ML20210K577
Text
i u
,,anaru g UNITED' STATES 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I tj wasniwoTow. o. c. rosss
%, . . . .o. s $ f2 1 as MEMORANDUM FOR: Brian K. Grimes, Director Division of Qualit.v Assurance, vendor and Technical Training Center Programs Office of Inspection 4 Enforcement Eric H. Johns ~on, Director Division of Reactor Safety A Projects
,egion R IV Charles E. Rossi, Assistant Director PWR Licensing-A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Vincent S. Noonan, Director 4
,1, PWR Project Directorate #5 Division of Licensing-A
SUBJECT:
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW 0F COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM (CPRT) RESULTS REPORTS l On April 4, 1986, the Applicant provided the staff with five (5) CPRT issue specific action plan (ISAP) results reports (2 electrical, I civil /
- structural, I testing and 1 QA/QC). We can expect 48 issue specific action plan (ISAP) results reports, 3 collective evaluation reports (construction, design, testingl and a final collective significance report to be submitted to the staff from now through October / November 1986.
Resources The resources needed to review these results reports will be requested from the Engineering Branch and Electrical Instrumentation & Control Systems Branch, Division of PWR-A, NRR, Region IV, IE, and contractors. y Initiating Review When the PM receives the results reports from the applicant, you will receive a memorandum enclosing the report which will identify the report number and title, the lead PM and technical reviewer, persons to complete particular sections of the evaluation, contacts for coordination with oth'er offices as necessary, identification of an NRC consultant familiar with the particular subject matter and dates for PM receipt of any RAI, and evaluation.
Contractor Support i
F.ollowing a brief review of the report you should be able to determine whether contractor assistance is needed. To initiate use of the contractor, the hd[(ll;;U
~Kt aw
s 'l
'o enclosed form must filled in and typed. E.Staley, secretary,PDf5(Ext.
27425), has typed the form on the 5520 and will transmit it to your secretaries to be filled in. Signatures must be obtained by NRC lead reviewer, branch chief, myself and Technical Assistance Management Branch who will initiate the work.
Evaluation Each evaluation must contain the following:
1.0 , Introduction The introduction must clearly identify what the issue is that is being
~AN addressed and provide a reference to the source of the issue (i.e. SSERs 7-11, CYGNA, applicant self-initiated, etc.) The source must be identified in enough specificity to easily locate, such as, this ISAP results report responds to an issue raised in SSER No. II, Category 3 Allegation AQ-33.
2.0 CPRT Approach Describe the CPRT approach used to address the issue. ,
3.0 Evaluation 3.1 Evaluation of CPRT approach Provide staff evaluation of CPRT approach to resolve the issue.
3.2 Evaluation of Issue Specific Action Plan (ISAP) or Discipline Specific Action Plan (DSAP) Implementation Provide staff evaluation of whether the plan (ISAP, DSAP) was implemented as identified. If it was not, why it is acceptable or unacceptable. (Identification of open inspection items for the issue should be addressed.)
4.0 Conclusion .
l Provide conclusion on the plan (ISAP, DSAP) and its impletentation to l acceptably address the issues raised by an external source or applicants l
self-initiated effort.
e 9
l
t N
11%6 i .
... Schedule Day Activity I ' PM receives (ISAP, DSAP) results report from applicant; prepares memorandum; distributes to lead technical reviewer.
10 Lead technical reviewer identifies any RAI to PM (If the applicant has not responded to an open inspection item for a particular issue, a RAI should be
~ prepared requesting applicants response.);
PM prepares letter to applicant, requests response from applicant in 5 days.
15 Applicant responds to RAI; PM distributes.
25 PM receives evaluation inputs completed and signed out by E. Rossi (NRR), E. Johnson (Region IV), and B. Grimes (IE) as appropriate. '
26 Meeting between technical reviewer, Section Leader, PM, and OELD to discuss issuance of evaluation at day 45 (or other schedule).
30 Issue notice to licensing board whether staff evaluation will be ready for day 45 (or other schedule).
45 Issue evaluation to all parties (nomally, unless an exception is identified at the meeting on day 26).
/ /
l
. on . Director WR Pro.ie t Dire torate #5 '
l Division of PWR Licensing-A i ec: R. Vollmer D. Norkin T. Westeman M. Williams R. Ballard B. Singh F. Rosi. . H. Berkson l G. Bagchi M. Carrington l J. Knight l
l l
. - - , _ . -., - . .- . -. . - - .. . . - - . . - , - - - , . . , .--.a-.-.-._.....-.-...-..-_,-,,-.
.. y .
~
1 NRC - ASSIGNMENT FOR COMANCHE PEAK FIN NO: Date Assigned:
Task No: -
Contractor:
Task
Title:
Task
Description:
(hl',
Expected Deliverables with Schedules:
Qualifying Assumptions:
Estimated level of Effort: person week (Te:hnical)
Travel: . ,_
Other: _ , . ,
Total Estimate Cost: (to be prepared by the TAMB)
Program Manager (Contractor:
NRC lead Reviewer:
- Lead Reviewer Branch:
Lead Reviewer Branch Chief:
Project Director NRC: Vincent S. Noonan (FTS 492-7425)
Program Manager TAMB:
3 Q*.. *
- 1) 7-:71a : com a ~ ale fu A- da.vo n s a. Na -
( c,o u t W aaTiosv
/9sl<lu s c Y fley ja e Av 'r
- 1) /f l' S Yst f f l- C oss s w 17 a e. 7S .'
A. />2 A R I No S .WA C
- E. B. r o e, l l ~ s o ~ A/ d C
- f. s,sa27ei.ce a sv/ C
.I.II.
ogg P. C Aa H L ). WL
/h . YnJr EC f-G
.~, " 3 22%
enn 3 feV.csN5 l'e.v Tr eT .'
Ny 7 C h VlSra n t o n fxc sq. fa. T r< + s a a Exc F. P< r+ "o Stc 8- C6^l< FK c T. Xu, L a. 4 A C,ec i d) Dae. . rn>; ~ p. : ~./:
(c e s v r- c i-/ sx . 7-) .
5)
- Po b i c i. ~' ea<- r~/
- nme- -,. .x 1: u pou:4,c~< 1 ~z a - n o vi o u.
i TA e .Tu s 7 s u s. < .3 a.'t < e v ~ 7^ T ous7. a s
' $l 5 p lf% a 't . rs foj~u l* ? ie 'J IS eli v t,/c / is 70 rwo v a .+ pi c a sas v4:et ae :
I. Tal;~7/p;p:y in/ co m p o sv ..'r ipsrno..r; a. 2. r,s7x-- r
.T *- sh L L a 71
- a Ese4 w e.e k fI oc.a ss AaS fr .a l Kc A 77 r. Bu rs.s .
. S o- s 4 . e f W .SA ; Ne a m;l~r<J. . v s v a- d.% c e cs e/
Je d< h ,' L M.: bt c/c f . i s. , nl - ! . 3Du ;71-< < d:s se ss: v
,0 - h h
h
- n 4 ,_ c, / A T-7 /[ $a T.e j kra# # / /ee.,c;j e4 ~ / W .7% J Pa* = ~ < ., T,. 7 / * <v po p- in, s . n ,
( g 7 ;/~ x- n 7-u r:~swas c. .< . i - .n < J u : 7 n a.
a ie a docae.~7:*~ 7o de7e>,: nc ha w e ci; wo:
a / g e <,s . /< a / c. e , s 1 Ye ,< ~ / a da p . i e er c4c.
sfap:v./A ALSo d:Lc u s s-/g tv, s tlc .Ca,pt;ny pi e e e c : .
<~ da. : t 42.w/ hew h "o^
f .Sr fe. S L Y)o va Sa w/<S vsi- <
CCC
- o f ?h l ,v./
535 288
-e f ' bl
. 0 C (* /*t L *- e e lDN t,. Li t. b &A a,- 50 N bk
- b d ** 6/ * !L/ $
, u 's th Fse c (L / .cs av ua 1 /T a,pt w ic 7st. 7 m T e- cr/~ s-1< ~ re Mu .g9u ps,.~T /of a J s 7 I,e v is a Y < a s o u r 4 4 >' h em e9 < w e a u s f of< t n? Io A/. ad M r c. a. ) c.
A. S c. /v o Sf-e: r. ' c o w ?'s 7%u/i aff- e c> n e s k s.: r7 f D. ; r 7,% e .
t I .
I I
O
--7---- _ _ ,
3g . .
- { nurhy sw;3r.s"YY **7'~1 q
/J ==* E8/.. . .. . . . .
7.inr.,
. y~ o, n ,,,s.n s - ._
ek
.,,,, . - , . . p ,fg ".?
.-> > . . , . ,,o
/%
/,..,,.
y., ,-p..,
in -. -,Is
-. .y .
y ,y...,Lc > , ,,
h y r.y ? ;f 3 w* h
,. .p ..y. p 7 - f~rg .-,a e c /og - - 4, ,,
? . .+ ). . n .e 3 7 1.s ,.yf- 7 m.n >i.ya,
., . J .g , , .,.7 7. y,j 7 - e,>.ny : ,,.,n .
n
\
< 't' +t 't.rev 7' 6.y 'r) p.' , 6. f. r T ,'
y.i .i c.. ,.,a, 1
- m asoab- f n ku. g u ) , , .. .,
- y ..l 9 a t tQ. . - .
A
?
1 z -.; .i J.)
C . ,,ag y gr a 4 >.,y .; ,r - - -
9 2 b r 4 -uj - p - uf w.
9.jor ,>wwi,>[ gjus -- - -
.- i . . - . .
g y-.y s y7 ~. ,.y ~ u - c .r.<,
p ,y .ac
,y -., , 7 y b .T,,, ,y~ y3c s-m.>, ,J-. E , . e A . ,y / ,y . - ,.> > -
y -. 7 >,7 ~p,- ,, <~, y >>
J , >y r > j uu~
C .-.y~y>-y /,.-7ya
>7 ;; . r~,g.,<,h) n < r ,137 o - ,,nw
_gn w _mp . - ,
-~. n , - - -
i
'99 p .
- y. ,
, +s.
. . * ?f y, . * - .o
_ __--____r. . . . . . . . . _ _ .
f ~ ~* *** * .* w 2,)r.o s p <
s >yr--- lso w p er- n f -~ - -
- - g r e - q ~ w .:p ar-- - - -
4 .,y, >. g.. - c,n..,-y c... > i .) -
m 3 . ~,y) .>>.
.p ,.,r. 9. yq ,yz. ;pv - q . y .,,r ..
/N n *p a 4 >.b>zu
's urni a n 'r,.ro y'r,p y- y~l 1
{ ~ ~>y * .< T. .e b ,, a =>~ y
,7 7..g.p p .
< , .L .;w...so b
i _ . . . . _ - ,
/'.a
- fUf** W e
- f ,bll%*G es ) e . >
yE
>.w n a p 3 o
- = 9 ~3 0
/r .as m w .) r> g y .,p.
/. g . 7,p n ,9
+g ..yg e., 7 >; , .y A
f J* eB l'**j
=p. n e =m ar =w - - o sa ^~q - ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' * ~ ~ ~ *
, -gn ... ,,l .. (, ,.
- l. E n
T --
.) >
), en og p. . e Ad
/ * ># t. ' .Ja
- - - f. - dp . -----~ -- . - - - - - - ~ - - - -
C . ._ . __ _. - - - W #4.L l l
~>a
-1 - - - . - - ~ ~ - -
, ),. . > > ----] - -+
- _ a eq...t ..wd ---
L ,, p ,,_j.L.,.;. _ - .
u.
e m ,,. ,j ,9 ,,,., z ,. .-
T t
,,,y, ,
,.7 y > > > ~. n >t
_ ._. q _,.,,,f,, ..m -r y n 7 ,, p --
.7 7,,y,, ; .f., - -
,;,,y'.r.,/y,.,9,y,,-l t --'y~ f ., .y
- + <., . J. , , p 1,,.) - ,. ~ r n~ .
, , , . ) ,,, p .. . .,, , r p - . ..
7 .
- .7 .; i.e m y >=
- ,~'J.f.
1 7
.; ,f.y-=f2>
,' ,} . .g p- . 9:~~y3,y#,"f.>. I
, e ,, .. > s e., -
?
.r oo
_ .. ... s.. . . ._ .. . - . _ . . .
A 9
h - -
s/ :
4 1
, ,.& wt / 4 ## O Y[
re .-sy r e t. m.r a3 +a e
- ve e. V,<. km f.c. L nye J -
g I . . . .
C
~ . . . - - . . - . - . - .- --.i - -~
.-.--.-.---~~.-~~--..-] -.- .
qra.da3r -
t - J ._,a . .,. m, e .1 - r_ ..,4,. c
- m. A. b t oc :.
- f If '" k d " V " l+'
-. f e k $e J. .
eed~t% . . - . . -
, a n ... < . 4.1 b
b .._1 4 .. - . . . -
- U fe e b eje.1 s.. Eh a s beeros Y
,,e...,,,,,,,._.g j f
.. ..-. f- .Re e . re <pnh . J . f.d.y s..
4 j g j ,
f- 4. .,f,,,<
. M .. A.. < . --. -
- . \
- 1. } - _. - . W $ -. elI m$$re . . J..hwt l
- i. ecc.. y .. i.. , . i .
...g ...__..._.. . _ _ _ _ _ c3 . % ._ M J. 4 .I _
c'-f/"l C
l g <s ..< n I<e.i< J
..Cnace.v.<.y.k]<,,q.d
% v 4 p.se s l.. t MM i-Ce fr . ie.< .L_. ..
ht;H.eheL.4..L . . - tu..a.4..I yf ,c..--.<
- ef o ' b - ^<f e E
.r. i. J.,J
, ( s v,1.1.^ /..' v 0% J q ,.g
- v. o. a i I 4.1. s p,,n4 t nf a,,cf &. ; ,, l J. - -
J
- o. . y s.rcc 1
u~ % a u _,,,_.. .u. .L _ _. g. __._ -. ._ _. _ .. _
c red ca..re,s . _
s, 4.,
f'jfr cl..eq u.b~ jaw L" , 4 "/~, -
,,'f ',',' ,W JI~ P. f%,\
a ...u L. ,,,, .e s,
Ie.yI.b .r
,,c_ .y,yj . . p,ia __.
\. _ - . _ . . _ . . .
~ .rs c a <~, e ~
Q'.7 *
- f-. -- . _ . . . . . . - - . - . .
. . . t t'.su l .k.J . . . . .. - . . . - . - -
..--.-....3.-------....
=
2 1- ._. __ r_ .
ce fl.er.hr+ ev~ N b n_
y
_.9,c.y..__ v. -
er -
.y,
~~ .e..... . . . - - _ . _ _ _
. . *b
~x u .: e. ..., . e <; ..: . . .
< .._ i 1
CPSES - CPRT HOMOGENE0US CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES POPULATION X
CONSTRUCTION l CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY 1 ACTIVITY 2 ACTIVITY 3 l
i HOMOGENEITY HOMOGENEITY HOMOGENEITY i
ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ENGINEERING 1
LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL i
i ATTRIBUTES ATTRIBUTES ATTRIBUTES i
i HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE l DOCUMENTATION DOCUMENTATION _ DOCUMENTATION I -
! HOMOGENEITY HOMOGENEITY HOMOGENEITY I CRAFT CRAFT CRAFT I LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL i '
ATTRIBUTES ATTRIBUTES ATTRIBUTES
- "^ ^
- - HARDWARE
"^ " -
"^ "
DOCUMENTATION ch'
!D k h
e,,,, ..
. . ~ , . . _ _ . . _
. i gigaays , N0tLVTt/15N11 O
[ g 1N3WdiRU3 Ngt1V3Id2Vd t-g -(1E1UGOtRJVAH NOLLl/TIVISNI 4 NC11VMdV4 o
. 9 N011VBVSl1 f-4 Y
/ h - 517lJJn31100NG NQl1V)hi3VJ 13%05 N01D31351d3146 N0liVTS$ff~
fMQQ N0tDTd9vd D.W5 fr!D3735.1.CJf5._,
dlHMJJW N0tLVTVENI/ TCliV]inG
~
'$ TitWsM-51$0a nvN MILYYlVENI NOI1V]!c7VJ J NelynVLst(I O-
'{ YYT]M - &3hf) ~
V QiSig.qnwis mmn
, N211VT1 SG mamu h 3
>- N011VT1VSil-150d v
P
?
h h1 3 NolLYTIVS.it N0tiV11W$NI-?dd
]19NGWNV1 3 ;C11VITWICiF190-
-73as SmNIV15 , N011YTIVSt(I
$1113HNIVlMD N011VTIVCC-?dd 91411571 IN7W71V1J N0tDVdWO2 i
'g%
l INIWC(ici N0tiVMVB3d 77315 *
, NDl1V156Ni-
"lVW112t131% N0fiv7taV47115 1N?W7Fid IN3WINOlW g-g7 1h3tE?vid NDL1VMVd?SJ qtNiggqqj)og , dn 110~d7VNid W31So SNIdid ngl 1VWVdidd N3tlV11V15N!
7 311VW SNIQ13M L Gd g 1, Mg' 9NIO?M 9NIG13K- Pif
'.1H103K-50d e.- 1Wl8?lVWN 9 Nim 3m 2 M AG N UNim3M ?dJ h SMM . - - -
N011VTlvrJII p ---ggg N01tVTIVLSHI
, 9NLQ13M g
., . .u v . . NIM 1Y11VBfI 1N3Hh00V q E
IN3Wdin03 1T10WU V
< 1v]INyn0 M 9Nrd?H7W b - , .
7ilE Ah
.q,.. , , . - - g, r ,
5153LvQi]3H31Vil]t5n3WQ UI%j Q13n
- _,d}1JIL,_
SW7&&GN011vt5 SN0lD3NN031N7Hdt003
, N011W71WISRI 7.911t*11NOW(TidMtV 9NIJ13;IN3HJin09 4I003MH", siinn 9Nwgil0NC_g SN01D3NN07INg4J002
. . MiV >Sd101d'SNV3 9Ni1135 imWJi'q_
50
! SHON37dh 1>nQ2VAH 9 NIM 15N1
. ----.- c]Ntiv)iWVJ 1NNdE109 - NotLV11VMI INNIW15N1 (91Mf1 Mill 191 L.- 'mVt';Ni in3NQJWO]69ttWWI9arani
~
d ^ JNNdinp? r -W hugwTfv013Id'dind7 Di73 V % 'WJIMDirH Not1VTVSti ' dllW3 TW),tgDy7_, r a: V
Z egygt ygy' NotLVT1Vt5NIEVM17TJV1 v 31VNIWM21 V d
w gg7gy7 "llild 7maisa N0tl71'lV1M-11nQN07 NOILVMVd3Wd NOI1HGG
. s p.
N b ?A
- e e a eb
i V CPSES CONSTRUCTIUTTNSPECTIONS
- 1. ' SIT- ,
- 2. CAT (REVIEWRADIOGRAPHSANDFIELDMODIFICATIONS)
- 3. SRT
- 4. RESIDENT INSPECTOR
- 5. REGION IV ,
- 6. NDEMOBILEVAN(ANALYSISFOUNDACCEPTABLE)
- 7. TRT
- 8. FSAR RELATED SITE VISITS
- 9. CYGNA PHASE 1, 2, 3 AND 4 WALKDOWNS
- 10. CPRT DESIGN ADEQUACY REVIEW WALKDOWNS
- 11. CPRT ISAPS (VARIOUS SELECTED RANDOM AND BIAS SAMPLES) ,
- 12. CABLE TRAY AND CONDUIT SUPPORTS - 100% REINSPECTION
- 13. LARGE BORE PIPES / SUPPORTS - 100% REINSPECTION
- 14. SMALL BORE PIPES / SUPPORTS - SELECTED SAMPLE
- 15. CPRT SELF-INITIATED CONSTRUCTION ADEQUACY REVIEW
\
4 l
4
J. e,;=
1 I
f 1
4 l OA/OC,REVEW TEAM ORGANIZATION l
i I
i SRT I
QA/QC REVIEW TEAM ERC CORPORATE f LEADER - - - - - - - - - -
QUALITY l
J HANSEL ASSURANCE DEPUTY J CHRISTENSEN j CONSULTANT 4
l V HOFFMAN l
4 i
1 i RECORDS MANAGEMENT TRAINING PROCEDURES & PROJECT
& DOCUnaENTATION & CERTIFICATION OUALITY ASSURANCE COORDINATOR C THOMPSON J YOUNG C OLAND M LESLANC I
i j SUPERvlSOR SUPERvlSOR SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR I PROGRAMMATIC HARDWAREISSUES CONSTRUCTION REINSPECTION / INSPECTION SAFETY SIGNIFIC ANCE ISSUES DOCUMENTATION REVIEW E V ALU A TION
,$ P ORTSTACT O ALEMANDER ENGINEERING C SPINKS i A PATTERSON J ADAM M
(,
it T
i N
- s. .,
i l
0 j
1 9 8 5 1 9 8 6 JAN l FEB j MAR l APR l MAY l JUN l JUL l AUG l SEP l OCT l NOV l DEC l JAN l FES l MAR l APR OVERALL PROGRAM . SCHEDULE l i
i PROGRAMMATIC & HARDWARE ISAP's f ,
A 4/1/85 ' -
1/24/86 i
Vll.c :
PACKA'GE PREPARATION ANEI RELEASE A 7/15/85 12/15/85 l
\ i
=
INSPECTtON AND DOCUMENT REVIEW A 7/22/85 , 1/31/86 I
i i SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE l EVALUATION i
i A 7/29/85 9RMMMMMMMMMMMMMMR 2/28/8e I
i i i i i j i FINAL REPORTS i 10/14/85 " ' IIIIIIl l ll l lllllllA 4/1/86 i ! >
1 i
1 l- i 1 :
l !
i i i !
- i I ~ ~ ~
a n r- .s-a- am,- .~, s A -
A
) .. a I y
'ee I :
s _ . .
. s w M
h l . . e S
H' . . . ,
A ifd.t
- i N
c e
W H.
6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,
d '. . . . . . . . . . . . A M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C p .
- M -
j j pg a <
~z -c . .
z.
, 2 b . . . . . . . . . . -
N em b
J, -
J _ ____ _ _ _
! y _< - -
OU t
H ee _
! g . -
e Z, w
_ _ = _ _
w M
p Q _ = _ _ _ _
\,-y a
i y<Z J
.=
=
1 ::
rm m _ .
W -
g d. m
... _ , . . . , . = , = , - _- s
_= o s.
- g
_ -.==== - -- - =
Cn
' = _ O
- .J . . ,
" Z Z
4, r a 4 r 2 = W M M
ll 1 l i l i i l 1 8 8 1 l i l l i i l l
= ceeeeooo eeoo=cc=ccc oeoecy n m < = c c t- eevnm- -
N L
w w .-4 .-4 .4 e w w .4 w 4
a EZAO cIhTFT e
e- -- .-- . - ~ . . , . ..._.-.,--.-_m.,m,_. . . , . , _ , . . , , , , , , _ , , , ,.,___p__, _.
QC INSPECTOR QUALIFICATIONS ISAP I.D.1
~
ISSUES: LACK OF SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTATION REGARDING PERSONNEL QUALIFICATION IN THE TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION FILES FOR ALL ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS AND ALL OTHER CURRENT INSPECTORS.
APPROACH: EVALUATION ACTION PLANNED PHASE I - REVIEW DOCUMENTATION OF INSPECTORS QUALIFICATIONS AGAINST REQUIREMENTS AND ANSI STANDARDS IN PLACE AT TIME OF CERTIFICATION.
PHASE II - EVALUATE QUALIFICATIONS THAT COULD NOT BE VERIFIED IN PHASE I.
PHASE Ill - EVALUATE A SAMPLE OF WORK OF THOSE INSPECTORS NOT RECONCILED IN PHASE 11 TO -
DETERMINE:
IF INSPECTOR WAS ABLE TO CONDUCT INSPECTIONS DESPITE WEAKNESSES IN QUALIFICATION DOCUMENTATION.
IF INSPECTIONS RESULTED IN SAFETY SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES REMAINING IN THE HARDWARE AFTER INSPECTION.
STATUS: OCTOBER 15, 1985 PHASE I - COMPLETE PHASE II - RECONCILIATION OF ALL EVALUATIONS IN PROCESS PHASE Ill - REINSPECTIONS ARE BEING COMPLETED AS THEY APE IDENTIFIED IN PHASE 11 PRELIMINARY FINDINGS:
IN SOME CASES INSPECTOR QUALIFICATIONS WERE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AT TIME OF CERTIFICATION.
0478/ SLIDES
GUIDELINES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF OC INSPECTOR TEST ISAP I D.2
~
ISSUE: LACK OF GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR l THE TESTING AND CERTIFYING OF ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS.
APPROACH: EVALUATION ACTION PLANNED PHASE I - REVIEW OF PROCEDURES AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PHASE II - RECONCILIATION AND CONCURRENCE OF PROCEDURAL RECOMMENDATIONS PHASE Ill - REVIEW OF SYSTEM STATUS: OCTOBER 15, 1985 PHASE I - COMPLETE PHASE II - MAIN PROGRAM - COMPLETE PHASE Ill - IMPLEMENTATION IS BEING MONITORED PRELIMINARY FINDINGS:
WRITTEN PROGRAM DID NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE CONTROL FOR EXAMINING INSPECTION PERSONNEL i
3 0478/ SLIDES
IlATERIAL. TRACEABILITY- ISAP VII.A.1
' ISSUE: IS THE SYSTEM FOR llATERIAL IRACEABILITY ADEQUATE AND PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED?
WAS MATERIAL IDENTIFICATION AND TRACEABILITY MAINTAINED FOR ONSITE AND FIELD FABRICATED COMPONENT AND PIPE SUPPu..TS?
DID B&R FAILURE TO PASS A 1981 ASME SURVEY RESULT FROM A FAILURE TO MAINTAIN MATERIAL TRACEABILITY?
APPROACH: EVALUATION 0F: SYSTEM AND PROCEDURAL BASIS AND IMPLEMENTATION.
BY: PROCEDURE AND DOCUMENT REVIEW, INTERVIEWS, INPUT FROM RELATED ISAPS: VII.B.1,VII.B.3,Vll.C.
STATUS: OCTOBER 15, 1985:
1981 ASME SURVEY REVIEW COMPLETED.
PROCEDURE REVIEW APPROXIMATELY 757. COMPLETE.
OTHER ISAP RESULTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE YET.
PRELIMlilARY FINDIflGS:
i
- B&R PRACTICES DID NOT CONSTITUTE A " LOSS OF MATERIAL TRACEABILITY" IN VIOLATION OF THE ASilE
', B&PV CODE.
BASED ON THIS, THE ISSUE WAS NOT REPORTABLE (50:55E),
1 l 0%8/IllSC1
_ - _ . _ _ . . . . . ., ,,_.___.__,,._,.,..,.__-,-_m. _ _ .,..._,_, ..,,_.... ~._
HON-CONFORMANCE AND CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS ISAP VII.A.2 ISSUE: ARE THE SYSTEMS FOR NONCONFORMANCE CONTROL, CORRECTIVE ACTION, AND 10 CFR 50.55 (E)
REPORTABILITY ADEQUATE AND PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED?
DID LARGE NUMBER OF FORMS ALLOW FOR PROPER.
! CONTROL OF NONCONFORMANCE?
IS THERE AN ADEQUATE TREND PROGRAM IN PLACE?
ARE THE TUEC AND BROWN AND ROOT CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED?
ARE ALL 10 CFR 50.55 (E) REPORTABLE ITEMS BEING REPORTED?
~ ~
APPROACH: EVALUATION OF: SYSTEM AND PROCEDURES, IMPLEMENTATION.
BY: DOCUMENT REVIEW, , INTERVIEW, AND OBSERVATION OF CURRENT SYSTEMS.
STATUS: OCTOBER 15, 1985:
NCR'S REVIEW APPROXIMATELY 75% COMPLETE (THIS INCLUDES NCR'S AND OTHER FORMS).
CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEM (INCLUDING TRENDING) 20%
10 CFR 50.55(E) REPORTABILITY SYSTEM 10% COMPLETE.
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS:
! THE CONTROL OF DISPOSITION / CORRECTION OF NONCONFORMING ITEMS IS ACCEPTABLE HOWEVER, MINOR IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE MADE TO PROCEDURES.
