ML20063K361

Hanger Rept

ML20063K361
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	08/09/1982
From:	CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:
Shared Package
ML20063K337	List: ML20063K351 ML20063K361
References
NUDOCS 8209030362
Download: ML20063K361 (114)

Text

HANGER REPORT Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 August 9, 1982 8209030362 820830 PDR ADOCK 05000329 G

PDR

m MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 HANGER REPORT CONTENTS I.

INTRODUCTION A.

Reason for Overinspection B.

Overinspection Results C.

Corrective Action and Safety Evaluation of Identified Nonconformances D.

Adjusted Reported Results and Dispositions II.

POTENTIAL GENERIC EVALUATION OF IDENTIFIED NONCONFORMANCES A.

Introduction B.

Conclusions C.

Tables 1 and 2 III.

PROCESS CORRECTIVE ACTION A.

Completed Process Corrective Action B.

Planned Process Corrective Action IV.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS ATTACHMENTS 1.

IOM, R. Tulloch to L. Curtis, 5/13/82 (Com 069863) 2.

IOM, D. Riat to L. Curtis, 4/23/82 (Com 067605) 3.

Consumers Power Company NCR M-01-9-2-007 4.

Consumers Power Company NCR M-01-9-2-010 5.

Consumers Power Company NCR M-01-5-2-014 6.

Consumers Power Company NCR M-01-5-2-017 7.

Transmittal Field (Response to Attachment 3) 8.

Transmittal Field (Response to Attachment 4) 9.

Transmittal Field (Response to Attachment 5) ii

e Midlcnd Plcnt Units 1 cnd 2 Hnngar R; port Table of Contents (continued) 10.

Transmittal Field (Response to Attachment 7) 11.

Engineering Response to Attachment 3 12.

Engineering Response to Attachment 4 13.

Engineering Response to Attachment 5 14.

Engineering Response to Attachment 6 15.

CPCo letter Serial 17009, 5/5/82 (Com 069346) 16.

Classroom Training Letter 17.

On-the-Job Training Checklist 18.

Installation Review Forms P-119S and P-129S iii

(

MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 HANGER REPORT I.

INTRODUCTION A.

Reason for Overinspection-The NRC conducted an inspection at the Midland jobsite from May 18 to 22, 1981.

As a result of that inspection, two items of noncompliance were documented.

Item 329/81-12-11; 330/81-12-12 states in part ".

. seven large bore pipe restraints, supports, and anchors were not installed in accordance with design drawing and specification requirements."

Item 329/81-12-12; 330/81-12-13 states in part ".

. QC inspectors inspected and accepted 6 of 7 large bore pipe restraints, supports, and anchors that had not been installed in accordance with design drawings and specifications as determined by the NRC inspector."

In the Consumers Power Company response to those items of noncompliance (CPCo letter Serial 14601, 10/30/81), a commitment was made for the Midland Project Quality Assurance Department (MPQAD) to perform an overinspection of a sample of hangers installed before January 1981.

The purpose of the overinspection was to assess the acceptability of the installations and the adequacy of the original inspections performed by Bechtel Quality Control (QC).

B.

Overinspection Results One hundred twenty-three hangers were overinspected by MPQAD.

With one exception, all of the hangers were installed before January 1981.

The results of the MPQAD overinspection are summarized as follows:

Hangers overinspected 123 Hangers acceptable (no nonconformances) 68 (55%)

j Characteristics overinspected 9,630 l

Characterictics acceptable 9,504 (98.7%)

l The statistics given above, with some variances, were provided to the NRC during an exit meeting held on April 23, 1982 (see 5).

The nonconformances identified in the overinspection were documented on MPQAD Nonconformance Reports (NCRs) M-01-9-2-007, M-01-9-2-010, M-01-5-2-014, and M-01-5-2-017.

I-1

Midltnd Plcnt Unita 1 cnd 2 Hcngar Report As issued in February 1982, the NCRs listed above identifed the 55 nonconforming hangers and grouped the 126 nonconforming characteristics into 88 items.

(An item is one or more nonconforming characteristics of the same kind on a single hanger.)

C.

Corrective Action and Safety Evaluation of Identified Nonconformances Upon receipt of the NCR, construction and QC reviewed each nonconforming characteristic and item and performed a reinspection to understand them more fully.

On the basis of the review and reinspection, the items were dispositioned to perform one of the following:

Rework them (Category A) o Accept them as is, based on redline drawings approved by o

Field Engineering in accordance with Field Procedure FIP-1.112 (Category B)

Accept them as is, based on the redline drawing approved o

by Project Engineering in accordance with Procedure EDPI 4.46.9 (Category C)

Reclassify them as conforming to requirements based on o

the reinspection results and based on agreements with MPQAD (Category D)

Submit them for further dispositioning to project o

engineering (Category E)

The above dispositions were provided to the MPQAD as formal responses to the NCR (see Attachments 7 through 10).

The items dispositioned for Categories A, B, C, and D above were evaluated by Project Engineering to have no impact on safety.

D.

Adjusted Reported Results and Dispositions t

Based on the reinspection results concurred with by MPQAD and the disposition categories above, the 88 items were dispositioned as follows:

Category Quantity of Items A

21 B

31 C

13 D

21 E

2 TOTAL 88 l

I-2

r Midlcnd Plant Units 1 cnd 2

-H:ngar R port Based on the foregoing information, for the total number of hangers installed before January 1, 1981, there is 95% confidence that at least 97.5% of the characteristics of the hangers conform to the requirements.

,A=

4 I-3

r 1

Midlcnd Pltnt Unita 1 cnd 2 Hcngar R; port II.

POTENTIAL GENERIC EVALUATION OF IDENTIFIED NONCONFORMANCES A.

Introduction The 67 nonconforming items remaining after adjusting the overinspection results have been categorized into 14 specific anomaly groups, as shown in Table 1 and further described in Table 2.

Additionally, Table 1 provides a rationale as to the generic implications of each anomaly group and as to actions already taken and to be taken.

B.

Conclusions Table 1 lists four anomaly groups that are of generic concern if they should occur elsewhere.

To identify these occurrences, various examinations as described in Section IV will be utilized.

Once identified during these examinations, any nonconformances will be properly dispositioned.

C.

Tables 1 and 2 Tables 1 and 2 categorize and describe the 14 specific anomaly groups.

These tables are found on the following pages.

II-1

Midland Plant Units 1 End 2 HLngar Report TABLE 1 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO RESOLVE ANOMALIES E

Number of Generic Anomaly Occurrences Concern Rationale Action Required 1.

Missing components 4

Yes Missing components could have a) Field Engineering and Quality an effect on the ability of Control are required to per-the support to function prop-form inspections of each erly.

hanger in accordance with the requirements of Specification 7220-M-326 ' and AAPD/ PSP-G-ll. l '

prior to turnover. This is to verify the hanger. configuration conforms to the latest design drawings.

These additional inspections will identify tny missing com-ponents as required by the design.

Records of completion will be cecorded on the P-119 (small bore) and P-129 ' (large bore) form as required by Specifi-cation 7220-M-326.

Quality Control procedure AAPD/ PSP G-11.1 will provide additional guidelines.

2.

Material substitution

.4 No Substituted material was found to be equal to or better than that specified.

Review of existing conditions indicates conditions are accep-table because they are in accordance with the specifica-tions.

Field Engineering utilized Field is to utilize field change Section 5.10 of Specification procedures for future substitu-7220-M-326 when making tions.

material substitutions and exercising engineering judg-ment.

The four occurrences do not indicate any further action is warranted.

I

Midland plant Units 1 and 2 Ilanger Report e

TABLE 1 (continued)

Number of Generic Anomaly Occurrences Concern

?

RatioMale Action Required 3.

Undersize welds A) Component supports 8

No Evaluation by engineering has No further action beyond engi-other than anchors determined that these existing neering analysis and a previous undersized welds do not have analysis and testing is required.

an impact on safety.

During 1977 and 1978, under-sized welds of tnis type were analyzed and tested extensively 3,

as a result of 10 CFR 50.55(e) reports on this subject.

(Ref-erence Bechtel MCARs 18, 19, and 21). Welds of this type were found to be acceptable be-cause of design conservatism.

This analysis was verified by destructive load testing of worst-case deviations. The analysis and worst-case test-ing was based on the results of random sample reinspections and random sample drawing re-views. The conditions dis-covered during the overinspec-tion are no more severe than, and are similar in configura-tion to, those welds analyzed and tested earlier based on these facts. Any undersized welds that may have not been 4

identified would have no impact on safety.

B) Anc hors 3

No Same as above Same as dbove 4.

Bill of material problem 10 No The size, shape, and charac-Revise Specification 7220-M-326 teristics of the item (e.g.,

to define " member length" on bill 3 x 3 x 3/8) are critical to of material as being provided to the supports however, the f acilitate shop f abrication amount of the item (e.g.,

only.

length) is not critical out is only a guide for estimating required quantities.

i s

l 2

s s

9 m

k

.y

.. ~ -

Midlaad Fiant Units 1 and 2 Hanger. Report i

-TABLE 1 (continued) s Number of Generic Anomaly Occurrences Concern Rationale Action Required

-a SA.

Dimensional violations 11 No If the location of the member Revise Specification 7220-M-326 (other than anchors) point of attachment to build-to clarify the' tolerances.

ing structure and centerline With this clarification, the' of pipe are within tolerance, previously identified noncon-there is no effect on the formances are eliminated.

i design or structural capa-bility of the support.

l 2

58.

Dimensional violations 2

Same as above Same as above

]

(anchors) 6.

Clearance between pipe

'I and support A) Zero clearance 5

Yes Binding of pipe by box or U 2ero clearance and excessive bolt does not allow pipe to clearance are attributes i

mcve axially.

checked during planned engineer-i ing functional stress walkdown.

This walkdown will cover all Q l

supports where this condition j

could exist.

j B) Excessive clear-4 Yes Clearance is greater than that ance specified in drawings, but this does not af fect the structural integrity of the com ponen t.

If a seismic event occurs, the integrity of piping i

system could be compromised (additional impact loads).

7.

Fixed component rotation A) WP in tension 1

Yes As installed, the load (ten-These cases have been found rotated 90 degrees sion) carrying capability of acceptable. The inspections the component was not compro-described in the " Action Required" mised.

Th..s may not be true for Anomaly 1 will address this for other possible rota-anomaly as well.

tions of components.

B) Angle rotated 90 1

Yes An equal leg angle has equal Same as Anomaly 7A degrees (only equal moments of inertia when ro-leg angles) tated in increments of 90 degrees. This would not be true for unequal leg angles.

3

o g

Midisnd Plant Units 1 &nd 2 Hinger Report

,e

=

TABLE 1 (continued)

Number of Generic Anomaly Occurrences Concern Rationafe Action Required 8.

Location of hangers 5

No Hanger location dimensions on Relocation of hangers to be con-hanger drawings are reference sistent with the location of the dimensions for small bore and -

pipe is not a problem for this are so noted on the drawings.

type of occurrence.

The large bore hangers are controlled by hanger drawings.

Field will request design changes Conditions are unique to for all future occurrences.

skewed pipe.

Project Engineering will also judge the acceptability of hanger location during f unctional-walk-

-g down.

9.

Gap between wall and base-1 No Evaluation by engineering in-Same as Anomaly 7A plate dicates that, as installed, this baseplate is acceptables one occurrence in the total sample does not indicate this is of generic concern.

10.

Clevis rotation 2

Yes Hanger design normally pro-Same as Anomaly 7A vides for 15 degrees rota-tion in the direction of least pipe movement. If rotating movement is larger, this could Currently, Specification 7220-restrict pipe movement.

M-326(Q), Section 6.1, requires that Field Engineering observe pipe movement during plant heat-up.

Restricted motion would be noted at that time.

11.

Irregulairty in weld 1

No a) Weld is not undersized.

Project Engineering review of this (grinding of weld) case completed all required b) Structural integrity has action.

not been violated.

12.

Incorrect weld A) Weld in wrong place 1

No Flared bevel groove weld used Same as Anomaly 7A (weld is east-west to hold a shim in place with instead of north-very low weld loading.

south)

B) Rotated weld 1

Yes Stress analysis required.

Rotated welds may provide strength only in secondary axis.

4

=

Midlarxl Pl.nt Units 1 cnd 2 Itanger Report TABLE 1 (continued)

Number of Generic Anomaly occurrences Concern Rat ionale -

Action Required C) Modification to 1

No The modified weld has been weld configuration analyzed and found accep-table.

13.

Thread engagement (engage-1 No Thread engagement will be set Same as Anomaly 7A ment of rod into sway during adjustment of hangers strut) prior to functional turnover.

14.

Miscellaneous (angle clip 1

No Clips are only to facilitate None in wrong location) construction.

t e

e 5

Midlcnd Pltnt Unita 1 cnd 2 Hcng0r R; port TABLE 2 DESCRIPTION OF ANOMALIES ANOMALY 1:

MISSING COMPONENTS Description of Anomaly Missing components, e.g.,

nuts, bolts', washers, cotter pins, lock nuts Hanger No.

No. of Occurrences Ref:

CPCo NCR FSK-M-2ECB-4-4-HS, 1

M-01-5-2-014 Rev 2 (Item a)

FSK-M-2 EBB-3-4-H1, 3

M-01-5-2-014 Rev 1 (Item a, b, c) i l

l

_#=

1 i

Mid1cnd Plant Units 1 cnd 2 Hangar R; port TABLE 2 (continued)

ANOMALY 2:

MATERIAL SUBSTITUTI'ON Description of Anomaly The drawing requires the jam nuts to be SA-307, GR B.

On the a.

contrary, j am nuts SA-194, 2H were used, b.

PGS 104 pipe strap specified; PGS 111 installed.

c.

W5 I-beam specified; W6 I-beam installed.

Hanger No.

No. of Occurrences Ref:

CPCo NCR FSK-M-1CCB-69-1-H1, 1

M-01-5-2-017 Rev 3 (a)

FSK-M-1CCB-69-1-H2, 1

M-01-5-2-017 Rev 2 (a)

FSK-M-2HBC-145-1-HS, 1

M-01-5-2-014 Rev 2 (c)

FSK-M-2GCB-21-1-H1, 1

M-01-9-2-010 (b) 1 l

t l

2

Midlcnd Plcnt Units 1 cnd 2 H ngar R; port TABLE 2 (continued)

ANOMALY 3:

UNDERSIZE WELDS Description of Anomaly Undersize welds include:

a) weld size which is either entirely or partially less than specified in the drawing, b) undercut (burnout), and c) noncontinuous weldment.

3A - Component Supports Other Than Anchors:

N._.. c,v reve

/

rs

~ 1ll6'

-+

1/

WELD

"~

' ~ ~ ~ ~ '

SIZE \\

k 4

nQhs

i j

\\

\\U 6 /

POINT OF BURNOUT (a)

(b)

(c)

Hanger No.

No. of Occurrences Ref:

CPCo NCR 1-610-4-27, Rev 4(b) 1 M-01-9-2-007 2-604-3-18, Rev 1(c) 1 M-01-9-2-007 2-611-7-33, Rev 1(a) 1 M-01-9-2-010 2-611-6-5, Rev 3(a) 2 M-01-5-2-014 2-613-4-19, Rev 3(a) 1 M-01-5-2-014 2-619-6-11, Rev 3(a) 1 M-01-5-2-014 1-612-2-2, Rev 1(a) 1 M-01-5-2-014 3B - Anchors (see Figure 3a above):

Hanger No.

No. of Occurrences Ref:

CPCo NCR 2-619-1-19, Rev 1(a) 1 M-01-9-2-010 1-612-4-33, Rev 1/F1(a) 1 M-01-5-2-014 1-616-6-28, Rev 1(a) 1

__ M-01-9-2-007 3

Midlcnd Plcnt Units 1 cnd 2 Hangar Report TABLE 2 (continued)

ANOMALY 4:

BILL OF MATERIAL PROBLEM Description of Anomaly Component dimensions are not in accordance with the dimensions listed on the bill of materials.

EXISTING W27 x 45 l

//

u, -,a S=

F 0 8

//

5 2

g A

2 E

/'7 5

7'

/

11 % x 12 x 8 (S INSTALLE PER BOM 5 g jf

% x 11 x 7 A

.e 4 r

1r 1r Hanger No.

No. of Occurrences Ref:

CPCo NCR 1-616-10-22, Rev 4 1

M-01-9-2-007 FSK-M-2HBC-216-5-H3, Rev 0 1

M-01-9-2-010 2-604-16-15, Rev 0/F1 2

M-01-9-2-010 i

2-619-1-19, Rev 1 1

M-01-9-2-010 FSK-M-2HBC-219-1-H1, 1

M-01-9-2-010 Rev 0 i

FSK-M-2HBC-144-1-H8, 1

M-01-5-2-014 Rev 1 2-619-6-11, Rev 3 2

M-01-5-2-014 FSK-M-2GCB-22-1-H3, 1

M-01-5-2-014 l

Rev 0 l

4

Midltnd Plcnt Units 1 cnd 2 H2ngar Rcport TABLE 2 (continued)

ANOMALY 5:

DIMENSIONAL VIOLATION Description of Anomaly Anqular and linear dimensions are not in accordance with the drawing.

5A - Component Supports Other Than Anchors:

46%

• AS BUILT 44' e 1*

DRAWING h?QUIREMENT If.4" 9f.16" E

E I

E5o m

O (a)

Hanger No.

No. of Occurrences Ref:

CPCo NCR 2-611-6-5, Rev 3 1

M-01-5-2-014 1-619-14-4, Rev 2 1

M-01-9-2-007 1-610-4-27, Rev 4 1

M-01-9-2-007 1-616-10-22, Rev 4 1

M-01-9-2-007 1-612-2-3, Rev 1 1

M-01-9-2-007 FSK-M-1HBC-219-1-H1, Rev 2 1

M-01-9-2-007 2-616-8-2, Rev 7 1

M-01-9-2-010 5

1, l

lll l1 l

!l 1ll!

ll l1lll!l i

1 S

1 2

2 T

B A

6 6

6 6

B 1

3 1

1 L

6 3

7 1

E H

A H

6 a

n 1

1 4

a 2

n c

1 n

2 g

h 3

4 g

(

8 e

o 3

9 e

c r

r r

o s

R n

R N

5 5

R R

e N

t e

o 8

8 e

e v

.o i

2 v

3 v

v n

0 8

4 u

1 2

0 e

E$E0 4zO d

o*

)

kS4 a

C l',,'l l :

"l8l

's i

N N

o o

l.

o o

6 f

- ?e =

f E0

(

O b

. C Ts*

4 O

)

a 2

c

'e:i, i ;M 1

2 1

c c

c u

i',,'.

u

~-

r r

HM r

n K

r ai e

8 2

e nd n

gl c

2 c

ea e

A e

rn 1

s A

' D s

d C 2 R

T B

U eP A

pl L

oa 3 g rn 1

tt R

8 v R

M e

M M

M e

U f

A f

n 0

C 0

0 0

i 1

T 1

1 1

t U

9 C

A s

5 5

9 C

L P

P 1

2 C

2 2

2 C

o o

a 0

0 0

0 n

0 N

1 1

1 N

d 7

C 7

4 0

C R

R 2

iI!

i

Midlcnd Plcnt Unita 1 cnd 2 H:ngar R; port TABLE 2 (continued)

ANOMALY 6:

CLEARANCE BETWEEN PIPE AND SUPPORT Description of Anomaly Clearances between pipe and support (strap, u-bolt, box) do not conform to the drawing / specification tolerances, e.g.,

zero clearance, excessive clearance.

EXISTING W24 x 145

- - ~ ~ - - - ~ - - ~ ~

k I i

/

I I

/

l I I I

1

/

l l

0 E

I !

d j

/

l I

i I i 1 l

3

/

.f l

z o

i I I

l k(

dll-W f

s -

+

+

J G

J J

=

G ZERO CLEARANCE EXCESSIVE CLEARANCE (a)

(b)

Hanger No.

No. of Occurrences Ref:

CPCo NCR 2-604-16-15, Rev 0/F1(a) 1 M-01-9-2-010 2-657-43-6, Rev 1(b) 1 M-01-9-2-010 2-619-6-11, Rev 3(a) 1 M-01-5-2-014 FSK-M-1HBC-144-1-H3, 1

M-01-5-2-017 Rev 1(b) 1-648-7-58, Rev 1/F1(b) 1 M-01-5-2-017 1-657-37-9, Rev 2(a) 1 M-01-5-2-017 FSK-M-OHBC-142-1-H1, 1

M-01-5-2-017 Rev 4(b) 7

Midltnd P1Ent Units 1 and 2 Htngar Rsport TABLE 2 (continued)

Hanger No.

No. of Occurrences Ref:

CPCo NCR FSK-M-lCCB-69-1-H2, 1

M-01-5-2-017 Rev 2(a)

FSK-M-1HBC-145-1-H9, 1

M-01-5-2-017 Rev 2(a) a l

l l

8 i

l l

t

+

- * - - ' ' ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ "

Midland Plcnt Units 1 and 2 Hunger R2 port TABLE 2 (continued)

ANOMALY 7:

FIXED COMPONENT ROTATION Description of Anomaly Support member rotated _ degrees from design sketch.

DRAWING REQUIREMENT AS INSTALLED EXISTING W12 x 50 31 lI l

l II I

Il 1

-1 1-('d

.m.

i f'.s

+

+

4 g

DRAWING

+

+

g

+-K e.:.

9%*

t-

+

AS INSTALLED

+-

+

(7b)

Hanger No.

No. of Occurrences Ref:

CPCo NCR 2-639-13-5, Rev 2(a) 1 M-01-9-2-010 2-604-17-2, Rev 1(b) 1 M-01-9-2-010 9

Midlcnd Plant Unita 1 and 2 Hengcr Rtport TABLE 2 (continued)

ANOMALY 8:

LOCATION OF HANGERS Description of Anomaly Hangers are not installed in accordance with the elevation and coordinates specified in the drawings.

For example:

ASINSTALLED l 1'-10 118" DRAWING 1'-7 118" i

/

I N

s DRAWING PLAN ELEVATION = 575'-11"

~~

(-

AS INSTALLED = 575' 6" i(

)

ELEVATION COORDINATES Hanger No.

