ML20093L228

Rev 2 to Draft QA Procedure BQA-196, Field Verification Evaluation Analysis

ML20093L228
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	05/16/1984
From:	BALDWIN ASSOCIATES
To:
Shared Package
ML20093L171	List: ML20093L167 ML20093L189 ML20093L198 ML20093L211 ML20093L228
References
BQA-196-DRFT, NUDOCS 8407310334
Download: ML20093L228 (12)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. ATTAC!.IMENT 4

• '3 -

~* 5. CUALITY ASSURANCE REVISICN \\ t @ AL@WDN PECEME PA51W. 2 agA 196 not ~ AGG@@DA'JG$ Field Ve'rification-k. .f Evaluation Analysis 0F y-7 RrY. ISIOtt Li1E ' DESCRIPI'ICt1 Ari?SVAL DATE

y. A. PL;ur,

i U G.Rd M W 1 4 '83 f Q5TS K'GZJER Q 3-8-83 Original Release ff 4 2-V-h2 t Q.A. FWUd;ER p G (L, 1 REVISED & REWRITTEN Q g,g 3 h((gg QSTM2VE 4/11/83 db N/'-O l 2 GENERAL REVISION - Q.A. htm gg~ gjggg (revised.and rewritten) Q&IS EVU G &$n J-57lrdoe Q.A. FW UdIER ,3 l 3,' h f a, e kb d INd.b . m t. Q.A. >Wym e,7,;&j u.( :R Ly -QsisvNum; r3. c., q! .g"..,- e - g m

l..'.

l<-J~.. (B 4. .L= ~ Q.A. FW12.GER ~ QiTS F'R;AGER Q. A. FWi;GER Q S PRi;GER L Q.A. F W Uv., a ) 8407310334 840618 PDR ADOCK 05000461 PDR QSTS FWGGER C-G FORM JV-835 (4/82) .9 ;'si. ~. .:. ww:.v. waw.%.pum.w,.m . c 4 *. *l. -Q h ~., . ^ ?. '.' a', h,' f' ~ 5' l .5

.0 %,,0 %p*s.... c v;p'*g's I,6 w d.i. ~ +,,njyp m: w w,?

'A y. .YE 7 3.~ e,y '.. r% ~i + e .,;.u. c - -n.- -,...n . r.'dsd s e s'.e v u.j :.,. s + k.i.= a m '. ..., g. .y, .A -.... _. +,

~ CUAUTY ASSURANCE g PROCEDURE BOA-196 hkhhh % FIELD VERIFICATION 2 EVALUATION ANALYSIS w/ I l OF I 1.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this procedure is to establish the cethods used to evaluate the results of the Baldwin Associates (BA) Field Verification Progra=. 2.0 SCOPE This procedere applies to all installed safety related, augmented Class D, fire protection, and seismic HVAC systems, ite=s, or components per Reference 3.1. 3.0 REFEFESCES 3.1 BQA-190 " Field Verification" 3.2 BQA-191 ',' Field Verification Sa=pling Plan" 3.3 2QA-195 "Docu=ent Tracking" 3.4 EQA-197 " Feedback" 3.5 EA?-1.0 "Sonconformances" 3.6 E QA-19.'. " Field Verificatien of Turned-over systers" 4.0 DEFINITIONS Mont es 5.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 5.1 The Baldwin Associates Manager of Quality Assurance (MQA) is responsible for the imple=entation and overall administration of the Field Verifica-tion Program. 5.2 The Baldwin Associates Assistant Manager of Quality As'surance - Field Verification (AMQA) is responsible for: a) Administration and coordination of the E.cld Vetification Program, b) Irple=entation of this procedure. c) Preparation and issuance of conthly Field Verification Evaluation Reports. 5.3 The Baldwin Associates Senior Quality Assurance Engineer - Field Verification (SQAE) is responsibic for: g ;, j,%

e....