! CORRECTIVE ACTION (NON-ASME) PROCEDURES REVISED AUGUST, 1985. IMPROVEMENTS WERE MADE, WE WILL ASSESS IMPLEMENTATION.
CORRECTIVE ACTION (ASME) PROCEDURES ADEQUATE.
i i
0440/ MISC 1 1 .
, - , ,,.,.n. .. . - ., ,.,.--.,--,..,-.-.,-----,__.n,,. .m . , , , . ,~ , - .,m_ n,gm . , , - . n_n.,,.-,nm.,,,.g.,...,-,.v-,n,m,n_n
DOCUMENT CONTROL ISAP VII.A,3 ISSUE: WHAT EFFECT DID INADEQUACIES IN THE DOCUMENT.
CONTROL PROGRAM PRIOR TO JULY 1984 HAVE ON THE PLANT?
APPROACH: EVALUATION l OF: INSTALLED HARDWARE; PREREQUISITE AND PREOPERATIONAL TEST PROCEDURES BY: EVALUATION OF RESULTS REPORTS FOLLOWING IMPLEMENTATION OF ISAPS -
III.D AND VII.C.
STATUS: OCTOBER 15, 1985 EVALUATION OF ISAP III.D RESULTS PRELIMINARY FINDINGS:
PRELIMINARY RESULTS FOR ISAP III.D INDICATES THAT DOCUMENT CONTROL INADEQUACIES HAD NO ADVERSE EFFECT ON TESTING PROGRAMS.
~
0473/ SLIDES
AUDIT PROGRAM AND AUDITOR QUALIFICATIONS ISAP VII.A.4 ISSUE: THE TUGC0 QA AUDIT PROGRAM (PROCEDURE CONTENT AND PROCEDURE IMPLEMENTATION) WAS INADEQUATE: AUDIT PERSONNEL STAFFING (NUMBER AND QUALIFICATIONS) WAS INADEQUATE.
APPROACH: EVALUATION OF: SYSTEM AND PROCEDURES; IMPLEMENTATION BY: DOCUMENT REVIEW, INTERVIEW, AND OBSERVATION OF CURRENT SYSTEMS STATUS: OCTOBER 15, 1985 PROGRAM DOCOMENT' REVIEW COMPLETE (INCLUDES PSAR/FSAR, TUGC0 QA PROGRAM, CPSES QA PLAN, AND IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES).
RECORD FILES REVIEW APPROXIMATELY 75% COMPLETE (INCLUDES AUDIT FILES, AUDIT PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS, ETC.)
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS:
WRITTEN PROGRAM NOT COMPLETELY IN ACCOPDANCE WITH APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS (ANSI 45.2.12)
OVERALL PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ADEQUACY HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
0473/ SLIDES
MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT ISAP VII.A.5 ISSUE: TUEC MANAGEMENT FAILED TO PERIODICALLY REVIEW THE STATUS AND ADEQUACY OF THEIR QA PROGRAM.
APPROACH:
REVIEW IN-PLACE MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAMS IN OTHER ORGANIZATIONS DEVELOP CRITERIA FOR PROGRAM -
ASSESS CURRENT CPSES PROGRAM
~
STATUS: OCTOBER 15, 1985 OBTAINED SOME OUTSIDE SOURCE MATERIAL (INP0)
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS:
NONE AT THIS TIME 0473/ SLIDES 4 -
-EXIT INTERVIEWS ISAP.VII.A.6 ISSUE: EMPLOYEE EXIT INTERVIEW SYSTEM INEFFECTIVE LACK OF EMPLOYEE CONFIDENCE LIMITED IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES UNDOCUMENTED INCOMPLETE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS APPROACH: EVALUATE i
OF: OMBUDSMAN /SAFETEAM PROGRAMS BY: PROGRAM / IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW & COMPARISON ~
TO INDUSTRY EXAMPLES TO EVALUATE HANDLING OF PAST CONCERNS STATUS: OCTOBER 15, 1985 OMBUDSMAN INTERVIEWS COMPLETE OBTAINING INDUSTRY INPUT ON OTHER PROGRAMS PRELIMINARY FINDINGS: NONE TO DATE re
)
i i
1 i
0473/ SLIDES
- . H00SEKEEPIllG Al0 SYSTEM (LEA!LIIESS ISAPVII.A.7 ISSUE
- ARE SYSTEMS ADEQUATE TO MAINTAIN DESIGN CLEANLINESS AND PROTECT EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL FROM DAMAGE OR DETERIORATION?
WERE THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR RV CLEANING ADEQUATE?
WAS EQUIPMENT PROTECTED FROM CONSTRUCTIONS ACTIVITY?
WAS CONTROL OF CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS ADEQUATE TO MAINTAIN REQUIRED SEPARATIONS IN " CRITICAL SPACES"?
APPROACH: EVALUATION ~
OF: SYSTEM AND PROCEDURAL BASIS AND ,
IMPLEMENTATION.
BY: PROCEDURE AND DOCUMENT REVIEW, INTERVIEWS, OBSERVATION OF TUGC0 SURVEILLANCE, INPUT FROM REL^TED ISAPS: II.C, VI.A.
STATUS: OCTOBER 15, 1985:
REACTOR VESSEL CLEANLINESS REVIEW COMPLETED.
PROCEDURE Reviews C6MPLETE.
OBSERVATION OF SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITY APPROXIMATELY 807. COMPLETE.
PRELInlilARY FIllDIllGS:
RV CLEANLINESS VERIFICATION ADEQUATE.
PAST AND CURRENT PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR HOUSEKEEPING AND CLEANLINESS ADEQUATE.
PAST PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SURVEILLANCE OF HOUSEKEEPING , CLEANLINESS AND STORAGE WERE INADEQUATE.
0%8/ MISC 1
FUEL POOL LIllER DOCUMENTATION. ISAP VII.A.8 ISSUE: WAS THE ERECTION AND INSPECTION _OF THE FUEL POOL l!NERS PROPERLY CONTROLLED AND DOCUMENTED?
WERE FUEL POOL TRAVELERS CHANGED AFTER THE FACT WITH INSUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION?
WERE THE FUEL POOL TRAVELERS COMPLETED BY
! QUALIFIED AND CERTIFIED PERSONNEL AT THE TIME THE INSPECTIONS OR EXAMINATIONS WERE PERF0P.MED?
l i APPROACH: EVALUATION 0F: FUEL POOL LINER DOCUMENTATION ADEQUACY, CORRECTNESS, AND COMPLETENESS BY: PROCEDURE AND DOCUMENT REVIEW.
l STATUS: OCTOBER 15, 1985:
l 1ST 60 (OF 300) TRAVELERS REVIEWED: PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF RELATED WELD MATERIAL ISSUE RECORDS.
PRELIMillARY FINDINGS:
UONE TO DATE.
l 0%8/MISCl
OllSITE FABRICATION ISAP VII.B.1 ISSUE: WERE THE FABRICATION CONTROLS FOR PIPING SUBASSEMBLIES AND COMPONENT SUPPORTS ADEQUATE TO ASSURE USE OF QUALIFIED PROCESS PROCEDURES AND MAINTENANCE OF MATERIAL IDENTIFICATION?
WERE SHOP MATERIAL STORAGE AREAS PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND MATERIAL SEGREGATED?
WAS SHOP FABRICATION WORK DONE TO APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS AND PROPERLY DOCUMENTED?
APPROACH: EVALUATION -
OF: SHOP FABRICATION PRACTICES, DOCUMENTATION, AND STORAGE.
BY: PROCEDURE AND DOCUMENT REVIEW, INTERVIEW, REINSPECTION IF WE FIND DOCUMENTATION DISCREPANCIES.
STATUS: OCTOBER 15, 1985:
PROCEDURE REVIEW APPROXIMATELY 757.
, COMPLETE.
PRELIMINARY FIllDINGS:
NONE TO DATE.
0%8/ MISC 1
VALVE DISASSEMBLY ISAP VII.B.2 ISSUE: CONTROL OF DISASSEMBLED VALVE PARTS WAS INADEQUATE CREATING POTENTIAL FOR INTERCHANGING VALVE BONNETS AND INTERNAL PARTS HAVING DIFFERENT PRES. & TEMP, RATINGS.
APPROACH:*
REVIEW SPEC / PROCEDURE REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFY VALVES WHICH HAVE BEEN DISASSEMBLED
- SELECT SAMPLE AND PERFORM INSPECTIONS EVALUATE RESULTS/ ROOT CAUSES REPORT / ADVISE TUGC0 STATUS: OCTOBER 15, 1985 -
ALL INSPECTIONS COMPLETE PRELIMINARY FINDINGS:
NO CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCIES FOUND l
0449 SLIDES
PIPE SUPPORT IllSPECTI0tlS ISAP VII.s.3 ISSUE:
, .,, ARDWARE DEVIATIONS ON QC ACCEPTED AND INSTALLED PIPE SUPPORTS.
DEVIATIONS FOR NELDS, SUPPORT IDENTIFICATION, LOCKING DEVICES, MATERIAL IDENTIFICATION, AS-BUILT DRAWINGS.
EVALUATION APPROACH: VERIFICATION ACTION PLANNED REINSPECT THE TRT PIPE SUPPORT SAMPLE TO VERIFY PIPE SUPPORT
,,* ,,,. DEVIATIONS AND. ANALYZE FOR SIGNIFICANCE.
UTILIZE THE ACTION PLAN Vll.C INSPECTION RESULTS TO ACHIEVE
~
BROAD AND MEANINGFUL RESULTS. ,
DETERMINE ROOT CAUSE OF EACH VALID CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY AND, ADVERSE TREND. ,.,
EVALUATE FOR PROGRAMMATIC AND GENERIC IMPLICATIONS.
CURREllT STATUS: (10/15/85)
REINSPECTIONS 90% COMPLETE.
PRELIMINARY FIllDINGS:
DEVIATIONS FOUND IN ROOM 77N AGREE WITH TYPES IDENTIFIED BY TRT.
ONE CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY WAS ISSUED FOR MISSING PIPE SUPPORT COTTER PIN IN ROOM 770.
0441/ MISC 1
~
HILTI ANCHOR BOLT INSTALLATION ISAP VII,B,4 ISSUE:
INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF HILTI INSTALLATION DEVIATIONS e
MINIMUM EMBEDMENT VERIFICATION OF TORQUE MINIMUM EDGE DISTANCE SKEWED BOLTS EVALUATION APPROACH:
REVIEW SPEC / PROCEDURE REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFY ATTRIBUTES & SAMPLE INITIATE INSPECTION UNDER VII.C INITIATE TORQUE VERIFICATI0'N PROGRAM EVALUATE RESULTS/ ROOT CAUSES/ GENERIC IMPLICATIONS CURRENT STATUS: OCTOBER 15, 1985 VII,c INSPECTIONS APPROXIMATELY 65% COMPLETE PROCEDURE AND SAMPLING FOR TORQUE VERIFICATION PROGRAM BEING PREPARED PRELIMINARY FINDINGS:
NO ADVERSE TRENDS IDENTIFIED TO DATE 0475/ SLIDES
ELECTRICAL. RACEWAY SUPPORT INSPECTIONS ISAP VII.B,5 i,*
ISSUE:
UNDERSIZE WELDS, MISPLACED WELDS UNAUTHORIZED CONFIGURATION CHANGES UNDERSIZE NUTS HILTI ANCHOR BOLT INSTALLATION DEFICIENCIES APPROACH:
CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS ARE BEING COVERED BY.THE TUGC0 CABLE TRAY. HANGER: DESIGN ADEQUACY UNIT #1 PROGRAM (CP-EI-4.0-75). ' -
FOR CONDUIT THE FOLLOWING APPROACH WILL Be USED:f' REVIEW SPECIFICATIONS, DRAWINGS AND BOTH 5 -
INSTALLATION AND INSPECTION PROCEDURES. ,
IDENTIFY POPULATION.
SELECT SAMPLES AND PERFORM INSPECTIONS, PERFORM DOCUMENT REVIEW.
EVALUATE RESULTS/ ROOT CAUSES AND GENERIC IMPLICATIONS, STATUS: OCTOBER 15, 1985 33% OF INSPECTION COMPLETE, PRELIMINARY FINDING:
NO CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCIES FOUND TO DATE 0470/ SLIDES
o
- o
- o POPULATION LIST
- o
- o ,
l o e :
o s o ELECTRICAL (E) ,
o ----------
i o '
o CONDUIT (CDUT) - 'F '
O CABLE (CABL)
- o CABLE TRAY (CATY)
- i o ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT' (EEIN)
- o INSTRUMENTATION EQUIPMENT (ININ)
- i o
- LIGHTING (LITG)
- o ..
o ,. ,;. c
't ,, 5 * ,
]' O
, , . P o MECHANICAL (M) '
o ---------
- o
- i o HVAC DUCTS & PLENUMS'(DUPL)
- O HVAC EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION (HVIN)
- o -
FIELD FABRICATED TANKS (FFTA) - "
o MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION (MEIN)
- O LARGE BORE PIPING CONFIGURATION (LBCO)
- O SMALL BORE PIPING CONFIGURATION (SBCO)
- o
- PIPE - WELDS &. MATERIAL (PIWM)
- O PIPIN3 SYSTEM BOLTED JOINTS / MATERIAL (PBOM)
- o
- o * '
3 o
- O STRUCTURAL (S)
- a ----------
o
- o CONCRETE PLACEMENT (CONC) *
- STRUCTURAL STEEL (STEL)
- o LINERS (LINR)
- O FUEL POOL LINER (FPLR)
- o FILL & BACKFILL PLACEMENT (FILL) -
DOCUMENT REVIEW ONLY
- o
- GROUT - CEMENT (GRTC)
- o
- GROUT - EP0XY (GRTE)
- O LARGE BORE PIPE SUPPORTS - RIGID (LBSR)
- O LARGE BORE PIPE SUPPORTS - NON RIGID (LBSN)
- O SMALL BORE PIPE SUPPORTS (SBPS) *
, o LARGE BORE PIFE WHIP RESTRAINTS (PWRE) *
> o INSTRUMENT PIPE / TUBE SUPPORTS (INSP)
- O CAT 1 CONDUIT SUPPORTS (COSP)
- O HVAC DUCT SUPPORTS (HVDS)
- O
- EQUIPMENT SUPPORTS (EQSP)
- o
- i o
- 0
- INDICATES NEW POPULATIONS OR CHANGES
- o
- o
- o #~
- C###########################################################################*
MECHANICAL CHECKLISTS TOTAL REQUIRED 9 TOTAlil'S$UED" 9'~
'I t!I f PACKAGE PREPARATION-- - - ---- - --.
3 ' / :: !; ~ !: ;; , ' ', ;;;.
,T.OTAL REQUIRED 14E0* N"~" '~
i a .<. .g .ns TOTALISSUED 463' I REINSPECTIONS VISUAL INSPECTIONS COMPLETED 322 0
~
DOCUMENT REVIEWS COMPLETED TOTAL INSPECTIONS COMPLETED 322 I
DEVIATION REPORTS ISSUED 210 REVIEWED BY SSEG 13 I
i 1
l t,___._.____.-___.____, __ _ . , _ _ _
. S'RUCTURAL T
f CHECKLISTS TOTAL REQUIRED 12 TOTALISSUED '12 PACKAGE PREPARATION , .
~
i TOTAL' REQUIRED
,' 2182
TOTALISSUED 895 REINSPECTIONS VISUAL INSPECTIONS COMPLETED . 370 DOCUMENT REVIEWS COMPLETED 122 TOTAL INSPECTIONS COMPLETED 492 DEVIATION REPORTS l ISSUED 559 i
REVIEWED BY SSEG 122 1
l i
4
.- , ELECTRICAL CHEC,KLISTS
- . TOTAL. REQUIRED 5 ,,
t T.OTAL ISSUED ,
- 5 h
PACKpGE P8EPARATION 1
I; TOTAL REQUIRED '
950 '
.- {
TOTALISSUED 678 .
i REINSPECTIONS ,
VISUAL INSPECTIONS COMPLETED 303 DOCUMENT REVIEWS COMPLETED 252
! TOTAL INSPECTIONS COMPLETED 555 i
4 DEVIATION REPORTS ISSUED 216 REVIEWED BY SSEG 60 l
I j ~..,..
4
,-- - -- -- . - , , , , - - - - - - , - - . . , ~ . . , - , , - - - - , . , _ , - - - - - - - - - - , . . ,- ,-- -----_ --- - --- --
,. o t
is
- i i
' ' SAFETY'SlGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS STATUS ,I
. .i e ; .i 4
E! :, ;4
- , ;- l MECHANICAly ') ,. !
i >-: p. 3 . . , &i
. .s. 1 . . [, b- l ;
1 i
Fi
SUMMARY
THROUGk 10-15-85 7 f!
l ' . ,. 5j ,., j '}
,NusER y '. NUMBE,it h NUMBER s DhS 1c : SSEs !
. POPULATION : . ..ia CDS l i , I. $ R'ECE,IVEDk ,f .'COMPL$TNd HVAC ducts & -
PLENUMS DUPL 21 1 0 LARGE BORE ,
PIPING CONFIGURATION- LBC0 15 6 0 SMALL BORE P! PING CONFIGURATION SBC0 23 4 0 PIPING SYSTEM BOLTED JOINTS /
MATERIAL PB0M 7 2 0 VALVE DISASSEMBLY VALV 4 4 0 0479/ SLIDES
i 1
~
- p. SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS STATUS -
STRUCTURAL . -
~
- r i .
SUMMARY
.THROUGH 10-15-85 ,
' - ^~
NUMBER- -
NUMBER' NUMBER -
POPULATION -
~
':- DRs _
SSEs ~CDs ,.
RECE!VED ,, COMPLETED .
m CONCRETE PLACEMENT CONC 14 5 0 LINERS LINR 80 64 0 9 4 g 0479/ SLIDES
i i
l
- - s.
f .
~'
SAFETY'S'IGNIFI'CANCE EVALUATIONS STATUS ~
. . - . i , , .. .,a. .- ... .
ELECTRICAL s .- . .f
~ ' ' '"'*
~
~
SUMMARY
'THROUGH 10J15-85 '
- '~
~
NUMBER ' ~ NUMBER ' NUMBER POPULATION DRs SSEs CDs
.' RECEIVED COMPLETE'D
, 4 CONDUIT CDUT- 20 10 0 CABLE. CABL 43 24 0 CABLE TRAY CATY 31 20 0 ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT EEIN 20 6 0 INSTRUMENTATION EQUIPMENT .ININ 56 0 -
0479/St. IDES
i
~
SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS STATUS SUPPORTS
SUMMARY
THROUGH 10-15-85 NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER POPULATION DRS SSES CDS RECEIVED ' COMPLETED i
LARGE BORE PIPE SUPPORTS-RIGID LBSR 46 13 0 LARGE BORE PIPE SUPPORTS - NON-RIGID LBSN 40 18 0 PIPE SUPPORTS IN ROOM 77 PS7N 39 19 1 SMALL BORE PIPE SBPS 60 20 0 INSTRUMENT PIPE / INSP 1 0 -
l TUBE SUPPORTS 0479/ SLIDES
I
.: O ff /g>
{ MISC 6 - discussion
'Kwe,
/
wstr-
.y ( o c Om c.6Laa- , M* "
ps Q ,
DISCUSSION OF TECHNICAL ISSUES IN RT SAMPLING j
- 1. Should Human Error be Accounted for in the CPRT Sampling Process It is possible that the sampling process and conclusions could be impacted by human error. Specifically, the technician performing the acceptance test could make an error such that a defect on a specific item was overlooked. This type of error is of the nature of that when a person is asked to write his name numerous times; while this is a well known process to an individual, a person will still make an occasional mistake. Other underlying causes of making mistakes with a greater likelihood in the detection process are: inexperience (training), working conditions (too hot), boredom (repeating process many times), etc. These are existing human error evaluation procedures which could be applied to any specific detection process to estimate the likelihood of an error. These errors generally fall in a probability range of one in a thousand to rne in ten per test. This type of error can be considered in the sampling process as shown below.
Assume that the probability of a human error in the detection prccess is P. Specifically, this is the probability that the technician will miss a H
defect due to his error. If the population percentage detected is PD, then there are two scenarios which result in a specific item being classified as having no defects:
- 1. There is, in actuality, no defects;
- 2. There is a defect, but it is not detected.
Each of these scenarios has a probability of occurring for any given item selected from the population, that is; (1-PD/100) = probability that a selected item is not defective (PD/100) Pg = probability that a selected item is defected and the technician does not detect it due to an error.
(> f j&->
n
./
Thus, the total probability of " defect free" result on a specific item is:
1-PD*/100 = (1-PD/100) + (PD/100) Pg (1)
This equation can be algebraically rearranged to a more useful form:
PD* - PD (1-PH ) (2)
Or, the perceived defect level is equal to the actual level (PD) times the probability that the technician does not make an error (1 - Ph ). In the existing sampling plan, the results obtained are really for PD*.. This table can be modified, however, if a value is known for the human error (P).
g The effect is to increase number of samples need(d.
For example, the upper bound for Pg can be expected to be 0.1-error / test.
Thus, the success is:
(1-Pg ) = .9 Thus,(rearrangingequation(2))
PD = PD*/(1-PH )*
and for PD* = 5%
PD = 5.6%
Thus, the test for 95/5, given a large human error, is in reality a 95/5.6 test. This can be adjusted for by requiring a larger sample size for zero, one, two, etc. detected defects. For example, if a 95/5 is required for zero detected items (with P equal g to 0.1/PD* must be 4.5% to obtain a PD of 5'A), then the sample size must be 65. The following table provides estimates of a few more selected values.
- - Oj
~
SAMPLE SIZE
.1 .01 .001 Detected item 5.0 PD 65 60 60 0 2.5 PD 140 120 120 0 1.0 PD 340 300 300 0 5.0 PD 105 95 95 1 2.5 PD 210 190 190 1 1.0 PD 520 474 474 1 The conclusion is that only relatively large human error would impact the sampling process.
II. Is the " Sampling" Impacted if it is Conducted in Pardilel by More Than One Person Using multiple technicians to test sub-populations of a specific sample does not have any theoretical impact on the process. It does assume, as before, that no mistakes are made. In a sense, there is an advantage for more than one person performing the test. That is, one person may make a systematic mistake, and evaluate his entire sample incorrectly. Having another staff member do'ng the sarre prccess in parallel would minimize the likelibcod of such an occurrence. Consider a situation where the entire population (or a large portion) is defective due to a comon cause. A technician might assume his testing is incorrect when multiple items are found defective. He might even " adjust" his procedure to allow them to pass. If more than one technician were involved, they may recognize such a situation more readily by comparing experiences.
111. If a Sub-population of the Original Sample (Say 101) were Checked, What Additional Insight Would be Gained if the Sample Were Taken A. Without replacement B. With replacement
ef. Without Replacement A.
In the case where the sub-population is taken without replacement, the statistical methods involved would be the same as the original sample.
However, the conclusions could only be based on the sampled population.
That is, if the sub-population were chosen f rom the original sample, the conclusichs apply only to the sample, not to the population the sample came from. If the additional samples come from original population, the results reflect the original population. In addition, in this latter case, the results can be interpreted as having increased the original sample, thus increasing confidence by a separate technician (See Section II discussion).
For example, assume the utility has taken a sanple of 60 with zero defects (assumehumanerrorissmall). A third party sample of 6 is taken to say that there is 95i confidence that the percentage of defects in the utility's sample is less than 46%. (Note: This assumes an infinite population and is lower for finite population.)
If, on the other hand, the sample of 6 is from the original population, the statement is modified. That is, the 3rd party sample, ignoring the utility results, can be interpreted to say that the percentage of defects in the original population is less than 40% with 951 confidence that the defects are less than 5%. Note that in the latter case, confidence is improved (95% to 97%) and the possible concerns of a common cause human error, as discussed in Part II, are qualitatively addressed.
l B. With Replacement r
Another possible way to do the sampling is with replacement. This allows l
the possibility that the same item is looked at more than once. This provides both an advantage and a disadvantage. The advantage is that if l
an item is picked again, there is more assurance that it was tested l
correctly. The disadvantage is that the sample size must be increased to allow for looking at the same item more than once. Indeed, this sampling process is not generally used and tables are not readily available. The l
o ',
easiest way to think about this is to keep testing until 60 different items (for 95/5) have been tested. The number of items which would be expected to be picked repeatedly depends on the original population size.
IV. Replicated Sampling The military has, as a regular practice, required sampling for defects to be repeated by a 3rd party on " critical" items (e.g., aircraft inertial guidanceparts). They require the entire sample to be repeated from the original population. That is, if the first sample was 60 items from the whole population, then the second would be an additional 60 items.
)
'l n - - , e--- , . , _ - , , , . , , , - . - , - - , - - - - - - - - - , , _ , , _ - - - -
,,,,,-----,,.,,,_,-.,,,-~,--,r- - - ,,- - - - , - -_m,--- ---,--, .- - - -,-- , - - - - -
I /9Aox=4A/r d' ( pi:T% *-1I . ! >,
('" V' l 1
, ffd/
. . . . . . . .. .. kWf^'4CA.. .- . .. . - . . . ... . - .
.. ??? ?VA44**!!!dAL..Gf M..??.0s 'W* t ?s ~' -
- . /$b f$t/./.r..e. y .f. /. QS.Mw. .. b - - %-.-.0...../.9.A..A...N..-..--. .. . . . - - .
- . ?0 - -((WA dd/ .- $0W- . -_ - - - . . . ..-
U N 6*Wcck.- M 0 P w d--.hSed9 .. _ . . . . . _ . . . . _
~
/742 V ? ?- -.! 1 2 k ". @ !! J " . 0f 0/t'?t <-_7x~ **da .c76...E'/' 4 Se;o. - -
St%g + W 9 c , o g (3 h f / @ M k_) -- e _._ . _ . .
- - - = - _ .__ -. . . . _.
-.m- .
f.YiLJ' ..bt/IXd./J &c77shM, - -
) > -
L / 7/vn //n, ,f_
<J . . . . . .
- - - _- V_^l?M.4 fM W f3 Nd/)/M4C/h2.A~.A+- -
45".s*w a c'~ca.em mc +de
- Sc . csa-s 0.<w~...w. _
. 1A?!ss M 2 6'tt - f.r. 2 d%*.S M *' M d . S M d n ' < *A . f J. -' ...
.-.1asm_s 7m.~ - Abw_+ Arr._Cd'AJ O & r.s <ce .
rRJk6. AM t r.*zAssc._:de d&mt?. f22o'.e.r/J <. e . c&.- .'n+~ .~
=- _- /s&-.ZR- f_4/CM-p- acSSW 'oC 5LJEd- od..SAWM '*d.-.
. -----. - . .. f'd tM?~ CV#n.T -.312c-+< G--' ?*$#. M s* M J ~.. M ..
//^t' . J+d?s 'tC S -.[AC . W$d hGdn' AAM #
/n* .
.. .. .... ./ uSsSt. rrAs _/sv. r>'s.;t. ../e-SAccirs u . /dc,sss'rs _5b-Yys,
. . . . . . . . .-- . .- . 8. . d -f.. . . .%.. 3. D. .. V. Y. 5. ).E[.'. .A..P.. . S.. t/i.s. 5..r.><- rr_m.. .
. G & s,a_ m __x9:_s ia u , g ._c3.es.ss_,7y,g scrhn, p/cmgr,,e
,,,os,.c-c e-
\ - - - - - . . - foy ZIM*?... +x.o.. r/m - < s e. crs . e+_/ rg . .
- - . -.. --.. .- . . ]>??Ev.- - . -- . - - . - - . - - - - - . . . . . . - -- . . . .
~
.... ... . ....... -- ---.. 7M. E5dAss#Ssfg. . /7e. 5%g .. rec. ,e 6 msn c
--- -. .- . -. . .- 6k% 1 <S..- 36y. - _- S6'r**v'79Y crn -S _
/ v.s9
/.-.>
r rpw w a) />st.'<s wxwrriw 77+
(
- . . . . .--.. . ./76/474 ^/, /M. J~d v.C.&As&d .27A1,r- Cd/2fM </. C,7/3e of . _.
- - _ .. . ?ffWD..hordf ...W4/dS . /VAM.2deds*dsM<o . . - _ .
