ALL INSPECTORS WHO HAD RECREATABLE, ACCESSIBLE ?!OoK
WERE REINSPECTED. INSUFFICIENT DATA TO DRAW
i CONCLUSION OF EFFECTIVENESS.
, l
!
FOR P-A-P j
- ALL INSPECTORS EVALUATED. FOR DEFICIENT INSPECTORS,
100% OF RECREATABLE, ACCESSIBLE WORK REINSPECTED.
i
,
. - .- - .. __ ..
,
. ;
.
i
..
. .
1_27_g4
.
.
1 :
'
i
'
- .
II. BACKGROUND ,
l
'
- l
'
.
I
,
2. ANSI N45.2,6 l
'
l
'
3 ', INSPECTOR QUALIFICATIONS
i
( 4 REINSPECTION PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
ii !
j l
l 5. PROPOSALS FOR REINSPECTION PROGRAM !
!
i
,
l
!
i
- l
'
i
i ;
i
1 l
, i
4 i
i
i
'
i
.
. _ - ._ .- . .
. .
,
1 -27-84
.
BACKGROUND
.
.t 1. IE REPORT 50-4 54/82-05
-
"IN GENERAL, WITHIN THE AREAS INSPECTED, THE QUALITY
ASSURANCE PROGRAM FOR THE BYRON STATION APPEARED GOOD."
CONSTRUCTION WORK DEFICIENCIES ARE NOT AT ISSUE.
- CONTRARY TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN ANSI N45.2,6,
"CERTAIN CONTRACTOR QA/QC SUPERVISORS AND INSPECTORS
WERE NOT ADEQUATELY QUALIFIED AND/OR TRAINED"
2. ANSI N45.2.6 - 1978 (SECTION 2.2) j
- THE. CAPABILITIES OF A CANDIDATE FOR CERTIFICATION SHALL
,
!
BE INITIALLY DETERMINED BY A SUITABLE EVALUATION OF THE ,
'
CANDIDATES EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, TRAINING, TEST RESULTS,
QE CAPABILITY DEMONSTRATION."
,
3. INSPECTOR QUALIFICATION
7
- CONTRACTORS BEGAN IMPLEMENTING QUALIFICATION PROGRAMS
IN 1974
- PROGRAMS AND QUAllFICATIONS REASSESSED IN 1979/80
- PROGRAMS AND QUALIFICATIONS REASSESSED IN 1982
- ALL CURRENT INSPECTORS QUALIFIED
NOTE:
NRC PARTICIPATED IN THE 1979/80 AND 1982 REASSESSMENTS
4 REINSPECTION PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
- EVALUATE CONTRACTOR INSPECTOR QUALIFICATION PROGRAMS
- EVALUATE INSPECTOR PERFORMANCE
- DEMONSTRATE RELIABILITY OF INSPECTIONS
.
. .
'
1-27-84 ,
BACKGROUND
~( 5, PROPOSALS FOR REINSPECTION PROGRAM
A, NRC REGION III REQUESTED:
ACTION TO ASSURE VALIDITY OF INSPECTIONS
B, CECO PROPOSALS
FIRST PROPOSAL
! 1. TO REOUALIFY INSPECTORS
.
2. REVIEW INSPECTORS' QUALIFICATION BASIS
3. REVIEW RESULTS OF OVERINSPECTIONS
SECOND PROPOSAL
VERTICAL SLICE, MULTI-DISCIPLINARY REINSPECTIONS
'
THIRD PROPOSAL
j COMPARISON OF INSPECTOR'S BASIS OF
QUALIFICATION AGAINST COMPLEX NUMERICAL
FORMULA
,
,
FOURTH PROPOSAL
REINSPECTION ON AN INSPECTOR SAMPLE
SELECTION BASIS
l
4 C, NRC REGION III ACCEPTED
RCINSPECTION ON AN INSPECTOR SAMPLE SELECTION f
BASIS BY LETTER DATED MARCH 22,1983
l
l
'
l t
'
i
i
-
-. - - - . .
.
. .
-
l. 1 -2 7- 84 l
r
t
,
III. SUMMARY OF RESULTS
A. DESCRIPTION OF REINSPECTION PROGRAM
B. DISTRIBUTION OF INSPECTORS SAMPL1'
.