.e-a) Preparation of Evaluat' ion Analysis Data. Sheets (E'xhibit # ? !py"s 0 . '/. ,a st ...,"pf ^'A;p w,;a t..,s W Qd df. ;j,,,.. . :... '[- f.N -k: (, S'*c' 'MdNY~,(fNh.,, ~. (., . ~.., - ~ s.,

CUAUTY ASSURANCE g7 PROCEDURE BQA-196 I g({g{] FIELD VERIFICATI0!; 2 A EVA1.UATIO: A>;ALYSIS .A22CCDATE 3 *\\ ! OF / b) Submittal of co=pleted Evaluation Analysis Data Sheet for cach checklist to the Management Infor=ation Syste=s Group (MIS). c) Submittal of interic and/or final reports. 5.4 The BA Senior QA Engineer - MIS is responsibir.. for: a) Developing a co=puter progra= in support of the Field Verification

Program, b)

Inputting data from the Evaluation Data Sheets. c) Providing periodic print-outs for evaluation and status infor=a-tion. 6.0 CENER.U. 6.1 This procedure describes the methods used to evaluate the ru ults of the Field Verification Progras, it identifics the ccthod of data assc=bly, analysis, and the reporting of the results of the Field Verification Program. 6.2 All data contained on Field Verification Reports shall be coded as described belov on the Evaluation Analysis Data Sheet (Exhibit #1). 6.2.1 The standardi:cd coding for the evaluation vill include the following: a) Activity /Itc= b) Building c) Elevation d) Safety Class e) Discipline f) Attribute Cedc 6.2.2 Activitics/ items vill have a separate code number for each checklist within th n activity. Activitics/ items will be coded as follows: Cl Concrete Expa_sion Anchors El Electrical Units , c,..C,.) ! E2 Electrical Terminations g @. y -M. 11 1 11VAC System (het & Support) ' S. 2 ~' N'4M5 ?: E3 Electrical Cat *_cs ..;. t.c. . sirgb; N'R& h;$I G ', ~i!$ iQO.q ah'$$:$n .:.u. -~ h:7: Q %.;i'(;hQ.,.. y:: i f G .r: 11 l, $' ^ \\\\ =- ~ el: "., ~.. n , _.,..,.,x.-~ .x

,4 CUALITY ASSURANCE { g PROCEDURE EQA-196 g((gg FIELD VERIFICATICN 2 f EVA1.I'ATION AN/J.YSIS wf. c:$:D d-

• 4 l OF l P1 Pipe Spool / Valves / Ins. Tubing' "

R1 Raceway Tray R2 Raceway Supports S1 Supplied Equip =ent S2 Stru:tural Menbers R3 Conduit P2 Conponent Supports W1 Welding (ASME III) W2 Welding (ANSI B31.1) W3 Welding (AWS DI.1) W4 Welding (AWS DI.3) 6.2.3 The following codes are used to identify the building: FC Reactor Contain= cat Bldg. TG Turbine Generator Bldg. DG Diesel Generator Bldg. F'd Fucl Ecndling Bldg. AB Auxiliary Bldg. j. CO Control Bldg. SB Screen House Bldg. RW Radvaste Bldg. II Other 6.2.4 Elevation shall be the floor level for the cenpanent. 6.2.5 The Sargent & l. undy Safety Class, vill be coded as follows: a) A ASME III NB b) B ASME III NC c) C ASME III ND d) 0 Other Safety Related c) D+ Aug=ented "D" f) ' FP Fire Protection g) MC Metal Contain=cnt h) IE Electrical Class IE i) S Safety 6.2.6 Discipline Codes - These cedes are used to specif, the pri ary discipline responsibility: H - HVAC M - Mechanical E - Electrical n.:Q S - Structural ... g g,j '~ '" ,.: e:;,;.; ~~ . W,. - . : G;.,:;..' :g,';} N . u :. i.@{yg;.;c.'.. '. ' $ " 'Q"f ; ' WEkhb!;R _ x,.n~ $?2b?@