No. of Occurrences Ref:

CPCo NCR FSK-M-2HBC-217-1-H2, 1

M-01-9-2-010 Rev 1 1-612-2-2, Rev 1 1

M-01-5-2-014 l

2-619-6-11, Rev 3 1

M-01-5-2-014 l

1-612-3-12, Rev 1 1

M-01-5-2-014 2-619-1-20, Rev 1 1

M-0J.-5-2-014 l

I 10 l

m

Midlcnd Plcnt Units 1 cnd 2 H*ngar R; port TABLE 2 (continued)

ANOMALY 9:

GAP BETWEEN WALL AND BASEPLATE Description of Anomaly Lower right-hand corner of baseplate exceeds gap tolerance.

b.;,

4--<

[

ll

+:

,i

/m

,l Qv f',

p AREA WITH l

I GAP i;

\\v.

ll p d

Hanger No.

No. of Occurrences Ref:

CPCo NCR FSK-M-2HBC-216-5-H3, 1

M-01-9-2-010 Rev 0 e

11

Midland Plant Units 1 End 2 Hcngar R3 port TABLE 2 (continued)

ANOMALY 10:

CLEVIS ROTATION Description of Anomaly Clevis rotated 90 degrees from drawing configuration.

DRAWING REQUIREMENT h

WK 1C AS INSTALLED Hanger No.

No. of Occurrences Ref:

CPCo NCR 2-604-2-35, Rev 1 1

M-01-9-2-010 2-619-2-19, Rev 1 1

M-01-5-2-014 12 l

l

Midlrnd PILnt Unit 2 1 End 2 HEngar Rcport TABLE 2 (continued)

ANOMALY 11:

IRREGULARITY IN WELD Description of Anomaly The vertical support weldment exhibits an approximately 2-inch-long groove, creating a sharp edge.

ll 1/16" b-

-)

Of Hanger No.

No. of Occurrences Ref:

CPCo NCR FSK-M-1HBC-219-1-H1 1

M-01-9-2-007 Rev 2 i

l l

i i

e=d

• l l

1 13 I

l

Midlend Pltnt Unita 1 cnd 2 Hangar R; port TABLE 2 (continued)

ANOMALY 12:

WELD IN WRONG PLACE Description of Anomaly Field welds do not conform to drawing requirements, e.g.,

a, b) welds located at the ends instead of at the sides, c) weld configuration is not as shown on the drawing.

DRAWING REQUIREMENT DRAWING

^

^

REQUIREMENT l

I AS INSTAL. LED (a)(b) k (c)

Hanger No.

No. of Occurrences Ref:

CPCo NCR 0-618-1-6, Rev 0(b) 1 M-01-5-2-017 2-617-8-5, Rev 2(c) 1 M-01-9-2-007 FSK-M-2HBC-219-1-H1, 1

M-01-9-2-010 Rev O(a) s 14

Midlcnd Pltnt Units 1 and 2 H2ngar Rrport TABLE 2.(continued)

ANOMALY 13:

THREAD ENGAGEMENT j

Description of Anomaly At sight holes of support rod, no threads are visible.

Thread engagement (at the lower end only) was 1 inch, instead of 1-1/2 inch.

i i

/

. [_

Hanger No.

No. of Occurrences Ref:

CPCo NCR 1-616-8-2, Rev 7 1

M-01-9-2-010 15

r Midicnd Plcnt Unito 1 cnd 2 Htngar R:p3rt TABLE 2 (continued)

ANOMALY 14:

MISCELLANEOUS Description of Anomaly Angle clips are in wrong location.

ANGLE CLIPS AS INSTALLED

\\

\\

n

--m

's cr ANGLE CLIPS PER DRAWING r.

m 7

s LOOKING WEST Hanger No.

No. of Occurrences Ref:

CPCo NCR 0-617-7-13, Rev 0 1

M-01-5-2-017 i

l i

l 16

Midlcnd Plcnt Unita 1 cnd 2 Hangar Rsport III.

PROCESS CORRECTIVE ACTION A.

Completed Process Corrective Action

~

In January 1981 a QC Training Coordinator was appointed.

The Training Coordinator's primary function is to arrange indoctrination and orientation training for new QC Engineers (QCEs).

This training gives the QCE a better understanding of the Project Quality Assurance (QA)/QC programs.

The Training Coordinator reviews all training and certifications to ensure that the new QCE fulfills all requirements set forth in PSP G-8.1, which is Bechtel's procedure for complying with ANSI N45.2.6.

In addition to the Training Coordinator responsibilities, each discipline group supervisor (e.g., pipe supervisor) has created training programs for new QCEs.

Training involves both classroom and on-the-job training (OJT).

This training is then documented on standard training letters and OJT checklists (see Attachments 16 and 17).

During training, each group supervisor tests the new QCE to determine areas in which the QCE needs additional training.

In 1981 approximately 1,400 documented training sessions were performed by the pipe / mechanical discipline.

Audiovisual training programs have also been established to help familiarize new QCEs with the areas to which they will be assigned (e.g., pipe, hangers).

Examples of audiovisual aids are:

audioviewer projector, slide / tape programs, and overhead transparencies.

In early 1981, a formal Level II QCE training program was established to better familiarize the potential Level II QCE with QA/QC philosophy, organization, and program requirements.

The l

program also instructs in evaluations, training, and reviewing l

documents for acceptance.

From February to March 1981 several pipe / mechanical discipline project QC instructions were changed to incorporate installation inspection records and welding inspection records.

These changes were made to reduce the amount of paperwork and documentation errors.

Other changes were made to replace surveillances with specific inspections on a characteristic-by-characteristic basis.

From November 1980 to January 1981, the project QC department underwent a management change.

A new project field QCE and lead pipe / mechanical QCE were appointed during this period.

Through t

their programatic and technical direction, the training and certification _ programs have improved the thoroughness and effectiveness of the QCE.

i l

l

b Midland Plcnt Unito 1 cnd 2 H ngar R;pcrt After April 1981, the number of Q indicators averaged approximately 20 per month.

Before that time, the number was substantially higher.

MPQAD overinspections confirmed the improvement in conformance to the installation and inspection program.

B.

Planned Process Corrective Action The following actions are to be taken in addition to the examinations and inspections described in Section IV.

1.

Specification 7220-M-326 will be revised as described in Table 1 to provide additional direction to construction.

2.

The QC instructions will be revised as necessary to reflect the specification changes.

3.

Training will be provided as necessary to reflect the changes to both the specification and QC instructions.

l l

l l

l 2

Midicnd Plcnt Unita 1 End 2 H:ngar R; port IV.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS As stated in Section I, deficiencies identified during the Consumers Power Company overinspection would not have had an impact on safety.

Reasonable assurance, based on the confidence level described in Section I, has been provided that if the same deficiencies occurred in similar situations, there would be no i

impact on safety.

Section III describes process corrective actions taken after January 1981, which are applicable to this problem.

Based on these actions, hangers installed after January 1981 should have fewer deficiencies and an even higher assurance that there would be no impact on safety.

However, additional inspections of hangers are planned by the project before fuel load in accordance with actions described as shown in Table 1 of Section II.

I i

1 h

t IV-1

),W 'r @ f h/ * ## /

GSCU]

Bechtel Power Corporation Inter-office Memorandum T2 L. H. Curtis Date May 13, 1982 Subject Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 From R. Tulloch Bechtel Job 7220 Safety Evaluation of Large Bore Pipe of Project W aserira Hangers Discrepancies Identified in Copies to CPCo NCRs At Ann Arbor P. Corcoran w/a R.Hollarw/a D. Anderson w/a D.Borlazaw/a D. Lewis w/a D. Loos w/a B.Kleinw/a

References:

A NCR M-01-9-2-007 AI: S-1261 B

NCR M-01-9-2-010 AI: S-1265 C

NCR M-01-5-2-01h AI: S-1267 D

NCR M-01-5-2-017 AI: S-1272 E

NCR M-01-5-2-015 AI: S-1268 This documents the safety evaluation perforced by Plant Design Group on Large Bore Pipe Hangers discrepancies identified in the referenced CPCo NCRs. Only those hangers identified as requiring rework are the subject of this evaluation.

Detailed safety evaluation for these hangers are attached.

I CPCo NCR M-01-9-2-007

• 1-616-6-28 CPCo NCR M-01-9-2-010 2-619-1-19 I

2-611-7-33 l

l 2-60h-2-35 1-616-8-2 l 657-h3-6 l

l 2-60h-16-15 OPCo NCR M-01-5-2-01h 2-619-6-11 i+

• This item was field redlined. Status was changed to rework.

Results of the safety evaluation indicate that the identified deficiencies, were they to have remained uncorrected, could not have affected adversely the safety of cperation of the plant.

69603 Bechtel Associates ProfessionalCorporation ICM Page 2 If there are any questions, please advise.

)3 l

i

' ^ -

Prepared by R. Tulloch P.D. Group Supervisor

3. s e

1. c

Reviewed by N/ 4 D. F. Lewis Licensing Engineer (LA d-CW m

/

R. L. Loos Chief Nuclear Engineer RT/LS/sim Attachments onse Requested: No Written Resp /A com Use N

t l

l l

1 l

)

I K E. r t. l iv NvN.J_w w.s m~su

.sm.

\\

s DAE];

MOJ T JOB NO.

LOCATIDH

\\

h/1'kArvD /

7-7220 pyycopb fylt gj.

$ )S u sr/ + /2.5 f c x Mg O S u fi j SUBJECT NLR CLf N 7?Is. 2 - c o ')

CA o

ITEM NO.

LOG NO.

ITEM /-6 /6 - 6 ~2B (Q)

NON-CONTORNING PART p,yy,esig 7,v e-w PIPE SUPP0BT EVALUATION

/hW"Sh*

RATI0tmLE FOR ACCEPTING SAFETY EVALUATION

\\

STRESS ENGINEERS COMMENTS PIPE SUPPORT ENGINEERS COMMENTS

/ 7- & //ouwencr

//89

& 7Y/UnwFD EGco ssus- [ ewe-ju,$y 7

%~ $" Agllllnn6E3mm** Jue=to twe c.

,9ccows//rws-r 774--

/wo o 9 6m m77ows.

//Wsz. 8 77/.

as fh w w

STRESS ElGINEER DATE 6PPROVED DATE N 2. 3 -rt.

PP UPPJRT HGINEER DATE f

(#7s(&

4z-su

l s--

1 t20 JECT JOB NO.

LOC AT ION DAT E krDoowo /d 6 7 2 2 ')'

/?I o ssaae /?1 I 9 2.? n L >

wn fm L. oj UgGU~

SUBJECT NCR r-

.m CLIENT

/?fo/ - f - 2

,6/ O ITEM NO.

LOG NO.

ITEM 2 -d/9-H9 to) lion-CONFORHiliG PART kr1let*D2<d N,,b "

fucc.o ~[$ric /Tc:'m 6 T= ll

• S

/ " c[tpe {k.

PIPE SUPP0BT EVALUATION RATIONALE FOR ACCEPTING SAFETY EVALUATION

\\

STRESS ENGillEERS COMMEllTS PIPE SUPPORT ENGINEERS COMMENTS PC wtLD sb cut stro.s/ (t3 frk.o s td

/Mm koJ.

6 h th E3

1. 1. " ~

7)/t/Zf/,~w2f, g,w stg.r/2/ 4 /r r3y

/,f3 5 for 4#W Lo AD B CM /~ C

/ " 'M WQ W'L L "f +f,ct e,r yg

.b gx/ g a i.u7ggg"/ry & h+C

/ 7" s5

^* C.c &p'.rgag.f",

py

$rauc.?uA'4.

/ 7TCA:s'Nf'f"

,{lc f f.

pw STRESS ENGINEER DATE APPROVED D AT E f

P,Lfp'onjvEP,h g.

yll,.s A P%oe

'c " *

=

REPLY To kJOUCOkJFORh1AUCE REPORT l

I

'1 JOB NO.

LCr* AT ION DATE

.'l PROJECT,

, g...~'g-'

7226 Mfionuo /?ti 4' -M t<2

\\

Afmuso /ez SUBJECT NCR i

.Q 1 CLIENT [ourserics Se*L d ')

N 2/ - 9 *2 - D/ 0 l

',f ITEM NO.

LOG NO.

ITEM 2 - di / (

~) - y y Q )

NON-CONF 0RMItiG PART m// M i k 2f3 m M W Id' "

PIPE SUPPGBT EVALUATION f L Jtt N-(klof f

RATI0tmLE FOR ACCEPTING SAFETY EVALUATION

\\

~.

STRESS ENGINEERS CO.%iENTS PIPE SUPPORT ENGINEERS COM.MENTS

' Tame x vit -zya.t. g

,GefnL' 04,~ I Orye& Aces

/ty. XV!!

ShL m ns~ Dre oeMr

//g 'oe/c/ ckQir LICK 8'Sur?:iwu~:

& fa*r }{ "70A & CnDode~ce} a. 'ckweIV.

[,. % 6 rx w~,

,z m rw n yy An. a w

wi,x,n n n <w mime.-

e s.)U (s9P6Tf /rrst'A' dC W~ Y' STRESS ENGINTER DATE APPROVED DATE fr 4'-

-91L

PROJECT JO NO.

LOCATION DATE Nieucao l4 2 00063

~U0

/dwman Af 9 27-&%

1 i

CLIENT SUBJECT NCR

[o orvariawr &ern Afot*9-2 ~0!O ITEM NO.

LOG NO.

ITEM

'[- SO't - 2 '3 5 (G) hg Wn:$7d7CO PQ '

PIPE SUPP9BT EVALUATION RAT 10flALE FOR ACCEPTING SAFETY EVALUATION

\\

STRESS ENGINEERS COMMENTS PIPE SUPPORT ENGINEERS COMMENTS ir O

TGre(M B4z%~ sf Rea,e-/9ea-c LeN q

jp7ous,nevv

/-teg &, e & c < n N r d e ci y w f

fcfQ impact 120 STRESS ENGINEER DATE APPROVED D AT E.

f Ymm.

g 2 '} g g P

NEER D

1 MEPLY l O MU LJLU hJr Uk MA LA t.

K t r uta i

/,

\\

1 JOB NO.

LOC AT ION DATE PT:0JJET)Y/b LM /!E-G E - Y 3 72 Zo

/27/D utru/)

'7??z 4'21l; i

1 SUBJECT NCR CLIE's c;v0u/7/cf5 f u'l- (o

/ N o t _ c;?. g. o,o

~~;

~

ITEN HO.

LOG HO.

ITEM 6 5/);'

/-C /f - f-z (q)

C do7v<4 c=w o #

NON-CONTOR}!!NG PART 7pf,;pfy e-w cs_c,_7,7 c,vr em ey.reswo ^J

[beb suoY 277cc)r~ /?c cpui/2e.?rrre-wih 7?hW.SJAc~r7 dA',jc,g44 777g y

/>

/

ef?<su smur /,

/ ff. "

PIPE SUPPGBT EYALUATION RATIONALE FOR ACEEPTING' SAFETY EVALUATION,

\\

STRESS ENGINEERS C0!!MENTS I

l PIPE SUPPORT ENGINEERS COP.9ENTS Sufy,%.,-

&m on c,+c e 6, s 77/7:e w JA Sp;ep,1cou;- /,

s y:;c, y S g-n /S:30eM

/~/tr 2// Yo

/ e c i~~ /27 'c 5

/s - Gr^As<.. 4,~n n 4

77

$ G viAM rrt. a s.

s'? Tl-y/'.$9v. s #7-G. k' $##/ U /M 1 l l STRESS ENGINEER DATE APPROVED DATE /VJ S

• 218 L-

.W)"*")}}%'" 9 * ^k'. g - "0"

REPLY To kjOLJCOkJFORMAUCE REPORT JOB NO. LOCATION E

10iECT j

j / 8fo u s/o / 4 E. b$bb3 77t 0 Abwe //7/ fg, SUBJECT NCR l'GLIl!NT6 msac2ts h ce do /H0 / 2 010 ITEM NO. LOG HO. ITEM HON-CONTORMING PART $//$ Cfers-aacc &tt& E7c4:oces E * * ?'l E $ U '$* 0I t PIPE SUPPGBT EV ATION f d c'4 Wt b h S' 4 [et-ffCY%t?m2. AA AAf^d "P f RATIONALE FOR ACCEPTING SAFETY EVALUATION \\ t 8,_ STRESS ENGINEERS COMMENTS i I l ~ l PIPE SUPPORT ENGINEERS COMMENTS - l h fr: 8 l f IAS dr A'Y h*N om fcce -6 SJ U&R ]ni /0c e o J/cff Int c 4 STRESS ElGINEER DATE APPROVED OATE

d E t. (j j JOB NO. LOCAT ION DATE PROJE' T t DL A JO O L 72 ~z. O 7& os so in'

1. ~&

SUBJECT HCR a CLIENT

• W r.m r go n g0 prot c)- z-ei o

~ .,n ITEM NO. LOG HO. ITEM 'l ~ d' 0 't * /6 - I V (G ) \\ N3fi-CONFORMING PART OtECCTI N M f'dc.of U $ 8 {} Q o f f ' O [ f y n c c -8 t PIPE SUPPGBT EVALUATION f RATIONALE FOR ACCEPTING No.fpa.e.U.ola i SAFETY EVALUATION \\ STRESS ENGINEERS COMMENTS PIPE SUPPORT ENGIriEERS COMMENTS n o 5,I. 3 ( g ) 't "U 4cr K e co,seps w pi,cesupp [7' c. 7TTo - 'M -ILd?) Sh r% a

• h <,,,ex 7,p.,,, op p,,,, x e

sje:te L/%q r rac.r na ,a u,,,1 a ciaw <. n cle.si7 n 1.a, f + u p,e oc p.ee luS + L~. e c.m t c.ta, .,c, tlc. ec%g (,J, s, f g '/ }<s s th w % "er nre m TW h'e ir *L i n e /ue/, y e Clegeva.es insy be cl&.~tr< 60 tect i~ s y neirn ec,f# < -PeTree-i Ticr* o ~ o M 5 A e f % /;'40 9 Zero C le 7r ~ ~ < *- Violes n A]o Sa[c4 iapued-9 DATE DATE APPROVED STRESS ENGINEER )U DATE p pg q _ g<f g d ORT fj64HEER P j -. V(. / Wow, 9'-28 8 L-

_N r r L I oV NU A jLU N F UFC tv IM Q L KtFUkl P PROJECT JOB NO. LOCATIQN DATE /ViDts>Jn / d I* ?? 7 o Nf,pmon pf, . ty. 7 9,.-7 2. CLIENT SUBJECT NCR diiurdir:c.gr Su e /Udl-f 0 / lt ITEM NO. LOG HO. i1TE6 /+ 76640 17cin 14 'L Ct9-t it(d '^ NON-CONFORNING PARTfypp3 po coa 4ca gxis r %cra>ce.-o Pit =e ( 4 x 9 1)ix>gt nf 177 ems >ne ~3/ta " /7cn / /Trin7 4 /Ta.'M 4 ro PIPE SUPP0BT EVALUATION RATIONALE FOR ACCEPTING - A t 7b.,r Dere 5 v d'o e m<ar - f,(sacu cy) s) fp~ e Svin s. ca pas'f" v' o c THa

• Pipe ir s cry 7 as s.)

00/ LO^ O. F@ c no*M L-ci i:s-c rS c >tT 7 " q 1?crueri uq in A uca r $~rrra's 1i,es s Y x cs o / s muest qksTcc THA u Loao T.?ue re> :ennise e s pe, u rio.) c f~Nei7dCl*O'C E / T f C o M *to/3'}l'.'0 ^' /T 50dA L' GA f3L E a rT CI- (Acc ' T h C 4 /f.g'./,- i1

• O f " TNEricmies 7,r,, * / g i.) eucogcpuoecD weL.O ~PCC CA<-cu< 4r!oO Tke r g tyce.

SAFETY EVALUATION \\ STRESS ENGINEERS COMMENTS PIPE SUPPORT ENGINEERS COMMENTS Th.e x To A Pc~r 'Ders,g.JFo<c. E vse u. r i ou-t A v c Suoc coirs r R'. Ta ~ c u ko nry /Jo P,-c r v &>tk'er t o 34,,,.,s i rj,e adGuOE.5 74 7'e0,0A Wo *%A < G", pd c.f - 7 $ < B D STRESS ENGINEER 'DATE APPROVED DATE /'W PI E -SpPP DATE 7 '/c/ccocs 9 d -- 7wl,ORTg'nGINEER.f. 7Aa; 4 m- /

-m2 Bechtel Power Corporation v v>v Inter-office Memorandum To L. H. Curtis Date April 23, 1982 Subject Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 From D. Riat Bechtel Job 7220 Safety Evaluation of Small Pipe of Resident Engineering Hanger Discrepancies Identified in copies to CPCo NCRs At Midland Jobsite w/a/a P. Corcoran v R. Hollar R. Tulloch w/a D. Anderson w/a D. Borlaza w/a D. Loos w/a B. Klein w/a

References:

A NCR M-01-9-2-007 AI S-1261 B NCR M-01-9-2-010 AI: S-1265 C NCR M-01-5-2-01h AI: s-1267 D NCR M-01-5-2-017 AI: S-1272 This documents the safety evaluation perfomed by the Small Pipe and Hanger Group (SPHG) on Small Pipe hangers discrepancies identified in the re-ferenced CPCo NCRs. Only those hangers requiring rework, as detemined by Construction, were subjected to this evaluation. Detailed safety evaluation for the following hangers are attached. CPCo NCR M-01 2-007 - - - - - - FSK M-1-HBC-219-1-H1 CPCo NCR M-01-9-2-010 - - - - - - FSK M-2-HBC-216-5-H3 FSK M-2-ECB-h-h-H5 CPCo NCR M-01-5-2-01h - - - FSK M-2-HBB-3-h-H1 l CPCo NCR M-01-5-2-017 - - - - - - FSK M-0-HBC-1h2-1-H1 ~ FSK M-1-HBC-1h5-1-H9 FSK M-1-HBC-1hh-1-H3 FSK M-1-CCB-69-1-H2 FSK M-1-CCB-69-1-H1 1 Results of the safety evalustion indicate that the identified deficiencies, l were they to have remained uncorrected, could not have affected adversely the safety of operation of the plant. l 1

IOM dat;d D. Riat to L. H. Curtis Page 2 f f h 4. /4 8 M S Prepared by D. Riat SPEG Group Supervisor Reviewed by \\ D. F. Lewis Licensing Engineer WNv /R. L. Loos Chief Nuclear Engineer Attachments: Written Response Requested: No com Use: N/A e-y

• ------a

REPLY TO MOUCOLJFORMAUCE REPORT PROJECT JOB NO. LOCATION DATE //toeswo A/peces.< 6(vks //E 7zzo Fe. swr.S'in<t her 9 -/Z 72. CLIENT SUBJECT NCR Cowsesmex,7?"~ex C.. /!/oi z - oo r ITEH NO. LOG NO. ITEM /6.) 8'/ 7 S'3 s"~SK-AY-MAC -2/9- /- H/ @) NON-CONFORHlliG PART /4 Gsoow /*.fm x fje

• x J/<. ~oss

<r'.ncssrs .4 r f o r r o r ** swr wasr we'* wfxe sus - //.r arnn#. A % '~ /~ #r is m'*

• fxe war.o

's 4"xce m oved to neerve ese o mer.aerwo ca.aa, Anee, ;Ge se auou o,- w m (t -) r ss Acero maer. PIPE SUPPORT EVALUATION O ACCEPTABLE-PROVIDE RATIONALE M NOT-ACCEPTXsLE-PERFORM SAFETY EVALUATION -rex c.t'/.srnres are w exeansua s.eescuuse rse.r.

wet, 3,,a se RATIONALE FOR ACCEPTING ~

y g SAFETY EVALUATION \\ \\ STRESS ENG!!iEERS CO*F.ENTS A i l PIPE SUPPORT ENGINEERS COMMENTS KtMW At eMeenus wxen.siz e wExt ReacA::co 79 f4r-e s seter 900

• dono - Wose - obscenwc) fat 2
• dewa, ys' t wet o wove.o ev4ury fog A Pt:5 srxsf ffK 2rp -t.*41c.

