ML20069C863
| ML20069C863 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/19/1982 |
| From: | Reynolds N DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Cole R, Mccollom K, Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207210297 | |
| Download: ML20069C863 (471) | |
Text
/ \
D DOLKETED LAW O VWECES O' UStlRC D EB EVolS E & LIB ERMAN 1200 S evCNTCCNTM S TR ECT, N . W.
fb WASHINGTO N, O C. 20036 TcLcPHONc (2 cal es7-esco 0FFT? CF SECRE!apv UI'M ilNG & SERV.CE BRAggly 19, 19g2 Marshall E. Miller, Esq.. Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Chairman, Atomic Safety and Dean, Division of Engineering, Licensing Board Architecture and Technology U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Oklahoma State University Commission Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Richard Cole Member, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Texas Utilities Generating Company, et al.
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 Gentlemen:
Transmitted herewith pursuant to the Board's Order of July 13, 1982, is Applicants' written direct testimony on Contention 5 and the Lobbin Report, all of which Applicants intend to present at the hearings scheduled to commence on July 26, 1982. Also transmitted herewith are Applicants' Exhibits to be introduced on redirect examination of its primary panel on Contention 5.
l With regard to contention 5 (QA/QC Program for Comanche l
Peak Construction), Applicants transmit herewith the prepared testimony of (1) David N. Chapman, Manager of Quality Assur-ance for TUGCO; (2) Richard C. Barber of Dravo Constructors; (3) Albert H. Boren, Vendor Compliance Supervisor for TUGCO (4) Ralph E. McGrane, Assistant Chief Structural Engineer for l Gibbs & Hill; (5) John T. Merritt, Jr., Engineering and Con-l struction Manager for Comanche Peak, TUSI; (6) Kenneth L.
Scheppele, Senior Vice President for Gibbs & Hill; and (7)
Ronald G. Tolson, Site Quality Assurance Supervisor for TUGCO.
Attached to this testimony are documents which Applicants intend to present as evidence at the hearings, and statements of educational and professional qualifications of Messrs.
Barber and Boren. Statements of qualifications of Messrs.
~
8207210297 B20719 PDR ADOCK 05000445 6 PDR p
e Chapman, McGrane, Merritt, Scheppele and Tolson were received into evidence at Transcript pp. 509, 796, 794, 798 and 799, respectively.
Applicants intend to call these witnesses as a panel to address certain allegations made by CASE in connection with Contention 5. These allegations concern moment limiting re-straints, pipe whip restraints and shims in the polar crane girder support bracket assemblies.
In addition, with respect to the Lobbin Report, Appli-cants transmit herewith the prepared testimony of B.R.
Clements, Vice President, Nuclear of TUGCO and Frederick B.
Lobbin, an engineering and management consultant. Mr.
Clements and Mr. Lobbin will be called with Messrs. Chapman
~
and Antonio Vega as a panel to address questions relating to the TUGCO QA evaluation performed by Mr. Lobbin. A statement of Mr. Lobbin's educational and professional qualifications is attached to his testimony. The statements of educational and professional qualifications of Messrs. Clements and Vega have been received into evidence at Tanscript pp. 507 and 511, respectively.
All prefiled testimony and attachments have been assigned exhibit numbers in the order in which they will be introduced.
Documents to be introduced on redirect examination of Appli-cants' primary panel also have been numbered in the order in which they will be introduced. A list of all numbered ex-hibits is enclosed. (Exhibits 127B through G are being trans-mitted under separate cover.) Of course, this list does not include documents which Applicants may introduce in response to direct testimony CASE may present or additional cross-examination CASE may conduct.
l Respectfully submitted,
. ~
ql
- hNicholasS. Reynolds I
1 Counsel for Applicants Enclosures I
cc: Service List
~
. N APPLICANTS' EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description 54 Audit CP-2 and associated close-out documentation 55 Memorandum TSQ-0873 (Accompanies Audit CP-7 (CASE Exhibit 58))
56 Memorandum CPQ-0095 (Accompanies Audit CP-15 (CASE Exhibit 66))
57 Memorandum CPQ-0469 and additional close-out documentation (Accompanies Audit CP-18 (CASE Exhibit 69))
58 'TUSI Procedure CP-EP-4.6 59 Brown & Root Procedure CP-QAP-16.1 60 TUGCO Procedure CP-QP-16.0 61 NRC Inspection and Enforcement Report 80-23 62 November 19, 1981 letter from TUGCO.to NRC (TXX-3439) 63 NRC Inspection and Enforcement Report 82-09/04 64 June 23, 1982 letter from American Society of Mechanical Engineers to Brown & Root, Inc.
65 NRC Inspection and Enforcement Report 81-20 66-116 Applicable close-out documentation of Site Surveillance Reports introduced by CASE (CASE Exhibits 106-172) 117 Qualifications of Frederick B. Lobbin (Attached to Exhibit 119) i 118 Testimony of B.R. Clements l
119 Testimony of Frederick B. Lobbin l 120 Qualifications of Albert H.-Boren (Attached to Exhibit 124) 121 Qualifications of Richard C. Barber (Attached to Exhibit 125) 122 Testimony of Ronald G. Tolson
Applicants' Exhibits Page 2 Exhibit No. Description 122A Bruwn & Root Audit & Deficiency Report of CB&I 122B September 24, 1980 letter from NRC to TUGCO 122C October 20, 1980 letter from TUGCO to NRC (TXX-3220) 122D NCR No. M-82-00296 122E NCR No. M-82-00296 R.1 122F Photograph showing size of Pipe Whip Restraint 122G Photograph of Typical Undercut 122H Photograph of Typical Lack of Fusion 122I Photograph of Typical Lack of Penetration 122J Photograph of Typical Arc Strike 122K Photograph of Typical Lack of Fusion Repair 122L Photograph of Typical Overlap Repair 122M CP-QP-15.4 113 Testimony of David M. Chapman 124 Testimony of Albert H. Boren 125 Testimony of Richard C. Barber 126 Testimony of Ralph E. McGrane 127 Testimony of John T. Merritt 127A Drawing No. 2323-S1-0515 127B-G Photographs of Polar Crane Bracket Assemblies and Shims
Applicants' Exhibits Page 3 Exhibit No. Description 127H DCA No. 9872 127I Drawing No. SK-82032 128 Testimony of Kenneth L. Scheppele
Applicants' Exhibit 54 s pjyg INTEROFFICE MEMO G. R. Purdy DATE: Nove=ber 5, 1981 TO:
FROM: R. M. Klimist CORRES. NO.: CPQ-0443
SUBJECT:
Status - CP-2 Audit Files A review of Audit File CP-2 has been completed and the following findings are documented in this file status su==ary report.
ADR No. 1.2 - Closed. Response found satisfactory by B. C. Scott 6/24/75, verified as satisf actory during Audit CP-4 12/16/75 (TSQ-0196) (performed by B. C. Scott) and closed by B. C. Scott.
ADR No. CP-2.1 - Closed. Response found satisfactory by B. C. Scott 6/24/75 (TSQ-0196) verified as satisfactory during Audit CP-3 9/9/75 (performed by R. C. Scott 9/9-12/75), closed by W. Knapp 9/17/75 (TS-BQ-XX-0103) .
ADR No. CP-2.2 - Closed. Response found satisfactory by B. C. Scott 6/24/75 (TSQ-0196) verified as satisfactory, reaudit No. 2 8/4/75 (TS-BQ-XI-0076), closed by B. C. Scott 8/8/75 (TS-BQ-XX-0103) .
ADR No. CP-2.3 - Closed. Response accepted by B. C. Scott 6/24/75 (TSQ-0196) with no verification necessary. Closed by B. C. Scott 9/26/75 (TS-BQ-II-0103).
ADR No. CP-2.4 - Closed. Response accepted by B. C. Scott 6/24/75 (TSQ-0196) verified during reaudit No. 2 8/4/75 (TS-BQ-XX-0076) and closed by B. C. Scott 8/8/75 (TS-BQ-XX-0103).
ADR No. CP-2.5 - Closed. Response accepted by B. C. Scott 6/24/75 (TSQ-0196) no verification necessary. Closed by B. C. Scott 9/26/75 (TS-BQ-XX-0103).
ADR No. CP-2.6 - Closed. Response accepted by B. C. Scott 6/24/75 (TSQ-0196) verified during audits CP-3, 9/17/75 CP-4 12/16/75 (TSQ-0335) and CP-5 3/24/75 (TSQ-0372) (TSQ-0439). Closed by B. C. Scott 3/24/76.
ADR No. CP-2.7_ - Closed. Response accepted by B. C. Scott 6/24/75 (TSQ-0196), ,
verified during reaudit RH-3 8/22/75 (TS-BQ-II-0090) and closed by B. C. Scott '
8/22/75 (TS-BQ-II-0103).
ADR No. CP-2.8 - Closed. Response accepted by B. C. Scott 6/24/75 (TSQ-0196) verified during reaudit RH-3 (TSQ-XI-0090) and closed by B. C. Scott >
8/22/75 (TS-BQ-II-0103). I g gDM[@0N ON
Brewr f5 Root.ine.
- 2 G. R. Purdy Status - CP-2 Audit Files Corres. No. CPQ-0443 Nove=ber 5, 1981 Page 2 ,
There were no Concerns during the conduct of CP-2, and all ADR's have been closed; therefore, Audit CP-2 is classified as closed.
Very truly yours, alunde M. i=is QA Audit Sect on nager RME/ dm cc: L. A. Ashley SNMPL g;_-- x -- g T. Vega T TIISI R. J. Vurpillat -
R. P. Negri MIS (DC)/ Audits D. Chapman CP-2 Audit File III II
,. ... g e ;, 6 \
, , , . ;- , , t t y ..t, in -
p t i ;* s g-. , e L :, Lt * * *
, v 6b
25I N W&
aien nose, Texas vanes Brown &RootInc. post arrice sox ,00,, gM;j W g.' /NE g O-T July 25, 1978 n. 60 nG
\pp. G"d49 6 .
'1,6 BRQ-0824 Texas Utilities Generating Co. ,
h . #goBgSC(
P. O. Box 1002 &' gO Glen Rose, Texas 76043 ^ i R. G. Tolson (O E,Q ATTN:
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station -
1981-83 2300 M4 Installation TUGC0 QA Audit No. TCP-2
Dear Mr. Tolson:
' re-action that B&R QC took to correct and prevent th currence.
Deficiency #2_ - Corrective Action 1.
MEI-10-660 was added to Equipment Maintenance Log.
2.
Maintanance operations were witnessed in March,1978 and verified thereafter as shown on Equipment Mainte-nance Record Cards. These entries have now in Equipment Maintenance Log.
been made.
- 3. Required witness cycles for establishment of confi-dence level have been entered in Equipment Maintenance Log.
Preventative Action _
1.
When MEI's are issued, the number will be added to Equipment Maintenance Log book in appropriate place.
- 2. Inspector will log maintenance operations when these operations are witnessed.
QA RECORD r nTn.f QA REVIEW cn , mt FOR llHBRildII0 I-tLE NO.
% .\ _
5t r NO.
m 7- -78 s_
, , Page 2 of 2 an:wn& Root.inc.
3.
When confidence level is established, regular cycles will be denoted in Equipment Maintenance Log book.
- 4. ICN will be written against MCP-10 to reflect that Equipment Maintenance Record Cards will be taken to the field for initials and dates as soon as the equipment has maintenance performed - per verbal con-versation with Chandra Bhatt, Mechanical Engineering.
20, 1978.
Corrective action will be implemented July Sincerely, BROWN & ROOT, INC.
<l
. P. Clarke, III Site QC Manager a:. C.
JPC/WWO/pb cc: U. D. Douglas (1L) -
M. M. Fitch/L. D. Pyeatt (1L)
J. T. Merritt (1L)
H. C. Schmidt Houston QA File (1L(3L) )
. QA-Vfultc(llh r- ~ " C'i fiy ftiQ p
...m.t
y mf. . n .
, , ,[ g. ;- r - {g TEl.1.l'IluNE 6 CO N \'Elt S \TIO N V t ,,n(cis,i;nn ,No. 6 g
ItElblyING FullM
[ij, i (((hhh JOB Od' M /
iiito n aiu>oT.isc.
h,v)CI y, y d.t 1;
.g-.
r
..n- Ito t'sTO N.T F.X AS g7\
g 27
"' 'i"'! D,", ' ' ' - ._
0.UALITV inenniing. X Nanic: To: Peter L. Bussolini Outgoing
[)ai.7-30-75 Tin . :10 : 00
- p. ni From: B. C. Scott _,
birdad.4 y:
(.onipan s : B&R Co. Conf. Conn.
Hep: .
CPSES. Job 35-1195 ita it Cont. Conn.
,y ,i,,,,,.
St'ett P .O b o n N o
' No . Street
_ _ . - Cupin To: H.-C.
Dodd. Jr. & P. M. Miln- (Titc T )
cii v Siate U/\ Mt":L4:9MU Ilrinibursilile: Yes _No j nla No.
er ea e- ~
Telephone: Oper. No Area Cooe No T elep ,or; w tvi. T
.a u - conuen nu na no. -8 4-. -
(li.nt: MI ' AUBFig NOs -
0 F- fit i.. . . .
'.ud i t i.o . CF- 2 . 6 .. p e u.. . . tua it_4, ,,
+
,,_ ,, r,x ;. . ..
.. u:c.tatiuns_
Follow-up of B61
. Ant.jrt:
/'
bl "
conversation July 29-This memo is to document and . con f i rr, nur ralanknn, s ..nenstion Notes:
Hnne en e4ro f
l 1975, at 10:00 a~.m. recarding a Special in-depth OA nudit of R- U- . _ _ _
operations.
In addition, corrective action imnlemaneneinn fnr ebnea aof4rionr4oe identified during B&R Home Office OA Audit No. 2 will be veri fi nd -
l The tentative audit schedule is as follows:
l
) Wed. - July 30, 3:30 p.m. - Pre-audit meetine to 3:00 p.rn. - Audit Thnve - July 31, 8:00 a.m.
Fri. -
August 1, 11: 00 a .tn. ,- Post Audit Meetine orenarations I will be in your office Wednesday. July 30- nr 7 00 n m en cen-r for the subince mndir-
- Please inform those concerned. ,- f Signainre N -
I ..t. No.
(NA f ey e :
Brown & Root,InC. Post office Box Three, Houston, Texas 77001 mxm March 28, 1975 TS-BQ-XX-0019 Mr. H. C. Schmidt QA RECORD TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES, INC. n;ft og ggy,gw 2001 Bryan Tower p gp Dalls, Texas 75201 y,L,7 g g, r
SUBJECT:
Quality Assurance Audit #2 M '!
su EN Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station _
Untis 1 and 2 Gentlemen:
Brown & Root Quality Assurance audit #2 for B&R site construction and quality activities is scheduled for April 26, 29, 30, and May 1, 1975.
The audit will be conducted to verify compliance with the requirements of:
Appendix B to 10CFR50, " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants",
ANSI N45.2, " Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants".
Activities subject to audit are as follows:
- 1. Material receiving, storing, handling, and maintaining
- 2. Tool and equipment calibration
- 3. Excavation, soils backfill, compaction, inspection and testing
- 4. Field procurement
- 5. Test labs
- 6. Implementation and adherence of construction and quality procedures /
instructions In addition, discrepant items resulting from audit #1 will be re-evaluated to assure that corrective action has been implemented.
The B&R home office audit team vill consist of Messers. W. J. Kropp and B. C. Scott (team leader). Mr. J. C. Shuckrow will accompany the audit team as an observer.
The proposed audit schedule is as follows: ,_ _ ,
.. i R E C E!V T.. -
April 28, 9:00 AM to 9:30 AM Pre-auditmegtng. Ld IT-"'(
r[ m g y 7 April 28, 9:30 AM to 4:30 PM Audit L.
7U
- M ' ,'
April 29, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Audit April 30, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Audit May 1, 10:00 AM Post audit meeting
. _: : s, ,.,,_.,,-
i
} Q/A QUALITY ASSURANCE '--
QA RECORD OB M' " %
~
~ E~lf *1
. k-e S'ea
- m_,Eje t Sta J
e :
Should you have any questions pertaining to this matter, please advise.
R. A. Romeo Manager, Quality Assurance (Acting) .
CS: leg
'cc: P. G. Brittain J. C. Kuykendall J. L. Forbis L. A. Ashley L. D. Pyeatt C. H. Gatchell G. L. Morris H. C. Dodd .
R. W. Caudie M. M. Fitch K. M. Broom P..L. Bussolini B. C. Scott TUSI File #500.1.1 - #2 .
,,,, - b &$
~
Brown & Root,Inc. eosi orrice aox in,ee, sousion. Texas 77aoi
,h
. z.
\
May 16, 1975 TS-BQ-XX-0031 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES, INC. RECEIVED BROWN & ROOT, INC.
2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 .
g ATTENTION: Mr. H. C. Schmidt, Manager, Quality Assurance QUAUTYASSURANCE
SUBJECT:
Quality Assurance Audit #2 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2 Gentlemen:
An audit of the Comanche Peak Project, B&R Site Construction and Quality Assurance / Control activities was conducted April 28, 29, 30, and May 1, 1975.
The purpose of the audit was to verify compliance with the requirements of Appendix B of 10CFR50, " Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants"; ANSI N45.2, " Quality Assurance Program Requirements for Nuclear Power P1, ants"; and CPSES Safety Anal'ysis Report (SAR) commitments.
The audit team consisted of Messrs. B. C. Scott (team leader), W. J. Kropp, with J. C. Shuckrow serving as an observer.
A pre-audit meeting was held at 9:00 AM on April 28 with attendance as shown in Attachment A.
f A post-audit meeting was held at 10:00 AM on May 1, with attendance also l shown in Attachment A. The following subjects were discussed at this '
meeeting:
- a. Purpose of post audit meeting
- b. Audit Deficiency Reports (see Attachment C) ,
- c. Corrective action assignments )
L
- d. Response due dates f
Attachment B to this report contains the Audit Checklist used by the B&R QA audit team.
OA RECORD d/A QUAUTY ASSURANCE 10B. 8 - #
OA GECORD 1,,,,,,, as hL
~
L...l 0 -
r .~. 3 kiIE!!iCN '....d.....,,,,.
~ ~ ~ ~
3 FtLii NO.
(
--.kT.S.', .h.
l
~
sUB ALE NO.
gpq L.-=. . n sie.tm._pe:. sa '\
\'
f e i Seventy-two quality characteristics were evaluated during this audit which included the f ollowing activities:
- a. Material receiving,' storing, handling, and maintaining
- b. Tool an.1 equipment calibration
- c. Excavation (SSI Dam)
~
- d. Field procurement
- e. Test labs
- f. Implementation of procedures / instructions Five deficiencies resulting from B&R QA Audit No. 1, dated December 17 and 18, ADR Nos. 1, 3, 4, an'd 1974 were re-evaluated for "close-out" ADR No. 2 verification.
concerning indoctrination and training 5 are considered closed.
of construction personnel is precently unres~olved and cannot be " closed.
~
out',' due to the nonexistence of a written training program or procedure (see Attachment C).
Attachment C to this report co6tains nine audit deficiency reports (ADR's).
Personnel responsible for corrective action are hereby requested to respond on the ADR's by date indicated to Mr. P. L. Bussolini, Project QA Manager.
Mr. Bussolini will coordinate final "close-out" through the Houston office.
If you should have any questions pertaining to this matter, please contact B. C. Scott or the undersigned.
, ,/
Robert A'. Romeo Manager, Quality Assurance (Acting)
CS: leg' teachments (3) i cc: R. W. Caudie ,
L. D. Pyeatt G. L. Morris L. A. Ashley H. C. Dodd rOn ,
J. K. Bishop ' f' ' ' 7 f}L'f df hi* .i.
- j"$ il}O K. M. Broom ,
i M. M. Fitch ,
E. H. Blaschke P'. L. .- Bussolini -
.B. C. Scott TUSI File 500.1.1 (2 J
9 0
e i ,
f
.e +
, 1'$
n' + , , . , . ,, ,
' l URE f NUMBEg REVISION PAGE
- TEXAS UTluTIES GENERATING CO.
( CPSES 1 l
jCP-QP-16.0 ,
6 [ '.
l l 5 of 10 l
i, entered on the original, flCR and obtain the required signatures.
If the disposition is not satisfactory, the Ouality Engineer shall resolve all comments with the Engineer who dispositioned the NCR.
Upon Quality Engineering approval of the disposition, and prior to beginning any rework repair,QC shall remove the red hold tag and blue waiver tag.
3.1.8 Im?lementation of the Disposition For NCR's dispositioned as " Rework", " Repair" or " Scrap" a ,
copy of the NCR shall be sent by the NCR Coordinator to the i responsible Construction / Operations Supervisor for .
implementation to correct the nonconforming condition.
For NCR's dispositioned as " Rework" or " Repair" and i l identified with an "S" after the NCR number, an information
! copy will also be sent to TUGC0 Startup. When Construction is ready to perfonn the required work as stated on the disposition, they will contact TUGC0 startup for authoriza-l tion in accordance with Reference 1-B.
f NOTE: "Use-as-is" dispositions do not require any work activity to implement.
! 3.1.9 Verification / Closure '
l The QC Discipline Supervisor shall ensure that the NCR l l disposition work items are verified and/or witnessed by QC. ,
i QC shall document their inspections (via, inspection !
! reports, checklists, travelers, etc. as required.
I The Cuality Engineering Sucervisor, or his designes, shall i sign the " Verification' block of the original NCR upon ;
assuring that sufficient GC inspection documentation exits to support implementation of the disposition. This shall l
, indicate the NCR is closed. The closed NCR will then be i transnitted by the NCR Co-ordinator to the Parnanent Olant Records Vault.
, i i
,, y 3 TUG:o cA
~ l ! * !
! AROCEDURE ' i ISSUI !
NUMBER t
DATc PAGE TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.
l l REVISION '
i e
CPS:!S l
,CP-QP-16.0 6 fe l l
i 6 of 10 l 1 I 1 i 3.2 DEFICIENCIES ,
3.2.1 Reporting Deficiencies nay be reported on a Field Deficiency Report
.(FDR) only when prescribed by speci fic inspection
, procedures / instructions. These cases will be delineated in ,
the applicable inspection procedure / instruction and for each case, a standard repair procedure will exist to correct the discrepant condition.
3.2.2 Initiation of FDR !
Deficiencies shall be reported on the FDR (Attachment 2).
The reporting inspection personnel shall fill in the date, ,
the location at which the reported deficiency was found, the i
, a f fected items or activity, the applicable governing i document (e.g. procedure / instruction), and the condition l found as specifically and accurately as possible. Required ;
corrective action shall be. recommended on the report in the ;
condition (s) found section. i.
After completing and signing the upper portion of t'1e FOR, I the Inspector shall assign required corrective action to tha responsible construction supervisor and specify the date the !
corrective action is required by in the lower portion. l The Inspector shall forward the original copy of the FDR to I the action assigned person, the pink copy to the responsible j l department head and retain the yellos copy.
3.2.3 FOR Log j The OC Supervisor, nr his designee, shall maintain a Field I Deficiency Report Log (Attachment 3) indicating:
l 1 -
- a. FDR number '
! b. Description of Defi:f ency 4
- c. Date issaed
- d. Date closed.
i NOTE: In the evnt that 20R's are issued in blo:ks to inspection personnel, the numbers assigned shall l be recorded in the QC Supervisor log at the time of assignment.
l
(
===c'
t ' '
i PROCEDURE l ISSUE l NUMBER ' DATE I PAGE TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO. l REVISION ' ,
CP-QP-16.0 f 6 7 of 10 l -:
i t i e l
The QC Supervisor, or his designee, shall also maintain a Tickler File to assure timely resolution of deficiencies.
3.2.4 Review of Corrective Action After the person assigned disposition of the FDR has taken action to correct the deficiency, documented it on the FDR and sent it back to QC, the QC Supervisor, or his designee, shall review the FDR(s). As part of the review, the QC ' l Supervisor shall veri fy the corrective action taken. If l satis factory, then the FDR shall be closed out by the QC l Supervisor or the originating Inspector.
If the originating Inspector closes out the FDR, then it snall be forwarded to the responsible QC Discipline Super-visor for his review and approval which will be docu.nented by his signing and dating the FDR.
l The FDR Log shall be updated accordingly.
3.3 RETAINE] 00 cut 1EHTATION I
After closure or voiding, all NCR's and FDR's shall be l forwarded to the Nonconformance Coordinator who shall make j required distribution and forward original to the Permanent olant Records Vault.
1 I l I f t '
..., y 3
PROCEDURE ISSUE NUMBER REVISION PAGE l DATE TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.
f* CPSES I CP-0P-16.0 6 ,
! 8 of 10 t
ATTACHMENT 1 TE4AS UTLTiES C A CHE W STEAP.NECTRic STATICN GENERATING Co. NONCCNFCRP.1ANCE REPCRT (NCR) wNIT STRUCTL,AE/ 5YSTEM ITEWCCVPCNENT TAGelC NVMS LCCATIC's C4 E EV
. ATICN mia NQ.
NCNCCNFC8MtNG CONC'TICN d
I 8
5 L
C Z
l 5 y a.
?" , /: *.
I mE'E9 ENC! CCCUMENT-
- M REV PARA REPORTEC SY; ' J ,.. // CATE:
l h# 1 9 l CE REWEW/ APeeCVAu CATE; 9 /
ACTICN ACCRESSEE CEPAATMENT CISPCSITICN:
REWORM PEPalm USE AS IS SCAAP
(
t W
=
w 5
C 1
4 I h l l Q N
ENG. AEVIEWI APPRCVAL CATE:
1 i CE REVIEW aspecyAL. g ,7g
/
W O Ct3PC5.T'CN '. Emes'CA*tCN & CLCS.pg. CATE. l I ! l I
CCvutNTS.
i :
I
~ ' ~
TUGOO CA 8cm No 3
PROCEDURE REVISION ISSUE NUMBER DATE PAGE TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.
'm CP-0P-16.0 g l c ef in l
ATTAC};IiEi4T 2 COMANCHE PEAK STOM ELECTRIC STATION QUALITY ASSURANCE DIVISION FIELD DEFICIENCY REPORT DATE' LOCATION' ITEM / ACTIVITY GOVERNING 00CUMENTe CONDITICN(S) FOUND:
SIGN ATURE ACTION ACTION ASSIGNED TO:
ACTION REQUIRED BYs ACTION TAKEN: DATE I
\ ,
1 F
i j g SIGN ATURE ,
I( Q A/QC CLOSECUT BY ,
S:GNATURE i
l r3 .
3 Tucco c A
- _. -- - . . _ . - ..- . - _ - = _ . - -- - _.
i . .
PROCEDURE REVISION ISSUE NUMEER DATE PAGE i
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.
CPSES .
I CP-QP-16.0 6 , .il 10 of 10 ATTACHMENT 3 1
a 4
F*ELDOEFICIENCYRNCAT 4
LOG REPCat CEFICIENCY
- ESC 2[PTICM OATE CATE C:M*ENT3
'r3*it f!!!'E" "' *S D i I I l l l l l 1 1 I I I j l i ! l
' i I
' I l i i
I !
- i i i l !
! I l i l I i !
i i i i i i !
i i i i i i l l i i I
~
r ; i a i l .
e l
l l l .*
! ! a ~ -f
- . ! 'i ! -
, i l l
- i i
- i l i i I _ !
l l. 1 l,
7(
l l i
i : !
i
- i l i t
i 1
l ::,
' UGOO C A
- s. 3 I
Applicante'
,., (
uniTsa s ATEs
( Exhibit 61
~ '~
3 \ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- . , 'W,. d.
3#,j AEGICN IV e. s. -[ ' -
, ' "*"*. [ /
611 RYAN PLAZA O AIVE. sulTE *000 ARLINGioN. TEX As 76011 In Reply Refer To: November 19, 1980 RIV Docket No. 50-445/Rpt. 80-23 50 446/Rpt. 80-23 RECEIVED Texas Utilities Generating Company 91960 ATTN: Mr. R. J. Gary, Executive Vice President and General Manager TUGC0 QA 2001 Bryan Tower DAttAs Dallas, Texas 75201 Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by our Resident Reactor Inspector, Mr.
R. G. Taylor, during October 1980, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits No. CPPR-126 and 127 for the Comanche Peak facility, Units No.1 and 2, and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. R. G. Tolson and other memoers of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspector.
During the inspection, it was found that certain activities under your license appear to be in noncompliance with Appendix B to 10 CFR 50 of the NRC Regulation,
" Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants." The Notice of Violation for the item of noncompliance reported in tne enclosed inspection recort was forwarded to you by our letter dated October 16, 1980; therefore, this letter does not require further response regarding this matter.
We have also examined actions you have .taken with regard to previously identified inspection findings. The status of these items is identified in paragraph 2 of the enclosed report.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosec inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Occument Room. If the
. report contains any information that you believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you submit a written apolication to this office, within 20 days of the date of this letter, recuesting that such information be witnheid from public disclosure. The applicstion must include a full statement of the reasons why it is claimed that the information is proprietary. The a: plication should be prepared so that any proprietary information identified is containec in an enclosure to the application, since the application without the enclosure will also be placed in the Public Document Room. If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified period, the report will be placed in the Public Document Room.
( (
Texas Utilities Generating Ccmpany 2 November 19, 1980 Shoule you nave any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased discuss tnem with you.
Sincerely, l W. C. Seidle, Chief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch 1
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Report No. 50-445/80-23
! 50-446/80-23 cc: w/ enclosure
' Texas Utilities Generating Company ATTN: Mr. H. C. Schmidt, Project Manager 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 i
4 e
l
t (
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV Recort No. 50-445/S0-23; 50-446/80-23 Docket No. 50-445; 50-446 Category A2 Licensee: Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name: Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2 Inspection at: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Glen Rose, Texas Inspection Conducted: October 1980 Inspector:p // ;
g . G.'iaylor, Resioent Reactor Inspector
// Date
// [ d
- Projects Section Approved: mm /// f6 W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date Insoection Summary:
Insoection Durinc October 1980 (Recort No. 50-445/80-23: 50-446/80-23)
Areas Insoectec: Routine, announced inspection oy tne Resident Reactor Inspector (RRI) inclucing general site tours; piping, electrical and instrument instal-lation activities; protection of installed equipment; and pipe supports and restraints. The inspection involved seventy-five inspector-hours by the PRI.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified in five of
- ne areas. One item of noncompliance (infraction - failure to follow portedures for making full oenetration welds paragraph 6) was ioentified in one area.
< ('
4 OETAILS , ..
- 1. Persons Contactec Princioal Licensee Emolovees "D. N. Chapman, TUGCO, Quality Assurance Manager "R. G. Tolson, TUGCO, Site Quality Assurance Supervisor
- J. R. Ainswortn, TUGCO, Quality Engineering Supervisor Other Persons J. V. Hawkins, Brown & Root, Project Quality Assurance Manager The RRI also interviewed other licensee and Brown & Root employees during the inspection period including both craft labor and QA/QC personnel.
" Denotes those persons with whom the RRI neld on-site management meetings during the insoection period.
- 2. Action on Previous Inscection Findinas
- (Closec) Unresolved Item (50-445/79-13; 50-446/79-18)
- Preinstallation Handling of Hot Shutdown Panel. The RRI reviewed a letter from the panel faoricator dated July 10, 1980, wnich was accompanied by the data runs of a computer analysis of the panel structure and the lifting eyebolts. The vendor, Reliance Electric Company, states that the analysis indicated that the stresses imposed on the panel during the lift were approximately an order of magnitude less than the material -
' yield strength and that in their opinion there has been no compromise to eitner the safety or performance of the panel uncer design con-ditions. The licensee's Arenitect/ Engineer concurred with tne analysis of the vendor by letter cated August 15, 1980.
The RRI had no further questions regarding this matter.
(Closed) Infraction (50-445/80-20; 50-446/80-20): Unsuitable Weld 3 Surface Condition as Required by Magnetic Particle Test Procecures.
- The licensee notified RIV by letter dated Octooer 20, 1980, that all of the components involved in the noncompliance item had been reinspected
- and tnat components requirin; rework to achieve compliance had oeen j completed or were being processed. The licensee also stated that ne would assure that in process and release inspections would be accomplished in the vendor's shops to assure compliance on future oroduction efforts.
The RRI observed a portion of the reinspection and rework effort in regarc to the components and was satisfied that it was being accomolished in a l sound manner. The RRI also interviewed the Brown & Root employee wno I was the basis for an allegation made to RIV in regard to these comoonents l and found that he had been assigned to close monitoring of the vencor's I
on-site activities involving the reinspection and rework effort. The interviewee indicated that he was satisfied with the effort. The RRI nac ,
l l 2
! (
no furtner questions regarding the comoonents themselves. The licensee's commitment in regard to future inspections in the vencor's facilities will be evaluated during future routine inspections.
This item of noncompliance is therefore consicered closed.
(Closec) Unresolvec Item (50-445/80-08; 50-446/80-08): Qualification of Rockoestos Electrical Cable. The RRI was provided witn cocumentary evicence that flame tests had been accomplished on both the caole and the individual wires of multiconductor cable. The test data furnished indicated that the cable met the requirements of IEEE-383-74 The RRI had no further questions on this matter. '
- 3. Site Tours Tne RRI toured the safety-related plant areas several times weekly curing the inspection period to observe the general progress of construction anc the practices involved. Three of the' tours were accomplished curing portions of the second shift where the main activity continues to be the installation of electrical cables and the application of protective coatings.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4 Protection of Major Installed Ecuioment The RRI observed that the Reactor Vessel Internals (core support structure) continued to be partially installed within the Unit 1 Reactor Vessel. The vessel head and the' lifting rig structure were fully covered with heavy plastic as a cust cover. The Unit 2 Reactor Vessel was found to be well protected during the period with a full floor cover over the refueling pool cavity and with a prefabricated cover on the vessel itself. The Unit 2 Reactor Vessel Internals remained in their storage enclosure curing the period.
The RRI observed that randomly selected electric prime movers for pumos had their space heaters energized as did the motors associated with motor operated valves.
Relative to the status condition of the Reactor Vessel Internals, the RRI reviewed documentation relative to an incident whicn occurred on Sectemoer 12, 1980, and was recorted to RIV as a potential Significant Construction Deficiency on September 13, 1980. The incident involved what acoeared to be the inadvertent application of weld metal to one of three Roto-lock inserts during the process of welding in an anti-rotation locking tao.
The incident was initally documented by the licensee on Nonconformance Report 80-00072 which has now been finalized by recuiring that tne insert be removed and returned to Westinghouse for examination for possible internal cracking as a result of the welding or for replacement. The licensee informec RIV by a letter dated October 10, 1980, tnat their final review of the incident indicated tYe matter was not reportable uncer tne criteria of 10 CFR 50.55(e) ~;.e RRI has reviewed the engineering analysis upon wnich thic <!ccision was based and nad no furtner questions.
3
t I No items of noncompliance were identified. ,
- 5. Safety-Relatec Picinc Installation and Welcinc The RRI made several coservations of the handling practices relative to piping ccmconents curing tne insoection perice botn in :ne on-site factica-tien snoa and within the main piant buildings. The practices coservec were consistent with the construction practices outlinec in Construction Pro-cedure 35-1195-CPM 6.9, Project Specification MS-100, and geoc industry practice.
The RRI observed the following welds being made during the inspection period:
Weld No. Isometric Filler Ht. Welder (s) Procecure Process .
W-1 CS-2-AB-013 464176 ABN 88025 GTAW FW-2 51-2-58-005 464074 ESI-AHS 99028 GTAW The RRI verified that the weld filler metals being utilized in the above welcs were certified by the suppliers via Certified Material Test Reports as meeting the applicable requirements of ASME Section II. The welaers and weld procedures noted above were verified to have been properly qualified in accordance with ASME Section IX.
The RRI also examined the radiographs of the following welds for compliance with the requirements of ASME Section III for weld quality and Section V for the quality of the radiographs themselves.
Weld No. Isometric Line No.
W-16 RC-2-RB-072 5 RC-2-100-2501R1 FW-6-2 RC-1-RS-020 6-RC-1-161-2501R1 FW-16 SI-1-RS-022 3-SI-1-202-2501R1 FW-5 CS-1-RB-028 2-CS-1112-2501R1 W-7 & W-4 RC-2-RS-072 6-RC-2-098-2501R1 W-9 SI-2-RS-018 6-SI-2-102-2501R1 W-15A CS-1-RS-001 2-CS-1-107-2501R1 W-3 & W-2 RC-2-RS-073 6-RC-2-147-2501R1 W-7-1 SI-1-YD-03 12-SI-1-031-151R2 FW-2 CT-1-RB-017 8-CT-1-076-301R2 No items of noncompliance were identified.
4
(,
e (
- 5. Picinc System Succorts and Restraints
- a. Pice Whio Restraints During the inspection of this general class of comoonents as oiscussed in Inspection Report 50-245/80-20; 50-446/80-20, the RRI became aware of yet another sucstantial group of large weldments tnat nad been fabricated by Chicago Bridge anc Iron (CS&I) in their Salt Lake City, Utah, facility. This group of weldments has been designated as pipe whip restraints rather than pipe mount restraints involved in the aoove referenced report but are fabricated of essentially the same materials and are similar in appearance. It was found that the components had been procured by Brown & Root for the licensee under suo-contract 35-1195-0578 which in turn references a series of design drawings beginoing witn 2323-SI-0581. Drawing 2323-SI-0578 contains the general and specific technical requirements for the components while the balance of the drawings contain design details for each comoonent.
The RRI located several of the components in an on-site storage area and examined them as well as possible for weld quality, considering that each had been painted. Of necessity, the inspection had to be limited to one of general appearance. Most of the welds on the components presented a good appearance since they were of good confi-guration and were reasonably smooth, which would be typical of good
- welding practice. Most of the welds were noted to be on ooth sides of the "T" memoer connections and appeared to be full penetration double welded joints. The RRI found several connections, however, that had been welded only from one side and showed no weld metal on the other side. The RRI was aisc abis to slip the point of a pocket knife blade under the edge of the unwelded side in a few locations.
Reference to the design drawings and the welding notes indicated that these connections were to have been full penetration, wnicn they were not. Review of the fabricator's shop drawings, as approved oy the engineer, revealed a joint design that would not provide full penetration.
ibis item of noncompliance was identified to the licensee by an offi-cial notification on October 15, 1980.
- b. Sway Struts
! On September 19, 1980, the licensee informed the RRI tnat a potential Significant Construction Deficiency had been identified in regare to devices generally known as sway struts. A sway strut is usually a length of small pipe with threaded pieces welded on the encs. Threaoed j eye colts are then installed to form a turnbuckle with the assemoly
! being used to support or restrain tne motion of a pipe system at a particular location in primarily one direction.
i
e The ASME Code requires that the eye bolts have full threac engagement in the end pieces and that there be a means to provide assurance tnat full tnread engagement is achieved after installation. It hac ceen f:unc, during tne installation of three struts manufactured oy NPS Incustries, that the eye bolts could be completely removed from :ne asseccly even tnougn the end tnreads were :: nave :een ucset as a measure to assure full engagement.
The licensee subsequently notified RIV by a letter datec October 15, 1980, that, after evaluation, it had been concluded that the deficiency was not formally reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e). The evaluation contends that since each strut is designed to a custom lengtn for a specific location, tnere is no reasonable probability tnat the eye bolts would not have the necessary full threac engagement and, tnere-fore, would not present any safety hazard. After review of the evaluation, the RRI had no further questions on this matter since the contention was found to be factual.
In orcer to satisfy a specific Coce requirement, tne licensee and/or tne vendor are in the process of identifying those struts wnich do not have the ucset thread feature and are making minor modifications to allow for thread upsetting and thereby achieve full comoiiance witn tne ASME code.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
- 7. Electrical Installation Activities
.The RRI made a number of observations of electrical cable pulling operations during tne period. The RRI was able to coserve each of three cable culling crews one or more times during tne period in orcer to ascertain wnetner tney were working within the parameters of the site installation procedures and gooc practices. The RRI also observed the activities of the QA/QC cersonnel assigned to monitor the pulling crews. The RRI found that both the craft
[ , lacor and QA/QC forces were working consistently to the requirements of I tneir respective procedures, EEI-7 and QE-QP-11.3-26.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
- 8. Instrument Installation Activities The RRI observec two different pipefitter instrument crews installing impulse tubing during the reporting period. The workmansnip which involves cutting, deburring and bending small diameter stainless steel tubing was being cone in accordance with stancard practices. The tuoing runs were properly sloped and properly fastened to tne supcort cevices. The RRI observec that the Swage-lock fittings were being tightened io accorcance with the manufacturer's rec 0mmended procedures. The RRI did not verify whetner the tubing runs and instruments were locatec as required by cesi;n drawings. This function will be accomplisned during future inspections.
No items of noncompiiance were identified.
6
- 9. Manage. ment Meetings The P.RI met witn cre or .mcre of the persons icentifiec i n caragraon 1 en Octo:er 3, 9, la, 16, 29 anc 31, 1980, to discuss inspection fincings anc tne licensee's actions anc positions.
I 1
l l
l e
9 e
/
[
~~ '
Applicants'
' ' 'A( . Exhibit 62 TEXAS UTILITIES G'ENERATING CO.TIPA.NT 2043 BRYA.% TOWER D ALLAS.TEXA5 75203 R. J. G A R Y
"!!nl'J.'.';;".?lt' Noyember 19, 1981 TXX-3439 Mr. G. L. Madsen, Chief Reactor Projects Branch U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Inspection & Enforcement 611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Docket Nos. 50-445 Arlington, Texas 76012 50-446 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC ST TION RESPONSE TO NRC NOTICE OF VIOLATION INSPECTION REPORT NO. 81-15 FILE NO: 1013u
Dear Mr. Madsen:
We have reviewed your letter dated October 26, 1981 on the inspection conducted by Mr. C. E. Johnson of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 for the Comanche Peak facili ty. We have responded to the finding listed in Appendix A of that letter.
To aid in the understanding of our response, we have repeated the requirement and your finding followed by our corrective action.
We feel the attached infonnation to be responsive to the Inspector's fi ndi ng. If you have any questions, please advise.
Very truly yours, R. . Gary RJG:kh Attachments
l .
,'. (.
cc: R. J. Gary (2)
B. R. Clements D. N. Chapman R. L. Ramsey J. C. Kuykendall J. T. Merritt D. Frankum H. C. Schmidt B. S. Dacko R. G. Tolson R. G. Taylor F. B. Shants e
. (
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-445
) 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric )
Station, Units 1 and 2)
AFFIDAVIT R. J. Gary being duly sworn, hereby deposes and says that he is Executive Vice President and General Manager of Texas Utilities Generating Company; that he is d21y authorized to sign and file with the Nuclear Regulatory Cw. mission the attached response to the Notice of Violation identified in NRC Inspection Report 81-15; that he is familiar with the content thereof; and that the matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
s
- x. o.ger, Aed/
. f Executive Vice President and General Manager STATE OF TEXAS )
) ss COUNTY OF DALLAS )
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public in and for h b g on this go d day of b tre , 19 #.
1 Notary PuDliC l
My commission expires EM. /7 , 19
o inspection Report' s. 81-15 TXX-3439 fage APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Texas Utilities Generating Company Dockets: 50-445; 50-446 Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2 As a result of the inspection conducted October 13-23, 1981, and in accordance with Interim Enforcement Policy, 45 FR 66754 (October 7,1980),
the following violation was identified:
Failure to Follow Ouality Assurance Procedures for the Inspection of Coatings .
10 CFR 50, Apppendix B, Criterion V states, in part, " Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings."
- 1. QI-QP-11.4, Revision 4, " Inspection of Protective Coatings",
states, in part, " Quality Control persor.nel shall perform inside containment buildings ( ANSI N101.4, Service Level I) such Protective Coati ~ng inspections as needed to verify conformance of activities affecting coating quality in accordance with Quality Instructions and Procedures."
l i
- 2. QI-QP-11.4-3, Revision 5, " Inspection of Steel Substrate Prime Coat Applications", states, in part, " Inspection of Prime Coat Applications, shall be documented on the Primer Application Checklist. The Inspector shall perfonn a Dry Film Thickness (DFT) inspection of the cured primer. The minimum average DFT of the prime coat shall be 2.0 mils and the maximum DFT shall be 4.5 l mils."
Contrary to the above:
- 1. From late September 1979 to the present date, there has been no documentation of coating applications for miscellaneous steel, cable tray supports or pipe supports inside Unit 1 and 2 Containment Buildings as required by the above procedures.
- 2. The majority of the records reviewed for the Unit 2 Containment Steel Liner revealed incomplete i trimer Application Checklists".
No visual inspections and no DFT readings were recorded. The seal coat has been applied over the surfaces to which the records reviewed pertained.
This is a Severity Level IV violation. (Supplement II, Paragraph D)
, e Inspection Report ! . 81-15 '
Txx-3439 .
Page -
CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AND THE RESULTS ACHIEVED The cited discrepancies have been documented as nonconfonning conditions in accordance with established CPSES procedures. Quality Engineering personnel are currently reviewing the matter and developing plans for complete review of existing records and reinspection of affected areas. Although some details of this effort are still under development, it is anticipated that required re-inspections will be based on a statistically sound sampling plan using both scratch tests (with a Tooke Gauge) and adhesion tests to evaluate the condition of the applied coatings. Discrepant areas, if any, will be clearly identified and corrected in accordance with approved procedures.
CORRECTIVE STEPS WHICH HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE TAKEN TO AVOID FURTHER VIOLATIONS Preventive measures have included the following actions:
- 1) Application (Construction) Procedures have been revised and reissued and now clearly indicate pot life at all temperatures within the allowable range for application of the coating system.
- 2) Inspection (Quality) Procedures / Instructions have been revised and reissued. These efforts include the following salient actions:
l a) Transmittal of inspection records to the Permanent Plant l Records Vault on.a timely basis.
b) Consolidation and simplification of the inspection instructions and associated documentation.
c) Relative to liner inspections, the establishment of mapping techniques to assure that required inspections are accomplished and to provide positive accountability of inspection records.
d) Indoctrination of inspection personnel in the revised l
Procedures / Instructions which included emphasis on the proper l completion of inspection records.
- 3) Relative to miscellaneous steel and supports, development and implementation of a unique identification system providing traceability of inspection documentation from blasting through installation and final coating.
Quality Engineering is also reviewing Procedures / Instructions for finish coat applications and inspections. These documents will be revised as appropriate to provide results similar to those outlined above.
\
,i e Inspection R; port ( ,, 81-15 i TXX-3439 Page ,
DATE OF FULL COMPLIANCE Preventive measures were initiated immediately following the NRC inspection and are scheduled for completion on or before December 31, 1981. Corrective
- actions are currently in progress and will be completely consistent with the construction schedule.
l I
\
l l
w
- ' pplicants'
{i AExhibit 63
- 'o UNITED STATES
^
[ ga' g g s
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV Y.- s11 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SUITE 1000
- h% %./ [9 AR LINGTON, TEXAS 76011 July 6, 1982 Dockets: 50-445/82-09 50-446/82-04 Texas Utilities Generating Company ATTN: Mr. R. J. Gary, Executive Vice President and General Manager 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs. J. R. Boardman, C. E.
Johnson, and R. T. Redano of our staff during the period April 27 to May 27, 1982, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits CPPR-126 and CPPR-127 for the Comanche Peak facility, Units 1 and 2, and to the dis-cussion of our findings with Mr. R. G. Tolson and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examination of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspectors.
Within the scope of the inspection, no violations or deviations were identi-fied.
Two new unresolved items disclosed during the inspection are discussed in paragraph 7.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within 10 days of the date of this letter and submit written l application to withhold information contained therein within 30 days of the date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the require-ments of 2.790(b)(1). ,
l 1
RECEIVED JUL 9 ID2 I
TUGC0 @ L Cfd.LAS -,
~
o L. ;. . a
Texas Utilities Generating Company July 6, 1982 Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely,
==
[G.L.Madsen, Chief Reactor Project Branch 1 4
Enclosure:
l Appendix - NRC Inspection Report 50-445/82-09 50-446/82-04 cc w/ enclosure:
Texas Utilities Generating Company ATTN: H. C. Schmidt, Project Manager 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201
%* Y k
ewe
. i .
APPENDIX -
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV NRC Inspection Report: 50-445/82-09 50-446/82-04 .
Docket: 50-445 Category A2 50-446 Licensee: Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower -
Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name: Comanche Peak, Units 1 and 2 Inspection at: Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Inspection conducted: April 27 to May 27,1982 Inspectors: [/ e_ f g2.
J. R. Boardman, Reactor Inspector, Reactor Project Section B Date f(Paragraphs 1,2,7,8,and9)
C. E. Joh , Rhactor 14 Liv W h -1A - 6b Date (Paragrap ,2,3,4,pspector,WngineeringSection and 9)
A bv 3M R. T. Redap6 Re$cto'r I@pector, jngineering Section 6-M-61 Date~
(Paragrap4s , 2, 5, 6, %nd 9) i Reviewe -
T. F. Westerman, Chief, Reactor Project Section A Date Approved: w- -
[ f[L W. A. Crossman, Chief, Reactor Project Section 8 Date
~,
Approved: M h(v 6-E9 - O'2.-
D. M. Hunnicut Chibf, Engigering Seiction Date Inspection Summary Inspection conducted April 27 to May 27, 1982 (50-445/82-09)
Areas Inspected: Routine, unannounced inspection of construction activities including a site tour, review of records for spent fuel racks, protective coatings, electrical cable installation, installation tool calibration records, and procurement documentation. The inspection involved 61 inspector-hours by three NRC inspectors.
Results: Within the six areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
Inspection conducted April 27 to May 13, 1982 (Report No. 50-446/82-04)
Areas Inspected: Routine. unannounced inspection of construction activities including a site tour and review of procurement documentation. The inspec-tion involved 16 inspector-hours by one NRC inspector.
Results: Within the two areas inspected, no violations or deviations were identified.
1
.. i ! .. !
DETAILS
- 1. Persons Contacted Prinicipal Licensee Employees ,
- D. N. Chapman, Quality Assurance Manager TUGC0
+#*R. G. Tolson, Site Quality Assurance Supervisor, TUGC0 B. G. Scott, Quality Engineering Supervisor, TUGC0
- C. T. Brandt, QA/QC Supervisor - Mechanical / Civil, TUGC0 Other Personnel T. Brown, Quality Engineering, TUGC0 C. Dupre, Mechanical Engineer, TUSI D. Dybala, Mechanical Engineer, Westinghouse J. Gore, Warehousing Supervisor D. Kissinger, Project Civil Engineer D. Leigh, QA Special Project Staff Assistant, Brown & Root (B&R)
R. Meissner, Project Quality Engineer, B&R J. Walker, QA Engineering, TUGC0 H. Williams, QC Superintendent, B&R
- Denotes those attending exit interview on May 12, 1982
- Denotes those attending exit interview on May 13, 1982
+ Denotes those attending exit interview on May 27, 1982 The NRC inspectors also contacted other licensee and contractor employees during the course of the inspection.
- 2. Site Tour 1 The NRC inspectors toured Unit I reactor building, auxiliary building, l paint shop, and warehouse storage yard to observe construction in i progress and to inspect safety-related equipment storage conditions.
l No violations or deviations were identified.
- 3. Spent Fuel Storage Racks
- a. Review of Procedures / Specifications The NRC inspector reviewed quality control procedures pertaining to receiving, storage, and installation of spent fuel racks by Brown & Root and Westinghouse for Unit 1. Drawings, specifica-tions, work instructions, and inspection procedures have been established to assure technical adequacy of the activites per-taining to spent fuel storage racks.
The NRC inspector verified that receiving inspection instructions required inspections for damage, conformance to purchase spec-ifications, proper identification, and verification that the proper supplier / vendor documentation was received.
Site storage procedures appear to be adequate and they provided for proper identification, handling, and cleanliness preservation.
Installation procedures provided adequate instructions for instal-lation and also for dimensional checks for levelness, alignment, and clearances.
Procedures reviewed are listed below:
CP-QAP-8.1, Rev. 3, "QC Receiving Inspection" CP-QAP-5.1, Rev. 2, "QA Review of Procurement Documents" QI-QAP-8.1-8A, Rev. O, " Receiving Westinghouse Renewal Parts
! (Supplement)"
QI-QAP-8.1-8, Rev. 4, " Receiving of Westinghouse Safey-Related Equipment" Westinghouse Manual, "NSS Component Receiving & Storage Criteria" Specification F-8, Rev. 8, " Fuel Assembly, Storage and Refueling Equipment Design Interface Specification" (Westinghouse)
" Spent Fuel Storage Rack Installation Procedure," Rev 1, (Westinghouse)
- b. Observation of Work and Work Activities The NRC inspector visually examined the new spent fuel storage l racks for Unit 1 in the warehouse yard prior to installation.
Appearance and size of welds appeared to be adequate. Configu-ration of the spent fuel racks appeared to be in conformance with the design drawings. No defects (i.e., cracks, dents, and/or missing parts) were observed.
Work in progress was not observed on the spent fuel racks during this inspection since there were no ongoing activities being performed. Work had been performed on the spent fuel rack being installed in the containment, but work had been stopped because of a modification change.
l o
e
.]...........
. ... , '\
s_- t i
. . \
\;.
,- ~i a
c Review of Records ,. <
i h '. -
The NRC inspector reviewed the receiving inspection r'ecor'ds for -
the Unit 1 spent fuel ra ks. The. records indicate that applicable requirements,and commitments have been met. All inforhation w'as g^
doct.mented on receiving inspection reports (IR's). ' ThetNRC inspector"reviewedill, dccumentation contained in the tiaveler tfor
\"kJ. s /
the spent fuel rac4 being installed in containment. The traveler '
contained all necessary information and in'structions for proper "
g /
installatica, including leveling, aligninent,. and clearancqn i t /
- q ( t
- J/ f / "
The design change i uthori'zation (DCA) was'present with t'se 'i <
traveler ~and cmtained 'aihdetails and dispdsition'of >the spent #
,l -
fuel rack modification f, u g
~
/[ '
No violations or .>deviatiJos.were
- ~;
identified'. >
e
' N
- 4. Protective Coating
- a. Review of Procedures
'. 4 The NRC inspector reviewed new and/or revised pr$cedures pertaining to protective coatirigs inspection for Unit 1.' Procedures reviewed have been revised,and now include appropriate inspection attributes and inspection forms and check 1.ist for a more detailed inspectien. ~
Procedures reviewed were found'to be adeouate. Procedures. reviewid' by the NRC inspector ar&1isted below: ' '
' / ,
CP-QP-11.4, Rev. 5, " Inspection of Protective Coating" t l QI-QP-11.4-1, Rev. 7', "Inspe: tion of Steel Substrate' Surface i l . Preparation and Primer Appl,ication" ,
l QI-QP-11.4-5, Rev. 9, " Inspection of Steel Substrate Primer Repair and Seal and Finish Coat Application and Repair" QI-QP-11.4-9, Rev. 2, " Inspection of Shop Primed Equipment" QI-QP-11.4-10, Rev. 6, " Inspection of Concrete Substrate Surface Preparation and Coatings Application and Repair" QI-QP-11.4-20, Rev. O, " Final Inspection of Steel Substrate
. Finish Coat Application" l QI-QP-11.4-23, Rev. 5, " Reinspection of Seal Coated and l Finish Coated Steel Substrates for Which Documentation is Missing or Discrepant" l
l
- s. __
o QI-QP-11.4-24, Rev. 2, " Reinspection of Protective Coatings on Concrete Substrates for Which Documentation is Missing or Discrepant"
- b. Review of Records for Ongoing /Backfit Program The NRC inspector reviewed records for the ongoing program and for the back-fit program which were established because of the noncon-formance identified in NRC Inspection Report 81-15. Documentation reviewed for the back-fit program was found to be retrievable and identifiable. The ongoing program has improved considerably because of the back-fit program. The last two procedures in paragraph 4.a above, were established for the back-fit program.
- c. Licensee Action on Previous Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (50-445; 50-446/81-15): Discrepancies In Concrete Coatings Application. (paragraphs 4.a and 4.b for details)
(Closed) Notice of Violation (50-445; 50-446/81-15): Failure to Follow Quality Assurance Procedures for the Inspection of Coatings.
(paragraphs 4.a and 4.b for details)
No violations or deviations were identified.
- 5. Electrical Cable Installation The NRC inspector examined the origin and destination terminations of eight selected power cables and five selected control cables for Unit 1 to ascertain whether or not the terminations complied with the drawings used with the cable connection signoff cards. The cables identified below were inspected:
Power Cables Control Cables E0100815 E0112286 E0100805 EG113703 EG100198A AG123716 E0100161A EG123670 E0100161B EG109771 E0100389 E0100230 EG100035 All cable terminations agreed with the cable connection signoff card drawings except the destination termination for Cable EG109771.
The improper destinatien termination of Cable EG109771 did not constitute a violation because it had not yet been transferred to
- i i 1
- ~
the licensee's startup group by the licensee where it will undergo a final inspection by the licensee.
No violations or deviations were identified.
t
- 6. Records of Cable Installation Tool Calibration The NRC inspector reviewed the calibration records of selected tools used to install the inspected cables for Unit 1 and deter-mined that these tools were properly calibrated at the time they were used to install the electrical cable. Calibration records were inspected for the following tools:
Crimping Tcol CT-1657 Crimping Tool CT-1661 Torque Wrench CT-934 Torque Wrench CT-1154 Cylinder CT-1404 Cylinder CT-1438 Pump CT-1547 Pump CT-1548 Die CT-158 Die CT-1405 No violations or deviations were identified.
- 7. Procurement Documentation The NRC inspector reviewed representative procurement documents.
Licensee Purchase Order 35-1195-18588, Change Order 2, Item 7 was '
i for 10000 1-inch hex head structural bolts, ASTM A325, Type 1, Heat Number L 60891, Lot 5524.
ASTM A325 requires 3 or 13 mechanical property tests to be performed on a lot size of 10000, depending upon the methnd of material control utilized by the vendor and fastener manufacturer. In addition, ASTM A325 requires a finished fastener proof load of 51,500 lbf using the length measurement method or an alternate proof load utilizing yield strength method of 55,750 lbf using the yield strength method.
The vendor reported only one mechanical property test and this test report did not show the proof load (or alternate proof load).
These will remain unresolved items (445/8209-01 and 446/8204-01) pending further investigation by the NRC inspector, including determination of use of these bolts.
No violations or deviations were identified.
-(
's
~ --
- 8. Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, violations, or deviations. Unresolved items disclosed during this inspection are discussed in paragraph 7,
- 9. Exit Interviews Exit interviews were conducted May 12, 13, and 27, 1982, with those persons listed in paragraph 1. At these exit interviews, the NRC inspectors discussed the findings indicated in the previous paragraphs.
The licensee acknowledged these findings.
e
The Amorican Socioty of Mochanical Engine Applicants' Exhib2.6 64
'@E ( )
S "D Un.tsc Engmee eng C:niv e Accreditsten Dec.ortment + Mail Sito BA
- 34E E. 47tn St Pvew YCrk, N.Y,10017 212 705 7812 + TWX 7104815267 + Cwi7 212 705 7726 t/.atJUE .GUTIE8 AEZ
.es::or. Accrecw.cn June 23, 1982 ,
R.J. Verpillat; QA Mgr.
3ROWN & ROO~, INC.
P.O. Box 3 Houston, TX 77001
Subject:
Report of ASME Unannounced Audit Conducted on May 7, 1982 For NA & NPT at Co=anche Peak Stea= Electric Station, Units
- 1 & #2; Glen Rose, TX.
Dear Mr. Vurpillat:
On the above date, an AS"E Unannounced Audit was conducted at your fa-cilities at the location shown above. ,
We are pleased to infor= you that a favorable report has been sub=itted by the Auditor, and no further action is required.
If you have any questions concerning this audit, please contac: this office.
&& /,
[
Joseph A. Russo 7: l' C E 1 %. _L .d Manager, Accreditation - N & SPPE i DF.O'.;H 6 F.CCT, INC.
(212) 705-7021 .
. 3 0 0 E_' {
/CE i cc: AIA - Hartford Stea= So:. ler .
'" ....---.m--
. ;' y u n -- , -
il Sta:e of TX - S.M. Matthews
. Secy. /SC-NA Ch=n., SC-NA
1 e ,, ,, g Applicants'
~~ ,
.- 'o, Exhibit 65 i f{$ e,y j UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
% /. A REGICN IV 8, f
%' g
[ 611 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE, SutTE 1000
% AR LINGTCN, TEXAS 760f f April 1, 1982 In Reply Refer To:
Cockets : 50-445/81-20 -
50-446/81-20
@ CISIfM -L, Texas Utilities Generating Company j ucEnstNG W ATTN: R. J. Gary, Executive Vice President and General Manager APR 2 1932 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 TEXAS ta.7!E:. SER'liCES INC.
NUCLEAR sCRVICES DIV.
Gentlemen:
- This refers to the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) Board Report of the Comanche Peak Facility, Units 1 and 2, Construction Permits CPPR-126 and CPPR-127. The SALP Board met on September 1,1981, to evaluate the performance of the subject facility for the period July 1,1980, through June 30, 1981. The performance analyses and resulting evaluation are documented in the enclosed SALP Board Report. These analyses and eval-uation were discussed with you at your office in Dallas, Texas, on October 9, 1981.
The performance of your facility was evaluated in the following functiona'l areas: Piping Systems and Supports; Safety-Related Components; Support Systems; Electrical Power Supply and Distribution; Instrumentation and Control Systems; and Licensing Activities.
The SALP Board evaluation process consists of categorizing performance in each functional area. The categories which we have used to evaluate the performance of your facility are defined in Section II of the enclosed SALP Board Report.
As you are aware, the NRC has changed the policy.for the conduct of the SALP program based on our experiences and the recently implemented reorganization which emphasizes the regionalization of the NRC staff. This report is the i product of the revised policy.
I Any coments which you may have concerning our evaluation of tne performance i
of your facility should be submitted to this office within 20 days of the date of this letter. Your comments, if any, and the SALP Board Report, will both a:: pear as enclosures to the Region IV Administrator's letter which issues the SAL? Report as an NRC Report. In addition to the issuance of the report, l
this letter will, if appropriate, state the NRC position on matters relating to the status of your safety program.
Texas Utilities Generating Company April 1, 1982 Comments which you may submit at your option, are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, Na
'G. L. Madsen, Chief Reactor Project Branch 1 (SALP Board Chairman)
Enclosure:
Appendix - NRC Report 50-445/81-20 50-446/81-20 cc:
Texas Utilities Generating Company ATTN: H. C. Schmidt, Project Manager 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 l .
APPENDIX U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV .
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE Report: 50-445/81-20 50-446/81-20 Dockets : 50-445 & 50-446 Category A2 Licensee: Texas Utilities Generating '.ompany 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Facility Name: Comanche Peak, Units 1 an'd 2 Appraisal Period: July 1, 1980, to June 30, 1981 Appraisal Completion Date: Septemoer 1,1981 Licensee Meeting: October 9, 1981 SALP Board:
G. L. Madsen, Chief, Reactor Project Branch 1 W. A. Crossman, Chief, Reactor Project Section B S. B. Burwell, NRR Project Manager R. G. Taylor, Senior Resident Inspector R. C. Stewart, Reactor Inspector l Reviewed By: //
l W. A. Crossman, Chief, Reactor Project Section B M3f/81._
l Date Approved By:
6 t
'G.*L. tiadsen, Chief, Reactor Project Branen 1 N9/f'Z- -
Date (SALP Board Chairman)
I. Introduction Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SAL?) is an [ integrated NRC staff effort to collect available observations and data on an annual casis and evaluate licensee performance utilizing tnese data anc observations as a basis. The integrated systematic assessment is intended to be sufficiently diagnostic to provide a rational basis for allocating NRC resources and to provide meaningful guidance to licensee management.
II. Criteria The assessment of licensee performance is implemented through the use of seven evaluation criteria. These criteria are applied to each functional area that is applicable to the facility activities (construction, pre-operation or operation) for the categorization of licensee perfordance in these areas.
One or more of the following evaluation criteria are used to assess each applicable functional area.
- 1. Management involvement in assuring quality
- 2. Approach to resolution of technical issues from safety standpoint
- 3. Responsiveness to NRC initiatives
- 4. Enforcement history
- 5. Reporting and analysis of reportable events
- 6. Staffing (including management)
- 7. Training effectiveness and qualification -
Attributes associated with .the above evaluation criteria form the guidance for the SALP Board for categorization of each functional area in one of three categories. Performance categories are defined as follows:
Category 1.
- A combination of attributes which demonstrates achievement of superior safety performance; i .e. , licensee management attention
(
and involvement are aggressive and oriented toward nuclear safety; licensee resources are ample and effectively used such that a high level of perfor-mance with respect to operational safety or construction is being achieved.
Reduced NRC attention may be appropriate.
Category 2.
A combination of attributes which demonstrates achievement of satisfactory safety performance; licensee management attention and involvement are evident and are concerned with nuclear safety; licensee resources are adequate and are reasonably effective such that satisfactory performance achieved. with respect to operational safety or construction is being NRC attention should be maintained at normal levels.
Catecorv 3.
A combination of attributes which demonstrates achievement of oniy minimally satisfactory safety performance; licensee management attention or involvement is acceptable and considers nuclear safety, but 2
weaknesses are evident; licensee resources appear to be strained or not effectively used such that minimally satisfactory performance with respect to operational safety or construction is being achieved. Both NRC and licensee attention should be increased. .
III. Summarv of Results Functional Areas Catecory
- 1. Soils and Foundations NA
- 2. Containment and other NA Safety-Related Structures
- 3. Piping Systems and Supports 1
- 4. Safety-Related Components 1
- 5. Support Systems , 2
- 5. Electrical Power Supply and Distribution 1
- 7. Instrumentation and Control Systems 1
- 8. Licensing Activities 2 IV. Performance Analyses The of SALP July Boardto 1, 1930, obtained assessment data applicable to the appraisal period June 30, 1981.
The data for the Ccmanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) was tabulated and analyzed and a performance analysis was developed for each of six functional areas.
The SALP Board met on September 1, 1981, to review the performance l
analyses and supporting data and develop the SALP Board Report.
I Functional Area Analysis
- 1. Soils and Foundations i
All activities completed.
2.
Containment and Other Safetv-Related Structures Very limited activities during assessment period.
- 3. Pioinc Svstems and Succorts Three violations issued to the licensee in the review period were concerned with mal. function in this general area. Two of three involved vendor furnished support / restraint components. The first 3
l l
l
i 1
was based on an allegation to tne effect that a group of'coment restraints facility by could not have been properly ex cinec in the vencor's the vendor. i Our examination at tne site substantiated the allegation and the components were sent back to the vendor for rework and reinspection.
The second was by the same vendor regarding a group of seismic restraints specified. that did not receive full penetration welding as These components were reworked onsite by the vendor to satisfy the engineering criteria. Both instances, which occurred within an approximate 2 month period, indicated problems in the vendor component inspection program which have been rectified.
The third item involved a finding that due to the removal of temporary supports, certain piping and in-line components were in effect un-supported.
The licensee reponded to the noncompliance by installing so called 'hard supports' of a temporary nature until such time as the permanent supports are installed. Hard supports are supports that are difficult to remove inadvertently by being bolted to the building, the pipe, or both.
The licensee / contractor /SME Code based installation and quality control well program is relatively simple, straightforward and is generally implemented.
The major weakness has been, and to a degree continues to be, an inability to hire /or retain the services of competent (as-distinguished from Code qualification) pipe welders.
The licensee has responded to this problem by radiographing certain welds in some essential piping systems that he is not required te radiograph under the Code or NRC regulations. He also has a relatively strong welder training program aimed at improving the competence of the welders he hires.
The licensee's management controls have been demonstrated to be effective in this area and are assigned to Category 1.
l 4.
! Safety-Related Comconents. includinc Vessels. Internals, and Pumos During the appraisal period, the major activity in this area was the maintenance and preservation of installed, nonoperational components.
Limited work was also accomplished on the Unit 1 Reactor Vessel Internals. The maintenance and preservation activities in all areas have been diligently pursued by a group of construction and quality personnel specifically assigned to the activity controlled by central dispatchers and easy-to-follow procedures. NRC inspections in this area have revealed no substantive problems. No NRC inspections were made of installation work on the vessel internals during the period due to the limited work involved.
The licensee's management controls have been demonstrated to be effective in this area and are assigned to the Category 1 level.
4
- 5. Succort Systems includinc HVAC. Radwaste and Fire Protection The licensee's application of support systems, other than those invciving concrete or piping systems (areas 2 and 3 above), are essentially limited to HVAC, radwaste, and the fire protection system. During the appraisal period, NRC inspections were directed !
toward review of the licensee's audit program for monitoring the subcontractors installing HVAC and fire protection systems. The subcontractor programs had been evaluated in an early appraisal period and found adequate for the work involved. The licensee's audit program was also found to be effective in monitoring these activities. Supports for the radwaste piping system are included with the licensee's Class 5 support program which has been evaluated as it relates to other Class efforts and found to be effective.