CUAUTY ASSURANCE LD PROCEDURE BQA-196 hkkhhh FlELD VERIFICATION 2 EVALUATION M;ALYSIS vy lOFl ~ 6.2.7 Coding of Attributes - Each attributc on cach chacklist will have a code designation. If the attribute is a critical attribute, it vill be followed by a "C". If the attribute is non-critical, it vill be followed by an "S". The code designation vill be in accordance with the approved Field Verification Codification System maintained by the SQAE-MIS. 6.2.8 Disposition Codes - the following code numbers vill be used to identify NCR discrepancy dispositions: 1 Ecwork 2 Repair 3 Use As Is 4 Rej ect/ Replace 5 Invalid 6.2.9 Codes may be added or deleted from the above lists based upon the cur: cat needs of the Field Verification Program and approval of the Assistant Manager of Quality Assurance, Field Verification. 7.0 PROCEDUFI 7.1 The Field Verification Inspector is responsibic for performing Field Verification activities and documenting Ihe results on the Field Veri-fication Checklist. When co=plete he vill forward the Checklist to the Field Verification Tech. Assistant. 7.1.1 Upon receipt of the Field Verification checklist, the Field Verification Tech. Assistant vill complete the Evaluation Analysis Data Sheet (Exhibit O as follows: a) Enter checklist nu:ber b) Enter activitics item code c) Enter building code d) Enter clcvation code c) Enter safety classification code f) Enter discipline code g) Enter unique attribute code h) Enter nutber of itecs checked for each attribute 1) Enter nu=ber of attributes conforming j) Checklist issue date

v. 3{

If any item has been rejected the following information will be~ entered: ,,,.7%,# ; ;.y ){f ',, 'e' ,". ,.) ;7,,, n*$ ,,. y I n

i CUAUTY ASSURANCE UE). PROCEDURE BQA-196 (({gg FIELD VERIFICATION 2

[i EVALUATION ANALYSIS

.A S S O C!l& T E S 6 *l I OF k) Enter nu=ber of attributes non-confor=ing

1) Enter NCR number and/or punchlist nu=ber 7.2 Upon cc:pletion of the Evaluation Analysis Data Shect, the Field Verification Tech. Assistant will initial and date the sheet

(" Input /Date") and forward it, along with the original checklist, to the responsible SQAE or his designce. 7.3 The SQAE or designee vill review the checklist and data sheet to ensure that all data has been co=pleted accurately, initial and date the "Revicv/Date" space and return to the Field Verification Tech. Assis-tant. 7.4 The Field Verification Tech. Assistant will make copy (s) and forward the original data sheet to the Sr. QA Enginecr-HIS. Copy (s) of the data shect(s) and the original checklist (o) are then filed for future reference. 7.5 The SQAE-MIS will enter the data frem the data sheet into the cc=puter for evaluation and issue monthly printouto to the Assistant QA Hanager - Field Verification. 7.6 The Assistant Manager of Quality Assurance - Field Verification shall prepare and issue the Field Verification Evaluation Report on a conthly basis. A copy shall be provided to the BAQA and IPQA lianagers. This report will include, but will not necessarily be limited to, the following: 7.6.1 % Reject by Inspectable Attribute: All like inspectable attri-butes and a % co=parison of ite=s inspected versus items reject-ed. 7.6.2 % Reject by Buildine: All inspectable attributes by building and a r co:parison of the number of items inspected versus the number of ite=s rejected. 7.6.3 % Reject by TO Packate: All inspectable attributes of a TO Package and a % comparison of the number of items inspected versus the number of ite=s rejected. 7.6.4

Reject by Activities /Iters: All inspectable attributes by activities / items and a ; co=parison of the number of items inspected versus the number of items rejected.