4Co-CoS Arv l'.

1. A/ 73ver f/S ", w s.4 s b zess Y,vr.<v:sf.coxo oW AV 77+A'sv 900 * {41cownsec et-car-)p 774'cxcmd y;rs' W640

• Cono Fox J4 o s

/s .:rrsec usr.v.ss oe.rsex 4.csownsee.t. sWo Sstsrv- /JFMcr cw 7;;vs

1. MGE.c.

STRESS liG "EER DATE l 4.-/Z-l' v l PIPE SUPPORT EliGINEER DATE &~RA:L.~ Y6.Vn i /f

_ REPLY To bJOUCOUFORMAUCE REPORT PROJ CT D/.t%/D JVL/LLGna YM r.1 l12 JOB NO. LOCATION DATE 722.43 $ES/OGn/1~ kaLL M 9'-/T-Z2. CLIENT \\ 00N.Susst&tt. fcau Ell 0. SUjBECTtiCR //t l'f - S ~ 2. - 0/0 ITEM tiO. LOG NO. ITEM f.5A:' ./17 2//B e .2/4 -S~H.3 G2) N0!i-CONFORMING PART AffAdY//Nt/1EiY Q% oi= Acsushc..Suu nese c <'ce~e:cu 6af LGa vitrine vr.s of.3PE-c a-3 z c. nil of laset Itairrtoeva Arucmt. CoLC / Low &K $ k b'#TF .;a.IGHILY > 'ogf Gdf f PIPE SUPPORI EVALUATION O ACCEPTABLE-PROVIDE RATIONALE KNOT-ACCEPTXBLE-PERFORMSAFETYEVALUATION RATIONALE FOR ACCEPT!!iG $ A SAFETY EVALUATION A.S.W.<>wMs CMLY T 13ch.r E,ci.rr ox rxe wrJc /tkrq L VNwere fxe /svoe r-osv ref .3 v'.s rsa' r. STRESS EliGINEEP.S COMMENTS PIPE SUPPORT EtiGI!!EERS COMMENTS i AAI EzIncuirr/od op s o ffofx ?n8e - D/(c - S.H.3 (c2.) /1.1sess><A>& -rNE detr~ oN TNd f.casfr!. KIGsf~ HAus) daAA/St?- Of"7Wf f3A.SE PLArF /3 A.,OrJ - ftWc rsedAL, f/ER/PM.3 rWar* sf&c p c l .57AEM Eh ///! f k//fMid DE.5 /CA,/ /?cL.ocod8 L c~r. Nfdffoae 9ft.E'.s Alo .5/?P E 7.V.//7) M C7~ DA) -ffff.50ffor T~, STRESS EN31NEER OATE PIPESUFPORTEliG.)NEER OATE

• Ebbes.a F//s-/yz

/ s L

REPLY TO hJOUCOUFORMAUCE REPORT PROJECT JOB NO. LOCATION DATE 17hoa.pno NJct Grv. Utvir.1 / 4' 2. 9:20 AEL/D6sv r .5 97A L L Ocutf d *JD

• EE.

CLIENT SUBJECT HCR Conruarte bajce Co. lNDI 2 - 0/Y ITEM NO. LOG NO. ITEM B e. " 6 0B2 / Arv4 2Eco-4-4 -HS a2] NON-CONFORHING PART 00rffA f/Al /b A//.5SsN6 ON LOWEK E N"Q W WE.$r Swif f.37Ad r. PIPE SUPPORT EVALUATION O ACCEPTABLE-PROVIDE RATIONALE % NOT-ACCEPTABLE-PERFORt! SAFETY EVALUATION ~ RATIO!! ALE FOR ACCEPTING SAFETY EVALUATIO!! \\ /93sdmid6 THE t/dtt r/ CAL RE.srAA/u r CN 7HE RAN6EA LA/ut BE Noiv.firsicrson/At. STRESS ENGINEERS COMENTS : Th'CA E /.S Af SOL u rEf.Y Ato 2b?tV4 t/2 O C. SofrTy' h'AEEBRD TO 7/rE l'rPssV4 .S.Y3"*Est?. TA'Ex'.ssk?i .3r/LTSL-3.MA'E /fCrustiL 7 R E DUC Eb, WEscHr~ AivD S Et ss/7/c. .S7*A E.112.5 AKE /Atc AL~Awo, 6.n* ARE .5rs4 L sAJJTNA) AS///[ -.5Ed7/ oaf.'2*ZE $0Qf ' }$t1 CW' AOLE .s istEst L G t/SLS.

l. OAD/h/C cA/ At17AC6A!7" A 2.5 fAA/AfrJ JNCREt'.rf JF 17' /3

/13S U/7/ED TA<A r-J/s?NS ER 2ECB 4 -}/S' la) Js MON-ft/Mr/tMA(. PIPE SUPPORT ENGIHEERS COM ENTS AN Euptuart$7s) of 7a' d ADJACftvr Sufr'ott r.t, 2 E C,6 4 ~ M 4 (2) AA/D 2ECo .4 -S~ ~///(;p), 'Wird THE \\ /dt. A EA S ED lDADS $ ridut/5 T' Af f/' r C Y AKE .57"JL L W sr M/IV h YNC HCCCrYA/.4 C DE,$ /6 Af AllCu/>46L E~ S

f"s'fA*c'/JAC

/>ftf /J M.5MCr.v' m:n:cr' o,v 7.a/c _s y.s 7tw. l l STRESS JNG.'EER DATE -t'. 4 22 - PIPE.'Sup(03TiNGINEER DATE j f b-. ~ntees., 9 -/0- 22 ./

in ws t

n. r.. r v et - 1

.,,v.w. v~. PROJECT JOB NO. LOC AT ION DATE 'M o o t A ivo Noc t.CA A Oiv o r.s l l 2. 722D At'.,iofivr.SmnLL Bo<t 1 -B-B 2. CLIENT SUBJECT NCR CoNsvings POa/ER 0. 171ot - s.2. - os +' 11EH H0. LOG NO. ITEM /S

• 7/629 ArvS f.5x tr7-ZE86-3-4 :///li:2.)

It0tl-CotiFORKillG PART a.) PLAsr/c rif wMr is h'oi.oswe.swn > srsus-ro clamp. b.) Corret l'sw.s sns.usNG DN AEAR 2Ane xct~ c.) i.ocn Nor.s w cg.Amf AAy sns u_, m, PIPE SUPPORT EVALUATION O ACCEPTABLE-PROVIDE RATIONALE %Il0T-ACCEPTAliLE-PERFORt! SAFETY EVALUATION RATIO!! ALE FOR ACCEPT 1!iG SAFETY EVALUAT10:1 A.S.sumista r/M.Suffork-W/L L BE NOA/./WNCDqA/ 4 STRESS EliGillEERS CD:1MEl:T5 A332 ins'vt. L /PPota" 246d V-///s:)W/L L BE Nod Ft/NCnon&y4, TRE T//f fir'/NCo .5 Y.s re.<n vYCi/L D .5TILL G UALst *.Y l'EA.5PEC. /71-343J 37/LL lAttrstsd Acc[r'f*<?sLC.SEtss/7sc. .~5 l'AN.5. 7'//f .AD.TACCA/7~ .$t/t*/ 0 A 7 ZEbb--3-4 -//2.% M/OutD af Afausgs'O 70 f/cx. L/j' 7,yg j7poings/yt._ b E thm/c LCAO //vC LE /3.r E F2tm / f 1.d5. 1'o 8 7 /b.r. /~AvtrCD 1.DA O /s /C R.f re.s f / Rom 42 lb.s la 20S is.r. PIPE SUPPORT El;GIliEERS COMMEliTS fsfe .S oftcLT 2 E80 ~3-Al-//2 G21 WAs OKlu]vnLL~r Dr.s swe o Fon. A TAUL TCD, Lono of 3 45 s.ss. 'i'ht.s 11 GLEnf>rt. 'rt/M/J fktC f.cs*D RtLLIv&O r1f QW 7' h*.37f.C LK dNC /A/EEO E JAL UA fo od, f/tEf f40Le- -f?t G /frfNLGtt. 1.5 N .$ T/L L LVt fklAl D E.3f LA/ AZ.t C AJACL t'$. NO.5MS TY J/77 ti?c r o ni r n e s vsrc,,,. STRESS Elr ';EER DATE --x# 4 92 PIPE SUIP 0.;1'E!;GIliEEP. DATE 6..,.(7 ;<n,,w 4-r-ri

REPLY TO kJOUCOkJFORMAUCE REPORT PROJECT JOB NO. LOCATION DATE W/osswo //uee ene ldwrs /dZ 7220 Resioser Sana. Boxe 4 -M -f t. CLIENT SUBJECT NCR C ons ume.e ~Rwea Co. J7/0/ - S-E -o/7 ITEM NO. LOG NO. ITEM /a) F.5K-M-ONac - /42 -/ -H/ @) N0!i-CONFORMI!iG PART Acrune. 7erse c c ex x.+ ve e-.sewd,,mx Axo p.s - /' st- .srAlvt o /.s fa r. ". Wis poes wor-courem n opw.ws/specuvexry a l 7ws4.,,sces. PIPE SUPPORT EVAlt!ATION O ACCEPTABLE-PROVI0E RATIONALE 'M, NOT-ACCEPTA5LE-PERFORM SAFETY EVALUATION RATIONALE FOR ACCEPTIfiG SAFETY EVALUATION \\ STRESS ENGItiEERS CD:iMENTS

• r.e/E RDDi r/utAL

}y' mmacg- ,g ~ ACCEPTA8&E' FKoM A SRFE 7r E valuR7/M/ staub Poin7 ZT DCES NOT /DCEenSE $7tESSES cA/ 7ME psp /ML*T S Y.< TEM. STEE SSES ARE k//74/Al t~ ODE Altek/48&E C. l i i PIPE SUPPORT ENGIliEERS COM.MENTS N A ( STRESSEji31NEER DATE &N& 4-/4 - f2 PIPgSUPPORTEliGINEER DATE

REPLY To kjoLJCOkJFORMALJCE REPORT PROJECT JOB NO. LOCATION /es. 5mec has DAT[hz MiosAwo i%s:se'4" 74Ar W'75 YE-72 zo MtacAwo, M/en'. $Y// t CLIENT SUBJECT NCR M-0/ -GE-c7 7 [es/SuproitS SMA" , 3;- a; ;no._ -i o - i rr i ^ ( ITEM NO. LOG NO. ITEM / b. ) F9c-AA-//ec -sys -/-Ny y) NON-CONFORHlliG PART No C4P EA!.S 73 B.ErudWN stAES ar PCs //3 JrMMP nNp PsPE. PIPE SUPPORT EVALUATION O ACCEPTABLE-PROVIDE RATIONALE JE NOT-ACCEPTA'BLE-PERFORM SAFETY EVALUATION ~ RATIONALE FOR ACCEPTIN3 A SAFETY EVALUATION A.ssumsw'6 far. Sun %e r* M8c - Ans' -AH9 loexs ur.to 1es Axis & nsarersa.~' .rt/swnre rxe snswer se 7se .sv.srest. C" STRESS ENGINEEk5 CCMMENTS :sswwus prim snxe resrx,awr sr sewer Mr,errear.s so rwe L 4 a".rpsu serme /f suo W/s scue rcnyeer sesrepwa. A.etheou r.vr caw'ar.xss+c sirsss /.s war.espywoo se ar.rnwmwo sr cow, Mrx swu parea or /.sD*ps s/s75"D sat.xp}re. M-+'86, daupesSSte:: fr.gss3 is tusu osww rner Mao s;wwvo,v er rue prAs ansar/AE. Asso 7ws exmest sw.euMe ss,,ro,re ruc saw is uor pswimeo. 7ht.xsivxt ne s em. rs.w: or /SO*,t", rht9' MAG

• sV3pgn ss MA=ngst, Aqwystute" se 7v1Mt. Of74.fc77as! c/* c. 0 92 c
• a ya.L 1 6 D/RRifkMD BCrce6cd Je#poners Hf s9*vb H/J.

PIPT. SUPPORT EllGINEERS COMMENTS : ' St " Cl CA MAWCf Affsenxuw pNt 295 / .$/ht*.C TWKMC /3 Awo rwe to e ow rio,,*weex syy ox N/o sasuo awsy.es,eceumeo 7D D es**t. e~c t"~ .04zz" ~. O.1/Z$ =c . 0/0 9f ". poswe ercA",, sec ts Assa rco r>ner tw escsseswer s.r war rnene suo Nto ss asse Locaso. r Wrew rwis Assuerp rseat in fasrec feQwn to Yo Des *t ees~ HMNCet, ft .*9T2' sd roeur,W os ercesw s.s /p* e 600 *. s AM EVAeunrsc.si er .5Mr,***r r #,P,a' s4+'o w/rs AM A potr~sowne. Losa er 600 *.3Atosas.s rw r~se.ts+*/=oxrs sf.<r J rstl Wirxid ac.rsw sfttownstes. ( fo.Sspery Aw,rser os/ 7,re sy.sres7 _k 0 / 82 PIWfSUPPORT NGdNEEP. 'DATE l Ca.Le n W$m 'f/'/E/sz

REPLY To kjoUCOkJFORMAUCE REPORT PROJECT JOB NO. LOCATION DATE i Marv/VuejfRP$Aw" 6w' s73l$2 72zo M io e 8 " p. / W'e H oYdoke I CLIENT SUBJECT NCR 8 xcompre Avssy N-d/- 4~ 0/7 ITEM NO. LOG HO. ITEM 1 FSr-s-/rse - sw-/-H3 I; N0!i-C0!iFORHING PART "W ts o*suY n $z ~ 44AAarsesera~ sarrexnCV.r/pf er PC r-//3.57AWP Asp P/P4 " PIPE SUPPORT EVALUATIO;l O ACCEPTABLE-PROVIDE RATIONALE % tl0T-ACCEPTMiLE-PERFORM SAFETY EVALUATION RAT 10flALE FOR ACCEPTIliG /4 SAFETY EVALUATION \\ \\ STRESS ENGINEERS COMMENTS

• 7'## #eN4 E N ".re w a w pe s er e m ma<g, Hsrwo sx.rm m-voo, ossr*r i.s.eceas rv aaxur" luHIM /S M.ss rhveM I$r2.".2/S $cMufte's TN6 P/P/Me.

s no m as serrer ow rxe mee.sr. l P!PE SUPPORT ENGINEERS COMMENTS "/A 41"Pl"ft2h/-41 PIPdUPPORT E!;GINEEd / 4TE 0

R E PLY.TO kjoUCOkJFORMAUCE REPORT PROJECT JOB NO. LOCATION DAT Ma2u94D A4CJfEPR}7N7~iLW/75Ab2 72.2 O M/A4A/O /W/CH 09 3f87 CLIENT SUBJECT NCR fn/<io~P7?f S' )? M Ol-T-2-O/7 P ITEM H0. LOG fl0. ITEM /cc B-S 9-/~H2 tioti-ConFORHillG PART s/:s MP Ext.sr 85mifM PiR= currit? //xo sys JAttey7sM s7;;?ucrwr PIPE SUPFOR' EVALUATION ACCEPTABLE-PROVIDE RATIONALE NOT-ACCEPTABLE-PERFORf: SAFETY EVALUATION RATIONALE EOR ACCEPTIfC SAFETY EVALUATION /cb-67 -/ iye /ocxs.bi= Av oxec Assunua 7WE su m ser omecr~s s asus,e me n,se,- on ne .=,.,ren. STRESS EN5lNEERS C0",KEtiTS :Fiviri.-wt asmaisvi-4R wr so ssis. m cases m sin s 7776 AMsrRESS *TostrtWS Ava noirr.wstt-sones tsw.D BEAW/NAL. Af 70 XEzArrif su;t;;417twS ora,as,t:Ewi~ JsAlf?lCi, INE~ teva *fst;4swdD Wfstg:yn,q::2 yypllJMrj s/MD4;418$ Ar* #2 JWA? AA0 ofM44 5t$oS96 vl6D to &suese erz* AM77t.vec MS,77 rm:56 nova:c >w9vr5 m Jysww,r;%r,41pn7tawit RNi s 1 ft:;t*cirs. c<w Ec 44pa1<. Af Tkr n+ ann <r4ET cr.spArrevs ".C/*//, wecia s.s wm,g, y arse avs daueno WM B&Mr. Thch*4fMs* Thc PsPE.osis',rr um strst. ar c25;ums. AM7w+% saes av at Anzerte s. w o C4ECcm &A29 4av:D 2EMarisEty Atcm5svox0+n?/DDirrassart amp.s cwknxtrA5 set:8 I-N/osvo tergy-4p-s-w.y c.vi+<. srso s=nemanrn:r sco <as m rnc x v se o twe 1, PIPE SUPPORT ENGlHEERS C0:'.1EllTS sin Evseunrso,v or rvn on.rr sces-c,p,/ ,n (d), e sces-ac,-/-Mi at) swo seea - c.s -/ s v3 GU wirs Aoosesswwc 1 ostos cou:seo ay.surrone seca-s r-/ svr te newc zoexeo se rxsere o i s ee rsoars vem. es 7wr iwe .srxe.u es ex exe,m <~ce,e.s Arxe.rr/ee w/rmD pcsseg A't.c ownstfs. I i</o.swerr /wacr ow rire .sysre r/ ilRL15._Efia E DATE V, /kb.UsVAsAt _d.c.!< PIP UPPORT ENGiliEE 'DATE kk /Me/. W/v/rz m /

3. ' :

R E PLY TO hjoUCOUFORMAUCE REPORT PROJECT JOB fi0. LOCATION OATE misu swr 3 Al3 ican K>t.s /f& 7220 Rtuusar lasisaa. i:ca

4. -/s -E2 Cl,l ENT SUBJECT NCR A

Ccmu,-rc. lowcn $o. 177 Of 2 -DJ? ITEM NO. LOG 140. ITEM A s g) F.SM- /YI- /CC/3 ~ & 9- / -M/ W f //2 @,) llDri-C0!iFORMiliG PART N S -//4 .K'E C.u M s 1 txt* *D7"7 A/drJ vb AE S/? -307, CA* 4 0&WAAA/ fo fM* A'A/f, Tha' J/?N/ Arer' r Act 3A -JQ : y. PIPE SUFFORT EVALUAT10ti O ACCEPTABLE-PP0V10E RATIO!iALE R liOT-ACCEPT 5LE-PEP.FORf SAFETY EVALUATION A'es wr s7cere avira sro-co w,wc RATIO!iALE FOR ACCEPTIll; YA SAFETY EVALUATICli \\ \\ STRESS Efi31NEERS CO:iMEliTS / PIPE SUPPORT EliGiriEERS COMMENTS Arnas -. A.so7 MB Avr1 AM s.cro. daticar son rxesc coprop.T-sfss&<n sues rkf.ss J 9 st 2M w rs drA?sar A .N/4xrt s%?c W .l CRAD 19ADUd /ZM./?.l/" G f door. ~//~ d= [L/B.37~/7tJ7/04 a//4 [ /r"X'//E A./O .G #'d*T.V / M.WW Cs1/ 7 94'.Tt./Ps'ol 7" STRESS Eli31:iEER 0 ATE PIPE SUFFORT E:iGiliTEP, DATE ./ / s o /')

m_, y To: M. Cm l ana ~,--- Yi::" NONCONFORMANCE REPORT -> L n ourti= '/ CampBOY l_ or 5 eu7.o Priority: 2 Trend: Ib Not Trend S/U: CD80 AI: S-1261 Pact [ a. muc xrcacas raat mus: uo; cI r A,e 7. scucturcaicas rur m

1. men g,m2-007 M

u4 A 1.,.,a various (See Block 12) Various (See Block 12) "*'2 /4 /82 R. AEA/IDc. CF EC: 3. DA M CF M V W.ggg[a N/A su2AI. ;Ogus arious (See Block 12 ) Bechtel Construction various (See Block 12 ) 16.0 s a ~u Is umcauromano ccacmon vrasus As asu:mm caamca Wuu am: 5. omsaunas ^ * * " * " * * 'Ih following list of hangers do not conform to the applicable require me to as itemized below: LEDavis LHCurtis Itd is noted that the identification of the nonconformances listed ESmith below was the result of an e: amination of hangers completely installed and inspected by Field Engineering, turned over to Quality Control and inepected/ accepted by Quality Control as evidenced by the completed WRBird JLWood P2.10 document for each hanger. JWcook MAVerderosa MADietrich ALAB-2 1) FSK-M-lHBC-219-1-H1 - S/U-lGJA BWMarguglio a) 'Ihe subject sketch specifies a pipe to embgggn of 17 " DB_ Miller RDtCae/CFollin a ammen Anom rca rar CA: For each of these items : BHPeck i Engineering to evaluate the acceptability of the as/is hanger.(Curtis) 1 If r work / repair is required - implement rework / repair, record, docu-m nt and reinspect as required. (LEDavis ESmith) DATaggart teceptable, provide Justification for u,se as/is and revise the DMTurnbull i l l not asurmD n hawing to reflect actual RAWells us/rno.:rcT po. nsrcamos anmIxo conditions. (LHCurtis) - m:p TA- -- utsen. tocAnom a :rrt CF E!3 TAGE'Am.IED: Wl l nol X l MPOAD Procedure F-7M Paracraoh 5.1.ld u ricczss ca m : d m g g rr m. um JusurzcAncs aras: . Dcas sc ArrtcT g.r.ur Inn Tzs l X l so l l

17. Is x upontnau rum So.55(e): ml l sol l

u=c momau m ruzni ml l no l y l

19. Ir m, M2 a ras cr arme m mei y,

I, m. m - ...c a m. I,m,_.mc.,_.m.m.m n - ED 23 mu usaars sri a*. su m ~g g y / W ! P2 t m cator.Is3 CA CQpr.2ECN M2 rAar cA surosmos,.nSETICAUCR a Cchr.2OCN M2 I Project Enghaering's complete response is attached. cc: D. Borlaza D. Biat W. Bird D. Hollar R. Tulloch D. Taggart L. Curtis B. Myers D. Tumbull P. Corcoran J. Horsch B. Marguglio l ib be cetermined ar.sIsa/[noJxcr sis. Aum. cus.:

27. - no su. Aum sIsr.:

as, smocumnort sis. ccac. ;Isr.: 29. sis, a caa. AEsk. M c/A f& /f4% $4 f./W44. rAa/Cas?. SU. Al#DI. INF. DISP.:

31. su. CF EST GROUP ACxmW.

