Text

Forwards Clarification & Info Re Independent Safety Engineering Group Rept Prepared to Address QA Concerns in NRC ,In Response to NRC 840116 Request
	ML20086P771
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	02/20/1984
From:	Leddick R; LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Deyoung R; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
References
	NUDOCS 8402270325
	Download: ML20086P771 (218)
	v • d • e

.

IE FILE COPJ;/

l l LOUISIANA ,4,oe o~oes1meer . .o eo-e P O W E R & L i G H T! New oALEANS LoVGANA 70%744000 9 (So4)368-2345

! UTruTIES SYSTEM February 20, 1984 ROTH S. LEDDICK Senior Vice President Nuclear Operations W3P84-0442 3-A104 ,

Mr. Richard C. DeYoung Office of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

Waterford 3 SES Docket No. 50-382

REFERENCE:

NRC letter dated January 16, 1984

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

Your letter of January 16, 1984 requested further clarification and specific information relating to the LP&L Independent Safety Engineering Group (ISEG) {

report prepared to address quality assurance concerns identified in your j letter of August 4, 1983 and discussed in our meeting of August 25, 1983.

This ISEG report was submitted on September 29, 1983.

Enclosed is the information requested with applicable explanations and attachments.

Please call if you wish to discuss this letter, or if you have any questions.

S erely, R.S. Leddic RSL:hMC:ys Enclosure cc MeJsrs. J.M. Cain, W.M. Stevenson, J.T. Collins, G.L. Constable S 840220 A 0500039g ,f 3 , h.N PDR 'y ft ii

_ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. _ \

A.Section I.B Results. Pages 'i-2 through 1-7

1. Provide clarification on whether LP&L is planning to conduct some independent physical verification for the contractor work not previously subject to physical examinations by the Task Force review or the ISEG effort because of the ongoing hnt functior.a1 testing and Ebasco quality reviews.

(reply)

1. In Section 2.4.3 of the Task Force Review Summary Report dated April 8, 1983, and the Supplemental Report dated November 21, 1983, it is stated that physical verification was not performed due to Hot Functional Testing being conducted. This is the only section where it is stated that physical verification was not possible. It is stated that, as an alternate method of verification of adequacy, a review of the Chicago Bridge and Iron generated radiographs would be performed.

This-review was accomplished and noted in Section 2.5.4 of the report.

Since the review results of the radiographs are a direct indication of the physical condition of the installed hardware, it was felt there was no need to perform any further physical verification.

Subsequent to the issuance of the Supplemental Report, and to provide added confidence in the installation, the LP&L Quality Assurance Manacer directed QA to perform the physical verification originally intended for the Task Force. The results of this walkdown will be documented on an LP&L Surveillance Report.

2. Describe the specific procedural controls of the referenced Task Force Installation review (page 1-2) and QA auditing process (page I-6) which address the evaluation of the generic implications of the cause of a significant deficiency.

(reply)

2. In response to NRC concerns over the four systems which experienced a breakdown in portions of the QA process, a Task Force Installation review was initiated to determine if the breakdown had generic implications and had occurred in other contractor's QA programs.

The Task Force review procedure included outlines for review of documentation and walkdowns of work performed by each contractor as l applicable. The areas investigated for each contractor were similar, l

thus providing.a mechanism for identification of problems or breakdowns of a generic nature. As a result, several generic problems were identified.

a. A problem was identified with the dodumentation generated by American Bridge. This problem resulted in a re-inspection of the work done by American Bridge by Ebasco. This item was reported to the NRC as a 10 CFR 50.55(e) Item.

b. A problem with G.E.O. testing documentation in the area of construction materials testing personnel qualification records was identified. A comprehensive review of G.E.O. personnel qualification records was performed.

1 W310104Y

_- - --)

c. A problem with Condition Identification Work Authorization (CIWA) tracking was identified. This prompted changes to be made such that tracking would be improved.

The auditing process referred to on Page I-6 of the ISEG report pertains to LP&L Operations QA audits performed on safety systems that have been transferred. There have been no transfer audit findings that have resulted in the generation of a Significant Construction Deficiency prior to September 1, 1983. Doe to the small number of deficiencies found during transfer audits and the even smaller number of deficien-cies that are considered significant, it would be obvious should a generic problem exist. Discrepancies found during Operations QA transfer auditu are not included in the tread analysis process unless a Nonconformance Report or Significant Construction Deficiency is identified.

3. Prepare a summary of the status of resolution of each procedural, documentation or hardware deficiency, or audit finding discussed in this part of the report. The summary should include identification of the organization / function that identified the deficiency, description of the deficiency, the attributed cause, and final disposition, including the results of an evaluation of its generic implications. Please address the following matters in your response.

a. Page I-2, Bottom Paragraph. The findings discussed in LP&L's summary ,

report, including the related followup.

b. Pages I-3 and I-4. Deficiencies identified through the Ebasco QAIRG review, LP&L Task Force review, and the comprehensive inspection program completed for work accomplished by American Bridge.

c. Page I-6.

(1) Deficiencies related to the approxiruately 13 systems rejected by QA.

(2) Deficiencies associated with four of the seven systems transferred to plant staff before September 1, 1983.

(reply)

3. A summary of the status of the resolution of the deficiencies noted in LP&L's summary report on generic contractor concerns, Ebasco Quality Assurance Installation and Records Group (QAIRG) and Task Force reviaws of American Bridge work, the comprenensive inspection program developed during the American Bridge reviews, and LP&L QA turnover and transfer reviews was requested.

It should be noted that the LP&L Task Force review and summary report are the same effort. Also, the comprehensive American Bridge inspection program was identified as corrective action for addressing generic concerns found during the QAIRG review of American Bridge.

Therefore, all findings resulting from the QAIRG review and comprehensive inspection are grouped together.

2 l W310104Y

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ J

Another item to be considered is the request for a cause and evaluation of generic concerns for each deficiency identified by each review. In the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, measures assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition. The identification of the significant condition adverse to quality, the cause of the condition, and the corrective action taken are documented and reported to appropriate levels of management.

Since the deficiencies identified by the QAIRG review of American Bridge were the only concerns which resulted in a Significant Construction Deficiency (SCD), these concerns are the only ones for which this information was provided. This will be discussed in the section devoted to the QAIRG Review and comprehensive re-inspection program.

3. a.& b. The Task Force review effort was previously addressed in Question A.2. A listing of the findings from each contractor and disposition of these findings is provided in Attachment A-1.

Some of the dispositions indicated that the deficiency was cleared up by use of a Fischbach and Moore Inspection Report (IR). These reports are located on-site. However, due to the method of filing these reports with the applicable plant equipment documentation instead of filing them in numerical sequence, the inspection reports were not readily available.

3. b. QAIRG Review and Comprehensive Inspection As previously stated, Significant Construction Deficiency 78 was generated as a result of the QAIRG review.

CAUSE: The deficiencies in American Bridge documentation indicated a breakdown of the quality program sufficient to require a re-inspection program of bolted connections and welded connections completed by American Bridge in the Reactor Containment Building, Reactor Auxiliary Building, and the Fuel Handling Building.

GENERIC CONCERNS: Some of the missing documentation was for bolted and welded connections of structural steel

. supporting or tying into safety-related systems. If left uncorrected, failure of those connections could have resulted in possible degradation of those safety systems.

I 1

l 3

W310104Y

Corrective Action Taken Nonconformance Reports (NCR's) were issued to track and document deficiencies as they were identified. A procedure was issued which established the methods for performing and documenting the re-inspection of bolted connections and set forth criteria for acceptance or rejection and the measures to be taken for rework.

A procedure was also issued which established the methods for performing the re-inspection of structural steel welded connections and the documentation of the information and data obtained from the re-inspection which was to be forwarded to Ebasco for review, analysis, and evaluation.

NCR W3-6263 was issued to consolidate and close the majority of NCRs which had been issued as a result of the Ebasco QAIRG review of American Bridge installation records. All re-inspection is now complete, including re-inspection of rework.

All connections have been accepted and the supporting documentation has been reviewed and accepted by Ebasco Engineering and Quality Assurance. NCR W3-6263 has been closed.

A summary of findings which resulted from this effort are listed in Attachment A-2.

3. c. LP&L QA Turnover Reviews i While gathering the requested information concerning QA status review packages (approximately 13 systems), it was determined after more in-depth investigation only ten (10) packages were actually rejected before September 1, 1983. This is in addition to the initial four (4) rejected by LP&L construction QA.

A list of the comments and responses pertaining to each package and contractor is provided in Attachment A-3. None of these comments resulted in a Significant Construction Deficiency.

Due to the problems that were encountered in the turnover of the first four packages, SUS 59, 60A, 60B, and 60C, corrective action was taken and revicions were made in the turnover documentation I review process. These systems were subsequently audited and found to be acceptable. Attachment A-4 explains why there were no findings and responses to the initially rejected audit packages for some of the contractors associated with these systems.

LP&L Operations QA Transfer Reviews A listing of the audit of transfer package findings associated with four of the seven systems transferred and corrective actions is provided in Attachment A-5. None of these findings resulted in a Significant Construction Deficiency.

4 W310104Y

s

(

4. ,In regard to certain points discussed on pages I-5 and I-6, provide

, further clarification of the ' applicability / relationship of the statement

' "This additional review revealed no deficiencies" as related to:

m \

%,a. TThe LP&L construction QA system status review of 67 ofg' 85 systems.

' ut

b. The ISEG review of LP&L , construction QA system statur, review.

ic. The ISEG systems walkdown of portions of four randomly selected safety-related systems. +

s

d. The deficiencies associated with the 13 sys ma rejected by QA.

id '

(reply) K ,_

4. The statement "This additional review revealed no deficiencies" applies s , to the ISEG systems wa'iki,bn of po'rtions of four randomly selected

,' safety-relatedqsystems only. x ,

% i .

i ,

1 i

5. In regard to certain points related to the discussed physical reviews on pagetI-5, provide a listing identifying the hardware (system / component) selected for physical verification and any identified deficiencies for:

a. .Five f the 67 safety-related systems reviewed by LP&L construction QA.

b.

\

All portions of the four randomly selected safety-related systems walked down bf ISEG. ,

(reply)

5. a. It should be noted that physical verification walkdowns were not made on all QA status review packages (safety-related systems).

Physical verifications were done primarily on small bore piping, the majority of which was installed by Mercury and Tompkins-Beckwith. The small bore piping portions of the status review packages were selected for walkdown because of generic implica-tions drawn from the first four QA status review packages that had been rejected.

5 l W310104Y

( Listed below are five of the 67 QA status review packages (safety-related system packages) received by LP&L construction QA with hardware selected for physical verification and deficiencies which were found.

(1) 36-1 Component Cooling Water - Dry Cooling Tower (Contractor, Tomkins-Beckwith)

Documentation Number or Identification Comments IC-746 SW-7 Undersized Fillet Weld SW-8, RW-1 Ccnflicting Welder ID betwcen documentation and walkdown SW-9 Undersized Fillet Weld IC-790 SW-3 Undersized Fillet Weld SW-4 Undersized Fillet Weld SU-5 Undersized Fillet Weld SW-6 Undersized Fillet Weld SW-8 Undersized Fillet Weld SW-10 Undersized Fillet Weld (2) 46E RAB Chilled Water (Contractor, Tompkins-Beckwith)

Documentation Number or Identification Comments Iso. No. LW3-CC-47 Weld No.

FW-2 Walkdown shows 90* ell WCR states 45* ell FW-4 Weld Undersize FW-6 Weld Undersized FW-7 Weld was made on CC-48 not CC-47 SW-1, R-1 Weld Undersized 3 Weld Undersized 6 RW-1 Weld Undersized 6

W310104Y L- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

(2) 46E RAB Chilled Water (continued).

SW-18 thru SW-25 These welds don't exist on pipe in field. All these documented on LW3-CC-48 by mistake.

SW-26, RW-1 ' Weld Undersized SW-29 Weld Undersized SW-30 Weld undersized

.SW-31 Weld Undersized.

SW-37 Weld Undersized SW-38 Weld Undersized SW-39 Weld Undersized 1 ACIC-6 SW-59 Weld is pipe to tee,_not 90*

,. ' as shown on WCR.

AC-LW3-50 SW-64 Iso, shows valve V720, WCR shows V727 walkdown verified valve to be V729.

AC-IC-1222:

FW 3 & 18 The insulation was removed between FW 18 and north side of J wall. .This spool was cut and no spool number or heat number could be found to verify

- - the traceability of the pipe material.

FW 6 & 17 The insulation was removed between FW 6 and~17. This spool was cut and no spool number or heat number could be found to I to' verify the traceability of the pipe raterial.

FW 7 & 27 The insulation was removed between FW 7 and 27. This spool was cut and new-material was added. The heat number on the pipe was N97405, but the weld record had N94705.

7 W310104Y;

(

(2) 46EL RAB Chilled Water (continued)

FW 14 & 34 Did not have adequate time to FW 19 & 20 remove the insulation and reinstalling it today at 3:30.

. .These two pipe spools were not inspected, but the question still exists about the material traceability.

.AC-IC-1222 Detail A for Vent'Line is oriented 180* ~ to the isometric drawing.

L Field Verification Walkdown Results

(Contractor-, Mercury)

The following installations were walked down.to' verify that the as-built drawings- reflects the installation. Comments are noted.

A. ~FIS-CC-5070BS, FT-CC-5070BS, P3NIS1R2, Isometric Drawing 160T065AE i-

--Installation acceptable per as-built.

o

'B. 'PT-AC-5011BS,.PT-AC-5020BS, P3NIS1R2, Isometric Drawing 160T066AE Installation acceptable per as-built with the following exceptions:

Comments (FW'18 & 19)

1. Weld joints (FW 13 & 14)- are between 2D clamps. Just south Support 6 and offset, not between Support 6 and as shown on drawing.

2. 2D clamp between Support 11 and east to south bend is not securely fastened.

3. - There is an undocumented high point at beginning of offset 12" south of Support 2.

C. FIS-CC-5040AS, FIS-CC-5040BS, P3NIS1R3, Isometric, Drawing'853L127AE Installation acceptable per the as-built with the following y exceptions:

On impulseLlines for the AS' instrument there is a high point in both lines in the bend. just south of Support 2.

8 W310104Y.

(2) 46E RAB Chilled Water (continued)

D. PT-CC-5060BS, P3NIS1R2, Isometric Drawing 160T064AE Installation acceptable as walked per the as-built with the following exceptions:

Isolation valve tag shows 3CC-V-653-10 in the field. Isometric shows 3CC-V-653-18.

(3) 48 Containment Vessel Traveler #QMC-DW-P71E has the following deficiency. The 2" X 1" bar

.added by DCN-MP-49 (sketch M-104) is approximately 1/8" from touching pipe, and does not support pipe as originally designed. NOTE: The above condition exists for the below listed penetrations: 60-1/16",

70-1/16", 51-1/32", 71-3/16" and 6-1/16" (4) 54-9 Primary Sampling LW-3, BM-10, FW-8 needs CMTR for hanger material.

(5) 56A Boron. Management (Contractor, Tompkins-Beckwith)

Documentation Number or Identification Comments LW3-BM-18 Need CMTR TV & 26963 MB-IC-849 Need CMTR 26963 BM-IC-609 Need CMTR 46225 SW 18 Clarify Ht. No.

SW 19 Clarify Ht. No.

SW 20 Clarify Nt. No.

LW3-BM-1 FW 7 Verify Ht. No.

SW 12, RW-1, R-1 Need Component I.D.

SW 13, RW-1, R-1 Need Component I.D.

SW 15, RW-1, R-1 Need Component I.D.

SW 23, RW-1, R-1 Need CMTR SVAK Walkdown Verification LW3-BM-18 FW 9 Coupling TV aot on walkdown iso.

FW 10 Coupling TV not on walkdown iso.