. - - - . .... - --QAAAM~ ..- [At' _ M [ .6 /.s CJ W Ae d e W s1 nc/:n.-6 7>nns-Foa ASad Su4*oerLCevmb yD .-./W/*s04QzoA/- / & Q 6s A >e ,r .6v dea S 7?vr..fr/s.esm sf
. . . - - . 9 K' f w a Qi.wzy),,o -
__/e._../yswesxgg gx cy.ogg _ yc -
. _ - . - . 00 eS.,- CV4M .*4.7~ '0/-d/.*Arr64-y.- wMCCin&2. .. $ctss:r; & se
_--. .M -.?f, ou WdcMen fg .- Pef, t<<.~Y.MEd.77-25t
- _ /74"[-- 4kt./Zdw Awes 'f36*d'nWd- O #GCS$ <:.*xC
- L;%i -
--. -. - AG.ffx/.UALy S*A.'.r~f- Ef6 <t.9es :r__Cs <.e ms 0.w -,-.
W E- $b[ NJ $dW #
J
/ 77'/H b/$L.- - - - .-- -
.: l" $ liv /+SdI-.zp-.)Mef.. A84e'~e. 4/A!!'. W /?CE'- #Ad &'r <
ro wcws.
~
..- .--..-- [4/fC ' 1 .d e nt-x d*d) rwc /f 04f&_. kW,,&
-- E . ? / 0 Va. - &} Uk' AnoAc.nrAs.-o. d'.cD<&&.us
@ fM W4f .fSD*:I!l4cStw4 A S'ced c __g w ng .-
DTA 04.67. FAC. /2%f.- 0/d 64***.-.b'**v W:- -
- . - ' Ed. ~.
SbsLird[ ro. z?NC /S.Te4 7 ~ h lt 8 / 6 & $ 4'~ sos '.-. ..
.-. / ^ ?'C 4 &
- A re .' = _ _ _ .--
- s
. . - . . - .?./ A..ffetfu.a.ers g 4c.co. n ness l'" $.w e 6.y A n ..- s--
..; .- Et*fC17W -.sv.f/?.2traS- lnsuo t- W' & .3 e**/u 'ds) du A .TA.6M/t A 7M' Osd..MuoD.eA 77.e.cr . Am.. SMC#e i . .
-- ,._ . /C. /4 ciSopgfy.r_gs_.s._g ss e._.-_W_ fs c st e ps s -
1 l . - - . . - - . . - . . - . .-- _04 74"dwfo...wde ns .... ..--. .... . -
( - - - . . - . _ .- _ . . . _ . ..- . -- -. .
~
ll. .b.Qco.uA. cs-[2e.7.GAkO.//./-1.4 $4 ~GA p
-// /- 4*o
-. . - - . . - . --. k !. -- d.. - - . -+. ..
. .... rraeu.jf ra+.c Mmvo .on. /< .snc/?s z '.- -
e %
y W - m
/@BAC15 nw VM DVf Ass *4ees <>p swwss wA'4:ts_,..
C) 172 AcMyr.s:Sd## fc.7/3 5 /*P<6*rresowrJa a z;wsE-M_f_4eAnVM <s F/7e cM wa6B t<//c c - ss n
/>1 sac e s',A
~
A / fS ??N1AESA$w_6 // ALi%g M d m S.,*&W M d#
/
7XAf 3 SA*'6' <AeC0
_ *W f4*s3 #7) Ad & /. s-Sdes=:c rfr0 hM.___
Ssm u /tw /s no w o A _/s h e > Ps-%_csA_m A rAc' d-fn/f f W f.dS_T Y S% sk Nsf L_,
SA:2%)So e<rms w/M Aer- Asute s c/J.s.ese t ___ _ _
r M A9fAnr u W-S$'fA"*" / 4*/ A SW/f~~Y f
S/46.,*%.9'R UM
./ .
s (d AAhC / 77
.emd _ fM h/NA*'/* A>'s)A*S 4./J & s.- #ft:C %.*s/n0 Ot* !}L* *2 A w escer-s os riu A o es.o w s n ~ w-5 x o,--ss - s -. n g ~ ~. ro ~ e r -
g M ! d . [ Mpa W" j ud m$ $ f7bAJ 6V/CD As MWM nWWM/w'fdf.,e AVA>d rft'.**/ee *LA .nd esg::p EMA M/J r./AAsf rmd Z s AAe* /L@u/E/~s _J Cf A ksutrs /LAr/r wtc- dd ws/w ro .dA':cs-c, r-Tk/ /f/Jutr3 d'/* A w f/5 CeAc/Ard /ffo/ss , C AnyS# esr-l 4
4
+1/odi J/r d a , ws my on m O.nienu.ar
- A ns,,ap i
W V. / 8 _ Sws Rma; .:.+D pgg ~mm
>?hs;e-47 W':p & s de w EN D n4c N / r' f W a e .c d M - > - g-; , 6 ;; K ^
M/s.cs< /s 6 Mznan__
Seri -n s oersve -
4 x c.e r z m ? w D8A.,,H-b Aft *A*/ x ^^ / u / d rans w v. ^ 3.^91i fod W
_ bnd.*'f b ru A/Bde4 l _( /9trMr ms n ce m m ,n 7w CRNA;r 2s.r -
w A4.-hWw zn r-w_,
m W /Aa _
l
- W&ss za n a w cs ~= 1- ce M C/ Ts A /P4jy &1 /+ Ms -
r Ws_d; slo. f.a_
/af .ernsfrj .// \
[
S 9
/ 77m^ W D/f 5/sv./ /%ss /V //c 72 7a 774C C/%7~ fnG./ n h/s.v , l:',st/D .W2, sta / ~d y /:.c /,.-r. c / f A rs '^ / ,~. : . c ? u ,; -
,m ac /y' < s,n : oc r) rs g / ::..,6 . r/vc / -(A ,
//oO / 0 / ",1 r i / s f . o "///4,-)&s Gy c,C /.v3. *r. "s - M-7/%.25 /><.s / r3 /sc/ ris+ss/ o / % x cs e / n 0 -> + c 1
r sf 0 r~~ fed' / C fP d/s / /d/&.".& 5' rad 7'.e/ G fps e ' t /* r . " ;
A A/$sh d'y fpld' ./2/2dflys!!,r' 67/* /st/
a A C **.,,v f .ac -7.~2 t's v d/ .r/'g*' . -J/V'/'s s"/'/s -r.d //t -S.P/f 7/dsd /s' @ CdCc//:/_i C V / rzs '7'f f:/~ps'f~ ~f,g 5/&er/24sy 6 fff$.y "
/ /ag" 2 7/f'/ $ffs//,sf $ r/l/ 7~ ;'7's] / AS/ /~"r f 67/ f/ 'd" /(.'A t,/
k i t c. mas- 4/s-fry /A rn. #74,/ rzie .fss " rs*c,.x Jf' ,r/:d"- 5/'/a/(D VJff's2 s ,c.. Z / M~/s,9 sd / /- d A c /' -t?.
?/V'_ F?'// f,//871~ 77W ///r / l'~,* $*Co*" A -rs) G'/s**$ .3 f ~
(>Jt/ /sr 6/% //f sc /.,*,#4//, # 7s t), c. c, '/ spg g r m r
/ 9 $i/'[ ff 8( b$5/7////'/ //1f.C. f///" .s/' ), $ .< .( '7d' ^
/3r// /%9 4tMu /Ww.ouscy /e.e:;<-rs/"/ **n /u 77C /YCt'/I i+'fAc n cs s <rs A iM /Pc s.r s n /s y 7 4/t '&.
Ti// s's *?r 7y s r A /% <s,o<// , - //:s rr/,/^/frs os , //cs:.ct ,
~
fha rs'"2 ,/ Vi/,<:. A C 77 s x /E y / 6//t. o 5: S G s':, ra /
77**<1 /~ / 7 / /s? ,f && </t/> d,e' 6 fx f<* i c /Wa 's " & s As/ //' rV :. ' . ' e ry f /6 '~.~A' c/// /ht /.S. ,o s:.- #w
///'A sc dPrav 7/2 'ssr.s
, f/tr Srsrs~ , r t '; > , *r ;, //sc / A ~se" // 7 l' S h n/* er b')ys s** ,1, c;/ e: ,
'Pr~'~ D ~ ' 4' 's * / /
'Orw e,. 'S lg,r a. .;. S// u ,1 e., - 3.? s-) <n ! /Y ./'
n-- ,- - M ,.--s e
9
~0 /J - flN} / 0 YAs. b Old hfh hl #
hf , $$ l f ) /s $ f ros -m ,, 2 y xc Aces ?>w -c, s,ac nvy "c
~ ~y <e -- v;/ n- s - e ,we. A % m e f'/ hJss / 70 /Ffm / Sffl;///f' " 3 // /24 / Y.9 Ass ' 4- . fdcJ4A
- r~-
S$//* /y//f U lllk & (JC C QY $ / oge d &*/ /-/Wld k } '/~'
P y/d / AM h/4S Z SW&.,s/A) &&6n >^ 678d sd /3 ^
6 t'ar &> sy As/ Rs sn/c 0f-9s'/'-/u-u f/
nya w-vc rm- essc nn w w / o o o n n ,, y 6t/d cde , //sde s3 <'*f 4 / M v e& 7 fs2 f/Cs'"4r6 r s* <_
S/7sv/D (+64 /U/ft" //s o sst/77's+', # se m /<~#&
AS SVf es i crw r;w 4 0 b r/'res 4's c J
l
,--r--w.- - . , , , - - - - . - - . - - - , - - , , , , , - - - , - , . -,.,--,-.-.,n_ , - , - , - - , - - , - , _ , - , , , , . . - - - - - - , - , - . . - . - - - -. . - - ,- ---,.----------.----.,.-,n,. .-
l
~ P_L' M __
/d V 1 - _ _
&&% LL -- ~ a
( ~h
/sr- W M 2e . -zim # m
/
n= w , si /n ~ _HAD W2 /ss- 2 An=w sI nll w
/ r % ~ M a a k /,in / s M L w sn n d'r,2c w 6 w, Knn 7749Y W Rvt/ cst H. J 4 v' s / ~ c+ rJ M -,d 2_
Der AS#K w
. Y. f. Al{W//)U l - /n'm L/e .
M OM /%f 6dsns A&*su' && /JM f./o m /%vo n<c /sc /sdw A W rr) de 26.s/s vsn rs m /s.sc /s hisfA Zh"'S/-xA.e' rawgr e it e ce vs4 f', n o s, s,<44 w_.
WF3 CAMUA f2 W Wa $r M/ /$ Md
/SSt/A M /rs &_A 4t/N. / n # $ en v4 A s Yhie:^
J n s/u m ~ m nesso., -u ~ erisa n
~
Ns.c Cd M N su vo mwA*Nudw D
w a. e Srv.c nwr ssss:us n s =ew s . sd n.o.<wxs.
sw r;mc Mstrs MAJ stC rheE~ Sw Afstcssde nsC 6 A u es /r rsor/ H e4-rN ,,a. - A4t'&Lr c4 fik e js.ress a m.ssw ,
9J ~ ru nsm a > ~
M /*,*4v/ A w '4 M4- 9 sM d'A / A ^~ te/s x1 JA.nas As & w JO1A M_ P2 /LO A ,a WS
/ ,u MAsr/s . v AMW'sJus //t/E N,N3 An'nc s 7"D / Mon 1 A
/A/ rA* sd* NJu/m /1/S2 ? l- /fSA~ [bk7/$AN46 rv 27w 5Mc &,_ uns - A 1SSJ r # #-12s >c.#s*C W)r" //-~f M -
/7d u.
-(
- - , - , - - - - + , . - . - .,-- --- _ ,,. , . - - - -
d /t ?)
.=
- 5. 3. -] 57W/ f///W 49 7/J1 s.'./
772' .Fr.rff;#' /r:, /...,/,3
' , ' .' . " r ' '. 's / 2
!~
- ,3 5 / g ,d" s'/ y .' h #p t :rp*', J f f/'s*j / s.t.s f's y / s/.S
/50FP /J T/ss/ S'f& ripszs /m/J /) ) C & " / 4 M
, ~'.9 s.s /: /
Y/gf/f/ O/ hb / el' f/ ! ~0 FfD 5A/" fry VY/ / '.**"./]
St/$/^/ ACrn.N77fS dr l/ SfS.
,h&'LA,cp r/ ';
k' v/fas 7 csoc, as euW,c /d&><o n 77'AA.3 n/rrs,2 m p'sS O/V7/" .A - t'/' r s.-*/ x .
] () / 9 d T ~
/
C/fl/8fu : J)f.vGC 70 75'/"4:' . N'/*:~ C (8/*/fr Y /,,:$ V;f// / )sC
/ W ,$ Tst" Q /5 OW f /
w FN/S /./dWs Afic 7 Q / ?cY /2**E/'O.r.<L ' s' ,r y Y{,/f"C . [Af S/'f/ ffts//~ t./ // -: -/> ' 9' % W' An E' cs/s ei / &r / u v s /s - s a- / />/.,r.n> ny 1
/f)/A/6,,ffs.o rF4 f.;s(9// k/~Vd /J s - .3 & '/ Z f f 'I~ /*.if d~,'swu f6' Ass'
/asu /um <
in - s,/<x /rsam ,~ 7-www ,,-a -~s~ s-uo a u-7/A'ms es /,:/(, ,MPV (,4 us sr.s3, /3 i 2G1 n) .-
'/ -
/A'A S?///' r7 s , ts ,s .m/> sfg>s />.,1,,c /p g ,, c& // 7,>. ju si.,e 4 m
/ ? //~f #$ forrf $ k[o a > // '
[/}.f / [//[ / / '/"./
N g.' V R A & '^ Ord' f 6 &cs)np .
- r-3 4 * .- *
.- 6 --
) 49 ) e 6 ~7 fk
-- _ = N.d*'A'Z /3 .. .. .
\ '
.- . ? W -- R M B -f4 W 4 A ' W &M._.CPW Q+s/xecais/ '
= . _
..- A H.Su <y L e c,e , L (C4M) - . . . . - - _
i i
VO 4E.~. 7' M .. SV,',d4 M E}
_\
\ r s nn eeuw w>- \
\
\ .
N.~ .c z.e n u n. m w ,, \
. ~\- \
S 3.3. / /(d9[M. AJM;c__. _Sds A5we;c A A+ ~cc.u,,,arrs . av.szaan,t/k e- ]
w -
E S. //t -)2pJ.)sc /7d w "ciu srwwn on. x n, ,,ies ," <<
4v&.r.:r.& n: ~^ AniiCM- A-.Ar422.4 -
/SSt,tc A-r Q.m e.<aw- by T&cn;, /
Swe. 'u . 7Ec_.$&sby W W M e5 4-. E 4 & ees &-
C w*m c u v V y _g; $ev.+s c# m .__4 p ,
rre c_
f,2'2w & f**ME ';*5 4 M M rr.srzesr.y. fo-<,,w_ ey l
i 86.*M AW fm'H,,,wstr 4.Mcse v4 2;uc' *fWdf
~
G~s.n e +. 2s~--.A'&md
.--. - - - - . - - - . = =
-... Ak%e/O&7.s~sc- ele $
.--...--.----. _.I41)w. OA7~l %. E/c.cn-.._kwn G s h4
~
~
. . . . - ..... - - - -. - -..hedB.Mrx> nst b 'WhYy.fg_ swn__ cs. e, mas _
..-......& Os.,v. .duci -s Mede .. &fefc.& .MerM .&*. ct~e
( \
\ Cluado rzks 6see. W.A~.' nsf. ,4. .?, k ke e ./dwd.~:
.-._ __ _ .. b T h C . 4 &
- M . e M . . 4 v s p e e c . , .t. W W 4 , . D -4
. - . - - - - - . = =
t % .s s r e n n .s u w ... A#se ssi d h - - . .. ... ... ..
,mm. , - . - -.__,--..-,.w-.-,._n-_.--.n-- , _ _ - - - _ _ _ . . _ , -
-.-------,,_.,__m-_.,v_.--.- __e_,,.-_w-,,g,e._r.,,-.my,--- - - , - - , . ----------y ,
hl.84*' 7l?4*! 4 - l$7 As 2
- S -._ A ~S h *r:3
.)GMC.. ANO...S$V/ CAY # . ,
-..b ra<o a sssw ?;u:s < wmy of r.ws. <- da.n ~ c.
.!17 . Essese -. ca,4,1pm << CA D 7.e' _es m.<, -M-sv se. m,-
eae.m as~._ wsm.~ ae.a.s.v.<,.ektu u m n ,- ~ ~ a.v_.ac ~ s u ,u.
- ~,. <a cev ego _x z= - e ;&= = ~_x =___=_ =_ gg . _
c,. -
v' fAl/z / 91'Y"' W W /RS.pk /$///$6 ~0V ,
SWKd.AvW /A- 4/M& At%Es# 134S c;/M4s -s<&a w ~ n ///,0,ve -
- W /$1 /-
U$J/N( & hl.#_$.}6l - .
n>
d~. 3 ./N C/W Ase os.s/>r-cw s
^
s'y Arez.ous.s -ru tzw I;*r~ +T66 : 2zu:
// 17/.&.. fS'rbrsdm..DVE G e nsr><d~ & z
._C- A $ Ars e s:ama frA&J L .Tu - ze /por the ( A' g r / s s m 76C.ssw zm A9eue, Mus wi,a. juk.s., kosi _ d 27_ ,z.s.o
- 0..s.zseah ~ A~//c Amy-Ociewi-y blfd.6&ner
<>bc;ew -
&b%./M:5._>_0Ard2dd -
a A. /SM i , .
' b Sb$h, **/t$**M /S *l & M b /st.f T 8*'Y"d#2'W&
I O dJ.CWass.co*rrE w //c"uEk /.zt.dAst%vm e.d.~. eeerr.
ra_./bo.off tr A-4s Esfr6e2;;;>:- xtd'c v>, ecd C4Mrdre.A.a2.
l .
l . ._. . fed d e'* A C rs $ N ri d S P [. 8 f 4 S. --
= __
..-. . . . . . _ YdfO.- LQ. fMf Yll 72#C W4n.~ !7 /?. .
--- . Ad& '-./fdf.tgs.gpes_ M_epSc_.hst4ge . er<pwser r.d __
. . . .._. Afd +12%?4.- .sW)o /s72n#cet. .
.cd +< 4'hf-e tx !?-s*r . .~*~;t-- -
- ..(
...- -- -- ... Cts &t4<.e yJ.g. rw.sgas rj/; .c.,ar._ co.*-c4st' S-. Ac w >- .
l -
O />4C. $t.M4rpr'.. sve*C. Cs.e snt< esc./? jew ../?./.;*vs W. .
.(%.V r9*tkC. **')*f~ Yb $..c+/.t.4 _.44 ./,6 sfas -ts xs' M,.. .
\ .
. . . - - . . - . . .. fi<'#' /- (#'Affe m .. CJ /f/ZtC?D'+'d. ACr9J.</_ W-*'../R-
. - - - - - - . - - _ - . - . - - - - . . _ _ - . ~ ~ _ . - _ - .-~ _ -_ . -.~'
- . _~. '
. ~~ ~ '~
- ~ ' ~ ~ - '
a _ - ++. ,1m. o a.
4 eh e
w _ r w _ a a,<. h a m e p c a m m m -
Co45.zkec.nc.o r/ss4. G/ e-lt e L . S. >%Cq -&/ 2-rdn 4d M- Jor'JE 49 Cv/ct_d / A' W & /m /WA5/s +-
/3Cy /ALsd6 4/8r.6 4 8 cc s er L O -
M mag.
Sr tiwh Ad/.setAerm M.c, chyss m /4sz. As.cu-n n ewre ,.s sacer m w 4.m ZJm .Aceu S7;w1?CP 7 7-4 er - M 6 6 A Wv, m j_ /0/Mce s. -3 -
w g_ < c ,4 A c .Swauns~,ww& m w_cxa noctows
& s.u_ m n s.s.o.eu n a esLQ Ra_;, .: : - = L-am3 %=4W Ae?&=;,e 4_
r
[M? b% 8ALA054S A M. der Sh M ( m A_
9 5 M & n.r cs a n u m / Ps w w .A w & L 'y Fo we6,w swm . A sw swa.< ms RW 4A4 /E 2 WMg,ey /7d t nx" $_ & M
~
w e m to s m O s o m _ w .ase EMero d d i h / f - A c w ) r a c n u:. e Jfft.y sA sc w w % bL beces m s '7se h m osw m- a s- r -
S'd-
-- W M A-s**)' n n . d L W 6 4 ' M _ & _se % W y M R M <c 4._ m ._.j5o.t sed 29._4 W_-unt. EP A._asc /s INnd /'A._CddiafA49 S M_/ q Sr6<,,eN 'r n Z ,.rpe
- SWCt' J-Lc.+- M 6)'/ w #w e /69f.6 A- .6 d. -
Aff&.C.td.s w/u bL CeMEf6tGG TM AdEC1&rk r4 .
N m . - #*-
_ m
- ==
w .
C J 4 4 / M 'C # # A
. L'M? fM.C- DJddlL^t$t __beft-Ast7)$_n.*f'. _ _ . . _ _ . ___.
D eh e- , , ,
- - - a._
Y O
e
- 44. 9mry._s?AserzW mw -sc acesdr>co ase_ e _
- M A11s o &!.As&d % Sm wcacs > n Ga Ers - -
raA?fff.t22'6 AC nLs/ W r W b D ss; Sf4 kd,/M-8Ad 6A5tw =
{5s ht Asmmsw << tns.dr.c.-Ld.s-s.Awa-I, w w ~ caerc~ a a a, n.n.m u-
~
b.d9'& b$h k _W S W
'm na s- w a s 1 6. a . s m . A s a s-c e s . a.-
W n_.vi_s/sah 4 rwr is m as_sm g cwr-k rn.som >r).~' / 4/ acs.3 + s m xxco &&-
N sssu LMr A~ n . & mar u ,._. ,a MlS A A f e <:c s s e s
~B X
( csm s-namns
% chewscx 2s .r.g nr 72as co26 sm
\ s%G_ts)g_w Me t,r).s&-sx e igre- DA/~~ ss< A - _
E2O M Ark. NsJr@&mu kLUM4.cesM
\ b. w m h-br4w W ems -x w
\ mo-, na n mene_u,mm oi rze Y '
hte116efs.es *sdre.sashs "ans m . m ./. s.s=
\ w a as_ - ~ n.<_ e n w n s. a z.aoc a a . c u . _ -
WMw-.!av Hxx, Aes.1us1.A.c.s.cas. r.o. fr
._d'ert k&cenis sverc./MAm Eu. rysAsgy-
- _..-.- _ _\ .4frz2.~_';.m.- 9 L.n&c. AdA'1.Aru ,vs m<se+.<cA .
\ s.' u .c /- d / j> r. 4 Ase .SAery -#m_w.crm.cm x
\ Aba.n6cs TAtC.En9e K2.'/d%<6-. roc L'M'ms.a -
. - . \ a S m c o x t M 6 1. as 4.4 L e c ~e ctm . b - s_ ..
- . \ e n .. O n e 2 ~ . s n s w . ~ z
\
/
.d&: &
i t
/b4#6t//)/X b ,
Srws /=wz u-m .e e o'-s= CPA' f~ O nsmoc -
.0)n) /hc / p;,iry / //C/s' % bt/~'ns$AAAN 5~ d 5ft / -/.e/ms ne /%ss wr/s e/
S~. f' .57///(~/2 A4L /'dAOC ?77s e .S
.ST l/ f/ 8A/E6 f /.Ed/Cd' 0/ /Ad 56 Afo A r -
/$/d /6 , E'Alsd 06Ad A//d 5 c AA.:nd-
//'/,t/ - A's6 so , 5A At t ./.5 s/eS A -/.c S!////ArS.
S. M V/ w usoc/7su c Cd&/5fxr/C os cy4~ .d /s/ ?6 , c s n!,9 5*1ar. c
/3w sxsc 5s +0sn/g ns sen s
/hs#754 /2;c.< g- ss c Ysd.5. D g A'W ft,<2ty D
Of Cd 45 K///e r/sA ef A// 6 S&A/ o/Les
&/45 6 'S Cusssf ? fr.rfe -S /t.sfJy .,6 :/4 s-n (=*
Og / Mv/sc, A S t g p r,,e ,; g , , / p ,,s ,, ,
&; T A > /$,V /7M 68[- $ ^,' ," ---
W '6
,A- F 4 M f f h / / A s 5 ,, m '5 y
('ys +4 d u / ~ c. nwzu A:ns s /, 2 s- 3 nu &s,isa . /a s > <n ac ,-
!? v- A//& Srs/x # cA /J s ,: -c.e .o og
- ?lW /es Ifstj /? /y ,x ? A % / - .,: f.,-9
F G
J
$ A4 $& & f 6/1~f?OA. S $$ /*f.< 4 0 d 8 O'.*+ r d //0 A $
swoo- cs : - e n s ~ m ,c e s. ne ecan af ryg 77ET' />gss nsr e r swer sc .s ow.r> /. e./
( V O ll $ $ ( I ? ) $6/> ~'Sf4+ [n 7"* l 0 /s$/ k/A'd.- / 7Ef"~
?!4'd.,/t/ //sAsnsa rp 4/ //46G -O ~' 9'? /&az sw.o 7,74{ [~0/E f h id 6/ !m ,
0/ w 6/./ T;s4 7e,/7s5~ 7)fg
/*//14/ L'S r?&S ?/_v//,0 A Tff /* %:/'r.7A rs/) N'o Get--
TD /WLK) Z /7'd COAsS//L4 6 774 A.) /'d cd't. /J f,;r 0 4 0.@s! S&,oJo,i r.5 771?et/ 7 &/1 /J Sd-eto 46 /. .c /. < 5##r -
/70s/ P At//o /.2 6 6c/ n/* e, ris n g,> /t./ /R"t///Jc
- Yfb {fb /lh/80 A/f
- fdmr r7J.s f ix s r- rxw sne.a c~wns 8
r m nim - s.,osao-o-G/,Wp u 5 Ad AO 4y /7s n 5, 77/4 (P L-I C-e x 5 40 6 -2 6 /> /3s r# 4/1/2 6 E s </t c 66/.?4 f/,od SSA'26/LtS s.: 6 77J
/2/ 6/6 / .~.) A ci,<.) / d s ' b / A . 776 d/15/5
/~si- C t w s ,r,i in f.e A t L.- t'y'#/s o' '< '
St/A/26 7 : r S / r.s 77'd LJ wd 26 /&-(s1 fro .<r -
/5 r/r r M SAas & Csx. S;nes c. 7isn <
lWe Cdd &/[F5 As(6~ 4-50.
8 e
I S V V$ $ 7Aff /2/// 6A nd /U Ou/ O rca :;e s t 8 -16, Aw & o- n u s_. S,~ 9s:
77T d M 3 //Vf AAdAM-' n s;.g /%u Ac,o sr 74 7x, c &Er^ S/</ -Av/77 d pcc 06 2 r se Sen.a Mec ris.n.- k&AsGA/Y Nda.s 41 Ces *r & r.n sse sr./
Ann. 77v sw gwws w s spa - o
//ooes /8 A;u rv/r. 9 AS / A S A , l' A S x / , w 0.5 The population of pipe supports was divided as titled in order to assure a proper sampling of rigid and non-rigid pipe supports. This is important, since the majority of " standard catalog supports" are in the non-rigid category. The small bore sampling was not divided, because the number of non-rigid small bore supports is very small and also because the type of support is not readily obvious from the support number (as in the case for LB supports). ERC intends to sample 60 supports from each of the three groups (LBSR, LBSN, and SBPS). The SBPS populaton was made up of four work processes; fabrication, installation, welding and inspection. The ERC management seemed to be confused as to whether inspection should be a work process or an attribute. The two LB populations did not show inspection as a work process. After much discussion, the individual in ,
charge of the SBPS group indicated that rework to a support very often occurred during the inspection phase as a result of an UNSAT Inspection Report (IR). Since this work was performed under the umbrella of inspection in order to close out the IR, this a separate work process.