32. PCR MA.',OR #CD + FLT. siirT.

33 QA AUM. sI3. M DG':JENT DIsr.: commost su. AU2. DISP.: } i l [ asDCD QF FAa! CA FRUICACON: I l si.;. OF %IG. Id.4P. rom Nit C/A 30. sIG. VERITYDeG PART C/A & HC.,D 7.AG

37. NCA CLQ6ED BUTA3 SI;; s"r.N a+u.azious nuovAI/ Lass (PA2T & FRCCZ33 CA COMPI22)

n-q ^ O o. ^', PROJECTS. ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION'- t* p~ / Mlllll"' NONCONFORMANCE REPORT "'"" '~"'"*' !!E"3" PROCESS CORRECTIVE ACTION p a r er e - g, _, 3. M AssL53ps37 CF a00T NL3J8 Unknown, to be determined.

n. Ac:wu, acct CAunts), a carEassT raam Amove (to u CoMrama sr anG. nsrcussu som h CA):

4. PROCESS CA IBeL* LIED F3 Gen cesIm rans n e.cn X _es X reaCamast 3 sync =es X osta

s. u ascreeuu::on rca rnoCzs3 Cas Unknown, to be determined.

12. FROCE18 CA T3 E tuzz 3T caG(S) CMcIED 3 Bu2CE lol & DA3 CF NJ: b3 asm W raceE33 CA e.Ancm s W. 113. OF CaG. RESPCES32 FOR FROCESS CA SIGNaTDG CCMP3005: hS. PROCESS CA COMPJCCm VE32:ID NI/ LATE

~ 071353 "ca Mul-*-e-ooi Page 3 of 5 Date: 2/4/82 File : 16.0 12. "AS IS" NONCONFORMING CONDITION VERSUS "AS REQUIRED" CONDITION WITH REFS: Contrary to the above, the measured dimension is 6 ". b) The P2.10 for the subject hanger (Log 81753) references M-343 for hanger fabrication. Paragraph 6.7.2 (Welding) envokes G-27 for welding and para-- graph 4.4.8 of GWS-FM Rev 4 from G-27 states in part, "...each weld layer shall be free of porosity and excessive irregularities such as high spots and deep crevices." Contrary to the above, the vertical support weldment exhibits an approxi-mately 2" lcng groove - creating a sharp edge. ~ ' 2) 1-610-4 S/U-1BCA a) The subjere sketch requires a 9/16" length of support steel beyond the cross support weldment. Contrary to thel above, a length of 1/4" was measured. b) The P2.10 for the subject hanger (Log 69498) references M-326 for hanger installation. Paragraph 4.2.2 (Welding) states in part, " Undercut shall not exceed 1/32". " Contrary to the above, the angle flange to horizontal support beam weld exhi> Ats a 5/32." undercut. (burnout). 3) 1-612-3 S/U-1BKA a) The P2.10 for the subject hanger (Log 76542) references M-326 for hanger installation. Paragraph 4.1.2 (Welding) envokes G-27 for welding and para-graph 4.4.8 of GWS-FM Rev 4 frem G-27 states in part, ...each weld layer shall be free of porosity and excessive irregularities such as high spots and deep crevices." Contrary to the above, the vertical hanger support to support beam weld exhibits a grooved face 3/32" wide for approximately 1". l 4) FSK-M-lHBC-204-1-H12 - S/U-lGJA a),1he bill of materials for the subject sketch specifies a 5/8" thickness for Item 6. l l Contrary to the above, several areas of the item noted measure 9/16". I

5) 1 -616 2 8 - 3/ U-l EGA i

a) The subject sketch specifies a 1/2" weld for the stanchien to vertical sucport, l (two sides). 6 s contrary to tne above, a 3/9" weld was measured.

t e ,J7In-,aaa e NCR MDl-9-2-u0s Page 4 of 5 Date : 4 File: 16.0 b) The subject sketch specifies an angle of 60

• between the angle support brace and vertical support.

Contrary to the above, an angle of 51' was measured.. c) The subject sketch specifies stanchion heights of 20" and 17k". Contrary to the above, stanchien heights of 22k" and 18 5/8" were measured res pectively. d) The. object sketch specifies 14" between the base of the angle support brace' ' and the vertical support. Contrary to the above, a 255" dimension was measured. 6) 1-603-6 S/U-1BGC a) The subject sket'ch specifies a gap between the ends of the two clamp halves of Contrary to the above, a gap of 19/32" was measured. b) The P2.10 for the subject hanger (Log 81906) specifies M-326 for hanger in-stallation. Paragraph 5.8 (Locking devices ) of M-326 states in part, ...all threaded connections...shall be secured by....two jam nuts. " Contrary to the above, one (o, uter) of the nuts was observed to be loose render-ing theclamp insecure. 7) 1-612-2 S /U-1BKA a) The subject sketch specifies a support beam (wl4 X 150 ) to pipe dimension of l ' -ll h ". Contrary to the above, a dimension of l'-4 " was measured. 8) 2-604-3 S/U-2BGA a) The subject sketch specifies a 4" fillet weld - all around for the horizontal support to support beam weldment (Item 1 to 7). Contrary to the above, a non-continuous weldment was observed in this locaticn. 9) 1-616-10 S/U-1EGA a) The subject sketch specifies a verticalsupport beam (Item 2 ) of 4*-8 " in ler.sth. Contrary to the above, the support beam measures 5 '-0". b) The sub]ect sketch specifies a vertical support beam to cross beam support length of 29". Contrary to the above, the distance was measured to be 25". f e

NCR M01-9-2-007 / Page 5 of 5 Date: ' File': 16.0 10) 2-617-8 5/U-2EGA a) ne P2.10 for the subject hanger (Log 82242) references M-326 for hanger installation. Paragraph 4.2.5 (Welding) states in part, " Additional welds not shown in the design sketches / drawings require Project Engineering re-view and approval via field design change control procedure or nonconfor- ' y _ l* mance procedure as appliedble."-- . 4,_ Contrary tc the above, save al additional-&' fiITetMh were observed at the vertical support to angle support union (Item 2 to 3).

11) 1-60 3 2 - s /U-1BGA a) The subject sketch specifies a piping elevation of 634'-6".

Centrary to the above, an elevation of 633'1114" was measured. 12) 1-619-14 5/U f EAC a) he subject sketch specifies a support beam to support beam dimension of l ' -10 3 /8 ". . Contrary to the above, this dimension measured l'-9 %". O e

n.,,n, + negy o To: x. Curlana '"o=' L n ourti-P4"' NONCONFORMANCE REPORT em esF7-c PRIORITY : 02 A/I: S-1265 S/U: rngg a7 TREND-DNT Paa 1 e d 8C1 SEAg_No e. Fas;gC; nam 7. pauCCelFCluGM PART po: 4. ewrCJeC33 FART Rads 1. MIDLAND 1 & 2 N/A N/A 2/5/82 g. sgAIAL sukaI22 LC. CA3. C3eC;T:3C 3C; la. AA1A/WC. W NC4 3 DA2 QF REY: N/A N/A BECHTEL CONSTRUCTION MULTIPLE BLDCs 16.0 u. As u scac=rcsucm Comma vsar.s u azau:nn Cosaz== wtm ansa

s. as3:s =ca

• • • "C*"'

The following list of hangers do not conform to applicable require-ments as itemized below. LHCurtis LEDavis It is noted that the identification of the nonconformances listed ggg belov was the result of an examination of hangers completely installed and inspected by Field Engineering, turned over to Quality Inro c:n: Control and inspected / accepted by Quality Control as evidenced by WRBird DMTurrbull the completed P2.10 document for each hanger. JEBrunner RAWa.33: JWCook JLWoc" Specificat$on M 326 section 5.1.1 states in part: "To the greatest ggg g]" extent possible, pipe supports shall be installed in strict BWMarguglio (CONTINUED) DBMiller REMcCue/ RDJohnsot. The rec'*om s"en" d"ed82 '^'part corrective action applies to all hangers listed S^ ** G^ '3 - on NCR. BHPeck 1 Engineering to evaluate acceptablity of hanger. (LHCurtis) 2 If rework / repair is required record & document.(LEDavis,ESmith)g F c ulmeister 3 If acceptable, provide d

• ilicatice use as is. (LHCurtis)
• a X not sma::m3 l l

DATaggart

sszz/FnoincT inc. nsamz amcaso is. = u. m A m.un,

.3.EX. WCAn3 & ME & E3G 33 AM.:IO: gg l l ,o j y l As ner WDOAD *irceed"re F-7W am-zerma 9 1 1 A m g =i , a =.==.ns=rzan=== > is...axs CA muusm, ts. oca = AmeT.tn2 nix, m l x l.o l l

17. m ====== = so.ss<. n m l_

l=l l ts. m m am3s:z m FAm2 21 mI l so I:s 1

19. n m.== & =>e =

=T to==C8 N/A al. a m. muc z aC wF:Cas, m vsm szFca:za: an. a tzz, uno un:s armT :o sa:: N/A N/A-M as. vaz= arr:.T mani: arm are a. '. or staa:artas: za r=w= or: rrmar.s N.zkz nas M f $cM, 6j'. T CA mm=.. =-.. -=., l Project Pngineering's complete response is attached. i cc D. Borlaza D. Biat W. Bird D. Hollar R. Tulloch D. Taggart L. Curtis R. Myers D. Tunibull P. Corcoran J. Horsch

3. Marguglio

• To be determined.

20.

=FI2/ Fh*ICT SIG. AL"2. 337.8 27.

790 $;&. AW3. DIsr.s 2o. FRI.2DCIT G. CCJC. Lw.s 29. G. W N. A W. FQs O Aa hP%- 4, "8" / 3o. FAS/C3ET. 323. AL*3. 27. 3IIF.s

31. 323. & 237 GRauF ACxza.

Ja. FCa s u a. FL:. m.

33. GA 6 1;3.To*F.DCr! m tre.m SIG. AC3. 237.2 36 ps:ED QF PAA: ;A VIR2I".A~.'.3 5 3s. 533. 7 CRG. RE37. FCA PART C/A 36

53. VE12T3G PARI C/ A & EG 3G

37. NCA C;,G5I.0 gr/;A2;

$2CICFT33 Copr,zum; 3DCVAI,'343: (PART & FBCI233 CA CCs7:23) l l l

0525/O ( consumers nWCnDMayC D CMMl U n i Ustivin n L n LI UIT zn so:u. mmen: N si Paz -2e 5 PROCESS CORRECTIVE ACTION n. me: o ax: ac tan i Unknown: To be determined.

39. A:7JA;. Ax? OAU3Els), T :UTUDrT rnon amyt (To as cour.E:D ST CfG. AE37053:3&& FOR FpuCEE CA)s

=0. FRG215 CA EKenT3ED Pkk: X r-- 7 m MSI3 F m'* AN -w oTuo I et. c.4 -=*;an Fca FMCZss CA: Unknown: To be determined. M. PRG335 CA 10 W TM23 M mt3(3) CE2ED 3 3:2I u & 343 e CIsetztIm: i 4 1 l

43. MT'CD e FEDCI33 CA VDM1723:

4*. 37*. OF 0F3. AgsprJer332 M3 FROC33 OA 3137.73 CME 11

• S.

FR'X333 3 NO3 633 31/ LA:13

o i 05 L5/D i S-1365 M-01-9-2-010 Page 3 of 5 co=pliance with the component pipe support design sketches / drawings." a Contrary to the above, the following hangers have violated this specification: Hanger 2-604-17-2 P2.10 log #766'48; support angle velded to plate is reversed from design sketch. S/U: 2BCA Eanger 2-639-13-5 P2.10 log #63333; item #1 rotated 900 from design sketch. S/U:2Al Eanger 2-604-16-15 P2.10 log # 81811, pipe stanchien listed on bill of materials to be l' - 7 13/16"; actual is l' - 7 3/16". S/U: 2BGA Hanger 2-604-2-35 P2.10 log #59842; strut not located on 4"a beam as per drawing. S/U: 2BGE Hanger 2-619-1-19 P2.10 log #124673; item #11 listed as 8" x 12" actual as installed is 71 x 11". S/U: 2EAC I Hanger 2-GC3-21-1-El P2.10 log #73127; pgs 104 pipe scrap specified, pgs 111 installed. S/U 2BKA Hanger 2-E3C-219-1-El P2.10 log #71982; bill of materials lists item #2 as 3/8" x 4" x 4"; actual as installed is 3/8" x 4" x 3 13/16". S/U: 2GJA Hanger 2-E3C-216-5-H3 P2.10 log #72Q35; iten #5 on bill of _aterials lis.a as 3 3/4" x 3 3/4"; actual is 4" x 4". S/U: 2GJA Eanger 2-604-16-15 P2.10 log #81811 material lists ites #2 to be 3/8" chick; actual is 1/2" thick. S/U: 2BGA Esnger 2-EBC-219-1-El P2.10 log #71982 rev 5 item #3 to item #2 welded @ opposite sides than design sketca. S/U: 2GJA Hanger 2-611-4-4 P2.10 log #12.411. hanger cla=p asse=bly indicates 1 3'/8" clearance on sketch; actual is 1 1/2" typical on both sides. S/U:23CA Hanger 2-616-8-2 P2.10 log #63192; centerline of pipe to top of ite: 41 (4'M beam) not per drawing. S/U: 1EGA Specification M-343 section 6.22 states in -art: " Acceptable Deviat.cn Vertical d Piping: The design location of pipe supports on vertical pipe may deviate from the original approved location, in a direction parallel to the pipe center-line by 4 inches, provided it is not adjacent to an anchor, equip =ent nc=:le or valve, in which case prior approval from the engineer shall be required. w

s R' 0585/o S-1255-M-01-9-2-010 Page 4 of 5 Contrary'to the above: Hanger 2-HBC-217-1-H2 P2.10 log 869460; skeenh & isometric callsfor hanger to be centered @ elevation 575' - 11 1/2"; actually @ 575' - 5 3/4". S/U: 2CJA Specification M-326 section 5.11.1 states in part: "The clearance between the concrete walls and the structural attachment plates should not exceed 1/16" over a maximum of 20% of the bearing area;" Contrary to the above: Hanger 2-MBC-216-5-H3 #72305 lower right hand corner of base plate exceeds gap tolerance. S/U: 2GJA Specification M-326 section 4.2.1.9 states: "No undersize welds are permitted". Contrary to the above: Hanger 2-619-1-19 P2.10 log #124673 undersize weld @ item #6 to item #11. S/U: Hanger 2-604-2-35 P2.10 log #59842 undersize veld @ sway strut to 4"M beam. S/U: Hanger 2-611-7-33 P2.10 log # 135884 undersize weld @ item #2 to item #3. S/U: 21 Ranger 2-639-13-5 log #63333 insufficient welds for item #1. S/U: 2AEA PQCI 7220-P2.10, 3.3B states: Minimum thread engagement shall be that amount necessary to engage all the threads of the nut or threaded component. Ranger load devices which have internally threaded adjustable components are to have sight holes provided to verify adequate thread engagement where required." Contrary to this: Ranger 1-616-8-2 P2.10 log #63192; at sight holes of support rods, no threads are visible. S/U: lEGA Specification M-326 section 5.1.3.b states: "When the component pipe support design sketch / drawing states the clearance is "l/32 inch typical" on epposite sides of a pipe or 1/16 inch on one side of a pipe or pipe lug, the sum of the actual clearances measured on the opposite sides of the pipe shall ne* be less than 1/16 inch or more than 1/8 inch. As long as the sum of these actual clear-ances falls wichin the above allowable limits, the actual individual clearances may be distributed in any manner, including a zero clearance on one side of the pipe. Contrary to the abeve; Hanger 2-657-43-6 P2.10 log #84577; design sketch calls for 1/32" inch clearance around "U bolt" and pipe: a total of 3/16" exists @ top side of pipe and flush on betten. S/U: 2GJA e

~ 9 05 R5/O S-1265 M-Q1-9-2-010 Page 5 of 5 Hanger 2-604-16-15 log #81811 design sketch calls for 1/32 clearance around pipe and "U bolt"; no clearance exists due to off set boat holea. S/U: 2BGA Hanger 2-611-5-98 P2.10 log #70407; welds for 3/8" plates have buckled plates @ weld locations and corners. S/U: 2BNA NOTE 1: The preceeded conditions of all hangers identified, leave the integrity of hangers indeterminate. NOTE 2: All identified non-conforming hangers have been previously inspected & accepted by QC. l

3...

'..*~. s.. ,z r o 4 I

• i

i-ma.wp ew ?.! t 671354 TO: M. Curland PROJECTS. p lll5l"' NONCONFORMANCE REPORT " " " ' L "- ""**= ~ 4Arr-o Priority: 2 Trend : DNT SUS :. Code 86 AI: S-1267 rw _1_ or !_ '?

• I-c m:se: we, 7.

scaccuru.cc rut mi

t.. scme:sren cau 2Aar m4:

1. g gjA[. fogy 4 ac Various Hangers tidiand Units 1 & 2

"*' 2/3/82 (see below) Pipe Hangers

a:n maeus to. cas, caec=:c ac

u. au/:.cc. or x 3 a n or u ve N/A

/aricus BPCo Various L ruzso: 16.0 As u mra c::cI=ca msus u asrmz:r ccasm am:s aes 5. nas:mm:n

ha following list of hangers do not conform to applicable require-7 C0"y senta as itemized below.

Em LEDavis 3 Tor all undersized welds see also M-326 4.2.1.a.1 which* states, 'No undersized welds are permitted." For wrong material and material lim:nsions see M-326 5.1.1.

• CC"3 4RBird THYoung JWCook ALAS (2 )

4ADietrich BWMarguglio DBM111er REMcCue/CTrollin

1. "; " " "8 N N 8 The recommended par: Ccrrec2.ve Action app._es to BHPeck

.1 hangers: 1) Engineering to evaluate acceptability of hangers 2) Ifg swerk/ repair is required; record, reinspect and document. 3) If DATaggart ! $fl 'a$k[a [ ione"e% )NUtib Eda *v"IsDm%l 4 DhnM o s ocsta/rnonc; ac. n s'acer=en an m za lX l sot naunza l l3)LHCurtis ,_._=. . _.m5.1.1.d ml l ,y MPQAD Procedure F 7M cara u emacus cA aza. nae ns gx ; ei g tr m. aus.n:s=r:cmon m::ws . nats z ArrscT a.r.n r In x uslX lsol l

17. :s ac arror.sa:z Fra so.ss(e): rzs l l so [

} 1 m ne mooana:z in ira: ni-us l lsol^ l / ' 19. :r us, nA= a =s or REPCRT T zRO: zr us, ao aer uron m ne n. r =s, mAm cr====:n m acu aucasa - ~~ yvss as. az=n an:.r arrenam rc. as. smar.sCa s sz ur.:nz/as: [% 'W "'"If*= D=E':L

1. E C)S C 2/r/er_

2 u: " " ' ~

1. An CA casos =on,.ns a=: a

=en as ,y y Pro,isct Enginee 's lete response is'ltt+acEeE. l cca D. Borlaza D. Biat W. Bird l D. Hollar H. Tulloch D. Taggart L. Curtis H. Myers D. Turnbull. P. Corcoran J. Horsch B. Marguglio to be determined des.3/Pm.7CT sIG. &*:d. anP.: 27. FN 413. AJ3. D37.1 20. , m r4:r: su. CCac. 21 7.4

29. Sla. Gr G.AG. AI17.10A Gi A&

.Gu,fu fWn /de ;fa 4.9/o rA3/COMs?. s!3. E'3. *lMP. 337.

31. 3:s. Or =s; acL*F ACDCW.

32. rCa MA ::a som. r!.:. syyT.

