IR 05000329/1976005
| ML19331A878 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 08/10/1976 |
| From: | Hayes D, Yih I NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19331A868 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-329-76-05, 50-329-76-5, 50-330-76-05, 50-330-76-5, NUDOCS 8007230910 | |
| Download: ML19331A878 (16) | |
Text
m
.
.
.
IMT.TED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
-(]
FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT D
REGION III
.
Report of Construction Inspection IE Inspection R ort No. 050-329/76-05 IE Inspection Re rt No. 050-330/76-05
.-
-
Licensee:
Consu=ers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 Midland Plants, Units 1 and 2 Licenses No. CPPR-81
-
Midland, Michigan and No. CPPR-82 Category:
A Type of Licensee:
PWR (B&W) Lait 1, 650 MWe Unit 2, 818 MWe Type of Inspection:
Special, Announced
.
Dates of Inspection: June 24, 25, 30 and July 1, 1976 Swdr~,e
/O[7 b Principal Inspector.
I. T. Yin
/ (Date)
Accompanying Inspectors: None Other Accompanying Personnel:
R. E. Shewmaker, IE:HQ
.
Reviewed By:
D. W. Hayes, Ch
/0 7A Projects Section
/ (Date)
,
.
.
.
O" (8001230 9/ 0
-
C)
.
-
.
-
.
.
-.
..
-
-
..
,
.
-
.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
-
,
'
Inspection Summary Inspection on June 24, 25, 30, and July 1, 1976; (Unit 1, 76-05) and (Unit 2, 76-05): Review of engineering evaluations at the Bechtel Ann Arbor, Michigan office relative to rebar omissions on the Midland plant safety related structures.
Review of licensee and its contractors QA/QC procedure revisions to prevent recurrence of rebar omissions at the Midland site, and followup on previously identified noncompliance and unresolved items. No items of noncompliance were identified during this inspection.
Enforcement Items None.
.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Items
__
Items of Noncompliance.
Infractions (Units 1 and 2, identified in IE:III Inspection Reports No. 050-329/
76-02 and No. 050-330/76-02).
,
()
A.
Failure of The U. S. Testing Company Vice President of Engineering
,
to Audit Test Reports Issued to Bechtel
,
Subject audit requirement is recorded in U. S. Testing Company QA Manual.
Since the QA Manual is in the process of major revision
,
and wil.1 not be ready for IE:III review befere July 30, 1976, this item remains open.
B.
Corrective Actions Required by The Audit Findings Not Performed l
l The U. S. Testing Company ie making procedural revisions on audit and audit finding c7rrective action requirements.
The revised QA Manual is reported to be ready for IE:III review by July 30, 1976. This item remains 'open.
.
Other Significant Items A.
Systems and Components None.
.
.
.
-2-
,,
.
.
.
.
e j.
- - _ _.
,
I
,
.
'
.
.
B.
Facility Items (Pla'ns and Procedures)
'
,p)
.\\
.
None.
C.
Managerial Items None.
D.
Noncompliance Identified and Corrected by licensee
.
.
None.
E.
Deviations None.
F.
Status of Previously Unresolved Items
.
1.
Review of Cumulative Effects on Safety Related Structures Because of Omission of Reinforcement Steel (IE Inspection
-"-
-
Reports No. 050-329/76-04 and No. 050-330/76-04)
.
Subject review and evaluation were conducted by the IE:HQ technical personnel, and nd problem areas were identified.
_ _ - _.
-
Details)
'
(Section II, Report This matter is considered closed.
2.
Review of Bechtel QA Trend Analyses (IE Inspection Reports No. 050-329/76-04 and No. 050-330/76-04)
Bechtel trend analyses performed in the past were reviewed by,the inspector, and were considered unsatisfactory.
This item is to remain open pending future inspections.
(Paragraph 2,Section I, Report Details)
-
l l
Management Interview l
A.
The following personnel attended the management interview at the conclusion of the inspection on June 25, 1976, at the Bechtel Ann
,
Arbor office:
.
Consumers Power Company (CP)
F. Southworth, Director, Project QA Services Department H. W. Slager, Midland QA Administrator K. D. Buttke, QA Engineer
.
.
.
3-
-
,
..
l
\\
'
'
l
'
.
.
.
b
.