C. RESULTS OF OBJECTIVE INSPECTIONS
D. RESULTS OF SUBJECTIVE INSPECTIONS
'
E. REINSPECTION PROGRAM RESULT 3
F. SUMMARY OF JANUARY 12, 1984 REPORT [
t
i
,
.
I
,
. - .
- _- .
.
.
1-27-84
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
g 0F REINSPECTION PROGRAM
INSPECTORS SELECTED !
FOR 6 CONTRACTOR 1;
BY SELECTION:
.lST AND EVERY STH INSPECTOR
Ev NRC SENIOR RESIDENT INSPECTOR:
2 TO 4 ADDITIONAL INSPECTORS
PER CONTRACTOR
FOR 2 CONTRACTORS: !
,
SELECTED EVERY INSPECTOR ,
f INSPECTIONS SELECTED
i
FOR EACH INSPECTOR SELECTED:
- REINSPECTED EACH ACCESSIBLE, RECREATABLE
lNSPECTION PERFORMED DURING THE INSPECTOR'S
FIRST THREE MONTHS
'
.
OBJECTIVE INSPECTIONS
!
'
, REQUIRE 95% AGREEMENT RATE IN REPEAT INSPECTIONS
'
,
SUBJECTIVE INSPECTIQRS.
-
REQUIRE 90% AGREEMENT RATE IN REPEAT INSPECTIONS.
-
SUBJECT TO THIRD PARTY REVIEW
!
a
'
l
1
1
. - - - - . , , - - - - . - , - - .--w - . - - , - - , - - - - - -
.- - _ - . . . .- -_ - . . _ . - . - _ _ _.
,
' '
, ..
/ 1-27-84
. l
.'
.
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
!
_OF REINSPECTION PROGRAM (CONT'D'.)
i
i
.
-QUALIFICATION BASIS l
,
I
i
Y >
1,
'
INSPECT FIRST THREE MONTHS WORK :
I !
'
i
i
j ,
2, IF AGREEMENT - INSPECTOR PASSED :
I
1 :
! !
I
3, IF NO AGREEMENT - INSPECT SECOND THREE MONTHS WORK
i
'
4, IF AGREEMENT - INSPECTOR PASSED
l
,
.
{ t
i :
1 'i
j 5, IF NO AGREEMENT - ALL INSPECTIONS PERFORMED BY THE !
<
INSPECTOR OF THE TYPE WHICH DID NOT MEET THE !
l i
j AGREEMENT RATE WOULD BE REINSPECTED AND THE SM1PLE ;
- SIZE OF INSPECTORS WOULD BE INCREASED BY 50% i
.
l .
i I
!l
4
i
i :
i !
! :
e i
<
<
l ,
I i
'
)
- ;
.
i f
i
! !
!
'
, -
, - - - - - - - - - - m -.-,, - - . , - ,- --_s-,- ..-,m m---- . - = =-- ,..-,_ . . - .O.._- -m-,.-- . , _ - - . -..-,._~-.n. ,v.-. ---.- - - - - - - . - - - -
__ -__-__ _-_ _
. .
-
.
1-27-84
. INSPECTORS SAMPLED
. TOTAL NUMBER OF INSPECTORS 356
,
INSPECTORS SAMPLED 110
DISTRIBUTION OF 110 INSPECTORS' SAMPLED
l BY CONTRACTOR BY YEAR
l
19ZE 19Z2. 1928. 1922 19M 1981 1182* TOTAL
I
BL0dHT 2 2 3 'l 8
,- JCI 1 3 1 5
HUNTER 1 2 1 2 4 9 3 22
l
l NISCO 1 1 1 1 4
l [
!
HATFIELD 1 2 1 2 15 2 23
- P-A-P 2 5 9 3 19
l
PITTSBURGH 6 6 3 2 3 3 23
PEAB0DY 1 5 6
4 16 10 11 15 40 14 110
- TO SEPTEMBER 1982
.
.
._ .- . . - _. .
. .
