ML20041G280

Responds to Re Constituent Allegations of Defective Piping at Facility.Any Weld Defect in Piping Would Have Been Repaired Prior to Burial of Pipe.Welds in copper- Nickel Piping Installed in Svc Water Sys Were Tested

ML20041G280
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	01/29/1982
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Downey T HOUSE OF REP.
Shared Package
ML20041G281	List: ML20041G280 ML20041G283
References
REF-SSINS-3350 NUDOCS 8203190502
Download: ML20041G280 (1)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:, 2, b Eo ; - r i 33450 L -f x JAN 29 1982 g I'A ,D 1 Wh D'/ ,,,2 o, 'V ld The Honorable Thomas J. Downey "O 3 L'nited States House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515 Ta " 7 t- [g b -3 Lj ' "q m ' ;

Dear Congressman Downey:

4 /g the NRC inves No' h N [ \\ c In reply to your letter of October 14, 1981, g allegations of defective piping at the Long Island Lighting Company Shoreham Nuclear Power Station which were brought to your attention by a constituent. Our investigators interviewed the constituent who stated that during 1978 he saw two cracked welds in the copper-nickel piping associated with the service water system installed at the Shoreham facility and that he was concerned that the cracked welds may not have been repaired prior to the piping being covered over with soil and buried. The investigators determined that the welds in copper-nickel piping installed in the service water system were subjected to multiple quality tests and inspections to detect any defective welds. Additionally, a successful hydrostatic testing of the system was completed prior to the piping being insulated, encased in concrete and covered over with soil. Consequently, there is reasonable assurance that any weld defects such as described by the constituent, would have been repaired prior to burial of the pipe. The details of the investigation are in the enclosed report number 50-322/81-21. If you or your constituent have any questions about this, please do not hesitate to contact me. I am pleased that we could be of service to you on this matter. Sincerely, (Signed) William L Dircks William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

as stated bcc:SECY CA H. Denton, NRR L. Underwood, MPA R. C. DeYoung, IE J. H. Sniezek, IE L. I. Cobb, IE T. Rehm, EPO g R. Fortuna, IE

11. J. Dircks, ED0 iy W. J. Ward, IE Beth Matosko

>l 7g R. Haynes, RI h ,4 ED0 10987 4 IB:FFMk D: 16

IE D:

IB:FFMS / e /'t/; RAFortun LI Sniezek e ung @ d ks WJWard/ 01/J('/82 01/ &/82 01 82 01/6/82 (1/ /82 01/22/82 y 7 J^f E AAtarfrP$Ma fvt. $r C/w&wncycer.c 1 8203190502 820129 PDR ADOCK 05000322

. p S"'Ou UNITED STATES r y \\ NUCLEAR REiGULATORY COMMISSION f' r Q: S REGloN I 3 h c.3%j sat PAnn AVENUE e$? / KING OF PRUS$s A. PENNSYLVANI A 19404 JAN 141982 Docket No. 50-322 Long Island Lighting Comp'any ATTN: Mr. M. S. Pollock Vice President - Nuclear 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, NY 11801 Gentlemen:

Subject:

Investigation Report No. 50-322/81-21 This refers to the investigation conducted by Investigator R. Shepherd of this office on October 23, 26-30; November 7, 9-13, 16-20, 30; December 1, 9-11, 14-15 and 21, 1981 at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Shoreham, New York, and elsewhere of allegations regarding defective welds in the service water system piping installed during construction activities authorized by NRC License No. CPPR-95. Areas examined during this investigation are described in the Office of Inspection and Enforcement Investication Report which is enclosed with this letter. Within these areas, the investigation consisted of selective examinations of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the investigator. Within the scope of this investigation, no items of noncompliance were observed. An advanced copy of the enclosed investigation report was reviewed for proprietary information by Mr. T. F. Gerecke of your staff at the LILCO Corporate Office on January 7, 1982. He concluded that the investigation report contained no information that you considered proprietary; therefore a copy of this letter and its enclosure are ceing placed in the NRC's Public Document Room. No reply to this letter is required. Your cooperation with us in this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, /. O r.) )t f, /e ,3 s.,' L .c Richard W. Starcstecki, Director Division of Resident and Project Inspection

Enclosure:

Office of Inspection and Enforcement Investigation Report Number 50-322/31-21 Y $-W ONS f

Long Island Lightirg Ccmoany 2 1 cc w/ enc 1: B. R. McCaffrey, Manager Shoreham Project Engineering Edward M. Barrett, Esq. Jeffrey L. Futter, Esq. T. F. Gerecke, Manager, CA Department Public Document Roca (POR) Local Public Document Room (LPOR) Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC) NRC Resident Inspector State of New York bcc w/ encl: Region I Docket Room (with concurrences) NRC Resident Inspector L. Narrow, Region I Chief, Operational Support Section (w/o encl) k

e o U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Region I Report No. 50-322/81-21 Docket No. 50-322 License No. CPPR-95 Priority Category B Licensee: Long Island Lighting Comoany 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Facility Name: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Investigation At: King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; West Islip and Shoreham, New York Investigation Conducted: October 23, 26-30; November 7, 9-13, 16-20, 30; December 1, 9-11, 14-15 and 21, 1981 b / ' 7-fl Investigators: a R. E. Shepne'r Investigator date signed rad u lL m ihh z J.,C. Hi ins, Senior Resident Inspector date' signed ~ -)'.. { -hh If7f8 b S D. Rey 6dld Jr., Reactor Inspe:.or date signed [ I!8!B2 Approved Sy-R. M. Gallo, Chief, Reactor Projects Section d&te' signed 1A, ORPI I dfd L l R. T. Carlson, Director, Enforcement and date signed ~ l Investigation Staff l Investication Summary: Investigation on October 23, 26-30: November 7. 9-13, 16-20, 30; December 1, 9-11, 14-15 and 21, 1981 (Recort No. 50-322/81-21) l Areas Investigated: Allegations by an individual, who requested to remain j anonymous, that during 1978 two cracked welds existed in the copper-nickel l Service Water (SW) piping and may not have been repaired prior to the l piping being encased in concrete and covered with backfill. l b fC -Y FCI 2 S C39y' ~

~ s 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS I.

SUMMARY

II. PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION III. BACKGROUND A. Source of Information B. Identification of Involved Organizations IV. DETAILS A. Scope of Investigation B. Interviews of Individual A C. Description of Piping System D. Service Water Piping Installation E. Review of Records and Documents F-0. Persons Interviewed During the NRC Investigation V. STATUS VI. EXHIBITS l l l l l { l l l i

i I

SUMMARY

This investigation was initiated as a result of information provided by an individual requesting to remain anonymous, henceforth identified as Individual A, concerning two cracked welds which allegedly existed in the 20 inch diameter l copper-nickel Service Water (SW) piping system sometime between July and September 1978. Individual A said that he didn't know whether or not the cracked welds were repaired but said that the piping was covered over with a sandy-type soll within severai days after he had seen the cracked welds. Interviews with licensee and contractor personnel, tours of the areas where the Service Water supply headers are installed, and a review of pertinent records and documents associated with the Service Water system piping established that any cracked welds in the 20-inch diameter copper-nickel-supply headers would have been repaired prior to being insulated, encased in concrete, and covered with backfill. Weld defects were encountered during the Service Water system piping installation. Defects detected i visually or through liquid dye penetrant ex: '1ation were documented and corrected in accordance with Quality Assurar.:e Program requirements during the period November 1977 through November 1978. A review of welding records indicates that the system welds and repairs meet the ASME Code Section III Class 3 requirements. In addition, the system piping was visually inspected during successful ASME Code Section III hydrostatic tests. II PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION The purpose of this investigation was to identify the copper-nickel piping system which Individual A described as having two cracked welds and to determine if the licensee's construction and quality assurance programs included adequate provisions to identify and correct as necessary any defects in the piping prior to the licensee's acceptance of the system in which it was installed. III BACKGROUND A. Source of Information By letter dated October 14, 1981, Congressman Thomas J. Downey, 2nd District, New York, informed NRC Chairman Nunzio J. Palladino that a constituent, who wishes to remain anonymous, brought to Congressman Downey's attention allegations regarding defective piping at the Long Island Lighting Company Shoreham Nuclear Pcwer Station. This matter was referred to NRC Region I for investigation on October 22, 1981. l On October 23, 1981, an investigation was initiated by Region I. In accordance with Congressman Downey's letter, arrangements were made through Congressman Downey's office in West Islip, New York, for placing NRC Region I representatives in contact with Individual A.

~ s 4 4 h B. Identification of Involved Oroanizations 1. LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (LILCO) 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 An electric utility licensed by the NRC to construct a nuclear i power plant under NRC Construction Permit No. CPPR-95. (Docket Number 50-322) 2. STONE AND WESSTER ENGINEERING COMPANY (S&W) 245 Sommer Street P. O. Box 2325 Boston, Massachusetts 02107 A company contracted by the licensee to perform various construction management activities at the Shoreham site. 3. DRAVO CORPORATION (DRAVO) Neville Island Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15225 A company contracted by the licensee to perform various construction activities at the Shoreham site. 4. COURTER & COMPANY (C&C) 317 West 13th Street New York, New York 10014 A company contracted by the licensee to perform various construction activities at the Shoreham site. j 5. UNICO CONSTRUCTICN ORGANIZATION (UNICO) c/o Long Island Lighting Company P. O. Box 604 Wading River, New York 11961 A construction organization, consisting of personnel primarily from Long Island Lighting Company and Stone and Webster Engineering Company, organized to administer the construction of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. I i 6. ROBERT A. KEASBY CCMPANY 71 West 23rd Street New York, New York 10010 A company contracted by the licensee to perform various construction activities at the Shoreham site. l l l