The licensee's management controls in this area are considered to be at the Category 2 level.
- 6. Electrical power Sucoly and Distribution The NRC inspections in this functional area have not identified any substantive problems. The licensee procedures for installation and quality control are relatively simple and straightforward. The licensee currently has a competent force of adequately trained and motivated personnel to carry out the procedural requirements.
Performance analysis in this area is determined to be Category 1.
- 7. Instrumentation and Control Systems-Although much effort has been expended in this area by the licensee's labor force, relatively few instruments are fully installed. The licensee's program for installation and quality control in this area is simple, straightforsard, and effective. The assigned personnel appear to have been adequately trained and competent to carry out their assigned responsibilities. NRC inspections have not identified any substantive problems in this functional area during the appraisal period.
Assessment of the' licensee's attributes in this area revealed a Category 1 level.
- 8. Licensinc Activities
. The applicant's ability to respond on schedule is slower than average. In the work leading to the issuance of the SER, the applicant was not able to perform at a rate necessary to meet schedule demands. (Granted, these schedule demands were heavy cue to the shortened senedule.) In overall quality of work sub-mitted, the applicant has performed sligntly better than average over this appraisal period. The apolicant is well supported by 5
. l Westinghouse and Gibbs & Hill. The principal need for improvement is in an increased participation in the licensing process'b~y the station operations staff. We expect this to improve as the station approaches fuel loading.
Applicationofevaluationcriteriainthisarearesultedina Category 2 level.
Conclusion The SALP Board concluded that the licensee has demonstrated an overall combination appraisal of attributes exhibiting Category 1 performance during the period.
' This evaluation was based upon the three primary i areas where the construction efforts, and, therefore, the NRC inspection effort, were directed; i.e., piping, electrical, and instrumentation installations. The Board noted that 1069 of the 1699 inspection-hours were devoted to these three basic areas.
In regard to the licensee's ongoing interactions with NRR, the consensus of the Board was that the licensee has managed these activities in a Category 2 mode.
Board Recommendations Although the SALP Board concluded that the overall licensee performance was Category 1, they did n:t recommend to the regior,al office that the inspection level for construction be changed. Programmatic changes for construction inspection have been made that will effectively reduce inspection activities for all construction sites.
V. Succortino Data and Summaries
- 1. Report Data
- a. LER Numbers Reviewed (Not applicable)
- b. Construction Deficiency Reports -
l The licensee formally reported seven Significant Construction i Deficiencies that he or his agents had identified during tne t
aopraisal period. These are summarized as follows:
(1) Engineering failure to consider the thickness of architec-tural concrete on floors wnen specifying the embedment depth of anchor bolts.
6
(2) Vendor error in not furnishing supports for piping and components on the Emergency Diesel Generator packages in accordance with tne ASME Code.
~
(3) Concrete anchor bolts being shortened by the craft labor force prior to installation.
(4) Vendor identified problem with the closing time of certain motor operated valves when working against design pressure (Part 21).
(5) Engineer failure to provide adequate air conditioning to rooms housing the vital AC power supply inverters (Part 21).
(6) Failure of HVAC supplier engineer to stipulate embedment lengths of concrete anchor bolts used on supports for ducts and other components.
(7) Failure of subcontracted engineer to consider SSE loads in design of instrument tubing support devices.
- c. Part 21 Reports The licensee did not file any Part 21 reports himself, but rather filed certain 50.55(e) reports in response to vendor Part 21 reports as noted above.
- 2. Licensee Activities There were no especially significant licensee events during the .
appraisal period from a regulatory standpoint. Most construction work proceeded on a routine basis during the period.
- 3. Insoection Activities i
There were no special team inspections performed during the appraisal period.
Region IV performed 12 routine inspections related to imple-mentation of the "B" level inspection program involving 498 inspector-hours. The Senior Resident Inspector expended an additional 953 inspector-hours over the period performing the "C" program. An additional 238 hours0.00275 days <br />0.0661 hours <br />3.935185e-4 weeks <br />9.0559e-5 months <br /> were expended performing the investigations noted below.
4
. Investications and Allecations Review Three separate investigations were performed during the appraisal period, each based on allecations received by Recion IV personnel.
These are summarized below:
)
l
- a. Allegation that anchor bolts pull out of the wal.1; that there are hollows in certain concrete walls; and that a motor control center was not properly grounded. The investigation could not estaolish that anchor bolts pulled out after being tightened to specified values but frequently did during the tightening process, which was expected. The walls with hollow sounds based en tapping were located and excavated with no anomalies being identified by the SRI who observed most of the excavation process. No explanation was developed by the licensee or the SRI for the occ'urrence. The proper grounding of the motor control center was verified to have occurred as a part of the normal process of energizing the unit. The allegations were thus partially substantiated but proved to have no technical merit from a safety standpoint.
- b. dn~ investigation was conducted regarding an allegation made by a licensee / contractor employee who was engaged in vendor inspections and audits that the licensee was knowingly allowing the shipment of vendor components identified as being of sub-standard quality. The investigation revealed that the components were in fact substandard and were the subject of a Notice of Violation which was discussed in IV.3 above. The balance of the allegation was not substantiated, partly because the alleger himself maintained a low profile and used an improper document to identify the original quality problem so that the licensee /
contractor quality managers were apparently unaware of the substandard condition.
c.
An investigation was made regarding an allegation that the ~
electrical QC section was supervised by personnel overly sympathetic to construction problems; were not conducting required inspections; and were using many unqualified personnel l
t when performing other inspections. The allegation also inferred that construction welding engineering was deliberately impeding the orderly review of documentation packages for safety class
, pipe hangers. Based on an extensive number of interviews, l reviews of records, and observations, the investigation con-l cluded that the allegations were essentially without merit.
l 5. Escalated Enforcement Action None
- 6. Manacement Conference Held Durina Accraisal Period No management conferences were held with the licensee during the period, except as required by the SALP Program.
l l
s l
l l
t
l
[ ( Applicants' Exhibit 66 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY l OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM
- 7. R.G. Tolson clen nose Texas July 28. 1980 l l
SubjM CPSES TUGC0 SITE SURVEILLANCE REPORTS ,
Response to the following TUGC0 Site Surveillance Report has been reviewed / resurveyed and found satisfactory for closing:
SSR No. 001 The closed out Surveillance Report will not normally be redis-tributed. If a copy is needed, it may be obtained by request i from the undersigned at Extension 568.
l a te X Richard F. Curtis TUGC0 Site Surveillance Supervisor RFC:jh cc: A. Vega, Dallas TUGC0 QA R. Klimist, B&R QA Form TSS-3
- ~.-. _ n . - \
35-1195 l N '. ' #
1 1/2/80 ( Applicants' Av;nifRootJnc. Exhibit 67 C , ,,
INTEROFFICE MEMO J IM-18432 -
T0: Distribution DATE: January 2, 1980 EROM: P.F. Foscolo
SUBJECT:
Procurement of Measuring and Testing Eauipment (M&TE) .
Measuring and testing equipment is required to be purchased to the requirements of Procedure CPM 13.1, " General Calibration Procedure". The procedure requires that all requisitions for M&TE and related iteas as defined therein shall be marked "M&TE Items". Such requisitions are also recuired to be reviewed by the Calibra-tion Engineer and QA. Due to some misunderstandings, this has not always been accomplished. Please ensure this is accc.;1ished in the future.
In addition, any outstanding requisitions fc.- M&TE not procured as not,ediabove
. should be reported to,the Calibration Facility. -
/
P.F. Foscolo -
g Assistant Project Manager PFF/LEif/cin cc:
All General Superintendents P. Magruder -
J.B. Scott J.P. Clarke, III ~
R.G. Tolson l
I l
t-t . . , _
.D
..m$ifRootJnc.
( I3$"(
" " " ' ' - ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.I ~IflTER0hFICEMEMO ~$ .
^
IM-18433 , , ,
T0: Distribution DATE: January 3, 1980 FROM: P.F. Foscolo
SUBJECT:
Deficient M&TE Evaluation Report Forms Ref: Procedure CPM 13.1, " General Calibration Procedure" There have been some delays in processing Deficient M&TE Evaluation Repurt Forms.
These forms should be completed and returned to the Calibration Facility no later than five working days from the date of issuance. In those isolated cases where more than five days are found to be unavoidably necessary, notification of the status of the forms via three-part memo should be sent to the Calibration Facility. The status should include any problems encountered and an estimated completion date.
P.F. Foscolo
_3 Assistant Project Manager JfW . . . .
PFF/LEW/cin -
cc:
I All General Superintendents P. Magruder J. Hawkins 9
e e
b
au-usa
( 2/14/80 i
Applicants' BrownURoot.Inc. Exhibit 68 INTEROFFICE MEM0 IM-18698 .
TO: , g y ,e,ck, k DATE: February 14, 1980 l FROM: J.P. Clarke, III
SUBJECT:
Additional Corrective Action on SSR-11 Ref: IM-18383 The need for additional review of traveler packages prior to submittal to QC was recognized last week and resulted in the return of all Component Support Traveler l Packages to Construction for rereview. As completed, these CSTP's will be resub-mitted to QC.
GrP. Clarke, III Senior Staff Engineer JPC/cln
. cc:
R.M. Klimist H. Goodson P.F. Foscolo R.G. Webb i
i O
.ia
.y
( 12/12/79
( i
. EmwnCTRootjnc. ze- '-
IM-18383 1
T0: R. G. Tolson
-wan::.w;t. .;;'a FROM: P. F. Foscolo ,
SUBJECT:
TUGC0 Surveillance Report SSR-11
REFERENCE:
a) TUGC0 IOM dtd. 11/16/79; R. G. Tolson to Roy Webb, same subject.
Reference (a) requested that a response be given for the unsatisfactory sur-villance findings noted in the subject report. B&R has evaluated the noted conditions and agrees that a procedural problem exists. To assure that all p steps defined on travelers are complete and correct , B&R will modify . , ,
CP-CPii 6.3 to include the following requirements: ,
l 1) The craft or discipline performing the work will initial & date the column entitled QA/QC/ENG upon completion of a given operation defined on the traveler. 1 i r .L ,
l
- 2) The cognizant department initiating the travelers shall review them '
along with the Component Support itechanical Inspection Checklist upon completion of the work defined therein. Only after completion of this review shall the operational travelers be sent to QC & the ANI for final review and certification to code as defined in CP-CPM 6.9 for "Q" applications.
The ch'anges to CP-CPM 6.3 noted above will allow the fabrication / installation statos to be easily recognized at any given point and will assure completion of' all required operations.
g 20unM I
/ (_ T:?
.1
!~;
P. F. Foscolo 9[Y!
Asst. Project 'ianager . _
.u
-~
I PFF/FGM/csg ., -f, l -
_e_;=.
l cc: Roy Webb Bill Cromeans gp , e h"~.-h'=. '
2:.E =-
l b V
(,so/
h~ ~
("
-1__.L-o 6@,t, 6V -
w . 2 ,-
L--
I
i Applicants'
, ~
~
{ (-- Exhibit 69 M?s~n c. ^: C i. ..".C.
^
=
I:iTEROFFICEMEMQ T0: . Bill Cromeans FRO.'4: J P,. Clarke, III DATE: January 4,1980 ,
SU3 JECT: CPSES, Job 35-1195 Response to SSR-12 Please find attached the response to the subject sur-veillance report.
? Xb. , s/.
/e)f57l14,. w -r/-- -
' -J'
.- P. Clarke, III Site QA Manager cc: R. G. Tolson (ll,lA) 8 G 9
i I .o l
1
}
i l
- . (f" e
,[
P.ESPONSE TO DEFICIENCY l of SSR-12
..,[
?
Be advised'that the cited deficiency appears to be in error for the component support traveler. CPM 6.9 i s the quality inspection document and it is referenced in Block 8. Addi-tionally, the above referenced sentence states "as required" which becomes a matter of judgement which is influenced by the number of operations previously completed and certifica-tion of the inspector. I do take exception to the final statement which shows a lack of understanding of the one step in context of the' entire operation. This step is indeed a " broad scope inspection" to assure the hanger installed re-flects the specified design.
\le do offer the additional related information for the Site Surveillance Group.
Quality Engineering has reviewed the current component support traveler and identified areas for upgrading. The traveler is currently under revision and will be in use whenThe affected traveler parties reach agreement as to its final' fort.
procedure, CPM 6.3, is being " rewritten" by Quality Engiacaring in an effort to more clearly defina construction, engineering and interfaces. No time frame for reissue is established as it will be when oli affected parties agree to the changes.
e a'jf l s4h/ ,
i 3/dc
i k.
- o ,
.s Y" !
/2 l .r..*
j';c:,s ..
- i. _/?. / ,r. .O'/.,3 ,.
A. /. ;. ..'f.!
1,,;r.
- -b . .
4 , . .. .,. .. . . . >. . . . . - . . .
9..... ,
)
e, y
.. x 44. c.
// *~ >
- ls J. s ' .....,+*-e-..
m.
. __p 3*/.. ,a*
./..:
f... _ ! -
,c ,. . . .
~;:pC
. . . ,u
. .,,.. - ....-f: .lr'
- s. .
.'.v.. ~?. -;#-
- - -y *s'.,' _
2.'. . . ..
.. ... _ . ~._.. . _ - . . ...
_. =
.',lESSAG E N2 ' '#52 M- * -
i
'5Ar ,.V -/*: . . .,-y.h... /.s u /
, . Y,. .. .!. *
- .*'.'.,.c.'.Qs..W/w.M./.e p. s f f n
/ .. r . (1.*,,',_.:p c e.'-
. - (,4. ,. y.,g...r - .
~> 7. .
. ,n .. .: . ..
-. nd..e
- .,. Q-. 7'c(4.c r,h 8. .,%- u. u,-
o,l~ ... G_ G ),'_ _
- 6. J? .< d.. 6_ A , wc/ ... .-r.) ..&,.. ~'. .*./..~~ ,1.w.E. .,' ak, .e.'. .n. o
...... ... ... &.. c .
.j.; . :.s.-.. ' der-
/
,.W.. ,/,.y..
c . ..i u,.
W e!;. ,<-y.. do
~
... /,) .clt.'.y. 6. $_. . r_< u. ?./..f* .
dc .- ./ t.;.ru.n. . f . . .. &' ... ::.o. ! . s?'r.a 2.'.6. 1.r ../
~ - ... ..
- ... . ..._. yo .-r1 ./ _ a, p //. /
_.,. n- ;4.c,.,,. ... . a %
. . c. . .. .W _
. ..?. . f..' c . /cir.~. e d .
l'fr, e ,_', , e. .
- )?_ *E,c. .. ... ,,.?.p,r.,*
. . ,Z. ._ _ .r..ods m -. d s.> ;j.k.. - . l 7 .
fi.s. u. '. . .. f +.,. .c.a.c4.. Y s;.' &. . . . . .b_., ,.,. .s. ,.7. /'..
. - __ .. . . . , ,m. .e.o. '.'k. ?..!
_ .,.n 's., :,.~i. . < -
-.-... d H ..... d w .r.ec5(. . X . . 3 t . d b..-- .. - ..-.... ... . . . . = .
i 1-
.:u a p /? _ *
- s. c ,Np
/ I si .wr1 -
. ; .. .yj .w.1 u M .. n . . . ~ ..;
.:.; pi-'v
__..._.._.....-u........ _.
e t
. a..w /- 2b .
..z .r o
- s.-
,/, wt . - - _ ..
I
> . . . = _ . . .
_. $$/E - l T I 3_ C c.n.. 5, <. e'..r-'
(. . O-c,. .. . . . of'
/
V&R.,e
- L.-?C f./ !t m.8m A;'c.~u/ s!J.1 . ----
h t
i I
l t
. ......u l
/
. ,./ . - _ .
l . ._-_..
i, .
..,*n..,. /
l'. . - . . . . . . . . . - . .._ .. .
.'1.:
n ,,/,.
. /, '
.. 9- . f_.
..-...........'lV
. u J.- *. , '
. . s.ened t/n. . - . - . - . - - . . . . . _ . . . _ . . . . .
. I I */7
..n
. S C *- .%..-.. rm..* -f T'.g.. ,e,... .. . .
,s. .iT:.. ,. O<.r...
. ' . . ., ...s...A
. . . .. . , ,,.... ' '/
?. i .e. r' aa m . :
== * --v- =-=*- . ** -- c = y .7,.t - 3 -.n s . p ir. -. -er. ap= = =*.- . e* -*-n g .a . --* -= .
- y; ----**-s:a.--.--*-.-**r.-a-------+*.,
._. r. .
{
Applicants'
[ ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( '
, Exhibit 70
.. .......-.~........s sga-n Brown &RootJnc.
P.O. BOX 100: Gt.EN ROSE. TEXAS 76043 L o .so .
.. =.. . -]
w
- - -. a . n.. .w -.
-- v ~,
m.w a. m,
. ~ . - w, . , , ,.- . .m ,. .
sm . m .=a'M M +M..M, Mu. aGM n %..lFJGi ,@ n ..,di $= . $n u$;z.,.d..,7~
n.m :. n .M. n,. ..a.~df2fG .
w .
.n n,
,Tc3 . DATE b 2 !"~
~B.. ..
.. w m d...s.. . - - . . . . . _ . - . .,,<r. d.< -> u rc.a
__ _ _. __ .._. . . _ _ _ -w .
,, i S o '- 2.t- 2.o
. : ssp-g OA 6u 4 ', di ssu _
m a @ D J h roGc a_ $ Q - - - _ _ - ._ ._ .
u l 64 ' -k w/ a.u
__ s _. &h _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ._
WL .
. . . - . 3 sam a.& . - . . . . - - - . . . - . . - . . . . . - . . . .
y A sw ..
e - - - . .. . - -
&4a Iu ... : a.e d . ._. . - . _ . - _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ . _
d l -
^' J t . .. eb ,
' u. x J .
( . . . . . .. . . . . - . . . - - - . - . . , . .
nuM. w& .
..k.-- - .
. *s .A lb .y u~
u m, - .
~g g u eO ~t s - -~
~
@f a fBY -
- g. M.
9 'CN SIGNED u
/
~~ s ~
J/ .....................
~
.' 4,'s. . ...
{ .
..3.i.,......... 1*, .. . . . . . . . - . . .,.....a:
. . . . ....,.c... .
- .... . . . .. .. .f .. . . . ,
... ..J..
.5 # ."J.. .a...
-....'.,,.,,.,,.."4.,...
~.,,
. , . . .&.. .-, . - - - =
. u. .,. ._..u.. , a, . . _
...._.. . ..:. .s
. . . , _ . , . . .- - ~ .
.._,......,.3
,, ~ . . . . . . : _ _ .a..%. ,.r.........
. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . n..,..
..:.. . :. .. . . . ,.a-- . .....,_._..:
-= .- ..:..,..... ' '
.:; 7 _ . : .( .
... ..f.
.--q.,.
.. ;;,.........e.
r-
~ - -
....a
. . ...g.,...,.s..a. ..
..,.,;.-.~....._....-..~. ..
..-.a._.., .._... *..
\ . .. .... .1,,.~ ,
.,._ , ,g_ ; .:7 . ,_
. : :u - -
- :. .- :..-~--- -
. . .. ; .. ;. : - ...; .- :n:&.~ - . :.. --...v..-
. .. .o .
~3
- . s. 4 ' . . . . .;J r . ;;. , . ,. ~ ! *: ...s
= =~'--
. 3... . . . .. . =. .. &.. .:%..::: ..- . . .h..--3. . ~ . . si &. +.1 : ..~. . . -5, .i;,: . . =. ..=. . . . .
%..?.i. W.. ~ 2.. m +.. 4. . %..Y~-W. > ..E. %.. h. Wr..W,,Wi'd,fuW,%..%. .i.fK.,.1*"t.e.Es..nS.W.,..Ci.
m S . .~ n S 3 9.. 5*s;&"M&dsidiiv6%udMbiciiohi.& nun sek;%in245?..B:.W:,.CW. .d._M.c. *N.r.W.n:v .w .. . .::. ; . .
.. . ; . . . . . , 7, ;x. . . . . .. ~ .......,....,yc...
. ..< -.. ....; .. L @..s &n .Mi.n.. -
.- %. h.s . . .~ h
.' * *% 4.es .a *O'"-
- F e^ N ,,j
w- _ L x
s; ! Applicants'
" *
- 71 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
CPP-2656 OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM T, R. G. Tolson cien h., Tex. 2-11-80 sub w C0fGt1CHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 1981-83 2300 MW IllSTALLAT10ti ,
TUGC0 SITE SURVEILLAtlCE REPORTS ! -
- Attached is our response tc Site Surveillance Report flo. SSR-26.
If we can provide further information, please advise.
= _ :
J.1. Merritt, Jr.
Engineering & Construction Manager -
JTM:REH:te
~
Attachment cc: R. V. Fleck
- 4 9
1 8
6
(
f~ >
. . . l SURVEILLANCE N0: SSR-26 ,
DEFICIENCY NO.: 1 :
FINDINGS: "The Table of Contents has no procedure block format;3hence, one is not able to determine adequately what the status is o'f each procedure."
RESPONSE: The Table of Contents provided in the Engineering Procedures g Manual provides the number of the Procedure / Instruction, Subject, and the current revision. This Table of Contents is updated and issued with any change / addition to the manual. There should be no case of finding a Table of Contents that does not adequately or immediately provide the status of each procedure / instruction in content.
The intent has never been to provide a Table of Contents for references - only for content of the manual. It is not uncommon for some of these procedures and/or instructions to reference B&R procedures as an enmple, which naturally are not provided in the TUSI Engineering Manual.
Following is a summary of our review of other deficiencies in-cluded in subject surveillance.
Manual #01 - J. T. Merritt, Jr.
- 1. Procedures CP-EP-4.2, Revision 1 and CP-EP-4.3, Revision 1 are in fact in this manual and were at the time of the sur-veillance. (Issued 8-28-79)
- 2. Procedure A-2 was in error in the manual. However, this l
procedure has been deleted from all copyholder's manuals.
Manual #03 - R. G. Tolson
- 1. CP-EI-4.3-1, Rev.1 was issued to Copyholder on 11-20-79 and acknowledgement signed and returned to TUSI.
- 2. CP-EP-4.6, Rev. 1 was issued to Copyholder on 11-20-79 and acknowledgement signed and returned to TUSI.
i
- 3. Procedure A This procedure was deleted 1-31-80 from all controlled manuals. *
- 4. CPP-EP-1, Rev. 3 was superseded by CP-EP-4.6, Rev. O, issued 8-13-79. A controlled copy was sent to Copyholder and ack-nowledgment signed and returned to TUSI.
CPP-EP-11, Rev. 0 was voided and superseded by issuance of CP-EP-5.1, Rev. O on 6-13-79. Acknowledgement was signed and returned to TUSI. ,
l
+ _
SU41VEILLANCE REPORT NO. SSR-26 RESPONSE CONTINUED ,
} .
EI-EP-1-M-1, Rev. O and A-3, Rev. O were voided 9-7-79.
Acknowledgement signed by Copyholder was returned to TU5I.
AI-EP-8-PMG-1, Rev. O was voided and superseded by issuance of CP-EI-5.0-1 on 6-13-79. Acknowledgement was signed by Copyholder and was returned to TUSI. '
Manual No. 06 - R. G. Webb The organization chart is missing from this manual. This will be corrected by 2-18-80.
CPP-EP-8, Rev. O was in this manual as indicated at the time of the surveillance and was a discrepancy. However, this pro-cedure was removed the week of 1-28-80 in a' periodic check of '
the contents of the manual. .
Manual No. 09 - OA Vault (Bess Crabb)
It appears that the manual in this area is not being traintained at all or in all probability that the wrong manual has been-audited. -
/
The vault was issued a controlled manual in the beginning .but i due to turnover in personnel the manual was not maintained.
l TUSI received no acknowledgenents for quite a period of time of I
receipt and/or update of additions / changes to the manual. In ,
a discussion with Joe Davis as to the problem he indicated'the .
manual could not be located and was not maintained and'recom '
mended it be cancelled. This was done in August 1979. T ,
,, s At the request of J. R. Ainsworth a new manual was prepared and ,
l issued to the QA Vault under the same control number on October T i
l 31, 1979. Receipt was acknowledgedsby Bess Crabb and any transe actions in the manual since ,that ' time have been acknowledged very promptly by her. , .
It appears that perhaps the old (cancelled) manual has been found and was perhaps audited rather than the new one which is kept in the QA library by Ms Crabb personally.
All controlled manual holders receive every change / addition along with a revised Table of Contents. Each is sent with a memo indicating change /
addition and requesting acknowledgement by signature and return to TUSI.
Once this has been done and proper acknowledgement has been received it is the responsibility of the controlled manual holder to maintain that manual in proper order. -
i l
Applicants'
' TSS-oo a TEXAS UTII.ITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM To ECLARl<E Clen Rose Texas ?-8-80
- Subject * ' - *- - '- CPSES -- - - . .
TUGC0 Site Surveillance Reports l
Y r Your response to the following TUCCO Site' Surveillance Reports have been Revieued/ Resurveyed and found satisfact$ry for closecut.
E /
i 7
, SSR: 039 r
The closed out surveillance report (s) will not normally be distributed.
If a copy is needed, it may be obtained b?- 3t fro:n the undersigned.
y R.V. Fleck TUGC0 QA Site Surveillance Supervisor 1
I t s
-J f.
, s .
cc: I \ i T. Vega TUCCO QA Dallas , ..
1 4 R.G. Tolson, TUCCO QA 23HEB \
, File r,, I s- ,
, f .
, t' .\
l
^3/19/80 -
Applicants' Brown &RootJnc. sxhibie 73 1
f INTEROFFICE MEMO k -
IM-IB837 ,-
10p ,R;'LF,lec,k DATE: March 19,~1980 FROM: J.P.ClaEke,III SU3 JECT: Response to SSR-046 In response to SSR-046, the DCC Supervisor has reviewed the stakus of quarterly audits and has advised the Assistant Project Manager of remiss organizations. The quarterly audits have now either been performed and documented to DCC, or completion dates established by the remiss nrganizations. ,
Since not alp document recipients use their documents for construction activities, DCC will maintain a listing c of document holders (control numbers) for which quarterly audits are not'necessary, and the DCP's will be revised by 3/28/80 to reflect this exception.
Compliance with the quarterly audit requirement will be monitored by the DCC supervisor who will identify unsatisfactory compliance to Project Management for the appropriate action. -
j c ff l
/ . . Clarke, III l Senior Staff Engineer i 1 JPC/cin /
cc:
D.C. Frankum -
P.F. Foscolo l R.0. Taylor R.G. Webb
, , Applicanto' g TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. Exhibit 74 CPPA - 4893 OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM T. R V. Fleck Glen Rose, Texas ADril 30. 1980 Subject COMANCHE PEAX STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 1981-83 2300 lW INSTALLATION CPSES TUGC0 SITE SURVEILLANCE REPORT SSR-048 l.
This is to advise that the quarterly audit for Control No. 097 has been performed and documented evidence is on file with DCC.
Regarding Control No.102 cited in the reference SSR-048, said Control Number has been cancelled for Engineering (B. J. Murray) and reassigned to Construction.
This memorandum completes the responses to SSR-048.
/ =:
R.'E. Heim Resident Engineer REH/dc cc: T. Vega, Dallas TUGC0 QA
- R. G. Tolson, TUGC0 QA R. M. K11 mist File ARMS 9
I m mm
CPPA-4744 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. ,
1 O FFICE M E M O R A N D'J M I To -- R. V. Fleck '"? cl n ase. Texas 4-15-80 .
Suu P ES TUG STESURVEILLANCEREPORTSSE-048Y h -
This is to advise that the quarterly audits for Control Nos.'009, 035 and 036 have been performed and documented evidence is on file with DCC.
The quarterly audits for Control Nos. 097 and 102 are in work and will be completed and on file with DCC on May 1,1980.
- Al-R. E. Heim Resident Engineer REH:te cc: T. Vega, Dallas TUGC0 QA R. G. Tolson,.TUGC0 QA R. M. Klimist File O
h
=#
l l
J' -noton!alin on -1l*easselibe'e.Ilotlltlo'44.' elai siol o 5ieb'lJend
, s'iektilb' 451..$' onHab!IU**ssellllse**J "
a 1 Speed Lettero re P,& f1xey pram f. A, dx >>. r t .
Subirct 85/A k'5/ L L '4 ^/-[d DOM Y SYE~OYb '-
MESSAGE Date 8 ~~ # 19 8 #-
,A}zi ro A s o ns-n osj ns mA n a niu e ex x>er e
/i_>LJ# s f.j'.<J & A x >_s y 1s1 & /soCGnisRA s* A xJJ
/yMrzxjzenoD p >= J A A / s ,. fan $1 err /s s/' f/Z[kJM A /A Pf AM AAJ A~M7"E.<33/ m ) ffMDLd6 ,
!dPZ / ' 7n FA~AL's2 E,o (~a~D SS#-,o42 &aJ 7 is-A Pg >L. //, .> c Ao signed . /- < 'v REPLY Date 19 Signed
$l*f.".301.', egg,pany
- '** ~'a-"' RECIPIENT-RETAIN %HITE CCPY, RETURt1 PINK CCPY
__g APPlictnts' Wes"021 Exhibit 75 TENAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY O F FI C E M E M O,R A N D U M T, c. e.r,,gge e
Glen Rose Texas 3/11/90 CPSES Subim TUGC0 SITE SURVEILLi!;CE REPORTS t
Your response to the following TUGC0 Site Surveillance Reports have been Reviewed /
R! surveyed and found satisfactory for closeout.
SSR: 049 Th2closedoutsu.rveillancereport(s)willnotnor=allybedistributed. If a copy is needed, it may be obtained by request from the undersigned.
- r. h f R.V. Fleck TUGC0 QA Site Surveillance Supervicor I cc
- T. Vega, Dallas TUGC0 QA R. Tolson, TUGCO QA R. Klimist i
l Firm TSS-3
~
TCtittlE PEAK it0JLCl QUAll1Y ASSUR/elCE DIVISIO*l SURVEIU.AtlCE REPORT - - -
~
Itan/Nctivity
Description:
RUllAR OTORAGE t p. 4 System: II/A Component: N/A Other: II/A
~
l@ Ref. QA Doc. & Rev. Ref. Spec. & Rev. Ref. Dwg. & Rev.
y II/A -
, . 2323-SS.-10, Rev. 4 !!/A ;
E Other Ref. Doc. & Rev. ~ ~~
f
!!/A .
Type of Surveillance: .
O In-Process I ~l Pre-Installation L_.J rinal O Pre-Op R Other tio. SURVEILLNICE. AREAS CODE
- I
- 1. Rebar Storace Areas U
~
t .
2
,2 -
Iw IE 5
- d s'
s i
l
,
- See Attached Checklists v Correct Discrepancies flumbered 1 on Attached Sheet (s) By 7/u /an .
_. R Provide Written Corrective Action Response for Deficiencies flumbered -
6 on Attached Sheet (s) By .
M* Provide Uritten Response for Deficiencies Numbered
[u on Attached Sheet (s)
By .
Detail Cause and Corrective Action to Preclude Repetition. -
g Resurvey made and found satisfactory.
5 CJ M
inhsb r i g
l Report Prepared By C. Hauhins Date 2/27/00 Reviewed By R.V.FlecklMldDate 2/24!OO yE Resurvey Performed By c u ,., %
Da te .3J.L1/nn Reviewed By n" rieck Date2/1?/an m Related Documents (Responses, Stop Work Orders, flCR's, etc.)
5f O Site Surveillance File Other: 0 O c. 'scrucca - O E O T. Veca O REPORT fl0. SM-049 o O R. Toison O O R. K11 mist i
2- --
BRO'.!U .. ROOT, INC.
QUALITY ASSURA!;CE DIVISION 7*!:0JICT: CPSCS JOB NO: 35-1195 UNIT- 1 ti 2 PACE 2 0F 4
..s.:.::.D ORCANIZATION: SURVEILLANCE NO: DATE(S):
C0!'UrRUCTION , SSR-049 2/20/80-2/27/00 f.;;?I:
REBAR STORACB I"En 2323-55-10, Rev. 4 f .
- .".CI
- -
I-IAHSTACTORY U= UNSATISFACTORY N=NOT SURVEYED X=NOT APPLICABLE IT*.!CE!J.ACTERISTIC& DESCRIPTION -
CORE REMARKS
! Para. 11.0 - Reinforcement chall be stored 1* ff the cround and set;recated by cize in U' See Deficiency No.l.
ceparate piles or racks, in a nanner to rrevent dictortien_ m'nd nn -nr4nn.
I i
Ii l
f i
1 l
I a
l 8
i 6
I l
9 1 .
i APPROVED,D : DATE:
,Al z la in
Shuat i of ol i
'. '.o .
SURVEILLANCE NO.: SSR-049 DEFICIENCY NO.: 1 REQUIREMENTS: . 2323-SS-10. Rev. 4. Para, 11.0 .
f '
Reinforcement shall be stored off the Cround and secrec;ated in se'parate pilis or racks, in a manner to prevent distortion or corrosion.
FINDINGS: .
- 1. Contrary to the above, a portion of the rebar is mud splattered from vehicle traffic in storage areas lios. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13
- 2. Contrary to the above, there are situations where rebar is not stored off the ground in storage areas Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 15.
3 Contrary to the above, there are instances where rebar is not segregated by size in storage areas Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 11 and 12.
- 4. Rebar storage area No. 14 indicated conformance with the above requirements.
. NOTE: See Page 4 for location of rebar storage areas numbered references.
k
- 9 i .
A Bahnson 4
A > j'x w a
. dL N X
l F-- EVAPCRATied g fb40 y W
g.
a l H EVNbRA7tec f . d PCMD .
T
. X X
OO--eg A
\
lx i %
LEGEND x
x 6:REBAR STME AREA X x
X x
x x
FEKE U x
X X
t W
' M x
Y x
x X
K 9.C. # l RC "?.
-y
)
1
' x b
A *
. A m% o.
I l--- m y y A
m,,,-
d, l 1
i osEn ve 8%
} ZC.C
r Appliccnts' Exhibit 76 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM ,
To Ron Fl ecle Glen Rose, Texas 3/26/80 Subject SSR-050 Response Response to finding (A) ,
(1) A hold tag for NCR M-982 was applied to the Generators at the time of receipt. However, this NCR has been written since May 25,1978. During th.is time che Generators have have been moved to the field and installed. Evidently the hold tags have been either removed by unauthorized personnel or have fallen off. The hold tags have been replaced.
(2) NCR M-1756,was written by a curveillance person who failed to apply a hold tag to the nonconforming item. This condition has been discussed with the writer, who is no longer in the Surveillance Group. A hold tag has been placed on the item.
Response to finding (B)
(1) The reason the TWR tag was missing for NCR M,.982 is the same as indicated in (A) 1 above. TWR Tag has been applied.
(2) The TWR Tag was not applied to the Generator reported on NCR E-1974 due to the follinwg reason. The Mechanical QC group wrote the NCR, however, when the NCR was issued it was given a 'E' designation to the NCR number. When the TWR was approved and issued a copy of the approved TWR uas sent to the QC Electrical Supervisor. The mechanical inspector .never got a __ .. . . _
copy of the approved TWR which indicates to the inspector -
that a TWR has been issued and he is to apply a Blue TWR , Tag.
The TWR was voided on March 12,1980, therefor eno TWR has
- . _ _ _ . _ .._ . b een applied. . . _. _ . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ . . _ . . .__ . . _ .
'~"~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~
~ ~~--~ Respons e to firidihk~ (C)~~~~~ "~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ '
(1) The Hold Tag for MCn M-1850 had not been pulled f rom the item due to the system for removing NCR Hold Tags. Thb present system for the inspector to verify that the disposition to *
- a NCR has been performed and write an IR. The Hold Tag is not . .
removed until the inspect'or receives a copy of the closed out NCR, ~
l
.S g, *: *
- =
(_
, s
'- '~0 a3c for SSR-050 -
- : ;:.r. ,. ,
.: . :c,c : . ,
(2) CP-QAP-16.1 is presently being revised to pull the Holf Tag ,
at the time the inspector verifies that the disposition has been performed. This will prevent this condition from occurrin; again. The Hold Tag for NCR M-1850 has been pulled.
j ,
. A' "9 ~
. . Hawkins SR. QC Supervisor JVH/im
.j
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ,.n....... - . . . . . .
. .. .: :. ? .. :.+;;;:.:-. . .. - - . ...;... -
.-_- . . a*
_.~...
. . . .. . .. .-E.'.- .....~- ..:.~..
I I
e l
I i
I O l
3/14/80 , Applicanto'
, EtpwnURoot.inc. Exhibit 77 IM - 18815 )
INTEROFFICE MEMO .
T0: R. V. Fleck March 14, 1980 FROM: W. E. Baker 4
$UBJECT: Surveillance Report #051 All controlled copies of Weld Procedure Specifications issued to Welding Engineering control #013 have been accounted for.
Distribution change (see attached Controlled Distribution Request #06285) has been implemented so as to reflect 5 controlled copies of Weld Procedure Specifications outlined as follows:
- 1. W. E. Baker
- 2. H. T. Lanum
- 3. J. Hite
- 4. W. Wright
- 5. C. Muery
[ ~
l W. E. Baker Sr. Project Welding Engineering WEB /CM/csg Attachment - 1 I
l L- ~ _. .- _ _ _
, _ . .Tc S- 0 2 3 Applicants' TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY E*hibit 78 OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM To R. Toison Glen Rose. Texas 3/19/90 SubjM CPSES TUGCO SITE SURVEILLIdiCE REPORTS .
f -
Your response to the following TUGCO Site Surveillance Report has been reviewed / resurveyed and found satisfactory for closecut:
SSR: 053 The closed out Surveillance Report (s) will not normally be redistributed. If a copy is needed, it may be obtained by request from the undersigned at Extension 568.
f R.V. Fleck TUGCO Site Surveillance Supervisor RVF:jh cc: T. Vega, Dallas TUGCO QA R. Klimist -
o FORM TSS-4
L.xw.. n L ,.a u m _u. _ . _ .a:nr.
. . ......au w u r.va.c.a .. ~.w
. . ~
. Speed Letter.
To R.V. Fleck From R.C. Tolson Subizet
...m..
MESSAGE Date u, v an is Tn regnede en tha _eh nup cito envvn411nnee vennve; curing records were completed f v g. - thn Anen n* e%n en,un411mnno f nrt.n v A Mn nreinn enn he enlien for cures empleted prior to Feb.27,1980_ rk e re coronn a gun 14ey To ernre<nn, nT-np 11.0-11 vill be revised by 3/31/80 to reflect a more reasonable curing inspection program for blockouts.
r
.- . . a
- ].
. ,, ,a .
Signed- ,
~ M0 h,s REPLY ,. cate 19
. .. .u Signed oM
.?.S. d..?".U coggeny RECIPIENT-RETAIN WHITE COPY. RETURN PINK COPY I
4/30/8b Applicants' BrownURoot.Inc. Exhibit 79
- r. INTEROFFICE MEMO e: ,2
- IM-19027 s r' f .
. . c:. _ , -
TO: ,3 R.G._,,Tol son ~ g DATE: April 30, 1980 FROM: J.P. Clarke III
SUBJECT:
Revised Response to SSR-054, Finding #3 The following is provided in addition to the original response. No corrective action is required for the reasons stated.
Hanger Number Status SW-1-007-002-J03R The hanger package did not have CMC 3642 referenced on the package be-cause the CMC was incorporated into the drawing on 10/26/79 and the pack-age wasn't prepared until 12/11/79.
SW-1-007-007-J03R These hangers have not been released SW-1-026-004-J03R through PITS so the packages are on SW-1-037-004-J03R hold and are not being updated until SW-X-011-007-J03R release is effected.
. SW-X-002-006-J03S i
k// $
.P. Clarke, III Senior Staff Engineer JPC/cin cc:
R.V. Fleck P..G. Webb 1
0.C. Frankum P.F. Foscolo '
, 35-1195 4/29/80
=Mr.mCTRoct.inc.
- L INTEROFFICE MEMO IM-19002 .
[f0EM.%[d[Wh DATE: April 29,1980 l
FROM: 22J:PEC1/r,k~s,TIII3
/
SUBJECT:
Response to SSR-054 The following is in response to the subject SSR.
Finding #1 The subject weld was reinspected with magnification which revealed the weld had not been peened, but had been rotary filed. This filing action made the weld appear peened to the naked eye.
~
No corrective or preventive action is required.
Finding #2 ,
Corrective Action ,
Records indicate that pre-heat hold points on the WDC were bypassed. NCR-M-2234 has '
, been* prepared to document this occurance. An Engineering evaluation will be made on
! the subject welds. . ,, ,
Preventive Action The personnel in the affected area have been reinstructed in the requirements of obtaining the required inspections identified by process sheets, prior to proceeding to the subsequent operations. (See Training Logs attached.)
l l Finding #3 Corrective Action .,
CMC-15770 affecting hanger package SW-1-005-001-J03R is now in the hanger package.
The work was done to ABRF-0352 which superceded CMC-15770 as the "As-Built Record" program, in effect at the time, allowed. Therefore, work was done in accordance with current, valid, documentation. t
.t,-
s ,
\. -
.ni&RootJnc.
IM-19002 Page 2 Preventive Action i
A revised Hanger Package Program has been implemented as defined in CPM 6.9.
- The tracking methods utilized in this revised program provide greater control over the Hanger Packages relating to design changes and other revisions.
d
. . Clarke. III Senior Staff Engineer JPC/cln cc:
D.C. Frankum P.F. Foscolo R.G. Webb H.Z. Goodson
=
l r
)
i
- -s _a __
s
,L Ih, *
,(.7, , j i . . -J . . .
ELA35 $Uttl1ARY 51 TEE 1,;
8 prown c Root. Inc. '
- 1.fSS..,.!, '
rERSollHEL TRAllilHG DEPAnillENI. p j.( ji.1
- l pons'or'Ing Tratning Group Power Division lt -
Location:
Enurse
Title:
CP-CPM 6.9 PROCEDURES class fiumber: PCGI-311-GT IVIII)
Mar. 20 & liar. 21, 1980' - llours Per Days.
Instructor: Dou9 Furr class Scheduled for: -
~ ~ . . .
8$S 11 urly Social Security Job de Race Sex B l tionhours3 g,
flimihe r Rate
. Flumber _.
BRANHN4, Stanley P. R711 318-24-0779 35-1195 1649 10.50 W H 15 -
D IINillTON, Leroy - W636 237-70-5875 1696 10.20 B M / SI_.
IIAYD0fl, Richard W. V466 403-86-5571 1649 10.50 W H _ /[__ _
6753 066-24-0569 1649 10.50 W M _ / S' I --
llENRY. William M. , - /
1649 10.50 .. W _ M / 6 __-
HOFFMAN. Charles R. 5610 459-13-1784
'446-68-6907 '1696 ' fl0.20 0 ;M
/ 3' _;
KIM, Young 110 - W212 1249 11.75 e
W M-t - /3
/
LEMKE, Gerald W. - 7088 461-82-7078 I INDSFY. Dennis W. G652._ 455-13-7R4R 1649
~10.50 4 dL,,_ M N /[ "
MAJEWSKI, Mark W. J387 457-94-6484 1495 10.8535 '.iW* d Mi 'lI '~
/[ -
.$ 'T
,., / MOSS. Kenneth U. L. 1955 450-68-1709 1349 11i2$N FW M; -I /[ -
NEAGLE, Charles E. J134 462-82-7338 1349 ~ 11. 2 5 c.'" 'W 'M' "I f /["
'";* /f_[
NICil0LSON, Thomas L. K876 330-30-3561 1449' / 10.85 ' 'W M ,
OLIVAP'. Albert II. R157. 454-96-9603 1695 ' fiL0jE0$ JiS.A__ niYII /[__ __._
'~
U dS M,#I 463-08-6850 __1649 '10.50 E /J RAMER, . rankl_in 0. M789
- s -
.;.i 1696 10.20 - ,W . , H__
/J REOGATE. James 11. V937 036-40-7226 R0WE, Robert E. 7619 449-88-7992 1649 10.50 t W' M' itl
/3I- / -
- si s SANTI AGO, _Mariano, Jr. F570_ 463-08-2028 1695 10'50-
. SSA 'M -
/J _ _ .
l ~
Y TAllKERSLEY/ Billy L. R790 65.-103100 1649 10.50 W M I @ /J 1649' 10.50 i W- ..j li . N' /[ ~
Y, WILLIAMS,DavidA. F571 097-32-5415 ' ~
WilliflGilAM. (fary L. V523 459-06-3614
- 1749' 9 10 '
'W k IS'
- v. .
/-
')
- yyy -
, e.. . .. -
r
' ., ;. , .- f , , . .
+ e I ,, e
.i - mum as t 999 'T "* ^ ' " " ' '
t.Lnds duiswtf dittt i lin'own & Runt, l tic. ..'
'Y >
PERSONilEL TRAllllilG'UEPARiflENT..) $
, . .. r ,
s nior~ lng Training Group- Power Divlsfon .
'.. .:v' j
'P-CPM 6.9 PROCEDURES C' -
Class Hun 6er - pCGI-311-GT (1) * .- Location:
dus'.cTitle:.
,itructor. Doua Furr,, / '
llours Per Days Class Scheduled For _ Feb. 25 thru Feb..,.'.26.1980
] p g' . .. Social Security Job Class. Ilourly Code Race Sex 0 I Hanhours l
ilumbc r .llumhcr natc k,
COLEMAN, Fred E. 4409 452-64.-6486 35-1195 1395 11.25 W M _6 Y. DEllTON, John D. W929 413-56-1798 1349 11.25' W H \6
- .. FRAUST0, Ignacio W956 462-92-9661 1649 10.50 SSA M iS i, _ llENSLCY, Bob W503 464-82-7959 1696 _ 13 .2 0 W fl. .
IS g;,,,,,Il00PER,;rry _
W910 450-06-1950 1649 __.}0.50 W M 15
!. * , NORMAN, riicliael W. 451-86-8832 9.10 W983 1749 W'* M I? t Ii R0GERS, Johnny L. 5818 465-04-5830 1649 10.50 W M \S -
! STEWART, Noman K. W912 119-34-5226 1649 10.F0 W M 15 -
WILLIAMS, Billy D. W920 451-72-4390 ^ 1649 10.50 W M W' f.___ WILSON,WilliamR. W923 453-13-8705 1649 10.50 W M 16 -
- 3 -
4 3 '
' I . ._
- j' i
4 .
. .)1 . -
. s.
l s .
l . :. . .
.- A ,
.i .
l , .- : -
,; .; I 1
, __. , ,, ,, _ ,,,, .., _ . _ _ _ . . . . . . = _ . _ . . . _ . .
TSS 0,2 *.
5 APP 11eants'
. . TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.TIPANY Exhibit 80 OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM
,7, R. Tolson Glen Rose, Texas 3/11/80 subject CPSES TUGC0 SITE SURVEILIAUCE REPORTS , ,
I .
YourresponsetothefollowingTUGC0SiteSurveillanceReportshavebeenReviewed/
Rssurveyed and found satisfactory for closecut.
SSR: nce Theclosedoutsurveillancereport(s)willnotnor=allybedistributed. If a copy is needed, it cay be obtained by reg. eat from the undersigned.
m .e 9Y A l - 'E.V. Fleck TUGC0 QA Site Surveillance Supervisor cc: T. Vega, Dallas TUGC0 QA
.R. Klimist l
l l
l Fcra TSS-3 .
. , ..s.
..;,= , ............... '
, [ i
....i...>... .
. ~
C r o o A .*
vevw- . . H. . o.
.os=
T3 R_ T'1 er k From R.G. Tolson 6
SubjIct SSR-055 -
MESSAGE oate 3/6/ 19 so We have reviewed the above Surveillance Report and the records and have determined that the items are insignificant and no corrective action will be taken.
/7
.~,..x.
l signed A r'R3ET _ son y
REPLY Date 19 Signed vE.!.!.*.S. S.. ".t.3 RECIPIENT-RETA!N WHITE COPY, RETURfl FINK CCPY a co;pany a
h CPPA-4524 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. $$$"[
OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM R. G. Tolson ci,, %,, ,r,x.w May 2, 1980 p,
subject ~ COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 1981-83 23EO MW INSTALLATION RESPONSE TO SSR-057 .
f... ..
- .. . . :; :.W ~~u
.u wL w..
-. .. . n_ . .. ._. .. _
.w
., d. . ..a.:
- ,. 5,.
--N =.- .. a- .~
., , , : . J.4.e.,:.. .:....;
- ..z . ~_. .
-- ...- .--..,. u._....,......
. .~ ' u .. ". . . . . . - . . .
...._.. .. ;. v .
,=.
n:.. :- ._ _. ..._::
. .n
. .. .u.::.:.
The following is'provided in response to the subject report:
Deficiency 1 Corrective Action:
The drawings will be revised to reflect the as-built condition as identified in the traveler. This activity will be completed by May 9,1980.
Preventive Action:
The crafts have been advised by IM-18,991 that " generic" instal-lation is unacceptable for items designated for use in a particu-lar location unless the appropriate drawing / documentation changes are effected.
Deficiency 2 Corrective Action:
- . _ . . _x
- The traveler has been revised to show that temporary bolting y materials are installed. An operation has also been added to remove the temporary bolting material and replace with permanent bolting material.
Preventive Action:
CP-CPM-9.1, " Control of Temporary Materials", is being prepared to control the using, tracking, and replacing of temporary items
- with permanent items. Anticipated issuance is May 9,1980.
Deficiencyj l - Corrective Action: ,:- - - ~ : - ~ ::. -
1 ,. ..- --=.-- n .- .-. = . .. . ~ .
. - * . - v -
_. .,. .c;r:A
. . . . _ .e. s i. _*_'
. _ " _= --= - D Thei'h
'y. ifcrmaticn:C.nly" copy. ba_s. been- replaced-byPCcntrolled::
r.....
--C. _..opy_.nt tne drawang,cz. _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ __. ... . _. _
__ # - 2rAvfr&iyeJ cticin_ :-- n - 27 w,._:,._ ,_,.r. q. .j 2.2 5.;cg...c. ,._....f
_.- - . . _..;. a .
w .-
-- -- - -A misunders tanding -between QC and the Craf t Superintendent allowed - .
-:-the.use of="Information Only": deawings.;in. traveler.paciages m.;Ihe.;; . . _- . ._-.. _
ii.w ,_2.;:.=.;:.;:n.=w..
ri.::~ .c .r .:..e: - ,. .: = .w- :.z._:.
.-- -, _- : ..: . n . . . : .m.
. : ., . , =. w._. ..:c:._
..:_ w :. ~c.
.w ..
~ --. . .=_ .:a. ~ = .o -= -v FNS~?-i*=*-7 t.u.- d.*.'Wd "'Ts**d'UE'hhd C. ::M-if' '..P>--4W62 '. . -IJ- hhit:-N:1.*..*It;-ti :::!C's-g '
s=.'.',' .,,.$:.$.... .. u. ., g. . . .. .-4 Q. - . ;.u. . .:.;,:.=%:[:~. .. ;.~~.M~iy ,M 2 ';;#~.:- .Wi =~=. -.*~. .' .. .f. .=.'. .~'. _ .'.*. . ~;, ..._:.4._.;:4;
. - , . . .. . p . . :;;- - .
7 - - . .._., . .. .._. . w.t.- . . s-y; .-.g.w.m.
~ ,. , .;g-
. : _ ,...,3.. ,_...m ,_. _ w _. , e _. .;...~ , -:-..=....,. ,..,...~..-v._*
._,-.-,......3_._.:..._..
d.' ; .;,~.4*;",
- T.,, iM.7 ~ - - -MD.2:;-- - ---. %*Y- . , g 2.
'CWN&;';_ ' *.._%***si r.,,, _T " ** W'"- N*t,,T*_"*_**"7.:- _2 l
l -
4 - _
r
. ,. . , . . . .w
. . ,. ..~..y w
. . . 7..,M%;. . .
CPPA-4924 May 2, 1980 ... ..
....=:n L R....
Page 2 . .- ,
se. . . .. . -
- f*
. . . - . . . . . . .. .. .. ~ . . . ...
. - . .- ./
W:Cra f t Su e ri ntenden.t. .ha s. r.e..v.i se d. .t.h. i s..r. 9.t.h..o. - .- . . - d. .of . prep.a. r.i n..q,'.trav41 ers ,~:?.T . -' -..~. . *.
.c . . . .-. . . < s.:-~ a n .
wtll"i.nc.hdm
- .n on1 v. qon.trolle.d o conj q.se-The..pu.t.s. .t. A. ndi.ng.'..trasele.rsw"
. r:W.. ;e "
- - -will be reviewed and controlled-drawings enclosed as necessary.
This review will be completed by May 9,1980.
. . .e -
p
$ V. _ A
- 1. .
R.'G."Aebb Resident Manager -
RGW:JPC:te cc: ARMS OL D. C. Frankum lL P. Foscolo lL G. Tanley ll R. V. Fleck ll
- --'e- v.=p.rt;
' m=">.f_-..- -*=~
+ - .e - - t-
. .a.c. *M..-
e., .. =.*.,
e---
m .a , . _ . . . . . .
p-J. .zu .
.- .~. . . . pr - ~=:. .m::: =. .:." , ..&.%-- -.
.-_.._.r....,.-_ - . . . , .- . ~ _ w___--
s.J. . . . . e. . . :. -
.,..,m,
_ _ . -_. .. _ . _ . . . _ . . _ _ _ . _ . ..g . . .-_ -- - - .
.-. .._._.u__. .
~
- 2. . b . . . w. . <.
w .... .- .P::
2_- - - -. . ...-..: . . =. -_ T. : -'^-__=-.=."c. .. -.
- , . . w .-
.e .. .ss .7. =_r . . .
. ~
---% : z." L ~ , . = 9, : -- - -M. .~,.,. '
___ . _[_ . .- ___._ __ _ _ - - - - - .:----- ^= ' -- - . .=s-
-._~.i....,>._.'_.=....-__.-_..-;.3._--=-;.
. _- ., j- y-===-- - . .
=_ -
__m . . . .
=_-
--_ ---. ._-__---_=- .-
_= .- - ; - --
- . .: .:. : . 6.- . . ' * ; .:.L.:} 5.
.v......
e....-_
, m. w . . _. -....,....,,_...,n.. p.
._._ . _ . . w ..-. . . ...-. . _ - ... ~. .
m . , . _
w
__.~ .- r., .u ..n. ...
- .;;.c~.,,. w. .
...s...m.- - ww
---,.y,.
.......~ ... u. ..n , g..w a.m.
=.:c_
- n - -- 1, : - --w. .: :. . . . _~.- .
s%-
.a;:.v. o -n..
- 2. = _--- =c .
_. _ - 1 . a. .:- . .
. h. ,
m...,u.r.;
.- - . ss. . -mar.e- ~_.
1
..1.mn
,'A. ,.:%.
t aa.:a'mm cz -_ .
.sw.en=s.i.e-< -- --
- -aswv n.swe.==
. . - sus *w. .,.a..v. _.m.,2: f'- . '
., . c.... . . .
, ;;gh.u=- . . ._
wr- - -c_1W 6 ......,,.,...
. c _ .. - .._.,...u___.- . . . . . . . . . . .. .
....r M-~ii.i;-C-J.
.. . ...- - -~ .
s . . . .. .
.u. _o,g6 g,e..
.g,.,. .. .
__p... .n.. ,,.,.g _.-. ;.g y.m
.a.-...., - , . , _ ,.,Jh
,..,,,rs -vew .,.. a- - n.s ..e.
. A. m . g.W w . . m. , . . , ., .
- w ,- w . - . -
.r...--- .n
..r .wr ----
.-s ~ . r n a .r.r=w.e r a..s _.a..-/=w w .w
_--c-- c.,m.zm a; s.r u.e - = - - _ _ _ .
u
- .___.___-_.__ _.r-
_ .:- ww ==g%..i.- n a 2; . 2. . -~ . . . .-..--.;- : - - _ _ .
m I -' - -m s m- &_ _m_ g- x, xMs_g . o_ _
- ~..- w ., ..
w . .
'. .XAS UTILITIES SEINICES INO ' -
2 CPPA-5347 orriCE MEMOR ANDUM To R. G. Tolson g; ,.n n,,,,., .r. um June 9, 1980 Subject COMANCHE _ PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC _ STATION 1981-83 2300 MW INSTAL' ' TION REVISED RESPONSE TO S d57 .
REFERENCE:
CPPA-4924 ,
Deficiency 2 of the subject response stated that the travelers would be revised to reflect that' temporary bolting materials were installed.
Instead of revising the travelers, the temporary bolting materials were removed. Please revise your records accordingly.
) $
R. G. Webb Resident Manager RGW/JPC/jb cc: ARMS OL !"
I l
mQ W % 9 m b9 " b
= .
e
- s. ',. .g e , ,, * .
... . w -~: ; ., :.. .s
- --i 7. r - . . ~= c.:n l.~' ~- ph.--
.u .
- - v p
- -i.+-+:- -
.s..
. .. , ,-*q,'*-
. . y. . %, ; .* ' . . . .L.. ,I.*. ,**.
- l*.;.*...'.*
, ..-*y . '= , ,j', ' (,.[*.'., * * ' ..-g, ;
, ,,f" .g~*.., , , e.
- Y L .*. , ,.
^
-.. a.. . .:. . .. ;'- .r. : : -. . . . , . .
< ..; . ;y :.: .. ,.--
..- . - - +~c . r.. ' . A::
- r... ... , .. . :. 2.l>: .:'- s .
e 6
. ( (
een.st* **.ewee e .ee.se se .see . escovees essee posee e***** 2795 ca + Brown & Root,inc.
P.O. BOX 1001 GLEN ROSE, TEXAS 76043 i
.y, - . ,.y---- _- ,, , .. .
g,,- ,c-.. . -. --
. > og i . :*'r t iV,i. . -V., , , . -p j .g, ,.",y ;..l,
~<. ' As.' .r '
a..;
., y ji . . - . g ._ * ' - * * -
.,,s hgM79.
I?N.bb,iu)39.M.yx. S'l'.".4." Q. ' e.r.:
. .m., ,b"?.i' n.4w._..gmy.m.:
h y u ?/ f uc'+." $If..hb,5,P--f.g, *.'*. -srig;h..w< ' S,;h ,Ckh,1/.$bNb f ',-,b.g. .N,y,$y,,- N M. h w y;g[. , -,..~.-
n 't.,g
,N 9 w. 7.y. .~ :. v; .
c .n .
Tal R, LECK ""
~~ -
.SEFl 3SWD57Td.fu2VA L_ .J DATE
~
/b~ '
.-.f. 'd05f- 0.0.7 Of SSg OS*7 /.S .
h/95fD ON 77Jd AC770NS 7~74KfN
~ - . . . . . - -
}?,V foA/ SMUG 70N 7D GD2 Mfd 7~ ~
v?ve 7=cccxxcuN4--D,crictrwc/ES:.- --.
25f~$t--TMyy($ 7 JwfS 7.1.ruco 7D.-.Docu&EN2~ "AT Bw.L7* "
.-Sw 2~ suppo r2 r Lo C4 -rioN S-
~ DES A62 =7"EMP. Dl73 tuderR&w:20
~ ~ ~
- l - - -- ,<;wD . cs .d./2/ p - 9. /,."dDM 77?cl. of
- Temp, /14 r/*di.4-c.r'* /JS u AD.
1
- 3_ .sMa.of cop.ic.s . .....os= D w ds.. -
h .
..D. EF.- - .
tvg/24.-BSPt.Acap sci 77,t . c:op/21 .- ...
con 7720 U Bo P/zA? O c P - R / & ts / 0 ' #
_ P s N o m & J.
m Lo YA BY X M SIGNED
- .... . ~ . -
q .
.. . . .,.- ... ~... . .::
. . . .. .r... . ;u. , _ ..
Wn
.:isu';m:.m=17ey 7;:emm un::'- '% - - --
.,e. v. .e. . ..c. .u.,s. :. ..,m. ..-9A.,w..,s. w ag cirea. :%.% % p.i:m .d . g--T, .mia . =.<.~.r. n. e-.
.s%, y&M.m.k.:.:a:~M.W10.~.2r.%.
. .%. .. Wc.;.y4:,:i M.m. . .. . .:..s..m.w.,t.mmmn.
. ..~v- . . .
%. > .n
- s M H i m in @
- .;e&Hrstiw:.w.
M 6EN ;":1W" . .:
. . . . as..
w.. . . . .
~~ ~-
p... , ..:; . . < , . .~ . . . ~ . . s. ~ - .< : s; .- -
-
- w ,. ; .
, .ri- g
35-1I95 APPlicenta'
- w. 4/17/80 Exhibit 82 D)NnCTRoot.ine.
INTEROFFICE MEMO ,
TO: R.V. Fleck DATE: April 17, 1980 FROM: J.P. Clarke. III
SUBJECT:
Response to SSR-059 The discrepancies noted in the subject report resulted from a conflict between CPM 6.3 and CPM 6.9, ICN #16, paragraph 3.7.2. This paragraph of CPM 6.9 in effect took ex-ception to paragraph 3.6 of CPM 6.3 in that it did not consider base plate changes or the use of ABRF's as revisions to the traveler. Furthermore, it permited work without QA/QC review. The travelers in question were properly handled in accordance with the procedural requirements.
However, CPM's 6.3 and 6.9 do conflict. To preclude recurrence, CPM 6.3 will be re-vised to allow other procedures to address preparation, review and control, of Opera-tion Travelers as appropriate for the circumstances. It is anticipated this revision will be completed 5/2/80.
. / &
4kP. Clarke III Senior Staff Engineer JPC/cin
.cc:
H.Z. Goodson P.F. Foscolo D.C. Frankum R.G. Webb
g.a
, ICH #16 to Rev. O Sheet 16 of 77 'li PROCEDURE ISSUE BROWN & ROOT, INC. NUMBER REVISION JAGE TE CPSES JOB 35-1195 CP-CPM 6.9 0 10/6/78 131-a
- 6. Theroutingofthetravelerpackageasdetailedabhve.shallbe statused in a control log. This status log shall s~erve as the -
drawing control log so that in the case of a Rawing revision, the traveler package may be located immediately and the hew draw-ing or design change inserted into the package.
ICN #6 7. All the applicable requirements of References AAA and BBB shall
- be met for adequate control of the drawings in the traveler packages. .
3.7.2 When component support base plates cannot be installed in accord-ance with the drawing bolt pattern, the Pipe Hanger Superintendent may make. changes under the following conditions:
- 1. An alternate base plate is fi1 stalled in.accordance with the criteria provided by CPSES Engineering. "
ICN 015 -
- 2. The "as built" plate configuration and Hilti Bolt ir.stallat- ;
ions are documented in accordance with instructions on an ,
"As Built Record Form". (This form will be provided by the >
Pipe Hanger Superintendent and attached to the pipe support '
traveler only when the drawing bolt pattern cannot be met.)
NOT5: The provisions of I and 2 above do not constitute a revision to the traveler and can be implemented without prerequisite action byithe ANI or QA/QC, 3.7.3 Hanger material that has been lost or damaged after being cut and assigned to a support may be replaced by the following methods with-out a CMC provided it was not a welded member: .
- 1) The responsible craft foreman shall complete a material requisition to replace tiel lost or damaged item. The MR
..8CN #16 shall contain sufficient information for the Misc. Fab Shop to fabricate the piece of material, and shall indicate the disposition of the original piece. The Fab Shop on the strength of the MR shall fabricata the replacement material.
The QC Inspector in the Fab Shop shall review the MR and piece fabricated and signify his acceptance by. signing and *
! dating the MR. The field QC Inspector should attach the MR to the data package when the . replacement piece is installed. [
- 2) Alternatively, the responsible craft foreman may return the -
component support data package to the Fab Shop. The Fab Shop QC Inspector will line out the-sign-off on the bill of mater-
- ials in the normal line entry manner and add the replacement ,
item,on the bill of material indicating that the original -
n item was lost or damaged and an acceptable replacement piece was reissued. .This entry shall be documented in the normal manner, H
- h -- ,
l +
i . . . . . . , . . . .
. t) tal.4.nJ.W...kdls.sia.l.u +/aa.a:.i .ds.i .....s..sil .la;a;.aa.s wn-h991iCCntC*
c - n Exhibit 83 upced LyA_r o Page 1 of 2 T3 Ron Fleck 1 From R.G. Tolson
=
' r subnet--SSR-062 -
l MESSAGE ' cate 5/6/80 3, Listed below are the responses to the above site sarveillance report - 062.
Dsficiencies No. 1, 2(sic), 3 & 4 (Requirement 4 #1)
D2f.No.1\- No response required.
Def.No.,2 - This matter has been docuitsated on NCR-2241 and will be resolved per existing CF5Es procedures tor noncontorming items.
Def.No.3 - Apparently-as the result of verbal discussions, CPSES Engineering
~
' directed-constructio ote ra-ava *ba ta par'ry hnle= nw Apv41 o logn via a speed letter. :Tha generic issue of temporary installations is-being-oddressed--in-precedure CP-CPM 0. ' = chad" lad Far 4eena nn or before May 15,1980.
D:f.No. 4 A design deviation such as is delineated in DCA 3949 is not wAtnin nK (Requirement, scope of responsibility, and therefore would not normally require reporting No. 2) under the aegli of our nonconformance reporting system. Only in cases where a design-related nonconformance is identified by B&R, such as the j inability to install an item or for in unacceptable or indeterminate Signed REPLY Date 19
. . . .m Signed WHson Jone3 Company CAT.M.'41'* RECIFIENT-RETA!N WHITE CCFY, RETURN PINK COPY
..- .5 S5R-062 Response Continurd Pago 2 of 2 Def.No. 4 (Requirement No.2)
~ conditions. In the case in point, this condition was acceptably resolved in accordance with Owner / Engineer procedures. .
h -
CP-QAP-16.1 is being revised to more accurately reflect thi scope of Brown & Roots responsibility and authority.. . Current projected issue date is June 1, 1980.
A/
R.C. Tolson TUGC0 Site QA Supervisor i
l l
! I r
(
te e7*mo u"mu's$ ~ l
Applicanto' TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY Exhibit 84 OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM
., . 7 n s R.X
,f,,F1,ech~, Glen Rose, Texas 5/29/80 To
- Subject 'SSR-064 i
In response to the subject surveillance report, we have evaluated the matter and have determined that the original determination by both the craf t and QA personnel was sound and consistent with our requirements.
Accordingly, the base procedure CP-CPM-13.1 will be revised to permit judgement evaluations to be accomplished (probably by Quality Engineering).
Since we are not aware of a significant problem, the target date for accomplishing the procedure revision is July 1,1980.
/
dzw R.G. Tolson CC:
J.R. Ainsworth P. Foscolo
-- Applicants' Exhibit 85 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM !
R. Fleck Glen Rose, Texas Y '
subject SSR-066 i
The following is a response to the above surveillance report.
Deficiency No. 1:
Response: Records for cpl-CCAPCC-02M are retrievable and all pages in the package are accounted for.
Deficiency No. 2:
Response: A "td.ckler file" for follow-up action by all discipline f QC Supervisors will be initiated immediately to preclude the noted deficiency from repeating. -
Please refer also to CP-OP-17.C. Rev.0 for additional followuo action, l
hR6.Tolson /
h TUGC0 Site QA Supervisor I
1
~
PROCEDURE ! ISSUE i NUMBER REVISION PAG""
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO ; ; DATE i CPSES 1
l CP-QP-17.0 Rev. o , 3/12/80 i 1 of 2 ^!
! I PREPARED BY:
CORRECTIVE ACTION J
~~~/e.w e " 8 d #.f) l DATI:
APPROVED BY: ,, g~ -
.J ((fp D4 fE l
1 1.0 R_EFERENCES
[] ; ,.
None ,
- $ ffl 2.0 GENERAL l
2.1 !
PURPOSE AND SCOPE i
I This procedure outlines the methods utiltzed by the TUCCO Site QA Staff in reviewing constructton dericiencies l i
and nonconformances for the purpose of proviiling corrective action to preclude repetition of sir,nificant conditions adverse to quality. The scope of this proci" hire encompasses safety-related construction activities a t CI'SES that are '
reported as deficient or nonconforming and which may require corrective action.
I
,2. 2 RESPONSIBILITY l
The Quality Engineering Supervisor is responsible for the evaluation of the need for corrective action in a systematic, timely and effective manner, generally as outlined herein.
3.0 PROCEDURE 3.1 BASIC ACTIVITIES '
I The Quality Engineering Staf f is rout inely involved in the I following basic activities:
i l
1 Fm n 2 TUGCC CA
- PROCEDURE REVISION ISSUE PAGE NUMBER DATE TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.
CP-QP-17.0 Rev.0 5/'2/80 2 of 2 i
a.) Review of derIctencies and nonconformancesfdocumented on Nonconformance Reports, Field Deficiency Reports and Inspection Reports.
b.) Frequent discussions with cognizant QC personnel, c.) Monitoring of selected Construction Activities.
d.) Review of Field Design Changes /Devinttons.