The individuals in charge of the LB group appeared hesitant to accept this but eventually they did. However; at the exit interview, ERC upper management balked at this agreement and said that they would like to investigate this area further. The ind sut;d th:t if th;y d mv-cilannes thay ':e'A d ;;;-tect the a 6TT (the St.;ff 27995 with inennet49n 261(g'ferW vrL% // - TfL F!al FP' sL f p/* Vf. n m -
4 49 Arv *r7xm s x s.wose. 4Ms e,c w 7H/ksc svou-
V t
t pop,yp y g , 7) K O f 7 4/5A:2 1 77'/5 N M
- d * "
Qry 72 y) r- f~pfy f)/jst&A! 7/+f WkdN #Y NW N dGud /t 5 M 5 W E * * ~ !
tyg;,y gys /9 //Pfp/ ? w/> /Sy M M"f M" "#L 7;g g ,1,, g /) m c/~> g,j V i s>5 W /A/ S AG A "$U The staff reviewed the various documents (description memorandum, population description and basis, population items list, work process
. justification, attribute description and basis, and QI-019-020, 027 thru 030). An auditable trail existed such that all work processes and accompanying attributes could be verified. The staff noted that under pipe supports welding two attributes were omitted (cleanliness and base metal defects). ERC pointed out that cleanliness was unattainable both from an inspection standpoint (prewelding attribute), and from the point of view of document review (cleanliness was not a hold point on the Multiple Weld Data Card [MWDC]). ERC also said that they did not include base metal defects for supports as an attribute, since it was difficult to see defects through the paint. The staff pointed out that requirements for identifying base metal defects existed in ASME Subsection NF-4000 and B&R procedure QI-QAP-11.1-28. ERC stated that during the reinspection of the sample supports base metal defects were looked for in each case and noted as an "out of scope" observation for inclusion in th normal deviation system. The staff would not accept this, and asked ERC to reconsider this approach. After some discussion, ERC committed to put base metal defects into the attribute list and to treat all instances as part of the Construction Adequacy.
08 T[i? W 00AS (4) Base metal defects was omitted from the welding attributes but after O) much discussion ERC agreed to include this attribute. The inclusion of this attribute after the inception of the reinspection process should not cause a problem, since this attribute was still inspected from an out-of-scope standpoint. Any deviation previously found will be brought into the scope and addressed accordingly. .
5' 4
i-4 The staff has a concern about the statistical mechanics of the
@ overlapping of the regular sample (safety-related items) with the ,
engineered sample (safe shutdown systems). As explained to the staff, the engineered sample is independent of the safety-related sample, however, some of the samples may be common to both groups.
After the safety-related sample has reached 60 and has been identified as such, the engineered sample from the 60 items are identified. This sample is then expanded until it reaches 60. Both
. samples now are designed to draw two independent conclusions. The question arises, if a safety significant deficiency is discovered in a sampled item that is comon to both samples, are both samples expanded? ERC was unable to answer this, but agreed to present this question to the CPRT statistician. .
E 'l '/. Y CZ)^'Cf t'S/d.1 G 77/f x, ,4& 5O//c />w/7/ s m2 rPs' r S&/~
/ nk /xx? husc ,,, ox lhe c s;.euc ws n Aoceu,acy to o r ra n/.u f ne om/o ny a / ,a / w .o ess.u / -
O!/5 / 09 / % / A r! t) st 6. 77// / 0l'2 C. t. 9 sio st/ g s c !/ 4GL 1
h)/f $sr/.*/e- s.'$d / f /0 //f 5 ! AJ.4/* 'S 6ts)S /d ~
t'% -ss nse w.a.
- e. w mc .As Ms x ~.e 4
$ $'$) h d h / 4 V j' ( 3 b& b /f/ /.8 f/ M 3, t
W'/?f /' W f f /> /7) A v Cce, c L /3/s:; .c &r.e c 0/// css />S 4.t < AF7eh4,y M 6<at ,</2 ft 73&C f/
l fl D /A f.7 / tsp /2M' /'EdW3 5 7' .'1. A S f.) S 7 6/f/*Mt f C m ci r pssa n n m e. c e m a e.,oc. c - s x
'C/.;I f <* /1 r FA ' sf.,, ! C O / Mf.4 M.r ,,- ;t SffsA.1 sc A c r s so e r ,o st d/2 Ad /A<./ f.' S, 46 / D1/ad r$ c.b',,r /- e amD lr'!/
' d .*'t ) V/(l $$$ )/ (k / f 0,
,t f 7 l "
f 4
$7?lf'f EM44de17/dp of Md oaf Gwa n.'o e n s.~-
flo 6.wircy Avnw Aw fB4APJ EO F y rr.4 #A t- Soetc.6
'/ </ / Men n no Asu -+ /ssws .
tac.or ~ "f Si,v es,g (/sA P WJ 9 t'/' f / & rs w t ,,s i .
it & /s., u v cs n c. a w/ w rre m/4A w r.e-ss.?~.1~ ex Sffpg//0 //lt. / r Co fts S C<.r**3 .*A06. be /Jr c f 6 ** e j .r -
977/0v O nse<- lb!scw / byr (/E//[] &[ r 3/-c-rot.5 wo nr .- m Acfdpad 's M irisse cyn- a <en -
/A.& 70 ld//'f4 ty PfM is/b".' W 3r d.<C C/ / SKdW4A f/tt./ r- dv/t.cf .d w w d /?Ac /sS P.ders) " sA 8/M .S&f/ 4S. & Ykl /G'JA/ / d / / f A r /72. C.-
/a/a rw3 / , & c ;. e / e s s . < c i r s . u /zass 3-ws/
S&'-/if h y . D ~ 6/Vf FEY-f5 St//$.sw rrwa 17w- sir e c -
G # rio ,a m frv/swa cu s. w t r/s d Ac'7w f/cr%As d y 77/f4 m rue w.sc. css es /a . 'm/ww M/.5/t. '.
& U-7A5?f5544 M S&- . f.c c # 4 " s <
O y s .a_ , / n hy - Ersr /7F/ n - 5//>r
.' s./v6s -
Gi a
2-
+
't 77/fsf 484 3 & l}$ W
- d*<s? M"b w 7/~49-y
/7& Af7eA/, /stA f~d &(4carsA~d /741-r~ g C/f/?M f/. r,,V/' 269 drf 9CfWD . f / t e f r &s-: 4 ~t s s- t/fdE a M /x :.G fic=c r f. c C } /2 M C 7 2' 1/.
/
//d Wf^ d/S cdt//sff.4 Mt'~ & WZ/&f. W
/=oa A s.<ric stAscv:rs.e:~rsw -
l lf'A/]/ 8We 0
st/ h(4f 6ttsett 6vftb 5 7?sr~ N#//3//Ps k SKswss es~on/d u, /e. wrsuws ncew ws ase c. -
00 *** 5, c'.VfM M7 bld/ 0/4if4-y n5/dc/.fs0. l 0/.*A # 64 3 P'd 727~, av /f/ k s m n d9 / Pry . < . y. *. ,Es '77hsc -
m, w ~ c e s asn <es a aco<-e < > =:
/00 rf.,c/ 77/7uy F.AAfrf S'OWn'as.*.-r- Cd x 0 N v .
V f/ L O W .A A A rs~ s c #
/u es n.1 ro m-= Acer,.rs) 4 nry //A ro
,<sv.o
~cu a ff,,/f6*' O s t/ f /- / f d )" 77'/1~ f-f ' O C M W& p Z~Ss' P %. 72,1 Z ~s u .co sc u sa ?n s ca u . w e
@ FPc 747 /67 FS m e s w e.L-s A .Gre/d m ne-77-93 cesgy re/ r>+s J% g/m l'ou 7:s>r - - ' h ' Ed -
5.#0 ~G ri/5 ro. 7?ME / sstid . fh=6 A//SM /CC-r>r./
wCR/sa .
A 4/ A ffyifsv gg 8 0 Cs#mf.ss.W4 Pr*'/ dst 7)4d 6 y' 6S *s. ~
SPfc /73 W .,ner //?Af& $ /,vvo 4. W v & S W s t u Z d) 4. *"2.o 70 CJ /Z//g 4 76 77+S /*ft.#6D' ex 77 ~rd AA c S/dc- /
o
/C- s A'c) c'f.oc///g'- f.rs 3 1a s / s4 /7+: /n s Pse rs x #
dA 5^?"dWf4 WfC /) S.
dd G60(/Af5 0/ ~0/Y- // /~ N, hf ~ $/Y ~// l~ k
~ ~
f A.e,, (> -sw -/2 ,/ wiu oe who ro sx-7f/2 spi.vE // m4~ n//? seo g7/ /x -SA' /*~r /?d 1 '
2),'
f0/- FY S 5 . SF'~ft,/fD tyft 4.S 4WM / eZ$
1 <f/Ac W- R AW45 ne y~ QVc ' w'reis as s w .co ev6u .s' . :
smseen me</,n wo ww., n c c- s e.
/>>s'ds: 6,o ).$y S rPdOS"A.vs. A #4veem Smrk.c et # -
ryN Z s'eswe.o svce.cs <v M ss/ -cs ec nc o . nw Swoc /"w /s /3s, ,co w ses. ,es. :. % />- 7 r % es s -
.. A M ._4&rc. W Mss. m Mo e rysc z- ..
SMWfA cv'x' es)S sucxt 5s>r /.-;s'sdc tr.c 0/ds'& ty
.. -.. . . m /'t t y /SSVtr / c . A S'ffr y S'6w-esw
. . cs o/7/Ew. 7x t%ss.cc/7,u. g n . -sc. co~s oc cm . .
. . _. . .s'$y ./**. P 'A A bM7'f - . . . . .- . - - . . . . . - _ .
~
df_ RAY _/hsYsrs.os7Y,/, eye wx [k>-7 _-
x m - wc~~x - a ~ ~ , n os._-
.. . .. ..- . -. A do r .. '2*t'S.C } re.o -- G 6v/A S._/ '#.d?.N& *'HT.. .b/s C D-c.-
. 4c rro.v- .cwei. sas:Rw- . ww~.co'rit.- esp <.'?m w A~ -
.- . _ _ . . _ . -ll0 r/*0 cs/A*1.- PM6AS . / /d 9 l^***Gv t 2 df). . .. - . . . . . . . - - - - . . . . . . . . .
9.e M Jc/s/ s ar s ,o <& //s oe.newc x#rsx w.r, &yc-er W/4'fr %<tr o nh , r/dM ""&.y 2# 2 / .*t.e 49 /'/'! 7) 4 'A
/FC rtJ n9 .. ... _-. --. .. . . . .
- - * . = -
&l. Y. / 3. _ 5~7?4f/ ft/44. W !?'.0.#t/ _ _ . ._ .
t S l [Wlk '$ //'/ Je/kwo m m n. <ssrs x/><< ~);rV~c.~7~/r.c
~
p ss,s p sie +cn c Sm s
$f/ #7'fn /W,iG S.'.), / ? Y. Sf//Z ^*rMs5:2 C&'Ws eac"? esS M . _..
77/4f - Co ascfA<//Ms t' f//7*/ v .. *-5so4e ti e.e= 7><.6 -.. _
/>C /7./x.s A/ f t' . 7/4' ONr.,/ /f/3erts s'e= e / Z,-
j / ? 'T, 5&d. 7v77>Co 77fA'M . /dfTs'd-< Gd ro rM 6,wrc- m. wm, ,as n , , 'm M .
TM n .;s & eirsj,u eA mE rd .*r <4 /s wed se ers 7.* - 6 DMC6 St.s, CC My Wrr4 /f 4Gr } O fMW A,,,;,.*
Ov A rt f7// d . . . . . .__ .. .-
Y v .
$TWs*1 /.4f$ $//$ , f?cY _ [IT $FMesfW fght*~., .:7
~
N 1
/am y u -xr rs 7ec ,, SAP PL/s/ so,,/ ,wc. . -si/n 7n
. . A " duo rs
/7sss b ;3 ypg ,pos,s3S p 4 i/pg /sy,,,,, g 777g yyyy , / .
,, N / A /. 77/G i C/4C,r /0 4<3 E n w r* Srsu GLs /~'/M w/ c /
/x r4es.s c./> M /~g c- p p .46 : . _ _ - .
g
- i. aw #
ew m rey p /~Sne m ~ msss
. - ... .- Z. / Ad CdA C//3!* .Mwsrs' w . . . . . . --
_ _J /f/#/ s .rkr Ps ss ' 3 A>=r/ C6 - -
g ,
.. h
./ mif.',p Jo.*f. s 't s'</// /sss. . - - . . . . -- -
?W-<.s;?
7 f t/4 4 v t-rr p v o.' t* fra 5/ Zd. .
__ .5 ___hdf//.!d-17fss/ f/ ASC/dr] ffA/A'sS . . ---
N . . .7 M . M r / n cr..cri.% n .rs174 - G#d-*-r- .6% -
.- - -. -. ~a n ~ u c cea ~s. n s,- - - /r ~
MW 5/? f H . M . 9 *s < d d .</ fs) W7 77/E AlievCCarrfd -.-
f4 W S/2"sv' d.o .ew d cr3 /Ssw s%sc -< e r sL <s, < . A'M"5 -
sed S s.e c f . /r~s ,.+9 sect- &s c< S T m s s/ ';24s* ./; W 7 r@ ~
_r 7ps/ FM % 's ASx:t.<-o r>d CA/f r~/ f*t'Ad e "- .<S cv rier /n' r rys,c, f~Spse ss <s Mr /S:s c Ps*?) /fs::Sfs4/ //)s'ter?/sd d / .s' 77 d
+c. sy $4'8 sbe*/*'f /J .7 m M*C Ad4u AAfv'st/5cy /
. Ada 4<-Jsc/> /2,y 72WC. 7'M-TAJ~ Ssi +. n"rr r>< ^?ra7-cytsc ev <2+1- 77AC z.
..S r g s s.o_ cvg w, /ncscewd,<' spsc.e s.o .ro . gac s
. .C'dn *u+/ Ms+s P/ss es-~1. m s < c ss O's'e3/ u r><x -
/W6 nt-170 W // ff/m /E/d && 6y. EM- fd ffS. + c 77 w-r-rPU /ft% t*-) y t./> d6 416 D /ff ) 1,cs.d /.v m d /A' ~~Sc/c r3 .
/ W .9 /l C 772 S/>tr/ 4Lss a-rr3 c-d < -c f. c e c s W ..
! 746 6f.S<J /A'tb J' 1/J--r C+WEsv-S &F 77+S .?* ' S / s M : ~.
A4 rarrrk u d's 73+S sww c-vgess : derse e7s e - A&
crsowa m ac .s s s <- n o x a r e.;d . rx e ssz/;. -
'As/'dr W S u o F /N/2. . /SJrf. Prs- '*r '/ r. G F. -/ ,
S/.sc4 7xs AJ".s caco c/2d . r;Mr ,n/A +d s< ,evy < esS
\ r&.5 v md fMrts,o , Hso dEdv frd <a rs *S'" -
SA < J .*D f?' /* .. AAA*V'd </S -. fad O'/J &.4-d "A /s* m /s n
F St.<4S /X5 6fors: / c, s. W '/-sca wo A s />-3#fe r // ,sw.E
/55Vf l'r*S G'A /4?c . MMrds . /7W /1 ey- ff7s/r
./d ma Me e .s ec.s or 8 o e :r r a '.-v w WV/>t /r/ ec* Cf x3 ac c .77s. v Er-ses 4 .s Adr/3x -
ao .s,;, f/2 C. s// w x w ; x m . , -w -
77/8r . W M 7Ves7 A'd :od /r w.rc e,s Je A M >s 1797 AS/'d e7~
-- '*. & -e-e
. e ai
= . 4
. V.V /. V -
Cd d tpS/.9x/S . ... .
?Q614.'Ses ./J/ 4f Wo 7P6 [0Af~ 5 6A>>r) /
. . .. m /%wa 77-+f. A.C //J".. Adsd 4. M_ Af7/'e c m
. 70 F146 /5 S& fI !A/Sf.e. ? W S ' 7 f M ,.. & # v d W A cyps cd <. -ctst wfs) W- . 77% Ass'r C+c %d . /'= md
. OSV6. &- Cr$ .. 6 ds/A~ /c. . /M4Ac4 n d + s ty&&C
. Mr'. . AAe l'H- +y . &/J B AM~ SJf./> .& w.AC77J"' ./'m 7/4f [8W O-:f~ /3S s. -d1 se M A6 ?.,2. / 1 5SVAeC2 77 V S 7'W/' f?WT~ s$d M /t'd* n J s-Vf VC s) /3sC* Ano4 spcs.Sc.
/" rw //S.rcicr5 /Gf^./'d A-C fler SW Afstc.& i ~s M 6 f.yr t s r e s/' w/* t-/ rA /r o e A-9 9 & C r cf 77/r.S i Ef&',4* A-$ /s'".4)/*f/a r-) . 9/ s- cc . 7~Ak<* /.m S A 'r /r J "
. _ . . . . W/"W/d 4**W"9 . /i& ..- 9 WWWO C*'fL.,dJ /W . /.Y &= <.*/ . -
A/f//sc/s sy' /sy 7'WC, FA A s yEJ.s 4 /3 . -
.D 9-e e e e
.e
- - 4h &
,. . .e 4^-
- eop gp- -em u>. g.- * * = . *
. =
. 6 g.
.y-.--
,, _g. ..
m .
-=
~
%F SECTION IV - 2.4 - Staff Evaluation of Construction Adequacy Plan 88tG 1
~
, 2.4.1 Introduction (Cont.)
\ Item V.d: Plug Welds The T investigated allegations that incorrectly located bolt es in basepl es, pipe supports, and cable tray supports were "plu welded" without a thorization, with undocumented weld filler meta and without Quality Con 01 inspection. The TRT concluded that t repair of misdrilled ho s by welding was not prohibited by e appropriate editions of the plicable Codes. The TRT revi of Brown & Root specifications est lished that misdrilled h es were regarded as base material defects .and re suppcsed to be d positioned by NCR action or engineering evaluation.-
The TRT concluded that the id ti cation of undocumented " plug welds" and the difficulty in detectin em raised a generic concern as to the potential existence of an u nown n er of unauthorized " plug welds" of questionable quality. P entially de tive welds in highly stressed areas could have safe significance.
l The TRT requir that the Applicant modify a p n of action already proposed to C Region IV with respect to specifi items or perform a boundin nalysis to assess the generic effects of u cumented " plug weld on the ability of pipe supports, cable, tray supp ts, and eplates to perform their intended function.
\
Item V.e: Repositioning of the Main Steam Line. k The TRT investigated an allegation that the 32-inch MS line was forced into position by the polar crane and 3-ton come-alongs and that l " tension" induced in the line as a result of movement during the alleged incident was still present in the line.
The TRT detennined that repositioning of the Unit I loop 1 MS line had been performed due to settlement of temporary supports. The TRT learned
{
\
6- 77
SECTION IV - 2.4 - Staff Evaluation of Constructicn Adequacy Plan .-
% 2.4.1 Introduction (Cont.)
.- J l that the partially installed line had sagged due to settlemen 2.4.1 of temporary supports during flushing of the system and/or construction.
The TRT also determined that the TUEC piping analysis performed 1 year after the alleged incident did not adequately address the full sequence of events involved in the incident.
Accordingly, the TRT on November 29, 1984, informed TUEC that action was required to resolve this potentially safety-sianificant condition.
2.4.2 CPRT Approach tem V.a: In response to the November 29, 1984 NRC letter, TUEC
)
de loped the CPRT Program Plan to include ISAP Va. This ISAP ddressed the c cerns of the TRT by establishing a scope and methodo gy, Sections .1.1 through 4.1.6, for the Action Plan that responsive to the issue. he Action Plan included a review of a d umented chronology of inspection thods involving skewed welds to co elate the period of time and specific rocedure revisions for the i pection of skewed welds. Procedures Q QAP-11.1-26, QI-QAP-1 -28, and CP-QAP-12.1 will be reviewed to detemin if the method o nspection for Type 2 skewed welds was adequate to addre the uni e aspects of skewed welds.
TUEC also comitted to assess e equacy of the implementation of the appropriate inspection proc ures by tablishing a random sample of Type 2 skewed welds to b reinspected. sample plan is based on achieving a 95% confi nce level that less t n 5% of Type 2 skewed welds were not ins cted properly and may resul in a safety significant condition. The einspections will be conducted by third party.
Finally, results of the procedure review and physica reinspections
! will b valuated to assess root cause and generic implicat ns.
Corr tive action will be taken whenever modifications and pr edural l
c se are required. A results report will be written to documen the l
2.4 Staff Evaluation of Construction Adequacy Plan . SECTION IV - -
2 CPRTApproach(Cont.)
2.
inally, in Sections 4.1.1.6 through 4.1.1.8 the CPRT has stated at a rev w of existing QC inspection and documentation procedures ill be made t identify necessary changes and also a third-party verview of the total ffort will be made.
To accomplish th econd objective, as descri d in Sections 4.1.2 through 4.1.5, rand amples of cable tr supports in both Units 1 and 2 will be inspected and, necessary subjected to engineering evaluation. ,The investigativ t , in general, parallel those for ASME pipe supports and basep1 s. esults will be used to assess the root cause and to detemin generic imp ations.
Finally, precedin ither of the above objective Section 4.2 describes the developme of a viable inspection procedure to i tify " plug welds", i uding criteria for paint by personnel meeting e CPSES Assurance Program or personnel qualification requireme of the Quali T Program Plan.
Item V.e: The CPRT approach to resolve the TRT concerns resulting from the TRT investigation of the allegations regarding forced movement of the MS line and improper welding of temporary supports is described in Section 4.0, "CPRT Action Plan," of ISAP V.e, Rev. 3. A review of Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the CPRT plan indicates that specific engineering evaluations of the MS line incident and a generic study of possible damage to other piping are proposed.
The specific engineering evaluation includes: reviews of procedures for pipe erection and placement of temporary and pemanent pipe supports; interviews of personnel involved in the MS line incident; evaluations of procedures and practices; analytical evaluations of full parametric variations of analysis inputs for the MS line incident; significance of I
stresses and support loads resulting from the analytical evaluations; reviews of existing UT examinations and hydrostatic test data for the affected MS line; and a possible reinspection program.
'~
SECTION IV - 2.4 - Staff Evaluation of Construction Adequacy Plan s 2.4.2 CPRTApproach(Cont.)
The generic study for possible damage in other piping, including the Unit 1, Loop 4. MS line includes: reviews and procedures for pipe erection and placement of temporary and pemanent pipe supports; reviews of Nonconfomance Reports (NCRs) and Piping Deviation Request Foms (PDRFs) for circumstances similar to the MS line incident; interviews of pipe installation personnel to detemine piping subjected to adjustments during fitup; review of all other sources of residual stresses in piping systems; evaluations of the significance of residual stresses due to
~
fitup; possible additional pipe fitup evaluations; and possible modifications to Gibbs & Hill (G&H) specifications and/or related procedures to ensure that piping and associated equipment are not j i adversely affected during flushing activities and/or by the use of f temporary supports.
4
- Section 4.3, " Responsibilities," of ISAP V.e indicates that all activities are to be perfomed by third party (including a verification of previous work done by RLCA) except for the modification (if required) i of procedures and specifications for the control of pipe erection, temporary supports and hydrostatic testing and flushing which was to be a Comanche Peak Project Engineering responsibility.
2.4.3 Staff Evaluation -
V.a: The staff has reviewed the CPRT Program Plan, I .a and l
found th lan generally to be responsive to the is based on the l
following obse tions.
The plan had identified ch 1 of inspection methods and its relationship to procedur visi to be the proper starting point.
The plan also add es the adequacy o mplementation of the l
appropriat spection procedures by means o he proposed sampling i plan he staff believes that this aspect of the 'q will most likely i entify the root cause of the skewed weld inspection p The
' SECTION IV - 2.4 - Staff Evaluation of Construction Adequacy Plan ,.
2.4.3 Staff Evaluation (Cont.)
embers containing " plug welds" made, surface prepared using meth av lable to CPSES personnel, and painted. The inspectors tes detec d, on average, 82% of the " plug welds." The maxim detected was 94%. Th TRT notes that this reported capability is no consistent with the CPRT Pr am Plan stated intent of 95% confiden of a rate of 5% or more. The CPRT st address this inconsistency d propose a resolution.
(3) In March of 1985 at th CPRT act plan presentation at CPSES, the TRT stated its position that vo ric examination of any unauthorized
" plug welds" found should be ma s ce the welder, who was trying to avoid QC cognizance, would inclined rush the job and may, therefore, have used poo welding technique The CPRT has not responded directly t is position.
(4) The samp plan (Section 4.1) and the definition o reject were stated b e TRT as incompatible as currently written. CP e, which references 3.4 ISAP Y.a. Item 1, is confusing an eds
. resp
,f ther explanation. _
Item V.e: .The staff review of ISAP V.e detemined that the details of the specific engineering evaluation and the generic study of possible damage to other than the Unit 1. Loop 1. MS piping was responsive to the actions required of TUEC by the TRT. These actions are given in SSER No. 10, P. N-110. Items 1 through 8. A comparison of items in the action plan and the actions required of TUEC by the TRT found that ISAP V.e was sufficient to unbrella the actions required to resolve the issue, based on an engineering evaluation by the staff.
1 However, the staff has concerns that:
I ._
/
(1) The observation was noted in Section 3.2, " Preliminary l
2 Detemination of Root Cause and Generic Implications" of ISAP V.e.
Revision 3, that the phrase, "in construction practice, it is not 1
l, SECTION IV -
2.4 - Staff Evaluation of Construction Adequacy Plan 2.4.3 Staff Evaluation (Cont.)
at all uncomon to perfom adjustments in pipe position prior to final welding, particularly when permanent supports are installed subsequent to final fitup" could predisposition the implementation of the CPRT evaluations and studies. -
1
([) The third party review of the RCLA work should not be limited to a verification only. Provisions for additional third party investigations should be provided, if required.
2--
(/) Although the CPRT has indicated that its investigations perfomed as part of ISAP V.e, Revision 3, have concluded that the sequence of
- events described in SSER No.10 relating to MS line incident is not correct, the generic implications of settlements of supports and stresses due to hydrostatic testing and flushing activities will still be required to be ev'aluated by TUEC, since the sequence of events i
- described by the TRT could have occurred elsewhere.
t
- y j 2.4.4 Conclusions V.a: The staff conducted an evaluation of the CPRT Program aff for ISA .a and found the action plan to be generally res ve to the issues rais ince the plan addressed inspection met s, procedure revisions, and r spections. The staff, howeve , requires assurance that the root cause c the issue and its gen ic implications are properly addressed in the tion. The TRT issues manager should assure the staff that both it wi be addressed in the results cause generic implication aspect report. Thestaffperceivespt r of this issue as important pection techniques for skewed j since the welds had been addres ed previously by TUE .
In addition e response by the CPRT to Item 1 of e staff letter of Septem 30, 1985 concerning ISAP V.a is unacceptable. The staff
- r ires further explanation concerning the intent of proc ure QI-QAP-11.1-28 with respect to skewed welds.
l
2.4 Staff Evaluation of Construction Adequacy Plan ; SECTION IV - -
g 2.4.4 Conclusions (Cont.)
NtemV.b: The staff concludes that if ISAP V b is implemented as stated in e Plan the areas related to the original concern will be identified and res ed based on sound engineering practice, FSAR cose4tments and NRC guidelin .
However,thestaffhasraisedaconcrdhattheuseof trends of inspec n data to determine the need additional inspections must be r iewed on a case-by-c basis.
Item V.c: The staff concludes a f ISAP V.c is implemented as stated in the Plan all areas related th original concern will be identified and resolved in a manner co 1 stent wit ound engineering practice, FSAR comitments and N guidelines.
Item V d: For e issue concerning plug welds, the s f concludes that scope and
- there ere portant questions related to the CPRT Program ogy which must be satisfactorily answered prior to appro of meth N
e Plan.
Item V.e: For the issue concerning the repositioning of the main steam 4
l line, the specific engineering evaluation and generic study described in ISAP V.e Revision 3, of the CPRT Program Plan provides an acceptable I f basis for resolution of the issues and concerns resulting from the TRT investigations of allegations regarding forced movement of the main steam line and improper welding of temporary supports. However, final acceptability by the staff is contingent upon verification by the CPRT of proper implementation of the details of the specific engineering evaluations of the main steam line incident and the generic study of possible damage to other piping.
t
. . p 70 k SSER DN COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM PROGRAM PLAN APPENDIX 8
- 8. F. Saffell
~
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The adequacy of the construction QA/QC program and the quality of construction performed within scope of that program have been questioned by a number of sources external to Texas utilities. The CPRT has been charged with responding to and resolving these concerns. This Appendix.
~
through this SSER documents the staff evaluation of the program formulated by the CPRT to evaluate questions concerning construction QA/QC and the adequacy of installed hardware.
The construction adequacy program proposed by the CPRT has the following three components:
- a. Evaluation of external source issues
- b. Root cause eval'uation and generic implication assessment for each identified safety significant deficiency
- c. Self-initiated reinspection of a sample of the ba,la,nc ofthehardwarewithinthescopeoftheQA/QQprogram.
