Text

Audit Trend Analysis. Related Info Encl
	ML20080E698
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle, 05000000
Issue date:	08/18/1980
From:	; COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20080E624	List: ML20080E640; ML20080E675; ML20080E691; ML20080E698;
References
	FOIA-83-378 80-402, NUDOCS 8402100042
	Download: ML20080E698 (153)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:I,_. ____V-_ Surveillance Date_ _ - _ - - - - - - - - T Aucust 18. 1.930 File No J-2590.22 / LASAI.LE Q.A. SURVEII.I.AkCC RElORT l'O. P.0 -402 Contractor / Organization Observed:, The Zach Co.npany Category: (9) .. ~.-- Audit Trentl Analysis ,SUcDfARY: .On May 19 1930, a trend analysis uns , Assurance,on Cc:rnonwealth Edison audit (mrfor rad by site Quali"./ the period of January 12, 19*!9 and May s of Z.:ch Company betueen 17, 1930 (Scu Surveillance Report #80-231 Memo To File). During this tiac framo:a total of 12 audits resulted in 32 findinas sutd 13 observations. As. a result of that review, the.following areas were identified as possible,trands. 1) Zack's failuro to adequately docunient and/or perform' QC inspections. 2) Zack's failure to adequately document and control nonconformances.and design changes. 3) Zack's failure to adequatrly address 5.nd perform all required audit's/ subcontractor'surveillances. 4) Zack's failure to adequately qualify and certify both auditors or inspection personnel. At that time, Zack Company (had just hired a new Q A.- Man.c.ger, a new sire Q.C. Manager and four 4) new inspectors for LaSalle, who wera in the process of revising an c:: tensive number of work procedures. It was honed that these procedural revisions would eliminate misunders'tandings and help clarify to'what extent required inspections ' were'to be performed. Since that time, Zach has had.ap.. proximately two months to -implement these procedures, as well as 15, 1980, Cons.onu,en1th Edison, train the nowinspectors. On August finished two' extensive audits covering Zack's Design Control and QC Inspections. The results of these audits were less than satisfactory and resulted in a. "stop work" ordei-being issued by Station Construction on-August 6, 1980 Discussion: In order to group the deficiencies so a meaningful ^ review could be made, nine categories were established which had the follouing number of deficiencies in each: 7 \\ a S e e 8402100042 831128 ,39 PDR FOIA PERRYB3-378 PDR G*?"'*~~_~[ _ _ ~f '--_ WQ; ~~ *'" " '%'_* '2_'* 7 ~~ " _ ' Y

'~~" '**~:' * *"O " '~
~

NO. AREA OF Com:E!!N FI!!DT!:ri.9 OU.">lDtVATIOMS 1 Desi;,n Ctmtrol 5 2. Procuremmit/ccceivinc 3 1 3 Do.cuc.ent Control 4 2 4 Welding 4 2 5. .. Inspections ./. ; 8. { 6..... Honconformanecu 6 2 7. Audit:: 6 0 -1 -8 Tcrsonnel Qualifications -5 1 9. Calibration

1 1

Total: ~7Il~~ "'I'l~ _3 Ucicw is a detailed list of daficiencies found during both the a orir,inal trend analysis and the subsequent two special audits performed on 7ach Company. .Au.dit tiumher. Re.s__u_lt.s_ 4 1 80-49 (1) Findine #1:. (Design) Zack Company failed to received prlor approval for desi$n alterations. Report Date: 8/15/30 (1) Findi.n..~a # Zack Ccan.any. failed to document reva.cw or2:ll drawing changes as required. a ~ (3) Findiur: #3: Zack Comoan.v, failed to maintain x an auequate dec.tment control system for drauing: and procedures. m 1 43 - - (8) Findinn 51: ' Zach auditor and Q.C. Insoector (QC Inspections) qua).2.ricacions ucre found deficient....' ~ Report.Date: 8/.15/80. c.,..- i-(6) F,indinn 52': A) Ncnconforming-items were found not beine adequately segregated.to ~ ' ' prevent use. E7 Nonconforming items were not being identified on Zack!s final Inspection Reports. -C).Zack's Monconformance system failed to adequately contrcl the number of . nonconformances uritten and dispositioned. (9) Finding _53: Zach failed to maintain suitable tool histro calibration cards. (5) E_indine; ah:y~ Final Inspections.being performed by Zach Q.C. v.cre being inad'equately completed for the follouing: /- A llangers B Duct"

C Equipment Installations D

Storage (2) ~Finding $5: A) 26ch failed to sufficientl{ nocui3cnv. encir wold rod receiving.- B) ' Z ?.c m failed to follo.: their dail requirements for uc.1d rod. y i::suance C) Zack failed to adequately control welding materials in the field. N . ev* w :s,- _- 2=*P'au L Am*M* *?"*.= ' Y " "' * - ~ * *

V. ' : '""

55# -- .~....m:~..*. s. e..;- .p...

4 w y q) -~u-l 4 ? ,3 s - Audit Number .Re: nits ~ ~ % 1-SO-48 '(4) Findin~ 66: A) Zach failed to document ucider (con'd)- IiEiiEi"FiciInloa. b) xach failed to! suf ficiently_ I review wclder qualificationn. (5) Obnarvai. ion 01: xach failed to make provisions / 'for suoconcructor'n work to bq " final" incpected (3) Ob s erva ti._o._n,..3._2_: %cch failed to adequately nainta ~ an luupectron status pro;; ram. - (G) Observation #3: Zach failed to regularly review of the QA pro?, ram. tncstatusanuadequacy(3}CEcosurveillances (5). Obnnrvation M4: Three rewnn opeu pending Zach a corrective action. d'1-SO-19 (5) Findine 01: The Zach Company has not adequately Tiup.Lemquced the provisions necessary for assurin ? Report Date: - --.. ~ leanlindsc'of inutdlled duct work.... l 4-10 -80 (6) Findinc #2: Zach failed to implement a system c ,f / ^ to remove all hold tags from equipment prior to ~ / installation. (5) Findinz #3: Zach has failed to imn.icment proc.ed ~ necessary to assure acceptable inctallation or Zack and CECO furnished )6cedure for receiving quipment. (2) Findinz #4: The' site pr h ek IIirnished material is inadequate. 4 1-8 0 - - - - - (7 ) Findine 01: Zachs-CorPorata Management failed Corp.iOco ce reva.cw tuo Q. A. program at least annually. ul Rep. ort Date: (8) Findin.t 6,2..:. Zack failed to meet in=pec certiricaczon,evels necessary to perr. tor ,t 4-7-30 orm inspects.cn. (8) Findinz 93: Zack. lacked cvidence thct the audit: qualif~iliE? ion program had been impicmented. (7). Findinr: #4: Zach has fniled to implement a system or p.Lanncd nnd periodic audits. ~(3) Findine #5_:~ Zack did not submit their revised organa.zational chart to CECO Corporate Q.A. for review.. (7) Findine #6_: Zach Audits contained insufficient ~ ovidencWto support' determinations made on the audited items. 43) Findinn #1: -Zack fai. led to maintain the. latest V'f. 1-80-67 i Report Date: EG10inE Procedure in the field. 2-13-80 (1) Findint; v2,: During the installation of seismic. liangers, tack failed to follow approved }7 instructions, procedur'es,.or drmiings. ~ e 9 .I e g l g-w Y ^d a ^ ~,

4 t-Audit Ntt:iber Ih r:ultn 1-80-1D (3) Fi line ?1:. %::ch QP.P lacked tim detailed Report Date: mncuou;2.ror mc'etior; the requir::m;.ntu oP AMSI 2-o-80 N45. 2.G. - I (0) .Ohn..t.n:.ve.,.t.;.rn....#1.: Zai.h han fa curce.i:?. cat?.on nor a Icycl I;..iled to.. meet . :.cce,rn::.ng to ANSI Guidelines. 1-79*97 '(5) Findina #1:' %$ch hne5 failed to establich n Report Date: cumpleisTTomprehensive final f.nnpr.ction 12-12-79 procedure. .k (5) Ob.,m vn:: inn #1: ccup.t.ute in;cm.ine.t.ach incp :ctionc. ucre not ue.Inupcetx.on :orms fn2..t.c to inclhac provisienn to identify uliich ~./ procedures u2rc uned to nccomplikh the vorh. ;- 1-79 Ho Findinga/lio Observat ions a "'4 1 79-70 (0) F.indiu : #1: Z Report Date: scanicus on t.ach has failed to perform training nc Q.A Ibnual and has not 20/o,/79 documented results of c::aminationc. -(5) Observation.. 01: '%nck var unab uocumentation of evaluation orle to provide r he a.. sting ant rigging equzp: cent. 4; 1-7 9 - -- '- -(2) Findiun 01: Zach has failed to properly Retort Data: 10'15-79 uccument Etcir roccipt inspection of equipment reccdv'od from CF.Co. Fi (5) --.n dinr:n 02..: Zach ucra.clencies and t.has failed to. document area inspcetions.ncir resoluta.ons 2:or storage (a,,) _Obsnrvation 01: ~ Th. e 7.ach Ccmpany............ - ~ d accument enac cpec: al storage requa.oes tot .rements are.being complied with. (5) Observation #2:.Zach has failed to establish and handling equipnent. acceptance cra.tcrAs for inspe 4 1 - 7 9 - 5 0 ---

(3)

Findinn._.01_: not contro Proceduren. used in..te.sti.na Recort Date: = were t.c anc centcince 8/6/79 Design drawings did not centain revisionm2.csing pages. numbers making verification of curren't drawing for testing imponsible. (8) Fi Z --.n.diu..m #. 2 : ma:ntain quala.ach ha.s failed to e.stablish and' .ficata.on Records or personnel. .(7) Finding Audits were not performed on the 3). IfGC~5y.d03:E'em according to Zach Q.A. Observation #1: Revised drawings ucre transmittec ~ ~ to ' se sicGd were in use uithout being reviewed and accepted.

(5)

Observation #2: Zach has failed to correctly Tdentity.caen ucidars~uorh. 1 .l 1 \\

m -W-p-.: Audi.t Miuahnr .Re::alun vA.3-79,d.) (9) Obnorvation 3:1: Failure to catablish :nd 50-(Con retracain a tool hl:: troy card on calluratlon frequency. - (4) .Ob..ser_va..t_io_n,-_'_C../:: -- Test rep arts o.f welddd qunlli1catic,su warc not has..ng Mcva. cued. (4) Ob::n-vntio,.n.#5.: Pailure to r:cintain welding / waterlaJ.1cau.mee log. vF1-79-40 (1) Findlna ?l: Zach failed to generate centrol ..c,,c.. p c wencitran ror field channes frein the instcllation w c_1_7o draua..ngs. (5) Fludiner 02: 7,nch failed to properly insucct ~ 2.nsta11ec work Ghich resulte.d in.p.cceptance of deficiant uork.7 (4) Findina 03: Zach'. failed t.o I.riint! in.f i procecEre"iri Itcbordance uith M15 Ucl-ding}ualified d,f 'C de. o 1 -7 9-27---- -{5) Fi6 dine #1: The field Q.C. inspector failed to Reuort Date: 'conci checklist. inspections of material when 5-10-79 removed frorn storaga. (6) Findinq 02: Zack failed to cont:616.on conformin; matcllal until co,.rective action was cc:npleted. ~ , (4) Findine 03: Welders.4talification results were not reviewed properly. (G) Findine -M: Zack failed to receive appre/al for repaiE uork ucrfonacd en CECO furnished couipment. (5) -Q.cervntion b. i.:2.uch diccontinued the usf. of the Ob.s-. weenly suspection report. vy 1 G9-2 --- -(2) Findine #1,: Zack Cc:npany failed to t$c5.ntain a ycrzuo.c une open nurchase ord.er on site.~ forlcation copy Reuort Date 2-20-79 2.nspection. (G) Findinz 92: 2ach failed to centrdl nonconforming maten'ai until corrective action uns connleted (6) Findine 63: Zach's Field Sunerintendent' failed to siin tne " corrective acti'on cernplete" on completed NCR's. '(7) Findinz 04: Zack's Q.C.14: nager failed to nerfort an internal audit on sections 10 -15 of Zacht s Q.A. Manual in 1978. (*/-) Findinz 05: Zack failed to assure timely close-- out of~ site audits. - (6) Observation #1_: Copics of NCR's sent off site fo: tne project managers signature have not boon kept - on file.- ~ .(2) Observation #2: Shipping-Receivihr-documents were micsing trom ship:nent package". e .h e m__

-G

== Conclusions:== Due to the lar;;c uu:aber of dericicacies fumid duriut; this tisne frame and the possibility of thn::e t, rendu reoccurrin;;, the P..e.ch Company is rcquested to respond to thin wrveillance concerninte, these fcur nroan of trendn by Septe:nLer 5, l'.C O. 7.:.:c h 5 c ranpodse chould 'speci.Cically state all corrective n:atisurcu enken to date on the.se crean to prevent the -likelihnod of futura probic:nn rocccurring. ' This respouce nhottld be addrexed to T. E. Qualrs, Q.A. Supervicor, h Salle County Station. ~ = .i r

.........---.-......-......'.../.!----'-..-.

J' Reported' b : bMe.9.7.- N, N-- Date: !? -/ 9., / Y.-- -- -- L Approved by:< 4 :M. h lvM [h,__ Date: 9/r-gd3 3 4 FU Action Verified: Date: V A. Eng./ Insp. FU Action Approved: Date: Q.A. S,upervisor /. ~ ,c c : W. J. Shewski/C. F. Marcus L. J. Eurhe Contractor-T. E. Quahu/Q. A. File l ( l l l l I

L=c: x..u. **M , l Bechtel. Power Corporation

A,., plan,dpu.

Post O! Lee Box 2167 Midland. Michigen 48840 November 5,1980 i \\- The Zack Company 4600 West 12th Place Chicago (Cicero), IL 60550 Attention.: C. L. Eichstaedt, Jr. Job 7220 liidland Project Subcontract 7220-14-151 ,f 1:aterial Shipments 14-151-D-947

Dear lir. Eichstaedt:

llate.-ial shipments from Chicago to tiie-Zack site. continue to arrive with nonconforming conditions. This practice is consuming substantial time and ef fort at the site for all parties concerned;.Zack, Consumers, and Bechtel. We hereby request that shipments with ndnconformances be discontinued and be held in Chicago until nonconformances 'are clsared. Further, we direct the Zack site to return any nonconforming material to Chicago by the same truck in which the delivery was made. The truck must be held until the receipt inspection is completed and nonconformances, both hardware and software, are found to be nonexistant with the exception of limited shipping damage. ~ Very truly yours, ~ ~ ~ ~ . E. Davis site llanager LED /JUL/DFP/ ear 1, ~ l cc: R. B. McCarley R. L. Akers .) A3\\ r 1 ,p' i

. --vvisumtomanuramw>w. :n i. /... ; i ;., go."uQ; ?. ess .y t h e @'3/A@X ;co. CUSTOM ME1 AL FABRICATION N'. _s Pobruary 6, 1981. I ' Seas, Inc. .7535 W. Roosevelt Pd. .Forrest Park, Ill. 603.11

Subject:

ASTM S.tandard for Carbon and Alloy Steel Nuts Gentlemen: In reviewing our purchases with your company since January 1970 we have specified the hex nuts to bc ASTri-A307, ASTit-A325, ASTM-A354 and/or ASTn-A400. In turn your certificate of compliances and/or material test reports stato that the nuts were manufact-ured to the above standards. In researching this further, the above is not fully accurate. The above mentioned stafidards are for externally threaded fasteners, bolts, studs, etc. The above ~ mentioned standards all refer.to " sui (able nuts are covered in Specification A563". We r' quire a letter from your company stating that the " nuts" e furnished to us by your company since January 1970 conform to + Standard Specification ASTM-A563-72 or 78a. Your most expeditious handling would be greatly appreciated. Yours very truly, T11E ZACK COMPANY 6M .t carl L. Eichstaedt, Jr. Vice President-Nuclear Const. CLE/nw C.Z.DeZutcl cc: R.Hagen File ~' [$L- + FOUNCED TO OC'.VZ THE 1:NICUE MET /.L FASRCATiCN NC~CS C;"!?C'J3T?.1 + + . Dr.DICATED TO CLEAN:NG AND CUG TC.ill:NG TriE A.N 07 7eis. WCHLD +

fO S **. [t8c. s, k './ hC C~ CO. N' / CUSTOM METAL FABRICATION +g February 6, 1981 i. = "Thiele

1644 N. Mannheim kl.

,Melrose Park, Ill. 60165 8

Subject:

' ASTM Standard for Carbon and Alloy Steel Huts Gentlemen:

In reviewing our purchases with your company since January 1978 we have specified the hex nuts to be ASTri-A307, ASTit-A325, ASTM-A354 and/or AST!!-A490. In turn your certificate of c'ompliances and/or material test reports state that the nuts were manufact-ured to the above standards. In rescarching this further, the ~ above is not fully accurate. The above mentioned standards are for externally threaded fasteners, bolts, studs, eter The above mentioned standards aill refer to "sultable nut's are covered in , Specification A563". We require a letter from your company stating that the " nuts" i furnished to us by your company since January 1978 cc:sform to Standard Specification ASTM-A563-72 or 78a. Your most expeditious' handling would be greatly appreciated. Yours very truly, THE ZACK COMPANY b ~ ~ .w. Carl L. Eichstaedt, Jr. Vice President-Nuclear Const. l CLE/nw

cc: C.Z.Dezutel l-sammalaessur R.Hagen l

File =b /U b3b rour4DED TO SOLVC THE Ut41QUE METAL. FABRICATION NF.EDS OF INDUGTP.Y + l _

DED:CATED 70 CLEATJ;tJC,*.N.7 CllSTOM:Zit4G THE / IR OF T:C **,. 41 I

?

4401 WL51 L*l(N

I LIN T f41 CHIC.AN disbuu. 313/7.h.. e 40 kC

~ 9 \\ it h e ( A 0 % !L e o. CUSTOM METAL. FADRICATION ss / ~ -- h February 6, 1981 r . Delta Screw Co. 2036 N. CampbcIl A've. Chicago, Ill. 60647

Subject:

ASTM Standard for C,srbon and Alloy Steel Nuts Gentlemen: 5 In reviewing our purchases with your company since January 1978 ~ we have specified the hex nuts to bc ASTM-A307, ASTri-A325, ASTH-A354 and/or ASTM-A490. In turn your certificato of compliances and/or material test reports state that the nuts were manufact-ured to the above standards. In researching this further, the ~, above is not fully accurate. The above mentioned syndards are ,for externally threaded fasteners, bolts,' studs, etc. The above mentioned standards all refer to " suitable nuts arc covered in Specification A563". We require a let.ter from your company stating that the " nuts" furnished to us by your company since January 1978 conform to

Standard Specification ASTM-A563-72 or 78a.

s Your most expeditious handling would be greatly appreciated. Yours very truly, THE ZACK COMPANY 1 C Carl L. Eichstaedt, Jr. Vice President-Nuclea'r Const. "CLE/nw

cc: C.Z.DcZutel, R.Hagen File A3&

- FOUNDED TO SOLVE THE UNICUE METAL FABRICATION NCECS OC INDUSTRY.

DEC:CATED TO CLEAN:NG AND CUSTO.*:2:::G TI:E AJi CF T, tE *.*.*O".:.0 +

~

l ~~ 1' ( 18b) CUSTOM METAL FABRICATION February 6, 1981 - Key Crest, Inc. . 428 Greenwood Ave. Barrington, Ill". 60010

Subject:

ASTM Standard for Carbon and Alloy Steel IJuts. Centlemen: i In reviewing our purchases with your company since January 1978 we have specified the hex nuts to be ASTM-A307, ASTri-A325, ASTM-A354 and/or ASTH-A490. In turn your certificato of compliances and/or material test reports state that the nuts were manufact-ured to the above standards. In researching this further, the above is not fully accurate. The above meintioned stapdards are for externally threaded fasteners, bolts, studs, etc. The above mentioned standards all refer to " suitable nuts are covered in ~~ Specification A563". ~ We require a letter from your company stating that the " nuts" furnished to us: by your company since January 1970 conform to Standard Specification ASTM-A563-72 or 78a. , Your most expeditious handling would be greatly appreciated. Yours very truly, .THE ZACK COMPANY CY M' Carl L. Eichstaedt, Jr. Vice President-Nuclear'Const. C1r/nw cc C.Z.DeZutel w=-1' R.Hagen File l \\ l lI l k)$

FOUNDED TO SO!.VE THE UNIQUE METAL FAERICATION iJEEDS OF INDUSTRY =
DEDICATED TO CLEANING At4D OUSTOMCING THE Al; OF THE WO;*1.D.

. ~, - 9

a.U'N u s. - wm 42]c 44ot wE' STERN

FLINT MICHIGAN.d503,e 3i3/730 2040 t h e 8 Q* @ X l e o.

i CUSTOM METAL FABRICATION Aprit. 16, 1981 TO: Zack Company Pessonnel RE: Paichase Ordero/Sub-Contucto for.. ~ l Nuclear Power Stelion Projects I l r ALL PauJiase Orders and/or Sub-contracts issued for material, equip-ment, services, etc., for our Nuclear Power Station profecia mi44 have the fallowing statement included as part of the order. " Provisions of lack Company tekter, dated Decemb'er 19,1978, in re-gards to FedeAai regulation 10 CFR, Part 21, are included as an in-tegral part of this Purchase Order /Sub-Contract". vP t sept 3 CL DE 1UTEL, G / EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT e o e } j xpz/ art j' = o S FOUNDED TO SOLVE THE UNiOUE METAL FABR! CATION NEEDS OF INOUSTRE+ h% = I = DEDICATED TO CLEANING AND CUSTOMlZING THE AIR OF THE WORLD

J

, ERN

FLINT MICHIGAN -dM6
313h786McUs>

h g D.. w the EQ@I co. CUSTOM METAL FABRICATION s 4 -c .s I April 16, 1981 THE ZACK COMPANYS SUPPLIERS / VENDORS / MANUF MATERIAL USED FOR NUCLEAR POWER STATION PROJECTS TO: t FEDERAL REGULATION 10 CFR, PART 21 - DESCRIBED IN THIS PURCHASE ORDE /* FEDERAL REGULATION 10 CFR 21 IS'NOT APPLICABLE TO IN PROCESS - ONLY TO COMPLETED WORK W ON THE ASSUMPT CON THAT THE SUPPLIER / VENDOR ED BY THE PURC1 LASER. A POTENTIAL DEFECT SUBSEQUENT TO ACCEPTANCE OF SUPPLIER / VENDOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ZACK COMPAN DAYS AFTER NOTI-

1. -

IN WRITING WITHIN THIRTY -(30) FICATION OF AWARD WHO SHALL HAVE THE RESPONS BILITY WITHIN HIS ORGANIZATION FOR IMPLEMEliTIN THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR 21. s SUPPLIER / VENDOR SilALL, PRIOR TO THE START OF WORK, DEVELOP PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF 2. SUCH PROCEDURES SHALL EN-THESE REQUIREMENTS. SURE THAT THE RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL DESIGNAT TO "1" ABOVE RECEIVES INFORMATION -ED PURSUANT OF POSSIBLE DEVIATIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF 10 CFR 21 AND PROMPTLY REFERS THAT INFORMAT TO THE ZACK. COMPANY IF, IN HIS OPINION, SUBSE-QUENT EVALUATION MAY RESULT REFERRALS TO THE ZACK COMPANY WILL BE EVAL JOINTLY BY THE ZACK COMPANY AND THE SGPPLIE 3. THEY WILL BE REPORTED TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) BY THE ZACK CO VENDOR. IF THEY ARE DETERMINED TO BE REPORTABLE DEF SUCN REPORTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF;10 CFR 21. l TO THE NRC SHAL BE MADE WITHIN THE TI. IS PRE- ~ M / SCRIBED BY 10'CFR 21, AND THE ZACK COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE THE SUPPLIER / VENDOR WITH WRITTEN

FOUS'OED TO SOLVE THE UNIQUE METAL FADR CATION NEECS CF INDUSTRY CATED TO C EANIN!.i AND CUSTCMILl4G THE A;R C# THE nCRLD.
DEC:

. mmm '~

^ c, - g. 4 f .g THAT SUCH REPORTS HAVE'BEEN MADE. 4. SUPPLIER / VENDOR MAY REPORT INDEPENDENTLY TO THE I NCR IF IT HAS REASON 'f0 BELIEVE THAT THE ZACK . COMPANY MAY NOT FILE AN APPROPRIATE REPORT IN TIME TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 1S CFR ~ 21 OR IF SUPPLIER / VENDOR DISAGREES WITH 'RHE ZACK ~l COMPANY EVALUATION THAT NO REPORTABLE DEFECT EX-i ISTS. i 5. IF SUPPLIER / VENDOR DECIDES TO FILE AN INDEPENDENT REPORT, PRIOR NOTICE (VERBAL OR WRITTEN) SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE ZACK COMPANY, AND A COPY O.F THE RE-PORT SHALL BE TRANSMITTED TO THE ZACK COMPANY. 6. SUPPLIER / VENDOR SHALL REQUIRE PROVISIONS SUBSTAN-TIALLY SIMILAR TO THOSE-SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION TO BE INCLUDED AT ALL' APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF PRO-CUREMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PURCHASE ORDER. IT IS THE INTENT-OF THIS CONTRACT THAT THE RJQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR 21 SHALL BE MET BY THE ZACK COMPANY AND ITS SUPPLIERS-SO THAT THE STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES OF EACH PARTY ARE PRE-SERVED, A DETERMINATION OF DEFECTS IS MADE, AND THE REPORTING OF DEFECTS TO THE NRC IS ACCOMPLISHED EFFECTIVELY, EFFICIENT-LY, AND IN A MANNER WHICH MINIMIZES SUPLICATION, CONFUSION AND MISINFORMATION. w g l....~ 9 e l ,o e e g a g e m e e \\ Q ~ e E t \\ e 1

V

- g'gTERN e FLINT MICHIGAN 43503
313?733 2040 l*,

t Wn., s .',s r the-FM@K Qca CUSTOM METAL FABRICATION MEMO i TO: Carl L. Eichstaedt FROM: Christine Zack De2utel I I

SUBJECT:

Memo dated 6/30/81 1i t I agree with your evaluation of the evidence regarding the toreign steel. As I also instructed our QA Manager and Purchasing Agent,to suspend ordering from Edgecomb, U S Steel Supply, Northwestern Steel and Wire,.and Reliable Galvanizing pending the results of the investi-gation, I now rescind that directive conditionally. Steel procurement may proceed normally. All nuclear-related steel being galvanized by Reliable Galvanizing will be receipt inspected by Zack's Quality Control inspection force at the Reliable facility, and i reinspected there after galvanizing by our inspectors before being released for shipment to us. As heat numbers may become illegible after galvanizing, I suggest some method of marking during the initial inspec-tion that absolutely circumvents any. possibility of error. I also encourage back charging Reliable for th_ese increased costs Zack must assume. If, during the next 90 days, any discrepancies are found,, Reliable must be removed from Zack's Approved Vendors--List and the industry appraised accordingly. CZDZ bn cc J. DeZutel ~ D. Ma?zshn D. Calkins-R. Hagen 1 ~ ~ I a h

FOUNDED TO SOLVE THE UNIDUE METAL FABRICATION NEEDS OF INDUSTRY *
DEDICATED TO CLEANING AND CUSTOM 121NG THE AIR OF THE WORLD
4, g

9

g CHICAGd f2

F11NTD Il

.f. 3,, 7.. i DATE Juna 5, 1981 q 6 l 1 10' ' Dave Calkins From Christine Z. DcZutel SUDJECT AT I!NT:CN v ~. iT2!!T his is to inform you of a situation which has recently come to our attention. piece of foreign (Argentian) steel was discovered incorporated into an nstalled hanger on the Clinton Project. he Zack Company, upon notification from the site, began an immediate inves-igation of the problem. c have ascertained, t$.ls far, thdt Northwest Steel and hire, Edgecomb Metal, r Reliable Galvanizing caused the confusion in the suspect order.' o have tested the suspect channel through Charles C. Kawn Company and have scertained that the suspect steel conforms to AUS Standards for A-36 steel. have ceased purchasing and/or galvanizing with the aforementioned organization: ending total clarification of this situation. EPLY - DATE ,s The Zack' Company's investigt. tion thus far has no't pinpointed the cause or aus'es for this problem, our i.svestigation is continuing. When all the facts re ascertained, your'inp'ut will be required for proper disposition. ,z..., .y. ).< .g n, . -. -,- - h-- 7,.*' ~~~?hm~~----~~"--~~-"-"~~-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' " *

'- - '~

~-'m , a

o-5, u .. a.

e r

s* l 4 e g o e t l ( e. e e / i g. . +.... p fg Q -f 7 ' </C F Ja4 : - i p -- =,-.. d 4 i d

T m.w -:g.ws. a.c.w..e.qre@s

.'.Mid'- M l.5 feH#i-n*.WM r- .,.W.M.M.- -d./. e W.4 L@2.~.rgoyJW ? *C,f.f RY=.*-r r ir it!,;ysR.Q.Q7.g.g=,=..* yf.) ?,- s- -W. t s. [..-,e-f.g. V'...... g ......r.,

*?.T r. e.. 7.,.. ;-

. g, %e f;4. *. w '4,s s. * ...\\.

t.

CA*'-9.>n? ..,.<i.'>,a..=***...M.... .? ( - ., %..e,. y ; ~.,m.. ;:- @ <.... r+...ij..;.. w ;,. , v.. = .:er ..a.~. k..'~ , '. -.ra..- -? .-s. l*",. ce.K.6.bi*,..v,C... *1 r,:4.4-} Y -Q d th 8 ' -

6... ~f I'jo.... ' :

v.-y .S,op ? N,* a e' ....., r

":<y'>-)/c.%

...y,., s. .m 'N <. f w.*- 4 Th~~~::. ...g-a I.-2. # J .- % # M., 4 -}}.&s.~,?y $w&lQ.,.:,?Y.'#R. (:M. &....Qi.$..,.,l?-Q x7,%..wg.ss. 4e%w.- 2 7 n -r ga % agi.w.;m.., .. e. y y.n m..,9. h %. n.ww. r % n.. g. n . ~.. .c 4 m. ,s I.,.g.,,*4. it< %'%,i.**;/4i, t.K W F$*ps[sj.. r s e

*, M.s...i

%: ;;'Q '3.w;e.;%..,,....@.......;.;., - -

Hm

' D:*. #. e-

..s.<..,. A.%.1:*'s..:r.Ya Q;.s. ~ s. T w C'%* W.~f~=l/'lR:.(e. =- .9-r- .;A * $.44,,*;'.9 g. Q 8e ild., a ,3' -f.ina'..gg.f. e*t ,**d. ' J g

.Kej. -

p = . 4 M -Y r. . lf~j&;*.V.v*lv.. p.*5* % 5,.. e.' t 4 s...-

f
rQ-'.'.,.

)?.,,,0 a. ;: 3 y f.-m 1.*,&,e (. q..., t 1_ '% ML'.Q _.G?st

k,,;? %'4 p,.

p& ;; =. .-:*.'.+- w. ol*h..:' n, e wp y 't / ' *S e*. . /. b

- 8

+ e f e I O G g g s 9 t O O O q

m '.Hg:1 ~ &> -. (c A/ YsWC.C..- \\ j..e.:tria:, r m dU.Ut.--, 7....t -.. -.s L E V,f.L......S z 5.,. u B f60. _7m,0 Q ._D',T E-U JO 9 4 * /[~'N. c.wro..s:n no:.o reu.wra ; g " x...-. m_ __._,..f a... = ./ %

m. w_...m.

/. .4-A,' a9. . w::. o pi.t, roun_i _ec, /.n.,< m r cornno usi = - - - . J.' f it.,-?. + y<. _ t s Q .r- ~ -. ~.- ,.,,,. y. y. y,, -y;p ;,g. cm.-:nu:ux. aw.: :.ne.,,, '2 '% 2 - %s g .@go t.%c( F-N.W T'-de! Nh. ~ g" r 5G. av . _.4. 3 ,. :. 5 i gg--.. (, ; s. w pA,. g

nvfL
.{;

1' J..w.g %...'-c p,. t. 'A. . _/ _. 2, ' - - - ,I m S'y }{l ~ z,f.,. i.- . v A. r,. 4p / '~> s .S s -%._ ^ -) J - J u.. i, / \\_ s. y1 < y Q'- ' 0 $.' g@ q I~'S-s ' l-f'~ I - -d. l^/. # 8 h:2 ~ \\' g I r7 Y -@l y

1. ?,,

f-7as. s/ 'MA.~p' c 7 v, w%*y% jan ,~ 5., ., 9 l'

w. < '

'k 'll \\\\-]3s,c.,k a3ta ~B x.y,5- +3ymu. - I im q-~ 3 . p. ~-- ~-t-4 4- ~ s "g gg

k.Q. 'k)x( 't

4 " @ % 7&s. ~ \\ V :' x 4.*'4 -9s!'~.Q. ..; l. E'. 7 "- _/-.& : I.~ y.s. -. _._ , =, _..... \\\\ / CurTOM3T1 HOLD POINTS e / cu m o.usr 'g\\p'/W '< AR*. if ace. .wcL 7noi:*rcuat / ,u,,-.; -/A\\ -Q // s a jq ongumonu.got.tn.v:=L i C D f(.5 o aSa ' -2.i, 5 .2 /Pg: :,. ..r g a ,/ = 1 Q.' %]. /f --{-. ~5 ,l l, t '.:.,...'i t). i 4 i& l....: ~, - f*,4,,L \\ ~.l./ :l q __ :7}% ~ ~ ~ 24 .,...-y .t 4 y'. ..,. .g _ * \\ 2 j (d 2<l N.&.- '6~. * .s _ / tS #s '.' l.K t s 'e,f.a . ?;.. 3 .-n:q, u 5 y ..).32g. %4 q} x 7'.- 9 y- .Q e jgy? n .e..n 3. .2;,usi. mt. >,. 2. i. n.i.... ~:.- r.' ~ - - - - - =. - QUALITY ASSORANCE /. M.ATERI AL JSED V _ p_. - s /// g'g 9 jij = y 103aTICKET APPnOVED

llL CONTh0L NUMBER k.-[O.[, 3

~~ * .,t : eC . L.3 D.1 C p.:. - y - ( L.. .t'. il %..., lo -, ~? ~. .w: .7 t 4'M.O. Intp.N. CONT.60L NUV2 eft

p //'t' /g J.ls " s....~.

r "' ' r

A g.

'*b Ac2,_._ 'q-.~......... -. - - - = 7,.-.7a80' t=n In: rec,on iMING bNAL INS?ECTION .T* '.JU - ~ l -r

6..

s. . s I ..u ' ' ;[" *[f.;1 l ) . _... -.............. -.. ~.. -... -. ~. - - - - A *% StCP TriAVJLC.:t - ~,

i ~ \\ gttpenmente to Q.A. Audit rinding 8/24/81* .The rollow2ng is a list of QA/QC personnel's training / qualification recor that violated'Zack proc,cdures as noted: - James Michalix - OC Level II (l') Contrary to Zack POCP-ll, Rev. 1, para. 6.2.4, lhe zack Co. vision test form (ZOF-21) datea 6/2/81, does not reflect documented evidence of a near vision' (or equiv) test for J. Michalik. (2) Contrary to Zack POCP-11, Rev. 1, para. 6. 2. 4, J. Micnalik was . overdue for his annual eye cxam. Ile was due on 5/6/01, the actual test was performed on 6/2/81. ,,(3) Contrary to Zack POCP-11, Rev. 1, para. 6.J.l.4, J. Michalix was given a written examination as. a Level I.. not I i [ (4) Contrary to Zack POCP-ll, Rev. 1, para. 6.3.1.1, no Level I O.C. Reading List (ZQF-22A) was on file for J. Michalik. .( 5 ) Contrary to Zack PQCP-ll, Rev. 1, para. 6. k i, J. Michalik was qualified as Level I on 10/14/80, a'nd'no 30 day re-evaluation was performed. Charles Richards - OC Level II l (1) Contrary to Zack FOCP-11 Rev. 1, para. 6.5.1, C. Ricncrds was qualified on 4/16/u0 and no annual re-evaluation was performed. + Ken Schaefer - QA/UC g (1) X. Senaeier's qualifications of 10/22/80 does not meet the requiron of ANSI N45.2.6 for education, experience & training. COMMENTS AS NOTED DURING THE AUDIT: ,f, .,s (1) Though recoros were retrievable, a11,OA/QC records should be purged and mainttined in accordance with the requirements of ANS1 N4 5.2. 9 (2) None of tne forms u't11ized in Zack PQCP-ll, & POCP-17 had the form numb'ers,' designated in the procecure,.on the forms'. (3) For uniformity, all forms in PQCP-ll & PQCP-1) should be given tne same' form number designation. ~ (4) To preclude a p/rocedure violation, it is recob.menaed that D. Calkin be given tne ssignee status for Zack President in evaluating and certifying OA/QC Personnel. (d) Aiso, to preclude a procedure violation incorpora'te Form ZQF-uS, ( Record or Lead Auditor Qualification ) into tha.nroce Men. cc: D.1. Calkins C.Z. De utel o 1 J.C. DeZutol C. Micharos Q.A. tiler ~ /0 \\ a-m

y,... 4'Thh foJ1ouing is C list of OA/OC personnel's training /gualification record tha, vaolatet. Zach procedures as noted: James Michalili. - OC Level II l -([) Contiary to Zack POCP-ll, R'cv. 1, para. 6.2.4, The Zack Co' vision test.' form (ZDF-21). dated G/2/S1, does not reficcc doemannted evidence of a near v3.sion (or cguiv) tc#t for J. M,ichalik. (2) Contrary to Zack POCP-ll, Rev. 1, para. 6.2.4, b. Micnalik was dvcidue for ha.s annual cyc exa:a. IIe was due on 5/6/81, the actual test was performed on 6/2/81. (3) Contrary to Zack PQCP-11, Rev. 1, para. '6. 3.1.4, J. Michalik was given a written e>:n.aination as a Level I. not /(4)- Contrary to Zack POCP-ll, Rev. 1, para. 6.3.1.1, no Level I Q.C. 2 Reading Lisc (20F-22A)* kas on file for J. Michalik. j /(5) Contrary to Zack PQCP-ll, P.ev. 1, para. 6.5.1, J. Michalik was qualified as Level I on 10/14/80, and. no 30 day re-evaluation was performed. - c h } I ~. ,gdh. ~ ~ e e l \\/ 1-4 .N .bg G* p ...m... e me. N t

v. s Q A. AUDIT CIIECKLIST Ptg6 1 of 3 U M DATE.9/24/H1 -3 WA SUBJECT _OC/OA Personnel REVIEW [ / [ / d $< +,[ g.~,; ,-.'n j. -il, eoCP yp3.gy33 7 / p' (), '.. ,,,1 5bO ?j'01M'O f. BINDINGS DA7. UNSAT. OR N/A INITIALS /DATE Verify t.0it QCI's meet ~ - (see a4tachment) unsat. ciucli 2 cc.tlon requiremen :s a 20CP-ll, nov. 1. (PQcP-ll N

r. 1, para. 6.2l

\\. l l ~ . s ~ veriry unat eye. tests 'Naluctou and accumentea x (See attachment) unsat* ~ I \\ ~ j 'dte 7.ac.c Co. vision test ) (ZOF-21). annually. ~ .i. j 1 g s .. m ---. " wek.e p .O g. l pt ~ .) ~ l

~ 0.A. AUDIT cirrcKLIST

l..