The results of these activities form the basic background data for evaluating conditions which may require corrective action. Where feasible, the evaluation results are tracked using trend analysis techniques as an objective method of ascertaining the need for corrective action.
3.2 REPORTING Periodic reports (at least quarterly) shall be prepared and submitted to the Site QA Supervisor. These reports shall summarize the areas reviewed and provide recommandations, where appropriate, for conditions discovered which are considered to be significant.
I '
i TUGco CA
,m, 3 1
i
4 Applicants' Exhibit 86
-. _ . _ . . . .. . . . . _ _ . . . . _ . . . _ . . .TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY w
T.C E ,- _ M O R A N D U M _...-... . ... . :a_:._
. w .:. . . . . ~ . . . .. . .
,.G. - .A, .,=, n.. ._. . ._
u.. __. ._. . ._, . . . . a.w. :~ _ . _._. . .~_, a, _.w .O.nF y .,. %. ..
-. = .. . -...a . . m. = . _m,
._ . ,s.m
. .n u .
- c. , .. . ; M r.. .
4, ...a:mm ).- +c, . .: .a. .., . s.;mq.
, , . .: ..m To R. Tolson Gien Roae. Texa. 5/28/80 . . .. L.
.._... , - - - v. . . ; a me.ga:,w,F
- ?
4'>
A. .n.ma d. .x.m. n.r p.a. . :s.-.-
. .. . . - . . x...:. ...r.,....ww. ,, . ..
Suba.ct c o. c. e s -
M
. .. .n--., . .... . . .TUGCO..-S . . . ._ A. n .S.U. RV. .T L A.NC= . ?..=..oO R*2 S .
. n . . . . . . _~. ., .-..-
... .. . :m. .. .. a, ,:.' :
. +
.... . . . . t. -
... . . . . .~. ..
. tour response to the/follcwing TUGCO Si e Surveillance '.W
~
Report has been reviewed / resurveyed and four.d satisf actory
~
' ' M-for closacut: .. . . . . .
,. ..a
.m. ..:,
&r <.
.. .k.g: ..u %., . W5Qj.:;% . t..--. - . . . .
- .a. r s:.u. r.
. ; . .,: e. w ...-+,,. :,.,W "" .; . e."
.-_. _.,,m* S. S'.~R.067
,,m.. ~-n,..,.
.,.: . . - .. .. .. . .~_. .- ,. .y
. . . ~ .
. . . ~ . ... .. . . . . _ _ -
.. . -.. .w. w.w.. . . . .
. - . - ... _ . .. w.
- The closed outQSur.ve.. i1l .m ..,-ance Report (s) will not normally ..W. ..
. be,redistributedy!dIfka;ccpy is needed, it may be obtained ~ -.N
=: ";
. _. .. _ ..,.,......_.......m by reques t~ fro,e9.t.h.,._.eI.u,n_,d, .m.,. w ._- e'r..s igned at Exter.s ion 5 6 8. . ._.
- m. .
. . . . ..m....
-w.*.-
n
._. m. s
=W, w,w w=~
~_
.y m..,ca ..,..ff. m .a y
...s .cs.# .
...r
. . ..e.s . ; .-
?. e':u _cs.t
. :.. 7...' < .rama eg ::, .t-: .. pp, } q -
x
- .- <-:. x,.e. -. w ..
y e laeg-
+. . 4 n.vyw . ; .
. r. .
- e.ae a...,
.2,.......
. :;%- 2 TUGCO Site Su::veillance ue ervisor
, , , . .,s .?.:. - *
- J. . .
..4 4. ,....p., . p;.;;;"
, . ....s..-
..y.. . .y. ...
c.w 9 3 , # .
- ,4 .y..
-..a . r.. -... .) ..kdyf. lq.*Wp. ,.m- -. .
..a.-. Os -se pp n, -
nbv.sc.G. .J . 4.r
.-.r. .w.mm.-
y; .
..,e.. ,. - .. .
.....~..;,.a......y.w+_...._.h...~,..w .m.
- e. ~ .. . ... ,. -
,, . . .. . . _ . . . . . . . .- .r.
' ~+$ 6F .~ CC,;.-T. VegaA DallasPIUGCO QA .
, awi.
- ;. n.. R Ih. .ms . t .:.:33j3mm..~ .cr.: - . . . .
. . #. e
.a. u.d. w.. . .
.. . -._ - , e . ~ . 2 .
...,. ,...J,&y;* .
.... ..>~ . ~ , w :- .r ..se;.t:p s T.
p.s *.
- c r
%i' .
r- * . *
...~
u . . -.
- ;r:, .%*
w ;.'a
-r . .
., . . . ..in *u p z,
..a,
, .e - .. . ,r4 w .. . sp .r e; u,-%. ,_ . s. ,.
- . .. : e: -- -
- 9. m.. . * .. x.-.~.q: =pe.r wy,% . - - - - - . - ,.
f98 .,
. . m. . .> - <.v. p ;. mg. -5 ,, .w._. o.= , r; f q q.ew,c ..-. ~. -- g..,.~ .~et,
.....y.-.v....
..i.
....,;;.-_......aru-----. .. s
...f_-% +
..n.v.--...~............,.. . .,:. a: . ...,s . w ;. . .
~. .N W.-.w'* Q ta ..
m...w yg-=w..n.s. .. . w .
..~,,=w ;-, m. .-.. . . .,.. . - - . . . ~ _ . -..t... . .
. . . * . Tw . y ls. ,e=%;,,s .~ ' . .- . .
N.. .,1&..v..) '.... :*._%. $.. $.g***$$E.hO$..
. 1 m 5N&.,.,,$.!5,e%n& a. s. .sYl$.EW .... .... ...
- 5
% ;... . . 2. .: .: n.
_. _.'.. .'. . . . }. %".:.
. '~ - 1. - ~~.,.~~,:m3p.:wsw.m,me
-ed . 4?E'Y' W na.
www , ..- . w. y -
u.
.m r, w r.; w m ~.: g v-w.n.w .:yb ' *% .~.~.wm>::,..s
.;.e.' ,rt v -.a.-
-c.
_ 7e wwn Y*^r.
.. n,._~. .r s . 3 M.p.rwu .m rA. n.Hn u=c.tv.;.o.p.rx.M , .w.n .:.. . .n.~ s- v,.s . -,.- pv.v*.~
-- - e .
- g. -
+ .
- r-:
.m
- n s. n. . ..w -
.: e . g . . . _ .-r wr - - sw-m;; :.
J -J M . ** ' '%2,b e.. . .
. . . . - - XA_ _
- y. ,.r: . : .:-%l e
'-s-,fym
,y, .'.hoP.......<.
.y, ::.. .
e s.
es
. 6 * .
.. Tp . . . -
~. ...
. p-L..a arp #.. ..g ;,.
..n . y n - a,,vs.*-*.=-s
. .g.
- ,,.f.w.
. ut ,., w&
-.W
= .
v fg$. y...g .* :.WE
- W* * ** .* ? * .s ., W.,
f g
,3.d.g..o ; %. ,*eh.w~ ,. %-
.. .t.
-Q.WtN ytt
, , ^
'_. . _?.s{^*'Q. .@sy.. J. . 4u.' ,., L_s.+r 4 .r. _e R. .,".'.1.Rs. :. ~ . r-. _ r' .'.u_q,, .t.a,. e s [, cvq. s.
s -=e M; .. . .a. .
@ ....r
.. s g. .w,, W. . r. s. t *..u!..-V.n h* '
W%._
2n t.:..:.u .
e ...< W
. a.,
.u: r.t.y . . .
W.e .
.r..
=.%,s
. ; z %. q=.u. .:.N.. ;.~m.. . .<.'.?.s.. ..
[' h.hs . S
..thi t . & ff'Q*Q .
Npi; @v.w,~W.g.i'.%,M ffjf%,T,K..4~'v :. M . ~ l.,i=.
- . 'M % .. .q -m Q. .~ %*
'A- %% Tjuj?. '
s .. ,ks-$,M,.Q. 6.p; 4
& p.N W;* y g.
n,4,d. u. um %n m AM.M.,.*
~ gA. w 4.-4. yew"hsr S.W.i
.m. y 40s'Ng w - i@ .' we
.p4 1.%..W.yn - -%~, c.. g;*;JC .9s .a %.sy:".$.
s . . .-fi#. e. ' C,4. ,.%c
.w w. p._ ,..a..a. h. .o,.w?n"'M.. c A- .%.A.u.. ',..W: . % @w- %c
- ~q.. n. um. . re,., .,.s. ..c- . . ~ .
.. o. ,x. .-
. , . M. , . , hote *. R .
. . ...c.
.,. w x..y* w v
.,,4 v ,w-
..~.-
- J-- p.
p+,v-. . c.,~. .i 4- - .
- mN_ .M e e%, --. . u ,%g,---~ 6 :va. ..m . T. ..,..;@ 4.4 c. :c.,N.c,
. -m--- ,JM.m ~
e m_.;,.~._.s..~.m.:. a g ; w : , ..y qmw..
..;:. .ar s
/*1 ~ . . .
4, e.wN=. . . _ . .
.,y y,m . m_ m.b ~ ._.
w ~ ..;e +.. w -- t.*-a .__ e.p.. . -au-
-;m# u u . -- . -. ** ~ ,r. . .. ~_ .. .ai ~.--+ .e.'.v- tm, ~ .s. e.~. : ; v.~.. :.- n. . .w-.v.a* . _m . --v.M.-, ,. -s. ~D. ..-..-3....* .h. .. .- .- .q 91-av-s-x.
{%. . .m- -~'S f.* =*T.n' F,v.M .y,m.n.5J =*L r, v.m . - -6 6. harwh.n:.s. s 5f:'*=.'-A*y.. m:w.m n M .-: - - S4 .:- .-.; =.
....' ~ ,. w' . ....*.r4.s**.a
^
+ . . . . ,c. .
.- g u +. .
.r..r v G.:. . e m:. . -. .. .
.. .~. M.w u.
TQQW .
s.'. :.',.r;% , p.;; 1. ,,u,. w .
w a ~ . _,,,,_m_ _. . . . a.v. .,: ..
..?, -
w
...__..._...w..,..a._.~._c. n.,,. n . <
4' m r
- cs.)- .t ? .M . :: ~n- w n .'
-,a.. . = .
..-.x, -- v-- ..., , . _. ~ , . .----...w;...
W-~ vere ... p ,,?..s~
I
. .- w o . #. . .,.; .m.c. c.r.,>.,. W W.c.:.
.w -- --.=--^
h?....r'~?r u.
5pe=.4, .g;+r7:c.z; yew >.n.
i
., n-___.,.w an;,y--.W' w<M. :. . u...
,,. . .. . . ; ~......w.a...,.
~ . . n. a..w.. :. ..,. . n w-
. .a .v.. ,. : %_ ., A. .
r A.<r
.Wm....n.w. . ... h -
- m. ,.
L*p w wn*?.u,?
t _
..mr :,:;n.c.g;w.::::. M:. w-~.wr ,;w=.. ~ :mec.~ . '~, . . . .. . . . m.r. .s ; . v . :,: r, s mw .
- c. .m.....s . .2.
.y.fru. s., i.,.;.a.
- 4 .. . . ,.. . . . .. . .v.. _ _, . .
......a
.. .. .. w _- .., + _*.Tn. ..
%'u. . . - .
- W,..
.. u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
.~.c .+ t.*w .
i . r)';
t # . . .
Nt *Own T w *m"r*e .a ag..g . .v
- w--*s.
.w. t * .*y e d'..-L .e. s,r.n.
'* . - .~_ '
.,.4..st ,..
':.*#,'%....*em.**.=,-..
- 6. ..- ..,.4
..'-y.Way.-'.*--:*--*=**
.. .-a.a.r
. ? *?=
. . . . =. a.e-<-=-...f
.v s.es.,v.- =. . -- -
, ,s.
-.e.%.- '
,.....*.=........,,m......?
.w.; ,
..e.- . . .
.nm
.a.b. '.--p.-
- --i.4.M.'t
.' . h
.2
=
M**=*M.%
- c.AcQ *:.1: ,6v_.nw i.:.u ::.=n.m.:.c www
, >-e._m....rgr,,.,... n. . :.___._ 'M.ra -. na ?.r.:. .. . __ . ..: . . .a.; w :r:..__ 1. . . ,.~ u .e.t ..
La*er4.g:Prar ge e_u_m_we ._pa_,a_r._ _-_e . ,.
9,, .
u, , r. .,%,,,s maman v .,sw.4 . <e r v . 3. uowa..s a ,s_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . t_. . -
sa .
N'U*^'.~.-. **T* '. .e==.*r.- *. , . - -
s.resy ,,7 M.
,.9EWT,J.M.=d,C.*.F.
,* =. ;
W**t..'
4* "'W.a.W.1.*
y_. f T=.,h. ' t3. r*.,m=;rge.e.=,up+"*r*."T*
- p. .
,.a.,, .
, ., , , . . , ... ... . . , _ es.'.seM.,**'"*ts**r%..-".*=*"'.*e
- y ..
.. ..- ...-a.. ve. sr. -eg,,ry.avyr .......- .. s -
f .ft-*v..spp-amer i n .7.r e.-- . . . - .
- .- . =_
--.wwez-. .-m...+
. a a.,mara . .m .
- 8 5;gJ.7. 'Ap-, - T-~w-?v.n- . - - - - wrv -..t. . - ?w . . ~.-a-- . . .
.=s..%,. ...a..r. .
. . .p.- . . . , . ,- . < .
e.,d_ .,
- t s .. . . .
. ~ . - . . . . . .
L..sf; .. . .:. .. . __. ... , . . _ . . . . . .'
t
. = -sw' .* mi . . _ .,, : .
i : *-st . ..o. . . . . .
. .~_:,.
.. *d ... : . _.... . . _ - . . .
rs ..
,t
. . , . . . e.
g
! - W FORM Tss:4 .. J ..';.: .S .- '.
V .a. . w . .
! e , ,,
. .. . _ - ~ . . _ . . . . .. .. . _ _ . . _.
vy.~ - - - -
~- . .
'-..i.--
.. ... . - v . . . . . . .
,- , - _- _ . , , - . -,-g.w..#.- . _ _ . _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ , _ _ , - . , - , . . _ , , . _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ . ,
g,. -..w w w-.
D TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM
! To o_ Flech Glen Rose, Texas 5/15/30 Subject Site Surveillance Report -067 h ,
The B&R QA Personnel Training Manual does not apply to." installation" of components, and only applies to pressure boundary activities performed by inspection personnel.
The basic intent of the training requirements can be understood through-review of CP-QP-2.1 and the philosophy expressed in the attached memo from the QC Supervisor, which is endorsed by this ffice.
'R.d. Tolson TUGC0 Site QA Supervisor i
i 1
l l
l
> G:
e, .
- TEXe,\S IITil.lTIES GENI'. RATING CO.h ANY OFFICE MI:i;olt A NiiU M R.G. Tolson ,
c: ce. I t. .w. T..us ' '! l / H U
.N llB 41'l G
I I recognize the requirement for certification of inspection personnel who are performing inspections of special processes i.e. NDE, Welding, and etc. and I also recognize the interpretation by all parties of the Training Program Certification requirements and intend to conform with this interpretation.
liowever there is a limit as to the extremes that the inspector certifi-cation can be carried. Therefore I intend to use my best judgement in drawing a line on where certificatf ora are required.
All sign-of fs noted on subject surveillance report are of a naturn that did not require any special skills on training and therefort I feel were valid witness and/or monitoring verifications by em? l oyee in question..
w _. . 3
?r,. m.f . . .
((/J.V. llawkins Sr. QC Supervisor
,SS R -Q(, f i S C0swdeA co' C Lo s c. be. sed. on 7$e l Ra r pmgeupL om r2., mw o.
f YO
Applicants' 35-1195 Exhibit 87 ,
BrownURoot.!nc. 5-28-80 I f
INTEROFFICE MEMO : ,
T0: Ron Fleck DATE: May 28, 1980 FROM: Rose M. K11 mist
SUBJECT:
CPSES, Job 35-1195 Response to Site Surveillance SSR-068 It is recognized that on the dates noted in the subject records, work was completed and signed by Mr. R. Ice as a precursor to acceptably qualifying for his certification as a QC Level II Mechanical Inspector under the appropriate QC supervision. His subsequent certification with-in days of this work in addition to a continuous high performance level, clearly demonstrates his qualification for the work performed; therefore, such work can be accepted "as-is".
The travelers and other documents noted in the subject surveillance report were found in Mr. Ice's personnel training file as back-up docu-mentation for his certification. No reference has been made to the actual
~ '
rigging traveler files, which would have seemed appropriate under the cited conditions.
l l
& /-
/4 se M. Kli is
/wl} -
te Quali y1ss ance Manager RMK/LEW/pb
~
cc: R. Ice Personnel File '
T. Vega, Dallas TUGC0 QA R. Tolson
- s'
35-1195 Appliccnts' 5-22-F;0 Exhibit 88 pn., - g k fl.9fft l $ & [d $' N A
?t26% - 'd Ym ' Sc C&~4 zs
*f
,p fpwecA 41 e46> ~< 3
- k w Off,- - wD /*
May 22, 1980 -
/ /
T0: Ron Tclson/Ron Fleck OATE. :
f' -
g p ~.g t.A' A a y
FROM: R. M. Klimist ,
SUBJECT:
CPSES, Job 35-1195 j Y9.) !d h SSR-70 The.following are Brown & Root QA responses to the subject surveil-lance:
Answer: Deficiency #1, Finding #1 QC field personnel do not have access to Gibbs & Hill . composite drawings. Stem orientation of the three subject valves is cor-rect per the current BRP. CMC-34676 changed the stem orienta-tion of valve ICC-067, and all work has been accomplished in accordance with this CMC. Engineering is writing CMC's to change the stem orientation on valves XCC-058 and XCC-059.
Answer: Deficiency #2, Finding'#f Both valves were installed per earlier revisions of rtrawing SW-1-AB-011 and S'il-1-AB-002. QC's responsibility is to verify proper fabrication and installation of items to the drawing, procedure and specification that is " current" at the time of installation or fabrication. Verification of changes given on subsequent drawing revisions is the responsibility of Engineer-ing and Construction; if no further installation / fabrication is done, QA/QC does not perform an 'ad hoc' design review.
37 th 1
l Answer: Deficiency #T,' Finding #1 This deficiency will be corrected by supplementing location in-formation in the data package describing the installed location.
Answer: Deficiency #2, Finding #2 h - ' The travelers listed were in-process, i.e., in QA final review e<. c and were neither in, nor had they been sent to, the Vault.
l.
l w.- It should be understood that the purpose of OA final review is to search each document within a package to assure conformance
- to applicable documents. A review of the NCR's would indicate c -'
I i
- *s;/:
I.
- j kr l st. , r . .
L .
-> 35-1195 5-22-80 ,
P_rownURoot.inc.
Page 2 that this. review yields a significant number of HCR's as well as FDR's to document and correct deviations /nonconformances, a.,
To truly test the effectiveness of this work, auditors Thould examine comoleted travelers, i.e. , after final review. - -
Under our system, until this review is performed the traveler / -
package is incomplete. g/f Further, QA Engineering reviewed these travelers and found no [d '
clear evidence of lack of material traceability.
Answer: Deficiency # ' Finding #1 7I/J Resolution of this problem is the responsibility of Engineering. e-gv s /.
't
[!' (7 )
w . .
W, f Y '(
/ C.!! M g I* ;I R 1./ K imijt' '/ '
S e Qu lity ssurance fianager
{ [
RMK/pb
~
9
, ,,,,, D-ed 4n r>
CPPA-5352 .US UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
-O F FI C E M E M O R A N D U M r., R. G. Tolson men an ... m.w . June _1.0. 1980.__..
sul, ject COMAt1CHE PEAK STEAM ELE.CTRIC STAHQ3 .
1981-83 2300 MW Irl5TALLATI0tl i SSR-070 - CORRECTIVE ACTI0ft RESPCftSE .
Deficiency #1 Corrective Action: Installation was made according to the 3 "BRP" drawings referenced. The "BRP" drawings did not agree wi th the com-posites, with regard to valve stem orientation. The two XCC valves, which were temporarily installed, have now been permanently installed in agreement with the G5H composi te. The "BRP" drawings will be re-
, vised accordingly. The ICC valve has been correctly installed per CMC-34676, which changed the "BRP" drawing to aaree wi th the GMI comoosite.
Deficiency #2 Corrective Action:' The revisions of the "BRP" drawings which were current when installation was made, required 7/8" studs. After in-stallation the drawings were revised to show 7/8" capscrews. Per the drawing, capscrews have now been installed.
Item #1
- ! , 1 , - - ..
Deficiency #3 Corrective Action: tione feguired. The Valve Order Status List issued by G&H indicated wnich valves may be generically installed.
The referenced valves are generic and need not be changed.
Item #2 Reference QA Response .
Deficiency #4 Corrective Action: MR#4083 has been corrected to show valve location tag 2CC-313. The tag on the valve has been corrected to show 2CC-313.
The traveler has been revised to show 2CC-313. The felt tag's mark-ings were made by c::mpletions during turnover and have no construc-tion imr; ort. The construction tags are pencil-imprinted metal with cardboard backing, requiring that they be replaced to be changed.
, ,' j,;/ - f..
.,,- ,/
vl ;
, l7 -v R. G/ Webb RGW:km cc: ARMS g,g g ilu il cl o af e :rin n .-T ). (W . "* C Co').<*u .'., u'I
N A 0 ' ~~
$O$ 0 C. ~ 52 * / 1)f f Y$ 0 s*. lQ N
- i/
o* Q f.,a *. l * ~.*/'4- [ '! ') .J C
- C .= l m W/ rie cf... . 4Ko a .i!:s.<. ric
?
i m m.wc ' .- . /<> v 5.- . . ,
" ~ " n doc n,<.n .+:s .m .J - : .s. ~ " :- -:, .w. e 4.-
/
,d/ f $ 0 CPPA-5383 OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM To R. G. Tolson Glen Rose. Texas _ June 13. 1980 subject COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION !
1981-83 2300 MW INSTALLATION f CORRECTION TO RESPONSE OF SSR-070 The corrective action provided to deficiency 2 of the subject report stated that the capscrews were installed. I; was later learned this information was in error as the capscrews have not yet been received.
Installation was made according to the drawing current at the time utilizing 7/8" studs. After installation, the drawing was revised to require 7/8" capscrews. The capscrews were ordered on FR-13278, dated-4-12-80/P0-351195-30465, dated 5-12-80, and will be installed within .
two days of receipt, which is anticipated to be 9-19-80.
The above described sequence indicates that the appropriate revision review, and subsequent ordering of materials, was properly perfomed by the craft and no finding exists. You are therefore requested to close this finding based on the information supplied.
R. G. febb I Resident Manager
.6 RGWyjF: ROT:km cc: 'RMS A. Liford
4 .. - ..
,. . i ...3 ,.,.,,..., .
...y.._. . , _ . , , , , . . .. ,,
.w.s-.-
" .L t. .
2 . ..,
s . ,..w
.s.....- - . . ;, . p . . , i ,. p, . j .; , : u . , .
. ^.s .
+ .
,, -s e 4 . ;f ~ ** ,s .et . . ar . .-a w - e-. g . i s -r w * . , , ; s g ,. s ~ . ;y. ; ..c.g,.- ,.v... , , , . ,
' LL * .. . ..
-' --- ' 4 E* .a ;~ !. .. e m 11M.= s. '.L0 4 MJ . : e . - .. . . si
. ' . [:.
a ;g. .
- *2
- ',iti . -f;t.-
. . . *g* s .j ,, i' gr.; j 5.. i .
- 3. . .i. . .
- ]*- .,
- .e.-.r. L . . .e , k. vs.s:, c c; ., .a ,a .. .qy. ...a ;s ;.r . .: g n . i Y:, ,a u . . ,e ~ : > r a. ---g - ,
n-' - ' '
-1
+ . . -
[
l i
I
. . . ~ . . - -. - .: . .- .. . . . .. . _ . ..
l l
ey'..w Brown &RootJnc._
6 P.O. BOX 1001 CLEN ROSE. TEXAS 76043
- * ;@2 [ h,f N /i.I d .f[-i N' )[J.I, '
f5 k. .**
l'dR,h, 1,*.M;+2,a;i.S .
S[fi
~1 *l ~_G pA 3 m_V* *'
~L.i.E,--.
g . ., ,e ,.
ih,.ib' 'l ,.} N?
v, p/3.
1 ?ig,%g,@'y'Mi.
,,? f
<i2 W . -l ?._H C'> _"- '
-+
m';2 :1. -
]?)
b q
53' f[dIfh - M I-
. C.:s, 9 k ylt?...((.,f i;. y;' lL;!ll' 'NT .*' .*W* f<a& ? ; ^a._ f ."[* psf.41.' [_%;A
?.ki.O f}"Pi .
, _ _ , . . i h 0ATF
~-
~ J /e c L_ _1
@ ATE
) '
\
b aw swd' J. .
4% 1 b CXI- Af)!?.,o 4 4f/ J./ W flN .-. _
W etc _ .L of e Y ccu?t epIo ._ :nid' Ln,.k.:c7.d G 0 .W. .:):. t-2!$alred & A n pc_Ao&__._ A: a.nar_ s1o~~ n_c: ~ .c
- 5. %L.(*n. S.z.e../_.k__ mc.g // . ge c_ . -
i r .,
!Ou.': _ J._ Ct.' m < a. { .z L <M. .x. . . . .
. . - . . . . P.~q .. x < 5.. m e. T o f% w ~' rf ..
cLe oeo<n m .. . -...-_ - . ..-. .-..
. -- .. J ._ 4 -/ [-? O . - .
QY / .- F ' / SIGNED V N
r
^~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~
3- - - -...e *
'.. L. .it- . A : .- s e . "- - "
,I
.m sc.n ._ m ....c,-s . - -- ~ - - - - - - " * - - ~ ~ - - - ~ ~"
- o. ...,. ...a 2.< -.
g;w Brown &RootJnc.
P.O.' BOX 1001 GLEN ROSE. T EX AS 76043
.D -l!*
i'5 b -f;&A '
' -l p
P w-
';[-W' d w9'
?; 5 aij Tf,;lKg s; s~.
. n:.
g3' %'i
- ii.A 9,j)! @ . .
f_ w ).*
. C'?-
m)7 g,f g:.. C'h@i am %.ngig Wm [ W:
(u_e} im. g @ mw
@;5'5_
sa.x Pi~. Fld [^2?m.w $ g[k ca ecK ,& gs m,c # z h L
~~ lbu5v 7' f
. ,, 7 / n/o
_J
- p&~cu#s ~Dzn/" . >
i '
gla?z' _w d r 0 3d&echs /we /ow Wu c!nn~ :
wissA ded xJ & d69 an7 -au -no o daf /b ee I% n~ u M/* 9'9 -p sf -//o i if
/Ti9.vs/ess , 'de 5 ~/ x fC MP 79 -/ 7% M 3/
Do(r cy //hyA A >;f Wm/ws /
/ Y3 /. /d f o , Ne / Ot.^h dein/ -
frc,rs ly J/.eA d.ee/J deecAa' L
/
BY .
// W,
,/lA A !:$5'f y/ . A SIGNED -
/ : f l /:' 'J ' :..e.. *%<
./.
77 6 7
Applicants'
" "' Exhibit 89
.SpeBd Lei.ter 44-012 ja. m. , .
9.mib2.! ,,,
/
.j j Ir m k.
~9 ) e r d .! a : t. . . , .
i .-
Frem R G- l'"l""" -
To _J.T. Merritt/M.Menay _ _ _ _ . .
~
s,tyn,,
SSR-074 . _.
' 3/'9/M "
MESSAGE Attached find Site Suryc Hlance RMport SSR-074 conci i n ing "fli l t i P.o l t Installation Engineering Survey" procedure. hot being impl ementeil.
Please provide t his of fice a written. responw for P"iiciene; Nn. 1 for corrective action to preclude repetition on or before 3/27/H0 Thank y:n. 7 i, h) E .a m .,i ,V,. .di, ,, .D l
M AY IP 150 TUsi - B & R 710d J
'~g CPSES OPGM f
.~ . . _ .
, ,/~),
_ . _ . _ _ _ - __. _ . . . . . . . . .-~ " '; fN R.G.<A' Tolson ( o-n :'- 3 F f REPLY
. . _ . . . ? _. 4 S.E _
l . CEE _- 2 6 Mps s ~ d' i i ba n /opn Y w ec/ Depod-es.
t
- 6. y reu. c - / 4, tL
&f 7'd:s 74 m e- ,
(
y
--em. .- -
,O
1
.b . I P
l BROWil & ROOT, INC. INSTRUCTION EFFECTIVE )
CPSES NUMBER RE'/ISION DATE PAGE
\
JOB 35-1195 l i CEI-26 l 0 6/24/30 1 of 4 TITLE: ORIGIttATOR: t% . M AMb SI^~7/FD SURVEY AND CORRECTI0fl OF IMPROPER SPACIliG REVIEWED BY: 4//A af, a bd 6 N ' .M CATE BETWEEN HILTI E0LTS AND LOADED RICHMOND M /d eMwawr#
v 4//$/do
'OA IE UGCQ QA SCREW ANCHORS 3 [m APPROVED BY: i . M&Mdhe b b d.
CONSTRUCTI CATE 3 a Cf b'
1.0 REFERENCES
.k' lj'y,Di ;f /h5[f 95 \ j
- 1. CEI-20, Revision 4, DCN #3. "s 07;; @ g/ 0p-r;
- 2. SDAR, CP-79-80 CO//rgg7 {;fjf ,
2.0 GENERAL Gpg *,',utcdhY;t vis;p, 7phkgu RDq ND 2.1 PURPOSE At:0 SCOPE .\.I
,?
k '5 (
4' .
2.1.1 This instruction outlines 'he program which used Iwill b5,~ Ttt ,
locate and correct "Hilti-Bolt" to " Loaded Richmond Screw , j Anchor" spacings which do not conform to the minimum spacing requirements detailed in 1.0. The following areas will be inspected during the field survey:
1
- 1. Unit I and 2 Safeguard Buildings
- 2. Unit 1 and 2 Reactor Buildings
- 3. Auxiliary Building 4 Control Building i
- 5. Fuel Building '
- 5. Service Water Intake Building 2.2 DEFItiITIONS 2.2.1 " Loaded Richmond Screw Anchor" - An embedded anchor chat is being l used to support a load at the time the field survey is performed. l l l 3.0 INSTRUCTION l
3.1 FIELD SURVEY PROGRAM i
3.1.1. The Field Inspection Program shall be performed by memcers of the Brown & Rcot Field Engineering group under the direct super- I vision of a member of the CPSES Civil Engineering Department. The inspection team in a systematic manner shall inspect all concrete surfaces in the buildings listed in 2.1.1. Any "Hil ti-Bol t" to i l
1
'. i IllSTRUCTI0tl EFFECTIVE l BROWil & ROOT, I?tC. fiUMBER REVISI0tl CATE PAGE ;
CPSES "0B 3S~l^'cc CEI-26 0 6/24/80 2 of 4 I
" Loaded Richmond Screw Anchor" spacing which does not conform to the minimum spacing requirements detailed in Attachment 1 shall be documented as outlined in Attachment 2 to this instruction.
3.2 DETERMIflATI0fl AND CORRECTI0fl 0F NONCONFORMANCES 3.2.1 Following collection of the field survey information as outlined on Attachment 2, the Coordinating Civil Engineer will notify the responsible Field Engineering group by memo that a possible over-load condition exists due to violation of the minimum spacing requirements between the " Richmond Screw Anchor" and adjacent "Hilti Sol t". It will be the responsibility of the various discipline departments to show by detailed calculations (accom-plished by established CPSES procedures) that due to initial conservative load assumptions etc., an overload condition does not exisc. If this cannot be done, the discipline group will have the nonconforming bolt relocated in accordance with es-tablished CPSES procedures. As the nonconforming items are corrected or shown to be acceptable as-is, documentation will be transmitted to the coordinating Civil Engineer, who will be responsible for compiling the information and preparing a final report to close out the SDAR noted in Reference 2 of Section 1.0.
t l
I i
__._g_
s INSTRUCTION EFFECTIVE NUMSER REVISION DATE DAGE BROWN & ROOT, INC.
CPSES JOB 35-1195 3 of 4 CEI-26 0 6/24/80 ATTACHMENT 1 MINIMUM 50LT CLEARANCES MINIMUM DISTANCE TO Abandoned Hilti Bolts or Size of Bolt Screw Anchors
- Concrete Edge
- Holes and Embedded Anchor 1-incn 14-inch Bol ts that are Cut Off **
1/4 7 5/8 12 1/4 1 1/4 1/2 3/8 8 1/4 12 7/8 1 7/8 3/4 1/2 8 7/8 13 1/2 2 1/2 1 5/8 9 1/2 14 1/8 3 1/8 1 1/4 3/4 10 1/8 14 3/4 3 3/4 1 1/2 1 11 3/8 16 5 2 1 1/4 12 5/8 17 1/4 6 1/4 2 1/2 Measured Center to Center (inches)
- Minimum spacing between holes covered by this column shall be based on si:e of hole being drilled (e.g. pilot hole spacing is based on pilot bit size).
Locations nearer than the above distances shall be used only upon approval of Gibbs a Hill, Inc., resident engineer, or his representative.
t Hilti Bolts may be installed as close as practical to unused Richmond Screw Anchors which have been plugged (i.e. , grouted or occupied by Richmond screw-in plugs).
Unused Richmond Screw Anchors located nearer to Hilti Bolts than the rescec-tive distances shown above may be used temporarily for construction purposes when the applied load is:
(a) For 1" Richmond Anchors, less than 8,000 counds minus the actual load sucported by the Hilti Bolt; or (b) For lh Richmond Anchors, less than 20,C00 pounds minus the actual load supported by the Hilti Bolt.
I l
i
Y e _
=agu;cO4 - - eO e )1iO4e<1
- 1r
- *t ~ *
(
e 1 3
2Cz0m'J 3
, t3s "MeO2 O>4t ~
i mD un t:OEM o* a:OOg- .
f Ouavti 1in ' C O.
3 ).n GOD (ue W6$
4 n
= U Op nmHInU O N N4N(1)o -
1_ >O Zs A, 4~ N s
t n
e n
m u
C
._ d e t c r n _
ua st as .
L ici fD I
M -
N hd*
O cn2 S
Ra1mI i
R E
P it e l t M iiHS M >9 g7%
)
ne on s
- r e _
ii tL
- a cd .
E T
oi l r v A
D G
(
sk 4.
/> e g
n i
ll e -
C - -
)
rv oe
- - lol E
- f(
- G N ) .. h I .
D e . w l n l
u li B lL.
a
. Wl o _
- C
( . e g
n
~ iy lpe m mt _
- o. i _
- us _
lo
_ i r _
m e,
- ut oa Hw N p
-. gc i, ! i ' 1 i-
Applicantc' Exhibit 90 TEXAS UTII.lTIES GENI:lt ATING CO.TIl'ANY l O F FI C E M E M O fl A N D U M T,, J. R. J.insworth __. , _ .._, cien it ,, 7,,,n, December 2, 1980 sut.j.e . .._ __. , SITE SURVEILLANCE REPORT SSR-089, Def. #2 .
REF: CPPA-7506 i Per the referenced correspondence dated flovember 24, 1980, M. R. ficBay's respo'nse to the above subject Surveillance Report is considered sufficient to close activity on this repor t at this time.
Any further action in this area, as directed by DCA-9114 will be verified by subsequent surveillance activities.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
J' <- s A + - (/,
, ._ L ,
., R. J. .Curtis i Site Surveillance Supervisor RFC/jh cc: A. Vega, TUGC0 QA, Dallas J. Hawkins -
M. McBay P. Clarke D. Deviney, TUGC0 QA Operations t
.-, .g ,.__-3
CI'PA 7506
' ' c.: a w -) -
. Tl?X AS llTil.lTIES SElWICES INC.
O rl'IC C M E M O R A f 3 D U M
- r. . . ._.J . R . _A i nswo r..th ;
.. . _ . , . . , . __ c:t..n n,.... .. r..uisflovember 24, 1980
{" .%i+ re __ ._COMAtlCllE PEAK. STEAM. ELECTRIC STATION SITE-SURVEILLAt4CE REPORT t10. 089 '
'i
~ REF: TUQ-765 {
e Per thet referenced correspondence dated October 20, 1980, we have ~
jointly reviewed the subject surveillance report with the construc-tion organization and have responded as follows:
- MCP-1, 'Rev. 2, Para. 4.1.10 s tates in part . .
. . . .'. the enchor bolt may not project more than hal f the bolt diameter past the last nut . .. .."
MCP-1"is based on the requirements of G&H Spec. 2323-MS-101 which further defines the guideline indicated by "may" (above) as a mandatory "shall" per the Spec Para. 4.12.3.
In view of the above,.DC No. 91'14- iss'ued November 24, 1980 al ters the mandatory requirement and states that, except as directed by the cwner, anchor bolts "in excess of minimum length shall remain as built." Chamfering requirements remain unchanged.
We consider the a[tivity. complete. ,
r pfffff.*
M. R. McBay V Engineering Manager
~
MRM:RPB:km cc: ARMS ..
J. P. Clarke i B. J. Murray-l R. F. Curtis ., .
R.'G. Tolson ,
J. V. Hawkins-R. O. Babb l
t e
l: -
~
':G~ . < . .' ;. _ ,
FIGURE 1.
p g-I of 1 spec, hah,tugeo. .
. CCMAtlCHE PEAK STEH1 ELECTRIC STATI0tl DESIGil CHANGE AUT110RIZATION (WILL) (W*a t 2 ) BE ItlCORPORATED IN DESIGN DOCUMENTS DCA Md. 9114 .
- 1. SAFETY RELATED DOCUMENT: XX YES 11 0 f
- 2. CRIGIt!ATOR: CPPE XX - ORIGINAL DESIGNER
- 3. DESCRIPTION: .
A. APPLICABLE, SPEC /0'G400CLUEfm 2323-MS-101 bl. 2 B. DETAILS *
Reference:
_ Paracraoh 4.12.3 - Pace 4 - 16, delete the seconr3entence and add the following:
" Anchor bolts in excess of minimun length shall remain as lii5t, unless l directed by owner. When directed, the Contractor shall ass::e that anchor bolts do not project more than half the bolt diameterpast the last nut, and anchor bolt chamfers shall be restored afar such adjustment". .
~
i l
f i
, }
f
- 4. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: . [
N/A l.
o
- 5. APPROVAL SIGNATURES: R0 :CL' :jb p L, A. ORIGINATOR: / s) _., , rf DATE //-O- SI.) [
B. DESIGN REPRESENTATIVE: _l/ A.a/] DATE //h4!hD
% UV 6s VENCOR TRANSMITTAL RE00 RED: YES NO XR
\
l
- 7. STANDARD DISTRIBUTION: .
CC:50RM 11-20 -
f APRS (Origi~nal) (1)
Quality Engineering (1)
TS for Orig. Design. (1) e
1 l
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM ro J. V. Hawkins aten nose. Tew, 10/20/80 CPSES se .
TUGCOME-SURVEittANCf-REPORTS Response to TUGC0 S.*ite: Surveillance Report No.~0896has beeri reviewed / resurveyed ind"fo' u nd satisfactory.-foi closing.
However, an additional response may be required at a later date on Deficiency No. 2 after evaluations have been completed by Site Surve.111ance staff and Dallas QA.
- ----------- The closed out Surveillance Report will not normally be redistributed. If a copy is needed, it may be obtained by request from the undersigned at Extension 568.
t R. F. Curtis Site Surveillance Supervisor -
.RFC/jh cc: A. Vega, Dallas TUGC0 OA R. Tolson l
l d
O l
l
[
TUQ-765
- . . TI:X AS UTil.lTIES GENEllATING CO.Til%NY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM M. R. McBay/B. J. Murray . 10/20/80 SITE SURVEILLAllCE REPORT 089
.% N vt . . . . . _ .
.. .-- PROJECTION OF INSTALLED ANCHOR-BOLTS - - - - - - - - -
h IIestated below is a deficiency identified by the Site Surveillance group -
which ties it to a requirement in MCP-1. I have not done sufficient research but understand the requirement comes either from specifications and/or design drawings:
" Deficiency No. 2:
MCP-1, Rev. 2, Para. 4.1.10 states in part:
...the anchor bolts may not project more than half the bolt diameter past the last nut..."
FINDING: Contrary to the above, the anchor bolts on cpl-CCAPCC-01 and cpl-CCAPCC-02 extend over the last nut more than the prescribed length."
Restated below is our response to this deficiency as provided after discussion with Construction:
" Paragraph 4.1.10 of MCP-1, Rev. 2, provides instructions for. adjustment of equipment anchor bolt lengths by cutting and restoring the chamber. As of this date, this effort has not been started by construction. When this activity is started, inspections will be performed by Mechanical QC and
- results documented via inspection Report."
i .
- In the interest of . manhours expended and project cost, I question if this is necessary from a functional and operational viewpoint.
As a note, Site Surveillance will verify this activity "at a later date."
i Please advise if you concur or disagree. If you concur, please have the j appropriate documents changed so this item may be closed, l
e J./f.. Ainswobr<a Qddlity Engineering Supervisor JRA/jh cc: R. G. Tolson l J. V...Hawkins -
.. R.~ F. Curtis i
. , :s
. . . , - *' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.\_ _ _ _ . H .- v 5 ;3.. . .j ; 5 : , .. . r.5- = . - . :.N ; el.,-w~a. ~ + . ~ .
. . . . , ,. w. :.. G % .. !~.: h".*-d ' ,U;;yl~l*~E ,T T : m :S:
j g' '; g 'e' y.
li .V . ' ? *'" + ' - .*3.'
,p .3gg-g ,. 7 ,,. ,"'
% ,, 3 , . - -
, -,- .35 Ilg5 p .
<.e.,<,. . ,
.,... 9 ,.., q :. ..
- -... . 3.:5g.gO . .. ,
' Srovm& Root $nc. . . . . liEN.,k- ,'.w.:-. .
= ..- .- -.-
". . . .t : - * ' ' '.. s-. . i.
. g -} ,.. . *s .
- : - _. T o%-
~ #W,3 . :... ' %
4 :
~
( -: :b; *-.
- !i*:.,.5.::y?
T -G v.: . . --
. A :, ' ~. . , . ' [}. ..[Q[f,'.'.~,(.l, l_
'~
" ~
'T. 5S .wT 7itiTEROFFICE MEM0
- 3 _= -;* _~;= ~ _ .
...-..-. = 4 .- - - - -
p T0: R..G. Tolson CATE: Aucus t 14, U80 '.
T .:_ :. . .
FRCM: 1 V. Hawkins
SUBJECT:
CPSES, Job 35-1195 SSR-089 The follcwing . response is provided with regard to subject Site Surveillance Report:
Deficiency No. 1 -
Insulation resistance was performed on spin numbers CP1-CCAPCC-O1M on July 19, 1980, and CP1-CCAPCC-02M on July 19, 1930 and results recorded on electric.a1 maintenance cards maintained by the Craf t General Foreman (Bob Hamilton) responsible for this activity. This activity was validated by QC sign-off on these cards.
It is noted that the record copy of the equip::,ent maintenance cards are maintained by the responsible craft, and the card or cards attached to the equipment are not always maintained current. QC has instructed the craft to either keep the cards attached to the equipment current with the record copy or remove cards during next scheduled maintenance activities.
~
DeficienWNo. 277
- . ..a Paragraph 4.1.10 of MCP-1,- Rev. 2 provid's e instructions for adjust-ment of equipment anchor bolt lengths by cutting and restoring the chamfer. As of this date, this effort has nnt been started by con-s truction. When this activity is started, inspections will be per-fort.ed by Mechanical QC and results documented via Inspection Re-par .
Deficiency No. 3 The plugged drain holes on ecuipment bases is noc ccosidered " con-tamination by foreign materials" but agree this cWition could possibly allow contamination of the equipment if : ocer drainage is not provided.. The drain holas nn cumn bases fne spin number CP1-CCAPCC-01 and 02 were cleaned on M ust 13,1980. c.nd. an
ATTACHMENT A Paga 1 of 1 April 28, 1975 PRE-AUDIT MEETING ATTENDANCE REPRESENTING TITLE ATTENDEE B&R Project Manager H. C. Dvdd Project QA Manager B&R P. L. Bussolini Asst. Project Manager B&R C. E. Bonin Project Buyer B&R E. P. Kotowski Document Control Manager B&R L. E. Hancock QC Inspector G..H. Fisher B&R B&R QC Inspector R. G. Newsom B. C. Scott B&R QA Audit Coordinator (Houston)
B&R QA Specialist (Houston).
W. J. Kropp QA Specialist (Houston)
B&R J. C. Shuckrow Project Engineer
- B&R
- W. E. Childress, Jr.
May 1, 1975 POST-AUDIT MEETING' ATTENDANCE REPRESENTING TITLE ATTENDEE B&R Project Manager H. C. Dodd Project QA Manager L. Bussolini B&R
'P. Asst. Project Manager B&R C. E. Bonin Project Buyer ,
B&R E. P. Kotowski Document Control Manager B&R L. E. Hancock Project Civil Engineer B&R
- G. W. McGee B. C. Scott B&R QA Audit Coordinator (Houston)
B&R QA Specialist (douston)
W. J. Kropp QA Specialist (Houston)
.B&R J. C. Shuckrow Project Engineer B&R
- W. E. Childress, Jr.
- Part-time k
., c r - r9 9
^ " " OI f
,y .. k*
.-...__.-,r - , - , . , ._.- .,,.y . _ . - _ .
'"""""'*'n Brown (FRootJnc.
, , OUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT AUDIT CHECKLIST AuDiTNo. Pace OP ,
2 1 7 l PROJEC Ts J.0. N o. D ATE (5T
. Comanche Peak 8 CR-0172 April 28, 29, 30 l AUDIT ED ORG ANIZ AT80Ni DEPT. ACTBVITVs i
@o.a O i Construction /QA Organization / Document Control f-AUDa7 TEAMS ITE AM 4 EADER a W. J. Kropp and B. C. Scott l B. C. Scott AU DIT CODE S = SATISFACTORY U = UNSATIS' FACTORY N = NOT AUDITEO X = NOT APPLICABLE N O. CHARACTERISTIC & DESCRIPTION CODE REMARKS
' Re: m 2 kmon m M m e.1 ten ~ cIIarTs7vTilabTe7- from Audit No. 1 1 current, and approved? S
.JobDescppyons___
-- ._ Re: ANSI N45.2 Section 2&3 and ADR No. 1 2 Do , job descriptions <TFfE. _._ __ iior_ity e aut from Audit No. 1 and responsibility of personnel? S ,
Indoctrination and Training Re: ANSI N45.2 Section 2 and ADR No. 2 3
Has an adequate indoctrination ant ,_ from Audit No. 1 training program been established? U Activity Schedule Re: 10CFR50 Appendix B, V, and ADR No. 3 Are activity scfiEdEles, procTdureT,7 _from Audit No. 1 4 instructinns being issued on a time U See ADR's No. 2.1 and 2.6
, frame consistent with their need?
Interface Communications exist 7oT HsT1ut1Tn-5 of quality problems in documented '
S form?
Document Control Are the proper and current instruc-6 tions, procedures, drawings, and S reoufrements beine used? -
l Records Index Are records indexed and does the in-7 dex contain location of storage and S l location within the storage area?
l Legibility Are permanent QA records legible, .
8 completely filled cut, and in good S
, ,,,,... ',2 '. , L '.. _.J.
condition?
Hecord Identification Are records adequately identified 9 '
to the item or activity to which it S nonLies?
Retention Time Re: ANSI N45.2.9 para 3.2.7 and ADR No. 4 llave record retention times been g from Audit No. I 10 established?
Receip_t,t Control Are records being received and con-See ADR No. 2.2 g
l 11 trolled per established procedures?
APPROVED S Y
%;76me-IDATE:
! y' D F /> r f}AP-6.0 __-
Brownf?Roounc. ^mennart a QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT AUDIT CHECKLIST Avoir aO. race 0, 2 2 7 PHOJECTi J 0. N O. D ATCl$ 7 Comanche Peak i CR-0172 April 28, 29, 30 AU DIT ED ORG A Na Z AT TON: 'OEPT. A CTa v aT Y :
EloAa O i construction /QA Procurement moDit v E Au:
- TcAui.cAOcu, W. J. Kropp and B. C. Scott l B. C. Scott AUDaf COOC S = SA11SF ACTORY U = UNSATISFACTORY N = NOT AUDITED X = NOT APPLICABLE-NO. CHAR ACTERISTIC & DESCRIPTION CODE REMARKS Procurement Control Does a documented system exist Tor--- See ADR No. 2.3 12 the release and control of procure- U nont documents (including changes)?
Procurement Planning Do the planning activities 7 or the- - See ADP.No. 2.1 13 procurement process me,et the require- U inents of ANSI N45.2.13 Section 2.l?
Procurement Interface _
g Do procedures controlling tTie procure-inent process interface properly? S Procurement Sources ls tnere a ListiTg Tf7p~iirTveU ---
15 sources,'and is this list puriodical- S IV undated?
Procurement Sources is approvid "lis't oIsuppliers bTsed-
~ --
See ADR No. 2.4 16 on their ability to meet pre-estab- U lished criteria? (Enn.,0A, Purch.)
Procurement Documents Do procurement documents contain 17 scope of work; technical, QA. program, S and documentation _ requirements?
lSu_gplier s 18 Is tEere evidence that Purchasing tat purchased from unapproved or disap- S proved suppliers?
Suppliers .
~ ~-
19 Is there an established method to See ADR No. 2.1 determine what material or services U are safety related? Is it adequate?
p g iers '
Are the requirements of Section 3 7f__ lilJdtina g pd pdl y tj{qg[q[;t..g{9} .. s 20 CP-QCP-8, Rev. 11/1/74, being imple- S mented?
Bid Evaluation 21 Arc pre-hid evaluation forms reviewed per 35-1195-GCP-4? S
_Inguiries Are inquirics sent only to approved 22 bidders? S A PPRO VED S Y s 3 p
'DATE:
/)Lgrg7 % y' / G ./7 Y .
QAP-6.0 .
Brown &RootJoc. ArrACunar u
, ,- QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT .
AUDIT CHECKLIST Avoir no. "Ac[ or 2 3 7 Pee OJLC I J J .O . N O. O ATE 45 t' g
Comanche Peak 8 CR-0172 April 28, 29, 30 A U DIT E D O f eG A N s1 ATIOre: D E t*1 A CT 8 v lT Y :
Goaa O ! Construction /QA Procurement / Receiving Inspection A UDIT T E AM 87EAM LEADER &
W. 1. Kropp and B. C. Scott ! B. C. Scott i AUD87 CODE S = SATISFACTORY U = UNSATISFACTORY N = NOT AUDITED X = NOT APPLICABLE NO. CHARACTER:STIC & DESCRIPTION CODE REMARKS
.PEcJinsn J.1.rdsa _ '
Are all purchase documer.ts being re-23 3 viewed by QA personnel for QA require-ments?
Pure.hann 11rd.cu _ _._ _ _._ _ _ _ _ _
Are all safety related procurement g 24 documents identified " Safety Related o^ nnnn4 Tort"9 Personnel Are purchasing personnel cognizant oT 25 1rplicable requirements / procedures in S p heir area of responsibility?-
aupplier Corrective Action Are recorTs7f- sTippTi'iii corrective ,
- 26 action resul ting from surveys and S audits available? _ _ _
@upplierCorrectiveAction Are overdue correctivT actTon repTieT i 27 excessive? S
, Supplier Corrective Action l
Do replies by suppliers indicate S
i 28 timely "close out" and adequate cor-rective action?
Procurement Change Control Are changes to the procurement docu- No P.O. changes as of 4/30/75 29 :nonts reviewed and approved to the X same degree as the original?
rieceiving ]nspection __
Are procedures, instructions, and i 30 specifications available for use? S Receiving Inspection Are material received records being prepared for all items received? S 31
, , . . . , . . - e:;f Receivin g n_s getion ,
yn ?O .4 4* ^ "
- 32 Arc QC inspections being performed
[or all "Q" items? S Rec e iving_J nsp.,e_c t i nu 33 Arc over, Short, and Damage reports None prepared as of 4/30/75 (OS&D) being prepared as applicable? X A 9'PH O V E D ti v a 8 DATE:
} '] s*AN v
riAP 6. 0
tirownCTHoot,Inc. ^1 " *"* " 2 "
OUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT s 3 AUDIT CHECKLIST avoirno. ract or 2 4 7 r o o J L G I.' J.O. N O. D ATC85 0 g
. Comanche Peak i CR-0172 April 28, 29, 30 avo.Y Eo oncanizar.oni lDc,T. AcsiviTv.
Material Receiving, Storing, llandling, Ba a O iconstruction/QA , nna m in usnsne AUDIT T E A M: 37 E A M t.E A O C R a u y.vyopp 3na n_ r. c:,,n e r ! n. c scoce AU DIT CODE S = SATISFACTORY U = UNSATISFACTORY N = NOT AUDITED X = NOT APPLICABLE t:0. CHAR ACTERISTIC & DESCRIPTION CODE REMARKS Receivinn inspection ,
Are mater 15T Fquipment control Tiis:-
34 tory reports being prepared as re- S quired?
Receiving inspection
'Is Fir 3Tse oTde7(s) fia'Ekage conEnT 35 adequa.te? (Verify 3-4)
S Receiving Inspection Are reTecEcTTtems/ mater 15Ts properE 36 identified and segregated? S Storage
- ~
7Ffe Q" Tt Tis p5ysTeirIIT segregamd- St rage f "Q" rebar is excellent.
37 from non "Q" items? S -
Storage Tie storTd'TtTmT7:Et' ERIT 1 proper 17- -
38 S identified? -
Storage 39 Arc item /ma teTials b'e3nT sto7eT al-required by QCP-10 and ACP-3? S Concrete Mate' rials
- Arc concrete materiaTi being re- See ADR No. 2.5 40 ccived per QCP-10 and stored per U ACI 614-59? -
File Contents " "
Are the proper records being main ~ - .
j 41 rained as required in QCP-10?- S s-
\
I 42 e ving' peisTnEl qElTfIccIT- ' ~ ~
l S Reinforcin1 Steel ~
43 1s wc]dable rebar proper W iileIitili'Et ,
per procedure QCP-187 S I
! Reinforcing _, Steel l Arc test reports verified by QC l 44 . prior to acceptance of rebar? S l
APPRO ED SY s DATE: /
l
/
&Gnccr ! V / L) / M, QAP-6.0
BrownURoot. loc. ^1T^Ciinicur a
. i QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT .
AUDIT CHECKLIST avoir no. raoE or 2 5 y
,* H o J E C T I J.0, N O. D A T E f 5 8'-
^
Comanche Peak 8 CR-0172 April 28, 29, 30 avoirEo ono.uizar. on, j oEer. aCrivirv' Ma terial Receiving, Storing, lland1 ing ,
@==a O IConstruction/QA 6 Maintenancu/. Tool 6 Equipment Calibration AUDir TE A M: ' T E A M i.E A D E R ,
W. J. Kropp and B. C. Scott l B. C. Scott auDir CODE S = SATISFACTORY U = UNSATISFACTORY N = NOT AUDITED X'= NOT APPLICABLE NO. CHARACTERISTIC &* DESCRIPTION CODE REMARKS Reinforcing Steel Ytorage and haEdTing of rebar @oW g 45 accepted & rejected) complies with requirements?
Reinforcing Steel E siirTeillTnce Tf7tTrage being 3 46 performed and documented on a monthly basis?
Fabricated Rebar Is 1Tbricated rebar properly iden-
~ - ~
g 47 tified to reflect No.,, length, mark, and location?
File Contents 4g
'AFe3e proper records lieEgliain- g .
tained as required per QCP-18? .
Cal bration _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ See ADR No. 2.6 49 .Are alt tools ano equipment requiring y calibration identified?
Calibration Records
'CalGrTtUin records rTflect:
- a. History of,past calibration -
- b. Accuracy
- c. Location
- d. Intervals and due dates 50 e. Model and Serial No. S See ADR No. 2.6
- f. Calibration technician
- g. Date of calibration
- h. No. or name of procedure
- 1. Environmental conditions t\
- i. Variabic data taken , ,s d h \N Calibration Procedures ** n g'4\% D '
Are ConstructionTQA calibration y O j
51 procedures available for use?
- ^
rTs7eTIE tT --
D t o p
- a. Environmental conditions
- b. List of standards and equipment U
l 52 to be used
- c. Complete instructions for cali-bration
- d. Intervals of calibration
^~"p;"k_ l ^"y / 2 rh r QAP-6.O
BroWTTURoot. loc. ArraCitaeNT u QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT AUDIT CHECKLIST AuOiT no.
- ace Or 2 6 7 FNOJE E TJ g J .O . N O. D ATEls t.
Comanche Peak 8 CR-0172 :\pril 28, 29, 30 AuOIT ED ONG AN6 Z ATsON: DEPT. ACTev8TYr 33 (p {y j;g. g g ggf coa- O IConstruction/QA Tool & Equipment Calibration / Excavation AVOIT T E AM s 4 T E A M 4.E A D E FI ;
W. .1. Kronp and B. C. Scott ! B. C. Scott AUDIT CO DE S = SATISFACTORY U = UNSATISFACTORY N = NOT AUDITED X = NOT APPLICABLE NO. CHAR ACTERISTIC & DESCRIPTION CODE REMARKS Calibration llecali See m E 2.6 Does the recaTI system proTideTor- 9 53 removal from the work area of equip-ment after expiration date?
! Calibration _______ None as of 4/30/75 54 Are damaged or expired tools and x equipment tagged and segregated?
Calibration Standards See ADR No'. 2.6 55 Are calibration standards traceable y to the National Bureau of Standards?
SSI Dam Excavation 56 Are SSI dam activities being audited s '
by PQAM utilizing a checklist?
Excavation Recor'ds Are QA records generated by B&R and s 37 other orgnaizations, identified,
, .. . conten!!ad. en11ected. and filed? -
l Excavation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Not applicable as of 4/30/75 58 Is usable rock being properly X
- identified for quarrying?
1
_hcavation ________ Not applicable as of 4/30/75 59 Are areas to be quarried marked as X required by procedure CCP-3, Rev. l?'
. heava_tip_D _ _ _ _ _
- Not applicable as of 4/30/75 60 Is pneumatically placed and dental X concrete being prepared, placed, and cn.na ne re.cnfrna hv Procedure OcP-5?
J.Y.E aYilI_IML1_ _ _ _ _ -
,s-is material above the 830 ft. eleva- 3 t f';i,H i 61 tion level being utilized in SSI dam? 7..-r,5]..'I[ 5 Dh"*
l
-re . .- i : c. i . a is ___N _.m ___pa. ____m APPHO V ED D Y : 8 OATEt 1
/)bM G + V /2 r~ /7 Y QAP-6.0
OfD # n v H O Ot.lDC. ATTAci ME::r i:
sdALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTM.EN's AUDIT CHECK LIST 'Avo T No. rAc c or 2 7 7
P ft O A L G T d J.O . N O. D AT CIS T'
, comanche Peak 8 CR-0172 April 30, 1975 AUOtT LD O HG A Ne Z AT sOPer DEPT. ACTA v a T Y e O - G n w ihmt i 0^ Test Lab AUOf T TE AM T E A M 4. E A D E R W. J. Kropp and 11. C. Scott l B. C. Scott .
AUDIT CODE ,
S = SATISFACTORY U = UNSATISFACTORY N = NOT AUDITED X = NOT APPLICABLE i tJ O. CilAll ACTERISTIC & DESCRIPTION - CODE REMARKS .
Documented Program y "IT the rest program uocumentTdTy~ ~ '
approved procedures? S Procedures ;
Arc current procedures availabTe'""~ j.
2 for use? S Procedures .
Do test procedures identity accep-3 tance limits? S Procedures .
Do test prTceITuTes~iiRIIidis provisiono '
for assuring necessary prerequisites S .
are being met? -
Test Conditions "Are tests pertormed unuer sultE Tii -
5 environmental conditions? S Test Results Are test results documentTd7tE ~ ~
6 evaluated? S Calibration I Are all tools and equipment requirint 7 calibration identified? S ,
Calibration Recoras Calibration recor3s TeTTect: -
See ADR 2,7 l 8 a. lif story c. Technician e.Date
- b. Accuracy d. s/n f. Intervals U -
Calibration Proceduren ' - - - - -
w.~.
9
" E e~c7ilIUration procTdures available for use? S '
File Contents 10 At the proper recoTds7eing main- See ADR 2.8 tained? U -
Calibration Are damaged or exit [r~l toWaTd--
11 equipment tagged and segregated? X l
O evs a dAPPHOz- M & ,<.,,- ^!ggyg;s' /2s' /? r !
QAr-6.0
w Brown & Root,InC. Post office Box Three, Houston, Texas 77001 August 8, 1975 g'4- .,fs TS-BQ-XX-0076 dSURANCE
/ QlA QUALITf(
Qifa CORD TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. : ai .. .4#512 3 2001 Bryan Tower jM iair . .QN .. - d-Dallas, Texas 75201 3
j -
ATTENTION: Mr. H. C. Schmidt Comanene Peak Steam Etet. Sta.
SUBJECT:
B&R Quality Assurance Site Audit No. 2, (Re-audit)
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2
Reference:
- 1) TS-BQ-XX-0031, dated May 16, 1975 Gentlemen: ,
On August 4, 1975, the B&R QA Department conducted a re-audit to verify corrective action implementation of deficiencies reported during B&R Site Audit No. 2, dated April 30, 1975. (Reference No. 1)
The re-audit was conducted by Mr.B. C. Scott with Mr. P. L. Bussolini serving as an observer.
Attachment A of this' transmittal is the checklist used for the re-audit.
OA RECORD l Personnel contacted were as follows:
rRTN. oA R VIEW RECEIVED
- 1. H. C. Dodd 1
, BR'/ ' ' & 200T, INC.
- 2. W. E. Childress, Jr. ""
l 3. E. P. Kotowski -
/8,/ l.% 18 1975
- 4. D. Sikes suffrite no,
- 5. B. Hench bkd i ,Mi7 ,USURANCE The following represents the current status of corrective action implementation: 1 '.!
ADR No. CP-1.2 Indoctrination and Training A documented indoctrination and training program as not been approved or implemented. Mr. H. C. Dodd informed the auditor that B&R Construction was awaiting approval from TUSI to implement a training program.
ADR No. CP-2.1 Procurement Schedules A schedule for safety related subcontracts is 60% complete.
A schedule for satety related purchase orders is 50% complete.
TS-BQ-XX-0076 ,
August 8, 1975 ADR No. CR-2.2 Records Checklist A records checklist has been developed and implemented. This deficiency is considered closed.
ADR No. CP-2.3 Changes to Procurement Documents Procedure GCP-4 has not b'een revised to control specification and drawing revisions referenced in "open" purchase orders.
ADR No. CP-2,4 Approved Suppliers List An approved suppliers list has been developed and issued to personnel involved in the procurement process. This list will be updated as -
purchase orders are awarde.d. This deficiency is considered closed.
ADR No. CP-2.5 Construction Procedures Construction procedures have not been revised to incorporate ACI-614-69 requirements.
ADR No. CP-2.6 Calibration Procedures ~B&R Procedures are being developed but none have been approved or issued (Re: CP-QAP-12.1 Para. 4.2.2) ,
ADR No. CP-2.7 Calibration Procedures - R. W. Hunt This item was reaudited and found unsatisfactory July 31, 1975 during QA Audit No. 3 of R. W. Hunt (site activities). Corrective action implementation will be reverified the week of August 18, 1975.
,I :".. _ C ' -
Calibration Rec'ords - R.[ W. ,[t Hunt
"" Pc {r-Same as Item ADR No. CP-2.7 i The above status has been brought to the attention of our Quality Assurance Management. .
Subsequently, Mr. T. H. Gamon has arranged a meeting with Mr. L. A.
Ashley of B&R Construction management to discuss and resolve these open deficiencies.
This office will keep you advised of future developments.
Should you have any questions, please advise.
Very truly yours, -
BROWN 6 ROOT, INC.
M C,N [
B. C. Scott QA Audit Coordinator cc: R. W. Caudle, L. D. Pyeatt, J. G. Munisteri, L. A. Ashley, H. C. Dodd, R. M. Broom, T. H. Gamon, P. L. Bussolini. QARB, CPSES QA File
&88achiE9B8 A h g~ _ bMb doca _.
QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT AUDIT CHECKLIST PROJECT: Comanche Peak JOB NO.: CR-0172 UNIT 1 & 2 PAGE 1 OF 1 A UDIT CO O RG ANIZ ATIO N; AU DIT NO. D ATE ls) r Brown & Root Re-audit of CP No. ? A't a . 4- 1079 DEP A RTMENT: A CTIV IT Y :
Construction /OA Orcanization/ Document Con trol / Procurement / Tee-AUDIT TE AM: TEAM LE ADER: LADS B. C. Sentt B. C. Sente AUDIT CODE S = SATISFACTORY U = UNSATISFACTORY N = NOT AUDITED X = NOT APPLICABLE NO. CH AR ACTERISTIC & DESCRIPTION CODE REMARKS Indoctrination and Traini.ng_ _._,,. _ Re: ADR's No. CP-1.2 & ANS1 N45.2, Sect.
1 Has an adequate indoctrination and U 2 training program been established?
Procurement Pla_Dning _ _ _ _ _ _ Re: ADR No. CP-2.1 2 Have procurement schedules been estab. P.O. Schedule is 50% complete -
lished for safety-related subcontracts U Subcontract schedule in 60% complete 6 purchase orders?
Receipt Control of Rg.c.prd.s._. _ ,_ ,_._ Re: ADR No. CP-2.2 3 Has a records checklist been developec ? S . Deficiency Closed Cha n e e s t o_.fr.p qu.r.g!pe.ntJg ctcen.: s_. _ ._. Re: ADR No. CP-2.3 4 Have measures been established to con- U trol changes to procurement documents?
Erq:p.ner,Jm.t_ _._ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ . Re: ADR No. CP-2.4 5 Has an approved suppliers list been S Defici2ncy Closed established 6 distributed? ,
.PrQ1eJilt:AS_________.___ Re: ADR No. CP-2.5 6 Have construction procedures been re- U vised to reference'ACI-614-59?
C.slib.ra t.i.o" Re: ADR No. CP-2.6 7 Has a calibration procedure been es- U Procedures are in process of development tablished?
Calibration ReqordF _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ Re: ADR Wo. CP-2.7 (R. W. Hunt) 6 Are R. W. Hunt calibration records y updated and in compliance with proced-
!?*pc0 Ins::.eclinn Re.rords._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Re: ADR No. CP-2.8 (R. W. Hunt) 9 Are concrete slump cones inspection U repo,rts on file?
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .- - ' ' ~
6 _________M N -N M APPROVED BY:f DATE t t/ y h h
/ b /D
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ m
OA RECORD YW* nm: ~ig%-
I nte no.
l8a/
SUDFILE No.
CP- 2 INTEROFFICE MEMO TO: P. L. Bussolini DATE: June 25, 197fB I ---- O# b'-
H. C. Dodd 2 CORRES. NO: TSQ-0196 FROM: B. C. Scott f 7
' (a/A QUAUTY AE#.,'JRANCF SUBJECT : Quality Assurance Audit #2 g;.,;;cggo f Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station N Units 1 and 2 1 y,q'}'{}g,~~
REFERENCES:
- 1) TS-BQ-XX-0031, dated May 16, 1975 ,&1/. . ... .. . .. ' -2.~ 26 .
?" "E
- 2) IM-0804, dated May 30, 1975 Corw d H :k Sv W ~-
7 Gentlemen:
We have received and evaluated your quick response (Reference 2) to deficiencies reported during a April 28, 29, 30 and May 1, 1975 audit of Comanche Peak construction and quality activities (Reference 1).
The following represents the current status of your corrective action responses:
ADR #CP-1.2 Indoctrination and Training We are looking forward to your detailed response that will be issued prior to July 1,1975.
l ADR #CP-2.1 Procurement Schedules Your response stated that final corrective action would be implemented by July 30,1975. - Due to the nature of this time consuming task the July 30, 1975 date is satisfactory.
Please provide this office with the completed procurement schedules for safety related subcontracts and vendors (P.O.'s) so we can plan our activities accordingly. ,,,,,
l
~ ''~
! ADR #CP-2.2 Records Checklist L.
Response is Satisfactory.
RECEIVED BROWN & ROOT, INC.
I JUL 2 1975 QUAUTY ASSURAflCE
a .
ADR #CP-2.3 Changes to Procurement Documents _
Response is Satisfactory.
ADR #CP-2.4 _ Approved Suppliers List Response is Satisfactory.
Controls for approved suppliers list must be reflected in Procurement procedure GC-P4 when revised.
ADR #CP-2.5 Construction Procedures Response is Satisfactory.
ADR #CP-2.6 Calibration Procedure Response is Satisfactory.
ADR #CP-2.7 Calibration Records Response is Satisfactory.