NOTE: The above percent rej ec t figures are provided for eval-untion purposes only. All noted deficient items or J.F.. ij conditions cust be addressed. ,,,,a'9 J ..:r..c-7.7 Upon receipt ofadispositionedNCR,theTech.Sssi$lhnt'F: Ihl'hrI tion shall vote the appropriate disposition on the fieldI%;Yif5bdY1 9:.j,,~.. ~. 1.- m s. ,.*:.V. y ;;gpify.?4Q:iq} Q J

n.x,. m,

m x,

CUAUTY ASSUilAt?CE EQA-196 PROCEDURE g @g{g FIELD VERIFICATION 2 [/ E7AIJATION ANALYSIS P"D U G"U M') l l FAG'~'l <$DC%W dt>\\ ~~ ) OF Evaluation Analysis Data Sheet and forvard 'a copy to the SQAE-MIS for co=puter input. The final disposition shall also be indicated on the Document Tracking Log For=. 7.8 If sampling has been usca, a 95% confidence statc=ent cust be included that 5% or less (critical attributes) or 15% or less (non-critical attributes) of the identified conditions exist in the unexamined portirn of the lot. This figure may not include any allowance for deficiency correction. 7.9 If saepling has been used and the number of inspectable attributes rejected reaches or excceds the figures shcvn in Exhibits #2 or f 3 the SQAE shall be notified that 100% verification vill be required for that lot. 7.10 For co=pleted lota, the DA-HQA shall sub=it a Field Verification Com-pletion Report to the IP Manager of QA. The report chall include, but is not li=ited to, the following: a) Identification of the lot inspected. b) Traveler numbers (see Exhibit 13). c) Co:ponent numbe s. d) Status of each inspectable element (i.e. inaccessible, open NCR, etc.) 8.0 EE!IIITS

1. 1 Field Verification Evaluation Data Sheet (JV-969)

(2 Reject Numbers - Critical Attributes. f3 Ecject Numbers - Non-Critical Attributes. ) un.a .3l.% -!" J sy V:s;ig

• 3 f ".g i :1

.r g:;j,9b,. :a [jif.,et,1fi' ,t. .c . n,. n. y y.._.,,,,

f r ^ CUAUTY ASSURANCE C PROCEDURE EQA-196 ~ Q (( FIELD VERIFICATION RiiV' 2 EVAI.UATICN ANALYSIS gm@Ct TN r= m ~@ -gu e. w ='- I oF l D*.lilBIT C 1 (page 1 of 1) er ~ t" [3ALDWDN CtJAlff f A1102ANCI /mscc:a7TEG m .r i 3,....,f 3, 3 ' (, rm .,,,,_ _" q. 2.# ?W l ~m6.2.Q',,' f'T:T 2.5 ) & _~ f o.2 4 _v /

. r

' k-J i h( n _-, I ~- -.- ~, , _ I ,o , m,...., y~ ~. ~.., ..,, G.2.7) (see ne Arence 1.0 i 44.2.n 3 ji ..-e, \\ N L P ..c. .~, m, iri. 1 .i l-

7 nn,.

'l t i i " ", l -i . F v -C, t 4, i ll ar.v c, i l ..e. sf V

4. C 1

.e F v C, ~ .h d. .. n1, r 3' [^ f, 1 i/*

f- .. + 1 to 7 CUAUTY ASSURANCE PROCEDURE BQA-196 @d(@$ % FIELD VERIFICATION .2 /\\ EVALUATION At?ALYSIS w* EXHIBIT l2 (page 1 of"1) Reject Numbers - Critical Attributes I. g

• ' ~. _ '. ".. *. NOTE: This chart is intended as a Futde to

.p ~ "~ identify the nu.ber of unsatisf.ictory ~ ~ ~ attributes (for a total of attributes ~~" ~~" (460.L - inspected) which. If reached or exceed- ' ~~~~ ~ , _ _. _: O ed indicate the lot does not teet the 95-5 criteria. i.e. 95% confidence that 5% or less unsatisfactory attri-3'

• ~~'.~.~';.*.

butes exist in the uninspected portion ~* ~ ~' 1 of the lot. y~.