) ~ 2 Pago _o.g5 rt N/A DhTE 8/2 /01 N/A SUpJECT OC/OA ' Personnel REVIEW [ / T [ </ AppDOVA /-r [ [e' Y ' O AP., PCCP,ll, P0dP-17 /, AUDIT ?OINTS-7.INDINGS DAT. *IMSAT. On N/A INITII.IS/DATE l n. D Varify that training & 5 8 (See attachment) \\ unsat. ~ ~ oficiency testing of QCI's \\ l ct tho requirements ot PQC?- 's. I ~ o.Riv. 1. (PQCP-11, Rev.' 1 I ra'G.3) ~ j .l s I t g i g 's l t- \\ verify that-certiticatior (See attachment) unsat. docum nted on the certir-tica of Qualification Forn gF-24) J. pe 8 '. ~.. - i l e i j ~ a.e

0.A. AUDIT CHECKLIST 3 ~ Pago 3 of ,5 LIER N/A DATE y/24/01, N/A

SUBJECT:

OC/OA Personnel P.EVIEW /'. s -i.C / G O Is!.1, P O C P - 1 1, PQCP-17 yp g,[ j,[ j f_e s -,./ e ) AUDIT POINTS y.INDINGS gay,' UNSAT. On N/A, INI'*IALS/D.\\TE I (5) verify that QCI'.s are (Sde attachment) unsat. i avaluated-30 cays after cert ~ \\ i Lfication & every twelve (12 t \\. nonths. thercaf ter. (PQCP-11. l to v.. 1, para 6.5;' ~ ~' t l l ~ .~ \\. 6). herifythatTheZackCo. K NONE \\. Sat / curing the atid t t, :. resident loit. designee)' is euponsible':.*o'r the evaluatic6 D. Calkins, QA Mgr. was named as design 2e es!rtification of Auditors /* for The Zacx'Co. Pr 2s. end Auditorn. ' (PQCP-17, Rev for evaluation and l para 5.2) certirication or Aupitors/ C-Lead Auditors.. Tni action was taken to preclu e a ~ proce'aure violation i. J w, i i.

i i:, '_

y _ _ _ _

0. A. AUDIT CitEcKLIST Il-Page 4. of

'S IU N/A DATg ts/24/01 xi/3 SUNECT: ot /nA pornnnnni REVIEW /.... d.:7 /, / / '/ b_ pnep. 1, POCP APP 110VAV I! ' }.~. l .e ~ j t.UDIT POIRTS T.INDINGS i F DAT.' UNSAT. OP. H/A, IllI*'IALS/DATE L \\ s $) Verify that Lead Audito :- NONE \\- l Auditor are qualifi,ed per dat./ Qualirications. l-l s l tor the r'ollowing pich PQCP-17, Rev. O, para gebsonnel were reviewed: s2 D.s. Calkins ) l J. 0 Connell l E.. Senacrer j s ) v$r2fy training and ~ ~ NONE~ Satisractory sficiency. 't.esting pdr Zack

sP-17, nev.- ~0, para 6. 3 :

( ,a ~ 6 l i I /

g. '---

eg ._.____C__

O n. y

0. A. AUDIT CIECXLIST Page S *of

,IER N/A DhTZ 8/24/81 v '. " /.T SUIDECT: nr/nn persnnnoi REVIEll [. ~ ' "~ ~ d (. ._(/ ZOP. DOC'P-11. POCP-17' App;1oyA h j [ ' 2 / ~.

AUDIT PO'IS'fS BINDINc3 BAT.

UNSAT. OR 11/A INI;I.TLs/DA!3 t. \\ l (9) Verify that all' Auditors / NONE x Satisfactory and Auditors are evaluated \\ tonunlly. (PQCP-17, Rev. O, s': > ara. 6.5. ~ j e e ~ t O 8 g ..4 N. s i. N s - n I I g g O m * .O he \\ j. e j i. n l w _a

.i / p_.alY12E ZZAkCM C h C,El3TiFICATE OF QUAL.tFIC/.TiOI? 4 (AliSI ?? 6.2.6-1973) .,i ~ ./ } EMPLOYER: THE 2 ACK COMPANY 4000 WEST 12Til PLACE s l-cH:c Aco (c:CERO). IL 63550 PERSON CERTIFIED: KElmF.T}I D. SCHAEFER ACTIVITY QUALIFIED TO PERFORM: Al1 actions as detailed in The Zack Company Quality Progrcm LEVEL OF CAPABILITYi LEVELIIQCh g i EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF CERTIFICATION: March 13,1981 to March 13,1984 / BASIS OF CERTIFICATION: f Education, experience, training, and test results 80.8 TEST RESULTS: G EN ER AL/ SPECIFIC;. gjg P R ACTIC AL - A .-? ' 8 0. 8 cousiwAviou k.s..CSA. 3/13/81 M. E. D' Haem On ,i CERTIFIED BY / DATE ..S l e l "' Q7-2 '.

.b1 Mt11t HKKE.11 CEi% , EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE l' ($UDITORS AND LEAD AUDITORS) i* / ~ ~ ~- 'NAME Kenneth 'Schaefer CLASSIFICATION Auditor 2-20-81 DATE QUALIFIED 2-27-81 lDATE OF EVALUATION j' ABOVE AVERAGE AVERAGE BELOW AVERAGE / KNOWLEDGE O. l o / ,AUDI' TING TECHNIQUES O l AUDIT PLANNING C, +- ORAL COMMUNICATIONS O ~E O WRITTEN COMMUNICATION ~ i COMMENTS: 9 =l , s. - ~ .I Reviewed with ab'ove named individual YES NO- 'l g Af Individuals signature /date Eval'ators signa ure/date M M, A

7e 4/

u s / j j 4 '0F-37 4 I g 1 l b l

c> u ^* m PAGE 2 of 2 f, N. 1 i CERTIFICATE OF QUALII'iCATIOi; ? ./ ' ',.. ~ a COIO:UNICATIONS SK.IL.L: 'Date Evaluated 2/27/81 by: Mich'ac1 E. D ' lir. t. AUDITOR PARTICIPATION I LOCATION AUDIT DATE Midland Nue: car Station 5 1. The Zack Co. Feb. 18 20, 1921 yg3.g.g.7 -t.;. g = 3 l ,-j 4. .L .,o ~ o o 9 EXAMINATION. TYPE Oral PASSED X-DATE' 2/27/81 i ' EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF CERTIFICATION: 2/27/81 through 2/26/84

l..

AUDITOR'Q'UALIFICATION CERTIFIED EY:Jd tg_ 2..2.,q-Qj NAME/DATE TITLE ' Quality Assurance Manager -f l/- , s- . ~. .. s.-- ~~ .= r* ,W s 7 t i .( l s 2OF ; t Ny-

N

.n ~ r. bb b b hMo QUALITY ASSURANCE TRAINING REPORT ~ t.oATg 8/31 /81 THE DELdW LISTED INDIVIOU AL(St RECEIVED QUALITY ASSURANCE TRAINING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ZACK CCMPANY QUALITY ASSURANCE TRAIN'ING PROGRAM ~ NAME INITI Al., POSITION ~ A C.2. DeZutel C Z _'0 2 President 3 J.C. DeZutel Exec. Vice-President 4, D. Mal:ahn ((7 Corporate. Sect'y. 5 6 7 8. s. 10 I 11. DESCRIPTION OF TRAINING SESSION CONDUCTED 4 Training - 10CFR / ANSI N45.2 (1 hr.) ,7 , /- / I t C A a w, - 13. Q. A. T R AINING lNSTRUCTOR ,D.E. Calkins, Q.A. M7r. CC: Q.A. MANAGER FILE-SITE. CC DEP ARTt/ ENT ^ is 70F-23 1

y l ..- s

m.

s s s. 1 ~= 1 p..h. v.s 9 f. 2 /n.t Q. mr+.m h' e n l.) /. ,j CUSTOM METAL FAORICATION ,eg l .x .,%.= ..[ t,. Ci-pte-Nr 23, IM1. tats;*t !'ttric:t ricM: John O'Connell I ,l. / SUDJf:CT: Survey of Edgeco;rb 2etals performed 9/18/81 I '[ [ An evaluation of Edgeco:-b Metals Q.A. Program was, conducted on 9/18/81, the following was noted: 'I FINDINGS 1) The lines of organizational structure,.rcsponsibilities, and inter-functional relatio'aships were not delincated in the Q.A. ' Manual. 2) No. performance of a program evaluation. 3) No NCR/ CAR plan to identify, analyze and take action to correct deviations from quality requirements.- s ~ 4) No identified plan for the maintenance of Quality records. 5) No provisions to ensure that purchased material meet quality require-ments. 6) No evidence of calibration records for caliper. o

y/.,,

7) No vendor evaluation. I

8), No check of CMTR's against received material.

9)- Contrary to Edgecomb's Q. A. Manual, no receivihg inspection report

is presently being utilized.

~ ~

10) No management evaluation of the Q'uality Program. O

/. ,cp: C.Z. DeZu el J.C. DeZu el D.E. Calkins q R. Hagen D. Ibl.i.'.hn Q.A. Fi;es /jk 3.i 2. T... J i :. v. s.. ;

,,;.a, g.

[kl

DED'C4TED TO CLEAN;NG AND CUSTO.'.!!!!NG THE AIR CF THE WORLD -

L ~ 1

A

g AUDIT PLAN .4... 9 9

l DATE:

n /1 uni * ~ '., /.. AUDITOR: J. o!connell ORGANIZATION TO BE AUDITED: Edgecorrh Metals ~ P.O. Box 7400-A AUDIT LOCATION: woe v.,3, a., Chicago, IL 1 j j AUDIT PURPOSE: ro v, rf ry +1,o va7.cn+ + 1. N... g _c,,.s _,w 4, 4 + 4,. I implementing their Quality Program. 'h AUDIT SCOPE: ' Limited to Edgeco:nb Meth1s facility. I REFERENCE DOCUMENTS: Edgeco:rb Metals OA Manna'1. ANSI N45. 2 and 10crQ2_.2.n-#,ix 3. s. ,( - e COMMENTS: ~ '/ ....... i. s,i s / 7,.g. r ^ /.'i ,s-....- 77. ,s. - kEAD AUDIT $R:(. )$ // b -Ib. _. - AUDITOR: n /.A DATE: N/A D/sTik : ' ... I. '.. A 4.( l k g l N \\. ) \\ - e c

M.u t Ae t J,r4 . /,/< 1 1.' C 2 L.! t M A. 4%Wo ' g 9 k* T. VALUATION OF QUALITY ASSUP.ANCE PP.OO!VJt PLAll OF SUPPLIERS OF COMPO;3E!.*T3 OR MATERIAL FOR CCMPLIA! CE UITl! QUALITY { 4 SPECIFICATION.

l (C1!ICKLIST)

St.TPFZn: Edgeco.5 2ictals ??.0.72:': M 9.11, h".:. : 11AtalAL TJn.E:...iden.tif.icati.on_Is.3 ert

f r nH nn

'PZVEM NO.: .,i Dh7E: r ? P2V EY: John O'C,on_nell ' DATh: 9,,gy,ejal p

/

~ GTh'I15 CO.WD.7: F.dgecomb ihtals Q. A. Program was found to be unacceptabic L. in m=ing The Zach Comp $ny 'p' ocurement rc'quirements. r The program presently. be}irg.tilized is in the. process of revision. .1 Findings cro described in the N N _ f% (b hW4 gmgp(gfgpp pj find"n 'Eclor.r ch un t-ma u < 1 1,. t on g,smm32,,,,y,, m,, 7 g / 4e =* t l. -l /,/. e- ~ g .q a. ~ m. \\ ~ o

1 ~- CI!EC}*LI ST 9 IN ~3E'EVEtiT TilERE IS A "NO" A!;StJE11 hD ANY Oy T;iE Ci!EC)11ST QU PAG:E AND PARAGIMPl! 1;Uf:SE'A OF Tl!E Q. A. PROGR.O! PLAN A!!D/OR IS TO BE IDEllTIFIED WDER Tl!I APPROPRIATE COL 1.:.'21. .t -.,' y i L -

J.

3.0 hti$.I.1TY PROGRAM L'taACDENT pscg s YES. _NO PARA. NO. 3.1, POLICY 1. Does the plan identify r.mnatement co:=it=ents which vill ensure that ~ quality requ~ ire::ents are net, and only product (s) coeting quality ~ standards will be supplied? .,3. 2 ORG1';TZATION = ,1 1.' Docs the plan identify t.hnt the f quality control organizational t structure, responsibilit.ics and interfunctional relationships t are clearly established? , s 2. 3ces the plan establish that ~ >ersonnel performing t'he quality i control function vill have the kperformthefollowing: authority and responsibility to 1 ~ A. Establish quality' control requirements and responsi-bilities for both those performing the inspection fun,ction.and 'those perfor=- ing the actual manufacture? 'B. Plan, organize, implement and verify conforcance with s,/ f . quality control systems and procedures? C. Evaluate acceptability of

~

vork using reviews, exam-

inations, inspecrions, tests and other means?

D. Withhold ac,ceptance of worknytceetingquality 1 standards?- } 3.3 ^PR0cIDURES AND IRSTRUCTIO::S 1., Does the plan establish that the ,cuality centrol pre;;ra:r s f 21 t$1ive ' pen.:::aerts and Jnr.t.ruct- ~ f ons that. d. f'ina the tc tL ds by hich the supplier's organi:s- ,t

$onal onics vi)) apply gunIJty

.on trol s?

l ) ..g., 84 I'

"YACE$& L. i m YES NO l' ARA. NO. f l t* 3 3.4 _ QUALITY PT.G*.VINC 1. Does the p3:m identify that the supplier yJ11 provide for quality ~ ~ plannins, 1.niuling: i : ,A. Identifying the quality. provisions necessary to co= ply with the purchssa order? 3. Estchltr.hing the inspetrion ( ~ pinas to be used in the . concrc.1. of quality? C. Evaluating results of the qual.ity controls and caking changes where / ,I icprove=ents are required to c.aintain quality? t 3.5 PERTORinNCE E1*AI.t'ATION 1. Does the plan provide for the supplier to assess their quality '[ throu2h the use of audits, data and other ceasure=ent i:: cans? 8 3.6 -CORP.ECTIVE ACTION g ~

d. Does the plan identify a cethod f

'whereby the supplier vill identify, analyze and take action to correct conditions that.. deviate from quality

requirer.ent's,' and to prevent these 'from recurrence?

3. 7.. RECORDS f/

1. Does the plan identify a method / ae./ ' for maintaining records of inspections, tests and product field.performa,nce to provide necessary reference data on the product? t CO.S!ESTS SECTION 3.0 No QA/CC Dep~t. In the Organizatio' al Chart. No vendor ' ~- n g ev,al_uation. No horrective action. No evaluation of results of the quality control in rovem nts. 4I t I 1%CE. 3. nf.-. '. _ -, p

_ a., rammm. 4.0

PP.0CLT:.DCt.T CONTROI'

.s

1. " Does tha plan provide for i

pre.:uressat practices to be used that vill ensure that pi-!=hased cacerial.nects, .

l,'

'.. quality requi.rc=ents? 1 4.1 ,77.0CtDL NT IK70DtATION CONTROL ,1. Doa.s the plan provide for a nethod whereby the supplier's ~ precurement docu:nents vill co=tain requirements that 3 'l de. fir.e what is technien31y l required and vill provide ,a ibe measures needed to ensure that these technical,. requirements are met?,. 4.2 RECEIV~.SG II:SPT.CTION 1. Deas the plan provide for a cethod whereby purchased f . material acceptability will be :'erified upon receipt to ensure the use of the correct ^ material during subsequent preduct$on processing? 2 4.3 );0NCOh70 DING MATERIALS' 1. Does the plan provide for a. method whereby equipment or se:--ices presented to the supp1 der which are found to he conconforming to the quality requirer:ents and ide=tified, reviewed and

' *>I specifications wi.ll be

.- p disposed of in 'a manner ths: vill e~asure only those ~ ~ acceptable to the,supplicr's aut".orized-engineers will be used? CO:0'.ENIE SECTION '4.0 No check of CMTR's at receipt inspection. No receiving insoection report contrary to QAM see I$ (Att. 96) ...... u...t. PAGE 4 of 6 ' ' ~ ,g e n

ES NO I- -.a s.. v I. PARA! NO. .. t. 5.0 PA'?UTACTURING CtmTROL , s...- N-1.,. Dnes th'a pirin pro.-ide for's t method wher.:by cai:ufacturing _.' activities, which may include l j '.' '"and testing of equip =ent, t-ill be bachinin3. fabrication, essembly C -7. ~ ~ done undar c:ontrolled cond'itions i. to ensure tlist t.he product ncet: quality regisirc=ests? (([ 5.1 ' l -15SPECTION PM.Ns j-f ,1.- Does' the plan

pro.ide for a method whereby the, supplier will utilize preplanned n:nufscturing inspection

~.} ' Mans to establish significant revic s and exsmi=ations to' deter-( ' min'e that I the work ccets acceptance ~. [. i.criteris at various star,es of 4. ,.( r ranufacturing and shipping? 5.2' liATERIAL IDENTIFICATION - l* 1. Does the plan provide for a method whereby equipment, parts and caterial yill be identified to.ensura that correct and acceptable iters are I,used, and to ensu.re that thf accept-l*, . ~. I. ' ynce' status of ice.ns is reddily apparent? FAC'ILITIES CONTROLS 5.3 1. Does the plan' establish that only those manufacturing facilities capable of producing equip =ent that meets the design requirement will be utilized? ^ .f -i r,[~~~~ ~. N,/[ I / 2. Does the plan establish that methods, vill be used to control things such as periodic sharpen-

ing of cutting-tools, lubrication c'f nachine tools, overhaul of

e. quip =en t, calibration of measuring and testing instrt=ents (to recog-nized i'ndustry standards) and other similar actlyities?

f, \\ Hist 5.4 . CONTROL or SpECIAL PROCESSES '1. Does the pasrl provide for contreled C' methods that are =,onit cred to verify quk3 i:.y? l _,if, g? _, _, < _,_ a l .-l .m PACI 5 of 6

r-

s ^ ." ^

^-

yygg [ ' ~ ~ ~ : YES NO p M:A .~=, no,, ,a (

5.5 coNTP.0L or !?0Nco?;Fopa Inc nEEgt3t 1.

Does tive plan provile for a method wherchy work. not con-I ~,,,, '...- for=J.ng to' a cceh't.snce crf teria vill.,be idt:ntified, withheld, revleued,, aIproved, corrected i or othervice dir.por.ed of by [ the supplier's authori:ed engineers to ensure the accept-ability of the cbapleted product . to der.Ign recuirc=ents? ' 5. M,. 2.r:oy,rdrion, pqrpjg77o;; fy:3 pge;;73g

1. 'Does the plan provide for a nethod whf ch identifics that equipment vill be protected.

preserved.s.nd pact ed to insure its ' quality is usintained during nanufacture, shipment and storage? S.7 MANDLIRC D' ~ 1. Docs the plan provide for a method which identifies thac 4 the supplier vill utilize handling methods and transpoi- ) I'. tation means, which ensure j that equipment and paterf al are not da:a;,ed during trans- 'Portation and handling? CO:OENTS SECTION 5.0 No control of non-confor'mir.g :.aterial. No internal audits.. No manage nent evaluation of the Quality eProgram. q:e..f e app ~. 3 t c.l i g O g g s PAGE (, cf (. ~ 9

~ mm u~ .n. a ' 3.F o*A, TE. '.9/22/81 r *...N..!.I'.,#* . l. ',e# +Y

s. ed. -

'[ ., J:: *t'.t..... ~ t . :V.,.? ".....: .m, , g.. .a '.s' *;.}.. . n. L.' *.+. l e e ..m.=**. ..,, 2..g..>....'~,:t.. .a *? ;. s. . f.g?;a.a.t s ~... .s..! ...... r.,, t;.%...> j *.

s...

,*.s. s.::. ...s.r. r no

t,v.

s .s'.. W. g,n n .h O'{tt#,.e.:W,?.} >;".;. ..s.,1~ * [.' ' ' ' ,' f .N. ~.

?.1 ' *.

,. T nf,;[z..., . v*t. A - e * -.- n, 7,,..;.t. , SUBJECT rooecemb fietsis sJ.

/. ' ; "'

. ATTENTION Palth ifacen .*'.*o'.l*.. .s... t..:.. u..~. s.

~...

5TREET .. v.. .s *. s ....z a..s.;:.....r- .s = , ggyy.r. J.,. - s. . n.. u.... ..:;. e .e .

2.'.;.L l:..

\\: ~%* s ;;, ; ): :.4.. e :.. *. ?^:._q.. ".:':... ' ~. .. :,...g..;e.9 ' 1:. ,r -:. :.. r.. .s. * ;"s

:.,1 is, r.1

..k:.y;. l;. s \\.a ? . c')fYe.As of this date?,*,.y. * ' a t*, ~: ,...>i :. .. ~.. su::pcind all ordering fro:a '*Edgecc:rb :1ctals" pending resolution; of

7 findings" fou=d duri.ng sur rey conducte'd on 9/18/81 by our Q.h. Departr.ent...

~. ' .di$9:is supplier hrdbeen renoved fro:a our Acprove3 Vendors List '

? I'%%iC:.M '

'.,. @C.=.. T:..;e.'.,:' ' ~. ....; R ".TW's:.- ~~ f.M2f,&.Th h '...f/,*-Q l i F.%: L;sy.. i:+.. < c'.:J.r:. -... ,.. 2:.: ",. : <.'s$.?s.W;h'.ys,b. >:.'p s. ~ ^ '.k :y*f$..W;%..:.:'./.. ,...u.e. C.: e.:. :.'::. L.. s.. ?-C.D* :< '. c :'. i m.. :" Q;'. h .~.t.:- : zC.': 0 TE ZACK CC:2XW ~*;,. 6.. :. v as.....

:..s.2-

.,,. o.. .. - -s*i. :. t. . u, s. ::.. ....s. s.. ...%.r. v.. s~

s

.. ~... ."si: .f.:p,., p!..d ? . g..x...rs<. f; m..; ;,:M....e..,..r,... u; g :.' : ". r,.;.,., :,. ~ ..y. . ;,- A......?. - ...v .,7.:p.:,. ?..a .a

s.

~ y y: >....i f, g... ' .d'p 3,..... :. ;..,. p. g.. .. g. .,,.y s --: s '# '.4... s.. a r.. s. ;... s t s4,.. n.'.,,.,, l..,,1 y.. r

1. ??<;, s. a et.,

..,t . :. r-J Mr{'7.. s, l..".'t- '.U:~.[,1J,7;e[;5.2. #.-.. {l. 2:!.*,. ' ' *f 4 };N,. ; z.i.Q:; ~. . David 2:. Calki.ns t . ';. u.~,A :: * *: :;.M! ::4 :.. Q.h Knnager * ' Y;:'

*".?g..'.i s

, C4(:,':..ccs C.2. D22ute1 :,:* 7 - :.. .?. ?,:'. u..'.' ~ .;.:... /J,C. Dctutel *.,.;,' " ~ y,. A. s..g:. '.l '" C ' T.':,. ~ .c.

y.,..'?,.

......*s. :.- '., *.. . ~.....

n. -a.:. '.:,*.c..? C.L. Elchs tae&t, Jr.

.s. ...., *....a..F

*. *. u.,.

~. ';Wr s /..y. - . D, F.al. :.:ah.n '.. . 1.es. '. . Q E.w:. T..L.1es.]s. e.P. : .., '....,.. ' ~ . r*. 1 * * ?' ......e 9.. . r

. s

.*.e.e,.*'.*.4.?.' s,.. a.. ... =4. e...:.

. +.,..,....<:.

1.,. .t s.. ..~.~.:*

...a.j *.

. :.r.,.. .. x.' = =.e,;.... 4..

6...*.

. &.4.4. e. * .v t.. * * *.... * .....,.... r e. n..,e. t.,,3 s ..a... ..y. s JtEPLY.- DATE i...^* .-..c-s...;..... s.. ....v.3 v. ;....n :........*

e..

e..... .v > :s..c.. o s *0:."?",W',

h., ?...<'.d*

,,}.Q*'. :::..'.'., d.' ;. n* ~. 'R'.:'. ~.~. f ~ .0- ... fz f::.g. p;. .,. ::,,6- , f. e.n. >; 1, s- ', ~ * .2 c'. ta V. *.*e .... ~%.

f.'...

W '..

.. i..%::.r.. k ..i s ..,.c.-,.. e . :; ~:k,. ". < . f,:.........u.*.s... ,. 4. e... r. c, .c. a,f. c. .f..,.... ...r... .V . r :;.: ' .s . ~~....

".v

1

....s.. ~. ... s. -s

s....

t .....s... ~ .v.- . ~ ;. : .,.,.6;, <.. .r. p ..s n. .. s.. ....s,..: s ,e .,. s .s - v s, .u; r .,.s. ~ 4 = l e 1 i .\\ l .\\ j \\./ I e-.

2 1 SUPPLIER / DEPARTMENT AUDITOR: Men schaefer Fdgecomb t!ctals DATE: February 10, 1982 3348 S. Pulaski Road SURVEY O . CIL NO._Z.25-2 00 (1) Chicago,.IL AUDIT G REAUDIT O SATISFACTORY @ ' UNSATISFACTORY O CONDITIOMAL RES'ULTS: Satisfactory conditional Edgecomb has been approved with the condition that The Zeck Company will be able to purchase only Channel and Beam material. This will be effective until Edgecomb ca.n provide tracability of angic iron as a corrective action to this finding. Several copies of ZQS-100 have been distributed within their organi::ation. Upon approval by Edgecon.b management their new Q. A.1:snual will be forwarded to / The Zack Co. Q.A. Department for reference and vendor filing. o r ~ i j .).

Ken s':haef' r v

/ M_ ~ e CCRRECTIVE ACTlON STATEMENT Auo TOR ~<e ~ ~ Finding el There is no available record'of calibration of any measuring equipment. Finding $2 There are no surveys on file for review.,th'at' SectionVII (Survey) of their existing Q.A. P.anual states being done. Finding $3 1:aEerial tracability is not completely adequate for angle iron products, therefore 'they will by limi'ted to supply Channel a6d Beams until such time a re-audit can be perfo'rmed

,, verify the tracibility of angle iron.

(See aucIlt report 2/10/82 K.5) Follow-up in thirty (30) days to close findings for full acceptance suggested. )/ I

gw)-

z.- iz - 92. 4i I .'/ f ..z (1.!!Wd5. ML$'3.). ..A*lE.* f.S HEFCP.T REVIE.I.. RLS3C ;E: ELE SU.';.;*.;L ;R D.C E O SY f.tANAy'F A OF C A. =. . D G 96M6 Wm .N .e 9 r . = e

L. p . = - - AUDIT CHsCKLIST O SURVEY Cil NO. 7,QS*-100 ( 1 ) l 8 AUDIT. DATE 2/11/82

SUPPLIERIDEPARTMENT REPRESENT.A_ TIVES e

Lt.gpo,5 t m y.s ~ BOB FATE AUDITORS I i

8 S. Pultr.41' Road Bob Ford Ken Schaefer 1

<*cg% John Heinlen h-71oo g S-SATISFACTOP.Y U-UNSATISFACTORY N/A-NOT APPLICABt.E O-OPEN I r, - CHARACTERISTICS FINDINGS SECT. NO. COMMENTS T l , plier responsible for the quality ZQS-100 They do not have'a method of cosaplete tracibilty. k and/or raaterial being supplied o 2.d for all materials. 3 ~ .pliance with the requirements Tha Zack Company.purcha'se ~ ?. l i l ?ller shall have a management i .Mnc to provide work and/or 3.0 I 7.1 nocting established ' quality (. - - s c.d c. I s, ) .e -s \\ .\\ i. c.611ched Responsibilities foi-3

Control 'ersonnel

s 30 p Guido Lir.es 8. t Confor.T.nr c e ~ l Acceptabatity

on-Contbrmance

( l ablished T.rocedures.or instruct-i efining m:thods used to adminis-3.0 l s

tlity Con;rol.

g ~ .s'- s.

1 ~ AUDIT CHECKLIST O SURVEY Cll NO' 7.QS-100 ( 1 ) SUPPLIERIDEPARTMENT 8 AUDIT D' ATE 2/11/02 REPRESENTATIVES rd eemb :Mta'.n 9 i Dob Fate .340 S. Pula.1ki Road AUDITORS Dob Ford - 5.'11CA"8 ' U' John Heinlen

17-7700

~' s S-SNiis.vACTORY - . U-UNSATISFACTORY N/A-NOT APPLICABLE - " O-OPEN ' i i CHARACTERIST!CS FINDINQS SECT. NO. COMMENTS quality plan to show methods fo'r \\ ZQS-100 N detectio:t of problems and pre-8 tivo actions to be taken, inspect-30 ethods. ~ I

ablished cor'rective action Nres to process as needed

~ 3.0 informances.. s m y s.: / ~j

i. s g
ord filo of all inspectiqns, test p.a verify. compliance ano

':sbility of product. s 3.0 ~ l 1 7 1 blier provurement. forms, state ~ hiity,requ.irements,asspecified ~ .0' 7,ack Compnany purchase order. } s i

citNo' 0-l' O Suavei' - 7/11/82 AUDIT CHECKLIST @ AUDIT DATE i REPRESENTATIVES AUOLTORS I -h Ken Schaefer SUPPLIERIDEPARTMENT Bob Fate --Edrcomb Metals Bob Ford ~ _ 3348 S. Pulaski Road John IIcinlen O-OPEN ' _L ~ N/A-NOT APPLICABLE U,

Chicaco, 247-7700 U-UNSATISFACTORY COMMENTS S-S ATISFAC TO.RY-FINDINGS SECT. NO.

I I l CHARACTERISTICS 1 \\ -s \\ ZQS-100 inspection procedures to. i 's nc.blish criteria for acceptahce and P.cceipt 4,o scunentation approval ~~ l LO. Established method to pr6 cess alida-cenform'ng conditions as they,b ~ }_; 2 4.0 g

o:.3 ovidenc s

\\ 4 I

11. Manufa.'.turin6 controls which have c:;tsblishe.t inspection points through-50 to det:rmine acceptance criteria 3

s out l iron h d method by Lack er tracibility on many size,s of ang e

12., There, is an. es'tablis e i

I

dDich all inaterial i's marked.and 0

5 0-bi,lity l .recordc cuo' wing traca, 'N h 1 i 1

o u

t..

I bg AUDIT CHECKLIST O SURVEY CIL HO. ZQS-100 ( l _,L_ @ AUDIT DATE 2/11/82 SUDFi.lER/ DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVES

decorch 1:etals

_.3348.S. Pulacki' Road nob rate = AUDITORS Bob Ford Ken Schaefer _ Chicago, IL John !!cinlen L17-7700 ~ S--SATISFACTORY U-UNSATISFACTORY N/A-NOT APPLICA8LE O-OPEN CHARACTERISTICS' FINDINGS SECT. NO. COMMENTS . -w !A"pi'ocedure for calibration of all x gqs-100 licabl'e couipment and complete o They have been orking on establishing a worxabic and ;. sy s tem *' 5,g method to record calibration. ~ y _l + Procedures for6 performing f. 411t'J ?ptance on any and all spec % 50

csses used in manufacturing s

+. l-i f, g 1 \\. A7segrer#als with~ tagging method and ated area for non'-confor-e mater 5.0 edure to peoces/A 8 e stablish,orocedures:for' protection '~ i sing packing and Preserving of 5*0 a'ia,1 frpm. damage S ~- _a l

.s.. .4.... ii. */;

e...t.n i4 Apol VI:,.*.iIi f(N
I 1.lN i MICHib AN 41350l*
43.J// Jie. t #40 fp.:mx.

n 6; [ '* i,; thegi M u @ ff D c o. / 'N / ClJSTOM METAL FABRICATION 'W" ' ' October 9, PJtsl u 7220-M-lL1-Cis-548 Dechtel Power Coquaration P.O. Box 2167, Midland,13I 411640 Attn: Mr. L.E. Davis Site Manager RE: Docu entation Dicerepanciou Gentlemen: Enclosed is an interim report on the results obtained to date in the review of the material certificitions'for the Midland Project. It is important to note in reviewing 'this repor,4. that the defici-encies shown for each purchase order flave only been recorded. This report does not, address the corrective action being initiated with the suppliers to obtair) corrected certifications. At the present rate of review, it is anticipated that The Zack Ccmpany will be ready to present a final report, on or before October 26, 1981. This should allow ample time to advise the NRC that the possible 100FR50.55 (e) it's applicability. should be withdrawn or to confirm Should you have any questions or problems concerning this report, please do not hesitate to contac't me at (312) 242-3434. very truly yours, t TIIE ZACK COMPANY %k , David E. Calk _ ins, Manager Quality Assurance DEC/br Encla '/ cc: John Rutgers, -(DPCo) Mr. Cl$rk Ash (DPCo) H. Leor'iard, MPQAD Mgr. ( C.Z. DeZutel J.C. DcZutel C.L. Eichstnedt, Jr. - Q') R.B. McCarley Q.A. Files / Chicago Q.A. Files /Hidland FOUNDED TO SO*0VE SMUtEQuft'SNSM*e " x ' "

= .O d ulairr is, 1981 5 l 1 1 TO: D. C.ilkins PitOM: 11. McCrane SUBJ1:CT: Interim Neport - Document at don hevii:o s eculti., Mi.flani Station only, as of October 2, 1981 SUMMI.1W : The attached cheets tabulat.e the renults of nuhject zevi :w. Approximately 70's of the listed (from Midiami uit.e) packar;un have been located and tuviewed. All packages reviewed have been attached in individu.nl bindi ri: and iiled in the fire-resist ant cabinets in accordance with the requirunentu of t he Draf t work Inutruction for " Control, Content, and Maintenanen of Q. A. l'urchace.- Order / Certified P.aterial Test Report Files".

The tabulation lists "packagen".

