ML20236P794
| ML20236P794 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 11/12/1987 |
| From: | Hansel J, Ross G TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4862 OL, NUDOCS 8711190012 | |
| Download: ML20236P794 (36) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - _ _ _. -- _
~
e e-
-00LKETED thNHC Filed: November 12, 1987
'87 NOV 16 P5 :33 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
[0 [Ndk';jk NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the i;atter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-445-OL
)
50-446-0L TEXAS UTILITIES GEfERATING
)
COMPANY et al.
)
)
(Application for an (Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Operating License)
Station. Units 1 and 2)
)
)
ANSWERS TO BOARD'S 14 QUESTIONS (Memo; Proposed Memo of April 14, 1986)
Recardino Action Plan Results Report VII.b.1 In accordance with the Board's Memorandum: Proposed Memo-rendum and Order of April 14, 1986, the Applicants submit the answers of the Comanche Peak Response Team ("CPRT") to the 14 questions posed by the Board, with respect to the Results Report published by the CPRT in respect of CPRT Action Plan VII.b.1, "On-site Fabrication."
l Openina Request:
I Produce copies of any CPRT-generated checklists that were used during the conduct of the action plan.
8711190012 871112 PDR ADOCK 0500 5
g I
l..
a-r i-Response:-
'Following are the titles of checklists used during the conduct of-this Action Plan:
- Procedure Review Criteria
- Checklist for Review of Current Procedures. Relative to On-site. Fabrication
- Checklist for Surveillance of Fab-shop Activities
- Survey' Checklist
- Checklist for Documentation Review of Sample. Items
- Checklist for Surveillance of Current ASME Documentation Review Activities u
l l'
- Checklist for Surveillance of Current Non-ASME "Q" Docu-t mentation Review Activities
-Question fha. 1:
1.
Desc~ ribe-the problem areas addressed in the report.. Prior l
to' undertaking to address those areas through sampling.
l what did Applicants do to define the problem areas further?
How did it believe the problems arose?
What did it dis-cover about'the QA/QC documentation for those areas?
How extensive did it believe the' problems were?
Response
The'NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) identified seven find-ings relative to on-site fabrication shop activities as a result of its investigation of allegations involving activities of the
" iron _ fabrication shop."
These seven findings concerned mate-rial traceability'and control, work performed without proper documentation, personnel's lack of familiarity with applicable procedures. incomplete QC surveillance of materials storage, inadequate procedures, and lack of compliance with procedures.
4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-- J
l ba-f I
The NRC identified action to be taken by TUEC:
evaluating the TRT findings, addressing the root cause and generic implica-tions of each. finding, addressing the collective significance of the findings, and proposing an action plan that would ensure that such problems would not occur in the future.
l A preliminary investigation by the QA/QC Review Team indi-cated that, except for the fuel pool liner fabrication effort, only a small amount of safety-related work was performed in the on-site fabrication shop prior to January 1980.
Fabrication and inspection records for this work are contained in the documenta-tion packages of a completed assembly.
However, because of modifications, the fabrication of components often occurs peri-odically throughout the installation and checkout phases of an item.
Consequently, a documentation package for a completed assembly may include inspection data entries covering a time span of five years or more.
This Action Plan assessed the adequacy of procedural con-trols of on-site fabrication activities at CPSES, including fabrication in the on-site fabrication shop as well as fabrication-type activities performed within the plant during installation.
Implementation of this Action Plan evaluated each NRC-TRT finding regarding past on-site fabrication shop activi-ties and NRC conclusions thereto.
An in-depth survey and evalu-ation of present activities relative to the identified issues /
concerns revealed no discrepancies.
Although inadequacies relatable to the NRC-TRT findings and other external source _______-_-____A
4 L
issues were identified in the: historical procedures and the QC records evaluated.- the' conclusion was reached that currently-implemented controls in the fabrication shop effectively address these issues and concerns..
Question No. 2:
2.
Provide'any procedures or other internal documents that.are necessary to understand how the checklists should be inter-preted or applied.
Response
The checklists used during conduct of this. Action Plan were prepared in'accordance'with QA/QC Review Team Comanche Peak Procedure-CPP-023.. Revision 0..
The checklists are self-explanatory..and no procedure or instruction is required to understand their use.
Question No. 3,:
' 3.. < Explain any deviation of checklists from the inspection report documents. initially used in inspecting the same attributes.
Response
The checklists genereted for implementation of'this, Action Plan support activities unique to this Action Plan.
Consequently, no comparable inspection documents were in use at CPSES.
Question No. 4:
4.
Explain the extent to which the checklists contain fewer attributes than are required for conformance to codes to which Applicants are committed to conform.
j l
i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
e
' Response:
The checklists contain attributei consistent with'10'CFR 50, Appendix B.
