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 h
WClE AR RECULATORY COWitst0N
e
f *3 '15 !
,,
naum ati
'
g ;
[
m noosivtL1 meAo
.i'f f
otn attyw, stui,ois sont
- *
,
,
(, *v /
a
i
-
.
- '*
Novenber 30. 3982
'
,
7-
LN Danielson, Chief, Materials & Processes section
.
M ORAE UX POR:
"
D. Hayes, Chief, Projects Section 1B ,
-
W7Ch
'
W. Torney, Senior Resident Inspector, Byron
,
rRON:
,
BYKE STATJOR LEITS 1 AND 21HSPECTION REPORT N05.
,
SvaJBC7s
50-454/82-05 AND 50-455/82-04'
E+
peference (a) forwarded 1rioistions identified in the subject inspection
,
Coatswealth Edison responsa to reference (al forwarded by
,
reports.
reference (b) was reviensed, f.wna to be unacceptable, and rejected by
L
f
,
Reference (d) provided additional information regarding
,
reference (c).
[
l
oorrective actions taken in response to violations at Bfron Station
g
.
,
j
identified in reference (a),.and aSarasses the NRC cosaments contained-
l
in reference (c).
,
j
,
-
A review of re'eranoe (d) revealoo -unacceptable commitments in response -
-
-
to violation 2.
Wese unacceptable commitments are identified below:
.
k
1.
The Ceco causitmeot to review training /qualif *
,Lon/ certification
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
I
l
>
g
8011140.700 001013
6
j
,
MURPHY 00-344
pen
F
i
i
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ - ~ _ , _ .
.
.
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ , _ . _ . _ _ ,.
_, _ - - - . - - -
_
- - - . _ - . _
. _ _ _ _ _ .
.
..
.
,
&
<
w
.
1
.
\\
~
11/30/82
.2
D. Danielson
_
-
.
A
of his inspection would not have determined the existence /non-
existence of problemas such as those identified in referen*Nr (a)..
The Ceco casitzent to establish acceptability of in7pections
2.
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
Ceco should
have performed inspections of scene festarea.
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
.. 4where a saople is used to verify acceptability of a
,
p
.
"
-
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
SELECTEVERYSTHINSPECTORFRbACHRON014GICALLISTINGOFALLINSPECTORS
1.
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
ELDENT BEING REJECTED.
7
IF TE REJECTION RATE RD4AINS GREATER TSAN 10% FOR SUBJECTIVE PARAMETERS
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
.
.
j
4
_.
_
_ __ _ _
.
.
.
.
..
<
.
CONTRACTORS WHO PERFORMED SAFETY-RELATED INSTAL *.ATIONS
.
Containment Liner
)
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
'
Contracting & Material
ESW Make-Up Line
)
or buried and therefore
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
Operational Analysis
Department. No re-
inspections are warrented.
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
'
,
y
,
--
-
-
-
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
,
.
e
&
-
-
- u
y.g
.?
o
,
.
.
.? ,',* o
lg
ac
j
e
,
~
.
e
e
..,
2#
e.!
~.
e
(
E
dd
R
U
s.
HWTER CORPORATION
,,
Level II
[J
p.=0 d[
4,
[
4 .-
e %g
.?g ~E g ?U
.,, 2 6Y
Z
sd
o
s
e
j
&e
s
~
'g E'r
ESga . ;
e.
~
,
~
s
. . .. E . . . . . u
.
. . .
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.r e
-
!r
-
e
'
/
% o.
f fe
,
o
t
C
el s ' '
e.r5
?,
4*
y
a
a.
,I,
ETTER CORPORATION
,I
g
c
o
.
g
Level I
g4
'y 4
pp[
gg
f
@
rJ ?21
.y o n
L~
-
11 1/1
s/f
s/
s" /.r
e
"
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 i:: .N. s!U l
!
/
E
b
S
m
s
t
,(
-
g.I.