=
+n e
e - ar-r-n w
a
- - -
e
,~-r-+m----v---w
-
-e- - - - - - - -
-w
,--, - w m-
--e e-n-.
--r m- -, - - e e?-eev~w+w---ws sn----w---,
,
. - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
.
.
.
Bechtel Power Corocration (Bechtel)
.
.
lf)
'
J. M. Klackling, Midland Froject QA Engineer (_)
Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation (BAPC)
J. L. Hurley, Assistant Project Engineer B.
Matters discussed and co==ents on the part of =anage=ent personnel were as follows:
-
The inspector stated that the engineering disposition and analytical evaluation for individual and cu=ulative effects on the safety related structures were reviewed by the IE:HQ structural engineer and no problem areas had beer. identified.
(Section II, Report Details)
-
.
C.
The following personnel attended the =anage ent interview at the
~
conclusion of the inspection on July 1, 1976, at the Midland project construction site:
Consumers Power Co=pany (CP)
.
T. C. Cooke, Midland Project Superintendent B. H. Peck, Field Supervisor
-
J. L. Corley, Midland QA Superintendent K. D. Buttke, QA Engineer V
Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel)
J. F. Newgen, Project Superintendent G. L. Richardson, Lead QA Engineer J. P. Connolly, Project Field QC Engineer A. J. Boos, Assistant Project Field Engineer B. T. Stojkov, QA Engineer Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation (EAPC)
M. G. O'Mara, Midland Project Quality Engineer D.
Matters discussed and co==ents on the part of -anage=ent personnel were as follows:
1.
The inspector stated that the two nonce =pliance items identi-fied in IE:1II Inspection Report 76-02 were to re=ain open
,
-4-
.
.
V
.
-
.
ew aAn w nm
- _ _ _ _ __
--
-
-
,
pending completion of U. S. Testing Company, QA Manual revisions.
- --)
Licensee reported that the manual should be available for NRC
'
review by July 30, 1976.
q j
.
2.
The inspector indicated that he had Teviewed the licensee commitments identified under Item 1 in CP letter to IE:III, dated June 24, 1976, " Activities to be Completed Prior to
,
Resumption of "Q"-Listed Concrete Placement," and considered i
the revised and the new work procedures acceptable.
(Paragraph 1,Section I, Report Details)
,
,
'
.
.
-
3.
The inspector stated that he reviewed a list of past Bechtel QA trend analyses, and found no systematic evaluation of the non-conformances and deficicacies.
(Paragraph 2,Section I, Report Details)
4.
The lic asee site QA Superintendent, at the' conclusion of the
'
meeting, informed the inspector that the stop work order on
.-
the safety related concrete placement was to be lifted on July 1, 1976.
.
G
.
O e
5-
-
.
-
.
.
l
-
.
.
e
'
,
.
-
REPORT DETAILS
'
,, - ~
'( )
Section I
,
Prepared by I. T. Yin Persons Contacted In addition to the individuals listed under the Management' Interview section of this report, Mr. D. E. Horn, Consumers Power Company QA
'
Engineer was contacted during the inspection.
Results of Inspection 1.
Licensee Implementation of Corrective / tion Prior to Resumption of Safety Related Concrete Placement.
..
.
As a result of the NRC in-depth QA inspection (IE:III Inspection
-
Report 76-04), several important issues -relative to the sufficiency
--
--
of licensee QA/QC and engineering control were identified.
The
..
licensee review of the issues and the initiation of plan of action were forwarded to IE:III for concurrence through a letter dated
--
"
June 18, 1976. A second licensee letter to IE:III, dated June 24, 1976, addressed the issues and commitments CP made in the June 18,
-
1976, letter and the schedules for implementing the correction plans.
[)
The schedules were catagorized into:
Ites 1, " Activities to be N'
completed prior to resumption of "Q"-listed concrete placement",
and Item 2, " Schedules for the remainder of the activities." IE:III letter to CP, dated June 25, 1976, accepted the CP correction plans and the schedule for implementing these plans.
It was further understood and stated in the June 25, 1976 letter that prior to the discontinuance of the overlay inspections by CP, the rationale for such action should be reviewed with the NRC Region III office.