The checklists were nat intended to demonstrate conformance with 10'CFR 50. Appendix B. but were used to inves-tigate particular aspects of the TRT findings.
Question No. 5:
5.
(Answer Question 5 only if the answer to Question 4.is, that the checklists do contain fewer attributes.)
Explain the engineering basis, if any, for believing that the safety margin for components.(and the' plant) has not been degraded-by using checklists that contain fewer attributes than are required for conformance to codes.
Response
This question is not applicable by reason of the response to question 4.
Question No. 6:
6._
Set forth any changes in checklists while they were in use, including the dates of the changes.
Response
No changes to checklists were made.
Question No. 7:
7.
Set forth the duration of training in the use of checklists and a summary of the content of that training, including field training or other practical training.
If the train-ing has changed or retraining occurred, explain the reason 4
for the changes or retraining and set forth changes in l
duration or content.
Response
The checklists generated for implementation of this Action Plan are self-explanatory.
Therefore, no training in their use was required.
(
i 1
L
- 1 c___----
o Question No. 8:
8.
Provide any information in Applicants' possession concern-ing the accuracy of use of the checklists (or.the inter-1 observer reliability in using the checklists).
Were there l
any time periods in which checklists were-used with questionable training or QA/QC supervision?
If applicable, are problems of inter-observer reliability addressed statistically?
Response
The checklists used are self-explanatory; no training was required,' and no problems with their use were noted.
Inter-observer reliability was not a concern and was not addressed.
Question No. 9:
9.
Summarize all audits or supervisory reviews (including reviews by employees or consultants) of training or of use of the checklists.
Provide the factual basis for believing that the audit and review activity was adequate and that each' concern of the audit and review teams has been resolved in a way that is consistent with the validity of conclusions.
Response
The checklists used are self-explanatory.
No audits or supervisory reviews of training or their use were performed.
Question No. 10:
10.
Report any instances in which draft reports were modified i
in an important substantive way as the result of management
{
action.
Be sure to explain any change that was objected to j
(including by an employee. supervisor, or consultant) in writing or in a meeting in which at least one supervisory or management official or NRC employee was present.
]
Explain what the earlier drafts said and why they were modified.
Explain how dissenting views were resolved.
Response
J No substantive changes have been made as a result of man-agement action.
'. E Question No. 11:
);
11.
Set:forth'any unexpected difficulties that were encountered in completing the work of each task force and that would be helpful to the. Board in understanding the process by which' conclusions were reached..How were each of these un-expected difficulties resolved?
Response:'
No unexpected' difficulties were encountered lthat affected the process by which the conclusions'were reached.
Question No. 12:
'12.
Explain any-ambiguities or open items in the Results Report.
Response
The Results Report contains no known open items or ambiguities..
Ouestion No. 13:
- 13.
Explain.the extent to which there are actual or apparent.
conflicts of interest. including whether a worker or super-visor was reviewing or evaluating his own work or supervis-ing any' aspect of the review or evaluation of his own work or the work of those he previously supervised.
i
Response
I To the best of our knowledge, no conflicts of interest exist.
Question No. 14:
14.
Examine the report to see that it adequately discloses the thinking and analysis used.
If the language is ambiguous or the discussion gives rise to obvious questions, resolve the ambiguities and anticipate and resolve the questions. _ _ _ - _ _
r li Jr0 1.
t
[4
Response
The Results Report clearly. discloses the logic.and analysis used, without ambiguity.
Respectfully. submitted, b/.
I G.
W.:Ross
. Action Plan.VII,b.1
-Issue Coordinator
- MOL14, n
J.
L. Hansel
[
Review Team Leader The CPRT. Senior Review Team has reviewed the foregoing responses and' concurs in them, i
a l
l
-8_
m___m.,._
i l-@-00l
{
N SAuf Ig 1 ISAP VII.b.1 PROCEDURE REVIEW CRITERIA
'Do the procedures adequately provide for:
1)
Title with issue or effective date.
l l
2)
Listing.of all applicable references.
3)
Complete purpose and scope.
4)
Responsibility for implementation.
5)
Personnel qualifications requirements are identified.
6)
Instructions (detailed instructions including delineation of required inspection points).
I 7)
Acceptance criteria for all inspected attributes.
'8)
Processing of nonconforming attributes.
9)'
Documentation requirements.
(i.e., How to fill out documents or other wise record data or document the acceptance of an attribute inspected.)
10) i Review and processing of records.