SW 6, RW-1 Weld is to 90 ell Ht. # VBV not to flange A2163 as indicated on weld record.

9 W310104Y

s-r

-(5) 56A Boron Management (continued)

'(Contractor, Mercury).

OCR 1419

. Drawing 171-L-063A Rev. 1 Material Verification is not documented on 198,1, for flareless connectors at the instrument connection and the instrument test valve connection (both connectors are Pc #3.

B.O.M. #37 " 0.D. X k" NPT male flareless tube conn.), the instrument test connection valve and plug in said valve. (Pc //8 and #7 Pc #8 B.O.M. 3016k" NPT 3000# female needle valve.

Pc #7 B.O.M. 1260k" 3000 screwed plug).

Drawing 171-LO31A Installations and P.A.B.'s Drawing Acceptable Inst's PT-BM-0604 Inst's PT-BM-0605 Drawing 171-L-063A Inst. Plc BM 7640 The above comments have been resolved by LP&S Construction QA prior to

- transfer of the start-up system to plant staff.

5. b. Listed below are all portions of-the four randomly selected sdfety-related systems walked down by ISEG. Please reference page I-5~of the ISEG report for items observed.

Emergency Feedwater Iso. Nos.

-IC-56, IC-86, IC-87, IC-851, IC-855, IC-860, IC-862, IC-863, and IC-910.

Steam Supply to Emergency Feedwater Iso. Nos.

~

TC-84, 1C-838, and IC-842.

Charging System Iso. Nos.

CH-1, CH-2, CH-3, CH-4, CH-5, CH-6, CH-7, CH-8, CH-9, CH-10, CH-11, IC-123, IC-124, IC-125, IC-126, and IC-879.

10 W310104Y

. Letdown' System

' Iso. Nos .

CH-10, CH-12, CH-13, CH-14, CH-15, CH-16, CH-17, CH-18, CH-19, CH-37, CH-42, CH-43, CH-48, 4C-131, and IC-138.

No deficiencies were revealed in this walkdown, p' . -

6. Certain points discussed on pages I-6 and I-7 require additional ,

clarification. These are: '

a. The QA audit organization (s). subject to the seven-step audit process.

b. The bases or reasons attributed to the statement "the number of

-deficiencies discovered has been decreasing as operations personnel

gain experience in the system turnover process."

(reply)

'6. a. The QA audit organization subject to the seven-step audit process L is Operations QA which audits systems that are being transferred to the plant staff.

b 6 '. b. fhe bases attributed to the statement "the number of deficiencies

= discovered has been dccreasing:ss operations personnel gain exper-ience in the turnover process", pertains to the Systems, Audit Date, and No. of Findings shown on page I-6. If a comparison is made of the number.of findings versus the audit date, it is noted that the deficiencies have been decreasing as plant staff (operations personnel) gains experience in accepting systems in the transfer process. -The plant staff has been looking for and correcting minor deficiencies before accepting systems and being audited by.Operat ons QA. Accordingly, the number of findings have decreased.

f

'7. A statement on page I-7 notes that "ISEG does not consider these deficiencies involve the same type of breakdown as found by LP&L QA

.concerning the ' first four systems." However, in NRC Inspection Report.

~50-382/33-26, Paragraph 5, the NRC documentation notes that the American'8 ridge (AB) deficiencies appear to be'similar to the deficiencies identified in NRC Inspection Report 50-382/82-14. Please provide additional clarification of the differences in the type of breakdowns for the deficiencies in question and in particular for those related to work-completed by AB.

- (reply)

7. The statement on Page 1-7 "ISEG does not consider these deficiencies involve- the same type of breakdown as found by LP&L QA concerning the first four systems", refers:to the level of QA review at which the deficiencies were discovered. The American Bridge deficiencies, while similar, were found .during review by Ebasco QAIRG prior to system turnover. .Since the deficiencies found in the American Bridge installation were found by Ebasco prior to system turnover, they were not considered to be the same type of QA breakdown.

11 W310104Y'

B.Section II.B Results, Pages Il-3 and II-4

1. For items (1) and (2), provide additional information on the timing of actions taken regarding placement of the Ebasco QA manager onsite and the requirement for LP&L QA to receive all Ebasco QA reports.

(reply)

1. lItem (1)] .The concept establishing the need for the onsite Ebasco QA Manager was initially formulated in a meeting of LP&L with Ebasco concerning Ebasco site QA reorganization. This is recorded in Exhibit A to "Ebasco Meeting Minutes" of 12/22/77.

The establishment and announcement of the arrival date of the Ebasco site QA manager is recorded in an Ebasco letter to LPftL dated 2/21/78.

The arrival on site of the Ebasco QA manager on 3/31/78 cenfirms LP&L's acceptance.

lItem (2)] The LP&L Project Quality Assurance Engineer made a verbal request to receive all Ebasco QA audits in 1976. Ebasco audits withcut findings had been received informally until this requirement was confirmed early in 1978, when LP&L QA was included on distribution for the Ebasco audits without findings. It should be noted that LP&L QA has always received Ebasco site QA audit reports that contained findings.

f 2. For item (4), summarize Ebasco surveillance findings in 1976 (and p later years) that were not closed out until 1980. The summary should describe the deficiency or audit comment, attributed cause, and final disposition, including discussion, if applicable, of controls and actions taken to ensure appropriate disposition of any of the items with outstanding deficiencies that may have been installed or stored-in place before the deficiencies were resolved.

(reply)

2. A summary of Ebasco surveillance findings th<t were not closed out until 1980 is included as Attachment B-1.

C.Section III.B Results A chronological summary of staffing increases discussed in LP&L's response, items 1, 7, 8, 9, 15, and 18, to the consultants recommendations. Additionally, if applicable, identify which aspects of the ir, crease in QA/QC staffing discussed in tbis part of the report relates to the staff increases made by LP&L in response to the findings of NRC Inspection Report 50-382/82-14.

1 i

12 W310104Y

e A

(reply)

Attachments C-1 t.hrough C-4 summarize LP&L staffing increases. The "on board" figures do not reflect temporary changes due to hiring, transfer, or resignation. Attachment C-5 summarizes Quality Assurance contract employee staffing. Attachment C-6 summarizes Quality Control staffing. Quality Control is part of Plant Staff, therefore the LP&L staff shown on Attach-ment C-6 are also shown on Attachment C-3. Attachment C-7 summarizes all LP&L and contract employees engaged in Quality Assurance or Quality Control.

In addition, Appendix W, Recapitulation of Conclusions and Recommendations, to the Decision Management Cnmpany's (DMC) report to the Louisiana Public Service Commission on the Waterford 3 project dated January 6,1984 is enclosed as Attachment C-8. This independent consultant's report sepports the responses given in Section III of the ISEG report.

No specific staff increases can be attributed solely to NRC Inspection Report 50-382/82-14. LP&L staffing increases were based on an evaluation of the identification of the need for additional qualified personnel by various sources, including independent consultants' evaluations of different aspects of the Waterford 3 project and NRC evaluations such as Inspection Report 50-382/82-14.

D.Section IV.B Results Update on the status of LP&L observations relative to the wetness / collection of water discussed on page 5 of Attachment 2 of the NRC inquiry team report pertaining to the annular space between containment and the shield building along the knuckle region of steel containment.

(reply)

A walk-through of the annulus area starting at penetrations #66 atl #71 and continuing in a westerly are for 25 to 30 feet on January 26, 1984, revealed no wetness or collection of water along the knuckle region of steel containment. Prior to this walk-through, observations in this area conducted since the NRC inquiry team was on-site has revealed no additional water collection or wetness. It is also noted that the base of the containment vessel in this area has been cleaned and field painted and no surface corrosion exists.

13 W310104Y

m e.

'E.' Section V.A Review

' Chronological summary listings' of.approximately 75 documents reviewed by

.ISEG, including a description of the subject and purpose of the document.

To the extent' applicable, identify which of the correspondence or other

' documentation reviewed by'LP&L relates to the documents referred to by question-18.d, e, i, k, q, s, and t of the Gambit Publications letter to

.LP&L' dated April 4, 1983.

~

(reply)

A' chronological summary listing of documents reviewed by ISEG is enclosed-as Attachment E-1. Those documents reviewed which correspond to the specific. documents referred to in your question are noted in the

-attachment.

4

+

J 14' W310104Y:

, . . - . . . . . , ,..._2 - _ . . -. _ . , - , _ . . , , , _ _ - - , - _ _.-..._.. , , .. _ - . . ,-._ , ,. _ ,.... _ _ _ . _ . _ .

ATTACHMENT A-1

. FISCHBACil AND MOORE FINDING F&M-1-016: -

Undersized welds.

I' DISPOSITION: -

Closed out with corrective action on laspection Report (IR) 303-46-535.

' FINDING F&M-2-024: -

Excessive weld fit up gap.

DISPOSITION: -

Closed out with corrective action on IR 303-84-580.

FINDING F&M-3-008: -

Undersized weld.

DISPOSITION: -

Closed out with corrective action on IR 303-46-536.

-FINDING'F&M-4-011: -

Undersized welds.

DISPOSITION: -

Weld reworked, re-inspected, and accepted.

FINDING F&M-5-013: -

Undersized welds.

DISPOSITION: -

Weld reworked, re-inspected, and accepted.

FINDING F&M-6-010: -

Undersized welds.

DISPOSITION: -

-Weld reworked, re-inspected, and accepted.

FINDING F&M-7-006: -

Weld fit up. gap excessive.

DISPOSITION: -

. Accepted for use as is.

FINDING.F&M-8-007: -

Undersized weld.

DIS?OSITION: -

Accepted for use as is.

FINDZNG F&M-9-005: -

Undersized weld.

DISPOSITION: -

Weld reworked, re-inspected, and accepted.

FINDING F&M-10-001: -

Undersized welds.

DISPOSITION: -

Welds reworked, re-inspected, and accepted.

FINDING F&M-11-002: -

Undercut weld.

DISPOSITION: -

Weld re-inspected and accepted for use as is.

ATTACHMENT A-1 (Continuad)-

FISCHBACH AND MOORE FINDING F&M-12-003:- - ' Undersized weld.

DISPOSITION: -

Weld reworked, re-inspected, and accepted.

FINDING F&M-13-004: -

Non-uniform weld with unacceptable concavity.

DISPOSITION: - Weld reworked, re-inspected, and accepted.

FINDING F&M-14A: --

No I.D. on conduit.

DISPOSITION: - Reworked and closed.

FINDING F&M-14B: - Plot point is not identified on tray.

' DISPOSITION: -

Closed out with' corrective action on IR 122-59-454.

FINDING'F&M-14C: -

Plot point is not identified on tray.

. DISPOSITION:. -

Closed out with corrective action on IR 122-59-454.

FINDING F&M-14D: -

' Plot point not identified on tray.

-DISPOSITION: -

Closed out with corrective action on IR 122-59-454.

FINDING F&M-14E: -

Plot point not identified on tray.

DISPOSITION: -

Closed out with corrective action on IR 122-59-454.

FINDING F&M-14F: -

Conduits not marked.

DISPOSITION: -

Open item.

FINDING F&M-14G: -

Conduit missing identification tag.

DISPOSITION: . Reworked and accepted.

FINDING'F&M-14H: -

Conduit not identified.

DISPOSITION:. -

Reworked and closed.-

FINDING F&M-15A: -

Terminal blo'ck not identified.-

' DISPOSITION: ' - Item corrected and accepted.

JFINDING F&M-15B: -

Wro'ng cable termination markings.

DISPOSITION: -

Cable re-tagged and accepted.

t~ ~

- - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ . - _ = . _ _ .

~- e ,

.c

~'

c ATTACHMENT A-1 (Continued)

FISCHBACH AND MOORE FINDING F&M-15C: -

Cable I.D. tag missing.

DISPOSITION: -

Cable tagged.

FINDING F&M-16A: -

Wrong number of cables installed in conduit.

DISPOSITION: -

Finding in error - no action necessary.

FINDING F&M-16B: -

Wrong number of cables installed in conduit.

DISPOSITION: -

Finding in error - no action necessary.

FINDING.F&M-17: -

Conduit pulled out of fitting.

DISPOSITION: -

Conduit reworked, re-inspected, and accepted.

N00TER FINDING #1A: -

Drawing dimensions in error.

DISPOSITION: -

Re-evaluated and accepted for use as is.

FINDING #1B: -

Drawing dLmensions in error.

DISPOSITION: -

Re-evaluated and accepted for use as is.

FINDING #1C: -

Drawing dimensions in error.

DISPOSITION: -

.Re-evaluated and accepted for use as is.

FINDING #1D: -

Drain installation error.

-DISPOSITION: -

Accepted use as is.

FINDING #1E: -

Stiffener spacing in error.

DISPOSITION:- -

Re-evaluata and accepted for use as is.

FINDING #1F: -

Drawing dimensions in error.

' DISPOSITION: -

Item reworked and accepted.

_ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - = _ _ _ _ _

n

~

ATTACHMENT A-1'(Continued)

N00TER ,

FINDING ' #1.G: -

Drawing ~ dimension'in error.

' ~

DISPOSITION: -

Re-evaluated and accepted'for use~as is.

. ; FINDING #1H: ;- .Drawin'g dimension' discrepancy.

DISPOSITION: -

Accepted as is.

FINDING"#2A': ,

Undersized welds.

' "" , JDISPOSITION: "- Accepted as is, i

LFINDING #2B: -

Weld spacing error.

-, DISTOSITION: -

Accepted as is.

. FINDING #2C: -

Undersized welds.

DISPOSITION: -

None-required, use as is.

FINDING #2D: -

Undersized welds.

DISPOSITION: -

Accepted as is.-

FINDING #2E -

Undersized welds.

DISPOSITION: -

Accepted as is.

FINDINGL#2F -

Weld I.D. symbol errors on drawing.

DISPOSITION: -

Accepted as is.

FINDING #3: -

Drain cover defects.

DISPOSITION: -

Re-evaluated and accepted for use as is.

FINDING #4: -

Spent fuel cask pool liner defects.

DISPOSITION: -

Pool liners reworked, re-inspected, and accepted.

.s FINDING #5 -

Welder / weld traceability problem.

DISPOSITION: -

Finding in error, no action necessary.

p

. ATTACHMENT A-1 (Continutd)

J

-N00TER

. FINDING #5-B: -

Welder / weld' traceability problem.

DISPOSITION: _ -

Finding in error - no action necessary.

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING FINDING CE-1: -

Measuring test equipment not listed on traveler.

DISPOSITION: -

Finding in error, no action necessary.

FINDING CE-2: -

Records kept in authorized location.

DISPOSITION: -

Records returned to Waterford 3.

NISCO FINDING NI-1: -

Missing inspection tags.

= DISPOSITION:. -

Finding.in error - none required.

' FINDING NI-2: -

Bolt installation error.

DISPOSITION: -

Finding in error - no action necessary.

GEO CONSTRUCTION TESTING FINDING'#17: -

Form signed by employee or examiner.

DISPOSITION: -

100% review of qualifications - discrepancies corrected.

' FINDING #18: -

Candidates do not meet experience requirements.

DISPOSITION: -

100% review of qualifications - discrepancies corrected.

ATTACHMENT A-1 (Continued)

GEO CONSTRUCTION TESTING FINDING #21: -

No written statement available for Level III qualification.

DISPOSITION: -

Level III qualification verified.

-FINDING #23: -

Level CMT certificates not approved.

DISPOSITION: .- -100% review of qualifications - discrepancies corrected.

F

.AMERICAN BRIDCE FIITDING AB-1: -

MRL and MRIR documents do not match.

DISPOSITION:' --

Corrected and accepted.

FINDING AB-2: -

Structural tolerance not stated on drawing.

DISPOSITION: -

No action required, - non-finding.

FINDING AB-3: -

Missing weld documents.

DISPOSITION: -

100% documentation review performed - all discrepancies corrected.