33, e4 E:s. s13. I'3 :XF.'.E.C; 31s?.s C:le =ICs sis. &*:s. :sp., E2fCD Cr FAm CA ita r;;A=ca: e l sIJ. OF Gess nr.sp. pod FAdf C/A 3o. s s. vu rg::ns FAa; C/A eh MC:3 *.AG 37. K3 C:2, I: sT/ LA3, s h TOG M u:1Cas gue:gA:,r,A3: (FART FR'YTMS CA COMr:Z2)

'u f ! n - r,OJ4 h* MnMrnyrnDM A MPC D L' u iiO T N nUnLUnit U n TI M ii L L nLIUni .:ssu m oi M PROCESS COR RECTIVE ACTION ,a2 1 'e ? c:tue : 2,.. : s a... Unkn ow. : To be determined. A ?.A. M : C.AC.4 i, ;F 227L*DT FDJ' 4ei 4:C M CJf".ZZ: ST

• K. IE3PO43.4 FCA FWX:Za6 CA d;

1. C.

PS3"I. J *J AE:.JITC FElms

xs:3 FAMEAM:5 Y

CWWERI'Z:2 X i INEFEC2 03D p .t. an ascrmrA:: n Fc, nas.ss cA Unknown: To be deter..d.ned. W. NEI'Z:2 C.A 7 RE tu23 F: cet (3) DECED 31;T1616 ak3 W CelF"E"CCB: 6). eC3*.Y F ADCZ51 CA VCCTf*.AT:ll:f: = =. * :3. O' '.F. 'IW!!!2 MS F*oCIL3 CA. W.?"iD a ; DU".ZT.D. .S. T5 C ;i.A; w r.a #GJ Z ris;.A2:

011354 ~ s NCn : M-01-5-2-014 -q Date: 2/3/82 Page 3 of 5 CCNTINUED: 12. "AS IS" NONCONFORMING CONDITICN VERSUS " AS REQUIRED" CONDIiICN WITh REFS: i Hardware Discrepancy

1) 2-611-6-5qX10-2FL3-35-H5) Log #63225 Rev 5 S/U 2BCA a) hhere the sway strut fitting is welded to the vertical I-Beam, the welds are undersized both legs per the drawing.

b) Three of four welds attaching the hori: ental I-Beam to the superstructure I-Beam are undersized on one leg per the drawls.; c) The beam to beam shop fabricated portion welds are undersizod on-one leg per the drawing. d) The brace beam angle is supposed to be 44*t1' per the drawing and it is installed at 465 *. 2) FSK-M-2HBC-145-1-HSQ Log #87879 Rev 5 S/U 2EGA Item #1 in bill of materials is a W5 I-Beam and a W6 I-Beam was installed. ~ 3) FSK-M-2HBC-144-1-HB2 Log #73182 Rev 5 S/U 2EGA Item #3 per drawing bill of material is a plate h " x 2 3/4" x 2 3/4"- however, a' k" x 3 3/4" x 3 3/4" plate was installed. 4) 1-612-3-12 CX 8"-1 GCB-16-H1 ) Log #76107 Rev 5 S/U 1BKA e i This hanger was installed 45" West of drawing coordinates perpendi-cular to the pipe. (Contrary to even the new Appendix K of M-326 allowance of t2" fer a deviation of the pipe) 5) 2-613-4-19 Q(12-2 HBC-5 -H1 ) Log # 68235 Rev 5 S/U 2BCA i a) The two welds that attach the spring canister to the channels l are undersized on one leg per the drawing. l b) The angle clips are attached to the wrong end of the channels i per the drawing c) Both bottom welds of the angle clips to the channel are under=t se ' on one leg per the drawing. d) There is a gap between the angle clips and the channel and the drawing shows no gap. Note: Although the clip to main beam welds were changed from being an l NF5222 weld the detail indicates the clip to channel welds are *;111 per NF5222. l ~ 1 I

"]'*. 071354 's NCR: M01-5-2-014 Date : 2/3/82 Paga 4 of 5 6) FSK-M-2-FCC-4-1-H1 (Q) Log # 64107 Rev 5 S/U 2BBB Thors is weld burn out causing reduced thickness of up to 3/32" at one er.d of one of the welds of strap to angle. This also makes the weld undersize,. 7) FSK-M-2ECB-8-3-H4 (Q) Log 479652 Rev 5 S/U 2 BRA a) Item #1 on the bill of material is 13 " long, however, actual installed is 13 3/4" long. 'b) The isometric drawing locates this hanger 11'-1 11/16" East of reacter ' buildina centerline, however, measurement frem a benchmark locates it East of the reactor building centerline centrary to para at 11'-9 6.2 of M-343.

8).' FSK-M-2ECB-4-4-H5 (Q) Log #60821 Rev 4 S/U 2 BHA

-a)' There is a cett'er pin missing on the lower end of the West sway strut. ' b) The gap between the sway struts called fo" an view c-c of the drasing is actually \\". 9) FSK-M-2HBC-11-1-H2 (Q ) Log #78717 Rev 5 S/U 2JEA a) The stiffener plate outer bo,ttom edge thickness is reduced due to weld burn off resulting in an undersite weld. b) The same condition occurs on three (3 ) places on the pipe strap (this was beveled and a full weld was not made ). 1 l 10) PSK-M-2GCS-22-1-H3 (Q)- Log #68259 Rev 5 S/U 2BKA l Item #3 on bill of material is h" x 2 3/4" x 2 3/4" per drawing. Actual is \\" x 3 3/4" x 3 3/4". l l 11) 2 617-11-9 ( 6"-2H3C-149-H1) (O) Log #69494 Rev 5 S/U 2EGA a) Section AA of drawing requires 2 31/37" offset between centerline of main beam and conterline of vertical beams of the hanger. Actual is 5/16" offset. b) centerline of piro to centerline of vertical beams is actually

• /4" and 12 however, the drawing requires 12".

l') 2 619-1-20R q3 8"-2HBC-109-H20R) Log 464049 Rev 5 S/U 2EAC l The hanger is 5" West of drawing coordinates (perpendicular o the pipei l contrary to para 5.2 of M-326 (note the drawing states "fiald cut to suit" f:r items 1 and 2 on the bill of material, however, material used .w' icnger casa called for). i l t

o S NCR: M01-5-2-014 Date: 2/3/82 Page 5 of 5 13) 2-619-2-19 Q (10"-2HBC-110-H19) Log #103729 Rev 6 S/U 2EAC The lugs attaching the sway strut to the vertical I-Beam are rotated 90*fromthedrawingconfig[A$ uration and contrary to M-326 5.2.1.d. ~ peer 0* 14) _2-619-6.;11 Q (10 "-2HBC-10 0-H3 ) Log #76640 Rev 5 S/U 2EAD QLC e F P 2.s o L. 2 e.9D. lo. a) Item #8 on bill of material requires 1" x 6" x 4 , however, 1" x 6h" x 5" was installed. b) Item #7 on bill of material requires 7/8" x 6" x 5",

however, 7/8" x 6" x 4 " was installed. (a later rev makes a & b acceptable) c)

Vertical gap, both top and bottom, is not parallel with pipe. Cuide pads top and bottom touch the pipe at one end and have gap exceeding the requirements of the drawing nd M-326 para 5.1.3.b at the other end. d) The welds of the vertical hanger beams to the bottom horizontal beam are undersized per drawing. e) The l'-71/8" distance between pipes per drawing was installed as l'-10 1/8". 15) FSK-M-2 EBB-3-4-H1 (Q) Log # 71689 Rev 5 S/U 2BMA a) The sway strut has a tie wap (pl as tic ) instead of a bolt, nut and wasbers per the manufacturers drawing on one end. b) A cotter pin is missing from the recaining pin at the other end of the sway strut contrary to the manuf acturers drawing c) Lock nuts missing on pipe clamp 16) 1-612-2-2 Q (8"1GC5-16-H47) Log #63197 Rev 5 S/U 1BKA a) The 2'-5 " dimension from centerline of pipe to centerline of the W14 x 111 I-Beam is 2 '-3" installed (this is perpendicular to the pipe) b) The North and South end plates (Item 5) welded to angle have an undersized weld on one leg. Both of these are on the West side. 17) 1-612-4-33 (Q ) ( 6 "-1GCB-18-R10 ) Log #65882 Rev 5 S/U 1BCA The small plate (#1 on bill of material) has reduced section and therefore undersized weld at the top.

h bbOk To M. Curland I' I. PROJECTS. E n"#"" NONCONFORMANCE REPORT SUSI Company PRIORITY: 2 TRE:iD: DNT A/1: 1272 code 83 .g, ,y .,7 4 maes

s.,=cwremn ruf m, cem,,c,2 rus -,

n g,g,,y, VARIOUS VARIOUS MIDLAND (See Block 12) (See Block 12) $ b 82 3* " " " ' " ' ' y g gyea i E d#$ T T @ "*~ "'V M M S*' " (Sco Block 12) BECHTEL CONSTRUCTION (See Block 12) 16.0 4' 6 ruz so: u zr scac=m,em caemos nasus u am:um enom= vtm ami

s. sur.u3una

^*" " ** Tha following list of hangers do not conform to the applicable LHCurtis rsquirements as itemized below: LEDavis It to noted that the identification of the nonconformances listed ESmith balov was the result of an examination of hangers completely instelled and inspected by Field Engineering, turned over to Quality **WRBird RAWells Control and inspected / accepted by Quality Control as evidenced by JWCook JLWood th2 completed P2.10 document for each hanger. g 4 L%'avell RDJohns: BWMarguglio DBMiller

8.

• 8'm*:a M P^at cA. For eacn of enese items:

REMcCue/ m D2*an., L) Engineering to evaluate the acceptability of the hanger. (Curtis) BHPeck 2) If rework / repair is required - implement rework / repair, document & reinspect as required. (LEDavis, ESmith) DATaggart drawingtore(IIvisethe use as is & DMTurnbull 3) If acceptable, provide justification to ect actualee =-d conditions. LHCurtis) m323/rmact suo. nsrasms assnz:n ser aman 4. 80tJ TMS APPL 3D: st. sed. tttATION & TTrE & 1012 TMS ArrLIDs as l \\ no Q MPOAD Procedure F-7M Paragraoh 5.1.1d = g rr m. ass aussrzcArzas are

s. u encrzs3 cA smaxmi ns

s. oss e Amet e..st run:

as l x l so l l

u. m = nun 3u ra so.sst.h as l l sol l

s. c se manau to rur an as l l so l x l

19. zr n3, un a ras er samt m ac N/A az. zr m, cr me arrze:u. :o vnan massi N/A

o. Ir us, um me.:==T w me N/A 2.

R3G3A ST: 23 vRI=II RIPLY REQUIMD ST: 24 SUIT 3YISQR'S 313ATURE/LA33 // w/sj j+ez 2.M2'".".t"2 2 ' '*

1. EaL&L. W4q

s. rut c4 ansesma, azz:rscAses a coe:2nen a3.

Project Engince' ring's complete recponse is attached. i l cc D. Borlaza D. Riat V. Bird l D. Hollar R. Tulloch D. Taggart L. Curtis R. Myers D. Turnbull j P. Corcoran J. Horsch B. Marguglio j l 6. M313/rmlICT SIG. All3. SDr.: 27. 190 31G. AU2. 4217.3 20. r%CURDERT &la, GONC. GMP.3

29. SIG. J GM. AMr. M GjAs

• v h

jfg Ed 4. 4. FAS/C3ET. 313. AUN. IMP. DIsr.:

31. 373. W 337 GROUP ACIEN.

32 ron nAJon,oD - FLT. surf. 33 es AUm. aIs. To psnisczT sur.a OcsCIT: Qui SIa. AU3. Dur.: t e. ,E:!oD or ruf CA vugIrAnca; Is. 8:3. e cac, Rrsr. ron FAa7 C/A

36. 3:G. VERUTDG PART C/A & m12 3G

37. NCR C 4 ELL 2 ST/LA3a SIONUTDG COMP 21:W 3DOVA.WDA3 (rART & rRCCZ33 CA COMP 23) h

[8kb ~ unurnuenomu e oeonor N nunLUnF Unit Mn L nLauni ses mat eni 4 PROCESS CORRECTIVE ACTION u l, 3 f t. & A33EM.! Of 40G* GA41t& # 4 Unknown: To be deter:nined. O j y. acf.At acc; CAGia), 7 DUTIJDT TNGs AaG4 (10 M Caif".ZEL ST X. EISPosI53;& FQ8 FRQCDS CA): aQ. PitaCE33 CA Egr.U3D FMass ast:s b PummAt:m v mensuer:as reaannsst musetzcs

• L.

en a-='Io rca ritxus ca Unknown: To be deter:nined. M. Fua233 CA TD BE tME3 3T ORG(8) CECIED D 3:.TI 616 MM W CDer2"23r

63. BEM & P90 CESS CA f!317I:lA"03 I

i 6

• • . 3:3. CT 083. 713PCir3:12 FOR r*0213 CA ;;;N.TTUS C3fM*;lt; 65.

N GA C30'Ecs 4A3IED E!/M3; e

l..

058307 Page 3 of 3

1) Clearances on the following hangers do not conform to the drawing /

specification tolerances: a) 0-HBC-142-1-H1 SUS: 2-EAD b) 1-HBC-145-1-H9 SUS: 1-EGA c) 1-657-37-9 SUS: 1-GJA d) 1-657-37-22 SUS: 1-GJA e) 1-648-7-58 SUS: 1-KAB f) 1-H3C-144-1-H3 SUS: 1-EGA g) 1-CC3-69-1-H2 SUS: 1-BGA NOTE: Items b & f contain masking tape under the strap, preventing accurate measurement. 2) 0-617-7-13 SUS: 0-EGA Item #3 (I-BEAN) is not installed in accordance with the drawing. Angle clip & fis1d weld is located incorrectly. 3) 0-617-8-33 SUS: 0-EGA a) Field weld between items 2 & 3 does not conform to drawing requiremen'ts. West veld, south end, contains approximately " of undersize veld. 4) 1-633-1-33 SUS: 1-BMA a) Drawing requires the bottom plate, on one corner, to be beveled k". Contrary to the above, the bevel was determined to be 3/16". 5) 1-CCB-69-1-El SUS: 1-BGA a) PGS-114 requires the jam nuts to be SA-307, GR B ~ Contrary to~the above, the jam nuts are SA-194, 2H. 6) 1-CC3-69-1-H2 SUS: 1-BCA a) Same as 5.a above. ( 7) 0-618-1-6 SUS: 0-EAA a) Field welds between ite=s 2 & 8 do not conform te drawings requirements, i Drawing requires the velds to be located on the sides of item 8, the l velds are located on the ends of item 8. I I i I e l L'

,a;r<m ? m b' O C TNr_Tt aM t m ot 4-ZYX7 gg p g3g C/l fl.I S -12.tcl Item numbers listed in this response correspond to the item numbers listed in Block 12 of subj ect NCR. Information given ieflects investigation of actural field conditions and what, if any, construction action has been taken. Item (1) a) Redline SH-10111 has been issued to reflect existing field condition. Basic design of hgr not affected and PE approval is not required. No further action required. b) Subj ect weld has been damaged by grinding at the toe of the weld. Adequate weld size exists and will remain after ground area is faired-in Rework Package RSH-1105 issued to correct existing condition. Item (2) a) Redline LH-10420 has been issued to reflect existing field condition. Basic design of hgr not affected and PE approval is not required. No further action required. b) Subject condition listed on NCR has been documented on Bechtel NCR 4112. PE to evaluate. Item (3) a) The condition stated on NCR has been evaluated by FE and QC. Condition conforms to requirements and no nonconforming condition exists. No further action required. Item (4) a) Condition stated has been evaluated by FE and QC. Material installed conforms to dwg. requirements. No further action required. l l Item (5) a) Redline has been submitted for evaluation to PE reflecting existing field condition. ( b) Redline LH-4769 was issued and used as criteri a for accept-l ance. Subj ect redline deleted angle requirements. No non-conforming condition exists. No further action required.

c) Redline has.been made to reflect existing field condition. Basic design of hgr not affected and no PE approval required. No further action required, d) Redline has been submitted to reflect existing field con-dition. Basic design of hgr not affected and PE approval not required. No further action required. Item (6) a) Redline LH-10579 has been issued to reflect existing field condition. Basic design not affected. PE approval not re-quired. NOTE: Lower end of clamp measured h" upper end 9/16. No further action required. b) Condition stated is not a nonconformance. Securing of threaded fastners is a requirement of final walkdown and would have been corrected at that time. Item (7) a) Condition stated,no longer exists. Subsequent revision of drawing reflects existing field condition. No further action required. Item (8) Redline has been submitted for evaluation to PE reflecting existing field condition. Item (9) a) Redline has been submitted for evaluation to PE reflecting existing field condition. b) Redline has been made to reflect existing field condition. Basic design of hgr not affected and no PE approval required. No further action required. Item (10) Redline has been submitted for evaluation to PE reflecting existing field condition. Item (11) a) Redline LH-10361 has been issued to reflect existing field condition. Actual existing elevation is within installation tolerances. No further action required. Item (12) a) Redline LH-10457 has been issued to reflect existing field condition. Basic design of hgr is not affected and PE ap-proval.is not required. No further action required.

( PROJECTS. ENGINEERING l.ND CON;T;;UCTION = QUAUTY AS7URANCE DEPARTMENT 0**- 00f!!UM8f8 ODMAM Un TI Mil Q Power ~ 5 / Campally GA27-o prioritv: 2 Trend : Co Not Trend S/U: CMO A er 7. ex.arePaco rut so: 8. scue:xrcRna s r u t must t. .oaa.cI r, Ann various (See Block 12) Various (See Block 12) ^**2/4/82 f m,s i -,a u. n u/:m. cr sci 3 as er av gjg cgg.gj:.c: u. zRa:. mui ious (See Block 12 ) Bechtel Construction './arious (See Block 12 ) i s; o ,3 3 als m !:n ) As Is acrcarcum cc:emen w As Eme:nr ccaczncu. rim Rzis. ^ * * * " " o following list of hangers do not conform to the applicable require LEDavis Etts as itemized below: LHCurtis I ESmith d is noted that the identification of the nonconformances listed slow was the result of an e: amination of hangers completely installed

" "'T ad inspected by Field Engineering, turned over to Quality Control and WRaird JLWood aspected/ accepted by Quality Control as eviden,ced by the completed JWeook MAVerderosa 2.10 document for each hanger.

MADietrich ALAB-2 BWMarguglio FSK-M-lHBC-219-1-H1 S/U-lGJA DBMiller ) The subject sketch specifies a pipe to emb g g g n of 17 RE%:QIe/CFollin a) a uces.unca ex.a tuI cA: For each of these items : BHPeck Enginsering to evaluate the acceptability of the as/is hanger.(Curtis JARut9ers If rswork/ repair is required - implement rework / repair, record, docu-DATaggart mint and re nspect as required. (LEDavis. ESmith ) If acceptab e, provide Justification for us as/is and r ise the DMTurnbull awing to re ect actual RAWells l l not wm l l conditions. (LHCurtis)

ns/PacJtcT rao. n:sPosmen Em u:sta suHar.R :mancN & WPE Cr Ho1O uGE' APP:.IID:

HojaTA~.. w MPOAD Procedure F-7M Paraoraoh 5.1.ld Wl l 30l X l IF MO. I.NER JU3nTICAUCN REUM: Is Ph0CIS3 CA N : NO y g Dots

• ArrtcT e-:.:sT I:os:

tts l X l no l l

17. Is NC REPORTABIz PER 50.55(e):

TESl l Nol l Is

• REPoauBtz Ptn rur 21: Ym l l so l v l

19. :r tis, :A2 & CM OF REPCRT To NRC N/A 2 tis. e mAct RzPont to ac N/A 24 SUPERVIY '

I:'mW. ' 'OA* / 23 vaIT:DI REPLY REVIFID BY 4 6d scR RIsuAsa : 2/22/82 N[ ~ [ P2 ~ /// _/ /W

o tsusesM cA coetznen am

, T c, _.m.. _me.. _,_.= : l To ce aeterminea 23. PROCL,M SIG. GCitC. 315P.a 2y. 41G. ef GhJ. ALJF. it.m G/A: CE3133/ FROJECT 513. All3. DISP.g 27. ff0 31G. AU U. DISP. rAB/C0h37. 313. All!M. D&. 013P..

31. SI3. OF 2ST GRCUP ACENow.

32. rCR etAJCR N3 PLT. SUPT.

33 GA AU2. SIG. To DG".J.6T DISP. 313. AU 3. ::SP.: CONDITION: ME 2CD OF FAAT CA FRITICACON: '2. .U ',f:;:.; ?..; ,A s ;C :.; 37. x3;w;n _a so-r r_ e (;*.....* 1A {.

• f a.

(%: 'nWr'" NONCONFORMANCE REPORT PROJECTS. ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION'- QUALITY ASSURANCE A MEN . p .,. _./ Campatty NC,e,ma m " /* PROCESS CORRECTIVE ACTION Ic. 4A A33L13tC T Cr 300T M IL3): ruz 1 Cr = Un!tnewn, to be determined. 2. ACn:AI. 3007 30M(3), IF 3DTUDT DCM ABOVE (M M CCW.22D 3Y CR3. M3PON33:2 M MT.I33 CA): J. M TES? CA RDEITDID TBCMt 2310f FABRICATION N CCN5 3UCZ ON X ROCURDOT IN3RC5:5 ocu a uCCwsN:AT:ca rCa NOCI 53 CA Unknown, to be determined. noCz33 cA M M TAIZF ST CR0(3) CECIZD 23 31DCI 161 & M3 CF COW.2=CNt t Esco cr rarz3s cA ' tan'.anCs: + 2:2. C, : u.,= m = =,m,,x =, a 2:-. : = =. zo ... m 2. m....,.

t .r NCR M01-9-2-007 'y pig 2 3 of 5 Dats: 2/4/82 File : 16.0 2 12. "AS IS" NONCONFORMING CONDITION VERSUS "AS REQUIRED" CONDITION WITH REFS: Contrary to the above, the measured dimension is 6 ". b) The P2.10 for the subject hanger (Log 81753 ) references M-343 for hanger fabrication. Paragraph 6.7.2 (Welding) envokes G-27 for welding and para-graph 4.4.8 of GWS-FM Rev 4 from G-27 states in: part, ...each weld layer shall be free of porosity and excessive irregularities such as high spots and deep crevices." Contrary to the above, the vertical support weldment exhibits an approxi-mately 2" lcng groove - creating a sharp edge. a 2) 1-610-4 S/U-1BCA a) The subject sketch requires a 9/16" length of support steel beyond the cross support veldment. Contrary to the above, a length of 1/4 " was measured. b) The P2.10 for the subject hanger (Log 69498) references M-326 for hanger installation. Paragraph 4.2.2 (Welding) states in part, " Undercut shall not exceed 1/32"." Contrary to the above, the angle flange to horizontal support beam weld exhibts a 5/32." undercut, (burnout). 3) 1-612-3 S/U-1BKA a) The P2.10 for the subject hanger (Log 76542) references M-326 for hanger installation. Paragraph 4.1.2 (W'lding) envokes G-27 for welding and para-e graph 4.4.8 of GWS-FM Rev 4 from G-27 states in part, ...each weld layer shall be free of porosity and excessive irregularities such as high spots and deep crevices." Contrary to the above, the vertical hanger support to support beam weld exhibits a grooved face 3/32" wide for approximately 1". 4) FSK-M-lHBC-204-1-Eu2 - S/U-lGJA a),nus bill' of materials for the. subject sketch specifies a 5/8" thickness for Item 6. Contrary to the above, several areas of the item noted measure 9/16". 5) 1-616-6 S/U-lEGA i a) The subject sketch specifies a 1/2" weld for the stanchion to vertical support, (two sides). l 6 Contrary to the above, a 3/8" weld was measured.

s. .. ' '., ', i NCR MD1-9-2-007 P;.ga 4 of 5 Date : 1 File : 16.0 b) The subject sketch specifies an' angle of 60* between the angle support brace and vertical support. I Contrary to the above, an angle of 51' was measured. c) Th's subject sketch specifies stanchion heights of 20" and 174". measured Con'trary to the above, stanchion heights of 224" and 18 5/8" were respectively. d) The' ' subject sketch specifies 14" between the base of the angle support brace' and the vertical support. Contrary to the above, a 25 " dimension was measured. 6) 1-603-6 S/U-1BGC a) The subject sketch specifies a gap between the ends of the two clamp halves of \\". Contrary to the above, a gap of 19/32" was measured. b) The P2.10 for the subject hanger (Log 81906) specifies M-326 for hanger in- ...all stallation. Paragrapt 5.8 (Locking devices ) of M-326 states in part, threaded connections...shall be securad by....two jam nuts. " Contrary to the above, one (o, uter) of the nuts was observed to be loose render-ing theclamp; insecure. 7) 1-612-2 S/U-1BKA a) The subject sketch specifies a support beam (wl4 X 150 ) to pipe dimension of l'-11h". Contrary to the above, a dimension of l'-4" was measured. 8) 2-604-3 S/U-2BGA a) .The subject sketch specifies a 4" fillet weld - all around for the horizontal . support to support beam weldment (Item 1 to 7). Contrary to the above, a non-continuous weldment was observed in this location. 9)' l-616-10 s/U-lEGA a) The subject sketch specifies a verticalsupport beam (Item 2 ) of 4 '-8 " in length. Contrary to the above, the support beam measures 5'-0". b) The subject sketch specifies a vertical support beam to cross beam support length of 29". Concrary to the above, the distance was measured to be 25". L

• 'r NCR M01-9-2-007 Pago 5 of 5 Date:

File : 16.0 10) 2-617-8 S/U-2EGA a) The P2.10 for the subject hanger (Log 82242) references M-326 for hanger installation. Paragraph 4.2.5 (Welding) states in part, " Additional welds not shown in the design sketches / drawings require Project Engineering re-view and approval via field design change control precedure or nonconfor-mance procedure as applicable. " Contrary tc the above, several additiona " fillet welds were observed at the vertical support to angle support union (Item 2 to 3). 11 ) 1-60 3 2 - S /U-1BGA a) The subject sketch specifies a piping elevation of 634'-6". Contrary to the above, an elevation of 633' i114" was measured. 12) 1-619-14 S/U-lEAC a) The subject sketch sp'ecifies a support beam to support beam dimension of l ' -10 3 /8 ". . Contrary to the above, this dimension measured l'-9 \\".