HUNTER CORPORATION
ia
d
L
,
,
Level II
8[
',* J [ gffy,,[),
,y
[
d
n' t
U$h
EO 52
i
4
%
e
f ** g
'g g * 'C y a b'
$
U.
0 E . 2.%
e a le.?A 6
.l
j_' . . _
J. Arnold
06/26/78
C
10 yr
64 hr
Yes
J. Baker
12/28/31
C
152
Yes
C. Batchelder
05/14/79
C
12 mo
11
58
Yes
H. Brimer
05/12/80
A
5
96
Yes
J. Brown
03/24/78
C
24
10
136
Yes
'
S. Burstein
06/16/80
C
17
88
Yes
-
S. Buta
12/10/80
C
9
104
Yes
8
40
Yes
J. Campbell
02/05/31
C
R. Cantley
09'/28/79
C
9
120
Yes
.
12
56
Yes
U. Christie
03/09/81
C
8
48
Yes
R. Clark
12/10/80
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
6. Hunt
05/25/81
C
20
72
Yes
G. Inboden
07/31/80
C
24
6
104
Yes
R. Johnson
06./04/79
3
6
32
Yes
'
T. Johnson
06/22/82
C
6
4
76
Yes
l
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
(
J. Lincoln
01/20/82
C
12
7
128
Yes
.
i
R. Lowden
07/07/80
C
17
120
Yes
< >
!
'
-1-
'
l
s
- - ~
-
. . .
.
__
_ _ _ _ . , . _ _ .
.
.
.
I.,,.
-1-
O.Gv ./Id'r'rTS
,
.
/{akdouh
'
REINSPECTION PROGRAM
(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.
(
'
1
'
RT/.1wp-oo21p
,
. . ,
.
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).
4.
Proposed
corrective
action
to
stipulated
requirement
was
found
!
"
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.
D.
(3) Subjective inspections would be rtubject to independent third
party review to establish true rejectability.
j
.
,4
(
,
t
,
.
..
_
.
.
_ . _ , _ , , - _ , _ _ - _ , , . . . . , - _ . . _ _ _ . , _ , , , _ - - _ . . . . _ _ .
_ . _ _ _ - , . ,
-
_ . , . _ .
_,
_ _ , _ _ _ . - . . , - , _ , . _ . _
.
-
.
.
.
.
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
8
29%
81 cunt
28
-
JcI
7
5 *l
71%
.
Hunter
84
21
25%
-
Nisco
8
4
50%
HECo
86
22-
26%
21
19 *3
90%
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
8.144
6.936
149
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
w r q=m s. a s
reisyen. tim
_
..
..
+
.
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
,
4
-
t.
l
.
'
i
_ _ _ _ _ _
_
_
..
-
.
'
-6-
,
,
.
,
O
+
'
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
a
,
l
1
at/jwp-oo21p
..
_ _ _ _
.
_7
.
.,
,
.
.
Inspection
Status of
.
Tvoe
Reinspection
Condition
17
inspectors
who
performed
Hunter
objective
Complete
.
objective inspections, acceptable
at end of first 3 month period.
1
inspector
who
parfqrmed
objective
inspections
did
not
,
have minimum quantity in first 3
month period, nor in second 3
i
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
.
reinspected.
a
.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
t
l
'
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.
No
bN
f y g
eh weld.s
77<=bl b 7
~
f&
'f**h
%j
eeyhWe
6
/%
3
i
y
.
l
-
.
,
,,
!
'
RT/jwp-0021p
. . , __
.,
--_-e---
=
. - - -
y
-.
,-
--
___
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
, , . . , ,
. . .
.
9-
-
t
-
-
l
..
,
i
Inspection
Status of
'
Type
Reinspection
Conditio.n
.
,
'
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
Inspection
Status Of
l
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
..
- - - - - - - _ , -
,
.
, , , ,
,- -
- - - -
.,ayw--
a.,w
,, - -,.
,
.
.