-
During this inspection, the inspector reviewed all the revised and the new Bechtel, RAPC, and CP work procedures and instructions, which were written in accordance with the co=mitments listed in Item I af CP letter to IE:III, dated June 24, 1976.
The procedure review criteria used by the inspector included:
(1) Issue identification, (2) establishment of policy, (3) adequate detail description, (4) consistency of instructions.. (5) ease of under-standing, (6) applicability, and (7) QA/QC measures that are to be free from cost and scheduling influence.
Upon completion of the review, the inspector considered the new and revised procedures and instructions to have met require =ents.
The su==ary of the review is listed in Appendix A.
.
.
-
-6-
.
\\
]
-
v
.
.
-
e e
'
.-
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
2.
Review of Bechtel QA Trend Analyses
[)
Subsequent to the management information exchange meeting and prior
\\~/
'
to the conclusion of IE:III in-depth QA inspection on May 14, 1976 (IE:III Inspection Report 76-04), Bechtel QA informed the inspector that they had compiled a list of trend analyses.
This list (See Appendix B) was later transmitted to IE:III through licensee prc 'ect QA Services Department.
During this inspection the inspector reviewed the trend analyses that had been closed out by Bechtel (Appendix B, Items 1 through 11), and found them unsatisfactory.
Th eleven items reviewed represented significant construction or problems which involved a number of nonconforming reports.
These significant problems were identified, evaluated, and the corrective active action derived.
However, reporting of individual significant problems is not considered equivalent to a trend analysis program which is to be
-
scheduled in certain pre-defined time perieds by the QA personnel
--- -
to group and to list the previously reported deficiencies and nonecnformances, so that the effectiveness of the corrective action taken in the past can be evaluated. -For those seemingly- -----
. -
less important deficiencies that have continuously occurred in the past, the trend analysis system can also help to flush out
,
fundamental departmental and procedural short comings, which may go undetected otherwise.
.
h (G
_
e f
.
l 7-
-
,
t
"
.
.
- h l
--
.
.
.
e Y
,
dI
.
.g3 REPORT DETAILS
(
'
Section II Prepared by R. E. Shewmaker Senior Structural Engineer, Reactor Technical Assistance Branch, IE:HQ The material contained in these Details applies to both Un1ts 1 and ~2,
~
unless specifically identified with a single unit.
1.
Individuals Contacted Consumers Power Company K. D. Bettke, QA Engineer
.
.
Bechtel Association R. L. Castleberry, Project Engineer J. L. Hurley, Assistant Project Engineer J. C. Rink, Assistant Project Engineer
-
C. V. Newton, Senior QA Engineer R. P. Narang, Civil-Structural Engineering Supervisor W. F. Holub, QA Engineer
'
/~'N (_-)
J. C. Arora, Civil-Structural Group Leader for Aux. Bldg.
T. R. Thiruvengadam, Civil-Structural Group Leader for
-
Contain. Bldg.
P. V. Regupathy, Civil-Structural Engineer on Aux. Bldg.
A. Almuti, Civil-Structural Engineer A. Boos, Field Engineering 2.
Purpose of Special Inspection The review of Nonconformance Reports submitted by the licensee under the ALAB-106 Order of March 26, 1973 revealed several items j
related to the reinforcing steel in several locations in reinforced
'
concrete structures.
Bechtel, the licensee's architect-engineer, had completed investigation and evaluation of the nonconforming
'
items and concluded that minor corrections were adequate or none r
were needed at all. The inspection was to ascertain whether the
!
conclusions and actions taken by Bechtel did in fact maintain the
'
margins associated with the original design criteria.
!
-8,
'
,
,
l,-
'-
,
i L/
,
,
.
O e
N-=
4.==
e,.re
,
'
.
3.
Conduct of the Inspection
/s
' I >)
The Bachtel resolution for each of the 16 Nonconformance Reports
'
\\-
were reviewed during discussions with design, quality assurance and field engineering personnel to determine whether the resolution was acceptable.
Each of the items was reviewed.
The comments on the items are listed below.
Items "a" through "o" related to the Aux. Bldg. and Item "p" to the containment.
a.
NCR C-18:
Examination of Bechtel drawings C-210 tad C-219 indicated that #11 bars had been required at 18" cecters along
.
a diagonal line and the fabricator's shop drawings supplied rebar for 18" ctrs. on the orthogonal.