- 11) Attachments referenced and their use clearly defined.
l l
1 i
e 1112/ MISC 9
s tn e
m mo C
s ttA
.o f c.
ro e P
R
- c. 'q s.
e t
e Drm R
CN t
dC t.
sn I
'l eu PQ
-pse R
lr c uS P
f e
R e
lt i
T ETAD F.
F E
l.Y ER e
I N w" }4 2 D% i o d a
t lII l
l-B - ook o,
If4 VII.b.1 ONSITE FABRICATION
-Title: Checklist for Review of Current Procedures Relative to Onsite Fabrication Prepared by:
de_.
u Concurred by:
d-PA E N
f/r/rz Scope:
Review of selected procedures current revisions, affecting onsite fabrication utilizing 10CPR50 AFP B Criteria.
Purposes Provide basis for evaluation of current procedure adequacy.
Yes: Response indicates criteria as addressed is satisfactory in current revision to procedure.
2 No: Response indicates criteria as addressed is unsatisfactory / incomplete in current revision to procedure.
N/A: Not applicable-condition / criteria not pertinent.to this procedure.
4 1308/ MISC 10 1
e Y
- ? sI ".
.Pbgs 1 of 3 7'URVEY' CHECKLIST,.IS P-VII.b.1-'
S 7
Part I.
10 CFR 50 Appendix'B.
'Y.
INSTRUCTIONS,i PROCEDURES AND
~
DRAWINGS YES.
' Alb N/A_
1.
Documented description of activities affactina quality.
Function to be performed Personnel Qualification-Regt's.~
Sequence'of Operations
1 Inspection Points'
'S'et-ups,' equipment & tools Process - Flow Drawing Numbers, and Revision Specification Documentation Requirements Handling, Storage, Cleanliness Raw material, type, size and identification
.2.
Inclusion of acceptance criteria in prescribed documentation
]
Accept / reject criteria defined Workmanship criteria Nonconformance controls Tools, gages & test equipment Drawing No., revision and nomenclature
- - Characteristics to be f'
inspectpd, tolerances
- Data
- collection, processing i
susotenw9
'I
= ___
- ' - ^ -
t
'Pcge 2 of 3
-SURVEY CHECKLIST ISAP VII.b.1 Part 1 j
'VII. IDENTIFICATION AND CONTROL OF.
JET NO' N/A l
MATERIALS, PARTS AND MATERIALS 1.
Establishment and maintenance of
~
item identification and control procedures-l
, Raw material Parts ' components, assemblies Methods-articles & records
- Codes-color, heat, date 2.
Traceability of items / materials At all levels of assembly and
. inspection-
. Complete identification
- Forward
- Backward Dates of performance of operation I.
INSPECTION 1.
Documented planning of inspection activities Scope Organizational responsibilities 2.
Establishment and execution of inspection prosram Equipment requirements Personnel requirements 1
3.
Independence of inspector 1098/ MISC 9 s
n. 3.
f.
Paga'3 of 3; k
SURVEY CHECKLIST ISAP'VII.b.1 Part I
-l
'10 CFR 50 Appendix B YES' No N/A 4.'._ Inspector qualifications-
- 5. -- Options for inspection monitorina 6.
Recognition of hold points
'7.
Statistical technique 8.
Documentation and-evaluation of inspection results c.
I
'4
- XIII.' HANDLING / STORAGE 1.. Control'of handlina,'liftina and rianina Handling instructions
'Special equipment
{
2.
Control of storate Facilities Protection of articles Segregation of nonconforming materials / articles Housekeeping, cleanliness i
controls
'l i
a 1098/ MISC 9 m
l*"..
J.f ~ 003' hf,]
VII.b.1 ONSITE FABRICATION l
Title:
Checklist for Surveillance of Fab-Shop Activities Prepared by:
O,.,_, I 5 m I, Concurred by:
[A2; Scope:.
In-house surveillance of construction and inspection activities in the fab-shop.
Purpose:
Provide bases for evaluation of QC and Craft adherence to fabrication and inspection procedures.
Yes:
Response indicates acceptable condition based on procedural requirements.
No:
Response indicates unacceptable condition based on procedural requirements.
N/A:
Means not applicable checklist item.
Items:
1,3 and 5 are self explanatory Item 6:
Provides for a list of different documents used in ordering items fabricated.
A k
1320/ MISC 11
~
-4..
I g
Survey Checklist, ISAP Vll.b.1
- Part li i
- 1. Type'of fabrication-prior to use of material forfabrication the QC inspectorshall
.)
. verify that items or materials used have been accepted for co'nstruction,
. A, Pipe, support, cable tray,etc:ID No:
h B,' Drawing and revision level No:
C. Type material 1
D. Accepted for construction.-
Yes -
No l
2, Fabrication operation performed.