1-27-84 :
OBJECTIVE INSPECTIONS
'
l. NUMBER OF INSPECTORS SELECTED PERFORMING INSPECTIONS CLASSIFIED
AS OBJECTIVE:
$2 0F THE 110 SELECTED
11. THE IHRESHOLD ESTABLISHED BY CRITERI A FOR DEMONSTRATING
ACCEPTABILITY:
95% AGREEMENT RATE IN REPEAT INSPECTIONS
- 111. INSPECTOR QUALIFICATION PROGRAM RESULTS
- 82 TOTAL INSPECTORS
! ;
'
i INSUFFICIENT
QUANTITY T0 IN PROGRESS
' '
PASSED DID NOT PASS ASSESS REINSPECTION
THRESHOLD THRESHOLD ACCEPTABILITY INCOMPLETE
, BLOUNT 8 -- -- --
j JCl 4 --
1 --
HUNTER 20 -- -- --
i NISCO 4 -- -- --
.
HATFIELD 17 -- -- --
i
4
P-A-P 13 5 1 -
PITTSBURGH 9 -- -- -- I
PEAB0DY -- -- -- --
l
l TOTAL 75 5 2 -- l
c , ,
l
.
- . - - -- - - - -
. - - . - - . - - . r .-. - _n -
, - . _ - . - - - , - - , -
.
.
. .
'
'
.
1-27-84
$UBJECTIVE' INSPECTIONS
.
1. NUMBER OF INSPECTORS SELECTED PERFORMING INSPECTIONS
CLASSIFIED AS SUBJECTIVE:
72 0F iHE 110' SELECTED
11. THE THRESHOLD ESTABLISHED BY CRITERIA FOR DEMONSTRATING
ACCEPTABILITY:
,
111, INSPECTOR QUALIFICATION PROGRAM RESULTS: 72 TOTAL INSPECTORS +
INSUFFICIENT
QUANTITY T0 IN PROGRESS
'
PASSED DID NOT PASS ASSESS REINSPECTION .
i . THRESH 0LD THRESHOLD ACCEPTABILITY INCOMPLETE
j i
l BLOUNT -- -- -- --
JCl 4 -- -- --
HUNTER 16 --
1 --
l
'
NISCO 4 -- -- --
,
MATFIELD 6 --
1 1 l
P-A-P 8 10 1 --
,
4
PITTSBURGH 11 1 2 --
,
PEAB0DY 2 --
4 --
4
'
TOTAL 51 11 9 1
l
e
5
l *
_
. .
. .
1-27-84
REINSPECTION PROGRAM RESULTS
-( INSPECTOR
CONTRACTOR OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE QUAllFICATION BASIS
, BLOUNT 100% PASSED N/A EFFECTIVE
JCI 100% PASSED 100% PASSED EFFECTIVE
HUNTER 100% PASSED 100% PASSED EFFECTIVE
NISCO 100% PASSED 100% PASSED EFFECTIVE ,
,
HATFIELD 100% PASSED IN PROGRESS * EFFECTIVE
,
PITTSBURGH 100% PASSED 92% PASSED EFFECTIVE
PEABODY N/A 100% PASSED
( P-A-P. 607. PASSED 42% PASSED
EQli
FOR HATFIELD
ONE INSPECTOR IN PROGRESS. ALL OTHERS PASSED.
FOR PEABODY
ALL INSPECTORS WHO HAD RECREATABLE, ACCESSIBLE WORK
WERE REINSPECTED. INSUFFICIENT DATA TO DRAW
CONCLUSION OF EFFECTIVENESS.
FOR P-A-P
'
ALL INSPECTORS EVALUATED. FOR DEFICIENT INSPECTORS,
100% OF RECREATABLE, ACCESSIBLE WORK REINSPECTED.
'
.
.
- --.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
' '
. . .
.
'
1-27-84
'
JANUARY 12, 1984 REPORT
'
-
1. SYNOPSIS
COMPOSITE FOR ALL OBJECTIVE INSPECTIONS - 97.7%
COMPOSITE FOR ALL SUBJEtTIVE INSPECTIONS - 91.3%
11. BACKGROUND
111, SCOPE
INDIVIDUAL INSPECTION ELEMENTS REINSPECTED - OVER 198,000
INSPECTOR MONTHS REINSPECTED - OVER 534
IV. DEPTH OF REINSPECTION PROGRAM
i V. REINSPECTION RESULTS
~
VI, QUALITY ASSURANCE CONTROL OF REINSPECTION PROGRAM
l
Vil, SIGNIFICANCE OF DISCREPANCIES
APPENDIX A - REINSPECTION RESULTS BY TYPE / AREA 0F CERTIFICATION
<
APPENDIX B - REINSPECTION RESULTS BY INSPECTOR
APPENDIX C - SUBJECTIVE lh'SPECTION DISCREPANCIES - EVALUATION OF
SIGNIFICANCE
APPENDIX D - OBJECTIVE INSPECTION DISCREPANCIES - EVALUATION OF
SIGNIFICANCE
- _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
. .