The number of certificationu in each package varies between one and twenty. For the purpose of categorization only the more major dicerepancy in each p.ackage has been tabulated. DISCUSSION: f The results of the reviewed have been categorized as followu: Clerical Errors - Lack of reference to "I.STM", revision year, or complete lack of standard designation. Signature Missing - Lack of written signature. Signature Errors - Typed signature and handwritten signature or initials not identic. Chem / Mech Test Data - Chemical analysis and/or mechanical test data missing, or not in accordance with ASTM Standard Hequirements., U.S. Steel Letter - Indicates P.O.'s listed in U.S. Steel Co. letter to Zack Co. stating that material on P.O. 's were not processed thru U.S. Stee: V&T program. Letter date, Sept.,21, 1981. ~ -. Missing Certifications - Self explanatory. Certain packages lack certification for all, or for only certain items. (Majority appear to be missing Reliable Galvanizing Co. Certs.) C of C Only - Packages containing only a Certificate of' Compliance (no test data). Midland Tech. Spec. appears to require physical / chemical test data for materials not specifically listed by trade name. (Various fasteners, nuts, bolts, washers, etc.) Alterations - Apparent alteration of certification by typed'or handwritten additions. Stickers - Gummed labels applied to cortifications or certific$ tion cover sheets. These typed and signed to indicate compliance with ASTM Standards. Authent1 city of the signatures is questionable. e O

Ea.W'o,412 TH P_ ACE

CHICAGO (CICERO) ILt. 60650
312/242 3434 Y

.01 WESTERN

FUNT MICHIGAN 40503
313/733-2040 4/

L t h e Y c 3, d @ I C O. cos. rom ucrad FABRICATION October 9, 1981 Co=nonwealth Edison Co. LaSalle County Nuclear Station Rural Route #1, Box 220, 2601 N. 21st Road, Marseilles, IL 61341 Attn: Mr. Willia:n Donaldson Site Manager RE: Docu=entation Discrepancies Gentlement Enclosed is an interim report on the results obtained to date in the review of the 2.aterial certifications for 'the LaSalle Project. It is 1:nportant to note in reviewing this reportl that the defici-encies sho n for each purchase order have only been recorded. This report does not address the corrective action being initiated with the suppliers to obtain corrected certifications. At the present rate of review, it is anticipated that The Zack ,e Co=pany will be ready to present a final report, on or before g October 26, 1981. This should allow a=ple time to advise the NRC that the possible IOCFR50.55 (e) should be withdrawn or to confirm it's applicability. Should you have any questions or problems concerning this. report, please do not hesitate to contact sne at (312) 242-3434.~ Very truly yours, THE ZACK CO.MPANY / David E. Calkins, Manager Quality Assurance DEC/br Encl: L.J. Burke, Site Project Supt. cc: T. Quaka, QA J. Dearbeck (CECO) C.E. DeZutel J.C. De2utel AN C.L. Eichstaedt, Jr. C. Bau;ngardner i Q.A.lchicago/LaSalle Site . e,v ierssracem m em o me e~ ~

4 DOC W.12TH PLACE CHCAGO (CICERO)ILL 60650

312/242-3434 Ydso) WESir_RN = FUNT MK"HIGAN 40506
313/736 2040 f

. theJ E!SMEco. CUSTOM METAt FABRICATI N i October 5, 1981 1 l 1 To: Dave Calkin.s From: R.A. Perry Subj ect: Interim Report - Documentation Review Results-LaSalle Station only, as of October 5, 1981 Su=marv: The attached sheets tabulate the results of subject review. Approximately 84% 374 reviewed, 445 total (from LaSalle site) packages have been located and reviewed. All packages have been attached in individualbinders and filed in the fire resistant cabinets in accordance with the requirements of the draf t work j l instruction for " Control Content and Maintenance of QA Purchase Order / Certified Material Test Report Files". i The tabulation lists " packages"..The number of certifications in each package, varies between one and twenty For the purpose of categorization only the more major discrepancy in each package has been tabulated. Discussion The results of the review have been categorized as follows: Clerical Errors - Lack of reference.to " ASTM" revision year, or complete lackof standard designation. Sicnature missing -lack of a written' signature. a. Signature Errors - Typed signature and handwritten " signature or initials are not identical. Chem / Mech Test. Data - Chemical analysis and/or mechanical test data missing and/or not in accordance with ASTM standard requirements. ~ U.S. Steel Letter - Indicates P.O. 's listed in U.S. Steel Co. letter to Zack Co'mpany stating that material on P.O. 's were not processed thru U.S. Steel V & T program. Letter dated ' 9/21/81. Missing Certifications - Self explanatory. Certain p'ackages lack certification for all, or for only certain items. (Major-ity appear to be missing Reliaboe Galvanizing Co. certs). C of C only - Packages containing a certificate of compliance f. h;o test cata) J A43 1 1 - -~... w en, ve rwe i t'vouE f.tEW. F.GRIC.tTICy NEEDS C.P:NousTaY* __ y _

pcyc 2 f.. October F 1981 ~ .,t L Alterations - Apparent alteration of certification b'y typed' or handwritten additions. i ~ Stickers - Gu==ed labels applied to certifications or r erti-Yication cover sheets. These typed and signed to indicate c6mpliance with ASTM standards authent city of the signatures i is questionable. ~ .. e 0 e e e e e O 9 e 0 8 9 h 9 GS e e e 1 G 9 og 28

97 Surveillance Date: October 9, 1981 ~ File No.,J-2590.26 r' / LASALLE Q.A. SURVEILLANCE REPORT NO. 81-661 Contractor /OrganizationObgrved:. Zack Company 00130 All - l 4 ategory: (1,2,3,5) C ~ . Item Observed: - On October 9,1981, a surveillance was performed at Zack's Corporate -Office to evaluate the step (e)taken to date concerning Zack's notificat s of a possible 10CFR 50.55 relating to documentation discrepancies. Upon arrival, Mr. D. E. Calkins, Zack's ManaEer of Quality Assurance presented an interim' report dated October 9, 1981 (See Attached), on Zack's review so far. This surveillance is based on a review of Zack's activities in progress and the above report dated 10-9-81 Zack is currently re-reviewing all purchase orders and associated documentation. This documentation is being reviewed in detail, specifically for missing certs, missing signatures, any alterations, preper physicals and. chemicals and compliance,,with purchase order and specification requirements. A log is being maintained on each purchase order, showing results of this review and any corrective action required. For certs that are missing, found deficient or appaa t'o have been altered, Zack is notifying the Supplier and requesting ne certifications. .These conversations are followed up by letters, to hopefully assdre a response. To date, numerous revised certs have bee received, but many more are required. The personnel Zack has acquired to perform this indepth review were found to be adequately qualified and properly trained. The group leader was found to be a Consumer Power employee with 15 years of do'cumentation experience. Three Quan-tech personnel were also hired to assist the Group Leader. Finally, two additional Zack personnel were brought in t'o be trained and to eventually take over the documentation review once this initial evaluation is complete. ~ During this initial re-review, all necessary standards and specificatic were found being used. Some questions did' exist concerning LaSalle's Specification due~to vagueness in actual. documentation requirements. These questions will be addressed in Zack's Final Report scheduled for completion on October 26, 1981., The follouing'information w's checked during this surveillance to a assure the quality of Zack's review. All comments and questions raised by Zack were being entered in their Master Log as required. Some of the comments found by Zack may not be concerns for LaSalle Start-Up of Unit 01 based on my understanding of Specification J-2590, requirements. The follouinc; Cortifica tion : we'.c sevir.ed: e }$ g i g

\\ )7f.. o r- , g, (. A) Certs containing clerical errgrs -and missing signatures: 4 P.O. 0624 - Inland Stecl'Co. (Coils) P.O. required certifications. s-howevdr, certs fai. led to identify which year of ASTM - A527 was used. [ '.. .._.P.O. #831 - U.S. Secel. Supply (HR Bars) P.O. required certifications, but th'c Northt.'estern.5 teel Cert failet to identify " ASTM" A-36. The C, of G..from U.S. Stec) Supply did however show heat ? and AS'1M-A36. P.O. #947. , National Metal Fabricators (Angle rings) P.O. requirec ~. ..;i.. ~ . J. ' " ASTM" only A36-77. Other heats failed to identify Certs. Some of the heats received did not state it; ? cither ASTM or A36 desi Edge-c'ombmetals(Plate)gnation.P.O. requiicd certs..The ~ P.O.' #1094

a actual CMTR was missing a legible signature...The covc j: -

f._ sheet.was'. hot.:cver signed and acceptable'. - -9,"! B) Missing Certifications ~ ^ ~ ~ i ..e

h..1 P.O. #508 - P.O. was written for 4-325 bolts.. Cortifications werc'

/ 4...?, '. 2.. required, however, only a Cert of Compliance wgs kJ . received t/nich failed to reference " ASTM". s,. $~f .P.O. #572 - No certs were available, coul[,not be located. a 1; P.O. #586 - P.C.'waf for duct sealant and required a Product' Spec. sheet which was received. Zack is now requestil e / J f "Ecrts.for the, shipment. LaSalle spec is not clear on ~ if certs are required. P.O. #565 - Bro'ck Tool Co. '(Phillips Redhead. Wedge anchor) letter . certification only, no actual CMTR's received.. 'P.O. required'certs. .n.. 'P.O. ?4105 K.cy Crest Inc. (Nuts & Bolts) P.O. required certs, however, only C of Compliance received.. C) Altered reports . /. P.O. #914 - P.O..requir'ed certs, howev6r, the CMTR's received . contained.an ASTM da,te which had a different type setting. I P.O. #947 - Pr.0. required certs. O'ne CMTR was of poor quality. As a result, thc' heat # was highlighted by someone. . f It should be noted that there was another acceptable ~ h heat # shown on the CMTR. D), Chemicalandphysicalr.esultsnotperspecification ' P.0.'#826-halumetSteel(HRAng'e)P.O.requiredASTM-A36 l ( steel, which was received. Although; LaSalle's Spec. for this tyne of necel -a; f r-1.^.c.TM A575 Cn.(2 M-1020 P.O. 6630 - Reliable Galvanizing (HR Angle) P.O. requir.2d /.3G whic was roccived, however, LaSclle required ASTM A575 Grad: l i ~ M-1020 t _ ~ j", __a_- TW. *** ^"

F.., o. 681 641 ~ 8 t, . ~ - l. D) Con' ti: P.O. #1094 - Edge-comb Metals (Plate St'ec1) P.O. reciuired i, ASTM-A36, however, l.aSalle Spec.. regt.lired ASTM-A:- Grade A.- e P.O. #1102 - Edge. comb Metals (Plate) Same as P.O. #1094. s l::.,.. - Based on these results,'Zack's review appears sufficient to - 3.j., identify any inconsistencies within Zack's procurement documentati.. i;5f.:' _Various Spec devict' ions' have been identified which should 'have bc - {.2.. :- accepted by Commonwealth Edison Engineering prior t.o usc. 'These 2.j will still necd to 'be resolved.. Sarghnt & T. undy will al-so bc ;- ~ . F, i. ~, contacted to clarify actual record requirements for certain materie fD. Pending 7.ack's. submittal of their Final -Report.on ~10-26-81, .{ ;C;., ; ' ' disposition from Project Engineering and Zack's success in obtainir. y,y ' re?ised certs, no additional problems.can'bc foreseen. Site QA wil i,4:.7;2 review the records to substantiate acceptable disposition of ident.t .. concerns at a later date.. .i.?.$. . ~ Corrective' Action Taken: ~.. W. ' p- \\ Njg j .~ Follow Up Action: .-. \\ ../,,.-- njg. ---.--_-...----.:......:..____-_____.z.__ f.,'* Date: /o,/fe;- 5., .,RcPorted by:' ;_m.f I/ h -~~ ,,,..c... '... N ; 3..'-( ~ , Appr5ved by: ' ' k GL S w.u M Date: /o[/j. . a :.. 1. i. [ ;. '., '.. 97, :

FU. Action Verified: NAM

,y y c M Date: ' ' ' ~ ~ .7.',," p, y. ,, 3. :, QA Eng. nsp. -.'.h.. N A h__N Da e: /0 /c; - FU Action Approved: ~. i,: :.'.e..

e QA Supervisor

~7 [ s. cc: .. J. Shewski/G. F.14arctis ? J.' L. J. Burke /h'. H. Donaldson T. E. Quaka/Q. A. File ~ Contractor /. s ( 1 r- - --,~,.e. ;..,, ~,-.. -.--,... -r. -... --. m - n--. --.- ;..,..w .~ ~ -- -. y.y.: -.-~ ;-,.~ - r. ;. er - -. -

i 4SOO W.12TH PLACE

CHICAGO (CJCERO)ILI. GO650 + 312/242 3434 4401 WESTERN
FUNT MICHIGAN 48506
313/736 2040 M s iRC' /'!nokMiCO.

c rv \\. .s / CUSTOM METAL FABRICATION ' / October 23, 1981 'IOi ALL ZTG CIEP14% CIX23ZT2.T PNEL '~~ i MCM: M.L. Skates, L.Q.A.E. ~ j SGGIET: On1ity Mmnmce Ibement.htrol ALL Omlity Assurance.DocuTentaticn to and frtrn fSt; pliers" of naterials, shall be transnitted to.the D:xastent Cbntml Clerk for inLW prior to issuance. 'Ibe fol3coing &xrments shall include but rot be limited to; Purchase Recuisiticas O r g xderc e C of C etc. i ~ ~ ~ - ~ ' - ~ ~ '

THE ZACK CIEPANI'

%.L.sb d m M.L. Skates, L.Q.A.E. Wity AssL'.arce Depart:ent/ Chicago ( \\ b Cf f.

FOUNDED TO Sot.vr 'nw travv ir unas en nou a mau we-m

~..~. -a ~

g*s77'xes%

G5 (- o* October 30, 1981 LCS 2752 TOi J. J. Ihley, I'2 nager of Projects

3. 3. Stephenson, Project I*anager L. O. De1 George, Nuclear Licensing Ad-inistrator V. J. Shevski,.'hnager of @;alitf-Assurance T. E. Qua*:a, Site Qt.ality Assurance Superintendent FROM:

L. J. Bitrke u M CT: Interin Report on Reportable Deficiency LCS 531-08; Zack Co=pany Documentation Deficiencies r An evaluatien report dated October 23, 1981 has been submitted by the 1 Zack Co=pany. Included in the report are descripticas of the deficiencies, found during the quality review, corrective a tion r.nd planned action to pro-Tent rocccurrence. Initial indications are that a reportable deficiency does not exist. Co==enucalth Edisen Corpany is still reviewing the following: a. Corrective action planned by Zack Co pan; b. Required engineering resolution for r.aterial with indetortinate or unacceptable caterial properties. Infor:atien available indi-cates that the. properties vill te able.to be obtained or determined to be acceptable. 'fne final report is e:coected to be co=olete,by 'Dece=ber 1,1981. If. ' further infor=ation is required, please contact us 4-ediately. I* Sof?I W L. g41rke Proaect Construction Super'intendent DS/st t cc:

3. R. Shelton T. E. Watts

3. J. I'c!.ndrev R. E. Folyo?.k

{} P. F. I*::. ning V. R. Bc.aldcen -- [ t ~ A46 e

S 632V\\MEUL4WJ e [fl[Rh(MgD'Je$AN 4B5oD

313/73D 2o4o J

m.- - y thed(3A@@$ u co. CUSTOM METAL FABRICATION , k~ -~ November 4, 1981 t, .C To: All Cognirant Personndl - From: C. L. Eichstaedt, Jr. Re: Purchase Requisitions and Purchase, Orders for Nuclear Projects and Commercial Operations. Effective today, November 4,.1981 the following shall be adhered:

1. All purchase orders'for Chicago' Commercial operations (specific to a job, not stock) shall be issued by purchasing dept. Five (5) digit numbers shall be used beginning with C-17428. All P O.'s shall be accountable.

p

2. For Nuclear projects and shop stock - ALL purchase orders shall be iss.ned by purchasing dept./ Quality Assurance dept. at' CORPORATE headquarters.-

A. Site requested

1. Site to transmit purchase requisition for office supplies, tools, etc. (not part of project) to Chicago.

2. Site to transmit fabric'ation ticket (Traveler) to Chicago for requisition of project incor-porated material.

3. All requisitions / travelers transmitted to corporate project management.

4. Corporate project management to issue pur--

, chase requisition to purcihasing dept./QA dept. I

5. Purchasing dept./QA dept. to generate and issue order to supplier / vendor.

N'OTE: If " Time-is-of-the-essence"," site to tele- / phone and/or Owip. requisition to corporate project management. Corporate project management thru purchasing dept'./QA dept. will verbally issue purchase nup.ber*to. site. Site shall then issue verbal purchase order number -c n :plior/vendcr. Sire ic sti:1 ~ responsibla for trans?,itting written requisi-g /; / Continued

FOUNCED TC SOLVE THE Ut;*C;;E !.a1 TAL FAC;? C/ TIO* l'irEre : C N--U MY
s
DEC;CATED TO CLEA: sir G,.:.0 CL'O C.::.;;;:NO TI;E A:7. (,,;; o;c v.py;LO *

.i = ,a Y.' tion to corporate project management. Confirming written purchase order shall. - ~ not be issued without written requisition / f traveler within 72 hours. B. Plant Generatec (specific project and stoc'k) ~1. All Requisitions shall be. transmitted thru ~ corporate projec't' management.

2. Corporate project' management shall generate requisition and transmit to purchasing dept./

QX dept.

3. Purchasing dept./QA dept. shall generate and 3

' issue 'psrchase order -to supplier / vendor. / ~ 1, ' ~; ~ ~ C. All purchase orders for nuclear projects shall ,j be four (4) digit numbers commencing with C-1422.' The above directive shall be'in effect until pernanent changes / procedures are developed and implemented. f. M / --' k 4 GC x. Carl L. Eichstaedt, JM David Calkins Donald R. Mal'hhn I c *'.: : : :=.. ?. +. Sites to return all unused purchase orders and P.O. logs to corporate headquarters. ~ Note: Distribution of purchase orders is as f.ollows: ~~ ~ A. Two (2) c,opies (white and goldenrod) to supplier / ' vendor. B. One (1) copy (yellow) to corporate QA dept. file'. C. One (17 copy (green) to corporate accounting dept. file. D. One (1) copy (Xerox) to purchase requisition initiator.. E. One (1) copy (Xerox) to corporate engineering dept. file.' F. Onekl) copy (Xerox) to corporate purchasing dept, file. i

4'JOO W.121H PLACE e CHICAGO (CICERO)l..L G0650 e 312/242-3434 4 4401 WESTERN

FLINT MICHIGAN 48506 e 313/733-2040

,T, l Si iheMe@DU co. CUSTOM METAL FABRICATION n,_p// s. c MEETING SCHEDULED FOR: FRIDAY, NOV. 13, 1981 'l [ 10:00 A,M. -CONFERENCE ROOM-You are requested to attend the above scheduled meeting to be held in the " Conference Room" at 10:00 a.m. 11/13/81 f

SUBJECT:

Bechtel Audit of Novemb,er 18,'19, 20th 1981 at the Chicago facilities. I jfh David E. Calkins, Manager Quality Assurance ,.s ' ATTENDEES: C.Z. DeZutel N. Rosa ' B. Prim G. Kollaritsch J. Engh R. Greune j T. Howard D. Henigan H. McGrane R. Basiaga ( M. Skates i MF + FOUf 'DED TO SOLVE THE U'V.VE f.*ET AL FAER O&.T+0N IJEED5 On WJJSTRi'.

DEDICATED TO CLEANING AND CUSTOM 121NG THE AIR OF THE WORLD + -

L'7 -

NO. 11, 1981* 's UNTIL FilRTHER NOTICE THE FOLLOWING RECORD REVIEW PROCEDURE WILL BE; 1. NO FILE OR FILE MATERIAL WILL LEAVE THE DOC MENT ROOM. 2.' FILES ARE TO BE REVIEWED IN THE DOCUME T ~ TABLE PROVIDED. 3. IF EXTENSIVE REVIEW OF FILE MATERIAL IS NEEDED, COPY / COPIES OF PERTINENT DATA WILL BE MADE BY DOCUMENTATION PERSONNEL. 4. FILE MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE.TO ZACK OR ZACK RELATED PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN RELATED RESEARCH. ~! .i. p I l g } 6#UMENT CONTROL SUPERVISOR / 9 e e ~- I M e e e o e e ~ ).- C e AM 50

,g.9I E'3G ~ !}lH)L Edecbhk ek. Ab%s) qvcob6 - .R w a f a w G le k ; I. &. At'a o a f k c,,Jem.J le h~ (Q / Wi W. /. l a. fiIn w L k ie ~ <d a L d ~t n&L M p g. u.

2. a C ww un DL. ndenh a..a. -

\\ is med f Syy & c.s y pn.fk+ 4A A .6 n~k b, d w &.T+ ys.s -

y. S la ndei d,.,

J a 6 2 A d + M A ais W S<~A~4 A _ gda _us oea-4 '[pp h., S g G S J o^. L '. t h V'sf a r0 4~~L S s 's ,(a d2c)-n-Qg O' F g bl) ~ D. + - t,',% f<. Jl p \\ .!. ( go t 'f

m~ l e". 72agd eo. th r CUSTOM ME.TAL FABRICATION

7..

J November 12, 1981 \\ )LLt. 3.W. Cook Vice-Presidentt, PESC-Midland SLtc . Consumers Powen Company 1945 Parnatt Road, P 356-B Jackson, Michigan 49201

Dear k. Cook,

The Zack Company would like.to exptess our sincere gratitude .to Conswners Powcr Company for tJte loan of your employee, bVt. Howard McGrane, for.the. total docwnent codroi audit of our Corparation. His ptofcssionalism, exper.tise and dcneanor are a credLt to his employer and himself. Concurrently, we deeply appteciate the opportw1Lly afforded .to us, to valida.te the good reputation and name we sincerely have fought.to maidain and vindicate. Sincerely, ~ c w a% mR Chris. tine 2. et, President C2D/br cc:

k. H. Leonard

@ L L.y @tane; H / ~ .a.s ArI

FOUNDED TO SOLVE THE UNIQUE METAL FABRICATION NEEDS 0 INDUSTRY.
DEDICATED TO CL EANING AND CUSTOM!2iNG THE MR OF THE WC9LD.

i w, L AUDIT REPORT \\ ~ ren Seliae t er-SUPPLIERIDEPARTMENT _ AUDITOR. . UY.AS, it4C. DAT E-l'el o terL_ J 'i. I 'nu 7535 H. ROOSEVEur n!>. SURVEY O 2C/L NO. M's-100 (1) ron!:3T I AltK, Ir. AUDIT 15d REAUDIT C SATISFACTORY C UNSATISFACTORY @ RESULTS: UtisATIsrAc-@ny Through the audit perfoamed.it the Sc.ia, Inc. office, it has been determined that this organization will not. bu.ible to meet. the minimum entablished quality requirements as establiched by Tlie Y.ek Coinpany. From the information received they cannot verify aniy proiluet f u r n i:,hed. f I s/ l nl L... W

ha von ecaefer

> n n ipp AUDITOR CORRECTIVE ACTION STATEMENT Resurvey to determine further auditing should be made within the year. N 2.- /2 - S t. / e p l l ? ~ i

e e

S- \\-- 0 y REPORT REVIEWED DY MAN AGER OF O.A.

RESPONS: IfLE SUPERV SOR DATE h 5")

N' -h [w/_(: (wA(%{Q.Jo - P'f f. E0 w.12nt PLAct ~ - ~ - //7/;LNp /*,4 7 7{ E Y$I N E M f 5 S A @ 2-N 5 1 Q { ] 3,, cisicAco. nu.. cosso 7,3,ps,,; .ur Dishop 2 3:34 s [ .\\ Date:. M b///C % 1 TO: R. E: - 1 / ATTH: SF W p;;; g _ @ O-f./ i Sant1* man!

s I.

Fa cr! e Sending to you.. ff* ) Herewith I .! !ha - Under Sep rote Cover-- Copy Copies 'allswing Drowings 2 7f

For

! Approval Appreved Dwgs. Approval & Cec. ment Certified Prints Correet;on Appeoved Cert. Prints Jpecific:tions 'Your files Your films & Distribution d Details Final Approval Relees, for Produ: tion For use pn jo$ - t ReIt ase for 1rn:nedicts Production Your Est!:ncte for-work i ld Se.e Description Below uscription-W' W$ b Y~~ Jban e >~ pc&s'~ C _,,l., i, oo.,.- ~ 0 s~L b' '.. -l1/l.s/cre<f-( Ss m rks-s 0 ~ t Please Acknowledge ),s ~ /

ee-Yours very seuly, 1

<;. c. THE 7.ApK CO. i t ?.y: i.'all _ ._ r carer.:.r. / I' l i (ggi;<n. y. gJ.e j c d!y raf t,.*n Co;y(s) to us v u. i j e- , e .., s. '.....,.. t e e -f i I (. /t, s s.f I p f

.e:.1 c .'Nhi.,

x,. [.,

uw-1 / O ) 'Q,, i;,f (t,aN ^. _~ i y L N k v'C-'M89 8 61 6-Us@ F mibL o Ficx ew - b SEE SDDr N8 AV.0 # AR I1 N gu s ^ I Jos//sy(0-si,t-) i lC 'P/73 b et y w fa mibi.,ao sus . spor.s. ./ g- .,q.N I lC-435b 711/E $4A/D doB S$f5 14 H /A7 ' $4Mlla b6 stf Lov??D(4-ir-r) ws \\ a r> ucK, 9- !lA t for _ aistruo i,se Resj 5 silop. 0 y' s j c./M b/.r-ra-i p .= n p l 2. - 2r-7/ ak.a,p,.Q a g g M+

2 M~ i.. U F-t q > ~ r % v r m <n O P n.,. i 8-25-81 h.61 ) 4 % * ' :x_ [)0?LI CATE E6'_,._ _ , 7,'t. ND:!COMIMI.W!CE l'J.F0!!T FOR CD:!STF.UC(10!! ED HST in n >.:.. / f [ 3,,n, g, 2 e (fsti

t. s.",.j 1,.,:..j. 6.ef,-. c. ;..}

gj . 4.,x g-<.. .v c.+o7..g.,.., p.w 4.s.u..,qh. ga g y g,g q;qq.g gy.,,,. .... o i...i

o., in -o.. ov. ~o i

-f'. ,e~i. .....ro o 1....n ~- u. r cu:. i.c.y ai-isos. Il 'I d C. f. ) ) i.,c i f) [ /3 t' ;. I ti e f,e i /6 ;,.r.'

v..civ...nv.

.o f A C K' C 0. i s.ui- -nv-e i) i if R r. L.1 i,:,.i / :,,.,,2 u,. a :,.. i.- cf ff.; JI i-We m o o. *c

uuco" O c..

ci C v s.i o..e.o O so"saa ~snctio~ Q co~ a.coe ooct a eaeio. ,. O cirect O c.-C -o~r o. o. .<a O co~usuctio~ Q.tsi O s 6v.: O snc =o como... ca O ti.

e. o. No & o **e ** *.o.

13. =otD t.C *.o.

13 =o.. etoviH wo ] 3 Ot.~.+ Do'. 08 Nowco=s e.n. ca ~ s I h II 'l *.. {r. l ll 8e '\\. s

e, y-R.:

.sg. R T*. Q r.,-_'a r ow.) .. us ov.n or *.n * "' ru 's ~t !"O s{ r.'( O 0 ', ,f_. r'i' a**r,; ~ hC: e s. .!f fot:~g l7( O i i.I) >!Yl "o"C 0"' S)- i n.'. ' ~' M l '. F O ?. A e iJ t A i'a sr ostle.t o ev . ( l~ (' b(( D i i I t al & f $. 5 YT'f.Q ",,o.*.. t o".'. / /, f(,b f f r.* h .o Y,,,QU.>b - p.m-wc

3. g,, {/f, f, (gj l'bf f D f'

t

d-f h.G 'r. \\ il -r ?

i l'.'U r' / fs? 65 7 e o.. vettx L:x27A:2cNS: wOA.K CAJJ M00EQ CWORKCANICTPROCILD C Q M.R LIM 171!!CNS OP: A t ai vcRx L:nI!A72crs: lL M'i:W4 &s t s)h th g 'WD M t f!'K C**., ~ f 7 Mi~~*** W W ' ' O ' ll' " ' --- v.w sy ' pie;.=t:i.i t :- ).O \\ ~'. . L ecr.>, v ....n ,.. O R .s. c.ust m -o~co-soie .<a ...n.., t ' '.

7 f}i_

S e e P n' t I E.t . E-O l-C CO.M G M V. T f\\ LS '*'. g ~ q. ,,c u... n.. 1

* ~

hr fJ t m r3 F F 7 t *; a a.:., ?,e e 11.. roA( s-(At r n.

2...

,i.. ' Is 'T ($ e#1 / e' d(*(sR M (* p r..sg gr a s_ /),v A Lyg g..

c...-

y'

? t' t ' (~. t N O (. i A,.. ? ;-) ?>r t=.

.ci.c ~ nov..to io co.nci sai -o~co-.c. ~ca .u.ern.~ -'~ IS U I ,'1 CC F s' T I 1 A 1 d.D ' 4 '. C.2 ..c.....c,_.,_..o,o.....~.._...-, _ _...,-........ ._c-, 4 Sec x.2@;eb/M Mk Ae2W 2.5~-12. B c. M ? a -e> n WM-2&Az. o,, ~ INC'**t t "G Ot..e t.d ~1 atAD .......o.-... t 11 m3 -12*f,2 0 18 YMh'fh45WWitt*WM** C'M9Ef,9NWWW8 " *J . efe st r Y e Ce= tie Eacenste. G .Cleo t.ii.IldiLl1 n!. f P

' E

E II.id..'.~....T.,0.];'E m, atN to C o. stet f at =0.< 0 #0. wC 9 L'I nc.. 1 ./J .. onc.nio oe cc,.noeve.c.o=.

s. uo e s..t.ews ncu.es ca P N-r

/7 n os.ouiso= J.eispet m no M 2' /15 B- \\ hv 9 C I) Q)))?.1 l V / '* d ',icii= v ate 6 to ev. t.pp O. c 3

n. le

.r. i.o= (o= u.uc t.o.. n o ~##.

" 5_ lj '

,*#'.a ge h g l_:i.M )faJLe ? - Wi- . _{ Pi-a "~ Eh V ' *. 9 'g-byic'.M...*.] (T 4..a /) oe.. u.,, e o ee y/3hy~,'~fQ" "'.GL.5i L & 9/6{8D r r@ LHj, 2 - t7-B , M. To C&& L' VC I.r.' f }~ ,'A .8 3.. > w......... //,T, I a...,... 't. ' ~$ . -t ~ c s.'~

y1 e

4...-

mU nm ~ .s 73 7 -2 C irew oi m Wf 1 .... g 'N p'..y ll0:lC0!!i0T..W!CE P.LPORT FOR C0:!51RUUDH A#" an /LC [ cg < - Y, ?,,.~>f ,.u, _ n,k,h f,,,, if,. ' h [ " . ns, a es_ n,.~ i,.. b gi.':.l.'?'.Si!.d.( W M )UFii1'De l ~ 0 f..o i ,.,,,....' Lg ' 'd I E 6 a L .o c c it %. 7 in 7 .~,.o....~,.... -2 n c c c o' ~ >nT *ry si r. t *,

n I i n o c th o c.'.m r,,s'e LD.,. ]%u io cu..~o

,c L 3 co-, co. O ~' " " *" g -),,,,ni.. vicno~

u. eo.,,

Q c. c., -- EJ =~- ' ~o~ c g,,, o, a in, ouin t--) ~ tza...~u a,,c,.,J,"Q-a ,,_o...,_,,,

m.,, ~g eem.%'l'[,.;-[,

, f 6 e (,. ,A'k.;d- ~..-.y ~o._ o. o

E e

P H '.' ' ' ' 7r:< r c'"" " v O% . t. i' r.= c r., r. n c ,e,.- cp * ;;& PC D D l5 >l.91 3,,j))1[.,n,g_ ~ Ci < n.J :R T. r. E o.o. ,,,, g. y-h*h _ Shiffi .. :.. __. i f..,k - _li Vi W - m M& C.' 5ec n,,sc.:s a u w,-c ' s (&bu (Vf-n e0 i T , (g/,(I((.7l I',[-l, .n ' M s(*.W'.eA FI-M, { kr. r ti? qg ; h )

m. -..

s 4o.. wou uxmtscus, rhoax to notro e a m m.., O c-a uxnmens f U' LAIN wCRE u.12 A7J ON! -, " u....m. e. q.:p r ;,g,p... m.u,w 7.m..g.c og n,m u.m.,;.m o.w. w me.sw 't v OG e cc..u,

u. c.su o. ~o.<o c.~<i M.i 7 /H.

<<4 P i' t i E.R, E-O 6-E t o.n C, it (* T /n L.5' Oo t. s.s rT r l' s J 'l s' ' u rJ P AL E '1D TT A t r Ht~,3 r ) s A t. h TO t 't ~) l' 9 (', > R af (~ F q.n # t At A M A LYS ts' w.c d R t* c ta L1 0 &, n...: A Ac t=. .........ac..,,.. .cisC ..ou. 4D to co. sea s. ~o-co o. .cg .s. ,2 c c. e is r m a 3 e.o. a t. Os.r.r ,.. D. 2 ,c,..,.... [ I < o.. o... o.0 ., o...., ~. ... o o....< o o,.. N 5ec.a%L/.M AA 42W.2 s -/2. I ......,-.-c..o.= .~.~,...~e~.~,~. m2-ne.~... V 4 DN P M fiiH R wMM HeRFIT*** T'.^"ecr.'5R'"-WMO .............D,m,......,. F..N ' "*' .,u, W1.c Pi " ',[ 22 EW *._." M, io co.oci s., -o.<o-,o. ca _encnn o o,.o o i.a e .c.o ~ n. n o o at.e -i n cw.n.<< a c.nc..n.o-o. ccwoo,v f A 23 Davonilso~ Q-*t t n D=.,*. o.t o s. 3.. On)* O%.ac cQ.Lt l!0 e.a o.u u...o-c o-o,0.o.... o,. o, ~c.~n. ci.......,. m y y_ y.y.n. a n.,.3

3...

..v,... ;,,,, gg.y. 4-y,gg y. z a r.., q -.y. g m.,- . -r ; y g.; y z

n. e:. nc,.._s a o.o,c >.tv.,-

C c. Q. C C. C.cD.Ho=4 ((,f

- - '8
DE O..*l

!**,C'*ut

t o

.I D .a N : g.ra *- t r.

G.L

SARGENT & LUNDY CNG E N CCRS , S S C AST M ON ROE $*R EET CHIC AGO. BLLINCIS 40403 TELEPMONE 312 269 2000 s February 15, 1982 Project Nos. 4266-00 j 4267-00 C5mmonwealth Edison Company 1 LaSalle County Station ~ Nonconformance Report (NCR) No. 566* EVAC Material Documentation" ~ Punchlist Item 6.36 .- ~.

u.

-", E - - Mr. T. E. Watts Proiect Engineer ti.- ~ P. O. Box 767 2, Chicago, Illinois 60690 ..E.. b g,'... '....

References:

1. Sargent & Lundy (S&L), (E. P. Ricohermoso) letter to Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO), (T. E. Watts) dated November 24, 1981, regarding NCR Nos. 566, 557 and 558. 2. S&L (E. P. Ricohermoso) letter to CECO (T. E. Watts)', dated November 25, 1981, regarding~NCR No. 558.

Dear Mr. Watts:

We have reviewed tlie subject nonconformance concerning the inability of the HVAC Contractor to obtain the complete certified Mill Test Report for the material used in the HVAC System. The following actions were performed to resolve the~nonconformance: 1. Requested additional information such as the specific application of the material in the HVAC System. Per Mr. J. Dierbeck of CECO - LaSalle County Station on February 3, 1982, the materials listed in the.NCR attachments were used as SHIM for the Primary Containment' Cooling Coil . Cabinets (lVPfi3AA/B and 2VP03AA/B) supports. _%kP4 2. Evaluated the chemical analysis report 4by#Eontractor for the i material. Based on the application of the materials in'the HVAC System, the absence of physical test report 3.s acceptable. The subject nonconformance is accompanied by letter of certification from the contractor which certifies that the material is produced to ASTM A36-77a specification. With this supporting document and the actual application of the material in tho'HVAC System, we accept j /\\55 the material as is, withou t reports. G 1 .~.

'U SARGENT & LUNDY J ENGlNCCR9 CMf C AGO February 5, 1982 Mr. T. E. Watts Pago 2 Co==onwealth Edison Company ~ Should you have any further questions regarding the above, please call me. Yours very truly, 'E. P. RICOHERMOSO E. P. Ricohermoso HVAC Project Engineer . - ~ ~.M...;'... ".. ' EPR:le .p In duplicate a ' 1.- .? ~.f,: f Enclosure h." .r. !.. .t ' '. ? t. i.s.-

~ ~

Copies ' e-w 1. ._z. s r t. ; ; > %.

a R. Conaro (1/l)

,j T. E. Quaka (1/1) ' '. - ~ L. J. Corts (1/l) 'A.- ?"'.. ? ~ ~ ~ J. L. Clark (1/1) .' r J. Dicrbeck (1/1) .M. ' D. C. Haan (1/1) R. J. Mazza (1/1) W. G. Schwartz (1/1) "J:i V. Reklaitis (1/l) E. R. Kurtz (1/1)

'~

5.' W. B. Paschal (1/1) ~,. - 7~. 5. ;,, e-D. R. Spisiak (1/1) C. A. Riebel (1/1) LSCS LTACD File No. 25 . s.- . - ~ = 1 9 e e I l @oo

8-25-81 (Rei t f. r. f61 N0' 001:f0RMANCE REP 0ni FOR CONSTRUCTION m e. - f, lat t1_ C' =,; g $8 fl:F1CBttd I (ditt ' [ G.',-g,. *.,l %"g '"y., y %.' }.*. , t g [, ..f(g{[ }; }$5gg{,g;)Q .n ~o.....:

a. ua ~a. now*. as t

- ** *,

N f *

!?.Y *Nj M.}=3 -J. u sc..n.o~ o, in. o o....a. n..... Cc,o~. ....o ~ U tl A C-m &T egsAl_ (3 0C V m e O Th rs u) 2. [ s. end etsf. Civet a ftve rug g I ~2 h C V;' C 0.