Yes No-N/A A, Cutting.
. B. Welding C, Threading D. Bending E. Other -
- 3. Material traceability-Material traceability to accepted documentation, or on the item shall be maintained at all times in shop or field fabrication activities.
A. Type of materialspec / grade B. Class C. Transfer of ID prior to cut. Yes No D. Filler metal 10 E Materialsegregated Yes -
No
- 4. Properfabrication documentation-Verification of materials shall be made on the MWDC, MRS, or the Operational Traveler as required.
Yes No N/A A. M RS.
B. MWDC.
C MR D. Hanger Material Request E, QC Verification F Procedure and revision identified G. Record Control i
H. Welder ID Qualified i
34)'
- 5. General Area-Itis the responsibility of the craftsuperintendent to determine the specific requirements for each situation in regard to maintaining the cleanliness conditions.
Good Fair Poor A Housekeeping
. B, Storage C. Lighting
'6. Determine the methods utlllzed to initiate fabrication shop work,
- 7. Comments, l
1
__.:____,--____m_--_--_
I - B -00Y
^
Pcge 1 cf.3 ISAP VII.h.1 - ON SITE FABRICATION Survey Checklist i
Survey No; i
Survey Date:
1 i
Survey Area:
CPSES Fabrication Shop Scope:
In depth survey of current fabrication shop activities-to determine the adequacy of present procedural and management j
controls. This checklist has three parts:
Part I Review of current implementing procedures versus applicable 10CFR50 Appendix B criteria to verify adequacy.
Part II Verification of the implementation'of defined procedural controls.
Part III Evaluation of current fabrication shop activities relative to the External Issues identified in References A, B, C below.
Reference Documents:
A.
USNRC Letter, January 8, 1985, Issue 8 B.
SSER-11, Appendix 0, QA/QC Category 5B, Allegation AQ-138 i
C.
SSER-11, Appendix P, QA/QC Program Area 4 D.
B&R Instruction QI-QAP-11.1-28, Rev. 34 q
F.
B&R Construction Procedure CF-CPM 6.9 and Appendices 6.9A through 6.9I G.
B&R Construction Procedure CP-CPM 7.3 and Appendix 7.3B H.
TUGC0 Instruction QI-QP-11.14-4, Rev. 15 3
i Personnel Contacted:
1 4
Survey Performed by:
Checklist Approved:
1098/ MISC 9
Pa ge_3:, o f 3 T.'et III, Surysy Checklist, ISAP.b.1.,
Onsite Fabrication SURVEY No. :
RE F.
ITEM
' DOC NO.
SURVEY ITEM SAT UNSAT REMARKS El Is.the scrap and salvage pile in the fabrication (Fab) shop laydown yard identified?L Is access restricted? Is indeterminate material marked as scrap?
2 Do material requisitions in.the Fab Shop comply with the applicable procedure?
3
'Is-the Fabrication Shop foreman familiar with the procedures that control work under his.
-. responsibility? Are personnel asked to perform, or are they perforaing work without. knowledge of the required paperwork? Are parts fabricated without hanger packages, travelers, or drawings?
4 Do fabrication and installation procedures include information to ensure that Brown & Root fabricated-threads conform to design specifications or to an applicable standard?
t
=5 Are indeterminate bulk materials singled with controlled safety and non-safety material in the fabrication shop laydown yard?
6 Is site surveillance of material being performed and documented?
7 Is work in the Fab Shop being performed in response to menos and sketches instead of hanger.
packages, travelers, and controlled drawings?
8 Is there evidence of illegal post-dating of.
~
paperwork?
(gr. '
.2
"+'.L 9
Is Electrical and Iron Fab Shop material consolidated and mixed?
l 4
10 Do electrical personnel use undocumented materialf,
.c
- ,..a,
u 4
a j
" i g
u Pa ge 5 o f 3 -
Part III,- Survcy Checklist, ISAP.b.1.,
Onsite Fabrication
. i s.
SURVEY No. :
RE F.
ITEM DOC NO.
SURVEY ITEM SAT UNSAT REMARKS I
' ll
'Are un' documented weld repairs being made on base material?
12
'Are are. cuts being cut too closely to cut lines?
- 13 Are items such as besa clips being cracked'during bending?
14 Is unused material being returned to the' warehouse?
I s
.).
bm
.., s..,
E 4;.-
e r
e 0
. s-
[
j iP.
e l
e-e 9
Ae e
~
~
- -=,;-
- h 19:. R ?Q pag:.1,_
l ' ~ 6 - bob ^
4 29-86 Page 1 of 5 i;
VII.b.1 Onsite Fabrication
Title:
Checklist for Documentation Review of Sample Itime Pieparedby
/[ M / m a > M Concurred by _ d [j I N 2 4 Ca'tFgory 1 ISAP Supervisor
-Scope:
.The selected sample items identified by ISAP VII.b.1 that were partially fabricated at the Iron Fab Shop.