FINDING AB-4: -

Torque wrench use discrepancy on documentation.

DISPOSITION: -

Document corrected and accepted.

-FINDING AB-5: --

Error in FQAP forms.

DISPOSITION: - Forms corrected and accepted.

. FINDING AB-6: -

Wrong number of bolts listed on drawing.

DISPOSITION: -

100% documentation review performed - all discrepancies corrected.

4

~ ATTACHMENT A-1 (Cod inusd) 4 1

1 AMERICAN BRIDGE

- ; FINDING.AB-7: -

Error on FQAP form.

DISPOSITION: -

Non-finding .- no action required.

i. FINDING AB-8: -

Error on FQAP form.

DISPOSITION: - Form corrected and accepted.

}

o a

Y

(

-e i

k 1

8 b

i I,

i t ,,

i 4 l f

f Yg 4v' 't - t eeer e -y y e-w .* -, -+ -e-,-te-, -,-,-,.,w,-,rwesw~-r, e m - v e- we r, m--e -,-w --w e-r e -* +v = w - e -me- ee.-swem-nvw-,'--+-*-y---e-#

ATTACHMENT A-2 AMERICAN BRIDGE FINDING 1: -

Weld defects.

DISPOSITION: -

Some welds were accepted for use as is, the rest were re-worked, re-inspected and accepted.

FINDING 2: -

Missing weld documentation.

DISPOSITION: - NDE performed on all welds - no discrepancies found.

FINDING 3: -

Weld defects.

. DISPOSITION: - Accepted for use as is.

FINDING 4: -

Bolted connections defective.

DISPOSITION: -

Re-worked and accepted for use.

FINDING 5: -

Bolted connections defective.

t DISPOSITION: -' Re-worked and accepted for use.

FINDING 6: -

Expansion anchors improperly torqued.

DISPOSITION: -

Re-worked and accepted for use.

FINDING 7: . -

Missing bolting documentation.

DISPOSITION: -

Documentation found.

FINDING 8: -

Welder certification documentation deficient.

DISPOSITION: - Welder certification determined acceptable.

FINDING 9: -

Weld defects.

DISPOSITION: - Accepted.for use as.is.

~

FINDING 10: -

Failure to control weld filler metal.

DISPOSITION: -- Documentation located which proved filler metal was controlled.

FINDING 11: -

Documentation errors.

-DISPOSITION: - Complete review of American Bridge records. Corrective actions taken to correct documentation.

bdW h4

~ ~

. 1 EBASCO QA RESPONSES TO LP&L OA FINDINGS REV. 2 TURNOVER PACKAGE ON SUS 60B (MC:.ZCr.>9-Y)

. MERCURY (W3-NY-15)

ITEM: OCR-1698 FINDING: 1. 208-1 Fom (QC Process Control Traveler) not signed off.

RESPONSE: OCR-1698 is part of taulti-SUS 59, 60A and 60B. 208-1 Form ,

will be signed off upon completion of the aforementioned systems.

ITEM: OCR-1698 FINDING: 2. 262-1 Form for suppcrt locator 24 shows support as 1698-24.

277A Forms shows support as 1698-24-A-R.

P_{SP,0NSE: Rilti's for support 1698-24 were reworked requiring the change to 1698-24-A-R. 262-1 Form has been revised to the corrected support,no. 1698-24-A-R.

l ITEM: CCR-1657

~

FINDING: 3. LP Report 11612 for PT-SI-307 field weld 37A shows no ANI review stamp although weld data form 197-2 signed off by ANI for LP witness.

RESPONSE: LP Report 11612 form has been stamped with the appropriate ANI stamp and sign-off.

ITEM: OCR-1702 FINDING: 4. No drawing or revision number on QC Report for hanger #3 rework. .

RESPONSE: The appropriate drawing number and revision *have been added to the QC Report for Hanger #3. .

ITEM: OCR-1702 FINDING: 5. No drawing number on Q.C. Report on rework of impulse lines .

for PT-SI-0307 and FT-SI-0307.

1 RESPONSE: Q.C. Report has been updated to reflect the necessary drawing

numbers and revisions. They are as follows:

~

167-T-025A Rev. 4 167-T-037A Rev. 7 167-T-024A Rev. 3

. . . . . l

1 L

.~

kh M%kll5.

SUS 603 (Rev. 2 Turnover)-Mercury Page 2 ,

ITEM: OCR-1700 FINDING: 6. NDE Report for rework welds not stamped by ANI. Report is initiated by P.B. and dated.

RESPONSE: ANI sign-off appears on Fo'rm 208-1.

ITEM: GENERIC l

FINDING: 7. Although Mercury and Ebasco review was coteplete, neither company has stamped documents that had been reviewed.

RESPONSE: Ebasco QA review stamp will appear on final package at time of S.U.S. turnover. '

ITEM: GENERIC FINDING: 8. Mercury red lined isometric drawings 'in 60B package are not

~ stamped "As-Built", signed and dated by Mercury QC person who verified installation conformity to that red lined isometric. Violation of Mercury Procedure SP-667 " Control of As-Built Information".

RESPONSE: This item is still oPen and Mercury has issued NCR-703 dated 8-20-82.

e e

e

e

- = . . . . . . - .w. ==-s ... .. . - . - . . . . - ,--.-+... - =

. 'i

g. .

- - 1 EBASCO QA RESPONSES TO LP&L QA FINDINGS REV. 2 TURNOVER PACKAGE ON SUS 60B TOMPKINS-BECKWITH (W3-NY-il)

ITEM: SI-IC-630 4

jgf h' FINDING: 1. Traveler Erection Sheet-Items 1-7 should be signed off when

. Pg those items have been accomplished.

TB-P-35 (L) states: Items 1 to 7 do not require craft

RESPONSE

supervision or sign-off.

g7I {,d FINDING: 2. Weld Control Record-SW-1 heat number / code fitting # is

. j h'6g ~ incorrect on Weld Control Record. This weld is pipe to valve. The fitting # on Weld Control Record is K-Y.

RESPONSE: K-Y designation is the value body heat number. T-B has revised the Wald Control Record to reflect the valve no.

2 5I 64 ~4>94t96 under fitting category along with valve body q, 7,g T at no. K-Y. -

I FINDING: 3. PT-Raport - PTf434 is for a weldolet but there is no weld #

l) /7,$), identified on the drawing. No Wald Record in package.

h- RESPONSE: PTf434 was mirfilad. PT Report is for SUS 59 Cont.ainment Spray.

4.

FINDING: _

NCR Index .

a. Need copy of W3-2419 and W3-3348.

IS . RESPONSE: TB-P-35 Rev. L procedure states NCR reports are not required to be in package.

FINDING: b. Exception Sheet identifies W3-3340 but package does not identify this.NCR.

RESPONSE

T-B has revised the NCR Index to include NCR W3-3340. -

l>/P FINDING: c. W3-3842 not on index, is it open or closed?

E ,N RESPONSE: W3-3842 is on the NCR Index and is stL*1 open at this time. '

8 -t ITEM: SI-IC-646 FINDIFG,: 1. Pipe Modification - Sheet 17 identifies spool 2SI-10-183B-5.

Sheet 32 identifies spool 2SI-10-183B-4. This hanger is located on pipe spool 2SI-10-183B-3 according to T-B engineer red line drawings. The Pipe Modification is in conflict with as-built drawing.

. . . ~ . . . , - , , _ . . . . . .

V

' Alladed A-3 V

r SUS 60B (Rev. 2 Turnover)-Tompkins-Beckwith Page 2 _

ITEM: SI-IC,-646- (Continued)'

RESPONSE: Pipe Modification Shfet 17 per Rev. 2 and has been replaced and voided by Pipe Modification Sheet 32 Rev. O. Modification

[f[v4 ,$)

. 971 Sheet 32 R/0 is incorrect ,aed will be revised to show hanger location on spool 2SI-10-183B-3 per T-B red line isometric.

Y en M

e t __.

4AA%4 As, U

'l - 3 EBASCO QA RESPONSES TO LP&L QA FINDINGS REV. 2 TURNOVER PACKAGE ON SUS 60A MERCURY (W3-NY-15)

' ITEM: OCR-511 FINDING: 1. Isometric drawing 160-T-029A Rev. 3 shows support 511-27.

No Q.C. documentation in package for this support. Also shows' support 511-22. No Q.C. documentation in package .

f ar this support.

RESPONSE,: The above mentioned supports were released in SUS 59.

Mercury documentation has been updated with the appropriate cross-referencing.

ITEM: OCR-511 FINDING: 2. Isometric drawing 160-T-030A Rev. 2 shows supports 511-17 and 511-19 installed. No Q.C. documentation in package for ,

these supports.

RESPONSE: The above mentioned supports were released in SUS 59. -Mercury

, documentation wi1L reflect the necessary cross-referencing.

ITEM: OCR-512 FINDING: 1. Form 198.1-1 Material verification shows C of C, CMTR and heat no. as not applicable for tube clangs.

l RESPONSE: These are bulk items furnished by Ebasco and traceability only required to this point of issue.

ITEM: OCR-512 -

FINDING: 2. 3 of 3,197-1 Form Wald Data Record for FIS-CC-7850 (HP &.LP) final inspection column runs off edge of copy-illegible. ,

-RESPONSE: Mercury has included a supplementary sheet 3 of 3 to clear up the illegibility of the Wald Data Record for FIS-CC-7850.

ITEM: OCR-523 '

FINDING: 1. OCR shows two Rev. 4's - one dated 10/22/81 and one dated 4/16/82.

RESPONSE: Mercury has clarified this situation. Rev. 4 is dated 10/22/81.

Rev. 5 is dated 4/16/82. Mercury has accomplished the necessary changes on the OCR to reflect the corrected 'evision numbers.

b n= _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

b IN4.

v

- . 'I

. SUS 60A - (Rev. 2 Turnover)-Mercury Page 2

' ITEM: OCR-523 (Continued) ,

FINDING: 2. Support 523-190 bulk fabricated on 0CR-1290 as a B430-I-23J253.

' Isometric and QC documentation shows 523-190 is a B430-I-23J38A type.

RESPONSE: A walkdown verification wa's required for support 523-190.

Mercury has field verified the support type and necessary documentation has been revised.

FINDING: 3. Also, support 523-190's 262-1 Form shows it was installed with expansion anchors (welding N/A on 262-1 Installation)

No 277A Expansion Anchor Inspection Sheet in package for 523-190.

RESPONSE: A walkdown verification was required for identification of Support 523-190. Mercury has field verified the support and necessary documentation is complete.

' FINDING: '4. Support '688-10 fabricated as a 000-Hkl6N type. 262-1 and 277A show 588-10 installed as a 000-H-153N. An 000-H-153N installation requires the use of 1/2" expansion anchors.

68*-10's 277A form shows 3/8" expansion anchors were used to install support.

RESPONSE:. The above support has been deleted by Mercury NCR-399 (Ebasco NCR-W3-3917) .

FINDING: 5.. 'During fabrication. of support 523-12B, two (2) 10x10x " CS plates wets used. -No heat numbers listed for plates.

RESPONSE:. Mercury has revised the necessary documents to show the plate heat numbers.

j FINDING: 6. Support 523-15 on isometric drawing and 262 Form is a type 000-H-0023. 277A Form for 523-15 shows a type 000-H-006N.

RESPONSE: Walkdown was necessary to verify support type. Mercury has field verified the support and necessary documentation has been revised. ,

FIMING: 7. Isometric drawing 167-T-038-A revision 2 shows support 18 as 523-180. QC documentation (262-1, 277A) shows 18 as support s

677-24. '

RESPONSE: -Support 18 is 677-24. Mercury has revised Iso 167-T-038-A L

to reflect the correct support identification number.

FINDING: 8. Isometric drawing 167-T-038-A shows support 21 is 523-21.

Q.C. documentation shows support 21 is 1286-194. Final

acceptance on 262-1 Form on 2-25-82 identification and dimension inspection perf.)rmed 4/22/82. .

y rw rp g *-wr9 9y9-. -w,g7, w y,p s, ,,e,,,.c- r ywa, ,,, ,, ...*w y,.-g- ,n. ,,,-,,,_..,,e.y.,-.,__,,,g -

m--y-wr-

E 1

SUS 60A (Rev. 2 Turnover)-Mercury Page 3 .

ITDf: OCR-5,23 (Continued)

RESPONSE: S. The correct identification number for support 21 is 523-21.

1286-194 is a bulk fabrication number. Mercu-y will revise the necessary documentation to reflect the correct support nunber.

FINDING: 9. Although Supports 24, 25 and 27 are shown on isometric drawing 167-T-038A (523-36, 523-37R and 523-19) OCR 523 contains no QC documentation for same.

RESPONSE: The required documentation for the above supports appears in SUS 59. Mercury has cross referenced the necessary SUS documents.

ITEM: OCR-524 FINDING: 1. 198.1-1 Material Verification shows "N/A" for tube clamps C of C, CMTR and heat number.

RESPONSE: These are bulk items furnished by Ebasco and traceability only required to point of issue.

ITEM: .0CR-395 -

FINDING: 1. Isometric drawing shows support 396-23 is a type B430-X23-J-28.

QC documentation shows support type B430-X23-J-26.

RESPONSE: The correct support type is B430-X23-J-26. Mercury has revised the isometric to reflect this change.

FINDING: 2. Isometric drawing shows support 396-24 as a type B430-X-23J42.

QC documentation shows support to be type B430-X23J-26.

RESPONSE: The correct support type is B430-X23J-26. Mercury has revised the isometric to reflect this change.

~

FINDING: 3. Isometric drawing shows support 396-25 as a type B430-X23-J42.

QC documentation shows support to be type B430- X23J-26.

RESPONSE: The correct support type is B430-X23J-26. Mercury has revised the isometric to reflect this change.

ITEM: OCR-396 _

FINDING: 1. Mercury Nonconfor=ance Report 131 is not closed, applicable k to OCR 396 and is not taken as an exception to turnover.

RESPONSE: Mercury NCR-131 was closed by the QA Supervisor 5/26/82. -

Mercury at that time was directed to include internal problem reports on their exception list. (There is not an E5asco NCR nu=ber assigned as this is a Mercury "in-house" NCR) .

d H k"3

,, [ *.* $

SUS 60A (Rev. 2 Turnover)-Mercury Page 4 ITEM: OCR-3,96 (Continued)

FINDING: 2. 198.1-1 Material Verification shows "N/A" for tube clamp C of C, CMTR and heat number.

RESPONSE: These are bulk items furnished by Ebasco and traceability only required to this point of issue.

.. . vw e

6 M

e em

_~

4

(~\.______.___--._-__ a -.- ._-_. _ - - - -

,$dmf J- 5 LP&L QUALITY ASSURANCE C0}SENTS ON START-UP SYSTEM 60B LP&L Comments and Ebasco responses are as follows:.

NOTE: Asterisks denote generic answers listed below:

Generic Answer "WP 1.4 is a qualified procedure for fillet welds."

- Generic Answer - See Ebasco Quality Assurance Letter W3QA-19279 Dated June 14, 1982.

CONTRACTOR W3-NY-ll ITEH: SIM-138 FINDINGS: 1.A On the Weld Pecord Sheet the NDE colu=n is blank.

1.3 The Hanger Sketch has a double fillet weld symbol but T-B only gave each double fillet weld one weld number.

RESPONSE: 1.A This column will only be filled out if NDE is required. If NDE is not a requirement, this column will be blank.

1.B This designation is considered standard practice for installa-tion activities. Inspection performed and accepted as double fillet weld by Q.D. This item will be addressed further in ~~

response to LP&L QA Letter W3K-82-0340.

ITEM: SIRR-801

-FINDINGS: 1.A On the hanger sketch, weld 2 is a bi-metallic weld which means S/S to C/S. The Weld Record Sheet indicates E7018 electrode

was used which is fer C/S to C/S.