~ 5 7. The HARTFORD STEAM E0ILER INSPECTION AND INSURANCE COMPANY One Financial Plaza Hartford, Connecticut 06103 A company contracted by the licensee to perform various inspection activities at the Shoreham site. IV DETAILS A. Scope of Investigation The investigation included interviews with Individual A and with licensee and contractor personnel who were directly involved with the installation, inspection, and testing of the subject piping. The investigation also included tours of the areas where the subject piping is installed and a review of pertinent records and documents maintained at the Shoreham facility and at the NRC Region I office. B. Interviews of Individual A 1. On October 27, 1931, Individual A furnished the following information during a telephone discussion with NRC Region I representatives S. D. Reynolds, Jr., and R. E. Shepherd. He said that sometime during the warm months of 1978, possibly June or July, he noted that each of two separate lengths of copper-nickel piping, which had been positioned on tne ground, had one cracked weld. He described the piping as being about 2h feet in diameter and the welds, which were cracked, were circumferential welds. He said that the above piping is used to cool off the reactor. He said that the day after he saw the cracked welo in one of the lengths 2 wire of piping, "they" had covered up the pipe, started welding mesh onto it to hold the concrete when it is poured, and then put sand on it and tamped down the sand. He said that he did not know whether or not the cracked welds were repaired prior to being covered with sand and concrete. 2. On November 7, 1991, Individual A was interviewed at Congressman Downey's District Office, West Islip, New York, by R. E. Shepherd. Individual A provided additional information (hand-drawn sketch) (see Exhibit 1) which enabled the investigators to identify the piping described above as the 20-inch diameter c.opper-nickel piping purchased for installation in the Service Water supply headers between the Screenwell Building and Reactor Building. The areas drawn on the sketch by Individual A were annetated by the Investigator, based on information proviced by Individual A, to indicate the locations of the 2 cracked welds which he saw and described during the interview with him on November 7, 1981. Several notations made by the Investigator on the hand-drawn sketch were deleted from Exhibit 1 to protect Individual A's icentity. 1 See Investicator's Note, paragraph B.12 s

.. = 6 3. With regard to the first cracked weld which he saw, Individual A said that he saw it sometime between July and September 1978. It was in a length of piping measuring about 85 to 100 feet long and about 2 feet in diameter. He said that he knew that it was copper-nickel piping by reason of the conversations which he had with people employed at the Shoreham facility..There were about-6 or 7 circumferential welds in the above length of piping, " spaced about 4 or 5 feet apart."1 The width of the bead on each-weld was between 1 inch and ih inches. The cracked part of the weld was on the bottom part of the piping and it appeared to him that the piping was cracked half way through, from the bottom up to the center. The piping was positioned on a level surface of the ground which was covered with fine sand. He said that he could see light through the crack in the piping from a distance of about 45 to 50 feet which was the nearest distance 2 that he was from the piping when he saw the crack. He said that the day after he saw the above cracked weld, he noted that the piping was covered over with a porous or sandy-type soil which had been tamped down. He also noted that "they" were laying a length of copper-nickel piping, of the same diameter, on top of' the length of piping in which he had seen the cracked weld on the previous day. Individual A said that he does not know if the cracked weld was repaired and that, based on his discussions with people employed at the Shoreham facility, the crack in the weld could not have been repaired " overnight." 4. With regard to the second cracked weld which he saw, Individual A said that he saw it 11 days after he saw the first one. He said that the second crack was also on the bottom part of the weld and was situated near an "L" joint connecting the length of piping, which had the cracked weld, with another length of piping that traverses in an eastward direction and eventually runs in a southward direction into the Reactor Building (see Exhibit 1). He said that he could see light through the crack in the piping l from a distance of about 45 feet which was the nearest distance that he was frcm the piping when he saw the crack. Individual A l said that 3 days after he saw the second cracked weld, which was not cracked as much as the first one, he noted that the piping was covered with sand that was tamped down. He said that he did not know if the above crack was or wasn't repaired, before it was covered over with saad. l 5. According to Individual A, a licensee representative, whose last i name he could not recall, was aware of the two cracked welds l mentiered above and had indicated that they would be "taken care of." Individual A also said that possibly sometime within three months after seeino the two cracked welds in the copper-nickel piping, he noted that the piping was covered over with concrete. l 1 See Investigator's flote, paragraph B.15 2 See investigator's Note, paragraph B.9 l3 See Investicator's Note, paragraph B.13 l l \\

7 6. Investigator's Note: Individual A furnished additional details concerning the circumstances under which he was able to observe the two alleged cracked welds described above. Those additional details are not included in this report for the sole purpose of allowing Individual A to remain anonymous. 7. Investigator's Note: On November 30, 1981, NRC Investigator R. E. Shepherd telepnonically contacted Individual A and read to him the informati,n which he had provided on October 27 and November 7, 1981, as stated above, to assure that the'above information was being accurately reported by the investigator. Individual A verified the accuracy of the information as reported above. 8. On December 10, 1981, Individual A furnished the following additional information during a telephone discussion with NRC Region I representatives J. C. Higgins and R. E. Shepherd. With regard to the first cracked weld which Individual A saw, as discussed in paragraph B.3 above, he said that the section of piping which had the cracked weld was about 80 feet long and that there was a flange on it "with bolts in it temporarily." He said that a plank had been put on the ground, under the section of piping, to mark the location where the crack was situated. 9. Investigator's Note: With regard to the statement made by Individual A on November 7, 1981, as discussed in paragraph B.3, he initially said that he could see light through the crack in the piping from a distance of about 45 to 50 feet which was the nearest distance that he was from the piping when he saw the crack. During the December 10, 1931 telephone discussion with Individual A, he clarified the foregoing statement by saying that, later on, during the same day that he observed the above cracked weld, he l walked over to the above section of piping and cbserved the I cracked weld from a distance of about 6 feet. However, as noted later in paragraph B.16, Individual A again clarified the foregoing statements on December 21, 1981 when he informed the investigator that the nearest distance that he was from the 2 sections of piping containing the cracked welds was about 45 feet. l l 10. During the December 10, 1981 telephone discussion with Individual A, he said that when he observed the cracked weld from a distance of about 6 feet, the crack appeared to be closed up as a result l of the piping being positioned on top the plank which had been placed under it to mark the location where the crack was situated. He said that the above length of piping was positioned in a ditch which he described as being a small impression in the ground that apparently had been shoveled out to keep the piping from rolling from its position on the ground. He said that the day after he saw the first cracked weld in the copper-nickel piping, as discussed in paragraph B.3, he noted that the area, where the piping was situated when he saw the crack, was covered over with soil that l l

~. 8 was being tamped down and that another length of piping was being welded onto the section containing the cracked weld. 11. Investigator's Note: During the December 10 telephone discussion with Individual A, he clarified the foregoing statement by saying that it was not the following day, but "by the end of the week" that the soil was tamped down in the area where the above length of piping was situated. He also said that the section of piping that had the cracked weld was buried such that he could not see it. 12. Investigator's Note: h.th regard to the October 27, 1981 statement made by Individual A, as discussed in paragraph B.1, he initially said that the day after he saw the cracked weld in one of the lengths of piping, "they" had covered up the pipe, started welding wire mesh onto it to hold the concrete when it is poured, and then put sand on it and tamped down the sand. During the December 10, 1981 telephone discussion with Individual A, he clarified the foregoing statement by saying that the wire mesh was not welded onto the piping but was put on top of the sand which covered the piping and which was tamped and watered down. He said that "they" watered and tamped down several layers of sand and then put the wire mesh down to hold the concrete. 13. Investigator's Note: With regard to the November 7, 1981 statement made by Individual A, as discussed in paragraph B.3, he initially said that "they" were laying a length of copper-nickel piping, of the same diameter, on top of the length of piping in which he had seen the cracked weld on the previous day. During the December 10, 1981 telephone discussion with Individual A, he clarified the foregoing statement by saying that the other length of piping was laid along side, not on top of, the length of piping in which he had seen the cracked weld. He said that the space between the two lengths of piping could have been 2 or 3 feet. 14. On December 21, 1981, Individual A was interviewed at Congressman Downey's District Office, West Islip, New York by R. E. Shepherd. Individual A was shown an architectural drawing of the service water (SW) piping yard of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (see Exhibit 2). Individual A indicated on a copy of the applicable portion of that drawing (See Exhibit 3) the two locasions in the 20-inch copper nickel piping runs where he reportedly cbserved a crack in each of two lengths of piping associated with the SW system. The areas marked off on the drawing were annotat'd by the investigator, based on information provided by Individsal A, to indicate the locations of the two cracked welds which he saw and described during previous contacts with him. 15. Investigator's Note: With regard to the November 7, 1981 statements made by Indivicual A, as ciscussed in paragraph B.3, he initialiy

9 said that the first cracked weld which he saw was in a length of piping measuring about 85 to 100 feet long and that there were about six or seven circumferential welds in the above length of piping, " spaced about 4 or 5 feet apart." During the December 21, 1981 interview of Individual A, he clarified the foregoing statements by saying that the above length of piping was about 55 feet long, rather than 85 to 100 feet long, and that there were "more like six welds" in the above length of piping, spaced from 4 to 15 feet apart. 16. During the December 21, 1981 interview of Individual A, he said that the day after he saw the first cracked weld, as discussed in paragraph B.3, he did not see that section of piping containing the cracked weld because the area, where he saw the piping on the ground on the previous day, was all covered over with sand such that he did not see the piping at all. With regard to the second 1 cracked weld which he saw 11 days later, as discussed in paragraph B.4, he said that the. length of piping containing the cracked weld was about 45 feet long and was positioned on a metal cradle on a " roughly flat surface" on the ground such that it was parallel to and spaced no more than 2 feet away from the area where the section of piping containing the first cracked weld was positioned before that area was covered over with sand. He said that he saw the second cracked weld on a Friday and that on the following Monday he did not see the section of piping containing the second cracked weld, nor did he see the metal cradle on it which was positioned, because the area where he saw the piping and cradle had been filled in with sand that had been tamped down. He said that the nearest distance that he was when he observed the cracks in the two sections of the copper-nickel piping described above was about 45 feet and that he did not walk over to either of the two sections of piping to examine the cracks more closely. C. Description of Pipina System As described in the Shoreham FSAR Section 9.2.1, the Service Water system, during normal operation, is designed to provide cooling water to the secondary side of the reacter building closed loop cooling water heat exchangers, the drywell cooling booster heat exchangers, the secondary side of the turbine building closed loop cooling water 1 heat exchangers, the reactor building standby ventilation system and control room air conditioning chilled water condensers, and to the main chilled water condensers. The Service Water system is also designed to provide cooling water to the residual heat removal (RHR) heat exchangers, to dissipate reactor decay heat during a scheduled shutdown or accident conditions. The system also provides cooling water to the diesel engine coolers, emergency makeup water to the spent fuel pool, and emergency cooling water to the ultimate cooling connection.