Purpose:
Checklist for review sad evaluation of adequacy and completeness of TUGC0 i) documentation Packages for the ISAP -
VII.b.1 sample items.
1.-
Applicable quality documents per procedure (s)/rev in effect at date of sign off.
2A.
Through 2D - Hechanics of inspection documentation have applied:
(i.e. blanks completed, corrections lined through, initialed and dated.)
n 3A. Through 3G - self explanatory.
. 4.
Information consistent. (i.e. heat bumbers, material sizes, configuration) changes can be identified through existing documentation, fabrication and installation process can be traced.
5.
Inspection results have been clearly and correctly identified.
)
6.
List inspectors, earliest and latest dates of inspection (s) performed, certification -level'or procedure required to perform inspection. Explain no response on sheet 5 of 5.
7.
' List welder symbol, WPS, dates of Weld, whether qualified. Explain no responses.
)
8.
Page 4 of 5 for Review of Material Traceability explain discrepancies.
9.
Page 5 of 5 use for additional notes, comments pertinent to
- package, s
0903/ MISC 7
-i ISAP VII b.1 Dscubant R:vicw-Pack 532 I.D..
j H
Pcg2'2~cff Reviewer:
j Dater 1.
'Is procedurally required documentation for operations performed.
present?
'YES NO If no.
Explain-i 4
1 1
Yes No Comments 2.
A.' All required entries-legible?
q B.
All entries completed appropriately?
C.
All operations signed off in correct sequence?;
D.
All corrections / changes properly performed and annotated?
3.-
All Inspection Records identify the following:
Yes No list unsatisfactory' Items A.
Item inspected B.
Date of inspection C.
Inspector D.. Type of Observation E.
Results or Acceptability F.
Reference to Action Relative to Non-1 Conformances C.
Applicable Drawing.
Specification. Procedure and revision levels i
e 4
0903/ MISC 7
e Psekag2 1.D.
Page3 off 4.
Are all entries on related documents consistent?
(i.e. Conflicts?)
YES NO If no, Explain 5.
Are all required inspections complete and acceptable?
YES NO If no, l
Explain:
i 6.
Certs Inspector Date of Inspec.
Yes No Procedure / Requirement 7.
Symbol Qual.
Welder WPS Date Yes No Comments i
f l-l 0903/ MISC 7
,--,-.--------,--,r-
-,r-, - - -, - -
.w----
r---, -, - - - - - - - - -r- - - - - - -. - - - -
,e n
,J O
E 5
E E
m f
a I
- q.
l 5
aic:.l a 1,
E 2
a 15 W *
=
5 ti R
e w
E
=
8:
i i
i o
T
--w--,
l
[
,y Package I.D.'
Page 5 of (
COMMENT SHEET t
O i
J I
i 0903/ Misc 7
r f.6 - 06 6
.)
f VII.b.1 ONSITE FABRICATION
Title:
Checklist for Surveillance of Current ASE Documentation Review Activities
~ Prepared bys' bo 2. M,,
Concurred by:
[
9 Pot MWbNdt
' Scope:
Surveillance of current ASE-documentation package review -
activities.
Purpose:
Provide basis for evaluation of the current review process. for ASE documentation package -review.
Note:
Surveillance Checklist is based on Attachment #3 to B&R Procedure CP-QAP-12.1, Rev. 17.
Yes:
' Response-indicates acceptable condition based on documentation package being reviewed.
No:
Response indicates unacceptable condition based on documentation package being reviewed.
1 i
N/A:
Non applicable checklist attribute for documentation package being reviewed.
l 1
l l
1306/ MISC 10
]
PEE I 0F4 Q
. DOCUMENT TEVIEW SUR VElLLANC.E 15 AP EL b. l PAC.KEE ID REYlEMR mn IEE Dr REWIW REVlEWED To PGtfDURE Trv A.
CamAL DoCatrianW YEI m
WA
- 1. Des umat is legahia.
- 2. Deement la seaplete.
- 3. Deewment ta trasenhia to the assivity.
- 4. Ce:Teetimes are ande by listas through. initialing and dattes the entry.
- 3. The deemmat has been eegisted la blask tak.
3.
MAIIRZAL/EQtrEPWT DOCBERTAT15 Mazarfal Ramm1mittame Ong qt-QAP-11.1-16. & Q1-447-t i
11.1-18)
- 1. Verify estarial/equipeast lastalled has been properly vertiled by QC1 acceptable verificaties.