The result was that 4-#11's were omitted in the steel shipment indication that all rebar shipped to the site for use in this area was placed.
The oversight occurred in the checking of shop drawings against the engineering drawings and the fact that at this
.,.
__
time rebar placement check-off by QA was completed from shop
-
-
- e-
-
-
drawings which were to have been approved.
Currently revisions are being made to the QA procedures related to rebar and concrete placement which-should-reduce nonconformances-
. _ _
..
-
... -
such aus this. Since in this case the rebar spacing was excessive and 4 pieces were missing, 8 pieces were added by drilling and grouting the rebar into place with a 3'
embedment. A double number was used to account for a shorter embedment.
This adequately addressed the north face of the wall.
The addition of 3-#11's 'in the south face corrected
/~'T 3 missing tebars. The discrepancy in concrete cover was
\\s_)
corrected by thickening the wall.
.
b.
NCR-158:
The missing horizontal dowels from the north and south walls were installed by drilling and grouting.
The vertical dowels in the G-line header were also drilled and grouted.
This adequately repaired the structure.
The cause of this missing rebar was not determined but was
-- -
apparently related to openings in walls.
c.
NCR-172:
Vertical #11 bars were noted as missing during a field inspection and repair of these~35 locations was accomplished by adding 35 drilled and grouted vertical dowels. The repair is acceptable.
The cause was rebar
,
displacement due to openings being relocated.
d.
NCR-260:
Some discrepancies in documenting this NCR were noted and the licensee agreed to revise and correct the NCR.
The technical adequacy of the repairs completed was examined-9.
'
,
.
..
n G
.
.
-
e
.m=e-me*-
.E'
i i
-
s APPENDIX B
c:)
-
.
1.
December 7, 1973, a Management Corrective Action Report (No. 3)
was issued based on a trend of liner plate installation problems.
j 2.
December 10, 1973, a Management Corrective Action Report (No. 4)
was issued based on a finding written against Field Inspection Manual Procedure G-2.
3.
February 5, 1974, a Management Corrective Action Report (No. 5)
was wirtten based upon a trend against a Cadweld material supplier.
4.
March 25, 1974, a trend was identified after a review of Bechtel Nonconformance Reports (C-26 and C-55) resulting in a full time Quality Control Engineer being assigned to the test lab.
-
-~
5.
June 20, 1974, a trend was identified on the subject of Nelson
-- '-
-^a
,
Studs and related documentation which resulted in the issuance of Managament Corrective Action Report (No. 7).
This was also
-
- --
--
-due to a.eview of a Bechtel Nonconformance-Report (No. - 119 ). - - - - - - - - -- - --
.
_
6.
October 2, 1974, a trend was identified during an audit of
__.
e
.
drawing control which resulted in a Management Corrective Action Report being written (No. 8).
.
7.
July 25, 1975, a trend was identified based upon a review of
-"
twenty-one Bechtel Nonconformance Reports written against a yj structural steel supplier.
8.
October 1, 1975, a trend was identified based on a review of a Bechtel Nonconformance Report (No. 338).
This resulted in a trip being made to a cement supplier for resolution.
9.
Nonember 18, 1975, a trend was identified based on a review of
-
six Bechtel nonconformance reports being written for low air content of concrete.
10.
March 8, 1976, a trend was identified and a discrepancy report was written against a pipe supplier based on a review of Bechtel Non-conformance Reports.
11.
March 17, 1976, a potential trend was explored on weld rod control.
This resulted in no trend being identified.
'
12.
April 21, 1976, a trend was performed on past rebar problems resulting in the issuance of Management Corrective Action Report (No. 12).
13.
April 23, 1976, a trend is currently being analyzed concerning a
.
supplier of miscellaneous metals. This also based on a review of Bechtel Generated Nonconformance Reports.
r\\
.
e e
.,.
--
__
_
.
.
.
'
and found to be acceptable.
The missing horizontal dowels-s were placed by' drilling and grouting.
It was not determined
.
why the horizontal reinforcing steel was omitted.
The repairs completed will return the structure to a condition which satisfies the original criteria.
'
e.
NCR-290:
This item involved the omission of 8-#11's at an opening and resulted from an engineering change being made which did not get incorporated into the shop drawings prior
.
to concrete placement.