10 With the exception of the branches supplying cooling water to the Turbine Building and to the main chilled water condensers, the Service Water system is a safety related system and is ASME III Code Class 3 and Seismic Category I. The Service Water pumps are located in the Screenwell Building on Long Island Sound and two supply headers run southward from the Screenwell Building for several hundred feet before entering the Diesel Generator Rooms in the Control Building and Reactor Building. The two 20-inch i diameter copper-nickel supply headers run parallel to each other and are encased in concrete and backfilled. The list section of piping prior to entering the Reactor Building is in an underground vault and is accessible. O. Service Water pioino Installation The following information regarding the installation of the Service Water piping was obtained through interviews with licensee and contractor personnel, which are discussed in detail in paragraph IV.F through 0; a review of records and documents identified in paragraph IV.E; and an onsite inspection of accessible portions of the Service Water System. Based on these sources the investigators identified the pertinent construction activities relative to the installation of the 20-inch diameter Service Water supply headers. Prior to installing any service water piping, all ground in the area was compacted and graded. Then, in preparation for laying the SW piping, a trench was made and a rough concrete base was placed on the bottom. Temporary pipe supports or cradles were then installed. The piping was placed in these supports in sections ranging from a few feet to about 40 feet long. The piping thus was supported about 2 feet above the concrete base. Each section or spool piece was welded to the previous one after being aligned. Initial piping installation occurred during the period November 1977 through July 1978. Each piping section and each weld was inspected by Quality Control personnel. The investigator reviewed selected Service Water system piping weld data packages for conformance with ASME Code Section III Class 3 requirements. During the welding and inspection process, typical installation discrepancies were identified with the copper-nickel piping including liquid dye penetrant linear indications and visual i observation of gouges, dents, arc strikes, handling damage and inccmplete i weld root penetration. Discrepancies were documented on Quality Control reports and corrected over a time period extending from November 1977 through November 1978. The final walkdown inspection of the piping and welds was then performed and discrepancies were verified as having been corrected. Thereafter the final piping hydrostatic test was performed. =.

i . ~ 11 In accordance with the ASME Code Section III, the system hydrostatic test consisted of two phases. In the first phase the ability of the system to maintain pressure for the time period prescribed by the ASME Code was demonstrated. For the Service Water system, the test pressure was 157.psig, which is 125% of the system maximum design pressure and 2.3 times the normal operating pressure. The second phase of the hydrostatic test was a visual inspection for weld leakage, with the piping held at 75% of test pressure or design pressure, whichever is greater. Hydrostatic test documentation packages (see Exhibit 4) indicate that the 20 inch diameter Service Water supply header piping successfully passed both phases of the test. This test was witnessed and accepted by LILCO construction, contractor (Courter & Company) Quality Control, LILCO Quality Assurance and the Hartford Steam Boiler Authorized Nuclear Inspector. After comp 1' tion of the hydrostatic tests the piping was insulated and e then, from December 1978 through March 1979, the piping was encased in concrete and the trench was backfilled with soil and compacted. In July 1981, the Service Water piping system was accepted by the start-up group for preoperational testing. The system is being utilized in preoperational testing at pressures up to 100 psig. By letters to the NRC dated November 16, 1977, February 24, 1978 and July 6, 1978, the licensee reported to the NRC, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e), one construction deficiency report relative to the installation of the copper-nickel Service Water piping. The deficiency reported was the lack of full weld root penetration. Corrective action for this deficiency included revision of the welding procedure used and visual inspection of the inside diameter of all previously completed field welds. Where it was impossible to inspect the inside diameter of the welds, sections of the piping were replaced. Discrepancies were documented on Quality Control reports and corrected. NRC inspectors reviewed these corrective actions and identified no further deficiencies. Their findings are reported in Inspection Reports 50-322/77-23 and 79-03. E. Review of Records and Documents The investigators reviewed the following records and documents relative to the 20-inch diameter Service Water supply headers. Piping Isometric Crawings for Service Water System, Nos: IC-444, 445, 448, 449, 551, 552. Selected Weld Data Packages: Isometric Drawino Field Welds 445 2, 3 448 7,8,9

~ ~ 12 Piping Layout Drawing, Service Water, Nos. FP-33A-6 FP-338-5 FP-33C-6C FP-33D-48 FM-47A-10 Shoreham FSAR Section 9.2.1. Service Water System Pressure Test Reports, Nos: P41-PT-12; P41-PT-13; P41-PT-14; P41-PT-15 original and R-1; and P41-PT-17 original and R-1. Specification for Field Fabrication and Erection of Piping, SH1-056, Revision 3. Pressure Test Specification, SH1-412 with Addenda 1 and 2. Letters from LILCO to NRC dated November 16, 1977; February 24, 1978 and July 6, 1978 relative to a construction deficiency report. Courter & Company, Inc. Quality Control Inspection Reports (QCIR's): QCIR's dated August 3, 1978 on Pressure Test P41-13 August 4, 1978 on Pressure Test P41-12 & P41-13 September 8, 1978 on Pressure Test P41-13 November 1, 1978 on Pressure Test P41-14 November 3, 1978 on Pressure Test P41-14, Three Reports April 13, 1978 on spool piece inspection for shipment #150 Courter & Company, Inc. Nonconformance Reports (NR): NR No. 14 138 269 288 14A 165 271 292 148 191 280 294 32 227 281 301 32A 228 285 325 64 244 286 351 108 249 287 381 Stone & Webster Engineering & Design Coordination Reports: Nos. F1857A F143268 F6809A F14388 F7573P F14477 F7663P F14649 F10220B F14736 F11570C F15386A FI3344 F16093

7 ~ 13 Courter & Company, Inc. Deficiency Correction Orders (DCO): OC0 Nos. 0124 0624 0405 0653 0407 0654 0494 0691 0563 0692 0591 0729 0623 0756

0879, NRCInspectionReportNumber):

. i 50-322/77-22 througn 50-322/77-24 50-322/73-01 through 50-322/78-17 'Q 50-322/79-01 through 50-322/79-03 ( \\ g \\' s \\ . \\ s s. \\ w s e s 1 .s I \\ 1 4 \\ s 1

~. 14 i F. In_terview of Gerard Cocuz:o, Authorized Nuclear Inspector The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company by NRC Investioator R. E. Shecherd on December 11, 1981 Mr. Cocuzzo said that the copper-nickel piping in the service water system was not covered with sand after it was installed in the trench, but it was covered with insulation and encased in concrete after being inspected and hydrostatically tested. He described the trench, in which the pipirg was installed, as being at least 10 feet wide and varying in depth from about 6 to 8 feet. He made the following additional i comments regarding the above piping installation. The 20 inch diameter piping sections were welded together in two separate runs, spaced about two feet apart, within the trench. He said that the bottom of the trench consists of a level cuncrete slab and the piping is held off the slab "by a good foot" by means of clamp hangers. Anchor bolts are imbedded in the concrete slab for holding the clamp hangers. During the fit-up and welding of the piping sections in the trench there may have been times when there was dunnage or wooden blocks placed under the piping as temporary supports for holding the piping in place until the permanent hangers were installed. During the act of installing the piping in the trench, there were plywood supports on the sides of the trench to keep sand from falling into the trench. Mr. Cocu :o did not know if the above plywood supports were also used ] to make the forms for the concrete encasement around the piping. He said that he dio not know of any instance where any of the piping was covered with sand prior to or during the hydrostatic testing or during inspections of the piping installation. He said that his involvement in the piping installation was strictly to see that it was installed and tested in accordance with Courter & Company's (C&C) Quality Assurance (QA) program and Section III of the ASME Code, 1971 Edition, up to and including the Winter 1972 Addenda. He said that he was personally l involved in the fit-up inspections; also in process inspections during i ( which he witnessed welding ocerations being performed; and post-weld l Inspections of the service water piping system. He said that, during the hydrostatic tests which he witnessed, he inspected all welds, 360 degrees around, during which time all of the piping within the pressure test boundary was 100 percent visible for inspection. Prior to the hydrostatic tests, all field welds in the 20-inch and 10-inch diameter copper-nickel piping were given a liquid penetrant examination by C&C Quality Control personnel and, on occasion, those examinations were witnessed by himself or by other Authorized Nuclear Inspectors (ANI's) employed by his company. He said that such witnessing of the liquid i i penetrant examinations by himself or other ANI's was done on a random selection basis but that 100 percent of the field welds were subjected to liquid penetrant examinations by the C&C QC Department. He said that the vendor welds were not included in such examinations because l they had previously been certified by the piping vendor as meeting p ASME Code requirements. He said that during the installation and welding of the sections of cooper-nickel piping, the ANI's conducted scheduled inspections and surveillance inspections of the installation l

7 - 15 i and welding to assure that these activities met the ASME Code requirements. i He said that he did not witness a.1y of the copper-nickel piping being lowered into the trench for installation but that he did witness several of the hydrostatic tests and that all such tests-were witnessed by himself or by other ANI's. He said that his function during the hydrostatic tests was to witness or observe the C&C construction personnel, who were performing the tests, and to witness the C&C Site Quality Assurance (SQA) personne! inspecting the piping under pressure. He said that there was usually a UNICO construction representative also witnessing the hydrostatic tests, and a C&C pressure test supervisor. He said that the minimum number of people who would be required to be present during a pressure test is three, namely the pressure test 4 supervisor, the SQA representative, and the ANI. He said that 100% of the piping being subjected to the pressure test is "line walked" by the SQA and the ANI while the piping is under pressure. He said that, once the piping was brought up to the specified test pressure, which is 125 percent of the design pressure, it was maintained at that pressure for a minimum of 10 minutes, after which the pressure was reduced to inspection' pressure which is 75 percent of.the test pressure or design pressure, whichever is greater. He said that the pressure was held at the inspection pressure for as long as it took to "line walk" and inspect the system, the duration of which depended on the-extent of the boundaries being hydrostatically tested and inspected. He said that, sometime after completion of the hydrostatic testing of a section of piping, the piping was covered with insulation, which appeared to him to be made of fiberglass material, and that the piping was later fully covered with concrete. He said-that after the piping i was encased in concrete, the top of the trench was covered with backfill, but he did not observe the backfilling operation. i l