The CPRT objectives for the construction adeauncy orogram are to resolvelell of the external source issues, assess in an integrated I
fashion all identified safety significant deficiencies and to make ,
a statement about both the adequacy and quality of construction at CPSES.
The objective of the staff's evaluation as presented in this Appendix is to ascertain if the CPRT Program Plan describes the framework ~
l !
and process for perfoming a meaningful reinspection of the QA/QC and
- the construction activities perfomed within the scope of that program.
The staff's evaluation has consisted of document reviews and audits.
The scope of the staffs review has ranged from a review of the Program Plan to the checklists and quality instructions prepared for assessment of specific work activities. Subsequent sections of this Appendix l I l l l
% y .---- --.--w-wwuse.---ww.wwa,-w w w m . v am-ee---e e e-.-r-+s.wew,- -.wwwwrwy 9,m.i.-q,p,y----v --- . _
ww m-g gey-y- r mw gr-7e.,w---u*'
r .
S 2
address both the CPRT proposed process and the staff's evaluation of
, this process. The staff's evaluation addresses both the CPRT's plan for addressing external source issues as well as their self-initiated evaluation.
2.0 CPRT PROCESS FOR EVALUATION I
Issue-specific action plans (ISAP) are key elements in the
! CPRT's process for evaluating construction adequacy. All construction QA/QC issues whetner of a hardware nature or a QA/QC programmatic concern.
will be the subject of an issue-specific action plan. These plans document the CPRT plan for resolving external issues. A single ISA '
. describes the process and methodology for the CPRT's self-initiated hardware reinspection and documentation m vfew. A matrix, which is being developed to provide a cross refemnce between each issue or concern and the respective action plan which addmsses it, will provide
% assurance that all extemal source issues have been addressed by the CPRT.
As previously noted, the issue-specific action plans, prepared to address specific external source issues, will describe the process for evaluation of .these issues. This process may include reinspection of liardware, documentation review, engineering analysis and evaluation.
assessment of TUGC0 corrective action programs and an evaluation of data collected ~ from other CPRT review team action plans. The results report will be prepared for each ISAP as a means of documenting each individual issue evaluation.
The self-initiated hardware reinspection and documentation review program will address all safety related construction work activities ;
at CPSES. This program insures that areas not addressed by the external source evaluation are evaluated as a means o providing additional confidence that currently an currently nidentified concerns related to construction quality are i ed, evaluated, and resolved. The l
process for accomplishing this self-initiated program is to evaluate the work activities required to construct the Comanche Peak plants.
i
~ ~ ~ ' ~
3
-)
This evaluation will be performed on a sampling basis primarily through reinspections of safety significant attributes. Documentation reviews will be used to assess inaccessible or nonrecreatable attributes.
As with other ISAPs, a results report will be prepared documenting
- the results of the total self-initiated evaluation program.
CPRT proposes to integrate and collectively evaluate the findings from their external source issue evaluations with the results
- of the self-initiated program in order to make a statement about construction quality at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. Three reports will be prepared in addition to the individual action plans results i -
reports to document the results of the integrated evaluation. Two collective evaluation reports will be prepared to address the adequacy ,
l of the construction QA/QC program and the quality of installed hardware.
Finally, a summary report which integrates the results of the two collective
- evaluation reports, and state the CPRT's conclusions regarding the quality of construction and the QA/QC program at Comanche Peak plant. l 3.0 STAFF REVIEW AND EVALUATION 7?PROACH l
The staffs review of the program plan has included a review of each individual ISAP including the ISAP describing the self-initiated evaluation program. In addition to the review of each individual ISAP, a number of on-site audits of the documentation being prepared in support
- of the self-initiated evaluation have been performed. The purpose of these audits was for the staff to develop an in-depth understanding .
of the CPRT process for resolution of external issues and implementation of its self-initiated evaluation program.- These audits also served to establish that the kpplicant was documenting construction adequacy evaluation activities in sufficient detail to permit audit now or in the future. The staff's evaluation addressed not only the framework and process of the construction adequacy review program but the degree of documentation to be provided by the applicant. The staff considers documentation of these activities to be an extremely important part of the overall program.
" " ~ ~
. . . ' :: . . . :~." L . . . . ... .
d 4
./ .
k Review of the construction adequacy program plan has been accomplished by teams of NRC staff and consultants. External source issue review teams have been organized in a manner similar to the technical review teams and include the following disciplines.
- a. Electrica.1 and instrumentation issues
- b. Test program issues ,
- c. Mechanical and piping issues
- d. Civil and structural issues
- a. QA/QC issues
- f. Miscellaneous issues Many of the individuals responsible for reviewing the s ope methodology and implementation of the external source ISAP's were members of NRC's Technical Review Team. Review of the self-initiated evaluation program is accomplished by multidisciplinary team compassing most of the disciplines ,
addressing external source issues. This team has reviewed the methodology for the self-initiated program and performed an audit of each of the g categories of safety related hardware.
In summary, the staffs review and evaluation of the program plan has included an assessment of the scope, methodology, and process for resolution of external source issues and a self-initiated evaluation of the construction adequacy and quality at Comanche Peak. This review
- has been broad in scope in that it has encompassed all disciplines being addressed by the CPRT program plan. In addition it has been I
deep in as much as the staff has audited a number of the processes down to level of inspection checklist preparation. Finally, the staff
. has required the CPRT to document the scope, methodology, implementation, results. and evaluation.of each ISAP in sufficient detail to permit auditsnow and in the future.
l i
s
(
(
l l
rf/4- l 2
- Page 1 of 10 WORK PROCESS DEFINITION FOR LARGE BORE P1PE SUPPORT - R1GID POPULATION GROUP (LBSR)
- INTRODUCTION The Large Bore Pipe Support - Rigid Population includes supports for piping systems (2 1/2 inch nominal pipe size and larger) all of which are safety related, Safety Class 1, 2, or 3 and Seismic Category I. It does not include those supports which uti'lize constant or variable spring hangers or snubbers as components. It includes all the items -
shown on the pipe support detail drawings (BRHs).
The installation of all supports within this population requires the following work processes:
Fabrication - includes all activities prior to installing the support in its final location in the plant, i.e., before connecting the support structure or components to the building structure and the vendor supplied component item to the pipe attachment point.
The process also includes modification of vendor supplied catalog .
items.
Installation - includes all activities required to install the support at its final location in accordance with the pipe support detail drawing (BRH) and the construction hanger package.
Welding - includes all welding processes during fabrication and installation.
The following work process descriptions demonstrate that reasonable homogeneity does exist at the work process level. ,Regardless of the type of support, size of pipe being supported or material and components used, each work process involves: a common specification, a common construction procedure, a common construction management organization.
common craft labor performing the same basic types of operations, a common inspection instruction, and a common inspection organization.
w
l e
WORK PROCESS: FABRICATION
- 1. INTRODUCTION Yabrication is the first of the work processes required for the installation of large bore pipe supports - rigid. It includes all activities performed prior to connecting support structures or components to the building structure and attaching the component support to the pipe. It includes modification of vendor-supplied component parts. The Fabrication Work Process applies to all items in the LBSR population.
- 2. HOMOGENEOUS WORK PROCESS JUSTIFICATION
- a. Source of Attributes and Acceptance Criteria Reinspection and/or documentation review attributes for the Fabrigation Work Process are derived from common specification, procedures and quality instructions:
Three Gibbs & Hill Design Specifications ~~
- 1. 2323-MS-46A, " Nuclear Safety Class Pipe Hangers and Supports"
- 2. 2323-MS-100, " Piping Erection"'
- 3. 2323-SS-30, " Structural Embedments" One Brown & Root Construction Procedure
- 1. CP-CPM-7.3, " General Fabrication Procedure" One Brown & Root Quality Instruction
- 1. QI-QAP-11.1-28, " Fabrication and Installation Inspection of Safety Class Component Supports" The activities performed during the Fabrication Work Process are governed by the construction procedure and documentation.
The type of support construction is given on the design drawing and related paperwork.
- b. Installation Procedure Installation Procedures are not applicable here as they are treated as a separate work process altogether. The second work process describes the installation procedure.
2 0512/WRKPRI
_ _ ~ .
e WORK PROCESS: FABRICATION (Cont'd)
- 2. HOMOGENEOUS WORK PROCESS JUSTIFICATION (Cont'd)
- c. Applicable Codes and Standards The ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Subsection NF is applicable to all Safety Class 1, 2, and 3 pipe supports. The requirements of this code are incorporated in the specifications, procedures and instructions. Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 6, " Nuclear Safety Class Pipe -
Hangers and Supports" invokes' the requirements of the ASME Code along with specified addenda and Code Cases. The use of the AShi Code as a basis for all construction activities ensures attribute homogeneity,
- d. Construction Work Force All fabrication activities were performed by Brown & Root employed Structural fronworkers, who received training to the __
construction procedures governing fabrication. (CP-CPM-7.3,
. " General Fabrication Procedure")
- e. Inspection and Acceptance Standards and Inspection Group Inspections were performed in accordance with the requirements of Brown & Root Instruction QI-QAP-11.1-28 for those activities which required witnessing by QC Inspectors. All inspections were performed by Brown & Root QC Inspectors, who were trained to the inspection instruction.
- 3. ATTRIBUTE APPLICABILITY
- a. Description of Attributes Activity Attribute Verified By
- 1. Verify identification Identification Documentation marking transfer during Review cutting operations
- 2. Ensure the Configuration Reinspection configuration is in accordance with the design drawing
- 3. Ensure mechanical Bolting Reinspection connections are Documentation made properly Review 2 0512/WRKPR1 )
e WORK PROCESS: FABRICATION (Cont'd)
- a. Description of Attributes (Cont'd)
Activity Attribute Verified By-
- 4. Ensure all material Material Documentation is acceptable for Traceability Review its intended use and is identifiable until installation .
-b.
. Inaccessible Attributes There are no attributes in the Fabrication Work' Process that cannot be either reinspected or evaluated by means of a document review.
- c. Attribute Consistency and Sufficiency
~~
- All attributes applicable to the Fabrication Work Process, with ,the exception of bolting, have the same accept / reject criteria and is applicable to all sa:ple items within the population.
Attribute consistency and suf ficiency of bolting will be attained by combining three populations (small bore, large bore rigid and non-rigid supports). Accept / Reject criteria for each type of bolted joint is the same for these three populations. Although there will not be 60 of each type of bolted joint in one population, 60 of each type of bolted joint will be attained among the three populations, thereby assuring sufficiency.
- d. Apparently Dissimilar Work Processes There are no such activities within the fabrication work process.
1
O WORK PROCESS: INSTALLATION
- 1. INTRODUCTION Installation, parallelled by welding, is the next work process required for the installation of large bore pipe supports -
rigid. It includes all activities required to connect the piping to a building structure through an intermediate support structure. The installation work process should result in a configuration consistent with the design. The Installation Work Process applies to all items in the LBSR Population.
- 2. HOMOGENEOUS WORK PROCESS JUSTIFICATION
- a. Sources of Attributes and Acceptance Criteria Reinspection and/or documentation review attributes for the Installation Work Process are derived from common specification, procedures and quality instrections:
~~
Three Gibbs & Hill Design Specifications
- 1. 2323-MS-46A, " Nuclear Safety Class Pipe Hangers and Supports"
- 2. 2323-MS-100, " Piping Erection"
- 3. 2323-SS-30, " Structural Embedments" Three Brown & Root Construction Procedures
- 1. CP-CPM-9.10. " Component Support Installation"
- 2. CP-CPM-9.10A, " Installation of Vendor Supplied Component Support Catalog Items"
- 3. CEI-20, " Installation of Hilti Drilled-In Bolts" One TUGC0 Engineering Instruction
- 1. CP-El-4.5-1, " General Program for As-Built Verification" One Brown & Root Quality Instruction
- 1. QI-QAP-11.1-28, " Fabrication and Installation Inspection of Safety Class Component Supports" The activities performed during the Installation Work Process are governed by the construction procedure and documentation.
The type of support construction is given on the design drawing and related paperwork.
5 0512/WRKPRI nwra,vre
')
WORK PROCESS: INSTALLATION (Cont'd)
- 2. HOMOGENEOUS WORK PROCESS JUSTIFICATION (Cont'd)
- b. Installation Procedure All supports are installed in accordance with Brown & Root Procedure CP-CPM-9.10 and CP-CPM-9.10A as stated in a. above.
Concrete Expansion Anchors are installed in accordance with Brown & Root Procedure CEI-20, " Installation of "Hilti" Drilled-in Bolts". .
- c. Applicable Codes and Standards The ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Subsection NF is applicable to all Safety Class 1, 2, and 3 pipe' supports. The requirements of this code are incorporated in the specifications, procedures and instructions. Gibbs and Hill.
Specification 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 6, " Nuclear Safety Class Pipe Hangers and Supports" invokes the requirements of the ASME Code along with specified addenda and Code Cases. The use of - - -
the ASME Code as a basis for all construction activities ensures attribute homogeneity.
- d. Construction Work Force All installation activities were performed by Brown & Root Structural Ironworkers, who received training to the construction procedures governing installation. (CP-CPM-9.10,
" Component Support Installation" and CP-CPM-9.10A
" Installation of Vendor Supplied Component Support C:taloy Items")
- e. Inspection and Acceptance Standards and Inspection Group All inspections of installation work processes were performai in accordance with the requirements of Brown & Root Instruction QI-QAP-11.1-28. All inspections were performed oy Brown and Root QC Inspectors, who were trained to the
)
appropriate inspection instruction (s).
- 3. ATTRIBUTE APPLICABILITY
- a. Description of Attributes Activity Attribute Verified By
- 1. Ensure support is Identification Reinspec'.i.
permanently marked with support number.
6 0512/WRKP?J m=
s.
WORK PROCESS: INSTALLATION (Cont' d)
. a. Description of Attributes (Cont'd)
Activity Attribute Verified By
- 2. Ensure location and Location and Reinspection orientation are Orientation acceptable - '
4~
- 3. Ensure all items are Configuration- Reinspection installed in accordance
- with the drawing
- 4. Ensure bolting meets Bolting Reinspection the requirements Documentation Review
- 5. Ensure Hilti Bolts Concrete Expansion Reinspection are installed Anchors Documentation properly Review
- 6. Verify Vendor Vendor Supplied Reinspection Supplied Component Components Documentation Support Catalog Review Items are
- installed properly
- 7. Ensure all material Material Documentation acceptable and Traceability Review identification of ~ ~
i material is documented -
- b. Inaccessible Attributes There are no attributes in the Installation Work Process that l cannot be either reinspected or evaluated by means of a document review.
I j c. Attribute Consistency and Sufficiency l
All attributes applicable to the Installation Work Process, l
with the exception of bolting, have the same accept / reject criteria which is applicable to all sample items within the population.
Attribute consistency and sufficiency of bolting will be attained by combining three populations (small bore, large l
bore rigid and non-rigid supports). Accept / Reject criteria i
for each type of bolted joint is the same for these three l populations. Although there will not be 60 of each type of l bolted join: in one population, 60 of each type of bolted l joint will be attained among the three populations, thereby assuring sufficiency.
( 7 0512/WRKPR1
. 12/03/85
s WORK PROCESS: WELDING
- 1. INTRODUCTION Welding is a work process which can be performed during the fabrication and installation work processes. It includes all the activities required to join two members together by welding.
- 2. HOMOGENEOUS WORK PROCESS JUSTIFICATION
- a. Source of Attributes and Acceptance Criteria Welding has been divided into Piping Welds (integral) and Support Welds (non-integral) because they are governed by different Subsections of the ASME Code. Piping Weld attributes are derived from the ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Subsections NB, NC, or ND for Code Classes 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Support Weld Attributes are derived from the ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Subsection NF. The characteristics of the two welding groups are identical, only the accept / reject criteria differs.
- b. Installation Procedure All welding for component supports is performed in accordance with Brown and Root Procedure CP-CPM-7.3D, " Welding and Related Processes". All welding for piping attachments is performed in accordance with Brown and Root Procedure CP-CPM-6.9D, " Welding and Related Processes".
- c. Applicable Codes and Standards Welding for component supports is governed by Subsection NF, piping attachments by Subsections NB, NC, and ND, of the ASME Code as stated in a. above.
- d. Construction Work Force All welding activities were performed by Structural Ironworkers, who received training to the construction procedures governing installation and certification to applicable welding procedures.
- e. Inspection and Acceptance Standards and Inspection Group All support welds were inspected to the criteria given in Brown and Root Instruction QI-QAP-ll.1-28. Piping Welds were inspected to the criteria given in Brown and Root Instruction QI-QAP-11.1-26. All welding inspections are performed by Brown and Root QC Inspectors.
~
8 0512/WRKPRI 12/03/85
I WORK PROCESS: WELDING (Cont'd)
- 3. ATTRIBUTE APPLICABILITY
- a. Description of Attributes Activity Attribute Verified By
- 1. Ensure location, Location, Size Reinspection size, and profile and Profile of weld is acceptable Reinspection
- 2. Ensure reinforcement Reinforcement, and offset of butt Offsets welds are within specified limits
- 3. Ensure surface Surface Condition, Reinspection condition acceptable Cracks / Fusion Documentation and there are cracks Review or lack of fusion ,
- 4. Verify welds were Welder ID Reinspection performed by qualified Documentation welders Review
- 5. Ensure no rust exists Rust Reinspection on stainless steel piping welds
- b. Inaccessible Attributes There are no attributes in the Welding Work Process that cannot be either reinspected or evaluated by means of a document review.
- c. Attribute Consistency and Sufficiency Piping welds are only applicable to supports which have members integrally velded to the pipe. All accept / reject criteria for the attributes are the same for all sample items within the population, thereby ensuring consistency. Multiple piping welds can be used for one sample item and the similarity of large bore pipe supports-rigid and small bore pipe supports populations will ensure that a sufficient nuab:.r.
of items are inspected to draw valid conclusions about piping welds.
Support welds are applicable to all sample items within the population. Accept / reject criteria for all welds is the sete ensuring consistency. Multiple welds for each sample item will be sufficient to draw valid conclusions regarding the adequacy of support welds.
9 0512/WRKPRI 12/03/85
n:
WORK PROCESS: WELDING (Cont'd)
- 3. ATTRIBUTE APPLICABILITY (Cont'd)
- d. Apparently Dissimilar Work Processes There are no such activities within the Welding Work Process.
a e 9
h O 10 0512/WRKPRI 12/03/85
. i STf"rII'f_AL POPitt ATIONS -
I ^
LARGE EORE SMALL BORE LARGE BORE ~
PIPE SUPPORTS PIPE SUPPORTS PIPE SUPPORTS RIGID NON-RIGID ACTIVITIES /ATTRIBilTFS I
WORK PROCESS IFABRICATION] Ilf4IALLA110N] [ WELDING l ATTRIBUTES -IDENTIFICATI0H -IDE NTIF ICATION -PIPE WELDS (INTEGRAL)
-CONF IGURATIOff -LOCATION s ORIENTATION -SUPPORT WELDS (NON-INTEGPAL)
-BOLTING -CONFIGURATION
-MATL. TRACEABILITY * -BOLTit!G -
-CONCRETE EXPANSION ANCHORS **
-VEfiDOR SUPPLIED COMPONENTS ** ,
-MATL. TPACEABILITY' DOCUMENT REVIEW ONLY
- REINSPECTION AND DOCUMENT REVIEW NO
- MEANS PERFORMED ONLY DURING THE REINSPECTION PROCESS 0505 /LTEPRI
- 0 e
W/5~
t-o LARGE BORE PIPE SUPPORTS - RIGID A. The Large Bore Pipe Supports-Rigid Population consists of supports for piping systems designated in Section 17A of the FSAR that are safety related and a u fety glass 1 42 and 3 and Seismic Category I. The population is defiried7s^ follows:
- 1. Supports for large bore piping (2-1/2" nominal pipe and larger). .
- 2. Support' components as shown on pipe support drawings (e.g. Structural Steel, NF Welds, standard manufactured components, plate, bolting material, anchor bolts and nuts - Hilti type and Richmond studs, etc.)
- 3. Supports that are construction complete and' final QC accepted up to and including June 17, 1985.
- 4. Supports located in Units 1, 2 and Common areas.
- 5. All supports which are safety related and are safety class 1, 2 and 3 and Seismic Category 1. , ,, f,
- 6. Supports which utiliza anchors, guides, rigid restraints and three
' dimensional restraints. -
B. The work processes for this population are defined as:
- 1. Fabrication
- 2. Welding
- 3. Installation
- 4. Inspection Pipe Supports are fabricated in accordance with Brown & Root Procedure CP-CPM-7.3 and installed in accordance with Brown & Root Procedure CP-CPM-9.10. Welding is performed for all supports during fabrication and installation in accordance with Brown & Root Procedure CP-CPM-7.3D. All supports are inspected in accordance with Brown & Root Procedure QI-QAP-11.1-28.
C. The acceptance criteria is the same for each attribute when verifying every sample item for the simple reason that all supports in this population must conform to the requirements of the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Division 1, Subsection NF. The work processes described previously are essential for assurance that pipe supports will safely perform its intended function. The design of pipe supports is shown cu ciu:
Hanger Detail Drawing (BRH). The Hanger Detail Drawing initiates the construction process. All work performed must comply with the Hanger Detail Drawing requirements and the ASME Code (Subsection NF) requirements.
The acceptance criteria are based on design and code requirements and are applicable to all supports.
t
i 2
LARGE BORE PIPE SUPPORTS - RIGID (Cont'd)
D. Pipe supports are fabricated and installed by Brown & Root employed ironworkers. Welding is performed by qualified welders for both fabrication andigI_insta.11atio.g,which are also Brown & Root employees.
Ironworkers and Weldeff' Feceive additional on-site training by Brown & Root in accordance with procedures discussed earlier in this text.
E. Inspections for all supports in this population are performed by Brown &
Root Field Quality Control Inspectors (QCI). The inspectors are certified by Brown & Root in accordance with B&R Instruction QI-QAP-2.1-5 " Training and Certification of Mechanical Inspection Personnel". All inspectors must be certified by the site level III Mechanical Inspector for the attributes or areas being inspected in accordance with the above procedure. -
4 l
l
- i l
l l
O LARGE BORE PIPE SUPPORTS- W RIGID I i WORK PROCESS FABRICATION WELDING INSTALLATION ATTRIBUTES -IDENTIFICATION - PIPING WELDS -IDENTIFICATION (INTEGRAL ATTACHMENTS)
-CONFIGURATION - SUPPORT WELDS -LOCATION 8 ORIENTATION I
-BOLTING -CONFIGURATION
-PIPING WELDS 4
-BOLTING
-SUPPORT WELDS -PIPING WELDS
-MATERI AL TRACEABILITY - SUPPORT WELDS
-CONCRETE EXPANSION ANCHORS
- SUPPORT COMPONENTS
-MATERI AL TRACEABILITY DOCUMENTATION REVIEW
, Psg2 1 of 1 5 //
i's.*-
Definition of Work Processes for Population Large Bore Pipe Supports - Non-Rigid A. Summary of systems, structures and components:
The category of Large Bore Pipe Supports - Non-Rigid identifies a homogeneous population of supports for piping systems (215 inch nominal pipe size and larger) s.ll of which are safety related, Safety Class 1, 2 or 3 and Seismic Category I. It includes only those supports which utilize constant or variable spring hangers or snubbers as components. It includes all items as shown on the pipe support detail drawings (BRH's).
B. Why Work Processes are the same for all population items:
The work processes involved with the installation of large bore 4 non-rigid pipe supports are fabrication, welding, installation and inspection. The work processes define the sequence employed by the craftsmen during support installation.
)7' These work processes are applied during the installation of supports within this population, regardless of the size of pipe (LA,e~
being supported, the type of support or material and components used.
The fabrication of all ASME Component Supports in this population is performed in accordance with Brown and Root Procedure CP-CPM 7.3B " Fabrication of ASME Component Supports". Welding for all supports, during fabrication and installation, is performed in accordance with Brown and Root Procedure CP-CPM 7.3D " Welding and Related Process." Installation of all supports is performed in accordance with Brown and Root Procedure CP-CPM 9.10 " Component Support Installation", including the appendix CP-CPM 9.10A
" Installation of Vendor Supplied Component Support Catalog Items."
Inspection of all supports is performed in accordance with Brown and Root Quality Instruction QI-QAP 11.1-28 " Fabrication and Installation Inspection of Safety Class Component Supports."
C. Why acceptance criteria are the same for each attribute when
. verifying every sample item:
The work processes described previously were developed to ensure I that the support will safely perform its intended function. The construction process is initiated through the design document, the pipe support detail drawing (BRH). All work performed must comply with the drawing and the ASME Code (Subsection NF). The procedures used for the work processes are based on the design and Code requirements with acceptable variations and tolerances. The acceptance criteria are based on these preset variations and tolerances and are applicable to all supports.
0355 (MISC 2)
D. Justification for work process / crafts:
All pipe supports are fabricated and installed by Brown and Root employed Ironworkers. All Welding performed during fabrication and/or installation is done by qualified Welders which are also Brown and Root employees. All Ironworkers and Welders are trained by Brown and Root to the aforementioned Construction Procedures.
E. Justification for work process / Inspection Groups:
In general, all inspections are performed by Brown and Root Field Quality Control Inspectors (QCI). Inspectors are certified by Brown and Root in accordance with B & R Instruction QI-QAP-2.1-5
" Training and Certification of Mechanical Inspection Personnel."
All Inspectors must be certified by the Site Level III Mechanical Inspector for the attributes or areas being inspected in accordance with the above procedure.
T 9
4 i
i 2 0355 (MISC 2) r
. - .- .-. .. - ._ - . .- - - . - _ - . - - -- . -. ~
7 m
LARGE BORE PIPE
} SUPPORTS- NON-RIGID
- i i 4
WORK PROCESS FABRICATION WELDING INSTALLATION 1
- ATTRIBUTES t/ .-IDENTIFICATION -P'IPING. WELDS -IDENTIFICATION i (INTEGRAL ATTACHMENTS) ;
i t/ -CONFIGURATION - SUPPORT WELDS -LOCATION & ORIENTATION a { ,,, , p r o , . ~ )
- t/ -BOLTING
- ^"" -CONFIGURATION i
i -PIPING WELDS -BOLTING i
-SUPPORT ~ WELDS -PIPING WELDS i
-MATERI AL TRACEABILITY - SUPPORT WELDS 4
4 -CONCRETE EXPANSION ANCHORS j . ,g ypf;5'[J - SUPPORT COMPONENTS l \
- l -MATERI AL TRACEABILITY ,
i I
t i
j DOCUMENTATION REVIEW l
Pag 2 1.of 2 WORK PROCESSES COMMON TO ALL NON-RIGID PIPE SUPPORTS Fabrication I
- Welding Installation
- i[ .
Attribute cceptance Criteria
- All supports within the population are a combination of the attributes
- Derived from Common Specifications, Procedures and Instructions
- One Installation Procedure, Brown & Root
- CP-CPM 9.10 " Component Support '
Installation"
- One Inspection Procedure, Brown & Root QI-QAP 11.1-28 " Fabrication and Installation Inspection of Safety Class Component Supports"
- One Welding Procedure, Brown & Root CP-CPM 7.3D " Welding and Related Process"
- Includes CP-CPM 9.10A " Installation of Vendor Supplied Component Support Catalog Items" Codes and Standards
- One specification governs all supports Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-MS-46A " Nuclear Safety Class Pipe Hangers and Supports".
- All supports must meet the requirements of the code ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Division 1, Subsection NF Organization
- Brown and Root was responsible for all site Construction activities for pipe supports.
0355 (MISC 2)
- i. '
. Personnel Brown and Root employed and trained all personnel involved in the Fabrication. Installation and Inspection of Pipe Supports.
4 b
i.
d E
'k o
i i-i i
i i
4 I
i l 2 0355 (MISC 2)
}
i i
,- .,., . . . , --,--,-_..,._,_.,--.,,,,,,v.,-,, _v-,.-,_-r_,-.,-._,,_om _~_,_w...w-..ty,-. . _ . * - -. . _m._c.,
$Y
[ ,
Pag 2 1 of 3 h
l
, DEFINITION OF WORK PROCESS FCR SMALL BORE PIPE SUPPORTS The category of small bore pipe supports identifies a homogeneous population of pipe supports for those piping systems _ designated in Section 17A of the FSAR that are safety related and Safety Class 1, 2 or a
3 and Seismic Category I.