- 2. Verify that estarial/ equipment Code Class is as spesified, er of a higher Code Class, for the imsta11stias.-
- 3. Verify assersey of the appliaahla heat. lat. mark.
spia, serial, ses., number of tha~ matertal/equipeast.
C.
INSTArittgm DOCIBENN'TW 1.
afants -- Raesed Fra Oes; QI-447-11.1-14 4 QI-4AP=11. o-15) a) Derity assuseer of desten dessing iham==4+=-
b) verify that QCI has signed /iaittalad and dated aer ensk of the is11estas as app 11 amble: Itas ember, gemsnity, bees us1d and prep der pressese retasatas asserials, stas, sehedala of settag, estarial p-me Namedm. gyyg gy ggedg, hagg/ h sucher, and any appliaable saids.
c) Verify that' the unid reestremesas, as welded, correspond to the revistas of the dreetag as whack the final dimenstems were eheshed.
d) Verity that the MI' has esegleted " pes 11ataary revise" of the IAS, and the QC "prellataary revime" is marked N/A.
e) verity that all "eparassses" researtag W1 in-volvement have been initialed and dated by as M1.
f) Based upos asseptability of the W, sign and data the M8 for final "QC Assaptanee."
l l
l l
i
-Q
0F4 C
M KA
- .D
Vf.$
MO N/A this aise Lacaudes hitiple Veld Data Card (ItfDC) and Vender Supplied Cse enest Hedificaties Emeerd(TSOtt).
a) Terify that all quality charesteristies easetated j
es Figure 1, have been complaced by Welding ang-imaerias er QC as applicable.
b) Verify that all QC and ANI held er inspecties pelats have been signed /iaitialed and dated by the appro-praita ergestaaties.
e) Whos delta ferrite is required as a QC heldpotas, verify that the holdpoint has been sempleted by QC and the Welding Technicias, ed that as Inspeettas Esport is attached to the WDC, sheetag the loesties ad reading obtaiand. If us1**de verify pad me. is ref.
'd) When Poet Wald gaat Treatment (PUET) is specified es the UDC, verLfy that the PUEF Cheek 11st has been souplated by QC and attached to the WDC and thes the " Time-Temperature Chart" for FUEt has been verified by QC/Us signature / int. and date.
e) Verify that the Wald Filler Material les (WPIE.;
QI-QAF-11.1-26 & QI-QAP-11.1-23) deemmets the use of the weld filler asterial required by the UDC, and is attaehed to the UDC.
f) Verify that as gds report for the method specified as the UDC, has been cogisted by QC and attaehed to the UDC.
g) Based spes esespeability of the WDC and sepperting deemmets, sign ad data the WDC for final "QC Acceptanes."
- 3. Operatiemal Travelers (Of 8_ Qt 4AP-11.1-26, Q1447-11.1-28) l ore y,e.eedieriss..,
-, - e flasse assembly or disasseely, peg asseely er
{
disassedly, valve asses 41y or disaseeably, throeded cannecties Lase =11.ri=, ets..
I a) Verify that all quality sharesteristics annotated os Figure 2 have been eenpleted by tagineerias er Qs, as applicable.
b) Verify that all QC and ANE hem or taspeettes peines have been signed /iattialed and dated by the appse=
priate orgaminariaa.
c) Terify that sepperting documets sexreted as re-guired by the Of (e.g., NDs Rebrts, Easpecties Baperts..etc..) are attached to the Of.
I
7---------
- ABC 3 0F 4 j
g-PtYML 4
YES ~
No N/A d) All revistees to.the OT have received the required review and approval.
e) Terify that all unsatisfactory Inspostise taperts or IICR's issued agatast the OT have been properly closed.
i f) Verify that all quantitative data recorded, complies with the Iagineettag/QE specified criteria.
4.
Idadification/Espear Deeunents a) Repair Process sheet (RPS QIH3&F-11.1-26 & QI-4AF-11.1 28)
(1) Tarify that. all quality theresteristics assetated i
en Fi ure 3, have been coupleted by Welding d
Engineertag er QC, as applicable.
(2) Yerify that all held or inspessies points have
.been signed /iaitialed and dated by QC.
(3) Verify that the ANI has had the opportunity.to eclest ' hold er inspectica points, and if seleated, have been signed /inistaled and dated by ANT.
(4) Terify that the UFML documents the use oc the wald filler asterial required by the UDC and attached to the RPS, and the WPS requirm2 by
'RFs is utilised.
(5') Yorify that a NDE Report for the method specified on the RFs, has been sempleted by QC and a.stached to the ars.