4 16 G. Interview of John A. Carcanini. Technical Services Suoervisor Site Quality Assurance (SOA), Courter & Comoany, Inc., by NRC Investigator R. E. Shecherd on December 11, 1981 Mr. Carpanini said that during 1978 he was a Quality Control (QC) inspecter 2 with Courter & Company, Inc., (C&C) and that his primary area of concern was with the yard area involving the trenches in which the copper-nickel piping for the Service Water system was being installed. His job responsibilities at that time included being involved in everything from fit-ups of the piping to post weld inspections. Later on he was involved in the final installation inspection and hydrostatic test inspections of the service water system. He said that this included visual inspections of all welds, piping, and installation of the service water system from the Screenwell to the Reactor Building. He said that he did not conduct every inspection of the entire system but did perform at least 20 percent of the visual inspections of the piping system. He said that there is a concrete pad on the bottom of the trench in which the piping was installed and that there were temporary metal supports on the concrete pad, in a horseshoe shaped arrangement, for holding the piping approximately lh feet above the pad. He observed welding being performed on various sections of the piping and he inspected the field welds which were his primary concern, since the shop welds had already been completed and accepted. He said that he certainly would notice a crack in a shop weld if one existed during his inspections of the field welds and he said that there is no doubt in his mind about that. He said that his inspection responsibilities included looking for cracks or any other defects that would be detrimental to the Service Water system. He teid "we will not permit a hydro test if we cannot see the piping system, from top to bottom, that we are going-to inspect." He said that he never saw any piping covered with sand during a hydrostatic test but that there was one occasion, possibly during August 1978 or the folicwing Spring, when some sand was washed down by the rain into the trench and came within an inch or so of touching the bottom of the piping, or possibly did touch the bottom of a section of the piping which he said could have been 20 feet long. He said that the sand was cleared out before any hydrostatic testing or weld inspection took place on the piping under which the sand had accumulated. He said that this was the only instance that he could recall seeing an accumulation of sand under the piping system. He said that after completion of the hydrostatic testing of the piping, it was encased in insulation measuring two to three inches in thickness, and t this was followed by installation of reinforcement material for the concrete. The piping was then covered with concrete and the trench was backfilled with soil or sand after the concrete had set. Mr. Carpanini said that he could not express strongly enough how sure he is that any such cracks in the copper-nickel service water piping as described by Individual A, would have been identified by himself or other C&C SQA inscectors during the installation and hydrostatic testing of the piping system. He said that the piping was visible to inspection during tne hydrostatic tests and during all instaliation inspections prior to the nydrostatic tests. I ._m-

67 j 1 H. Interview of John F. Falson, Assistant Sucervisor/ Instrumentation Courter & Comoany, Inc., by NRC Investicator R. E. Shecherd on December 11, 1981 Mr. Falson said that his job title, during the period July through September 1978, was Assistant Area Supervisor with Courter & Company, Inc., (C&C) at the Shoreham facility and that he worked during the day shift. He said that he "did nut generally do field inspections in the trench" and that his main function involved design changes and obtaining material associated with the changes. He said that he has observed 20-inch diameter copper-nickel piping for the service water system being lowered into the trench for installation, by means of a cherry picker, and that the longest length of such piping that he raw being lowered into the trench was no longer than 20 feet. He said that, based on his experience, he knows of no instances where piping was purposely covered over with sand prior to or during hydrostatic testing or visual inspections of the piping by the C&C Construction representatives or the C&C Site Quality Assurance (SOA) representative or by the Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI) employed by Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company. He said tlat all three of the aforementioned individuals would be present during hydrostatic testing of the piping. Mr. ralson said that he participated in some of the hydrostatic tests by supervising the C&C craft people who performed the physical work associated with the tests. He said that he participated in the P41-PT-15-R-1 and P41-PT-17-R-1 tests which included the piping from the Screenwell to the Reactor Building and to the diesel generator rooms. He said that the above tests were re-tests and would have included the entire system in the yard area. He estimated that the above tests were performed in December 1980 and said that the sections of piping that were being checked during the tests were fully exposed. He said that he did not particioate in the original tests, which preceded the re-tests, but did witness some of them being performed, although not in an official capacity. He said that the above re-tests were performed "without problems." He said that even if a weld, whether cracked or not, was inadvertently covered over with sand blown onto it by the wind, the sand would have to be removed before a hydrostatic test or any other inspections of the piping could be performed. He said that he was not involved in the actual inspections of the welds and that he did not have any personal knowledge of sand blowing into the trench such that it covered any portion of a.'. ping section. He said that that the sand would have to be removed if such occurred. He describec the trench, in which the 20-inch copper-nickel piping was installed, as being about 6 feet deep and about 10 feet wide. He said that he believes that there was a concrete pad on the cottom of the trench but he does not recall if there was any material on top of the concrete pad. He saic that he was not involved in any rigging or lifting of the piping. He said that prior to the piping being lowered into the trench, tnere would be some type of dunnage or temporary support in the bottom of the trench to hold the piping in place and off the ground. He cescribed the Service Water system piping installation,

18 inspection and testing operations as follows: He said that after the piping is put in the trench, it is lined up for welding but, before the welding takes place, a material check is made to make sure that it is the correct piping and that it meets cleanliness " specs." He said that a pre-weld inspection is then performed by SQA, and possibly by the ANI. He said that, after completion of the weld, he believes that. the SQA and possibly the ANI, do an in process inspection, after which the piping would go through a series of post-weld inspections by SQA, and possibly by the 2NI. He said that "they" then would wait for completion of the service water system to do the hydrostatic testing but, prior to conducting such testing, the SQA would do a "line walk" inspection for any possible defects. He said that he believes that, after completion of the hydrostatic testing, but prior to C&C turning the system over to another contractor, the piping installation is. again "line walked" by SQA. Mr. Falson said that he believes that if there were any cracks in the copper-nickel piping, as described by Individual A, they would have been repaired or cut out and would have had to pass rigid inspection and testing before the piping could be incorporated in the Service Water system. Investicator's Note: The hydrostatic tests P41-PT-15-R-1 and P41-PT-17-R-1, wnich Mr. Falson participated in, were performed in December 1980 to test portions of the service water system consisting of less than 20-inch diameter copper nickel piping sections connected to the 20-inch diameter buried lines. The tests were not conducted to test the 20-inch diameter buried lines. Hcwever, during these tests a large portion of the service water system, including the 20-inch diameter buried lines, was pressurized in accordance with the test procedure, for testing convenience, even though the buried portions were not visually re-inspected for leaks. The hydrostatic tests were completed satisfactorily. I

- - ~ ' e 19 I. Interview of Robert Saraceni. Chief Pioing Suoervisor, Long Island Ligntino Comoany, by NRC Investigator R. E. Shecherd on December 10, 1981 Mr. Saraceni said that the Service Water (SW) system is the only system at the Shoreham facility which utilizes 20-inch diameter copper-nickel piping. He said that a section of the system also uses 10-inch diameter piping where the system connects with the Diesel Generator Rooms in the Control Building. With regard to the allegation by Individual A that he saw a cracked weld in a length of copper-nickel piping measuring about S5 to 100 feet long and about two feat in diameter, Mr. Saracini said that he does not beli2ve that they have a i truck that would be able to carry a length of piping that long. He said that he became involved in the SW system project around May 1978. He described the SW piping installation as follows: He said that they used " cherry pickers," equipped with slings, to lift the piping from a truck and to lower it into the trench where it was to be installed. The handling and installation of the piping was performed by the licensee contractor, Courter & Company, Inc.,(C&C). All piping that was to be installed was put into a trench, which measured about 10 to 12 feet wide. The bottom of the trench consisted of a concrete base and a cradle support or wooden blocks which were placed on the concrete to support the piping. He said that the welding of the sections of piping was performed in the trench and that all welds and weld repairs were subjected to liquid penetrant examinations. He said that he never heard of any crack in a circumferential weld that extended halfway around the piping as was described by Individual A. Also, the insulation and concrete encasement of the piping was done under the supervision of contractor foremen employed by Robert A. Keasby Company and Dravo Corporation, respectively. The final check on the SW piping system was performed by the C&C Site Quality Assurance (SQA) group and this occurred after the system had previously been accepted by the C&C SQA field inspectors. The hydrostatic testing of the piping system was performed by C6C personnel and was witnessed by the C&C SQA representative, C&C construction personnel, the Authori:ed Nuclear Inspector, employed by Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company, and by a UNICO representative. He said that after a section of piping was installed in the trench, the time could vary from months to close to a 3 year before it was hydrostatically tested, covered with insulation and encased in concrete. He said that the concrete encasement consists of 2 feet of concrete on the top, bottom and sides of tha piping, in square shaped form, such tnat it completely surrounds the piping and insulation. After the concrete had set, the forms for the concrete were removed and the trench was covered over with backfill which was tamped down. He said that the first section of the SW piping system that was encased in concrete was the section beginning at the Reactor Building and extending to a point somewhere just north of the junction where tne 10-inch diameter copper-nickel piping, which runs to the Diesel Generator Building, connects to the-20-inch diameter sections (see Exhibit 2). He said that the concrete encasement of that section ,n --c--

20 I was done in stages, over a period of about two to three weeks, around the fall of 1978 or later. He said that, under ideal conditions, it would be a minimum of at least six days from the time that a person could observe an exposed section of the copper nickel piping until it could be enca:ed in concrete and the trench backfilled with tamped down soil or sand. He said, for example, that it would take one day to cover the piping with two layers of insulation, another day to install the rebar, hangers or straps for holding the piping in place, another day to install wooden forms on the sides of the piping to hold the concrete in place, and three or more day: for encasing the piping in concrete, plus a day or more to add backfill to the trench and to soak it and tamp it down. He said that he thinks that it probably took three or more levels of backfill, each level measuring from 6 to 12 inches deep, to fill in the trench after the concrete encasement of the piping was completed. a l ( l