Boundaries for the supports are for 2-inch nominal pipe and smaller with supports components as shown on pipe support drawings. Examples of this are structural steel, NF welds, standard manufacturer's components, plate, bolting material, anchor bolts and nuts (HILTI and Richmond 4
type), etc.
i The work processes involved with small bore pipe supports (SBPS) are i Fabrication, Installation, Welding and Inspection. These work processes i define the sequence employed by the craftsmen during support erection.
The work processes are applied during the installation of the support regardless of the support's size, material, intended function or designation. The same work processes also apply to non-safety related pipe supports.
i .
Comparison of the work process versus population items to show they are homogeneous, regardless of the population item selected is as follows:
1 Fabrication - A small bore support is selected for installation using the engineers detailed drawing and the hanger location drawing leased on the piping isometric.
of
+
Material is requisitioned either in bulk or by piece number based4the 4 detail drawing's bill of materials. The asterial is then transported to the field or fabrication shop where it is then preassembled prior to installation.
Preassembly can consist of marking for identification, putting i
subassemblies or components together by bolting or welding to allow for i
ease of installation.
I Installation - The material that constitute the small bore support is taken to the location indicated on the detail drawing and location drawing.
The components, after identification of installation order, are located and oriented to the configuration shown on the detail and location isometric.
In the process of installation various attributes combine to make a complete support (i.e. bolting, concrete expansion anchors, vendor supplied components, etc.)
i
- 0362 (MISC 2) h*
-1 Welding - The work process of welding is broken out into two attributes based on various governing code requirements. The first attribute is pipe welds where a form of some material type is integrally attached to the pressure boundary by a welding process controlled by an approved welding procedure. The code reference is ASME III subsection NB, NC or ND. The second attribute covers the balance of welds on a pipe support again controlled by an approved welding procedure and ASHE III subsection NF.
Not all supports require welding but the process in such that it is universal to all supports when used. ,
Inspection - The process of inspection covers all applicable attributes to an individual support plus the rework o a support should it be found deficient. The inspection process covers the physical application of
. work when performing such processes as non-destructive examinations (PT, MT & RT), torquing of bolts or inspection of vendor supplied components (spring cans, struts, snubbers).
The process covers all supports as it is embodied by one inspection l procedure QI-QAP.11.1-28.
Small bore pipe supports were segregated out from all other pipe ,
supports based on design and erection methods of the piping systems they
' support which are somewhat different than those addressing large bore:
- 1. Small bore piping is normally field routed and supports are adjusted more readily to suit installed field conditions.
a
- 3. The ability to provide sampling giving a much clearer and overall larger database from which to draw conclusion about the construction and inspection aspects of pipe supports as a whole. Acceptance criteria is the same for each particular attribute as all criteria was defined in various
- specifications, procedures and quality instructions which tied together by reference to give total instructional guidelines for any one particular attribute.
Not all attributes under each particular work process apply to one
- individual support. As such, there are sixty (60) samples that would r embrace all work processes but not of all the individual attributes. To address not the sixty (60) work processes but sixty (60) of each attribute is accomplished by clustering of attributes across three
1 4
! 2 0362 (MISC 2) 4
.*------,-w,e,--,,.r,-%,-.-----m,,-,.7,,,,,,cw----,cy--ww,w,wme---,m-.-n---,,--.,.-~~..,,---- - - i--wyy- w w w v-"
l Justification for the work processes breakdown is that the craft of structural ironworkers (fitters, welders and helpers) performed the fabrication, installation andd welding while the inspection group performed all the necessary inspections and tests required to complete installation of any one particular support. Since Brown & Root acted as construction managers and employed all crafts and inspectors which performed appropriate work process, it would make these work processes homogenous by nature of association.
Inspection as a group provided surveillance of work processes by performing various tests and measurements to assure the quality of the installation. All attributes under the work process were subject to inspection by one inspection group comprised of inspectors adept to varying levels of inspections (VT,UT, RT, etc.) which encompassed all work processes.
l 3 0362 (MISC 2)
SMALL BORE PIPE SUPPORTS PAGE 1 cf I STRUCTURAL POPULATIONS ,,
l' L". 4.
' LARGE BORE LARGE BORE SMALL BORE
! PIPE SUPPORTS PIPE, SUPPORTS PIPE SUPPORTS RIGID NON-RIGID
-P')
- Vg) ' FO .
ACTIVITIES / ATTRIBUTES l WORK PROCESS FABRICATION INSTALLATION WELDING INSPECTION i
ATTRIBUTES .
! /-Identification "
-Identification -- -Pipe Welds (Integral) -Location & Orientation
,/ -Configuration v -Location & Orientation -Support Welds -Configuration (Non-Integral)
/ -Configuration -Bolting j -Bolting
/-Matl. Traceability.* , -Bolting -Pipe Welds (Integral) j-Concrete Expansion Anchors ** -Support Welds (Non-Integral)
-Vendor Supplied Components ** -Concrete Expansion Anchors j -Matl. Traceability *
-Vendor Supplied Components 1
1 -Inspector Certification *
! -NDE*
I -In-Process Operations
- I
- DOCUMENT REVIEW ONLY
- REINSPECTION AND DOCUMENT REVIEW -Matl. Traceability
- s i
s Pcg2 1 of 2
- =
BASIS FOR SIMILARITY OF WORK ACTIVITIES POPULATION: SMALL BORE PIPE SUPPORTS Work Activities Common to all Supports:
Fabrication Installation Welding Inspection, O
Attributes and Acceptance All supports in population are made up from attributes in whole or part Derived from common specifications, procedures and quality instructions:
Three Gibbs & Hill Design Specifications
- 1. 2323-MS-46A, " Nuclear Safety Class Pipe Hangers and Supports"
- 2. 2323-MS-100, " Piping Erection"
- 3. 2323-SS-30, " Structural Embedments" Four Brown & Root Construction Procedures ,
- 1. CP-CPM-7.3, " General Fabrication Procedure"
- 2. CP-CPM-9.10, " Component Support Installation"
- 3. CP-CPM-9.10A, " Installation of Vendor Supplied Component Support Catalog Items"
- 4. CEI-20, " Installation of Hilti Drilled-In Bolts" One TUGC0 Engineering Instruction
- 1. CP-EI-4.5-1, " General Program for As-Built Verification" One Brown & Root Quality Instruction
- 1. QI-QAP-11.1-28 , " Fabrication and Installation of Safety Class Component Supports" CODES AND STANDARDS All supports must meet requirements of ASME Section III, Div. 1.,
Subsection NB NC,ND and NF, as applicable.
ORGANIZATION Brown & Root Construction Management Team was responsible for all activities related to the fabrication, installation and inspection of all small bore pipe supports.
0336/ MISC
- P gs 2 of 2 CRAFTS Brown & Root employed and trained all personnel involved in the fabrication, installation and welding of small bore pipe supports.
INSPECTION GROUPS Brown & Root QA/QC handled all aspects of inspections related to small bore pipe supports under inspection procedure QI-QAP-11.1-28.
0336/ MISC
1
~ It4FoEMATlot4 fpff /N ouut n COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM
_ , SECOND_RANDJMSAMPLEIDENTIFICATION PREPARED BY: 8/# /#/4 5 QA/QC DISCIPLINE ENGINEER 4 SM B02E BORE RAN/
SAMPLE SEQ P PKG NO. NO. DESCRIPTION .
pS NO. COMMENTS 27188 410 78 / ] cs-2 As-o32//wa 001 310So sorts /2 Do 1-DG-oo9Al37 001
/SV84 2339S /3 cc-X A8-02S/24 002 42 S99 9VSta/y sw 2 Aa-027/23A 003 4134 69271/ S cc-1-Ec -c14 /7 002
~'
- 30013 US397/f cs 2 sa-cao/4 003 l
~
,4S838 99V74/7 WP-X AB 182/3 COY 2s&30 38724 /8 cs-s-se- oso/32A 00Y l 7109 1o741/ 9 cc t Ro-027/2 005'
~
ffS72 74899/10 MS-1-RB-o20/16 .CS -
~
SS/99 83281/j) an+ss ooz/rus g (.c&
811/9 123 12 /12 cc-1-as-oudis 006' i 38991 s8912 /13 Do t-Da oosA/a c7 1852 27171/14 cN 2 AB-oos/ts 2 007 l M317 aim /is cc 2 sa-071/ns :ce '
~
FS/t.2/07-c/C c]- .
$/121 uw//n ,,, pw. ,, cy l
APPROVED BY: DATE: , !
O A , lc i AD ? ;i,C ; F '_ ;'.4 E 15G N EEF. ,
)
?', ,
- r. = .
- n _ _..__._ . - ._ __ _-- . - _ _ _ .
't COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM SEC0p]_RANDJMSAMPLEIDENTIFICATION PREPARED BY:
QA/QC DISCIPLINE ENGINEER RAN/
SAMPLE SEQ POP PKG NO. NO. DESCRIPTION ITEM ACCESS NO. COMMENTS 2248tl 39273 /17 cs-1 AB-209A//ws 010
- 3080s V4SVV/18 cs-2 so-078lFW] O11 24227 39424 /19 cs-t-ss- o&S/tt o12 1313 7 118V8/20 cc-t-sa-002/1-1 013
~
fBV76 73tV3/21 GH-X A8-o41/tA o!!/ ,
S729S 84S48/22IS11-R8 oV3/rw9A 6 f f I l
1989V 29983/13 co t sa-co9/11 01?o S9/27 89334/tf st-2 Aa-oss/1-y of) '
27'l17 91y2s/2s cs-t-As- osokw1A 008
~
301y2 ySSf2/ts, cs-2-ss-o3e/8 009 c2 IV891 22 999/2 7 cc x As-otopyr4 018 "
JVSV 02194/29 AF-t- 10-o04]ys O19 "
23973 36070/t9 cg-1-R8 - o/4l'/ O2C
- 3423 tr911/3e est- t-tot-orkwis 521""
S7797 8 72S1/3; st-2-ss-co9/j.% 010 d22VS 9VoV7/12 SV-1 YD-o/S/rv>n APPROVED BY: DATE:
0 A < "C II.D D ;5 G F'_ '4 E 13GUEEE
- $ ? - . ~. ; >" ' ? y _
S COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TFE SEC0!TD RANDOM SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PREPARED BY:
QA/QC DISCIPLINE ENGINEER RAN/
SAMPLE SEQ POP PKG NO. NO. DESCRIPTION ITDd. ACCESS NO. C051ENTS 3948 7 S9949/js Do1-DG-89yho Q22 '
i 3 Soy 3 S2947/19 crrn8-oot/te ott
~
S8209 871ro/jS sr so-o2S/23 0 12 N 7V/ 2S29V/34 cH-1-A8-oVS/8A C23
~
V8639 7269Yl37 GN-X*AB oVS//Wto O24 i . . i S8VV4 89307/38 SI-2-A8-oolfjf.1 013 \- l I l
~
3782Y S7/V9/39 DD 1 f*8-oot/f-3 026
//897 1717f/Vo cc-2-RB-oS//fw2 OIY
~
VV9V7 479/2/VJ '"*"?*oY;fy} c2?
~
36403 SS30y/f/ CT-t so-coe/2y C27 2SV20 38Vo8/V3 Cs-1 SB-024/2y.] O l5 '
f3093 Botto/fV MC 1 RJ-o20/9 0f (o YVSAS 4734V/VS '$$a'f),Y$ 6 i5 ~
~
S/0/9 77M4/V4 MS2naoyy/IS (;}
S3234 BoV3f/V7 Rc18go39/18 ,:-
It 13f47 tov 99/f8 cc 2-SB-oto/4 .3 l l
APPROVE 3 BY: DATE:
0A. 0C IAD D;5C;.;'_;;;I I;;G;3III
'M*".
. u = . ' 3 *. : -
i COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TERi SECOND PX' DOM SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
. . . - -w PREPARED BY:
QA/QC DISCIPLINE ENGINEER
.uN/
SAMPLE SEQ POP PKG NO. NO. DESCRIPTION ITDd. ACCESS NO- C01@ TENTS SeV70 89394/99 sr-t-AB 004/1 017 '"
Sto34 89199/so sI-2-nB-eyS/1-1 0 18
~
S 7132/ 84326/S] SI-1-MB-032/'yf 032 6V013 94 7/9 /s 2su yo-co2lw 2
~
48077 172440/S3 GH x As-eq1Aff7% 033 I
l9334 1 2921s/s4lcs-2-Ec osVA/24 019 l ; l US248 6es96/ss FW1-RB-oost/wp 020 S8374 98/99 /S4 SI-1-YD-oo/A/]as 3otS7 VSSb8/s7cs 2-ss oso/syzs W saw osi ['R*1"fR~k""'
fo399 1s7]2/s8 cc 2- AB-osy/,'.f 38427 s8362 /31 DD-x Aa-oo3/run 022 S819S 8712f/4e st 1 otr/ /1A C23 ^
47478 72038/dl GH X AB-021/[g"; O3y ~
~
3124] ss299/42 cr-2 sa- 067/s2 4 035 lily 8y 2/e83/t3 cc-x As-oot/tt 024" fo8Bf 03 fo f4990/49 cc 2 sc-oo38lQ*
AP? ROVED BY: DATE:
A. >'c I. .3 ? ;5 C ' ? ' 5 I IUG.nIK
' ?" ' * * *~'
~ ~-
5 COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM SECOND RANDOM SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
.n-PREPARED BY:
QA/QC DISCIPLINE ENGINEER RAN/
SAMPLE ' SEQ POP PKG NO. NO. DESCRIPTION ITEM ACCESS NO. COMtENTS S37s7 st223/ts sc-2 xa-oss/rw.o o3?
'/1940 71994 /44 Ms+ss-co7/13-2 025 144 74 2 s194/4 7cr1-Aa-s92/ts 3 03g 4331S Vo29 rsus/to sw-2-ss o33/30 026 W f'fh 7"l'jQ,,
o4080 /49 sx-x-n8-ofe//w?
l oyo #*
18081 2 7311 /70cH-1-ss-s2y/37 2 l 44983 fel8s/71 VD-2-S8-00S/31 02 7
~
324S3 9933th2 cr-i-RB-0/S/rwu 0 41 f
~ '
UV771 674Yt/73 '"Yil'N'.{i oy2 23S$2 35430/79 cs 1 Ms-so7/3-2 cy; \
VV2S2 44842hs '"f,'),"fl* oyy
- l lS111 22831/74 cc x AB d)$A/28 CYS V63)S 48V47/77rw t ns-oosa/tr-) o28" j 76V/ 10438/79 cc 1 xa-oz3/39 O V6
- 2y477 3728S/?y cs-1-R2-es7/f1 CY7 2SS34 38S$3/so cs-t ss-ozes/syt 029 APPROVID BY: DATE:
QA C i.- D 0 ;5. ' ? '. 5 5 13G ;3 EIR
':?-'".
. . ' r: *.1 *. : r.
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM SECONDRANDjMSAMPLEIDENTIFICATION PREPARED BY:
QA/QC DISCIPLINE ENGINEER RAN/
SAMPLE ' SEQ POP PKG NO. NO. DESCRIPTION ITEM ACCESS NO. COMMENTS fooff 766 0 8 /81Ms-1-sa olo/rW ft oyf 37789 S7094/92 DD-1-AB-c/3//41 030 33643 60441 /13 CT-1R8-eV3/f~3 031 13326 20134/Bf cc-2 sa-cot / 7 Otl9 9231/ 139S2les cc-t-sB-038lBA 060 , ,
P !
138fa 20Wl/8f cc-2 ss-o99/11 o3j l
~
SS974 Byfy/g7 SF-XF8-6MA/4/ Off
/ # "
41074 92282/88 sW-t-s8-oo44ff o 63 S?20 086V2/89 cc 1-Ec-oc2/rSA
$ 3313V soos3/90 er-1-R8-031/f4 O6t/ ~ '
iV4Y2 974to/91 YA X AB-013/FWS OSS 2883 8 +'3672/ft cs-2-M8-o/74/N 056
~
}( 331/3 Seo31/93 CT 1-AB-031/V3 (f 7 B036 1213 9/99 cc-1 Ra-osos/14 032"
- 9928 72V/4/ff GN X A8-6V3/jz 0 56 '
32799 VfSS7/f4cY-1-XB -622//WJ 033 APPROVED BY: DATE:
GA. C i..D D.5G.;'.;;;I I;;G.; LIER
, T ? _ z_.
- t'
- '.s.'r.
~.
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM FIRST RANDOM SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PREPARED BT:
QA/QC DISCIPLINE ENGINEER
^
RAN/
SAMPLE SEQ POP PKG NO- NO- DESCRIPTION ITEM ACCESS No. COMMENTS
~~ ~ '
140 43 24149/97 cH t As o27]ss 2 .[ _ _~ _ OSY . _ _
23S92 3144S[98 cs-1.Ma-oo7/pA 060 J' l
27804 92013/99 lcs 2-AB-073B/13 03 Y " l ogj pe si
))8SS lss241//eolfst t tics is 2,20 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4f44 7 l992/8//o/ l WP-X AA ofoht ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l 39874 lso2V4//o2l 901 YD-oto/1-3 l l l l l 239fy l.rsirs//o3 lcs 1 AB- oto/27 3 l 062~#l" l .. ,. l 3S2 00s31/tadM 1 so ocaAbsA l 063*l l l MV4V 74737//eSlMS I AB ott/sy n l 035 ~ ~
l l 3f//B r30sificclcr 2 gg- ces/3 l 036 l l l S 76 2 costy/ joy lcc 1 rc-cot /y2 l 03 7
- l _. _ _ _ l 63971 rstst/ioslsw 2-st-oos/u l 0 6 '/"' "
4/097 l l 06S *
- l _
S/fff storr/ao lrst ooogi so /r_ l _038 "
77889foo lMS t SB-art //w 3A l 11198 14918/111 lcc 2-fc-otohnsl 031 " l 06b # "
30423 f4248/1/2 lcs 2-se oso/18 l '
l 34989 SSBPBlft1lcr 2 to of4lrW4N --
/4824 21413//14lcH / fc oct/2 CVO "
S8ff$ $9e71lfffl$12 RR Ben l2 OYl
$731 13112//14 lcc 1-ss-or;),s o 42 "
fifff 7st3/ffp7lGH2$Bcof/pu.1 _
~~~
- S10 Yl 77/28///8lMS 2 RA-DVt/fW1
~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. -. .
2Vfft 37100/119lcs 1-22-onsJw 067 '
$023 M304//fo hCC t MB 013/FW/4 I OG8 k APPROVED BY: DATE: -
OA. N '.I.;C D ISC IPLIN E R.G ' S EER
, l
4 .
i ,
1 COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM FIRST RANDOM SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
=
, FREPARED BY:
j QA/QC DISCIPLINE ENGINEER i
. RAN/
BAMPLE SEQ POP PKG No. NO. DESCRIPTION IT!M ACCESS NO. COMMENTS 4
1$04, et$22/121 Ar 1 ss osoA/t ' 0 t/3
i 48 93 ors 93/tra cc-f AS oso//W-te O Y ll
- k _23679 forss//13 cr t Ra ovy/14 ----- ------ - - - - - - - . - - - - - - ,
M// c14/9/ sty cc t Aa-oss/t 04S "
i# Sf/fe fo007/1tS CV t-R8 oSI/68 '1 - - - - ---- ---- -- -------
- 47102 7/772/1/6 GM 1 A8 0/dA/19 3A -----
---r-------------.--
l 30166 W1/V/127 CS E SB 026// Y Ol/6 ~ l
! 31/9 S Iditte//18 De !
1 DG off/34 0t/7 !
\ 7/tS 6016g/try Icc / MB- ett/8 OYB #I i i
//70/ lI76 78/13e lcc f 18 et7/FW1 l [b9 l
} 14U 7 i26/3 7 //11 icH1 AS 09//9 2 ' O 70 V'* *
\ fe94S 73983/131 GH x AB 079 /23A ----- - - - - - - - - -
4S774 99383//49 WP.X AB-06fA/// - - - - - -
%----N-*------=-
, 139/6 GIVis//39 RC 2 RB-011/FW4/
312fl 97ttB/135 CS 2-$3 losA//W 8 0ll # A -
138Vo 8/198//34 Rc t RB ode /FW*4 L 072 #
- f6/ 74 0 7900 /137 st 1 so ott/FWstA 36S!f sit 71//g er t ss co2/FW 19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~~~~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4703Y 722 73/131 GN X AB 036/6
\ 20114 313/S//fe CH 2-18 0V8/21 0 73 * '" .
f* ;
- 97Y7 If717/N/ CC t As not//s 0 ? t/ n .
$$YS8 08if0/rYR $f f RS-Off/f O t)9 ~
~
l _sg7sg Mety//V3 st-2.gs-ogs/4 3 h /0374 /1479 /194 CC 2- Ag 032//Y OCO #
! lel31 21114//yr cH 1 ss ets/to 075 #
APPROVED BY: DA"I: -
[
- 4 - IJ.2 3;iQ?' E i; G;:.EE.; 6
.l - ,
SBWh 039 b SBLJM 085 L a wn 02 i **"#i sawn af
- New Packnep = SedM 08 7 COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM FIRST RANDOM SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
- , _ .a. ,
PREPARED BY:
QA/QC DISCIPLINE ENGINEER RAN/
SAMPLE SEQ POP PKG NO. NO. DESCRIPTION ITIM ACCESS NO. COMMEFIS 2Y909 3743S/IN Cs1sB-of3/FW18 0?b _
f9V8 oW16//f? cc 1 M- 03s/FW 74 -
4348S tsooS/tyg ' '"*
- W* *J./}/ 077 # ,
l 14430 21/16 /199 CH f AB-e41/7 4 0 78 ._"
\
377/7 rs997/go 3D-1-AB-ooV/ty1 CSI ~
2867S 13324 //11 CS 212 est/FW1 079 ft&& 4 roSos/tSt GM t As oov/sw s ------ - - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -~~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
L 3413 fessoV//S3 3R X AB-o10//W-30 k
' 472fY 7/Vse//ff GH / AB-offA/19 ----- - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - - - -
i40y/o 9/190/ISS S/ 2 YD octA/7y1.sp
' 1Y349 l2/680//S6 CC 2-So 07z/rs 080 "
26S2/ foo11//S7 cs 2 AB 007/4 l CS2 ~
63828 %V39//SB sw 2 SI-oo&4W37 081
u, 18022 00074//$9 sf 2 R3-024/FW3A DSE ., A i14fi ttifo/Mo sW 1-so org/sWg4 jfStf 239/4/M1 cc x Ag-ots/41 082 * '
2394 S 3f4S3/)tg cs t tg coV/ty 7 083 "
4De9 66437/143 F5/1-166-or/sWlo 08'l "
( 233tS JStVt/Mf cs t-A8192/d 20291 frtff/Mt cs t- Ag oft /as k,l\tilgt Mago/M6 cs 2-AB-090//W7 2674 ofoVo/M7 AF t-SB-edS/to 08$ **__ ** WA * *M S/Stt 77829/M Pfs 2 SB a30/rW11 -
.634S1 95870/M9 SW 2-S3-017/f3 1730 S 241N/t70 cH-l $8-cof/41 30I$1 fff48/s7 cs.2 sg-630/FW28 086 ~ *** "PA'" N*' I' 't A* A i
! Yst-f-133-01/FW Ot1 097 Cdd fmwe %dhv ,
t COMANCHE FEAK RESPONSE TEAM TIRST RANDOM SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PREFARED BY:
QA/QC DISCIPLINE ENGINEER
. RAN/
5 AMPLE SEQ POP PKG NO. NO. DESCRIPTION ITDi ACCESS NO. COMMENTS f/2Y c1792/111 cc t-AS-of33/sA 61YSe Witt//72 SW 1 S2-010/20 f70% 7//fy/173 GH X AB ces/f4 323 0 omM//19 St E-SB- ett/7 M$~
36o 18 6fth//rf c7 RB- 073/2 30ar] Vf7/s//76 cs t so-036/2A OSS ~
i I i I
l 1
l AP? ROVED 3Y: D AT E :'
G -
_i.C ? ;: . . ?'..:6 f.:.G ::e EI?. , , .
._.._.;__..__.______.___.s._.
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM SECOND RANDOM
- SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PREPARED BY:
QA/QC DISCIPLINE ENGINEER
( RAN/
SAMPLE SEQ POP PKG NO. NO. DESCRIPTION ITDd. ACCESS NO. COMMENTS 310S8 Sto/Yb7] &+DG MB/m-1 SJJ97 Bosor/tyg Rc.1-RB-62fB/fWS 056
~
astsa r3s74/171 crz ns oz9/ma c57 ' ~
3194y 1829s//so cr-1-12-oo7/rw2y 9699 13748/ts/ Icc-1-ss-s3rs/mik
~
69432 foivo/fB2 SI2-s3oo3/m9A . 058 ;-
Stst2 84972/tsi sr-1-xs-su/ o 43303 9S4V4//8V sW 2 sa o1/18 ffBff 2fVM//his cH-1-fc-cosA/S 1A . OS9
z?Sjf VIS'19/186 cs-2-A8-o6S/jf ofo A
~
2syt1 3s109/187 cs 1-sa stt/st2A 04,1
99V33 74490/18e Ms-t-Ra ott/ryss 062
S8Vf7 8838 4 //89st.2-R3-xf//W-]
4/3V7 9891//h sV-1-so 0]t/43 2678S VoV72ll11cs As ett/23 97/17 713 11 /192gy.y.pg.go9/3 APPROVED BY: DATE:
0A 'C iAD 3:5C;?' ;.';i _ i;;G.: LIER I
r r _. . .
oum - - - - _ ._-
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEM SECOND RANDOM SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PREPARED BY:
QA/QC DISCIPLINE ENGINEER RM/
SAMPLE SEQ POP PKG NO. NO- DESCRIPTION ITEM ACCESS NO- C0ltiENTS Y288 04f78/f93 BR-X-AB- 074/FW $
4 733 foj72/199 cc AB-ooo/3F2A JS'l/89 23V02/19Scc X A8-ots/Fy-ll 4379t/ 943/2 /194sW2-sr-oosa/7w21 28060 V2394/197cS-2-As-08V/10 .
Clo3
- I V8079 ,724VVllf8IGH-X AB-09?A/29 ;
32f 27 V1296/199cr-1-R8-01S/FW10 Oby 8 % NcnInvnuo Snmpir - Hor ec. Accrprra ysg 30411 IV43V2/too Cs2SB04V/9A M-14122,fpm em.rsiya w/paana, 4713 7 7/220 /261GH-X-A8-26/FW Vo BS8y 12949/202 cc- 1-ss -27/FW.y 38063 S7 Slo /20.3DD+ YD- 02ShWU 437a risn/2st su z SI-oo7A/M-1 38700 SBV72kos Do 1-DG both 0 6 S
S3181 803S2ltM Re-1-R8-032//WSA 454 15 48920/2s7 FW-1-SB-629/3/ 066
- 3SB/8 SVIIB/toscr-2-gg-oss/2 APPROVED 3Y: DATE:
4 C _I0 2 :5C;.;'_;5E E W. LEER n-.. r .3.--
- - . . . . ~ . -
0 COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM SECOND RANDOM SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PREPARED BY:
QA/QC DISCIPLINE ENGINEER RAN/
SAMPLE SEQ POP PKG NO. 50. DESCRIPTION ITDd. ACCESS NO- COMMENTS 23512 3SS2Y/ totes I-RB-oesB/S 37844 S72/3/21oDp-1-ss-oot/an SJ791 BI/98/21] Rc 2 Ra-e27NW12 3S3S8 S3V23/212 cT2-R3-o21/rWS3 2448Y 963/7/2/3 cs 2-Ra-on/ry g :
i 52232 :789/9/2/4lPs-t-R8-oly/isa ;
l 19620 294VY/2/SCH 2-SB-ool/N8 moo a330/tu "-'"';l;,f"' "
6/343 127/S/217SW 1-ss-017/13 S8997 8838V/218 SI-2-RB-oor/NJ 22783 3VV23/219cs-1-AB-211//S 263 i 3 30747/220CH-2-SB-638/37A fB953 7314V/221 G// X-AB-67t//Y 933ll 19/03/222 cc- 1-SB-ofo/tB ISESS 230yB/tt3 cc-X-AB-619/SA N/
S/ 74 07826/gtf cc-1-48-0Vf/py27 , 067 APPROVE 3 3Y: DATE:
0A c _I.C 2:5a..'_. 45 i:;G;;4113.