ADR #CP-2.8 Response is Satisfactory.
Final close out verification for all the referenced Audit Deficiency Reports (ADR's) will be performed during the next audit which is presently scheduled for August 1975.
r Should you have any questions, please advise.
l k-
- Bob C. Scott Quality Assurance Audit Coordinator i
l BCS/jsj ' '
l cc: L. D. Pyeact L. A. Ashley I
M. M. Fitch/J. K. Bishop K. M. Broom R. A. Romeo TUSI File 500.1.1 #2
?/ crc /nURoot.!nc.
I RECEIVED j BROWN & ROOT. INC.
JUN 31975 )
- - INTEROFFICE MEMO QUALITY ASSURANCE IM-0804 TO: R. A. Romeo DATE: May 30, 1975 B. C. Scott -
FROM: Peter L. Bussolini
SUBJECT:
Job 35-1195, CPSES Quality Asse.rance Audit #2 Attached are Audit Deficiency Reports which were attachment C to Quality Assurance audit number 2. Corrective Action Response has been added to these reports.
Should you have any questions pertaining to these responses, please t' eel free to contact me. ,
er . sso No Peter L. Bussolini Proj ect Quality Assurance Manager PLB/plw .
Attachment _.
i C. Dodd (lL, lA)
JOB E - * # i (O
M D. L. Hansford (lL, lA) j ---
E. P. Kotowski (lL, lA) gl, , .
/f; ggg;.
l l? .. 2 .2-24.
CO.TiMhe Fesk Steam E[e -
l a
QA RECORD
,.... RJN. O REVIEW
~~
(f f FEE N18 / .
sUSFILE NO.
3 CP- 1
tY O W n CT K O OI.In O. ATTACIMD T C QUALITY ASSUF;ANCE DEPARTMcnlT
^ " ' ' ' ' ' ~
AUDIT DEFICIENCY REPORT
. CP-1.2 -
EOJECT. J.O NO. AuDaT NO.
Conanche Peak Steam Electric Station 8 CR-0172 1 AUDIT ED Of 4G ANIZ A T OON: DEPT. ACTsVITY:
Ba* O : Construction organization COH H ECTIV E ACTBON N ESPONSE AS$aGNED T oa NE PO R T ED = Y e lDATE:
H. C. Dodd B. C. Scott ! 12 / 18 / 74 DOCUMENTVIOLATED
~~ ~~~~~~
p PARAGR APH (CITEg'The program shall provide for indoctrination and training of personnel o perforcing activities affecting quality as necessary to assure that suitable pro-g{nga chieved .ane' -'4~n4nad "
9 u.
y The B&R Construction Department does not have a written program or procedure for indoctrination and training of personnel performing activities affecting quality.
This item was discussed with H. C. Dodd, C. E. Bonin and W. E. Childress, Jr.
HE OMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACT8DNt As required by the " Grey Book" (June 7, 1973 Edition) develop a training procedure as described.on.Page.D-3 thereof. This procedure should cover:
- a. Material to be presented at training sessions ,
- b. Method of presentation
- c. Training schedule
- d. Who should attend HESPONSE DATE4 IH EAUDIT D AT E:
/n 3OATEs
, /, !8 / , /,s Am APPROVED To be comoleted by aubited organization DYsL:rr! c/ / /2r COHH ECTIV E ACTION H OSPON5E; e
A detailed answer to this deficiency vill be issued prior to July 1, 1975.
FOR F0HiA~ 01 DN.Y
//f available, attach documentation su=MiTTED =v s
- D ATE. / /
supporting compterion of corrective action) 11 C t%cd & N6 y (> / 2 / 75 To be completed by B&R Ouallty Assurance N EVlL W OF CONR ECT 8v E ACTION RESPONSE' REVIEWED SY s DATES f, f
Osatisfactory unsatisfectory .
- / /
H C$ ULT 5 OF H L AUDIT s AUDIT NO. jD AT E: / /
Os.itisfactorv D unsatisfactory l / /
HEMAHKhl O DEFICIENCY CLOSED APPROVED Ovs lDATE* / /
\ / /
""" ~~~ ~
BrownURoot.!nc.
^
QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT
^ " ' " ' ' "
AUDIT DEFICIENCY REPORT CP-2.1
<nusE c T . A U D.T NO.
, s.Q . M O .
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station s CR-0172 2 AUDs1 LO (,#NG ANS A A T EON: DEPT. A CTIVITY s O sma O '
Construction Procurement COM RECT tV E A CT SON N ESPONEC ASSIGNED 708 M EPO R TED As V 4 D A T L; H. C. Dodd B. C. Scott ! 4 / 28 / 75 DOCUMEN T VIOLAT ED ANSI N45.2.13, Paracra,3h 2.1 " Planning" .
PAa Aca APN iciTEn .' Planning for the procurement process provides a uniform approach to the
$ activity... Planning activities shall include the establishment of a sequence of actions g gg,ggsteC"___________________________
o E A unifor=, planned approach for the following is non-existent:
ua U
- l. Safety-related subcontracts
- 2. Safety-related purchase orders (vendors)
This item was discussed with Mr. E. Kotowski, W. Childress, Jr., L. Hancock.
R ECO M M EhDCD CO R R ECTIVE ACTION: ,
Establish measures to assure timely execution of the procurement process to meet construction activity schedules. These measures would include 1) identification of safety-related services / materials; 2) projected delivery dates well in advance .
I of actual construction needs.
M EEPO N SE DATE: IMEAUD8T D AT E: APPROVED SYs e d, ddg l DATES.i' [ /
3 5 / 30 / 75 l 8/ 1 ! 75. [76~l" To oe comoteted by audsted organization CON N ECT BV E A C T sO N f4 EEPO NSE1 Measures shall be established as described in the " recommended corrective action" section above by July 30, 1975.
t i bbl fibbN hkl.k (If available, attach documentation su ="'Ti co e 's lo^n / /
supporting complation of corrective action) l1 ( D O & k P U f $ / 2. / TT To be como eted by B&R Quallty Assureace
~
H E VIE W O
- R E VBEW ED ts Y a Satisfactorv Unsatisfactory -
l' O ATf E f M ESULTE OF R E AUD8T 6 AUDIT NO. jD AT Ea DSatisfactorv unsatisfactory l /
M era A N eth; O DEFICIE!!CY CLOSED APPHOVED UY2 j D A T F.; / / i t
/ / ;
I
Brownf5Roounc.
OUALITY ASSURAt1CE DEPARTMENT -
^ "'" ' **"'
AUDIT DEFICIENCY REPORT CP-2.2 PH OJEC T - J.O NO. AWO47 No.
Com nche Peak Steam Electric Station ' CR-0172 . 2 ,
AU DIT Eb O H C. A NIZ A T TOM s ACT8VITY:
jDEPT.
Q =aa D ! Ouality Assurance Records f CORHECTIV E ACT BON N ESPONSE A&EIGNED T Os REPORT ED BY s '
P. L. Eussolini DOCUM EN T VsOL ATED W. J. Kropp lDATE;4 ! 30 !75 I
_CP_QCP _4_, Revision 11 d/74 Para. 6.3 PA R AcTAPN ic, ten -------------------------
y "A records checklist shall be developed designating the required !
O QA Records."
Z w o,,,,,,,,on,.
o .
E A Quality Assurance records checklist has not been developed. I w -
0 l l
This item was discussed with Mr. L. Lamb. .
j l i l
t
- t NECOMMENDED CORR ECTIVE ACTIONI _
Comply with procedure CP-QCP-4 by establishing a Quality Assurance records checklist t'o assure reccipt of all QA Records required.
i R ESPON S E DATE. G REAUDIT D ATE & APPROV ED S Y a y #DATEa
/ f f 5 / 30 75 l 8 / 1 / 75 M,d eg! # / / / 75-To be comoleted by auotted orcanization CON NECTIV E ACTIO N R ESPONSE& ,
A Quality Assurance records checklist has been established to comply with procedure CP-QCP-4. This procedure will be updated as construction progresses to assure collec-tion of all QA records required.
[i l
i
/// available, attach documentation SU = M'TT to = v i supporting completion of corrective action) @.mm. c. (Mcw5'..; loATE 3 f 30 f 75 To be completed by B&R Ouality Assurance NE VIEW O F CORR ECTIV E ACTION HEEPONSE' REVIEWED RY s lDATCa / e Dsatistactory unsatisfactory .
l / / _
HESULT S O F HC AUDITS A UDIT NO. jDATEs
O DEFICIENCY CLOSED APP,.DVEn .., ;DATE:
i
/_ /
. B rr,) W n ff R % tj n c , ATTACHMENT C
- QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT .
^ * * " ' ' '
AUDIT DEFICIENCY REPORT CP-2.3 a.o no Auusi no.
ruosEET.
8 CR-0172 2 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station A CT a v lTY :
A UD4T ED ORG ANIZ AT eon DEPT.
Construction Procurement G.==a D !
aEPonTEoSv. ; o AT E. j j Connective ACT c,~ EsPo=sE Ass o=Eo Toi W. J. Kropo ! 4 / 29 /- 75 H. C. Dodd DOCUMEN T VIOLAT ED ANSI N45.2 Section 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ " " " " " * " "
- PAR AGH APM lC87ED " Measures shall be established and documented to assure that design 3 bases are included or referer.ced in the documents for procurement of items and o
y
. san.i.caf 6.:_. iLDLedLangep_ .t.b9.r_e t0 "
_O = 5 E R V A T so N 51 .
o Changes to purchase orders are not being issued when there are revisions to
[j- g g specifications referenced in the purchase orders.
Reference - Purchase Order 35-1195-0147 Specification 2323-SS-10 This item was discussed with Mr. E. Kotowski.
' g RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTaoNs 1 Establish measutes to -assure that upon a revision of a specification, referenced, in a purchase order, a change to same purchase order is issued incorporating this ,
revision.
N ESPo N S E DATE: 4REAUDITDATE:
- / acc APPROVED BYsA" s;DATEss-/ ,
4 hy--
, / . / ,, . / , ,,
To be completed by audited organization l
CORM ECT 4V E ACT bon R ESPoNSE;
[
l Construction procedure GCP-4 establishes the procurement cycle and will be revised within 60 working days to incorporate controls over specification and drawing revisions referenced in "OPEN" purchase orders. The Engineering Dept, will have the responsibility to insure that the appropriate spec and drawing is referenced in each purchase order.
I l . . . -
/
l l
/// available, attach documentation supporting como!etion of corrective actioni su=='TT Eo av i l\ (.C)onn l>; P ug jo^7Er
- (,
/
/ 2 /7S l To be comp leted by B&R Quality Assurante l nEvicyEo avi ;DATE j j !
nE vie w or Con a ECTev E Action nEsPon>E- ' / \
D unsatisfactory /
DSatisfactory g 84 E5U LTS o F M E AU DIT s AUDIT NO. jo AT E: / / '
D unsatistactory l / /
CSatisfactory M EM AN ME; O DEFICIENCY CLOSED APPMOvLD D T a lU A T C; / /
8
/ / ==-
r l
Brownf5Rcct.Inc. m ACra NT c
. , QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT
^ " ' " ' ' '
AUDIT DEFICIENCY REPORT i
. CP-2.4 l P4OJLCT. J.O NO A WD4T NO.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ' CR-0172 2 :
AWDa T ED ORG ANIZ A T eONI DEPT. A CT IV 8 7 Y }
G=*a O i construction Procurement l CdH M ECTIV E AC TION R ESPON EE A554G N ED T O; REPORTEDBYs a 8 H. C. Dodd OOCUM EN T VIOL AT ED W. J. Kropp l D AT 4 E;/ 29 [ 75 l ANS1 N45.2.13 Section -------------------------__
2.2 P A A R AP C T Ei, y " Measures shall require preparation of an approved list of suppliers...
O based on pre-established criteria."
2 w o r ,, -- -
T d N i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
O E No evidence was observed that an approved list of suppliers exists.
w O
This item was discussed with Mr. E. Kotowski.
CECOMM ENDED COR R CCTIVE ACTION:
Establish and implement, by procedure, an approved suppliers' list based on pre-established criteria. l This approved suppliers list should be distributed to departments involved in the l procurement process.
1 t
I R E AUDIT D AT E:
[n- l N E SPO NS E DATE: APPROVED S Y s y 5 / 30 ! 75 l 8 /1 ,! 75 D C N ,. M l6DATEsf[ /
To be comotered by auditea organization COR H ECT eV E A CT 40N H EEPONSE; ,
I l An approved list of suppliers will be established by July 30, 1975, l and distributed to departments involved in the procurement process.
f
,,lt: 8 (If available, attach doc'umentation su MsTiED ovn
- supporting completion of corrective action) % C D e, X.\ la., (NJi l dan$ f E- f
\ To be completed by B&R Quality Assurance R E VIEW O r CORN ECTIV E ACTION R ESPON EC' REV8EWED UY s ; DATES ) f f Dsatistactory D unsatisfactory - *
/ / l W E SULTb OF R E AUDIT. AUD8TNO. jDATE / /
Dsatistactory D Unsatisiactory / /
l H EM A R M5; l
D DEFICIENCY CLOSED :
APPROV LD WY t }
lD A T E:
' / ;
. , BrownffRoounc. ATTACHMENT C QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT .
1
^ " ' " ' '
AUDIT DEFICIENCY REPORT CP-2.5 PROJECT, J .O . N O . A UDIT NO.
CR-0172 2 Conanche Peak Steam Electric Station i AWOIT ED O sa G AMe Z A T sO N 8 DEPT. A CT s v lT V .
G==- O ' Construction Civil COR R ECTive; ACTION R ESPON SE A550GNED Toa REPORTEDmV4 D AT E:
)
H. C. Dodd B. C. Scott ! 4 / 29 / 75 -
DOC UM E N T VIO L.AT ED CPSES PSAR, Vol. IV, Section 3 PA R ACR APN (CtTEls
> N/A .
o .
y._, ,_______
9 The CPSES PSAR fef erences ACI 614-59 entitled "Recormended Practice for Measuring,
$ Mixing, and Placing Concrete" as a standard to be adhered to. Gibbs & Hill concrete O specification no. 2323-SS-9 Rev. 1 and Brown & Root concrete procedures do not reference this standard. .
i This ite:n was ' discussed with Mr. G. McGee. .
RECOMMENOCD CORRECT 8VC ACTIONI Revise Brown & Root construction procedures to include adherence to ACI 614-59.
/ 7f !
H EEPO N S E D AT E: 3HEAUO47 DATES APPROVED s Ya .% 3DaTE:
5 / 30 ! 75 l 8 / 1 ! 75 d.C CphrM l [ / /
Tn be comotered by audited organization C Oau R EC T 4W E A CT IU M H E3PQ NSE; I
ACI-614-59 has been superseded; however, to provide compatibility between controlling do::uments appropriate B&R .:onstruction procedures will be revised within 30 working days -
to reference ACI-614-69.
_-n - .', h, ' '),.V h.
..... ~h
- 3. - ;; g g u ta. w h' h l
l l
(If available, attach documentation sumMnriCo oss lc^w f f j succorting completion of corrective action) \\ c . b:.cd % thP, ' & / 2- /77 1
To be completed by B&R Ouality Assurance R E wlE w O F CORH ECTIVE ACTION HE$rONbE- HEveEwED BY s DSetisfactory O Unsatisfactory l' D ATfEa f M E 5ue.Y S O F N E AU U6T 4 AUDIT NO. jDATEs /
DSatisfactorv D unsatistactorv /
REMARM5; ,
. O DEFICIENCY CLOSED awcm.m m ovi lo A TC; g f/ L
" " " ~ " " - " -
BrowiCRoot. lac.
QUALITY ASSURAMCE DEPARTMENT
^ "~" ' ' "
AUDIT DEFICIENCY REPORT . CP-2.6 J.O NO- AWDei NO.
PM OJEC T
IS aO . Construction Calibration etE POR T CO sY. DATE. f j ConH ECTIV C ACTeON R ESPONSE A550GNED TOs B. C.. Scott i 4/ 28 / 75 (,
1 H. C. Dodd DOCUM EN T VIOLaT ED ANSI N45.2 Section 13 ~~~~~~~~
PA R AG R A PN (CIT t;j s " Measures shall be established and documented to assure that tools, """""
y o gauges, instruments. ..af fecting quality are of a proper range, type, and accuracy
$ gggan f.c.ca ntA._t c_es_tah MShed_c.r_i t er i a . "
5 An adequate calibration procedure has not been developed, issued and implemented in G-
- y a time frame consistent with its need.
This ite= was discussed with Mr..W. Childress, Jr.
x T
4 ,, .
FIECOM M CNDED COR R ECTIV E ACTIONS 1 Develop, approve, issue and implement an adequate' construction procedure for the calibration of tools, gauges, and instruments. This procedure would include calibra-tion methods, intervals, history, accuracy, serial number, technician, environmental condition, date of calibration, recall system, etc.
l 6DATE st E S PO N S E e /30 DATE: ,
/ 75 4REAUDSTDATEs l 8 /1 / 75 APPHO V ED S Y s
- h. .
w[j !#!//7.7 To be comoleted by audited orcanization CO H H ECT t V E A CT SO N R ESPONSE; A construction procedure to control the seicetion and calibration of testing,and measuring equipment will be issued within 90 working days. The only measuring equip.
pr'esently being used and anticipated to be used prior to the issuance of the above pro-redure is survey instruments which are adequately controlled per construction proc'edure 1
- CP-9.
..__,.,~=
t (If available, attach documentation suoutrTEo nse j j i supporting completion of corrective action) Ihr* m..r\.\ ( Rb3 l D AT Es 1 $ / 7 t W i To be completed by S&H Quallty Assurance REvaEWED BY s . D ATEa f . (
- HEviEw O F CORR EC11V E ACTION MESPONSE'
' \
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory . / /
HEbuLTS O F R E AUDIT. AUDIT NO. j D AT Es
/ /
DSatisfactorv D unsatisfactory / / f M E M A M og5; I
DEFICIENCY CLOSED l t APPMovCD ur 'D A T C; / l l i / /
^ g.yy, ggag, A1YACliMENT C QUAllTY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT
^ " ' " ' ' '
AUDIT DEFICIENCY REPORT CP-2.7 PnOJEc s . a.O M O. AuOsT No.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
- CR-0172 2 AuCIT ED O H C. A N a & AT eO N s OEPT. ACTIV fTy s O= a 8 9 3." me ouality Control Calibration CQRMEC f tVE ACTION R ESPONSE A56tGNED TO: HEPONTED SY a j O AT E:
P. L. liussolini B. C. Scott ! 4 / 30 / 75 DOCUM EN T VIOLAT ED
_lnspection & Testing Procedural Manual Para. 513.10 PA R AGR A PN lC87E):
y " Calibration Record Cards must be maintained for all equipment."
Z h O B SE R V ATION52 y I. Calibration records do not reflect the following as required:
w 1. serial numbers of concrete thermometers (8)*
O 2. interval of required calibration (19)* *
- 3. responsibility for calibration (19)*
- 4. " owned by" (19)
- II. Ref. procedure calls for a monthly calibration of concrete thermometers.
Calibration records reflect' a yearly calibration interval.
- no. of documents involved This item was discussed with Mr. B. Kinkade.
RECOMMENDED CORRCCTIVE ACTION: ,
Conduct an in-depth audit cf all calibration records to assure correction of refer-enced observations and comply with established, procedures.
H E SPO NS E DATER B R E AUC,'IT D AT E: APPROVED BYa
- 8DATCs 5 ! 10 75 ! 8!1 75 M. f / 7[
To be comoieted by audsted organization GOR R ECTIV E ACTION R ESPO N SE; i
An in-depth audit was made by both B&R QA and R. W. Hunt Cc. of all calibration records to assure correction of the above observations. Audit records are on file.
~
(/f aval/ab/e, attach documentation SusM TT Eo svs a supportinc comoietion of corrective action) 9.% j. t'$,,,,Se,k y loATE 5 , 30 f 25 To be completed by B&R Quality Assurance H E VICW O P CO M M EC TIV E A CTION C5e*0N5h ' FIEV8CWED S Y s lOATC f f OSatisfactory D unsatisfactory .
/ /
R ESULT S O F R E AUDIT 4 AUDIT NO. jD A1 Cs / g Osatisfactorv D unsatisfactory ; / /
HLMARn5; O DEFICIENCY CLOSED APPROVED BY s lDATE: / /
f / /
Brownf5 Root.!ac. CN C OUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT
^ ""' ' '
AUDIT DEFICIENCY REPORT CP-2.8 3.0 NO AuDn No.
Pu os E C T .
CR-0172 CP-2 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station ACTsvsTY; AUDIT LD O Hf ANIZ A T EON: DEPT.
"" t Quality Control Records O a E.) R." :
8' E PO R T E D D Y . DATE: / j CORRECT sV L ACT BON R LLPONEE ASStGNED TO P. 1.. Bussolini B. C. Scott l 4 / 30 / 75 DOCUMEN T VsOL ATED ANSI N45.2.9, Section 6.2 -------- ----------
PARAcRAPN,CTEn Record storage systems shall provide for the accurate retrieval of p
o information without undue delay.
Z w .g , g ,7 ,73 ,,7 - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _
U E Inspection reports (form C-1055) for' concrete slump cones could hot be produced.
w O
This item was discussed with Mr. B. Kinkade.
(
RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS . i 1.0bt'ain inspection reports.
- 2. File in a manner to assure. prompt retrievability. s t
6DATCs H E EPO N S E 5 / DATES!75 30 4REAUD87DATE I 8 To/ 1 ! 75 APPROvCD B Y s d.C 7
c,Y! g[/ [7!
be comoteted oy suotted organization CO R R EC T 4 V E A CT 0Q N N L 5"ONSE;
- 1. Inspection reports were located.
- 2. Inspection reports are now filed in a manner to assure prompt retrievability.
u d_ R Ji! FORM!!TR... e..m SuoM*TTEo evs 'o ATE: '
(if available. attach documentation subporting completion of corrective action) Q M c .i ( Q . m o } ., l5 f 30 f75 To be completed by S&R Guanty Assurance i R EysEwgp av s IJ E VI E W O F CO R n ECTIV E A CTION R E SPON S L '
Satisfactory Unsatisfactory lDATC4 f f !
AUDIT NO. jD ATE: / ;
R E bV LT b OF R E AUO4T.
OSatisfactory O Unsatisfactory l /. __
HEMAHns.
O DEFIC lENCY CLOSED AP* JVLD09. {D A TC; l ! / /
'Section 6 Pcgs 25
- . f 4.,
BROWN & ROOT CONSTRUCTION /QA
'f M.
B&R QA AUDIT NO. CP-3 LIST OF CONCERNS Concern #1 NDE: The measures currently employed to control, ve.rify, and document archival film quality should be included in the applicable nondestructive examination procedure for radiography.
e 1
0 k
l o
ah I l!!l [.ifti:
t:
. '~. ,..
4 i
l
~
ys # ,'$ Y e
. g -
AUDIT FOLLOW UP VERIFICATION 1 of 8 SE R. W. HUNT CORP. AUDIT OF 6/16/75 REFERENCE AUDIT DOCUMENTS R. W. Hunt IC-3777-6 R. W. Hunt IC - From Kinkade to Biank Dated 7-1-75 ITEM 1 - R. W. HUNT TDDR-1 FINDING:
Several cylinder data cards not signed off for various process steps.
RESPONSE
All cylin6er data cards have been properly signed off by res-ponsible personnel and all future data cards will be maintained in accordance with requirements of E-1001.
TUSI Q. A. VERIFICATION:
A random review of the cylinder data cards shows that the responsible personnel have now properly signed off for the various process steps.
'-k ....e:-
ITEM 2 - R.-W. HUNT TDDR-2 2 of 8 FINDING:
Several concrete test cylinders in curing room not "H" stamped to indicate acceptance by receiving inspection. .
EESPONSE:
All concrete test cylinders in curing room have been inspected and stamped "H." All future cylinders will be inspected and stamped in accordance with requirements of NQA 5.2.
TUSI Q. A. VERIFICATION:
A check of the concrete test cylinders presently stored in the R. W. Hunt curing room verified that the "H" stamp has been applied to the cylinders. .
l 4
1 a
i i
i I
l i
e .
ITEM 3 - R. W. HUNT TDDR-3 3 of 8 FINDIl!G:
Calibration cards and tags not maintained for items calibrated by others.
RESPO'!SE :
All equipment calibrated by others has been documented and tagged as required by NQA 7.1 and 7.2 and in the future all require-monts of NQA 7.1 and 7.2 will be complied with.
TUSI Q. A. VERIFICATION:
A random check of the calibration records and measure and testing equipment verified that the calibration by others is being documented and tagged. .
4
.- .c ~3 V
. . . . . ; r,' ; ' ' , ,L \ g*, I'
'. ',' b h..Vb S ' ' ' ~
4 0 of ITEM 4 - R. W. IlONT TDDR-4 FINDING:
-Ne documentation available for receiving inspection of cylin-der. capping stands.
RESPOSSE:
Doct: mentation for receiving inspeciton of capping stands is now in file. We have reviewed the records and required receiving docu-mentation is now on file for all test equipment.
TUSI O. A. VERIFICATION:
A review of the receiving records for the capping stand veri-fied that the documentation is now available.
1 s
I 4
e An' t
e e ITEM 5_- R. W. HUNT TDDR-5 s of a FINDING:
Discrepancy reports not filed for all items in non-conforming area. All items in non-conforming area not " hold" tagged.
RESPONSE
We have placed a hold tag on this equipment to note that the B&R robar meter is not to be used for test by R. W. Hunt Co. personnel.
We will have a separate storage cabinet built to store this equip-ment.
]
TUSI 0. A. VERIFICATION:
Verified that a separate storage cabinet has been built and Also verified that that therebarmeterisstoredinthecabl{ net.
a hold tag has been attached to the subject piece of equipment. It is noted that a discrepancy report was not.on file for this item.
4 O
l e
i l
e o ITEM 6 - R. W. HUNT TDDR-6 6 of 8
^
FINDING:
No documentation that the required level of personnel per-formed the individual tests.
RESPONSE
All reports that require Level II to perform the tests have been initialed by the man who performed the test. In the future, all reports will be initialed by the person performing the test.
TUSI 0. A. VERIFICATION:
A review of the Coarse Aggregate Test file on Sulfate Sound-i ness Tests, revealed that report numbers 949 and 950 had not b'een initialed. - I e.*k
. . - .s". u ,
.< !" , . ? ~
v ! '. < . '
\ i. '
5,5 o
96
e e .
ITEM 7 - R. W. HUNT TDDR-7 7 of 8 FINDINGS:
. Cylinder tests were not begun before fifteen (15) minutes after sampling pour 101-900-1 (8 cyl's 302-309).
RESPONSE
We have reviewed sampling and transporting system and we will pre-sample from another truck when we are not able to meet the requirements of starting' tests for compressive strength within fif-teen (15) minutes from time sample is obtained. ,
TUSI Q. A. VERIFICATION:
This item could not be verified at the time of the follow up verification audit, due to the fact that the witnessing verification of an in-process concrete test will be required.
r7 .'
-. [,O h W
ITEM 8 - R. W. HUNT TDDR-8 8 of 8 FINDING:
Specific gravity of sodium sulfate solution was not checked before each use. (cycle)
RESPONSE
A form has been made to document determination of specific gravity of sodium sulfato solution before each cycle of the sound-ness test is made.
TUSI O. A. VERIFICATION: '
The response to the deficiency by the R. W. Hunt Site Personnel hac not addressed the main problem concerning the deficiency. The nain concern by this office is that the sp,ecific gravity of the sodium sulfate solution was not checked before each use as required by R. W. Hunt procedure C-1025.
J An adequate response should give c disposition of the soundness tests performed prior to the deficiency.
The deficiency response did address the documentation and we did verify that a form had been prepared and was being used, although this form is not a part of the R. W. Hunt Procedures Manual as re-cuired.
g*, % ' '.
) rS i LT I. 6 , tg g. .
. i. t k' 1
l I
Brown & Root.inc. ]
t INTEROFFICE MEMO IM-0747 T0: File DATE: May 21, 1975 FROM: G. H. Fisher
SUBJECT:
Job 35-1195, CPSES Audit of R. W. Hunt Calibration Records A surveillance was conducted on May 15, 1975, of the R. W. Hunt Calibrattan records to document compliance with R. W. Hunt procedures found in violation and reported in A.D.R. no. 2.7 on April 30, 1975.
(1) Control numbers were assigned to all thermometers and recorded on calibration record card.
(2) Interval of calibration was listed at one month.
(3) Responsibility for calibration was assigned to R. Gutierrez.
(4) Records indicate in applicable cases whether equipment is owned by Brown & Root or R. W. Hunt.
Mr. B. Kinkade also produced the concrete slump zone inspection reports covered in A.D.R. no. 2.8, dated April 30, 1975.
These A.D.R.'s were then filled in by Mr. B. .Kinkade and returned. to the QA Department.
REVIEWED & APPROVED: [7 her'lbusseAii Wv SIGNED SIGNED PRO's. O A. MAMAGEe
,&7 b:Mb "
TITLE ~ TITLE GHF/ eke cc:
B. Kinkade D. V. Biank 1 i
g"""
G. H. Fisher }.Q h
(s.. _. ., ,. . .....,s..,...
p .. . . .
QU A'.iTY ASSU;il'.: CE DEPAW' .c .NT
- e
^ " ' " " " '""
AUDIT DEF;C!dNCY P.EPORT Ci'-2.6
' ' ~ ~ ~ -
- r. a o , , u o .
r.. . . a s . u , .
p.o nu CR-0172 2 Co: .mv& i ak Stean C'ectric Station i
- AC riv Tvi
[A .. v . . o o JU .~.T.71 o n , j u i. r .
' O n..n D ._ ._.. t Conrtruction calibration H i PO H T L.o U Y :
wi H H t C reV6 .. C i lW4 h f.G Pu f f '.a t. A b r. t (e t e E o T U .
- 11. C. m.;il H. C.. Scott l' U A1 4 G; 28 [ 75 lIs O C U M t s.1 g e.e. A T CD e
t /J:SI D5.' Section 13
[- a n A c u A r.. i c e r e n "licaeures shall be established and docum.ented to accure that tools,
- r. i r Justrumeut c. . .af f ectin;; quality are of a proper range, type, and accuracy Q, auger.,gg_.r. LcJn' cu 0._4f t2.hlish9d._c.r_iyrin . "
i ;I~
5.-l An adr quate. calibration procedure has not been developed, issued and impleiriented in w p ,f a tim f rawc consir. tent with its need.
This irrm was discussed with Mr. W. Childrecs, Jr. ,
t i
l I -
.w c c. iu u.o z. . c e a rw e Ti v r. A c rTo n i Develor, cpprova. issue and implement an adaquate construction procedure for the cclibrntun of toc:s, cauges, and instruments. This procedure would include calibra-tion net'.wde , intervals, history, accurney, cerial number, technician, environmental conditie , dcte of calibratien, recall system, etc.
I t
i s_ .. _
80 ssT s a
.Yr ! #/
't . :43 UME G al t.: s id e. th U D I T D A T L: A Pl*H O,V a;D. B v a d.h. / / 78' e /3G 75 !8 / 1 75 To be completed by audned organtz: tion C G .~i'd 1.CT i v C A 6 .' e u ra re a' S
. PO N S E L A. CON 07eacwd floc 6DMLE To CON 7264. TH6 56&fC7/dH AND %&EATt.
Of 7'657*/MG- AND M6AS RA/NG 6QNthM6pf tutu /$6 /SS/fSA M//7H* is' 90 NoKK/WG- Mf5, TUd d A/Ly' m6ASM/NG- 82M/8 PASSWT4 y' ES'Nc- as&:D /rkD A y ricip476D 70 86 W 56D PM0P 7~o 7W6 /5SNAMc4 W THL Hot'6 A60C6fMA?6 /3 SuRVSY /NS7;ekm&MTS R/H/cM 4A6 .+p6GMTHy Cwr/k*
P2(L CONSTAMCTreN PA0C6Dut& CC P- 7,
(!f availab!c.mtsch documentation sup,.'orting comloietion of corrective action) su m ' e To loe comp!cted by B&R Guality AssurancG lo^ic' i f/]AV S,6~ _
utvcwrouv: .o Ar ts
~7c v a w o s c a 4hc Tiv o A ct iou wi...Po u s.e D.%tisfur;tery 0 Un':atisfactory f f ouoiT uo. ;oaTc: / ,, , ,
F .a u s u. G 60er. r*'~
} w.DSatisfacwrv D Umn:ist:~cinry rr- s
/
.-u. .. n S : L ., t ; ..s.
D DEFICli!NCY CLOSED a rruo v..u o v . ;u.m.: f f
- / /
... . - . . ~
- c. , o .: , > .;_ ..
OUALITY ASSU.iANCE DEPAGTMt::4T o e
~
Atas ~ No. c re u G 4 AUDIT DdlCIENCY HErOilT CP-2.5 ..
>> o no a vu., u o.
I ...sw e i
CR-0172 2 i Cor.n :n Pesh Si c.ti- Elcetric Station i 4: u t t TJ, . ei t a r .o m j ourr. activirvi F;r.n[_.';_._
' Corm t ruc tion Civil -
Gw,,cci .i : .s . fiLn n o. Aird. ass.un co voi nurourcoov.
H. C. Dorld B. C. Scott !oavu 4 29 / 75 j joOcV94L N r /so' ATLD l l CPSES PA1:, Vo] . IV, Section 3 -
m n . .. . . ... . c ,7 c , ,
j>a N /I, l a.*
rioNw O kus t ..5,,
$j The CPSES PSAR refcrcnces ACl 614-59 entitled "Recormended Practice for Measuring, Qi Mixu:,r , t.nd Placing, Concrete" as a standard to be adhered to. Gibbs & Hill concrete
,0 spe::;fication no. 2323-SS-9 Rev.1 and Brown & Root concrete procadures do not
! referr.nce this stindard, t
I
! l
[ This item was discussed with Mr. G. McGee.
j7ccopuksow connecTtvt a cTioN *
,! RevHc iirown & aoot censtruction procedures to include cdherence to ACI 616-59.
l l
t' avenovcoav; .- io nT oi
! 75 .-M.C Mc,7 l [ / /
'- rett.. a w =.4 u o.r o ur t.
f:tsrown/ 5 30 75 l 8 /To 1oc completed by budited organization 76
~
j co r.w cc e iv t s ct lON N EI' Cerea;&;
!. /ICZ- M-57 Md.s 86fn SWP4x'ssD6D, Houtsp' s t To Ae0Via6 GomPAT/8// try 867W6fW QoM7AosuMG- D dc Vin n s ys APPA0PA/ATA A.N COW 57AMCT//N af A' 0 C f 4H? A 6 5 / d / 4 4 6 6 l A6f/54D W/TH./M 3 0 W6/C/#G- 94VS 7b 26ASx6scd
^ ...
y o n. r to u r o uns.
Ilf BVail&lu,2ttach documon!Otion 31pporting completiap' of corrective ccrion)
,l kV [
To I c completed by B&R Ovality AssuranW '"'
eg r y gqWF.D ggY :
- o ATea 9 L Vit W U. LCHHCCTIVL CT BoM N c hPOPJ bL '
I O satislxtu:y D unsati:tactory l l l l........u.o,....uo.r. ], ,. . . o ,1 n o .
- o., c , f D unsatisfactory /
I,.Dsatist:etorv
~ _ _ _ _
4( L hl A 44 tsh 1
, O DEFICIENCY CLOSED
..I* h$ h h- Ih .
b g
, :.;. . - ~.
O U i '.'f': 1.CS D . '. D& . .6
- UC,1T DEFICIE:lC'r* IGP0T T ci . ' 1
,.o , ,. a o : no.
.. m i . ;, o ,
' r. " 0 ' l ?
e n i. e. ': N :1: St . "icetric Statinn
.v,..tuo.. ,..Asso~. .
.v. .
_ e. l...ravry, . r w o r anw r. t
} " a O __ .. ... -, const uctien r c. .. c o r w
.. un n n c o .m ; vr. s c.
a v.. .. u u , , v e s.<. . s n n e s e .n. a c o.
' 2" 75
'i . C. 1... i h' . J . . :Y'm 4 L' O c O M L e s f V e '*, . d.T E O AS S I P.'. 3 . .' Sectic:t 5
--~~~---------------------------------:
. 4 m c u n .4 n. .u. n "Iha ure s shall be establishe:' and Jxt ented to assure that design y
of bcscs are l';cluded er ref erenced in the docu:ents .N reocurcrent of items and Quegg.exox zu. .t b e.ms
)
I;: purchase orders cr:: not being issued vN.c there are revisions to u Changes tospecifications ref ectenced in the purcha c crders.
ho_I I
neference - Purch>.s. Order 35-1195-0147 Spe:H ication 2323-SS-10 .
This ite:r uas discussed with Mr. E. Kotowski.
- u,muu oe. c. .n = ccrivt r.cws m Estab]i '. neasures :a assure that upon a revision-uf :. specifica.t on, referenced .
in a purebene order, a charg,c to same purchase order is issued incorporating this revision.
I I
l e._ - ._
f ,si A U DIT D AT c; A r,.,f 0 V c D H T ;
6pATg
' 8'. L h *C ai S L c fv Um F C:
7 c. 4 1 M
..[; .oE l W / 76~
IO be currDlelCd bV Dudl:Cd Org :'iqion
! ce n s cc riv o - c a s .> n w e.s ror.r s.
I Consraucriw PRoceoues GcA4 Esrg&usH6s 72 Procan 6sr6st' cyc.c M10 wsu 8e. Rssitsso wirpig 4o wogKt/6- DA/S To /NOORMA76 CourROL S ovsR SP&c.iFicArioN AND DRa wing. REi//ssus Reffesier.
p c / p s s b y c. p g p p t y st.s p g z l tu OP&W" PuRc.HA-56 ORDBAS. 7Nf l ras eespusioury To IM.sust}es upweim r spsc suo ORwws is eenmcso ne my Aegsss sass i
VO D UtCn w.wr me m.,.
t (l' available, at:xh o'ocu:nentation suna 'guo wr - i s:wcrtinn r:, cipletian ni ccrrective action ' ,C , AFjf ' ' s s .lo [,e:A, V lya s -N To I,: conic!: red by SSR Cual:*v issurancef _
.u.v:t m o us. ; o,.v t.
. .. . v . t w o r c e, , . .:1.v c , . .: T ier. iasrc~w l
l l DS..risf::tc.*v D Unsatislectory l j o Ar a..
pa .uu s or .v.auvir;
< ,. c o n u o .
7
,s D linsatisfac:cty l l I C $ otisfrct; , o _
- . ...c.
j l D DU/C!E!.CY CLOSED p.r.v c:
i j
. .. . . o . t u . m 7
1 . - . _ ._ _ _
BrownURootJnc.
INTEROFFICE MEMO IM-0768 DATE: May 28,1975 TO: P. L. Bussolini FROM:
W. E. Childress , Jr.
SUBJECT:
Job 35-1195, CPSES B&R Houston Site Audit No. 2 Receiving the official audit results May 27, 1975, with response However, dueI am Maysubmit-30, 1975, for an audit April 29, 1975, is cutting it close.
ting the attached ADR No's CP-2.3; CP-2.5; and CP-2.6 with the " CORRECTIVE ACTION RESPONSE" section completed in reply to the items assigned the Engineer-ing Department.
If I can be of further assistance or if you have any questions, please advise.
'iA QUALITY t c, .ZCCriD A55URANCh /
f
/ V
.J W. E. Childress, Jr.
- ./44-Project Engineer
'p _ a 1 - .
- -j iu - j L 135.i!L WEC/ eke \.6 4
c ,
p 6-Attachements 10B.e 4
- 1. ..h s
- Y "~
i--
cc *' . Dodd , J r. 3- .
H. C 4 - ' -
" ~ ' '
. .B r.
E. P. Kotowski ,
,u G. W. McGee Lua W. H. Hench '
f- QA RECORD
.- ,/
~-
R . O REVIEW :
I
~ ' ~ FILE NO.
'IR,/ _
su I E NO.
T *S -
,. ( -
i\+ .
W o ,
~ '
% * #g,j. **57 AUDIT POLLOW UP g e
B&R MONTHLY SITE AUDITS (5' -
PIFERENCE AUDIT DOCUMENTS B&R IM-0733 dated April 14, 1975 B&R IM- dated May 12, 1975 D&R IM-0747 dated'May 21, 1975 B&R IM-0831 dated June 5, 1975 QA RECORD B&R IM-0982 dated June 30, 1975 Fa7 . ,,, 7 L : 8 w n ,. , 8 N IM,/
?05'$
e
' N ., ? . . . .
j '
.!, c...
W- -
O p
- B&R MONTHLY SITE AUDIT 1 of 2 FOR APRIL 1975 ,
AS REPORTED IN IM-0733 ITEM 1 FINDING:
Two procedures concerning the calibration of balances and balance weights (E-1038 and E-1039) for the R. W. Hunt Test Laboratory were noticed to be missing from the R. W. Hunt Site Procedures Manual. -
R. W. HUNT RESPONSE:
Mr. Byron Kinkade informed B&R that R. W. Hunt has been in com-munication with the National Bureau of Standards in an effort to obtain a book on the method of calibration of balances and balance weights since November of 1974 with no reply to date.
TUSI Q. A. VERIFICATION:
The R. W. Hunt response can not be verified. TUSI Site Q. A.
feels that the response is not adequate for the finding.
' ~ '
8 F 2 2 ITEM 2 of FINDING:
Balances and balance weights have been calibrated by Pacific Scientific with documentation dated January 8, 1975, January 17, 1975, and March 14, 1975; numbered 1385, 1386, and 1387; traceable to N.B.S. Recalibration is due September 14, 1975. Mr. Byron inkade does not have a copy of the Hunt Purchase Order for Pacific Scientific on file and also does not have written procedures by Pacific Scientific for the calibration of balances and balance weights approved by R. W. Hunt Co.
- R. W. HUNT RESPONSE:
None TUSI O. A. VERIFICATION:
Verified that R. W. Hunt has on file the Purchase Order and calibration procedures (for the balances and balance weights) of Pacific Scientific.
The B&R Site Auditor stated that "the above noted discrepancies will be closed out in the May Audit." A review of the May Audit did not reveal any close out of the discrepancies.
. .. .... s ....l a bUL; L c.
e 0 B&R MONTHLY SITE AUDIT 1 of 3 FOR APRIL 1975 AS REPORTED IN REPORT DATED 5-12-75 (No IM-# available)
ITEM 1
, FINDING:
Forms E-1038 and E-1039 not in R. W. Hunt Q. A. Manual.
R. W. HUNT RESPONSE:
None.
TUSI O. A. VERIFICATION:
Verified that forms E-1038 and E-1039 are not contained in the R. W. Hunt Procedural Manual. ,
,g eW #
e 4 ITEM 2 2 of 3 FINDING:
Procedure C-1005 must be revised to show that concrete used in the slump test is to be discarded. .
R. W. HUNT RESPONSE:
tione TUSI Q. A. VERIFICATION:
Procedure C-1005 as contained in the R. W. Hunt Procedural
~
Manual still allows the concrete used in the slump test to be used for other tests.
Procedure C-1005 has been revised.to show that concrete used in the slump test shall be discarded. This procedure has been issued improperly.
4 ITEM 3 3 of 3 J
FINDING:
Procedure C-1012 states "(g) apply any correction factor shown on calibration tag." Aggregate factor is not shown 'on cali-
, bration tag.
R. W. HUNT RESPONSE: .
Mone TUSI Q. A. VERIFICATION:
~
Verified that correction factors are indicated on the calibra-tion tags.
a
.7 ( T, 'eI . *,.
,' ' I - l ' I. I6-'6 ['] I.,5 U
- i'
~. , ; s .r... t k
4 B&R SPECIAL SITE AUDIT OF 1 of 1 R. W. HUNT CALIBRATION RECORDS IJ REPORTED IN IM-0747 This Special Audit was performed as a corrective action follow up to the B&R Corporate Q. A. Audit.#2.
For details of TUSI Q.A. Verification results, see the Report on Audit Follow Up Verification of B&R Corporate O. A. Audit #2. -
e e
L, . . . . ;
f
.... . . . ... :, ;. . . U . .
- )
B&R MONTHLY SITE AUDIT 1 of 2 FOR MAY 1975 AS REPORTED IN IM-0831 ITEM 1 FINDING:
Procedures E-1038 and E-1039 are not in the R. W. Hunt Q. A.
Manual. (This is an outstanding discrepancy from the April Audit.)
R. W. HUNT RESPONSE:
Approval of these procedures is expected'during the week of 6-6-75.
TUSI 0. A. VERIFICATION:
Verified that procedures E-1038 and E-1039 are still missing from the R. W. Hunt Procedural Manual.
(
i
- /
ITCM 2 2 of 2
' FINDING:
Procedure C-1005 has not been received to show that concrete
~
used in the slump test is to be discarded.
R. W. HUNT RESPONSE:
Approval of this procedure is expected the week of 6-6-75.
TUSI O. A. VERIFICATION: -
Procedure C-1005 as contained in the R. W.. Hunt Procedural Manual still allows the concrete used in the slump test to be used -
for other tests.
The subject procedure has been revised to show that concrete used in the slump test shall be discarded.,
The deficiency identified in the issuance of this revised pro-
~
cedure remains unresolved.
- *
- w e,w a
e s D&R MONTHLY SITE AUDIT 1 of 3 FOR JUNE 1975 AS REPORTED IN IM-0982 ITEM 1 FINDING:
As noted in the May Report, procedures E-1038 and E-1039 are not yet in the R. W. Hunt Manual.
R. W. HUNT RESPONSE:
These procedures are in process and expected shortly.
TUSI 0. A. VERIFICATION: .
Verified that procedures E-1038 and E-1039 are still missing f rom the R. W. Hunt Procedural Manual.
l l
l
,...e e me ==
- see * * * *
- l l
[
l
ua .
-'m ' p,,?' . ')
~2 of 3 FIN _ DING :
Procedure C-1005 has been approved and revised, but it is not yet in the procedure manual.
R. W. HUNT RESPONSE:
This procedure is expected to be issued the week 6-30-75.-
TUSI 0. A. VERIFICATION:
Verified-that the deficiency identified in the issuance of Revised procedure remains unresolved. .
e e 3 9
4 &s
e .. .
ITEM 3 3 of 3 FINDING:
All items were found to be as outlined in procedure E-1001 with the exception that a suitable thermometer for checking the temperature of the molten sulfur used in capping is not yet avail-able, although it is on order.
R. W. HUNT RESPONSE:
The thermometer is expected to be on site the week of-6-30-75 and calibrated immediately thereafter.
TUSI O. A. VERIFICATION:
Verified that a thermometer was available and calibrated for checking the temperature of molten capping compound.
TUSI Q. A. can not consider the calibration of this thermometer valid due to the following:
The thermometer used for checking the molten capping compound has to be capable of recording temperatures of 265 0. The ther-mometer'used to calibrate the subject thermometer has a high range of 880
- r. ?ef
-(
O.p*w r.tf.,
^T;f i
. r.-
Applicants'
-'# .~,
Exhibit 55
-Brovn,icrRoot.inc.
INTEROFFICE MEMO TO: G. W. Bulcken DATE: November 8, 1976 FROM: D. G. Horton CORRES. NO: TSQ- 0873
SUBJECT:
CPSES Job 35-1195 Quality Assurance Audit No. CP-7 Attached is my response to the Houston, Brown & Root QA Audit Report CP-7 conducted September 29, 30 and October 1, 1976 as requested in TS-BQ-XX-0292. Closeout verification should be possible during the next scheduled audit of CPSES site activities.
If there are any questions, please advise.
'l 1/s ona d . orton '
Haus on Coordinator REFERENCE 'RouriNG' DGH: leg I.
l nir :.o~~
- j ;'; .
f cc: P. L. Bussolini w/att f, j i P. J. Karnoski w/att e . .. u . ; 3-i , ' ' '
i CPSES File L I F- 7 j "'~
5.- }s BROWN & ROOT. INr
!jl RECE!VE0 h i!!
7EC 1 1976 !ll k CD5?& l UALI AS URANC l
l
s'
- .?
Deficiency No. CP-7.1 of Section 5 Corrective and Preventative Action assigned to P. L. Bussolini.
Deficiency No. CP-7.2 of Section 5 See attached ADR No. CP-7.2. Corrective and Preventative action response submitted by D. G. Horton.
Deficiency No. CP-7.3 of Section 5 Corrective and Preventative Action assigned to H. C. Dodd.
Deficiency No. CP-7.4 of Section 5 See attached ADR No. CP-7.4. Corrective and Preventative action response submitted by D. G. Horton.
Deficiency No. CP-7.5 of Section 5 Corrective and Preventative Action assigned to P. L. Bussolini.
Conce rn No. 1 of Section 6 Concern No. I was assigned to H. C. Dodd.
Concc.rn No. 2 of Section 6 i
Concern No. 2 was assigned to P. L. Bussolini, l
Concern No. 3 of Section 6 Concern No. 3 was assigned to P. L. Bussolini.
Concern No. 4 of Section 6 In this concern, you state that CP-QAP-17.1 does not completely translate
- requirements of ANSI N45.2.9. In the present revision of CP-QAP-17.1 under preparation I will review the requirements of N45.2.9 for clarification in the procedure. I do feel that the concern is not specific enough to determine what action should be taken to prevent possible deficiencies.
Concern No. 5 of Section 6 In its present form, the B&R QA Manual is not applicable to the CPSES Project. Therfore, I disagree with the specific item identified in this concern.
/~
Applicants' Exhibit 56
' d Brownf.TRootJnc.
Q INTEROFFICE MEMO TO: U. D. Douglas /J. P. Clarke DATE: August 8, 1979 FROM: R. W. Bass CORRES. NO.: CPQ-0095
SUBJECT:
QA Audit CP-15 Closecut Your responses to ADR's CP-15.1, -15.2, -15.3 and -15.4 and the three Concerns have been received and reviewed. After the clarification of some questions during the telecon of Messrs. J. P. Clarke and J. Q.
J. Q. Friend on August 7,1979, the responses are considered acceptable.
Subject audit and the ADR's were therefore closed on August 7,1979.
It should be recognized that CMC's are still subject to audit on sub-sequent audits.
. WS QA A ,Section Manager RWB/JQF/jb cc: T. H. Gamon H. Paperno J. R. Childers R. G. Helms R. G. Tolsen (TUGO)
D. N. Chapman (TUSI)
l
- ---... Applicants' Brownf5 Root.inc. Ebdaibit 57 INTEROFFICE MEM0 T0: G. R. Purdy DATE: April 13,1982 FROM: J. R. Childers CORRES. N0.: CPQ-0469
SUBJECT:
Commanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES)
B&R Internal Audit No. CP-19 Enclosed is the Audit Report for Audit CP-19 conducted by Mr. R. L.
Bender at CPSES on March 16-18, 1982.
Section #2 of the audit report,provides two observations for your consideration; however, no response is necessary at this time. ,
._ l' s --- --
__ g(ssffgyyeracQgwapicEwMshed_.+g" 7 N75" w or % 3 a m m y J u m -,, 4 a r: 2,a Q y g , ,,-
If you have any questions regarding this audit, please contact Mr. J. R. Childers at 713/678-9600.
, ,, - ' ,/ /
?/'c& kAn
/ J. R. Childers QA Audit Section Manager JRC/dm At:achments cc: D. C. Frankum K. M. Broom l L. A. Ashley R. J. Vurpillat R. G. Tolson-TUGC0
. D. N. Chapman-TUGC0 R. P. Negri MIS (DC)/ Audits i
l
- l l
l
Brownf5 Root,Inc.
- i esRg~ JALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTME AUDIT DEFICIENCY REPORT PROJECT: h h[6 [
ges avstvse omGamazatsom M NO.:($-0V,U _ UNIT l5 / 4 Z. MGE: / OF 3 gas aucet oso, gas aos no ges aon coot B Rn N + R os'T", S i TE. CP-,8 CP-l8 /
. ...cus... - Tm. i . . . . .o . T . . . v . ,i,icat.. i. i c ,., c o o . v .
TRAGAN/7.Unw kin G./~Mc L m n ' 9 suaisi on., om o n, b$ hie bbU$L. $$~Yf*" o DeAA. da3
- STATAS /h AA"7~ 'THA7""/M57/x7tod)
PRoce o,ic.ts 1- onswiu s s .1Maa. e e n a a pn-r p unt'-M l' " ""'#
ist HLAS TH & Pn escpie ro M erivt Ties n xs Peis6 am AD v Avo'@ o"'l #"
. !I45.s
. e, o .lG.v a'r. ,Y_H E_ A 6/E '
ons g, g g g5 y ,i,,,_zz py-lN sPtcTsA? KifMS E GAu>& w AS t, Pe Ecomius PT* EXRimkATion a f THE E /CAVAT/04 0 f R EPA!A DA f W h S R<2 & C> n7' f*/t.M B oo u Oni e S, 't- G , B-o > OH ""D lo2 A , Ro6 C 5-I-5 A B- 0o5~* rn e WD E inspecron DiD Nor HnuE Pr faccipost 9pF-to .2-)
lN 0 A /Y EA e. (19vAlLABLE) N/$ Wog C Lo e 4 fj'oN o NH6N 9UGST/04A/) TI'6 A O TATAO Ij987 //6 I)/ {}cf }(J/Cl4.917" la ms p qsijefDY H & MMW UAT NO S 'To t.h j7 Ju A g 7477 g gqq,,jggy, ti e s port at sa w = t ro =7 a.6s oc racis e.c v O == Xmo gsss encomusmaassoms gpy g y.pg 7,4 gpggygg yyjgy g g p,co(ppy,n,Q g g q u n MD y MAG fWy Aunti. A 84 E A 7" THE t en'.nl Le cetrioH
- R E tri DecrAtk A TL 4 't U in N f) E i-t4SPZc riar f2 ASON N EL ro pro e f rjuP.s, i+1 riwi7en, D$avi si c evnt A ei'7)' ts Psits nf^'7 T' is at arseomst assiongo to [t t e t a s s po si t s o u t tes appaovto eva jis t a pr.t s :
[R ACAu : )$"i. eel C E h M a i 1) t 9' t,nie/_ To be completed by audited organization (s?) comescTsvg acT e. m a sro ns t (inc6wot sc owkso cp am p Toom caTEl . 5 p d- (4.1 C**. & /f.,w s vg c.E- CD94% de oc 4 w.,v. g M$ g,. Y" L W m. t.C t M - d, Y d.*" h.V %. . Wl A. y p g, g,. wy{ n l suBMITTC ( yttipaTg tass eas w smTativ t actio n g e se c kup s sc u r o w Lr o E
-- sA dm A - ! kT[ E h f o se rs cT so m o c ' u.3 d l r e r u doc.vyl . ,c_,, ey/l #smE l
A S m i ( g* w < v a w % e Ib 5 4+ . y trs o w w e. . ei.4 d e hvoc.u s u .s. v m e.lc, e.oeG iak.\-. + h, ew d ,+ '
% - . , c:.s..oc),:J,L' w:ll 10 i Mt
' a s i su d oe sT = - " /
i e-o -r 7 . ltaat oavg: Io'be Completed by h e % ~\,, vality AssuffCe
'e
! 9 4x/r/
[tasioats its) tvern or m esponsa Satisfactory O Unsatisfactory
'K gael it W/tp/ '
$ fo2.V 9/
is si mesw gy s o, v g e,,,cayson. (syg v (17 6 caTr i N Satisfactory D unsatisfactory / . rs $.,1., Lu' ' s //ti n ii.iesos.o .v. u . i ,, . . . . ., s io,oa,. M ^ . ^^ . M g/ . hf2_
SEcnou z . BrownURootInc.
- ^
~ uuALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT AUDIT DEFICIENCY REPORT PROJECT: MPSE Jos No.: l' R 4 a z 2__ umT: /+1 nos: 2. or 3 las aos cops gs awsmar co c os asenz a Tio = gal auctY MO. 433 ac e suo doma,,Le kK 161 o tS C W SS E O wlT M' f t k WM l 8 l st E Po st T E o a v a O P 12 dPit 2 g(?) cat E. (8 8 CaTg so st v.
U~RA on Ar.svvius G. F M c. Don Icl e cy iausi o.., o n, a n.
"E 0"E'c'fyo'"iL'~n.'"in;"'s."kae e.5 esrsrum wi' "ovwu c<o< Ir".s .
SHALL 66 /NSP&rifD To OE164thips TML CaN9/r/o'viTs confinn thE %D ctTMuM 9~TO CcHftRi*) 7~HA7'THE AE Qv/neD Dscus'7eA'TMr'o% INet.VOf H6 CM 7/t'S 4 C o ps jfifD I N re t P. O. .ontnscrivfD. RKurswe0+foononcce/rabi L bP ME C174. -JYF ---- - - sees aesnn
- T ea m s , G Xa g,ggp ,gg gg,TC E4 3o 8 HT " '/ 3 4'07'~ 3 084 st R E. b EMC ""O t R R E PRsPertt y s t)EstTIF ED ois AiELD DA74 C/920S* 140tu tv42, It GCoKDS I NSW) y I
<p- O gn d 5 )MR 9 A D CateF,ceAI*, ft l Ry P1 R 71 a G S fo a. P o k 3S=. /19S' , G /AN7
, E 3 O I o ~3 A L L INOIt 8 7'E ' H24T%3 t/c) So 8L o o - ( t B g PQ T C N T g a b m E Po st T A a b.E o t r e CI E *s C T O v== J2(~a _
- s. a s u s co -- n-o a,'
C o RR ecT R e corps in 0 E X) C o 8 F. REhrr: 9- R I R To SHous Ccien e c7 ft7
- 4'3 i'OT3o BJ. , Re m;,ere a fg y w !^t M c./HSA t
fG 2SoNN & L 8E: VK'2)PiC+T!on o f finApiunitc ro se,rI%9/2E Nor erus7" V fe RI F YiMG, THAT rn F C'3 C6 F C ! ' f ' ' /" 18 3 8 ID E s PO pe S E a s s e G es E . T o 'll e) st E S po se sE O W E (19 APPftOVCoFY: 'ltog cat C : UONlv }-lA:uk'/4S* Y $'/25/ S/ ?hk.h6NAl-O S LD /0l i To be completed by audited organization I7 6 coma scTsw a acTao se a f ro se s t lancLwot scusou6ED Connestrion oarq J d C CF % 4' , $$$ ilh ! f f^*-*' O h c.e.Cl k e a h'*. w w C4 JgG-A. k doI lI beas<de.-c.3=4 e1 v% cane.<- v % - cgvapvi. +o cJ e., a 61 s us-iTT l13 91 o a T E . A '~a t- - 9 /1.5/t I ta si po t w t a v a tiv t acT,1c = (anchuo s sc utow n.s c o me rs t v io se p , l 64" 44 .5 i #%,., 1" $ h og y p. t y gg,
- ae h
*- N n.d8ds l e>@ 3-~Se. L. mreiy l<< h .c ~frec,e,v;g)g e.
hArq 4 o c u w_, c~ I,k b r e-n.-e i s 13:3 jiaan oavg.
%sweemir wn w f 't /t4 K / I -
To be completed byff& NQuality Assurar(:'e\ a ,(annoatt K (ael e lass agview or nesponsa \ % Satisfactory D Unsatista: tory - 7 42.5/2 / 13 al ogsvgts o p y g n eric a Tso n. (s y g v s,eir s pro v e { l t a s(c a t s . _& Satisfactory D Unsatisfactory i 1- W l bl D n., . . . . n., oat. n.i . ...s L MNIk'[T [ O..b #//'e/rz -
= #-- _
. - , .-,n... . , . ~
y .-x,
.,. iT'TcE, -487* . *. ..h - .i.' G % D 9 k.. ,M~ ~ ' 'U ^ " 'TIW._- -%V4~6 - -- e 18 .; %
.r t- bm.g-x M,
l' p/4 % v,. 2r. are some itaas not c:a: W en the checklis: because as you will co:4ca . , j,g hhese pages are M 7 duplicates of other p.agas be:suse of mrlaps in .,. aC 7 , o d it by w re than one person. If there is an es?ty P ace l on one Pas,- p, vill be marked on the other paga. ! n tr 3 n "Unsat" (U's) are also duplicated because the sam- finding vss found
.g h.
h, by two auditors. h_
~ . .
.,c. --...~...........................................................................m.-.~.--....-- :S." --
9 1 l
@L-a Brownf5Rootlnc,WALITY ASSURANCE DEPART AUDIT DEFICIENCY REPORT SEc77 o" 2 _
rROJECT: oPfES (la AWWIT E o 0 8 G a**12 A TIo M aos so.: c te o 4 z z. unir: gig agogy peg, I .- c. g3g an. DeO race: 3 (48 Ao# Cooc or 3..
#gj C o mn c h Pea K 3+R 7GC CPt e C P/2.3 ,,,...oo...
. . . 2 c w . . . o - .1 - -
I i ,, o9 a,,; J. H w k%us 6.f. M C'Do v Id i.wg/ 00, Om Dos, is) no cw eas =7 vso n.AY Eo aseo ca m aG m a scir:3
@C, E S CD b h-t'%Ad S 9e3 cm 6.O ho % 6 8 v oc p i Y e.3, ( Q C S h o l) NAtts
_ S c d - m c L e e u -rvs A % c m o c.e crwpo%sg -W.a s.W9 mod LVO A
,g g cA cpy, e9 Mw \,,)C.a d Os Y. QeS he_,'re M % wbM "h SM{%d' y,,o.,. i g g *2 ,d A W*N"MkDONk. 4 5 h 4 m st'JiV ce o9 "aa C A f
- A- o% wME M _ ___ _
tool o.ss avaTsons: . Q c, -(q %; c1o e.A m C/r ho V O-- O 4
- C(s,.I. YcLck ' ~Y W cx.h., Cv's, y % m L - m 4_ e a Rep m ,re owem rwws a-< es 99 n.wod % EN R. 6 A g gy q c o.m slo vs k 44_ Q =^, 9 @ o e 'tC.dt' ce ~Y'o re 'W Ce4 O*d g g;ca., cl crV e b=tig SC% Co Q f n V d N v_) 6 N O, b .
C 5 @.c.C. \) % i VOk o ta.30 v-9 ^% "Q # 8 0 N2rs' k) Tsa.c. \JCurcl n 'l Q A hM'8"O * ~0'C E N ' * # Y-
,u
( t i l P. T g ni s.t 6 n ! PC N T A e t.E. O E F 8 CI E N C Y X~a O ' e* - (l 13 84 E C o .e em E se o A T lo se S s t)oec3e \) c t~ d c < c-ic c_u-me d o3, cv, cur 6 slo -b Ys i c.ttse m Y <- g Q e /g b y a rvs Co ar C' I *(cl bsp
- W M e cxcce, p P.s_,
Ortav . .u. a c. ye c.c sa. 5 -sc > ocg wd i 4. vr c.A cvs cd ^J6M-1, OP9fysm 5 2 - 4 c3 - N g Co~s sjos % "r 'cae.>mmos M NN
' sa M W ~, -
( t a l R E S PO *e S t A S S4G *e C o To . (15) a Paovt g 4666QATC JlC k' NJ K i AJS l'lle) e^ t S posett oWEfo'*/S3/A6l .
. ! C/ M3/8/
To be completed by audited organization V is73csamacTevs acTrom a ssoonsa Isackwon scntoukso comer,tvion D ATc8 4 h bl M7w t b .g
.P ' gw k adY'StV v" .c g A %.
p
;L ekg uses a^ +-
hu& . Q 50 *
'L
?
w V
, Q i n
/c -I- 8 / is r: ; ties oare -
suos 'Icw?rezo
~"r 5.Q
- 9/ P'] [l
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c . , o , , - c . . . .c . . . . . c a
....o7, 0 % .~ -
w LK W$ '-- aaa La,X ces n
&A w.J . &a d c^wk Ge U % hL +f et Mc ) iolis-Is t
.v.
n p :: omv.,
- .u,. .o 2
,i Jr _W 1 9 /td V/ h To be completeciby B&%uality Assurance,
- - ~
ynn ==v.a.o,........ is. y . ,'- ;iasi o.,c R Satisfactory D Unsatisfactory 1 a f. . I 9 L?.3/A) '_
< * *i an svi.v o , v e n iric atio = .
is,i vc 'i .po e vj , ltas aave. R Satisfactory D unsatisfactory
^
, a DD ,, .
- y / R i 1 2-(538 Og ne a n sa s (Bel C6o &Eo S V - (3 8) caTE A 4;- - ka- e" ---n
^ ^
dp m ~ -= to/afhl7 .Da'my Lei: $ . fy
~
. ~ . - -i , '
Applicants' Exhibit 58 E TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. PROCEDURE REVISION PAGE CP-EP-4.6 7 11 13_ac;1 of 10 FIELD DESIGN CHANGE PREPARED BY: fP' 8whf-
~
CONTROL PROCEDURE APPROVED BY: [ v
/
- 1. 0 REFERENCES 1-A CP-EP-4.7, " Control of Engineering / Design Review of Field Design Changes" 1-B CP EI-4.6-3 " Application of the DCA Form to Procurement Documents" 1-C CP-EP-4.0, " Design Control.. General Requirements"
~
1-D CP-EP-4. E,"" Design" Verification'! - - .-- -. .- - . 2.0 GENERAL .! .'O li Y '
']
2.1 PURPOSE ,
,_ /g ,
l To describe th Ee5 hod of documenting changes or deviations to
- ^
specified design / construction requirements by authorized field
. personnel following release of engineering documents appr'oved for fabrication or construction.
j 2. 2 SCOPE 1 Design change / deviations documented in accordance with the requirements stated herein are approved for fabrication or construction only when signed by the designated authorities. ,
-In addition, these measures may be used to communicate or l - identify to construction forces those design change /devia-tions originated and approved by the Original Design
- organization.
l 2.3 RESPONSIBILITIES l The Engineering and Construction Manager has overall responsi-bility for the design of the CPSES project. Authority for implementation of this procedure has been delegated to the
- Engineering Manager and the Group Supervisors within his L organization. Further delegation of authority may only be accomplished through formal engineering instructions supple-menting this procedure.
,f W 4
7 .* - ,. TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES IN
C. PROCEDURE
REVISION PAGE HSE lCP-EP-4.6 7 k1-13-60 2 of 10 2.4 DEFINITIONS I.4.1 Design Change A design change is defined as a revision to engineering specifications or drawings which affects the form, fit, or function of, affected structure, system or component. 2.4.2 D_evia tion A deviation is defined as a departure from a specified engineering requirement that does not affect the fom, fit, or function of affected structure, system, or com-ponent. 2.5 DOCUMENTATION Design changes / deviations to specified design /construc-tion requirements shall be documented by a Design Change Authorization (DCA) or a Component Modification Card (CMC). The respective forms are illustrated in Figures - 1 and 2. . 3.0 PROCEDURE 3.1 FORM COMPLETION Detailed instructions for completing DCA/ CMC forms are given in Attachments 1 and 2 of this procedure. 3.2 REVIEW AND APPROVAL Field originated design changes / deviations shall be ap-proved by the Original Designer's designated site repre-( . sentative unless otherwise stated in formal engineering l instructions supplementing this procedure. The Engineer-i ing Manager shall maintain written authorization of ! personnel designated as a "G&H Design Representative" or design representative of any other vendor. Clarifications or design changes properly approved and issued by the
- Original Design Organization require only the signature of the Originating Engineer / Technician. Such clarifica-tions or design changes shall be referenced or attached.
Subsequent review and approval by the original design organization shall be accomplished per the provisions ( of Reference 1-A and 1-B. L
TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES I!:C. PROCEDURE REVISION PAGE CP-EP-4.6 7 fil-13-80 , 3 of 10 3.3 DISTRIBUTION Distribution of field change / deviation documents shall be accom-plished as required to fulfill the requirements of this procedure and to satisfy basic document control requirements of interfacing organizations such as the design and construction groups. The provisions of Reference 1-C shall also be considered when estab-lish.ing distribution. 3.4 REVISIONS
~
Revisions to DCA/ CMC Forms shall be accomplished as described in attachments 1 and 2 of this procedure and shall be reviewed and approved as prescribed in paragraph 3.2, above. 3.5 DESIGN VERIFICATION , Design c!.anges/ deviations shall be verified either prior to, or after implementation by authorized personnel, to confirm or sub-
. stantiate that the change is acceptable from an engineering standpoint and consistent with the design basis (or input), FSAR o
commitments and applicable codes and standards. This verifica-f tion will normally be accomplished by the Original Design Organization in accordance with established procedures although the provisions of. Reference 1-D may be utilized at the discre-tion of the Engineering and Construction Manager. In the event the design verification activities indicate the change / deviation is unacceptable, the reviewing agency shall no-
.tify the Engineerin'g , Manager / Discipline Field Engineer who will, on the area in question, place'a " hold" or rescind and reissue the change / deviation. Any physical corrective action required in problem areas will be evaluated and formulated on a case by case basis.