1.B The Weld Record Sheet has the wrong welding procedure referenced (WP 1.4).

1.C The Field Inspection Checklist does not indicate that the sway strut was checked for proper adjustment.

RESPCNSE: 1. A Weld No. 2 is a vendor weld.

1.B See Generic Answer * -

1.C See Generic Answer **

ITEM: SIRR-803 FINDINGS: 1.A The Weld Record Sheet has the wrong welding procedure ref-erenced (WP 1.4).

1.3 The Wald Record Sheet had the fic-up signed off on 8-30-78, but all the weld rods were returned on that day.

1.C The Field Inspection Checklist does not indi, ate that the sway strut was checked for proper adjustment.

4/4ae)+4 A-3 L.. .

SUS'60B LP&L QA COMMENTS RESPONSE: 1.A See Generic Answer

1.3 Welding materials were only required to be weighed within 1/4 lb. on issue and return es is' uance s room. Two rods could have been used for fit-up on that day and weighed in by rod room attendant as.the same amount issued. (Per.T-3 Procedure 1.C See Generic Answer ** TBP-3 Rev "J")

ITEM: SIRR-806 FINDINGS: 1.A The Wald Record Sheet has the wrong welding procedure ref-erenced (WP 1.4).

1.B The Field Inspection Checklist does not indicate that the sway strut was checked for proper adjustments.

RESPONSE: 1.A See Generic Answer

1.B See Generic Answer ** ,

ITEM: SIRR-847 FINDINGS: 1.A The Weld Record Sheet has the wrong welding procedure ref-erenced C7P 1.4). ,

j

~

RESPONSE: -1.A See Generic Answer

ITEM: SIRR-808 FINLINGS: 1.A The Weld Record Sheet has the wrong welding procedure ref-erenced (WP 1.4) .

1.B Wald Record Sheet has the wrong welding procedure referenced (WP 1.4),

l. C The Weld Rod Req. #58071 has been changed and initialed, but the changes were in error because this hanger was complete on 2-12-79 and the Req. was on 9-28-79.

1.D The Field Inspection Checklist does not indicate that the sway strut was checked for proper adjustment.

1.E The Hanger Sketch calls out a 3/16 double fillet, but T-B only indicated weld #3 for the double fillet.

RESPONSE: 1. A See Generic Answer

l.B See Generic Answer * ~

1.C The requisition was changed by Q.A. personnel to reflect the ISO number due to the hanger number listed on the requisition.

No evidence to support any welding being done on this hanger af ter final buy off by Q.C. T-B Q.C. has been directed to reinspect this hanger and document the inspection.

. l.D See Generic Answer **

1.E This designation is considered standard practice for installa-tion activities. Inspection performed and accepted as double fillet weld by Q.C.

& 4/ /

Y IMAGE EVALUATION I f4

(([gNN 0,4'4 k///7 "% .,jf//

/

TEST TARGET (MT-3) <

l.0 M2Hu gll EE i,i [m llie 1.8 l

1.25 1.4 jg l

150mm #

6" #

44 A///xA

> / )<gh

blac k d A-3

' SUS 60B LF&L QA COMMENTS ITER: SIRR-779 FINDINGS: 1.A Hanger sketch was not dated in the Built per design stamp by Q.C.

1.B The Weld Record Sheet has _ the wrong weld!.ng procedure ref-erenced (WP 1.4). ,

1.C The Field Inspection Checklist does not indicate that ,the sway strue was checked for proper adjustment.

RESPONSE: 1.A Date added based on the hanger checklist signed and dated by inspe: tor on the same date that the drawing was signed.

1.B See Genaric Answer

1.C -See Generic Answer **

ITEM: SIRR-Oll FINDING: 1.A Weld Record Sheet has the wrong welding procedure referenced (WP 1.4).

1.B The Field Inspection Checklist does not indicate that the sway strut was checked for proper adjustment.

RESPONSE: 1.A See Generic Answer

1.B See Generic Answer _**

ITEM: SIRR-800 FINDINGS: 1.A The installation was to R-0 FR-3 which has a 3/16 fillet on 3 sides by wall indicated for Weld #5. R-0 FR4 has added one more side to be welded for Weld #5. There is no docu- --

mentation for the additional weld that is identified on R-0 FR4 and R-1.

1.B The . Field Inspection Checklist had the pipe clearance marked N/A. For this type of hanger the pipe ' clearance is required to be checked.

1.C The first Weld Control Record indicated Weld #2 & 5 were fit-up on 3-29-78 but a new weld record was issued later.

The same two welds were fit-up again and signed at a later date.

RESPONSE: 1.A The hanger was installed to R0 FR3. Correction of this dis- -

crepancy item was completed; however, damage was caused to

the hanger which will necessitate the rework of this hanger.

1.B The drawing has NCR W3-2644 stamped on it. The closure and signoff by Q.C. will provide acceptance for gap tolerance.

1.C Weld only tacked, not completed on 3-29-78.

ITEM: SIRR-911 FINDINGS: 1.A T-B did not give a weld number for both item 3's on hanger sketch, l.B Wald Control Record has the wrong welding procedure ref-erenced (WP 1.4).

~

hhCh N SUS 603 LP&L QA COMMENTS RESPONSE: 1.A Welds for Item 3 are identified on the weld I.D. sketch for hanger, not on the blue line drawing.

1.B See Generic Answer * '

ITEM: SIRR-912 FINDINGS: 1.A Wald Control Record does not have any documentation on welds 5 & 6 (welder, fit-up final visual) 1.3 Field Inspection Checklist does not indicate that the sway strut was checked for proper adjustment.

RESPONSE: 1.A Discrepancy Notice W-2635 initiated to correct deficiency.

1.3 See Generic Answer **

ITEM: SIRR-914 '

FINDINGS: 1.A The veld ID sketch gives only one weld number for a double fillet on Weld J1.

1.B The Weld Record Sheet has the wrong welding procedure referenced (WP 1.4).

1.C The Field Inspection Checklist does not indicate that the sway strut was checked for proper adjustment. ,

RESPONSE: 1. A This designation is considered standard practice for in-stallation a'etivities. Inspection performed and accepted as doub:e fillet veld by Q.C.

, 1.B See Generic Answer

1.C See Generic Answer **

i ITEM: SIRR-801 SIRR-806 SIRR-911 I

GENERAL Com!ENT: Contrary to the requirements of AWS-Dl.1 (Paragrap'h 2. 7.1.1) the weld sizes shown on many hanger drawings appear to be in-correct. It appears that the hanger steel to embed steel weld j sizes are in conflict with the requirements of AWS Dl.l.

The drawings indicate a 3/16" fillet weld but using AWS-Dl.1 l it requires a 1/4" or 5/16" fillet weld where the hanger

! welds to embed.

RESPONSE: See ESSE Memo ES-5032-82 attached.

ITEM: SIRR-808 FINDING: 1.A Tape is under pipe clamp.

! RESPONSE: 1.A Tape has been removed.

i L

A44ca%d A-3 SUS 603- LP;L QA 00:CIENTS ITEM: SIRR-806

- ~

FINDING: 1.A Iter 2 on hanger sketch is not grouted and not resting on concrete.

1.B Pipe clamp appears to have wrong bolts installed in clamp.

Double nut does not have full thread. <

RESPONSE: 1.A DN-W-2696 was initiated to identi fy grout requirement fer 4 x 4 bearing surface. Greut request was turned in to Ebasco on 6/5/82.

1.3 The correct bolts have been installed. Double nut is per the installation criteria.

ITEM: SIRR-912 FINDING: 1.A The hanger leg that is perpendicular to the wall requires a 3/16" fillet-weld all the way around. Part of the leg missed the cabed plate. The fillet veld is not a 3/16" all the way around. ,

RESPONSE: 1.A Drawing is being red-lined by T-B Engineering to reflect correct condition. Drawing to be submitted by ESSE by 6/10/82.

ITEM: SIRR-914 FINDING: 1.A This hanger appears to be very flexible and LP&L would like ESSE Hanger Eng. to take a look at the installation.

RESPONSE: 1.A ESSE's reply is hanger design dictates restraint of pipe in lateral direction only. Design has been reviewed and deflections are acceptable. The noted flexibility is in the axial pipe direction. Restraint in this direction is not a requirement of this restraint.

CONTRACTOR W3-NY-15 .

ITEM: OCR 270 FINDING: 1.A Support 270-16 and 270-15 shown as type 999H018N on' isemetric

, 167T-37A Revision 5. Isometric 163T012A documents these sup-ports as 270-15R and 270-16R, listing the type as B430X23J28.

1.B Form 262-1 for support 270-12, doesn't list all needed material in fabrication block for an 000U018N type support (missing 4" x 3" x 1/4" angle 12" long).

' RESPONSE: 1.A Drawing 167T-37A was in error and has been red-lined. Rework I to supports was per NCR 2333.

k . . . ... . . . . . . . .... . i

_ k &&r b SUS 603 LP&L QA COMMENTS ITEM: OCR 553 J

FINDING: 1.A Field Weld #2 rejected after fit-up. Field Weld #2R installed.

NDE report PBT-PT-5582 documants successful LP of Field Weld 2.

~

1.B' Form 198.1-1 shows N/A for C of C, CMTR, and Heat No. for tube clamps. '

RESPONSE: 1.A Field Weld 2R is. documented on PT Test 10099 dated 3/30/82.

Documentation corrected on Weld. Data Form.

1.B Material traceability required to'be maintained only to the [--

point of issue.

J CORRECTIVE ACTION: An audit response will be provided separately for Item 1.B.

d ITEM: OCR 432 FINDING: 1.A Isometric shows support 432-11 as a 000H003N. QC documenta-tion shows 432-11 as a type 000H002N.

1.B 277A form shows 6 expansion anchors installed on support 432-10A (Type 000H013N). This type uses 2 anchors. 277A does not contain Rupport type. -'

. RESPONSE: 1.A 000H' 0 03N is the correct designation for suppo'rt 432-11.

Inspection indicates installation is correct. 000H002N was listed in error. Documentation has been corrected to read 000H003N.

i 1.B Form 277A entry in error and has been corrected. Actual in-spection in field shows'two (2) anchors.

- CORRECTIVE ACTION: No additional corrective action required.

t ITEM: OCR 434 ".

FINDING: 1.A Isometric 167T034A Rev. 2 shows support 435-3 as a B430X23J42A.

262-1 show: 435-3 as a B430X23-J42B type.

1 1.B 262-1 shows support 434-5R. 277A and isometric show 434-5.

RESPONSE: 1.A B430X23J42"A" is the correct designation for Support 435-3.

B430223-J42"B" was listed on Form 262-1 in error. Form 262-1 has been corrected to read B43CX23-J42"A" which is the same as field installation inspection indicates.

l. .

1.B' Support 434-5 verified from field. 262-1 form incorrect. Has been corrected to read 434-5. No R is visible on support. All p

RESPONSE

1. DCN-AS-0382 and DCN 0477 are being worked under service form #82-8-85.

' 2. DCN-AS-399 is being worked under service form #82-8-86.

' 3. Both the above packages are in the hands of Ebasco QC. 125 welds need to be in-spected and NCR's must be generated for 11 other welds. QC will be able to give these items to QAIRG for review in about 3 weeks.

4. -Engineering is considering adding supplemental work to the above service forms and

. if this is done, QAIRG will not get packages for final review for approximately 1 1/2 months.

5. There is no EBFA record of FCR-M-0179 or P/L #P61-0371.

6. NCR 4780 is complete. This may be able to be reviewed by 2/18/83.

l i

I I

l e

, _ . - , . - . . , . . . - . - - , , e e--, , _ . - - - - -

,,, k k-3

bi j{i GcT2v~

E,BASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED 3,]dyl,',O P.C. Box 70 K111ona, Louisiana 70066-0070 W3-QAIRG-0783

- September 6, 1983 Mr. L. L. Bass Project QA Engineer ,

Louisiana Power & Light Company Killona, Louisiana 70066-0070 678 4 StoDp LOUIbus POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 4 SEP1983 M WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION '

'g ,ggE[$60 $ i 1983 - 1165 MW INSTALLATION - UNIT NO. 3 (g gp g 1, SIT 3 g RESPONSES TO LP&L CONSTRUCTION QA COMMENTS FOR SUS 61 gA gd STATUS REVIEW (N00TER) g@,

pg g.t

Dear Mr. Bass:

We acknowledge receipt of LP&L letter W3K-83-0161 dated February 9, 1983, which transmitted LP&L Construction QA Status Review for SUS 61.

The discrepancies found during your review of the Nooter portion of SUS 61 have been addressed and closed on NCR W3-5690. (See attachment)

All Nooter quality records have been reviewed by Ebasco QAIRG. All of the Nooter records are now in the Ebasco QA vault and all deficiencies have been successfully answered and are now closed. This activity was completed in late August.

Very truly yours,

- d %d p N A. M>.'Cutrona, la ager Site Quality Prog am AMC/JC/ paw Attachments I

cc: (w/ attachments)

V.M. Burgard T.F. Gerrets Nuclear Records (2)

Central' Records LP&L Site QA File -

G. Bourgeois (BOP Supervisor)

QAIRG File ,

l $&sku

' 1 scos.l .-/S.77 ,

/] ECASCo SET VICES INCOMOR ATED Oletribution:

OU ALITY ASSURANCE REPORT NO*ni W3-5690 NONCONFORMANCE REa0RT Y""***C'""**""**"""*"d'"'

dispos orion l

INSTRUCTIONS: (See boef: of for= > TREBO (IDE: J!7#6,##-64 " "'""' !

SUS? 61 Cu NT om PRosECT m cR AmNo NO./ SPEC NO. : 1 IP&L/Waterford SES Unit 3 l Su> p bac R. C ONS T R u C TION QC QR CONTRACTOR 143 P.O. N Q. ($8 FCR-AS-1468 i Nooter Corporation N'l-403508 IDU-1564-726 Dir.;C hluTIO N OF COMPON ENT. P ART OR SYSTEMtel FEB, Refmlirn Canal Liner, Fuel Transfer Tube 1 DESCRIPTION OF HOHCONFORMANCE (Irems involved, Specification, Code or Standard to which items Do 14ar Comply,

. Submit Sketch if Applicable)

See Attachment #1 for descriction of ncnconfonnance.

=

jfQBLE__ ygg yn ]

vwnau.catej g l NES.. OrfD ~

Wo:

F Zg ITDI NO: Svvf N AM3 ANO SIGN ATuRE OF PERSON REPORTING N C NFQMMANCE tGB rt1 LE /C OMP A NY QATE (9.

Georce Ed Hi M 9 , nO OAIRG/Ebasco ,,_ 2/16/93 I I. RECOMMENDED DISPOSITIONM (Suomit SkMeh if Applicable)

See At%<+n=nt #2. -

\ .

NAMJ AND SIGN ATuRE OF PERSO RE CC' END IN G IS POSI TION till T IT L.4 /C OMP A N Y D A T E 4113 E.J. Kunis, Jr.

( {t g Q.A. Site Supr./ h m 2/21/83 t i l. EVALUATION OF DISPQ 1 ' BY ESASCO, RE ASON F P ITlqN H38 ,

M O 1 LA. W C/ U W2

2AEU 21 S. -

Dmbnu L a:dtr is -~%n w% & u.A* '

atL M Ru M) & Required i V. CORRNCTIVE AC*TIOHl848 Not Requirea s t nn 9 . ,

%29l'%ls3 ~

o \n4" Nzi/o NAM 2 V!m @ hN E8MP7G m.N A Tu y

@ hkLYI A'S$URANC'E u

[f 5 R'U CTION COTHER NAaE) E. ~AME m.N A Tu % > NAME ma~ A TuRE>

h A 7tg f

QAM OATE CATE

, ~2 I ([M <

a ACCEPTEo O aceCTro [Lr.,(CCEPTE5 o RusCTeo o AceE,Tso o aoECTEo o ACCEPTEo o RaECTEo o ACCEPTED wtTH COMMENTS [ ACCEPTED WITH COMMENTS O ACCEPTJQ hlTH COMMENTS [ ACCEPTED WITH COMMENTS V I. VERIFICATION OF DISPOSITION woT RecuiRec "*'

C REculmEo asasco vamoon aa on ga

~

4#ac4+4 4-5 1

, _/

?"~h nt #1 5

NCR W3-5690 Page 1 of % f

/ //73 I. DESCiurnCN OF ENCONEFFANCE I M 1 - The P.Q.T. for welder "JG" gives no effective date for the statement that the welder has welded in the last three ::cnths.

