IR 05000329/1973006

Insp Repts 50-329/73-06 & 50-330/73-06 on 730723-26 & 0808-10.No Noncompliance Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Qa Manual,Organization Chart,Qa Program,Implementation Concrete Structures & Bechtel Audit Repts

ML19338C127
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	09/11/1973
From:	Rohrbacher R, Vandel T, Vetter W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML19338C120	List: IR 05000329/1973006 ML19338C119
References
50-329-73-06, 50-329-73-6, 50-330-73-06, 50-330-73-6, NUDOCS 8008050574
Download: ML19338C127 (15)

Text

,-

.-

.,

-

. - -

,

.

-

.

.~ "

.

.

.

..

.

.,a

.,

,

g

'

,.

).

J U..S. ATOMIC ENERGY' COMMISSION

.

DIRECTORATE OF. REGULATORY OPERAILONS

.

REGION III

'

. Report of Construction Inspection

.

RO Inspectio'n Report No. 050-329/73-06

-

RO Inspection Report No. n50-330/73-06 s

Licensee:

Consumers Power Ct.spany 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 Licenses No. CPPR-81 Midland, Michigc.n and No. CPPR-82 Type of Licensce:

PWR (B[W) - 650 Mwe, Unit 1; 818 Mwe, Ur.it 2 Type of Inspe tion:

Special, Announced (Review of QA Program)

i N

~. Dates o' Inspection:

Ju): 21 - 26 and August 8 - 10, 1973

,

.

Dates of Previous Inspection: June 26 - 28, 1973 h$f6 ekf-Principal. Inspector:

R. A. Rohrbacher 7-//' E

,

'

(Date)

.

.

'

. -,

'

4 Cdf

..

Accompanying Inspectors:

T. E."fadd'el

,

- /2 * /'l (July 23 - 26, 1973)

(Date)-

m

/~ ~

at A a

D.:. Hayes

//f73

'

(August 8 - 10, 1973)

' (Date)

.Other Accompanying Personnel:

W. E. Vetter

' (July 26 cad Au

't 10, 1973)

'

O N

-

^

?W. E., Vetter, Chief [lh t'.

f-tt-7 3

.. Reviewed By:

f/.

' Reactor' Construction Branch (Date)

-

l(T a2

.

'

'800.8050 I

~

-

.

.

--

e

,.~

.,-a-m-rn

, to

-<

+..-e.

,y y

.,e

• p p

p,+r.4-v y v<

c

-

r

--

_

-

-

.

,

.

.~ *

,

,,

.

-

.

.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Enforcement Action

'

A.-

Violations-

'No violations of:AEC requirements were' identified.

- B.

Safety' Matters No'significant safety _ matters were identified.

~ Licensee Action on Previously' Identified Enforcement bbtters-No' enforcement matters have been identified since the restart of construction.

However, final resolution of violations. identified prior to the cessa*. ion of construction in 1970 remains to be resolved.

(Paragraph 9)

Design-Changes

,.

,

.

.

.

No design changes were identified.

Unusual Occurrences

{'N No unusual occurrences were identified.

%Y

-

- Other-Significant Findings A..

Current Findings-1.. Facility Status The licensee estimated current project status as follows:

. Activity pompletion LEngineering-30'- 35%

.

.

.

.

.

1 --2%"

Construction

~

-2.

Current Construction Activities During the current inspection, the following activities were

- observed:

a.'_

Preliminary' work-relative to_ permanent plant. structures is-in progress.- Placement of concrete:for the. Unit 2 tendon access

.

gallery 11s scheduled for the.near' future.

-

[2

,

%-

x

-

--2-

.~..

I

=

.

I m

_

.

- -

-,

-

'

'

~.

_

.

' e-

.

>

,

.

.

.

.

..

+,m -

L A <L A

L b. l Final' restoration and requalification of~the concrete batca s

plant istiniprogress.

(Uniformity tests were made-,on-July.26,

-1973, and design mix. cylinders are scheduled to be made in the immediate future.)-

c.

Cleaning!of'in-placeLexposed rebar and trumpet plates is in

,,

progress, d..~ General site cleanup is nearing' completion.,

.

Preparbiton for aL new lay-down area' and other general site

_e.

,earthworE is in progress.

-

f.

Inspettion and evaluation of stored materials and components'

and. inspection of.. work completed prior to cotstruction shutdown

~in December 1970 is continuing.

3.

Personnel Changes

-.

l-G.

L'. Richardson, Quality Assura,nce Erd;ineer for the Bechtel

Corporation (Bechtel)"is now assigned to the Midland Project at

~

.the construction' site.

Mr. Richardson replaces Mr. Lilligh.

A. J. Birkle, previously employed by Consumers Power Company (CP)

R

-

N as a metallurgical engineer, has'been ' temporarily assigned to the

l k',,)

CP QA organization as a QA engineer. This assignment will continue t

,

until a replacement is obtained.

.

.

,

-

B.. Unresolved Matters

,

}

1.

Consumers-Power C$mpany Quality Assurance Manual

~

.

The CP Quality Assurance Manual (QAM) lacks, or is inconsistent v4.th, certain detailed requirements and ir not sufficiently a 711 cit as 'to how certain other requireme:ts are to be met for-

~

,

th, Midland Project relative to the requirements of 10 CFR Part-50.: Appendix B.'

~

' '

CP..ndicated that th'es'e discrepancies would be reviewed, based,on

,

discussions with RO:III personnel during this inspection, and that

-

appropriate' changes-to the.Q101 would be:made. This matter remains Lopen-pending review ~of the, revised QAM.. (Paragraph 1).

-

2.

'Babc ek and 'Wilcox Company'QA' Program for the -Midland Project

.

.

CP and the! Babcock _andLWilcox: Company (B&W) have been~ discussing qualitygassurance requirements common to components fu'aished by

3

,

,

ij-3-

-

.. -

.

S 1

_

~

'

"

n

,

,

.

'.c f '

+

Y s-

,,

--

a t

v*

r.

-ye-

'

s.+w**

74*---

g

.

..

-

,,

,

-

,

'

'

.

-

,

,

.

.

,

a-n

-

.

.

B' W for the Midland Project. - The matter of B&W QA requirements

"

&

~

for the Midland-Project remains open pending RO:III review of

this specification.

(Paragraph 7)

. C.