~ 21 J. Interview of Arthur B. Czarnomski, Courter & Comoany, Inc., by NRC Investicator R. E. Shecherd on December 11, 1981 Mr. Czarnomski provided the following information concerning the installation of the copper-nickel Service Water (SW) piping system. Courter & Company, Inc., (C&C) personnel and craft personnel unloaded the copper-nickel piping when it arrived by truck at the Shoreham facility. The piping was unloaded from the truck, which he described as usually being a flatbed truck, by means of a " cherry picker" with woven hemp slings for lifting and moving the piping from one place to another. The piping was temporarily stored in an area on the west side of the facility until 3 or 4 days before it was needed in the general area where it was to be installed. It would then be loaded onto a C&C flat bed truck and unloaded by means of the " cherry picker" and placed on the ground, on top of dunnage or timbers, near but outside the trench in which it was to be installed. He described the trench as being about 10 feet wide and 6 to 8 feet deep. He could not recall if there was a concrete base installed on the bottom of the trench. He said that the longest section of piping that was put on the C&C flat bed truck and taken to the general aret outside the trench where it was to be installed would be 40 feet. He said that he does not know of any instance where a length of piping measuring over 40 feet long was lowered into the trench for installation. Before lowering a length of piping in the trench, they put dunnage and/or sand bags on the bottem of the trench to hold the piping in place. Later on, they used metal clamps with rubber linings, instead of dunnage and sand bags, to hold the piping approximately one foot above the bottom of the tr; .h. He said that he did not personally direct any of the piping installation operations but that he did periodically observe the progress of that project. He said that after the piping-is lowered into the trench and supported, as described above, the next step was to fit one piece of piping to another piece in order to prepare for the circumferential butt weld joint between the two pieces. He said, however, that before a field weld operation could start, a i C&C Quality Control (QC) inspector had to be called to examine and i approve the fit-up. After obtaining the approval for the fit-up and after a weld is performed, the C&C QC inspector is again called to concuct a post weld inspection and a non-destructive examination, which is a liquid penetrant test, of the field weld. He said that 100 percent of all fit-ups and field welds were subjected to the above-described inspections and liquid penetrant tests by the C&C QC inspector. In addition, the Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI) who is employed by The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company, would sometimes conduct spot check inspections of various fit-ups and welds in the SW piping system. He said that there were also field welds on the piping wnich were performed outside the trench, for example in the " Fab Shop" or within a " plastic shanty" that was moved to the area near the trench wnere the piping was to be installed. He said that the C&C QC inspector also conducted a walk-along inspection of the entire line of piping that was to be hydrostatically tested, prior to

~ 22 such test being conducted. He said that he thinks that it takes about 15 minutes to conduct a hydrostatic test. He said that during that time the line of piping being tested is kept under pressure while a walk-along inspection of the line is conducted by the C&C QC inspector. He said that all hydrostatic tests of the SW system were witnessed by the ANI and that the LILCO QC representative had the option to witness such tests. He said that if there were any cracks at all in the. piping, the line weald not hold pressure. He said that he had no knowledge of any leaks occurring during the hydrostatic tests that were conducted. He : aid that after a hydrostatic test is conducted, and if the piping is not covered with insulation within a day or so, the C&C QC inspector would perform periodic "line walk" inspections to see that no damage was done to the piping by laborers or other persons working in the trench while it is exposed. He said that it is then LILCO's resoonsibility to decide on when to install the insulation and pour the concrete around the piping. He said that C&C's responsibility 'or the piping ended after the hydrostatic testing was completed and when C&C completed its periodic monitoring (visual walk-along inspections) of the piping until such time as it was covered with insulation. He said that, to his knowledge, no hydrostatic test was ever conducted on piping whicn was not fully exposed to visual inspection and that he does not know of any instance where piping was covered with sand prior to a hydrostatic test or during any welding operation on the copper-nickel SW piping system. After the C&C QC inspector completes the walk-along inspection, he signs an " insulation release," and LILCO will then schedule the concrete pour which fully encompasses the piping. He said that the entire piping installation, including welding, repairs, inspection and testing, is performed in accordance with Stone and Webster Engineering Specification SH1-056 and ASME Section III, Division 1. l f I

~ 23 K. Interview of Clemen: L. Albertini. Assistant Suoerintendent of Construction-Pioing, Lono Islano Lighting Comoany by NRC Investicator R. E. Shepnerd on December 10, 1981 Mr. Albertini said that he was not involved in the actual installation of the coprer-nickel piping in the Service Water (SW) system. However, he provided the following information related to that project. He said that all of the copper-nickel piping in the SW system was transported by truck to the Shoreham facility from Marietta, Georgia where it was fabricated by the Dravo Corporation. The piping arrived at the Shoreham facility in spool pieces, some of which could have had elbows and flanges attached to them. The spool pieces came in various lengths, ranging from 4 or 5 feet up to 20, 30 and 40 feet long. The piping was unloaded at the Shoreham facility in an area which he referred to as the West Yard where it was temporarily stored until needed. The piping was later transferred from the West Yard by truck to the place of installation. It was loaded onto the truck and unloaded by means of a " cherry picker" and slings. The piping was then laid on top of dunnage or wood planks on the ground until it was ready to be installed in a trench measuring 3 to 5 feet deep. He said that the bottom of the trench consisted of a concrete #1oor and that the piping was placed on dunnage or temporary metal supports on the trench floor. Thus, the piping was held by the supports approximately 2 feet above the concrete floor. He said that the piping was placed in the trench in sections ranging up to 40 feet long and that tne various sections were welded together and inspected by quality control personnel. He said that if there were two cracked welds in the copper-nickel piping as was described by Individual A, "you can be damn sure that if these things were present, they were identified and addressed and corrected by the engineers and QA involved in the installation and, moreover, there were walk-down inspections by Field QC and a hydrostatic test performed on the subject pipe. In no way can we cover pipe prior to any inspections that must be performed by QA. If this pipe was covered or had any material on it, it would be mandatory to remove the material in order that the proper inspections could be performed." He said that there is no system at the i Shoreham facility, other than the SW system, that uses 20-inch copper-nickel i piping and that all buried piping in the SW sy: tem was laid in a trench. He said that each discrepancy identified during the installation of the SW system was documented in quality control ~ reports. He said that when they had corrected all discrepancies associated with the piping, which were identified during the " walk-down" (inspections), and when all of the cocumentation associated with the piping system had been verified as being correct, the piping was then " released" for an ASME hydrostatic test under the surveillance of QC. Then, after successful completion of the hydrostatic test, during which a walk-down inspection of the piping was conducted, the piping was " walked-down" once again before the fiber-glass insulation was put en it. l i

24 L. Interview of Eugene Nicholas. Quality Assurance Section Suoervisor, Long Island Lighting Comoany, by NRC Investigator R. E. Shecherd 4 on Decemcer 11 1981 Mr. Nicholas said that he conducted periodic surveillances and scheduled audits of the pressure tests (hydrostatic tests) on the copper-nickel Service Water (SW) pipi., ystem. He said tnat, on those occasions, he participated in line-walk inspections of the piping system while it was being pressure tested. He said that the pressure tests were conducted primarily for the Authorized Nuclear Inspector (ANI) employed by the Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company and that, in addition to himself and the ANI, there would always be a UNICO construction representative and a Courter & Company, Inc. (C&C) representative observing the pressure tests and conducting the line-walk inspections that he participated in. He said that he and the other aforementioned individuals would sign the pressure test reports l after the tests and line walk inspections were completed. He said that the ASME Code, Saction III Article NB 6000, requires that during a hydrostatic test all joints in the piping be left exposed. During the hydrostatic tests the piping was supported by metal hangers or supports which held the piping approximately 6 to 8 inches above a concrete base, which had been installed in the bottom of the trench when it was constructed by the Dravo Corporation._ He said that "you have to have access to the bottom of the piping during the hydro" and that all welds were visually inspected during a hydrostatic test and documented in accordance with procedures. He said that C&C released the piping installation to UNICO after completion of the hydrostatic tests which were done at the required pressure and time duration in accordance with the ASME Code. l l l l l l t

25 M. Interview of John J. Arcuri. Construction Manacer, Courter & Comcany, Inc., by NRC Irvesticator R. E. Shecherd on December 11, 1981 Mr. Arcuri said that he was not involved in the actual field work associated with the copper-nickel Service Water (SW) piping system. However, he said that a section of piping could not be installed, welded and " backfilled" the following day because a post weld inspection would have to be conducted, after which Courter & Company, Inc., (C&C) would have to generate a " hydro" (hydrostatic test) package that takes three to five days to generate. He said C&C has to fill the piping with water, hydrostatically test the piping installation and have it inspected by the C&C Site Quality Assurance inspector and by the Authorized Nuclear Inspector 1 employed by the Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company. Once the hydrostatic test is completed and approved, C&C would then advise UNICO of that fact and UNICO would advise the Dravo Corporation to encase the piping in concrete and to add backfill on top of the concrete encasement. He said that he does not know of any instance where piping was covered with sand or other material prior to or during a hydrostatic test. (

26 N. Interview of Joseph M. Kelly, Field Quality Assurance (QA) Division Manacer, OA Decartment, Long Island Lichting Comoany (LILCO), by NRC Investicator R. E. Shepherd on December 11, 1981 Mr. Kelly said that he has been employed at the Shoreham facility since 1973 and that, during the-period 1977-1979, his job title was Division Manager which is the same basic title he now holds. He was not involved in the actual field work associated with the copper-nickel Service Water (SW) piping system but furnished the following information regarding the piping installation project. All of-the copper-nickel piping was purchased by LILC0 in accordance with a purchase order prepared by the licensee architect engineer, Stone and Webster (S&W). The piping was receipt-inspected by S&W Field Quality Control (FQC) personnel upon its arrival at the Shoreham facility. When the licensee contractor, Courter & Company, Inc. (C&C), which installed the SW piping system, needed piping for work-associated with the installation, it was drawn from the onsite storage area and, at that point in time, C&C assumed reponsibility for the piping.- Mr. Kelly said that a LILC0 QA representative, namely Eugene Nicholas, reported to him and conducted periodic pressure test audits of the piping installation in order to see that the documentation for a test was in order and that the test was done correctly. During the hydrostatic testing of the piping installation, the Authorized Nuclear Inspector ( ANI), employed by the Hartford Steam Boiler Ire >pection and Insurance Company, would conduct a line walk inspection on specific pressure tests. He said that Mr. Nicholas could provide additional information with regard to the pressure tests that he (Nicholas) audited. He said that, after completion of the hydrostatic testing of the piping system, C&C released the piping to UNICO for insulation work on the piping which was done by a licensee contractor, Robert A. Keasby Company. He said that the structural group of UNICO dealt directly with the Keasby Company and with the licensee contractor, Dravo Corporation, which installed the concrete encasement around the piping. He said that the S&W FQC inspector had to give his "OK" for the concrete pour and that the area around the piping where the concrete was to be poured was subjected to multiple inspections by personnel having various job disciplines, before the concrete could be poured.