See A&= b +11 "A".

^ ,,g ITEM 2 pfG ^*r '

'Ihe L,5-ai. ion Results Report states all welds gacceptable per sheet 1 of 3 of FCR-AS-1468. No Inspect _i.cn Report exist for the full penetration weld for the 3/16" liner to the ring plate shown on attachment to FCR-AS-1468. See Attactrent "B" and "3-1". '

IISM 3 'Ihe weld History Records do not have a weld number or a pro-cedure as required by the AMaan% to Spec. IDU 1564-726, Para. 5.

See Attachment "C".

ITEM 4 'Ihe weld map states that Vacuum Box Test is ccuplete, but no report exist. Page 3 of 4 is missing frcm the package. See A&=r4=nt "C" .

I l

l

(

{ 6M17 l-

. I

\: g' C' t

. _ . , , , . - . . _ , . _ , . . , , . _ _ , . . - _ ~ _ _ . ._ ,,m_ - _ _ _ . . - . , , . _ . ..

^

A%+ya A-s

.[pf '0* 636-. Q Geg,, , \ \

Attachmnt # NCR W3- ' 10 Page I of f ...-

0/10/80 g&y3 p

W' 511??

Nooter Reference N3.

8-8-1-008,009 NGOTER CORPORATION .

RECORD OF YlELDOR PERFORMANCE QUALIFICATION TEST 5n:.me J A l1 E S 'G . GLASS stamp uumee, JG l , STEEL eirier-metai ciassiriestion sFA 5.4 l s ecificatien SA-285 Weld t.*etal Analysis ( A No.) 8 3X Pipe O Filler 4.:etal F.No. 5 gess 3/8" . singie or couete weided ;oint D0UBLE litackinz N0llE ESS: shi:ided Metal Arc (coated Rod) Xj( Gas Tungsten Arc (TIG) O Auto O uanuai Submerged Arc (Auto.Tatic) C O Auto Gas Metal Arc (MIG) O Ma' vat THIS 15 TO .CERilFY THAT THE ABOVE MENiiGNbU WtWUM_t1Ad 00:0 T: MC I':CC 5 """" "!E -

1A M THRCC MONTHS. __ _ _ _ _

I G5 .

tcf Gao.2 is I, >'Cs Q2 & Q3 or QN2 f. QN3) Type and Results

.Tyce of Test Position Result c,irontal Position (2G) lyc.e of Test X-RAYS Resuit A Cf E PTA R L C i

gx up Tyoe et Test X-RAYS feitie:I Position (3G) O Down Re9itt ACCEPTABLE Type of _ Test Dyettiend Position (4G)

Rm 14G. Sc. er CG nualifies fer ft.:t eosition TIC) l l REDUCED-SECTICit TE!4SILE TEST (FIG. C6 & Ct46)

'"

S tillimate Unit Stress, ps:

Th. Atta Ltitir: tate Tetal Loads. LL?S. Character of Fassuru & Loca::cn l

1 I

..fr that the state, vents r ade in thes receed sie ColicCt and the test Welds wete prepared. welded, and tested in accordance with the fecullemenis of JX c,f ti e AS.tE Cade.

houico ny N00TER CORPORATIOrt Test.numect P-7857 f# ggw h -

l4/12/77 siped H00TER CORPORATT0ft \T '

(t.tonvrauu:er s . , - - - ~. ..

s n, C. EDUnRD5/ ll . , l..~~'.,- .'h it ieer 1 a ter.1s eie sii.,si,3ti e oniy a,a may se media ed to con.cem to the type and nu-eer or ::: sis ,Louised er ine ccee.

AM MthAmie d AW

...;_,_.,.:- Athchent =Q'C2.Jd2=

N%lkts - k~b

=69L_ _P.agg . ' .cf , .

' f ,. "

LO* S I All A l'GE P. & LI GHT CO. ' /idh3 'j,p" 3 '5 WATERFORD UtlIT 3 -

42 f-P.O. NO. IlY-403503

/ #f..' /# f +'

w IllSPECTIOff RESULTS

JOB NUMBER /V-JfJ3 ' ,

~, oars M ooo .

INSPEC OR d

~

TANK OA/Ud d FP/QADL or EP/QADL Step Identification Number I 8 4 4 # c o 3- 8 & ;4,f / F 4 f

@e cription of Iaspection h/?Qf (//NWG/ /~/7 DAD. Of Q ff Wd A /J fP' 6' c*e / / 0kb O I '

[~dcescc'r FQ@ - A?,7-/9%8 '

/

e Results of Inspection CC &4 d2 8 #

/' n-u

.' % & ~ u

/ M"or fe e - cp ,4 0

em inspction Witnessed by @pp,,Co , - - - - - . . .

j*f

--205 n a.- . - l...

y* i @7 t 2A 22 3/1/73 j, gg 3 .

f N 'q,,NdllVED a

AW A e s l u m te '

O. .

kMcuA uasd A-5

- - --- -- q Attac h t " . NCR 10-5690 -

Page,[.of

. s i

M/!/?3 P [r4;2/73 ,

$r '

(3 c c: mec = fCf [ JYh g . . ..

%%D

, ,s , , '"

W Af/7

'g N

h:. LINE R s .

[ , 'e %T RiN. .o, F

MV M' 'k SAR N hq [ -

'4 BACKING RING s f.ggg g 729 i/

D SAR SY PENET :r L -

, _ FABR1 C ATOR I

^-

- 8 FORMu' N 3

s FORM l. IN EA. P '

s %

'O SE REMOVED E.:OR= UNER R d

.{7

_tw L W ER r*. i essT WAt.t. UNER 95 p'Ac.5D

'c Y

$ # 1 $

[M

- 85 PENETRATION r

./

I rEN $R'3mFAS n FKBRtCATCR BT N SST RING

,, SAR q M' \

c= _ _ __l J 2 [ vfl v .c--- ,.

3

? I 11 g

'I 48'O.D. 5TAlklLESS STE:_L -d

, ,, PIPE SY PENET FABR, ll , ,

I d =

~

_(5" ^S7 4 !li _. _ _

I SECT U c u.s-aae bW f. N' b 1.

s r$5317 f \,'.* g

~. . .

..* ./

f V

\\ M ILn Af n KAr hlT N3

4@tM 4 - ~-- - - - - - - -

PageI

{. i .*: . - ,

Atr.achnen,t f ICR W3-5690 /a d. 4 [

il00TER COR?0RATI0fl -

rAIlli LOUIS, MISSOURI '

N00 T ER 500 N O _ ~7'.34Jc (<U.7 WELD I . D . /V/k '

,[i=~C2- A,1-J u.q' A . ..{

. Gr2 -- - ---i . , p ,3.) "

' ' - ~ ~

WELD MAP .

/# - /d - P O EBASCO' S ERVICES , I flC .

/d P C O

LOUISIAllA POWER & LIGHT C0 v7 _ _ . - - - _ . .

WATERFORD UllIT !3 gy --

/o

/o ~ [8 [ jo' @

P.O. NY-403508

~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~

, sg _

/c s o

. G./t- -

/# ~ / - ao

?- 2 9. ca B./1. 9 2.:r.ga

') ROC . # ./ -g d WELDER B. M.

6 ,M.

- ?-29-80 DATE 9 .23 -d'C 3 08- A c o c W'l ., 346 ~2 G .2 2/,' 7 004 t

(OD TTP E & S L EE 308-A CDC - %2. HEAT g 7c/'7 9 3 LOT # 2 74713/?

/#

!B' COMPI.ETE 6

/

O / PT COMPLETE /6[40 /'h6 c[ '

H E

, SKETCH WELD SHOWING LOC TION, TYPE, AND EXTE!!T OF DIS-

/

h&Y"f~:

Oc c-8 /Y

/s-pp gc Bn -- -- -

i c-i s - g o B/1 i o -7g . go JG

/c -/7--20 et*

B// /0-20-e0

. ? -

1,' -

~

_ 4 -

} m.

6", 205 oji E p%

4>

W 5

m b

W

, finl7 1982 ?.

Y f I kT_TkdlM@M f

.. ,. m, - ^

ksN

. a, Attachment #2 NCR W3-5690 Page 1 of 3 II. RECLIMENDED DISPOSITICN Use As Is for Itans 1,2,3, ard 4.

ITEM 1 - Per telecen between Robert Powell and Ken Beckemeyer of

Nocter Corporation and Lynn mbinaki ard George Fdll of N_=~J Q.A.,

it was verifiad that the entry on the P.Q.T. (T-3636, Fev. O,10/10/80) is the effective date of the statement.

ITEM 2 - h EG Canoletion Verification (See Attachment 2-A) verifies that work associated with FCR-AS-1468 was cmeleted. The L.P. PA:a:"d.-

nation Fonn (See Athe+mant 2-3) irdentes work referenced in FCR-AS-1468 is acceptable.

ITEM 3 - h three waldars (JR, BM, JG) were gnaHfied to make all welds cn FCR-AS-1468. h Inspection Forns used are in c mpliance with the Nooter Q.A. Manual.

ITEM 4 - h Vacu m Box Test can be verified by the Q.A. sign off on the weld map. (A++= :- --% "C") . _

l

' b*"I

,A5 %5 21 Yko .. c I

l l

. ;. /+kk nad A-51

. '\ . m

~

l

a. - ._ .- =

W-- Attaehmnt #2 NEl-W_ . 2694 -

Page 2 of 3

. . _ . , 1 l

._4.___.._ . _ . - . . . . .

m ASP-In-2

AT ACL ". J2 112 .

l To: Ebasco Document Centrol

'j A N4CN: C. I'of'=an l

-t

. J From: N o f D./2 03 YY '

CC:C2ACCE SalfE/CC:C2AC No.

Subject:

FC2/DC3 WC2K COf1"CICH T-7MCACCN

1. IC2 r :Ca No. 45 /V48 .

y s rcle Cna)

2. Data Issued 7~O 7-W

3. Data Work Ccmplaced / - d / - hO ~

(37 Cent'.2etor) 4 "D.a 'Jork Associated With'It2s Docu= ant das 3een I=ple= anted."

C - 1r wD CC:CRACCa F20JEC :"p

/0 -J /-20 DA'll7. ,,

A*TrrrICN CCif!RACCES: RETC22I CF ':3IS S=-"* LJ,1EQt*.I2ED.

O nW

'/ -

~

+

\.f963" 4Ti .

' Q y

ON v LL ur n e =r _ _ . 2.n b ,

,. SQL$tMi<.$k-3 Attac!rnent #2 NCR W3-3690 ' _ j ace _.3.of_3.....

c sc.t.q .;.." r N c.

. , . _.. : .s = -

. t .Joi ~Cu. _ _.-

WATERFORD Ut:IT 3 *

/

' co'tci Co rpo ra tiron . . P . 0. tl0. fly-4 03 5 08 -. J o b flurr. b a .- 8d / JJqe- i

$c.LouisMissouri

. V I tem flumb e r/ 4! (A C R -AI-N6_I

EIOUID PEHETRAt!T EXAMillATIO!! PROCEDijRE & CERTIFICAT!0l1 N /# 2 #/

d 'Thst lfaterial: Type 88 Stage of Fah. CM7# C

. Surf ace Prepaca tion and/dr Condi t' ion Cbe?/2

2. -

METHOD OF DRYIllG OR

- MATERIALS MFG. AllD TYPE APPLICATION P E!!ETP. AT I O:l TIME Penetrant $rco 0 08Y, 8Drauf7 m /0 M,h. .-

Cleaner: ./ [ f/

P e-exam Pen. Removal -- # -

Ndk .c 47 e'n t7 [ ~""

Post Exam. ] V

/

Emulsifier .

Develooer #

N JO /T8 /76 !b ~~ # ~

3. - ofuher than (/ (/

If times , temperat'ures , etc. , were 5.2, and 5.3, indicate the time (s), temperature (s), test compara tor, those specified in 5.1,

) ei.:.. used for qualification in accordance with IX-3050.

9 _

l' r 0 E Gd' 0,'r FC2- 0$-/4'-S ff

/

8. Results: / CCog d2 #

,. /

'. Exanincr(s) -

G. MJ'tT /2' Date /d e2.,0 -8 O ,

.. Certification:

lie co'.-ti fy th a t Item flumber A o f t!o o t e r J o b !!c-G e r Ob3 was liquid penetrant examinEc in accordance . tith Procecure !!O E - 3 0 s. .

7 l' 0 0 T E T'. C O U c a , 7 I r.::

..' 4 LaqC 4. -> r C~ .O~:.-;'.*

DY yJ'A b ..,

L: . .-

Q 205. oo

'r.-

h*t > .

- e. ./.' ' ~~.. . y .,2 ;

p 3 ,

y orm NDE-302 3/1/73 '

J

( [4sp1 i etc!VED

_ nee =en=__ma m . A Ad a 1 M O- E^#o --0ci 3.! iMO

1, .

5D .

'h .POWER LOUISIANA in oamao~os staur

& LIGHT / p o aox swa .

saw cauass. wuisi4NA roir.

NuSYsdrsE

February 9, 1983 W3K-83~0161 Q-3-A35.02.33 Response Due: Yes By: ASAP a

^

TO: L. A. Stinson Manager, Site Quality Program Ebasco Services, Incorporated FROM: L. L. Bass Project QA Engineer

SUBJECT:

Waterford SES Unit 3 Status Review for Start-Up System (SUS) 61 (N00TER)

LP&L-QA has completed its review of the Nooter portion of SUS 61, and is rejecting Nooter for discrepancies found during our review of data sub-

.mitted in the status package.. (See attachment)

Ebasco should take corrective action in order to assure that this docu- -

mentation is acceptable. A re-review shall be conducted following completion of Ebasco's corrective action.

Please respond to these discrepancies by identifying the corrective cetion taken ar.d what was done to preclude repetition.

LLB:grf' Attachment cc: T. F. Gerrets Nuclear Records (2)

Central Records '

j LP&L Site QA File G

r i

I .-

- , _ . _ _ - , - - - , _ .r .. .__,4. . . . , . , , _ . . , , , , , . . , . _ , , , .m,,_m.. - _ . , , ,

. AHad d ks

m. ..: #

L?SL CONST?SCTION QA CO'O!ENTS STATUS REVIEW SUS 61 MECHANICAL -(N00TER)

Document Number or Identification Comments Weld Map 1) Weld map does not identify the welds made by the various welders, i.e. weld numbers.

2) No welder qualification documentation is available for welder whose I.D. is "J.G.".

Inspe?. tion Results Inspection results address only those welds made on sheet 1 of 3 of FCR-AS-1468. Thereis no inspection documentation for the other welds shown on t.his FCR.

General Sheet 3 of 4 is missing from the documente. tion made '

available for review.

O J

-ow-.... > , ~ ~ , .

t 9

f

..., . . . . . _ ~ . _ . _ . . _ . . _ . . . _ . _ . . , _ . . . . . . _ . . _. _ . . _ . . .

o LP&L CONSTRUCTION QA COMMENTS STATUS REVIEW SUS 71B2 PIPING (T&B)

ITEM: 3CD-IC-860 COMMENT: FW-10 Need final visual af ter PT was accepted. -

RESPONSE: FW-10 Reinspection for final visual complete and documented.