Status of'Previously R2 ported Unresolved Matters 1. :Bechtel Corporation' organization for the Midland Project

-

(R0 Inspection Reports.No. 050-329/73-02 and No. 050-330/73-02)_

-Previous'ly,~it-was not clear to RO:III that the requiremants of'

10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion 1, were met relative to the sut ect crganization. - The unclear aspects of this catter, i.e.,

the Bechtel QA organization reporting level and the matter of Becutel QA auditing of Bechtel site.QC activities, have been satisfactorily resolved.

(Paragraph 2)

2. ' Restoration and Requalification of Site Stored Components-(R0 Inspectior. Reports No. 050-329/73-05 and No. 050-330/73-05)'

.

.

'A representative.of the' licensee stated that work and quality control procedures'are being developed for use to verify that-the subject components meet applicable requirements.

This matter remains open pending review of completed procedures and an valuation.of procedure implementation.

e 3.

Evaluation of Rebar Tie Wire (RO Inspection Reports

,

No. 050-329/73-05 and No. 050-330/73-05)

-Significant deterioration of some tie wire holding exposed reinforcing steel in place is such that the required support

-

function'during concrete' placement is_ subject to question. This i.

+

tie wire.has.been' inspected.by the construction contractor and, where necessary, additional wire has been installed. The RO inspector-observed. that th'e combination of new' and existing tie -

wire on-the rebar in the-Unit 2' tendon access gallery (where

-

completed) appeared to be' adequate.

This matter will be reviewed-

-

'

agair 1during a subsequent inspection _.-

'

Management In.erview A.' The.following persons' attended _the initial management interview on r

July 26',_1973.

.

.

,

Consumera Power Company.

,

'

~W.' E. Kessler,iProject Manager-1 ;Qn Hills',-_ Quality' Assurance Administrator e

.,

'

-_'

l g

u

-

..

-_2 _

-

.

'%

P w--

!

.

)

er 4-NI

- *

y e-f m

tT f. W

-:'****-'#

"-?

,. _ -

.

_

, _

..

.

y

_ _ _.

-

-

-

s

<.

A

'.y A

,

.

b

.

+

'

,,;

'

.

.

,

,

'

.

,

,.

<

>

, gh

~

~

a

.

Il'

T.l'C.sCooke,' Project' Superintendent

.

,

-

R. E. Whitaker, Field Quality Assurance Engineer

',

'

'

-D.'lR. Keating,yAssociate Engineer

'

'

Bechtel' Corporation *.

. x

.

. -.,

.

.

J. I..Dotson, Project Quality; Assurance Engineer

,'

. '

C. E. Kinney, Project Field Quality. Control Engineer -

,

M. 'M. Krout,: Project Manager r

s b

~W..S.1 Gibbons,-Quality Assurance Manager.(SFPD)

W.':E. ' Ferris Quality Assurance Supervisor (AAO)

,

P. A. ' Martinez, Project Engineer

,

.

• Part Time U

The following~percons attended the final management meeting at the:

1,~

~ conclusion of the inspection on-August 10, 1973:

.

.

.

Consumers Power Company

. *

,

!.

i l

- W..E. Kessler, Project Manager C. Q. Hilla,: Quality Assurance Administrator j

B. H. Peck, Field Supervisor *

%-

_Bechtel Corporation j

,

1.

0.

..

-

,

m.

,

M..M...Krout, Project Manager *

-

'

,-

J. I. Dotson,-Project Quality Assurance Engineer

~

.

.

.

' Part Time

'

c e

.

listters discussed and: comments, on the part of management personnel,

.

.B.-

.

were as follows:

,

,

(Discussicns with management' personnel took place on July 26 and

..

" August 10- 1973 1and this report section combines matters' discussed

,

,

.

o1 both dates.)

.

'

1

- 1. ! The itispector stude;d. that the primary purpose of this inspection

'

?

]

-

'was to: evaluate the CP Quality Assurance Program for the Midland

.J

,

-

-

Project,: as documented in' the 'CP QAM, relative to the' requirements H

' of.l0 CFR Part 50,: Appendix B.. The inspectorcfurther stated thatL

'

Project QAM was examined iti detail' to determine the

^

the'Midlandz idegreeLof' consistency with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50

'

-

.

.

,

,

2 Appendix. B, a.rt that certain' detailed requirements were not.

,

'

included, were not consistent with, or.were not sufficiently

-

,

.

explicit'in.the'QAM.. : Each discrepancy-was discussed with the.

g.

_

.

.

-

0'

,

-5-

.

.

.

.

l

-

_;

4 '.

e-

',,

g

'

~

J

'

l

, :.

~

,. - -

--

.

-

r

,

,

.4 e.[T 4 yn t 4

p q

g

,y..gg

,

sp

,,-,

,m,-

..,

.

,,_.g

-..,,

m

- '

}

~

-' ~

~0~

~

.

'

.

,

y-%9

,

.km-licensee.

The licensee stated ti.at he understood our comments-relative to the discrepancies _and that appropriate changes to the-QAM would1be made.

Subsequent to.the inspection, CP contacted RO:III (on-August 13,- 1973) and stated that corrective ~ action

relative to the RO:III comments on the QAM will be incorporated

,

into this' manual as revisions, and this revised version would receive final review and approval in the immediate future.

(Paragraph,1)

,

2..

The inspector stated that an initial review was unde of Bechtel's-

'

implementation of ~ the Midland Project QA Program relative to

'

design'and procurement activities at the Bechtel Ann Arbor office.

No.significant' inconsistencies with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50,' Appendix B, were identified during this preliminary review.- (Paragraph.3)

3.

The current upgrading of B&W's QA program requirements for the

' Midland Project was discussed.

CP stated that discussions between

• -

CP and B&W are continuing on this matter, and the intent of these discussions is to establish upgraded QA requirements that are consistent with 10 CFRJPart 50, Appendix B.

The inspector stated that a review of the pertinent document, B&W Specification No.

1212, would be made as soon as an approved copy of the document is made available by CP.

"(_)/

(

,

4.

Bechtel Project Audit Report No. C-1, dated July 19, 1973, was

,

,

,

discussed. A representative of the licensee stated that the audit was a QC systems audit to determine the~ degree of field compliance t-with Bechtel QC procedures.

The 15 Quality Audit Findings attached to the report indicated that certain Bechtel activities at the construction site were not in compliance with established Bechtel procedures'.