I W F E 'r Y R E G A TP,0 (S & tSth il S YS Tem's

.Q I) tT.B :E 3. 373flas **wD Umsel l .. oisienoou ~o a v~s. Co no

'""'"*C"

~ O co***c'o' !

V

a. Caitoore a

cl a im j [-')onen a e-o o-Co-,os ~C EsiD cocu r~'*no** Gia Co~u=>Cno~ ahu>g u. .o. .coum.* . mon a m e ~Cr.CO

o. - ~C a

,,. oto i.o

n.,.a ~a.. a.n ~.c is. coC.nio o, ~o~C o.o.m~C:

^ t 2 t"'% vs-PM tis c ha r e c r-rcepoars it eauases ... s.o ...a w '"" " ~ ~t Ac i oc & f~c R pcR -o,~ g, M 1 Pc o o (k < fo ? t ecruc r

Mdd, A' b

_h SSR ' C ADMT 6,=- 0 6 T hi s.) f n t3v ~ ~o~ g, b W n L A 2-A c k - co 5eE A r 7 A c ea e A L s.Tr se. (op tid 3

== ] VC{f _F

y. y.m,[f/(.gj-

.t' F F S &,r F W Tri-OF fREF /JC/2 55'7* \\ .,. ~. so.. veu uxnclossi r$pou cru raocre Q vou canor enoctro O cur.x unnetons ( cm.A2x vou unnn2on: 3 WCN ? + 'O L12'M t ? tih's & f M-r.w-hW-W a Wf: .ocraw.5% a.p. ~O FWM w.".WWr_- T_%-6 #2 dr N 1>'/: is. Cawit os a o<o=* ou ect t t T A LS, e M 6 Tf3t _ <t P P L I E.t, & D [r2 cam 8 ,oCrui..u n... '" g \\S v rJ R 6L E ~1'o TVAtf H 6 A T* bla m B EM "~ -(> A C k-To 19 7f h c o n Or, c H E mic AL (W A LYSf5 ac 1 A Rd otJLY O 6T A, rd A dLE, D..sga. sed Crte eff acer 'c AClet*~ atouitte 80 Coastc1 sat ~on.Co sosaaa.eCf l.. /4 C C E PT /w A T E ki 6 L. A.r .r.5. n rca m. ..a in w 1 ~O'*Co-8o**=a.%It=88tt ** *. es ~ot s ~owwl (DestClevt ACleo.e stovest010 Psivt-t stCuest-ct OP IP. s ....rv.s . o.~. C~ _ apenCNtp tv f ~G'"st**G Ci'*st d -1 atAD i Y[N __ Sof t C@ *(*2,..I @fi-@,i; ;f6My-W. EEvefwtDtv _ f =C 8=t t e smc *enst et t=Cterre b5k'Za""* ALO 6'1*]%r D7Nh[2 '. **n Ci' e.,A d 0}d Q6Lj t Qg}(t igr p} At*,ft pn )ie}N, .] J OlnCasttoo** of aCho~ taat** fo CosHCl 3at ~oaeCo-80sena.eci 19 j ' ', I } ~ CosatCirvt scho~ eMee.no sc> ref we**t atCarest-ci ~ 2

39. DeKasts.ooe o8 e

o arenowtp er. Div.15et aos'. ?.)=en4160a= 33. Can.Chiscas to natt0 ev ps. m...- c ~,..x._.. m.e.. u. hW -Me 2 ( j e} &.o,.' 9 'gME N.J ac' ' NOM - A h ,,....., ~, _...1 ?-.-f O Otill.. ~. Mf,i[** 1; ;.i sU f;):[.4 ( pj * 'I kr... .w. CosetCl*wa aClaese4C'*al afwet. 33.

e 48506

313/736 204D

~r\\ .COI VIESTERN

FLINT !.'.lCHIGAN A b C. dpel t h' a ' h'~ c 7 c o,

CUSTOM METAL FABRICATION .. v.- 1 Td'E ZACK COMPANY LM OF CERTIFICATION ~. P.O. #C-683 ite=s 102, 103 and 104 Ref: This letter is to certify that the above referenced material. items were supplied by Edgecomb Metals from ASTM A-36-77a materials. fication from Edgecomb are attached. The letter and material c r However, Edgecomb Netals is unable to trace heat numbers back to their ) 1978 records and is therefore, unable to provide the physical test re-- sults. r n._ n David E.'CaDtins ' f ~..,., .H...,... - Manager, Quality Assurance - - - - - _ ~ v A7 FOUNDED TO SOLVE THE UN#0UE METAL FABRICATION NEED AIR OF THE WORT.D.

. R u,, - 6 G'_. ONE DF THE LYILL 'MS COMi% NILS 1 y n,; ...n,,,,, ... e.. n.t. ~ .on .ce.os.o.,,.-... %.. o e n.s.. o... u.. -.n,,,.... . o. n....n ou11-13825 .s o,.TE 8-18-78 n .ow..u. No. u..u. @. o.,....u c....u.. ...n u m... u n c.683..- ._,u,. l @. o..... - RD E R N o. ...c. u,.< m.. r M $66 g,",o,,w.u n. e,. n (i)..,o...,.,,,,,,,, p. o,.n.. , n,.,,,,, Zack Co: pany. i u,

3. o y o 4600 W.

h. e Chicago, m 4.ois 60650 hO 3

u....ou.o......,c,,.. o Q u......u.o u.t.6 u. o

..u. 6.,o.o.,, p.nn. u. o u... u. mi - .un n u. @.,o..aa..n,. O oc. .uu.un @.n.. .....aa. .n a . inn m % in.. ,....ou...- u,o t us inu u. ns u m. ~ j .- ^ p J. t) , - ' '. =.. ' '... ' ADDRESS ALL CORRESPO'NDENCE TO s b ' '.< c I t J.0 "$8' T.' ~- ADDRESS (NDICATED SY TMS NUMBER '__h_ / !*.d 'e/* ^ '"W* ~ Sa"1a

' ') C,. -

DATE 5 HIPPED. j;~ ,j ,_.K [a.', e4 P P ED,To , ' " _,. :.-:. i.,.... AyT. l,,." ' /$'E -. N,, .....&..a . DESCR!PTION OF r.' ATER1 AL A'[D SPEC 1FJCATION$ 7, 1; [.,,f:4..:.;;,

.g.f.. 3

.'t i..- /8b+.Mr..,.~..c,4.gcR-WC". 3.?f, p..1.6 -

.. - Q. :.2%f.::g..

. f

5.Gt.:.g.

. 5'4 Bar 1/2 x 2 ER Mild ~ Et. 83456 cot.WLETED BY: [, d DATE84- ) 'r uum -m ww ~6 64 $ 3/h x 2-3/4 HR NW Ht. 80312 /Si -- DATE_ ~ f =.:.i.4.: ): 64 Bar 1-3/4 x 2-1/2 ER MI.16 Et.' 15682' ' /P3 k. NOT REOU! RED DY: DATE RELEA550 TO PURCHAS'E BY DATE : /0I. NY min '120 Bar 2" So. ER MM Et. 628'84 4 w u CHEh*1 CAL ANALYS15 s . 83456 21 36 1007 023 EF ~ 9 i 80312 18 ' 55-007-021' 15682 18 24 olo 034 i 628S4 20 57 olo 026 g ..,a. ... e l 3 ~ E l. ) ~~ v .f,

J *' --

MECH ANICAL PROPERTIES

.=*
* * ' =

... wen.=

6....n=

..s

- - - s m.=.

s........ s..r.... 3 rs S C U SPECIA} TESTS s 1 E a.a A R st 5 ....n..-..-..- .c . -..w.. s,............ -.......... -.... -.. ~. -........... -. .. -.. -... ~ -.. e v.' ... n.... s_

- - -'**'.*,*..*.**.s"u.*.*..*'*c'.s C

.a,. %.~ ..a -.... . u.. .o. s s..*........ o,.e......i. .e. c ,.,........,D.A* Bac.,p,,,,n,,,,,,,,-,,,,,,,, Aunust.1978 18th

=====%

~$~ hljl,N LN U jjid,% k ! M.U b s: N. LL{ OZ S~ ~ ~ l c.auvr,,. m w ~ c e october 22, 198.1 .;:t,jn. c:. . The..zack Co.

l /.,-?

.e... : '.4600 W. 12th Place - ,.7@.: '... ~ Chicago,.Il. 60650 ..y.... .....u.....- .....u .. =.... ,. E.,.;.@h.;. ...a %ttenEiciE5.' 'Mr. David E.:Calkins.. ,.,. j,., .;. ( -, - :.th : -W.?;..g..A.'.g,.-pi@'.d.3 ;Q,: i. :. Quality As surance Manager .7, .~ . :...W.: ..~.: - - .a ..a s :.:.W u k w . n.r;,.p ~;.., h.. . i ..: n.: - ,...v;; < :.n. -., g. s. . r.... .- u - x.i .t..'

r.

p e ar S tr i.h, - ..- - n...-.,..... u... 'T; 1 '. " " [ Y '["3n reference to your letter of' September 23,.- ,. -lg. ~ 195i".I have contacted Northwestern Stee1 & Wire Co. J.- I'..' about tbe problem of certified mill test reports not directly. ref erencing '.'. ASTM'.'. Nor'thwestern Steel & Wire Co.. has sent me a that - letter, which'I have attached for your records, ' states all. A.-36. material purchased by Edgcomb, Metals "-r, Co. is'produ.ced.to ASTM-A:36-77a. I hope i.h'is will solve the problem stated in ye'ur letter and want you to know that if you have any ~ - further questions, please do riot. hesitate to call. 1-q 1 0-I ---r-.

--...e

.m,. s Sincerely, .a W CA / John P. Heinlen Manager Hot Rolled Products t -i.

t,3PM:np

- "~ ~ O ..i g EoGCoMB METALS COMPANY (312)247 7700 3 3 4 e s. rut Asxt noAD. CHiCaCO. IL e>06:3

C.'1\\

Gehtern Steel anc V_ i.re ' o m.,any g a, ort Sterling, Illinois G1081 i.nont ct as oi r: tic iiiicirnnari.sTimt.'ren1 un2 tm '"mmt.y n.s7m** ][l_{} v 11 i.l.'l HD.NT ::15/625 25 @ - i.. ~ .n . 'y. . :.:20 .~ -.r=O c.to,b er 20, 1981-

f.,,

W:;;. ..r.. .i. .,.,. s. :,...#... .r

8.. t

, e,. .... _.:..... g., ; y e,,;.h;,m.+;/... a. 4.., .n.. +: <. t ' "... ..q.. : ;ef...m.: ,... :c;...,c W[ L... V.e. . ~. 4.:: ?... :.. -...: v . ;.-w.;;;p.;:P..0.c.,z. : G.,W.. 4%a...: ::.'.*.i.9.1. ~':: y *, ".. .( ..: m. :? ,. e. ... :.i.:.::5,. m a y;;....x.;.;..,....

a.......

.....g.: . % ; : w.:..

~Eag ecc:r,5 16tal.s Co...;; ;g.;~~ 3..:4.....

fa.

3.,..

,.y _,. ; y ~ ' C."y,,,, ; :...'..,l.'.".~ ~ ~ ' 7..: ~ ', '..',

f.,

,.,J. '/i P.O. Box 794OA ., _J.. e ;u.... "- .,..:... e c. . 5.,....;s.. L.:,'.... .' Chicago Ill. 60680-a. s. .. 1

v.....

.s..... ..,.. e ..,..... v........ z...: ;- c . * */ r ' Gentlerten:

g. ' ' g,..:..

,.. fact that all 'A'-36 malierial purc ase ..i h d I gh sternSteel5l{iTeisproducedto om 1 tals o m .'.by' Ed ..(,'....:~ 7.~ Y" ASTM-A36-77a. 3.' -. n the process of worh.ng t us 5^ e .',.in so ite c .p e sorry for any i$...onVience..t'his may have causeg. Ue. ar ~ 's Yours Truly Northwestern Steel G lb. .re - s g,M/ fc/W'f~~ =. ~- -l - Merb C1eseng'er Chief Inspector ~ Quality Control e p e e 'h5T

(APPS7 DIX B) f;c R. DEnv .,~.f.,** TELEPHONE IG40RANDUM 4 o #f { Record of Telenhone Resolution of Nonconfor=ances 1. Nonconformance Reported'By: .O 7 S k'O -2 # NCR No. 6/a5 b/3//P/ ~ 2. Date Reported: _ 3. NersonsContacted: Date Title _ Person-T. E. svJcd:ko f%4. 6% />ls/l.P/ u + _f 4. J1esolution: /} C C E / T

A TE e 14 L-b#

I5- '~ ~ ( / 'AA ' 6/nla SignatureY O Date: 5. Paperwork.Tollow-up: ~ A. fidR Date Rec'd: Date Signed: Remarks:- B. Revised Dwg./ Spec./Proced. .Date Due: Date Rec'd: Checked By: Released N I -) Date R? leased NCR to Field (Site or Vendor) (....C. Released By-gf(

k-SARGENT & LUNDY UI d*" s CNGIN C CR O o S S E AST MON AOC $TN E t t I CHIC ASO. ILLINOIS 90003 TCLEPHONC 312 269 2000 s ..u s. -} : '"s rebruary 2, 1982 Project Nos. 426 -00 4267-00 4 t .~ Commonwealth Edison Company LaSalle C.ounty Station - Units 1 and 2 Non-conformance Report (NCR) ~ No. 566f 9 - 7 p. c.: s., y .'Mr.'J. Dicrbeck ...,,v. ~ Co:nomicalth Edison Company '. T .LaSalle County Station R. R. fl, Eox 240 Marseilles, Illinois 61341 ' s..,,

Reference:

Sargent tr Lundy's (E. P. Ricohermoso) letter to e. Commonwealth Edison Company, (CECO), (T. E. Watts), dated November 15, 1981.

Dear Mr. Dicrbock:

In order that the subject NCR can be evaluated by Sart,ent & Lundy, will you please let us know where the materials were used or have d .The Zack Company fusther justify where the materials were use in the UVAC System. Yours very truly, 3 /., ',. 2, '.e I. E. P. RICOMERMOSO j..,4 ,i b E. P. Ricohermoso ...f ,y. HVAC Project Engineer / i .f EPR: 1e s y, yg.,5 PEA HN. J. D/Ese8&c/c c/' afco - 4 SC 6 0,J f .In c,uplicate Copies: THE MA TE}C/A L 5 SNowd e.J 7wse Mcx wee Suppoxys [swN$} cp sypg3AAjg J. L. Clark U. SED 04 TMS D. 3. Skoza AMD 2VA:73A A /6. rNe2.<' d.psts nME d.sM. C. Eichstaedt .J. D. Engh ,<6FEAENL:E 4hm. Mo. M - / 9 7/ - EP.Rfffv ! Avr @O

'mAmWfa%L@

EEtVEG, P.odo

.h.. ~% 03

2. 9. a..5 r.: -...t.;m.. r\\w1 s

2 w T& -.:n MU'n. l} G, -, Q / CUSTOM METAL FABRICATION . +._ w -r. 24 February 19K2 ~ INTEROFFICE MEMO \\* To: Zac.k Company Document Contro.1 Departmen't' - Chicago QA/.0C - Chicago Re: 'Writtt.a Reports, Effective this date, any and all written reports to Zack Company clients, customers or' sui > plier,s must bc reviewed and approved by Corporate Seni.or Management prior to dispatch. ~ MW 'L '~2., t e ~ JosephC.beZutel O Executive Vice President s.s r- ,s j JCD2/n,: /. i i t \\. \\ g O ,e.. r.. ... :c...,..:........ t. 1

c. q.:c,.w.ub w.A.. ire

. cesm:.:c.nc u E.:.:., c.:. -+ *os. n. Y[

,c, y n% . r_ t 4. JU*.364/242 3434 'WE5 TERN

FLINT MICHIGA SOS
313/736 2040 O

.= [%.,

0 the \\ M^$.h/

CO. CUSTOM METAL FABRICATION - ~ March 1,,1982 Commonwealth Edison Company R.R. #1 Box 240 Marseilles, IL 62341 Attn: Mr. J. Dierbeck Re: NCR's Related to Reportable Defect Evaluation Report Mr. Dierbeck, Attached are 99 NCR's that have been generated to close out items that.are currently included on the reportable defect evaluation list. Items covered by these NCR's are items purchased soley for the LaSalle Project and items 'purchas-ed for stock and used at LaSalle. Of the 99 reports, 30 have been closed internally by The Zack Company. Closure of these reports was accomplished through project management review and the surfac-ing of documents and information made available by project manageme'nt. On these grounds we determined that it was within the authority of the The Zack Company to close these reports. Xerox copies of the closed reports are included for infor-mation. Any comments or additional information you may have concerning the affect-ed items would, of course, be welcome. The 69 open NCR's are submitted for an accept as is disposition in all cases. These are items for which, at this point in time, it seems unlikely that necessary . documentation to correct deficiencies can be obtained. Also in this group are items that cre correctly docume-ted but are not included in the LaSalle Tech. Spee. Closure of the above referenced NCR's will reduce the number of open items on the list to 35. These items are of a cle,rical nature and we are reasonably certain that necessary documentation can be obtained to correct the deficiencies. NCR's were not written on these remaining items based on this belief. Although a time frame for completion of all items on the list.cannot be establish-ed, closure of the enclosed NCR's and continuing effort on the remaining items will certainly bring this matter to a close in a timely manner. Very truly yours, The Zack Company 'b*% e y' .y, Rt.y.Tond J. Basia ,g,g~ g g ] g',]- O*A* '.nsincer Zack Senior Mda ament d FCUNCED TO SOLVE T'HE UNIQUE METAL FABRICATION NEEDS OF lNDUSTRY

A5'7 CE&cwo To c't=o ao cuS rc=No T"E 'un c7 T"E woai o -

m fI

March 1, 1982 CECO. Mr. J. Dicrbe-1: Page 2 j ? PJB/dm 4 cc: C. DcZutel J. DeZutel M. Skates Q.A. Files J. . e 9 s

Y b.
-~

E- .~ W O t = 4 0 9 e ~~ i 1 1 o e

2v;J tNg6CE

CH,C, GO ERO) ILL 60650 u.312/242 3434

{, ' J, gsT*. RN FUNT M'CHIG m 503

313/732 2040 the :.7JA@% co.

~ CUSTOM METAL FABRICATION April 12[.1982 " ~, i, ~ E5gineering Draluation tGB~5crda.e-ah Affected P.O.'s - C-1089, C-9355 and C-475 NCR Violation. No CKrR's for 100 ft. 6" x 4 x 1/2" ST, 2000 lbs. 2" x 2" x 1/4" angle iron, 2000 lbs. 3) x 31 x 1" angle iro', 100 ft. of 4" x 4" x 1/4" angle iron n and 100 pcs.1/2" x 18" x 18" plate. ~ Discussion 1, C-475: This order was to Jones and Laughlin Steel Company for ~ 100 pes. of 1/2" plate (A36) 18" x 18". In researching our corporate records there is_no evidence that Zack Co=pany ever received the items. There is no receipt

inspection; no " quality control" yellow sheet; no delivery receipt; and no invoice from Jones and Laughlin.

However, had any of this mater:'.a1 ever reached the site, the timing is such that none wguld have been used with-out verification of certifications. It should also be noted that ASTM A-36 is a very low grade carbon steel and any co=mercial carbon steel would provide similar character-istics. 2. C-9355: This order was for 2000 lbs.- ( 600 f t.) of 2" x 2" x 1/4" galvanized angle iron, 2000 lbs. ( 320 ft.) of 31"x 31"x 1" galvanized angle iron, 100 ft. of 4" x 4" x 1/4" galvanized angle iron. Material was received by Zack Company on May 25, 1976. Researching the fabricarion tickets for the .LaSalle project show that the 2" x 2" x 1/4" angle iron was .used in the Service Bui3 ding for hangers. Lakes Steels standard practice is to furnish either ASTM-A36, ASME SA36 and/or M1020 Merchant Quality steel when' angle iren is ordered,in all cases we believe this meets the intent of the design. The 3) x 3] x 1/4", and 4" x 4" x 1/4" angle ircn were used in Service Building and Turbine Building for hangers. Zack Corpany did not start fabrication of seismic hangers until mid-1977, approximately one year af ter the material was received. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that none of the above material was used on seismic hangers. r p5$

FOUNDED TO SOLVE THE UNIQUE METAL FABRICATION NEEDS OF INDUSTRY
p
DEDICATED TO CLEANING AND CUSTOMII:NG THE AIR OF THE WORLD
y O

c. t.

Enginaaring Eviluntion NCR No. L-287 April 12, 1982 Page 2 3. C-1089: mis order was for six various sizes of Structu.ral Tubing. The order was to Chicago Tube and Iron (3-6-80) which possesses an N -stamp (N-1397), see attachment 1). Zack Ccuipany has a certificate of conformance from Chicago Tube and Iron stating the structural tubing "was manufactured to meet: ... ASTER-A-500 1978 Gr. B" (See attachment 2). We do not have the actual.CMTR from manufacturer for the particular a size 6" x 4" x 1/2" as called for in the ASTM standard. We do have the CMTR's for the other five. items. C.T. and I have been in contact with Audrey DePaul, 523-1441 in regards to the a::issing CMTR. e S

g m

L M O d e O f 9 e .94 l em e p a. e. E s e e 4 e .h e

i..; i V o s 6, O i ~ m. c-,_.'..e _ _. c, O vg *> M CNC ACO rt.;.~;;; r.1 ACN cuAury r.ssur.a:N:r.:v.dw DATE 78 cc...n I 0 CY:. D __ OAT: \\_ 4 ..-._..-.n.. i

".;T N

U;t: D SY:

DATE I p.n A 23 Tc FU.S.CF.A53 E'ik DATE i ~ y .I.- ' v..; '. J CERTIFICATE C,7 COP?!.IANCE r .4 .CF Your Order.No. c1oS9. -4 M..CO. .T f.Sco is 12 ss FI. ACE Our Shipping No7197Jo r...I CAC-0 H.L. g ~ Date, of Shipcent. 3-D ~ ~ / 7 s Our supplier has certified that the..=aterial calle.d for on_- above - . order consisti,ng of: 'Ir:H t ' ' io I 10 I 1A vA vs.D s n: sq ' 20 YN '.'[T[ ~ ~

8. p Is. 2 6 I c6 I 1A VA vr.D s:IUq? sq 20 PN

~ ITDi 3 5 I 5 I @ V6 k-'.strv:: sq ao WI/ /8Pf-G 76/P.2 ~r. 4 I 4 I 1A 'vA VE.3'srcc sq.'20'F/I/ # i'- ~ I c y. 4 ' /9@ Ir:s 5 8 I 8 I 1A VA vn.D s 73:2 sq 20 YN 6 I 4 I 1/2 VA V:'n sin : 2ICT 20 FN / J7*~[ m6 0 taas =anufactured to ceet: ITD'. 1,2',3.4.5..r. 6. THESE TEST REFONTS APPfY TO YOUR Asw. A Soo'.1ws 2.3. o PURCHAEE.ci7: Fii... /j.g. f - = - / r u. n.w... w.r.....,.,e,w: u: -v -. c PA:.uw -n-- . CHICAGQ TUBE & IF.ON CO.,

q N-s c so Tube & Ir Co.

2531 W. 4:STH SIAEET CSCAGO.IL 60532 3650. Ml I c ca no. oe amaa =ous. usa. wesw.a w= c t. sv. meue.

, W -- 7 g .e e 4101 WESTERN

FLINT MICH1GAN.503 + 313/73S2Q40

~N / thep24@T co. CUSTOM METAL FABRICATION J April 12, 1982 i Engineering Evaluation ' i', IICE: Ic2S4 Affected P.O.'s-C-642 (1-12-78) C-696 (5022078) C-9411 (4-5-76) NCR Violation: 40 Tons - 22 ga. and 20 Tens - 18 ga. galanized coil c.aterial has no ASTM designation on certs. Discusstion: 1-C-9411 (20 Tons - 22 ga. ) ; As of 4/6/82 corrected CMTR from U.S. Steel has been received and reviewed acceptable by Zack Corpany Q.A. depar w nt. 2. C-696 (20 Tons - 22 ga.); Ee received 5 coils weighing ~ a total of 43,640 lbs. 3 coils were from heat number 06R037 (407, 408 and 409).-The chemical analysis as. listed on the test report falls within the che=ical analysis of ASTM-A527-71. The physical analysis of 40000 psi yelld and 52700 psi tensile is in the same range as ASTM-A527-71 steel, when'it.is physically tested. The ASTM A-527-71 does not have a physical ~ ~ testing requirement. The other 2 coils (405 and 406) were from heat nu=ber 06TS13. The chemical analysis as listed on the test re.crt falls within the che=ical analysic of ASTM-A527-71. The physical analysis of .39,470 psi yeild and 52,630 psi tensile is in the same 'rance as ASTM-A527-71 steel, when it is physically tested. The U.S. Steel CMTR and invoice states "Galv Steel Carbon IJQ G90 Chem Treat No Oil." (See attachment 1) IEQ is abbreviation for "lockforming '~ quality." ASTM A-527-71 is standard for "lockforming quality steel sheet, zine coated galvanized." The G90 is the designation for the coating as specified in AS':21-A526-76,.77, 79 and/or 80A The purchase order just previous C-695 issued the same date to U.S. Steel for 20 gage does state "A527-71, ISQ, G90 Chem Treat" on U.S. Steel invoice (see attachment 2). Two coils of P.O. C-695 came from the same heat as thiee coils of C-696. AR l = FOUNDED TO SOLVE THE UNICUE METAL FABR: CATION NEEDS OF INDUSTRY

l
. DEDfCATED TO CLEANING AND CUSTOM! ZING THE AIR OF THE WORLD
l

h h April 12, 1982 Engineering Evaluation NCR-L-284 Page 2 ~ 4 3. C-642 (20 Tons - 18 gage) r We received four coils (338, 339, 340 and 341) weighing a total of 42190 lbs. '~he shipping notice and invoice from Bethlehem Steel Company states "B5THCC7 COILS, LOCK FORM QCAL, G90 Type Q, Spec: AS-~21-A527-71." The CFlIR states "B ECON 7 COILS, LCCK FOP.M QUAL, G90 (See attachment 3, 4 and 5)." The chemical analysis as shown on the test rem falls within the chemical analysis of ASTM-A527-71. (See attach =ent #5). The, physical tests as listed on PTL reports (attachment 6, 7 and 8) are in the same range as AST. -A526-71 M material, when it is physically tested. ~ L. m 3 en 9 O ~ CLE/nw j I F p.. t q e .o

l.. ORIGINAL INVOICE L'N I T E D STA*TE.S STEEL C R ATION

l.

01 01033 k ruac allc.attDaIE es.*C"A*.8C.C ER ac. ~ I 9730650001 23 05/15/78 C-696 U3 OnDe n oso. rsLL uu tC'al tuL es0. sq E 04.423 T0 0 f '33438 23616-0341-812 CH66370 1 .u.a.ci o. .wo.cs.o. 1P O 0% 96410 vims CHICAGO. ILL. 60693 30-1/2-10 02-32-79 146-40477 3 t-D - 0 o etsasa cie r 5o i a..o....o.c a

2....ow

.tv.it. ~ 4 ~r T H E -2 A C K CO 't . THE ZACK CG 7-4600 N 12TH PLACE 4600 W 12TH PLACE

,,,.. - CHICAGO ILL 60650

. ~.. - -CHIC AGO 50 ILLINDIS .'.b jl.U: '. m. .m 7_ r-.' -. ~- ROUT E #CA A..;4. Da t t Es.ePFt D P R C.4 pg m, g L..'. ..._ :INTERSTATE MOTOR FRT SYSTEM 5497 02/02/79 FAIRLESS PA. . 146 7.E P A.D wl.CLE f.T L - .non 0 0 4 0 M 'D E S T I N A T I O N 1104 820 PA cout'T Ct o.., v.... ,.s c,.c.... LY SHEET C A R B '2 N LFQ G90 CHEM TREAT NO DIL k DESCRIPTICN FT LENGTH IN . 0 3 0 0 M.I t17d_0_. COIL

PP] 2 ID 20

~- PRICE NUMBER B23-0515 o . COIL NO HEAT-NO COILS LIN.FT. ACT-LB THEO-LB - 198586 06T513 1 1525 9650 9&-31 198586 06T513 1 1725 '10950 10555 -G16C28 06R037 1 1037 6700 6345 G16428 06R037 1 1279 8240 7326 016428 06R037 1 1272 8100 7283 ~ - 5 6838 43640 41840 41640. CENTS /LB 25.5250 10679.6 ZINC PRICE ADJUSTMENT CENTS /LB 41840 .1400 58.5 TOTAL 10738.2 PLUS TR ANSPORTATION CH ARGE TL 40M PER 100LB 43640 2.0000 872.8 LESS COMP ALLOW PER 100 LB 43640 1.7000 741.5 TOTAL DELIVERED VALUE 10869. LESS COLLECT TRANS CHARGE TL 40M PER 100LB 43640 2.0000 872.8 h HD C' MN P. S .07 .34 .008 .025 @@37 f l3 .07 .33 .008 .021 .3 .C'.(% 1 M '] i r ?> F( t'. ' 1-: - .n Y[:-p/;iu \\ ! c:.u:v A-m. CM'.'-~C ?.Y: h.i.;-.- ,m, Eh 9. $.ho.sz.;:.p...u $C N l .n s n a 3 C. .7 as 27. r p

g,..: . ;.w,.

04 %:'t.ue.:ar.co sv, U*~*'#* '"' ~~

CI'.IAZ TO KC";!?.SI SY

,3 U. i n = -. ~ ~ _ y? .a. f h fF l I a O.i:.'n Pay BLS ACT-LD THED-LB ._. _.... J. 5 43640 41840 _.. _5 6T-INVDICE AMT 9996 43640 DISC AMT DAYS TO MATURITY OR DISCOUNT DATE RUN FROM DATE OF INVOICE eavaet: i= u s 09 c u--isi.~....i, cou av os o.m. 4 ............ t..- s..

a. i.o t s a... -

,s.

U K I Ls 1 N A I. A ri V U A L. E IMJTED STAT @p i$1/dL% ML4 LMWL(LWJ.,, G ,.g. - b* 01 01697 g.a u p C gu. o. ,,, _m. ~ s.... 23. 05/15/78 6951 9730650001 v s r.es:.os e,o V V v::onesa o. eace 06203 a 05916-0591-616 CH46365 1 '7004933438 ns r.<o ct ons invo'ca n ~c. ~ f iPO BOX 96410 , CHICAGO,:1LL. 60693 30-122-10 0 2-T 8 3-7 9 146'-47721 2-D 0 o .stasa stesa solas esovs.e.woist w3.m vcus asuetta- $s ts ...s .;:.j.... THE ZACK CD e u .* * ' " ~ 4 6 0 0- N 12TH PLACE ~ ' r ' i,, ~.- THE ZACK CD 4600 W 12TH PLACE t

[... CHICAGO ILL 60650

... CHICAGO 50 ILLINDIS~ ', {- .h,: ... ~ .. Q. ; a..... .. ~. - :C * ~.. :. ;. . =. ,s. - ..-n ca.... ,.on. 3709. N-HELMS EXPRESS.INC - ASTRO DIV .i~--' 02/28/79 - ~FAIRLESS PA. ~ / 146 E N CC

it.

,7.,c.70040M D ESTIN AT I GN [ D D71587* PA j o ..av va.. em. i A. e / tv cuecT CARBOM ASTM A527-7' LFO non cueM Toe AT _ DiL TES: s c r 0 2 i s. c o.< C.e s s go CNLY ~ M. -DESCRIPTION FT LENGTH IN E .0360 MINX 60 CGIL. ' , PP] 2 ID 20 .B 23-0 515 PRICE.HUMBER .'.. CGIL NO HEAT-NO COILS LIN.FT. ACT-LB THEO-LB 095630 01R001 1 847 6450 6 Z2 0 1332 9900 9561 ~ '005630 01R001 1 005630 01R001 1 1354 10400 9242 023654 06R037 I 1381 10900 10141 1 1535 11750 11051 023654 06R037 CENTS /LB .~ 5 6389 49400-46915 46915 25.4250 11928.1- . ZINC. PRICE ADJUSTMENT CENTS /LB 46915 .2700 103.2~ .~. TOTAL 12331.3, ~ ~

PLUS TRANSPORTATION CH ARGE 49400

-1.9400 958.3 ' TL GON PER 100LB LESS COMP ALLOWANCE PER 100 LB 49400 1.6000 790.4 12199. TOTAL' DELIVERED VALUE LESS COLLECT TRANS' CHARGE TL 40M PER.100LB 49400 1.9400 958.3 C MN P-S LT NO' .06 .29 .00s .019 !001 t037 .07 .34 ' 00s .025 4 _,,,, _ g. q f ( i r. L. f 9.( % O +.h 1 ,.n % y

rt 5 h-

.b..-- s f ib.! h W 2006y, Pp {%. ,i...- f ~~~i L, E h*:p,;**.1.2.'. d 'J - ' ~ " " " ~ I 7 :,,,. //[,,c u. i- -I 3 { N.0 .i N[ k{ i

i
h1LS ACT-LB THEO-LB 5

49400 46915 3 D r5ci AI1T i C.Y 6 5. I'6"~~'~'*I I N V O I C E A NT 11240.t c.' 49400 DAYS TO MATURITY OR D I S C O U N T.'D.-'A T.E...P, U N F.R.OE;-D A.T F;0T INVOICE p_ dWLE W L'L Dt'L - t C %.-

r. a.s.a.

a is.a eh. u.+4 5m s -".":WmTm .w. C'PWT *

O' C*-

,.s e L.w w ass.e me. - - as s e.e-a -= a.,-s, ac.._

.l'.' a.... ~"' = n n m ,.o.. s m.- .c. 507-1 %~,. sm um.. rA. mi.s .. +- ~ !.* BELOWoe.nnn n?ll 1 0 91 I? n 9 0 191A l297n h h hv? h D COLLECT

5. 1 e H

3 D E ' T . ~ - ~ '.? -;. ZACK CO M Mb~1.% . l ". ZACK CO 2 4600 W 12TH PL

4. 6 0 0 W 12.TH P L -

y CHICAGO IL 60650 - ~ CHICAGO IL 60650 ... ~... +..-- .w...:.. ..~- .3/21/78 'J ARTM ARTIM TRAN. WW. ANNA NY LA SYS INC. -.,.a.u. a..m -..mu.i. m ou....... uu.m... . w., i,... v m.v.nm n ,w,... . ~. .m. v....,....... ..w ~ DMW:.I i..'. YQ38'.M4, CO I L5'?.. :..~,STE EL SH'E ETS 'l..& W. .N,.i ? . J,. ;.. ' " JJ'!.M-A

m..:,,. >.....=.v : ~ f/M.::0'C$o~:4 DUNNAGE. FREE

.40.' . ; u... ;-

.: u w:::?

.~ . - ~... m:.. L. 3 .. :.e. ~......:: -. v.m.-a.:7.. :.w...-:...=w. r.. s :n w=.- '~v.r':.n.r. 2.,:.N.,:......... :y. W '. :.1,. e,. .. e .u ..~..-..s.i-

...v.e-

p~-..-. :

~;:e-,

.... w: -.,.

s ..as +,. v ; a,:... ;'..:.- : ... ::.r..

a. Any

~v. n.: .,.J- ..... :. /... .:.:r.f,.,. ... s. :,; u.. .' '.:'s V.r.Y,.=- ".p* :.~. :/..m-w..::...=.=,c.1, s b-m.:t:..~.. ;. c. y.,. r.Y. : A.RPl. COV ERED. <-

.u.,y.r;

. c..r w . *... :.m ; s ..e..a..z.:.. .,....:, e.~..; . g.t..!.,* . 8.e.. .v. . :,w: :).-1 g:. .a :.. .e ~.,:. a:.:::.:.:

.. e.;. 's..,.#.

,:l C -~~: *. 4..:~ :::... ::. x. g.-v 1:.. 4.... ;;. v-is. -E h .>[..- ..:ys . ~... ..

l.s.s..w3 r.

.a... ;e; <. -

\\.:

.. r. o..o..?.. ~ :... c't*.u~ .c \\.,..- " yr

a

= : ~., a.:.,. z".v.:u ;,E..: u . s.. s. s.*

. e g....,. g.-

. *. -..l; a --.. ~~..- .m -l t O A t'i t-V t-UnlP f* (* *._f C "" OO (' W O O '/ 1 bl9 f5'f' ~ ~ ~ &aA"s #rGe w.a nff sa.,rts T 6 &rs...:-....' :- '. :.. ... s.* esaw a s nA gas s.os ....- :ls . ;;:.~.. s --

L.=-

.'1.

p... y5. a .=

.z y:

..w :.w. G A

.... ~. * .u.,.-=~. . s,,

s.