COMMENT: FW-8 Fit-Up was performed on 1-27-81 but Final Visual was performed 4 days earlier, 1-23-81.

RES?ONSE: FW-8 Reinspection for final visual complete and documented.

COMMENT: FW-9 Ht. # is incorrect should be M83187 or need CMTR for M183187.

RESPONSE: FW-9 Ht. # corrected per QC walkdown to indicate MS3187.

Based on the above LP&L' findings, it is evident that the Ebasco QAIRG reviewer was not reviewing for accuracy at the time the review was performed and the Ebasco QAIRG 1ead did not audit the package prior to forwarding to the Resolution Team.

Since this review additional training has been implemented to assure that all reviewers are reviewing for completeness and accuracy'. In addition, Mr. Johnson was not up to spee'd at the time he reviewed CD-IC-860. - Based on his past reviews

-QAIRG lead auditors reviewed Mr. Johnson's packages and trained him on a 1 to 1 bases on which there is no documentation. QAIRG. Supervisor has backup documentation on what he reviewed and what was audited after his training as stated above.

Mr. Johnson reviewed i ISO package in Condensate System.

In addition the balance of the Condensate System should be acceptable and ready for review.

6 I

b u w.v +i-a c -tw 4 -w --T y y.-e v 'vv- r r P- # * *F -- e

.. .,_ . _ _ . . . _ . . - - . _ - _ . . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . . . . _ - - - tkJtv - -3 RESPONSES TO LP&L CONSTRUCTION QA COMMENTS STATUS REVIEW SUS 73 a

PIPING (TOMPKINS-BECKWITH)

ITEM: LW3-W-2 C < COMMENT: W Need CMTR for L60181 t '3 f (L RESPONSE: W QAIRG status review addressed this item and resolution was verified during closure review. The OiTR has 'een o misplaced since

. the QAIRG review. CMTR for L60181 has been placed in file again.

3.to'if 4 COMMENT: W-6 thru W Need CMTR for 60 lt/

9k RESPONSE: W-6 thru W QAIRG review reflects correct status.

COMMENT: W-10 thru 13 a) Need CMTR for 51853996 p W-10 b) Clarify fitup and final visual dates 4

0 i$f RESPONSE: FW-10 thru 13 a) QAIRG review reflects correct status.

W-10 b) Fitup for W-10 is 6-5-81 and final visual is 6-9-81.

W-14,15 - Need CMTR for HG0989 33 Co m :.

RESPONSE: W-14, 15 - Heat number corrected to read HE0989 and CMTR is in file.

y@

,,$3-COMMENT: W-16 thru 25 - Need CMTR for 60 _.

'G i-Q RESPONSE: W-16 thru 25 - QAIRG review reflects correct status.

W-26 thru 29 - Need CMTR for 51853996 l'Yg.d COMMENT:

h ~ RESPONSE: W-26 thru 29 - QAIRC review reflects correct status.

3 A3 CCMMENT: FW-30 thrt. 33 - Need CMTR for 183996

.p g , RESPONSE: FW-30 thru 33 - QAIRG review reflects correct status, W Need CMTR for 59 ifCOMMENT:

-CD RESPONSE: W QAIRG review reflects correct status.

di COMMENT: SW Gne heat number marked NA

.4.

}*% ' RESPONSE:

C SW The heat number under pipe column is marked N/A because the weld is a fitting to fitting. Both fitting heat numbers are documented in the fitting column.

33

{ COMMENT: SW-8 & 9 - Heat number BT34 is not correct for 1" pipe b RESPONSE: SW-8 & 9 - Heat number BT34 is correct as documented. .

y

me ,e ee,. ,

....a, e w = r . . em

~ . , -. _ .... . .- - . . _ - - - - - . . . . _ - - . . . - . . . - . .

A L h g,Jt. h k ~ h RESPONSES TO STATUS REVIEW SUS 73 (T&B)

PAGE 2 ITEM: LW3- W-2 (Continued)

COMMENT: SU-12 a) No final visual b) one heat number is marked NA

.4 r2

.. 1 . RESPONSE: SW-12 a) SW-12 final visual has been performed and documented 12-19-82.

%g,I b) the hea*. number under pipe column is marked N/A because the weld is a fitting to fitting. Both fitting he'at numbers are documented in the fitting column.

(,.tl COMMENT: SW-17 & 18 - Ht. #BT34 is not correct for 1" pipe.

RESPONSE: SW-17 & 18 - Heat number BT34 is correct as documented.

A 3 y C0!fiENT: SW-19 R1 and SW-20 R1 - clarify year for final visual on 9/27/82 t -Q' RESPONSE: SW-19 R1 and SW-20 R1 - Year is 1982 COMMENT: SW-25 R1 - Clarity year for fitup and final visual.

n.q

'N RESPONSE: SW-25 R1 - Weld has gone to a reweld status; SW-25-R1 no longer exists.

SW Clarify ht. # for insert.

. "6 t*l.h -fCOMMENT:

RESPONSE: SW Heat number for insert is 0954.

g, COMMENT: SW-29 & SW Need CMTR for B286 or clarify what the heat number is.

3 ,& RESPONSE: SW-29 & SW these welds have gone to a reweld status; SW-29 & 30 no longer exist.

COMMENT: SW-31 & SW Clarify heat' number for 90 El.

d& RESPONSE: SW-31&SW-32-Sb fc NE t r r hf i pipe-t-o-half--

SJ-# # ec41in;; . !!::: nud:rr ::: 2 cunnecd d C*: a.m iu file. M bm "

M " --t:r f : E" 32 ir Y962. The CMTR is in the file.

COMMENT: SW-34 & SW Clarify dates of Final Visual.

g.j g,.g1.fr6f /2 l'E3 ,

d f RESPONSE: 'SW-34 & SW SW-34 final visual is 25 02.- SW-35 final visual is 11 0 2 . 2. - / (, - 8 '2. g ;! ' 4 3 ITEM: MS-IC-76

[ W-1 R1 - PT report indicates fillet weld should be butt weld.

y / COMMENT:

6N 0 RESPONSE: W-1 R1 - PT report has been returned to GEO for correction.

. W Needs CMTR for EC 0*3 COMMENT:

t j{ RESPONSE: W QAIRG statused this previously and verified the CMTR was in ,

file during the closure review. The CMTR was misplaced af ter the QAIRC review. It has now been placed in file again.

A%%d F5

-i.

RESPONSES TO STATUS REVIEW SUS 7; (T&B)

'PAGE 3 ITEM: MS-IC-76 (Continued)

~

[ COMMENT: W-15 a) Clarify coupling heat number.

0( b) Ne9d copy of PT or where it is located.

\hrM

RESPONSE: W-15. a) Heat no. of coupling is CC 82.

b) PT report is attached to weld control record for W14.

C0!SIENT: W Need copy of PT or where it is located.

Se[p RESPONSE: FW PT report is attached to weld control record for W9RW1.

L

'd4'

' COMMENT: W-17 & W Need CMTR for L80582.

\\' b b RESPONSE: W-17 & W QAIRG statused this previously and verified the CMTR was in file during the closure review. The CMTR was misplaced after the QAIRG review. It has now been placed in che file again.

i e"3 C0!SENT: W-10 & W-ll - Need OiTR N-14214

. W- 1' l RESPONSE: W-10 & W-ll - T&B has ordered the CMTR N14214 from Ebasco.

ITEM: MS-IC-842 CO}DIENT: W-1 a) Clarify. fit-up date -

b) Item 30b on Weld Control Record is not signed.

RESPONSE: W-1 a) Date of ficup is 8-27-81.