This was the first audit of this type since restart of-construction activities at the Midland site.

The inspector

.

stated that:the audit was timely and appeared to be accurate; (Paragraph 5)

<

'

.

,

I m

%

.

l

- N'. '

'

d

\\j

- 6' -

~

-

s

m

,

/

s

'

,

-

u

,

~

--.

-

__.

.

3,

.....3-my.~

w - ~-~

- e y-.

-- y. ; w _g y--

---

.

k ;; ; 4 1 y A g -

- pn

(

~

'

.

s n '

"

,

-

i

,

O,

• g

+

-

,

.

_

7

~

>

x

,

a (

_

g D,

m, j~

-

y,,

,

-

.

~, < _ **}

y q'

+

,

,

a

>

.

c - - ;..

_,

>

+<

>

>

<

p.

<

+-

-

,

,

+

%

.

,.s.,_

m.

,

.,

%

enp.,

j4

' i

REP 0itT DETAILS '

A

,

'

-

,

,

w o

..

r Persons CSntactedi

.

,

... _

..

.. y

,

.

/Tlie following; persons,Lin addition 1to, individuals listed under.the

- -

LManagement: Interview'Section of1this report, were contacted during Jthe; inspection.-

'

'

,

s 7,

sBechtel Corporation -: Site'

F. W.SJoyce,(Quality Control. Supervisor.

.

F. Franckowiak, Field' Engineer

Bechtel~ Corporation' : Ann ~ Arbor

'

R.';L. Castleberry,' Assistant Project Engineer

W.~E. Ferris, Quality Asenrance Supervisor.

..

D. A.1Popham, Quality Engineering Supervisor

'

C.CShort,eProject Quality Engineer

? J. :- C. -l Hink, Civil' Group' Supervisor Resul'ts;of Inspection

+

.l.:. Review of-C? Quality Assurance Manual

~

f y

.

Discrepancies-identified during.the review of the CPLQAM are listed; D

below.' TheseLdiscrepancies were'di'scussed withzthe licensee at:the!

.

~

conclusion'of?thelinspection and, fin every case,Dexcept discrepancies relative lto Criterion 3I,70rganization,;the corrective action. propose'd.

by the: licensee was'considerediadequare.. Subsequent to the; inspection, the licensee-stated:(on Augusc 13,;1973):that corrective action:

relative'to the1RO:IIIfcomments on theTCP'QAM,' except those relative

-

to' Criter'ic ILof,10;CFR.Part.50, Appendix.B, would be incorporated

,,

,.

-

EintoJthe manualias revisions andEthis modified version'would receive n-

'

'

- ' reviewLan'diapprovaltby.CP management in,the immediatel future.

In;

.

^

2addition,fMr'..S.iH..Howell, Vice President - Electric Plant. Projects,

.

istatedTthatihe wrote!a memo,1 dated'Au' gust 13,-1973, approving'these

.

.

w, change's to be incorporated?intojthe.CP-QAM. RO:III-stated that'a.

i

>

'

reviewjof'tliese changes would eb'e made.duringr a* subsequent inspection. -

'

v l,, L.

.

'.

N

-

,;p ia'.G Section'1,/ Organization-

-

lParagraphtenAf3.thissection?statesithattheProject;Qualitys P'

,"

'

_~ _

%

,

y~

N /As'surance6 Services. Department' provides services 'to the; project's.

..

Z

,

~~

"'

. Lin!the area tofiQA1aad that:cthis' organization performs independent

~

i

~

~

- 7 J

' g%QCatiditsw..Y.m.x However,1thereldoes Luotlappear to:be' specific :

,

.

ycN

-

assigned; responsibility for

the overall)QA function' for!the Midlandi

' T.. jf 9 ', [ ~

Projectiilin' the QAM.

'4

~

' '

'

.'

-

,

-

.

.,

.,,

~

1.

,.

J

.

Y.

[

l

' &.,

.

'

YlE"

,

~

>

-

.

-ma. x

-,

--

,

,

,

f;,

• ~ y:kl;y,ef;.;

"

..

..

y;*

s m -

• N -

y o

L

-

~.[

"

1.;

J

,

m

.u.

Q,dN ~ \\

h(

}Mid9

'#

~

u

.

$ -' i e'

~,.

1. • I t

k %q i l M l & t:;w.M / c

,.

z

-

Tl

_"

'l (

,?

Y,4jI' t

/f'

,

' * ' '

'Mj r:&

w% > ' % @i!+M-w:

~ ' '

.

~7~

.

r a x' -

,' "-

m. w.

e 2:

+

_

_

_

t-f

'

t

-

.

,

-

,

1,~

'

..

~

.

.

.

.

. n) '

(~ \\- ' -

Paragraph'two states that, in the corporate organization.

....,

there is! sharing of certain QA responsibilities. This sharing would not,be consistent with the independence requirements as stated in Criterion I of.10 CFS Part 50, Appendix B.

The QAM states that the project manager of Lthe _ Midland Project is responsible for. the quality of the project, among other things. This statement is acceptable.

i

-

~ However. the QAM does not clearly preclude activities of the project i

manager which are definitely QA functions.

,

Section 1 references Tab t.,

lection 2, of the CP Project Procedures

-

Manual,' which is the "iC24nd Project organization ' hart. This chart is not'sufficiently detailed to establish which g.vop, or groups, will perform all necessary QA activities.

At the conclusion of the inspection, corrective action relative to the CP QA organization and their QA functions and responsibilities was not completely resolved.

Subsequent to the inspection (on

)

,

August 16, 1973} a meeting was held between CP corporate management-

'and RO:III te discuss this matter further. At this meeting, CP

proposed-that certain fiel'd engi,neers, who are under the direction of the project managet,' monitor acti-4. ties relative to quality

'

aspects of site construction activities.

However, CP agreed that the_QA organization would perform all required QA functions necessary to assure proper execution of the Midland Project QA Program, and

' (/

-

)

that activities of the QA organization would include auditing quality s_-

related activities of the. field engineers mentioned above.

CP

,

further indicated that-the QA organization would be staffed in a

-

timely manner commensurate with project activities and requirements.

RO:III stated-that, during normal reactor facility construction activities, about seven QA engineers are generally required to monitor and audit quality related aspects of the project.