(6) assed open assertabiltty of the ars and espperties 1
deements, sies and date the ars for "QC asseptaase".
b) lesdifiestsaa las Oled.188: 41-44P-11.1-26)
Review of this docussat shall be is assesdence with paragraph C.1, for those operstismo er bill of asterial itana inserporated for the modifiestion sely.
5.
tiesconfersias Issa Docusesta (Crdlar-16.1)
These documents taalede sca's, useattafastery It's.
suuta's, roar's, ets, a) Terify QA/QC elesere by QA/QC signatore and date is the appropriate spese se the desesent.
b) Tarify asseptability of desumentaties supporting slesere of the sensenfessias item.'hy reviewing the docuent is asserdamse with the applicable preseedlag paragraph.
l' ALE 4 0F 4 M ID EC I
-6.
Material Identificatiee Lee OtIL: QI 4AF-11.1-28)
YES NO N/A and Structural Assent 1F Verificaties Card (1AYC8 QI 4ar-11.1-as) a) Terify that the QCI has signed /1aitialed and dated for eash of the following, as a.aimisms, as applicables Material's siae, schedule er rattag, esterial spostficaties type or grade, and heat /sede/ D sumber.
7.
Cat. 11 Des. Verificaties additianal tastrusstses:
1.
805-43s IR - Balative to final asseptanse, all naaet. attrubstes sleeed.-
2.
305-428 NCE - Verify % cleomre by S signature and date is the appropriate'spasa es the document.
1.
MIL a) Supports that were fabricated / installed before incorporates under this progres, verify that the QC1 has signed / initialed and dated for the configuraties (sise) per 5 0.M. for the asterial.
b) Supports that were fabricated /tastalled after insespersties under this progren, the QCT! will assure that proper material type 4 grade threagh the temportaes ed she,Es.f recorded en the MIL.
/
15AP IIIb l RfYlfWER/ DATE
1-s-007
/44 VII.b.1 ONSITE FABRICATION
Title:
Checklist for Surveillance of current Non-ASME "Q" Documentation Review Activities Prepared by:
1,.
1 u
s J
./
~I
[ifen a, Concurred by:
v Scope:
Random sample surveillance of current Non-ASME "Q" documentation review activities.
Purpose:
Provide basis for evaluation of the current review process for Non-ASME "Q" documentation package review, s
Note:
Surveillance checklist is based on TUGC0 Procedure DQP-SG-3 Rev. O.
Yes: Response indicates acceptable condition based on documentation package being reviewed.
No: Response indicates unacceptable condition based on documentation package being reviewed.
N/A: Non applicable checklist attribute for documentation package being reviewed.
I 1309/ MISC 10
h
'f r MOk. AsHE G.
nocLLME LTATib A)
$ LLE VEILL AAJC.E.
T3M P V/l,13.1 PACKA GE ID REV lE(AIEE L.EVEL.
l DATE 6F REMIEl AJ
.REVittOCD TC 'PROCED(IEE '
Rf.V -
N Z
GEb)EKAl- ~ REG 1tL/RElACA175 p'ES NQ AWs A.
1 DEA!TIF/A BLE To COM*PDA) CWT 3.
TilLM."5. - I Ai K ll5Eh D.,
Cd REECT(ou.5 ~PROPIEL y MADE t
G No (,UHfiE-QCt.T OR. CQRRECt70U T?f?E USE'D l
F.
GC PEE.5 CMME L.
ElCJUWG WERE CERTIFIED G.
DRAldlOG5 CMO.'s OcM's.ETE (UERE ca.RE547 AT TIAhE os' F/AML '/A.L:fkCTiec M.
At L EAITE/E5 L.E 6 / E L K 37,,
DeC(LHEMTATADAl PHCatAGE REVIELD CM"KLiST*
A.
PEo?EE. c He*KUST LIKETh l zg. PACKME /NVTA1DR.V CAths A.
AL.L. REet.liEE.D *bDctLbGUC5' ACCURMTt A Al D LEGIBLE l E I Av.TfECTtOA/
TdEPCET3 A. AL1. RC FMET5 IDEAlnC/ED INIntCBNPCMEQt INC L.U. BED.
B.
ALL. RETMR.T5 ' PRO PERL Y F/U.E'D CLCT.
o
.I
~
.:l
'Y bJok CDW~0EM A UCE RETk>ETS A.
ALL NCK's ' IDLUTIVIEb WsTH CCMPCMEMT i
ARL Ik)C.Lu DCD J
E.
NC R. 'A PRCPLRL4 FILLLD OCLT.
- 1Zr
,"I T E M RE MOVA L A oTIdE1 al A.