3.6 INTERFACE CONTROL l Significant changes / deviations to engineered items involving A/E and vendor interfaces for equipment foundation details shall be reviewed with both the A/E and the vendor for com-pliance with design requirements prior to approval for.fabr_i-cation or construction. For5ial documentation where vendor or A/E approval is required shall be accomplished in accordance with Reference 1-A and 1-B. l l5 l
E TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. PROCEDURE REVISION PAGE CP-EP-4.6 7 11-13-80 l 4 of 10 1 ATTAChNENT 1 DCA FORM COMPLETION The Design Change Authorization fcrm (Figure 1) shall be completed as follows:
- a. Authorization No. - Assigned by the Administrative Services Office when the DCA is ready for signature.
- b. (WILL) (WILL NOT) Be Incorporated in Design Documents - Cross out the one that does not apply.
As a general rule, design changes to a specification which are generic in nature and will affect future work on a continuing basis shall be designated for incorporation as will one time changes to design drawings that can be delineated on the drawing. In case of a one time change to a specification requirement, the change will normally not be incorporated. Clarifications and/or interpretations involving design documents will normally not be incorporated into the design documents. It is to be recognized that specific guidelines covering every situation cannot be delineated in this procedure; as such, it will be the responsibility of the Originating Engineer / Technician to exercise judgement and designate whether or not a change should be incorporated.
- c. Safety Related Document - Check the appropriate block.
- d. Originator - Check the appropriate block. (The " Originator" of a DCA resulting from a DE/CD should be noted as the " Original Designer").
- e. Applicable Spec /Dwg/ Document - Cross out the documents that do not apply.
- f. Details - Provide information on the change under consideration using adequate descriptions or references to other document (s) which clearly illustrate the problem and its resolution and pro-vide sufficient information to reflect the "as built" configuration.
- g. Supporting Documentation - Reference supporting documents such as telephone conversations, telexes, telecopies, DE/CD's, sketches, field change notices, etc. If the DE/CD is modified by site engi-neering, the word " modified" shall be placed adjacent to the DE/CD
_ number.
~
TEXAS (ITIt.! TIES SER'iICES I!:
C. PROCEDURE
REVISIC!! I3bE PAGE CAsc
'CP-EP-4.6 7 '1-13-80 .'5 of.10 1
- h. Vendor Action-Cneck ,the appropriate block.
Completed DCA's are assigned a number and logged by the Administra-tive Services Office. Handwritten forms will be accepted in iso-lated cases, however typing is preferred. The DCA is then reviewed for technical acceptance by '.he Group Supervisor. Approval is obtained by signature and dating the ap-propriate blanks as indicated in paragraph 3.2. Revisions to a DCA will use Figure 1 and are filled out as de-scribed with the following exceptions:
- a. The same authorization number shali be used.
- b. The appropriate revision number shall be placed after the authorization number.
- c. Subsection 3.B, Details, shall contain the following:
"This revision voids and supersedes Design Change Authoriza- . tion No. , Revision ."
- d. If it is necessary to void or rescind a Design Change Author-ization, it should be done by a revision to the existing DCA. Subsection 3-B (Details) of Figure 1 should contain the following statement "This revision voids Design Change Authorization No. and all revisions thereto".
l l l t ( 1 . t
o TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. REVISION PROCEDURE f3f PAGE CP-EP-4.6 7 l11-13-80 6 of 10 f ATTACHMENT 2 CMC FORM COMPLETION The Component Modification Form (Figure 2) is completed as follows unless otherwise stated in engineering instructions supplementing this pro,cedure. The card should be filled out using a black ink pen or " dark" pencil.
- a. Serial No. - Prenu=bered, or as established through detailed appli-cation instructions supplementins this procedure.
- b. Section 1, Application - State generic category of work (e.g. mech-anical equipment, electrical equipment, pipe, pipe supports, etc).
Weld ibd. , Q, Non-Q - Check appropriate block. Design Change Deviation - Cross out the vae that does not apply. Enter N/A if not a change or deviation to design.
- c. Section 2, Dwg. No. - Enter the complete number and revision of the affected design basis and/or construction drawings as follows:
- 1. Electrical - Enter design basis drawing numbers.
- 2. Piping and Instrumentation - Enter the design and construction drawing numbers for all design change / deviations; and constr-uction drawing numbers for construction changes.
- 3. Pipe Supports - Enter the construction drawing numbers.
- d. Section 3, Line No./ Component No. - Enter the specific identification number of the component to be modified; spool number, equipment number, etc. It is not required to enter the pipe support number in block 3. If a number of items are affected, enter "see sketch", and show all changes in block 5.
- e. Section 4, Reason for Change - State briefly but concisely the reason for the change. If to impitment a change properly approved by the Original Designer, clearly state this fact (e.g., To implement DE/CD 8600).
- f. Section 5, Instructions - Describe completely and accurately the change to be made.
- 1. Where there are no welds or material removed or added, enter "N/A" in the appropriate blocks.
- t. 2. For removal and/or addition of welds and/or material, check the appropriate block and enter all weld numbers and/or Bill of Mat-erial item numbers removed and/or added. It is not mandatory
TEXAS UTIl.! TIES SERVICES I'iC. REVISIO!! PROCEDURE fE PAGE
'co co_e a 7 h3_n an 7 of 10 to disposition the future use and/or storage requirements for deleted material.
- 3. FOR PIPIfiG ONLY AND INTEGRAL HANGER ATTACHMENTS- If, after the original issue of the BRP drawing, a weld has'to be removed and rewelded, the weld number will be changed to indicate same by adding an "A" for the first removal, "B" for the sec-ond removal, etc. to the weld numbers, e.g. , 'for the weld 6, the first removal / reweld is 6A, and if 6A requires rework, the second removal /rewbid is 68.
/
- 4. FOR PIPING OfiLY- When stainless steel materials are reused and the heat affected zone not removed, the new weld number will include the next sequential letter of the item with the highest numerical weld number. For example, if the pipe be-tween welds 7A and 8C is delett ' and the remaining parts welded together, the new weld numL.er will be 8D, not 7B.
In the situation where weld 6A is cut and a pup installed between the two pieces, the new welds will be numbered 6B and 6A-1.
- 6. FOR PIPIfiG OHLY .If, after the original issue of the BRP drawing, an added weld is required which is not a, reweld of an existing weld; the new weld will be keyed to the lower of the two numbered welds and suffixed by "-1" for the first weld, "-2" for the second weld, etc. ; if a weld is added be-tween weld "3" and "4", the new weld wil1 be "3-1".
- 6. FOR COMPONENT SUPPORTS- For material item changes, a new item number shall be assigned to the replacement piece. ,
- g. Section 6- Provide a sketch indicating the new arrangement when necessary for clarific1 tion. When more than one CMC affects a drawing, care shall be taken to avoid conflicts between the CMC's.
This b'ock should include specifications of items added that are
, not listed on the affected drawing. It should also show new weld locations, and all required working point dimensions (cut lengths for piping and hangers are not required).
- h. Section 7- Originator- Enter the name of the individual preparing the modification (for piping changes, foreman requesting the change should be entered).
- i. Section 8- Approved Sy- Approval shall be obtained in accordance with paragraph 3.2.
- j. Section 9- Distribution- If not predesignated, the Engineer / Tech-( nician preparing the CMC shall enter the name of each agency re-quiring an " Engineering and Office Use Only" copy and shall in-dicate the number of required copies for each.
1 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. REVISION PAGE PROCEDURE f3fE CP-EP-4.6 7 11-13-80 8 of 10
- k. General - Extra sheets may be used where necessary to adequately cover the subject. All sheets must be marked with the CMC serial number and numbered page of .
- 1. Revisions to a CMC card may be accomplished by changing the original form or by utilizing a new form (nonserialized) and filling it out as outlined above. The following additions shall be noted on the revised CMC, as applicable.
- 1. The same serial number shall be used.
- 2. The appropriate revision number shall be placed adjacent to the serial number.
- 3. If the reason for the revision is different from the original, enter the additional circumstances in Block 4.
. 4. The CMC card shall contain the following statement:
"This revision voids and supersedes document Serial Number , Revision .
e
- m. When an occasion arises where a CMC has been issued and for some reason that card is not needed, it must be voided.
- 1. To void a CMC, the original card must be revised and clearly marked " Voided - Not Superseded".
- 2. A void CMC shall not be reactivated.
D 0 ( l [ k
i A
~
, . s* - -
TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES IfC. PROCEDURE RE/ISIO!! I Cm!bE PAGE
. c
~ ~ 7
'CP-EP-4.6 l l11-13-80 l9 of.10 FfiU2E 1. Dage 1 of COMANCFE 8EAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION OESIGN CHANGE AUTHCR!!AT! N (WILT.) (WILL NOT) SE I'3COR70 RATED IN OES!;N DOC: PEN'S CCA NO.
- 1. SAFETY RELATED 3CC'?ENT: YES NO
- 2. CR GI*IATOR: C7PE ORIGINAL OES;3NER
- 3. OESC.t!PTION:
A. APPLICABLE $7EC/O'43/0CCLt'ENT REV. S. OETAILS t% D 4 SUSMt?!'G OCCUwENTAT!CN:
- 5. A*8'Cv2L SIONATURES:
OR!3;NATOR: ( A. CATE
- 3. OESI1N REP #ESENTATIVE: CATE
- 5. VEN0ct WE!?T*L REOUT#ED: TES NO
- 7. STA C*20 3!572!!UTf0N: OcA r p3 ::. p l 2R."5 (Ortginal) (1) hali ty E.igf r.ee-ing (1)
TS 'or Crig. Oesign. (1) i
1 o ',
~
gny"
- e , U * 'd
-l* w<y$ =g- ' mWug- n*
em, ao1
- e
,m@=s" f mv',37 ,
. ' ?a,mo
- .O o
~
t Y T O E E E e E e L T T T cI . A A A u T A ~ CNO r D D O o D o oCN e n g i s e D : r w l Y N o a B O t n D I 4 a ig E U
._ n l
T i V B __ ig I r O HI i r C O l f T P S O O P D I N A L A l H
@ )) h
! l h I
S j - l ' - , l. C
) C l,j
, jr;c ,.-
i- '! lt l I. i f ik i M 0 f }. 1 i. i - !i C I
)l* ,* l- i' 81,! . i i .lt ,
( T - A . D I l. .l j,- i t -l i. ,. V . 1;I R E . g* . i- .i.r i . A E
~.
l.. C E -
. L
.}. i;l 1.!-
;,q N r * }je
.ii {[' ,
l* ):l. 1i -ii l O N - I C . i- l'1
.1 li .L.f- l T ygs/.
N A C G I S E
-_ ' .,,'* 1.
t
'i
- ' 5 i- i. *!
. xll l I
E
. i.
F D G , - I N j;t .* D A la l,
. .i'
- l O
C -j
- 1* !.i l i. I. . [ i.
O M R O
*l,*
{1 i *l:r ! T o F iI tl i.,'.i - i8[ N [-8! i il- i, ; . ! .l a N E O O - ! r1. .[,, t- ii i *l-N N S A Il I' - I]r O E ; !il { . it .i - l . P H -
.!. i! :' 'l, l l . i-M h 1.' , ' .
O o s. 11 i i
-).! i'i- i. ..i, C 1 ;iIL- .
j
.t . ,*i, H '
O C T E l li g. j-l.
-ll il i. l .
. i. j j
!i1 D K O S ,
f- l !I l . l i- l.. - . M D E L hI ,: i- l I a!I .. k , W O N T s N ME E N As Ee O T C P . S S K N N M N l i AiO O O O El l C 1 P4 I l O 1 I C A N O Es s C
- N Ut l i e
CC t G E f I E N n, es w N S V
- Ai A o I E N O
-4 I
Mca M Ot CE @@ h hE H
Applicants' Exhibit 59 i BROWN & ROOT, INC. ISSUE CPSE3 NLNBER REVISION DATE PAGE JOB 35-1195 CP-QAP-16.1 11 'JUL 0 61982 1 of 15
~
TITLE: ORIGINATOR: f>d > R VIE'ED A BY: , .m , CONTROL OF NONCONFORMING ITEMS [ ' APPROVED BY: jfLo (o!A5!B1 SiteQAManagg DATE
1.0 REFERENCES
1-A CP-QAP-4.1, " Design Control" 1-B QI-QAP-11.1-26, "ASME Pipe Fabrication and Installation Inspection" 1-C QI-QAP-11.1-28, " Installation Inspection of ASME Component e Supports Class 1, 2, 3" 1-D QI-QAP-16.1-2, " Documenting Base Metal Repairs, Minimum Wall Violations and Arc Strike Repairs" 1-E QI-QAP-16.1-5, " Documenting Field Piping Deviations" 1-F CP-QAP-15.1, " Field Control of Inspection Status" l l l 1-G CP-QP-16.1, " Reporting Significant Deficiency" 2.0 GENERAL 2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this procedure is to establish a method of documenting the identification, resolution, and closeout of nonconformances as defined in Paragraph 2.2. The requirements contained herein are applicable to nonconformances associated with ASME-related activities. Ci o LY c . O
+
w - % l -
l BROWN & ROOT, INC. ISSUE CPSES NUMBER REVISION DATE PAGE JOB 35-1195 ) 2 of 15 CP-QAP-16.1 11 M 06M ; 2.2 DEFINITIONS 2.2.1 _Nonconformance A deficiency in characteristic, documentation, or procedure which renders the quality of an item unacceptable or indeteminate. 2.3 DOCUMENTATION OF NONCONFORMING CONDITIONS Nonconformances shall be identified, documented, segregated and dispositioned in accordance with approved project procedures or instructions. Design noncompliances identified prior to QC final acceptance shall be resolved in accordance with Reference 1-A. Nonconformances identified during inprocess ASME welding shall be controlled in accordance with References 1-B and 1-C. Nonconformances dealing with base metal defects, minimum wall violations or arc strikes shall be controlled in accordance with I Reference 1-D; nonconfomances dealing with location or orientation of piping shall be controlled in accordance with Reference 1-E. All other nonconforming conditions shall be controlled in accordance with this procedure. 2.4 SEGREGATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF NONCONFORMING ITEMS Nonconforming items, where practical, shall be segregated to prevent their inadvertent use or installation and shall be clearly identified with signs, barriers and/or hold tags. The hold tag (Reference 1-F) shall identify the nonconforming item, NCR number, name of the NCR initiator, and the date. Hold tags applied to nonconforming items shall be removed by QC Group following the approval of NCR disposition. 3.0 PROCEDURE 3.1 NONCONFORMANCE REPORTING 3.1.1 Initiation of NCR's Nonconfoming conditions, except those reported on an FDR or as described in paragraph 2.3, shall be reported by completing the entries 1 through 9,11 and 12 on the NCR fom (Attachment 1). Supporting documentation, (e.g., Inspection Reports and NDE Reports) when applicable, shall (
~5^
~~
BROWN & ROOT, INC. ISSUE CPSES NUMBER REVISION DATE PAGE ( JOB 35-1195 CP-QAP-16.1 11 JUL 0 61982 , 3 of 15 also be attached to the NCR. Drawing / ISO numbers, procedures and any other referenced document shall also include the latest revision status. The system / subsystem number (including test numbers when applicable) shall also be recorded on the NCR fann. 3.1.2 Numbering and Statusing The person reporting the nonconformance shall obtain the NCR number from the NCR Coordinator and enter it on the NCR fonn prior to submitting it to the NCR Coordinator. The numbering system is as shown for the following example: EXAMPLE: M _2478S ft.1 Discipline - M
's Sequential number of the NCR - 2478 Used for items turned over to the Owner - S Revision status - R1 When a NCR number is issued, the NCR Coordinator will enter the NCR number and pertinent information in the NCR Log (Attachment 2). Additionally, the disposition submittal date, disposition approval date and verification closure dates shall be entered in the NCR Log by the NCR Coordinator, as the particular actions occur, to maintain a currect status of NCR processing.
3.1.3 Pre-issua_nce Review and NCR Approval Following the completion of entries (1) through (9),(11) and (12) on the NCR (See Attachment 1), the NCR Coordinator shall forward the NCR to the applicable QE for review. Entry (10) on the NCR shall be determined and entered by the QE from the list of Trend Categories, Attachment 3. ( NE2
BROWN & ROOT, INC. ISSUE CPSES NUMBER REVISION DATE PAGE CP-QAP-16.1 11 M 06M 4 of 13 The reported nonconformance shall be evaluated by the applicable QE for legibility, clarity, accuracy, validity and specificity. If it is a nonconforming condition, the QE shall assign the NCR to an " Action Addressee", complete
. entries 13,14,15 and 16, sign the NCR to indicate review and concurrence (Attachment 1, entry 13), and forward the NCR to the NCR Coordinator for distribution in accordance with ASME NCR Distribution List.
NOTE: The QE evaluating nonconforming conditions shall also evaluate the condition with respect to Reference 1-G. A copy of the NCR shall be forwarded to the " Action Addressee." The original NCR shall be retained by the NCR Coordinator for further processing. NOTE: NCR's that require immediate dispositions to meet project milestones and/or schedules, shall be hand carried by the QE to the appropriate Engineer for dispositioning and then to the NCR Coordinator for distribution. 3.1.4 Voidi_n_g an NCR The QE or higher authority may, during processing, disposition l an NCR to state "Not a Nonconforming Condition" or similar wording. He shall provide justification for such a disposition, and shall sign for closure for voided NCR's. When an NCR is dispositioned in this manner, the, original is forwarded to the NCR Coordinator and a copy is forwarded to the supervisor of the originator. 3.2 DISPOSITION l The " Action Addressee" assigned the responsibility of evaluating and dispositioning the NCR shall do so and ! document it on the NCR (Attachment 1, entry 17). Supporting ! documentation should be referenced or attached to the NCR. i The NCR shall then be returned to the NCR Coordinator. For those nonconconforming items which Construction / Engineering desires to continue to process on a " risk removal" basis, authorization shall be requested in the NCR di sposition . In order to receive this authorization to continue the process, the following conditions must be l I satisfied:
BROWN & ROOT, INC. ISSUE CPSES NUMBER REVISION DATE PAGE JOB 35-1195 CP-QAP-16.1 11 JUL 061982 5 of 15
- a. The NCR disposition shall include sufficient information and direction for accomplishing the work. Details shall be provided to permit . '*auate evaluation of potential impact to affected partie. (i.e. Construction, Engineering, QA/QC, Records, Startup and Operations);
- b. Engineer Review / Approval shall be by the Discipline Group Supervisor or above;
- c. QA/QC Review / Approval shall be by the Site QA Manager;
- d. ANI concurrence shall be obtained; and
- e. Identification of the item as nonconforming shall be maintained in accordance with paragraph 3.1.
3.2.1 QE Review and Approval of NCR Disposit.f on_s Upon receipt of the proposed disposition, the NCR Coordinator
' shall update the NCR Log and forward the proposed disposition to the appropriate QE, who shall review it for adequacy and conformance to applicable specification and/or Code requirements.
If the disposition is not satisfactory, the QE shall resolve all comments with the " Action Addressee" that dispositioned the NCR, or with a higher level of management. If the proposed disposition is satisfactory, the QE shall so inform the NCR Coordinator, who will have the disposition entered on the original NCR and cbtain the following reviews and approvals:
- a. Construction ' cognizant Engineer or higher authority, to indicate the ability to implement the work specified in the disposition;
- b. Engineering - Discipline Group Supervisor, designee, or higher ("Use-as-is," "Retu rn to Vendor," and
" Repair" dispositions only);
- c. QA Review - Quality Engineer to indicate compliance of the disposition with the Code and the QA program;
; - l
~E .
BROWN & ROOT, ZNC. ISSUE CPSES NUMBER REVISION DATE PAGE JOB 35-1195 CP-QAP-16.1 11 JUL 0 61982 6 of 15
- d. ANI Review; items requiring rework or repair by welding shall be submitted to ANI for concurrence and selection of hold points prior to implementation of the disposition.
- e. ' TUSI Resident Manager Approval " Scrap" and " Return to Vendor" dispositions only (the Project Engineer shall initial all scrap dispositions).
The NCR Coordinator shall enter "N/A" for specific reviews / approvals which are not required, and shall initial and date these entries in the applicable approval spaces on the NCR. 3.2.2 Implementation of the Disposition Following the approval of disposition and prior to implementation of the disposition the hold tag shall be removed by the QC Inspector from the item. For NCR's dispositioned as " Rework", " Repair", " Return to Vendor", or " Scrap" a copy of the NCR shall be sent, by the NCR Coordinator, to the responsible Construction Engineer for implementation to correct the nonconforming condition. For NCR's dispositioned as " Rework" or "Repai r" and identified with an "S" after the NCR number, an information copy will also be sent to TUGC0 Startup. When Construction is ready to perform the required work as stated on the disposition, they will contact TUGC0 Startup for authorization. N_0TE: "Use-as-is" dispositions do not require any work activity to implement.
- 3.3 VERIFICATION / CLOSURE l The applicable QC Superintendent / Lead shall ensure that the work activities required by the NCR disposition are verified and/or witnessed by qualified inspection personnel. The inspector shall document the completion of the NCR l disposition on an Inspection Report and fomard the report to the NCR Coordinator.
l l
~s -
e .
l l BROWN & ROOT, INC. ISSUE CPSES NUMBER REVISION DATE PAGE I JOB 35-1195 CP-QAP-16.1 11 JUL 0 61987 7 of 1s The Quality Engineering Supervisor, or his designee, shall sign the " Verification" block of the original NCR upon assuring that satisfactory documentation exists to support implementation of the disposition and shall coordinate obtaining ANI concurrence. Following the ANI concurrence the QE shall sign for closure of the NCR. The NCR Coordinator shall complete the closure process as follows:
- a. Enter NCR closure date in NCR log.
- b. Assemble all previous revisions, if any, of the NCR being closed and include them in the closure package.
- c. Record stamp, initial and date the original NCR and transmit the closed NCR Package to the Owner.
3.4 DISTRIBUTION Distribution of NCR's shall be perfomed by the NCR Coordinator at the time of issuance, disposition approval, and closure, in accordance with a schedule prepared by the QE Group Supervisor. 3.5 NCR REVISION
- NCR's may be revised at any time after issue for the j following reasons:
1 ! a. Clarity of tems, conditions and dispositions; l b. Additional descriptive information; and /or
- c. Change in disposition responsibility. .
When an NCR requires revision, it shall be identified with the letter "R" immediately following the NCR number and a sequential number indica:ing the level of the revision. In I addition, the reason for the revision shall be stated on the i NCR. NCR revisions are inititated by the same organization providing the original disposition, and require the same review and approval as the original issues. The QE group shall maintain the original NCR. ( I 4-
BRO'4N & ROOT, INC. ISSUE CPSES NUMBER REVISION DATE PAGE CP-QAP-16.1 11 8 of 15 4.0 FIELD DEFICIENCY REPORT (FDR) 4.1 GENERAL Conditions discovered which depart from applicable project procedures / instructions may be reported on a Field Deficiency Report when prescribed by specific inspection procedures / instructions or when reporting a condition which can be resolved by an existing standard repair / rework procedure. Examples of the use of the FDR are:
- a. Missing or improperly installed caps on piping;
- b. Piping subassemblies or components not properly stored on dunnage;
- c. Improper temporary support for partially installed piping subassemblies or components.
4.1.2 Initiation of FDR's Nonconfonning conditions may be re on a Field Deficiency Report (FDR, Attachment 4) portedonly when prescribed by specific inspection procedures / instructions. These cases will be delineated in the applicable inspection procedure / instruction and for each case, a standard repair procedure will exist to correct the discrepant condition. 4.1.3 Processing _of FDR The reporting inspection personnel shall fill in the date, the location at which the reported deficiency was found, the affected items or activity, the applicable governing document (e.g. procedure / instruction), and the condition found as specifically and accurately as possible. Required corrective i action shall be recommended on the report in the conditions (s) found section. After completing and signing the upper portion of the FDR, the inspector shall assign required corrective action to the responsible construction supervisor and specify the date the corrective action is required by in the lower portion. The inspector shall forward the original copy of the FDR to the action assigned person, the pink copy to the QC Superintendent / Lead, and retain the yellow copy. t I l l l LS _
BROWN & ROOT, INC. ISSUE CPSES NUMBER REVISION DATE PAGE ( JOB 35-1195 CP-QAP-16.1 11 9 of 15 3 061982 4.1.4 FDR Log . The QC Superintendent / Lead, or his designee, shall maintain a Field Deficiency Report Log (Attachment 5) indicating:
- a. FDR number
- b. Description of Deficiency
- c. Date issued
- d. Date closed.
NOTE: In the event that FDR's are issued in blocks to inspection personnel, the numbers assigned shall be recorded in the QC Superintendent / Lead log at the time of assignment. The QC Superintendent / Lead, or his designee, shall also maintain a Tickler File to assure timely resolution of deficiencies. Repetitive conditions encountered shall be brought to the attention of the Site QA Manager. 4.1.5 Review of Corre_ct_iye Action After the person assigned disposition of the FDR has taken action to correct the deficiency, documented it on the FDR and sent it back to the reporting inspector, the QC Superintendent / Lead, or his designee, shall review the FDR(s). As part of the review, the QC Superintendent / Lead shall verify the corrective action taken. If satisfactory, then the FDR shall be closed out by the QC Superintendent / Lead or the originating inspector. If unsatisfactory, the matter will be resolved by higher levels of management. If the originating inspector closes out the FDR, then it shall be forwarded to the responsible QC Superintendent / Lead for review and approval which will be documented by his signing and dating the FDR. The FDR Log shall be updated accordingly. 4.1.6 FDR Distribution ! After closure or voiding, the FDR shall be forwarded to the f QE for review and trending. The QE shall forward the FDR to I the NCR Coordinator for submittal to the Owner in accordance with CP-QAP-18.1. i . L4G 4 L --
l i BROWN & ROOT, INC. Issug CPSES NUMBER REVISION DATE PAGE ( JOB 35-1195 3L 0 6 651 ' lCn<AP-16.1 11 10 of 15 A m CHMENT 1 - I BROWN & ROOT, INC. I CA RET RD QJality Assurance Depart:nent NCR NO. (1) Nonconformance Report (NCR) CPSES-35-1195 P(GE (2) 0F
*RAWING/ICENTIFICATION TAG /ID NLMBER LOCATICN OR ELEVATION RIR NO.
(3) (4) (5) (6) ! N0?CONFCUT?8G CONDIT*0N TREND CCC' # ENT VICLATC: III REY. III PARA. (9) CATEGORY II0I i (11) i I REFCRii] ill: DA!i: RE41Em/A FROVAI. LAii: (121 (13)
! A; TICS A0;RE55ii CAR NO.. ASMi C00E ITEM: l (14) (15) ( E Yes _ No -
DISP 05:~;0N: Rim;RA REPA!R USE AS IS SCRAP RE%'RN TO VENCCR I i (17) l l i i i 1 CON. REf;Em/ AkFROVAl.: Mii: QA/QO REtlia: LATE: EM . Ridlia/AFFRO.Ai.: ; ATE: A nse.sm. e.s: l' I CA G i%/i.MFR. di.ilr u ..Gh:
/ eis:
AN. CDN0aRREXE: ; ATE: i i CA ifflim/O.01wRE: Mii: 1 ( i , M
in e-4 s.1 0-l/t-I slib in l'# 0
, st-t-ce st-of-ol sul-RL st-tt-at = =18"1 st-B_9L. --
_0IL- t-a inst @'MEfsDNeta'8 i = 11=> .t?ti a
,ci
-i st-tt et
.st-Litt 6ttel 6611:9L _"1 "'_11 8 6L-t9t_ --
9te._ .t?3 .""*' Wl t,i"aa":'l=._'88' 88 r"d i " 's" " "r '"1*u litt i sett:cl_ set t:UL st31:Ut_ st3h0L
- D "a'18 setoL. --
0" el-3 M 8 " "* 8 "'" * ****8 "" Si "H8 _005:1. stit.ll sL-stlL t.f-51;ol " 1 "*w. 6t kVi_ -- i": mi u _g si e'ai n-u an== , *raia **'s-* a si t e is b co re a r.t -s e - s e ss-et-te st-et-ci a s s~w .t-on-os -- inn me-se 951 *a =*
- e * * * *' I
- a s " IJ "i " .
aus
's i.,,, e.c ss de-ci ss-se-us st-6-os si-se us m'Isanti strUct- -: I r- t rit- min 3;; arimin r'sist1Ti .no ,, , ', ns
.. tb - -- - - ---
pj,j st-t it st-e og st-t os st-se as aris~ne st-t-ci -- tes s.n o ese as . h i, _ s,nt . ,si wa .im. ,i r.e .ie, ,,ij e is sa.el on s et-os r.t -s c -o s 64-se-os =riu-w st-i-os -- two 1- -
==re n/n ra-a _o_ s.u.i t -e -is.: 8a s ~__*o se._s._i .t ie st-s et st-I-os 64-8 os st-ts-os at #~w st-s-ut --
see t-H s t eno-m itt u
- g
- 9is e .e = . e *) .e u
.u t i i x ,
ss-t -te st-et-6 st-et-6 st-te-ci aiv*ans st-et-e -- ami s-n vit ni vuo o o i~s ~~siaia.-- we te s e u 13 st+os st-t ci st-t-us st-to-os ass-me st-it 6 -- ins t-a tsston:s s , ingros:n i= > na s:.. --> =;. sea tip e , l'!
.-4
.-4 os t-t t.t-91-on st-s as st-t os n e w~.o st-it-s --
ine 5H vio se-t_ae 5 e._u_av== w=_I s_resain _ it- _.s u.e I*e N e im pe f t H s o- st-st-of-64-(t*08 st-et-of st et-et "s "ein 6t-et-s -- I-H so os 1- Av raa'ei=ls al po ens st-se irs st-it os st-ti ol st-95 o, s e g'Jmg sg-g ol - iles ll-3 **g as sic.i woe. su e2.N i 5kh g g >=g g we era site 3/ l st-91-te st-9t-s st-St-s st -e s -e s alw am st-9t-6 -- ese s-H it samla Ur 5- AV **'s 8 s*6 # iin : s at. Nise H .\
- 3. a, j'j st-se on st-te-as st-it ci as-se-os win-u st-e os --
im is-u too -e v- t - ns siaa - -e-ne_- - . _ _itseu i st-et ci st-e os ar-i ci ss-s-ci a s u~.u st-st-s -- sere 9 s-see n s siniu-n ** a *e .... . .. as,.e visi is H.i
- i. ,$, l_$st-se-on _-z_- _
t 7j g .< st-t-on st-t-ol st-e-ci at tame a t uam st-tt-s -- on se as H se-u suo m s-s-eas zit. It i~s i t '"* -a-s "He - _ . . .siisM u st-et-s st-st-s st-la-s st-a-os st-St-s -- s.iw e e -t -u s e =a --s ain tiss 7 o st-ni-ti s,-,i-os mnr u nr , imi wur -- rr ii ir i .e,iir s v-i -3.s ii. - i;mi im o s#-ot -cI st-t-ce 64-i o1- st-a-os Ti8G3 it-tt-6 --
~014- II H TIiFeil 17srl rIirvii 1:RI ilE4 U i slii 'Tili is Ell! Or 1TTiir 1l:T ilr ElWol- 7 TI5~~il ll il-6 --
ini iT-w gievii i iil- ilsmissiir lili u se-et-ci st-91-os s t -t-Ir a st-e os =+ts me st-st-s - lise is H too-av-n i>I s o a --sasse e.il n st+oi _ st-i-on st-i os st-s-os == s u~u st-St-s -- ces i-a so-viem-in -o.s re.ii 1.. ..i o si,e i st et-os se-e-os st s-on st-s os n 9-no st-se-s -- im T i- an3isirsi;;;i. .u .qwru:;lisinnsa; ;tos- ispisi
' 68'8-"' *=s*~a --
ore *ais 'in t a= es-ein a8 '= ** " s~s =*eiLa-w sess n _letet _stytt _9t.to_1 _s,t - e t- s t-u - g g st-9t-li se-se os sc-se-on st-s ci +=swa-u ss-st-s -- ou s-n ,,so-se-e-a2 a.~e eir iT;;ii T lil ^5fli a
' ~ - ~ - --.
g r,,1 :: ... -~. a .
..a
*== vnt ,_
eie eo N ~ ss ,-ss . mis:smi;;;;m;;;; . , .. .
...w E
I'I 8 9 swwat4 9D.vunstf assievig I
$ O styymngttwus) khs
!.'s o
S s y v
I~ ER C'4N 1 200 7 , :.':0. !!!UE 075Z3 NLNEER R.5/:! ION CATI .AGI 203 25- n55 CP-QAP-16.1 11 12 es is M 0 6 E'l I l AEACHMENT 3 rve:=retwie r m e 2 ;,en:rs
!. OJ t.
Di f Sc r: 7le:a la Occ:ren:s: age ten n 42 Scac ms11ance =tta Icec1*featices (fac!uding c:nf t;uration cunng recatving/ r.cedures) 2 Mancitag/t:arage a i eleantiness g3 l 041!bratton 06 Castings /# tinting g Insta114:1cn Oces:nctton acate 2 , *r:r:cer Matan al g ( fter:1e t'atatanance gi l Installed wafntananct g;; M/7. Incar?te: 312
!!. W 514f:21, f otst% 25 !~,*!:-ev-t Ecuf tr ent lnstallatten 31 kuipent altgreent M2 Picing F4:M ca tion x Picing Instal 14:fon u4 helding wg Races:Mettve 'af na:* n 8esults ys Fea: Tria: en: wy Pytr: static festing pg kuf went *al$ne:1on pg Iassectica/krvetilance MI:
Minicam Wall yI: Violatten of NI :cin:3 "12 Material y:- III. wfS19?!JL t0*= M9tM* !*.'r****!1 kiter: Wa:Mestt en y:L L::c- Insulla: ten Mu WP5 71clatten sigA
!>cual. Welser =1q CC M wea: Tres=en: =;3 ra:erial wu Mic:ets: 7'cla:1:n ===
M / 7. :nc:r ec. vn Oce=en:stien :ncasteta/:ne:r se: v.2
!sectfica ten Viola::en w::
1 ! ( - I
ETCat 1 XCC' :.T. ISUI CPSIS NL9EER A_"/IS:0N CATI 2AGI
. . 4.e u.
CP-QAP-16.1 11 N O b IMDi 13 of 15 ATTACP. MENT t-c::wAwa PEAx Tc.Aw r._I: tmc s ATioN QUALITY ASSURANCE DIVISION FIELD ~ CEFIClENCY REPORT CA*Er "f.CC.C'!CM'
!TD/AC"TV!TT SCYUhlNS DOCUWCMTe CD4DmCN(3) FCI 'NQ-1
{ sl0 4 ATURE 62 ACTICM A3314NE3 TCe ActCN REQUIRC 3're ACMCNTAKDs e [ bh I .1G \bP j MTI* l I i g* l I I I
.g. 4 gg SIEMATURE j
8 C A/0 C :: 23t:UT I? . sisma-;et 1 W
k IRC'WN 1 ACCT, :.'t. IIII.'I l 07 " 'lLMSER lRI7:SICN l
!CATI i MGI i i I J03 25-1.Se c;-w-16.1 l n ,
'JUL 0 6198214 ce .is AUICFF.ENT 5 r.c.: :m::ce acer-LDE O $c i I I '
I I I I I I I I I I i l ? I i l i l
. i I I.
I I I I I I I I I I I I i i l l I I I I I i l I I i l i I
. I I I I I I I m it i I nf_B\1 Ab I i '\ T T h'i i I a.~ l i I I I i I i l i I I I I I I i _
l i I l _ l 1 i i i i i
- i i !
l l
3ROWN & ROOT. INC. IeeUe CPSES NUMBER REVISION DATE PAGE t J05 25-1135 CP-CAP-16.1 11 JUL 0 61981' 15 cf 15 l
,a A"."'AC2M2C 6 l
i t
.-I
- M Ir g5 - - "3 - - - - - -
-~ ,
LJ 0 -
- 5 il g d - - -- -
_E ~Q
, C-e P't.
Z 5 F k
- 2 4w E L 68e i
i a . e - go - - - - - g J s 2 'j' ' 'd
- w - I.
R C e se b
~
u
'C'l 3
-. el i
8 4- , 5 l E i.t > 1 F_ [ $. i i E- D' .s i a, 5 l 2 st a , g[ >
. B >
r y y, n E=S 1 I 4 . a , f a 2 . e '; ! 7. . ; w C s
- d. 51 ; :;
, .I u
s 8 1.
- c. - u, 4
.:- %W L 3 01 Ul 2
"! d,
;y 3
-] 7J "I -
i e!
! T: T., .:l1 Cl -- gl .l,i - e e
3 31 :I p ai -* .i 8 i R t' Tl T! -'il -! '
#! 7: Ii El: d Ol r jj st. E' El =
e l ls. 01 S -j! :l: =:
!i " : l j l r
- s
- =:
di s 4 -- e l ac
=6 al
=t at 7t 4.
;;l. r,0l i
l e
; l -j
,' i i i i ! ! !! : I i
,; ^
Applicants'
.' ~
[> Exhibit 60 f l PRCCEDURE l! REVISION i ISSUE l pggg f NUMBER ! OATE f l TEXAS UTILITIES CPSES GENERATING CO ! ; ; j 5
! ; CP-QP-15.0 l 6 i ,
1 of 10 i i ; I ; PREPARED BY: . mh 12 f4fb} ! CA'- : NONCONFOR'iANCES l I AND DEFICIENCIES l APPROVED BY:f.
\ N ta v /2 f/[/
2 ATE'
1.0 REFERENCES
1-A CP-QP-15.0, " Tagging System" l t i 1-8 CP-SAP-6, " Control of Work on Station Components a f ter Release from Construction to TtJGC0" 2.0 GENERAL yD ' n r r ? t m i m .; Iv:h AIUliIiililiLN U!%yi 2.1 P'JRPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this procedure is to establish a method of documenting the identification, resolution, and closecut of deficiencies and nonconformances as defined in Paragraph 2.2. The requirements contained herein are applicable - to deficiencies identified by 1A/QC inspection and testing l personnel for :.1aterials, services or items associated with I i sa'ety-related structures, systems and components not under l the jurisdiction of the ASME Code, Section III, Division 1. ; l l 10TE: When nonconformances and deficiencies are detected by inspection and testing, they shall be reported
- in accordance with ouality procedures / instructions
! describing the inspection or tes ting functions.
i Uhere specific guidelines are not given in qua-lity ;
. procedura/ instructions, the provisions of this i procedure shall govern. j 2.2 DEFI1!TIONS 2.2.1 No ncon fo rma nce l A deficiency in characteristic, documentation, or ?rocedure
!' which renders the quality of an i te=1 unacceptable or in-deterlinate, and does not fall within the scope l' ?.2.2.
w===>
.- l t i I j l PROCEDURE REVISION ISSUE PAGE !
, 1 NUMBER j l DATE j
[ TEXAS UTit.lTIES GENERATING SES CO. I l CP-QP-16.0 6 ! ! 2 of 10 I I I i ! l ! t 2.2.2 Deficiency ' A product condition which departs from applicable project procedures / instructions and can be resolved with an j existing standard repair procedure. 3.0 PROCEDURE 3.1 NONCONF091ANCE IDENTIFICATION 3.1.1 Field Identification When a nonconfoming condition as defined in Paragraph 2.2.1 is observed, the inspector shall immediately apply a Hold Tag (Reference 1-A) and note his name and telephone extension on the tag. He shall return and note on the Hold Tag the appropriate NCR nunber when obtained. 3.1.2 Nonconforninc Electrical Comoonents
; For electrical activities, the inspector may usa his judgement to apply a Hold Tag to a nonconforning internal component. For example, the inspector may apply a Hold Tag to a broken / damaged terminal strip and note on the Hold Tag wording such as " Applied to Terminal Strip Only." On the NCR the state.nent would be " Applied to Terninal Strip Only -
other unrelated activities may proceed." 3.1.3 Recorting i Nonconforming conditions shall be reported to the Quality I Control Supervisor, or his designee, on the NCR > form l ( Attachment 1). Supporting documentation, e.g. , inspection - l Reports, NDE report shall also be attached to the NCR where I appropriate. The syste.n/subsysten nu.nber (with or witnout
" Structure" infornation) shall be recorded on the NCR form.
l NOTE: The systen/ subsystem number is not required Far
- discrepancies relating to conduit, cable trays, i protective coatings, cable tray hangers or anchor ;
I bolt locations provided that the structure is iden ti fied . I
'UGCO CA av- w 3
. V s
l 2 _ y l
' il
; PROCEDURE ' REVISION ISSUE l NUMBER OATE PAGE -
' l j
' TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO. ' .\'"
CPSES 'i ls t
~ l' '
; CP-QP-16.0 6 1
73 of 10 ; .
; 'n} .
j - 3 ; .
^ ~
i % , f I 3.1.4 Numbering the-NCR P Y
.. J ,
Before sending the NCR to the Quality Control Supervisor, or his designee, the person reporting the nonconformance shall obtain a number from the TUGC0'NCR Coordinator. This number shall be noted on the NCR and on the Hold Tag per Reference
,1-A that is applied to the nonconforming item / equipment. .
The NCR Coordinator shall assign numbers as follows: 1 e.g. NCR g - 8 -
- y. 00{14.[
sequential NCR number ! ,-
, ; for that ysar ,
[
; year' ,_
i
! Oiscipline !!echanical,' Electrical-(Instrumentation, Civil) s 1[
~. ! <
For NCR's on items / components turned over to TUGCO, the,NCR
,. Coordinator shall add the letter "S" after the NCR number'.N ,
! 3.1.5 Pre-Issuance Review The reported nonconformance shall b'e evaluated by the i Quality Control Supervisor or his designee for clarity, accuracy, validity and speci ficity. If it is a nonconforming condition, then the Qual ~ity Control Supervisor or his designee shall assign the NCR sto han " Action l
l Addressee." (The " Action Addressee" normally is the , l l responsible CPPE Discipline Group Supervisor who evaluates ; and dispositions the reported nonconformances.) A copy of J i the NCR shall be forwarded to the ." Action Addressee." Tne 1 l i original NCR shall be retained by the NCR Coordinator for l futher processing. ' l NOTE: For NCR's with an "S" a f ter the number, TUGC0 _ l 3
, Startup shall also be forwardati e copy upon ;
l issuance for information. ' I i j 3.1.5.1 Voiding an NCR , 1 The Quality Control Sapervisce, or his designes,. may, at any i time, disposition an NCR to state "flo t a- flancan Faming Condition" or similar wording. He shall provide justification far such a disposition. Tne 1C Supervisor or
'UGCC O A ,
I
+
, :s
- ,s
- hi NUMBER REVISION PAGE
' '( TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.
CPSES j , , , , , l li : CP-0P-16.0 ., 6 P',~ l 4 of 10 ; l
! I i
t m j his designee shall sign for closure for voided NCR's. When an NCR is dispositioned in this manner, the original is forwarded to the NCR Coordinator and a copy is forwarded to l the QC Discipline Supervisor of the Inspector of Record. 3.1.6 Discosition
- The " Action Addressee" assigned the responsibility of eval-uating and dispositioning the NCR shall do so and document
, it on the NCR. Supporting documenta tion should be l referenced or attached to the NCR. The NCR shall then be returned to the Quality Engineering Supervisor or his designee.
- For those nonconforming items which Construction / Engineering '
i desires to continue to process on a " risk removal 7 basis, authorization shall be requested in the NCR disposition. In order to receive this authorization to continue the process, I the following conditions mst he satisfied:
,I
- a. The NCR disposition shall include sufficient informa-l tion and direction for accomplishing the work. Detail
! shall be provided to permit adequate evaluation of potential impact to affected parties (i.e. , construction, engineering, QA/QC, records, start-up and operations); j
- b. Engineer Review / Approval shall be by the Discipline Group Supervisor or above; j
I c. Quali ty Engineering Review / Approval shall be by the , I Quality Engineering Supervisor or above. ,
. /
i Upon approval of the disposition by Quality Engineering, a ! I Blue Temporary Waiver Tag, per Reference 1-A, shall be l ! affixed to the item. The NCR number shall be noted on the I Temporary Waiver Tag. !
\ 3.1.7 Ouality Enaineerina Review ,
l i Upon receipt of disposition, the NCR disposition shall ce reviewed by Quality Engineering for adequacy and conformance to applicable specifications and/or code requi-ements. If revi e.i is s a tis factory the Quality Engineer shall so inform the NCR Coordinator, who will have the disposition
~
i . 13y3 TUGCo CA
.,.. ,3: . -- . . -
_ .-,~. - .~. _ . . _ .
- x. ,,.,. . , . . - .. ~ . . . . .
. . ., . .. w. .. . . . .w_. . . . . .. . ..
a :.,a..
.... m;y -- . u ..
- n. . ..-
.=: m . y,-..~,. .;=:.;.T c- y .-..;: n . ,y ; ,
,.p:a,,n. m. .,..
.p- . : .:. . :, .v.
2.,,.,. p u,..e.: 4 ..
.,:n .q;,,v;.nt.a
. yn,x. s, - . . ,u
, ..;.m, ,.,.
. .. , . .r q. ,...<. ,, , v 3.~.1y . .....5m, ,.y.....,.s.....
n~..m. m..>..e,,. ..:....
,, .,. . . s s ,3 : . . .,. . . . .. w.
. .3.. ... :3,,. s . . . n .v . . ., .
.. ,,,a .r .. 4,,
......s,.... :.<.
a m. m, . . . ..
- . ..: .- . m,. ...c-w..1
. . .~. ; v wn e .. w: 3. r.. ,.m;.: , . .. . .w;,a: s.8-14 80?.~..- s. .v.my. . .
Jn O. R. ,u. .o t.Inc,.c. . , . .c . r.
. ;.y ..y,,,.,.2.a. e. ..,..
.s..,. s.
..m. . .,:.. .. .,.1. .. . , y. .
. ~.
. . .. .. .., ;.. ..r. . u.. e. ...
. , .. , . .n.:.m.
...._ ,..M.. w
- m. .. .
.\ ,. . ....~.>..f....u...v....,n..,.,......
...,...,.,..,...,.....: . 4._. .. . ~,
,. nw . -. . ~ ~.. ...
- r. < r..,. y. .; ;.. ..,+ . .*s3 . .:.;;.
.;. s. .
- .A. v,...
,e. .
....m . . ,r.. .:. ., .:.. ,. .., m., .4. . m, ,n....z.e
.. E,,.. .. . . . . .
m
%i:%.-?
.r. e ~w.;. .: . P a g e . 2...
; 7:., . . . . . . . .
;u::. . .
.. .:..; ;;c. . %. ::- . .; .., .v q-?.a, .- :
w.. . w. .. , , %. .s . .;e.. :$.,5:.;;-&',%gy,p?.x.y,.:t.;,m; +r.,7 a
.. . = .: , n. ._ * ... .r. . ;; : : p
; . e p \ .; , ..:..p. . ;
. p . . . .
u . . c.
.. c ',w. , . ,:. ;.
. . ., ; 1.a. - . , . = ,i .,.
~..
.. .. 4.,. .m y ,e ..J r'. . >r , ...m, g g .. . . . ' . . .g.,'.,;n. , .,. ; . n-.
- s. , u :. w r , .., .:p u., , ,.. ,. .,. ,..:
..s..<.
.......1...,.
.._1 ..
.... ...... .. .. . . . . .m .
s... , . . . r.,
. ...~. . ... .~. ,_) a. .surveillance.
. x. ...
. . .....,. _*.... .. ..-...'., ongoing..,.. . . , . . . .
inspect.1on will be started. .to assu,re . . .
. . s
. this cond.i.t..i..on., if exi s tin.g, is corrected .on. other equip.- .
w . mem..... - r
. t-.
........'. . c *', - t .'
. If additional .:infomation is required, please contact the weiter.
. - . 7 . . . , .....
,,j i :
4 ' D ' .# mc . .
- =."..** t
, 4 ,*; . ~ .,-..a .. . . . .. ._
L- _,}x .
..Q .. .*ta
, -. e.,
, ',- m ~A
~f~ -
A'. V. Hawkins Mite Quality Assurance Manager JVH/pby . . P FW cc: . - .Curti,R 7. - . 'N a.1B'
. .M'* ."s*. .
.b W
G I i i l l l
7- - - - --
, ,, Applicate'
- Exhibit 91
- . TEXAS UTILITIES GENERKrING COMPANY OFFICE ~MEM OR ANDUM 7, R. G. Tolson aten nose, Texas August 31, 1981 1
subject SITE SURVEILLAf1CE REPORT (SSR) fl0. 092 PROTECTIVE C0ATINGS y I f, The test reports cited in Deficiency flo. 2, Findin'g No. 2 of thh subject report have been verified to be i'n the Permanent Plant Records Vault files. This confirms satisfactory implementation of all corrective action for the subject report. Please consider this report closed. Thank you for your cooperation. kw s (2./A+ G. W. Parff Site Surveillance Superv' or i GWP/;1s e
~
cc: A. Vega D. Deviney J. Hawkins
, G. Bentinick M. Wells
.. J. T. Merritt h
l f
.O l
'e S
l . L
.qgw# Brown &RooMnem
/'*
P.O. BOX 1001 GLEfJ ROSE. TEXAS 76043 im . . , f. ,
- c. g.j y , , , ,j, .:. 9'F'y :. j :.aQ' ~' L 3 ; 17 f.ill. % )&. T ;
i.y;;?y . . .i.-j.?-: W 7ljM
}f}i.1
%i,i.iy$v'L;{g,J f.~:,'y,'~=,.,_.K:3.f 4
$. 9'p";FR@W.);
. ;) , . g ~A<- JM %;;
JMd_V
%.: . . 3 sw y3
- r
? @[5f.LE.
y"_..g__A G;.v.w y3,-L w d OATE .l'ac _. . fy. ( .._. . W"
. . _ a=. ._7." ~ d. z:.X--
_ ~j~ i x m n __cge A.___7c._ e
$& f a =M.~5. . . .
*f L$'-
. /*~C At~ 8wT~ t_ % u Ts h ~ A V V.
L . & Tez~Y.?...b _J > ATE /8 3 3
- - ~ ~~
7
~
. _ _ . . ... M M f / & ...7' M 66-7.5
& .C C N e % 1 7'eo ~J. _ .r.J - .. d.5e l/>f..7~4 _ .
.-.A<.A * *%171 5/ W ' _
WLV. os/ , W f $0 . , bO b C C*4- ~7e3 *T~ . - . . - . . . . . . .. . . - - . . . - - . . Se~- ./'& J'tr'd.0/ .h / 7 c~~~ f / it-4~~ f -. - . . . - . . . - - - _ - - . . . . - . o ~' /A'.s . M/t % of . ie/9 /s-e, . . - . . _ . - - ... -- . . . / h A w ~f m . ~7/.h i'_ /de=~ 2 . fs)4 , /h fC- . . . . .. . . - - - -
~?~0 ek S b y 2-c~ 7/k'~~ ,42 h /C 4~% G'_ 7J %~ .- . . . . --. . .
ft: M{ Trb7 A'A v (~rS ,/41-9 At: v~v' . _ . ...
/&*'t O- . Y/tv 9 C m ,1 (e- P c 4 o l'* .
~I~ th > d't D MY, /! t s ei- bi . W 7o /W t _ _ _ . .
/
/
hY SIGNED d *
/ .3........... ....................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................c........~--...c.v..-...
ca . . ...us Signed 2*l?i2.".", 4?:,***Y >* =~uaws= REC PfENT-RETAIN WHITE CCPY. RETURN PINK COPY
'~
/
;/ SpeedxLettaro
~
f b1 AA; From $ tw::1aja_ _ p ueje ct -- S S4 - 692 ;
.....,m -
Date 8 .2.G.13_8S_ MESSAGE
/2/.u _ gu 2 c' / #utw fir 7- /S's4LS A mpsw.. Jo / ..f .C u fy. W Edd. _-- ..
l l
....m
'"'" signed
//
(( [ gG~ _ (/ . . .I Date 12 REPLY
. . . . . . ~
Signed RECiP!ENT-RETAIN WHITE COPY, RETURN PINX COPY h,!.dk,E.I,,$U'"'"#
)
i [/p
,..,cr cat.rne.
35-1195 8-25-80 / .
\
INTEROFFICE MEP0 h. IM-19445 : TO: R. G. Tolson DATE: August 25, 1980 FROM: J. V. Hawkins
SUBJECT:
CPSES, Job 35-1195 SSR-092 The following response is provided for Deficiency No. 1 on subject - report: M. Based on my discussions with the Protective Coating QC inspec-tors, I have detemined that the adhesion testing for concrete coatings outside Containment was acccmplished per the AS-31 specification. Based on the additional wording of paragraph 9.1.b, "The only documentation shall be the final approved Inspection Report pending corrective action found necessary". We don't feel any documentation was required for the adhesion test specified in paragraph 9.2.2.e. We feel the adhesion test helps establish confidence in the applicator's techniques and is a test we use on a continuing basis to maintain a satisfactory level of confidence. Based on the documented results of all final inspections on coatings outside the Containment, we request this finding be considered closed. w 'A y V. Hawkins Site Quality Assurance Manager JBH/pb cc:95 Curt'i's . Houston QA File PPR Vault 1
. . a.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.TIPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM ro R. F. Curtis cien Itose. Texa. August 20. 1980 a Site Surveillance Report - 092 see h k Deficiency #2: CPSES Engineering was formally requested to provide the test results of systems used on this job by October 1,1980. If this date cannot be met, you will be advised. Deficiency #3: Be advised that this finding is not considered a deficiency. A more careful review and/or asking questions of the appropriate supervision level would have res0lted in the understanding that the appropriate accept / reject criteria has been extracted from the specifications and placed in inspection instructions. b ['^1. G. Tol son TUGC0 Site QA Supervisor RGT/ bid i l cc: A. Vega l J. Hawkins l i
-9 i
I l [
- Applicento '
#- 35-1195 Exhibit 92 0-27-80 BrownURoot.!nc.
INTEROFFICE MEMO . f IM-19452 TO: R. G. Tolson DATE: August 27, 1980 FROM: J. V. Hawkins
SUBJECT:
CPSES, Job 35-1195 SSR-094 The following response is provided for subject Site Surveillance Report: Deficiency No. 2 During cable pulling, the required maintained spacing for 600V and 8KV cable is maintained by construction and verified by QC.
- However, during subsequent cable pulling activities, the previous-ly installed cables are moved slightly in some of the tray sections creating violations in the required maintained spacing.
QC plans to re-verify required spacing at a point in the con-struction effort where little or no work activity remains. Deficiency No. 3 Cable ends are sealed with tape at the completion of cable pulling operations. The temination crews have on occasion un-taped the cable ends in preparation for temination activities, and if termination was not accomplished, some cables were not re-taped. ! Construction and QC forces have been instructed to re-tape as required, and QC surveillance activities will verify same. Deficiency No. 4 ,, l Both construction and QC will assure cables are properly coiled and stored after partial pulls, and complete pulls prior to temina-tion. l \
/
3s l [/J.V.Hawkins Site Quality Assurance Manager JVH/pb cc: R. Curtis Houston QA File PPR Vault
.... ..,o n ...4..,.1 ..... . . .. . 't GG6
. - - - - . - . - - . . - . . . . . - - - .-. . . - . . - - . . ~ . - - - . . . . - _.
~ ;~~v
>y'oe Brown & Root,ine.
^ '
P.O. BOX 1001 CLEN ROSE. TEXAS 70043
.TT 2/TT*'* : ,**
- sT* t* Laf* .
.- r
*,..,c;2s.l _f.T *{lb.L: H 1s' C ylt-,' '- n** .~ ner*1* * #m - .. r.K. * *f k"Q< t**. *W~ m ', e . . 9 +' WW~l ~ - 2 T. C ' ? '"5: i r -;. . e. s.
- .3.*C;.' *&"*"J;1:..
.v.:.;c..s. .?"*.7 .%'k c':l.y<, ~-7.7"%'. .' p'.:%**
e p ; n'P 2i>.9
- L*ja,$
u?hji}ln.u m...%.: .59.. _ .
--a- ..
S.g,> . ,-:.; n..:y7rig,"a. .. ]b bij'
'" Univ"! b:' Ni' h.~i?.
M: .T1_k Y??ETQD*M?iW-5}Qa:_S -$:2'***** Q $h *] $
;;9.-?..v.s gl$nr,z fC, OATE
$- i/
As_ W Na#%E . A,E iown
.sn - on.f
' NR~W
#Ak Acma .
/ y/
d A ~ a b d _ & _ c m i n e r _ s o,.c m A.. c / i _f_/ fnA.
.4sw$ h .su,_c. obi < -
ml ~ , l $}_ , ww erns y /sa.# dn%L . _
~H f& / . 7m d , ,. ,- *)
Af L. A bJ , ._ _ _ ,Am' .A, .c,d j A- _ 2w- uf' uAsth 5- 3 k StGNED / y - / l . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ ............ ............................................ I
. n' b.
,o 2 'h
% .u A1 1 I
l
OjpS;E '
@ U gl3'
(,i?,U * . m - r DEFICIEllCY # 1 The information not shown on the duplicate card is on the original card. Upon completion of the work, the duplicate is filed with the original. The informatian recorded on the duplicate card was reviewed with electrical QC and construction and was found to be sufficipnt to identify the cable being terminated (see attachment). fio correptive or preventive action is deemed necessary. - a e enr e ameneew me 9 6 i i i I i t i
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPAW O F FIC E M E M O R AliD U td To J. V. Haukins - _ _ . .
. Of crt the. Tc.us . October lju,lJSQ_
CPSES Subject _ ___ __.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . SITE SURVEILLNiCE REPORTS y SSR-094 f CABLE PULL, MEGCER'S TEPJIINATION CARDS f Your response to the above subject report has been received and <, valuated by the TUCCO Site Surveillance and Dallas QA Staff. Defi.ciencies Nos. 3 and 4 are considered closed. On Deficiency No. 2, TUCCO QA and QE management are still in the process of determining the effect of delayed compli.ince with the stated requirements; therefore, this Deficiency remains open. An additional response to this Deficiency may be required at a later date after evaluations have been completed, m R. F. Curtis'~ Site Surveillance Supervisor RFC/jh cc: A. Vega, TUCCO QA, Dallas W. Parry R. Oprea J. Ainsworth e in.
Speed Lenerc ro 7 N /dde///5 _1 prem /[ d<<mt i dS O d #lc,4 . ~~~77t 6 w G -f .Sy.r .5 . w s& (s.a c rubizet AC A~ *'YI ~' c^* 2 -lff' TAD WO ,
......,x. i Date # * - 19 ##
MESSAG
/ / rd A'c/ ~ent edeG ro rde- A S+/c=~ p a n.e -y .71 4
//JO e /p ~ <- ,l'c '~b eJ N/ : e *-
/d "2~'s L4 ~ / 7</!a~2. , b e.rfs e ie W s bZ , cist,
- iJ$ oj)c-4 & do ijp e. ,J/e m.c:- piit/na ey2 J 7ws uo rt a v'c c -- /p as<1 A c.-r A xu . be e 4 rs '< c->J Y<3 / slYC~~~ . 5 O3T , /Y <kW 0 >$ c ~~ N/./// t'* !/% YCk]
sos / il- / ?sz/
~~
/4 e/i34
/
e.Jn.do '
,,t c.r Jro J~ 7 s/ sS p/~ s ;- / < C:
[bYi M YE >"l Le 0 /A /,42nd ~
"/,4/sp h ~f* // 7t j to}/ $- Z ~~ AA [
/L / O s 1/ '-<Ji'e-</ in a-re -da s A/n a /rA S / -r- i J / (-. d nw c. ~- .
/
~~-D/A.Jss :
1.'.N g
/ - ,/
l oate 19 REPLY g0f 3" /
/
. l
.... .m.
Signed a ,,, E!,'.J.~!E,u.t.)
., u cg ,,oany 1
m.
. i.*.,-d :W b , ..
* ** r~ s-
~
. p .
, . ., y r1
- i l..,
.e .a-
.s .t n . .
k,,!. w. , ,.,.s.,. m,:si,.s. ..'.-t . i . -- e
,"e;. . ., * . *, - , 4,r * %, .-.,s..e*
V u ? .la ; . ( a', #..
,s::ff. 4. t m a' - ,W, . . - ' . . , ,
. w.
4,
'u. y ,. *<
. - :, ....q--
d
. . , , '.' k. ,p e;s.a eavvp.,cr- ',
y e.',. e , 9 - 1 ,e# .n... .
,4 ' .[* 'u, y,' a.s / P&y g. . i ,;
*~-:*.s ta o .*
s;.-:.a f * ,
- c,'s v 4.I s . *
- e s.
I~'
- F'
.p , ,. - 7e , 'T,l.. .=sJ . 41 - :* 's
,. S,%
s J' ,a. ' t p--e, .+1. ' . '. t .* N .%=3y ....*e . . s ,i . ) a ,g, " . . ' . . . , '. . d1/.7 . 9 , .** 2' E bt t, I'g '.,', j ,Q.., , , 2..6l1) j, +#. .. . . ' ' ,L1 3*g
. I t *' .'/ '. ,t - .., ~ } ,, *
.',.,: , p. . .Q.,..
( ,*, *' .W.
- t'. -O.44 g' , . U 'i ' ~ ~ pj,4
, '.. fw *l e' '$. ,', . *. ' 7 J. . H { .-.(y .*do . . '
':.. ~, a { "S. ,f p,, - . .
. ,. ,a
- r J . .,..s *
; .1
.e vf
.s
- y. \. ". .p.? * %y}
[l y a.4' * [', **. , J . , ? ,L.C4 ,3 ! ?( ' A. 4 . i[ *( j;) ;j Q' .g*.*!.$' G L ..,,;' ~ . ~ .. (. ,44 A' < 1 p
.k ,
[g 5*d~,
'. [,,' ' ; "M, a ,..
"QC [f { ;" A.j'j pe 4,.3 r *
/.
- f.
, . [' T ?
. '[, i p , .;7,.Q, ; .,; i*.l N. ,
>;> s e m:(4
, v.s . . . ;;
L . ], . n'.',.7,f.g 6.Q;y<j.4'. <1 c Q' ;; .flr s:*
;v r ,.a .. ? h. 5 p ., *. Q, y }. % 7i y
.n. ..e ; i h. r'. f,. .;,' . n,,j.j -(Q ',,'.,Lg y,,q.r ., y,, yj.*'nj-*G;s ,{.( _*g &.e*(
n .
._Q.*,. Q. y.._;p.
,. !. .~. ,. ... r,, - - . . ,.
l '., c. .,.,;.4...,.,.s.,.
.. . .. -. .') . %. . . , .*
. . f ,.a.3^. ....t y . $s.s.g..A., ,$ ,9 t..p,,. .,
. , . ...9 c;
.~ . *: m 1 .,. ,. v. t..t. g , .s . f a, w , . ., { s. .c.,*s ;, . ;.6 *.1. .L,. . ... t. ~. ,l, m,..,.,..,..s.
,j. c
.b m .
- r. , , . , . . . -
'; ' ' St $?*n.a
$0 . L' . . *;'.$' ! t D,5 N. * ' .5.4 &. l Y.i' W 2.,: %.,te.b
%. , {..;l. M Y.c [..'[.'V b;k ;*Kf $. &. ?v*:.,$.l'>n .i W N !* '.:l *&.$5.&}'? .N.
~ q ..
f ??: a.N. W
.2
- f. . . .4.: s.~ ?... :. e.. .s 3's ,,. * -?7.* 1*,..
. . w. .. n ay .; L rG Q.:. g'r +m. e I. .a.
., ;:.9y< Mn. ,ig y;
.o
,A ~ 4.s?,,.?,e.*tq.
M. f r p. t.34 t ~ ,p :, ; + 3
. a. w W .,%.g. .gc.- 's%
y w.. p..g f, .,u.,,.;,;.i..y.' .. 4.y .g. n g;j - #
*J
- h. e.s.: ,/g';.. .s . ., . , s',, *44'*C.. ,2, *J.qj '*
** - w ,,; s. .
- c 1w . . . . .<M. ~. x ~ . . s,. ;d . y.Q,.g~ ;, - , .a ...
n .
. , , , -h* . 6 . A ::
-~
g ..ge. .o...,*...*/.. s {- y,-l.?..,;<..,.'*.,.. n
- .: W G., - ..- . p r. o. 2.*: *.? .:
.v. a.ir
'.a '.;
. g I g .s . s.
m
,...,.g.s....,,. w. y 9..
..e f e i . .j f .#rl.; sq.j ;5 g.,t. :. f a. 4.rj
- tf. r., . g' .y ..10."1 o . ,
,f.- .t. .. .J 4 .. ' .) y4 ..<*e. *** I,j3J ; f ' '.a.e.3,j
.. . r t- ;A e ; ,g, g.- 4 b. ..p,r,ty . . L (3.',wm.;;,; , c '*T . , ,..,oe
. 9g4 ,.y
- e. f + 49
- g a-
.# .- .... .t ,, .,., -s t e . -w,. .' . ;re .. * ..a , . . '
e -
.%dn %,'w..Q.. .c 6.;r.,!
* ; e . .2 4 2
' , q,,, e . . ,9. o. ' ..i: .c.
W e-s. W);,pf,
.u . ,
- g*.' L *n,Vn,Q
-r f M.. g %* y$j%(g 1.([f sf .,;'r.p. f -ph.g. * / 84!.g rwi. N*n.9, y t ,- &... . *[.
j;= %,g. y,y r i
' -* e N,N'h'!.' 4:,J.J:$P$$g$
MY* N .. . s ,c p .. .{.D ~ .N. . 7@.4 y ;Q . [Uj[y[.7,o . .. [3 .kpf,?.If. .
<.T As.'.k.
,, w.~w. ,a ~ .,/f.d . c; n.x #s .. L ,np ,; : u
[' y 7m. .m L ,. s.yM. . a: . .m ~n r . c.
* .Z ,, p>>f
- n.
& n., ,.. w %,.Ym, f,^ $S *.~ w .d'ha ,* n >%w *
.. s s k *?$ N ;"r;':,'
6a;*;5 E e y k.b u. 4E*N 4 .~N.k. Q N.m my a
- n. g'M.,. .. c; .'7,@- ywhi'**N ;Qe.t;,' Q,.. an A3q
.o.;b c#g%r
- p' 2 .5
?,'.O. J+m}*lka*$,a&m:%
?,eg. p*: m Q< .
h.yp.%.7 .gr%. .g .; ~A. ;- Q h %
. ,qtg p. , n ..- .t. .m . u.o , . I .. c. . . - . {
s
.wm::4,,gf,. , s l.. a . v !' , hh ! .k.
. h . .
. H i?.l;h,[ N..'h$.
- g.J!:q
' N. W i
$ p?.W H F W.
<b, .h., ,. i.N.NN f..T Q .c.:; @. G Q i f@f M '4(G M !.? Y.$.Wd *.#. ,,D N..v yM*< ," ,M.,s M..
d,,, g * * $ *. . , ~t,. *. .:P *: ;I e
' . .D.%n(... [+M,ef. /J. ~
. ,P. ?i~d.
- y. .%,.m: r;y
~,UN,Mj'T.
.. . . . . .y.,
- W.f , ( . . ' p : n,, f ; .; g 4
. ,;.n ,.c , q.q.
. . s ay ,v ,. . y - : * ...,,g4 j
,o
[,g s .m s C, . y..a. 1,,.1, ,*.< 4,a
.. sc .. .,, r. ,~ , h : ; .- ;. i f.m ,. ..N*
y : (n.q :u ..;egs
- 3v ..? .s 2
4.u. ,., g L,
- a .w.,1, - . ,
I.+ 45* Y'I N . aN 9 AO,c.<;,;; l' y,I'f f.._ . i,d..D. ' . ,.dc . '
'i n om r. =1'.a
- 'v'. .. ' *. ,o,j9.M,.3 r. ,b.
r y;,,i
- h.*. .+I[r t 1s.' +y.e s." ~* . f A k. '.
< . .' P I
- c. *p.. d he i.hfd..
. .:'3 ..'. .I ?-
.t g;
*~.
7 M I Im ~~ w Brown &Rootlnc. P.O. BOX 1001 GLEN ROSE. TEXAS 76043
,/
~~~~.e ., ~ c,!,, .. rp - . ,. ., ;
.y v,} . 9 a .c.;; .Q-
,y 7 '- -*~,. ,. - ..~ - .~,...-*. ,. , *~. .,
* : ., v ~.y;,,..w - .swmp< . q.;y,bp dv.: ;,.m p..H: . . .v, :, t
. .4 . = =
*w, q ,. 6_y. A; m s.n
. fMj. "' 's . .iR, g s sh. ; . c'.
. v.-' 't..c>:m , l...,.g..J L ' ' '.
t .. m
$.C3':.Q'
,.:; . '.g
, j . . ".1.
l.' iwir,
, .s M M, c-a.r.y.1*.p hp[.% j'cd,i',':'. ,3. b Mq h %j q.y r p~A.Zr.',:q"pG.
- 1. y* eD 3 ir., y% D
?. , ' ; : f. . A ; , .