Organiza-tions requiring QA surveillance would include the licensee, his

,

contractor and subcontractors, NSSS supplier, vendors, and any organizations delegated certain-other QA responsibilities. That is, the CP QA organization would evaluate the total Midland' Project QA Program, including QA planning, scheduling, and. accomplishing

.QA functions,-as well as assuring that the entire QA program was

.

,

being implemented properly by continuous surveillance and periodic audits.-

-b.-

Section 2,' Quality Assurance Program

-

(1). Thisf section states that

.. the required QA program shall

..

satisfy 10 CFR Part.50,JAppendix' B, or an equivalent program -

standard......The " equivalent _ program" needs to be defined

~

or,such a reference should be deltted.

&

<

w/ '

- 8--

o

,

-

1. ;

+

s.

n

,

.

.

.

,

-

.,..

,

.

.

E

'

.

.

.

'

._g

'

h

.(2) This section lists. objectives of the CP QA program. to meet the

.

'

requirements of;10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.

The following

^three: objectives are.not explicitly included in the listing:

'

(a) Activities affecting quality shall'be accomplished under suitably controlled conditions.

f.

.

L (b) The QA program will continue throughout the life of the

,

proj ec t.

(c) CP shall regularly review the. status and adequacy of the QA program.

(3) The QAM does not state clearly (in_either Section 1 or Section 2) that.CP has the ultimate responsibility of assuring that all

.;

quality related activities.are performed according to applicable a

requirements. Additionally, there does not appear ra be L

assigned responsibility for the overall QA' function for the j

Midland Project.

.

,

(4) It'is not clear that the list of components, structures, and

l systems to be covered by the CP QA program (Q-list items) will

be reviewed and approved and otherwise controlled as required.

.

.

.

l A (5) It is not cicar that all subcontractors, where required, are j

l -Q to establish and implement a QA program and that adequate

,

t review and approval procedures will be implemented.

'

.

'

i i

(6) It is not clear hy copies of the QAM are to be controlled.

~

c.

Section 3, Design Control y

[

(1)'It is not clear that design control procedures will be established and implemented.

' (2) The QAM does not state explicitly that CP will approve safety related design documents issued'by Bechtel.

[

' (3) It 1s not clear how (procedures or methods'-

'P will monitor

'

!

' work performed by Bechtel^to assure that the design-of the..

.

[

-plant, meets applicable requirements.,

!

-

l (4) Subsection.3.1-(d~, e. and,f.) deals-with design control pro-

.

cedures relative to suitability of application, delineation of p

acceptance criteria and verification of design adequacy.. Pro-l=

-cedures or other instructions are not included cr referenced-

'

_

' relative to-how the above,three activities are to be-accomplished.

/ n

,

i i

Q,1

-

~ 9 ~~

c

,

'

,3

.

,

s w

..,. _

.~..m.

>.

.,y

,.w

.r-

.x

- --.

,-

_wr ~;

~-

,

,

pr. s w p a: K '.

.

Y,

-

-

'

,"

'"

w

.

-

<

J

_

-

,a

,

,

l}n (@ ~ & if

.

, " ',

'

'

r

,

s te r

l,Q,Q

-x

,L

~

~

.

,

l <, _ y f:

c.:n.

, '.

,

'

,

.

.

Ob " - /, _ 1'

I.. _%h.

.,

,

,.

,,.

,

'

-

o

d. ;Section"4,' Procurement Document Control

,

mp

- y

~ "..

(1)j ThisLaection (second paragraph) do'esL not state how or reference -

'

L~

^

u lwhat procedurascor

other' instructions will:be implemented

.

'

,

%

< relative-to the review:of' procurement" documents to assure 1. hat.

[

.all applicable' requirements..... are met.

'

,

x

.

..

.,,

..

.

.

.

N[

.(2){Thisls'ection (thirdLand fourth paragraphs)(does not' state:how

'

L<

?

' procurement ~ documents.will be verified to assure;that.all-j" applicablefQA r'equirements are, identified and/or included.

!.

.,

b-

.

.

)

'

'

e.

'Section6,-Document' Control

~

Itfis'not. stated-explicitly that document control procedures

~

prepared'by CP (paragraph four) will be-reviewed and-approved by.the CP QA~ organization; f.

Section"7. Control of Purchase'd Materia ( Equipment, and_ Services'

.

-(l) Paragraph nineLof this section references'Section G-5 of the-Bechtel Field. Inspection Manual','but Section G-5'is not' included in this. manual for the Midland Project.

'

'(2) It-is implied 11n this section that a. certification method may t.n[

be used--to provide documentary, evidence that material. ort equipment

,j conform to procurement: requirements.

prior to installation

....

,

'

'

,

~or:use

.-.,.a. LIf this method-is to.be.gsed, appropriate state-

.ments relative to this procedure, or.referenceito'such a proc'edure,-

Eis irequ' ired.

.

-(3) It istnot: clear. who' is: responsible for site receiving-inspection.1

.

If Bechtel is/ responsible for all' site. receiving inspectioni y

'this:should beistated clearly.'

~

-

,

'

li

g.

Section 9.JControl of'Special' Processes p

,

x,

.

<rIn1regardito controllof;special' processes, it_is notDcompletelyf

-

'

"clearcthat CPIand/or Bechtel will review and approve ~ documentation,

.

,

jof-proce;dures andDp'ersonnel qualifications, wheneverssuch are-

,

, requjredibyfapplicable.: codes,fstandards, r.

...

- : h. ;, Section > 16 0 Corrective' Action',

.. -

.

.

..

,

y.,

>

-

..

..

.....

..

.,

-

?(1)1 Paragraph two/ingthisgsection; states that' conditions adverse

- f'

ito qualityc.f.: t.7shall'be promptly identified;and reported..

'

.

,

g 5

,1

'

f,, g /,- lHowev'er, cit is not;cleariho'wL and 'to whom :thi2 reporting :,

,

( ~,.y s

,

_ disfdirectedisolthatjappropriate-.QAl personnel ^in'CW are notified'.:

y

~

i_

[f, O._. '

J

-

I L}"..%

. ~} <

p;

-

'

.

r. -

,

,

,

,

. m

,

'

.

(j

f, Y

101-

,

,

.

~,

,

4 I e-

, -*

Y v

'

o P

j

..D

'

g.

Q

,e ;%_

,

,

>

h., r i h'

si

_'

". h

,

, w_

, y,.