l 27 O. Interview of Michael Bincham, Assistant Site Ouality Assurance Suoerintendent, Courter & Comoany, Inc., by NRC Investicator R. E. Shecherd on December 11, 1981 Mr. Bingham said that he started work at the Shoreham facility in October 1979 and that his job responsibility at that time was to review the " hydro packages" prepared prior to and after the completion of the hydrostatic testing of the copper-nickel Service Water (SW) piping system. He did not have any official inspection duties associated with the actual installation of the piping. He said that a " hydro package" consisted of a pressure test schedule, temporary change sheets, valve line-up sheets, isometric drawings, and the pressure test reports which were signed by the individuals who witnessed the tests. With regard to hydrostatic re-tests of the piping, he said that there could be numerous reasons for conducting a re-test, for example, a re-test would be conducted if a section of piping had to be replaced or repaired. I i l 1 I J I

28 V STATUS The status of this investigation is CLOSED.

29 l 8 4 VI. EXHIBITS 1. Individual A's hand-drawn sketch of service water piping system. + 2. Architectural drawing of the service water piping yard of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Stati~on. 3. Portion of Exhibit 2 showing location of service water piping installation. 4. (3 Pages) - Pressure Test Package P41-14 - Item 1 - Pressure Test Schedule - Item 2 - Pressure Test Report I i i i i i

' dJ-v_I-N EXHIBIT 1 ~ y s Q~' o-& Y x 1 - - /./ / s~. ) t L {w { ~ [] ~ / ) (] /* a < 2*/ k,'. 1: 1 ,cw, t 1' T ) M,/ j l Fps sHof kv/i y'k .fQ (p,gw i F) ~ a e = y Q_ %qr"M? T r-

7-Vt /.X@ Tit \\

t ~f \\1 f . A' 2 i R f - (m,9 9; Q 'i. gj n L Y< ' - [p*/ A em I >-+ y ll l 4 Spl4 ~ \\ a F h \\ f-- / ' jwt%!7h~4% \\ T y"ph -2,L,84l l }g 1 1% - LBa 3 _07J%@'/d (; '( cv N f4 : "s \\\\ kN n.. / / A. Mi 7' N ,e '1 15 \\%< / ,q _s s - I 4 QI _g" f Y ~# ~. ~T T -M ~N~D v N

I 'i i EXHIBIT 2 - 1 i 1;i e ' el 'l1

• l t

k is le h mr.e.i ,i rn m.~ ~ .t.

v.,,. -

--e._ _i__. - r ,4 wt g ~ ~ ~ - i ( --4hi.**.*.***.*.*..*..#.-*.*.*r"*-- ! 6 - y g-l 8 I **

• • 't p

1 . +. _ _. .V ~E l t+** r., t 1

• • ,a 5

l e. t -- 4-q J y; l ~~ l ..y .n.- _.g I t s ..(* [ ,,e i; p h i

f. 2 l r/

I 8 s 4 m' i l i g -..I p 9 l ,%,, c e ... g _l. ?,4+o-- ll .u. e m "y i g,;. r f!_ , ;' :)., g: j 3 _-3 i,.,..

rf c,,

4 s,,i 9.:.. t. I

1. g -

~

s ~ Y-- i. lh l.k*$..// '5\\; x ' E,. -~f~f.. '.' [ D. - , f ' - I ~' \\..F I r-t -W s .n. s<o ,u L. ~ _, L_ f. ~ .1 ,I l1 1 _f.4 8.~ ? N,?.. c p,.- P.. .i ' l.*.. - I L b ",l'-.'3 . -. p.. _. > i ...'..,+r-- .pt p&.. i l a .y p., /./ '...g,,'.

:t.

l 4 y '._, : m a Q -,7,. .. _ i a 6 6 - d,. /f g. o

).,'

/ i r.. - .t. .., h, t- .r ..e + - s i n '._E. . ~ y ', p - 4. i i/ }..f t. j i - i_ - r, i)(,6i i. ['* k %,'l.. '., a' ' T. LL'- !i 5 I t.> --,4 j.. . g, 'l 3, t l,2 i f f.I s1 .2 i d .h. I g,,. . A _J. f. , ty'a kt.J* -i g'

e 3 l I[' ; i @I C

• , 3 1

- $[1. i-e 'r ,' L . N>b ' f. .*. d' [ - L 31 ' 6 l 'I ;G i l [.... Q [, ^ k -f.?.x / . d.'ky} ! f b-d 1. e . .t. A-a:..,j .__.a, 1,, l 1. t, ((*. - i L. , f < :.3 I. .f,.* ' ~ ~ A, - t, -=-

• h.

l .$ b.

j, i

. i.. ! :j I f I' ' 8 l I

• ~ ~ * " " " * ~
• 2 e---

!. C N'('i., i U,' f.$. ' 'i l i i [y

g j

I r .t l *J ' j j. + i. i 3f- .l i i s O'. .1; ! _.. i %-, - L.%, n, _-_f h s." E al \\ \\ - }1.i \\ j ({ \\ I- .! [, *. 7 l

t....l q i e

,r ; ;,. t ...-,) i I,.. w.3> .c \\. j ,i rr i, i Ly j8y; . J, 6 l i ..,i .,,.f__ g se g i I ** i i 4 4 k i, I\\.,! (,,- ..r

• ~ l S.

l d, 'i *."., l ! '.1. --- - - (.- T i

].

-._.1. n,. ,t r . ~,,q. ,.>2 .,nso. w. n 1 o

e. - - - (.

l L '. yg.. e<,- s e N. 4 -.M 't-t- 1 l; "/ 1 r' a t ' fs ', -*,6 e-r

• h 2*f M.

') i' p

3. -t 8 I I

I [ e ' N. i - -- t - -. \\ }, - l 8* II ' L.; J t '

_~

i m !! [ t,

• t j
• 't 6

' i i 4 .? s. s p 1 l.,', I i l

• p;t

? l 1

...] '4 Mli f 9 :l- 'm/ \\ l 1 7 i l-4 _ f l, ' *h ~! f ~ 1

,s rE _-

-[,

• t l

[., ' --~. : - h. a !, <.. L.'{ j l l f! ..~.~l- '.i ~~ j 3 .1; i' ,i '.. '. [1 9[. 't. E r. l. - - -..,., _. _..,..~ ,e t-I f.- p', f h M,2.,,--.sg. Ns I t. j,- - 1 i.- t . J.

• 6..

3 .. U i,I [ s_ i. i. ,u r,. -L s, p f4 .-., t i. i /.- a .::.., u ;...w j. e ~ i I iy - [,:l l 3 i - 1 g ' ! !....( 'u t.L . [ ip. !:Pl - f-v, f,.,. -{- 1 i .f e.'- l t - l,a s 't g. - .-e, 1- . l. ' j. ,5, i. 6 i g u ,..w ;,,.g.. .,,i .c +y I, L.' n .,.L r-

i. -

3 f._ k h,. >h, ;,[,'d l h.F. .r .i : l. r A I) h k' h,. ' I '{ I;,b. ' r ,a . i.depl. 1 t p. .t ..wi,l. w.: e.,. ,m a., 1. a. r, ii..,, .q 2 3. ar i a 4 i ..l' y: p 9. ; Q i. e Ei_.;, y p' { [... " { _f'- .., {.- - .r.f, ". A. T _.'." *m(,T

f..,.

b._,,,L _.u! 4.? e .:. -. i e, } 4,, l,(*, .-l.%p t,;.. L )):.t., $.,.. ..i. ...-m. 3. g_. 4 >2:$ g Q-i +.: t' I, m,.p!-{a. is . 6.L. l '. j 7 [.s. i>> - *: ' 7, O. 'M. .

• M..li 4i :..t. 1..

Ie S 2 .i, =e ,v 3, ; . 1 ., = ,a ni: g S,.,, e 0.:.N. - . : <i. i. a t,,:, 1. #.. F. ., i.. .:1

t. $,;.

n, *

,4 i,,.y "4 c f,.... r. 2.t a _ : s i

n. -

jl \\ / 3' ~ J~ ,,) $ m, f i T. p., !! ' y h@ Gj ll p M 1.5, !f i -e js! iD p-a: e p~ :, 1;: Ll h. !,U, i j i 1 ., c, = ,y -- - + f k. __-___,_m~. - _ ~. - an. (,%, I m . -..I a n 6..%. ts, ...b._.... s =- L g-* 1 i e-1, e .t I I y j '.d** l

• s

- p.. i 1

~ EXHIBIT 3 .=n Sc=;-;,~e;m= N ~qg ypr=v . m... .,... n .~ p,.g.p --. ~ w ~ y ., y,., g, ,.~1..... . -.g

, - m

._.,g, ... gy,.,9...., 7.._. p.,.f., r 3_ g p.,....q p, g s . ' - ~.;;....? r. -3 p } ..,., ~.,,, -;')M...S. ;m.. m$ i*-: y.; '...,..

v., > -...

t .l .,s.-- a .on... m. p ... m. $a, g. L $, D ' *J,J.* '~ i,;.,%,.,fj,'. - e.,. w.,. ,t. s., e c. r:r, 4 y x ...nne ... p r..-- ,. J .p "I

• g

a e c.