.....:.......s.i. %. e.. *.,. ...,e ] R* 1..'-K . ;. ~-' ~.. + ~ .c: e- !NSP :. MILL'#CX) .E', t '.l. J. mT ~ ,.43E.) BETHCON COIL 5' LOCK. FORM QUAL,.G9.0. TYPE Q I \\PEC : ASTM A527=.71 1 t.642 - ....:. - :. 4.,,: ..'Tc. 0126-075-425) ? a,. ~ !E..'21'.:43767.*

W M:.

y .....; c.......,..... ~ ;... -+ 3..

17C4095

~..11'.' 5 0 47 0e 4 8 CO I L 00560), '8'C1.4X21B'133.2.FT. MIN '. .10.216 e. . s: v '.'1. f.. ?.

...l , "

.Q 0140) .y.. ..10101. . j.4 r8C14X21A.131.7. 'FT. -Fi. 1 J.'<.?-Y s' - .Q 069.0) r8C14X21 '1368 FT ... '... t.. e - .'10492 ~ '. - 2f,.. .. s 1 ; '.A'/ " "= '..s. > '. - .OO800) '10323.. .c<. ':i: i. 5.a:..:.. r8t14X'1.C'1346 FT: 2 . _s... .. e.. >... z . w.,.. ........ m.. .c... c. -.........:n..w: ... ~.~. - w\\.,.,7.....,..e ..r .... q1151 .2. :. - a.::, . r.... m~..: 4.. ..... -.. ~ .s .. r.,..s., ,o.. a r. a- ....;. y :. .s.,- ......L.. 4.: +.. c w. ....n.... 2126 075 +25 42190 ?, + SHIPPING NOTICE C. i. ~. .............. -...............,. : e.. c c,:., t.

e.9 2,d's' at.EHan 5 TEEL CORPORATION 'Q__'~*~~' 7 'r 5 0-f -1.9 i 8. ' '.7 t

* * ^ " ' ". '

t

u

~ 4.- .... sELOW G e e, e n n n,0 3 li ,3 ' ' k_.n e li s u c li e v n li b b y, h "I*'.1.15 II 3 'a'P 13 ... "."P 15 li COLLECT t \\ Ctr % c.H m w ; g. r-. ZACK CO ZACK CO L_ y 4 6 0 0 W:.1. 2.T.a.^~. 2 4600 W 12TH PL .,. ' _.,y CHICAGO I L 6 0 65.0 .'CH3 C tftoyW.... v). 95 0 6 -i.

n.

y .,s ae 4... r. 3.g ~ 5 3 2 l/.N '.p* DEST IN ATION ~ 'a-- LhCRAWANNA NY ARTM ARTIM TRAN. SYS. INC. = ...., a.u. - s. mau m.=. -.. u... u an. -=.o-. T -.a n- -r,mi. h.i p ~. ,,4 COILS. STEEL SHEETS-.. "S /g M.. M ;I.' . '. :*2f.e...J...,.- DUNNAGE FREE.- 40..." ~ .s w -. .. w.:.. ., l-l + ".,

l. ~.

- '~. y.<.x 2 :'E.'.'; i.'*'. ?gN. ?. '.. - PA,R.P YC. OVERED ' -. :. ~. .y.. a.:,.. .g ...a -..'..~.....,..n.. ~ r:a.

..-, -. r -

- ~ - '..

y.y. ;.+p. ;n,.

~-

~~;f4::'?

.~.. .q.,,r . r.,.a.:..e.; ri e e% t-v - t mS w t r* (. c t-mu r-ummy e t k t e m t- - - - = =

=

. smw-a - -m> T ~~ ,,.,w .y. .t. e. !. ! ag- ..cA -'e-e. I'NSP - HI LL' 'CX) .h),. 34.3~,3. 35GHC074 COILS LOCK FORM ' QUAL. G 9.0 T.YPE Q - 4ch*C W .. cp>"294 SP:C-A.STM A:27-UT. ..7. -T y' s.M -D' ~ W.'? <:e.W G.b.6..t:, W =c642. C212E--07 5--429 i .sa.g>pr.:*:t%W*. 5E.21=43 7.67 =t.* _-_g;s,. 517C4095 . l . 047.0- 4 8. COT L - ' D R560.) ' i '.:-l ' l12216 28C14X22 3' 1332 FT. MIN '.i. ^ D.'Ol'40) t l.1 * ~ ~ l 2.0101. ~ 73CIAX21 A' 1317 'FT.. D 06 g.0) l1* - l::. l10492 ~ 7 8C14X21 ' 13 6 8 FT .\\ t.' - '.,. ?,2 ? ~ DD800) .' 1. I..- .',24323 7EC'14X21Cl1346 FT ~.s (42190) ~"q' 21.s85 cwt 9,0o1.

,.. -. -- ki132 -

.. s - 2126 075 425 42190 COMP INO HARBOR FRT 42230 .32 cwt 235. 42230 - 1 31 CWT 553. l; LE S S HI LL FR T AMO UNT PAYAB'LE E 8.5 83. M-45.01 CASH OISC. f-TERMS 3 0...1/ 2 10 IL 60693 kEMIT TO P.O. BOX 91500 CHICAGO PLEASE SHOW ON RE MITT AN CE-ACCCUNT 987000 __ _____--cu

NV01G,,,_

,m we. y.m.. g- + ,m,,_,.......~_._....._.......... - 3 e.- gg ......m..................

y 31(11 Isi..A 4 Mt!Altutolf".At DIPARTMtHT f..'*.* (Larsj Datt asserra; tweniN3 ptJ. (ass 43, etsisAt Argo NO., LhCKMlhllith. ' ~ 3/21/70 507-1948 ARTDI TRAll. SYS, INO. 4/26/78 ZACK C'O l ZACK.00 4600 w. 12TH PL. 4600 W. ~12Til PL. 5,jo CllICAGO ILL. 60650 cilICAco ILL. 60650 Shirt [D TO 4 / ,.l j' L REPORT OF PHYSICAL. AND CHEMICAL' TESTS C.. ("!"*L*^5* i,,,:., '.",'o.,,,, 0 "* i.e. i,.4 ~ nu

o. w s w.i..,,

we

v. o.

- o.x,..

c. -,.

o.~.. a e.w i... x m t' DETilCOfLCOTTR IDCX_JOHhL 2HAL G9C 0 61,2 \\ !!Lai 3120!L 910l48 X:0L_. [01 2 i. _. i .0 L aP,L0na,01L u. 43757 .o. ? ai 11 t-5 Corl A/o. 2 3_.i je,, s 6 o f' !f 5O l Qtre/0 p ap /,,,,. g o . _L 3 =V / fo, J'o n QUAttrY A55 JRA @ QEVIIW 0CA_ _ DAT 3 ~ Col /.I'l ETED LY. L I* 'I RCL;A'.". D = -f g,w.== :-DAT : 140T I. iGUI.~.t ) BY. DAT : CIn. 70 10 i'Ui'Cil \\ 5 0 ' Y. DTIE J $k f YNM M N O 8** A e ,,e

[ #' Q - PITTSSurJew. tr.mnd. . e, :.. o.. - m s...,u 2,e.s..n.,..c..~. ..,........s.............c.s.......c..es....,........x....c., N c..., f.: ~ ~ c....., Ci(271 ..a s u os n.... u,,, s :.-3 c o ..r,s. ...c. ~f - Q./ . contR no. -ri-N

LABORATORY.No.

O)STORER NO. ~ 12 :p 78 .~ ~ 081Vanited Dlate' tT CF TENSILE TEST or r. m 2nck Cc==an3, h6oo West 12th Place, Chic ag o, IL 60650 18 M TrullLE E LDM C & TION et=uc;tc.~ ..t LD m all.u as D e lC t. 4L - etactm er sera raat aera Lean roumos to.,g. 32.... La...a sc.im. s= su.5 rteerwt rza crur ( DE. SCRIPT 10H s o. s a. .enes em m, m. smcoow 21h7 1.608 x.031 .oh98 2020 26! o ho360 53010 76 38.0 d *.s.'.;'.'. 1h9

1. 317 x. 031

.ohoS 1565 218o 38230 53h30 .67 33 5 300 1.6E5 x.037 .o608 2500 3280 h1120 53950 .85 h2_.5 45:- W f.1.625 x.o33 .0536 2620 3080 'hB700 57h60 .80 ho.o 332 1.7ho x.o'39 .o678 2800 3320 h13co h8970 .98 h9.0 ~ ~ [ -g ~ + 318 1.682 x.060 .1009 h250 5380 E2120 53320 .82 hl. o r- / o i x_ ~ .0558! 2hbo 3130 E3730 56100 .77 38.5 164 1.6hh r.03h l c o.a.. u: x4a.:..u: ae a f CO,v.? TED cV: [4 Q Dr.7"; P 7Y.f/E l f c.u.-e - a -.3 ~ t:DT r.)Ou; JD BYl __ Ct.Tj l-c.v.ap w eui.p= 9 9.- p. e e s 1 PITTSBURGH TE.5 TING LliBoRATORY DAD /av l .2cc:

Client,

/ Devid A. Dunn, Eansse: chgo. D' 3-

a r-mem .(.,~.., y PITTS BURGH. PENN A.

N...

6 cevecv.c. wo es.s =5 s. v.c ewt.uc...o cust:6* ts. s.esseats y.1 es a ueu .ssecee e = o t n....a . - s.:.v.c. 3 ,ps s ,w .c +is or s. s.c.<~.s... 6a n a e.s. :.. s.-c. e...r.e s *=c = mm s e s.er4.s .,c z rv s s.. v s e s... s .=~s== este. ,,.., /

c...res..a

.. O own 2: son. M,a:D.;- 3 ca:En he. ~ 1-5230 ../..".. rf\\EL,5"{~ . Lasnaryony so. [' goo-D cusicv!A Eo.

- ry.., -

s... . L.. .. _.. e. ,g . :..m,.,.......,... m - r. ..,.....3 @~hr Tcupi.t nst or P.ateria.1 for P_linois Potter Co. ~ ,..,.-f..g...- 4 Cli.nten ?cteer Station - P2910 - HVAC ~

n.

......__4600 West 12th Place Chicaco, IL 60650 Jron Th Zack Co.l. ( LD tc=sitt s to =0.atio n i pt:Jction 8 .s i u.s S'.t'R .?.p... one ssm aL er enra react t...S.TR t strc un m.2in.., ese cc r, ese czar T toan 9 $,:.f._- o tsCRIPTIo N., ...=c.. ~. s s..a ast . ece s o. =. rou ar ,x., x '.30377,. pj,. /. 0345 - C-643/209A.'.599$ .0221 :- 930 - 1140 42100 851600 .54 27.0 I hik-66S2 Y ' ~ ~ ~ o . 7... .038.- l397 C-731/209A --.6co .0229 940 1130 41000 L9300 '. 62 31.0 Btp 946331 -e-l. l t L . 049 '.1.. b404 - C-741'/189A .603 .c295 1450 1720 491G 59600 .48 24.0-1: Rt? I:62083 e i l ( j l. l i- .j N .050 6 %.. 0339 - C 4 i?/189A .607 .0303 ~1280 147.0 : 42200 48500 .64 32.0 -m-- 1 Eit? 517C4095 i l t l i l l .1-j i . 0.32 l l b356 - C-644/22eA .596 {.0209 'e40 i ,030 l togoo i :.!700 .s,0 I g5 O. t I t I I I. i. l St0 213259 l j e l l l I' i ,l .I 'I i I I i i. l. I, -- r -.-..,..._.......,.=:::_=. l................,....'t ..l. _.PITTS31.:RGH.TES71NG 1.1,EGU TORY

,,.,. p,...

n..... ..q_e. 1 Q, .,,).___ j g,j...g.. <.j j,.,,,, g s. av Ecc.

0. : ^...:,-

...-:..,-,.--t.... $.:1.: D W i:1 A. & c.-. :'C. 7 r C'.: 0. 31 F. -

wa 9 PITTSDURG,H. PENNA. .o..

.a.w w.

sa-)asit'-]?.,

8 ~ v -{:.;.

f

, ll = _..gl. ......... c.-e..c -,..,c.....-c.co,n,.e,e.sc .si.,.,.............m..,,..-........., sic... c ...... m.r e j ...sp....> s-i .......m. ' L.,,. e,r.; - . m..s. :. ....... u.....c.. c -c........ .. ~ M k.,'... ', _2.1

on=rn n/o... '., C4 4293 *. l

l...i.' M.

. ?.

a.'.*

Q.T.'T%CdtWB9T.

~ ~ "b,7 L:s'l 4R9 33 -

'.:.t.Aeonricnv no. l.

cusicuin tro.'

l'19724 RE'. VISED AND BEISSUED ,en..:...- l.. * '1-11 T*. is,.79 ' : i. :. %, :'.:.> r...,'_.h *.*.:'....l. t i y..,...,. a ......a,...,.. s,5s ..s x or.nr.sn c. trst or Ten steel seeci : ens 4- > :,.'t ,.n e . 7.-:s . Job #2905 - Clinton 5 sof Tne hek Co.. 4600' Uest 12th Place. Chicero. II 60.MO '/ m. s. .. i ci.. i. ..rt. ....n v er t. wre,se m.n

u.,ec n.r ve,is sto.c mn 7 t.

cb:;c;::; r:os,...., s".s .sr c:1 = m teo: e. c .n.ca ' st cia

n. cc=t, necent r s e. m.

in p_ 4.: s a. rn t..,,....,,. o 2x3' 2x'y... 129.

.. 1... 3,.

i 3.- .070 4150 5600 59300 80000 .51 25.5 j -3.. 8 .575 ~ ~ 2 1. / x / .. 277

i...

.1 1 .1 -22 1 / x. 2 4 .585 .160 7000 10000 43750 '62500 - 60 30.0 .1 .267

- ?'>...*

~ ,i f *'/ ', 4 .581 .160 7200 10150 45000 '63600 .63 31.9 o.':1 ' l 4 .259 74x .sss .140 7700 111s0 91700 74300

At 41.9 6

15 ga. - .051 e T*c=-'c .586 .040 1500 1o40 3?c00 437c0 A7 t11.9 .052 i - * '13 ga. -s N ur c er r..e:: co: nen ,1nn 1,cn l '6.7nn -I I . v 'c"nn 76 '"n'r. a 20 ga. .033 i 147727 _ l .022 incn ,onn um e co,, con i 95949 A c. 7_ 9 c

22 gn.-

.~033 HT. 314X15 .583. .01o 720 1000 37000 52600 .60 30.0 (*'.24 ca. 2026 ~ ~

9 J

HT 212139 .587- .015 530 800 337.0_0 53300 .35 32.5 V . 13.sa. .052 ' ': *i s .. H7:215452 .587 .030 1200 1600 40000 53300' .6B 34~0

o. :...-

g .. ss,- = h m ol Psi m n. via.b t ~ >s.. : l

8'A - :>ES.

bM D M ti_) II-3'D i CU.LitTY 'A5WF.AN$.hN,,. 'Y . /f/R_ p . -t '~' A CO!.9tET.:D EY~ i *.. , RELEAEED: -<a-o '.'p I. L.. I * *. ' f. i l **c. " ~*;, NOT e.5Cfl'ED SY: 1

^ * 'D. s 8'."'*

RELEASE:),TO PU.". CHASE BY D A 4 a ----- f.. p .t r,.. ,.. ; 4 "....t.**.' g m,..: .:.a, -

n..

N:r c. PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY.If.1 g;cukW."- f)n-<.,/ B.B w. '/.J; : ..~ i.' ?.:' p '^ M:;e rsu s n r m m.n w n, w m e

J,[.D,f) V sc ua 6 1. e,o..... \\./

j t

'/, '.t PITTS BURGH, Pi~NN A.

)

s r a a. v ew at e..t a.s t.es. 9. c.6 s.=..v s. v. s..aw s, et.'...w.*ts* E s 6 6 t.ee. s e 8% ij s,e ..........e....,...............c...<...3. .........c.6... ......s... 2 w ..ri ,-.e..s.u e...,. I. Q.; . 6. r. CH $ - 't4,,,...g.'Y c._ s. oaota he. L Aannatomy no. 9199 ' ,'cusice4cm No. _._C14C' l.- i December 14, gg 22'raure - Coil C405 - Heat no. 06TS13 err ~r o.r n.usitt TtsT or .a_

.:.n 2::~

P.O..C696 Strip sec ram ' The Zack Ccmoarre. 4600 V.12Eii Place."-Chicato. I11inois.__60MO fs t ou.c t ro. 8 T r. sit t ELoatafsom fko S"TR S'/.! L o n a ti.u u oeici or it a 1 13 Pov.o L. stas. cia Lo. os t a. c a e s o.... . et a so. im. in 2.ex.!, ets ct.f! rts ct.t i Dr.5CRtF710N aeta 3 sc. s a. ,ov 3s 1'*- MA/ ~- ~2 --- MYW 28,490 51,950 i.44 2 N _ 930 02 .491 x.031 .0152 600 800 39,470 52,630 .48 24 g } i l 1 g = l I I i ZACK O ,M.. f^..SSU- .. w t j LITY '.C E .(<> arvinvio cy _ C b % cennon r:6. i V ,i. s. -- l 7 D At t... I* O f I s r (g /.t!YOi j l l s g f.e cota.*i.tp 7 1

z. c T" SR 'Y~~ ~~~f ^ **

i i ~ l l t = 2 ( t L I I - I I i l ..r. - l l 1 a I l _~ l i ? i .5 i I i l -..--1.. u. s d ITTSBURGH TEST lNG LABOR

TORY Icc:

Client W NN \\ N'.. s , h.3.. \\ ..; -... _-.... \\.i s...,. ..s f... ......s-4..... e

.%w 3 3

,92 6. 3..t,,: . e,.m,u.,,,, c...:. 3, 3..cox,,,.3., g,,W:

_ G r a s i., w., -.. .e g. ...c. ......c .......o ce s e.* a-t -,.. e c.z a ws.. > s. a. e s.s i s e e = = on.e s... :.= 2 CH 4475 srp .o c.. s.es s= specoew ,00 rwes.1.i.s. 2 e seocio es es aca sa et-r.=s ow. CRDER NQ. tv - 5328 8 LasonATony No. ~ CU$1oh4ER NO. 79 .6-13-- is Tensile bars r cr Tc*sitt Tc'st or _ ' w-6.. 60650 h The Zack Ccepany, 4600 West 12th Place, Chicago, IL ' Bit 9CitC4 gto= cation Tit (D g g.sg,g ca sera re. cts M sa a s tu v ag ' stat =stm IN 8 4.. Pts Cr uf Pte Ctni OsiCamak teso L t. PE N S C. lM. sera Pouwst to,p&a SG..m, DESCRIPYlON S 0. 0E= e cu.s o s -h69622ga. .584 -2'l .0101 650 1 800 35900 44200 50 25 s .UJl -) = .=

- C-64116 ga.

.585 % .0351 1400 1750 39900 49900 50-25 .060 .583 l4 .0408-1450 2000 35500 49000 62 31 .010 3 824 e e ,0* n.9 I l c errTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY ~ ' % **T c.r.:.tcr e.::cu r ;.4 haw C-s.S c, n .I k.g g,' p.j-r,__ _. o.,,. t R.:.:r : o e.rz .s. h o' 94. o,. _. David A* Dunn' l'.zna er

6..... :.

l c: Clir.t.':U.:;. TO PUR0!:ASTCY DJ.ri a= .i .h . em. ,mnm .S.*_e. . eg. N E.4.m

W.Wf? - 'O pirrs'E . /.,._ p : .~. ...c.rs.. e.a..e,..........,u...,............m.....,. ...c.,c ...,...., s......... s4. CH W, c.. eer.e .. 3 - ut.. e.. c. e c........ e. o.. < so. ve _ /..,j/ CRDED N3. f ..s.. 7 " V,, Ams / ' 't " 5377 ! -t.Asnr. Atony No. CUSTOMER ' o. 1 N F ,m 33 ] 7 - Calvanized strics for Clinton Po, er Station - K2910' HVAC - File c2905 . rr er Ttnsitt Tcsr or .'.. Q=L rea The Zack Co. 4600 U. 12th Place Chicago, IL 60650 ~ T8CLo tr setr tLe cation ersection 16t ta m ani.uis. or est ster cns ese et a omici-at cos o La.ers to.em.

s. 3 e..li. era crwt

. ara r Los DESCRJPT3ON ns t..,s...... sta. o n. IMPLE NO. , r1 Ob1* .D .587 x.032 .0188 950 50500 .56 28.0 J .0292 1100 1350 37700 46200 .58 29.0 .10' .535 x.050 l 1 ~~ i IcuAury Ai:vw.o' r: t!v - 8 /r -.. 7 -[ --... I !-.....-..,I.,v.D__( l CATE l !REEA53D: I l I i ~ l .: nv --i.4 v. I -. - - RELEASED Tb PU.'.~b3' By I DATb 11 i i i e m [ s ,.c = l. p 1. i = o PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY' ~

bh 0.

f' '* w\\ . e: Clien. David A. Dunn,1:2 nager ChCo. Dil

c

..a... ,... 9 4 -~..c c...

.,6,

j ' '

~ _ ' Ey._ l 7, ) 3 t c* ^ 4 ^ Y A A n H g n o l E 0 'a u i o, 6 v. h, 1 c s -a n 0 ,, s r iu .8 a i. 4 ,, i6 * %y i t i A n yS 1 r S 1 u K 6 K u R 1 C 0 U in n l R

i.

l Y

P * ' " T i e t ,* H e,. ',s. P. J ' ' ..r a:* R 8 ' ' A I G Y I c i S t S o E N , 4 N r ,e K yg e pr C ,p l n b lop m I i I , e ,C' I Tp l C dh N i T n u 7 e A i k , i aS M f I r ,e G o o HU g r R Lo C e 1 , J, U 5 g 1 i,. L K t I L l H t A 0 3 T at 9 S. t,k W i E gh F i,. M s n g I s C , J. I i oe U 9,. T vW I N A s ( 6 E i 2 3 w. 0 M s T y. s 1 p 0 R Y S n n 0 t a-C A A I N P c T A 6 E R 0 D E 0 0 P P 9 H O )G C RP i 4 y T 4 C L 3 M n. U A J 1 O D C L 3 C I vR N 0 3 C S C oP A l m C V i ~ ". a J_ E L u M A o C a 6 Y>. m m 1

b. H l

o e 0 M' S S e t M s t I S I S U i G l Y T i 9 L S A g. A Y I DD N N O 6 A A N WE 3 P I VM E L n M L i. 2 I A o O L H 4 H 2 E C C I i R af D s I o 'C M c K E C O E i f i A C-. N' l r C c Z A 5 7 e C l 8 o 5 lU p E I S t / T C ll H 5 5 D. ~ H i 5 n i ' 2 D A~.1 Ms B o d O' C Y I ' i E i t i p o c Tj 'i d t t i f t / r AM7 U OC t s l r e o o QCX o D s t p . H. o d d .n e t 1 of s s~ R c e e e 4, 4 1 u g p 4 r i d p-s a 9 c s o h =- i

e. -

h e r t T P C S= C s

'W el.e:o.orr cbv.rrs Y Toot Ropeyt .. - 'N n u.,*>007t DR't cht YW O. ^ rtCUm PddenAIE UnOf sWE*- wt on:rnv Crn ury enne un : ::nc AND I t'? I - He %UI.8 5 U n n nN Ai.v%e % ne roni /uit C-9411 uns nc cannn e i a t ou s - ' " '. " ' " ' ' ' " " " ' ' " ' " " " " ' " ^ " * - v senerEns Na. Mio. nnocn NO. . m v nic t. No. L CD25505 161-40160 9 % ein cE ElONATunt'82.N_k...W8C"Y.. U .' W " " "' ,$ Till! 7.ACK. COMPANY li APilIL 1,1982, ogg h 4600 W.12Til. PL. CilICACO, ILLINDIS 60650 1 ~ re o srr c. r ^ i insr. USS CALV. SilGET CARDON ASTH A527-71, ASTM A525-76 LFQ, c90, CllEM. TREAT. NO OIL 6-MnTE nt AL DESCf tlPTION YIEL.D PT. TgNs:Lt sin. s to.... s %'((Mk IN 8,, IN 7" nest.t PtJRCHASE D ADER NO. MILT. ORDER NO. THICMNr55 WIDTH. DI A. HE AT NO. ee OR SEC110N OR F T. WT, AVO.CTc.W. C-9411 CD25585 01 .0300 MIN. ) 48 IN. D24236 . 93 ~ END 01: DATA ' ' l'IAtK oilAtlTY A551IRANCE StVitWED BY C d~.b4 1 g r-e _M_ WM - C0H140L HQ.. I. d~ j Daig ea u gn, Qm. &'O' 242 % _ Qs' t m.. o e tE.';T NO. fYPC C MN P S 50 CU N1 CA MO i i i. j i j D24236 .05 i.44 .006 .012 i i t l l I i l e f l l l PAGE OF I IA11 ra n Algi iljult:n i rit is. t il 13 3 i e int Girl, VCllll* cal. DOTI Cll t.II13 till isi tt' l

8
s t. ' l s es e.g e '
le.i esteess'. t ti:

l

Il 1.. Fi l o 4 [6 / ~ / I o i .,s 4 E N U J c, .f i x &g i , [ o n '[ 3 a. 6 ~ r 0 t i 1 ~* h, 4 1 D, g 6 K S 1 C r,i U M

u. i.

R 6 l0 T i e v W c i ~ i Y lo o ' RA H ,i r 8' C yg f' e F n l b i' ,.t l i b op m a C'. i i Tp u T e, e t r. L dh N i S h i aS S S e o 6 E r .i. g r R Lo C O 9 K N , J. U. 5 T t. K CT C v ] t R 9) t A O i O T i,. W VU T ,d E r M A L M

i..

i I f E d. D 6,,i. T N N I t E si 8 e 6.. M s T v S w s 0 E e u l n l l A Y P R n a i E A A 7 D 0 D c 0 S p 0 H E 0 2 I 3 T 1 0 T R 4 C E u U P 4 D O I R o %c> R P g b c 5 E L A_ 0 7, A o C r s.% g Q I i N* N 6 M_ 1 . O. l'/. A ~ l v t. l i o 0 E_ Ns C L ts E E E N T T T T A .-.o ~ Q AAA M p I DDD S t v ~ ..W I s O m% S u N .E I I I V S L k L 7 X n . e i I 9 C1 7.__ T o iH A 5 l e l 4 N O J #. 'o c C 0 2 e Y i 5_ D A F T K R f ( i A c C O U Y t C e A C S n r M S C e 5 5 _r: I p z A Ao s

t E

/ E I iH 8 t yiDo

m. a,.

s 5 E E - I l l n i I I i l 5 t

4 C

o T C d. 2 t : l s l o D A m r. 7 ip t C Uol: - 1 C c n s. l r e c t s r e a o o D l t m. R p y,, 1 d d .,o 1 e tc e e 4 u g p 9 t d p,. r c,, a s e $ =,. h g h e i e T P C ~

D ca. coo.cir u tv. sis m - -,- - c CA."J5p6F4TAAETTeo. P. o. oA s t PD AE11A505 ADriff46:~~~~ ,,,. Ncnrcy cr ie s ir v e sin e ser7e: ill 1C Ill %UI. 8 5

.ll analyst s ANDluc co'.T ions o pour nzi c i A s i;..

C-9411 '"'"E"EC"""'""""~'""^"*- un t bit 5.n na. iNv5ict to. sinertns Ns. v r CD255B5 161-40163 N e VTdITr. Y'- o stGN ATUQE _ / S I .DATE APRIL 1, 1962. 2 Tile ZACK COMPANY P 4600 M.12Til. PIACE u s o [3 CIIICACO, ILLINDIS 60650 scr c. INSP. USS CALV. SilEET CARB0H ASTn A527-71, ASTM A525-76 LFQ, C90, CilEM. TREAT., H0 011 p. c YsELO P T. T ENSILt 5184 mLos.e a r.oes s g MATEnt AL DESCQtPTION Th[ // IN 8,, Ire 2, Q 8 54E AT NO.. ruiceIAsE OnDER tsO. ulLL ORDER NO. 7,ggcgNr$5 wgogg,,o,n, Ort SEc1 ION On F T. WT. AVU.lTIV.pli1Gil. C'-9411 CD25505 01 0300 HIN. X 48 IH. D24597 .96 't E!!D OF DATA . naves o i? 1 ic

W 6M I

coni,ios no, I' 0' S cAit coungu, 62 W ND_NSW--- 1 j l l ..c Ai No. vvec c uN e s se eu - en cn 90 i 7 a I' i i ,/7 d I I I i D24597 j.05 .44.007 .015 G. (4c//+ l i !.l'- 4 I 1 1 g I i i i i l j i l 1 i i l PAGE OF i. i ris: I.s.rful's s i r. i,oit tru le n e rie i...I,III,e i I I,f tolttilN, VIIllital, fit!T1 Ep l.lf41. Litt HI :IMAl I tell'8 i..- i.e : : I

- u.n

~e.

.s n e.s......~.. r..,.m.:

-4

,..m. ........_..n... .. c. .......e. 3 -. n. .... u.s... ...,...sr.............. u. o,..

p, 4

.L.t/ CE h27] ..n....... s a. Up,,,' u.;..7;.. gr . cecca uo. 5 M1.y . L ABORA TORY h3. i -l CUSTOV1R N'3. 12-20. 33 ll j .r. Galvani:od clate ant er itssito TcsT or \\ ~ t ren Zsek Co=pany, h 600 Ve s t 12 th _ Pla c e, Chicceo, IL 60550 v eti.e v ers,a yg.,,,tg g t e., g.,,, ., g, ;,, g,,,, g or.eca i ra. o sici. aa. siern:rw em 2.es' et s Ct est ete Ctarf (

- ca t.c a n L.s P s e s o. Is 9,4. j...J ;O!: SCRIPT 1CN roumos t.. et s so. es.

50.64 .o...s 38.ol ac. iou 1 sai,. Ih7 1.60B x.031 oh98 2020 2640 40560 53010 76 ca. .v. 79

1. 317 x. 031

.ohoB 1560 218o 38230 ii3h30 .67 33 5 I 300 1.6h5 x.037 .o608 2500 3280 h1120 53950 .85 h2.5 = ano 1.625 x.033 .o536 2620 3080 hb700 ~57h60 .80 ho.o' 332' 1.7ho x.o39 .o678 2800 3320-h1300 E8970 .98 E9.o' iB 1.682 x.o60 .1009 h250 5380 h2120 5332o .82 bl.o '16s' 1.6bb x.03h .o558 2hbo 3130 h3730 5'6100 .77 38.5 l ecUU NC .iVt"#1 l ]_ , i. ti tty CCf.'.F:.ETD CY: *l Ub N AU # # ~ l I_ HATE-I e-icr o n. AU- -l NOT F.ECt.bCD 5Y: n ei e r -e n 't - en>E'ts: ?.Y.. DI.T* - I s. 'b I l PITTSSURGH TESTING LJ CoRATOM Dl,D/sv g })_ 2cc-Client: / Devid A. Dunn, I'.anager Chgo. D'.a l L ~..g .t_.-.-.--.......s...

O L S,8hifE5 V i 3 Ster / Corgomtion. CHIC ACo DISTRICT S ALE S oFFICC E H. gttt. 200 SOUTH LA S Att[ STRE ET CHICaC o. ILtt Nots 6.austa CF S*Lts uAtt: P. o. S C E 178 3 THCUAS E. Picavo*C CH Caco, sittwot$ 60$90 ASSdia=7aa&%ACfaorSALE.S 312/329 2000 i Dece=ber 21,'1981 w .n. ', - f ', / l . The Zach Co pany - 4600 West 1.2th Pla.cel -.J;' Chicago, LL 60650 ?' ~~~~: ' s '.

,.l;.~

Attention: Mr. R. A. Perry.,,.,. ',,,,. y.l ' 1 . -.,..w. ..',. Subj ect: Toui-Letter ZC/QC-006 Dtd 11/11/81

'.. j

' Covering Test Reports'"

.. - s, l .=,, . ['. . ' ~ '..

Dear Mr. Perry:

Regarding the -above, the chief metallurgist's name is typed on the report by the co=puter.

It is our indication of who was chief metallur-; gist at the tine. The written rrm or initials indicate who revieued the report and 1 vho added infor::ation not printed by th'e conputer. ~ The. USS " logo" and nace is the identificatfen which fixes the lia-bility of this corporation for the information on the report and the steel uhich it represents.. In most of our r. ills these reports are coeputer generated and c. o:r-puter audited against the specification for co=pleteness and accuracy. This has been accepted by the. AISI, other bodies including Nucle.ar (ASME) and the steel using indttstry as core accurate than the forcer manual syste:1. Our test report systed has been accepted by the industry and has presented no proble= of the type you mentioned.

If there are'a:iy questions, please do not hesitate to contact the und ers ism ed.

ZACK OUAUTY A550 RANT'E Yours truly, crverwro er OM connet no. M uk h, UNI"'ID STATES STECL' CORPORATION cass.22 /- 9 2. cen.tyr --Ne~s fo t4. ~ m _ _LL g:; t A. 3rlino Se]-iceRepresentative mn,

.a um ,..g,- m,,,,, ... _.....-, a., s -....L,.,,.,. 7,,). n l.

i. -a,.. A/4

.. -:. u -2, p.. 3 a, w.. .. e...... ......... u c rf_I ic O. t c 7 W c.c es + HAa.k.eIT

e. -

5 Y 5 r 6 m i, d <> s 7 ._7_- 9.E

L A C rr c O.

..,..-cs-.. . = is.n:c co'.a'ic N**G Es;~" O c..-.Gt Q v~s.

..c re

=

O 1 mil..="t cSc* O co.ni.cos a l C t,uro O o.c~o%co o

cs O :or < e t...o

O seitwet . Q sMc o-c0 c. cs O ~ G co=51Ncho= Q.tst . c. =0 a. o. it = wo. it.

otD i.4 CL B3.
o.. etowlli ao.

u. h!)lk

70C *t ~

.t nu *' o= of =owcCwo. wct I$b Ylr b p e;pg j I '% \\ S S I N te oR D sco m ts-6 Y c ... Sc iv.ta m..u.4 *d c.ft a8 l D d C u en C,,s/ r A r, o ej fd Q li d f. C l Pc.o d.>lft y,,f { N Ds L r~a o n k .g dA 4 (,- e p m r e. m, a t,, d.ed 2./ pco 4/z/sz see hrracn e o +4 c t c o. N' c e 't =a, ~

n.x#$DD/Jh. sed (t A St-J t.

y 3 5 P W /" & D 4/'2 l / vAK1.1M17E*1DNS: QWORK CAN PADCE1: OwoaKCwweraocri.o OcTe>L'i~2'20"5 0a. !.D't AIN wCRK LIM 17AT1DN Ma@M~&G=lW% '" '- Up.vc_.. mW:xww.xm w-.51 w r:4 sint a ve *w w n '@=GM .ce .r...,. g m. k$, g g9,u a..n.se.s s. .r y is. c~u o. ~o<c-ca I' e' 4 D e ou A T ci_ P R oc.t, & e m e a r-4 di c v m es> sereced,, g' g .oeru. un..n,. (bk] & A C V cv 5 E. 8 Xd C.T E R E po R T-kl.~M I o

a...

u c __ ucs.uc,o co...O ut c co=.C..a cl at. ern.., ~

a.,.o.c %

O C C e P Y" A S.15. 5 G E P G G E .'? Pott 4 D 0 17'*"AL-O2 5'4f~o/t m A TeofJ CAzu /V/87. 3dl b-t c,.o c. .ci.o uos.u o io ,u......icu.o~a o. ~o~co o. i c..ai ~oi. ~o-~i h) 4 G E h $ Y l Y $ 0. m o,,,, b h Y Y'I ...,.r. 4.. ~ o. -. o... . -. ~... - =........ - ..............u M>- x c-Nh 6*- elin n n $_1 av,r., h %; ce -844 5.e.%.w-MEA, ;%Ja e LmMIin c;.gm.,c v e ie mb -2 ;n:

s

... nics.p., o,.cio,. i.. io co.oc:. e o.< o.o. c: y9 t ... co:.uio oe co.ucuvs.ciio.~ n.no is.u.i-i ucv.u-ci to I.> a & / RA -A W AlM L 0 ~ ~ 'w & JG laa~. ~ M ..stino .cm o 41i?h6 . civosaio L 4, "t / AA, n n o.,, - ,,, s,.}, )..o\\ z., e m - 1ca .....o- - - e.-..~e. n 'L' O m6 k*l2 NfID T 9 MSHII W d-N 5 N W bda 6IU -g /gr4M b M p 3[. %Gfj.j.Q ar* ?".7A.IMd.%%M'MPXM.(.f,7g,p g gg 3 Q @, sp p.{. 6;L - 4-IG-8 . L. -

n. co.un.v.ci.o e c.*.me =

si. c a.o.. AR[2 e W' o c 3., p m .io,,u . mosm cn no .->n.=..m,=- g m, . c..c,

~ ) e* ef i SAnnENT &I ENGINEE R rouwoto sv enteresca saac SS C AST MONROC ST l CH3CAGO,lLLINO!5 SC _ f Trit s e.ow s - 312 269 2D'do ^ CAsLC Accatss - s amLuw.CM*CAGO ' April 14,1982 Commonweal,th Edison Company LaSalle County Station - Units 1 & 2 Mr. T. E. Watts General Design Engineer Commonwealth Edison Company P. O. Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690

SUBJECT:

5.8L. Specification J-2590 = HVAC Installation

Reference:

CECO NCR iS94

Dear Mr. Watts:

Sargent & Lundy has reviewed the following Zack Company NCR's 'and based on our meeting at S&L offices on April 7,1982 with T. E. Watts (CECO), D. C. Haan, D. Spisiak, and E. R. Kurtz (S&L), and a subsequent visit at Zack Company offices-on April 14, 1982 by B. McAndrews and J. Dierbeck (CECO Station Construction), find them acceptable for use. 1. L-210. 200 ft. each 3/8" x 8"'.and 1/2" x 8" flat bars do not have certifications on file. ^ v.,r.n

Response

The Certificate of Conformance submitted is adequate. Additionally, Zack Company has been monitored continuously in accordance with the Commonwealth Edison Quality Assurance Program. Recommend acceptance as is, l 2. L-211. 185 Angle Rings have no Material Certifications on file. The specification does not require the submittal of i

Response

Material Certification for minor attachments or specifi-- A ' Recommend-cation requirements judged over conservative.- acceptance as is. 3. L-214 No Chemical lor Physical (MTR's) are available for 22 gauge (20 tons) galvanized coils. \\ \\.