?p y y ,. . . -- -

-. c ~-am - . , ..,s - ,

~~~jfol.dW58"Y$"NdlGhiGitJ5F 6TjQQ$Y$'$ ~~

, }9 C019fENT: W-23 R1 - Original weld control record is missing.

0' f/ RESPONSE: W-23 R1 - QAIRG re-review reflects correct status. This weld is to be cut out and remade as W-23 RW1.

ob D COMMENT: SW Ht. #RB2122 does not match walkdown.

I) . RESPONSE: SW Heat number is correct as documented on weld record and re-verified by walkdown. - -

ITEM: W-IC-909 ,

'M COMMENT: W-10 & W Need copy of PT or where it is located.

k <

W PT report is attached to weld control record for W-9.

RESPONSE

W PT report is attached to weld centrol record for W-18.

N COMMENT: SW-1 RW2 and SW-2 RW2 - Need CMTR for 134801.

.hk Q h RESPONSE: SW-1 RW2 and SW-2 RW2 - CMTR for 134801 is now in file.

-- --m 9 ema

3 -.

. - - - . . . .. . - . - . . . - - - .. . f .' l h RESPONSES TO STATUS REVIEW SUS 73 (T&B)

PAGE.4' ITEM: W-IC-909 (Continued) h-' COMMENT: ' SW Weld has been reinstalled but SW-6 has a line marked through it

. . 'h s

-l 4, "G b which makes that information not usable in that state.

RESPONSE: cSW Revision block for Rev.' 5 reinstates SW-6. All documentation is discernable, therefore', no deficiency exists.

,g4 h COMMENT: SW Has been deleted on latest' revision but some kind of indication 3 should be made on the record where all the inspections were done.

4 gl

) ' RESPONSE: SW SW-4 is deleted per Rev. 5 of Sht. 12. This deletion means all associated documentation for SW-4 is deleted also.

, A COMMENT: SW-ll - Ht. # BT01 is for a reducing insert; this should be for a 90 El.

RESPONSE: SW-ll Heat no. corrected to read P144 and CMTR is in file.

COMMENT: .SW-13 RW2 & SW-20 RW2 - Need CMTR for 134801.

& RESPONSE: SW-13 RW2 & SW-20 RW2 - CMTR for 134801 is now in file.

3 COMMENT: -SW-25 RW1 a) Need CMTR for 134801

,J b) Two ht. numbers are identified for one piece; which is correct?

4 RESPONSE: SW-25 RW1' a) CMTR for 134801 is oow in file.

b) Heat #BTol is correct. Heat # 13481 has been crossed out.

t-

.Q.

.I . COMMENT: SW-27 RW1 - Need CMTR for JE2836. -

A y SPONSE: RE SW-27 RW1 - CMTR for JE2836 is now in file. - - - - - - .

fk COMMENT: SW-28 RW1 - Need CMTR for BV34 & 134801.

. RESPONSE: SW-28 RW1 - CMTR's.for BV34 & 134801 are now in file.

COMMENT: SW-29 RW1 - Need CMTR for BV34.

RESP 0KSE: . SW-29 RW1 - CMTR for BV34 is now in file.

k COMMENT: SW-30 RW1 - Need CMTR for JE2836.

-RESPONSE: 'SW-30 RW1 - CMTR for JE2836 is now in file. -

COMMENT: SW-35 & SW Need CMTR for JE2836.

' 3$$ RESFONSE: SW-35 & SW CMTR for JE2836 is now in file.

COMMENT: W-13 RW1 & W Heat number of Rev. 4 is 98; heat number Rev. 3 is 59.

. RESPONSE: W-13 RW1 & W heat codes corrected on Rev. 4 to read code #59. -

~ - . . - . . _ . . . h Huk

. RESPONSES-TO STATUS REVIEW SUS 73 (T&B)

PAGE 5 j 1

ITEM: W-IC-909 (Continued)

( COMMENT: W-15' _ Rev. 4 Final Visual was signed off 4/15/82.

p Rev. 3 Final Visual was signed off 4/14/82.

RESPONSE: FW These dates were transposed in error. Rev. 4 has been corrected to read 4-14-82.

tTEM: W-IC-862 COMMENT: W Clarify year for Final Visual

[5 -

-sA RESPONSE: FW Year of final visual is 1981.

r !

ITEM: W-IC-8S 8 -

COMMENT: W-22 & FW Need copy of PT or where it is located.

N(

t. RESPONSE: FW-22 & FW PT report is attached to weld control record for W-24 RW-1.

)

~

COMMENT: W-7 W Clarify year on Final Visual.

.g

.y D '

-RESPONSE: W-7 RW Year on final visual is 1982.

@ . COMMENT: ' W-26, 27 & 28 - Clarify the dates.

p RESPONSE: W-26, 27 & 28 - The dates are 1-29-82.

-q COMMENT: W What required this weld to be made. This sheet is not on the Traveler Index Sheet.

RESPONSE: W Sht. 11 Revisions 0, 1, 2, 3, & 4 are on the Traveler-Index. -

Rev. 5 was issued as 'a quickie rev. .and QAIRG status reflects Traveler Index as an open item.

-ITEM: W-IC-9 8 -

3 - -

4 . , .

W-10, SW1, SW2, 3,' & 4 - . Need QtrR' for JD3734.

COMMENT: _

4

. . s- - . .~ ss- - ,

. 7, RESPONSE: W-10, SWl,- 2,w3 & 4,- CMTR for'JD3734 is now in file. -

ITEM: CD-IC-86_6_ ,

hI COMM T : W PT report. indicates that cotal'longth examined was.4 x 1

' 'M 6 .

s - .

RESPONSE: FW-7 '4 x 1h"~ f6e ?T report' indicates a 4" OD pipe with 'l " wide strip;on .. which tha I P .e,xam x was performed. ,

ITEM: CD-IC-855- % y ;,

a ,

COMMENT: W-9 Ril- How was linear indication repaired. -

y G ,

,. f RESPONSE: W-5 RL - QalRG re{covf d reflects' corr'ect status' and has been presented 5 w ' ',N to T&B.for resolutInn.

og3 -

g! .s _,

7

_)k WO % $

- * ;* .._T .1. , . _ _ . _ , . . _ . . -

_ :s .x. . . _n

_ _..m .. # .. - . . _ . _f . .u.a

RESPONSES TO STATUS REVIE'1 SUS 73 (TLB)

PAGE 6 ITEM: CD-IC-855 (Continued)

di

bMMENT: W A correction has been made but not initialed and dated.

RESPONSE: W QAIRG re-review reflects correct status and has been presented to T&B for resolution.

4 COMMENT: SW Clarify the year for Final Visual.

N,p RESPONSE: SW Year c' Final Visual is 1982.

CORRECTIVE ACTION TO PRECLUDE REPETITION: '

LP&L Consnents for subject SUS were responded to and evaluated by the QAIRG Coordinator and the responses indicate that only approximately one-third,of comments were valid.

Ebasco QAIRG recognizes there is always room for improvement, therefore, we will continue to receive in-process training as new criteria is identified. Findings that have been identified by LP&L are emphasized in these training sessions.

Additionally, Ebasco is presently establishing an additional review group to perfore the final review and acceptance of T&B documentation. The final review group will bs established and functioning during the month of January,1983.

W

- . . .. . . _ . . . .,m - --- -- --

. . ~ . . - . . . 2 .. - . . . .

)Wh kh

~

RESPONSES TO LP&L CONSTRUCTION QA COMMENTS STATUS REVIEW SUS 73 I&C (Mercury)

ITEM: OCR 1342 COMMENT: OCR 1342, Drwg. 153-T-007 AE Rev. 2 FW 32 WDS calls out 7/le" weld.

Weld is 1/32" to 1/16" undersize on one leg.

FW 31 (Same as FW 32)

FW l WDS calls out 1/4" weld.

Weld is 1/32" to 1/16" undersize on one leg.

FW 12 (Same as FW 1)

RESPONSE: These deficient welds have been identified on t ercury NCR numbers 1797 and 1798.

ITEM: OCR 1347 COMMENT: Iso.153-T-007 AE Rev. 2 and OCR 1342 Rev. 4 does not list OCR 846 yhich was for tubing installation.

RESPONSE: This CCR number could be a typographical error because the referenced OCR is not part of SUS 73; this OCR applies to SUS 50A4 and was initiated to Install pipe plugs.

ITEM: OCR 1836 COMMENT: Is o . 15 3-T-00 3-R3 FW 10 WDS calls out 1/4" weld.

Weld is undersize in throat 7 1/32" for Of 3/8" space on SSW side of valve.

RESPONSE: Field Weld 10 (FW-10) was undersized and NCR 1798 (Mercury) was initiated 12/10/82, and verified for undersize weld. Mercury QC inspection was at the request of Ebasco and our review of this OCR on 11/22/82 showed no welding documentation deficiencies.

Therefore, this was a hardware related problem that would not have been identified during the QA Documentation Review.

ITEM: OCR 1360 COMMENT: Did not have preliminary as-built to use to check documentation -

(Used info. only copy).

RESPONSE: "No preliminary as-built drawing." During our review of this OCR on 11/23/82, the OCR package did contain the preliminary as-built.

Apparently this drawing was misplaced and while providing this re-sponse, another preliminary as-built was made as a replacement. As of this date, the other preliminary as-built drawing was located

. . . . . . . - . . . - .. . .. . _ .- HA.d4M hb RESPO:'SES TO STAT"S RE'.'II". SUS 73 C!arcurj)

PAGE 2 ITEM: OCR-1360 (Continued) and added to the OCR package which conflicts with Mercury procedure for retaining duplicate preliminary as-built drawings, with sac:e control number. A suggestion to Mercury QA was to dispose of one drawing in accordance with Mercury Procedure SP-667, and shall be done during the verification by LP&L QA representative.

0 N

&h a 6eg e. .g e. p e e-, g ..

ALI/Nul- //- 5 RESPONSES TO LP&L CONSTRUCTION QA COMMENTS STATUS REVIEW SUS 36-1 REV. O STATUS REVIEW PIPING (T&B)

ITEM: CC-IC 720 COMMENT: Flange Control Record - No signatures for F-4 a

RESPONSE: Flange Control Record - Identified by QAIRG during closure review.

COMMENT: Hydrostatic Test - Not in package RESPONSE: Hydro test data not required in traveler package.

COMMENT: FW Need CMTR for 11 RESPONSE: FW Identified on closure review by QAIRG.

T COMMENT: FW Component I.D. is plate to plate, not plate to spool. Need CMTR for 11. .

RESPONSE: FW Weld record new reflects plate to plate. 'CtRR for #11 is identified on closure review by QAIRG.

ITEM: CC-IC 746 COMMENT: Flange Control Record - Need CT #-for torque wrench void.

RESPONSE:- Flange Control R'eEard - Reco'rds do n~ot'indi~cate that a torque wrench.was voided.

COMMENT: Hydro Test Sheet - Test #36-3-3 sheet not filled out or signed. Design pressure and test pressuri different than what is on drawing.

RESPONSE: Hydro test data not required in traveler package.

COMMENT: Rl Need CMTR 680220

' RESPONSE: FW Identified on closure review by OAIRG. ,

COMMENT: FW Need CMTR 68D220 RESPONSE: FW Identified on closure review by QAIRG.

COMMENT: FW Need CMTR #58 RESPONSE: FW Identified on closure review by QAIRG.

COMMENT: FW Need CMTR #58 ~-

RESPONSE: FW Identified on closure review by QAIRG. ,

~

. .. &ckyk ll~5 R(SPONSESTOSTATUSREVIEWSUS36-1 PAGE 2 ITEM: CC-IC 746 (cont.)

TDMMENT: FW Need CMTR #58

' RESPONSE: FW Identified on closure review by QAIRG.

COMMENT:- FW Need CMTR #58 l RESPONSE:. FW Identified on closure review by QAIRG. ,

C0tetENT: SW-3, RWG2 Fit-up on 10-22-82 but final visual on 10-21-82 .c RES'PONSE: SW-3, RWG2 Final visual corrected to read 10-22-82.

COMENT: SW-4, RW-1 Valve f is incorrect, should be V610-22. Final visual on -

10-21-82, fit-up on 10-22-82.

RESPONSE: Valve no. corrected ta read V610-22 and final . visual corrected to read -

10-22-82.

. COMMENT: SW-5, RW-2 Valve f is incorrect, should be V610-22. Final visuel on on 10-21-82, fit-up on 10-22-82.

RESPONSE: SW-5, RW2 Valve # correct as documented and final visual corrected to read 10-22-82 . -

C0l#IENT: ,' SW-6, RW-1 Fit-up 10-22-82 but final visual on 10-21-82.

RESPONSE: SW-6, RW-1 Final visual corrected to read 10-22-82.

COMMENT: SW-7 Need CMTR for P479

. RESPONSE: SW-7 CMTR is in file.

COMfEitT: SW-8.-RW-1 Need CMTR for P479 RESPONSE: SW-8, RW-1 CMTR is in file. -

- ComENT: SW-9 Ne'ed CMTR 'for P479.

RESPONSE: SW-9 CMTR is in file.

COMMENT: SW-10, RW-1 Need CMTR for P479.

RESPONSE: SW-10, RW-1 CMTR is in file. ,

9

[

e.

. StCb Xht lf5 RESPONSES TO LP&L COMME'iTS ON SUS 36-1 TOMPKINS-BECRJITH (P1 ping)

ITEM: CC-IC-717 (ISO) , ..

COMMENT: EW Spool number is incorrect; it should be 2B-9 RESPONSE: FW Weld Control Record has been corrected to read 2B-9 for the spool number.

COMMENT: FW-17, FW-18, FW-19 and FW Need copy of PT or which FW# is the report attached to.

RESPONSE: FW-17, FW-18, FW-19 and FW PT report for FW-17 is attached to Weld Control Record for FW-16.

C0KHENT: FW-21 (A) Spool number is incorrect; it should be 2B-4A (B) Need copy of PT or which Weld Record sheet is this report attached to.

RESPONSE: FW-21 (A) Spool No. 2B-4B is correct as documented.

(B) PT Repo.rt for FW-21 is attached to Weld Control Record for FW-16.

COMMENT: FW-ll (A) Comp. ID is plate to plate not to spool number 2B-7 (B) Need Heat Number for other plate.

RESPONSE: FW-11 (A) Component ID has been corrected to read Code #1 to Code #1.

(B) Heat # for other plate is Code #1.

ITEM: CC-IC-792 (ISO) _ _ _ _ _

COMMENT: FW The Heat Number JA1252 is f.or S/160 but drawing calls for S/80.

Is this correct?

RESPONSE: FW No. QAIRG Re-revi'w e now reflects the correct status and has been presented to T&B for their resolution.

COMMENT: FW-5 & 6 - The Heat Number L951 is for 6000# but drawing calls for -

3000#. Is this correct?

RESPONSE: FW-5 & 6 - No. QAIRC re-review reflects the correct status and has

been presented to TSB for their resolution.

COMMENT: FW Need copy of PT or which Weld Record sheet is this report attached to?

RESPONSE: FW PT report is attached to weld control record for FW-8.

COMMENT: SW-1-RW-1 & SW-3-RW Need CMTR for 134801.

RESPONSE: SW-1-RW-1 & SW-3-RW CMTR for 134801 is now in file.

kllMblund //-3 RESPONSES ON SUS 36-1 PAGE 2 ITEM: CC-IC-792 (ISO) - Continued J

ColeiENT: SW Need CMTR for 2D8931 -

RESPONSE: SW CMTR for 2D8931 is now in file.

COMMENT: SW Need CMTR for 2D8931 & BV19 RESPONSE: SW CMTR for 2DS931 & BVl9 are now in file.

COMMENT: SW Need CMTR for 2D8931 RESPONSE: SW CMTR for 2D8931 is now in file.

COMMENT: SW Need CMTR for 2D8931 & BVl9 RESPONSE: SW CMTR for 2D8931 & BV19 are now in file.

ITEM: CC-IC-747 (ISO)

COMMENT: W Need Final PT for 16" pipe acceptance.

RESPONSE: W QAIRG re-review reflects correct status. PT has been performed and accepted and awaiting the report from GEO.

COMMENT: W Need copy o:! PT or which Weld Record sheet is the report attached to?

RESPONSE: W PT report is attached to Weld Control Record for W-8.

COMMENT: W Spool number is incorrect; it s.'.ould be 203A-5.

RESPONSE: W Weld Control Record has been corrected to read 203A-5 for the spool number.

COMMENT: SW-1,2,3 & 4 - Heat number for insert has not been recorded on Bill of Material.

RESPONSE: SW-1,2,3 & 4 - TBP-35 states in part, heat number is filled out for loose material when it is not otherwise shown on 11008 or 11009 forms. (If the heat number has been recorded on another form, an entry in this column is not required.) The heat numbers for SWl,2,3&4 ,

sre recorded on the 11008 form.

ITEM: CC-IC-727 (ISO)

COMMENT: W (A) Need copy of PT or which Weld Record Sheet is this report attached to.

(B) Why was sheet 18 Rev. 1 generated if it was not a repair?

RESPONSE: W (A) PT report for FW-7 is attached to weld control record for W-ll.

(B) Sht. 18 Rev. I was generated to establish QC hold point on step #30b and to reverify steps 20, 29 and 31.

Mb/Ldt k*3

' RESPONSES ON SUS 36-1 PAGE~3 .

-ITEM: CC-IC-727 lISO) Continued ,

COMMENT: FW-10 (A) Need copy of PT or which Weld Recott sheet is this report attached to? '

(B) Why was Sheet 20 Rev. 2 generated if it was not for a repair?

RESPONSE: FW-10 (A) PT report for FW-10 is . attached to Weld Record sheet for FW-ll.

(B) Sheet 20 Rev. 2 was generated to establish QC hold point on

, _ step #30b and to reverify steps 20, 29 and 31.

COMMENT: FW-ll - Why was. Sheet 21 Rev. 1 generated if it was not for a repair?

RESPONSE: FW Sht. 21 Rev. I was generated to establish QC hold point on step #30b and to reverify step 20, 29 and 31.

COMMENT: FW-12 (A) Need copy of PT or which Weld Record sheet is this report attached to?

(B) Why was Sheet 22 Rev.1 generated if it was not for a repair?

RESPONSE: FW-12 (A) PT report for FW-12 is attached to Weld Control Record for FW-ll.

(B) Sheet 22, Rev.1 was generated to establish QC hold point on step 30b, and to reverify steps 20, 29 & 31.

ITEM: CC-IC-729 (ISO) -

COMMENT: SW-10 _ (A) Need CMTR for JE2536.

(B) T-B has 2 heat numbers recorded for pipe, only one is correct.

RESPONSE: SW-10 (A) Heat number has been corrected by a T-B Level II inspector to read JE2836 and the CMTR is now in file.

' (B) Weld Control Record reflects only one heat number documented for pipe.

ITEM: CC-IC-766'(ISO) ,

COMMENT: FW-8 & FW-9 (A) Comp. ID is plate to plate not to spool # 253A-1.

(B) Need heat number for other plate.

RESPONSE: FW-8 & FW-9 (A) Component ID has been corrected to reflect code #75 to Code #75.

(B) Heat number for other plate is Code #75.

ITEM: 'CC-IC-973 (ISO) i

. COMMENT: FW Need copy of PT or which Weld Record sheet is this report attached to?

RESPONSE: FW PT report for FW-17 is attached to Weld Control Record for FW-14.

,_ ITEM : CC-IC-975 (ISO) -

COMMENT: FW-2-RW-1 (A) No fit-up sign off.