~*~ , + v. r n-. r. A m

• ,~~

f-4 ' '. < s,,.?.. e ne,s n.. :.: +.. ~ ~ - u, w a. a. .,p, ._es 8 , s,,.o.... u,,,.,... ~, 4 a .m,%.. -a.w - .y s _c,,.,,,.,.1 c.w . -. u,n,, a-.- 4 i. 2 \\ ,,c, j. r d%.. :..,, Qr;7 (~,.;. -.- w4u - -..r3 .i ar2 _. t. w. ~~q ~ \\ f., s *. ~e } ,.d. 'C &,,j'? .N, .l. f.W.+O h"\\.m.NM'-. :;hh ? p( r , ;..f.: y.... _y_3 *g( c d +..c. g. .ay.q.,..r.x J. '.- %. N, 4 g. (f:gr.w.. ~(<. .Y > #. f *g:$~r?. w e ~ M & ' p-Y.q

p,3 f.-*.cp.-- % 4

r Y \\. -l g

n'. S Q. q ,.y-n 4 .} ./n. _ 1,- m _... /..,,:.t m_.a.. 3w . e., m. \\ ~ . m.; e.-. __.s ^; ~ -._/.;. s -.a ; 1. n

~

's. 'N.. -- f..o:2.t n. u re. 'T.?4. g e mm \\.

*'GJv2 t -

..,,,.f v g --l p s, $ r,,, .t.

• . s3g xyyr,

~ ,,. -I* egs ~. :.. ',.y'. ,2, y, *s - ,\\.. .C

• • • maau y,

'd_,. -. 3;'* Ch,~-- ,,C.: Q.q/ --. 4 1 -- t ?.3 *.sN.. g V. }.* - *. %^,y - "l'"'.;b.l

• 7" UC 5.%

1 a*?* 2 3 e, 3 * **a1 s..'- '~ + p.

'_.~

= - - - -. )r u.- -. 6:,,-._, r, r..,.,a --o ~. n. w m....b o. '. ,*. M_L,$1 g'- f,. ':: ~ 9f, -* i,. a O ~ ~~ ? L,,. j... .. r,. t. m ?.m . (-Q :..%.,Q.3.*Y Q_ l '3_. <. .s... ~ -. ... w... u r.o w.,-r:s.W., :~. e m,., u..,_ - ' ; ' ) < !f.:.-- :. ' ',.=E.

.$l'r R.. =y"2 -- Q. T* :

v.

k _...~..

~- l )[... - c. S ~~~~ h-9l. - -.: 1~.4 ~;. ;. ( g* '.' 3 - 2

• Y *[. :..

63T. a g r,*. %.-.*I3 '.- 4 . - ~. {.* g.. 2.g.' G. /.O Tis g;];*. 3 h- ,f.,,%. < b,i '. -, s,;:.,,q.-. =*. -~ y-:.v.;, }.. 1l a_3 ?::l~.; :.:,G, 5.. s., y' '_"$~. . - *.-. T., s - n.: '.w:-p'"y.,,>44 , ;p =...~. -g ..s 33 -tp#- ..'..e.

f.,

)f' h:w 'h:' N'~(U.e.. . v;, . s e.. e ,e -.1 . v;.. - . j sL .f .A;s.. h.f ~.** -..; - ~~. m e 3-

l. l'-

e. ~. y..

j. u -,....,,...4;&-Q i s'.

2,. N.~,: ' tn. g.' m. .9_.,%.. ~ *.. . ~. r^ .V . r~. -- - :, +. . ~. *..v r...: t.'z 1,.,-::;.1;*. S,.':t u a':P { ~~.o.crnM ; w. -, -e :.:. -~, ,~ t -o

• W***

g: - .. ue:m,. i. .a.r,w"."T . w g 4. ;; ,a ,a.;'.. ~ 2-. a. (,- + yx...- -.. j. ff ;,:;.,",** ~j:./,-; "..*. '"1.. - s.. - 1

m. *

,.r,r,. c -1,.., c '-.g. ;; r,;* 4 tr,... : d ',,,... .,,,,.% r e.... ., ;.i., 4..,.. '. /M;- s JF.f;g,r,

• g., 9W'g,, _.. -

~ ..Q,. -;'.q.. .N,- j~t d,,, .,.,,. ' 9, . k:. ,e j. s \\ ~-,. < : . 'N c" - y, i $ $'b '~. 4. .: r,~.-. ~~ W,'l '. *f -.Mi ?- h,. - a ......r.>* 3., 3.f' ,,e,..'-4.*'- -C tw;y r

.... :..y. n,.

.f- * =,.hu~n.;t. 't. ;c,. s. -- e J., ~ .:. :s n.,.s.,. Wm .r.,...

h?***

n ., 1.. 1,--,,...~... .y..'-. -r k- .~J as'k'*r.,,,5;:$;' $ U-W.$? hp-k 'T W.. 3.c l g, '..,,,. F,;.,:-: : =.K w+....a:* y.c& >. ** : .a. r' u~ D. .../.. D ?

.* ~..;..

s.,,: y.. &e;. vn%,.~.1w..: 9,. m+< +,,.~.s.-.. p; -

~ . n,M -:L a ~ s, s a. c. ..~..,1.~

• a...

w y~,. i c: s. :ef.,. ;~4.~ =. . - ~:.. y^ mm-9.s'.%%3l&;4.~a. --' ;= : - .y~ru..s,e,......,:G ~,;.,.., 9 >,. . r *ss*. en s-... - - >,.n ,.."M. s,.. n.p.b,:,. j. :...W: ma, Ga,,,p.- p:. L..,. %. ,B...,.'l. s.: - y' j 1 e 2 -s.* gw.2.M hL r s...-- a ..-s> J g'.-,i.',.;..%;n. .f' s c y:,e n. a w. :.wy@-; M.. a k.y wm: .r.w wd',.7 y, i= ;.. a q.,. ' -vyM. : l , y.,. . f, _ -E-j W y@,,.xv. s : a w. u - w*; m. -II <..,y - --*t* !-'h.* 'I N D,'b. [3 3 . f

f. * ;I.*.. h,..-

, 4, p w-e: k.*i-%:-ts? =

• r j,,%

tI f .[- $,fh'. k. s y _. k~-.

• F 1

'T .'I.,'-[ '.,* [). c, . ~., - . - u~~*,3y'.+$A 1-Q. f l{:~&m.s.t '.:ve^' % -r:,,.n..y.. y; j % - p.,, -. - ,e...v.-.:.,.')-

._ _.,g,8,

./. l n. - L),. d' ~ - C i;.* c -* y..J. c,,. J- :f~ ~ lf.r,J* d -JPA1 ";..::. M..a.d ';j-"R }e..g-, 3.=io s. 'E.,

• d

- --< I,4, .,.

• s :

-~^* = '..- 8., r.

• • '.;**..3*v.~~'

-T,7.* ;.?s-* T....c. 7.,' -' i..i. .P g Q i.U.i"J[ ' *y.In' 6* 4,g 4 .g=ysi *. l Vv - 4s.* 'f ' La ~*;.; ll. q'r.J. '. ','s* ;, C ', '

• ."3 S*

- - = ,.s. 4 - .e

-r ;.? e

, 'y. V%*E. q:i $.'$. TT g'y 4 '..,?, \\

? 1'4. G3 *%' ;. *Y

.". ; j. R - 4 $;;s.,gtu y k',,4 :-}. - Q,:. *lpl..1 -&.;'s(. .-. %...s...'o .c', l 1.M~*n.*. j'=- = , m 33% u t... ~.,'

..,.* q:p.'. q.*

~.. ',W ~.. i a.'a;.

e. }.

.y,O y'_ x..' - Er k 's 1 s~, -. iJ.. :,.:< 3 ? = _ *s- . a a,< <. y~~v.e.tu yn.;.72.r *.~~=":=t r* :;* &',* n s- =*~ %

. ** W'1 % * %'.* A..;-c

=.s :-.. e -. ~. - --r 2 :. - .s - 6 ,,. ~. s. T9.5... -8 . +. gi. % Q..,

• *, ir 5. 9 -., :. :: -*>r -.

--.,7 p3.t. J J** *. g.. ~.. c'. :..,, = g.7.: %... - r-r- - l se -. 7* -4 =---- d a,.=**-.a*-.am,* 72f -I .*~.....48=. ss v \\ ' y, . - s s '. f. ^. 4 .i. Cd' s.',,*. 4:*.. - (* g ~ -~*4*.y'"~.,.--1'. ,,,6.. a-. =4

• Y
• 1

.~l, i 1,** i. 8eg. aega-a -.e4.,f - i. 9 - E_. . -[, O .,,, -. - - -.

• _ tg**,- '**-*

'm 4 _2- -t-' .: a..-.'.J. '~ f.' 4- %gr5-a rw--.mazzema,masme.eus ,g n a -t

2.. R:;,'..

%.. ~ ~ - -....,

• m-...

r 3.'M.r-.:

- y

' *,-~~ ) ', ,' ~' 3,..r .,. u, ~~ J ..e=.-

EXHIBIT 4, PAGE 1 / n.r.e. s.,.~.,.,.N,,,.

r.e..er :

p sna a I' N D :' x .,. i .c.s. .. s. D0c,J.w.e.Ju-3 ... n.s. c .w..,...... t . n .,..,.. s -_ s. c. 7 ..._.__....._.i...._..... ... h _.

u.,_.v.

i.,. _. _.. >-....=.s,

c.. a. -. S..n.._.

1 .....c.y

n. c. _:.. i, r,o,. : _3 n., s

m. - _e r_ _,,_ _...,.._._:.

c <. u.. y... : ,,.a, _, _=....- n. c _.:. ( nn. : _s n. e, ) ...c_ I 2

n.. _...

n. ..s .+.e ..) = / ?

e..... :..:..,...

..,.m<. e....,... .I v i I 1 ... _ _ _. y e_ v._,

_;....c_...

.._s mc... e. - -. _.._:..

1..* :... -..... =.. T i. y e~. _ - =..._4***...e..e_.

s C. ?' e. * *.. _' e..:.-, 2..-=. $ (* ~I f [..'<..'.:_"_"m.....<..

n.. e w_.. e t' _e )

.c w f. I i i

u..e. 8.. r 1 W.

• w 9.*.2. r..v.... { 3,

11 t L I . _.. r..__-.. t I 1 s..:..,s.... .... un.-v-_<_. i i .s. ....._i........_._.,.c..,... _c..._,.... .c...