Response

Sargent & Lundy agrees with the Zack Company recommendation /hGC) covered in _ their April 9,1982. letter. ( 1 s

'S ' i. .g, S AR G Eh'T N' 7.7 XDY ENGIN"d* 1:RS rouwoco se rococasca samoc=T.seet 55 C AST MON ROE ST REET CH1'".AGO,f Lt.f Nots 60603 3:2 269 2000 TcLcewowc a caegtaoomcss - samLv= cmscaoo a April 14, 1982 Page'2 - Mr. T. E. Watts, General Design Engineer S&L Spec. J-2590 Commonwealth Edison Company HVAC Installation LaSalle County Station - Units 1 & 2 4. L-215. 500, I" x 1" x 1/8" Galvanized Angles have no Physical or Chemical (MTR's) available. Purchase order does not specify an ASTM Standard. / The specification does not require the submittal of Material

Response

Certification for minor attachments or specification require-ments judged over conservative. Recommend acceptance as is. 2000 Nuts and 1000 Flat Washers are certified to ASTM A307. 5. L-225. A307 does no); directly apply to nuts and washers. ~ The specification does not require the submittal of Material'

Response

Certification for minor attachments or specification require,- ments judged over conservative. Additionally, reasonable assurance is given due to the fact that Commonwealth Edison Co. hn_m.nitored the Zack Company in accordance with the rules of Uie CECoJLuality Assurance progr'- ( 6. L-233. (234) 7/8"$ nuts and washers and (352) 3/4"9 and~ washers are certified to A325 and. A307 respectively. Should be certified to A563 and F436 respectively. The specification does not require the submittal of Material

Response

Certification for minor attachments or specification require-ments judged over conservative. Additionally, reasonable assurance is given due to the fact that Commonwealth Edison Co. has monitored the Zack Company in accordance with.the rules of. e CECO Quality Assurance program. { ~ (40) 1 1/8"S 'l x 6 " studs, (80) 1 1/8" p Hex nuts, (80) 1 1/8" 7. L-234. Nuts flat washers were supplied with C0FC referencing ASTM A307. to be, A563, flat washers cannot be A307. The specification does not. require the submittal of Material

Response

Certification for minor attachments or specification require-Additionally, reasonable l ments judged over conservative. assurance is given due to the fact that Comm6nwealth Edison Co. has monitored the Zack Company in accordance with the rules of c the CECO Quality Assurance program. 1

s SanonsT & Luxnr 2 ENG1NEEDS rouncto sv ratormica samorwr. seer 55 CAST MONROC STRCCT CHfCAGO, ILLINOIS 60603 312 269 2000 TE L C r**o** C 6aeLe moosess - sa=Luw-cmcaoo April 14, 1982 Page.3 - Mr. T. E. Watts, General Design Engineer S&L Spec. J-2590 Comonwealth Edison Company -HVAC Installation LaSalle County Station - Units 1 & 2 225 angle rings furnished on PO's were furnished without 8. L-24 0. Material Certifications and supplier is unable to supply them. The specification does not require the submittal of Material

Response

Certification for minor attachments or specification require-ments judged over conservative. Recommend acceptance as is. 93 galvanized angle r'ings were furnished without material and '9.,L-241. galvanizing certifications. These cannot be obtained from vendor. The specification does not require the submittal of Material-

Response

Certification for minor attachments or specification require-ments judged over conservative. Recommend acceptance as is. i-10. L-242. 56875 nuts reference A307, 7060 nuts reference A325, 242 jam nuts reference "STL", 768 washers reference A307; 3860 reference A325, 15000 washers reference C1006-C1008 CRS. Except those referencing A steel grade. The specification does not require the submittal of Material

Response

Certification for minor attachments or specification require-ments judged over conservative. Recommend acceptance as is. r Phillips Red Head wedge achors were supplied without Material 11. L-243. Certifications or C of C. The specification does not require the submittal of Material Re'spons e: Certification for minor attachments or specification require- . ments judged over conservative. Recommend acceptance as is. 1320# of.035"E HB25 and 660f of.045") HB-25 weld wire has no 12. L-253. Certs on file. The Certificate of Conformance submitted on typical)results

Response

is adequate. Recommend acceptance. Blanket Order for E6011 electrodes (1/8"O and 3/.32"9) has no-13. L-254. requirement for any Certs and none on file,'and 400f of 1/8"E of 3/32"E E6011 Electrodes. The Certificate of Conformance submitted on typical results

Response

is adequate. Recommend acceptance.

3 SAnaxxT & Lrrmy ENGINEE RS rouwoto se ratoca.cn sanotwv.iesi 55 CAST MONROC $7RCC7 CHICAGO,tLLINCIS 60603 312 269 aOOO TctcPaoe.c casLcaooacss - sanLuw.cnic4oo April 14, 1982 Page Mr. T. E. Watts, General Design Engineer S&L Spec. J-2590 Commonwealth Edison Company HVAC Installation LaSalle County Station - Units 1 & 2 (20) 1 1/8"E x 6" large studs have a Certificate on file that 14. L-275. references ASTM A194 which is a specification for nuts. The April 9,1982 Zack Company letter states that a review

Response

of the Quality Control receiving reports showed that the studs were returned to the supplier on April 14, 1981. This N.CR should be closed with no further action required. (300) 1/2"E bolts which have a Certificate of Conformance that

15. L-276.

does not ref. an ASTM. 4 The Certificate of Confermance subnitted is adequate, and it-Res ponse: was further ascertained that this material was not used in a safety-related application. Recommend acceptance as is. 40 tons of 22 gauge and 20 tons'of 18 gauge gilvanized coil 16. L-284. material has no ASTM designation on Certifications. We have reviewed the Zack Company lett'er dated April 12, 198.2

Response

Recommend acceptance and agree with the recommendation covered. as is. 5 tons of 12 gauge galvanized sheets and 3 tons of 1h" x 1 " x k" 17. L-285. galvanized angles have only a Certificate.of Conformance to their ' respective standards on file. .,' Response: The Certificate of Conformance on file at the Zack Company is adequate. Recommend acceptance as is. 35 tons of 22. gauge, 20~ tons - 18 gauge have no CMTR's on file. 18. L-286. The Zack Company letter dated April 9,1982 states this material No further action -

Response

was used on non-safety related applicatio,n. is required.

19. L-287.

100 feet of 6" x' 4'i x h" tube, I ton of 2" x 2" x k" angle,100 feet " angle and 100 pieces of " x 18" x.18" fla t plate. of 4" ; 4" x All ordered to ASTM A36 or A500 have no Certs on file. l We have reviewed the Zack Company letter dated April'.12,1982 and find this gives us Lthe reasonable assurances raised by our

Response

Recommend acceptance as is. previous concerns.' I m

SAnosxT a Lrxnv Exo1xzzn:s row =oro av recotnica samogut.ison 55 CAST MONROC STRCCT CHfCAGO,lLLINOIS 60603 Ttter owt - 312 269 2000 castesopatss - samouw.cwecaoo j Page 5 - Mr. T. E. Watts, General Design Engineer April 14, 1982 S&L Spec. J-2590 Commonwealth Edison Company HVAC Installation LaSalle County Station - Units 1 & 2

20. L-289.

40 pcs. of. 3"9, 20' of 2"E pipe are certified to ASTM A501, this standard is not listed in Tech. Spec. 120 ft. of 3/8" x 1/2" H.R. flat has no Physical Certs. and 16 pits. " x 33" x 10'3" are Certified to ASTM A285 which is not listed in Tech. Specifications. The material used meets or exceeds the specification requirements.

Response

Recommend acceptance as is. 3 bars 3/8" x 3h" x 20' and I bar h" x 3 " x 20' have Certs that 21. L-299. lack reference to an ASTM 5tand, and also lack Physical, test results. The Certificate of Conformance submitted is adequate. Addition-

Response

ally, the Zack Company has been monitored in 'accordance with the Ceco Quality Assurance program to further. strengthen our acceptance Yours ' ry tru Mh 09. D. C. aan, Project Manager DCH/ERXM1t B. R. Shelton (Ceco) cc: R. Cosaro (Ceco) W. Schwartz E. Weaver W. Paschal . E. Kurtz C. A. Riebel E. P. Ricohermoso e ^ t

e , o Ta All HVAC OA P;rsonngl rao= HPLeonard Davr July 15, 1982 00\\780 sunscci MIDLAND PROJECT - HVAC OA SECTION REA3SIGNMENTS INTERNAL e Conatsrowotwcc cc WRBird, P-14-418A MADietrich, Bechtel-Midland LRichards, P-14 418 JCBalazar, Midland BWMarguglio, Midland RAWells, P-14-113A MLCurland, Midland DBM111er, Midland The personnel reassignments 'shown on the attached chart are effective immediately. Group responsibilities are assigned as follows: 1) Quality Assurance Engineering Inspection Planning MPOAD Action Items Resolution of Technical Problems Review of Subcontractor Procedures and QA Manuals HVAC Ad Hoc Committee 2) Administration Audit Program Training Frogram Inspection Records Management Personnel Certification and Qualification Files Document Control Facilities, Equipment, Supplies, Furniture Ouality Improvement Program 3) Verification Overinspections Quality Statusing Receipt Inspection Certification of Inspection Personnel Fab Shop Inspection ,NCR Closures Storage Area Inspections Weld Rod Control Inspections Welding Inspection b bk ?'" t

l,- l Page 2 -. i 7

4) Inspection Groups 1, 2 and 3 Anchor Bolt Installation Inspection Hanger Installation Inspection l

Duct Installation Inspection' i ' Equipment Installation Inspection , Duct Leak' Testing Verification Witnessing of Material Scrapping HPL/ksa f. 1 e S 4 8 O r '9 p ri t. ( ' t 5.- + a ,,,. - - + er g + t's .i9 s % -- y f

Erfcetivo July 15, 1982 HVAC QA SECTION HEAD HP Leonard K Allison HVAC IE & TV SUPERVISOR DK Martin M Lyons C Sabo QAE GROUP ADMIN. GROUP INSP. CROUP 1 INSP. GROUP 2 INSP GROUP 3 GROUP SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR GE Parker SE Bandla JL Zimmerman (acting) (acting) I I R Bradley M Bupp J Dittenbir R Bishop K Benware 'D Haas S Cox E DeGeer J Callivan D Infante R.Kucharek G Sweet E Gorld L Fabel R Guentensberger J Orr G Morgan W H ib5rger C.Lombard P Kintner J Ruiz D Sanders D Rehmann C Simons T Kudich R Scherer S Schymanski A Kunz T Tate F McCloy R Thurston L McGinnis ~ J Robbins e ,4

,s t ) = _ *

J*

ti "The Nuclear Papers: Profits Before Public Safety" UNIT 5 CHANNEL 5 NEWS July 23, 1982 NEWSCASTER: ........ safety problems at the LaSalle Nuclear Power dant. The series of reports started last night. Here is Paul Hogan. HOGAN: }. Thank you Ron. Earlier tnis week the Regional Of fice of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission sponsored an unusual meeting. Administrator James Keppler announced that after a five month investigation all atlegations of safety problems Et that plant had been cleared up. Then, Edison's LaSalle Nuclear plant was permitted to load, of course as you'LL remember, last April. But even as Keppler permitted this low power testing at LaSalle, he seemed uneasy because by then he had heard about this Unit 5 investigation and knew that we had obtained documents we call the Nuclear Plant Papers. The NRC agreed to i License the LaSalle plant for low power at the Monday meeting. The Regional Administrator, James Keppler, said he had only heard rumors of HVAC problems at LaSalle. Keppler knows that HVAC - heating, i ventilating and air conditioning'is a critical safety system in nuclear plants. In the control rooms at LaSalle, for one example, these vent systems must block escaping radiation or toxic gases so operators can .,$,ing an accident to a halt. br KEPPLER: I'm of the view'that the LaSalle plant is in pretty good shape f rom a construction point of view. HOGAN: But what James Keppler apparently did not rea'.ize.was that nearly three months ago on May 3rd his office had received hundreds of documents detailing serious safety problems with LaSalle's vent system contractor, problems the NRC ignored. TheZackCompanyof suburban Cicero has installed the vent systems at three nuclear plants in the midwest - at Midland, Michigan, at Clinton in Illinois and-80 miles southwest of Chicago in LaSalle County, and there are serious g safety ouestions resulting from Zack's work'at all.three sites. Zack's

$ t -J, nuclear plant records were given to Unit 5 by two former Zack ~. employeeswhosaytheywerefiredwhentheyobjectedjocontinuing 5-falsification of federal safety documents. Zack admitted in its own reports discovering alterations, white-outs, forgeries described as inauthentic or questionable signatures. To meet federal safety standards Zack had even doctored critical carbon content and heat tests on nuclear plant equipment. Last May 3rd, three days after he was fired, Terry Howard took hundreds of copies of these damaging records to the NRC offices in Glen Ellyn. He told officials he was concerned. HOWARD: I sat with them for a num.ur of hours. I certainly told them much more than was necessary for them to look into something. HOGAN: Did they launch an immediate investigation? HOWARD: Not to my knowledge. HOGAN: Did they call the other people wh'o were fired? HOWARD: No. HOGAN: Did they take any action that you're aware of as a result of the 1}nformationyougavethem? ~ ~ HOWARD: None HOGAN: Why not? HOWARD: I don't know. I am confused. HOGAN:, But in an interview Wednesday, the NRC Regional Director said Howard's dot. ments told of Zack problems at the Midland plant where $38,000 in j fines were levied because of them two years ago, and Keppler said Howard's documents told of Zack problems at Illinois Power's Clinton plant where j work was stopped on all Zack vent systems only a month ago. But Keppler l l stressed Howard's documents revealed nothing-important about the.LaSalle l plant, the only one of the three the NRC has licensed to operate.

7, ' 1 M',

s KEPPLER:

The information is 90% Midland with a few things on L)Salle and Clinton thrown in. Well then you must have immediately, May 4th, started action at HOGAN: ? Midland. KEPPLER: No, our view was that this wasn't a priority issue. Obviously, the inspectors didn't feel it was a big enough issue to flush up. Now, you can question that judgment if you want to and you know, I'LL just have to look at it f rom that point of view. I've been sitting around for the last week hearing about these words " falsified records" and I've been told there's i great sheaf of information out there on LaSalle, which I do not ha've and we've asked to get this information f rom the people involved. HOGAN: It was brought to you May 3rd by one of our news sources. KEPPLER: May 3rd information did not have detailed information on LaSalle. HOGAN: Keppler insisted that the NRC never received copies of two important Zack documents which include questionable certifications for LaSalle's control room vent systems. So we stopped our interview. Keppler <bbmittedUnit,5toexaminetheNRCfileandbothoftheseLaSalle documents were discovered. So, nearly three months had passed during which the agency responsible for insuring safety of all nuclear plants. had possession of these papers but had done nothing. Former NRC project manager Robert Pollard, who came to Chicago to analyze these documents l for Unit 5, thinks he knows why. { POLLARD: My experience has been in the six and a half years I worked for that as ncy in charge of Licensing nuclear power plants, that when there's l conflict between protecting the health and safet,y of the public and protecting the financial' health of the nuclear industry and utilities,

~. ' ) -s

1

s I

too often that conflict is resolved in favor of protecting the [. financial health of the incustry. HOGAN: By the end of this interview the Regional NRC Director had announced a full-scale probe of Zack's LaSalle work. Teams of NRC auditors would be sent to Zack headquarters to examine the files. Other inspectors woule begin testing samples of Zack's work at the plant itself. But will that be enough? POLLARD: At best what you could say when the safety spec ifications have not been met and the specifications have been changed, the margin between safety and disaster has been diminished and it may have been diminished to the point wher it'sndwnon-existent. That's what I think is needed to be done, not to generate more paper but to have an independent audit of the actual materials used in th,e LaSalle plant. KEPPLER: The NRC supports third party type /of audits. Information that is of safety importance has been f alsified or not reported properly by a company. If that is true, then individuals responsible can receive pen.alties including jail sentences. HOGAN: 'If you find that you have evidence of f alsification of documents that are protected by federal law will you take it to the Justice Department? KEPPLER: Absolutely._ \\ HOGAN: [ Well, in Washington Monday the two fired Zack workers and their attorneys plan to hold a press conference and then turn over their documents to the U. S. Justice Department. Tuesday, there wiLL be a formal meeting of the Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners in Washington, l l and one item supposed to be discussed is the granting of a full-power license fde the LaSalle plant. Ron, we'll have more reports next week on these developments.

s.,...~ $ .y 1* s ( 1.. s i Uuwt /iCCOUnlah.111nU110t11LVMO .o n. s htstiMe for.Pdd.. atudies ~. Wil (b.'r Psi.t.N' W. W.e.hmrt.st.18.0 ft Off l TtI. 382C:1i P;*X.' ; l i. l a FOP.1!.i;;l'.3f AW. IMl:%!.'s July 26, 19'J2. 10: ~0 )..A. M.y..rist v, ctr:mry:ca Ay, .. u pow w.em s.i:n. :;.v. ?." avrrM.r 3 901 p. sga eve,,,. w. watts esx.r./St.s.: x-t,mut: ~~'~'~,7'.'.;-... :. r wa shin <n. eon,p. c. W (202) 2JJ-9.ime ' M,

. g.. J.ec.,.1 :.d.."M..,.M. ;.e%. #

9 8-<.- $".. g..

l.. e

.y., 1, n ..c.v v. - ur -: - u s, ~... tori zzi c- .x p...;.;. . Nuct.xAt M.x:t1Any es:::ts:r.nfly m.v.u.mys ,,;gg'.g.".'.w.., /. e ;. w. w :~ v e.. ..- & _ M:, w.eW.i. :r...c.oO'Qi E... 7, d .. fT n a I c t.t er del ivez ed tud,ey tv). 3 o,

7...Q *..' p -.. -- -

i e. Nucleaz;:i<vJuletory en:rur.ir.r. ion' (tmC) Ch51rian '#? s 'll . INnda J. f al t.s'Jiao, thir.cc.vernmerit Account.d:llity: Proje.ct (gar') of th'% -r.w ; y, p. e Iru.; tis 2*. ..;x.i., c for ":r.. ~ m...... :- 2 '. y.:.S.1911ey.Mtudies cat terf f or.s'i 1nvinstigt.t-lon'or fif>C 3teglu.n TT..I's (RT.y). f allure h% II

3.~ f n <#o'J faith. to eviden c or criminal th esit iciatlans and a Quality As rc w rt.

t.w n,. s -- f.:..Q. bteak@.vai. at the TA.alle nuelcar pnwnr statter[, I..n LaSa f',,l .g:.; " ; 5.w iYd.t.' p ".' the 7:Ff w.. -r (nt.rJ ty igrarui nr respos. dud's:Uper:*f r Isilly* Lo thw arvideucc at t.hc. s we.p'L.tiss ,p r. L W. i. . 1:.m. v.. x:.. ' a ; ~ nu n - u..*... ' Y. ~tq:.;34. ~

Mll M: i

, y,.... q.n nt est.rai.ne :Jg:wn rrwi er was.reimt ncs.r. ling ;:grni nsinn f.er La%11w's; o.yg' W,*.;@*Q wner n,

.v y ~<

r ,. 3.,;..' q

3. :,

s t Tfi}. % LVrsore.v.s1th Edit-on to or+tatw the pland beyos#.".zero }ower." .'T.. S.C s..* f M # -@ w.... ' -@ l.O

. h.....n;Q ~. ; M,'N

'y..g '.t i. *i GAR 14%1 ' faitet.:tur *rh:we,n Devine ch'az Je d- ' 2..' e. ' '# ..v' , 39 y

...-s

., v. y. ..... J s. I,.?..q..:.t,.;j,1amr. thar. n.yc at ,m_r y.t m' U.r;'-);.r.y, Y.inact ~tN }.la.n e.. t ni lers.. t!m tmc n.ded t u t.. t. hat. PrjIun.~121' I n. v..en.t. ip t Lo neu,t the minum.a em J strdsc.M.t.p:/ arnetscent age.ncy.; ra" .4 -l.{.. . ;.. 4 en Peg ic.n TTT has flunAvJ rysin., pat. tht t) ire tier imC luut.ed,the-nther, M N.r.*-y; t % *. ~ way at the critical evm nt -- Jun.t.. Ar: o plant? is odont I to upvia. '. '1 hic cane. M )

invuj vru. dest fi:cra*e., r.es wit' teart refn:al tb.icink a's. 'thi ev.id.s.riev ddlu".the..@..'O U..

p. 3 J.. W,s.hr.:'.: v.4.t runhl erp the pl an t in to ut.w.a s.

ql* c./ :. nocicat ,,,,.,;e i . g',.pn J in.....c. sea.t.,i, b.eh3::.3 uti1 i t.y tire tabica"/~ cc$<e g. 4 W'i a '.'.... l ",.*c,hy v.-4'M. W 3.f {,3,N'N k.1..~ i.

9 y.

.o ...,r,..., CMt.es. plait d th.it su f f inve'st.49a. t m. s.- h. a,.s.. >. 2,..,.. 7 ;, - s,g.. - g; i*n. seriuur e.. i'<3cuco of widescale f aluiricatiem...ueibeen "a;J ttira)" 'for l', svinth. s o.n.". ' A,'I v . c m... .c. ..t...n, m.. .,..: ; Dhrating,. v.antill.ation and air enneleinni ..c.f Ct. rernrcin at.the ::ach our. pan,y, a:c?@.. .. e.;...

p. s W. Wrus acive for the L.ssallo, ' M.ir!!and and.'l?.'

r...- m 7 ', a g,,.,y;..,, Cits: tun s..sv1c.ar 1 nuer xtations. On I:.sy 3, 19%. dii s.t l.e.t:l.ovos s ' f ro.r., Za ck preh.,;entr.rt

8. ' '

tu 3C2 r of ficNais..".Thc 'ducuNn,,;.g3Irovidc5 'c. 2.[ " 3-leseta thick' r. rat.h ne doc 0eentas ...G @. v.~.p...f:%,. 4.;,n..y.. M 'videnes tu W i.,. 7 that rHuzdw a; hew).- (y"'fyC;v;*t< -S h - 141.gQ. \\.t r < x. v., .w : -. A.: - m. -:Cs l TU :f~~.a.... Si %~ ;2 c;'....%.%%r.%',6 r %c71 e te " Q.....i 1. M.ti % 4. 2,.Csga f.y.,.w + ci ni a;3. n.:... .e m - t th of rurerence.tn "As e revision teat, etW-;:.1 < fy,bl(g; - f.*.g.)i lisi itur e rti nniwr -. lack of a writters slynat:uze..q

3 a.->.. n r s t a r.,a r.: designation. '.w /q.; J.'n:.flnfp S..g,;' gfff.{.q.g..qgy;, ;,<

f/ ; p fC,. t. , y,1imatut t r.ri e r i - Type s iy s.a t u r e.ir.1 h.unkr.i t t en. r.ignat'. ara or. i ni tial e" *",1. ; ,.y , ore; u.e t niunt.ical.. . g i..,.,,,,' f ;. . f,, *di.*y;;,3. g gp j,. C?m/?bech Taqt 03tg -3bemical Anaty*4 z, arr.1/ur mechanical. tcis,tjtuta 'J?,10.-222.i.; 4.c smaunarvJ ml/e e rot-in accords;e with: t!mi: standard vriquiremontr..' - " f*/j;.Q -.... MitmiiQ cert.Ift raia,ns - Selt explan.st.oty.. certain 'packadJaWk N; M;,. _Gh '? $ ~ 4Mi.EM.hL.U. -kclei.j certifiiition s.nr 41.1.,.or,}iot. orily,drtaine iterts' '" ,p f.g,% M terratic n3 c h 16 r.- p,p. P.wr4 t ten. a.m i tin..,. WT ; "'1.'? *.W.9. C. fJ.:P....M.y...G...T.fw.t..c., ti f a

)., r.y.. ; y,g.

w,...,a.. E,tiv,L.y.u,- cu c a 1.d.nin a. .., Jrim. tion .c.... pp1te.1 (6,.eer: wn r.J r se..

g 7!...< *,. :. 't..;. *

9. w at n

m;

.cc

.-c..i t'gty ;9mugg%g4.w.z.t,7.O.... -,-g;% : %,. L~.r ::.- W.m ;+:..,. n t 1=.a). a;..';. 4... c..". e.. c. sminym. ,t 4 w. m s.;. w n.- ww

w.th m

e 2s mmm. ':~.

j..gn:u.W;i;y.b.

qu ny. .syMtn1

m m.q h htC diet 3.ot.

Jttlebluwa$g;3 w. n y m : g.a 3 ae tver.1 to tht. rein.atoi calla ot tfie *4: ' n @:esman, s* u,. .......s...- -o,..~ w.-w i ry.u t i.).pi ir.,. tid .,..t ty.n c id y.?..W r#r ef.r Ml4#rt l'l's rr/) Tri. or.l. kTTT y e,.., w m.p. u...,.w.g h.y.,,:.,.'.. y,,,,t.. ei {..v.,t i.$.c f & .w

n. &-..

e ?. ^r c... te.. =. v,.....m...s.

r... e,

, q: p-r

3..y'-

..*. E.4 Q. 4,,,.p &,G.4f g%g g g,,.,,,,.,, g..,f; ;*J . twk their evailes. to be..th. e,.prcriri.,o.rd.-.j .to.CA.P.;.G....p: g i. ;,. ...-t. 1:... W- ..;.. ; 3,_.-_..- ~. -.~.x d........ u.a l CAlt Cit.i v.au clei. i t. hI rc' tor it : ? t t.-.'e r * *.. r. *,

e *, *M... -@ "* e g.W t'...

t.-*iere s. v..l.! Lv en:.e W wspau,.it 4cel.!r-s.tn upsn.us Ir.vmitig$tYon.' tnt not unt.il J... m..-r..q... : in M, =. y...q.q.. . L...

.r v..,.....*:-..e... c.L,. : :

i m:.M v-# ". i*s.cf ~n..

......n. - y y r... n=, t. :n...m..

s ...,r..'.,...... .v .-s,.... y f...w ,. :: 1. .A ~' .t. . ;;..:.. L. ..-.J.-.,. 7 .A c -

a. *..

.s .....).- d..,..4 ...,. G a.,. .n. 4...>g ~,. .y wy y, ~.< ~~

.y g

b 'nu t is tres I.s t e. heginn !!! han.il s e.nly tipped its h.asvi. We 5 leaded witti 11 1 een setow:suu:; encasinnr. tn i via= t !<Ja t e t h.? 7.ach ev hlesici. They sessu'l antenestnl. Why r.!anall w. trust thusa ho.? T!m whole gmnt of.iny R111 invrutigation arm vitJ be to 4ustify Hill's failure ' to act s,hase it shruld have. cat' also ch.sigest that a re:cently-cornpletcil R111 probe laito alleged concrete voids; y s. hoics cere.<jrilled into the reactor pedest.al s cheating on thes masonty by diluttrig PrartJr s~ [ or e.ven not uning riortar for memo,concreta Iducks, among other issues ma'y have been ..q %rse than no investigation at all. fast f all HRC Executive Director William Dircks ' . ~. ? . a...t . p t -r. x adnitted that previosas NPC probes relied s.co stuch on the utilit.y'S paperwork, while. .e.-- ..s ...c '* foregoing witness.intervic es and indeperident hardware tests..,..r.+.,..Di cks pledged tlut tho WC'Euld not make the same mistake again, a connitenent Jcaf firmebby hri Keppler in 'Y.. -=N!s h.T+s b *' -..r. ... Ynts,10 congression;al testimony. "Unfortur.ately, the diff erences betwoon '.o3 d' and 'new' .. June. ..........v..* . g.- n..

.s i

)- x.

m. '.>... - :* ~

W. %.r

~. ~. s.. w r A r., NF%* investigationis are cosmetic at best,".o.b. served Devine. "WhencVer.there was a CDnflict s e 4 ....,.;f ...~:... m s - *,the goperwork, won."p*$..,.y :gg<... g.i'ge gg:s. M..Q..between eyewitn. esses ar.d utility paperwrk,. &.Y '.'sp-.Y W',c cal 5 y, Ch[,c,hatgcd,y M11.7_Gy yy.. g}}Qyffy,.,. .. q.. , 9 9.... p.. : h. ae.. ,Q& ,.4. *.9'.S.*.". ",.y.al.l Ed to., take sworn. s. t.a tementi..f ro.m.w..i t.M.g.se s.',who.y g ":.Alle.a,.dy .'4. ?..C.h.%.2 '.R.. a f s had 'not T* .i.. .%:.. b.. pr.o.vidcd af.f.Idavi,t.s to CAPS

j". ;.cg, t;s. 4.g,y

. q , u. w.k,,...j.,, jq.,.%. 4.' g. t,,,p, g-- 4 q. g.g ..c,.. ....., ',. ~ .. 3 7.a D[ *N',*

tot 211 y'#,60s ed is su~e's 'that %2i t 'wi th the~c auses 7f"QA,

.,...,,wj ,r, r.. ^, 1 ^- Ta.y,m..... T;c. at f.as. silo, sauch as retaliations a nr3 m.ard p.l.a t,i.o..n o.f...t,.h.ee, Qh prog ram. W..l: thiough r.hortWf fing, conflicts 'of interest, and advance.. warnings m.., ,4.. r,. ' h,6,h' e.. 'of QA kaspe.ctionss .h.,.,.;;:~.: &.,$%jQfM..;.j *j Q). '*%-Q' Q..'f, q.h.. ^ . s . ; 1, n .. m.,,. n.u. <.:

~~

.. ~ "rulcilimd the issues it did cover by omitting key facts', making it ' n ". '"g1 4 .M'i : p*w%' 7,.*e.y'a.s.i.er to re.je.c..t.,.t..h..e..ch.arge s e d.;f.., A N.d.v.tMl'M,)'<M9.M.f,M.u,,% dg'/;. k Mi*-W V '.i(M/ W

r. ?.....

.e - .= - - -% ?.t. *' ' ' "re%ted vitncisesI' 'aii6gallo'ns 'od Osd liisfs'of%isint futiility M b A'?.7- .m::g.,.,.,. g u g.;w3 f p. h.f ff .8 " manipulated the evidenec by failing to 1,nclude key facts]in;y;%%y)JM.,7

the, W ;1e.g-:-?..',W.., r.es or t..

..su. ch as.i t s. fit.i.di.n.g.t..tu..t.u.%.y. g..?.. i mcr.t lurs were damaged ,while concluding the. plant is s e.i.nfo.r.c.e-%*A"b,,,,=v.p%.. M ~ 'a ppr,o. x!..m.a t.ely '.h.al..f.,.o. f r. y As s s. and p p.e .. W.3 s wl

c..

m.va. :. p s.w.,..: r e.w..e s.M s.% saf {."]t%- J N '* failed to imirpenocntly learn' the full cxtent % f. prob 1 cms' that '.0,'Jady'&f N. .w ,s g Lj r4.,.i.l.awere confirmes3, before it dismis ed. u. nse ex. amp

s. s.

W, 'h, *Td.. .;, by thm.ci ve=m to pose a public ca fety threat.. ".los,4.* M, in,s,uf.f,,icient. q a a d 9 fg. i;,,ww. CJ rdo Concl uded- .,_g,;..., L'. ;,,.:. 4 .Z .1., if J.W,, y v,.,,... : f. v?..y..'WQ' g,. f %; Q:,

s. v, : p..f. Q.',2. ;*;;g< W.,.i.ei.+a: Q. Q M W ;.

s. . m ;.. v.,.. p._ .'MJ a 7.. , 4 4.- y.Sv.c., '.M W. ...w.sa.+.,.>m t. e Jc.* b g f A. ; g,j 4.5,.,;y @... f.g; L,.,...bd.9.,q pg.. . the utility's paperwork.to reassure..W.. .y...%. It is da disservice to rely or [G !.'r,5~;, the puM ic that i.aSalle's ' safety is[ 'gyoven. '.'.ps,the Zacii re A '., 7 V,y . N*.,

Inlicate, the 3.aperwrk,cannot Im t rtinter1., We are not sayinef LaSalle E*
I.oE,

e ya g., ; *.Y 4D. ' M. i.s unnafr m arc charg'ing tMt RII! dde's not Eno2.'bTh'e' Coi.m..issione'r.a f A.'. N.-.. pD "" trust ime con:lusions '.about ' uclea r" s3fdy7M'WTh*.' grounds t +g.g}4.., ment tal.e ele. cisive action. ';ne sublic.no longer has valid ..m ..q.; yM.w-JW.:fffrqyggg' 'W,j..'f

N"'g" n

WW g ygg. p,.. v ..., c y.c....... 2; %..s.a.Q.,.W. :.., p..t ;' W

. Y,*. ". ;~.J '. nw. : -~.. %.. ::w.w.-.q.s.;.msc.vy. y 4y ;g.. -y p._ t;* y.yy;;

qy p,.y., s . i-p.3...,4._h_.,., n,m_.._4.., ws.y w~ ;i p n.,.q.g,yg 7 ..;,~...n,..,, a. ...e.w. e., : y .yh.. Qg.6,;f **.. -. .,.4,...p g. .s.. g.... r. ..,,.,K.\\* n.:..;.n.,.. {tv...,, : ~.e. m.,l/. . %. p. '.3 0 ' ' }, w. 4. . ~,. ,q i - i. e c%.

..f._ J 3 c.,.,..,.Mv. 4,m,,r.,,,c u4,J S.,3.

...,r 9m.o.. - *., .W?w,.;m y.~.w.c . y ph.47 - w 4 ..s ..s-y. g !.NWik$\\*?&g,.fg,4R h h hp e u... .e g,,; e.a, g gL., g.r..,,& ew.n..w.,. ,,4. g...g,.., m. .,, g 77.W. ,.g f '3.W,9th,0;.r- * * - *..AY W 5.Wll* .....;y... W a-u ~. s..e.* 4 s 3/ gig. j.W.,M * :&2-~~%.s-n - &,'.* P*,M '.) Wa&%g. 3 .Y'. m .M'T~~:~~'~.'":"~~.*.~: 'W'".'..,....W;2iv.- W-l.Tl92%Qi.: t; W.Woew t.~;&'k d.-r.~. '.i+5.es.2* g* 47%;".F.SturATIVL'". O!' TILE Z/.CK VOllR UILI. lSC.FANTICTPAY!t1G,2N,*[IlE j'RE$$ d g.k'*gd.RE17 DTP.!X.'T TE1.EPHONC LINES r '60="/904 - M- ;O.1',.y, p,

C AND W11.1. IT. AVI.T:. apt.n l'OR 3HTCINID45.

'4 Ti i 4-hIb'5aT g Sii:.'., U / [~;*.7.".r,Ik ' f, b. % ?.**) p yT'.lh h.g;4.*p. h .[ %g $ @ p. 3,(ykh y' rwm.n=s.t.w.:.u..c.= l:.t ;y;.;.w.ym.Qg; ;q..,a-;,4N56.. Rnu ;m.w 3 n... r. pt t. c.:=-wh-y.w:w. p nww.m 1.r.:: ,_. _ 7. y.c;=n..,:sI_.. w m.yg

gg;g+u.

c m,r:.,v...w. p. m ._. 4u... m,., =.p m.c. , y,u.. __.r. _w .?.+ e..-. -11,.t-9. n ~+*,. ~ g. m,. m - yu,Q.:?w43.pg%*~ ~ . m.