I 8
7 E " ' .' # . * . . 2C"*.3 ' ' '
COMANCHE PEAR RESPONSE TEAM SECOND RANDOM SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION l
PRE?ARED BY: l QA/QC DISCIPLINE ENGINEER I RAN/
SAMPLE SEQ POP PKG NO. NO. DESCRIPTION ITEM ACCESS NO. C0ctENTS l
54 920 GGm2/22S st-l x8-ott//w92 49310 7VSof/224 ns 1-nB ooe/rv34 8018 1211f/227 cc-1 xB osenkwu 3V360 sia24/2m cr-1-s3-o24/r-2 iS894 99ftV/229 WPX.AB-213/13
' ff93Y ,837S7/236lSF-1-RB-012/fW-1 I fee 41 72417/231GH-X-JB DV/A/8 31979 48318/232 cY-1-XB-oo 7/39 CS323 9641s/233 WP-2-S8- 022/2y 31318 Y13/9/214CS 2-SB- 10S//2A 0fo8 f VS179 48 tit /tss FW-t-88 atA/re 1 069 "
38933 sosts/234 ao-t-Do-oosa/24 susy 8 023/231si i-xa o22/m-v S/96 1 78S09/2 4PS-1-R8-M2//W3s ris9 07081/2s1 cc i-szas/,w.s cro "
V3127 isig1/2yo FSI-/-SS7lpy3-3 APPROVED BY: DATE:
0A 'c E.G 2;su;. ' ;..I 13G;3EI5 I
._m- . :r:. = -
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM SECOND RANDOM SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
. ..- =
PREPARED BY:
QA/QC DISCIPLINE ENGINEER RAN/
SAMPLE SEQ POP PKG NO. NO. DESCRIPTION ITEM ACCESS NO. COMMENTS 69'95 08302 /19]cc-1 A6-062/8-/ 07L "
l 124 7i s1973/212"Nj:jf*Y'*'
~
33 S 72 Ss72S/2e cr-1-xB-ofy/7 3 772t/ Ilf76)t44 cc-1 RB-oV8/2 072 "'
27t/96 V/SV2/2ys cs-2-48 oi3/1-3 ,
98' 96 6 73991/r96GbkAB-074//VA i 63319 tit 70/zV7 sw-2 sa-033/39 l 13113 ffall/2yg cc 2-R2-13t}/-13 l$s8] 28939f299 CH 2-AB-o22/N.g 9t' 763 7sLSt/tro aH-1-A8-DSo/20 APPROVED SY: DATE:
0 A . *'.C I;.D D ;5 C ; ? '_ _N E 13G;NIIK i
%. _ ? c: . 5 = n _ _ _ _ _ _- . __ . ._
COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM FIRST RANDgM SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PREPARED BY:
QA/QC DISCIPLINE ENGINEER
.RAN/
SAMPLE SEQ POP PKG NO. NO. DESCRIPTION ITDi ACCESS NO. COMMENTS 31410 Y CS- X- A S- 013/FW-IdA Olb SS338 /zr2 RM -f-Ec-ocffIt'
/4 V67 2 cW-f- AB- 03f/62 ,
39/08I V Do DG- off/ //
if1801 25r MS-1 y- 636 /Jo 449ff /254 GH-g- sq-oo&/fya -
V294 7 4 /2S7 FSt S29 /FW 3 -
3YSIt l2f8 CY-1-S3-o31f Sf) ~
SVieh /2Sr Ac 2-SS-oo2/'/9 S33V9 l240 Re-1-RR- 6Vf/fV footf3 /24/ MS-/-SB- 011/FW1A 4
4170 S /262 sW so-02V/to 3 I iso?y cc-X-AS-otS/31 y, b 621S /24Y 0l'l -.-
S/476 C MS-2-ss- 66$//2 Vf402 i 4 /244 FW-/-SB-029//8 07 S~ W l sto&& 9 /267 SF-X-FM-off/f-3 .
22783 3 /248 cs-1.43- 2itf/S = Wor &cwo-sue As Sfo. No. 219 ,
VS27Y 4 49 FW-1-RB-008AlFW' S-2 39404 /27a De DG- 039/8 _
756 /2 71 AF-1-SB-620/8A _Ol& " (
2333$ 72 Cs-l- AS-2f2 fit l *5 2009 AF-2-spo29/3 077 222 S2 7Y CS-1-$8- f24 f 6 ,
2358? 3 9/2?S cs.1-2B-co 7/6 APPROVED BY: DATE:
OA,0C LEAD OLSCIPLINE ENGINEER
1 COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM FIRST RANDOM SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PREPARED BY:
QA/QC DISCIPLINE ENGINEER RAN/
SM9tE SEQ POP PKG i NO. NO. DESCRIPTION ITm ACCESS NO. COMMENTS
{
l 3622 S 2 74 cr 1s- o80/33 -
ll941 77 *"
cc 2-Rs- eS3/31 0 78 S0986 78 W4 S&23 f M$ 2 RB-cc-1-AB-694/
o34/f,3 . .
43038 7/28o FSI-1-S3S/FW- 1 -
39ff 1 BR-X- A$- DV4/FWu1 -'
(253G l282 FSZ 2fo ?-0 Y 8-01.-142/FW y -
3S328 7/293 CT AB - 020ffW-$ -
32292 CT- 1-Ra -oj2l4Y -
1 l
/ter
/Y/70 cc-2 -sa- o66 /FW / 0 79 "
ifs 63
/ts6 cc-x-AB-ocz/3VA ogo *'Y 3 S 0 13 2/18 7 cr-2-7g-001frw n -
Sf407 7/2a8 gg.j-ss-sig/6 2160y /taf CS-1-Ag-02yfl9A
]
l 953 #
/290 AF SS- 024 AfSA 081 386 fl AF SB ed9f20 082 ;
VB331 92 GH-g AB-DS6/4-12 -
l l l S'o(23 91 Ms-1-s2 - CSy/6 -10 08.3
- i 3'/233 /z/V CY SB- obS/ff -
14024 9S CH AB-027/SoA '
//o72 cc-2-Ec- coV//wu L 33o63 /297 cr-1-g8 - 03o/169 -
- V3281/ 93 FSI-1-S64 /PI-Y -
R922_ 9 VP-2-SB-00V/FW 8 ,
JOSY 00 ,
BR.g - Sg. gp g l9-2 APPROVED BY: DATE:
0A,0C LEAD DESCIPLINE ENGINEER
]
9 l
l COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM !
FIRST RANDOM
- SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PREPARED BY:
QA/QC DISCIPLINE ENGINEER RAN/
SAMPLE SEQ POP PKG NO- NO. DESCRIPTION ITEM ACCESS NO- COMMEYIS V4071 /
FW 2 AB- ottl13 08Y
'W 3820S 2 DD AB- coV//W-f
& 28794 kn cs-2-M- of(/wf _ , .
(ff 36269 /34 9 CT-2-R8-080f 80 J -
o ")( 2978/ /3ss cs-z- RB- 082//o-3 _
X ,
(pl 1o209 _ s cc A8 -0278/FW8 _
%*i IS4VB /Jo? cc-t A6-0248/13 _
j 3V82 7 /3o8 cf-1-sB- 0yo/f 7 ~
l S74S /309 cc-1 Ec- 002 /27 O BS 2383 o /3to AF-2-ss- osyA/ 6 _ * 68 (o 1&S95 cd Ag -oto ff tf-f __
43957 f/312 SV-2-SI- oo9(18 l'
38261 13 DD 2 AB-010lFW*1 s u.,u - -
2V827 /JtV cs 1-ss'olf //o si 087 d., u ne . -d- &h Jn e.e upw y9980 Y/3/S G//-X AB-et/Vl18 -
- ~ *" * '
29274 /314 c s-g-14-034ffWfA 3332S /317 cr-1-x3-o32fsy -
,)
2 S 79 7 7 /318 cs-1. ss- oV3/29 ,
3t/993 //319 c7 (D- 00 V/FW- 3YA ~
3/37S CS-X AB-oo//rw 1-SA _.
10891 7/3n c_c-21c. cossbx .
19928 9/322 cH 2-sa-ors /rwo " 089" L.
SSf6 o cc-1-AB- 06 7/9-/ , .
- 37Y77 ,
S/32V cr s8- 070/ V2 -
SS/28 9 ,V/32S WP.l- SB-00S2/f-l -
M Subm;fied b inspecl ors, U mb y f APPROVED BYi DATE: nee),) f,f our <w /r ._
OAiOC LEAD DISCIPLINE ENGINEER
e COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM F RST, RAND,0M SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION PREPARED BY:
QA/QC DISCIPLINE ENGINEER RAN/
SAMPLE SEQ pop rgc NO. NO. DESCRIPTION ITEM ACCESS NO. COMMENTS L
S3220 & /324 gc .1-pg- o 39]g 591/d /32 7 $5 2- ss- 019/20 S448V /328 911- RB - otof20-1 S32SI 9 Rc XB -039/2?
23t/90 cs.1-RS -oosAfg l 27327 /m cs As. orfof // 7 --
13o 78 19 cc 2-Rs-139/ 20 S1888 /333 PS- 1-R$ - ooI/28 Itf -
4217Y SW- 1-YD-002/ms foV94 4 /33S Do 2 vG-oV2/Fv31 327/S /314 CT-1 RS-02cll-1A -
V3297 9/337 F$1-1 s/6 / FW-If -
Y9120 7 138 plS.l-78-003/FW n I? -l j 386 Y9 DD -X- A6-003ffW'31 _ -.
S306S 7 /3 40 09b, # n SY2Y1 i l3Y/ RH-l- RB- 00VffW- 7 p%f # hetrsHoc are w "~ Lared S9490 7/112 SI-2 .q- ofo/B L %//1-04f { l 8 Wh 092.3Y.
33Vo2 8 /3 43 cr-t-xs- o yt//w n -
dese < m les M JVI ! JV4 %
1o92 /3vil Ar-1-ss- 02?a/st ' neeoled, B ey w ill 4 , w to be a s 41808 '
VS sW SI- opf/ (, ~ L BkM - 093 $ 1BWP1 -890-7 74 l /3Y4 cc- f- Q -os3/ru a W # ieneb^ti'"S .
3Y118 1/197 cT SB -014/ VV -
l 31911 /3Y8 C7*-/- RS-004frw 2 o- .
43403 o/3V1 sW2-s3-orlo/38 ,
17V88 f. iso c,j. 9. ss - oog/10 l APPROVED BY: DATE:
OA,0C LEAD DISCIPLINE EMGiNEER
57 21 Section-IV '
- 1) Page IV-83, Paragraph 2.5 -
To date I have not seen this section Testing Program Issues. If you have received the ISAPs that were due on March 1,1986, this section needs to be completed.
If you have not received this information, please call Charlie Trammell at (301-492-7317) and see how he wants to proceed.
i i
-s -. . . ~ ,
O g
Sb&
Section IV
- 1) Pages IV-86 through IV-105 I have enclosed the entire section on Quality of Construction, Self-initiated Evaluation for your review. Paragraph 3.2 was prepared by Angelo Marinos and is in the format that he feels this section should be in, in order to minimize the implementation aspect. Please review paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4, written by Teledyne, to see if you agree they are 0.K. as is, or whether they need to be revised to reflect consistency with Paragraph 3.2. I have also included Paragraph 3.1, scope, which might help you in this review.
- y is k.'
J..
SSER STATUS .
Report Body Responsible Status Abstract -
Marinos Needed, later Contributors Teledyne Needed, later Acronyms / Abbrev. Teledyne Needed, later g
/ ~_ , .,y ;
1.0 Introduction Marinos Needed, later 2.0 Sumary of NRC Rev. & Eval. Marinos Need?d, later 3.0 Conclusions Marinos Needed, later
' 3 4.0 Sumary-Outstanding Issues Marinos Needed, later Confirmatory Issues Marinos Needed, later g Q N5.0 f
,/
Appendix I..._ _ Teledyne ,
,/1.0 Introduction Saffell dieeder O'(
! !/2.0 CPRT Program Plan Desc. Saffell [ F.c ded-4 /(
3.0 NRC Review and Eval ,-
Saffell NeedeP O(
s '
l M4.0 CPRT,.CAPP/ DAN _Comon g
.1 QA/QC of CPRT Act. DFL 7 OK
.2 Accept Criteria DFL \ OK
.3 Corrective Actions DFL OK f b4.4 Independence of CPRT Org. Marinos .Needed V4.5 Discipline Interfaces Teledyne / Needed I 5.0 Overall Sumary & conclusions Teledyne Needed, later f References Teledyne )( Needed, later h6.0 ,
f l
s.
3 t
J. Knox Appendix A (2 sets to merge) / Nevshemal/Masterso9 t 4g Jo,y 0 Introduction
/
0 Process for Evaluation 3.0 Staff review & Eval. Appr.
JJR T 0. 4.
4.0 4.1. Intro Riveria 0.K.
4.2 Elec. I & C 3 Mech. Syst. & Components Nevshemal4 0.K. 7/N#
7pgd JJR Y f.K.
1/4 Civil /Struct.
A h o w c -'SA &V W 0.K.
4.5 Piping & Supports 4 eu 4 Terao
(Hale / Grimes) 0.K.
l/4.6 New QA/QC JHM JHM+Masterson/ TM Tr,n .7 Closed Ext. Source (2 sets)
Terao Self Initiated Eval. Nevshemal / 0.K.
.0 5 Riveria 0.K.
5.2 Elect. I & C
.K.
[ M !5.3 Mech Syst. & Comp Design Act. NFv[Masterson/7(Afp 5.4 Civil /Struct Desigr. Act. JJR / 0.K.
Piping & Supports Des. Act (2 sets) RDH/Terao
.5 (3 sets) RDH/Terao/Nevshemal
[ 6.0 Exc. of Vendors etc. @ Missing Knox
[g 7.0 Overall Sumary and Conc.
Teledyne k8.0Refs.
E. Tomlinson Appendix B Saffell Wdrd 0 Introduction Saffell Jieeded- 0 <<
2 CPRT Process for Eval l
3.0 Staff Review & Eval Approval Saffell RJ J 0/C 0.K.
JAF
.0 4.4 Intro L. Stanley / 0.K.
N4.2 Elect & Inst. (needs work
.3 Test Pmg. Issues JHM' / 0.K.
- - - - , . - - . - - . . . , , ~ . . . - - , . - . - - , . - . , - . - , - - . - , _ _ , , , , - - , _ , , , - - - . - -
I .
e .
- /tPM [4.4 Mech & Piping Issues (3 sets) NE Masterson/Terao/Other
/ bone 5 Civil /Struct JAF V 0.K.
(Hale / Grimes) JHM 0.K.
4.6 QA/QC 4.7 Misc. JHM 0.K.
4.8 Closed Ext. Issues JHM 0.K.
5.0 5.1 Scope Intro, Etc. Saffell NC(
5.2 Elect. Eqt (on Cable) Pops. (2 sets) Tiveria/Yost h 5.3 Mech. Eqt. Pop. (needs work) JAF
~
5.4 Struct Pops. (cleanup) 5.4.2, 3, 4 Combined JJR 0.K.
6.0 Exclusion of Vendors 7.0 Overall Summary & Conclus. Teledyne Needed, Later Teledyne Needed, later 8.0 References I
l l
l l
/7 4y -' WV s
1 . '-
Paga 1 of 7 WORK PROCESS DEFINITION FOR PIPE WELDS / MATERIAL POPULATION GROUP (PIWM)
INTRODUCTION The PIWM population group includes all safety-related welds which have been QA/QC inspected and accepted, and whose function is to maintain the integrity of piping systems and pressure boundaries. This population encompasses pipe welds, containment penetration welds (flange weld to sleeve), branch line connection welds, and abandoned integral attachment welds. This population also includes safety-r= lated pressure boundary welds for mechanical equipment which require similar installation techniques, procedures, and personnel.
Performing a weld in the PIWM population group requires one work process:
Welding The following work process description demonstrates that reasonable homogeneity does exist at the work process level. Regardless of the possible differences in the welds (weld configuration, material type or welding process) being performed, each work process involves: common erection specification requirements; common installation procedure requirements; a common construction management organization; common '
craft labor performing the same basic types of operations; a common inspection procedure; and a common inspection organization. A sufficient number of samples will be randomly selected from the PIWM population group to ensure that meaningful conclusions can be drawn regarding construction adequacy of the welding work process, and in turn, the PIWM population group.
~
Within the work process of welding, there are di_fferent welding methods utilized in making a weld. In Unit I and Common areas, and Unit 2, i there are_two types of_ welding methods _used in performing ASME Section III Code Class 1, 2, 3, and MC, piping and pressure boundary welds: Gas Tungsten Arc Welding g and Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW).
These welding methods are utilized in both carbon and stainless steel welding and are performed by the same work force. Each welding method
'wlll have 60 randomly selected samples within the weld reinspection and document review phases of this population group.
0454/WRKPRI ,
h- f -
WORK PROCESS: Welding l
- 1. INTRODUCTION Welding is the sole work process required for installation in the
. Pipe Welds / Material (PIWM) population group. It includes the activities necessary to establish a safety-related piping or pressure boundary weld joint.
- 2. HOMOGENEOUS WORK PROCESS JUSTIFICATION Homogeneity for the welding work process is demonstrated on the basis that attributes and acceptance criteria for the reinspection and document review are derived from specifications, installation procedures, codes and standards, and inspection procedures which are common to the activities involved in accomplishing the welding
(,yorkprocessforthePIWMpopulationgroup:
- a. Source of Attributes and Acceptance Criteria The Gibbs & Hill Specifications 2323-MS-100. Rev. 8. " Welding Erection Specification", 2323-MS-101, Rev. 4. " Mechanical -
'Erecti_o_n Snecification", and 2323-ES-100, Rev. 2, " Electrical Erection Specification", are the common source for
~
establishing the attributes and acceptance criteria for the welding work process. These specifications all reference and include the ASME Section III Code welding requirements (refer to Section 2c below).
- b. Installation Procedure Brown & Root Construction Procedure CP-CPM-6.9, Rev. 2,
" General Piping Procedure", with Appendices, (in particular, Appendix CP-CPM-6.9D, Rev. 6. " Welding and Related Processes"), applies to all installation activities for welding a safety related piping or pressure boundary weld, and is the common installation-procedure for all the attributes.
Previous revisions of the specifications and procedure identified above have been reviewed for impact on the selected attributes. No significant changes were found which would affect the homogeneity of the work process.
2 0454/WRKPRI
e WORK PROCESS: Welding (Cont'd)
- 2. HOMOGENEOUS WORK PROCESS JUSTIFICATION (Cont'd)
- c. Applicable Codes and Standards All PIWM welding work process activities were performed in accordance with the ASME B&PV Code,Section III, 1974 Edition to and including Summer 1974 Addenda. Welds within the PIWM population group fall under the requirements of ASME Section III, Subsections NB, NC, ND, and NE. These requirements have
. been incorporated into the specifications (refer to section 2a) and installation procedure (refer to Section 2b) mentioned previously.
- d. Construction Work Force The Brown & Root Construction Management organization has been responsible for all piping and pressure boundary welding i activities since the beginning of the construction project.
Therefore, there has been both programmatic and procedural consistency of the welding work process.
All PIWM welding work process activities were performed by the Brown & Root Pipe Department Welders. The welders perform their welding to the requirements of Brown & Root Construction Procedure CP-CPM-6.9 (refer to Section 2b). Welder qualification is in strict compliance with B&R Specification i WES-031, " Specification for the Qualification of Welders and Welding Operators".
When a weld is required, the joint conditions require that a Weld Procedure Specification (WPS) be used. That WPS requires that welders making the welds be qualified to standard tests. l A welder qualified to these tests will be so indicated on a l Welder Qualification Matrix of all welders within the B&R Pipe Department Welders, and therefore, any qualified welder could be called upon to perform the weld on that particular joint. l
_Most welders have the cualifications to perform welds of !
various welding methods, on various types of base materials.
- e. Inspection Acceptance Standards and Inspection Group Brown & Root Quality Instruction Procedure QI-QAP-11.1-26._
Rev. 17, "ASME Pipe Fabrication and Installation Inspections",
was used to inspect all PIWM welding work process activities.
- All inspections are performed by the Brown & Root'QA/QC ASME Group inspectors.
i
- 3 0454/WRKPRI
- ^
WORK PROCESS: Welding (Cont'd)
- 3. ATTRIBUTE APPLICABILITY
- a. Description of Attributes Listed below are the major activities that comprise the welding work process activities and the corresponding attributes for evaluating the adequate performance of those activities.
ACTIVITIES ATTRIBUTES
- 1. Proper end-prep Fitup^
and fitup of the weld joint
- 2. Cleanliness of Cleaniiness the weld joint /
- 3. Identify the base materials Base Material to be welde'd Traceability
- 4. Welding performed to the Weld Procedure proper qualified Weld Procedure Specification (WPS)
- 5. Identify the weld material Weld Material to be used Traceability
- 6. Welder must have proper Welder Qualification qualifications to perform weld
- 7. Correct configuration of Configuration the weld
- 8. Correct weld size and Weld Size and profile Profile
- 9. No excessive radial weld Radial Weld shrinkage Shrinkage
- 10. No excessive under- Undercut cutting 4 0454/WRKPRI
WORK PROCESS: Welding (Cont'd)
- a. Description of Attributes (Cont'd)
ACTIVITIES ATTRIBUTES
- 11. Surface of the weld Surface of Weld is free of overlap, ripples, and ridges to allow for proper NDE
- 12. No cracks, lack of Cracks, Lack of fusion, and crater Fusion, and Crater cracks Cracks
- 13. No min. wall violations Base Ma terial to base material caused Defects by welding activities
- 14. Welder ID symbol has Welder ID been documented
- 15. Acceptable visual Visual Inspections inspections have been performed
- 16. Acceptable Non- NDE Destructive Examinations have been performed
- 17. Proper certification of the Inspector inspectors who have accepted Certification these activities 1 l
i l
l 1
l 5 0454/WRKPRI
.' I WORK PROCESS: Welding l (Cont'd) )
- a. Description of Attributes (Cont'd)
The following are the major activities and corresponding attributes which are not common to every PIWM population group sample. .
ACTIVITIES ATTRIBUTES
- 18. Correct amount of weld Butt Weld reinforcement for butt Reinforcement welds
- 19. Proper preheating of Preheat veld area had occurred
- 20. No rust has developed Weld Rust on weld due to contamination of weld
- 21. No rust has developed Base Material Rust on base material due to contamination of base material
- 22. Compliance with impact Impact Tests test requirements
- 23. Compliance with post Post Weld Heat veld heat treatment Treatment requirements
- b. Attribute Consistency and Sufficiency The attribute " Butt Weld Reinforcement" (item 18 above) does not apply for every veld due to differences in weld joint configuration. This attribute is an additional inspection of the weld size beyond the " Size and Profile" attribute (item 8 above) to verify that the amount of weld reinforcement on butt welds does not exceed ASME code requirements. Since the same weld surface condition is being evaluated in all cases, the homogeneity of the welding work process is not affected.
6 0454/WRKPRI
WORK PROCESS: Welding (Cont'd)
- b. Attribute Consistency and Sufficiency (Cont'd)
The attribute " Preheat" (item 19 above) will not apply for each weld. The Preheat attribute provides additional assurance that construction adequately followed the applicable Weld Procedure Specification in performing the weld, and was included for this reason.
The attributes " Weld Rust" and " Base Material Rust" (items 20 and 21 above) will be investigated only on those samples which are stainless steel. A sufficient number of these attributes provides an indication of possible contamination of the stainless steel resulting from the use of carbon steel or carbon steel contaminated tools. Stainless steel samnlae vill
.be randomly selected to provide confidence in the conclusions about these attributes.
The attributes " Impact Test" and " Post Weld Heat Treatment" (items 22 and 23 above) will not apply for each veld. These attributes are included to provide additional assurance that construction has adequately followed the applicable WPS while performing the weld.
The attributes identified above are associated with worker activities that are reasonably similar to other worker activities and associated attributes that apply to all samples. Therefore, it is not necessary to select and evaluate additional samples of item-specific attributes. All attributen vill be sampled in sufficient quantity to permit lEilid observations to be made regarding cne adequacy of the welding work process.
7 0454/WRKPRI
DISClH.ltE lKWANICALl' t
anuTim cmp l PIE WELDS /f%1ERI AL l s7 ,y t / '
WORK M M SS l-WiblEl l -_ -
n 1% wa onc. n i We nM
~
h ul "'"**
- I 2[
MTRIE #* ~ ~
/* CartmTI IESS
/* WELDER ID SmKx. " //
' ein, // /
- Size no PmFILE F W
- WLo RUST (SS O K Y) /
/ktoPROCEDuRe-[' d ant Wto # A BASE main RUST RE!WORCDENT (SS OM.Y)
/
- BASE m itRin a //
TRACEABILITY /*RADIRWLDSHRINKAGEN/A
- VISUAL INSPECTIONS *.
J wto u nna //
TRACEABILITY
/ tuwRCur +
',* 10E * /
j*WLDERQLIALIFICATION*//
- SURFACE OF WLD //
W
- IWACT TESTS
- 4t_ m
- CRACKS, LACK OF FUSION, /[
N AND CRATER CRACKS
% 4 A h* w/ ~= g . 99g, y n y , ,
- BASE STERIE DEFECTS TREATENT 2
[ INSPECTORCERTIFICATION*4/
/ mto PoivrS //
- DOCIPENTATION REVIEW OM.Y
" REINSPECTION AND DOCLMNTATION REVIEW
b Comments on Train C Conduit Criteria Document
- 1. The program addresses Unit 1 and common areas only. Resolution of the problem for Unit 2 is not defined.
- 2. Screening level 1 - weight check is based on sampling study results rather than " worst case" calculations.
- 3. Screening level 2 - good supports check is based on sampling study results rather than " worst case" calculations. In addition, there are no load or dimensional limits on " good" supports.
- 4. Screening level 3 - interaction potential check does not define a zone of influence.
- 5. Screening level 4 - seismic capacity check in field calculates tributary span weights on the basis of one half of adjacent span lengths. This will be unconservative for certain supports.
- 6. Screening level 7 - safe shutdown system check does not give any details of methodology.
- 7. Sway interactions of conduits are only considered by screening level 3.
It appears that potential sway interactions would be missed if a conduit system meets one of the " strength" screening levels.
- 8. Appendix A - Seismic Evaluation using refined criteria:
a) Stress acceptance criteria for unistrut members does not appear to address local buckling of compression flanges.
b) Self weight of supports do not appear to be considered in analysis.
h'
- g I
c) The use of a 1.1 multimode factor for equivalent static analysis of straight conduit runs requires justification.
d) The fatigue curves which define allowable numbers of cycles provide a factor of safety of only 1.5 on cycles. This appears too low for fatigue evaluations (ASME code uses a factor of 20).
e) The sample calculations consider loads in only one or two directions rather than three directions. (Conduit clamps provide restraint in three directions.)
f) There are errors in sample calculations where stress units are used in place of force units and vice versa.
- 9. Appendix D - Target Analysis:
a) Allowable weight versus height curves for missiles impacting piping targets were developed for stainless steel pipes. Application of these curves to carbon steel pipes should be justified.
b) Piping target evaluation assumes that all missile energy is absorbed by plastic deformation of pipe. Failure of target pipe supports is not addressed.
c) Allowable weight versus height curves for missiles impacting HVAC duct targets are based on evaluation of one duct size only (36" x 27"
- GA16). Application of these curves to other duct sizes should be
~
justified.
d) All tables and figures associated with part II " Length of Missile Conduit Span which Participates in Impacts Upon Targets" are missing. No results are given.
.- - -= .. -
, . .e, p
- 10. Appendix E - Criteria for. Screen levels 1, 2 and 4:
a) Why are special supports type 7 classified as " good" supports if they require evaluation on a case by case basis?
- b) How can a support as complex as the multi-tiered gang support with rod hangers (type 8) be classified as a " good" support not requiring any evaluation?
i c) Screen level 4 defines tables of support capacity in two directions only while conduit clamps have the capability of transmitting loads in three directions.