.:....., s._ c.

c. :.. .e_ .= I V BMW Decu.m: Ad." A+'lli i OJP <.L n -_v. .c v. . s. _. _.. _ < -........... ... c -. .k l }. ....w l ,... - Q. & g. / 8 \\ ad / / /'./ s,/ 1

.... u...

f. l l f' g

EXHIBlT 4, PAGE 2 ,o r... Puu.:utu: n.p ne:n:nou: . 'O sy3 Tem D ATF.: ct.. T =. //'*//</s eks k// 78A [7$w 5/7V / W 37 no. I' t' /$ ' I // A' TACliED DFA'4I:lCS : ( FM, FE, FE, I C, ETC, idlD REVISICII) : g,, gj. yg g es ) $ga' jf ffA' t.M &. \\ i A':"' ACHED CFJJiGE UCTICE3., (ELDCRs, IC Is, A:iD CR!is IIOT I :CCRFORATED III ATTACHED LFK41I;G3 tiUO'iEJ : $ 6*f.5" /$ 1*f' .f*y / % ~ H f.*.c f s' t 7 $ c #4*H.*.b e Rr.acL.-ar Ta ,. Hr., ED a v,, Aa. r .c.,... : 2i cv. t, c / 6,,, / /* ".2 -, 0 ATE: // 3 /?P T:E: 1./'! P" '"7.ST l3~ ' M TEST !EDIA FURITY PER: AIP tt T-'Paca c mER Su/ '//R 1 npp. 7c n r..C'.a., ':'r"e I r '.. A. 'sr.. 0 5.. o ^ " r _, U P. - w i.o. _ l A S /* C W $ // / '//R ? Y'#//// g PRE.T.URE TE3T SUrr.M'i'5C? CERT TFICATTC : T!iAT PI'IIiG ".IC IAT"F".: CATF.: ~ I~ CCEREC* A?!O CO!'?LETE PER A'CAC:!D DPA4I iG3 AUD M l CHA"GE !! OTIC 3 ' A. NN 0 7k GE APPFC'JA, SIG'ATURE: U M. -( L, %. / a v - CATE 7 9 e.,cvP,=,3,--.,... -- o... ERD , W...-. Z.,. J., !,.-% y[ =c . o. n l.,,..,. A r A. I,..... - a r c.... r. -. m. r -.-. l .J p.. / 4 .f: ..~t s u, ,.r. ..m... ' "' ' 5T iT 7'\\'i-~;OT. i f u,)"' ),/ p ///jl a :. u : a P....a a.., t-- n.s c . t C,. H,...,,,,,. - 7........ t us.. :. l l .t. _s. i j.4. :< . f..

c. :

'E:~'" M') I^^ . //" 3 " M I ,r :r ; I nJ.L.nn,I e.D.,.. I..-. .,-,,..vivd .i . uJF. y, ,6. auvu na t.c

• 10'I=IED E/..w/</Af

..u -3 '/8 / ,,.. - -, l a L,..a-.lb. :,.A n...

n....a aui A r.

a.:

,a,.,.,. a.

(.,a./+.,-) - r. i: c....A..-.:s v, /

1..

a RET. EASE !!U?GER: N / A./,* // ~ l// 5/) r I I / R EW:5 : Q g.\\ovGM 9-M

• v.4 % 0.t C ('[-12-3, : c.4 d 'S, 7"% - (S w4 t.

t':, J., p c 2 sel_.,a z.---e, , --a e pe=- T z w:R.w s, e mm M.c onu e P 7 \\.h % : % c T U s ) n L. 4SG O C.t M.IE.h M-o 6

• S M #--

M 4'LuED. M 4C \\ s ~!, ? 8 C??IiT. TO: 1.T!.00 3TARTUi' GI l r,i Lc0 0 *. UilICO .c.u...r....a r,,JR. r.r. c nn. r e tr!!CO c?T'-*?:'--' 0" T!':3:07 R O'iO'.'? TRES3U'F TE3T SUrc:R'/I3^? ..a... c :. c... a..........G,,.,G,, n.. Ln. a-.D .,J. 7.. -

r.... u. e r.

t n Lobo;A-:1 Fei. 2 ~ i

.\\ EXHlBIT 4, PAGE 3 co.,. _-.2 n.r,c -w,. u y '? P=reSUFr T-*T PED,=" 4 --..3..> .nn r. SYS r y... s :.a. u mee.

p. r..a gt,. c ( m.s.

p;.,....e..-; re r.. --- c..: re_p u - p a i // 3 79 jo /" / 4/ .o... a v t -v-- c a.D.r a. ,. '.O, m p.. / .. D.T.o.e.. l,r're-t/r.O.r=4u . = t.U.v..a ; V, ^ t.1." V.t r.n.w-m, -.=.i --a..- .w ) g s.. /P// s. / .6 ') s s i I h/ys.2/ o e APP.7,.7Cn* 2'.7 CO.'.?., ~ P?. ~" 7 7' un' *. T.0". v^.3 =. D. 0 C = ~a~5..".'.- ) 3 s

• G' ss2 S/.//.*// 2., /* / - /t* O e..rS..vr.a r A.

/ /.. m..e.S.r. wr.D.TA PU3_vm.v. u.r..n.. ! n* IR. I _ I "a ?.'.-2 ~0 " ':.".. I I o".".J.77.. n.gO a $ s~f / ~,/ / a/ m..r v..-. m _r.e.. a-.n. - 3.

b.,, C'y7 l

. Lf7 f f I canrue

2..=.r.~:.:.

e

n. =.m..

l a am n. ^ r ..e.v..r, <i : S. Cs..f= r r.,,.. % ,f'A /< '). f n. GA,,; P.e..r a-Cv-.,=. r..n v ~ n. s. 3 t' i "l - a =~4.=.ur. ..~=.=..=..=. e=....=~. 0.

n.. D n' c.=. =~. n.1 C= ~ =.......'a'.=.=.an.==..'..-n'z=.'..=.=~. =.=.,C=~~=...=-

~ u scc C A?- 8.'2 ! _ _....-, -. t - } w: u ~.

a..., c. ~..,

x:.s. t'..x m.a. _. . :.a. ..a..,,...:.... = i Db: /2-30-7

• • IS.

n. C,a,...:. s,.

,,7 .,...CZ.,,. 0 : 2.: S. pr..,.JayED. g u s..uv 4: v=w. i v.re,

1..n.

i v. s i..o ...a-,..,. ...~. n -....D -. .,a-:.. x: u v.. 1 i f o r. :.a,- a r.v,;. 3. -. :..,. .e. n.. ~.,

o. :

.c., ..o. e

... e: a.

Dn<. l I % ""~ M '52S ** 'E 90 C 7 """Cs> ~Q, W.@ AO A, $ Q A M C A. ") M Q Q A.'? g, i ,t.. z. r. u. s - -- -9 3 n-- .as a. 'r-

==. y.,,.j =. -..1 -y n.n.. afaSw N f.4'A'd A .// b:.. W w= a

• =fT 'V-*=JSrD EY t Air :. n.t

} DM'E: eG nd H. c-}. $l'wt. -An l-- ~~~ /$rin.= I.s e. ) : A!R (ii-5-7e %:es ts x > % ....,2q,. .;3 -...., c.,...:.:,,, n.. ). l //-&-2? s...n. c DN"" - ...(. p.

$ 9.

..W-.., .=rgw.e. :-5 2 i' 0 70 l l

1. ).

-2., . x..m c.o. l Dn. ' <: m,. f, J 7l ~ ".?3/XP !+ / Y,lp

• k_ < <.'. :.=a..Y,,, -,y 4.j... n, 3.l: o 6}

s/h. ?Y n 3r. t d t: c e.t1 ,e 4. . a L u.;;,

j. A l W 'Z *

• A s -14

- :.-..-..>:h,h v hsf -- /_ / W , = su.. -, - yr Dn..: : n., u.,.,. a. u% i Go,, 9 i , i ,tj' ; V / 6 I .*s..

= 3 ROM. ACTION CONTROL DATES CONTROL NO COMPL DEADLINE { gj ACKNOWLE DGMENT DATE OF DOCUMENT INTERIM REPLY jg g TO: f,yL g.y PREPARE FOR SIGNATUHF. FINAL REPLY ~j sy b CHAIRMAN gjgg gjjggg FILE LOCATION {] EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR' hhkh 1" lh OTHER: DESCRIPTION gjLETTLR OMEMO O ntPORT C OTHER SPECI AL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS Allegations re defective piping at the ?M "9 diagj@ c"P'"r Sh"** 4 Q% A-J & CLASSIFIED DATA DOCUMENT / COPY NO, C LASSlF IC AT ION l NUMUER OF PAGES CATEGORY POST AL REGIST HY NO. O NSI C Ro O rRo AS$1GNED TO: DATE INFORMATION ROUTING LF.G AL REVIEW O F f NAL U COPY _DeYoung._IE___ 10/21/8L h ASSIGNE C TO: DATE NO LEGAL OBJECTIONS bS N OE $DMIN & CORRES BP um_Lc/RJ g\\)N ext. COMMENTS, NO TIFY: EXT. JCAE NOTiflCATION RECOMMENDED: O Vf'S Q NO NRCt F 732 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOH OPER ATIONS DO NOT REMOVE THis CO A PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL O

/ 81-2203 i / \\ No.; gg($ 10/19/81 N_ Logging Date t NRC SECRETARIAT TO: Commissioner Date E E mec. DirJOper. Gen. Counsel O Cong. Liaison O soiicitor O Public Affairs O secretary ' ' a** 'a' a ^ "da' 0 O Poiicy ev.iu. ion inco,ning Ren Thnmas Downey F rom: To: Pa' l arH nn Date IO/ld/El al esations re defe'Cti've pioina sub,ect: at the Long Island Lighting En. Prepare reply for signature of: E Chairman O Comm.ssioner " EDO, GC, CL, SOL, PA, SECY, I A PE signature block omitted O Return original of incoming with response For direct reply

• g XG For appropriate action Date,,

Tn,me. *,,,,,. f.g For information OCA to ACk Remarks: i billie For the Commission;

• Send three (3) copies of reply to Secy Correspondence and Records Braryh k

m mace ACTION SLIP %% 8 g g .}}