Dowels were drilled and grouted in'to
-
place so that adequate lap length was provided for closure of the construction opening. This item was a Drawing Change Notice which was not integrated into all drawings before placement was completed.
The corrected situation will satisfy the original criteria for the structures.
f.
NCR-295:
Beam shear reinforcing was reduced by 50% from e wa-w....
-
design by the omission of double bundles of #6 ties at 9" ctrs. The beam was originally reinforced as a normal beam and reanalysis was completed using deep beam provision -
~
applicable to the section (2' x 8' nominal).
The reanalysis indicated the as built capacity satisfied the original design conditions.
The use of 2-#6's instead of 3-#8's and the lack of 4-#6's were anlayzed and the conclusion reached was that no repairs were needed.
The information and documentation review resolved this item satisfactorily.
-
IO)
The cause of this nonconformance is not known.
-
g.
NCR-296:
One #8 rebar was missing and the situation was corrected by drilling and grouting a #8 dowel in place.
No anlaysis needed in this case and the item is considered resolved since the embedment was more than adequate.
h.
NCR-226: Auxiliary reinforcing in the area of the pipe tunnel wall penetration in the form of double bundles of ties were not placed.
Instead single ties were placed, reducing the effective steel areas by 50%.
A total of 42 ties were omitted.
The cause was apparently due to detailing errors by the fabricator in preparing shop drawings from the engineering drawings.
The original design of the penetration area had been based on conservative hand computations using simplifying assumptions.
A reanalysis was performed modeling more exactly the actual case at hand.
On the basis of the STARDYN 3 analysis the existing as-built condition meets the original design conditions.
This item
-
is considered resolved.
.
- 10 -
.
n v
.
-
.
e e
.
,i.
NCR-396:
A total of 12-#8's were omitted from the area formed by the intersection of two orthogonal walls.
Normally Q
the duplication of the steel is not used since normal practice
'
is to carry steel in one wall and stop the other wall's vertical steel as that wall intersects the outer face of the orthogonal wall.
Consequently this omission was judged to have no detrimental ef fect on the structure.
This item is considered closed.
j '.
NCR-398:
A total of 20-#11 horizontal rebars were missing.
.
in 2 valls above Elevation 614' and correction was made by
.._.
using equivalent steel area by use of 40-#8's since the embedment length could not be achieved through the wall
-
thickness for #11 bars.
Corrections were made by drilling and grouting bars into place.
This rework brings the structure back to the condition cs originally designed.
Cause was not determined.
This nonconformance is considered resolved.
k.
NCR-135:
Reinforcing steel was located too far inside outer concrete surfaces to comply with rebar placement tolerances'
~ - -
'
~
in a well section.
A review of the design indicated the
'
design concept was based on a shear wall system so that the
--
-
--i
'
location was not critical.
It would only be critical if the wall were designed to resist loads as flexural member.
This r_
-- '
item is considered resolved.
)
,1.
NRC-168:
Six vertical #11's were mislocated in a doorway to be built above. The corrective action was to drill and grout
'
3-fil's on each side of the opening.
This was completed and should have no adverse effect on the structure.
This item is considered resolved.
-
m.
NCR-254:
This item involved 14-#11's and there was no rework required for the same reasons as item k above.
n.
NCR-256:
A dowel was cut near a wall penetration and had insufficient length remaining to complete a field bend of 180 hook.
Repair consisted of a bent dowel drilled and grouted into place.
This item is resolved.
o.
NCR-258:
Three #9 bars were short and had short embedment lengths.
A review of the resulting stresses in this auxiliary rebar indicated to the licensee that no repairs were needed.
A review of the reduced embedment shows the structure is unaffected by this reduction.
This item is resolved.
,
- 11 -
-
.
C
.
v
.
.
.
r!
--
-.
.
.
-
.
p.
NCR-276:
In.the haunch'of the reactor cont.ainment building there were 8-#11's which had portions of the embedment cut
'
O short as a result of wall penetrations.
An evaluation based
.
on the redundancy of reinforcing steel in this area of the containment indicated that the original criterial could still be met.
This item is resolved.
4.