.
~
1-27-84 .
~
!
ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF SUBJECTIVE DISCREPANCIES
'
.;
'
TOTAL NUMBER DISCREPANCIES WITH ,
>
CONTRACTOR OF INSPECTIONS SAMPLE SIZE DESIGN SIGNIFICANCE
. BLOUNT NOT APPLICABLE -- --
!
2 JOHf;S0ft
-
CONTROLS 63 65. 0 .
.
HUflTER 112 112 0
NISCO NONE -- -- '
i
i L
'
4
HATFIELD
{
i ELECTRIC 1785 100 0
'
POWERS
! AZC0
! POPE 931 M 0
, !
- PITTSBURGH '
TESTING 726 @ 0 I
'
PEABODY
'
TESTING 22 22 0 !
'
l
) !
'
i
I
'
{
'
i
i
!
' ~
. . .
i
._
,
'
. .
- .6
'
-
1-27-04
'
ENGINEERING EVALVATION OF OBJECTIVE DISCREPANCIES -
~
I DISCREPANCIES WITH !
TOTAL NUMBER
C0flTRACTOR SAMPLE SIZE DESIGN SIGNIFICAf;CE ;
l, OF INSPECTIONS
)
i
BLOUNT 23 28 0 ,
o, ;
'
JOHNSON l
C0flTROLS 47 47 0
,
l
HuflTER 681 125 . 0
,
tilSC0 12 12 0
l
. HATFIELD ,
J ELECTRIC 1957 200 0 l
i
i
POWERS !
- AZC0 l
( POPE 336 80 0
.
PITTSBURGH ;
TESTING 69 69 0 l
PEAB0DY
-- --
-
TESTING NONE ,
'
i
i
'
j i
i ;
) l
l
1
l
3
i
'
n l
l
l
u
y -- . - - , ---,p -
--m -- + -. _-,,. .,_ .- ,_-- _y7 _ _. %.__,__ ___4 , , , , ,,7,,-,. -,-. --
_. _.
,
.
- *
g 4*
1-27-84
.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
k.
1, CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATION PROGRAMS ARE EFFECTIVE. ,.
l
BLOUNT !
!
JCl
HUNTER EFFECTIVE
'
j NISCO
,
'
PITTSBURGH
,
Il HATFIELD - EFFECTIVE - REVIEW OF ONE INSPECTOR ;
, ! IN PROGRESS l
, i
PEABODY REINSPECTED 100% OF RECREATABLE/
l ACCESSIBLE WORK
t
i
( POWERS-A2CO-POPE - QUALIFICATION PROGRAM NOT
)
,
UNIFORMLY EFFECTIVE
{ - ALL INSPECTORS EVALUATED
-
FOR DEFICIEN ' INSPECTORS:
- REINSPECTED 100% OF 1
'! RECREATABLE/ ACCESSIBLE i
!
WORK
f -
DISCREPANCIES HAVE NO DESIGN {
'
SIGNIFICANCE
l '
) 2, DISCREPANCIES llAVE NO DESIGN SIGNIFICANCE i
1 -
ALL DISCREPANCIES EVALUATED
'
'
- ALL DESIGN llMITS MET
! < a ALTHOUGH SOME REWORK WAS DONE, NO REWORK WAS REQUIRED
I
TO FULFILL DESIGN COMMITMENTS !
rez.a-tF!vy ;
i
O 1
,
. _ _ . _ _ _ - . - _ _ - . _ - - - . _ - , - . . - - - . . - - - -
--
._ _-_ . -- _ . .- -
_ - - . - - _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
. .%. '
i
i
! -
9 14 . O !
i
January 27, 1984
!