,e p mm.~ -- 7 Y , /, h-},/ ~ = QC AI 1505' Al J-4 9--G S Pon S G (w,Alckinm 4 -016 TF CA BZ S 'LMd5 Hangers listed in the response correspond to the hangers listed in Block 12 of subject NCR. Information given reflects investi-gation of actual field conditions and what, if any. construction action has been taken. Hgr 2-619-1-19 a) Subj ect weld is to be reworked under rework package RLH-626. b) Redline LH-10448 has been issued to reflect existing field condition. Basic design of hgr is not affected and PE approval not required. No further action required. Hgr 2-604-2-35 a) Subj ect weld was measured by QC and found to be acceptable, No further action required. b) Subject condition no longer exist in field. Strut was re-moved under rework package RLH-390. Strut to be re-installed under rework package RLH-623. Hgr 2-611-7-33 Subject weld is to be reworked under rework package RLH-618. Note: Subj ect weld is a vendor supplied weld. Hgr 2-639-13-5 a) Redline LH-10450 has been issued to reflect existing field condition. Welds are not insufficient (undersize), but l are orientated incorrectly. l l b) Redline has been submitted for evaluation to PE reflecting existing field condition. Hgr 2-604-17-2 l Redline LH-10437 has been issued to reflect existing field condition. l Basic design of hgr not affected and PE approval not required. No further action required. Hgr 2-604-16-15 l a) Redline LH-10438 has been issued to reflect existing field condition. Basic design of hgr not affected. PE approval not required. No further action required. ib) Redline LH-10438 has been issued to reflect existine field

condition. -Basic design of hgr not affected and PE ap-proval is not required. No further action required. c) Stated condition no longer exists in field. U-bolt is no longer installed. U-bolt to be reinstalled under rework package RLH-622. Hgr FSK-M-2GCB-21-1-H1 Redline SH-10112 has been issued to reflect existing field condition. Drafting error made, therefore PE approval not required. No further action required. Hgr FSK M-2GCB-21-1-H1 a) Redline SH-10113 has been issued to reflect existing field condition. Basic design of hgr not affected and PE approval not required. No further a~ction required. b) Redline SH-10113 has been issued to reflect existing field condition. Basic design not affected and PE approval not required. No further action required. Hgr 2-611-4-4 Redline LH-10422 has been issued to reflect existing field condition. Basic design not affected and PE approval not required. No further action required. Hgr 2-616-8-2 a) Redline LH-10431 has been issued to reflect existing field condition. Basic design not affected and PE approval is not required. No further action required. b) Rework Package RLH-617 issued to correct tread engagement. Lower end is only nonconforming condition. Hg'r FSK-M-2HBC-217-1-H2 Redline SH-1-0115 has been issued to reflect existing field con-dition. FE determined no basic design change and PE approval not required. No further action required. Hgr FSK-M-2HBC-216-5-H3 a) Rework Package RSH-1097 issued to correct existing field condition. b) Redline SH-10114 issued to reflect existing field condition. Basic design not affected. PE approval not required. No . further action required.

Hgr 2-657-43-6 Rework Package RLH-620 issued to correct existing field condition. Hgr 2-611-5-98 ' Existing condition has been inspected and evaluated by FE and QC and is acceptable as is. No further action required.

• n

.e I PROJECTS. ENGINEERING ANo CONSTRUCTION

• e,

C0ftsumEl oUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT l POWER Company aA 7-o PRIORITY: 02 S/U: c0LE o r TREND: DNT PA3 1 er 5

e. r,xt:T xAa :

T. nomear: mas rant so:

e. sex:xrown: ru; a MIDLAND 1 & 2 N/A N/A

• • ' 2/5/82

) 9. SIRIAI. IruMBD:

10. CR3. COP 9CT;3G NCs LL. AAZA/ LOC. CF MCs 3 LA 3 LT RZV:

N/A BECHTEL CONSTRUCTION MULTIPLE BLDG's 16.0 5. nusscon t2. A3 II sc3Cemmas CenInen vusv3 A3 raczs ConInen wtm am; ^# The following list of hangers do not confor= to applicable require-ments as itemized below. LHCurtis LEDavis It is noted that the identification of the nonconfor=ances listed ESmith below was the result of an examination of hangers completely installed and inspected by Field Engineering, turned over to Quality Ixro C:rr: Control and inspected / accepted by Quality Control as evidenced by WRBird DMTurnbull the completed P2.10 document for each hanger. JEBrunner RAWells JWCook JLWood Specification M 326 section 5.1.1 states in part: "To the greatest pg g g4 extent possible, pipe supports shall be installed in strict BWMarguglio (CONTINUED) DBMiller REMcCue/ RDJohnson u. A uCtmunca roR rut '^' The recommended part corrective action applies to all hangers listed BHPeck on NCR. 1 Engineer g to evaluate acceptablit of hanger. LHCurtis) JARutgers 2 If rework repair is required recor & document. LEDavis,ESmith) FSchulmeister 3 If acceptable, provide 151 cation

• a use as is. (LHCurtis)

NOTRIEJ3Z3l l 3313/ PROJECT DG. DISPQIT*ICS RIEUDD

14. EQ *NS AMID:

EUMBER, QCAUON & TYPE CF HCG *XS AFTII:: u3 l l No l X l As ner W OAD Sreced"rp r_7M nn.nc..nnk c;_T_t_a A UCN D :

15. :3 rnmzss cA m.J3D G3 No g g Ir No. ENmt Jus;m:

16. DcI3 NC AFFECT 4 :.137 I2M:

YM l X l 50 l l

17. 13 NC REPOR:RSIZ FD $0.$$(e):

TES l l NOl l

15. :3 NC REPORTAR:2 PER FART 21: TIS l l30 l3 1

19. IF TD, M3 & CE OF REPORT,

• N/A al. Ir rzs.mAMsor zR: arrI:IA:. := w>cn axnR3a:

N/A ao. Ir n3, no Mans arroRT :o saiC: N/A ~r.scR-SI3AIUM/ LA3 A ? a3. wAI=D Rzrzx xmmD sr: an. 22. cRI,czA ' st: / / L'Wx*=3 us M.Z -i=82. , u~

25. PART CA DI370GIUOM, JUSUTICACON & COMP:250lt LA3

• To be determined.

2tp. LE313/ PROW"E:7 313. AG. DISP., 27. FlO 3I3. AG. DDP.: 23. F"""M.N! SIG. CONC. LISP.

29. SIG. J G4. M57. 70 efA; l

l t

30. FAB /CONST. 3I3. AM. IMP. CI3F.:

31. 313. OF T!3T GROUF ACDOd.

32. FtR MAJOR POD = FI.T. S' PT.

33 %A AG. 313. :D IMP'.4 MENT 015 l J CCC ITION: 313. A m. DISF.: l 34 ME20D CF PUT CA VIAITI:.An0N: l \\

35. 31:. or crc. ar37. ren rot :/A 3o. 312..umas tot :/A a now x 3T. 3C3 ::.:sz: ni:A3:

(Put a PROCI53 CA C:PG LE31 RDOWAMLA3: l 3:3N TTD100NF'.ZO:N: l 1

MtJJECTS. E NGINE EfJNG AMO CONST;UCTioN-CDf!StimSS kg n p n n QUALITY A!SU2ANCE DEPA*T%ENT ' Power NU L U U NCm sza:A:. omta: g"W PROCESS CORRECTIVE ACTION , ACE 2_ w 5 3 s Ainsw ? or *0c: :Actan Unknown: To be determined.

39. ACM A007 CMEIS), 7 DU7T.JI37 FR3 A30/E (% RE COMF!,ZE BY QRG. RE3PQN33;J, TQR F]tOCEL, CA);

=0. FIKrEL3 O S E TDID FROM 23I3 FA nis trA TION CGt33*E**ON X FROCL*FDENT w :s 03ER EL. EA N :LN FOR FROCEL3 CAs Unknown: To be determined. 42. FROCZ33 CA M BE TAKEN ET ORJ(3) C21IEEED 3 3:aC141 & LA3 CF COMFMCON: i ) k3 6 CF FXEZ33 CA VE3tIFICAT!QN 4.6 313. OF CRO. KESPCN332 FUR FROCE33 CA SICJrJTDG COMFMO3:

1. S.

P!tOCIL3 CA C #7*M.05 ELL;F;E BY/LA2;

e 5-1265 M-01-9-2-010 Page 3 6f 5 compliance with the component pipe : support design sketches / drawings." Contrary to the above, the following hangers have violated this specification: Hanger 2-604-17-2 P2.10 log #76648; support angle velded to plate is reversed from design sketch. S/U: 2BGA Hanger 2-639-13-5 P2.10 log #63333; item #1 rotated 900 from design sketch. S/U:2AEl Hanger 2-604-16-15 P2.10 log # 81811, pipe stanchion listed on bill of materials to be l' - 7 13/16"; actual is l' - 7 3/16". S/U: 2BGA Hanger 2-604-2-35 P2.10 log #59842; strut not located on 4"= beam as per drawing. S/U: 2BGE Hanger 2-619-1-19 P2.10 log #124673; item #11 listed as 8" x 12" actual as installed is 7" x 11". S/U: 2EAC Hanger 2-GCB-21-1-H1 P2.10 log #73127; pgs 104 pipe strap specified, pgs 111 installed. S/U 2BKA Hanger 2-HBC-219-1-H1 P2.10 log #71982; bill of materials lists ite= #2 as 3/8" x 4" x 4"; actual as installed is 3/8" x 4" x 3 13/16". S/U: 2GJA Hanger 2-HBC-216-5-H3 P2.10 log #72Q35; item #5 on bill of _aterials lis :.c as 3 3/4" x 3 3/4"; actual is 4" x 4". S/U: 2GJA Hanger 2-604-16-15 P2.10 log #81811 material lists item #2 to be 3/8" thick; actual is 1/2" thick. S/U: 2BGA Hanger 2-HBC-219-1-El P2.10 log #71982 rev 5 item #3 to item #2 welded @ opposite sides than design sketca. S/U: 2GJA Eanger 2-611-4-4 P2.10 log #12411. hanger clamp assembly indicates 13/8" clearance on sketch; actual is 1 1/2" typical on both sides. S/U:2BCA Hanger 2-616-8-2 P2.10 log #63192; centerline of pipe to top of item #1 (4'M ber.m) not per drawing. S/U: 1EGA Specification M-343 section 6.2;! states in ; art: " Acceptable Deviat.on Vertical d Piping: The design location of pipe support.s on vertical pipe may deviate from the original approved location, in a direction parallel to the pipe center-line by 4 inches, provided it is not adjacent to an anchor, equipment no::le or valve, in which case prior approval from the engineer shall'be required. 1 i t ,-. ~_

a {' '.. S-1255 M-01-9-2-010 Page 4 of,5 Contrary to the above: Hanger 2-HBC-217-1-H2 P2.10 log #69460; sketch & isometric callsfor hanger to be centered @ elevation 575' - 11 1/2"; actually @ 575' 5 3/4". S/U: 2GJA Specification M-32o section 5.11.1 states in part: "The clearance between the concrete walls and the structural attachment plates should not exceed 1/16" over a maxi =um of 20% of the bearing area;" Contrary to the above: Hanger 2-HBC-216-5-H3 #72305 lower right hand corner of base plate exceeds gap tolerance. S/U: 2GJA Specification M-326 section 4.2.1.9 states: "No undersize welds are per=itted". Contrary to the above: Hanger 2-619-1-19 P2.10 log #124673 undersire weld @ item #6 to item #11. S/U: 2E Hanger 2-604-2-35 P2.10 log #59842 undersize weld @ sway strue to 4"M beam. S/U: Hanger 2-611-7-33 P2.10 log #.135884 undersize weld @ item #2 to item #3. S/U: 23r Hanger 2-639-13-5 log #63333 insufficient welds for item #1. S/U: 2AEA PQCI 7220-P2.10, 3.3B states: " Minimum thread engagement shall be that amount necessary to engage all the threads of the nut or threaded component. Ranger load devices which have internally threaded adjustable co=ponents are to have sight holes provided to verify adequate thread engagement where required." Contrary to this: Hanger 1-616-8-2 P2.10 log #63192; at sight holes of support rods, no threads are visible. S/U: lEGA Specification M-326 section 5.1.3.b states: "When the component pipe support design sketch / drawing states the clearance is "1/32 inch typical" on opposite sides of a pipe or 1/16 inch on one side of a pipe or pipe lug, the sum of the actual clearances measured on the opposite sides of the pipe shall ne* be lecs than 1/16 inch or more than 1/8 inch. As long as the sum of these actual clear-ances falls wichin the above allowable limits, the actual individual clearances may be distribut'ed in any manner, including a zero clearance on one side of the pipe. Contrary to the above; Hanger 2-657-43-6 P2.10 log-#84577; design sketch calls for 1/32" inch clearance aroand "U bolt" and pipe: a total of 3/16" exists @ top side of pipe and flush on bottom. S/U: 2GJA

~ s \\ 'S-1265 i M-01-h2-010 1 Page 5 of 5 Hanger 2-604-16-15 log #81811 design sketch calls for 1/32 clearance around pipe and "U bolt"; no clearance exists due to off set bolt holes. S/U: 2BGA Hanger 2-611-5-98 P2.10 log #70407; welds for 3/8" plates have buckled plates @ weld locations and corners. S/U: 2BNA NOTE 1: The preceeded conditions of all hangers identified, leave the integrity of hangers indeterminate. NOTE 2: All identified non-conforming hangers have been previously inspected & accepted by QC. & O 'i G

s 3> _>/ QC AI 1517 FE AI 76 4 4 STN WW 6-2,- 014 G?-G g PM S (L - G/f f1I P/24-7 Items listed in this response correspond to the items listed in Block 12 of subj ect NCR. Information given reflects investigation of actual field conditions and what,if any, construction action has been taken. Item (1) a) Redline has been submitted fo: evaluation to PE reflecting existing field condition. b) Redline has been submitted for evaluation to PE reflecting existing field condition, c) There are no shop fabricated welds. This is not a noncon-forming condition. No.further action required. d) Redline has been submitted for evaluation to PE reflecting existing field condition. Item (2) Redline SH-10116 has been issued to reflect existing field condition. Basic design not affected and PE approval not required. No further action required. Item (3) Redline SH-10117 has been issued to reflect existing field condition. Basic design not affected. PE approval not required. No further action required. Item (4) Redline LH-10414 has been issued to reflect existing field condition. Basic design not affected. PE approval not required. No further action required. Item (5) a) Redline has been submitted for evaluation to PE reflecting existing field condition. b) Angle clips are attached per Dwg. Nonconforming condition does not exist. No further action required. c) Welds are not undersize. Nonconforming condition does not exist. No further action required. l i

d) No gap exists. Nonconforming condition does not exist. No further action required. . Item (6) The subj ect condition was inspected and evaluated by PE and QC and found to be acceptable as is. No further action required. Item (7) a) Subject condition was inspected and evaluated by PE and QC. Pipe installed on item 1 per dwg the excess is non-critical d imension. Nonconforming condition does not exist. No further action required. b) Hgr is installed within tolerance. Nonconforming condition does not exist. No further action required. Item (8) a) Rework Package RSH-1098 issued to correct existing condition. Subj ect condition would not have gone undetected and would have been corrected on final walkdown inspection. b) Condition stated was measured by PE and QC and found to be acceptable. No further action required. Item (9) a) Subj ect condition does not exist. Nonconformance does not exist. No further action required. b) Subj ect conditions do not exist. Nonconformance does not exist. No further action required. Item (10) Redline SH-10120 has been issued to reflect existing field condition. Basic design not affected. PE approval not required. No further action required. Item (11) a) Redline LH-10432 has been issued to reflect existing field condition. Basic design not affected. PE approval not re-quired.- No further action required, b) Redline LH-10432 has been issued to reflect existing field condition. Basic design not affected. PE approval not required. Item (12) Redline LH-10461 has been issued to reflect existing condition. Basic design not affected. PE approval not required. No further action required.

s i t Item (13) Redline has been submitted for evaluation to PE reflecting existing field condition. Item (14) (a) Based on subsequent specification changes and shim plate (b) criteria clarification, FE and QC evaluated subj ect conditions to be used as is. No further action r'equired, c) Rework Package RLH-621 has been issued to correct deficiency. d) Rework Package RLH-621 has been issued to correct weld de-ficiency. e) Redline LH-10435 has been issued to reflect existing field condition. Basic design of hgr not affected and piping is installed within tolerance. RE approval not required. No further action required. Item (15) (a) (b) (c) Rework Package RSH-1099 issued to' correct existing conditicn. Existing condition would not have gone undetected and would have been corrected on final walkdown inspection. ~ Item (16) a) Redline made to reflect the existing field condition. Basic design not affected by change. PE approval not requir ed No further action required. b) Redline has been submitted for evaluation to PE reflecting existing field condition. Item (17) Subj ect condition on NCR has been documented on Bechtel NCR 4113.

s. e .L,'. PMoJECTS. ENGINEERING AN3 CONSTRUCTION - C n30mtf3 7"" ' nUnLUItf Un4MnMfn[]t'nDGJ)lbL ({ D [ D M D'f' CUAUTY ASSU2ANCE CEPARTMENT pcytr' flMi nLIUnI '/ Campa.if u 7.o Priority: 2 Trend : DNT SUSr Code 86 ,,2 y a, n ue; w ei 7. scsecnoc rut.w:

a. acsc:arcr. o 2 iAar.w<st Various Hangers idland Units 1 & 2

. ust 2/3/82 (See below)

Pipe Hangers su:n..os.r.a

13. cas. c:acarc act

u. uzA/:t:c. cr x 3 as er azv:

N/a, tricus BPCo Various g g,,, 16.0 u Is x u_,r imz:n casr=:n vo :s As.uci.:r cast =m.n Rus 3. oz3suun:n w following list of hangers do not conform to applicable require- " ' = ^ " H Cub ants as itemized below. E M th LEDavis i 3r all undersized welds see also M-326 4.2.1.a.1 which' states. Jo undersized welds are permitted. For wrong material and material .mensions see M-326 5.1.1. grY THYcung JWCcok alt.2 (2 ) 4ADietrich BWMarguglio DBMiller REMcCue/CTrollin .4.u:m:.:.ana sca mr e.As The recommenced part CorreCC1Ve ACLlon appa BHPeCk 1)[Engineeringtoevaluateacceptabilityofhangers)les l hangsrs:

2) If JARutgers vork/rcpairisrequired; record, reinspect.anddocument.)3)

If DATaggart $fl ahk ac ione"eh )N b 'ta b b a*v*1s kt*n Mhd ce RAWells =r.sta/r onc: ca. omposzncs az ur.Ea lX l w; muuza l l3)LHCurtis g JLWeed not.o rA- -r_ n swi 3. wcAn:n s =r Or Nou xs Air In: ru l l m[ X l MPOAD Procedure F-7M cara 5.1.1.d u texzss cA a::unimi rzs g g so, g :r 30, , o au:;ny:cAn:n n:;ui DCEs MC AFFTCT 4-f.UT IENs YZs l X l NO l l

17. 13 ne aZPcRTA8u PER $0.55(e):

TIS l l Nol l

z. wow 2u rra ru: us - rzs [

l So p l / t,. 2 rzs, a=.== er suca m oc, a zzs, = = u m r m ac

u. 2 u3,.we er oc crr=:u. m.

a,;,=2 31'4A23 3Y / 23 ifRICIN REF:.I EU;2ID r**. 2'6 SUFERYUCA'S SI'.ihA7. Rz/0AC: W n'r '.*L E % ftc)M wh:. i ,A,._=.. m=. m.,= h# j i to be determined

ESC /F?CJZe! SIG. All"i. DISP.

27. Em 413. AU 1. CIsP.: 23 racCURI.Mrs sis. cc2sc. Disp.: 29, 3;;. ci cas, id.11. tca sj As PAS /CONST. 3I3 A3tSt. 04P. mISP.

31. 3!. OF Ts? 20UP AcDO.~.