. V
'o-. 4_.' .I. *sv. ' .,, . . ij4 n .a
. ! *e{ * .' vif c,. .) - p._' ^.J ,.
DATE hw ,
. G,n: d' ,. x 4 9 . - -
AS k,. & 'N h.* . h. d . . - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - OATE /' . /~ 4r') . l i a' a;.A 4 53* / r,' t. / o
- # o *
. J - > /.[. _~ V/_
e-(;7.=. o. ~ hl . . _ . _ __ _ . .
- .. .. ..--. . ... _ - . . -- - . . . . - . ~
, hfh CC . /M].. . .t. -m A _ A. h. '. " >/. a.w..o' C.~~-*7s<~) r -. .- -. -- I W W S e<N ~~... O m k-<. T _. R;k 7' . . . . .
&//!.). b /s & t.:Vs i m.C . / = [ O .cc.fr 7f./.- ..
u M W,lu. a / - t.. -T..i. W. ..
- c. (_-- c .E. . ~;W/c 4 s
A[c', / OL-7f. > % . _ ~_~/~/ fzs~ -
7.h.' % 4 5~~ . -. , s' ~*/ h W c.,,-> J C O D c.;~ fl/c/ ml(L- _ ____
/G k/ s s /,) b ut t- O d o C. h .
u,/ BY *N -/' / J SIGNED
<- I
/. ,A . SDG3CE ! GHGTo
'o m .
' <)! -
/; j 3.d' ' To /
4" G,/7 ' M' S
' *7~, e r , :r .-~. - c;*se r " .& ..ts.'c**..f..' ' ;#r.~~
g'_._.'-....g,
,*. ~. :d; ,
- :- t 9.
- .m cu..: ]!.o.G!/ /M'i dil,_Aur w /.
- -' ~7~sw ,d:D:~_-/ ! D . < L 1_ .. . . .- . . _. .
- .=
MESS /sGE cc:o /a " ' ic '" -
/L.c ,ti. a.a . - r- r# - ,/. a - . . . . --r .- d ; '.. . r ( h .c.~,/ \Q._
/
_./ ' < . .'
..gr / _ .' a ostrLs-n 1. 1_A < j <* lnat-T.c!) is _, iz..~ fr.'en i' 'r ./ :
' _. / [ .* - f.' il - v. tj_ > :. ...
- s er >- F...zpr- .n j. . . e i.; s s . . . r .
..Tr s.: ,, .. l. : i a . .n ! -~rt.1;- dr<?ro..r. ar.:v:_L_j ../ ? ,3 s v.e,. i ;. '
./.' ' u L.J.' .~~ .-- > # ull.;; . ' - * ~ ?
- Gt ' - ' ' ' ' ' _W .'- .
- _ 'a i- ~Q.
~7.'- ~, i ;
- r j <~ ., ;L . , . /A /.r./,
i .! . . o i .. / . >#.>. o . i_. ; - _
;_ >,. ... .i.
. J .jf'.~ .?- ~ s'
..:1. w . 'r .:/L - '.~ c_ i? !.1;'. e: _, _.7s 'e r vi.. i.*: -' - ' - 'a
- ,.. : ...o. . , T_/ e.: - i : /,- . . . . . . .- ~ . .i n . . < > . ' ' '.- e
..t-
/
. ' _ .A?
's/'
h ' r *. . .*
* ' .* . , .i'_._ * . i .1 *.~.! .* { .
..,.1_. ! i . . i . rs_e _g _
*/
. *noa r. . ' _o * - ..*..o- r< m -
_2 :.
/
ry e'.;. r,, s_ ,*< .>..s. .' s. .,
~
. ' , .i - .. r ~ p r. / e _,* / ,
qa .
'i ,
'.j ~
/'
- Signcd ,/
_i L Ns ) . * .> .: ?
- r. s.$ !. ' <' ,,
~
, R EP LY oste _lbvember _4 1930._ - i I
'Rlchard, concerning discussion held in your ofrice on 11/3/30:
When an electrical cable must te determinated for any reason, an 1Rii is issuco. Por re-termination of the cable, that IRN number is identified on the duplicate terminaticn card along with cable number, systen number, draNg number, craf tsman's badge number, tool
.used (if different from that used for original termination) and document authorizing the change (either a DCA or revision to the drawing). ..
__The duplicate card is then processed in the same manner as any original tcnnination card.
..QC__ performs its inspection of the retermination and signs off the duplicate card after - -
~
acceptance. The duplicate card is then forwarded to the Permanent Plant Recorifs Vault
..wheta_it is filed by ca_ble number and attached to the original termination card. ,
.fl l %
~
CHsen Jrnea Company REC:Y.EI T-RETAIN WH!TE COPY. RETUP.N PINK CCPY. [J.7.OMal~* TURN CVER FOR USE WITH WINDOW ENVELOPE.
EkuvmcrRoot.Inc. 35-1195 11/24/80 INTEROFFICE MEMO IM-19853 ( TO: R. F. Curtis FROM: J. R. Ainsworth
~
~ ~ ~
SUBJECT:
S'SR'-69i, deficie'ncy' 2~ The following response revises and amends the response submitted via B&R IM-19452: The inspectors will continue to inspect maintained spacing of cable where required. This~is" accomplished per QI-QP-ll.3-26.6. The identified ? cables have been reinspected and correcttons made where required to ; ccmply with design and installation requirements. l As cables, previously inspected and acceptabler may potentially be moved slightly by subsequent construction activities, this item of maintained I spacing is being included in the SU/TO area turnover audits. ha J.p.Ainsworth j Quality Engineering Supervisor JRA/jh - l cc: R. G. Tolson J. V. Hawkins l B. Cromeans R. Oprea E. Holland e
. . . . . . . . - - - . ~ - . - - . . -. - ... . -. - ... . - -
- TI'.XAS tlTil.'ITil:S Gl'.NF.!L\ TING CO.\linNY
~
Of f!CE MEMOR ANDUM
. I.a J. R. Ainsworth
. c. ten Itmc. T,.un.. December 2, 1980 _
sur.j.a _. SSR-094, Ocficiency 2 REF: IM-19853- l Per the referenced correspondence dated 11/24/80, please con-sider this item closed. Based on your corrective action, no further response / action is required at this time. Implementation of your corrective action will be verified during subsequent surveillance activities. Thank you for your assistance.
/
. l- ss l <f. R. F. Curti5
. i i Site Surveillance Supervisor RFC/jh cc: A. Vega, TUGC0 QA, Dallas J. V. Hawkins .
t { I
. o l l
r
. ' ' ' . ], Applictnts' Exhibit 93 TENAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM To R. G. Tolson cien Itose. Tens December 22, 1980_
8" # CPSES SITE SURVEILLAt4CE REPORT 097 ItiSTRUM Ef1TATIVirI DEtiTIFI CATI 0tr/C0 tit RO L , f.
~
Response to the subject TUGC0 Site Surveillance Report has been reviewed / resurveyed and found satisfactory for closing. The closed out Surveillance Report will not normally be redistributed. If a copy is needed, it may be obtained by request from the undersigned at Extension 568.
/ /
fh'//'~ R. F. Curpts SiteSurveillanceSuperv[A isor RFC/jh
~
cc: A. Vega, Dallas TUGC0 QA J Hawkins D. Deviney, TUGC0 QA Operations M. R. McBay e O i
*9
- - CPPA-6462 " TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES 0.
~
v J h .
//P0[r.I59 OFFICE MEMORANDUM 'ks C4)
T,_ R. G. Tolson 2,n %., 7,m September 1 M 980 JOB NO.35-h95 subjea COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION % e n e LV E **"; - TUGC0 SITE SURVEILLANCE REPORT NO. 097 l~'
) t[-!g SEP 161980
\ 1:.
4ECEIVEa Attached please find our response to Site Surveillance Report No. 097. If you need further information or clarification, please advise. kM. Y: R. McBay m' Engineering Ma ager B & R DCC DIST. I PROJICT f.13R. l _ P.0113T Et1GR. l _ e EE ~ I/ PadEhi CONT. Et;GR./I TL"Kd 5 l MRM:ss p::. nct 3.5~53R. I cc: ARMS 0L, lA . J. A. Ainsworth 1L' 1A #E '* l R. L. Estes lL, 1A . I
-e66 l
l l
e O :.)
. ATTACHMENT TO CPPA-6462 RESPONSE TO SSR-097 DEFICIENCY #1 This problem will be. resolved. See Concern #1.
DEFICIENCY #2 Specification MS-622 Revision 1 Paragraph 3.12 is a requirement which the vendor supplying the instrument must comply. The QA shipping release for Q equipment should have noted this problem. I agree the vendor did not totally comply with the specification. The name-plate is acceptable to TUSI as received. This is not a site construction or engineering deficiency. Y CONCERN #1 A review of all DCA's affecting instrument orders has been completed and all spared instruments have been identified and segregated from permanent plant equip-ment. SC fil'e of iHstrudent specification sheets for these spares will be maintained by Instrument Engine-ering. We will request G5H to transmit spec sheets for these spares. Construction procedure ICP-5 has been revised to cover control of spare instruments. I i
.o e
l - t .
e-l= Page 1 of 2
- FIGURE 1.
SPEC, HAH, DJGC0 C0tiA!!CHE CEAK STEA'1 ELECTRIC STATICil - DESIG:1 CHAriGE AUTHORIZATION DCA ?!0. 9253 (WILL) (knLuxDT) BE IttCORPO?ATED IN DESIGN 00CUMENTS 5 l
-~""
XX YES NO . 4 SAFETY RELATED 00CUMEttT:
> ORIGIf!ATOR: CPPE xx ORIGINAL DESIGNER o DESCRIPTION:
2323-f15-622 REV. 1 A. APPLICABLE SPEC /DWG'/,CCCT.EJ.T B. DETAILS Reolace caracraohs 3.11.3.b and 3.12 with those listed on Pace 2. Channa nacassary tn cat natarial dr9 wings-ENGI!iEEPIfiG JUST!FICATI0Bl-s ecificatirn and ccda racuirarants in agraamant I l l
- 6. SUPPORTING 00CUMENTATION:
Conax Drawina numbers N-30016 % Pn?s: on11
- 5. APPROVAL SIGNATURES: CGC/WRK/bb 12/9/80 A. ORIGIttATOR: b A/ nMU DATE /WMhd B. DESIGN REPRESENTATIVE: W /// ) DATEfad6Mrs l6. VENDOR ACTION: REQUIRED X N/A DCA FORT 1 10-80
- 7. STANDARD DISTRIBUTION: JOB NO. 33 -1193 f.O E C E 1 V1 E cp ARMS (Original) (1)
Quality Engineering (1) L
# DEC 181980 h" TS for Orig. Design. (1) $'
l T 4
!)JH\ ECEIVEL
OCA- 9253 t
. 4 . e. - . _. Page 2 of 2 - - - -
3.11.3.b , Thermocouples, RTD heads and extension nipples shall be shipped to th9 jobsite. Each assembly shall have a metal tag imprinted with the Pure chaser's tag number and manufacturer's name and part number with pre-} marked design temperature and pressure. 3.12 Marking i Each thermowell shall be steel stamped with the following information. Steel stamping shall be done using 1/8" round nose stamps. l
- a. For fluclear safety class equipment.
- 1. Material type.
- 2. Heat number.
- 3. Tag number.* .
- 4. Code Class number
- b. For Non-fluclear safety class equipment.
- 1. Material type.
- 2. Tag number. *
- 3. Letters "NflS".
4 l- . . _ . _ _ _. 1 1
* ~
. , m v
\ i
.,r-- + = - .e--,-...-,.---.-r- ,---w.-- . .r-- , . w_.-,. -
p- c,..r-- -ver,,w +% = -.-r*e- --
--w w -w-s-g- ,--r,.w v*d--ee-- ee--v&--v--- --r-+----r-e
F'8
~
Applicants'
. TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY Exhibit 94 OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM '.
7, J. T. !!erritt Glen Rose, Texas October 13, 1980 Subject CPSES TUGC0 SITE SURVEILIWiCE REPORTS i f Your response to Site Surveillance Report No. 105 has been reviewed and found satisfactory for closing. The closed out Surveillance Report will not normally be redistributed. If a copy is needed, it may be obtained by request from the undersigned at Extension 568. Yff R.F. Curtis
- i. ]
Site Surveillance Supervisor RFC/jh cc: A. Vega, TUCCO QA, Dallas J. Hawkins R. Tolson W. Parry O e 1 l
^
. -s .
, TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
CPPA-6861 OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM Ta 04 chard P'tet4e Glen Rose, T. xas Ortohar 14.10P0 Subject egvai! rug pg4g_gIgpu E_ggmr c4 TION SITE SURVEILLAtlCE REPORT NO. 105 i REF: CPPA-6802 [ Attached is response to subject SSR No.105. If you need additional information contact B. J. Murray. l
/0 A
'R. B. Williams
=d Senior Engineer RBW/ajs cc: B. J. Murray L. M. Popplewell ARMS E
t e
/./
TEXAS UTILITIES SERVfCES INC. CPPA-6802 O F F I C I M I M C R A N C '.I M To M. R. McBay c.:en Rose. Tem October 9. 1980 suds,et CCMAtiCHE FEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION SITE SURVEILLAtiCE REPORT :10.105 i REF. 1) CPPA-6597 ~.
- 2) UtifiUMBERED RESF0tlSE TO REF. 1 Please be advised that the cable identified in Reference 2 is properly banded as of this date. Also, note that the cable in question is actually ER-128192, rather than ER-128138 as stated in Reference 2 or EY-128192 as stated in the original Surveillance Re: ort.
B. Z Murray 0d%& e Construction Manager SJM:pp xMD:Imn cc: ARMS OL L. M. Popolewell IL R. B. Williams IL Geerge , welanteius i Merntt T. Estes
- Webb f Heim l l
1 Han sme, RECEIVED R. Es:es OCT 101980 .ol;h:ilsner r - Texas Utilities Services, Inc. (p,,3 CPSES Const. Office ..sur:u 1;wJA lf)Y v e
\ ./
-./,vn . :g,y l
TEX AS tiTil.lTIES (;ENI.R ATIN(; O DlinNY n i I l C C M I: f i O R A fil) tl M
- ,, R. 1. Iturray < n. n i t. .s... r. ui, Sept ember 2' . I'mu
.< ni .i. .. . . . .. TUGC0 SITE SURVLILLAftCE RLf'ORL (SSR-105) .
Your response to our surveillance has been reviewed / resurveyed by site surveillance personnel. Deficiency No. 1 is not considered closed. Cable ER 128188 has not been nroperly banded as of 9/25/30 as stated in your respense dated 9/23/80. Please provide a resronse/ corrective action on or before October 9, 1980. Should you have any questions, please contact the untiersinned.
// ,L-. .
. h .c.{ l . I' ] L.s.ca; w -..
Richard F. Curt.is 1tJGC0 Site Surveillance Supervisor 1FC:kc
. cc: A. Vega R. Tolson J. Hawkins J. Merritt W. Parry e
b v 5.
- TEX.\S-1:Til.lTil'.S SElWICES INC.
CPPA-6579 ' o r F i c t t.1 r. r,! O F. A f1 D il M
- r. H. R. ficRly ':t " 1; - T 'i:. September 22. IT O cs+ s . - _ ... ._ ._ COMANCHE PEAX S.TEAf1. ELECTRIC STATION __ . _ , __
SITE SURVEILLAi!CE REPORT 105 b . Attached please find the response to SSR-105. If you have any questions feel free to contact me. i
.[ kI' /p/ &% d % '
S'. W Hurray Construction fd.in ioer g BJM/ D jb Attacnment cc: ARMS OL, OA L. M. Poppiewell IL, IA R. B. Williams ll, 1A be_._ h Afer 1 ---.nt.t _ .._7, Estes l Webb 1(ECEIVED Hail
~
i_ SEP 2 31980 g2, '. . _- ! Term, Utilun:s Servn.cs. Inc. '( f 5'es -
]r ~~~
CPSES Const. Ollice gw,.3.,,
~ - - . . _ __
+~ ,~.,* - ~ . . .
$ f
'E .su ~ ~ ,
-. _ . . , _ 2 e-I
(h ffjh[' (Q.igy ' -
-O -0 p .-
6 RESF0fiSE TO SSR-105' f..
, Scptem.ber 23, 19'30 Deficiency #1 The cables referenced herein have been properly bar.ded as of 9/18/S0.
, Concern di F The tag on the spared conductor has been replaced. The new tag is marked with the correct number, a Concern e2 The neutral. cable is now properly trained. a
/
O f f# se
. /
( r
\ Applicante! 't
. Exhibit 95 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.TIPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM -
B. J. Murray Decem6er 15, 1980 - To cien nose.' Texas , CESES Subject L TUGC0 SITE SURVEILLANCE REPORTS
*[ L,
~
Your response to the folicwing TUGC0 Site Surve~illance Report [% has been reviewed and resurveyed: _, , SSR NO.: 113 Based on your corrective action, please consider all it' ems closed. No further response is required at this time. Thank you for your cooperation in closing out these items. N.- (
/ f ('.&
R. F. Curtis Site Surveillance Supervisor RFC/jh cc: A. Vega, Dallas TUGC0 QA ' R. Darrin M. McBay ' ~ J. Hawkins g
~
R. Tolson G. Buntinck ' s 1 l
% g O $
i j
N % t.
Speed Lettere To Y'! / W// From / 7~'.6
/]2f @4' 6sdc N subnet b */O ~ .nsA 3* 7 #bMD bd YD .R-sb" .50 . . . . -
' t Date
/4 ' 19 2 S i S GE W.
/
tA~A _ sre-7u n o/~ /s/2 ,jn/4e -/ A#- ; 2 -/27n -ee/-A/. .
. . s /A 3 -7*o 4/-h/c " a;,fJ,***1
/ <9F . ,* .&rS/21< 7_co_g e o a s' (<- w ~ & y it/ c dd 7"M ~2'/_/. hv' /2b>lg_o_., s_n Mrw 7/4s_gbh //o r .-
_& en 4 e . e,z., & sax 2h . A l.:. . A!maen u - / - o '/2- e n G ..
<f n / .an w~ece.L,_v- o Arac no .us i
.- M ' %c.c rJ &cetr> G ~7x" '~.- .,- _Abno.c-re._d' s // / n w d s _1~s~ T P e m
. thLO-- ds~ ~~/~nt 9.e ci~ -_ A'- +:- d7
- A + Y h-+ ~vs'o s G~40-
/ #de &,c' CdcK - sd7o ~?~d% Md77el sws =W s '= u.n- '
l Gre-'I 6f'~2~ ~~7Wu24 ~ Ap.3_sfe/c.*.)'. _.iksY r 3've.' db4'r/e ~ ./J___ s/= 7Arc - . e - & /:< m .S ;M~ Z: A/ 4tndid$ Ac~ /Ws72t=r av d A -r o
/.'r -/ $g.rL5fA<-< cNr v' t d_t:->/ 4 ~rdert N- / S '- '-' nuf) de_?
. ./.w..rP_ } ~ Smf'7/'c- T-) /
/ p,f.,,y
),,g (is, e-- Signed f. }
, f (,,,,a" & M 5 f[da'"
oate 19 REPLY f c d > a s . 4'. d e .c1 _ J. A D4w .__ N h a i Signed yo, E!.?.L.~'Li..?.i.!*, e .... c9ni,oany
y ~ cm. _-. ,
. . . . .. , ,,- .a a / t'/ ,
I #
+
6 I
)
i
, '/_- / -
. . _.. 2, / -
i
?
,- / 'b l- p*,\t,,/
s'- lYl '. '
+l- .
l
/. , c.
i
/ /'. /i . . ..L j) 4 u , - _ ,
; ' *) ~ ' . .'
,e-
/ v _' r/ ,- p*
- si , .
N
- ~. :
/ .
. /
,- , e ,
(_ s' c' - w ls - '
'; $ ,,1,,) /A. s-- .
e -
!. :. i l /.' e u .. . i
/ .,i /. .
L' ' i j L .* . eL, I l'/.'N ,.\ _ 1 -i ,a ..' i h l I 1 l
\
-. L '. .- . , . .
/i\ >tt( wV// s' c L ,1 . v o' /d / :s - _
- /~
\ l r~ > ; . . 1, , ,4 '. > .. . _,
/i - ,-
-v .- .-
l 4 CPPA-7719 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM Richard F. Curtis December 9, 1980
- To cien nos.. Texas subject COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION TUGC0 QA SITE SURVEILLANCE RtFURI fiU. 11.1 ;
Ref: 1. CPPA-7019 f
- 2. CPPA-7520 -
Picase disregard the additional response to the subject site surveillance report transmitted in Ref. No. 2. After reconsideration, QA personnel have agreed that
- a revision to CEI-25 is appropriate and that the original response, stated in Ref. No.1 is acceptable. However, the completion date should be changed to December 10, 1980.
h hi. " Cgh B. &/ Murray .j s Construction Manager - db BJM/RM0/lmn cc: ARMS OL
- M. R. McBay IL R. G. Tol son 1 L l
l 1 l 1 .I
,[- . , , , ,, , -- --(. < ,s.,, , ..-..e. * ,
( -*. '. ..e ..=.:,4s6 e
,q-x.n-'n n.,-;, .
**^ '
'*A
-.a,~, .w. . .. , ,. ..=
* *..- ' i i ',' * :'*4 -g-.. .. .- . , ', ~ x.%'
* ;. - ,~,,,9 * -
g.' ~ . .gu .._ x,_ , sgg- 5-; , , , + . -
. .r;.n. ,' w m. .._, r *.w.
< s .. P .
* ' - - ^ '
i e : L ._ - - t- 1- _ _ - - -- Brown &Rootano. T+-r-Nkk. d). .g)d
. 4V P.O. BOX 1001 GLEN ROSE TEXAS 76043
.', ,;,. ,- s, . . ', f . v'- , -
l'f..!,jg
- 4 , *- 3 , ,, J,
,, , . e;J]g
.i - J,4 .; .
s,., g g*- -- ,- g,, f=
- ' @_ . .j] -.3='..-:3
" , . . @ '/n*\ic-fi-d ' . , . . ' .. -
~
j k, 1- 8
. ' , 1.
-; p___ /. __ i n ;s *
~ n s, _, _ - . , . ,
=4 .2 p ^t
,'b-, ,?," 3,,i, -,.; -. r-l. !.w' ,.1 - '*;c.r.%
- - ;, .3f ..,m.,,,.: ". ',;
_m . ._ . 3 ., To, m s DATE N d a l %, D , Q cay %s d d r~ y I j r.'.'.
,h,. f*: li . j
.U 'f't.1 . . p/ WE#! t
. ?/ht, DATE * > "-
s p
/ ,,, Ac. jxL ' a t _._ _
- Q Z '. C'I .< Ci- y 1 5 - l Ts Cc,3j yc Q ;; j q
- , , n ,
%sN, e e . . 4I
. pg kh . p a
. <r r
- Es' *[.
. , fy' }s .n f,V . ,54 . *
*3 ( Q ff.)f
- s'd. ( -
aJ - b.: c: m us i e ,; , 3. . .r 4 4fcp{% 7 / ,1 ?- 8b,
. .s . + *
,,,q,. ,.. . . , . .
..)... & 3. ~ ;,j _J-6.L ct (L.' U ~~j.sw..Q.. t;@ _
9
/ & , -. **s ~* -lllAg5 -* lA I 'e
~r- f_ ','i ~ ? A,']y*lQ_Y.- s - Q* )._ "f",k- rg q$
. a . -
kb-**..'.v ,
~
? , b . g',, D M J*
- M,,.( .
l ,.y*h*I.L' g Y I ! hr9$ ' SIGNED 1 l ...v.uc,...to....-. .=s e.u c ,ie=. w e .s c iv. .
. ...... ..... ... . . . e.........c........... . ..... ... .. .. ....c... .......... ........,. .....ce.,,.......
1
.mg g e k, sg g A " %51 66 %M#."E F #
1 1 1 ___... _ . . . - --.y ,i--u-- -
.1
.a.. 4- 1 s s. su-- : 7ewma aus.. an.61ir. - =
l l 1 l ' l 1
<l l
l
- -~ -
. . , . ... _, _ _ . = . _ _ . . . s .m. . . -
y
I
;g '-
Bromf5RootJnc. P.O. BOX 1001 GLEN FtOSE. TEXAS 76043 Wl ' ' . *:i .: _ . _ , t' ' f' -} ;1 '.4;;, , -. . , ;..yj,. L .. . . . - ' fl Q ?., , ',j . '. .:p _ ,
, . .; ', B~r s.,
. _??i';' ,.' ' ' .- :;')
N- "
- h: h~.
^
* ^ " ' ^
w.f..:Y _ .u x;!
? I *
- Stl;*
- . .;._ t.2;_ . , .c .
c... a;n .;, .- , . . z
.$ k - 7.: . : . . .
1 o^" To , pgg,gu/ pg gppg-: yg,q-- ---- - - - - - - . - - --- -
. M =~S-T./. l3 L.
_1 urE /z/a/sw - . - . . RmaM TO Dgf*I- -- . Gd.- 2-050 _00/ A 43.5. .No7" $l/MM@ C C - 1. - O.$ l S' .003- A733/k". NO!~ Rd- . . _
@!M M O PER ZRNll4 i7 @$$lp) _ _ __
B[s/wrf zoJer#7 r O g - OLDJdo OU T . ..- .. -. . . . . - . - - . . - . . . _ 06.5/0M56 in Dsf #3 I COG 2fcnuf /[' MON O./IY2LUE S/NCG ////g VCu2 CCC#ddA7170A/ /N CC C5/NQ
/007' 77s/.i 35 2 /s f!EGDC5 7"S*D 1 1
@Y /( . SIGNED
.........m,..m....
l ( .. . - - - - . . . ..
- -- - m l
.o 1 .b% .
E=M '"' m 6 7 1d. N WT ,,e d, -y. %D L y. e - L
.~
TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. CPPA-7520 OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM 3 Richard F. Curtis clen F ise, Texas subject COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STAT.ON ADDITIONAL RESPONSE TO SITE SURVEILLANCE REPORT NO.113 ; Ref. CPPA-7019 f The original response to deficiency number 3 of the subject Site Surveillance Report stated that a revision to CEI-25 would be forthcoming. However, contrary to the agreement between craft and QC parties involved, additional consideration by QA/QC personnel has led to the determination that such a revision would necessitate an involvement by QC that is not within their realm of responsibility. Therefore, the ammended response to this deficiency is as follows: Corrective Action . The responsible craf t superintendent will ensure that a traceable system will be initiated that will serve to notify the Concrete Department when hanger base plates are in need of grouting. Preventative Action Craft personnel involved in this activity will be refamiliarized with the criteria stated in CEI-25. Comoletion Date December 3, 1980. JAUuY i B' J.44urray" Construction Manager g b
- BJM/RMD/lmn cc: ARMS, OL' ,
M. R. McBay 1L R. G. Tolson IL l f
2** . .
' ~
CPPA-7019 OFFICE M E MO R A N D UM M.R. McBay cien nose. Texas flovember 6,1980 7,, Subject CCMAfiCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION SITE SURVEILLAliCE REPORT t10. 113 ; F Attached please find the response to SSR-il3. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. , f /W C M Murriy~ // Construction Manager BJM:RMD:sf cc: ARMS OL, OA R.F. Curtis ll, l A R.G. Tolson ll, I A
x_. -_ .- . . _- . . . . . . . . . . - . . . - . - Applicanto'
' TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO31PANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM J. V. Hawkins cren nose Texm_ October 31, 1980 ro CPSES subject i TUCCD SITE SURVEIE#iCETCPORT E
PIPE FABRICATI0ft/ItlSTALLATION ~
, (QC ACTIVITIES)
Response to the TUGC0 Site Surveillance Report No. 116 has been , reviewed / resurveyed and found satisfactory for closing. The closed out Surveillance Report will not normally be redistributed. If a copy is needed, it may be obtained by request from the undersigned at Extension 568. R. F. Curtis Site Surveillance Supervisor
. _ _ . . _ . _ _ RFC/jh
. . cc: A. Vega, Dallas TUGC0 QA R. Tolson
. G. Bentinck
. D. Deviney J. Merritt l
I o
'-- 35-1195 77' 10-28-80 - - l PJc'.ynf5Not. lac.
INTEROFFICE MEMO IM-19765 i T0: R. G. Tolson DATE: October 28, 1980 FROM: J. V. Hawkins
SUBJECT:
CPSES, Job 35-1195 SSR-116 The following response is provided for subject Site Surveillance Report: Deficiency No.1 - The initial decision by CPSES QC with regard to the magnetic particle testing performed on 27 fittings as supporting _informa-tion for evaluation of 10 CFR Part 21 from Capitol Manufacturing Co. was to indicate nonconforming findings on NCR-2439 and issue no additional report.
,,However, I agree that an NDE Report as supporting information to this NCR would be beneficial, and same will be issued and filed with the NCR in the Records Vault. .
- Deficiency No. 2 - Hold tags were applied to the identified : cools to prevent subsequent processing as they contained fittings in .;uestion re-ported on Capitol Manufacturing 10 CFR Part 21.
,e After determination that the fittings in these spools were satisfactory and subsequent closure of NCR-2439, the hold tags should have been removed.
The held tags were removed from these spools on October 21, 1980. Observation No.1 - the 27 quantity reported on NCR-2439 was the number taken from CMTR's on file. As noted on Receiving Inspection Reports, only 26 fittings of questionable Heat No. M468 were received at CPSES. The one additional fitting inspected was from Heat No. M568. The NCR will be revised to correct the quantity. , .
,-Observation No. 2 - the NCR is in error with regard to pressure class, and will be revised to correct as follows:
1 each 3000 SCR 9Q not installed . 3 each 6000 SW 90; not installed 1 each 6000 SW 90 fabricated into CC-2-RB-072, 303 at welds 11 and 12
- /.,f /.,. 35-1195 10-28-80 60'.'in 'Poot.inc.
Page 2 If you have any questions on this matter, please contact me. i
/
N E [J.7. SiteHawkins Quality Assurance Manager JVH/pb ~ ccI R. Curtis i QA File
W
~
Speed Letter, n .}~ V. /bt-el p df vrom YS_.. J 'S . . . . . - - - . . J!!! DA AN . ~~ 2~L4%.. _szsc Sw'=?MM4'* -. _ .. :; ~ gui:ct 5. > d'EG -
,r _
Date
' # /dj " k' MESSAGE
._.. d e /SA9s- -f? Wr_ czMe-~ 6 M I e_ c _ _ A'c M d .Z'
'~~
-2d!L w=ficc' M-_. Aht-W . _.-.4.cc-en O 'O.- H 9.. 4? 'c-Wd. .
?4.AC2^-b- . e J/ '1% lf'twL /11.$WWt'0 A-o ?"'$3/ W-.. --. . lM- --
. m +Mt%' , -..JJ ns.'s. w % ..-.. T .<o.n ~l'.9-. ' y y .1. A. c=t. & 'r<~ /.7
- _.. n'= c,r t. t. - . t.v'.ch!Q. ...de.4&S.M. . . 13 e1- ?~L:~5 -_ A5- ~~2 - --
. _ _ c d / h .= . v ' vs4' .s . _.. /1s. 7*..c~.' N-45 . &&. "" . 4?-- . 2*4 - ':~ I I
__ Abb s~ . . .. . /$n7 c-X.. .. t&2' t t 'f .< 4')
~
-- Y'-/^1=~ A c-3.e lf5- - ? - '
f T af*b ... . ..C dusu.&c~ .. .. _.d.c.~ zS.. .. . _. i h Gd-- CrcC. .J M < WS -
._. _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ __. . _ . _ . _ . . . - . . . _ i b Y.?.'$ .. 0? - W SW .. .VC.?.LlSW -- ! . . _ _ .. . . . . - . _ . . . .
i i
- Signed [ ..
REPLY , Datc M/,hdo 19 - -
< U(W-2'dIf _. rs'dJ /Mmls
- ^ttc29/ cBo tza h R f - 4 Y _.-. h k ~
/ Arfd ~ 1 A.a~_ _ i.._~ D d b 4- .f ,
,+0 6 fa. .nx_AL M &+% det . -_ - _ .. ._ 6 e ? .m .
.aw ...$ e... . . % e
,4 m. p -. . . .e e ei....i M 6_e. ...e. *.-m .eem .wy.Og mi 4
.+4D m - e .e. m p.. e w. e om .-m s -
S.igned s . p_ 4( , , e,f%-r .. c. 2'P?"denn cofapany ,/j; , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,_,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,n,,,,,_,,g,, , , _ , ,
Applicante' Exhibit 97 l TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM J . T. Me rri tt November 24, 1980 To Glen nose. Texas subject CPSES ; SITE SURVEII. LANCE REPORT [. Response to the following TUGC0 Site Surveillance Report has been reviewed / resurveyed and found satisfactory for closing: SSR NO. Il6A The closed out Surveillance Report will not nomally be redis-tributed. If a copy is needed, it may be obtained by request from the undersigned at Extension 568 -
?
, dhTf O//44 4'
. F . Cdt'ti s~ ' /
Site Surveillance Supervisor RFC/jh , cc: A. Vega J. Hawkins R. Tolson D. Deviney G. Bentinck l
' i.. . %
- SPEC,EAH,TUCCO '
_ISURE 1. Page 1 cf I C0ttAtlCHE PEAX STEA*! ELECTRIC STATION ' DESIGil CFRIGE AUTHORIZATIO!! ('.11LL) [4%3XM3'Q SE I!!CORPORATED I:1 DESIGil DOCUMEtlTS DCA ::0. 9088 4
- 1. SAFETY RELATED OCCL*'E:iT: X YES t!O
~ ~ ~~~
< 2. ORIGI;;ATOR: CPPE X' ORIGIt!AL DESIGilER ' 3. DESCRIPTIO!!: . - A. APPLICABLE SPEC /rdisyg55@xm 2323-!1S-43B REv. 3
. B. DETAILS Revise paragraph 1.10.2.L to read: "All fl0T equipment and instrumentation shall be calibrated in accordance with the contractor's procedure for control of measurino and test equiprent".- -
m {4 SUPPORTI!iG DOCUME?iTATI0'l: 1 S. APPROVAL SIGt!ATURES: RCB:te 11-17-80 A. ORIGI?!ATOR: Y8dO,,/m / DATE //- M - B. DESI3:i REPRESE?iTAT!"E: T' M?NdM/
- DATE /M-/7/- M p -
]6 VE!!COR TRA:IST1ITTAL RE:UIRED: YES ?:0 X i
- 1 STA:: CARD DISTRIBUTIO?l: -
' JOB NO. 35-1195 OCA FOPf! 11-50 l APJts (Criginal) (1) f EC EIV E R l Quality Encineerina (1) .: i l
\ TS for Orig. Cesign. (1) t';
\
NOV191980 . (4 s o [ > ECEIVE =) I
F TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. CPPA-7415 OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM Richard Curtis Glen Rose. Teus flovember 18, 1980 ro s.;biect COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION RESPONSE TO TCP-116A . I We responded to the subject surveillance in CPPA-7354, and committed to sending the NDE calibration procedures to G&H for review and approval. Subsequent to receipt of the procedures, OCA-9088 was issued deleting the aforementioned review. ' lease revise your records to reflect this re-vision.
'B. I Kurra'y 6
Construction Manager 8 BJf1WPC:kss cc: ARMS M. R. McBay R. G. Tolson l i
.o l
[ f . CPPA-7354 TEX S UTILITIES SERVICES INC. OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM To R. F. Curtis, Site Surveillance Suoervisor Glen Rose Texas flovember 13,-1980 _ subject COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION TUGC0 SITE SURVEILLANCE i REPORT NO. 116-A E Per the above referenced report, copies of all Instrument Engineering , Instructions pertaining to NDT equipment calibration have been forwarded i to iir. Rich Barber for Gibbs & Hill approval. W/- N. K ittirraf ~ f_ ) Construction Manager BJM:JPC:kss cc: ARMS OL l R. G. Tolson 1L l M. R. McBay ll l R. C. Barber IL. N A - 9c gf -r Were-- -7m Am . ,/ 84'seja rc j M o~ '" m 7e e - ,>, o ., rm n r c J. sA rk., l l I l l l
APPlicantc'
. .. *. ' - ' ' ' TI{.L\S U ili.lTil?S Gli . lift ATING C(Dil%NY Exhibit 98 O F F I C E M E M O il A N D U M
. son February 11, 1981 i To
. __ .. . _ c ,en ,t ,,,, T ,,x,u .
;,, , ,j, ., . , , _ ,
SSR-ll7, " Class lE Lighting"
'We have evaluated your corrective action to the above subject Site Surveillance Report and find this action acceptable. This will close out the Deficiency identified.
! Implementation of your corrective action will be ~ verified during a subsequent surveillance. i ,..
.a- .
- l. . j <n:d.,
-( . '/
I O . Curt'is Site Survei.llance Supervisor RFC/jh ( cc: A. Vega J. Hawkins l W. Parry D. Deviney T
/
e I s.
~ ,.
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OF FICE M EllO R A N D U M JAtlUARY 7, 1981 To R. G. TOLS0ft __ cien nasc. Texas Subject _
~
- b CLASS lE LIGHTIf1G l ,
i Please refer to your correspondence to this office on October 27, 1980 in which you stated that the Class lE lighting system for CPSES was under review by Engineering for possible re-classification as a non-lE system. To date we have been unable to ascertain where TUGC0 QA stands on - this subject. It would be appreciated if you would advise this office of the latest developments and/or resolutions, as this report remains open.
,? ,/] ,,
A "- ( sd e R. F Curtis Site Surveillance Supervisor RFC/jh cc: A. Vega D. Deviney ( e
. ...e.-. .-: TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
- -q._ -
CPPA-7853 OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM
. r, J. T. Merritt cien Rose, Texas December 19. 1980 subjece COMAtlCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATI0ft LIGHTIllG SYSTEMS C0tlNECTED TO 1E SOURCES } .
.. REF: CPPA-7640 -
. . . . . - . - . . ' .a '. :-- . c .. .. - : : .
Paragraph 4 of the referenced letter is deleted because there will be no, areas in the plant where initiation of emergency lighting will be required after start of cold shut down. I. Ahmad and Harold Cheatam discussed the requirement of hot functional test for lighting circuits as stated in paragraph 3 of the referenced letter. Harol informed that, " acceptance procedures for lighting systems are not yet finalized by TUGC0 Start-up. However a hot functional test for checking circuit wiring shall be incorporated in the procedures as required by paragraph 3 of the referenced letter. In addition lighting systems shall be checked for transfer schemes."
~
(. L - ( -- L. M. Popplewell Project Electrical Engineer
, LMP:IA: cst
~
cc: ARMS l M. R. McBay R. G. Tolson J. R. Ainswortit C. Britt .,
.R. E. Camp l
t p - S 1
TEXAS UTRITIES SERVICES INC. CPPA-7640 OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM ro J. T. Merritt clm mse. Tex 2. December 4. 1980 Subject COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIS STATION LIGHTING SYSTEMS CONNECTED TO 1E SOURCES , E J. R. Ainsworth and I have agreed in principle to have Electrical Engineering and Quality Engineering jointly establish the inspection program on Class 1E Lighting Systems. The procedures will be written l based on the folicwing criteria:
- 1. The base document will be the FSAR. Amendment #12.
- 2. Hardware inspection will be done only on lighting circuits requiring secondary restraint cables and then only on the restrain cable system.
- 3. Circuit wiring will be inspected in a majority of the systems by the hot functional test method.
- 4. In those areas where lights are to be functional after a cold shut-down folicwing a DBE, a full inspection will be required on cabling,.
cable pulling, and terminations. Electrical Engineering will identify the above areas and will work with the craft and Ouality Control to
- g. establish the methods of inspection and installation. ,
a l The above approach has been established in lieu of declassifing the lighting, installation of current Umiting fuses, and isolation trans-formers. The procedures necessary to acccmplish the above work will be completed p by 12-15-80 L. M. Popplewell Project Electrical Engineer a.MP: cst cc: ARMS l M. R. McBay
. R. G. Tolson b J. R. Ainsworth .
l C. Britt B. K. Diledare 4t['%[fph d6 w W. I. Vogelsang , gEC ( g
~
i l ELg Y b l l e.va.
- * ,, \ ., * . . TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM 7, R. F. Curtis cien rtose. Texas October 27, 1980 Subject Site Surveillancy_,Re00rt No 117 5 -
For the record, the lack of a formal inspection program at the present
- time applies only to that portion of the lighting system from the distri-bution panels to the lighting fixtures. This portion of .the lighting system has been under review by Engineering for the past several months for possible re-classification as a Non 1-E system. The attached memo (CPPA-7054) documents the curreng Engineering status. We will proceed when Engineering advises of the final classification of the lighting system, and makes appropriate changes in the installation instruction
, (EEI-4).
/
M ! a s b r_, [ A R. G. Tolson TUGC0 Site QA Supervisor RGT/bil . Attachment cc: A. Vega J. Hawkins ! J. Merritt J. Ainsworth 1 l l
l l
> Y I'~CPPA-7054 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
~
OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM Ta J.T. Merri tt. Jr. cien Ros , Texa. netnhor 7a logo Subject COMANCHF PFAR STFAM FtFCTRfr STATinn ESSENTIAL LIGHTING E - On 10-23-80, the following approach was developed to resolve the problems with the Essential Lighting System: - 1). Gibbs and Hill will provide a position paper that shows that the lighting fixtures, including power connections, pigtails (if any), internals and bulbs, do not have a failure mode (short or ground) due to a seismic event that can degrade the rest of the Class lE circuitry. (No more than 1 man-day) 2). When an adequate position paper is recieved, TUSI will investi-gate how to assure adequate quality for the system from the
- distribution panels to the fixtures. The basic approach would be:
a). Inspecting the conduit. b). Inspecting the supports c). Writing an NCR on the cable and developing an inspec-tion procedure to resolve the NCR, such as: 1). Visually inspect as much cable as possible with-out pulling any cable. 2). Performing an integrity test to verify the operability and correct termination of the circuits. 3). If the above steps are not possible or represent too large an impact, other alternatives will be persued such as the declassi-fication of the system.
, d Don Woodlan ORW:sf cc: L.M. Popplewell R.G. Tolson H.C. Schmidt K.K. Mittal J.S. Marshall ARMS l
Applicents' TE.\AS UTil.ITil:S GI~.NERATING CO.Til%NY Exhibit 99 O r r ! C E M C f.t O H A TJ D U M T.. ,_ M. R. McBay,_ , ,_,, ,, _ , ,
, ;ic,, n,,, , r..x.,, March'4,-1981 s .hject SITE SURVEILLAtlCE REPORT NO. 120 ,_ _, ,
" RECEIPT Atl0 HAtlDLiflG OF PREFABRICATED ELECTRICAL CABLES" .
We have evaluated your correctiie action to Deficiency flo.1 as described in ynur letter dated 2/25/81. We find your respnnst acceptable and hereby close out this findi ng. Thank you for your cooperation. A75 Osa. It. F. Curtis Site Surveillance Supervisor RFC/jh cc: A.-Vega
. . R. Tolson J. Hawkins D. Deviney W. Parry
. CPP/4-8701 TEXAS UTILITIES SElWICES INC. Y O r l'I C E M I: f.1 O R A N D U M
- r. . . ._ R. F. Curtis . r a,,,, n. ,s,.. r..ui, February 25, 1981 s.a.jca . _ _. _ _ _ _ _ . COMMCllE PEAK. STLAM ELECTRIC STATION _ . _ _ . . .
SITE SURVEltLANCE REPORT NO. 120 RECEIPT AND flANDLING 0F PREFABRICATED ELECTRICAL CABLES. REF: 1) REQUEST FCR ADDITIONAL RESPONSE DATED 1-28-81 l
~
- 2) CPPA-8216 -
- 3) CPP-4583 - ATTACHED Per Reference 1) the response pr'viously submitted per reference 2) was evalua'.ed to be inad(quate for Deficiency No.1 of the subject QA activity.
Reference 3' has been prepared in response. Please note the specific identification of the catles and the attachment provided for your veri fica tior:. Please contact Richard Bcker if further information can be provided. fk . -2pf M. R. McBay t Engineering Manager g MRM:RPB:km cc: L. M. Pcipplewell B. K. Dilodare J. P. Clarke
,' R. G. Tolson ARMS i
s
- 2. .cN- 4583 TEXAS UTil.lTil'.S SEin' ICES INC.
O F l'I C C M I: 110RANDUM n,
. . ay . ;( ten lin<e. Texaa _.{ebruar / 20, 1931 GXWCLE PEAK STrM4 ELECTRIC STKfl01 huincet . .. ..~ ... .. ..-.. - .-- - ---- - - - - - -
SITE SURVE]IRCE REPORT NO. 120' ADDLTIGW, RESPCUSE 'IO DEI'ICIDCI NO. 1 , CPP-44C5 DATED 1/29/81 ? George N. Baker
'Mer ilt l Wade Hall l Peppleweil McEay R. Estes The three cables '#1186:3,10138901, and Epl38904 in -- - '--
Munay Kissinger question have been rechtcker physically at the ter-Hicks V/obntejus mination points and fourd tc be of the same type as Gentry -"Houcway require.1 by the latent drtwinJs (See attaclunent 1) . - - - - - - - - - - Barber YTdliams Bbcfmell T. Estes Items 2 and 3 are bat.ed ulu tiv2 presumption of in- - - r r --- correct cab]es in Itcm 1. Because cables installed - - C ar2 per the latest design drawing items 2 and 3 are - not applicable. f mf:h//T
'Q
!!cnce no corrective or prevcntive action is required.
w? L. f4. Popplewell Project Electrical Engineer I jfv U4P.L ;D:hCh: AKV: sib l u f
't ' '
i l 't
?/ e l f
i.. j ! o l' I ! l l I i l L
~
CPP -4583 /aT/Citr a r NO. l CABLE h0. & IJr.ATIUN CN3LE M4D CUtlull.TUR. .T_YP_E ICIUAL INSTALLED ped, IM3. AS Sl!(1.fc4 Apl38623 El-171-09 El-172-26 HS-24321-0 #16 8/C 116 8/. H6 O Pi" CB-09 to '1C-2(; O E"I 0 P'" l EQ138901 12/C #16 El-171-09 !~Pl-l72-10 ' ! 1-115-2484 12/C 216 12/C #16 CB-09 to 'IC-19 12 Pin 12 Pin 12 Pin
, El-171-11!'El-172-19 IS138904 12/C #16 *' I CS-TlEB1 16/C #16 l 12/C-*16 12 Pin 12 l'in CE-11 to '1C-19 12 Pin
**LCA No. 5753, Rev. 2 char.ges 16/C to 12/C on LhG. El-171-il I
1 l I l t
f TEXAS UTII.lTIES GENERATING CO311'ANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM M. R. McBay January 28,'1981 To , , , , _ _ ,,g,r, g ,,,, 7e,,,
-soi.jee SITE SURVEILLANCE REPORT NO. 120 h
Your response to the subject Site Surveillance Report has bee'n received and evaluated by this office. Attachment A to this report contains an evaluation of each finding. Deficiencies number 2 and 3 are considered closed. An additional response to Deficiency No.1 is required by February 24, 1981. In your response please provide the following informa-tion for each open deficiency:
- 1. Describe what corrective action has been or will be taken for each deficiency.
- 2. Describe your preventative action to prevent recurrence of the deficiency.
- 3. Indicate the date your corrective action described in 1 above will be implemented.
Should you have any further questions, please contact Wayne Parry at Extension 640 or the undersigned at Extension 568. s
/Y - (' ], . W R. F. Curtis Site Surveillance Supervisor RFC/jh '
Attachment cc: A. Vega R. Tolson J. Hawkins D. Deviney W. Parry i I l l
l ATTACHMENT A-COMMENTS ON RESPONSE TO SSR-120 h DEFICIENCY NO.1: . Your response to the above deficiency 'is inadequate. (1) Three of the ten cables listed in the Deficiency ( A0138623, E0138901 and E0138904) are not of the type required by the latest drawings. (2) By not using the cables procured for the speci fic installation, some modification to the cables which were used was apparently required. No evidence can be found
,that QC was notified, for inspection of the modification.
(3) Since no evidence can' be found that spare or blank cables were procured under the applicable specification, no duplicated order or receipt records for these cables exist and the source and quality of the installed cables is still-questionable. DEFICIENCY NO. 2: Your response appears adequate. Please consider this item closed. DEFICIENCY NO. 3: Your response appears adequate. Please consider this item closed.
. . CPPA-8216 TEXAS UTILITIES SElWICES INC l\
u Cd h O F F I C E M E l.t O R A f1 D U M To R. F. Curtis __ __ _. . . . . _ -- ..a: ten it . na., Janua'ry.,2.1, 1981 subject COMAtlCHE.. PEAK STEN 4 ELECTRIC STATION SITE SURVEILLAf1CE REPORT N0. 120 ' RECE!PT Afl0 HANDLIf1G OF PREFABRICATED ELECTRICll CABLESg -
REFERENCE:
CPPA-8105 7 Y Attached find the referenced correspondence dated Ja7 uary 16,1981 - regarding Deficiency No.'s 1 & 2 of the subject survnillance activi ty. Please refer any additional conments to this office should further response be required. kfhf
~~
M. R. McBay
~
y Engineering-Man
~
MRM:RPB:km s - cc: ARMS
'~*
B. Dilodare (ll) s - - - J. P. Clarke (1L) ' '
. . B. J. Murray (IL) s R.'G. Tolson (ll,1A) -
- 1. ,w&-~
s ,
t l
, 'I s *Q
; . ,' A s 1.
- r u s
% 4 w,
4
- ?[ .
' . H '.
.. im~ TEXAS UTil.lTIES SERVICES INC.
CPPA-8105 O r r t C E M E h! G a A li D U M
'n - Mike McBay cien ama. T u, January 16,19Ei1 subject CCMAtlCHE PEAK STEAM El.ECTRIC STATI0ft RESP 0flSE TO SSR-120 -
I The following is provided in response to deficiencies 1 and 2'of the subject SSR. Deficiency 1 Although the identified cables exist both in the warehouse and the
'ield, and the vendor identification number is not on the cable corge (1. Baker i n the field, no deficiency exists. Our position is based on the requirement that the installed cable is in accordance with the lerritt IWade c rawing, i.e. it bears the G&H cable number (identification),
all Pepplewell and is of the proper type, color, size, number of conductors, etc. - There is no specification or procedural requirement that the cables _.Qtes fave a vendor identification number. trray Kissinger
-f a corrective or preventive action is required.
icks Wohntejus entry- _] Honoway Ceficiency 2 arber Wali:ms '
, hen previously installed cables are removed because of design hekwell T. E:t:s c hanges, they are not nonconforming purely because of the design
- g. ' hange. If the cable is damaged during the removal process, then
-[-
i di) t is nonconforming and the damaged is scrapped. Otherwise the "i able is returned to stock to be used in a suitable application.
-- -r - - lo traceability by vendor tag number or previous cable number is l [s Fif 3 [N heqUired because the new cable number becomes the new identifica-
" tion-number.
j - flo corrective or preventive action is required. bs i The receipt of duplicate cables is not a traceability problem because the cables meet the purchase order requirements, and therefore should not be a concern of QA from a quality standpoint. However, frcm a ccmmercial standpoint we have received items redundantly and the cause x will be investigated by Electrical Engineering. Please address any questions you may have concerning this response to Basant Dilodare.
/ / f BJM:JPC:ajs cc: arf 15 l J. P. Clarke l Basant Dilodare l,{ p ' (' ' ,[ T, l 'gl { p I Charlie Britt # ~
J Aii 16 it'd1 l In v. ilhhhc. hm t. Inc. l (" '" Certt. O!hca 'l ..i" __
^-
{XAS UTidTIES SERVICES 1( OFFICC MEMOR ANDUM ' r.,_ R,_L. Cur _tb 5 . . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ ___ cten 10~. r....w 0ec e.mbe r..10 , .19 80... sia j,.a _ _ _.___.._ COMANCHE PEAK. STEAM ELECTRIC STATION , , , . _ SITE SURVEILLANCE REPORT N0. RE- / s RESPONSE T0.0EFICIENCY.NO. 3 ; t The subject deficiency cites Criterion VIII of 10CFR50, App. B requiring iden-tification and maintenance of identification throughout fabrication, erection, installation and use of items. The finding identified fifteen (15) prefabri-cated cables which can be found in duplicate in both the warehouse and in permanent installation. From a regulatory viewpoint, we do not consider this finding a deficiency as proper identification has been maintained. We do however recognize the impact of practices such as duplicate procurement from a management control and com-mercial viewpoint. The finding will be investigated from that perspective. For the reason stated above, we do not believe any further response is re-quired for this finding. We appreciate your identification of these.. conditions. Please contact Richard Baker if further information can be provided. W M. R. McBay of Engineering Man r NRM:RPB:km cc: ARMS R. G. Tolson , R. D. Gentry . L. M. Popplewell J. D. Hicks
*0 t
e
Sheet 4 of 4 { V..-
~
SURVEILLANCE REPORT NO.: 120 DEFICIENCY NO.: 3 i REQUIREMENT : 10CFR50, Appendix B, Criterion V(II states: lieasures shall be established for the identification and control of materials, parts and ccmponents, including partially fabricated assemblies. These measures
, shall assure that identification of the
, item is maintained by heat number, part e_.
. number, serial number, or other appropriate means, either on the item, or records trace-able to the item, as required throughout fabrication, erection, installation and use of the item. These identification and con-trol measures shall be designed to prevent the use of incorrect or defective material, parts or components.
. FINDING: Contrary to the above requirement, the following cables were received in duplicate and now exist both in the permanent instal-lation and in Warehouse C. No provisions have been made to identify these cables '
as excess:
' ~ ' " "
G&H CABLE # VENDOR I.D. P.O. #
, EG138973 CS-TIEB4 CP-0605 EG138967 CS-IEB4-1 CP-0605 EG138980 CS-IDG2H CP-0605 E0138621 1-HS-2452-1 CP-0605 E0138913 90-LEG-1 CP-0605 ED138916 65-LEG 1 CP-0605 EG138981 90-LEG 2 CP-0605 EG138982 65-LEG 2 CP-0605 EG139032 1/1 APS 1-2 CP-0605 EG139386 1-HS-4766 CP-0605 AD138622 1-HS-2452GH CP-0605 AD138949 l-HS-2451A CP-0605 E0138895 .1 -HS- 2405A' ' CP-0605 EG139028 l-HS-4394 CP-0605 EG140305 XW128 CP-06118
Applicants' TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COSIPANY Exhibit 100 OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM R. G. Tolson March 9, 1981 7, cten nose. Texas SITE SURVEILLAtlCE REPORT tt0. 124' Subject "VEtiDOR 00CUMEtiTATI0tl REQUIREMEtiTS (ES-10)" . i Your response / corrective action to the deficiencies identified during our Surveillance tio.124 has been received and evaluated. Based on corrective action of identified items, please consider this _ _ Report closed. flo further response is required at this time. Thank you for your co-operation.
- /-
.h ad, R. F. Curtis Site Surveillance Supervisor RFC/jh cc: A. Vega J. Hawkins B. Cromeans D. Deviney A. Boren i
1 l
TU0-802 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMI%NY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM T,, R. F. Curtis _ c!cn no e. Teu,__ Februa ry 19,_1_981 s.,b),c SSR fio. 124 h i Please be advised that Deficiency fio. 3 on the above referenced report is closed.
, t ka 2a R. G. Tolson -
TUGC0 Site QA Supervisor RGT/BOC/BLL cc: A. Vega J. V. Hawkins B. O. Cromeans
*~
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.TIPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM To R. F. Curtis cien n=e, Texas February 11, 1981 Subject SSR flo. 124 f The memorandum from J. V. Hawkins to the undersigned on this SSR is sub-stantially correct. However, no effort will be made to routinely request drawings stamped "As Built" from the suppliers nor will DCC be given the drawings which are in the Records Vault. Status of corrective actions: Deficiency tio.1: Anticipate completion by March 2,1981 Deficiency flo. 3: Anticipate receipt of minor record corrections by February 16, 1981. d.4) & R. G. Tolson TUGC0 Site QA Supervisor RGT/bil cc: A. Vega l J. V. Hawkins l B. O. Cromeans i I i t
[
- 35-1195 1-6-81 BrownURoot.!nc.
INTEROFFICE MEM0
/' DATE: January 6, 1981 ,
T0: R. G. Tolson t FROM: J. V. Hawkins
SUBJECT:
CPSES, Job 35-1195 Site Surveillance Report No. 124 The following response is submitted for Deficiencies No. I and 3 on subject report: Deficiency No. 1 Site Receiving Inspection is not on formal distribution for revised checklists from TUGC0 QA Dallas. Al Boren will be contacted and requested to establish a formal sys-tem to assure all revised checklists are transmitted to Site Receiv-i ing Inspection. Deficiency No. 3
~ Supplier documentation, in accordance with revised TUGC0 checklist, was located in Permanent Plant Records Vault with the following ex-ceptions:
RIR #11282 - Requires corrected copies of some supplier documenta-tion, i .e., signed test report, etc. RIR #11790 .Same as above RIR #12075 - Requires Certificate of Conformance on delivered equip-ment. RIR #12245 - Same as above Vendor As-Built Drawings - all drawings received with equipment are assumed to be "As-Built"; however, none are identified as such as required by specification. l The supplier will be contacted by the CPSES Procurement group and all required documentation and identified As-Built drawings will be ob-tained and placed in Vault files. vex '==:5 Y
' . Hawkins
' ite Quality Assurance Manager JVH/pb ,
cc: R. Curtis ' L _ A File Q ( 3
TEXAS UTil,ITIES GENElt ATING COMinNY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM Al Goren , _ _ ag n p,,, .n., Janua ry . 28, 1981 To g,g G.E. PAtlELB0ARD IflSPECTI0fl OlECKLIST , REF.: SSR-124, DEF. #2 i t I received the corrected copies of the subject Panelboard -Inspection Checklist transmitted by your speedletter response dated 1/9/81. (See Attachments.) Since checkmarks added by G.E. were not validated, we must consider them inadequate. -Therefore, we requested TUSI Expediting's assistance in this matter and they have provided us with revised and validated Inspection Checklists which are included as part of the aforementioned attachments. These revised document,s are being transmitted to the Permanent Plant Records Vault as of this date. If you have any questions, please let me know. is /- 2
/( . 9~ c ,
."7'~ a. 4, R. F. Curtis Site Surveillance Supervisor RFC/jh Attachments cc: A. Vega (L) 1 D. Chapman (L)
I l i i l
w ,,,y,,g, y;g,3;,;g; g , , , , {T '# ' j,r,-/
* ,,tr L ' 'REUTION ASSE!sLIES Cr.PNmtE!r.4e7
. Rev. 1 g ,
vf*[..J O d j* PA!.TLDOARD INSPECTICM Cli20'1,IST y 6'. PANEL TYPE C C. 4 W!/l / 7'/ ff A is < g Cuct, order No.____ ty.rkll [ { [ Customer Y D A~f C 0 tram c //i: th*nk s, C r. j S . o. No . /p 2. - / 92J O owg. No. Item ' /4J~ _ 8* /h V 3 Phano J/ Wiro 2 2 f~ Icps de H: 'I.C. Service: ,
~.
ACC N/A SilORT }Cl *ARrf. IN5?ECTION CIECKPOINT 1 __ _ - - - ._- . a --m ._ = Check hardware for crecer tvne and build-up. V 1. L/ i l
- 2. Torcue all bolted connections. (
- 3. Proper size and material (Cu/A1) Bus / Branch Straps ! V l
- 4. Check bus / branch straps for phasing lV [ l S. T.lectrical clearances neet minir.un recruirements lV l l
- 6. Check c ound/ neutral type and arrancement .V l l ' ~ ~~
V l
- 7. Check insulation location V i
- 8. Branch straos taped procerly (if recuired) i INSPECTED BY: /
[ Date: I
'I NOTES:
4 INSPEC IICU CIECKPOINT 2 ACC N/A SHOP.T .r.2:UJO".S
- 9. Check hardware for orecer tvoe r. builduo !V
- 10. Pro...er hardware orovided for spaces u-
- 11. Torcue bolted breaker /suitch connecticns j Cc r7ect nu::ber of circuits g ovidcd .-
~
12.
- 13. Ce rrect arrancement of breakers /r..ritche: . ( v( l Breakers / switches checked for proper tN/ratinn L i
- 14. v'
- 15. Scot check fit of pluc-in breakers on stabs [
INSPE m 3Y: /b'b -% - /.-N' Cate: 79
./
NO'"'ES :
..-r s D. 'd 'lc 48 3 '
' '* i.
~
/7 E g*.* *. *',s . C.. * .
3, . *.5,# O}J * *h t t ii & j g i es** i '.' ) i
- i. a l '. ( t,15 i u-0
.ef
=
- l0$
'f II:SPECTIC;1 CIEcr2OI;JT 3 ,..,/ n, ACC. . S P.OR . PIMAPys
- 16.
- El ectri cal cle arances m_ee_t minim __um_re.c.u_i_r_em_ ents
- 17. Check ir:sulation location f.f l s 13.
19. Check main location (top / bottom) r. type (C/B or lues) l Check lu';s for correct size and type
~
'5I lI
[
- 20. 3re.tkers/ switches operated manually
~ #l
- 21. Spot check manual trip cperation l~"'j ;
- 22. Check tvoe, rating, Cat. # of contactors ,relavs ,etc. i lV '
'j ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
- 23. Fuse clip spacing on fusible switches is cor[cct }
l
~~
. 24. _ Continuity check of all wirine m
- 25. --
Dielectric test s
}
- 25. Electrical test of cround fault systems [ /
l
- 27. Electrical test of shunt trion l l,/
- 23. Electrical test of j_
[ i y ]l 2 9,. Check fit of . dead front sh i.e ld l u ') l 30. 31. Check finish for color and paint defects Tillers assembled over spaces l .f i l [ l l vi l
- 32. Proper labels, nameplates, c wanig stickers in placd _V l
- 33. Mechanical clearance GPCI's (latch area) l / l k - ,
' b "',< (' l.// /f (//Date I!!SPECTED EY:
- f. 3
!j ' '1;C'rES:
O n\ i -QCN Fanel shipped short the following items: CERTIFICATICtl CF IISPECTIC!! A!;D TEST I h<::vby certify that the above panciboard han been suby eted to the indicated i trcctions and tests and found to meet the sta.ndards establi.shed by the General
-:loctric Company and the applicable portions of the following industry standards :
Signed: Date
- llanager of Quality Control
,/
4
.tr e#
QC-196 ] j',li
/, ;a "fi ,1 '~4 f GENERAL EIICTRIC COMPANY
, C(/ * )4 r ,0 0 0 DISTRIBUTION ASSEMDLIES DEPAICMENT Pev. 1 3
$ J 'al 'os4i 6,
.. 8 PANELBOARD DISPECTION- CIECKLIST
~ f' M (
..P g ftr* PANEL TrPE CCA V ,,q l
Customer TEM r 4 tit. / ti r/ rei,<. c a Cust. Order NO. . nazk/EC 3- L t D G /*M/v' C ffi fdAW do C f.
- S.O. No. lnP 2.~ )$2]O Dwg. NO. Item b[
Services i gf z,, V 3 Phase F Wire 2 2 f~ Amps [# Hz I.C. n!SPECTICN CECKPODIT 1 ACC N/A SHOIC REMARKS
- 1. Check hardware for proper type and build-up. V
- 2. Torcue all bolted ccnnections. V
- 3. Proper sire and material (Cu/AllBus/ Branch Straps 7
- 4. Check bus / branch straps' for phasing V
- 5. Electrical cicarances meet minimum requirements V
- 6. Check ground / neutral tvoe and arrangement V
- 7. Check insulation location V
- 8. Branch straps taped properly (if recuired) V INSPECTED BY: /b '*
7 Date: / ? NOTES: l l l l UlSPECTION CHEO PonIT 2 ACC N/A SHCRT PIMAR.C 1 I 9. Check hardware for proper type & buildup V
- 10. Proper hardware provided for spaces V
- 11. Torque bolted breaker / switch connections V
- 12. Cberect nur.ber of circuits provided < . -
l 13. Correct arrangement of breakers / switches V '
- 14. Breakers / switches checked for proper type / rating V j 15. Scot check fit of plug-in breakers on stabs V i INSPECTED BY: NM Date: 77 v
NC7FES : - t 6
I :
~ ' (,' INSPECICN CHECKPOINT 3 'ACC N/A SHOF.T PIMARKS 1G. Electrical cicarances meet minimum recuirements
- 17. Check insulation location r/ .
- 18. Check main location (top / bottom) & tvee (C/B or lugs) (,
f I
- 19. Check lugs for correct size and type -
~
- 20. Breakers / switches operated manually C-
- 31. Spot check manual trip operation
- 22. Check tyne, rating, Cat. # of contactors , relays ,etc. V
- 23. Fuse clip snacing on fusible switches is correct
- 24. Continuity check of all wiring " -
- 25. Dielectric test
- 26. Electrical test of ground fault systems #
- 27. Electrical test of shunt trips l V,
- 20. Electrical test of F
- 29. Check fit of dead front shield #
- 30. Check finish for color and paint defects #
- 31. Fillers assembled over spaces
- C/
- 32. Prcper labels , nameplates , & warning stickers in place V
- 33. Mechanical clearance GFCI's (latch area) l #
INSPECED BY: [ /t M Date , [TNCTIES : 11 ( 0C Panel sh.ipped short the following ite=s: 1 CERTIFICATICN OF INSPECIGI AND TEST I A> / wh % lev I hereby certify that the above panelboard has been subjected to the indicated inspections and tests and found to meet the standards established by the General Electric Cc=pany and the applicable portions of the following industrf standards: Signed: ..# D' ate / ~ d ~ $* ' h Manager of Qua. p Control
~ _
y 4
*2. QC-106
- g. . . .
c,('
- + GENERAL ELECTP.1C COMSAIN g.
f' . ,j # f
- DISTRIBUTION ASSEMBLIES DEPARDU MT Rev. 1 g* g-i- PANELBOARD INSPECTICN CllEC2IST 0'g fV PANEL TYPE __
/ ')
.. C /' o N O ~
*Custccer (* f. A f U r i z. 1 , r e r &c.ruc.,_ Cast. C= der NO. f M M .
f
- aru !!_t 0 lf B V CH(* C J- /f S. kf, ,
S.O. No. / 7'? - 19.*2 36 Dwg. No. 1 ten 1/( ' Service: J,ok/ I Fo V 7 Phase 4/_ I Wire _,g Ar.ps H: I.C. ACC N/A SHOKr P2:'.A F.KS INSPEC"'ICN CIECYPOINT 1 _ s.._,42 _.=._.m= u,,.... ._ m.e- . -.-..=.u
- 1. Check hardware for preper tI,ec and build-up. k-
- 2. Tor Tuo all bolted connections. I 'V l
- 3. Prop <tr size and raterial (Cu/A1) Bus / Branch Straps I e 1
- 4. Chack bus / branch straps f or phasinc _, I p _-i
- 5. Electrical clearances neet ninin'.:m recuirc tents I p l_
- 6. Check grornd/ neutral tyoc and arrangement ! P j_
- 7. Check insulation location I " l
- 8. Branch straps taued properly (if recuired) I Vi INSPECTED BY: 9 [ - .J/ Date: .f^ / 7 f' y-
' t , lj ACC N/A Si!CRT FIMA? 5 INSPECTION C'dECl~ POINT 2 Check hardware fcr proper 1,ps r. buildup A _
9.
- 10. Frneer hardware orovided far e : aces i 4- I I t- l l
- 11. To t.n.oe bol ted b re aker/rwi. t..c...h _e__nn__n.ec._t__i o.n.s -I l . - --- . _ __
eI
- 12. Corre et number of circuitn nrevided -
- 13. Correct arrancement of breai:ers/ switcher.
I 1 Al l I.
- 14. Drecke rs/swi tchet checked for preper type / rating I &l l l j_ V l l
- 15. Spot check fit of plug-in breakers en stabs l INSPECTED BY: ,/.'. g. $d _'
Y[7 7 U ~ Date: NCTES: f.~.y y 4 7
~
.: '1*
?
QC-196 87 h'p ' k GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY f 4 pav. 1
/* ' DISTRIELTTICN ASSEMBLIES DEPARDENT , , l' palk()d ,d '
it 'ss ,b. PANELBOARD DISPECTICN CHECKLIST I (f PANEL TYPE 3 13
'. CfOY Customer # %A f h 1"fI.I-/'/F f [gvd.,Cust. Order NO. h7-5-3 LI' t
Mark //[' MA//C.H(*_ h[#ff S. $[, S . O. No. / W ~7 T M Dwg. NO. Ite= //[ Service:!.cf / M _V J Phase 4/ Wire ,1)1 Amps H: I.C. DISPECTICM CHECKPOniT 1 ACC N/A SHORT PE.MAPJS
- 1. Check hardware for proper troe and build-up. e
- 2. Torrue all bolted connections. V
- 3. Proper size and material (Cu/A1) Bus / Branch Straps e
- 4. Check bus / branch straps for phasing y I
- 5. Electrical clearances meet minimum recuirements g, l
- 6. Check ground / neutral tvoe and arrangement & I
- 7. Check insulation location P l
- 8. Branch straps taped properly (if required) Vl l DiSPECFD BY: Date: .