'
'
l SUBJECT: Byron Project Manhours
'
!
l ATTENTION: Mr. G. Porento
'
Listed below are contractors and corresponding actual manhours ,
worked J' uring the 16onth of November,1983.
! l
1 CONTRACTORS MANHOURS l
u
i
A&M Insulation 5,964
l i
i Blount 117,615 ;
j Diamond Power 2.995 l
, t
Hatfield Electric 147,593 l
194,404
'
I
Hunter
l 8,327
j . Johnson Controls !
Midway 3,577 [
l
i
, Nisco 3,820 !
e i
Pittsburgh Testing 10,133 ;
i
$ Powers-Azco-Pope 40,916 i
Beliable sheet Metal 52,744 I
>
H. H. Robertson -- '
- )
j Tech-Sil 2,719 l
j Transco 846 l
Westinghouse 1,819 *
i
1
Wallace 1,659 l
4
1
/
) W. W skie
] Project Construction Dept. f
i Syron Station )
1
WB/rc l
l cet M. Hinds Fo7. #- F r,Jy u
.
( Job Site File /
W. Biskie
- l
'
'^^~~ ~
, - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ , - . _ - _
._. - _. .. - _. - _ . . _ - .
_ . _ .
- _ _
. 6'
.
January 27, 1984
- ph '
!
SUB.TECT: Byron Project Manhours {
ATTENTION: Mr. G. Porento ,
I
i.isted below are coptractors and corresponding actual manhours -
worked during the me, nth December, 1983.
~
CONTRACTORS MANHOURS -
-
A&M Insulation 7,809 l
Blount 89,568 l
r
Diamond Power 1,905 ;
'
Hatfield Electric 115,906
Hunter 210,505 l
t
-
Johnson Controls 6,776 j
Midway 3,304
[
Nisco 2,876 !
{
Pittsburgh Testing 12,384
Powers-A:co-Pope 30,845 l
Reliable Sheet Metal 43,831
4
H. H. Robertsen -- !
Tech-Sil 3,353 f
Transco 840 l
Westinghouse 1,303 l
'
Wallace 2,400
-
l
I
-
d iskie i
Project Construction Dept. l
Byron Station ;
!
WB/rc i
.
M. Hinds
( cci
Job Site File
W. Biskie
'
.
'
.-,n , - - .. , - , _ . - - . --,-.n.--._.n. ,. - , , - - . . , , - , , e, , . , , . - , .- -. . . _ _ - , - ,- c .- .-. ,-n-..--.
_ _ - _ _ _ . - _
,
. 1
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY Com !SSION
-
REGION III
i
OUTGOING TRANSHI M ION SERVICE REQUEST.
_
' 2-1-84
"
.
, Nurr6er of Pages 3
Te(Name): D. W. MAYES - PROJECTS. EXT 543
From: HINDS /CONNAUGHTON RESIDENT INSPEC'ICR'S OTTICE, BYRON STATION
4
'
DescriptiegCMMENTS ON CECO PRESENTATION OF REINSPECTION PROGPN4 RESULTS
-
Air Rights Bldg. FOR WP & 0/C USE
l E/W Towers System 6 (WP)
"
H Street - Rapidfax
MNBB 3M Ext #727
'
, Phillips Bldg. 3M Ext #728
! Silver Springs FTS
! 'Willste Bldg) t
'
Comercial
) '....dow Bldg.
I
Time Started
Region I >
,
Time Completed
Trans. Time 1
'
Region IV (ActualMinutes)
Region V Operator __
Resident at
'
NSAC
i
Corportate Office
(Identify recipient & fax number
'
Other
! '
(Designate-include fax number
l
k .
i
]l Rev 1/27/S?
b [0 Z 4 * 0'f' E V Y
!; */ vr
- - - - -
_ - _ _ u _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ -
.. .
. .