General Comments A review was made of the technical aspects of the drilling and grouting of reinforcing steel which was utilized to correct several of these nonconformances. This included a r uieu of the diameter of holes versus rebar diameter and the length of embedment to develop the ultimate strength of the reinforcing steel. Embeco 636 grout used in this repair work has common usage for this purpose and is acceptable.
.
5.
Summary
.
A review of the cor ection actions taken by the licensee on the nonconformances listed indicated that.the structurec involved will...
.... __
still satisfy the leading criteria specified h the SAR and that the function of these structures will be maintained during all design conditions.
Attachments:
Appendicies A and B U
.
.
S
~
'
12 -
-
.
.
v
-
.
1 <
-
-
t
-........p..
,
.
a APPENDIX A
,
(
\\~,))
~
Issue Implementing Procedure I
No.
Commitment Summary Number Revision Section
Changes af ter construction is complete PSP G-3.2
3.5 will be accomplished or a Field Change Request initiated.
FIG 25
All
_
,
Engineering will have procedures to:
MED 4.46-0
2.8 a) Require the status of construction MED 4.47-0
2.1 i
be determined prior to changing
-
desigo.
MED 4.49-0
2.12
'
b) Define controls when construction MED 4.49-1
2.1 is f==inent.
,, _,
FE's will prepare a list of drawings FIC-11
All for concrete placement.
QCE's shall prepare a list indepen-QCI C-1.20
-Gen Instr dently.
No. 3
,
l
If during preparation of these lists, FIC-11
All a lack of references is found, this will be documented by Field Change QCI C-1.20
Gen Instr Requests.
No. 4
,
Engineering will include adequacy MED 4.34-0
2.7 of references and drawing clarity b&c as part of the chief engineer's design review procedures.
Bechtel has a procedure for feed-MED 4.65-0
2.1 back to determine if Field Change Requests indicate that Bechtel should revise its system for pro-viding references.
,
l
~
.
e (b
.
,
.
s e
f
- -- me e
__
_
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
l
.
APPENDIX A
(Cont)
,
l Issue Implementing Procedure No.
Commitment Summary Number Revision Section
Project Engineering will review and FIC-9
All.
approve fabrication drawings used by FIC-10
All
-
field forces for installation and FPG-14
All inspection of rebar.
Bechtel will prepare a list and
.
Ltr BCCC-1839 N/A All description of field sketches relating to rebar and determine whether Project
-
Engineering or Field Engineering should be responsible for review and approval.
- -
QC may use fabrication drawings for QCI 1.20
Gen Instr rebar inspection since they are No. 5 Project Engineering approved but may only use field sketches if Project Engineering has approved them.
Project Engineering will review and EDPI 5.16.1
All approve fabrication drawings used by EDPI 2.14.1
All field forces for installation and
.
inspection of rebar placements.
%
Quality Control shall obtain its PSIC-1.1
6.2 documented interpretations and FIG-27
All
,
clarifications from Project Eng,i-neering rather than Field Engi-neering.
Bechtel will provide mechanisms for PSPG-3.2
recording that which is acceptable QCI C-1.20
Gen Instr and that which is unacceptable..
Nos. 6 & 7 CP Midland
5.1 Proc. M-7
>
.
.
v
-
-
t
-
-
1p
.
.
.
- -
.
. _ _.
-
_ -.
.
. -.
--.--
_
.
.-
'
.
.
'
.
APPENDIX A
,,
(Cont)
-
s Issue Implementing Procedure No.
Commitment Summary Number Revision Section
Assignment of responsibility to PSPG-6.1
.
8.7 individual QCE's.
~
,
Bechtel will review the design-FIG-26
All-related responsibilities of Field Engineers.
'
FIM Procedure G-3, Taragraph 4.10 PSPG-3.2
5,0 will be modified to add QC respons-ibility for corrective action to
--
---
-
'~~
preclude repetition of errors made by QC personnel.
.
()
MED Manager of Engineering Directive
=
EDPI Engineering Department Project Instruction
=
PSP Project Special Provisions
=
FIG Field Inspection General
=
FIC Field Inspection Civil
=
FIM Field Inspection Manual
=
QCI QC Inspection
=
FPG Field Procedures General
=
FE Field Engineer
=
QCE QC Engineer
=
J
.
.
.
.
.e
-
.
-
,
.
.
&
. _. -.
-
-
e