.
MAYcc
-
.. ,.
.
,
SEPTEMBER 22, 1983
.
.
PAGE 1 0F 3
-
,
- "h#
REINSPECTION OF QC INSPECTOR WORK
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
CATEGORY B
CRATER
INCOMPLETE FUSION
OVERLAP
,
POROSITY
-
UNDERCUT
UNDERRUN
'
'
CATEGORY C
CRACKS
'
-
I
'
\\
,
l
'-
!
,
'
i
i
a
,
1
.
f e'h
Nt'
fl
O
1
- -y
__
. .
-_
_.
.-
_
.
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
'
~ifi
LESS THAN 10%
- id
.
ini
B2
WELD STRENGTH PROPERTIES REDUCED
M
-
GREATER THAN 10%
~,-
CATEGORY C
WELD DISCREPANCY RESULTS IN WELD REJECTION.
,3
-
.
-
.
'
}
7
,
.
f.is! ,
.. = %
-
.
I
'
$!!
e.m
5. . I
..
1
f
. p. l
'
.
.-
.,
e
h
g
8
-
_ _
-
-_
, _ . . . .
-
1
..
,
.
.
-
I
f
. . . . . .
I
'
e
.
.
.
.
(
'
SEPTEMBER 22, 19:
PAGE 3 0F ?
.
.
ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF WELD DISCREPANCIES
.
.
'
.
RESULTS
'
.
"
-
f.
'
CONTRACTOR
WELD CUAllTY CATiGORY
'A
B1
B2
C
.$..
w.
-
.
Di k -
2
13
6
31
-*W=g.* -
s
-
,
-
.
'
'
y?'
(
HEC 0
'
1
12
37
-
4.-
s.
' TOTAL
14
18
68
.
t. . .
-
.
.,
.
,
-
'
'
2:
..,
.
FACTOR
ALLOWABLE STRESS 1 1.0
0F
ACTUAL STRESS
3
-
-
SAFETY
'
-
I
n
v;
3.
FSAR COMMITMENT HAS El BEEN COMPROMISED.
'
..
.
.
_
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.
FOR PEABODY
'
ALL INSPECTORS WHO HAD RECREATABLE, ACCESSIBLE ?!OoK
WERE REINSPECTED.
INSUFFICIENT DATA TO DRAW
i
CONCLUSION OF EFFECTIVENESS.
,
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
1,
50-454/82-05
- l
'
'
.
I
2.
,
'
l
- '
3 ',
INSPECTOR QUALIFICATIONS
i
(
4
REINSPECTION PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
ii
!
j
l
l
5.
PROPOSALS FOR REINSPECTION PROGRAM
!
i
,
l
!
i
i
'
i
i
1
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
COMPARISON OF INSPECTOR'S BASIS OF
j
QUALIFICATION AGAINST COMPLEX NUMERICAL
FORMULA
,
FOURTH PROPOSAL
,
REINSPECTION ON AN INSPECTOR SAMPLE
SELECTION BASIS
l
C,
NRC REGION III ACCEPTED
4
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
-
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
0F REINSPECTION PROGRAM
g
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
'
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
l
4,
IF AGREEMENT - INSPECTOR PASSED
'
.
{
t
,
i
1
'
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
!
!
!
'
,
-
, - - - - - - - - - -
-.-,, - - . ,
- ,-
--_s-,-
..-,m
m---- . - = =-- ,..-,_ . . - .O.._-
-m-,.--
. , _ - - .
-..-,._~-.n.
,v.-.
---.- - - - - - - . - - - -
m
__ -__-__ _-_ _
.
.
-
.
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
ASSESS
REINSPECTION
'
'
THRESHOLD
THRESHOLD
ACCEPTABILITY
INCOMPLETE
BLOUNT
8
--
--
--
,
j
JCl
4
1
--
--
HUNTER
20
--
--
--
i
NISCO
4
--
--
--
.