32. FOR MA :R ED = F T. SUPT.

33. M AU3. sis. 73 OtFII M ! JISP.

CONDI!!cN SIG. AIT3. DISP.: t%2 icd c/ N T cA.tas ;;A COs: =e .j, .p a p. ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~' ~ * * * * * * * " et

1 *. .r NCR : M-01-5 014 D&te: 2/3/82 Page 3 of 5 CONTINUED: 12. "AS IS" NONCONFORMING CCNDITION VERSUS " AS REQUIRED" CONDI$ ION WITH REFS: Hardware Discrepancy 1) 2-611-6-5 710-2FLB-35-H5) Log #63225 Rev 5 S/U 2BCA a) Where the sway strut fitting is welded to the vertical I-Beam, the welds are undersized both legs per the drawing. b) Three of four welds attaching the horizontal I-Beam to the superstructure I-Beam are undersized on one leg per the drawis.g c) The beam to beam shop f abricated portion welds are undersized on one leg per the drawing. d) The brace beam angle is supposed to be 44*tl* per the drawing and it is installed at 46 *. 2) FSK-M-2HBC-145-1-H5Q Lcq #87879 Rev 5 S/U 2EGA Item #1 in bill of materials is a WS I-Beam and a W6 I-Beam was installed. 3) FSK-M-2HBC-144-1-H82 Log 473182 Rev 5 S/U 2EGA Item #3 per drawing bill of material is a plate b " x 2 3/4" x 2 3/4" however, a' k" x 3 3/4" x 3 3/4" plate was installed. 4) 1-612-3-12 Q( 8 "-l GCB-16-H1 ) Log #76107 Rev 5 S/U 1BKA This hanger was installed 45" West of drawing coordinates perpendi-l cular to the pipe. (Contrary to even the new Appendix K of M-326 l allowance of t2" for a deviation of the pipe) 1 5) 2-613-4-19 Q(12-2 HBC-5 -H1 ) Log # 68235 Rev 5 S/U 2BCA i a) The two welds that attach the spring canister to the channels are undersized on one leg per the drawing. b) The angle clips are attached to the wrong end of the channels ( per the drawing c) Both bottom welds of the angle clips to the channel are under=ized l on one leg per the drawing. l d) There is a gap between the angle clips and the channel and the drawing shows no gap. I Note: l Although the clip to main beam welds were changed from being an NF5222 weld the detail indicates the clip to channel welds are still per NF5222. 1

• e l

l

)', NCR: M01-5-2-014 Date : 2/3/82 Page 4 of 5 6) FSK-M-2-FCC-4-1-H1 (Q) Log # 64107 Rev 5 S/U 2BBB There is weld burn out causing reduced thickness of up to 3/32" at one end of one of the welds of strap to angle. This also makes the weld undersize. 7) FSK-M-2ECB-8-3-H4 (Q) Log #79652 Rev 5 S/U 2 BHA a) Item #1 on the bill of material is 134" long, however, actual installed is 13 3/4" long. b) The isometric drawing locates this hanger 11'-l 11/16" East of reacter ' building centerline, however, measurement frem a benchmark locates it at 11'-9 " East of the reactor building centerline contrary to para 6.2 of M-343. 8) FSK-M-2ECB-4-4-H5(Q) Log #60821 Rev 4 S/U 2 BHA a) There is a cett'er pin missing on the lower end of the W st sway strut. e b) The gap between the sway struts called for.n view c-c of the a drawing is actually k". 9) FSK-M-2HBC-l'.-1-H2 (Q) Log #78717 Rev 5 S/U 2JEA a) The stiffener plate outer bo,ttom edge thickness is reduced due to weld burn off resulting in an undersize weld. b) The same condition occurs on three.(3 ) places on the pipe strap (this was beveled and a full weld was not made ). 10) FSK-M-2GCB-22-1-H3 (Q) Log #68259 Rev 5 S/U 2BKA Item #3 on bill of material is \\" x 2 3/4" x 2 3/4" per drawing. Actual is 4" x 3 3/4" x 3 3/4". 11) 2 617-11-9 ( 6"-2HBC-149-H1)(Q) tog #69494 Rev 5 S/U 2EGA a) Section AA of drawing requires 2 31/32" offset between centerline of main beam and centerline of vertical beams of the hanger. Actual is 5/16" offset. b) Centerline of pipo to centerline of vertical beams is actually 12 3/4" and 12 4", hewever, the drawing requires 12". 12) 2J519-1-20R G8"-2HBC-109-H20R) Log #64049 Rev 5 S/U 2EAC The hanger is 5" West of drawing coordinates (perpendicular to the pipe) contrary to para 5.2 of M-226 (note the drawing states " field cut to suit" fer' items 1 and 2 on the bill of material, however, material use?.*as longer nan called for).

g r NCR: M01-5-2-014 Date: 2/3/82 Page 5 of 5 13) 2-619-2-19 Q (10"-2HBC-110-H19) Log #103729 Rev 6 S/U 2EAC l The lugs attaching the sway strut to the vertical I-Beam are rotated 40* from the drawing configpation and contrary to M-326 5.2.1.d. )4.M qe( se/A(k 14) 2-619-6-11 Q (10"-2EBC-100-H3 ) Log #76640 Rev 5 S/U 2EAD yy ,eova L. m.,.fT7. so a) Item #8 on bill of material requires 1" x 6" x 4 , however, 1" x 6k" x 5" was installed. b) Item #7 on bill of material requires 7/8" x 6" x 5",

however, 7/8" x 6" x 4 " was installed. (a later rev makes a & b acceptable) c)

Vertical gap, both top and bottom, is not parallel with pipe. Guide pads top and bottom touch the pipe at one end and have gap exceeding the requirements of the drawing cnd M-326 para 5.1.3.b at the other end. d) The welds of the vertical hanger beams to the bottom hcrizontal beam are undersized per drawing. e) The l'-71/8" distance between pipes per drawing was installed as 1*-10 1/8". 15) FSK-M-2 EBB-3-4-H1 (Q) Log # 71689 Rev 5 S/U 2BMA a) The sway strut has a tie wrap (plastic) instead of.a bolt, nut and washers per the manufacturers drawing on one end. b) A cotter pin is missing from the retaining pin at the other end of the sway strut contrary to the manuf acturers drawing c) Lock nuts missing on pipe clamp 16) 1-612-2-2 Q (8"lGCB-16-H47) Log.#63197 Rev 5 S/U 1BKA a) The 2'-5 " dimension from centerline of pipe to centerline of the W14 x 111 I-Beam is 2'-3" installed (this is perpendicular to the pipe) b) The North and South end plates (Item 5) welded to angle have an undersized wold on one leg. Both of these are on the West side. 17) 1-612-4-33 (Q ) ( 6 "-1GCB-18-H10 ) Log #65882 Rev 5 S/U 1BCA The small plate (#1 on bill of material) has reduced section and therefore undersized weld at the top. 9 e

is Gn3STiEVCT104 t (2-6 S P o dS G QC AI 1506 -43 FE AIhei mM-5-2-Ot7 R Item rumbers listed in this response correspond to the item numbers listed in Block 12 of subject NCR. Information given reflects investigation of actual field condition and what, if any, construction action has been taken. Item (1) a) Rework Package RSH-1100 issued to correct existing field condition, b) Rework Package RSH-1104 issued to correct existing field condition. i c) Redline has been submitted to PE reflecting existing field condition. d) The clearances as installed are acceptable per requirements. Nonconforming condition does not exist. No further action required. e) Redline has been submitted to PE reflecting existing field condition. f) Rework Package RSH-1101 issued to field to correct existing condition. g) Rework Package RSH-1102 issued to correct existing field condition. Item (2) Redline LH-10421 has been issued to reflect existing field con-dition. Basic design of hgr not affected by change. PE approval not required. No further action required. Item (3) Subj ect condition has been evaluated by FE and QC. Based on weld length and size existing condition is acceptable as is. No further action required. Item (4) Redline LH-10418 has been issued to reflect existing field con-dition. Basic design of hgr not affected. PE approval not re-quired. No further action required. l l l

,. m.._ = - g,, , - ? r t t t s. I t e.,1 (5) f Rework-Package'RSH-1103 issued'to correct existing. field condition. t a (6) f Item w 4:e Rework Package RSH-1102 issued to correct existing field condition. ..s - Item (7) i f. - c Redline'has been submitted to PE. reflecting existing field condition. (Redline #LH,10449) 4 f' l 9 1 w( ~ e go w 'M q r-1 y" + i, L 4 1 ' 4 i w 8 -g q ./ 4 + Y 1 5 +' s s \\ v a 4 se y. e i* w e-,- , w. h%, - -, ..,wy, y y py~ .,y.._, __.,,,p

a%. ,a PROJECTS. ENGINEEZING ANo CoNSTIUCTioN - C0flSUfflW5 MnMFnkIEnDU A M nrDn T OVALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT POW 8f MURLUNFUnniMM [R.0 U l Company SUS c.nzt.o PRIORITY: 2 TREND: DNT Code 83 4. rRNIOT MAMI 7. MONCQt.TORM3G PA8T MQ: 6. NC:8C3rCRM33 FART MAME-VARIOUS VARIOUS MID N (See Block 12) (See Block 12) % /82 3' VAYIIU's"' iE$TDC "'

• NAEIviS ' "*'

) (See Block 12) BECHTEL CONSTRUCTION (See Block 12) 6 rIs 8 ' 16.0 u. u Is sac 2roa,c33 ccCmon vuss u amm: Cas:=ca wIm m:rs: 3. szssamw ^ * * * * " *

• The following list of hangers do not conform to the applicable requirements as itemized below:

LHCurtis LEDavis It is noted that the identification of the nonconformances listed ESmith below was the result of an examination of hangers completely installed and inspected by Field Engineering, turned over to Quality g1rd RAEells Control and inspected / accepted by Quality Control as evidenced by JWCook JLWood the completed P2.10 document for each hanger. LRHowell RDJohnson BWMarguglio DBMiller

u. a uCu ex.An;.a m ea: ca: For eacn or enese 2.tems:

REMcCue/r C #_,,*D_

1) Engineering to evaluate the acceptability of the hanger. (Curtis) 2)

If rework / repair is required - implement rework / repair, BHPeck document & reinspect as required. (LEDavis, ESmith) DATaggart Iconditkons.rer$visethe use as is & r DMTurnbull 3) If acceptable, provide justification to drawin to ect actual oc3Im/rna; zuc. czsrasmen aza:rars not xmaza l (LHCurtis) JARutgers ib in. :nes Arr:.:xs: rJMan. tecAnon & nrz Cr ne:s :MC AP:":C l tz: l l no y MPOAD Procedure F-7M Parastraoh 5.1. ld I ts. :s rm=ss CA m.una rzs ; y i no y g rr no. xxum Js=r:anan m

16. :xs:s ac Arrzet e-.:sr nzm us l y j so l l

17. Is ne mzron:mau in so.55(.):

rzs l l so l l

10. :s e mzrom:Aaa ro rur at: Tzs l lnoly l

19. Ir rzz, =A3 & nMr or azrca: :o sne:

N/A ec. a rzs, no nn:: azicar s> xaci 21. a tzs, nAs or nac rrI::n :o una xtrens:: 22.

xA m

23 vu=xs arrt.r xmitars sr: zu. scruy:sca s sIaA=u/:As. j w fgsz 'a '* **'* "*1= 1 'l,22,e2 g g a j g,2 g u. 2

25. PA27 CA :13706:OCN, IJ5CrICACON & COMruCOR LA3 i

8 I I 2b. CzsI2/rMD.*zCT s!G. E'TH. ;IsP.s

27. Flo $I3. AU:3. DisF.;

20. PROCWlDE.RT 314. CONC. 21&P.a

29. Sla. GF Gha. AGi. FLA Os A.

30. FAS/CONST. 513. AITDI. IMP. DISP.:

31. SIO. Or 237 GRGJP ACDOW.

32. rCR MAJCR KID - F:.T. surf.

33. EA AU':lH. 3:3. "D *.J7"I.ENT DI3F. :

COC ITIcitz SI3. AIT31. CIsP. 34 EDOD Cr FAAT CA VI.RJICATIOn:

35. 3:. Or CA3. Az37. FOR PART /A 36 SIS. VzRITT33 PAAT C/ A & HC:Jl IA.3

37. 3CR C iLED BY/ A3:

SI K:rYD3 00MFIZCON: RDOiAi/0A3: (PART & PROCI;3 CA C"J7:1"Il l l l

• n b + + u rmi.w d.

1

PROJECT 4. ENGINEERING AND CONSTT.bbTION- ~ "^"**~""^"C" 7 CDft$gmg3 M nNmDM AM C D G @u n iT $0 M nun unt unmnn L I) LI ,cazz2w, m.o,' ] "*N PROCESS CORRECTIVE ACTION ,a l, a

u. s an.31.s: u sw:uausn Unknown: To be deter:: tined.

ac:x. aw; a=u33. :r nrrun: rRca oca m ar c:nes:c sr x. xz3ms32 isa wm cm3, 39 4. FROCI:3 CA RIT.L"JD F1tcm T51.21 FA B ICA CON Y CCNS".TCO3 X FItOCURDCIT N CE omIm

• L.

4A WM.AZION FCR FRCEII3 CA: Unknown. To be deter:: tined. i.2. Fit 3233 CA TO BE TAXD IT QM(S) CElrIZ: 3 SwCE et & OAE QF CDf2 3r: l i kl. **JE:D OF FIOCDS CA VERIF ".AC3f: 65. rru i.,3 CA C:mr.J. CON ERIF3D KI/LA2, 310. CF 3R3. AE5m32 FOR FRCCESS CA 3LT..JT3G COMF2 CON: w.

'1 8 Page 3 of 3 1) Clearances on the following hangers do not conform to the drawing / specification tolerances: a) 0-HBC-142-1-H1 SUS: 2-EAD b) 1-HBC-145-1-H9 SUS: 1-EGA c) 1-657-37-9 SUS: 1-GJA d) 1-657-37-22 SUS: 1-GJA le) 1-648-7-58 SUS: 1-KAB f) 1-HBC-144-1-H3 SUS: 1-EGA g) 1-CC3-69-1-E2 SUS: 1-BGA NOTE: Items b & f contain masking tape under the strap, preventing accurate measurement. 2) 0-617-7-13 SUS: 0-EGA Item #3 (I-BEAM) is not installed in accordance with the drawing. Angle clip & field weld is located incorrectly. 3) 0-617-8-33 SUS: 0-EGA a) Field weld between items 2 & 3 does not conform te drawing requirements. West weld, south end, contains approxi=ately h" of undersize veld. 4) 1-633-1-33 SUS: 1-BMA a) Drawing requires the bottom plate, on one corner, to be beveled k". Contrary to the above, the bevel was determined to be 3/16". 5) 1-CCB-69-1-H1 SUS: 1-BGA a) PGS-ll4 requires the jam nuts to be SA-307, GR B Contrary to'the above, the jam nuts are SA-194, 2H. 6) 1-CCB-69-1-H2 SUS: 1-BGA a) Same as 5.a above. 7) 0-618-1-6 SUS: 0-EAA a) Field welds between items 2 & 8 do not conform to drawings requirements. Drawing requires the welds to be located on the sides of item 8, the welds are located on the ends of item 8. O b

/ 77A ?/ M&

• v y

// 071353 (1) ts l PROJECT ENGINEERING'S COMPLETE BESPONSE l TO CPCo NONCONERMANCE REPORT M-01-9-2-007, AI: S-1261 I This response supplements Construction and Quality Control's response to the subject NCR. The condition of the discrepancies regnivhg rewod were evaluated for safety while redlined items (to reflect existing condition) submitted for Project Engineering approval were reviewed for acceptability. One discrepancy was also documented on Bechtel NCR number h112. Results of the safety evaluation indicate that the identified discrepancies (requiring rework), were they to have ramminad uncorrected, could not have affected adversely the safety of operation of the plant. Field Redlined drawings that were submitted by Construction for PE approval were found acceptable. Bechtel NCR h112 was dispositioned "use as is". Details are shown below. 1. 1HBC-219-1-H1(Q), EE7.2 - REWOBE Safety Evaluation: A groove 1" long x 1/32" x 1/16" deep exists at the top of the west veld on the pgs-113 strap. A 5/16" filled is re-quired. The weld is large enough to achieve 5/16" fillet beyond grooved area. The remaindar of weld (1") is acceptable. Even if effective veld size were reduced to 1/h fillet for 2" long, the veld would qualify for a 900 pound load (two-directional) on the pgs strap per standard calculation h00-005, EEY.2. The

d="

load on H1 - h15 pounda which is less than 900 P unds r (allowable load for 1/h" fillet), hence the weld is still within design allowables. Therefore, there is no safety impact. (Ref. Bechtelcalc.numberh00-3-208(Q)) 2. 1-610-h-27(Q), RE7.h -EENm. NCR 4112 WAS ISSUED Acceptability: This NCR was dispositioned "use as is". The gouge in the support has caused very =4n4==1 loss of cross sectional area and will not affect the structural integrity of the support, there-fore, acceptable'. 3 1-616-6-28(Q), RE7.1 -EEWORE (THIS WAS ORIGmLLY HEDLINED MR PE ApFROYAL) Safety Evaluation: Undersized weld exists. Ertensive review by ITT-Grinnel Providence has dete mined that the 3/8" weld will accomodate the loading conditions. Therefore, there is no safety impact. However, ITT Grinnell prefers to have the weld reworked. (Ref. ITT Grinnell calc. number Z-351) h. 2-60h-3-18(Q), HE7.1 -REDLINE FOR PE APPROYAL Acceptability: A non-continuous veldment exists (item 1 to 7). There is a small difference in weld properties from an all around weld to what was made on the support. Based on load and span of the braced cantilevers, the weld that was not made on the edges of the flange willnnot affect the desi, therefore, acceptable. (Bef. ITT Grinnell cale. number Z-356 g w.

~ CPCo NCR 501-9-2-007 (2) 5 1-616-1o-22(4), m.h --mLINE FOR PE APPROYAL Acceptability: Item 2 is 5'-0" instead of h'-8 1/2". After z.- viewing the forces and stresses from STRUDL analysis, the change ij 713 a 3 in a1nension (ezeystion),111 not affect the,ta3111ty of t3e structure, therefore, acceptable. (Ref. ITT Grinnell calc. number Z-355) 6. 2-617-8-5(4), m.2 - E LINE FOR PE APPROYAL Acceptability: Several additional 1/h" fillet welds were observed at the vertical support to angle support union. These additional welds at the joint has no adverse effect on the design, therefore, acceptable. (Ref. Bechtel calc. number LBSE 1-617-8) Prepared by L. J. Snyder Resident Q. E. i Reviewed by: / ResidentQ.E.J D. S. Borlaza / I p D. Riat l Resident Small Pipe and Hange H/ Myers ' / l Besident Large Bore Pipe ( Eanger Design l B b s t e

/ 7 % //a dw- /t J 0585/o (1) .e FROJECT DGINERTNG'S COMPIRIE RESPONSE TO CPCo NONCONERMANCE REPORT M-01-9-2-010, AI S1265 This response supplements Constzuction and Quality Control's response to the subject NCR. The condition of the discrepancies requiring rework were eval-usted for safety while redlined items (to reflect existing condition) sub-mitted for Project Eng4naering approval were reviewed for acceptability. Results of the safety evaluation indicate that the identified discrepancies (requiring rework), were they to have rama4nad uncorrected, could not have affected adversely the safety of operation of the plant. Pield redlined drawings that were submitted by Construction for PE approval were found acceptable. Details are shown below. 1. 2-619-1-19(Q), BEY.1 -REWORK Safety Evaluation: Weld for item 6 to 11 is undersized by 1/32" for last 1" of weld. The veld in question is non-load bearing. Therefore, undersizing it by 1/32" for the last 1" of weld will not affect the design integrity of the structure. There is no safety impact. (Bef. ITT Grinnell cale number Z-361) 2. 2-60h-2-35(q), HE7.1 -REWORK Safety Evaluation: Rear bracket was rotated 90'. Z-and X-movement is zero. Therefore, rotation of rear bracket has no effect on hanger design. There is no safety impact. (Ref. Bechtel calc. number LESS 1-60 b 2) 3 2-611-7-33(q), BET.1 -EmHK l Safety Evaluation: Welds for items 2 and 3 are undersized. Section III, Division I Appendices, Appendiz XVII, Table XVII-2h52.1-1 states

4 n4== size welds. The 1/8" weld stated in NCR is below min 4=

for 1/2" plate and considered a " cold weld". Based on load and the amount of weld at 1/8" fillet, this weld is within the veld allowable. Therefore, there is no safety impact. (Bef. ITT Grinnell cale, nu=ber Z-35h) h. 2-639-13-5(4). E7 2 -acDIr3 KH FE APPROYAL Acceptability: Item 1 was rotated 90'. Also, welds for item 1 is insufficient. Item 1 rotated has no effect on design. Y-load is transmitted lengthwise in the beam. The component forces due to the movement of the pipe are small, therefore the forces will have negligible effect on the velds. Veld is sufficient. This is acceptable. (Ref. ITT Grinnell calc. number Z-353) r '~~

CPCs NCR M-01-9-2-010 (2) 0J525lD 5 2-60h-16-15(Q), m.0/FT -EEWORK Safety Evaluation: No clearance exista due to off-set "U-bolt" holes. Specification 7220-M-326(Q) paragraph 51 3(b) states, when the component pipe support design sketch / drawing states the clearance is 1/32" typical on opposite sides of the pipe or pipe lug, the actual clearances shall not be less than 1/16" or more than 1/8" inclusive... the actual individual clesrances may be distributed in any manner, including a zero clearance on one-side of the pipe. Therefore, there is no specification violation. 6. 1-616 I 2(Q), N.7 - EEWORK Safety Evaluation: At sight holes of support rods, no threads are visible. Thread engagement on lower end of extension does not meet requirements. Measured ingagement is 1", =4n4== required is 1 1/2". Based on calculation, 1" thread engagenent is suffi-cient. Therefore, there is no safety impact. (Ref. ITT Grinnell cale.numberZ-360) 7 2HBC-216-5-H3(Q), m.0 -EEWORK Safety Evaluation: Approximately 2L% of the bearing surface exceeds gap requirements of spec. 7220-M-326(Q). A n of lower right hand anchor bolt and lower 1/h of plate has slightly greater than 1/16" gap. An evaluation of support 2HBC-216-5-H3(Q), assuming the bolt on the lower right hand corner of the base plate is non-functional, verifies that all the stresses are within design allowables. Therefore, there is no safety impact. (Ref. Bechtel cale. number 400-3-209(Q)) ~' 8. 2-657-h3-6(Q), m.1 -nEW0aK Safety Evaluation: 3/16" clearance exists between top of pipe and U-bolt. The magnitude of loads could not create enou$1 force to fail U-bolt. Therefore, there is no safety impact. (Ref. Bechtel calc. number.LBSE 1-657-h3) l Prepared by L. J. Snyder 8 Besident Q. E. l Baviewed by: /MCA[Ae# D. S. Borlaz) Besident Q. E. DA' D. Riat Resident hall Pipe and Hangers $w I Myers Besident Large Bore Pipe Hanger Design -,--,-,-e-r---