'[ k-u -
<g - <
DISPECTICN CHECKPODIT 2 ACC N/A SHORT FI. MARTS I Check hardware for preoer tvoe a builduo &= 9.
- 10. Proper hardware provided for spaces 4.
- 11. Torque bolted breaker / switch connections 4-l 12. Cbrrect number of circuits provided M
- 13. Correct arrangement of breakers / switches A '
l
- 14. Breakers / switches checked for proper type / rating b V
- 15. Spot check fit of plug-in breakers en stabs I INSPECTED BY: . g. Date: Y[7 9 NCTTES :
[ b. Jy ** U lt ; G' l l
.- ,, l
' , , ^ -.
* - - . .C/ ,;>. -
, . . n, s - -
.n .
,*w 1
ss ,. ,
, . . . a ,. .
.;.., r -
4+ [ f.- II;3 PECTIC:: CIECr?OII;T 3 'ACC 11/A SilCET FEMA?.TS
- 16. E1cetrical clearances cect minimu.?. recuirements h-
- 17. Check insulation location k- i.
_18. Check main location (tep/bottem) a tyoe (C/B or lues) ei .
- 19. Check lugs for correct si::e and type -
- 20. Breakers /seitches operated manually
- 21. Spot check manual trip operation
- 22. Check tvee, rating, Cat. # of contnetors , relays etc. _]._ t,-
- 23. Fuse clip soacing on fusible switches is correct j l 8- _ . . _
j
- 24. Centinuity check of all wiring _V __
- 25. Dielectric test I _ ._
- 26. Electrical test of - md fault systems l _(_-.
- 27. Electrical test of snunt trips __
l D Electrical test of la i _28.
- 29. Check fit of dead front shield .
l*
- 30. Check finish for color and naint defects /-
- 31. Tillers assembled over spaces "j__
- 32. Proper labels, nareplates, & Warnino stickers in place '- l M,,
- 33. Mechanical clearance GFCI's (latch area) l l INSPECTED BY: L. //z , a it/ Date [/ 7f lioTES :
Panel shipped short the follobg ite:as: i CERTIFICATIC:3 OF !!!SPECTIC:: A::D TEST I hereby certify that the above panclboard has been subjected to the indicated inscoctions and tests and found to meet the standard:. established by the General Eleetric Company and the app /licable partions -6' l of the follo::ing industry standards:
/L)[/Ag f 8 * (.) f Signed: ' h -/ J Date 7 'b 7[ - **
' Man \ger of QualiFControl .-
I .,. . ;.1
/ -
r -
,i.s..
.L '
4
.k,
. .e
* /
/
DISPECTICU CIECKPOINT 3 ACC !!/A SHCRT REMARXS
- 16. Electrical clearances meet minimum requirements k-
- 17. Check insulatica location k- i
_19 . Check main location (tcp/bottem) & tvoe (C/B or lugs) P
- 19. Check lugs for correct size and tyoe V
- 20. Breakers / switches coerated manually 7
_21. Spot check manual trip operation V
- 22. Check tvoe, rating, Cat. # of contactors , relays ,etc. L.
- 23. Fuse clip spacing on fusible switches is correct 4
- 24. Continuity check of all wiring I./
- 25. Dielectric test
- 26. Electrical test of eround fault syste=s P-
- 27. Electrical test of shunt trips f
//
- 28. Electrical test of b I
- 29. Check fit of dead front shield b i
- 30. Check finish for color and paint defects & l
- 31. Tillers assembled ever spaces l 8- i
- 32. Proper labels , na: eplates , & warning stickers in place t
- 33. Mechanical clearance GFCI's (latch area) l d l INSPE N BY: L
. [/ ~ w.
l
/ Cate x('
/7
/ NCTIS:
)
l l l Panel shipped short the following items: l T' i ,/O"' CER'"IFICATIC21 CF INSPECTICN AND TEST l umb % /T I hereby certify that' tha above panelboard has been subjected to the indicated inspections and tests and found to meet the standards established by the General r Electric C m ny and the app /licable uportions t -d7of the folicwing industry standards: A> tnA7 98-
,m Signed: AMM Date 7di V, ' ManagerofQualiffcentrol 1
l l \ 1 y .
CE!:CRAL CII.CTRIC col 4 par 4Y pf g/l gl DISTRIDUTIO!! ASSCMDLIES DCPARTMCitT , Y, I r
- 8 BOX / FRONT IllSPECTION CllECKLIST .
jq 40,# . bS'ICMCR ft# f/3 M d / . - h"/ r* r CUST. ORDER NO. MARK O f.50" l S.O. No. Q%30 ,No. [A2 *L*L D PE'C-o f Item *%' . Box Cat. No.f)/2 9 2 6 G *?A! R) J' Tront Cat. No. n s 12,4 *.22 9 5 . /P/t-BOX INSPECTICM CHECKPOINT . ACC N/A SHOR FIMARKS
- 1. Check height, width, and depth /
- 2. Stud location dimensions, /
- 3. Bonded ecuipment around-check location , weldg. no. /
- 4. Splice plate location and welding locations -
- 5. All welded areas osinted over with alum. paint -
- 6. Check hardware build-up dn studs ,/
- 7. Check mounting hole locations /
- 8. Box ends proper c'/pe (K/O's or no }UO's) /
- 9. Check appearance of galvanized steel /
- 10. U/L Label applied /
INSPECTED BY / [b_.) < h Date S /d 5[7 7 Y_/ HOTES: . FRONT INSPECTION CHECKPOINT ACC N/A SHORT REMARKS
- 1. Check heicht and width /
- 2. Proper type front (surface or flush) ,/
- 3. Check mounting hole location /
l4. Check spot wcld acpearance and locations -
- 5. Check fit and operation of door ,/
- 6. Latch operates preocrly /
- 7. Trim clamps assembled properly /
- 8. Check finish for color and paint defects /
l 9. Hardware kit complete _
/
- 10. Directory card orovided /
U/L Label applied ' iAl . lB2. Namepl.rf2:s proper type and location / INSPECTED DY ,7 r/<t _ u, _ /Date ? 77 l !*' y[8 b '[to / 8D V
@OTCS:
i l 7 INSPECTICN 'HECKPOINT 3 ACC N/A SUCRI' REMAPXS
- 16. Electrical cicarances meet minimum requirements k"
- 17. Check insulation location Aa- l l__8 . Check main location (top / bottom) & tyne (C/B or lugs) Pl _ l
- 19. Check lugs for correct size and tv'oe ac V l A ///p/rf
- 20. Breakers / switches cperated manually ,$. ' V" lM M/f/f/
- 21. Spot check manual trip operation 2 VIM ///fk/
- 22. Check tvoe, rating, Cat. # of contactors , relays ,etc. t,.
- 23. Fuse clip spacing on fusible switches is correct b-
- 24. Continuity check of all wiring V
- 25. Dielectric test X V A ///f/T1
- 26. Electrical test of cround fault systems D' 27 Electrical test of shunt trips I // I
- 28. Electrical test of k l
- 29. Check fit of dead front shield L- l
- 30. Check finish for color and paint defects t- '
i
- 31. Fillers assembled over spaces
- 32. Proper labels, nameplates, & warning stickers in placs I
- 33. Mechanical clearance GFCI's (latch area) l I Vi l INSPECTED BY: ,.
/t / Cate x 7f NCTES:
CH ECX mAAKs o to cin'Al,Lj' eM / VEO - hvs TED AY R AODED
/-tf- Tl Panel shipped short the following items:
\ i
' ,,, / D '~ Y CERTIFICATICN OF INSPECTICN AND TEST w h 'lio lto I hereby certify that the above panelboard has been subjected to the indicated l
I inspections and tests and found to meet the standards established by the General Electric Company and the applicable portions of the following industry standards: A> w A7 ? 8 -I u t -d' ? t I Signed: ^> M Date 7di h'
/ Manager of Quali F Control e i 9 ,r/
l
---e.._ e
' .' p 1 \, Rev. 1 g) / , ,
DISTH13CTIO:3 ASSE*G.!.IES !$PN.C::FJ3T
.r >:. I , ,. ,3 .)# G ' Ptar:.3o;J.D INSPEcTIc:a CHICn.Ist h o' l' n
. ParEL TYPE / ../../.. _/.7 . --
, cp-oaS*O ;-.s B ~ / u ces:eze jff4f b T / t-/ (/'6 r h4/._& Cu ,t . crder 1:o.ff-- d I y N r k , $3-n M A C W. fr*A-tf $./ sf $_ h S.O. 1:o . / VN ~ ')9 2 30 DA. UO. Itc. [,
, Service: /;-d V 3 Phase 4/ *
.*n' ire -A:a.ns... -(? M r. 'I.C.
- --~ ~ _
INS?ECTIC;I CHECX?OIIT 1 ACC !!/A f;HO.E RE.*:7.*T s _..__..--- . ._ .___._-- _....___===2.=..- - -
. . _ . . _ . . . . r. 3 _w. . ._ r. , m e m. < r - .-
- 1. Chech hardware for orcoer tvre end build-co.
- k. . .
l 2. Tora;e all bolted connectionc. l //* I . . . . . .
' :l . 7:cpor si::e and material (Cu/Al)3ns/3 ranch Straps l // !_. l -
- 4. Check bus /cranch straps fer phasine j__f/ l i
- 5. Electrical clearances meet minim =i recuirements i F* I
- 6. Check cround/ncutral tvoe and arrangement i t I
- 7. Check Insulation location {"/ [l l
- 8. 3ra.ch stra:s ta ed oron.e_ri.v. (if rectired)
P'., l~ l l ! - It:SPICTED SY: ,.[h , - -
/ . /,: c, y-Date: [
-- v -
/ ,7. . .- . . .. .
i NOTIS: 1 INS 7ECI'ICl2 CEICX?OINT 2 ACC !!/A SHOF.T FE.*: A?JS
- 9. C..'rk h ardwa re for erener tv.re r, buildun .
k I l- I , IC. --- P .r.ete r ha rdwa ra e rovided. for s.ea.ces l11. To re .:e bol t_ed .b r.e._a_k_.e. r/rwi t ch c..o.n n_ec tions I (e. .l. - _
.12. I //' -l Correct nur.ber o f cir.cui s c. .rov.ider!- - - . _ _ - -
l'. C:r rec t arrancement of breakerc/'wi tcho . _ j l' 't i
- 14. Ireakers/ switches checked for crocer :.vec/ratinc l kl l l
, 15 . 5;ct check fit of olu:-in breakers on sttbs ! .l ./ i l
* / _
INSPECTID BY: ._ b.,.fYr.= . .t.-J./..*.' ,
- Date: ) ,/.. 7 ,(f
. ./ '..CT .. .a:
3 l * .?
-s af #
]f
/ .
-----.=_.--.== _..a..= --- - -
== = = === --
ACC N/A SiiORT P.E U.?.Y.S I:5?ICTION CHICKFOIll? 3
- = 'E.
Ilcetri. cal clearances mtet mini. mum recuirements y L7.
=
Check inculation location ! y__j ; I
. I C.uck : ain location (top /botten) & tyne (C/3 or lues) l V I f l . '8.
g/' l L9. Cri2ck lues for correct size and tvee l __
- 70. 3:eakers/ switches ocerated manually -
I - I =.-.
- 21. 5?ot check manual trip oceration I. _ , ,
I l ,,
- 22. Cneck tvec, r-ratinc, Cat. # of contactors .rel.a.avs.ctc.- .! .I p--l l; i i.p i i
?3. Tuse cl_i.o s_cacino on fusible switches is correct lt- l !
2_4 . 25. C:ntinuity Dielectric test check of all virino
.i # L I l t
- 26. Electr[ cal test of cround fault systems l _(/l i
- 27. Il e c_=t.r. i-a l t e s t of shunt tr_i.~es l.
_I (/ l - I l l l C' I
- 28. E l e c t. r_i c..a l t e s t o f =.~,.u. r.- -
- 29. Cheek fit of . dead front shield l/l, l_ l
- 30. Check finish for color an.d- c.aint r'efects - - - -
I b*' I h I ....
- 31. Tillers anenbled over coaces l
( lV
- 32. 7:o.rer labds, nancolates__,___A w a :n i n o. stickers in _olacr!
- l. ..
! "l
?3. Mechanical cicarance GFCI's (latch area) l INSPECTED BY:
)
/[,
v-j p
.(if v
I At to [//-7'/[ lOTES: t
,~t ,;. , . y c-Panel shipped short the following items:
n 1 1 l l [' CIRTITICATICN OF INS?rCTION MlD IIST I I l I herchy certify that the above panc1 board has been subjerted to the' indicated inspactions and tests and found to moet tiv: ctandards cctablished by the General l Ilectric Cc .pany and the applicabic cor-ions of the follcuing industrf standards :
, MA.) d=M s.t h8 -l U L. ~ 6 7
- Signed: Mr,, cate T'/'7 f l'anager of Quality @cntrol
.e }f -- .
i ! = l *. l-L . . .
. /%p
'S CErrznaz, EZ. ECTR 2C Cc:iPArrt Pa v . 1
.h A id DISTRInuTIcti Assr:<ntIEs cEPAnnENT
.r\ <' r0 'pi PANEZ.noarn DisPECTIcN amCnzST
- [r #f,M { t h4 PAlrEL TYPE / // /7
\c\']iA
\ , c P-o b.5~O y o ~/b Cu s tc=e r _ K14f C 7 / /-/[/6 f /[g4/ k Cust. Order NO. /- TdUO Mark M Con tne ,h:a L_g.f_ i s.0. No. / VM - M 7-.30 Dwg. NO. Item 77 Service :g// M V 3 Phase /-/ Wire Amps 7O Hz I.C.
I ACC N/A silOTC PIMARKS DISPECTICU CECKPODTT 1
- 1. Check hardware f or proper tyre and build-up. M
- 2. "broue all bolted connections. //* l
- 3. Proper sire and material (Cu/A1) Bus / Branch Strups F Check bus / branch straps for phasing f/ i i 4.
p' '
- 5. Electrical clearances reet einimum recnirements l
- 6. Check ground / neutral tvoe and arrangement V F' l
- 7. Check insulation locatien
- 8. Branch straps taped properly (if recuired) l V, I INSPECTED BY: _
f/[g f, _,. // p Dater / 79 ' y
/f 1 ,
NOTES: ACC N/A SHCRT PIF.A E S DISPECIICN CIECKPCDrr 2
- 9. Check hasare for proper tvne & buildup k
- 10. Proper hardware provided for spaces & I
- 11. Torque bolted breaker / switch cennections P
- 12. Cerrect nurter of circuits provided V
- 13. Correct arrangement of breakers / switches PI l l
- 14. Breakers / switches checked for preper tvre/ratinc Vi l i
- 15. Spot check fit of plug-in breakers on stabs i ,I _V i I INSPECTED BY : 7// _
V Date: } . r (/ v'd *
/ /f /
!!C7FES :
-() l l
I I' f INSPECTICN CHECKPOINT 3 ACC N/A SHCRT F.EMARKS A:' JJ
- 16. Electrical clearances meet mini: um requirements V f't 17. Check insulation location __
Le ,
- 18. Check main location (tep/bottem) & type (C/B or lues) I p-M. Check lugs for correct size and type ' p/
- 20. Breakers / switches operated manually v.
- 21. Spot check manual trip cperation y
- 22. Check tyce, rating, Cat. # of contactors , relays ,etc. pl
- 23. Fuse clip spacing on fusible switches is correct b
- 24. Continuity check of all wiring , p V
- 25. Dielectric test
- 26. Electrical test of grcund fault systems f/
- 27. Electrical test of shunt trips y
- 28. Electrical test of Le
- 29. Check fit of dead front shield V Check finish for color and paint defects V 30.
- 31. Fillers assembled over spaces V I
- 32. Proper labels , nameplates, & warnina stickers in place VI l
- 33. Mechanical clearance GFCI's (latch area) I ' I INSPE O BY: /// ,su l c. Date (/ Y
't NCfrES : Panel shipped short the following items:
~ O' f CERTIFICA'"ICN IO Y OF INSPECTICN AND TEST I hereby certify &that the above panelboard has been subjected to the indicated inspections and tests and found to meet the standards established by the General Electric Company and the applicable prtions of the following industry standards :
n jt) l= M 4 78-f U l. ~ 6 ~
., Signed: _z- OA Date V Manager of Quality (.Mntrol
, y {4 fl g- GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY DIsTRIncTICt ASScist,IES cEPAK:rarT Pav . 1 ,jP y j. E' Co' y ' c /p PANELBOAPD IUSPEC'rICtl CHECXLIST LD L
. . ,1
' 7 'l
,a, PAN.EL TYPE M. /4 /7
. ( P ~ O a S*O 53 B ~/ b Customer frM I b7'/t-/f/6r ge4/ A cust. crder :so. WM' d-Wtark _
i FQ CnMfrCIH* , hCA d $, li' $ ' S.O. No. / VA - 79 R.3C Dwg. NO. Ite:s 77 Service:f-Q / H3 V 3 Phase /-/ Wire Amps 7O H: I.C. I INSPECTION CECTPOUIT 1 ACC N/A SHORT l'S. MARKS
- 1. Check hardware for preper tyre and build-up. M
- 2. Torque all bolted cennecticns.
I V l
- 3. Proper si::e and material (Cu/A1) Bus / Branch Straps //' I I
- 4. Check bus / branch straps for phasing ff 1
- 5. Electrical clearances meet minimum requirements r , (
- 6. Check ground / neutral tvee and arrangement V l P' j
- 7. Check insulatien location I
- 8. Branch straps taped properly (if recuired) l //~l i I INSPECTED BY: _, f/k g p Date: / '7 9 liOTES :
U;SPECTICN CECKPOINT 2 ACC N/A SRCRT PE.:iAPI.S
- 9. Check hardware for proper tvee & buildup b
- 10. Proper hardware provided for spaces M
- 11. Torque bolted breaker / switch connections P
- 12. Correct number of circuits provided V
- 13. Correct arrangement of breakers / switches P
- 14. Breakers / switches checked for proper tvre/ rating V
- 15. Soot check fit of plug-in breakers on stabs , .V I INSPECTED BY: f//c ,
y Date ) (/ n - e f/ NCTES:
e l W / g- .,' I!!SPECTIOff CHECKPOINT 3 AC: !!/A SHORT RE.U. ART.S
- 16. Electrical clearances meet minimum recuire=ents V
- 17. Check insulation location V- i
. 18. Check main location (top / bottom) & time (C/B or lugs) V
- 19. Che e.'t lugs for correct sire and tyre V
- 20. Breakers / switches operated manually A v
- 21. Spot check manual trip operation A. V
- 22. Check tyce, rating, Cat. # of contacters , relays ,etc. Le '
- 23. Fuse clip spacing on fusible switches is correct te
- 24. Centinuity check of all wiring , u V
- 25. Dielectric test
- 26. Electrical test of ground fault systems I/
- 27. Electrical test of shunt trips '
t/
- 28. Electrical test of L'
- 29. Check fit of dead front shield V
- 30. Check finish for color and paint defects V i
- 31. Fillers assembled over spaces V l
- 32. Proper labels , nameplates, & warning stickers in placd Vl I
- 33. Mechanical clearance GFCI's (latch area) l l " I I!!SPECTED BY: . //, , v e Date [. /, 7Y ops t ,s t: 0
\, .UOTES y ggy dp i!' c.y* Mn/ M.s M o erNAL cr i Q l-13 ~ ff I
Panel shipped short the follcwing items: l U CERTIFICATICN OF INSPECTICN AND TEST I ~ O' T pb 'b o IED . Iherebycertify()thattheabovepanelboardhasbeensubjectedtotheindicated inspections and tests and found to meet the standards established by the General Electric Ccepany and the applicable prtions of the following industry standards: njt) EM 4 F8 ~/ U L. ~ 6 '
,.. Signed: ^o> Date f' / '
- j l
Manager of Quality (fG6ntrol l L
IllSPECTIC!i CHECY2OINT 3 ACC N/A SHCRT REMARKS
- 16. Electrical clearances meet minimum recuirceents t/*
- 17. Check insulation location te ,
Check main location (top /bottem) & tyee (C/B or lues) V l f 18.
- 19. Check lugs for correct sire and type V M I
- 20. Breakers / switches operated manually A V XJw ///SM/ i
- 21. Spot check manual trip cperation .4 V N ///f/f/ I
- 22. Check type, rating, Cat. # of contactors , relays ,etc. l fp
- 23. Fuse clip spacing on fusible switches is correct Ib
- 24. Continuity check of all wiring ,l V l
j 25. Dielectric test i V
- 26. Electrical test of grcund f ault systems I (/ l
- 27. Electrical test of shunt trips i t/ I
- 28. Electrical test of L' I i
- 29. Check fit of dead front shield L' l l l
- 30. Check finish for color and paint defects i V l i l
- 31. Fillers assembled ever spaces 4 lV l . 1
- 32. Preper labels , nameplates, & warning stickers in plaed V i I
- 33. Mechanical clearance GFCI's (latch area) l 'I l
. //, .. , ,e INSPECTED BY:
v ( Date [. /, 7Y NOTES? g , gpg c.y m yps y ; 4 riv,41,, t. y o p rsi E D - A E U/15 0 A t'
& l-13 -11 Panel shipped short the following items:
1 l i l d CERTIFICAT!CN OF INSPECTICN AND TEST l O' T l /O l I hereby certify that the above panelbeard has been subjected to the indicated inspections and tests and found to meet the standards established by the General Electric Ccmpany and the applicable cortiens of the following industry standards: nA) EM A N 8 -l UL~6' sAned: a- 61 Date P #' Manager of Quality (06ntrol
/-/T~ U 0~
&l'PAA i
t -
e- - '\ l GENERAL ELECTRIC CO!!P ANY Ur J'h th. DISTRIBUTICIT ASSE!4BLIES CEPAEMENT Pav. 1
\ e' O i N , 31 4 PANELBOPJD INSPECTION CECKLIST s e p- 4 4 PANEL TYPE / /4 /7 y(Vd * , ( P-0 4.5~O [3 8 ~/b Customer K)C4f 7 / /-/[/6 f [g4/ 6 Cust. Order 110. g d chlU Mark 7M ~
n M A C Hd. XMf - $, G". $ h S.O. No. /Yk~ % 23Q Dwq. NO. Item ) Service :f.0/,!/ iM V
.7 Phase // Wire Amps 7C H r. I.C.
INSPECTICU CECKPoniT 1 ACC N/A SHOE REMAFIS 1
- 1. Check hardware for proper tvoe and build-up. M
- 2. Torcue all bolted cennections. V l
- 3. Proper sice and material (Cu/A1) Bus / Branch Straps F I Check bus / branch straps for phasing f/ l l l 4.
l 5. Electrical clearances meet minimum recuirements r I
- 6. Check ground / neutral tyce and arrangement V V
- 7. Check insulatica location I
- 8. Branch straps taped properly (if recuired) l Vi i I
-3 n;SPECTED BY: [//c ' M.,. & p Date: / 79 y ; y 'Y
/f UOTES:
t I n;SPECIION CECTPOINT 2 ACC N/A SHCRT REMARKS i i l 9. Check hardware for proper tvoe & builduo b
- 10. Proper hardware provided for spaces k 1
- 11. Torcue bolted breaker / switch connections I ei
- 12. Correct number of circuits provided V
- 13. Correct arrangement of breakers / switches P i
- 14. Breakers / switches checked for proper tvoe/ratinc VI i i
- 15. Spot check fit of pluc-in breakers en stabs I ,, ! _V' I i INSPECTED BY: f// 4/ Date: ) (/
yn - _ if // / N m-
. }:"C*l%'1'.l~'.f*f.$
s / ,0v Speed Letter,Q , .';' U [: ? fi f T/<4 f'n 0l- ' b+/dds emm fu m Rubject ES
......m.
*/A NOA l M < M cQ - (Q kC./9;c~5 .
MESSA E % M 'W#N rr + -M) )106+..; Til'f 4 ~~'7t C $ ~ s$ ~' $
&dr pwO (F r n Date j
(/Wa
/ fd h4 /*Y d 7 )
o ,=
/
VZ219 52-
,+ ss i s m = 0 nk
~'(? & r k Tb
/- /s e/ .....
~7~A ' C k%l (lWM 7* s=nNs. .<.cv smi -
t, !ffs
/l4 , d/, o
/n AvD
/ . .
/ *.w ve*
7417 4c-d<.=&., s=~
- h. ,f&c->l e,// 7 N' ,
hat ~ ~~ w pe-t 7,e.9'r
/f., W , M O .
'T/-/c ~ ....,,..
7o <Jwe c - (& /) c-Y A C
. A =~Q 41 f:% 7"c-?") -
c./< i u /4/r %@_ !
,e h s /+! 8 / W /C# A% 5 /.s 76'A A epm 7 ~'Cy ot: fdn, e- /f.- A, /) e %( Q v' .
E C E IED (M &v e wt M o s e= -Hs 7~<3 . ..._. . M' = d 4- e~C w-v- s K. . .. s cc 1930 TW
//9/KL.. -- -
WGCO QA, us .s i signed ; (( [, s -7 .5 cate
]
<d Y 19E-bxArcrev
$chas 4F $f $5 bl
'M/cw Akc-id th-y A b Feus #ess A' Va s f#c%Z 7- IS- $ fu??%9- #/i' kadeW<9 7N/5 5~urnw 0e o .- /$9k \ Je??dd xr JY-7 # Z-f5 b~4W#P72 ' 3 RECEIVED g, JAll131981 WA9.TY ASSURANCE ey < Signed s [g gffsf
.} \
)
f' INSPECTICN CHECKFOINT 3 ACC N/A SHCRT PI.!%RKS F,I[- 16.' Electrical clearances meet mini =um rc uirements V*
- 17. Check insulation location V- i
- 18. Check main location (top /bottem) & tvoe (C/B or lues) i V i
- 19. Check lugs for correct size and type
- 20. Lreakers/ switches operated manually v'.
v l
- 21. Spot check =anual trip cperation V-
- 22. Check tyoe, rating, Cat. # of centactors . relays ,etc. pi
- 23. Fuse clip spacing on fusible switches is correct 4 b
- 24. Continuity check of all wiring f_ u a
- 25. Dielectric test
- 26. Electrical test of ground fault syster.s +
f/
- 27. Electrical. test of shunt trips , y
- 28. Electrical test of _
g_ V
- 29. Check fit of dead front shield V Check finish for color and paint defect: V 30.
- 31. Fillers assembled over spaces V V
- 32. Prcper labels , nameplates , & warning stic kers in place #
- 33. Mechanical clearance GFCI's (latch areal I 1 INSPECTED BY: //,_ ev <d Date [/ IY
... ) lf i
A i Panel shipped short the following items:
~
O' f CERTI7ICATICN OF INS 7FITICN AND TEST
/o M I hereby certify % the above panelboard has be 'i ub- :t6d to the indicated that inspections and tests and found to meet the sta ,d, ^e iblished by the General Electric Ceepany and the applicable prtions of we .x -g.ing industry standards:
nA) EM 4 F8-f U L. ~ 6 '
., Signed: ^oa Date b#
V Manager of Quality C6ntrol 1 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ m
~'~~. ', W . y }
- 4#nl f's(,[$"8 P[]
3 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY P' DISTRIBtrICN ASSErtILLIES CEPARL ENT Pav. 1 {t, { c ' 6.j ' f [d g PANELBOAPD INSPECTICN CHECKLIST 4 g-s
-' ,J b PAITEL TYPE A /7
. c P-O o fo g B ~/b Customer /fy:4f b7//-/[/6f /(r4/ A Cust. Order No. W M if N Mark WW i
Cmee ,P:a s. c t i - S.0. No. / VM - 79 A.3d Dwg. NO. Item 77 Se rvice :f.o / 7-o v J Phase /-/ Wire Amps 70 H: I.C. i UISPECTION CECKPOINT 1 ACC N/A SHORT REMARKS
- 1. Check hardware for proper tyre and build-up. M
- 2. Torcue all bolted cennections. V l
- 3. Proper size and material (Cu/Al) Bus / Branch Straps F I I
- 4. Check bus / branch straps for phasing //
- 5. Electrical clearances meet minimum recuirements r
- 6. Check ground / neutral tvee and arrangement y i V
- 7. Check insulation location
- 8. Branch straps taped properly (if recuired) F~ l INSPECTED BY: _, f/[6 . s, Date: [ 79 NOTES:
l INSPECTICN CECKPODIT 2 ACC N/A SRCRT RE24 ARKS l l , 9. Check hardware for proper tvre & buildup k l 10. Proper hardware provided for spaces M l
- 11. Torque bolted breaker / switch connections P l
- 12. Correct number of circuits provided Vi i
- 13. Correct arrangement of breakers / switches P l
- 14. Breakers / switches checked for proper tvoe/ rating V I i
- 15. Soot check fit of plug-in breakers on stabs i , .V I I INSPECTED BY: h//c y Date: ) C" g~- , ,,
4
,,s r' W ~
. p. - -- ~
J
~
s f' r*' (u .,' I:SPECTICtf CHECT2OINT 3 ACC N/A SHORT PJ.P.AFJ.S
- 16. Electrical clearances meet minimum requirements V"
- 17. Check insulation locatien V i
- 18. Check eain location (top /bottoc) & time (C/B or lugs) ka l
- 19. Check lugs for correct size and tyre V
- 20. Breakers / switches operated manually A /
- 21. Spot check manual trip operation ,4 V
- 22. Check $/ce, rating, Cat. # of contactors , relays ,etc. V
- 23. Fuse clip spacing on fusible switches is correct L,
- 24. Continuity check of all wiring , L-
- 25. Dielectric test
- 26. Electrical test of ground fault systems t/
- 27. Electrical test of shunt trips t/
- 28. Electrical test of L/
- 29. Check fit of dead front shield l/
- 30. Check finish for color and paint defects V I
- 31. Fillers asser: bled over spaces V I
- 32. Prope r labels , nameplates , s wan.ing stickers in place V l
- 33. Mechanical clearance GFCI's (latch area) l " l
/
INSPEC"'ED BY: , //, , v u Date [ /, 7' I
,y ,
NCfFES : p gp g ep- mpp p.s p r g isy,a r. l.f ops t o 50 J-I 3 - fl Panel shipped short the following items: U CERTIFICATICN OF INSPECTTCN AND TEST d' T IQ I hereby certify that the above panelbcard has been subjected to the indicated inspections and tests and found to meet the standards established by the General Electric Cc=pany and the applicable prtiens of the following industry standards: s >A) EM.4 P 8 -l UL~6" Signed: A o-1 Cate b #'Y Q Manager of Quality (b6ntrol _ __ m
i ACC N/A SHORT PJS.ARYS INSPECTICN CHECY2OINT 3
- 16. Electrical clearances meet minimum recuire=ents V*
- 17. Check insulation location V Check main location (top /bottem) & tyne (C/B or lucs) V f 18.
V
- 19. Check lugs for correct size and type o
- 20. Breakers / switches operated manually A v .Vd ut ///tM/
- 21. Spot check manual trip operation A. V f44c ///f/W
- 22. Check tyce, rating, Cat. # of contactors , relays ,etc. f/
Fuse clip spacing on fusible switches is correct L, 23.
- 24. Continuity check of all wiring , Le
- 25. Dielectric test
- 26. Electrical test of ground fault systems f/
- 27. Electrical test of shunt trips f/
- 28. Electrical test of L'
- 29. Check fit of dead front shield V Check finish for color and paint defects V 30.
- 31. Fillers asse:nbled e eer spaces i V V
- 32. Preper labels , nameolates , & warning stickers in placd "
- 33. Mechanical clearance GFCI's (latch area) l INSPECTED BY: //,
v
..t<v ( c. Date ,[/
< i 7
,a j
NcrES ? g g, gp s c.)e W Axs M4 ri v.a t. L F pori O'EO ~ A EU' ISO # i'
& I-I 3 ~ fl Panel shipped short the following items:
i ?-d CERTIFICATICN OF INSPECTICN AND TEST t prv 10 I hereby certify that the above panelbeard has been subjected to the indicated inspections and tests and found to meet the standards established by the General Electric Ccmpany and the applicable prtiens of the following industry standards: nD Em d 78-l LJ l.~ 6 ' Signed: A Li Date y Manager of Quality d6ntrol IOkh /-/ T*5 y 7
7 p h QC-196 GENERAL ELE C RIC COMPA!TI
'F. . ' - t'a ,-t of 4,,3 i
DISTRIBtT"IO!! ASSEM.31IES DEPAFCPS.NT p, y , 1 f
$N 'lt'gf i
k k v g' ,l PANELECARD INSPECTIC'i CHECKLIST ft ' C PAICL TYPE /Y ///7 f' o Il@ , ( P-04.fO y B ~/b Custc er #%4f T/e-/ f/E r g o4/ A cust. c der No. W T xark -R Ca pf A C Hl*. A*A-!f $1 E. $ S.o. No. t yp- 29 9.30 Dwg. tio. $ item 77 Service:f.o / 74 V 3 Phase /-/ Wire Amps 7O H: I.C. I:2 SPEC ICN CHECKPOII."r 1 ACC N/A SHOPC FIMAFES
- 1. Check hardware for proper tvee and build-up. M
- 2. Torcue all bolted connections. I Vl l l
- 3. Proper size and material (Cu/A1) Bus / Branch Strapr i //* l l l
- 4. Check bus / branch straps for phasing I // I I I
- 5. Electrical clearances meet minimum recuire=ents i F* l
- 6. Check ground / neutral tvoe and arrangemenc l V I
- 7. Check insulation location l V l
- 8. Branch straps taped properly (if recuired) i //'~ i I I II:SPECTED BY: _ . //h V , /
f.e p Date: 79' NOTES: INSPECTICN CHECKPOINT 2 ACC N/A SHCRT PE.MAFJ.S
- 9. Check hardware for preper tvre & buildup Y
- 10. Proper hardware provided for spaces MI I I
- 11. Torcue bolted breaker / switch connections 1 P l I
- 12. Correct nurter of circuits provided i V i
- 13. Correct arrancement of breakers / switches l P i
- 14. Breakers / switches checked for prcper type / rating i V i I
- 15. Spot check fit of plug-in breakers on stabs I ,I .V I I
/ -
INSPECTED BY: . ///-
,- + i<
/
EV Date: I
//
-r (/
/
UCTES : equ.
'. ~ Applicants' TEXAS UTII.ITIES GENERXf.WG CouMNy Exhibit 10 1 O F F I C E M E 1,i O R A N D U M -
l!. R. ficBay , January 28, 1931 ro _ _ SITE SURVEILLANCE REPORT N0.127 subir et "~~
" WELDING EtlGillEERING C0itTROL OF ASi:E DOCUiEtliATION" . " ~ -~~~
i Your response to the above subject report has been received and evaluated. Based on your response / corrective action, please consider all items closed. 110 further response is required. f7
$o/
/ .J.T!_
R. F. Curtis Site Surveillance Supervisor RFC/jh cc: A. Vega B. Ilurray R. Tolson - J. Hawki ns D. Deviney
~* CPPA-8303 g gry,,gg g g g g,g g g gig ggegg ggg.g g,gc, w -
O r r!CE MI: M ()lt A !! D U M
._ _ R,_F _C.u_r_ tis IL, 6.h < :re,. i t.. ... r. . s. , , January 26, 1981 To m _ _ . . . . . . .
snNnt . . . . . ._ ..__ .COMAriCilE PEAK STEAM El.ECTRIC STATl0:1 SITE SURVEILLAtlCE REPORT NO. 127 WELDIfiG EtiGIrlEERING CONTROL OF ASME DOCUMEtiTATI0tl
REFERENCE:
CPPA-8112 l Attached find the referenced correspondence dated January 14, 1981 submitted in response to the subject surveillance report. Please advise if further information can be provided. kM.. R.h/McP,ay' 3 ^f^ _ Engineering Manai r MPM:RPB:km cc: ARMS J. P. Clarke (ll)
- 8. J. Murray (ll)
R. G. Tolson (ll,lA) l
/~.
s* w _ / CPPA-8112 TEXAS UTILITIES SElWICES INC. OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM rn Mike McBay aten no<r. Trus .Janua ry 14, 1981.__
. _ . .t suNut C01lefLCllE PEAK SIE4fiEt,ECTRIC STATI.0il . ' -
. _ , ' ..s RESF0tiSE TO SSR # 127 Vii ~ .~'if' t
- J.0 0 .3 y f!
The following response is provided to the subject SSR. kx., eta rn ~~
- c. . , , c . . ,
'le. [
i Finding 1 The only modification to AF-1-SB-001, spool 303,was issued 5-27-78 and has been in the vault since 7-20-78. During this time frame, QA issued and tracked all modification MRS's. Therefore, modification MRS's issued during *that time do not have entries in the Welding Engineering Status Logs. AF-1-SB-002, ITT Spool 2 has never been modified. BRP CC-1-AB-62 does not have a Spool 1603. tio preventive action required on the above items. i Findina 2 The referenced document package for Repair 1 of FW-19, on BRP-AF-1-SB-14 was transmitted to QA review on 3-11-80. Welding Engineering had a copy of the signed transmittal in file, but due to a clerical error the entry in the status log indicating the transmittal was not mace. This item j corrected 1-12-81. Preventive Action: The importance of log entries has been stressed with individuals responsible for making such entries. i i George N. Baker l l Merritt l Wade .- Hall ! l po;$preweig [- b.d. Murr6y BJM:sf IlcW~
--l R Estes .
cc: ARMS 'hiurr$y l Ki, singer Hicks l Wolantelus Gentry lHe;ieway ~ Barber Wdliann Blackwell T. Estes e,, 3.,s I - _ . - .
, l_.&)-
I Tufc ,. ,' t
~
. TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.TIPANY (($*"$N-
. O F F I C E M E M O ?. A N D 'J M f' January 28, 1981
'" B.'J. Murray To _ _ _ c:en nose. Tex.u SSR-129, " INSTALLATION AND T'AINTENANCE g,;,~s., ' "- ~ - ~ ~ ' 0F C07.TAIIUiEFSPRATPUP.Ps" t t Your response to the deficiencies identified in the above s"ubject i report have been received and evaluated by this office. Based on your corrective action, please consider all items to be closed. No further response is required at this time. Implementation of your corrective action will be verified during subsequent surveillance activities. Thank you for your cooperation. v
,; v, ,~ , / 5' f, m_ <m-Fi. F. Curtis Site Surveillance Supervisor RFC/jh l cc: A. Vega (ll, lA)
I' O. Deviney (ll, lA) P. Clarke (ll) l J. liawkins (1L) R. Tolson (,ll) e r I l i
CPPA-8306 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. O F F '. C E M E M O R A N D U M To R.F. Curtis cien he. Tex.u January 27, 1981 subject COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION - RESPONSE TO SSR-129 t t The following is provided in response to the subject SSR. Deficiency el Corrective Action: Dust filters are being installed and the installation will be ccmpleted by 2/2/81. Preventative Action: Craft personnel have been reinstructed to verify filter placement each time the heating devices are checked. Deficiency #2 4 Corrective Action: The indicating lights have been re:: laced and are now functional, in all three reported cases, the circuits feeding the lights were still er.ergized. Preventative Action: Craf t personnel will cneck equipment weekly to ensure that heating devices are energi:ed b:. verifying the indicating lights are 'unctieni g. Deficiency #3 Corrective Action: None required. The intent of the referenced proce-dure was to require a unique equipr.ent identification number. This was provided by entering the unique pump number on the WDC's. Preventive Action: CP-CPM-6.9G, Paragraph 3.6 will be revised to clarify the aforementioned intent. Completion Date: 2/3/81 l l 8.I Murray ' g BJMrJPC:ajs cc: ARMS J.P. Clarke l Charlie Britt R.P. Baker
' Applicant '
Exhibit 103 TENAS UTil.lTIES GI:NElt ATING C(Dil'ANY O F FICE M E M O R A TJ D U M r., _ _ J. R. Ainsyorth _ , _ _ _ .
. r;;,.,, g g,,, .r ms _ _ Feb rua ry 5, 1981 y,,,,j,.,,._.__________.. SITE SURVEILLAtlCE REPORT fi0. 130
~ " ~ " - - ~ ~
.__.__. .C0!! TROL OT l10li-C0f!FORMIfiG ITEMS Your response to the deficiency identi fied during our surveillance of the above subject activity has been received and evaluated. Based on your corrective action please consider this item closed. fio further response is requi red.
Thank you for your cooperation.
?
y- , ~ ) .4_._._ - -
. .._ d _. _v_ .. _b _ . _._ _. . Qb .._
R. F. Curtis Site Surveillance Supervisor RFC/jh cc: A. Vega R. Tolson J. Hawkins D. Deviney W. Parry 1 i
. TUQ-791 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM ro R. F. Curtis cien nose. Texas January 21, 1981 se SITE SURVEILLANCE REPORT N0.130 i
f Below is our response to the subject SSR: CORRECTIVE ACTION:
- 1. The Hold Tag is on the cable which is in the reel yard, per the disposition of the subject NCR. Should Construction want to use this cable, the damaged area would be removed and scrapped at which point the Hold Tag will be removed.
- 2. Supervisory personnel have re-emphasized to the inspectors the requirement for documenting removal of a Hold Tag. I have discussed with the QE Staff the need for closer scrutiny of NCR dispositions
~
as they relate to items removed from the plant area. PREVENTATIVE ACTION: None warranted due to significance of findings. l DATE CORRECTIVE ACTION IMPLEMENTED: l January 21, 1981 1 J/./R. Ainsworth Qdality Engineering Supervisor l l JRA/jh l I cc: R. G. Tolson A. Vega J. Hawkins D. Deviney i
;7
'- Applicants' i
TEXAS UTil.ITIES GliNEllATING CO311'ANY Exhibit 104
. O F F I C E M E M O R A 11 D U M To _ __. _ B. J. Murray _ _ , , , , _ , , , , _, ,
. _ ci,.,, n,,,. . 'ri in,.
March 4, 1981 sulijcet SITE SURVEILI.ANCE REPORT NO. 136 I " INSTALLATION OF SWI PUMP SUPPORTS" 4 1 Your response to the Deficiency identified in the subject l Surveillance Report has been re:eived and evaluated. ! Based on your corrective action, please consider this item closed. No further reiponse is required at this-time. s l Thank you for your cooperation. i
/
X V) W~~~
~ R. F. Curtis Site Surveillance Supervisor l
1 e RFC/jh
. cc: A. Vega i R. Tolson
. D. Deviney
. J. Merritt
. J. Hawkins I
l I i i i
( TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. CPPA-8746 OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM e i T,, Richard F. Curtis Glen Rose. Texa.s hhrmary '>7- 10R1 subject COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION TUGC0 SITE SURVEILLANCE REPORT NO. 136 i Corrective Action The Operation Travelers cited in the referenced surveillance report have been revised in order to incorporate DCA-8426, Revision 1, and to clarify the sequence of instructions required for the installation of SWI Pump column support bolts.
! Preventative Action Appropriate personnel have been refamiliarized with the procedural require-ments of CP-CPM-6.3.
Completion Date March 4, 1981
/
B. J. Murray ^ u [ Construction Manager ' BJM:RMD:kss l cc: ARMS l M. R. McBay l R. G. Tolson I
*r
Applicants' Exhibit 105 ]* TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM R. G. Tolson g,, g,,, 7,, April 30, 1981 To 3 ,, SSR NO. 141 "NDE QUALIFICATION RECORDS" f Your response to the deficiencies identified in SSR No.141 has been received and evaluated. Based on your correctf ve action / response, please consider all items closed. No further response is required at this time. Thank you for your cooperation.
/ 6M/
t Sur lance Supervis r RFC/jh cc: A. Vega D. Deviney J. Maxwell J. Hawkins I I l
*r
7,
, TUQ-867 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO311%NY I
OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM R. F. Curtis April 24, 1981 ro _ _ _ _j,wnameTau , gg,py SSR NO.141 "NDE QUALIFICATION RECORDS" _ _ , _ d f As requested in the subject report, the following represents our response and/or corrective actions: i Deficiency No.1: Eye Examinations i Site Surveillance personnel were informed during the audit that current eye exams (1980 and 1981) are maintained within each personnel file. Past exams are maintained in historical and/or working files. We feel that our practice of maintaining the most current eye exam meets l' the intent of SNT-TC-1 A and specifically CP-QAP-2.1-1. Corrective or preventative action is not coplicable for this item. l Deficiency No. 2: Recertification Record As explained to the auditors during the audit, IM-19123 was initiated to
~
inform site management that certification for three (3) personnel was authorized. This documented an interim certification until B&R corporate certification approval and records were sent to the project. The IM was referenced on the certification for the purpose of record and certification continuity and was not used for documenting work time experience. It should be noted that IM-19123 (attached) can be obtained from the Document Control Center (DCC). Corrective or preventative action is not applicable to this item. i Deficiency No. 3: Certification Dates In most cases all supporting information necessary for certifying an i individual is dated on, or prior to, the date of certification. In this case certification documentation was completed on site. The corporate NDE Level III was contacted and certification authorization was obtained on 3/8/78. The certification package was sent to the Corporate ! NDE Level III for final review and approval. At that tims it was noted l that Mr. Matheny's work time experience was not included. IM-13215, dated 3/13/78, documenting Mr. Matheny's work time experience was forwarded to the NDE Level III for certification approval which was previously I authorized on 3/8/78.
-/
g . TUQ-867 R. F. Curtis 4/24/81 Page 2 - Corrective / Preventative Action: In the future a closer review of certification documents (i.e., examinations, work time experience, etc.) will be conducted to preclude recurrence. Should you have any questions, please advise.
^ 86 &
R.T.'70'I s o n Site QA Supervisor Attachment RGT/BC5/jh cc: ?. Chapman A. Vega D. Deviney J. Maxwell J. Hawkins SSR File - 141 l
,.-- .# %. , ~. s v.am . . ... . .. .;- ,,a. . 1 o -. * '. O t
35- 195
.4/af/ROCI.Inc. (( !
5-27-80 INTEROFFICE MDIO IM: 19123 i
. f -
~
TO: R.M. Klimist DATE: !!ay 27,1980 FROM: T.B. !!axwell
SUBJECT:
CPSES, Job 35-1195 NDE P.ersonnel Certification Reference (a) B&R QA Personnel Training IIanual Part II ~ The following personnel have met the requisite require-ments in accordance with Reference (a) for the respective certi-fications shoun below.
- J.S. Busby L-Il VT 5-27-80 S.A. Stogdill L-II Terry L. Matheny L-II VT 5-27-80 L-II PT 5-27-80 L-II MT 5-27--80 L-II RT Film 5-27-80 L-II UT L/T 5-27-80 These certifications were authorized by llouston on 5-27-80 by telephone. This letter will serve as interia certification until corporate approval letter arrives on site.
J . i
,>W- $b.;w MY T. B. Maxwell l
B&R Site NDE Level III TBM/bc cc: G. Willis G. White J. Ragan ., J. Crossland J. Patton S l
1'
. . Applicants'
. Exhibit 106 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM' To J. T. Merritt clen Itose, Texas August 13. 1981 subj ct SITE SURVEILLANCE REPORT SSR-142 h
Your response to the subject' report has been reviewed and determined to be satisfactory. Please consider this report closed. Thank you for your cooperation.
/
G. W. Parry YHlkM ~
/
Site Surveillance Supervis6r GWP/ls cc: A. Vega R. G. Tolson
, J. Hawkins D. Deviney i ,
C. Manning 1 i oe
- i i
i 4 i
CPPA-11,470 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INL. OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM 7, Wayne Parry clen rtose, Texa. 7/23/81 subim COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION TUGC0 QA SSR-142 RECElVED
~JULg9;gg; QUAUTY ASSIJRAME The following is response to Subject Surveillance Report 142, Finding 3.
l Finding No. 2 Any questions concerning this finding should be directed to the QC Department. Finding No. 3
- 1. Welding Engineering Although the Welding Engineering Department does not maintain M&TE use data on the Tool Data Issue / Record card, these cards are main-tained in file. All pertinent data concerning M&TE is entered on the Welder Documentation Surveillance Checklist. If a question arises concerning the usag6 of any M&TE, the Welding Engineering Department can cross reference these two forms and determine where M&TE has been used.
- 2. Paint Department The Paint Department personnel also have been exempted from the required completion of the Tool Data Issue / Record form due to the fact that the Paint Department uses M&TE for in process information only. Painting activities are inspected for final acceptance by QC Protective Coatings Department personnel, who document M&TE usage as required by QC inspection procedures.
- 3. Protective Coatings QC See 2 above. ,,
- 4. NDE (UT Scopes)
Questions concerning these scopes should be directed to the QC Department. l l
o j
. O
- 5. Millwr'qht Department l Millwright Department personnel have assured this office that since the surveillance, all personnel responsible for long term issue M&TE are documenting tool usage on the Tool Data Issue / Record card. See attached memo from the Millwright Superintendent.
l l l e
' W J. Murray #
Construction Manager i BJM/ /lah cc: ARMS OL,GA R.G. Tolson IL.LA J.V. Hawkins IL,lA M.R. McBay IL,1A l
.. ..e >
ggg July 24, 1981 INTEROFFICE MEMO i TO: ROBERT DARIN - FROM: GEORGE TANLEY
SUBJECT:
LONG-TERM ISSUES OF CALIBRATED TOOLS The Millyright/ Boilermaker Department has for quite some time had to keep calibrated tools checked out of the Calibration Tool Room on a long-tem basis due to our work activities in field construction on this site. The Millwright / Boilermaker Department has in the past kept all records. required in long-term issues of calibrated tools as stated in Brown & Root. construction procedure CPM-13.1, section 3.4.5, this department will make every effort to insure that all records on long-term issues of calibrated tools remain current and up to date at all times. . I l t
+ I GeorgNanley [
l Millwright / Boilermaker Supt. l o I i
- y. ;.
.,jf.
y
.. . 1.
-t-. -
v.
-_g...~-:.. y p=- - l
. ._ . ..y .,..y
" ^ ? Y. ~ & 45-'*"'' .it .S S'25~ ."M
--x --
5-$.~~.5- ., ~ ' .. . _*f * :d, .- .,,..... ,,3.ih,.
, . - ,5.h$ til:~. - ..h.
n R $.,,h..%. %.~. ;f. _ l
V'TtfQ*906 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM G. W. Parry __,_cten moe Texas June 24, 1981 i ro 4
! Subject Site Surveillance Report flo.142 Response ,
i i Per our discussion, we have reviewed Deficiency flo.1, Finding fio.1, of
' the subject report. Attached you will find a memorandum stating our
- position. At this time we feel no further action is required.
2 P l ' A . R. G. Tolson TUGC0 Site QA Supervisor RGT/bli Attachment - i cc: Mr. J. T. Merritt Mr. A. Vega e e 1 1 l l l l 1 l
..m. _ _ _ - . , . _. , , . _ . - . . - _ _ , .c . . , _ _ . . . ~ . _ . _ . . . . .,__,.._..m__.,. _ , _ . , , , _ _,___._.----e=r- * -r- -- - - ~+ --
2 4,b ' 'c h- 1195
22-81
. 44 w1C Rool. loc.
. INTEROFFICE MEM0 t
t
~
IM-20966 TO: R. G. Tolson DATE: June-22, 1981 FR0il: J. V. Hawkins
SUBJECT:
CPSES, Job 35-1195 Site Surveillance Report-No.142, Deficiency No.1, Finding No. 1 . The Tool Data Issue / Record Card was not implemented by procedure CPit-13.1 until June,1980. As the H&TE in question was checked out in April,1980 and not returned until September,1980, the Tool Data Issue / Record Card was not i matter of record for that piece of equipment. However, when it was found during the scheduled calibration that it&TE 541 needed repairs, an evaluation was performed by Quality Engineering (John itaxwell), and it is stated in IM-19659 that the repairs required would not have any effect on the inspections performed with this instrument because it was only used for thickness measurements, and the repairs re-quired had no effect on the instrument's ability to perform as used. This III and evaluation is a part of the Calibration Lab's records 'and was a part of the record at time of subject surveillance. Based on above, no further action is required.
., f 'N
/
1 i ,
,- . y + (- l l k '
. 1.<. .L \a". ._f { ** {
/J. V. Hawkins Site Quality Assurance flanager JVil/pb cc: QA File l
s [
, Applicants' 6
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY Exhibit 107 OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM To J. T. Merritt at n no,e, Texas October 22, 1981 subject CONSTRUCTION SITE SURVEILLANCE REPORT (SSR) 147 i Your response to the subject SSR has been reviewed and the implemeri.tation of your corrective and preventative actions were verified and found ac-ceptable. Please consider this-SSR closed. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
$Ad
-GMCParry/ " ON Site Surveillance Supervisor GWP/ls cc: A. Vega R. G. Tolson D. E. Deviney D. W. Schmidt I
( - o CPP- 5675 TEXAS L'TTLIT!ES SERVICES INC. OFFICE ME MOR AND UM To LQ 'dcSay Glen Rose. Teus 10-2-31 l l 3" hic" CC LWCHE PEESISA:LELECIRI4_SIAHO:! l SITE SURVEILLNiCE REPORT (SSR-147) y DIESEL GENERATOR SUPPORT SYSTEM . REF: CPP-5352, CPP-5436 ' Electrical Engineering has completed their committment to have insulation paper. installed in the collector rings for the diesel generator support system. Scecific cor-rective actions included the following:
- 1. E.M.R. cards have been revised to include the insulatien paper require-.ents.
- 2. Collector rings have been inspected and no damage was found to the rings.
-3. Insulation pacer has been procured and installed as required.
This concludes sita surveillance recort =55R-117. o
/a.t
_ n. L. M Popplewell
, Project Electrical Engineer d)'r. ;;' -
!1 LMP:FLP: CMC:cc cc: J. P. Clarke G. W. Parry C. Britt I
[ .. N* TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. CPP-5452 -OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM r To G. W. Parry aten nose. Teu., September <1, 1981 Subject COMAflCHE PEAK STE.AM ELECTRIC STATION _ _, SITE SURVEILLANCE REPORT (SSR)-147 ' DIESEL GENERATOR SUPPORT SYSTEM i REF: CPP-5436 ' The referenced correspondence dated 26 August 1981 is forwarded in response to the subject surviellance report. Please advise if additional information can be provided. M. R. McBay Engineering Ma er MRM/RPB/jb cc: L. M. Popplewell R. G. Tolson I r i a 4 y-- ,m-,-.-, . - - , - - - - - . - -c,, . --, -
.e.. -- - - _ . - - - , , , , - - - , , - - + - . - , , - , , - - -
3 .
- 4CPP-5436 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM T,, M. R. McBay men Rose. Teu, August 26ul981 Subject COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION STTESURVIELLANCEREPORT(SSR-147[ DIESEL GENERATOR SUPPORT SYSTEM CPP- 5352 ? 1. however it had been lifted, per instruction Balance of manual. Inspec br'ushes are in storage pending preparation for Turn-over. 2. Collector requested in rings did not have insulation paper installed as manual. A. Corrective action will be taken: cards to include paper requirement,1) to2)ammend inspect EMR collector rings for damage, and 3) procure and install paper as required. B. Review of Manufacturers instruction manual has taken place to prevent recurrence of this happening again.
~
M , t' E , t') - It is anticipated that corrective action shall be omplete by November, 1981. R y,D ' gG ? E N , t Qsemf'5 f{$cs.
/
/ g$( -
L. M. Popplewell
~ Project Electrical Engineer LMP6LP:(CR: sib cc: J. P. Clarke GEO]GE w -
G. W. Parry }ERRITh [g C. Britt -. _ _'_. lWADEg'{ - ~--
$$.@.? , PbPi5'[ >
CALDER -
~-. _ ..__ ; CREn:Aca C. WILSO.'l
_ ~~~~~
~~~~~~]
. ' ~ ' ' ' - - .
KIS$!NGER ,' MURRAY
~ ,.._.I f URGCSS N. SMITH j '~ ~
, SCHOb
~
f 5CKS ~ ~ -
.__ l CCNTR V i '~~'~~-
--- _ ._ . ~R BA:CR k _
FIL5 '
'. 's -- Applicants' Exhibit 108
.[ TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.TIPANY OFFICE MEMORANDUM To J._T. Merritt - cien nose, Tex. October 5.1981 subJtet C0tiSTRUCTI0tl SITE SURVEILLAtlCE REPORT (SSR) 150 u
-t Your recponse to the subject SSR has been reviewed and verified by this office and found to be acceptable. Please censider the subject report closed.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
$ V'
/WM .
{/ G. M Parry / ' Site Surveillance Supe /sisor. GWP/ls cc: A. Vega R. G. Tolson - B. J. Murray l 1 1 l e s i l-
, . ', l CPPA - #12,727 '
T TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. O FFICE M E M O R A!ID U M ro G. W. Parry cien Rose. Texas 9/24/81 g,;,a COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION Site Surveillance Report - SSR-150 l The following is the response to the subject surveillance finding. Drawings not of the current revision:
- This condition existed because the microfilm reproduction equipment in the DCC was not functioning for a period of three weeks. Since the 4 time of the subject audit, DCC distribution has resumed and the Electrical j Department drawing file has been updated.
No Preventative Action Required Prints not identifiable: Corrective Action During normal usage, drawings may be damaged in such a manner that renders them unidentifiable. The damaged prints were matched with duplicates in order to identify them and are being replaced. Preventative Action .
- The Electrical Department print files will be checi
- ed weekly for damage.
Completion Date
- 'I 10-2-81 o
- Prints missing
l l Certain prints issued to control number 045 are stored in file cabinets in the Electrical Department print room. A further check of file number 045, with the aid of Electrical Department personnel, should reveal that these drawings are, in fact, not missing, but are actually filed elsewhere. ' No corrective or preventative action required.
Q,
}
1 ( .. Comment: It is unlikely that any department would have such a'high pe'rf-centage of discrepancies in their drawing files. I would like,t.o suggest that if, in the future, excessive numbers of discrepancles are found, the auditor consult with the department supervisor in order to gain an understanding of the document maintenance methods used within the department. I V /} / /W%
/ B. J. Murraj i U Construction Manager _ _
I rp BJM/RMD/lah cc: ARMS OL R.G. Tolson IL C. Britt IL ' M.R. McBay IL R.P. Baker IL , t
~
i i 9 0 e d 4
~
.,_#_~~ -
Applicants' TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY Exhibit <109 9 OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM
- To R. G. Tolson Glen nose Tex.u February S.1982 subject Site Surveillance Report - SSR-155 Ref: TUQ-1123 ,
f Yourresponsetothesubjectreporthasbeenreviewedbythisofficeand the implementation of corrective action verified. Please consider this report closed. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
. Wayne Parrf E6 7n' ni A%
d-Site Surveillance Supervisor GWP/ls cc: B. R. Clements D. fl. Chapman A. Vega D. E. Deviney D. W. Schmidt M. D. Bever 9
5 i TUQ-1123 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.TII%NY t
; OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM To G. W. Parry Glen an,c. Teu. January 26,_1032_
Subject Response Site Surveillance Report No.13_5, , . _ , , i
- p i .
l The following is our response to the subject report. Requi rement: QI-QP-11.2-4, Revision 0, Paragraph 3.1, states in part: Hilti " Super Kwik" bolts shall be stamped on the exposed end with a " star" for identification. The " star" stamp
. shall remain in the control of the QC Department.
Finding No. 1 i
Description:
fio document could be produced by the QC Department showing
- how many star stamps were issued originally or who they were issued to.
l i ~ Response to Finding flo.1
! Corrective Action: A three-part memorandum was issued by J. P. Patton on 1 10/26/81 which indicates: (1) the total number of star
! . stamps controlled by QC; and (2) all QC personnel who I had been issued star stamps as of that date. This
- memorandum is being updated whenever a " star" stamp is
. issued or returned. The original of said memorandum is maintained by QC with the currently unissued star stamps
)
in a locked box.
- Action to Prevent The corrective action discussed above will prevent Recurrence
- recurrence of the condition identified. In addition.
i QI-QP-11.2-4 has been revised to require QC to: (1) maintain a record of all " star" stamps which have been l issued to QC inspectors; and (2) maintain all unissued
" star" stamps in locked storage.
Date of Corrective January 27, 1982 Action Imolementation:
/ '
G. W. Parry January 26, 1982 TUQ-1123 - Page 2 Finding flo. 2 l
Description:
While inspecting the Super Kwik bolts in the Hilti shack, it was observed that two (2) types of star stamps have been used. The QC Department could not produce a five (5) point star stamp. Response to Finding No. 2 Corrective Action: The QC Department previously used one (1) five (5) point star stamp in star stamping of Hilti " Super Kwik" bolts. . However, the five (5) point star stamp was inadvertently lost more than a year ago and since that time the QC Department has used exclusively six (6) point " star" stamps. The QC Department presently controls the use of eleven (11) six (6) point " star" stamps. However, a number of Hilti bolts, exhibiting a five (5) point " star" still remain in the Hilti Shack while others are already installed in Category I structures. Corrective action is the same as reponse to Finding No. 1. Action to Prevent Same as response to Finding No. 1. Recurrence: Date of Corrective January 27, 1982 Action Imolerentation: Finding No. 3 , Description No objective evidence could be found showing how the star stamps were being controlled by the QC Department. l t Resoonse to Finding No. 3 Corrective Action: QI-QP-11.2-4, Revision 0 and Revision 1, did not require the QC Department to document the control of issuance of
" star" stamps. QI-QP-11.2-4, Revision 2, now requires the QC Department to maintain a record of " star" stamp control and issuance to QC personnel.
. y. . .
.: ; . ..Q ;? : ' . _ .. . . ,a
~~
. 1. 'd. is n y
, ?>. ur/ 26,1982 TL2-1123 - Page 2 Action to Prevent Same as response to Finding flo. I* j Recurrence .
Date of Corrective January 27, 1982 Action Imolementation:
.~ ,L W R. G. Tolson TUGC0 Site OA Supervisor
.O pa RGT RAC/bil cc: 8. R. Clements D. fl. Chapnan A. Vega D. W. Schmidt D. E. Deviney M. D. Bever
TUQ-1102 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM G. W. Parry Glen Itose. Texa. January 15, 1982 To Site Surveillance Report 155 subject h In response to the subject report, a procedure will be issued and implemented by February 23, 1982.
, _k
[ R. G' Tolson i TUGC0 Site QA Supervisor . RG 3 1 j 1 e
Appl.i . ants '
.-- Exhioit 110 CPPA-21,019 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM To G. W. Parry Glen Rose. Tens Julv 8. 1o82 Subject CCMANCH PFE ST:3M M M RIC STATICN SITE SURVEII.IMCE REPORT (SSR) 156 i CABLE TRAY 2A TdAY . REF: 1) CPPA-19,854 2),DCA-6706, Rev. 3 3-) CPPA-20,776 The following is submitted in response to the subject report originally fo marded on December 3, 1981. The original report identified a concern regarding the use of Burndy-Husky (B-H) reducer splices which were not properly supported. Per the vendor's instructions, these reducer "I" splices shall be supported within two (2) feet on both sides of the reducer. The response per Reference 1 indicated where such reducer splices are shown on GSH location drawings; adequate support was also prescribed. Ycur evaluation of June 8,1982, identified specific installation non-confonnances in violation of the spacing criteria provided by 3-H and adopted by G4H. Our review has indicated that many tray fittings have been arbitrarily substituted in the field resulting in the following configurations: v
\ .-
O g
*$b 4
Sienderd - BURNDY-HUSKY - Reducer Fitting Reducer Splice AS DESIGNED AS BUILT PLAN VIEW PLAN VIEW Corrective actions for these deficiencies will consist of removing all reducer "Z" splices including sections of the B-H tray (where required). These items will be replaced with T. J. Cope sections and fittings. Reference 2 specifies the details for connecting B-H and T., J. Cope com-ponents. As an alternative to replacement, adequate support per the vendor's instructions - two (2) feet on both sides of the reducer - may be installed. In order to prevent recurrence of this condition, Construction is directed to withhold the substitution of fittings without prior approval from engineering unless specifically indicated on the G5H drawings. By copy of this =cmo to the const:uction organization, the direction previously provided the Electrical General Superintendent per Reference 3 dated June 29, 1982, is confirmed.
. I r . .
CPPA-21,019 G. W. Parrf Page 2. July 8, 1982 . t The corrective actions specified herein were comenced per Reference 3. Consttuction is requested to schedule the constmetion activities ard provide the anticipated completica date. t Please advise if additional infonnation and/or clarification can be l provided. Y #f-
)l. R. Sc g
Engineering ager 4
>RVRPD/cp
! cc: J. T. Merritt
- 'R. M. Kissinger/P. Patel B. J. bbrray
- D. C. Frankum/C. Britt J. P. Clarke l R. G. Tolson L. M. Popplewell AP>ts l
l l k I (
---,-m
. TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY O
OFFICE AIEMORA NDUM
- .. fl . R . ?!c Ba.V c (n nose. Teus June 8, 1982 sonya Site Surveillance Report SSR-156 ~ ~
Cable Tray Raceway REF: 1) ?!cas C. W. Parry to J. T. !!erritt of04/li/82
- 2) GTN-57448 .
- 3) CPPA-19854 .
Your further response to Deficiency No. 3 of the subject report has been reviewed and found to be unsatisfactory based on the following: The requirement given by Burndy-liuskey in Reference 3 and cited in Ref erence 1 is that a reducer " . . . be located within two feet of support points or connecting t ray, un both sides of t he reducer . . . Cont ra rv to t hi s requ i ren:en t , the following cable tray segments have clo-sub jec t reducers in,talled without a support within two feet of either
.iih.
T .' '. KEB R 5 2 T220EBA28 T24KEDN38 l'2 2KF hJ h 4 T2 '. 0 EDA 5 3 T24KEDN40 T2JOECG32 T24KEDNit) T220EBA33 T23GF.XC16 124BEEG02 T22KEBR64
! leave provide your further response in the format requested in the subicet report by June 22, 1982.
Sheuld you have an:, questions please co /n ut t the undersigned at BLR r.stinsion n40.
~~.
, -]
/ ,/.
--+--..s.,
',1. . > % , W l' f,-
'C. W. Parr' '. '
../
Site Surv:illance Superv' or
/
i :'..'P / p r cc B. R. Clements D. N. Cha pn.t n A. '.' e g a R. C. Tolson J . T. !!vrri t t C. L. Kunkle St. D. Bever l l l 1
. CPPA-19,854 TEXAS UTILITIES SElWICES INC.
O FFICE MEl'OR A N DU M i . ra G. h'.- Parry cien nose. Texas June 4, 1982_ subject _ ComNOIE PEAK STEMI ELECTRIC STATION SITE SUkVElLLANCE REPORT, SSR-156 CLASS 1E CABLE TRAY RACEWAY REF: 1) INALUATION DATED APRIL 15, 1982 j
- 2) CPPA-18816 .
- 3) CPPA-18874 i
We have completed our additional evaluation resulting from your request for additional action for Deficiency #3 of the subject relmrt. Your concern stated per Burndy-fluskey that offset reducers are not of the same strength as regular splice plates unless supported with-in two feet of each side of the reducer and "CPSES design places cable tray supports, in general, six feet apart". CPPE acknowledges the strength capacity of the reducer plate. As such, the cable tray supports are located within two feet of the
- reducers as indicated in support locations shown on G6H cable tray i support drawings. Please note, support spacing indicated in Reference 1 is for regular straight runs of cable trays and should be construed i
to be applicable for runs using the reducer splices. i Please advise if additional infomation is required. i l, 7// ///# M. R. McBay Engineering 5 ,ager i
/
i l MIGI/RPB/cp cc: A10!S R. G. Tolson J. T. Merritt L. M. Popplewell R. M. Kissinger B. J. Murray R. E. Ballard/E. L. Bezkor (GGH) l l
- - , . . ., - . , - , - - . - , - - . . . - , . . . . _ - . ~ , - - - -- -.,, _. . , - - . . - - - . , - - . - - - - - -
1 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR A NDUM To J. T. Merritt clen Rose. Texu April 15, 1982 Subject Class IE Cable Tray Raceway - Site Surveillance Report, SSR-156l
Reference:
CPPA 16010 Your response to the subject report has been reviewed and evaluated by this office. The response to deficiencies 1, 2 and 4 are adequate, please consider these items closed. Your response to deficiency #3 is inadequate. The referenced GTN (GTN-57448) indicates that Burndy-Husky does not consider the offset reducers in question to be of the same strength as regular splice plates unless a support is located within two feet of each side of the reducer. CPSES design places cable tray supports, in general, six feet apart. Please reevaluate this defigiency and provide further response by May 6, 1982. Should you have further questions concerning this report please contact the undersigned at extension 640. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
//A1 AAb f ~ ~
G. Wayne ty Site Sur eillance Superviso G*a'P / pr cc: B. R. Clements D. N. Chapman A. Vega R. G. Tolson D. E. Deviney M. D. Bever e 6
=. .. . - . ~ . . . . _ .