A LL i RD'5 lbEA. IFILb W1TH COMTCMCAIT T
AEE INCL U.DCb 3.
iMM PRc7 EELY Cd MPLLTED C.. WQRX PERVQRMED IAl PKDPER 3E6ELENC.E OPEtMTIDU TltAVELER3 A. ALL T?.MLLE25 IDLMTlfil.D CQtTM CDM904EUT NRC. /19C.Lf1 DEL E. 64HGe%. dHAA 6T.5 AMb 12EVl3/oO5 NAl'E 11ELu MCLTNCEfZ4b C.. ALL 3'iE?3 MAUL iSEEU 5tGNLb AAiD DRED 1
D. CRAFT $ tSAJATi19rt AN*bD/nt5 ARE ItEFCEE CE 5AME DMTE A5 C.C E
WORXLb /U 'PRePER' 5ELUCUCA C-CTHCE RE.GUIREb DCCCLNEUTATMN I5 COM.PLETCb AAJh AKACNL D G,
WELDE R5 AEE (CR.TlF/Kb l
wELDLR. 8 O PL DEAWIMG$ A RE pro PE.Rly REVKREhJCK b I
04 THE T1i:AVELE2.
I.
FI uA L M c C E P TM A.Y. E W/L5 PEEFc Et*\\E D
'PER LATL5T RKY15iDN Cf DRACD1MG.
'1tIET ELECT 12 fCA L CAS E CARh3 A. EACM CAEb WA3 C0n?L.ETCD PRDPERLV
7 Nf Y
. j,..
I I
B. TERMtOATIOU CAEDS MEE PROVIDED FOR i
1,50TH ORIGIM AND DE57'IA)Kf/MJ l
[
C MILL DMTE PRECEDES MEGGEif CR TERMikRTIcu DATC5 b.
M E fa G E E V A E PRECEDE 5 TEEMiMATmc DATI'5 2E.
Act1RCARD5 / G-RCCCT CA103 i
i A. CAR.D1 ARE. c4M'PLITEb PEcPERLP
'.'E WELb F7t f #P MATEEIAL L.OG A.
LOCr CO MPLETZ b PEOPfEL.Y
- *2r
+4 ELD 'D ATA CA12D3 /1?EPAIM PRQCEss S HGETs A
dAROS Cce@tETfb "PABvPLEL.Y l
i B. WELDIAiG 15 i DEMT/f/2.b AAth ACCLVTL' D i
6A) LO C H L C. C.CERKCT Lul'LD MRTERIAL WAK USED
- 0. MbE. RE POR.TZ A TE ActEPTED E, YJELb iNG. WA3 TERFORMED PER A PPLiCABLE W P.T G.
W DC. / RE5 HA3 At.tTHQ'R 82Eb W.L.
I NITt A L.
TEEULLLC
/
e m_____
m
i ColKETED USNRC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'87 NDV 16 P5 :33 I, R. K. Gad III, hereby certify that on November 12, 1987, 0FFICE cf ggj gy I made service of " Answers to Board's ~14 QuestioSEsCX(
M VlCf.
Proposed Memo of April 14, 1986) Regarding Action Plan Results Report VII.b.1" by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to:
Peter B.
Bloch, Esquire Asst. Director for Inspection Chairman Programs Administrative Judge Comanche Peak Project Division Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O.
Box 1029 Commission Granbury, Texas 76048 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan Ms. Billie Pirner Garde Administrative Judge GAP-Midwest Office 881 W.
Outer Drive 104 E. Wisconsin Ave.
-B Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Appleton, WI 54911-4897 Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Janice E. Moore Mrs. Juanita Ellis Office of the General Counsel President, CASE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1426 S.
Polk Street Commission Dallas, Texas 75224 Washington, D.C.
20555 Renea Hicks, Esquire Ellen Ginsburg, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Environmental Protection Division Board Panel P. O.
Box 12548 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Capitol Station Commission t
Austin, Texas 78711 Washington, D.C.
20555 i
1
(_
i t
i b.--
Anthony Roisman, Esquire Mr. Lanny.A. Sinkin Suite 600 Christic Institute 1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
1324 North Capitol Street
. Washington, D.C.
20005 Washington, D.C.
20002 l
Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Mr. Robert D. Martin l
Administrative Judge Regional Administrator 1107 West Knapp Region IV
. Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory.
Commission Suite 1000 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Arlington, Texas 76011 Elizabeth B. Johnson Geary S. Mizuno, Esquire l
Administrative Judge Office of the Executive Oak' Ridge National Laboratory Legal Director P.
O.. Box X, Building 3500 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Nancy H. Williams 2121 N. California Blvd.
Suite 390 Walnut Creek, CA 94596
,f i
'R.
K. Gad II'I I