~ 477AC.Y/geMJ7~ /3 O7k (1) PROJECT ENGINEERDiG'S CCMPLETE RESPONSE I TO CPCo NONCONERIGNCE REPORT M-01-5-2-01h, AI: s-1267 This response supplements Constzuction and quality Control's response to the subject NCR. The condition of the discrepanciest requiring reworic were ' evaluated for safety while redlined items (to reflect existing condit-ion) submitted for Project Engineering approval were reviewed for accepta-bility. One discrepancy was also documented on Bechtel NCR h113 Results of the safety evaluation indicate that the identified discrepancies (requiring reworic), were they to have remained uncorrected, could not have affected adversely the safety of operation of the plant. Field redlined drawings that were submitted by Construction for. approval - were found acceptable. Bechtel NCR h113 was dispositioned "use as is". I)etails are shown below. 1. 2-611-6-5(q), RE7 3 - EEDLINE FOR PE APPROVAL Acceptability: Undersized welds and wider brace ' beam angle was observed. The 3/16" weld on figure 211 rear bracket to item number 2 is well within the allowables. The 3/16" fillet veld is sufficient for the connection of item number 3 to existing steel basad on brief calculation. Therefore, it is acceptable. (Ref. ITT Grinnell calc. number Z-352) 2. 2-613-h-19(q), HE7 3 -REDLINE KR PE APPROYAL Acceptability: Undersized weld of 3/16" fillet at connection of item number 3 and number 2 is sufficient since subject veld is not a stressed weld. It is only used to stabilize item number 3. There-fore, it is acceptable. (Bef. ITT GHrmall cale. number Z-358) 3 2ECB-h-h-H5(q), EE7.2 - EEWORK i Safety Evaluation: Cotter pin is missing on lower end of west sway 4 i strut. In this evaluation, the vertical restraint on the hanger will be non-functional. There is absolutely no danger or safety hazzard to the piping system. Thermal stresses are actually reduced, weight and seismic stresses are 1.ucreased, but are still within ASFr-Section III Code allowable stress levels. LoaMng on adjacent restraints increase if it is assumed that hanger 2ECB-h-h-H5(q) is non-functional. An evaluation of the adjacent supports, 2ECB-h-h-Eh(q) and 2ECB-h-5-H1(Q), with the increased loads shows that they are still within the acceptable design allcwables, therefore, there is no 400-3-201(q)and1,00-3-202(q))(Ref.Bechtelcale. numbers safety impact on the system. M e ,--,-.,,,,--n_.-.,.-e, - - -, e n.- - - - -,-, . -, -. -,.. ~

f CPCo NCR 5 01-5-2-Oth t,,7l35k (2) h. 2-619-2-19(Q), REY.1 -BEDLINE FOR PE APPROVAL Acceptability: Rear end brsekat of sway strut was rotated 9(f. Review o.i thermal and seismic novements show that there is no restraint with end bracket rotated.. (Ref. Bechtel cale. no. LBSE1-619-2) 5 2-619-6-11(Q), RET.3 -REWORK Safety Evaluation: No gap exist between pipe and hanger. Also, under-sized welds were roted on the vertical hanger beams to the bottom horizontal beam. The radial expansion of the pipe is less than 0.001" resulting in a very =all load. Frictional effects existing from Y-load is very much greater than load due to radial expansion, there-fore, its centribution is negligible. The required weld (per calculation) is 0.05". Therefore, the 3/16" weld is acceptable. Based on the abova, there is no safety impact. (Ref. Bechtel o.lc. numberSHC-619-6-1(Q)) 6. 2EEB-3-h-H1(Q), RE7.1 -REWORK a Safety Evaluation: It was observed that plastic tie vrap was used in-stead of a bolt. Also, lock nuts and cotter pins are missing. Assuming support 2 EBB-3-h-R1(Q) vill be non-functional, the piping system would still qualify per spec. W3h3, i.e. still within acceptable seismic spans. The adjacent support 2 EBB--3-h-R2(Q) would be required to pick up the additional seismic load increase from ik pounds to 82 pounds. Faulted load increase from h2 pounds to 205 Pounds. Pipe support 2 EBB-3-h-E2(Q) was orirf ully designed for a faulted load of 3h5 pounds. This is greater than the load arrived at by the stress engineer's evaluation, therefore, the hanger is still (Ref. Bechtel calc. number h00-3-200(Q)) 7. 1-612-2-2(Q), RE7.1 -REDLINE FOR PE APPR071L Acceptability: Undersized weld on one leg was noted. The 1/h" fillet veld at all shim plates are sufficient and are well within the limits of the velding allowables, therefore, acceptable. (Ref. ITT Grinnell calc. nunber Z-359) 8. 1-612-h-33(4), RE7.1/F1 -BENL NCR h113 WAs ISSUED Acceptability: Plate number 1 has reduced section and undersized weld. In accordance with Civil calculation 23c6(Q), the weld is acceptable. This NCR was dir. positioned "use as is". (Ref.Bechtel calc. number 23c6(Q)) ~ or

CPCs NCR M-01-5-2-0114 ~ (3) 071354 Prepared by: L. J. Snyder F Besident Q. E. Reviewed by: b5d4/et(A._ _ D. S. 'Borlazf) Besident Q. E. D. Riat Resident Small Pipe and Hangers / >J . Myers r sident Large Bore Pipe Hanger Design a B g y ._,,,,,.g_,-

p.-;ew w.c jf C ((7bOf (1) PROJECT ENGINEERING'S COMPIETE RESPONSE TO CPCo NONCONPOEMANCE REPORT 501-5-2-017, AI: 1272 This response supplements Construction and Quality Control's response to j the subject NCR.- The condition of the discrepancies requiring reworic were evaluated for safety while Redlined items (to reflect existing condition) submitted for Project hginaering approval were reviewed for acceptability. l Results of the safety evaluation indicate that the identified deficiencies (requiring reworic), were they to have remained uncorrected, could not have affected adversely the safety of operation of the plant. Field Red 14nad Hanger drawings that were submitted by construction for Project hginaering's approval were found acceptable. Details are shown below. 1. OHBC-1h2-1-H1(Q), REY.h -REWDE Safety Evaluation: The actual total clearance between pipe and pgs-10h strap is 3/32". The additional 1/32" clearance is acceptable from a safety stand point. It does not increase stresses on the piping system. Stresses are within code allowables. (Ref. Bechtel calc. number h39-3-1(Q)) 2. 1HED-1h5-1-H9(Q), RE7.2 -HEWORK Safety Evaluations No gap exists between sides of pgs-113 strap and pipe. In this evaluation, it is assumed that the total axial restraint at hanger H9 results in the 6'-11" span between B9 and H10 being totally restrained. Although the compressive stress is not required to be evaluated by code, this vem done. At a==*= temperature of 150*F as listed 1 in spec. W h80, compressive stress is well within the yield strength j of the pipe material. Also, the critical bu414ng load for the span is not developed, and the piping system renains operable. i I however, a total deflection of 0.0h22" will be distributed betveen l supports H9 and H10. Since there is 1/32" clearance between the lug and the pipe on l H10, Hanger H9 and H10 would only be required to deflect 0.01095". However, since it was assumed that the clearance is not there and H10 is also locked, the force required to deflect H9 (0.0h22") in the I-direction is Fx = 600 pounds. An evaluation of supports H9 and H10 with an additional load of 600 pounds shows that the supports are still within design allow-ables. Therefore, there is no safety impact. (Ref.Bechtelcale. numbers h00-3-20h(Q) and h00-3-205(4))

ypgp CPCsNCR501-5-2-g 3 1-657-37-9(Q), RE7.2 -EDLINE FOR PE APPROVAL Acceptability: The clearance in the Z-direction is within specification tolerance. Total movement in Y-direction is 1 0.66", therefore the 0 78 clearance is acceptable. (Ref. Bechtel calc. no. LBSE 1-657-37) h. 1-6h8-7-58(Q), E7.1/F1 -EDLINE FOR PE APPROVAL Acceptability: The relationship of forces indicate that support surface in the positive direction will never come into play. Clearance is not critical to design. Therefore, it is acceptable. (Ref. Bechtel cale, number LBSE 1-6h8-7) 5 1HBC-1hh-1-H3(Q), E7.2 -REWOE Safety Evaluation: There is only a 1/32" clearance between side of pgs-113 strap and pipe. The radial expansion of the pipe at -4== temperature of 115'F (listed in spec. Wh80) is equal to 0.00067" which is less than 1/32". This qualifies the piping and has no effect on the hanger. Therefore, no safety impact. (Ref.Bechtel calc. number 400-3-203(4)) 6. 1CCB-69-1-E2(Q), RE7.2 -EWDE Safety Evaluation: No gap exists between pipe clamp and its supporting structure. In this evaluation, it is assumed that the support 1CCB 41-1-H2 locks up in three directions. Ada:,lonal restraint for weight and seismic load cases will aid in the pipe stress equations and additional loads will be minim =1 due to relative locations of adjacent supports. The unrestrained displace-ments for thermal and seismic anchor movement load cases at H2 (per 110 analysis) are used to approximate additional-loads.-If these displacements were restrained, the' additional pipe stress would be approximately 1/h the allowable of equations #10 and #11, which is conservatively based on a guided cantilever beam. Therefore, the pipe system would still be operable. Additional loads on H2 fron all load cases conbined would be conservatively 200 pounds I-direction and 200 pounds Z-direction. l Additional loads on hangers 1CCB-66-1-H1 and 1CCB-69-1-H3 will be l approximately 100 pounds in the I-and Z-directions. i An evaluation of the above hangers with the additional loads caused l by support 1CCB-69-1-E2 being locked in three directions verifies that the stresses on the hangers are still within design allowables. Therefsre, there is no safety impact. (Ref. Bechtel calc. number 400-3-206(Q)) l ^ 7. 1CCB-69-1-H1(Q), RE7 3 and 1CCB-69-1-H2(Q), RE7.2 ---REWORK Safety Evaluation: Pgs-11h requires the jam nuts to be SA-307, GR.3, however, SA-19h, 2H was used. Although SA-307, GR.B nut is a standard callout for these support assemblies, the SA-19h, 2H nuts have a higher proof load rating per ASME Code. This substitution will have no safety impact on the support. ~ /

o5F509 cPeoscRno1-5-2g 8. 0-618-1-6(Q), RET.0 -REDLINE FOR PE APPRO7AL Acceptability: Field welds between items 2 and 8 do not conform to drawing. The existing velds are within the welding allowables, therefore, welds are sufficient. (Ref. ITT Grinnell calc. number Z-357) Prepared b L. J. Snyder U Resident Q. E. Reviewed by: blAs4/Av D. S.'3orlazd Resident Q. E. D. Riat Resident Small Pipe and Hangers e sta /M K. Myers Resident Large Bore Pipe Hanger Design e W v-

k .a IC Miesend Prolest: Po Box 1963 Mksiend, MI 48840 + (517) 831-0051 May 5, 1982 Messrs W R Bird and B W Marguglio Cbnsumers Power Co 1945 Parnall Asad Jackson, MI 49201 Mr M A Dietrich Bechtel Power Corp PO Box 2167 Midland, MI 48640 MIDLAND PROJECT - USNRC EXIT MEETING (Isa Yin) OF APRIL 23, 1982 File 0.4.2 Serial 17009 An unannounced NRC inspection by Mr I T Yin took place from April 21 through April 23, 1982. Entrance and exit meetings were held on April 21 and April 23 respectively. Me lists of attendees for each of those meetings are attached to this letter. We stated (by Mr Yin) purpose of this inspection was to close infractions and unresolved items from the 81-12 inspection and other older items, if time permitted. I. Se following old items were addressed: 1. Infraction 81-12-11/12 Large Bore Pipe Supports Not Installed Per Drawings / Specifications. 21s item remains open and is the subject of an additional violation (See Section I,I on the following page for details). l 2. Infraction 81-12-12/13 Pipe Hanger Inspection and Acceptance by Quality Control. Mis item remains open and is the subject of an additional violation (See Section II on the following page for details). 3. Infraction 81-12-13/14 Installation of Snall Bore Pipe Without l n9==nitted Preliminary Design Calculations. Closed. 4. Infraction 81-12-14/15 Small Bore Pipe Design Document Control Not Maintained. Closed. 5. Infraction 81-12-16/17 Inadequate QA Audits. Closed. 6. Infraction 81 01 Inadequate Design Cbntrol (Redlines ). Closed. l 7. URI 81-12-10/11 Bechtel Specification Applicability. Closed. I 8. URI 81-12-15/16 Mechanical Rework Controls. Closed.

R ,)

1. ', ' ' Serial 17009 2

4 II. New Items 1. Infraction - Severity Imvel IV. Piping Suspension QC Inspection Breakdown. In view of the large number of hangers (43.9% of sample) identified as nonconforming in MPQAD NCRs as a result of the MPQAD overinspection of hangers which had been previously inspected and accepted by Bechtel QC, Mr Yin determined that there was breakdown in Quality Control in 1980 and that MPQAD had failed to refort this as required by 10r CFR 50. 55 (e). He noted that a deficiency in 127 ~ of 9401 characteristics served only to demonstrate the complexity of the hangers, not the overall acceptability of the installed condition. Review of the records indicated that 1649 hangers were inspected / accepted in 1980, 3270 in 1981 and 789-to date ('.Arough March) in 1982. 1 The NRC has determined that they will require the licensee to do a 100% (re) inspection of the hangers installed in 1980 and a sample (undetermined size) of those inspected / accepted in 1981 and.1982. Any alternate proposals by MPQAD should be discussed with USNRC Region III management. 2. thresolved item. Design of large bore hangers and other mechanical items. & Yin plans to visit Ann Arbor in the near future.to review the design process and records in these areas. bk R E Whitaker, Section Head Fluids and Mechanical Midland Project QA Department REW/lrb CC IkTCole, Midland JWCook, P26-336B MLCurland, Midland LHChrtis, Bechtel-Ann Arbor LEDavis, Bechtel-Midland WDQreenwall, Bechtel-Ann Arbor Dehorn, Midland JAHorsch, Midland GSIGeeley, P14-113B HPLeonard, Midland REMcCue, Midland DBMiller, Midland JARbtgers, Bechtel-AA MJSchaeffar, Midland RAWells, P14-113 A RDhitaker, Midland JLWood, P14-416 Great Lakes QA Managers l ,m_._ g- ,,,--m.-__ .. ~, _ - -.... _

c me n., 'd Bechtel Power Corporation Inter-office Memorandum To Training File Date June 28, 1982 Subject Job 7220 Midland Project From J. E. Stubbs Training Session BT-429 Of Construction Copies to At Midland, MI On Thursday, May 13, 1982, a one hour training session was held on hanger inspection. The instructors were: Rick Shaw, Mechanical Field Engineering, Ed Urbanawiz, Q.C., John Low and Ron Cable, Welding Field Engineering. A question and answer period was i r,-l uded. Those in attendance were: -D. Baker /M. Jones

4. Simanovsky

-B. Bis VM. Kestly' W. Simonson -J. Borm /S. Kienzle /J. S1i fer V. Buckl ey VA. Kilszek +44. Stover 9. Burgess VP. Konkle /J. Swan J. Koski c4. Swenson JL. Burton G /p. Cole vit. Krafft vT. Taggart

m. Cole

/D. Lange s/G. Terando VJ. Cruz VS. Love VD. Webb /J. Eddy dB. Lovell A4. Woodward @. Egnatuk

44. Maal ou f

'P. Ziol kowski A. Elif 4.* Mallonee

10. Fan UK. Mason

/J. Franklin JP. Max /M. Galli k /J. Miller vL. Gatz M Moore (J. Gawlik eD. Ort JR. Gordon vA. Osmanski JC. Graham 4. Price JD. Green S. Puntney

30. Haven L8. Ritter

/T. Heins v'E. Savage lJ. Hunt vP. Seibert /. Hymas v0. Seidenzahl R 4 D. John VJ. Sepahrom j K. Johnson

4. Shaw 9Ekb J. E. Stubbs JES/kls Written Response Requested: No

r %I 5, MS2 MECHANICAL greg73gggggg Sa<e, Cavs [ Hunt, Je f f "a:2 $', 't .i Hyr.a s, Randy,Y ' Puntney, Bill b*TT~ Eis, S:3, 'J John, Cobbie -n-- Scrm, Jir [ h m Johnson, Kevin M Ritter, Tex (, am = n s p ~"" q r D su:k:ej, J:e "/ n ~ 4y Savage, Ed e,5, \\% & c r, -. Ji r k ' Eurgess, Std.pfd gE Kestly, Mike Nd ,s Seibert, Paul.3, ~ t. E u t t n, Ly l e ~ Kienzle, Steve dhb Seidenzahl, Dave b C m.,. C. _. : Kiliszek, Andy 5 _ Sepahrom, Joe /" 7.------ ~ Konk le, Phil. f-Shaw, Rick $ b Cole, Gary,, .Koski, Gary [ [ c.,.m,c.arx Cole, Mike @'.A j Kra f f t, Mik e dm/d Simanovsky, Zinovy N -.f , -./ 1 Lange, Dennis y [...- Simonson, Walt C r t.2, viss Of & mm -- Slifer, Jchn (h / / Love, Ste 2P ,1.. 7 .,_w. Lovell, Butch j3c de A. _ _,,, [2,, _ Stover, Wayne / E: /, J m Maalouf, Fadi fg ;/, ' Swan, Joe 5 Ecnitc k, C ot, Mallonee, Mike ADA Swenson, Bill Ei1i, NWs Tn64MT^ 72W /r Terando,$erry V Fan, Danny I ( - ' k.- !,... d - Frank 1in, Joh F.ason r--Kar6~1/ ' Webb, Dav -C r l '. i k, ".c. i AA. Max, Pa t b // a, '.'_m,._ ^r- ,~. -- Woodward, Woodie

Satz, e-ha / S,.

SA : s.- Zw. ' Ziolk ows ki, Paul,,h h r c :r., :a';.Ic.-W w_- '~ e a iI a TeH JTr% irita:, :arli. ; Moore, Dick]k j C7/ g {

i. e e, C l i e, .-

Ort, David -ae., Osmanski, Albert g Mgo]e r h 3 f, 7TMol ^ -eirs, . v ; ,ma. Ry. R <k 3h e w GL.c Ps p. Eci U r b'" " ' br.

-;C? ' 5 v3n. tch.,3 Re(. 3<>s'n Iw R. Co Af.a

.:-._:c-~--- -? ,... a e.-_ g:..,se m,m.c dh OJT Chockliot & Fijald Trcining Summary mrnewwe i2 O PQCli t G (Name) (Date) m 3 ~

• * ~ '

<c-b. e, 5 G G s* Training 6-QCE Signature Level Date Hours' l l Y G3 !!E 1 e 3 + ,8 4C u C:T i l 0 t 1 I 1 o Total hours = 7220/QCFF-T-1 rev.o Page 1 of .....a

r o e ORemarks / Specialized Training Hours l l l l Total Hours (This Side) INSTRUCTIONS 1. Enter the PQCI number, title, and revision. 2. Enter the, generic training activites, ie. Activity No. or Subject. 3. Enter the name of the QCE in training. 4 Enter the date that the QCE co==ences training. 5. The level I or II QCE shall enter a check = ark (v ") in the appropriate block to identify that training was conducted in a specific area. I 6. Enter the signature of the Level I,II, or III QCE conducting the training. 7. Enter the level of certification of the training QCE. S. Enter the date training is conducted. c. Enter the duration of training in hours. 10. Enter the total number of training hours. 11. Enter specific training which is not catagorized in the activites listed in block 2. Additionally enter the duration of this training. page 2 of 2

7 3 N i l.

• I.

1i !.i I: i j,, ",i!- g.,,, a t tt gu a go ic . a,, t a g gc, p s _ i l; i s i E T 1 NW t s A E t I p n I o R V / tn 8 i I,, TE C S R o to E n es sa RN o m. a / sr. T 0 1 v R T po l OA p PL PL U A S T u __ S C EN v PI a I 3 ss P ta o m n e u e om t me c s t a a iv ec N se O k W I t l o o I t s S t I E a V F t V a O E S t R .e s ,o m R ) I E e E Q VOV ,T W ,C ( a g 6 ED f P t O 2 d v 3 fA i R C 0 t M e C 2 F m S 0 o I 2Io NT C 2X S C N N 7D OAI A N v. R I R NEz TE T F OP S ao N IPe Al s A R TA t S a S AC LT t R t s O a t I F LP wt s s v P sm s IC AS Jt u E t TE s P o P tP o S S sa N I t a c. e c. v t . C o,, a .On.e e.s 2 sa .o.. p l t,, c t, .. c. t. .. a. ...,u o .c !i l. .l ,i I I T. n,. s e . '8 o.v!i. l I l l i .t I .v . =. 9 ...=. n i" ;:I n i

'h l

l !I .. lB Il

l 4

t t = j". i I .g l l. .i l l , I l l 1 ,i t s o n . pna s . p os no u s an S u n .e. a a u.. ~. - i: f, c. n se e g s s o m ,=e s I l jl1t

) y i Na e Se

o '* I V

S u t t s a K W l TSc'ma e. E e I 'l I I ! i il' I I I I s-TV s NE [t' IA R ys u RN O TO N r s SI G ET N I RA W / L A /L n \\ T r A o r T f R S t t O N H PI s P D U 1 S N - ~ i' t A v' t Ce'6A E ort PN c a "' I G PI S O he5g E N i l I I D S OJ E bg S:$g d:3 Ng W i sg E w, L, e IV E W g M RS i t T v N e u,, I R NA a, N t, ) - R O u Qc0T T, 0" f ( S A t 1 E 6 lv TR L a L n, 2 g A/ A u, 3 T T, MLT 5 s LO e c,, N u M R a, t 0 P s 2C AP 7 X 1, U 2 S t t n E a I P u it I ND hP n ON R w e l I E E T o, TP D r_ AP DN W CA U t ND l ,a I V F' N E n AA R a I e N s y C G E N2 I s t c P O S G I = o S G c E ss t o D g 4 c fi e r wia Lcs to NO 4 s C o. r-f A s r W ts. g T enT s o o t= n t e e e c en e l I l I ! i s= g ae ll i' I I g ip La c as ) s a s a fs u: e. t tu r sa u u t e g. i s oN s y s y i}}