4 4
4 I
a w,a q b'-- Wlt$Ad [ /Yl0L bbM /- hA . -
. __ OLL _. Q.__ A>-_ [ ._;.- b* /D1 ,_
. __ _ f. NVndr0%_.7_.,_Ssg be d.2
'N
~
O Le tte r f rom V. S . Noonan to W. G. Couns il dat e'a w _. _. .._... ____ .
g' August 9, 1985; NRC Staff Evaluation of the Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan. _ _ _ . , _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _
4 Letter from V. S. Noonan to W. G. Counsil dated &
September 30, 1985; NRC Staff Evaluation of -- --
the Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan -
._ _. ._.. Detailed Comments. - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
~ ~ ~ ~ ~[ Letter from W. G. Counsil to V. S. Noonan dated - __._.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _
November 22, 1986; Response to NRC Staff Evaluation of the Comanche Peak Response Team Program Plan. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
. . . _ % .. .. .. - . .. ==-
_. 6kEwt P & , A vio2nt._a ,- y ..a4 vi s~ i se.- _e e . &. .e . . - .
- .. w-.-
dak fldmo , Akasunz _.L,17ncmla i9, ifs'/---
P GPS 2S gmd 1a~l 2,fym (?No^ avA - . _ _ - .
houu Sp'aj'n d7AA Pbas ,.0^_fo&< 8 i936/ i - . _
9 ZdIa/w D4.Eaemb4s M.D Spsza a2TL..----
St,odm2m a,tery, La' wo& Akk Bocau- -
crs8
)f y
- e -ee -.
+.w - - m - m e ,
-..-._Asksm ,.ZeT'dhr157%&af,mada,wx0 .
. - - s~dMeataauu a nso
+N e' - .= e e e e . e. . e_
_.-. -bkdiL CPRf 6cbu S&w 7wd_dxMA_ _
e.e amise m a - -
m.i. -- he in .m e-g m e = we
-AuddjLnESAow1.aJOnueufraAat aud6vuMtApp K Dep M
-as-
. M& ..
- m en em-um e
.~. &a,e[. CNES . .1.42e tb h/YVYJ71VL .,
7hdw C'dnAarX'Dumuu a.M __
... . . . . . f E S T 1 m _z u Z c _ _____ _ ___
W Sum Se m e .e -me= .e-.meiewm=
- em -euN u- .i.emem .wm-en e e-- e NWN hmm eeene e - e emmassey m e e ma ps.e s m- ea .e+4ema m. --. .We W =Wgeme .--iew. M e .-- meSeemy ahNee..N mMehem , w e ese m m- . + ee. n e . e se . ,,eese hee-e e em.eame.= +e+me e mem e wee -g -mim.
l - - - . . . . . .. h. .- . ..-- ._ - - .. . .- - . . ... _ . . _ _ .. . . ...- - .-
. ... . . .-. .... . .. .- . --e .- ..... . .- - - . . . .-. . . - - . . . . - . -.
+.--e 4- .. =-.. .-.e - - . .-.-. +. . . . . - -.. . .. - . .. e . m..... mmi-*+-m e ..,
. . . . . . eye -. . - - - . ,-w . mm.-.-- .m- =>----... as-ee , ., e m O
a .% = . e . ,- ==-a. .. .+ . .... e.gue . .-.-e%
-s- g- e- - . - - - - - -..- w-.- - ..g e- , -w- -
.r -m.e--- e p ,,-,y .--,-- -- -
ww-
l .
l 7<.,
bopeuanstar 7zw? wq wga d Pmm e &ses a . Ts s G // G m % c , 62 % a N ul Rsop e R a w %
Rs.auf,Maysi, terr 6nk~C, St& dmANdi M.d-STAoM Ma7M&
9 M aiug va . }tg muw) ir. >as y nc, GasO Na11s2s Bup2d .
d w d4, Q b ?.u. 25 d 485 te. &grie7 Doy Qin Buadua 2/,
uo k p ' ' ' w&4xn sal "A 'Y$
f h* >
Av&w o.
- n. Asze, caerwp daguay Py l s+x 8syy n r/nomia s-0,nes :
_;p w.. - .n .. ~ - +.. =_a_: - - _ ,
(3 bf .n. aa awsd a- ou/rfa. rte) s ea2 4 i
i
{wlA nonsin.o d f ??D4-32o3,zu&
1
} f Slidu'&/ fly L Q Pkui;tPiaA. dad, i
l Asf??r 1 : .5hp p/.2.m.7J S's/G avs/u&fyn7 Deuspwug,4. 6muaL /uk. do ,oa /,774,
,oe f is a z <6 ,x ovr sv124 anbTaea l
- 4 emg A
- } We D6dynw'T,4. M/5%iudad(ELy%
/Z-% dmd CRSE 00eis l-/7
- 9) Auttursad. centw~t~ Ohyt 552Es
- 6) b/nm 6Unht0/uut.tur g AC- 56 AC-80, A&24 am/ tA' SE f c) i' & axur.a duo W/2l N/L4a,o .
judk uL dz
(/
) S'gartrRaZEr:p a ww fntuw:n.ro Goacm>n; Slppbny>g? O N2)fE4-0797 6 99' I
.. . . . . _ . _ . . ~ __
3, . _ ;, a . = : wa n.-::;a. w :
. ~ :: - - .-
2 1
s),bd- and dm-;co._ ere srS.e i 6 -
Conawizhg 6 AT PAopsw>t fk - C * '/ * *' #
aare/1ssus onaus
} 4) ' .Ms &t p%ui.
syxp 41u>t A% cYs4A) j\ a) .tc - daZue) 6nAu sappn~C j 6) H.s.- frui q Ska u~ T4 ba^dox
- de e).tc - Man nuf?da &ap/Suk careas h aa d)1.d -a)- &ng ebnu,e DioogA 9 74- k F 0 ding 4
- 6) h(JMT Md &1 W6
'77) 6 6'O f) GhW Duap% 'wp dEm & @/9m5vvP' SAPM) a)Cabk 7nay ad CrndavSappnE
- 6) 712r-21E0//ku - km d+. wen M40 Dyopni c) Sil/ Sah.kd~) /v".oStr
,) 444 c pwvedt sautao2
'1 a
BM x71,r mzwls,wP
& musaduos
~l n y ye 0%Ar dado. &iP90 aedadt :
k h 9 dm?to7 day & MEC og *t 26 p/dowiwg
.,f1* .
- ts N ki g 1)d"" f As cpiz r Pnopw Nat 9M a Ai $7A a 'd'
' ~g 1f n EmpaA fj uzc ssatz. 6nnusm.ae "
cPrer hopn f%
g ,
,ffuf +) Ak% sad b/.o/&nd MLoaAdv,k NecAnnx8
! eQ bk) A,Wq au=> 6AHw iA Eh 72 d . 4 shu' S ne I a Z u n s it sYa BM tohtZ uig *zgo,ooz, l\2 likum. dpz& / a~/ Q4m soi M6 Faa/amsy, Jue utat a s d d s D n 0
} -
D gueA em ouibughsc/
l u>W' RL w ul caerns& fu er 9/30/24 75 cmyA'Z % m,ptmo auzoo ue uT%dd/v2 x ed M tzoqoop tou2/6L qO.M.Lk 6k ff S?
CCiN'.&cd
.. _N WC._ _
~ l! W- -
~ w
- .- '" l~ '
Z_ :
" Jicarn:. _ > -
, 4... -
e wj- u 1- ,
Ly W % Re g ,
)
hu;h l Wl (lvd L " U~h w<
m0 b f hu~ /)
J 6D V "-
7 a r <a 6v* W 7
'1 f, fp,gtr W(oi '\ c ~ lu.f, fY H-M
]
i IN O,# Q# W' ;y Y \ yp-)
T*"
3 y u-y / w"1 4./w,/o a fa
/
./
- @'o
/.T a g[
/
Y hl0 'Yl flh/?1. 7flg -
,y i % &/Ty,wu cy-H
' uni r t hY- ' saw an (b4 L I &V]
~
9, am i
lyre; 4 r .
n w- ew al c-.A T uJ 3p . m s es 4 a<b m as<L am.aw 7 %
A J gf-%&m um.# f y cm,,,_
di'k h- (98 s/A Yv ~ 4+- .,
vc a - rse mg p c w }M L ~y w y- ju p l
Oje6+ g 11yig e / ky ~ v Y h .1 iff 4
- . _ w .--ws-. . .Mus'_ a e, m s _ . _ hm_.. ._.m. =gejw....,.g.-.
g; .wm -
.. .~- u. -
- l. 5
...)
~ ,
'l C & 4 //c - ,
as, e
s#
P s
1- u 7 ug n W wq<&
nnsaL 7,~
a no%., .
p> W, e y a ze7 *a%eA~,352 1 trseg b h g q
c a
d = kW i
" ci~- nu ,
I l
g e
cfsf4 p< .
' t' l
l fi M-w~ 2bj
&7
- Fu 5- q -
4 i
h
"--ym.,,e,, ,
w ---- -.- _..... ...,,.. ,,_,,
. ' 5
- '*m-,-...
f.. U'~. ' , -
p
' 4/a6 M77/ bluun. P/Mdo
& 4*e. AWkt). WY 1 sap eval F M 'I tc4+te 7. g/o MISC 14 (4/14/86) m- _____ 2 ..a , .. 4.
tg f _ ;t 7 g 73 ,. gg 33 5,7g- ;73, 1
Evaluation of ISAP II.b Concrete Compression Strength
/.O 7 & n dt S tb%-
L _ %1- -- ..t J "_, emm The TRT investigated allegations that concrete strength tests were falsified. The TRT reviewed an NRC Region IV investigation (IE Report No.
g 50-445/79-09;50-446/79-09) of this matter that included interviews with 15 individuals. Of these, only the alleger and one other individual stated they thought that falsification occurred, but they did not know when or by whom. The TRT also reviewed sl_ ump and air entrainment test results of concrete placed during the period the alleger was employed '
(January 1976 to February 1977) and did not find any apparent variation in
- the uniformity of the parameters for concrete placed during this period.
Although the uniformity of the concrete placed appears to minimize the likelihood that low concrete strengths were obtained, other allegations were raised concerning the falsification of records associated with slump and air content. tests. The Region IV staff addressed these allegations by assuming that concrete strength test results were adequate. Furthermore,
. a number of other allegations dealing witl) concrete placement problems (such as deficient aggregate grading and concrete in the mixer too long) were also resolved by assuming that concrete strength test results were W alft$ dlrtM &flO6D&h "
Y WNR } ~
F. 7:i :- - : l_, =0 J TUEC Mgtermine areas where safety-related concrete was placed between January 1976 and Febryrg9 , g ide a program to assure acceptable concrete strength, sThe program eeN include tests such as the use of random Schmidt hamer tests on the concrete in areas where safety r + o. h ex a / r.
is critical. The --~p= thdl include a comparison of the results with the results of tests perfomed on concrete of the same design strength in areas where the strength of the concrete is no ue tioned, to detennine g IM if any significant variance in strength occurs. gT she416ubmit the program for performing these tests to the NRC for review and approval prior to performing the tests. p-%
2.0 C & y5
?. Ii ~va uadon 177 Py RJ1wt. t&zdia MRPWM
..._...uu.un vi me urni uunceptuai rian d -
The CPRT :pyrodCA.
=xpt was as follows:
- a. Detemine the unit of placed concrete which is the smallest volume having assignable properties.
- b. Form populations of such units representing Category I concrete placed during the period January 1976 - February 1977 (concrete
_ at issue) and March - August 1977 (control concrete).
- c. Select a random sample of accessible surface locations from each y population of sufficient size to render statistical comparisons meaningful. I b d. Conduct a Schmidt hamer test at each selected location.
g e. Make statistical comparisons of the two populations both on an y overall basis and at the tenth percentile value. The tenth percentile strength M the characteristic strength used in design.
,' 4 Sy
- f. Examine the 28-day concrete cylinder strength data for Category W g I concrete during the same time periods and detennine for och g g time period whether the sample of cylinder strengths and the
- k t
, qg sample of Schmidt hamer tests describe the same population.
- g. If the above steps do not settle the issue satisfactorily, do the necessary testing to detennine the Schmidt hamer compressive strength calibration curve for the materials used at ,
Comanche Peak and perform the statistical analyses on computed l
i
!p g / c
^
strength values rather than on hamer rebound numbers.
Members of the NRC Technical Review Team (TRT) discussed the issues involved in the cr ::;tni plan with members of the CPRT l both in person and by telephone on several occasions as it was
~
r w . .
. .. ? '
- s evolving. The TRT finds the plan acceptable. Use of a device such as the Schmidt hamer is preferable to drilled cores, not only because it is less disruptive to continuing operations at the project, but also because for a given amount of effort much more data may be obtained. The argument that the hamer only tests surface layers of concrete is not germane because there is no reason to suspect that concrete strengths are biased with respect to distance from the surface. When strength of a particular structural element is not the issue but where the characterization of strength over a-considerable period of time is desired, a random selection of surface
_ areas produces as good a sample as any other random process.-
~
Finally, the use of the raw data from the hamer readings is preferable to the use of computed strength values since the -
conversion to strength introduces unnecessary uncertainties.
.IEAP -
3.2 Evaluation of[ttreTnplementation -f i ^m ,i: .
The CPRT identified all the concrete placements in Category I structures which occurred during the period January 1976 to February 1977 and all those which occurred during the 6-month period imediately following. In forming populations for testing the truckload of ccacrete was adopted as the smallest unit with assignable properties. By arbitrary procedures which distributed S
accessible surfacgamong truckloads, the CPRT determined that theie _ gt-
- was a population of 1305 test areas available for the concrete [ sue (January 1976 - February 1977) and a population of 2090 test areas available in the control concrete (March - August 1977). From these l populations random samples of 119 and 132, respectively, were selected for test by the 'Schmidt hamer. The CPRT also examined all i the Category 128-day cylinder strengths compiled during the two
- periods.
\
l ,
, At each test location Schmidt hamer tests were run in accordance
~
with ASTM C805-79 by employees of the Southwest Research Institute.
i
't l .
4 i
Those performing tests were trained to the requirements of "Schmidt Hamer Test on Concrete at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,"
Nuclear Projects Operating Procedure X-FE-108-1, Revision 1,
~
Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, January 1985, and they were certified to the requirements of the employer's quality assurance program and in accordance with USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.58 Revision 1. At each location the surface was ground to remove at least 1-inch of concrete (in addition to floor topping) in order to insure that tests were not affected by a carbonated surface layer.
The CPRT tested all samples for normality and considered three statistical tests for comparing the two populations of hamer tests.
e One was rejected because of its inferior power.h the remaining tests, one tests wheg the tenth percentile of the population for the concrete at issueAis greater than or equal to the tenth ;
percentile of the population of control concrete with both distributions considered nomal. The second detemines whether 90 percent or more of the concrete-at-issue population exceeds the tenth percentile of the control conrete population with no assumption of
~
normalityd Finally, differences between the population of hamer results were compared with differences between the population of cylinder strength results.
Members of the TRT visited the site when testing began and observed 14 tests. They also examined data as it was developed and reviewed the methods of analysis. The TRT finds the implementation of the i plan to be acceptable, f
- 4. jnneluaan Both populations of hamer readings were accepted as nomal at the five percent level of significance. Both by visual examination and statistical j
test the strength of the concrete at issue are lower than the control concrete. y statistical test there is a high confidence that the tenth percentile M the concrete at issue is no more than five percent less than the control concrete. The cylinder data also demonstrate that concrete l
l
f.
r '; *. ,
e , .. ' .~
- _5_
1 placed during the time period of the concrete at issue has lower strength than that placed during the period of the control concrete. The difference at the tenth percentile is 9.3%. For published cali.bration curves this difference corresponds to about a 5% difference in-hamer readings. It is concluded by the CPRT that falsification cannot be.
identified.
The TRT concurs in the finding. While it wished to avoid a correlation between hamer results and strength values, some interpretation of the data became necessary when the concrete at issue proved to be weaker than
- the control concrete. However, the only portion of the correlation that <
~
became relevant is the slope of the calibration curve in the vicinity of the 4,000 psi strength level. This value can be deduced from published ,-
calibration curves without assuming a specific calibration curve. Thus it could be established that both hamer data and cylinder data indicated the' l same difference in strength between the concrete placed during the two time periods. It is also significant to note the normality of the i distribution of cylinder strengths during the concrete-at-issue time period. Any significant amount of falsification would almost certainly distort the distribution.
M dYTM& WSAWJ004\. yM TRT% N a % = = <4 cP ag Wu. as%
p at 1
de m .a; izq u.au k 2 ply audit w&f k g-snuA at zd o _
usu. MUs .
sk l@
ni
--,m,,. ... . . , . - _ . - . , . . _ . - . - , . - - , - . - - - ~ _ - _ . - - - - - . , -__.._-.._.,_..,,_m.....--.- -
1935-10-22 15:03 BATTEL _E COLUMBLS 1409111 02 i'
f/f DK .1 C#)
1.
Title:
Comanche Peak Response Team Construction Adequacy Program Audit
- 2. MRC Staff and Consultants:
J. A. Calvo, NRC (Chairman) E. Tomlinson, NRC J. A. Nevshemal, Westec J. Flaherty Teledyne B. F. Saf fell, BaLLv11e R. Phillao, Consulting Engineer
- 3. Persons Contacted:
J. L. Hansel, ERC J. H. Schauf ERC J. T. Christensen ERC G. Hefter, ERC D. Boulton, ERC A. Burke, ERC J. Brand, ERC H. Bossung ERC A. Patterson, ERC J. Brown ERC J. DiMare. ERC R. Tate, ERC M. Iannuci, ERC
- 4. CPRT Construction Adequacy Program An audit of the Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) Coistruction Adequacy Program was conducted on October 16 and 17, 1985, at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station site. All disciplines--
mechanical, civil, and electrical--were audited by a team composed of NRC staff and consultants. Through this audit, the NRC reviewed the basis for establishment of the groupings within each discipline f
and the work process pJpulations associated with each discipline and utilized by the CPRT for assessment of construction adequacy.
The primary purpose of this audit was to evaluate the homogenuous j
nature of the work process populations from an engineering perspective.
Detail review of work process populations will be accomplished f
i in subsequent audits.
The Construction Adequacy Program is being performed within the purview of the Comanche Peak Response Team with ERC, Inc.
responsible for performing the construction adequacy review.
l The presentation made by Mr. John Hansel of ERC, Inc., at a public meeting held on October 3 and 4, 1985, in Grandbury, Texas, provided the basis for the staff's initial audit of the CPRT Construction Adequacy Progran, j h '~ I 4 -
1995-10-22 15:04 BATTELLE COLUMBLS 1409111 03'
.. i 1 .
,. Work process populations are being developed for the constructior.
activities for safety related systems, components, ard supports.
Each work process is evaluated by a random sample drawn from a category of slystems, components, cr supports related to that work process. Further, items reviewed as part of a sample must be construction complete and quality approved. Each work process sample is expanded to include an engineering sample. The engineering sample assumes that a number of safe shutdown system items equivalent to;the number of items addressed by the random sample are also reviewed for adequacy of construction.
i 5. Mechanical Discipline The mechanical discipline is divided into nine groupings or categories which are:
i (a) HVAC ducts and plenums (b) HVAC equipment installation (c) Field fabricated tanks (d) Mechanical equipment installation (e) Large bore piping configuration (f) Small bore piping configuration (g) Large bore pipe welds / material (h) Small bore pipe welds / material l (i) Piping system bolted joints / material.
Each of these areas was discussed with ERC personnel by NRC staf#
and consultants participating in the audit of the Construction Adequacy Program. The construction adequacy review for the mechan-ical discipline is approximately 15% complete as of this inspection.
Completion is scheduled for the end of February,1986. In terms of scopo, the Construction Adequacy Program Review for the mechan-ical, discipline is addressing only construction complete and l quality approved items. Only field construction a,ctivities are addressed by the scope of this activity; vendor fabrication is not within the scope of the Construction Adequacy Program. For eachofthemechanicalareas,ERChadprepareda" Population Description" addressing the contents of each category, its boundary,
1995-10-22 15:04 BATTEL'_E COLUt1BLS 1109111 04 c.
r 3
and any specific interfaces germane to the population. In addition to the Population Descriptions, a chart describing the work processes l
-associated with the mechanical items within eacn grouping was provided and discussed with ERC's Population Engineers. This flow chart contained attributes associated with each work process.
ERC indicated these attributes are providing the basis for the checklists which are being developed for re-inspection of mechanical systems and components.
ERC reported that the construction adequacy review is being performed in accordance with their own quality assurance program which is compatible with the CPRT's quality assurance program.
ERC's implementation of the Construction Adequacy Review Program is being audited by both CPRT and ERC quality assurance personnel.
Specific comments on each of the areas within the mechanical discipline are provided in the subsequent paragraphs.
- a. HVAC Ducts and Planums. The HVAC duct and plenum category encompasses 6800 items. Fabrication. installation and weldirg are the three work processes associated with construction of HVAC ducts and plenums. Bahnson Service Company was a subcontractor to Brown & Root for all HVAC duct and plenum construction. The installation of this equipment was characterized by a single craft
-- sheet metal workers and welders and a single subcontractor.
Installation and fabrication procedures are based on Gibbs & Hill Specification MS-85. The attributes associated with each work process were reviewed and appeared to be complete.
or Bahnson and this was the basis for subdividing this category.
The work processes associated with HVAC equipment installation are, basically, the setting of the equiprent and then connecting it. These two work processes are being evaluated for each installer of this equipment. Further, the attributes of each work process D1A3
1935-10-22 15:05 _EATTELLE COLUMBLS 1409111 05
- < 09 are the same, regardless of the installer. The attributes associated with the work processes were reviewed and appeared appropriate j
for the process.
- c. Field Fabricated Tanks. This particular activity was discussed in a qualitative manner. We were informed that eight field f abricated tanks exist and that all would be reinspected.
This was not pursued further as population homogeniety was not an issue because of the 1005 reinspection.
- d. Mechanical Eauinment Insta11at_ ion. Mechanical equipment installation encompasses 336 items to be installed in both Unit l 1 and Unit 2. The governing design document is Gibbs & Hill Mechanical Erection Specification 2323-MS-101. The implementation of this is accomplished by Brown & Root Specification titled " General Installation of Mechanical Equipment". Cp-1. The governing quality assurance procedure is Brown & Root QI/QAP11.1-39 titled " Mechanical Equipment Installation Inspection". Qualitative results of the sampling conducted so far indicates that 20-25X of the sample drawn is from Unit 2. The remainder of the sample is from Unit I and comon areas. The work processes associated with mechanical equipment installation are setting, anchoring, welding and, for rotating equipment only, alignment. The attributes of each work process
! were discussed in depth. ERC personnel indicated that if a particular attribute of the . work process was not addressed when the sampling activity was completed, assessment would be made as to whether or not the sample needed to be expanded to include that attribute.
I If a decision was made not to specifically address that attribute.
the basis for this decision would be provided in the report addressing the construction adequacy evaluation of, in this instance, mechanical equipment. Work process homogeniety is evaluated by checking to make sure that the same organizations are involved, procedures I have remained nominally constant, and that the welder inspector qualification standards have remained the same. Sampling is performed b
1935-10-22 15:06 BATVEL_E COLUl1 BUS 1409111 06 5 I
. (fu at the work process level. Since evaluation of equipment is made
. at the work process level, each sample will be expanded such that sixty evaluations will be made for each work process. This means that more than the minimum numbe'r of equipment items (60) are addressed
- during completion of the sampling process.
This particular category was pursued further in that an installation procedure for a heat exchanger and a pump (rotating equipment) was reviewed to evaluate the compatibility of the attributes associated with work processes with the installation requirements contained in the procedure. Compatibility did appear to exist between the work process attributes and installation procedures for both cases.
In one case, the installation procedure for heat exchanger CP1-CCAHHX-01 was reviewed to see if this specific installation procedure was
, compatible with the attributes of the work processes for mechanical equipment installation. The procedure for installing an auxilliary feed water pump, CP1-AFAP-MD-01 was reviewed to evaluate its compatibility with the alignment work process attributes.
The work processes and their attributes are considered to be appropriate to the installation of mechanical equipment. Further, work process population homogeniety appeared.to exist based on the two installation procedures reviewed.
e./f. targe Bore Pioine Configuration /Small Bore Pipino Configuration.
The large and small bore piping configuration construction adequacy reviews were addressed together using 3000 Brown & Root isometric drawings. The scope of this activity is intended to assess the work process of piping installation through evaluation of attributes such as location, size and orientation of piping and pipe components.
The Brown & Root isometric drawings provide the basis for sampling both large and small bore piping. Large bore piping includes that
1985-10-22 15:07 BATTELLE COLUMBUS 1409111 07 6
drawn as part of a sample, it co7ecivably could 'su used in both the large and the small bore work process populations. The installation work process and its attributes are the same for both large and small bore piping. The piping considered in this review includes all ASME code piping. As with the other mechanical categories, a sample of sixty will be drawn for large bore piping and another sample of 60 will be drawn for small bore piping at random. Each sample would then be examined and expanded to ensure that sixty cases of piping within safe shutdown systems were considered for each large and small bore piping. ERC reported that all piping of large and small bore is installed to one procedure and by one craft -- pipe fitters. Some attributes such as piping valves would obviously be included in any sample for drawn for either large or small bore piping. There are other attributes such as expansion joints, screw joints, and strainers which because they are very few in the system, might not be included in a sample. ERC reported that following the sampling process a review to assess the adequacy of this sample for construction adequacy review would be made.
However, a specific component, because it was not included in a sample, would not necessarily be examined only for that reason.
The number of attributes corresponding to the installation of large bore piping appeared accurate and complete. However, the number of them seems to preclude evaluation of them all through 1
the random and engineered sampling process. If ERC suggests that it is not imperative that all such as screwed joints, strainers, and expansion joints be evaluated r*om a configuration viewpoint, their report should fustify this typ of conclusion. It appears that the sample should include some number of components which are not extensively used in piping to provide confidence that these components are installed correctly. Their sampling process appears -
to address the key items such as piping orientation, valve location and orientation, and bends.
9 DWI
1995-10-22 ~15:08 BATTEL _E COLUMBUS 1409111 GB 7 I g./h. Large Bore Pipe Walds 8 Material /Small_ Bore Pipe Welds
& Materials. As with large and small bore pipe configuration, the welding of large and small bore pipe are considered as one-grouping. Separate samples, however, are utilized to address each.
More than 66,000 welds are required to connect safety-related large and small bore piping. The work processes associated with welding of either large or small bore are prewelding, welding, post-welding.
As with the other categories within the mechanical discipline, the population description was reviewed and appeared complete.
The process of construction adequacy review is about 40% complete.
The initial review has been completed; samples have been drawn and preparation of reinspection procedures is in process. Approximately 65% of the sample drawn is either Unit 1 or conunon. The remainder is Unit 2. ERC personnel were not sure if any Class I welds were included in the sampling. It was indicated that Brown & Root performed all field welding. ERC further reported that the weld inspection processes are the same regardless of the ASME code class. The categories of large and small bore pipe welds were not separated to distinguish between the welding of stainless steel pipe opposed to carbon steel pipe. ERC indicated that the welders were qualified to weld both stainless steel and carbon steel piping and hence there was no need to separate this. At the exit, the staff expressed concern regarding the lumping of stainless steel welding with carbon steel welds. ERC agreed to review the sample to determine the number of stainless and carbon steel welds. Welds addressed by
, this study include only field welds.
] Welds of the penetration sleeve to flange were included within this category. There are 282 such welds in this category. None were included in the random or engineering sampling, however, the large and small bore samples were supplemented to include one mechanical and one electrical penetration weld.
- Welds work processes and attributes appeared complete but conclusions regarding population homogeneity cannot be reached until review of implementation procedures and welder qualifications is completed. Further, as previously noted, concern exists for the consideration of stainless and carbon steel welds as part of the same population. hb '
., 1995-10-22 15:08 BATTELLE COLUMBUS .1409111 03 8 h
- 1. Pipino System Bolted Joints. Two work processes corprise the piping system bolted joint category. They are installation preparation and final bolt fitup. There are 7000 bolted joints at the Comanche Peak Power Station. The work processes and their attributes appeared to be compatible with the bolting of piping joints. The procedure which governs this is CP-CPM-6.9E Rev. 8.
A flow chart and population description had been prepared to provide the basis for the sampling of bolted joints. The staff's review did not yet pursue this to the depth required to draw a firm conclusion regarding the homogeneous nature of the work process populations.
- 6. Electrical Discipline
- 7. Civil / Structural Discipline
- 8. Conclusion DM END
_ _ . . - - _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - _ . . _ ~ . . _ _ -