,

n+

>,

<

- - '

-

~

>

,-

,

,

+

QYg g.i[ a 1,

' fd -

?,.

%

7 ;

, -,

,

}, l}

.a

.

Q5.s af

--~

,'"

'[

3 y(

-

l G

v tu m} -

'

,

.

.,

o a. ~ ~

n..., m a a.. a. n

m a m u -., -. m

,

.

~

.,

-.

.

-.....,

,

-,-

,

-

-

- -.

.

.,

~..

, ~p ~

+

,

_

'y

, - }[;

.

.

,

,

.'

O

u.O:

,;-

+

,

,

...

^

'

r,6 ?

-

-'

.,

,

m

,

,

.

,

.

.

@=.

,c

.

.

'

--

' gic k '

'

.

-

-

,

,

,

~

f

,

,

m-

.

,

,

.

r.

..

.

[(2)Paragrap'h'.f$ur'statesthat)implementationofcorrectiveaction

-

_

'

' '

ishall be? verified:....; '.-including..s.. adequately corrected ~

'

, _

.

..

'?':

-

utofpreclude repetition.

.It is not: clear.that the CP QA organiza-

' tion is toTapprove preventive corrective action proposed by

.

'

s

,

others;and,to approve changes to CP's. procedures and/or policies

,

10A ito preclude repetition;

,

,

1'.

Section 18 Abdits

'

l(1)Nn:regardto'auditsJperformedbytechnicalspecialists'

~ l

'

.

?(psragraph four), it;is not. clear that these audits will u

x

.be performed;under the direction of the CP QA administrator.

,

l'

(2)'In. paragraph six, it is not clear that audit coverage will.

.

includecother vendors and contractors, in addition to Bechtel l

and'B&W.

.

,

i.,

(3)' It is not.clea (?aragraph eight) that: audits. performed by

.)

I

!

'Bechtel pertai'nto all of their activities;affecting quality.

"

.

'

- of.the Midland P :oject'.

'

p

.

a

..

2.-

Bechtel Corporation =0rp nization for the Midland Project

,

i'

.

'L'

A revised'Bechtel orga Mzation chart for the Midland Project, dated

[

August 1,' 1973, a QA at :ivities chart '(details. of a portion of the

~

Q above chart) land a chr.t showing. lines of performance appraisal

. responsibilities an? audit functions were' examined and discussed.

These charts'refir.:t the results of' discussions among CP, Bechtel,'

I and'RO:III perseanei during.the last several weeks. -The reporting

V i-level of the o'.ality' assurance manager.is..now at the same level as the manager <<r div'ision construction. The~QA activities chatc shows

,

that one of the responsibilities;of.the QA' engineers is to provide

[

monitorirg and audit functions relative to site QC activities.

_

RO:III had no further questions at.this time.

b.

~3.

Implementation of QA Program'

i

.

.

A preliminary review of Bechtel's implementation of. the Midland Project

.

,

.QA' Program was made. relative 1to' design and procurement activities at q

'the.Bechtel Ann Arbor office. zAn in-depth'-examination ofs these

~

'l iactivitie'sTwill_be made in:the near; future..

-

,

Ja.,IGeneral

-

-

?-

'

h

'

R.% -

ult"was determined that" civil and structural design,; piping drawing

,

,

preparation,'other>mechanica1Tdesign activities 1andlinitia'.'

'~

m~

O

,

-

o

. electrical an'dEinstrumentation' design were in progress'. About-130'

H

'

J

'

'

'.

.

.

$

t ""

$ "

zi:

p:

y

-

-

4;.

c'*

y

'

11 - _ -

<

.

_

,

<

.g

,

-

-

y) - :]j

_

_

En

"

q,

~

-

-

-

,

'

Ub

[

3 <

,

~

-

~

vgx,

.

_

,.

'

'

,, ' '

'

~

Q.k (

%

_

,

'

-,

&~ h,Y$_1l' '

lIb,. M_ '.Y,W._ f.5l

'.

.,

. ~...m --

-- -..

m..

..

^>

i

. _.

- -

.

,..

-

-

..

..~

--.m.

.

.

,

,,

.

.o.

.....

.-

.,,.

.

-

,

.

.

.

-.

.,.

.

-

-

'

...

,

.

'

P

.

.

,

'

.

.

.

,-

y

_

(f people are presently involved in design work at this offiie for the Midland Project.

Some procurement activity was in' prog'ress, but-

"

'

'this activity had.been reinitiated only recently.

No significant-

.

deviations-_from applicable' requirements were identified during'this

~ initial review.

b'. ' Des'ign-Activities

'

Bedhtel has' established and, implemented a QA program relative to design activities for; the Midland Project which, in general, appears

~

to'be consistent with applicable requirements. A change is.in

_

progress by Bechtel'to make their QA program more. consistent-with a detailed requirement of 10 CFR Part 50,' Appendix B, relative to

's

'

' material suitability review.

'

Major design disciplines appear _to be adequately staffed and'

qualified for the work in progress.

An' Ann Arbor office' Quality Engineering. Indoctrination and_ Training Schedule, covering the-period from; June'14 through, September.6, 1973,'was reviewed.

.

Seven sessions covering appropriate topics are scheduled.-

[

Quality. aspects of design are controlled by Bechtel internal.

'

documents, such as directives, procedures-(Nuclear QA Manual and QC Manual - ASME)', instructions and control documents (detailed fN procedures for'the. Ann Arbor office), reference documents:

lQ'

_~

(Engineering Standards and Bulletins) and other applicable codes and standards.

In. addition,. design is controlled by requirements

~

- a-established' by CP -(basic design' criteria, SAR. and CP standards)

,

-and the.AEC (safety criteria and design guides).

l Procedures.and methods used to verify that applicable' design-l requirements are correctly translated into design documents

'

l (specifications and' drawings) were examined and discussed with.

Bechtel.. Procedures and-forms' reviewed included: Design Control Checklist, Design Review Notice, Requisition Register, Drawing

,

Control, Calculation. Cover Sheet, QA Matrix Chart, and Engineering

'

(

Design Document Tree. Methods used for' design' interface control

!-

and corrective action' control were reviewed also.

,

.

-To determine'whether applicable _ quality procedures were:being.

implemented, Bec'/.tel' Specification No. C-208, Material-Testing l

_Servicesi, was selected for examination in this regard.