..w.

r.m s 9.m E Cy.i .s ?.s ...%r .~.M q& N% w...m4.m,r.y :. k..gg % 3. u. e . c.

m. -mv.ph.. p.,-.w.m.v,.,w:w.,.ga.c%:.;p4,;,g,g.,.,3 g,,.;, gg ;.

q..,, -

u. .m.--a u c .,a. c = r. ,:;.. ; 7... :: - - 3., w,.,..z. 3 3.:o,. f.~,,.sg. .,wsa g..

m.. ;

~., . e..:a..... m./... ;.m. p m... w..

s. v.. r..,e

.2 g.. ,. 3 2. .-..-...:..-4 -.= - .. ; -; s v. ~...:. 1, u.... u . v. ..y.,._. ..%..m.,,e p,.._ g.. ~ .. 5;..:.h%.;.-:;.:1: w n L ;i m.k'.h ? S 2 @ W :. g, :.,.,,,.,,,..w... a.. e m,.W. ...: =:.. a 4 .w ...,. w :....- ...,_; 2 a. :..;

2..

A. a n..Ja d. .. &s. .g p yl

~. g g o' ~ v p-t GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTADILITY PROJECT Institute (or Policy Studies 1901 Que Street. N.W., Washington. D.C. 20009 (202)234-9382 Is [. July 26, 1982 The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Chairman Palladino:

On behalf of our clients, Mr. Albert T. Howard and Ms. Sharon Marello, the Government Accountability Project (" GAP") of the Institute for Policy Studies requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") conduct a ful) investigation of the enclosed evidence before permitting full power operation of the LaSalle Nuclear Power Station (Unit I) in LaSalle County, Illinois. We request that the Commission's Office of Investigations ("OI") replace Region III ("RIII") in its ongoing investigation of LaSalle and the Zack Company, to which the enclosed evidence pertains. We further request that the Commissioners direct the Office of Inspector and Auditor ("OIA") to investigate the performance of RIII's Office of Inspection and Enforcement. More cpecifically, we believe that RIII's oversight of LaSalle was inadequate in three areas-- (1) failure to act for three months on serious evidence of a Quality Assurance ("QA") breakdown and possible criminal falsification at LaSalle's Heating, Ventillating and Air Conditioning ("HVAC") contractor, the Zack Company, on the eve of full power operations at LaSalle despite urgent and then-independent requests from Mr. Howard and GAP; (2) failure to uncover the Zack QA breakdown during its ongoing regulatory program; and (3) failure to honor commitments made last November to correct RIII inv'estigative deficiencies confirmed by OIA Report, Spec?.1 Inquiry re Adequacy of IE Investigation 50-358/80-9 at the William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Plant (August 7, 1981). Our action is based on the investigation our organization has conducted over the past five months, from March 1982 to date, as well as on evidence M r. Howard, Ms. Marello and other witnesses have presented to us regarding the Region III LaSalle investigation. Enclosed as Attachment 1-8' is a r packet containing Mr. Howard's affidavit and 44 exhibits; Ms. Marello's affidavit; an affidavit from Mr. Charles Grant III; and six memoranda h blf =22 & Cl e,1 ** ^ s s w y ' (. _ -en -- ai

g.; 3 T"he Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino July 26, 1982 s. sunnarizing verification interviews conducted by our staf f. The interviews confirm the personal integrity of Mr. Howard and Ms. Marello, as well as , the substance of their allegations. All witnesses except for personal references are former or current Zack employees. Our evidence directly y challenges the credibility of Region III's July.19 recommendation for a full power license. GAP is a non-profit, non-partisan public interest organization that assists - federal and corporate employees who report illegal, wasteful or improper activities by their agencies or organizations. GAP also monitors govern-mental reforms, offers its expertise about personnel issues to Executive Branch offices and agencies, responds to Congressional requests for analysis of issues related to accountable government and disseminates significant i information about problems to appropriate places within the government. our review of the recently issued LaSalle Report (Inspection Report No. e 50-373/82-35 (July 19,1982)) reveals more def erence to utility timetables than Region III has demonstrated in the past, particularly at the Zimmer station in Moscow, Ohio. Although we have had only one week to review, analyze and study Region III's report, it clearly suffers from serious omissions. This type of investigation leaves the public less realistically assured than if no investigation had been conducted at all. Specifically, the report ignored the evidence on Zack presented by Mr. Howard nearly three months ago, on May 3,1982. Second, Region III totally ignored significant issues that dealt with the causes of the Quality Assurance j deficiencies at LaSalle, such as retaliation and manipulation of the QA program through short-staffing, conflicts of interest,. and advance warning j of QA inspections. J our review of the allegations actually covered indicates that the LaSalle investigation relied far tco heavily on the utility's paperwork, while foregoing witness interviews and independent hardware tests. We discovered that Region III investigators failed to take sworn statements from key 4 witnesses who had not already provided affidavits to GAP or the Illinois State Attorney General's office. GAP.had already worked closely with - some of these witnesses. Our decision not to take affidavits from these employees was a gesture of good faith toward Region III; unfortunately, 4 it was not returned. We also found a disturbing manipulation of the allegations by omitting key, ,- facts, thus making it easier to reject the charges.. Issues presented by i - conscientious workers were consistently rejected on the basis of suspect utility paperwork or " independent" tests that were, in fact, controlled by. the utility. Further, and most seriously; the NRC's Region III office has once again failed to independently explore the full extent of the problems [ at a nuclear power plant before dismissing the examples as ins'ufficient by themselves to pose a public health and. safety threat. The ' Nuclear Regulatory ' Commission ~has often promised to improve the dependability and quality of its investigations; however, the flaws of the

i

o The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino July 26, 1982 LaSalleprobeconfirmthatNRCprobescontinuetorelyontheIbtility's good faith and paperwork.

It is very clear that whenever there was a conflict between eyewitnesses and utility paperwork, the papefwork won. ? Unfortunately the af fidavits and evidence provided by our clients reveal s that the paperwork for the LaSalle site cannot be trusted. The LaSalle investigation represents a major setback in the NRC's outreach effort to nuclear plant employees. No longer in good conscience can we recommend to nuclear workers that they speak to the NRC without counsel present. Mr. Howard, who was speaking for the fired Zack employees, had irreversible personal damage. Although as spokesman for the group Mr. Howard went to the Regional NRC office on the first work day after the entire QA department was dismissed and talked to eight investigators, not one informed him that he and his colleagues had only 30 days to file an appeal for relief under 48 U.S.C. 55851 to the Department of Labor. As a result, their legal rights to administrative relief were sacrificed. Region III also publicly misrepresented his disclosure in an attempt to justify its own initial inaction. This is intolerable. I. ZACK ALLEGATIONS

===. Background=== In the f all of 1981 the Zack Company, a Heating, Ventillating and Air Conditioning ("HVAC") contractor, hired Ms. Marello, Mr. Howard, and a number of other individuals to establish a Quality Assurance Documentation Control office. Their assignment was to insure that the Zack Company had a Docu-mentation Department that complied with 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix B, the American National Standards Institute (" ANSI") codes, and the contract specifications of their various clients in nuclear business. Their specific assignment was to control the documentation -- purchase orders ("P.O.'s"), material certifications ("certs"), material traceability records ("M.T.R.") and certificates of conformance ("C.C."). This involved the moaitoring of over 3000 purchase order " packages." Each package represented the proof of quality for up to thousands of items used to construct the Clinton, LaSalle or Midland nuclear power stations. Mr. Howard was hired as the Documentation Control Room Suhrvisor. Ms. Marello ~ was a clerk. They, and the three or four other Documentation Control Rocm ' employees were allowed -- in fact assigned -- to investigate documents con-tained in Zack's files. Their task was to verify the accuracy, or identify the < inaccuracies to the purchase order packages. This task gave them free access to the Zack files, and also placed them in a good posit: ion to observe the " paperwork trail" of Zack's nuclear documents. In six and a half to seven months, Ms. Marello and Mr. Howard discovered and. challenged a quality assurance breakdown that leaves reliability of HVAC systems, and the overall QA programs at three nuclear plant sites in serious

i j O The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino July 26, 1982 l question. Their experiences reflect a contractor operating for years without regard for the Atomic Energy Act, and consequently the public fealth and safety. I i ( 7he.y discovered documentation that had altered specifications, some with ~ "vnite out," missing certifications, purchase orders with no ASTM specifi-cations, purchase orders changed to reflect correct quality assurance i approval, and adhesive stickers with questionable authenticity, used to modify documentation and reflect the correct standards. They also uncovered top-level Zack management attempts to convince vendors -- with some success -- to provide inaccurate quality and traceability certifications after-the-fact. Bo th Mr. Howard and Ms. Marello worked in the Document Control Room at the Zack headquarters. Although they received no formalized Quality Assurance training, they, and the rest of the QA department, did become familiar with the various codes, contract specifications, and regulations that allegedly governed their work. Unfortunately they suffered a pattern of harassment and attempted intimidation. The pressure increased as Zack strove unsuccessfully to meet unrealistic time demands imposed by Commonwealth Edition ("Com Ed"), which wanted the paperwork resolved to avoid licensing delays at its LaSalle site. The tension became so severe that Ms. Marello was eventually hospitalized. Last August Zack had notified the utilities of a potential nonconforming condition under 10 C.F.R. 550.55(e), due to inadequate and inaccurate quality and identification records on vendor purchases. They also attached a Cor-rective Action Report (" CAR") plan which outlined Zack's intention to identify, analyze and correct all the paperwork problems at the company headquarters. This CAR also outlined the steps Zack would take to insure that the proper individuals responsible for this were appropriately disciplined. As precsure mounted to have the LaSalle nuclear plant load fuel, the QA department at Zack fell under greater pressure to close out nonconformance reports ("NCRs") that detailed the Zack QA documentation deficiencies at LaSalle. Mr. Howard refused to provide a final report to Com Ed. On March 1, Zach suumitted 99 remaining NCRs to Com Ed. Zack warned it was unlikely that necessary documentation to correct deficiencies could be obtained. This frank admission did not deter the utility and NRC rush to begin operations at.LaSalle. Com Ed received permission to load fuel. On April 13 and 15,1982 Mr. Howard, acting as a spokesman,for the entire

Zack Quality Assurance department, had contacted an individual in the

, Consumers Power Company's Midland Project Quality Assurance department. This individual had represented to Mr. Howard and other members of the department that they should feel free to bring any allegations or problems at Zack to Midland's internal grievance system. He also guaranteed them confidentiality and protection from losing their jobs. On April 18, 19 and 20, an audit team from Consumers and the Bechtel Corpor-ation arrived in the Chicago office. The QA department anticipated a complete

~ ,.t g

u' e

The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino July 26, 1982 inv'estigation and professional support for its effort. However7 their anticipation was belied as naive. On April 30 the entire depar3 ment was s , dismissed, allegedly due to an office reorganization. -on May 3, 1982, the first working day following the purge, Mr. Howard began

a series of contacts wj th Region III.

He provided specific allegations about LaSalle and to a lesser extent Midland and Clinton, evidence and his offer of 7 1 full cooperation with an NRC investigation. However, nothing happened. After 2 months, when Mr. Howard and the others realized the NRC was not going to respond to their allegations, which had cost them their jobs, they~ took their information to the press and then to GAP. 1 l Specific Allegations The three affidavits, exhibits and supporting verification memoranda evid'ence specific allegations about Zack's QA documentation and utility oversight. I Certain issues pertain to the fundamental of Zack's QA program-- 1) Absence of any formal Quality Assurance Documentation Program-- Until Ms. Marello, Mr. Howard and otha*m were hired ir the f all of 1981 to i honor corrective action commitments tnere was no QA formal program for documents. As a result, theywereinanuncoptrolledstate, i.e., a mess. Documents were piled on the ficar. (Attachment-3, at 1-2; Att. 3, at 1: Att. 8, at 4-5). 2) Inadequate qualifications of personnel performing significant roles-- Individuals without any previous nuclear experience were assigned to make decisions requiring engineering judgment, as well as detailed know-ledge of professional codes and legal requirments for QA documentation. They received these assignments despite protesting that they were not qualified to make such significant decisions. The qualifications deficiencies extended to the Zack auditors'. (Att. 1, at 1-2, Att. 2, at 3-4; Att. 3, at'2-3; Att. 8,- at 5, 11-19).

3) Missing documentation and discrepancies in welder qualifications record s-To illustrate, an October 23 Interim Report found 25 discrepancies 2.

in a partial review of welding qualifications records for the LaSalle site. (Att. 2, at 7; Att. 8, at 13). 4) Inadequate training for QA personnel-- - Despite repeated requests l for comprehensive training, Zack only of fered informal guld,ance and self- . study materials. Tb illustrate the quality of the training', Zack President 1 Christine DeZutel and her husband were trained "in accordance with the Zack j ' Company Quality Assurance Training Program" on the basis of one hour's- ~ instruction 'from a Zack executive in NRC regulations and professional QA standards. The company finally proposed a formal training program' shortly.

/"Itt."

All-references to Attachment 8 incorporate the relevant accompanying exhibits.. 4 e.

f ) T,he lionorable Nunzio J. Palladino July 26, 1982 before it dismissed the entire QA documentation staf f. (Att. 21, at 2; Att. 2, at 2-3; Att. 3, at 2-3; Att. 4, at 1; and Att. 8, at 5 18-19,- 24). }.AsecondcategoryofallegationsconcernincompleteZackQAdocumentation-- ~ 5) Missino records due to inadequate document control-- Both unauthorized management personnel, and even the owner's dog, had access to Zack QA records and Purchase Orders. As a result, records were lost or chewed up. (Att. 1, at 3; Att. 2, at 5; and Att. 3, at 1). 6) Absence of required quality verification on documents that could be retrieved-- This ranged from missing signatures to missing required test data, specifications, and certifications to professional codes. (Att. 1, at 2-3; Att. 3, at 2; Att. 8, at 4-5, 18). 7) Lack of proper identification through compliance with material traceability recuirements-- This led to problems such as lack of required traceability for some 114,000 hexheads, bolts, nuts and similar items. Similarly, certain steel beams could not be traced with certainty, although indications are that they come from Argentina. (Att. 8, at 17-18, 21-22). A third category of allegation concerns widespread f alsification and improper modifications cf Zack QA documents during the corrective action program for deficient records-- 8) Improper alteration of QA records through stickers containing signatures of questionable authenticity (Att. 2, at 3; Att. 3, at 2; Att. 8, at 14-15). 9) Improper alteration of QA records through whiting-out previous information in order to create the appearance of compliance with legal requirements (Att. 1, at 2; Att. 8, at 15). 10) Improper requests by Zack management for vendors to supply unavail-able information or to inaccurately upgrade quality documentation-- Some vendors, such as U.S. Steel, refused to participate in the improprieties. Other vendors cooperated to the letter of the request, even retyping the spelling errors in model. certification letters supplied by Zack. Another vendor returned a blank form for Zack to fill in as needed. (Att. 2, at 7; Att. 3, at 2; Att. 8, at 16, 25-6). A fourth category of allegations involves deficiencies in Zack's program for purchases from its Approved Vendors List-- + 11) railure to distinguish between commercial and nuclear purchases on Purchase Orders-- Since items purchased for nuclear use have much stricter i quality verification requirements than those purchased for commercial use, this omission led to the improper upgrading program described above. (Att. 2, - at 2; Att. 8, at 18).

) The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino July 26,1982 12) Unqualified vendors on the AVL-- This occurred due to the absence of necessary surveillance of vendor QA programs. (Att. 3, at 2-3; Att. 8,'at 15-16). E 13) railure to remove unqualified vendors ~ from the AVL-- Even if Zack (determined a vendor were unqualified, that did not guarantee the vendor's ' removal from the AVL. For example, "ack received approximately 38 Purchase

Orders from the Delta screw Company during the period it uas " removed" from the AVL.

(Att. 8, a t 18 ). A fifth area of allegations concerns the attitude of Zac management. It was incompatible with the Quality Assurance criteria of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B-- 14) Manaaement awareness of OA breakdown-- Zack managtment was painfully aware of the problem. As the company conceded, "There has been a breakdown of the quality assurance program as related to criterions [ sic,/ VI - Documents Control, and VII - Control of purchased material, equipment and services...." (Att. 8, at 6). The company promised reform and training to the QA staff. But the commitments were not honored. Instead, Zack management scapegoated the staf f for problems created by its own neglect. (Att. 2, at 6-7; Att. 3, at 3; Att. 8, at 10, 21-5). 15) Harassment, attempted intimidation and retaliation against QA staff-- All current and former Zack employees whc were contacted confirmed this allegation. The tactics included dismissal threats, severe personal abuse, accusations of petty misconduct, and eventually dismissal of the entire QA documentation staf f through a pretextual reorganization. (See Att. 1-8, generally). 16) Bad f aith progress reports to the utilities-- Zack disguised its misconduct through f alse reassurances to -its utility customers. .To illustrate, the company reported to Midland on a partial review of some 1,900 purchase orders. Although the review wes less-than half complete, the Zack President characterized it as a " total document l audit." (Att. 1, at 2; Att. 2, at 3; Att. 3, at 2, Att. 8, at 6, 10, and l Exhibit 43S). 17) Failure to adequately discipline those responsible for records falsification-- The company promised its utility clients to identify ard - take apppropriate action against the guilty parties. Although the responsible executive was identified, the " appropriate disciplinary action" consisted of a paperwork demotion and additional training. (Att. 8, at:4, 6-7). 18) Surrender to unrealistic utility deadlines-- Zack was under intense l pressure f rom its utility clients, in particular Com Ed, to rush the quality verification of its purchases. Rather than defend the integrity of its QA refonn program, Zack succumbed and attempted to produce a " rush job." That is why the company pressured employees to work overtime and perform tasks for which they weren't qualified. There wasn't time to do the job properly. l (When the QA staf f refused to sign off on unacceptable records, management personnel did it themselves.) (Att. 1, at 3; Att. 2, at '4 ; Att. 3, at 1; l Att. 4, at 2; Att. 8, at 7-8, 22).

) 4 The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino July 26,1982 A final category of allegations involves the utilities themselves..Zack could not have persisted for years in its misconduct without utility 7 complicity-- E 20) Utility knowledge of the QA breakdown-- There can b'e no question (that the utilities have been aware of the Zack breakdown. The company was ~ the subject of previous requests to stop shipping nonconforming material, i as well as previous severe enforcement action at Midland, whose owner Consumers Power even loaned a contract enployee to help straighten out Zack's QA records deficiencies. (See Att. 2 and 8, generally). At LaSalle, Zack informed Commonwealth Edison that it could not supply adequate information to properly correct 69 of 99 QA nonconformances. (Att. 8, Exhibit 435). 21) Utility complicity with the ongoing breakdown-- When formally notified of Zack's miseries, the QA management for the utilities and their contractors failed to face up to their responsibilities. Instead, Com Ed pressured for a rush job in the corrective action program. At Midland, the contractor Bechtel was satisfied if it were " highly probable" that Zack ordered the correct material. The Midland QA program responded to Zack's QA effort with an effort to rewrite the QA rules. Even before the ef fort was completed, the Midland QA mancgement decided that "in virtually all cases, material is acceptable or will be deemed acceptable." (Att. 8, Exhibit 29, at 3). That philosophy cannot coexist with the Atomic Energy Act. (Att. 1, at 4; Att. 2, at 4-5; Att. 3, at 2-3; Att. 8, at 9-12, 14, 20). 22) Utility complicity with retaliation-- In desperation, Mr. Howard and another Zack QA employee, Mr. Ronald Perry, disclosed the QA deficiencies to of ficials at LaSalle and Midland. In each case the discussions were sup-posed to be confidential. In each case, the Zack employees were soon subjected to recrimination and harassment, suggesting that the confidences were not honored. In Mr. Howard's case, the entire QA staff was dismissed within two weeks of his disclosure to the Midland QA Manager. 23) Inaccurate public denials by utilities of the Zack deficiences-- To illustrate, a Commonwealth Edison spokesman stated in a Chicago television interview that the Zack records were reviewed thoroughly by its Architect / Engineer Sargent and Lundy. In fact, an internal January 1982 Surveillance Report at LaSalle revealed Sargent and Lundy had-- ... deleted the requirements for submitting on site contractor documentation (such as Zack's) to S & L for review. This review is now the responsibility of the Zack Company.... Based on this change, S & L's letter accepting Zack's; docu-mentation is no longer required. (Att. 8, at 11). Contrary to the conclusions of the bnplicated organizations, th deficiencies-summarized above are too serious to ignore or even to glance at superficially. As a Zack report concluded, only 94 of 374 material packages sent to LaSalle were correct and acceptable. Nine were judged "No Good for LaSalle." (Dm-phasis in original.) (Att. 8, at 7). 'In some cases, it is too late for the

1 ) a . i The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino July 26, 1982 ) vendors to supply verification information on purchases made in 1978 or earlier. The records simply aren't retained that long. ( Att. l, at 2).. ,Nor can the NRC accept Zack's work "as is" and permit any plan to operate with quality in an indeterminate state. As RIII Administrator James Keppler ..-stated with respect to the Zimmer station, the utility would have to " rip out" i .and replace critical components that lack adequate quality records. ("On-Time Start-Up for Zimmer Plant Still Doubted by NRC Of ficial," The Cincinnati Enquirer, p. D-5 (June 30, 1982). Td illustrate the impact at LaSalle, it would magnify the danger and expense to rip out already installed items af ter the plant begins operations. II. INADEQUATE NRC INVESTIGATIVE OVERSIGHT Backaround On December 8,1980, on behalf of Mr. Thomas Applegate, GAP charged that a RIII investigation violated basic investigative standards through f ailure to speak with relevant witnesses; failure to take affidavits from key witnesses; exces-sive reliance on utility paperwork to resolve allegations instead of conducting necessary independent laboratory tests on the hardware; f ailure to investigate suf ficiently to determine the causes of confirmed inadequacies; inaccurately summarizing employee allegations, with the effect of shrinking the allegations into insignificance; and on-balance exonerations despite confinnation of specific problems, before learning the full scope of the deficiencies. Last November 18, OIA released its August 7 report, which backed GAP's charges. In an October 8,1981 memorandum to Chairman Palladino, Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) Director James Cummings observed that the probe Applegate and GAP challenged "did not satisfy... generally accepted investigative standards of other Government agencies.... Fundamentals basic to all in-vestigations were simply not observed in this instance." Cummings cited inadeq ste documentation highlighted by the total absence of interview reports, as well as the failure to pursue obvious leads. He surmised that serious quality assurance welding problems the NRC uncovered last summer might have been exposed years ago if IE prebes had been "sufficiently comprehensive to identify this issue in a timely manner." ,In a November 16, 1981 letter to Congressman Morris K. Uda'* 1 (D.- Ariz. ), Chairman of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee, you backed the CIA criticisms. You concluded that the shortcomings in th'e Zimmer investi-gation " reveal a generic problem" with IE oversight. You pledged to consider the "necessary internal reforms" for NRC probes to reach a level " consistent with fundamental standards that govern investigations by any ag&ncy." In November Congressional testimony, NRC Executive Director for Operations William Dircks reaffirmed the ' commitment and pledged to deemphasize reliance

) s s The Ibnorable Nunzio J. Palladino July 26, 1982 on utility paperwork while l'ncreasing reliance on witnesses and even,a new NRC bobile laboratory testing unit. ,With respect to the LaSalle and Zack allegations, RIII failed o honor this . pledge. To illustrate, the NRC response to the Zack allegations at LaSalle was reluctant, at best. On June 2,1982 GAP passed along the allegation of a vindicated Zack whistleblower f rom Midland that a Zack supervisor had confirmed the same abuses at LaSalle. The whistleblower, Mr. Dean Dartey, complained that RIII had refused to investigate his allegations due to lack of specificity. Had RIII followed its normal practice of checking deficient purchase orders at one site that had also been sent to other utilities (see, e. a,., IE Rep. No. 50-358/81-13), the NRC would have learned that illegalities in Zack-supplied Midland purchases were repeated at LaSalle. (Att. 5). Similarly, GAP made three attempts to convince RIII to pursue evidence of mis-conduct by Zack at LaSalle. Mr. Howard made anothcr half dozen attempts to convince RIII to investigate his May 3,1982 disclosure, and evidence, all without success. In a July 19, 1982 letter to com Ed, Administrator James Keppler rationalized the omission by stating the Howard allegations applied primarily to LaSalle and had been deemed too general by the staff. As Mr. Howard rebutted: The NRC description in its LaSalle report of our meeting is absolutely false. I spoke in great detail and said my findings applied to all three sites. I emphasized problems at LaSalle more than Midland. I lef t my records with the staff that dly, and more the next day. Similarly, the July 19, 1982 RIII investigative report on LaSalle (IE Report No. 50-373/82-35) bears striking similarities to the Zimmer effort rejected last year at OIA. The only major difference is that this year RIII is talking to more witnesses before it relies on utility paperwork to reject their charges out of hand. That is particularly inappropriate when the same investigative report found falsification of paperwork on-site, a finding further confirmed by massive amounts of falsified Zack records relied on at LaSalle. Specifically, UAP charged that RIII-- l

- failed to take sworn statements from witnesses who had not already

[ provided af fidavits to GAP;

- totally ignored issues that dealt with the causes of QA deficiencies.

at LaSalle, such as retaliation,-fear of which prevented almost half of witnesses contacted from speaking to the NRC; and mapipulation of the QA program through short-staffing, conflicts of interest, and advance warnings of QA inspections; 4

) s. t I The Ilonorable Nunzio J. Palladino July 26, 1982

- redefined the issues it did cover by omitting key facts; such as.

the location of alleged deficiencies, making it easier go reject the charges; i, ^

rejected witnesses' allegations on the basis of " independent" tests in fact controlled by the utility, as well as suspect paperwork;
- manipulated the evidence by failing to include key facts in the report -- such as its finding that approximately half of reinforce.

ment bars were damaged -- while concluding the plant is safe;

- looked at woefully inadequate test samples on site, such as reinforcement bars on 9 drawings out of over 7000 relevant documents, or three mortar cores when literally tens of thousands of mortar blocks were suspect; and
- f ailed to independently learn the full extent of problems that were confirmed, before it dismissed those examples as insufficient by themselves to pose a public safety threat.

The dif ferences between old and new NRC investigations are cosmetic, at best. In short, the RIII investigative report on LaSalle was a final opportunity to clear up serious safety questions before the plant began operation. The report f ailed to answer the questions adequately at a critical moment. We are not contending that the LaSalle plant is unsafe. On the basis of this re port, however, the Commission cannot reasonably assure the public that it is. As a result, Region III's Office of Inspection and Enforcement should be ' replaced in the ongoing investigative ef fort on LaSalle and Zack. OIA should investigate RIII's actions in permitting the situation to develop this far. Most significantly, the rush to begin operations at LaSalle should be halted until all the safety issues can be investigated thoroughly and resolved-with realistic confidence. Our request for this drastic action is not intended as an attack on individual RIII investigators, or Regional Administra. tor James Keppler. Mr. Keppler has attempted to upgrade investigative techniques. He also has taken the lead in tough public statements to bnprove utility QA efforts. Unfortunately, the performance has not matched the promises or the rhetoric. The Commission must take strong action to uphold its regulatory mandate and to honor its - public commitments. r -t < Sincerely,. YS THO*4AS DEVINE BILLE GARDE Legal Director Director, -Citizens Clinic for Accountable Government Enclosures TD/BG/my-x l i

,~~ k,) h e. w yASCLOSS~~~.J - ggyy9 AITIDAVIT e My name is Albert T. Howard, I am giving this statement t'D Ms. Billie s , Garde of the Government Accountability Project of the Institute for Policy Studies. I make this statement freely, with no threats, inducements or 1 promises of rewards having been made to me. I do this because I believe there has been a serious quality assurance breakdown at the Zack Company, my former employer. The nuclear power plants in Midland, Michigan and in LaSalle and Clinton, Illinois, are being constructed with equipment in the heating, ventilat-ing and air conditioning ("HVAC") areas that have been purchased through Zack as a sub--contractor. My statement covers events that I wiknessed. during my employment with the Zack Company as a Supervisor of Quality Assurance Documentation in its Chicago headquarters from October 19, 1981 through April 30, 1982.. During this six and a half month period, -I personally became aware, through evidence in documents, letters and discussions, of problems that had existed for years at the Zack Company.. It is the cumulative effect of the problems in quality assurance documer.tation and tle response of' corporate, utility and government of ficials to my disclosure of these problems, that made me realize public exposure was necessary to achieve substantial improvements. As a retired junior high school science teacher, a "f' kher of",te",n cliildren' arid 'a grand-- '. ~ ~ a

father, I feel an extraordinary commitment to challange unsafe nuclear -

- power plants that could threaten our environn.ent. It is intelerable to my values as a father, a citizen and sensitive individual to allow problems of this magnitude to go unexposed. Since I have lost my job, I believe-as a result of trying to work 'within the system, I contacted a number of other government and public interest organizations to help co-workers who were similarly dismissed to present the full' and true' picture of the Zack problems kbf QvA S24 $lh $ - u "vVT' 'y l <A- ~

.- + e 1 l i e i - t to interested and concerned agencies. 5 Prior to accepting the Zack position in Chicago, my family 'and I lived 'in Massachusetts. I retired from teaching junior high school science in the public schools in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts. My 25 years in education included 22 years as a classroom instructor and later as a teacher on Otis Air Force Base, Massachusetts, to the dependent children of Air Force personnel, 3 years ~ as a principal, and other assorted assignments. My, employment record ~~ - - " - - - -- Iwiththe Massachusetts public schools reveals the, highest' ~ recommendations and community support. I was also involved as an officer in local teachers unions and participated in darious leadership roles in the community. In addition, I had started my own company (Hems & Co.) in December, 1974, dealing with sales and services in the real estate field. That company is still viable today and the business is handled by my oldest daughter in Massachusetts. 1 I have a Bachelor of Arts in Earth Sciences, and a Masters of Arts in Education / Administration from the University of Msssachusetts at Bridgewater. Finally, I have 45 hours of post-graduate work funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation. The hours in courses such as physics, chemistry, geology and ecology, were taken at the College of the Holy Cross, a Jesuit Catholic University in Worcester, Massa-husetts. In addition to the above mentioned degrees, I have attended various college seminars and workshops *in eneric education and science continuing education topics. (See Resume,' Exhibit 1.) i In September,1981, Mr. David Calkins, Quality Assurance Manager of the Zack Company and a personal friend of mine for over 10 years, contacted me by telephone. He was aware of my interest in a new career and also my intense background in science-related areas. He recruited me over the phone for the f l position of Quality Assurance Engineer / Documentation with the Zack Company

.-..--.4 I ,e e k. ^ _3_ e i .r in Cicero, Illinois. O'n or abouc September 30, 1981, I accepted the job and arranged to move myself and my' family to the Chicago area.I i Zack is a, family-owned corporation, fe aded in the 19205.

It is now

^. -l runtby theiorigi,nal owner's daughter, Christine Zack DeZutel. Zack is a heating, ventil'ating and air conditioning (INAC) subcontractor. In the / i i early 1970s, Charlie Howard, then,VicerPresident and General Manager, helped ~ .,/ Zack move into the nuclear power plant business. They bid on and were contracted to do the HVAC work on three traclear plants,- Midland, LaSalle and Clinton. In order to meet the c iter Aa of 10 CPR 50 Appendix B,T ack' was to have Z established a Quality asurance Department. (This "QA" functi as to meet the requirements of Appendix B of 10 C.F.R. Part 50.) The General Contractor's own QA proi ram also must meet the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's criteria. 3 Zack Company had a great deal of personnel'tu-nover-in' QA managers, and in the last two years had several major departmental reorganizations. An individual who seemed to have played a major role in Quality Assurance is Carl f Eichstaedt, the Vice-President in cliarge of operations. 'HE has'had some QA i responsibility with Zack for the past several years. In the past two years, four people have had the responsibility of trying to straighthn o t or supervise QA: Ed Thompson and Michael D' Haem, who came from Midland; David Calkins who came from a consulting firm'in June,1981; and Na$tinSkates,whooccupiedthepositionwhenMr.CalkinswasassignedtoMidland. ,\\ The Quality' Control'Ianager was Harry Geyer until August, 1980, when he went to LaSalle to be QC manager. Then Charlie Richards took over the function uNtilhewasdemotedrecentlyte,QC< inspector, e u Mr. Calkins previous 1I[had[ teen employed'with a contract consulting firm ^ %.y i$ Maryland -- NUS. Prior' to that time he' worked with Westinghouse Corporation. n' m / - In June, 1981, he was hired by Christine Zack DeZutel as QA manager. According t l 1 f,, \\ e d l ,:,f .n ~ _ _...