=~x -<-, m
MT@
CPPA - #16010 . rii"iE:s
~M TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. 3j@
OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM ff;
- 7. G. W. Parry clen nose. Tem 2/16/82 .us g.,y subjeu
*7 COMAfiCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 4;,
TUGC0 QA SSR-156 i - The following is the response to the subject Site Surveillance. 2 7 Deficiency No. 1 The cable trays cited in this deficiency were installed in accordance with ' OCA-3364, attached.
~.gf
.~
No corrective or preventative measures required. -
. . . .'E;j Deficiency No. 2 The cable tray in question was a temporary installation put in place in order to get measurements. This tray has been properly installed and has baen inspected by QC.
No corrective or preventative measures required. Deficiency No. 3 Concerning the qualification of offset reducers. See attached GTN-57448 Item No.1.
~
No corrective or preventative measures required. Deficiency No. 4 ! The cable trays sited in this deficiency will be coated with galvanox paint. The co-operation of TUGC0 Site Surveillance personnel for the positive identi-fication of those items will be appreciated. l Preventative Action The Electrical Superintendent has refamiliarized the involved personnel with the procedure requirements. Documentation of this training activity will follow. . Comoletion Date 3-19-82 IK JT Murra f // Construction Manager BJM/RMD/lah cc: ARMS 01, 0A l J. T. Merritt IL, IA l R. G. Tolson IL, IA L. fl. Popplewell IL, IA . M. R. McBay ll, IA
/ '~- .7.^...,- - Figure 2.4-1 -
Page 1 of . 2 _
. .%. , .: .m ,1ch, Tugco
- ff,MS CC:MitCHE PEAK STEAli ELECTRIC STATIG!I DESIG'l CHAf;GE AUTHORI7lTIO:1 .
li'lOrv.EA , EdEcRI?AT10tt tio. 3364 (11ILL) (f3 MXNG U BE IticoaPORATED ? III DESIGil C0CU.MEliTS SAFETY RELATED DOCU:!EtiT X- YES i;0
- 1. DESCRIPTIO.'l: DESIG1 CHAtlGE X YES tl0 A. 2323-El-1701 5 APPLICABLE SREC/OWG/CCCUMEliT(
REV. B. , DETAILS Of fset in cable tray runfdue to hanner out of linelshall be installed oer attached Sheet 2 of 2.
, . c-~ - . .: ,s .. .~ . ' * :s ,
.i . 1 :3 N )I r,
.. .m.e M '. ?
N U ;
.; :- - i .,' ::- 2._.,--
- - =
2.* SUPPORTi!!G DOCU.'iDTATIO?! 1 ._
- 3. SIG"Al'J755: ll!M:DKD:eh 12 1/-78 jf,/
7 A. APPROVED BY: / ..f $ &G-( /2-/#- 7f I / G d Represen::.:iva Cate [f Y c e- ,Eb 12 - /G-7 F.
' B. APPROVED SY: Wil ' '
~
REponsioTiO.Tu:eer Da te
- 4. STA!10ARD DISTRIBUTIO?l,:
3'.R Field (Origin.tl) (1) G;H-tie.9 York (1) TUGr.0 Site QA (1) ) B&R Sita QA (1) F50r. (1)
!! . E. Hol10. fay (1) e
. .:.. g,y
' 5;g~
,* * '"76 BROWN & ROOT, INC.
~
eccf,g.7 ENGINEERING DivistoM
~
IHEET Ho. l '.; ' t _. . saa no.
- Lutn I'd b I - -
- uaner TR AY cFFSET l t4 5T A LL A-r t Oh]
CAA7tNC N3. 3 ASED Otf ---
$W _ App *0. EY ll"I @~- } [
cpi?vil. 1_. *b D C O '/ k _CHA*D. SY p Alt _
- . .:s
- :d m .ee .
s es ENL ARq:B V t =.W 0F s P Lic E PLOTE [ BELoW ,
/ .
n N go o os
/ :. n.. .
)
\
) _
)
- i/
/
\
,/
Tus pun di ci E To (
K g ca oTc_t-1 spu ce PteTE (
s e tJ3 J . . _ _\_ _ rllg /' (Tyr) I , t, l / ye ,5
// / '
tty s-
.y# f- to" m.w l
f...........1
/. \s i
3"i~~~h * N 'b'2 0. [Y h N b 8~ E"E ; k:'- s E~d'." .$.I. . p -
~
s b ' -E. .;.'. .".'. . r.?. . . 3.f..f *'YO.~.':
,u - e. - .eY.. p. . ~. * .t.., .% .:..d ,'. ,. :. J. s~.-
- b .. . ....-..s.~. '
--*r..*. . i o ,-bi5.; -
. .o.j. --- ,q.i;;7...f.._..';y y";. . ..,
TEXAS CTILITIES SERVICES INC. . q - .. ..
,CPPA..r20.776 g g
" O.'- . N i.?..M y
' S ', . ' OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM. .- ,'- . . - , .
^ j,.-.a
~ " ,.%r_. ~ :g*.y-
;* J.., :;.; q :.-- -
~
.a. ,.. . '- .
. Richard Baker /M.R. itcBay c,,, g,, .rnas June 29, 1982 9g_' g n._ -"
subject C0i1At1CHE PEAK STEAtt ELECTRIC STATI0fl.'. . . . . s' . -
. .7; ' SITE SURVEILLAtlCE REPORT SSR-156 .
-W o
. . .c -... .
_ i. ' '.' . - . CABLE TRAY RACEWAY..
~
-. . .- g . c:- + . -,u n ..:s. , w - ..Ref: ( 1 ) C P P;7 7 6 6 #
"#-'. - - . . " . ~N . -- Jh.w". .u' ' "..m
- : :. , ,;.N.R. -7.;wn U .- . , m (2) CPPA 18874.~r y m..; e pgp mg..;.3
.I . . . :.
.. W.e:- -
- s- t . r. (3) Memo- to firm Tfrom GWP dated 6-8-82'
., s . m z: , .
.u.. .. .. :, .-
We have reviewed the Burndy-Husky reducer splice problem as describedI i n .. the memo a ttached to reference (1). We would like to void the response- " given in reference (2)~because it appears tha t many tray fi ttings were ' a rbi ta rily subs t.i tu ted in the field for the ones shown on the electrical cable tray layout drawings.. Please refer to the sketch.below:.. . -
- - = .
p_.w-.;,
- g. 5.,;c .
..._.+. , , . . . ..r .. -
s r a,, n.s...
, -. .. , . ~v.. . , ~ . .l ~ . . . .
l 4 .. _ .~ . -...- . . p.y - - q, . . ( ..
.; g -
..u m \-
l Standctd -- BURNDY-HUSKY - Reducer Fitting ' Reducer Splice ' AS DESIGNED AS B UIL T - - . - ---- PLAN VIEW
- pt.AN view P
(" . . . .,. .. . . C0FFECTIVE ACTION: All such fi ttings (reducer 'Z' splices) will be renoved including some sections of Burndy-Husky trays and replaced by T.J. Cope tray sec tions wi th appropria te reducer fi ttings. DCA 6706 R.3
- shows the de tails for such Burndy-Husky to T.J. Cope tray connections.
l As an al ternate, additional supports may be provided wi thin two (.2) l feet on bo th sides o f such Burndy-Husky reducer splices.
+ .x : .
Gy copy of this letter, Electrical General Superintende
~
1 P R E V E ti T I V E A C T I 0 ti: I is requested not to substitute fittings shown on eTectrical tray layout drawings wi th Burndy-Husky reducer fittings wi thout prior engi*neering approval. If such reducer fittings are indicated presently on the Gibbs & Hill drawings, tlien it shall be considered as approved by engineeri.ng. .
. .. .. Q IM?LEilENTAi[0N OF CORRECTIVE, ACTION: The proposed cor ..-
q u i t e ex ten s i ve a nd s ho ul d s ta r t a s s oon a s pos s i bl~e u p,..o re n r ce tic /e'i=p.a.c t- oiti-n - t hni su . i. s ' y . letter by electrica'l general superintenedent. schedule the construction.activi ty and respond to you the comoletion date He should, therefore, . ~] for the same. -
,_.:-- . - : .- =:
. . _ _ . . . . . .--W. m E . .E2 .
".m' '
.~..-..-q- _.
.h. c .: z - -: --
Richard II. K i s s;i n o = r' ' .' ^ CG P ro.i e' CWA'iEEW f . . . _ __ , _ . _ _ , - . _ _ . _;,, _ _ , , _ ., 9 \Se 7 .'
,p rym l : r----- - - -
3- .ma-.m
. :;: < : -. ;G'MD . . - -~~ -- .: 3 -
~ =::M::. v.%
cc: L.M. Popplewell . . . . . .- .;il w
. . .m - ...
.. w _. .. ,
_ si ..
.-?...__g ,:2 .-;7-
--C. v <u. p . =.. -. m : - - x v
, , g Applicants' Exhibit 111 CPPA - #15107 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM 7, G. W. Parry cien he. Ten, 1/12/82 Subject COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION TUGC0 QA SSR-160 t The following is the response to the subject site surveillance. Deficiency No. 1 Finding No. lA The establishment of an IRN number tracking system would serve little purpose in insuring that the r.equirements cited in this deficiency would be satisfied. A complete listing of IRN's with all numbers accounted for # ",_ c g g would not eliminate QA's concern that items can be removed and subsequently 'Td C reinstalled without QC ever being notified. In reality, anv inspected item can be removed, mqdified and reinstalled _Milhoutany_typa_of_documenta gwever, if the IRN form is initiated an_d_ processed as required by_pr_o-g_edure, the documentation for the removal of the affected item will be compWte. NOTE: For hangers, the IRN is filed in the Hanger Package. For all other items, the IRN is filed numerically in the PPRV. All IRN's are traceable to the affected item by use of cross references within the ARMS computer system. The serial numbers were assigned to facilitate filing and tracking of open FDR's by FDR serial number rather than by system, component serial number, hanger number etc. The serial numbers were never intended to provide accountability of each form, nor was such accountability felt necessary then or now. The IRN printout refered to in the surveillance report cannot provide any g f[g meaningful informatio3.xeg.arding IRN number accountability because it is
&^!_ jfl _ IRN generated hasTeenon theC'backjend' iss6ed. of the So, naturally IRN there willprocessing cycle,ini.e.
always be gaps the ,com-after the puter record for those IRN numbers that are not yet issted. No Corrective or Preventative Action Required. l Finding No. 18 l t Of the 51 IRN number duplications identified in this deficiency, 21 are suffixed with the letter "A". The remaining 30 IRN numbers that are actually duplicated will be corrected by PPRV personnel when the ARMS computer system problems have been resolved. Comoletion Date 4-1-82
.. g - ,; :
Finding No. 2 Procedures CP-CPM 6.10 and CI-CPM 6.10-1 will be revised to read the " craft foreman or his designee /s". - Comoletion Date 2-5-82 . 3.4. Murray / Construction Manager BJM/RMD/lah cc: ARMS CL M. R. McBay IL R. P. Baker IL R. G. Tolson IL e e O 1
s
*
- Applicants' Exhibit 112 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.Til%NY OTTICE MEMOR ANDUM J. T. Merritt Glen nose Texas March 9, 1982 To Subject SSR-82-001 I
Your response to the subject report has been received'.and reviewed by-this office and found to be acceptable. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
./
/ - s?-n w x G.' Wayne r 'r y Site Su eillance S rvisor GWP/ls cc: B. R. Clements D. N. Chapman A. Vega R. G. Tolson .
D. E. Deviney G. L. Kunkle D. W. Schmidt 4 l l t
( .. CPPA - #16434 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM To G. W. Parry c!,n he, Texa. 3/313 2 subject COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION TUGC0 QA SSR-001 The following is the response to the subject site surveillance [ !2E2
-....u..,,,,
" . n. w y ,,,,
Deficiency No.1 MCP-10, Paragraph 3.8 states in part: Equipment which contains dessicant shall have a sign affixed to the side of the equipment indicating the quantity and location of the dessicant. Additionally, in accordance with Paragraph 4.1 of this procedure, an Equipment Maintenance Record is initiated for "each piece of equipment". Appendix B of MCP-10 is a listing of various maintenance requirements which are to be entered on the EMR as applicable for that particular piece of equip-ment. If the equipment arrives on site containing dessicant or if Engineering determines that dessicant should be placed in the equipment, this is noted on the EMR. The actual amount of dessicant can also be entered on the EMR, however, that amount is marked on the equipment itself in accordance with paragraph 3.8 as mentioned above. Upon installation of the item, QC verification and sign-off of the EMR accounts for the removal of that dessicant. No Corrective or Preventative Measures Required.
-Deficiency No. 2 QC personnel involved in valve fitup inspection have assured this office that the inspection process includes examination of the valve 10 for cleanliness.
This eliminates the possibility of dessicant or other foreign material being left inside valves at fitup. Quality Engineering has revised the applicable inspection document in order to proceduralize an activity that is taking place as a normal part of sound inspection l practice. i the data cards which document the field welds for the subject valves have the cleanliness hold point signed off by QC. The dessicant tags have, therefore, been removed. l l I
,t.. .
~
~
MCP-10 will be revised with a statement instructing the responsible department to remove the dessicant tag imediately after cleanliness inspection. f - Comoletion Date 3/19/82 . B. J. Murray ' () Construction Manager BJM/RMD/1ah ARMS OL cc: J. T. Merritt, IL M. R. McBay, IL R. G. Tolson, IL G. Tanley, IL K. Liford, IL ?-
* * '- , . . _ _ , _ - _ _ _ . _ . . . _ M
' ~
Applicents'
. .- Exhibit 113 TEXAS UTII.ITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMORA ND UM To 3- T- Merritt Cen Rose.Tezu March 1. 198 2 subject Cons truction Surveillance Recort SSR-82-002 f
Your response to the subject report has been received and reviewed by this office and appears adequate. Please consider this report closed. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
/
/
/ /2&A /)dfp"
~
G.' Wayne % fry
- Site Sude111ance Sup isor GWP:je cc: Messrs.: B. R. Clements D. N. Chapman A. Vega R. G. Tolson D. E. Deviney G. L. Kunkle M. D. Bever ARMS l
i l \
. CPPA - #16255 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM 7, G. W. Parry cien rtose. T,xa. 2/24/82 Subject COMAtlCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION TUGC0 QA SSR-82-002 . i The following is the response to the subject site surveillance. Deficiency fio. 2 The sketches cited in this deficiency are not engineering sketches. They were added to the traveler by QC in order to aid in the docu-mentation of cleanl' ness and final visual inspection. ! tb corrective or' preventative measures required from this organ-ization. Further questions concerning this deficiency should be directed to the appropriate QA/QC personnel . fOTE: Traveler misidentified in this deficiency as CE-81-091-0200 is actually CE-80-091-0200. B'. J.1urray
~
U Construction Manager BJM/RMD/lah ARMS OL cc: , J. T. Merritt, IL M. R. McBay, IL R. G. Tolson, 'l L. M. Popplelwell , IL
CPPA-15882 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM G. W. Parry g February 10, 1982 CCNANCHE PEAK STEAM ELEC'IRIC STATION subi et dut duxvt.lua.t., N,FVKf 4 ELECToICAL ECUIPMD7f I?ETALLATION I SSR-82-002
'Ite followina is submitted in response to the subjecr report.
The disposition to Deficiency ?b.1 involves providino information to a concern previously addressed by Cuality Encineering - Electrical and CPPE. The deficiency rotes concern that procedural regairements do not adecuately address CC notification er sufficient instruction for activities which affect the quality of Class 1E EgJipment Installation. Attachments 1 and 2 denote previous conversations recarding the concern expressed in Deficiency 1 and define the comnitments to resolve the concern. Deficiency 2 concerns sketches attached to travelers which are not approved by CPPE or CA/OC as accepted revisions to the travelers. CPPE acknowledces and concurs with the current procedural ;nsture which prohibits traveler revisicn without OA/CC or CPPE review and approval. Our review has revealed however the attached " sketches" are map drawings apoarently used in the inspecticn process and are not attached as actual revisions to the travelers. Please contact Richard Baker if additional informatico can be provided. I '
*-1 l M. R. :tBay "
Engineering Mana MRM:RPS:km cc: ARMS J. T. Merritt (1L,1A) L. M. Popplewell(1L,1A) J. P. Clarke (1L,1A) R. G. Tolson (IL,1A) W. J. Mahan (IL,1A) R. M. Kissincer (1L,1A)
.} ,
\\
., o TI'XAS LtTil.lTIES GliNiiltATING CO.Til'ANY DFFICE ME!!OR ANDUM L. M. Po_pplewell 1*..i n, December 3, 1981 To .. _ (;t n m .v..
' '] .
.y,,,,j,,, . - --.. INSTRUCT 10ft TOR EQUIPME!IT IllSTALLATI0tt . . ...--
Is there a site procedure / instruction on the subject of perr.anent electrical equipment installation, both Class 1E and Seismic Category I, which has provisions for notification of Quality Control inspectors for the purpose of making inspection of installations? If not, by what other means is QC inspection ensured? libubl Ab e x Wesley f. Manan . Quality Engineering / Electrical WJM/jh i
~
cc: B. C. Scott I e l
*9
. - - - - . . - . , . - . _ -e -
4 y4
' ). -
' 'CPP-6359 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM > ro Nes Mahan " '\ Glen Rose Tex.u 1/19/82 h'* Subject Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Instruction for Equipment Installation :
/f//$3!?hten,d 2 ?
In answer to your memo of December 3,1981, one procedure / instruction does not exist which has provisions for notification of Q.C. inspectors for the purpose of making inspections of installations. The inspection of the installation of various commodities is handled by the procedures / instructions for the installation of each corr.odity, i.e. Conduit / hangers, cable, terminations, etc. Based upon.your concern the electrical engineering department will initiate an electrical equipment installation procedure, similar to MCP-1. The procedure is to be completed by 1 April 1982.
//
// j V v' 942 L.M. Popplewell Project Electrical Engineer LMP/bp
, cc: M.R. McBay
'- J. Pat Clarke RECEIVED JAN 2'O 1982 TUSi ELEC.ENG. [
l i
e. TUQ-1131 TENAS UTII.ITIES GENERATING COMPANY O FFICE M E M O R A t!D U M r., G. Wayne Parry cien no e, Texas February la 1982 u;yt Site Surveillance Report SSR-82-002 l The following represents our response to Deficiency No. 3 as requested by the subject report: Requi rement: QI-QP-11.3-31, Revision 3, Section 3.1.1 I, states in'part: Major electrical equipment, as listed on the Completion Electrical Turnover Package, will have a final installation inspection performed after components have been installed and wiring is essentially completed. Finding: Contrary to the above, the required final installation inspections are not being performed. Discussion: , Final installation inspection of najor electrical equipment will be performed either in conjunction with separation inspections as defined in QI-QP-11.3-29 or at the time of area turnover. Procedures for Er.gineering and QA/QC are being developed to address final as-built verification of Electrical component in-stallation. This as-built verification will be performed prior to area turn-over. Major electrical equipment which has not received final inspection will be identified as an exception or deficiency on the applicable turnover package. We hope that the above discussions in lieu of a corrective / preventive action statement, which we feel is not warranted, addresses your concerns regarding this matter. 1 Should you have any questions, please contact B. C. Scott at Ext. 327. t , i 1 L R. Y. Tolson TUGC0 Site QA Supervisor l 8 RGT/BCS/bli i cc: W. Mahan L. Popplewell 1 i
Applicants' TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.'.!PANY Exhibit 114 O F F I C E M E M O R /s N D U M Tv _ J . T . :4rr i.t t ____ c:en now. Tu.u Fqtguary 74 1932 su bj. ct _!Liggiflg _ Site Surveillance Report , SSR-82-003 '; ^ Your response to the subject report has been received and reviewed;by this office and is considered acceptable. Please consider this report ' closed. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. , 4 7 ,j-f ., ~ w _ V. s
^Wajne.arrj U6f._llj)/.<771/7..
s S ite sur,ei' iance Superils'or
/
GW/l s , cc: B. R. Clements ., D. fi. Chapman f
;. Vega R. G. Tolson ,
D. E. Deviney D. W. Schmidt i , , t 0
/
'E
/ s j g.
-~. Jf d
a f d s!
.Y s
{
' /
s 9 I
.,w. _- ._. m _ = ~, - . - - o -
=
CPPA - #16108 r y-r~ 1 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INCT
)
. O F FIC.E M E M O ?. A N D tJTd To G. W. Parry Glen Rose. 'reu, 2/19/82 subj,et COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC: STATION-TijGC0 QA SSR-82-003 !/
/ -
;/ .
/ 1, The following is the response to the subject surveillance. _
ANSI B30.9, Section 1926.251 discusses special custom designed lif ting accassories and wire rope in two separate sub paragraphs. Also, co-h ANSI B30.9 and the Federal Register, Volume 39, Number 122, Part II, OSHA, discuss eye splices in terms of being an integral part of the wire rcpe on whic.1 they are- fabricated.
.Both of these documents contain tables which list the rated load capacities for slings fabricated from various wire rope sizes. One of the factors taken into consideration in these tables is splicing or and attachment efficiencyr--The rated capacities for slings utilizing hand tucked splices, mechanical splices, or swaged or zinc poured splices are listed in separate columns on these tables. -
.c
-. u.n A copy of these tables is carried by all personnel directly involved in rigging activities in order to ensure that spliced wire rope sling load capacities are not violated. __ _
Section 3.4 of CCP-24 requires that craft personnel be "ccmpetent per experience and/or demonstrate ability as determined by the craft sucer-intendent". This incluces personnel involved in the fabrication of wire repe
. slings utilizing tha splicing methods mentioned above.
' Additionally, neither of the above mentioned documents requires that wire
- rope be markec with safe working loads. .
CCP-24 Para. 3.7.3 will be revised to clearly exclude wire rope slings frca the load test requirements imposed on cust:m designed and fabricated handling equipment. Ccmpletion Date - 3/12/82 [
. i hW%
B. J.'Murray ' s i Cons:ruc-ion Manager 84*i/'#D/l ah ARMS OL - - cc: J. T. Merritt, IL R. G. Tol son, IL -
.'4. R. McBay, IL R EC EI,Q~n
. Su:lar".. v. -
.T.22 a
-w z g QUAup,,,ASSU.?A;;q
V Applicants'
Exhibit 115 CPPA - #19689 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.
OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM 3 G. W. Parry ci,n go,,, 7 ,x,, 5/28/82 subject COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION : F TUGC0 QA SSR-82-005
Reference:
Operation Travelers - RI-81-503-0400 RI-81-504-0400 RI-81-505-0400 RI-81-506-0400 The following is in response to the subject site surveillance, finding No. 4 Although the referenced travelers lack construction sign-off after completion of each operation, QC has verified that the individual operations were ccm-pl eted . It is not feasible for construction to sign the travelers at this time, therefore, this correspondence will be entered into the ARMS computer system as a supplemental record to each of the referenced travelers to serve as evidence that this matter has been addressed. Additionally, the craf t personnel involved in this deficiency will be re-familiarized with the procedural requirements of CP-CPM 6.3 in an effort to preclude recurrences of this nature. An attendance roster for this training will be forwarded separately. B. J . n83M urray ' Con uction Man er BJM/RMD/lah ARMS OL cc: J. T. Merritt, IL M. R. McBay, IL i i I ( l I i l l [ _.
.f Page 1 of 2 TUQ-1259 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.TIPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM To Gailard Kunkle cien nose. Texas f4ay 6, 1982 subject Site Surveillance Report - SSR-82-005 The following is in response to Deficiency Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 8: Deficiency No. 1 Contrary to your report, PET-83 did not specify the use of a traveler in i the technical considerations section of the form. Nor would a traveler have been used as travelers are not used to install instrumentation. We dc not feel that it is the intent of the procedure to reference the traveler number in the event that a traveler is used, rather that, if Engineering feels a traveler is necessary, to specify such on the PET. We cannot agree with your conclusion that the procedure does not identify required interface between Quality Engineering and Engineering. In the event that a traveler is used, Quality Engineering reviews all travelers prior to issuance to Construction. The purpose of the PET is to provide a vehicle for identifying that a piece of equipment which was provided for one location is being used in another. Engineering's approval of such is documented on the PET, and the PET form is filed with the vendor documentation package which ties the field location to the vendor records. No corrective or preventative action is required. Deficiency No. 2 It was never the intent of the PET to serve as an NCR. The intent was to serve as a tie to vendor documentation (see response to Deficiency No. 1). The PET form is being abused by Engineering. We suggest that you address your concern to J. T. Merritt, Jr. Deficiency No. 5 Finding No. 1: Per CP-EP-9.1, stainless steel tags may be used for PET identification. Specific means of attaching tags is not specified, however, the tags were attached by stainless steel wire which is both a' common and accepted practice. Finding No. 2: Per CP-EP-9.1, the use of paper tags is not acceptable. However, the item transferred on PET-148 was electrical cable, and the use of a metal tag (which is a conductor) attached to the cable is not an ap-proved means of marking per ES-100, nor is the use of paper tags.
,.. - . .-. ~
Page 2 of 2 QC inspectors have been cautioned that the procedure required the use of a metal tag or other permanent identification. There will be situ-ations, as stated above, where required identification is not practical. We feel that a procedure revision is required and will discuss such 2 with Engineering. Until such revision is made, QC will verify the f procedural requirements are implemented. - Finding No. 3: Per CP-EP-9.1, all transferred items must be permanently marked by acceptable means. PET's 122 and 147, however, involved transfer of items which would not be visible to tag, i.e., gaskets and internal gear operators. As stated above, the required means of identification is not always practical and a program revision is necessary. Until such is made, QC has been cautioned and will verify that procedural requirements are implemented. Deficiency No. 8 Finding No. 1: This deficiency was a result of lack of understanding by the QC inspector of procedural requirements. In actuality, the removal of the check valve, replaced in accordance with PET-110, was verified, not witnessed. We feel that verification of removal of replaced item would be adequate and more practical. Engineering has been contacted and concurs with this position.' All groups involved will revise their procedures accordingly. By June 1, 1982, revision of procedures will be complete and PET-110 will be reverified. Existing forms will be denoted as void and will be attached to the new form. . Finding No. 2: PET-111 will be reverified in accordance with revised procedures (reference Finding 1 above). Existing forms in the vault will be denoted as void and will be attached to the new form. I t n
. htM)
R. G.*Tolson 1 TUGC0 Site QA Supervisor
, A wl pGT/ 4AW/ls c E B. C. Scott i
. TUQ-1211 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY , OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM 3 G. Wayne Parry March 23,1982 i
3,gj,c, We M NMM, Mh 1 - NmW MmM MWm I j The following represents QA's response to the subject Site Surveillance report: FIf0ING N0. 4: CORRECTIVE ACTIOf!: The responsible craft and QC personnel were contacted and verified that the operations on the subject travelers were complete. The travelers have been signed by the proper craftsmen in the designated space's.
; FINDING NO. 5:
CORRECTIVE ACTION:, None required. IRfil-0024 (attached) was written and signed by QC for verification of work performed on PET-20 and Traveler 2223. FINDINGS NO. 9,10 and 11: CORRECTIVE ACTION: TUQ-1206 was written as an attachment to NCR-81-00675, PET-20, Traveler ME-81-536-0401 and PET-106 to provide verification that the operations performed by these documents were properly completed as intended. r FINDING N0.12: 1 , . CORRECTIVE ACTION: ! None required. The Hold Tags attached to the Service Water Pur.1ps were removed upon completion of implementation of Revision 0 of f!CR 81-81-00675. Hold Tags were not required after implementation of this corrective action. (See NCR 81-0067S, Revision 2.) In none of the above Findings was preventative action deemed required.
' rf 4
% 9 I& l R.'G. Tolson Site QA Supervisor eAh '
RGT CS/jh cc: B. R. Clements D. N. Chapman J. C. Kuykendall J. T. Merritt A. Vega
/
, s.
COMANCHE FEAK STEAM ELECTRIC S T A TION j/ /
;-qE- r -
INSPECTlON REPORT I lNo_ L X!- / il c. u r / li PT:CN l'CE W'CArmN so. gststEu / stauCrVat :EscNar cN %g:,4 cESCa,,,, f & ,u ,' .,
, 2{ C? / - Su'f M<J - c' c' ,, S v 2 ~~ - -; d C / a.
.. 2. iC. A EW 9E: CC CCC. S REV a CHAT 4GE NC. (MEA $V9E C3 REST ECUld CENT NO.
C h- C/D 5 9 s 5 9: O
' jN 22 Casa p:E 'NS?aLLATiCN I
[t1STALLailCN C Fmt CESE'EST
'N!P E C TI C tf '/ ER:F!Cari CN INSPECTICN 'NSPECTiCN ,INSP EC TIC N :
!.N S P. RESULTS ECT:CN CCMPLETED , ALL app (; CABLE ITEMS S ATiSF AC TCRY / ,
_ j -f/' [ CC INSPECTOR CATE l
'N SPEC T!CN CCMPLETED, UNSATISTACTCPY ITEVS L:STED SELCW .
'c!
t TEM NO l ! ca l-INSFECTION ATTRIBUTES /
-lw%,.arg
'O m , W 3 $ b.1 Y v % '" '
l th 2() SN /hhc/c/ l ll '
! l ll l l
! /k/,/ &,-r ~~& a we d lM L%slW'O'-
l l l1 i
, 1 6 l lt f f I l l i '
l l I l 1 l ~~ I i i :
- i! l l l ll l l 1ii ! ;
I I i : I I i i l IIi i
! I Ii i :
! i I i :
I i l l l l I Il I l l. . I i I i l i l l ll l REMAA*S (CWG3, SPECS, ETC.) (. () , .:.' FELATEC NCR 710 A7 - ti / - CCCd/j :s 1' R ' C'"'"S"D W 3 3 GN AI'# 5
~
CC :N SPEC T C 9 m.
. Qni-82049- TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMORA NDUM To _ _UJ E. Parry cien Rose. Teus March 11, 1982.
Subject . Permanent Equipment Transfers SSR-82-005 Addendum 2 u ? ! ' Attached please find our response to the subject surveillance' finding. For l _ convenience the finding has been repeated ~followed by our response. S'iould you have further questions, please advise. 4
/)/.'
'/.
! [ X.// // h Ly / J. C. K ykendall.
.JCK/DED/ljd. -
3 Attachment i . cc: B. R. Clements D. N. Chapman i R. A. Jones l' A. Vega
, R. G. Tolson
. G. L. Kunkle R. E. Ccmp H. A. Lancaster ARMS l
I D I
r :x..,..,, t
.#q . e
. : l.,,e""~; / , ..
~'
w SSR-82-005 RESPONSE i Finding No. 6 ? Traveler Z-223 documents the removal and replacement of a pump half coupling on 3/24/81. PET-20 documents that the original coupling from CP1-SWAPSW-02 was transferred to CP2-SWAPSW-02. The disposition of NCR-81-0003, dated 4/30/81, shows that the original , nonconforming coupling from CP2-SWAPSW-02 was, indeed, turned over to TUSI. Traveler Z-223 and PET-20 indicate that a spare coupling was installed on CP1-SWAPSW-02, but no documentation could be found during this surveillance to determine the serial numbers of the original couplings, or the coupling that was installed on CP1-SWAPSW-02 per traveler Z-223. (See Attachment 4) This is in violation of Requirement 8.
Response
Much confusion has risen fr.om the transfer of service water pump couplings. The following is an explanation of the various transfers of pump couplings which should eliminate this confusion: Pump coupling on Pump CP2-SWAPSW-02 was found to be nonconforming during motor and pump coupling alignment. NCR 81-0003 was issued, disposition was to scrap, due to lack of documentation concerning repairs on plugged key way. To expedite testing, a permanent equipment transfer PET-20, was initiated to transfer the pump coupling from pump CP1-SWAPSW-02 to pump CP2-SWAPSW-02. (Inspection Report IRM1-0024) A spare was to be removed from TUGC0 Warehouse to replace the coupling removed from CP1-SWAPSW-02. However, the coupling was found to be nonconforming upon inspection and was never installed. An NCR was initiated. PET-106 was initiated to transfer the coupling from CP2-ShAPSW-02 to CP1-SWAPSW-02. The coupling in question is now back to its original location, cpl-SWAPSW-02, and CP2-SWAPSW-02 is without a pump coupling. Excluding the pump coupling identified on NCR 81-0003, none of the pump couplings have serial or heat numbers for identification. Therefore, identification and traceability of the coupling during transfer was impossible. However, control of couplings was maintained by use of the Permanent Equipment Transfer procedure. Pump CP2-SWAPSW-02 was verified as having no pump coupling, a'nd all pump and motor couplings were back in their original location on 03/02/82. , From the above discussion of events which took place during coupling transfer, it is apparent that no procedures were violated and control of coupling transfers was adequate making corrective and preventative actions unnecessary.
*
- Applicants' 4 . . . .
Exhibit 116 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING CO.TIPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM Glen Rose, Texas 14a r ch 8, 1982 To _ J . T. fie r r i t t Subject . Class IE Conduit Raceway i ' SSR-82-006 . Your response to the subject report has been received and reviewed by this office and found to be acceptable. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
?
/ #kar C . N .~ P a ry?'
'nw Site Surveillance Su visor GWP/ls cc: B. R. Clements
- D. N. Chapman A. Vega R. G. Tolson D. E. Deviney G. L. Kunkle D. W. Schmidt l
l r t 4 l l
. .o
< . CPPA - #16426 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. ,
OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM 3 GT~W'."NrFy'r" "" cien nose. Teus 3/2/82 subject COMAtiCHE PEAK STEAM E'_ECTRIC STATION TUGC0 QA SSR-82-006 .
? .
The following is the response to the subject site surveillance. Deficiency flo. 1 Corrective Action All items cited in this deficiency have been corrected and are now stored in accordance with MCP-10. Preventative Action The personnel responsible for maintaining proper storage conditions have been refamiliarized with the procedure requirements. Verification of this training is attached. Deficiency No. 2 The 4" and 5" elbows cited in this deficiency were inspected by both the Electrical General Superintendent and Electrical Engineering. It was detennined that the threads had only a superficial coating of rust that, after cleaning, would not be. detrimental to the performance of the elbows. Corrective Action The threads are presently being cleaned and coated with galvanox to prevent further rusting. Preventative Action The Procurement Department will communicate with the supplier of these items in order to ensure that in the future these vendor threaded elbows will have the threads galvanized prior to shipment. i Ccmoletion Date 3-30-82 r, f.*. T c t- Lk*m B.'J>. Murray v Construction Manager BJM/RMD/lah ARMS OL, 0A cc: J. T. Merritt, IL,1A M. R. McBay, IL, 1A L. M. Poppl ewell , IL, IA l-
l , , As required by the response to TUGC0 QA SSR-82-006, the following personnel have been refamiltarized with the requirements of MCP-10 0PPf.",3I.f _u. N_.araf J.'; a _ f . Name Badge No. Date . jo S~Y~ S A/ e-., H-- / / fn- 3 . Y - ? t-r 3g7 3, q_ gg
)QA %. ,
Crp;aduludt I3Gs 3-4-n 3, . wse g,co 3 - s -2 2. 3 -r-P2
,.%2c p s e apsyg . Sea 3 + 9z-0 4
. -. Applicanto' Exhibit 118 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445 and COMPANY, et al.
) 50-446
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating Licenses) TESTIMONY OF B. R. CLEMENTS REGARDING REVIEWS OF MANAGEMENT _ CONTROL PROGRAM AND ACTIVITIES OF TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY QUALITY ASSURANCE ORGANIZATION Ql. Please state your name, residence and educational and professional qualifications. A1. My name is B. R. Clements. I reside in Richardson, Texas. A statement of my educational and professional qualification was received into evidence with Applicants' l i, Exhibit No. 8. Tr. page 507. l ! Q2. What is your current position? A2. I am Vice President, Nuclear, for Texas Utilities Generating Company ("TUGCO").
- 03. Wha,t are your responsibilities regarding the Quality Assurance / Quality Control ("QA/QC") program for Comanche Peak?
A3. As Vice President, Nuclear, I am the corporate of ficer l responsible for assuring implementation of a Quality Assurance program for the design, construction and l e
_2-operational phases of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. Quality Control is an element of the Quality - i Assurance program. Q4. What is the purpose of your testimony? A4. The purpose of my testimony is to describe the TUGCO management's initiative to commission a review of the TUGCO QA program by Mr. Frederick B. Lobbin and to describe the response by the TUGCO QA organization to that review.
- 05. Who is Mr. Lobbin?
AS. Mr. Lobbin is an independent engineering and management consultant involved primarily in areas related to design and evaluation of management systems for power plant engineering, construction, testing and operation.
- 06. Why was Mr. Lobbin selected?
A6. Mr. Lobbin was selected upon the recommendation of another utility for which he performed a similar l evaluation. l-
- 07. What was the purpose of Mr. Lobbin's review?
A7. The purpose was to provide me with an independent assessment of the effectiveness and implementation of management controls and activities within the TUGCO QA organization, with primary emphasis on the TUGCO QA Audit I Group, and to identify for me any areas that might I require further management evaluation. i
- 08. What was the scope of his review?
l L
A8. The scope was limited to a review of the effectiveness and knplementation of management controls within the TUGCO QA organization. Mr. Lobbin did not evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of the QA programs for TUGCO's prime contractors, such as Gibbs & Hill, the Architect / Engineer, and Brown & Root, the Constructor.
- 09. What are the management controls which were the subject of Mr. Lobbin's review?
A9. The management controls which were the subject of Mr. Lobbin's review include such area's oh management concern as utilization of resources, timeliness of the resolution l l of deficiencies, establishment of programmatic priorities and staffing levels and qualifications. Q10. Were you required by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, or any other regulation or commitment to perform this review? i A10. No, I was not. I commissioned the report on my own initiative. l Oll. Did you have reason to believe there were any deficiencies in the TUGCO QA organization? All. No, I did not. Q12. Why did you arrange for this review to be done at this particular time? A12. The project is approaching a unique phase where we have construction activities, turnover activities, startup testing activities, and pre-operational testing
activities being performed simultaneously. Even before the review was conducted our QA staff had recognized the need for increased QA audit activity at this phase of the project, as reflected-in increased audit schedule and auditor manpower authorizations finalized prior to the review. I wanted an independent review to confirm our conclusion relative to the need for increased audit activity and auditor manpower resources. .I also wanted Mr. Lobbin to identify any areas in which he felt I should seek further investigation lin view of the combination of activities being conducted at this phase of the project. 013. What information was made available to _ Mr. Lobbin? A13. Mr. Lobbin was given a general description of the priority documents, such as the FSAR, our QA Program, the CPSES QA Plan, and CPSES organization, duties and responsibilities. Mr. Lobbin was given unlimited access to all manuals, files and personnel. Q14. Was the review an audit? l A14. No, it was not. An audit, by definition, is carried out to verify compliance with specified aspects of the QA program. This was a management review to look at management aspects of the QA organization. 015. How did Mr. Lobbin conduct the review? A15. Mr. Lobbin primarily reviewed documents and interveiwed personnel in the TUGCO QA organization. Because of the large number of documents available, it was Mr. Lobbin's
plan to limit the depth of examination in any one area, and to identify in his report any area that appeared to merit further investigation. It would then be up to me to assure the matter was evaluated in depth. Q16. How long did Mr. Lobbin spend conducting the review? A16. Mr. Lobbin spent two weeks on his review, the weeks of December 14-18, 1981, and January 4-8, 1982. 017. Did you review the report prepared by Mr. Lobbin? A17. Yes, I did. Q18. Did you agree with all the. findings ' iitade _in the report? A18. I agreed that all ma'ters t identified by Mr. Lobbin as warranting additional attention should be evaluated. Ol9. What measures did you direct be taken in response to the report? A19. I transmitted the report to the TUGCO QA organization and directed that it be reviewed, and a response prepared within thirty days. Q20. What measures were taken in response to the findings? A20. Each item in the report was evaluated in depth and the results presented in a response document. This response presented the results of the in-depth investigation and the conclusion reached on each item. Where actions to address an item were in progress, the status was described. If additional measures were deemed necessary, a description of the proposed actions, and an implementation schedule was included.
--, . - - - - = , - .
~
Q21. Were you satisfied with the responses of the TUGCO QA organization? A21. Yes, I was. I reviewed the response and in some cases had detailed discussions with QA staff members to satisfy myself that the response was complete. Q22. What remains to be done in response to the Report? A22. I have a standing directive requiring quarterly progress reports until all items are closed. The first of these quarterly reports was submitted on May 24, 1982. Applicants' Exhibit 50. All'actiob 5tems have been completed with two exceptions. We are still increasing our audit staff and are in the process of implementing. our audit schedule. Q23. Do you have any areas of concern as to the adequacy of your QA organization after reviewing the report, the response, and the progress report? A23. No, I do not. However, I will continue to monitor the measures to increase the audit staff and continue to review all audit reports. Q24. What conclusions have you drawn based on the findings of l l the report and the responses to the report? A24. I have a high level of confidence that our QA program is in compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B, and other applicable regulatory requirements and cammitments.
_ . .. . . . . ~ . - . .- . . . ~ . . . _ . . . . . .. . - . 2- , 4 4 1 '1 I believe that - . the program is being implemented so as to
~ ~
assure Comanche Peak will be a safe and reliable source of electricity for our customers. I i 4 s.e m' * * ' O Il . 1 e e i I i i i.-..-...-_,....._. . - . _ _ . --...-..,..-.__--__m.. . - _ _ _ _ _ . . , _ . . _ _ . - . . . . . . _ . - - . _ - - . _ _ - . _ - - , . _ _ -_ - - ,-.
Applicante' Exhibit 119 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In The Matter of )
) Docket Nos. 50-445 and TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) 50-446 COMPANY, et
~~ al. )
) (Application for (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Operating Licenses)
Station, Units 1 and 2) ) TESTIMONY OF FREDERICK B. LOBBIN REGARDING REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT CONTROL PROGRAM AND ACTIVITIES OF TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OA ORGANIZATION
- 01. Please state your name, residence and educational and professional qualifications.
A1. My name is Frederick B. Lobbin. I reside in Columbia, Maryland. A statement of my educational and professional qualifications is attached hereto e as Attachment 1.
- 02. What is your current position?
A2. I am a self-employed engineering and management consultant. 1 Q3. What is the purpose of your testimony? A3. My testimony describes the purpose and substance of a management review which I conducted for Texas Utilities Generating Company (TUGCO). (Applicants' Exhibit 48). l l
Q4. Was this review conducted pursuant to any NRC regulatory requirement? A4. No, it was not. This management review was conducted at the request of and for Mr. B. R. Clements, Vice President, Nuclear for TUGCO. Q5. What was the purpose of the management review? A5. The purpose of the review was to provide Mr. Clements an independent assessment of the organization and activities.of the'TUGCO Quality Assurance (QA) Department and to make recommendations for improvement in the effectiveness of the QA Department.
- 06. What was the scope of the management review?
A6. The scope of the review was limited to the activities of the TUGCO QA Department. No effort l l was made to evaluate directly the effectiveness and 1 ! implementation of the QA programs of TUGCO's prime contractors such as Gibbs & Hill, the Architect / Engineer, or Brown & Root, the Constructor.
- 07. What criteria did you use in your evaluation of the TUGCO QA Department?
A7. First, it should be noted that my evaluation was not an audit of compliance with QA commitments. It was a management review performed specifically to
I I identify areas where the effectiveness of the TUGCO QA Department could be improved. As such, the conclusions in my review were based primarily on my personal judgement and experience.
- 08. Please describe the methodolgy of your review?
A8. The methodology I used can best be described as
" Directed Self Evaluation." When time is limited, as it was in this review, the consultant's primary objective is to identify.those key' areas which have apparent weakness.' Thete areas are brought to management's attention who, in turn, directs the evaluated organization to respond to the findings.
In the process of developing its response this organization is, in effect, forced to evaluate l itself in areas which it might otherwise not have examined. The organization's response is provided to top management who is the final arbiter.
~
- 09. Why did you utilize this approach for your review?
A9. First, because I believe that the evaluated organization should be a participant in the l evaluation process for the results to have any real impact on that organization. Second, by involving the evaluated organization in the evaluation process
the effective man-effort is increased far above what could be provided solely by the management consultant. 010. Specifically, how did you perform your evaluation? A10. The evaluation involved the review of QA department records, including audit reports, procedures and personnel records, an.d interviews with a number of QA department personnel. The time directly involved in these reviews and interviews'was'less than 60 hours. Based on the results of my reviews and discussions I identified specific areas which, in my opinion, could be improved. These findings were presented to Mr. Clements via my report. He, in turn, directed the QA Department to respond to my findings. Their response constituted the self l evaluation process. My findings were the direction. Oll. Were you involved in'the evaluation of the QA Department's response to your findings? All. No, my assignment ended with my report to Mr. l Clements, and properly so. I have, however, read the response (Applicants' Exhibit 49) and the First Quarterly Report to Mr. Clements (Applicants' Exhibit 50). As I mentioned in my answer to Question 8, the Vice President, Nuclear should be
the arbiter for the resolution of differences of opinion between the consultant and the QA department. I believe that to involve either party in more than one round of findings and responses is not productive and tends to result in a loss of benefits realized as part of the directed self evaluation process. 012. Were any significant problems identified during your
-~ ~
review? A12. No. As I stated on page 2 of my Report, nothing identified in the review is representative of a significant breakdown in any portion of the quality assurance program for design and construction of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. Ol3. Does your report identify any instance where the Applicants' program failed to comply with any regulatory requirement or commitment? A13. No, it does not. 014. What is the significance of the findings identified in your report? A14. The findings in the report represent my personal opinion on what improvements can be made to enhance the TUGCO QA function. Some of my opinions are based on a comparison of activity at another nuclear project; others are based on direct observations;
6-still others are mere statements of my concurrence with actions already planned by the Applicants prior to the review. Q15._ Your report states that the level of experience within the TUGCO QA organization, in particular commercial nuclear plant design and construction QA experience, is low. Did the Applicants concur with your observation? A15. The Applicants acknowledged this in-their response to my Report, but indicated that they supplemented their staff with consultant expertise as is commonly done throughout the nuclear industry. My statements should not, therefore, be taken as criticism of the overall level of QA staffing and experience for the Comanche Peak project since my evaluation did not include organizations, such as Gibbs & Hill, Brown & Root and other contractors whose personnel also perform QA functions-for design and construction activities. 016. Did you at any time, verbally or in your report or otherwise, state that the QA staff at Comanche Peak is too small and too inexperienced to monitor properly potential safety problems in design and construction? A16. No , I did not. l i
017. Your report states that the number of audits should be increased, especially of site engineering and construction activities. Would you please elaborate on this? A17. Yes. My statement is based on a comparison of audits performed at another nuclear project with which I have had some association. As stated in my Report, there may be a number of reasons for a difference in the number of. audits " performed for one project versus another. My primary objective in drawing this comparison was to ensure that the TUGCO QA Department undertake a self evaluation of its audit program in its response to my findings. In its response and subsequent quarterly report the QA Department performed this directed self evaluation for Mr. Clements. Q18. Your report includes observations and recommenda-tions in the area of survoillance. Is this activity l required by Appendix B? A18. Appendix B is quite specific regarding the need for both an inspection and an audit program. TUGCO has established such programs. Appendix B does not, however, include specific requirements for
surveillance. In fact, there is not even a uniform definition of the term surveillance throughout the nuclear industry. The surveillance function, in my experience, combines aspects of both inspection and audit and is used more as a management tool to identify potential problem areas. As such, the surveillance function' can provide an extra level of assurance beyond that required by regulation alone. SincE TUGCO had taken the initiative to establish a surveillance program I did devote some attention to the program to determine how it was organized and implemented. As a result, I identified certain aspects of the program which in my opinion could be improved. I included these as findings in order to direct the self evaluation of the program by TUGCO QA. Ol9. Do you or did you at any time, verbally or in your
~
report or otherwise,' express a concern for product adequacy or the adequacy of any work done at Comanche peak Steam Electric Station? A19. No. Q20. Do you or did you at any time, verbally or in your report or otherwise, recommend that Applicants go back and reverify the adequacy of any product or any work done prior to your evaluation? L
e A20. No. 021. What is your overall assessment of the TUGCO Quality Assurance Department for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station? A21. Based on my brief review, I found that overall the quality'of the organization and activities of the TUGCO QA Department was good. i
. e s.
J 6 I e e
ci g
;q - .
- f / v
~
Applicanto' -> 2'
/ . .
Exhi'it d 117 ; y' l> %
#' ATTACHMENT 1 } [
Page 1 of 2 N' j ,f ,
/
FREDERICK P.. LOBBIN/bE'.I -
~
Consulting Engineer '/r
/
/
t
, i Education s f 3, 1964 - New York Stake Maritine Coll'ead ' Bachelor of Science, t.ucle'arS. cier.lce ,?
il ,/
~_
- e r
^
1969 -TheCatholic.Univers,it.[ofAMerica-Masterdf - Science, Nuclear Engineeringy , .0 4 s s -
- hl 'y ~
Professional Experience 's .'/ 1981-Date - Private engine'ering and management Con's'ultant to electric utility industry. Involvedjprimarily in areas related to the design and evaluat. ion of , managment systems for power plant enginopring, , con s truction', testing and operations . r" 1977-1981 - Associate - Gasser Associates , Inc. Provided ~5 --~ , technical consulting services to the firm's nuclear / ai utility clients and was responsible for[ new business ~ development and strategic planning. The firm's clients were primarily utilities (.with; nuclear plants , , nearing or in commercial operation., _ r
,, '.~ J 1972-1977 - Director of Engineering - Gcneral Physics' - '
s Corporation. Responsible for'a significant' portion i of the firm's early growth in nuclear power consul-l ting, in particular, in areas:related/to nuclear
- plant operations quality assurance and management ,
systems design, engineering support' for plant design modifications, and inservice inspection. , 1971-1972 - Staff Engineer ' Southern Nuclear Engineering, .In c . l Assignments included preparation and review of l l licensing documents for the firm's nuclear utility - clients, including preliminary and final safety I analyses and environmental reports, and preparation' l of both preoperational and startup test procedures - for a large PWR nuclear plant. 1967-1971 - Senior Engineer - Hittman Nuclear & Development l ! Corporation. Project engineer for a number of engineering projects related to power sys tems design and safety analysis. Technical expertise was in steady state and transient thermal-hydraulic analysis of power plant systems.
. s -
- G ,
/'
Attachment 1 4 . Page 2 of 2 4: ., , s s , 1964-1967 - Graduate Assistant - The Catholic University of
. America. Assisted with Nuclear Engineering Department lab projects involving use of the
, -7 AGN-201 research reactor and other lab equipment,
!.[f including a small analog reactor simulator, a heat
,.[/
- transfer loop, and various radiation measurement
! equipment. Obtained an AEC Reactor Operator s- - </ License for the AGN-201.
r' * ;
,.,. ' IProfessional Affiliations
, .*7 3 I American Society of Mechanical Engineers t American Society for Quality Control
/ American Nuclear Society . -
t % / O
+d
, ),
l 4
/
~
- -, Applicanto'
. Exhibit 122 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445 and COMPANY, - _al. et ) 50-446 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating Licenses) TESTIMONY OF RONALD G. TOLSON REGARDING QUALITY ASSURANCE / QUALITY CONTROL AT COMANCHE PEAK Ol. Please state your name and job description. A1. My name is Ronald G. Tolson. I am employed by Texas Utilities Generating Company as Site Quality Assur-ance Supervisor. My professional qualifications were received into evidence as Applicants' Exhibit 20.
- 02. What is the subject of your testimony?
A2. My testimony will address the Quality Assurance / Qual-icy Control Program at Comanche Peak. It will spec-ifically focus on moment limiting restraints, pipe whip restraints and shims in the polar crane girder support bracket assemblies. Q3. With respect to moment limiting restraints, did the QA/QC Program for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Sta-tion (CPSES) find any non-conforming conditions?
A3. Yes. An apparent violation of NDE procedures was identified during a routine aud10/ source inspection by Brown & Root QA at the facility of Chicago Bridge
& Iron Company (CB & I) in Salt Lake City, Utah in July, 1980. The Brown & Root Audit Deficiency Report is attached hereto as Attachment A.
- 04. Specifically, what apparent violations did the Brown
& Root audit /sourch inspection find?
A4. As stated in Attachment A, the auditor considered the surface condition of some welds to be unacceptable for proper interpretation of NDE processes such as magnetic particle examination.
- 05. Did the NRC thereafter investigate this matter?
AS. Yes. The NRC investigated the matter and documented the results of its investigation in NRC I&E Report 80-20 (Applicants' Exhibit 44A).
- 06. What were the results of that NRC investigation?
A6. The NRC found that the apparent violation of NDE procedures was an infraction, and issued a Notice of Violation to that effect. As set forth in greater detail in the September 24, 1980 letter from the NRC to the Applicants (Attachment B, hereto), four of the moment limiting restraints inspected revealed surface conditions considered by the NRC to render the NDE results to be unacceptable.
- 07. What corrective action did the Applicants take with regard to the mcment limiting restraints?
A7. As documented in Applicants' October 20, 1980 letter to the NRC (Actachment C, hereto), all moment limit-ing restraints received at the site on the relevant purchase order through the date of I&E Report 80-20 were identified by Applicants as potentially non-conforming. All of these restraints were reinspected for conformance with specified requirements, and re-work of relevant welding indications was effected to achieve full compliance with these requirements. In addition, CPSES QA personnel were assigned to Salt Lake City to perform in-process and release inspec-tions of shipments from CB & I.
- 08. What is the present status of this matter?
A8. All reinspection and rework has been accomplished, and the matter is closed.
- 09. With respect to pipe whip restraints, did the QA/QC Program for CPSES find any apparent non-conforming conditions?
A9. Yes. In March 1982, a shipment of Unl 2 pipe wnip restraints was received at CPSES and released to construction for installation. Following sandblast-ing and application of a light protective coating, construction personnel expressed concern to a CPSES QC Inspector that certain welds on the restraints may
not conform fully to the accept / reject criteria (AWS Dl.1) at the site. The Inspector reinspected four of the restraint assemblies to these criteria, marked areas on the assemblies that he considered to be rejectable indications, and documented the inspection results on NCR No. M-82-0296, Rev. 0 (Attachment D, hereto). Q10. What happened following issuance of the NCR? A10. The fabricator, CB & I, advised the Applicants that the design drawing permitted the fabrication of pipe whip restraint assemblies either to Subsection NF of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division 1 or to the requirements of AWS Dl.1, l which was utilized by the CPSES QC Inspector. The i ! fabricator advised that it had elected to use Subsec-tion NF of the ASME Code. Reinspection of the assem-blies in accordance with Subsection NF was accom-plished by the CPSES Lead QC Inspector of the respon-sible QC group, and the initial NCR was revised and reissued as NCR No. M-32-0296, Rev. 1 (Attachment E, hereto). These restraints were reworked, as neces-sary, and installed in the plant. Several types of indications involved are illustrated in the seven photographs attached to this testimony as Attachments F through L. l l ' i l
-5 -
Oll. What other corrective action was taken as a result of this matter? All. Following consultation with the TUGCO Manager of Quality Assurance, I directed a complete reinspection of 52 other restraint assemblies that had been re-ceived prior to or subsequent to the four restraints documented in Attachment D. These inspections re-vealed welding indications similar to the initial inspections but to a lesser degree. Other corrective actions are described in the testimony of David N. Chapman and Albert H. Boren. Restraints received after implementation of such corrective action were determined to be free of relevant indications and the reinspection efforts at the site were therefore con-cluded. All of these inspections have been documen-ted in accordance with the CPSES QA Program, and have been or will be resolved in accordance with approved procedures.
- Q12. Are you aware of a construction inconsistency asso-ciated with some shims specified for the polar crane girder support bracket assemblies?
, A12. Yes I am. l Q13. How did you first become aware of this matter? l l l I
l . A13. On June 30, 1982, Mr. R. G. Taylor, NRC Senior Resi-fent Inspector, indicated to me that he was investi-gating the matter and would be preparing a report on his findings. 014. Had the shims been inspected by CPSES QC personnel at the time you became aware of the matter? A14. No, they had not. Q15. Could the shims as installed have gone undetected or uninspected? A15. No, they could not have. 016. Why not? A A16. The CPSES QA Prc.7 ram includes measures to assure that matters of this type are verified to be in compliance with specified requirements. For this particular matter three measures exist which would have preclu-ded it from going undetected or uninspected. First, the Master System Punchlist, a computerized listing of construction activities that remain to be completed, has been prepared. This list currently shows that final shimming of the Unit 1 polar crane is incomplete. These construction activities are scheduled for completion on August 1, 1982. When these activities are completed, the list will so indicate and my QA/QC organization will then be required to inspect the work.
Secondly, referring to Attachment A (Drawing No. 2323-S1-0515) of the Testimony of J. T. Merritt, Jr., the drawing is classified as Class I which means that the activity is safety-related. Also, Attachment B (DCA 9872) of Mr. Merritt's testimony is annotated as affecting a Safety Related Document. The CPSES QA Program requires an independent inspection of . safety-related activities (see FSAR $17.0, Appendix 17A (Applicants' Exhibit 3)), and the construction personnel are required to request this inspection when installation activities are complete.
- Thirdly, in August 1981, we established a backup measure to assure further that details of this type were independently verified to be in compliance with specified design requirements. The salient features of this measure are outlined in TUGCO Procedure, CP-OP-15.4 " Design Change Verification," the current revision of which is included as Attachment M hereto.
This procedure would have indicated that the install-
- ation of the shims had not been inspected, and appro-priate measures would have been taken by my QA/QC organization to do so.
017. Please explain how the inspection process would work in this matter. l t
A17. Regardless of how the need for inspection was identi-fled, CPSES Quality Engineering personnel would pre-pare a detailed checklist (Inspection Report) which will be completed during the inspection. This would include, as a minimum, verification of compliance with the shim details, i.e., DCA 9872. If the in-spector could not verify the adequacy of the instal-lation (for example, because he could not visually inspect the bottom of the shim), it would be classi-fied as indeterminate and a Nonconformance Report would be issued and dispositioned in accordance with established procedures. Similarly, an NCR would be prepared for conditions found not to conform to re-quirements. To date, we have looked at approximately 35 locations. We found six assemblies which did not contain complete shim plates. This is obviously a nonconforming condition. A NCR has been issued for l these assemblies, and further inspections will be l undertaken. j Q18. What does the matter involving shims reflect with l regard to the adequacy of the CPSES QA/QC Program? A18. The matter of the shims does not reflect adversely on l the CPSES QA/QC Program. The fact that this matter was not identified by the Applicants and reported to the NRC as a potentially reportable matter under 10 i C.F.R. 50.55(e) is a function merely of timing, not
of any inadequacy of the QA/QC Program. As my tt,sti-many above reflects, the Program has reliable, redun-dant measures that would have found the inconsisten-cies, probably in August or September of 1982, and would have led to correction of the matter by the construction and engineering organizations. O i l
V -
.E'. .
Applicants'
' * . Exhibit 122A Chic:g3 Bridga & Ir n C:mp:ny 550 w st 1/tn soutn p o box 6S7 Salt Lake City. Utan 84110
, twx 910 925 5618 teieonone 801. 973 2500 August 11, 1980 Brown and Root, Inc.
P.O. Box 1001 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Attention: Mr. D.D. Beddingfield Re; B&R Audit C310-10 Subcontract #35-1195-0585 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station CBI Contract 91918
Dear Mr. Beddingfield:
Attached is Audit Deficiency Report ADR-C310-10.1 with items 17 through 22 completed. The concerns of Audit C310-10 are responded to as follows:
- 5. Our Q.A. Manual does not specifically require documentation f
I of the ANI witness of the"N" stamping. However, the ANI signature on the Shop Release for Shipment Check List as the final piece of documentation does signify compliance I l with the Code which includes "N" stamping.
- 6. The audit report from the ANI Supervisor for the audit l
performed is February 1980 has been misplaced. We are attempting to get a new copy. The second audit of 1980 was performed on July 17, 1980, and an audit report was received on July 28, 1980.
- 26. Assemblies such as 34-A-1 are normally positioned in the shop to allow as much welding as possible to be performed in the flat position. The Production Foreman assigns welders who are qualified to perform the work. This is assured by the Welding and Q.A. Supervisor.
l Traceability of each welder to each specific weld is not required per NF4322. l
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company August 11, 1980 Page 2 B&R Audit C310-10
- 33. A review of ANSI-45.2.9-1979 shows nothing that would restrict using lead pencil to prepare documents. The only requirement seems to be that documents be legible, accurate, and completed as appropriate to the work accomplished.
We hope you will find these responses addquate. If there are any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, M DARWIN C. TRISTOFFERSON Superintendent Welding and Q.A. CBI Salt Lake DCC:aj cc: JWL WGR/91918 DCC MEJ
i
... E ~ QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT AUDIT DEFICIENCY REPORT PROJECT: CPSES 35-1195 JOB NO.: UNIT: 1&2 PAGE: 1 OF 2 (el avoi?Eo omaamsz Avson gal Avoif No. talaca ao talADaCooE C.B.&I. C310-10 C310-10.1 10 (SIOescusSEO wtTMs (6) REPORTED ev e g(flDATE: (SiCATECoMva Mr. Mack Johnston John T. B. Maxwell ' 7 / 2Y80 Gi'i Oisi Olai 19 3 Do CU ME NT WBo LA T ED A MO P A R AG R A PM (CIT Els
., 1. G&H Specification 2323-CSDS-4, Para.10.0 & 11.0.
- 2. ASME Section III, Division 1, Subsection NF, Para. NF 4424, 5340.
- 3. C.B.&I. Procedures VT-5 and MT-3, Para. 5.0.
Ti. E. 7 vrf..";r :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 Source release inspection of completed assemblies Nos. 32-A-1, 34.-A-1, 35-A-1 and a 36-A-3 revealed unacceptable weld conditions such as coarse grooves, overlaps, val-
@ leys, weld spatter and slag. These weld surface conditions render indeterminate the 9 acceptability of other NDE processes such as magnetic particle examination.
C NOTE: A sample of the above conditions was verified by Polaroid photographs. (l l) pot E N TI A L R E PO RT A A LE o E r4CIE MC V O vEs G ao {12) R E CO M M E N D A T RONS:
- 1. Reinspect completed moment restraints to assure inspection reouirements to the Code, contractual and procedural requirements; repair as required; reinspect repaired areas to the requirements of ASME Sect. III Subsection NF as delineated in applica-ble paragraphs of Article NF-5000, f
18 38 m EspoNSE ASSIG NED TO: 'it el R ES M5E Out vED ev si D A V E : (33l) ppm Darvin Christofferson l 8 / ?y 80 .#. /A2 %t.i,a//V. > hg Isrd To be comiilegudited organization ' ~ ~ (17l Co m m ECTiv t ACTIO N m E SPO NS E : (INCLUDE SCHEDU LED COMPLETiOM D ATE] We do not consider the grooves, overlaps.and valleys on these assemblies as being severe enough to interfere with the proper interpretation of the NDE. Assembly 35-A-1 had six pieces of weld spatter on the base metal along side 3" of weld length. These had been g::ound partly away and would not have (see attached sheet) gass f' i/fc P= Ev E =T a riv E ACTeon: t enCLuoE sCHEoutEo Cou PLET OM o ATE) // See attached sheet i 1 Su su tTT ED e v nL W I' (22) fr D A T E :/n / ko To be completed by B&R Quality Assurance ' ' inst =EveEw oP a E sPo n s E ; 124 nEveEwto ev: j gass D ATE D satisfactory O unsatisfactorv : / / taal aEsutTs or vEmer CATson: 127) vEmer:Eo ev j tzel D ATE: D satisfactory unsatisfactory . c
/ /
last mEM Amnsi (206 CLosto ev : (3:3OATE o A +60 3 + 2
/
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company 550 west 17tn soutn DODOX637 Salt Lake City Utan 84110 twx 910 925 5615 teleonone 901 973 2500 August 18, 1980 Brown and Boot,Inc. P.O. Box 1001 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Attention: Mr. D.D.Beddingfield Re: B&R Audit C310-10 Subcontract #35-1195-0585 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station CBI Contract 91918
Dear Mr. Beddingfield,
1 In our transmittal of Audit Deficiency Report ADR-C310-10.1 on August 11,1980, part of our response in item 17 was inadvertently omitted. Attached is a copy of the ADR l form with the missing part of our response typed in. We hope this has not caused you a great deal of inconvenience. Sincerely, MJ CK
/
x JOHNSTON (ff D.C.Christofferson) S perintendent Welding and O.A. l CBI Salt Lake MEJ:aj attachment cc: JWL WGR/91918 DCC MEJ
~ ,* '. Attachm:n to ADR C310-10.1
- 17. Affected interpretation of the NDE. These pieces of weld spatter will be removed.
Assec61y 34-A-1 did have 4 or 5 of very thin pieces of weld slag approximately 1/8 to 1/4 inch diameter spaced along 4 inches of weld attaching piece mark 34-4 to 32-2. Although is is doubtful that this thin slag would have masked a relevant defect during NDE, we have redone the magnetic particle and visual examinations after removing the slag.
- 20. A training meeting was held with the NDE personnel to review the surface conditions necessary for proper performance and interpretation of examinations.
o k f<h g / (t < F fg pfj)e o t l I I l l l l i l
. . . 35-1195 8-18-80 Brown & Root,Inc. Post office sox 1001, cien Rose, Texas 7eo4a
, :: +%
% Q_ ffs August 18, 1980 BRV- 11898 Chicago Bridge & Iron 550 West 1700 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 ATTN: Mr. Darwin Christofferson Texas Utilities Services, Inc.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 1982-84 2300 MW Installation B&R Audit C310-10 Subcontract 35-1195-0585
Dear Mr. Christofferson:
We have reviewed your response dated August 11, 1980 to B&R Audit C310-10 and have the following coments. Your response to ADR C310-10.1 only addressed assembly No. 34-A-1 and only the slag and weld spatter, wherein the ADR referenced three additional assemblies and conditions such as coarse grooves, overlaps, and valleys. Please assure that your shop inspectors re-inspect all moment re-straints ready for shipment for ccmoliance with all requirements prior to release inspection by B&R which will be performed in the near future. With regard to the concerns of Audit 310-10, we will consider all items closed. I will contact you very soon to set up a release inspection sched-ule of those moment restraints you have indicated are ready for ship-ment. Sincerely, BROWN & R00 NC. M
//.v. Hawkins Site Quality Assurance Manager
/pb .
cc: L. A. Ashley R. Bass K. M. Broom T. Vega D. Frankum File
!~~'. ____________________________________
~ldb20
^is ~ '
A . w . ~ mW . P.O. BOX 1001 GLEN ROSE, TEXAS 76043
;; - .. 's ,
,. Uklh
. ... , m _.~ -- .-m _ . , . - - ,. N d____...k_ b $3 N, )$!k h b k_N2hf.,[k5_b;[ i Tbf l o^Te ## #
- J. V l-lp u) KINS - , , ,
be Y Nh//8% van 3./ Rs IX2 M M - w j uMA. uhu w e e=mw o e O /
~756 /r m9 cat =.3 Lonar-ses ~rc> ne e'~ __ .,a h WY W W ---
f~t20m 6 E ,d . Ly " /his ham = . 624 - Am Psawaw.:. r /+13 o s '7o You E~0/2- ' Q's //- 'b 6 f.'. i75 MWon' , ,
/
/
y nA/J _ yM/4 Y
/
g" ~ W i i BY
/ b 3N m SIGNED
.............. .... . ... ... .... ..-.. . ....... .. . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . .
1
g { {ATTACHMENTB UNITii.D sTAYES Applicants' o Exhibit 122B [sa anc ,% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION IV
.ll' h **' I" ,7, c 611 RY AN Pt.AZA DRIVE.SUITC 1000 * %- f /* / 1 j & art.lNGTON, TEXAS 76012 g a -
g*m*** f September 24, 1980 In Reply Refer To: - RIV f Docket No. 50-445/80-20 , 50-446/80-20 RECEIVED Texas Utilities Generating Company 3Ep hg gp j ATTN: Mr. R. J. Gary, Executive Vice l President and Genera.1 Manager TUGC0 QA 2001 Bryan Tower DAl.t.AS Dallas, Texas 75201 , j.. Gantlemen: This refers to the inspection activities performed by our Re:;ident Inspector, i Mr. R. G. Taylor, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permits No. CPPR-126 and 127 for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, and to the discussion of the findings by the inspector with members of your staff on September 19, 1980. During the inspection, it was found that certain activities under your license appear .to be in noncompliance with Part 50, Title 10, of the Code of Federal Regul,ations. The item of noncompliance and references to the pertinent require-ments are identified in the enclosed Notice of Violation. Details of this item will be included in an inspection report to be issued in the near future and identified as Inspection Report No. 50-445/80-20; 50-446/80-20. This notice is sent to you pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.201 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 20, Code of Federal Regulations. Section 2.201 requires you to submit to this office, within 30 days of your
- receipt of this notice, a written statement or explanation in reply including
- ,
j}}