It was s

!

_

' determined thst appropriate procedures were followed by the"

'

Civil-Engineering Group' relative;to design control,_ independent

-

' design' review,'and distribution.

[

'

__

'

--12 -

-

,

.

,

,

,

.,

-

..[

2 f}

-

'

>

,

'

. _i, -

_-

e y

.,+4t g

,

.

m

..

.

,_

._ y

_

_

.._ m.

_ _.

_, -

_

_

.

A 4 3

{

$

,

-(

'}g

,%

..

4..,

,

-

.o '

'

,

4

,

9m

'

"

,

(

7,, ; ;

,

,

' ' ' '

p;

.g.

<

.

'

,.

,

,

,*

..

.s

-

g

-

<

,

,

' -

• ',,;,

.

.i,.

s

-

-

-R 2'

'

tc.l$ Procurement AEtivities'

~

.

,

,

,

i

,

.

- 8

-

s d

, _

T.,

',?Orly;alcursory review lwas made'of'prc:urement act'ivities during this

,

Einspection.: : However, it appearedLthat procedures had'been established'

-

.

-

-

-

for ' control of procurement docu

nents, procurement quality documenta-~

!

-

.

,<

tion, procurement program review and audits, and nonconformances..

'

,,.

-

>

_

.-

t ;g

-

-

.. Audits'

d.a:

,,

. -

_

,

o Results of a' Bechte?. QA audit.of the Becht'el Ann Arbor office, made -

' "

,

,

during.thelweek of May-14, 1973, was reviewed. The,atidit covered j

+

_

.the following~ areas: design'and documentation control,-Midland

"

'

Project _Q-list, quality engineering,.-SAR-change control, vendor

-

. control, vendor. record review,~and loop Alosing. 'The audit was

!

'

made.to determine whether activities in-the above areas conformedl

'

f; to1the r'equirements of the Bechtel Nuclear QAM, QC Manual ~(for AShE

'

cumponents),andLapplicable Design Standards.

The audit was conducted-

. i

'

-

according.to Procedure 5, in Section 6, of the Bechtel~ Nuclear QAM.

Noiserious deficiencies were identified =during the audit.

.-

..-

.,

,

!

_

Bechte1LQA engineers' frequently monitor design'and' procurement

' !

-

i activities in progress.

.Lsometimes on a daily basis. The.

.

j recordsIof.Jthese audits-vere reviewed, and it was determined that

-

. proper (documentation was made, including the resolution of j

i outstanding problems..

'

.,

iM l-

'Results of a CP initial. audit of the Bechtel Ann: Arbor office, made -

'

~

~

in,

' was to.becomesfamiliar with the organizational; structure and the

^

on.May 30',- 1973,. was-reviewed. -The primary purpose of this audit

'

L-procedural: methods'used. ~CP stated th'at anlaudit of the Bechtel

~

EAnn Arbor office, relative to design and procurement activities,-

.

is' scheduled-for' September 1973. 'CP. stated that audits of this-

-

E type-are e be scheduled about every six months.

.

e

$1

,

(

4; Visual Examination o'f Existing Concrete Structures

,

,

.,

A iisualLexamination'.of all existing exposed concrete

surfaces sere made

'

,

Twith special attention;toftheLAuxiliary Building floor and the Unit:1

.

'

~

~

,

CA.

tendon acc'ess[galleryfwalls.and floor. No'large or otherwise"significant

,

cracks or:other structural defects were observed.

After an examination p

~

l TofLexposedj(partially.embsdded) water stops and rebar, not previously.

~

-

f'

-.

> examined,>it waaideterminedithat'these~ components did-not appear to be'

mdversely;affected by the: construction' delay.

!

s

,.

.

-

'

-

, -

y,D, t

.

e

,

4 -

,

.

,

f

,o

%,

-~k.

'

'

.

'

'/I

,

" "

."

i

"y i

'

..

t

-

. s,

,,

_,x

-

.< -

t

.

.

,

,

[3 }.

-

, -. '

_

,

- ;;

-

1,

,,,

w

'

&nc'D k: ', IC'?

?

"

' ;

'

+

w_

' ' '

p s t'

,.

.no

-

y,

+

i

" +~ N C,[

.

,"

-.

g

-

+.,

f.,

'

.e

"

~

C Q,, k l.

-L.6 N ;.- n b --..,. m

, %,,.,.,. :.

u.

n'.,.. u.A,:m ; D,-- -.,,,,+

r-

'

~

.?

-

,-.- -

.

~=

'

r: "

.

,

.

-.

-

.

</"'N

,

,

(

)

.

.

.

^ ' '

5.

Bechtel Quality Audit Findings

The first 15 Bechtel-Quality Audit Finding reports were reviewed.

These are QC systems type audits relative to Bechtel pre-construction activities-se the Midland site, i.e.,

to determine the degree of-implementation relative to quality related procedures and activities. These quality sudit finding reports were attached to Project Audit Report No. C-1, dated July 19, 1973, and L signed by J. I. Dotson, Bechtel Project QA Engineer.

The findings indicate that certain prescribed Bechtel procedures were not being'followed. Typical deficiencies include: no field change request initiated.when required,'no formal training program established, required drawing control procedures not being.followed cnd quality control records

.not collected and filed as required.

(See Appendix A)

Corrective action'is in progress relative to the above audit findings.

Adequacy of corrective action, and measures to preclude repetition, will be reviewed during subsequent inspections.

The audit was thoroughly conducted by qualifiel people in a timely manner, i.e.,

in the early

stage of construction activity,.-

'

6.

Site Requalification Activities Work ~is continuing at the site to determine the affect of the environment on stored materials, components, structures, and in-place earth work. An

,

.

-inspection was made on July 5, 1973, by CP relative to the condition of

,

'( \\- /

site stored material. A corrosion inspection was made by Bechtel on

.

'

June 28 and'29, 1973, on stored and in-place materials.

Testing of in-place soil conditions was conducted in June 1973. Reports of these inspections will be reviewed when copies are available, however, it

. appears that this activity is continuing in an. adequate manner and in-accordance.with the program developed by CP pursuant to condition 1 of ALA'

06.

.

7.

B&W QA Program CP and B&W have been actively discussing quality. assurance requirements common to components to be furnished by B&W for the Midland Project.

~

.