,
COMMENTS CN CECO PRESENTATION OF REINSPECTION PROGRAM RESULTS
I. OC Inspector Performance Evaluation and Conclusions
a. Need to address whether or not selected inspectors had ever
identified nonconforming conditions and, if so, how frequently
how obvious were the nonconformance(s) ands were approvals of
\% corrective action taken by selected inspectors for DR, NCR
.
closeout appropriate. This type of information will allow a'
subjective characterization of the selected inspector's
ability to discern between acceptable and rejectable items
and his/her tenacity in performing inspections. Contractor
and Ceco corrective action system documentation files may
contain evidence to allow such charac.erizations,
b. Sample sizes for certain areas of certification may be too
I
small to provide conclusive evidence (Comment a above not-
withstanding) see "Comments on Byron Reinspection Program
Final Report" by J. M. Hinds, Jr. (SRI-Byron), dated
January 25, 1984, Itees 3, 4, and 5.
c. What additional assurances (inferences) of OC inspector
effectiveness in areas cf QC inspector certification for
which items inspected are inherently nonrecreatable or
inaccessible can be provided based upon conclusions reached in
areas of QC inspector GeI1fication for which items are reinspectable.
s
-_.
.
. .
.
4
COMMEllTS Cti CECO PPISE21TATIC!1 OT REIllSPECTICl! PROGPAM RESULTS
l II. Classification of Attributes as objective and Inspector
Perfornance Acceptance Criteria
a. Otilizing a 95% acceptability for objective attributes as a minimum
acceptable performance level may seem, on the surface, as being too
leanient.
While certain attributes, e.g. simple dimensional checks, are
considered objective and r.s such, highly repeatable, many actions,
of
(sub-tasks) are associated with, and can affect the validity 4these
types of OC inspection results.
nese types of inspections, including sub-tanks, should be more
closely examined to determine wether or not the 95% criteria and,
more importantly, the actual reinspection results which generally
exceed the 954 criteria are, in fact, resasonable. Include a disenssien
,
, of the variables which affect the difficulty attached to each typw of
inspection. i.e. reference location, gage accuracy, etc.
b. Objective attributes have been defined as those attributes other than
visual weld examination attributes. What are they? These should be
specified in the report in as much detail as in the applicable
inspection check lists. Attributes such as "masonry", "concrete
expansion anchors", are too vagely stated.
d
III. Evaluations of the Sidnificance of Identified Hardware Discrepancies
a. All discrepancies should be evaluuated with sufficient rigor and in
(iss)
sufficient detail to determine which diserapancytof each identifiabKly
unique type represen(s) the greatest deVishtien, in absolute terms,
frca design specifications, e.g. percent reduction in weld load
carrying capability, cable seperation distarce (feet and inches) etc.
l
-2- i
} l
.
.
1
. . - . - . _- ..
4 +
. .
,
. \.
.
4
,
COMMENTS ON CECO PRESENTATION Of' REINS ECTION PROGRAM RESULTS
The "worst case" in absolute terms should then asuspd to exist
[ Jerm' W ~ where the design margin with respect to the same
'
m h ##as *PPhsdien./
attribute 41s a minimum. Using this methodology, determine how many
'
identified discrepancies are of a magnitude which could, under any
1 existing circumstances, represent a failure to meet design bases.
i
j
With what frequency have these types of identified deficiencies
4
I occured? Cracked welds for example, would automatically fall into
. this category. D e basis for this approach is that there is currently ;
I
'
! ,
no evidence to suggest the discrepasteles are any more, or ler,s,
, likely to occur under any given s et of conditions from whi.ch design -
-
i .
margins are derrived. Without this approach, conc 19tions of the type ,
'
stated in the last full sentence on page 45 of the reinspection,
i
1
program final report, dated January 12, 1984, car. tot bs supported.
.
j
Similiarly, the conclusion drawn in the last sentence in the fourth ;
I
, i
( paragraph on page 23 of the report can not be supported. [
b. Take into consideration the significence of the "notch effect" when
determining the circumstances which re M in the minimum design !
i
i
margins for structural welding ( considering fatigue, material l
toughness, etc.) l
! '
1
i c. Undersized welds have been identified which were attributable to
i
overgrindits after the original QC inspection. While these circum. . ,
i
stances' do not reflect adversely on the selected inspector #s capabilityj
i the undersized welds may have W safety significes.co. How widespread
i
.
is this phenaseenon and what is the "worst case" impact on the ability ;
- !
-
) '? of these welds to meet design, requirements? ;
1
i n
i ' ,
1
3
! .
' t
, ,
4 ,
1