=. s.- -

a 3. e M _ '.. ~ ~ ~. ; ~_. :U. ~ -- -- ' ~_'T.. . ~ ~ ' - ' ' ' ~ ~. - ... ; ~ c..._::. ' .E u1 ..-o 2 u. m p ..._...r......-- ...H......_...i...,u.-., It ....---~~. n- ~ ~ ~ - - - u,y ..x . ;l:._r_. .:.u..._... m. ,,. ;; j ,,hm.........._..... _.'.'.__ . t _- :.t m. . y: .p :, 9: h,g-J.ij..-L u .l

[ t :....

l p,,....,.,.

o .. :...3 .g: >, u -. ' '- N.

. ;.". ) ;

• C N..

fg ..d... I ~. _ '... a. e. .c.. 3, l... 9 .-7 s T0!!d. hD'3EF. OF A'TKIE*JTES I'4SPECTC. 3. ,.,...r....... e. p,

s. s. i. e.%

.. a _..a 4 3 a 7e,w l i

• M.. {,

~ i?ig.. s., s., t d... 1 j i .I ' w: ;* (N.b Y i ' j%.)k .. / ?, f..f*- .1 'j.% W I - ~ 's p f. g,f &y gk fl Q a t y, ~ .. g... p.n. <. w.q,,,.:.

? . s. e. e.. m "a CUAUTY ASSURANCE

D PROCEDURE BOA-196 NMNM FIELD VERIFICATION 2

gggggg EVALUATION ANALYSIS gagg ~N_# l OF l l EXHIBIT 13 (pg. I of.1) I Reject Nutbers - Noncritical Attributes r n I g 90 0 p. 7,_.._.. s e. - _. NOTE: This chart is intended as a guide to y,*~* identify the nu:ber of unsatisfactcry attributt ( ra $*~~~~. inspectec V ch. ftalofattributes reached or exceed-ed indicate the lot does not awet l d' the p-95-15 criteria. f.e. 95: confidence that 15: or less unsattafactory attet-L,2 butes ez!st in the uninspected portion .I ee. of the lot. m, _y =E. 0. 2_p _ -:=E..Tir.-r. -- '

-l2* i.l ' i. l <

.- ~.... ..e _l' .,...l...... f g; -_ w __

.s;.y

_.h p j... p. j. _. j . ' i ,p t 4 - .l. _.o - }. + - g_- -.. y t. . ).q.. p- -l ,s U - 2. @....EM}@i=u 3fiNMi--:~1-h:"l-2 ' ~KJ1 ' 7 'H ~~" " ' _ t -t I-1 9 e ' i-l. [ I@ !',l ' I #l '

=.. -.

.;: :-

l e - : Z:~.1 ' - ". } =.. r.: : l. j r. _.'..=..2_ :.d...r_.:: :_'.:.)....~ :: 2... t.. ~...

l--

1-i- -}-- 2- - -" =F .=.-[c. g.=[- [ . r g l l - + - -

i s r ;-- i w ' r=

c.t - *- ".. !::=r : - ) ~;

!' ; - l. ! F; {. ' i' !*.; t. l i N. w e. e.._6'.i.i p i ;, + -* s.i j;. :.,..

r _:- ; w: l 1 -

1~ (. ( i,, su a --. :- : I i. =

• i i

l l l -.~. p.. F. a. f._~ pin-i - -{ ! l l !.._l _.1- - [. I f * - -

l. j....*'.';_.

Su [g l II l l I ' ':._ I :...L: l..{. j.........., l'...,. i t. ..... l. 4 .,l.. n g. 3. J. d L A _. Tott.1 nu:ber of attributes inspected. - e. O E' 28 4' M 88 7e 8 f

• Em g,

p g + 6. ...ho i " -( .I d L y T. 2.. ,,, r. -y L- - r e :w..; I I;h * ,,[.Y ,8 f f' .. f '.., *.y, j g ,y s ....y,<. y,. m ;. e.. r.---. ., s,..,,, u u.c.