Upgraded requirements are to be included: in B&W Specification No.1212,,

. Quality Assurance Procurement Specification.

The licensee indicated

'

that these requirements are to be consistent with'10 CFR Part 50, Appendix-B. This specification will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.

,

sp t

h

- 14 -

w.

,

.\\-

.

".

-

- -

-

. =.

.

-

.

-

- - z.

.----.

.--.

F~

.

f.

.

-

.

,

-

.

.

.

'. i\\--

8.

Concrete Batch' Plant'Requalification

'

In response to a question regarding' the status of the batch plant,.a representative of Lechtel stated that renovation, testing, and requalifi-cation of the plant.is nearing completion.

Procedures, check points, and verification of adequacy of this batch plant are based on the National Ready Mixed Concrete Asscatation Certification of Ready Mixed Concrete

,

Production Facilities, Revision No. 2, dated January.1972.

Bechtel is

'using the above certification program, which includes a required, detailed checklist, as a QC inspection plan to assare adequate compliance.with

'

applicable requirements.

Bechtel stated that this certification will satisfy applicable requirements of ACI 318-71.

9.

Concrete Activities-Concrete batening and placement activities at the site are expected to be reinitiated within'a few weeks.

Stored materials (concrete, fly ash, admixes, etc.) have been rejected, and new material has been obtained.

• Trial batches have been.made.t,o verify preper operation of batch plant and. transit trucks. -Design mix test cylinders are scheduled to be made

' ~

about mid-August'1973.

Corrective action on previously identified enforcement matters, relative to concrete activities prior to construction shutdown, will be reviewed

/

- N-slI during;the inspection following resumption of concrete activities.

,

u 10. QA/QC Training Program During.a discussion concerning indoctrination and training'of QA/QC people, it was determined that three formal training programs were in progress.

CP periodically provides training for field and office personnel associated with the Midland' Project. The last session was held on July 16 and 17, 1973. Be'chtel has a training program in effect

at the' Midland site and at the Ann Arbor office.

The current Ann Arbor office Quality' Engineering Indoctrination and Tra'ining Program Schedule,

? covering the period'from June 14 through September 6, 1973, was ceviewed.

Seven sessions, covering appropriate topics are included in this program.

.

-

.

.

.

.

11. Soil Analysis and Other Site Sampling

[

This program was.reinitiated by CP_during July 1973.

The results of

'

this on-going activity will be reviewed when the' initial results and

' evaluations are' completed ~.

-Attachment:

iAppendix A-

_

Y q

(

v

- 15 -

K):

-

-

NL t

'

ti

>

o

-

,

-

~.

..

~

-.,

.

,

.

.

,

,-

'V

. APPENDIX A

.,

-

Bechtel Quality Audit Finding Reports During the. period' July 36 through July 19, 1973, J. I. : Dotson, H.' F. Lilligh

'

2nd W. F. Holub,.Bechtel QA Engineers, conducted a QC systems audit of the Bechtel field organization at the Midland site.

The' intent of this audit i

was to determine the degree of compliance with'Bechtel QC procedures.

The audit agenda included the following:

,

.l... Design document control 2.

Subcontractor control 3.

Nonconformance report control.

j 4.

Preparation.cf field subcontracts

-

5. ' Preparation.for receiving and s'torage

,

6.

Inspection planning 7.

QC document control l,d 8.

Loop closing

..

'9'.

Organization j

10. Indoctrination and training

-

.

.

The deficiencies'found during this audit are detailed in 15 Quality Audit

'

Finding reports. The findings and recommendations-by Bechtel QA are

.

summarized below.

QA Finding No. 1 Finding: A nonconformance report (NCR) was not generated as a result of the

' inspection of some containment liner plate coatings by Bechtel personnel.

'

'

. Recommended Action: Prepare NCR-or delete. reference to Bechtel QA Program j

for this type of inspection.. (This. liner' plate coating inspection was per-formed _in' response to ALAB-106 and not part of the normal Bechtel construc-

~

i tion inspection program.)

Committed Action Date:

August l7, 1973 i

Q n

!

.,

w

..y.

~

2, fg w

g.-

gr

.m**

u-g

+ + y

--.

..y

_

_

.

,

'

.

-

.

.

.

..

,

.

.

r

-

,

N. t QA Finding No. 2/

.

'

Ff.nding : TechnicalfSpecification C-20o inas modified by field personnel prior

'to obtaining approval from originating group.

Recommended Action,: - Submit change to originating group via field change

,;

request procedure.,

.

,

Committed' Action Date: August 20, 1973 QA Finding No. 3~

Finding:- No f'ormal! indoctrination / training program has been established or

,

implemented atLthe Midland Construction Site.

.

Recomme'.eded Action: Develop and implement a formal indoctrination / training

- program.

• Committed Action Date: August 17, 1973

-

,

QA Finding No~.'

"~

Finding:

Twenty-seven nonconforming material items (mostly containment liner. plate) are not tagged and segregated as required.

,--

.

I

\\-

,

(_,/

Recommended Action: Re-identify b'y re-tagging nonconforming items and

,

- '

establish a segregated storage-area..(CP considers all containment liner plate unacceptable for use prior to restoration and requalification.)

~

, Committed Action Date: August 3, 1973 QA Finding No. 5

~

Finding:. NCR No. C-l, issued July 12, 1973, was not prepared, and related activities' performed, in accordance'with Appendix B'to Section G-3 of the Bechtel Field Inspection Manual (FIM).

~

Recommended ^ Action: Re-issue NCR No. C-1 with corrections and tag properly:

.

Committed' Action.Da'te:

July 27,-1973

QA Finding No.'6

,

- Finding': ' Form QC-ll had'been removed from six Midland manuals contrary to FIM procedures..

j x

i

.

p M

M

,.

.

- k

-

p f

F

\\ L

/ '

,

+y

,

y

, <,,

,v-

.

"

.

.

.

.

.

. y_.

.l

,

.

'

,

N;

..

,

-

-

.

,

'

j

-

Jt.

, _ ;R.-

-

Recommended Action:. Replace forms in manuals.and. follow procedure for manual.

l'

revision.

f-Committed Action Date:. August 17, 1973

!

l

QA Finding No. 7 Finding: ' Requirements for receiving, inspection, storing, protecting and

. issuing of materials have not been included in the Midland FIM.,

Recommended Action: Amend the F1M to include a procedure that controls the'

above activities.

l l

' Committed Action Date: August 20,Lic73

!