HATFIELD
17
--
--
--
i
P-A-P
13
5
1
4
-
PITTSBURGH
9
--
--
--
PEAB0DY
--
--
--
--
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
ASSESS
REINSPECTION .
'
i
.
THRESH 0LD
THRESHOLD
ACCEPTABILITY
INCOMPLETE
j
i
l
BLOUNT
--
--
--
--
JCl
4
--
--
--
HUNTER
16
1
--
--
NISCO
4
'
--
--
--
,
MATFIELD
6
1
1
l
--
P-A-P
8
10
1
--
,
PITTSBURGH
11
1
2
4
--
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
'
-
TOTAL NUMBER
DISCREPANCIES WITH
I
~
C0flTRACTOR
OF INSPECTIONS
SAMPLE SIZE
DESIGN SIGNIFICAf;CE
l ,
)
i
BLOUNT
23
28
0
,
o,
JOHNSON
l
'
C0flTROLS
47
47
0
,
HuflTER
681
125
0
.
,
tilSC0
12
12
0
.
HATFIELD
,
J
ELECTRIC
1957
200
0
l
i
i
POWERS
AZC0
l
(
POPE
336
80
0
.
PITTSBURGH
TESTING
69
69
0
PEAB0DY
TESTING
NONE
--
--
-
,
i
'
i
j
'
i
i
)
1
l
3
i
'
n
l
u
y
--
. - -
,
---,p
-
--m -- + -.
_-,,. .,_ .-
,_--
_y7
_ _.
%.__,__
___4
, , , ,
,,7,,-,.
-,-. --
_.
_.
,
.
1-27-84
g
4*
IV.
CONCLUSIONS
.
k.
1,
CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATION PROGRAMS ARE EFFECTIVE.
,.
BLOUNT
l
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
(
)
POWERS-A2CO-POPE
QUALIFICATION PROGRAM NOT
i
-
,
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
'
ALTHOUGH SOME REWORK WAS DONE, NO REWORK WAS REQUIRED
!
<
a
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 ' uring the 16onth of November,1983.
J
!
1
CONTRACTORS
MANHOURS
l
i
u
l
A&M Insulation
5,964
i
i
Blount
117,615
j
Diamond Power
2.995
l
t
,
Hatfield Electric
147,593
l
I
'
Hunter
194,404
l
8,327
!
j
.
l
Midway
3,577
[
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
j
Transco
846
l
1,819
i
1
Wallace
1,659
l
4
1
/
)
W. W skie
]
Project Construction Dept.
f
i
Syron Station
)
1
WB/rc
l
cet
M. Hinds
Fo7. #- F r,Jy u
(
Job Site File
/
.
W. Biskie
'
' ^ ^ ~ ~
~
.
- .
.
.
-
- -
-
, - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ , - . _ - _
._. - _. ..
- _. - _ . .
_ - .
_ . _ .
-
_ _
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
Blount
89,568
l
r
Diamond Power
1,905
'
Hatfield Electric
115,906
Hunter
210,505
l
t
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
H. H. Robertsen
!
4
--
Tech-Sil
3,353
f
Transco
840
1,303
'
Wallace
2,400
-
I
-
d iskie
i
Project Construction Dept.
Byron Station
WB/rc
i
.
(
cci
M. Hinds
Job Site File
W. Biskie
'
.
'
.-,n
, - -
---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)
"
Rapidfax
H Street
-
MNBB
3M Ext #727
'
Phillips Bldg.
3M Ext #728
,
!
Silver Springs
!
'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
-_.
.
m
.
.
.
.
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.
III.
Evaluations of the Sidnificance of Identified Hardware Discrepancies
d
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.
-2-
i
}
.
.
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
With what frequency have these types of identified deficiencies
j
I
occured? Cracked welds for example, would automatically fall into
4
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
program final report, dated January 12, 1984, car. tot bs supported.
1
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
margins for structural welding ( considering fatigue, material
l
i
!
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