ML20058E787

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Info Re Sargent & Lundy Audit of Facility. Unacceptable Indications Present at Film Markers 8-12
ML20058E787
Person / Time
Site: Zimmer
Issue date: 09/30/1981
From: Davis A
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To: Jamarl Cummings
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA)
Shared Package
ML20058A387 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-82-206 NUDOCS 8207300196
Download: ML20058E787 (3)


Text

>

s-e f

I

..s

. ? :.. u.. >..v +.y j.,

g - _ u,::

w-:.:

l s-(

Date 9/30/81 ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL.(. IP Initials Date

.... + - cm.wm.>.. :.

ffice symbol, room number,

"**... TO: (Name. oDullding, Agency / Post)

. ~. -

1*.

James J. Cummines. nTA

2. -

3.

4.

5.

Note and Return File Action Per Conversation For Clearance

~

Approval Prepare Reply For Correction As Requested See Me For Your information Circulate investigate Signature Comment Justify Coordination REMARKS ES b5&5$Nh$&

l Enclosed information which confirms our recent telephone conversation.

DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences clearances, and similar actions Room No.-Bldg.

FROM:(Name, org. symbol. Agency / Post) l A. Bert Davis, RIII Phone No.

8207300196 820609 384-2681 l.- PDR.DIA y)l se Im OFTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)

DEVINE82-206 PDR l

so41 Io2 cs4 Prescribed eIo 101-11.204

' 4 Y M *i M [s4 7.t.V,W.:?,*a. p y g D 90 reus (41 cr

C' e

SARGENT AND LUNDY AUDIT AT ZIMMER 1.

At the request of CG&E, S&L conducted an audit of radiographic interpretation on October 21 and 22, 1976.

(Field Audit Report 75) 2.

One recommendation from this audit was that unresolved interpretation conflicts between Peabody Testing and Kaiser should be decided by an independent reviewer.

3.

As a result of this recommendation, CG&E identified all those radiographs on which there had been a dif ference of interpretation, and had these reviewed by a S&L Level III radiographic reviewer on January 12 and 13, 1977. Weld CY606 was one of those welds selected for review because of an August, 1976 difference of opinion as to the acceptability of radiographic indications. The S&L interpretation was that unacceptable indications were present at film markers 8-12.

i i

l l

l l

l

N 34 4

i.;

.,s,

-.,..... s.,v y.

(

~:w.;TA;qu.- - w, y ;

.w t

Date w

(

ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL,,,JP fcj

...<. % ;... m.'

"- ' ' ~ '. ' ' -

TO: (Name, ofGee symbof, room number, Initials Date Dullding, Agency / Post)

3. Wc S te dc p

2.

/

3.

4.

s.

-.s l

Action File Note and Return l-Approval For Clearance Per Conversation l'

As Requested For Correction Prepare Reply l'

Circulate For Your Information See Me Comment investigate Signature Coordination Justify REMARKS NC N h M S N U nieb d '.W e.M N o e.s+

o2h A<.1 1

Pe. c yaer re S

I P T Y V) (L. ')

)Vth ho

..z-DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals, clearances, and similar actions FROM:(Name, org. symbol. Agency / Post)

Room No.-Bldg.

& d

] ) ~ v i,s

~"

"c-

  • 0 6 % y m e e.r-1. w m.n

~

{PTIOAL 0 M 41 (Rev. 7-76)

NI SMY$YTie.t,ii-7.3,W.W.- 0.,4.c,p.g?,16g)

FPwR (41 e 101-11.206

  1. U.S. G.P.O.

f980 3tf.t5td10 h

CL

-- - -