!

QA Finding No. 8

'

,

Finding: A drawing distribution list has'not:been established.

.

Recommended' Action:

Establish a d awing distribution list as defined in-Section G-2, FIM.'

_Cy aitted Action Date: August 17, 1973

[

QA Finding No. S l

Finding: The control and calibration of an optical comparator used by QA.

personnel relating to pre-construction inspection was not performed in accordance with Section;G-4,'FIM.

'

,

!

I l:

Recommended Action:

Implement Section G-4, and/or evaluate and justify

the inspection work pursuant.to ALAB-106 to determine if re-inspection-is necessary.

-

I'

. Committed Action Date: August 17, 1973

!

QA' Finding No. 10 i

t

'-

.l l

-

'

.

[

Finding:

Some drawings'on the Civil Stick File have been marked void and-l have not been removed.

.l p

l Recommended Action: : Remove superseded-drawings from.use per Section G-2, FIM..

u!'

Committ'ed Action Datei August 17,;1973

-

'

'

+..

-

i /)~N '

' - 3'-

l\\

-

'

'

y

.

.

~~

' -'

!I s

.

j

. _..

~')

'

_

,

,

.

....

.

., ~

,p.~..-.

.

.. - -

-

..

....

-

-

.-

- 3

-

,

,

.

-

'

'

-

.

-

,

j

-

,

,

,.

.,

+

'

,

,

,

.

.

i

,

,

'

<

'

.

.-

-

e

,

,..

~~ >

,

_

,

,

_:Q'A' Finding'No. 11

'

,

.-

4'

< Finding: :Some Civil drawings',(sepias)-did not carry.the~1atest revision as

.shown on the' Drawing Control Register dated June 29, 1973.

iR'ecommended Action: :All sepias in the drawing control areas, which are shown

'

to.have a-superseded revision, are' to be marked void and remov'ad and/or

,

destroyed..

"

- ' Committed-Actiou'Date: August-17, 1973

,

L QA Finding No. 12

.

.

,

' Finding: Drawing revision' designations were not used properly.-

'

'

i i -

' Recommended Action: Project Engineering should revier allLdrawings-and. recall i

all. drawings that do not conform to the' requirements of the Midland Internal'

I f

Procedures-Manual.-

-

Committed Action Date: Auguat 3, -l'973 QA-Finding'No. 13

'

Finding: Five Mechanical drawings, issued by Project Engineering as Progress

'

Prints, were not prepared / marked in accordance with Engineering Department

Instruction No.

l.-

The inetructions require progress prints to be made on

I green Diazo! paper-and-' stamped."for information only" in red ink.

-

"

Recommende'd Action:

Instruct all. engineering groups that the above instruc-tioniis mandatory and that it should'be' implemented immediately.

-

, Committed' Action Date: August 3, 1973

-

h QA Finding No.'li

!.

-

p.

Finding:

QC records established to date are not filed ar. cording:to Sec' tion

-

.'G-7, FIM..

I

~5 Recommended Acrion:

Implement the procedure established in Section G-7, FIs. -

_

i Committied Action' Date: August 17, 1973 l

}QA~ Finding-No. 15

-

r y

. Finding:1 There isino: documented evidence that the field engineers have

,

O reviewed and signed new drawings and revisions received from -Project Engineering..

.

x, y.

..

.

4-

-.

_

- ~ :V,

-

'

1 -

-

.

_;..

.

,

_

, g k_1

?-

'

y..

,

,

_

>_.

>

-

s

>

F

,

l w

,

r

+

of_

%

9 dj

,

,-

e

-

,,l; _ (

l

'J

^ ;'+,.,

.p<

,

(

,

_,. '

3,\\

~

"

, ~,...

'

.,j_.,

,_--

.

..~-_,.,

,,,,, _

g

._

,

,

.

.

.

...

_..

_ _.- ~.. _

_ _

.

_

..

-

a:,

-

-

,, e

..

...

.

.

>

t

. g.

,

,

--

.

,.

.

,

.

, ;.

..

.

.m

.

- Recommended Action: /All drawings received'from Project Engineering should

..;~

.

,

.be. reviewed and signed-byfthe-appropriate discipline field engineer as

.

described in.Section G-2,' FIM.

.

,

-

-' Committed' Action-Date: : August-10, 1973.

oj

_ The corrective' action status of each'of'these audit findings is to-be-

_

reviewed:during'the next. inspection.

t i

k

.

.

• '

,

i a -

a L

i '

.

+

d A

._

i ~

,

4 t-j

e J

.

t t

-

.

)_

-

"

.

f 5-

- -

,

.

A i

1 :

,

P g

.

-

.

w

e4,

-

m, y

y

,. - - - r

,

=,-r---e+.

.

.=-.4-,.+,

e-e*m,--u,

,..

<gy.w.

--

me w w -w y w w wi-

.

-

--

'

J

~

_y-

.

.

,

h:

..

.

j.

Q, UNITED STATES

.

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

.

.

olvislON OF COMPLIANCE REoloN til

- 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD

.

^-

GLEN ELLYN, ILLINots 60137 (312) ess-asso

,

l 050-329/73-06 A.

RO Inspection Report No.

050-330/73-06 Transmittrl Date S*Ptember 13, 1973

Distribution:

Distribution:

RO Chief, FS&EB RO Chief, FS&EB RO:HQ (5)

RO:HQ (4)

DR Central Files L:D/D for Fuel & Materials M ulatory stanaards (3)

DR Central Files

!

Licensing (13)

RO Files RO Files

,

B.

RO Inquiry Report No.

Transmittal Date

Distribution:

Distribution:

RO Chief, FS&EB RO Chief, FS&EB RO:HQ (5)

RO:HQ DR Central Files DR Central Files Regulatory Standards (3)

R0 Files Licensing (13)

RO Files C.

Incident Notification From:

(Licensee & Docket No. (or License No.)

Transmittal Date

Distribution:

Distribution:

RO Chief, FS&EB'

RO chief, FS&EB RO:HQ :(4) -

RO:HQ (4)-

Licensing - (4)-

DR Cencral Files-L:D/D for Fuel & Materials DR Central Files RO Files RO Files O

.

,

,

-

.. - -

. -

-

,.

. _ _ _..,..

.