I k, 4 ATTACHMENT 5 STONE S WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION 245 SUMMER STREET. BOSTON, M ASS ACHUSETTS ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO P O. BOX 2325. BOSTON. M ASS. 02107 mor70% 7 etsiGN NL' "* a. N, 03 :"' " " Z'.*o "',TJ,IL*.~' "*'~""'~* L"*Co....., W A S M*NGTON. O C, Mr. W. Connell June 1, 1984 Quality Assurance Manager Illinois Power Company 500 South 27th Street Deacatur, IL 62521

Dear Mr. Connell:

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (SWEC) has reviewed the following Illinois Power Company (IPCo) and Baldwin Associates (BA) procedures in order to evaluate the impact the proposed revisions will have on the Overinspection (01) and Field Verification (FV) Programs. IPCo QAI-710.08, "0verinspection Sample Plan," Revision 3. QAI-710.09, "0verinspection Evaluation Program," Revision 3. BA BQA-191, " Field Verification Sample Plan," Revision 2. BQA-196, " Field Verification Evaluation Analysis," Revision 2. SWEC participated, along with IPCo and BA, in the preparation of the original and proposed revision to sampling plans used in support of the 01 and FV Program.

Background

In 1983, BA and IPCo developed the FV and OI Programs, respectively, to provide sufficient assurance that safety related, augmented Class 0, fire protection, and seismic HVAC systens, items or components, and the exposed structural steel in 'the auxiliary, fuel handling, containment, and control buildings at the Clinton Nuclear Power Station conform to established requirements. The FV and 0I programs operate in series, with BA's FV Program preceding the IPCo 01 Program. IPCo has, in addition to product acceptabilii,y, a primary function of determining the correctness of prior BA inspection decisions. Discussion 1. The original concept involved re-examination of a sufficient number of items (when sampling was used) to obtain 95 percent confidence that any discrepancies noted existed in no more than 5 percent of the unexamined

i 4-g WC 2 Jun2 1, 1984 balance. This remains unchanged; both the current and proposed proce-dures require a sample size which assures compliance with this criteria. 2. In both programs, the commitment to address all noted nonconformances and deficient conditions also remains unchanged. However, clarifica-tion of their handling and significance when sampling is used has been addressed in the proposed procedures. 3. The current procedures involved acceptance based on the item count in the sample, a comon practice in product inspection. However, actual experience has shown that sufficient item counts to allow sampling is of ten difficult or, in some cases, impossible to achieve. However, the concept of " critical" versus "non-critical" was based on attributes, not the items. Therefore, acceptance on an item basis and differenta-tion of criticality as well as trend and root cause evaluation on an attribute basis became unnecessarily cumbersome. 4. In ternis of a reverification effort, attributes provide a more accurate assessment of quality, since each attribute represents a workmanship, material, or documentation check, a dit: rete quality decision. Re-examination on this basis allows determination of acceptability of previous quality decisions and will pennit appropriate trend and root cause evaluation. 5. In addition, since each checklist applied to an item contains a number of attributes, the evaluation will always be based on a larger number than the item count. 6. The proposed sampling plan and evaluation procedure utilize this approach and additionally clarify the interf ace between the BA and IPCo programs and set definition guidelines for the transfer of lots. Sumary In our view the proposed procedures represent an enhancement to the quality reverification effort currently underway at the Clinton Nuclear Power Sta-tion. They fulfill all requirements previously agreed upon and additionally

1) benefit from actual experience, 2) improve the overall reverification process, 3) clarify *the interface between the two programs, and 4) result in more definitive data in support of the trend and root cause evaluations.

The overall effect will be an improved, more sensitive measurement process with no loss in discrimination (the separating of satisf actory from deficient attributes). 8.6. / R. G. Burns Quality Assurance Manager PFW/nrs stone & WESSTER -.}}