[lhb ( i i _4 _ to many de' tailed conversations that I have had with Mr. Calkins since September, 1981, that -he realized the QA department he was hired to superhise was in a ~ , shambles. Mr. Calkins also to1d me that Zack had been plagued by problems like ' work stoppages, plant shutdowns and strikes. He also told me that soon after he began he discovered severe problems with material documentation. He mentioned examples like missing, inaccurate or incomplete records and altered documents. Mr. Calkins had in fact investigated and reported the QA problems Eack was having to the Site Managers of the Midland, LaSalle and Clinton plants. In 19tters dated August, 28, 1981 to the Midland Site Manager (Exhibit 2) and Septerber 25, 1981 to the LaSalle Sim Manager and a September 25 Corrective Action Request (" CAR") to the Clinton Site Managers. (Exhibits 3a and 3b respectively) Mr. j Calkins reported his initial findings on the QA problems at Zack. CAR's were attached to all of the letters and outlined Zack's commitment to complete its own internal investigation on the records. The commitment included -- 1) review I of all material test reports for accuracy and completeness; 2) verification of questionable documents; 3) investigation of those responsible for improperly modifying the supplier test reports with the results going to Zack's president for appropriate disciplinary action 4) notification to the utilities of all technical discrepancies found in material test report reviews; 5) notification to the utilities of the results to decide if reports should go to the Nuclsor Regulatory Commission ("NRC") under 10 CFR 550.55(e) or lo cFR Part 21 to rev eat significant deficiencies. The corrective action plans became the basis for a major QA reorganization for all three sites. It was at this point, in the fall of 1981, that six others and myself were hired by Mr. Calkins to ' repair the damager dond by Zack in the QA documentation for the three nuclear sites. On October, 19, 1981 I started work at the Zack Company as an entry level employee in the QA department. As part of my introduction to the job, Howard

i } -s-McCrane, of the Midland Project Quality Assurance Department ("MPQAD"), presented ~ me with the attached CAR #14. (a-b). (Exhibit 2, supra) [ i On November 5,1981 I was formally appointed Supervisor of the Documents ~ Quality Assurance Department. This promotion entailed two basic responsibilities: 4 s First, I would be in charge of the departmental tasks as a technical director, overseeing establishment of a system to evalutate and discover all Q'A documentation l deficiencies left in the -Zack files. Second, I was to monitor the document i j control centers as they developed on the sites. I was asked to and did develop i my own job description. (Exhibit 4). 1 During the first few weeks of my employment at Zack I reviewed the QA paperwork. From my review, I became increasingly aware of the " serious deficiencie( Mr. Calkins had mentioned that he hired me to straighten out. I also began to suspect that some of the QA documentation had been altered improperly. In view of my growing suspicions, on November 11, 1981 I posted prominently on the door of the QA Department a writton notice stating that alteration of QA documents is a violation of federal law, and that removal of documents violates internal QA procedure approved by Zack. On November 18, 1981, Howard McGrane, a Midland QA contract employee loaned to Zack, directed Sharon Marello and I to sign a Zack " Training Form." (Exhibit 5) We had in fact received no formal training. At the time we signed the form, however, we were not aware of what constituted industry regulated training for our jobs. We were mistaken in our belief that the informal introductions and 4 ,self-study of industry codes and regulations were on-the-job training. We were not informed otherwise by management. On November '30,1981, Mr. Calkins gave me copies of a series of documents which included his October 9,1981 letters to the utilities. (Exhibits 6a and 6b) These letters with attached interim reports by his staff identified -the status of e 49 9 i

e the "ack documentation review that was a part of the follow-up on CAR #14. (' Exhibit 2, supra) The reports attached to the letters claimed (erroneously, 'it. turned' i ,out) to cover 84% and 70% of the document reviews at LaSalle and' Midland, re- $spectively. The reports also conceded that the' categories listed some of the tdiscrepancies found. The letter, signed by Calkins, promised that his review would be finished and finalized by October 26, 1981. In the letter he notes: "This should allow ample time to advise the NRC that the possible 10 CFR 50.55 (e) should be withdrawn or to confirm its applicability." The interim reports that were attached to the October 9 letters included references to items such as "certs altered"! " white out used and retyped"; and " heat number altered to agree with certification"; missing signatures; certifications missing; lack of test' data for purchases; correspondence that steel had been purchased without verification and traceability; and stickers indicating compliance with pro-fessional standards. As the summary noted on the latter item, " Authenticity i of the signatures is questionable." On October 2, Mr. McGrane confirmed similar findings. for the purchases sent to Clinton. He provided the summary to Mr. Calkins. (Exhibit 7) On November 30, 1981 I also received from Mr. Calkins the third interim report dated October 23, 1982 (Exhibit 8) This report leaves little need for interpretation. It begins with the admission that -- There has been a breakdown of the quality assurance program as related to criterions VI - Documents Control, and VII - Control of purchased material, equipment and services, of Appandix B to Title 10 CFR 50. This breakdown resulted in an incomplete review and acceptance of procurement documenting evidence '(material certifications) and access to these -documents by unauthorized personnel resulting in improper modifications being made. The six-part report went on-to describe the safety implications, results of the review, evaluation of data, _ and identification of deficiencies requiring engineering evaluation. The-final two segments - " Corrective Action";and + 4

(C ;i sc } 7.- .g* " Attachments" -- are the most interesting. They reveal the effects of i ' E inherent conflicts of interest in straightening out the probl8ms' identified For instance, the corrective action was basic. ally to promise -in the report. - with a plan -- not to repeat the misconduct. The offender (s) received a reprimand and additional training. None were dismissed. The " demoted" individual (s) were not identified officially even within the company. Only one official, Charles Richards, was demoted. Unfortunately, Mr. Richards was one of the most innocent pa'rties at Zack. Besides, he received a raise. The attachments applied the conclusions to individual plants., For instance, at LaSalle, only 94 out of 374 packages were correct and acceptable. Eleven packages had alterations and six had stickers. Nine packages were judged "No Good for Lasalle." (emphasis in original). I was informed by Mr. Calkins and Mr. McGrane that the October 23 report had been provided to each of the utilities and that the utilities had been. responding to the QA problems:in different ways. To illustrate, they told me that Consumers Power had called a meeting at the Midland site on November 3, 1981 in response to the October 23 report. I did not learn of the contents of the meeting until January, 1982, when I saw the minutes. (Infra, at ) CommonwealG Edison had sent a surveillance team to the Zack headquarters to audit the QA documents on October 9,'when Mr. Calkins presented them with his October 9 m.a letter and attached interim report. It was around this time that it became apparent to me that the LaSalle situation was particularly unnerving to Zack management. Commonwealth Edison- [ ^ ( had been " pushing" for a final report -- a complete and total tipdate of the paperwork problems as they affected LaSalle. They needed the update so that the engine 2 ring departments could make whatever evaluations had to be made. t

) Mr. Calkins had promised this final report by December 1,1981 In an " e , internal October 30, 1981 memorandum (Exhibit 9), Mr. L.J. Bur e, LaSalle's [. Project Construction Superintendant at that time, notified five of the top 'LaSalle project managers of the October 23 report and that Commonwealth Edison was still reviewing the extent, the corrective action planned, and the engineering resolutions. On November 2,1981, a Commonwealth Edison engineer, W.H. Donaldson, wrote a letter to Zack President Christine DeZutel requesting " additional information... urgently needed for engineering to ex-peditiously evaluate the indeterminate or unacceptable material properties." (Exhibit 10) The letter set a deadline of November 13,a1981 for Zack to submit necessary nonconformance reports. i The November 13 and December 1 deadlines were not met, because it was impossible for our new QA documentation department to audit the remaining purchase order packages by those deadlines. There were approximately 1,300 purchase order packages reviewed for the October 23 report; but at'least another 1,600 to 2,000 remained left to audit. It was the review of these-documents that Commonwealth Edison so desperately needed. As a result of the information provided me during late November,1981, I was becoming more aware of the true extent of the QA breakdown'at Zack. At this point in time, the entire QA staff was under constant pressure by Zack ' management to produce measures to meet the innediate concerns of the utilities about documentation deficiencies. on or about December 14,1981, Mr. Calkins told me that Christine Zack DeZutel wanted to fire a member of my QA staff, Ms. Sharon Marello. We discussed the fact _. that Ms. Marello was an excellent employee and an asset to the QA 'g r _A___ _m___m_ 2

e department. The matter'was dropped, however, a few weeks later and Ms. Marello remained on the staff. L' ~ The Bechtel Corporation was the General Construction contdactor at rMidland. In a December 21, 1981 letter from Mr. L.E. Davis to Mr. R. Greune of the Zack Company (Exhibit 11), Bechtel referenced both the preliminary August 28 letter and the October 23 report, and specifically addressed "Bechtel"s evaluation of reportability under 10 CFR 50.55(e)." Bechtel concluded that the reported deficiencies were a paperwork problem, and ultimately the safety of the operations at the Midland plant would not be affected even if the paper-work deficiency had gono undetected and unresolved. I was deeply disturbed by certain statements in this letter, particularly the statement on page 2 of the letter that: "It is highly probable that Zack ordered correct materials for the Midland project from their subtier vendors and that the vendors' intent was to comply with Zack's purchase order requirements." (Exhibit 11, at 2) Tu me, that type of reassurance was not good enough. The statements in the letter raised serious questions in my mind about the ethics, ability or intent of Bechtel Engineering. In his letter, Mr. Davis admitted that all of Bechtel's conclusions were based on information supplied by Mr. Calkins and supported by a Zack internal report / audit. I realized that Mr. Davis' ictter attempted to absolve the Midland project of the responsibility of notifying the NRC (under CFR 50.55 (e)), by referring to the actions of Clinton and LaSalle. He defined the Zack problem as one of " indeterminate safety ~ concern." He seemed to vindicate Midland by using the fact that the " indeterminate" safety concern was based on " preliminary and superficial information." I viewed as irresponsible Mr. Davis' assumption that the greater detail [provided to him in the October 23 report made him less accountable under 10 CFR 50.55 (e). I was aware of the $38,000 fine already levied against Consumers Power by the NRC

~ -10 for Zack's errors, and the subsequent actions in removing Zack from the Quality Assurance program on the Midland site. As a result, I; questioned 'the decision to rely entirely on Zack, both to define and in effect resolve 'the problems at Midland. 1 At this point I was both confused and disallusioned about the QA situation at Zack. On January 4,1982, soon af ter the December 21st letter from Bechtel was received, I approached Mr. Calkins about Mr. Davis' conclusions in the letter. I was concerned about what I viewed as glaring inconsistencies in Bechtel's conclusions and the apparent lack of information on which_they based the conclusions. I pointed out to Mr. Calkins that, as both he and Mr. McGrane knew, the full determination ws not yet completed as there were 2,600 + purchase orders to evaluate, not just ',300 as reported in October. I further pointed out to Mr. Calkins that I recently had seen Christine DeZutel's November 12, 1981 letter to Mr. J.W. Cook of Consumers (Exhibit 12) and that it appeared extremely misleading. The letter made it appear, that Mr. Mc Grane had completed the'" total document control audit" of Zack. I reminded Mr. Calkins that was simply not true. The " total document audit" was:not complete then (early January, 1982) and to the best of my knowledge, is still not complete. Yet, the Zack Company told the utilities that everything was well under control. That was not s'ubstanti...ly accurate. Mr. Calkins li,st.ened but did not respond. ve Ronald Perry and I had a second meeting with Mr. Calkins the same day about j the fourth interim report for LaSalle. We reiterated our concerns that the October 23 interim report was inaccurate. Again, he winced and responded vaguely, without any commitments. Shortly after the January 4 meetings, the QA staff was subjected to harrassing and intimidating actions by Zack management that were to continue at. least for the duration of my empioyment at Zack. Examples included derogatory comments about - dress, accusations of petty misconduct. such as using the company phone for personal

Y' I _11_ calls, and other distractions.

At the end of January, 1982, the Q.A Superintendant at LaSalle sent a i

,second surveillance report (Exhibit 13) on the Zack Company. On'the whole [ this report indicates that the addit thatother three employees and I were working en was going very well. In fact, it even excused Zack documentation from further review of the Architect / Engineer Sargent and Lundy ("S & L"), as had previously been required. As the Surveillance Report explained, S & L -- deleted the requirements for submitting on site contractor documentation (such as Zack's) to S & L for review. This re-view is now the responsibility of the Zack Company... Based on this change, S & L's letter accepting Zack's documentation is no longer required. At this point, we had been going through the documents for over three months. However, there was still much work left. There was an incredible pressure on Zack to complete the LaSalle audit / review by March 15, because that was the day scheduled for fuel loading. It was most interesting to me to note that the Commonwealth Edison surveillance report had found two purchase orders not yet identified by Zack. In the first two weeks of February, 1982, Mr. R.A. Perry and I discussed the seriousness of the Zack QA breakdown. We then discussed with Martin Skates ar.d David Calkins several times the fact that material did not conform to site specifications and the fact that many of Zack's vendors were unapproved as suppliers of material to nuclear sites. Our conversations led to no response from Zack management. This inaction prompted R. Perry to pontact L. Shewski bommonwealth Edison's QA manager for the LaSalle site, in mid-February, 1982 about what we had found. Mr. Shewski turned Mr. Perry's allegations into a complete sham by immediately contacting Zack management. This ed to more intensive intimidation of all of us, including Mr. Perry, by Zack management. Mr. Shewski also informed Consumers Power at the Midland site. Mr. Perry and I were informed that Christine Zack DeZutel did not appreciate our calls

outside the company. On February 16, l'7 and 18, 1982, Baldwin Associates, prime contractor s at the Clinton site, conducted an audit of the Zack company. ]hiswasaresult of serious problems that Baldwin Associates had with the materials supplied by Zack and quality assurance documentation related thereto. Even though the Zack QA deficiencies targeted by this Baldwin audit were cited as a significant factor in the June 1982 stop-work order at Clinton, the February Baldwin exit interview certified Zack's documentation as " excellent." On February 19, 1982, while I was out of the office, R.A. Perry's three month contract expired. Mr. Perry informed me at the time that he had been called into the President's of fice and questioned extensively by Christine Zack DeZutel, Joe DeZutel, D. Malzahn, Martin Skates and David Calkins. They had apparently questioned him intensively concerning any contact he may have had with any of the nuclear sites' management. The following Monday, February 22, 1982, I was called to the President's office for a similar interrogation by the same Zack management of ficials, with the addition of Carl Eichstaedt I was ask;3 at great length about the condition of Zack's QA files. My response was that the files were in serious need of control and that training for the QA department was also needed. Christine and Joe DeZutel said they personally would come to the QA department to see if they could help. There was incredible pressure on our department to finish a final audit for Commonwealth Edison's LaSalle plant by March 1st. Finally, on March 1, 1982, Zack compiled an updated report for Commonwealth Edison on the purchase order breakdowns at the LaSelle plant. I prepared this report. Each entry detailed the discrepancy and/or flaws and what the material problems were that resulted from either the quality assurance breakdown or the lack of approved vendors. These purchase order breakdowns resulted in a wide variety of problems. These are e

s s ) h s,. divided into six sections. (Exhibit 14) There were 35 minor discrepancies. My greatest concern involved a section which states that: "...the following list is an accounting of the P.g/CMTR No.'s that were considered to have, in part, a discrepancy'that might possibly reflect on the integrity of the materials ? Concerned...." I knew this list of approximately 259 major discrepancies was devastating to the integrity of any construction site, but for a nuclear power plant it was even worse. I also found 25 welder' qualification discrepancies. A good example of the Lapact of the paperwork fiasco is " Purchase Order Number 696, U.S. Steel Coil'". The list noted that "these coils cannot be s certified to ASTM standards".,The report also found rivets and fasteners "not to site specifications". Zack management wanted me to call the report " final", but I refused to do that. Making a " final" report would mean that CAR #14 could be closed. I wouldn't close the report until Zack met its own responsibilities, such as the corrective action commitments. There were still hundreds of discrepancies left. Although Christine DeZutel promised that she and Joe DeZutel, her husband and the Executive Vice-President, would be in to assist us, they never showed up. Later Mr. DeZutel told me that I could hold training sessions with upper management. This promise was not honored either. As a result of the February co.nfrontation and the departure of. Mr. Perry, another Zack em'ployee, Andrea Crawley. fro.n Clinton, was brought in.to help us for three weeks starting March 1, 1982. I told Mr. Skates th5t this monitoring of our work constituted harassment and further intimidation. Ms. Crawley wasn't with us more than two hours the first day when she said "I don't know why I am here." She observed that obviously we knew what we were doing and she had no idea of, our procedures. She had recently been hired by D. Calkins for documentation at Clinten and had no previous experience with the manner of our document control process.

( \\ ) During the week she stayed at Zack, Ms. Crawley witnessed several verbal assaults against me by Mr. Bas.itga, threatening my dismissal. IShe also witnessed '.similar *hreats by Don Malzahn towards Mr. Calkins, that he would be fired. I pelieved that the threats to Mr. Calkins and myself were motivated by Zack management's fear of losing centrol of the as yet unexposed QA breakdown. On March 4,1982, David Calkins showed me a collection of Zack documents. He related to me that Don Malzahn had threatened to fire him that day and was going to call the DeZutels (who were out of town) to get their approval for dismissal. Mr. Calkins said tha't these statements by Malzahn' were made in the presence of Basiaga and Skates. Mr. Calkins told me that he had done two things that day to protect his job: (1) he called Mr. H. Leonard, the Midland Project QA Manager; and (2) he gathered a collection of material which contained documentation ~ of 'the QA breakdown at Zack (including a report to Consumers Power that he and Christine DeZutel had presented in Jackson, Michigan some time in October 1981). At this point I realized my own job and reputation might be in jeopardy. I obtained copies of the docuan ents Mr. Calkins brought to my house.- I also began to keep a personal file and a journal on the events that transpired on the job. The documents revealed a history of deception and incompe,tence. For example, on November 5, 1980, the Bechtel Power Corporation sent a letter to th'e Zack Company. This letter, which I read, makes it clear that Bechtel Power Corporation had suf ficient knowledge of material being shipped to the site in non-conforming ccndition. Bechtel requested Zack to stop sending nonconforming ~ material and to return any already received. (Exhibit 15) On the following day, November 6, 1980, around 19 purchase orders were altered with the addition of adhesive stickers. (For example, see Exhibits t i

hk. j and , inf ra.) These stickers were attached to the original cartification and tha authorizing signature was forged. I believe from reviewing Zack's files that the months of November and December 1980 were spent in a " paperwork correction blitz". - ,This is evidenced by the large number of documentation alterations that later [.became apparent through the investigation that members of the Quality Assurance ' documentation staff discovered. A list of these alterations and the types were later compiled for the top level management. of the Zack Company. It is this list that was provided to the utilities in the first and second interim reports ( supra,at 4 ) and also discussed in detail in the October 23, 1981 report (supra,at 6 ). j Several sets of U.S. Steel purchase orders (see, Exhibit 16 ) contained the adhesive stick,ers. These stickers contain signatures of questionable authenticity. The documentation also contained another example of attempts to correct, after the fact, the " bad" documentation by going back to the vendors and asking for certifications. These certifications would show that the material'they had supplied was, indeed, adequate for use in nuclear power plants. The catch was that Zack had already accepted the material's without the ' required certifications. So Zack whited out the original approval signatures and asked the suppliers to send the missing information. The changes would disguise the original illegality. To illustrate, on January 23, 1981 a request was made that U.S. Steel certify the material test reports and add the correct quality assurance infomation on each individual CMTR. Copies of the very. form that had been .. altered were attached. Only the signature of the authorizing agent, in this case a Mr. Belkins, had been whited out. (Exhibit 17) On February 6,1981 many letters were written to various vendors for nuclear items. (Exhibit 18a-d) They requested the vendors to certify that their l I L m_

. l products were in compliance with the appropriate standards. One of thste companies, the Seas Corporation (Exhibit 18 ), to the best of my knowledge, did'no't respond to the February 1981 letter requesting quality) certification for 5 , hex nuts that had been purchased. Instead, it did nothing. A fi211 f ' ear late.r, in 1982, an audit by Mr. Ken Shaeffer of Zack staff revealed that y " Seas, Inc. had not responded because it: "...has been determined that this organization will not be able to meet the minimum established quality requirements as established by the Zack Co. From the information received they cannot verify any product furni shed...." This is a shocking conclusion and indicates a significant non-conforming condition. In February 1982, a full year after the problem was known, Zack performed a survey / audit and I noted on this audit (as well as others done by K. Shaeffer) that a resurvey / audit should be done. (Exhibit 19) It appears to me that U.S. Steel was beginning to understand the depth of a problem at Zack in the fall of 1981. A September letter to the purchasing agent at the Zack Company lists purchase orders referring to orders from Zack to U.S. Steel from December 1980 through May 1981 that contained a serious misunderstanding. (Exhibit 20) The letter lists the 26 purchase orders at all three sites and the letter points out that the Zack documentary " confirming orders" all read " Safety-Rel'ated". The U.S. Steel letter points out that first, the orders had not been purchased as " Safety-Related"; and second, that since the purchase orders were not called in as safety-related, they were not handled through the "V&T" (Verification and Testing) program. Finally, Mr. Peters asked, as well he should have, what obligation Zack had attempted to impose by adding + on the term " Safety-Related" to Zack's purchase orders from U.S. Steel. U.S. Steel's concerns were well-founded. Zack's use of the term " Safety-Related" implied that the items received the quality verification required under 10 CFR 50, Appendix B. I do not know what actions, if any, were taken on the part of Zack management to either mollify U.S. Steel, or to-deal with the problem of purchase orders of non safety-related materials on the three nuclear plant sites.

} E _17_ Also included in the documents were examples of vendors unapproved for supplying material to nuclear plant sites. For example, Edgcomb Metal supplied steel beams for use at the Clinton site. These beams were purchased i from several different sub-tier vendors through Edgcomb. The entire shipment -was sent to be galvanized at Reliable Galvanizing and finally forwarded to the Clinton site. This entire purchase process took place in the summer of 1979. In September 1981, a survey and evaluation was performed by the Zack Company's new QA Department (Mr. Jchn O'Connell) on Edgcomb Metals. (The September 23, 1981 audit results and attachments are enclosed as Exhibit 21.) The results need no explanation from me. " Findings

1) The lines of organizational structure, responsibilities, and inter-functional relationships were not delineated in the Q.A. Manual.

2) No performance of a program evaluation.

3) No NCR/ CAR plan to identify, analyze and take action to correct' deviations from quality requirements.

4) No identified plan for the maintenance of Quality records.

5) No provisions to ensure that purchased material meet quality requirements.

6) No evidence of callibration records for caliper.

7) No vendor evaluation.

8) No check of CMTRs against received materials.

9) Contrary to Edgcomb's Q.A. Manual, no receiving inspection report is presently being utilized.

10) No management evaluation of the Quality Program."

On September 22, 1981 the vendor Edgcomb Metals was pla6ed on unacceptable sta tus. (Exha. bit 21, e pra) AlthoughIhad no way of determining now 'whether Edgcomb ever met the requirements of doing business with the nuclear industry, it appears that Zack had not imposed those restrictions on Edgcomb in the past. .In other u. words --evan though baams purchased t.hrough Edgcomb Metals micht msst the physical and material characteristics for use in nuclear plants, their overall quality and country of origin remains a mystery, although Ms. DeZutel thodght ~ they might have come from Argentina. (Exhibits 22a-c) If the beams are truly acceptable, that is totally in spite of Zack's purchase order quality assurance system. A June 1979 purchase order (Exhibit 23) does not contain the required clause under 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, notifying the vendor that this material could be used in a nuclear power plant. The material never went thr'ough the system of " checks and balances" that the NRC imposes. Another vendor, the Delta Screw Company, also failed a fall audit. (Exhibit 24) A fall 1981 Zack letter from Mr. Calkins allegedly removed Delta Screw Co. from the approved vendors list for failure to comply with the requirements of a Quality Assurance program as required by the NRC. However, I knew that Zack Company did not follow its own " approved vendors list." A list of the P.O.s from December 21, 1981 to February 1982 reveals that, in fact, Delta Screw received approximately 38 purchase orders from the Zack Company before being put back on the approved vendors list in February 1982. (Exhibit 25) Another issue that came to my attention in the documents was the lack of proper qualifications for the Quality Control Audit personnel. Proper qualifi-cation is very important because Quality Control Audit personnel that have not - been adequately trained cannot perfnrm their function corrgetly..The auditors ak Zack did not meet the minimum specifications for their positions. Personnel papererk was not. numbered and personnel failed to take such elementary tests as written examinations.

t i I Zack had an auditor, Ken Shaef fer. He was found to be " unsatisfactory" in the August 1981 audit. - (Exhibit 26) In a February 1981 evaluation, Mr. Shaef fer had been rated as " average" and certified from March!1981 through March i ,1984. I [. In light of all the QA/QC problems inherent to the Zack Company, I found

it extremely interesting that Mr. Calkins was given the assignee status for the Zack president in evaluating and certifying QA personnel. (Id.)

The President of Zack, Christine Zack DeZutel, did not qualify in QA, yet it is she who assured the utility management that all problems relating to the Zack QA/QC breakdown were u'nder control and under her personal supervision. (Exhibit 27a and 27b) On August 31, Ms. DeZutel finally was' formally qualified on the basis of one hour's " training" in government and professional codes, which was obviously inadequate. (Exhibit 28) Although I was already familiar with the October 23, 1981 Zack report to the utilities, I was very surprised at the notes of a November 3, 1981 meeting at the Midl,and site. (Exhibit 29) The summary notes of that meeting concentrate on discussions about materials as they relate to health and safety. In fact, employees from Bechtel Power Corporation, Consumers Power Co., and MPQAD personnel along with two Zack personnel who made the presentation were in attendance. It was most interesting to note that the first topic of discussion was whether or not to report the QA breakdown under 10 CFR 50.55(e) to the NRC and to then query the Zack personnel on how the other utilities had handled the information. Notes of the meeting also detail the discussion,'by categories, of discrepant conditions in the sheet steel and coil, nuts, bolts and screws. It appears from the notes that the management in attendance at the November 3, 1981 meeting was prone to accept the Zack explanations and predictions on the safety-l related impact on materials of the paperwork deficiencies. The reported conclu-sien of the November 3 meeting emphasized the mutually beneficial findings that

'W[.'. *

i, 1 the material pieces affected "would be accepteble", cnd thst possibly--at the worst -additional testing would be required to prove that the material was in

( fact safe. L It is also revealing to me that the chief concern, or at least the primary ,3 mvident concern of the management in attendance at this meeting, was what positis the other two utilities (also compromised by Zack's quality assurance breakdown) ~ were going to take. Although the discussion is not included verbatim in the

minutes, the su= nary notes of the meeting make it quite clear that at least one of the other utilities deemed the problem to be reportable, and the other found it " indeterminate". This term seems to be the escape valve on which to rely.

~ A list of 12 Action items that are included in the meeting notes are also particularly revealing. These items required Zack to state in writing "that all items with CMTR listed' as below 36 KSI~are greater than 30 KSI", to prepare a 1( of all suspect material purchases", to "try to get material certified to federal specifications..." and repeatedly to revise or clarify existing requirements so that the purchases would be acceptable. The summary of the meeting, as relayed in these minutes, would lead the uninvolved observer ~ to believe that Zack and the Midland Project management had everything under control and that the Zack problems were nothing more than a paperwork breakdown. Another example involved three 1981 Delta Screw purchase orders numbered C-4286 (dated February 4,1981), C-4473 (dated August 26,1981), exi C-4484 (dated September 11, 1981). (Exhibits 30a-c, respectively), All involved some 1,14,000 hexheads, bolts, nuts and similar. items. Twd of these purchase oiders were for Midland. One of them was for " stock" and co'uld have been used in all three plants. The specification that was not met was the ASTM requirement that "A 307 bolts must have manufacturers identification markings." In fact, none k

of the 114,000 hardware pieces from these purchase orders contained the identification marks of the manufacturer, as required. Zack took inconsistent action on the Delta Screw P.O.'s.2 On September 22, .a nonconformance report was prepared for P.O. 4484. Mr. Eichstaedt did nothing .until three months later on December 17, 1981, when he apparently secured Delta's approval for return of all the shipments. (Exhibit 30c) He took this action through " Change Number 1", dated December 22, 1981 and attached to each purchase order. We were suspicious, becauss the hardware in part already had been delivered to the various sites. (For notes of Mr. Richard's research confirming shipments to Midland and LaSalle, see Exhibit 31.) After further checking, Mr. Latema confirmed to me that the material was not in fact returned for credit. In other words, Mr. Eichstaedt's December 22 " Change Number 1" was not accurate. It is also' inexplicable why he wrote a nonconformance report for one P.O. (4484) and not the rest. They all suffered from the same deficiency. On December 30, 1981 he also closed out the nonconformance. In the process he reject < his own Dece'mber 22 position and dispositioned the NCR - " Material accepted per Bechtel SDDR 2187." (Exhibit 32) On Monday, March 8, Mr. and Mrs. DeZutel met with D. Calkins. The outeeme was a $12,000 raise and one extra week of vacation for D. Calkins. For the rest of us in the QA department, the situation worsened in terms of harassment and internal pressure. During this week, the third secre.tary in as many months was fired, and a me:nber of the Quality Assurance staf f, Sharon Mare 11o, was bospitalized. She told me her doctor said the tension and exhaustion from working six days a week,12 hours a day and all of the internal harassment and intimidation led to her hospitalization. I requested a meeting with Mr. Calkins for Saturday, March 13, 1982. At this meeting, I discussed with Mr. Calkins all of the internal pressure that the Quality Assurance department was experiencing in attempting to do the job that

(k' ' f ) he had hired us to do. He agreed to have an immediate Quality Assurance departmental' meeting and to get everything straightened out. However, Mr. Calkins never foilowed through with his assurances. Instead, the rem 5ining six' weeks is i a diary of increasing intimidation and verbal abuse. Management took many steps to encourage my resignation. At one point, I was even invited to interview at the Midland site for a possible appointment with Consumers Power Company and Bechtel Power Corporation. On March 24, during my interview at Midland, I related to Mr. H. Leonard of MPQAD the awkward difficulties that the QA department at Zack was experiencing. Mr. Leonard agreed that Zack had had a large number of problems over the years, and that if I wanted to make specific allegations about the problems, I should do so. He further told me that my job was protected under the law and that he would give me a confidentiality agreement. Upon my return to Zack, I centinued to help " clear" 99 NCRs for the LaSalle site. Although I requested adequate time and cooperation in order to perform this task properly, there was no assistance forthcoming. The atmos-phere had deteriorated significantly as the pressure to meet impending site deadlines became very intense. The Quality Assurance Documentation Department staf f resisted the intimidation, threats and harassment and continued to do the job as accurately as possible under the circumstances. On April '5,1982, in a meeting with David Calkins, I was asked to lead i a group of relatively untrained QA employees in writing all the Supplier Deviation $isposition Requests ("SDDRs"), and Discrepant katerial Forms for the l Midland site. I told him to be patient. i l i l l t b

l (. On April 7, 1982 I had another discussion with Mr. Calkins to inform him tnat in my opinion it was not possible to complete the documentation review within the deadlines, even if the QA staff continued to work the extensivt t ' overtime we had been putting in. Mr. Calkins gave me no guidance or hope that the situation eauld be resolved. Again, he was mute in his response. On April 13, 1982 I called Mr. Hank Leonard, MPQAD, and spent approximate: two hours relating the types of problems going on at Zack. I told Mr. Leonard ~ that to do our jobs correctly the jntire depart =en,,t,needed protection and relief _ from the stressful situation we were working under. ' He promised that relief

and j.

e protection. I decided to make the allegations of ficially, hoping that he would initiate action on his own. He did not. On April 15, I called again and made official allegations through the MPQAD Allegation System. (Exhibit 33) I did not give my permission to Mr. Leonard to release my identity. On April 16, 1982, Mr. Calkins called me into his of fice and told me I had betrayed him and that he was not going to speak to me anymore. He also asked me to send him "six suspect files" as examples to prove my allegations. I 1 l had already shown him many more than six examples. Soon after I left his office, I I received a copy of a memo addressed to "All Zack Personnel" from Christine Zack DeZutel. (Exhibit 34) Without mentioning me by name, this memo referred te and then denied the allegations I had made to Mr. Leonard. It also denied us access to the files without upper management permission. Mr. Leonard then flew down from Midland and conducted a two-day " investigation" which amounted to l'ittle more than a review of Zack's handiwork. He only questioned four QA people Two other so-called ' experts' from Bechtel and Consumers took occasional, sketchy notes. I know because I watched their every move.

y y ! s On April 21, 1982, Mr. Lsonard said h2 wanted to see ma away from tha Osck Company premises. We agreed to meet at his room in the local Holiday Inn. My wife went to the meeting with me as a witness. Mr. Leonard told me he found nothing of substance wrong with the Zack QA documents. This meeting lasted three heurs, during which nothing constructive occurred. At one point, Mr. Leonard inade the foreboding remark to me: "I was fired once, too, you know." Shortly after the departure of Mr. Leonard and his investigative team from Midland, the management at Zack gave some indication that they would be making concerted ef forts to maintain the integrity of the quality assurance program they had been required to set up. Christine DeZutel made some promises about improvements, i_.e. better environment, pay raises, etc. On April 27, 1982, Ray Basiaga, the so-called Quality Assurance Training Instructor, gave the only formal QA training any of us ever received during six and a half months of doing major QA work. (Exhibit 35) On April 28, 1982 a Corrective Action Report (#20) was written. (Exhibit 36) It requested that I " formulate a training plan" for the document control depart-ment. I responded the following day, April 29, with a two-page letter (Exhibit

37) outlining a Quality Assurance Training Program, and other much-needed reorganizational efforts to ensure that the QA program would meet the letter of the law.

The next day, April 30, 1982, I was called in front of a top-level management meeting _ and, after a scathing attack by Christine Zack DeZutel, was told that my services were no longer needed. (See her April _30, 1982 letter of dismissal, attached as Exhibit 38, which repeated the subdtance of.her tirade, and announced Mr. McGrane would replace me on CAR #20.) One of Ms. DeZutel's basic criticisms was that'my staff and I were~ incompetent. Her attack created a dilemma for Zack. We had alleged the QA " reform neveN occurred,- due to mismanagement. She in effect agreed with us and noted that the l {JtW x s Zsek QA parformance was " appalling". Shn simply blamzd ma. It doas not matter whom you point your finger at; regardless of blame, Zack's work was no better than before the August 20, 1981 report that conceded the QA breakdown in.the ~, first place. Within mLnutes the rest of the QA. documentation department was told the We were handed our final checks and told to leave, taking only our

same thing.

one of the QA staff employees, had lef t the job personal belongings. Mark Cioni, He called me at home that evening early that day for a doctor's appointment. The Mailgram was and related to me the contents of a Mailgram he had received. and informed him he had been signed " Christine Zack DeZutel, President", " terminated" on April 30 "due to structural reorganization.", (Exhibit 39) The first working day af ter our dismissal, May 3,1982, I went personally to talk to the NRC. I spent three hours with a team of investigators, including James Foster, Gerald Phillips, Charles Weil, Harvey Wescott, Cordell Williams, Wayne Schaeffer and Jim Peschel. Mr. Wayne Schaef fer of the NRC office was the ' host' investigator. Their reaction was cooperative. I had the impression that they w*ould investigate seriously. They asked for more documents to copy, which I supplied. and During those three hours I discussed all the issues in this affidavit, I cannot be sure, left them almost all the documents attached here as Exhibits. Not receiving since I have not yet received the receipt they promised to send. the receipt is disturbing, especially since last Monday Mr. Norelius of Region III said he had sent it the previous day. In addition, I left with the NRC other disturbing, pertinent evidence. The additional evidence involved more cases of alterations, possible forgeries and suspicious discrepancies. For example, I gave them January 22, 1982 correspondence between Zack and RMC, Inc., who sold Zack copper tubing. (Exhibit 40) Mr. Eichstaedt asked I

[ ; l RMC to certify the traccability of certain safety-related materials and even enclosed a model letter. Rather than check the records, P24C merely retyped the medel letter verbatim and returned it. They even typed in the jame spelling 5 , errors. Miraculously, their confirmation letter was dated January 22, 1982, the same dato as Eichstaedt's original letter of inquiry. Another example involved the Weldstar Company, which sells weld electrodes. Weldstar did not have the 1978 certifications Zack needed, but they were most cooperative. In an April 6 letter to Mr. Eichstaedt, Weldstar sent a certification form and told Zack to just fill in the blanks. (Exhibit 41) I also showed the NRC an internal September 14, 1981 Zack audit (Exhibit

42) which noted, "Zack has historically not performed any surveys on approved vendors, nor is there any historical data to back up qualification of vendors."

The recommended corrective action was to requalify all vendors. Another finding confirmed "there is no disposition or identification of material as safety or non-safety related". Overall, the audit concluded the above problems represented " serious program deficiencies." Other relevant documents I believe that I shared with the NRC are enclosed as Exhibits 43a-43w. The NRC description of its LaSalle report of our meeting is absolutely false. I spoke in great detail and said my findings applied to all three sites. I emphasized problems at LaSalle more than Midland. I left my records with the staff that day, and more the next day. From May 3 until July 21, 1982, ne one from the NRC office has contacted me for further information, although I called close to half a dozen times. I came to the NRC office that many times and spoke with Messrs. Foster, Phillips or Wild. But they never got started on the investigation. Finally I decided to try someone who was interested. Althought I told the NRC how the documents covered LaSalle, I do not believe l that any of this information was included in the recent NRC investigation of that plant. This is unfortunetely, since even a simple review of my LaSalle information would indicate serious problems in determining the integrity of materials used.

t ) u" I was convinced then, as I remain, that there were two basic reasons we were dismissed. The'first was for doing our job too well and thereby becoming dangerously familiar with the quality assurance breakdown at Zack,. along with the safety implications that breakdown had on the three nuclear power ? plants. The second reason is that my contact with Mr. Leonard through the April 15 allegations led to Zack's decision to eliminate the QA documentation team. Although I have seen the Consumers Power Co. letter to the Government Accounta-bility Project which requests that GAP investigators bring all allegations to MPQAD (Exhibit 44 ), my personal experience dictates that action would be personally disastrous for any others who notify MPQAD of serious problems. It has been a sobering education to realize that the infomation I brought forward in good faith because I was concerned about the safety of my fellow Americans in Michigan and Illinois has led to incredible financial hardship for my family. What is even more sobering is to accept that the NRC has received all of the information concerning Zack, including evidence, and 4 failed to act on it until they were publicly ad arrassed. I have read the above 27 page affidavit and it is true, accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. L A. Terry Hdward SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME .this.2 # G.', day of July, 1982. j.lAA t} W/. 0 Ilota:y Publi- .L-VIOLA H. BURKE NOTARY' PUBl!C DISTRICT CF COLUMBIA . My Commission Empires January 2,1986 s g..-

F, 1 , G5VERNMENT ACCOUNTABILIN PP,OJECT insti:u:e for Policy Studies 1931 Cue Street. N.W., Woshington. D.C. 200098 202)2369362 July 2'7, 1982 The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Was hington, D. C. 20555

Dear Chairman Palladino:

This letter is to of fer GAP's and our clients' assistance and coopt..:ation for the investiga tion into the Zack Company. We were grat:.fied that t.he Connission prudently chose to await the results of Region Ill's ("RIII") ongoing investigation. But we are con-corned about the brief deadline for the results -- next Tuesday at the latest. It may not be possible to answer Mr. Howard 's and Marello's allegations with confiddnce in the remaining week Ms. before the plant is ready to go beyond five-percent power anyway. We have no desire to impose financial hardships upon Commonwealth Edison ("Com Ed"), but a " rush jcfb"'would not serve anyone's interests. our clients' expertise in the f acts on the Zack allegations are escential to help meet this difficult challenge. N Ue offer the following suggestions in an effort to avoid further public controversy. (1) The investigationcshould include interviews with all witnesses whose statements are included in our July 26 letter, as well as any other witnesses they refer. Their intimate know-ledge of the Zack program and cocuments is an invaluable asset to insure an efficient, comprehensivo investigation. (2) NRC investiga tors.should take Sworn statements from all witnesses. The statements should be attached to the investigative report as exhibits, with appropriate del'etions for anonymity This would avoid any later disputes whether the requests. l casuing report accurately characterizos their infork.ation. \\ (.3) Each witness should immediately receiv'e a receipt for all documents provided to NRC i'nvestigators. (4) NRC investiga tors :should identify particular 1(VAC samples for independent 1aboratory tests af ter speaking with at least the principal witnesses. A final dec.tsion on whether to permit full power operation should be deferred until the test results are received. Since the premise of the investigation is inaccurate bY l -A >,J \\ co. m.) W.).4 7 P' h / \\

l \\ The Honorabic Nunzio J. Palladino July 27,.1982 a. , Page Two paperwork, independent tests are essential. We question whether the laboratory te.sts ordered Friday can adequately and compre-hensively recpond to Mr. Howard's and Ms. Hare 11o 's allegations, since the tests were ordered three days. before their July 26 af fidavits and disclosure. They have many additional examples to discuss besides the Weldstar and.RMC purchases. Since an adequate review has not yet been cort.pleted to identify the relevant saf ety-related purchase orders, it is impossible to verify that all affected safety-related HVAC areas will bc covered by the few sa:nples Mr. Keppl er already sent to the laboratory. Please excuse any presumptiveness in offering these suggestions. kehelit. , ho wev er, that they address generic weaknesses in NRC in'. n _...tions. 'On the evo of operations, another report that pub:icly raises more ques tions than it answers should be avoided at all ecsts. e 13incerely, Thomas Devine Legal Director r N Billie P. Carde Dtrector, Citizens C.linic for Accountable Government TD/BPG/mcy: 1 1 8 I e e t 9 e 9 3 %}}

ML20080E698

Text

Dear lir. Eichstaedt:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

Subject:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Dear k. Cook,

References:

Dear Mr. Watts:

6....n=

Reference:

Dear Mr. Dicrbock:

=

Dear Mr. Perry:

cs O :or < e t...o

SUBJECT:

Reference:

Dear Mr. Watts:

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Response

Dear Chairman Palladino:

Dear Chairman Palladino:

Navigation menu

Search