(B) NDE . report does not indicate type of exam.

bliH%h k-3 RESPONSES'To SUS 36-1 PAGE 4 ITEM: CC-IC-975 (ISO) Continued RESPONSE: FW-2-RW-1 (A) Fit-up has been signed; however, the date is illegibic.

A T-B Level II Inspector has now co-signed fit-up.

(B) Altho"Sh the NDE report does not have the block checked for " type of examination", the report # indicates a PT was performed and under the section labeled liquid pene-trant examination, it indicates the liquid penetrant method was used and the type of penetrant, cleaner, and developer that was used.

ITEM: CC-IC-793 (ISO)

COMMENT: FW-4 & FW Spool number 205B-1A is added material and T-B needs a heat number.

RESPONSE: FW-4 & FW QAIRG re-review reflects correct status and has been presented to T&B for resolution.

COMMENT: FW-9 & FW-10 (A) Comp. ID is plate to plate not to spool # 205B-13.

(B) Need heat number for other plate.

' RESPONSE: EW-9 & FW-10 (A) Component ID is correct as designated on weld control records.

(B) There is only one plate involved in each of these welds.

COMMENT: FW-13 & FW-14 (A) Comp. ID is plate to trunion not to spool # 203B-1B.

(B) Need heat number for other plate.

RESPONSE: FW-13 & FW-14 (A) QAIRG re-review reflects correct status and (B) has been presented to T&B for resolution.

COMMENT: FW The fit-up inspection has been marked out.

RESPONSE: FW The fit-up inspection requirement was marked out prior to issuing to the field; however, the fit-up inspection was performed and documented on the weld control record. -

ITEM: CC-IC-725 COMMENT: FW-ll & FW No heat number for pipe.

RESPONSE: FW-11 & FW QAIRG Re-review reflects correct status and has been presented to T&B for resolution.

COMMENT: FW On the weld record sheet item 30b has not been signed by QC.

RESPONSE: FW Hold point 30b is now signed.

ITEM: CC-IC-723 COMMENT: FW-ll-RW Clarify heat number.

YAl HtfA k RESPONSES TO SUS 36-1 PAGE 5 ITEM: CC-IC-723 (Continued)

J RESPONSE: FW-ll-RW Heat number 'is JE2836 to DRAVO.

COMMENT: W-12-RW Clarify heat number, RE'SPONSE: W-12-RW Heat number is JE2836 to DRAVO.

COMMENT: SW-2,4,6 & 8 - Heat number is not recorded on Bill of Material.

RESPONSE: SW-2,4,6 & 8 - Heat numbers JE2836 & 118471 were added to the B.O.M.

by T&B.

COMMENT: SW Clarify heat number. '

RESPONSE: SW heat number is JE2836 to P585.

CORRECTIVE JCTION TO PRECLUDE REPETITION:

Ebasco QAIRG and T&B Piping Review Personnel have and will continue to receive in-process training as new review criteria is identified. The findings identified by LP&L are used as an element in the in-process training. Additionally, during the daily review. process as new elements are discovered, they are discussed and resolved ca.a group.

Additional corrective. action taken was to request that T&B develop a Records Review Instruction for their internal use. This instruction has been developed and approved by T&B and is presently being utilized. For further information on T&B's corrective tction, see attached T&B letter QA-ll41.

Ebasco is presently establishing an additional review group to perform the final re-view and acceptance of the T&B documentation. This final review group will start functioning during the month of January,1983.

e e

~-

y --e7 y c r Wt- m- - ---- -- -

r'7*-- - - - - - - - - - - -

-m -

3 s- .

kl.Lif.1an b u?SonNSES TO LPti, covsTPUCTIGN nA t'nwE"TS STATUS REVIEW SUS 36-3 Rev. O STATUS REVIEW PIPING (T&B)

ITEM: CC-IC-811 COMMENT: FW Need CMTR for HB2122 and Ht. Code #49 .

RESPONSE: FW10 - CMTR is in file for HB2122 #49 was identified on 9.2 by OAIRG.

OMMENT: SW Need CMTR HB2122 RESPONSE: SW CMTR is in file for HB2122

' COMMENT: SW24 - Need CMTR HB2122 RESPONSE: SW CMTR is in file for HB2122 COMMENT: SW Need CMTR HB2122 ESPONSE: SW CMTR is in file for HB2122 ,

COMMENT: SW26 - Need CMTR HB2122 ESPONSE: SW CMTR is in file for HB2122 ITEM: CC-IC-750 COMMENT: SW il R Need CMTR for 134801 .i RESPONSE: SW-11 R CMTR now in file (Heat number changes made on weld record after closure review) ,

COMMENT: SW-9 R Need CMTR for 134801 '

RESPONSE: SW-9 R CMTR now in file (Heat number changes made..on weld record .

after closure review) !

ITEM: CC-IC-755

COMMENT: SW1 - Need CMTR for 118471 RESPONSE: SW1 - CMTR is now in file

COMMENT: SW Need Component I.D. ,

RESPONSE: SW Not required to be on this fore COMMENT- SW 3 - Need CMTR for 118471 and P.T. report RESPONSE: SW3 - CMTR is now in file / original P.T. was never performed. The correct weld status is SW-3 R1 and P.T. is in file.

COMMENT: SW Need CMTR for 118471 and P.T. report ,

RESPONSE: SW4 - CMTR is new in file / original P.T. was never performed.I The' correct '

weld status is SW-4 R1 and P.T. is in file. '

. COMMENT: W Need CMTR for 118471 -

RESPONSE: FW CMTR is now in file.

.. .- . -. .- . .- ~. . . - _ _ _ _

_ J

1

& - . . - . _ .. ._ ._ __ _ _ _ . . _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . [ __ d( ,M ,-[ ,

i

.was v..s s .v s m.. . . . . . . . .:. 35-3 ?.cv. 0 -

PAGE 2 ITEM: CC IC-755 (cont.)

COMMENT: N 7 - Need CMTR for 118471 ,

ESPONSE: FW'7 - CMTR is now in file COMMENT: W-U - Need CMTR for 86A14 -

RESPONSE: W 86Al-4 is a Dravo spool number not a heat number COMMENT: W Need CMTR for Hanger Material ESPONSE: % 9 - Identified on 9.2 by QAIRG _

ITEM: CC-IC-233 COMMENT: W Need new FV. af ter veld ground and P.T. accepted.

- Cyf0 jppo-Q SPONSE: W-8 ......r.... .. _ _ .mmm.m m em .m._ mani finel limma-h-AIEw FwnL ViJum. PCAFo4me0. MF. .SantietLMcE REMT CATED o2-M-S/. '

ITEM: CC-IC-253 C09 TENT: W Component I.D. incorrect ESPONSE: W Component I.D. is correct as documented. .

s'-

ITEM: CC-IC-741 COMMENT: Need latest isomatic Hydro test data sheet not complete or signed RESPONSE: The latest ISO.vascingfile at QAIRG closure review ,

Hydro test data is not required in traveler package

~

ITEM: CC-IC-714 j COMMENT: W-8 --Need CMTR for 79932 4.

RESPONSE: %8 -Identified on the 9.2 by QAIRG COMMENT: W- Need CMTR for 79932 .

RESPONSE: Identified on the 9.2 by QAIRG ITEM: CC-IC-709 4 COMMENT: % d - Wrong component number '; -

RESPONSE: W Component I.D. is correct as documented M

ITEM: CC-IC-776 -

COMMENT: , W Need CMTR 79932 PONSE: W Identified on the 9.2 by QAIRG

cn 2 1.L. _.~~ ~._.. .

kl M&fkh RESPONSES TO STATUS REVIEW SUS 36-3 Rev. 0 .

PAGE 3 I' REM: CC-IC-776 (cont.)

COMMENT: N S - Need CMTR 79932 SPONSE: N 5 - Identified on the 9.2 by QAIRG COMMENT: FW deed CMTR for 75, .

RESPONSE: 'FW-6 + Identified on the 9.2 by QAIRG COMMENT: FW Need CMTR for 75 RESPONSE: FW Identified on the 9.2 by-QAIRG ITEM: CC-IC-731_ -

COMMENT: SW Need CMTR for JE-2836 and EU57

/

SPONSE: SW Went to a RW l status and CMTR's are in file COMMENT: FW Need component I.D. and CMTR for Hanger Material RESPONSE: %16 - Component I.D. has been enterred and CMTR's were identified on the 9.2 by QAIRG ,

COMMENT: N17 - Need ebmponent I.D. and CMTR for Hanger Material If p?

RESPONSE: FW Component I.D. has been enterred and CMTR's were identified on I the 9.2 by QAIRG -

COMMENT: N 14 - Need Component I.D.

ESPONSE: FW Component I.D. is correct as documented COMMENT: %4- Need Component I.D. .

SPONSE: FW Component I.D. is correct as documented COMMENT: FW Need Component I.D.

RESPONSE: FW Component I.D. is correct as documented -

ITEM: LW-3-CC-48 ,

COMMENT: N 2 - Clarify F.V.; unreadable :

RESPONSE: FW Final Visual is 1/19/81 COMMENT: FW Shown on iso but no FCR-MP-219 reflecting change or weld record ,

RESPONSE: FW-8 *This is not required to be on weld' record -

COMMENT: FN Shown on iso but no FCR-MP-219 reflecting change or weld record RESPONSE: FW-9 *This is not required to be on weld record .

~

FCR-MP-219 is a generic for utilized for redlining iso's .

fyQg3

[EESPONSESTOSTATUSREVIEWSUS36-3Rev.0 .

PAGE 4 ITEM: LW3-CC-31 COMMENT: FW Need fittirig I.D.

SPONSE: FW Dravo was enterred

[ -

COMMENT: SW-9, RW Neeed fitting code clari,fied ESPONSE: SW-9, RW T456 C0" MENT: SW-ll, RW Need CMTR WJB4 kESPONSE: SW-11, RW B4 is correct number and CMTR is in file COMMENT: SW-12, RW Need CMTR WJB4 t-kESPONSE: SW-12, RW B4 is correct number and CMTR is in file COMMENT: SW-20, RW Clarify Heat Code RESPONSE: SW-20, RW B4 -

COMMENT! SW-21 - Need CMTR WJB4 SPONSE: SW-21 - B4 is correct numbsr and CMTR is in file ITEM: QMC-CC-P15E J; i

g COMMENT: FW Need weld size i PONSE: FW Weld size was indicated on weld recorf COMMENT: N 3 - Need weld size, no fit-up inspection, no welder symbol.

Latest iso. missing SPONSE: FW Weld size was indicated on weld record, fit-up inspection is not ,

\ required. Walder I.D. symbol has been enterred l ITEM: QMC-CC-P19E ~

l ,

COMMENT: Traveler Erection Sheet i ANI Hold on Rev. 1 not transferred to Rev. 2 -

l ,

1 ESPONSE: Traveler Erection - ANI reviews each revision prior to issuance and establishes his hold points ,

[ --

COMMENT: FW Need weld size RESPONSE: % 2 - Weld size was indicated on weld record . <

l l

COMMENT: % 3 - Need weld size and no fit-up inspection done

?,

i RESPONSE: N 3 - Weld size was indicated cn weld record Fit-up inspection is not required .

l

}

i

':n::: ..

~ ~

. ... _ . .. . . . . .. .. . .fhd&fg h }75 g'

RESPOMSES TO STATUS REVIEW SUS 36-3 Rev. 0

~

PAGE 5 ITEM: QMC-CC-P19E (cont.)

-COMMENT: FW No pipe I.D.

SPONSE:- N 8 - Vendor was enterred * -

COMMENT: FW No pipe I.D. .

RESPONSE: FW Vendor was enterred ITEM: LW3-CC-17 COMMENT: Need clarification on DN3733 _

ESPONSE: DN-3733 is a RP&tcAOGO 7 y eSU~,nd yas identified on 9.2 by QAIRGb D + E&tScc ac w3 g 'j$*M.f 434ya 3

(_4.cJ20 g

W Need CMTR BU73 RESPONSE: N 3 - Heat number BU73 is not the correct heat no. for this weld COMMENI: SW-25, RW Need CMTR L63349 SPONSE: SW-25, RW CMTR is not in file (This was identified on review no. 1 and verified on review no. 2 as being in file) 1 COMMENI: SW-26, RW Need CMTR L63349~ 'e

. SPONSE: SW-26, RW CMTR is now in file (This was identified on review no.1 and verified on review no. 2 as being in file)

ITEM: LW3-CC-12

/

COMMENT: FW-2, RW Need CMTR JA4935 & P144 RESPONSE: N 2, RW CMTR is now in file

~

COMMENT: FW-9 - Need CMTR W11231 hSPONSE: N9 - This is not the correct heat no. for this veld #

COMMENT:, N5 - Need CMTR Wil231 RESPONSE: N S- - Identified on the 9.2 by QAIRG COMMENT: FW-6 - Need CMTR for 60 RESPONSE: FW-6 - Identified on the 9.2 by QAIRG .

n ,

COMMENT: FW-7 - Need CMTR for 28 7 RESPONSE: N7

- Identified on the 9.2 by QAIRG .,

COMMENT: FW-8 - Need CMTR for 298 RESPONSE: N 8- - Identified on the 9.2 by QAIRG I

i

. - - - . - ~ - - - - . . - ._ . j

RESPONSES TO STATUS REVIEW SUS 36-3 Rev. 0 FaGI 6 ITEM: LW3-CC-12 (cont.)

COMMENT: FV Need CMTR for 298 RESPONSE: W Identified on the 9.2 by QAIRG COMMENT: W Need CMTR for 298 .

[ RESPONSE: W Identified on the 9.2 by QAIRG '

COMMENT: W-ll - Need CMTR for 298 RESPONSE: W-ll - Identified on the 9.2 by QAIRG COMMENT: SW5 - Need component I.D. ,

RESPONSE: SW Not required to be on this form COMMENT: SW10, .RW Need CMTR P144 ..

RESPONSE: SW10, RW CMTR is. now in . file COMMENT: SW il, RW 2 - Need CMTR JA4935 RESPONSE: SWil, RW CMTR is now in file ?

COMMENT: SW No weld record '~

RESPONSE: SW12 - Weld record was received in vault 9/28/82 COMMENT: SW Need component I.D.

RESPONSE: SW13 - Not required to be on this form COMMENT: ~ SW Need component I.D.

RESPONSE: SW Not required to be on this form COMMENT: SW19 - Need component I.D.

[ RESPONSE: SW19 - Not required to be on this form COMMENT: SW 20 - Need component I.D. '

RESPONSE: SW20 - Not required to be on this form COMMENT: SW Need component I.D.

RESPONSE: SW Not required to be on this form SW27, RW Need CMTR W COMMENT:

RESPONSE: SW27, RW CMTR is now in file .

C0! MENT: SW28 - Need CMTR W RESPONSE: SW28 - CMTR is now in file ,

9

.. ...... .. . n . . . . . .. . . _ .. i

-r - -

K

- , . .a - ..'. . _ _ _. _

9'S?ANSES TO STATUS ret'IEW SUS 3A-3 Rev. 0 .

.-NiLIQ0i?N VERIFICATION

- PACE 7

< ITEM: LW3-CC-12 ,

COMMENT: Fd-2,RW-2-IdentifiedasweldI.D.SW-3,RW-2onpipeperwalkdown ~

.DRESPONSE: FW-2, RW Corrective action pending .

CO W.ENT: .SW Fillet Weld 1/4" from reducer to pipe -

RESPONSE: SW Corrective action pending COMMENT: SW Fillet Weld' 1/4". front pipe to tee MESPONES: SW Corrective action pending ~

' COMMENT: SW-10, RW Fillet k' eld 1/4" at top of elbow.

4 RESPONSE: SW-10, RW 1 - Corrective action pending ,

COMMENT: SW Fillet Weld 1/4" at bottom of elbow

, ifRE3PONSE: SW Corrective action pending g NCR 5740 svRITTE^) MQ ct oSEC. "Lu VOCEQ CCOE CASF N'3II

~~

,x t .3&

t-

-y m - m-a m W

s" e'

d e

se k

~

b s

J

?

';. -~s., -

.,.7_._ _,

x- --. . -.-.-. .- ... .- .. _ . ... - ._h t}W f5

, - 'o RESPONSES TO LP&L CONSTRUCTION OA COMMENTS .

STATUS REVIEW SUS 36-3 Rev. O { GroLF)

, STATUS REXIEW MECHANICAL /LP&L Document Number or Identification P5-311 COMMENTS: CMTR's for added' material not included with - -

this traveler. Also the CMTR's have not been rev.iewed by Ebasco QA.

Note: This condition was brought to the attention of all responsible individuals, however not in writing.

See attached - Item 2.

RESPONSE: SUS 36-3 Rev. O has had the CMTR's added -'

to the traveler packages and they have '

been reviewed and accepted by Ebasco QA.

- );

e p

e e

e O

e s

e e

4

^ * : _, '_, - - - . _ _ _ _ - - . .-

'T** '

': ~

@lbUd hk LP!.L CO::Si RCCT'ON 0.\ C.):r;ESTS 3 A si S ruX : h' t.t S 39 (6dLF)

SIAiUS nrxitW .r t.u.i.; I t:.iL/ L e!. L D.>cunc n t Nu:..be r or Id. at i fica r ica P5-934 thru P5-937 C0:: MENT: . Integrity tests not performed of this piping (Class 3) nor is it listed as an exception by Culf.

RESPONSE: Hydro Tests are not listed as ecoptions COFD!ENT: No C)1rR's for material used.

RESPONSE: CMTR's for added welded items are now with _

Travelers.

General COSC4ENT: Traveler numbers P5-1031 and P5-1034 have not been reviewed by Ebasco.

RESPONSE: TravelersP5-1031$ndP5-1034wereissuedafter review was completed. P5-1031 was voided 1-12-83, P5-1034 generated CIh'A .ind has been reviewed and accepted. Both Travelers have had 9.l's generated and are with package.

E a

'es 09 1

I 1 .

t 84 /-3 RESPONSES TO LP&L CONSTRUCTION QA COMMENTS STATUS REVIEW SUS 433 STATUS REVIEW PIPING (T&B)

ITEM: AC-IC-1257 COMMENT: FN-1,- Need CMTR for M4077 and JPPM RESPONSE: FW CMTR's are now in file C0301ENT: FW Need CMTR for JPP>'

RESPONSE: FW CMTR is now in file ___

COMMENT: FW PT 9163 has 3" fillet weld, but weld is ful] penetration RESPONSE: FW Sent to GEO for correction COMMENT: FW-4 RW PT 11207 has 3" fillet weld, but weld is full penetration RESPONSE: FW-4 RW Sent to GEO for correction ColSIEhT: FW-5 RW PT 11207 has 3" fillet veld, but weld is full penetration

, RESPONSE: FW-5 RW Scnt to GEO for correction COMMENT: FW PT 9163 has 3" fillet veld but weld is full penetration. Need CMTR for M2718 _

RESPONSE: W Sent to GEO for correction /M2718 is an acceptable Dravo hea: number C030fENT: FW PT 9163 has 3" fillet weld but weld is full penetration. Need CMTR for M2718

^ ~IIESP0lfSE: 'FW Sent to GEO for correction /M2718 is an acceptable Dravo heat number CO)DIENT: FW PT 9163 has 3" fillet weld but veld is full penetration RESPONS'E: W Sent to GEO for correction COMMENT: FW PT 9163 has 3" fillet veld but weld is full penetration RESPONSE: FW Sent to GEO for correction C01DiENT: F9 PT 9214 has 3" fillet weld but weld is full penetration RESPONSE: FW Sent to GEO for correction C0301ENT: FW FW-13 or FW-14 RW-1 has the wrong heat number for the 3" S/40 45 degrees Ell RESPONSE: FW FW-14 RU-l now reflects correct heat nunber FW-14 RW Need CMTR for M4077 C0FDIENT:

RESPONSE: FW-14 RW CMTR is now in file

kh&g4g j-5 RESPONSES T0 STATUS REVIEW 43B

-PAGE 2 ITEM: AC-IC-1257 (cont. ) I r

. COMMENT: FW-15' F.-14 RW-l' or FW-15 has the wrong heat number for the 3" S/40 pipe

. RESPONSE: FW FW-14 RW-1 now rdflects correct heat number COMMENT: FW FW-16 or FW-17 has the wrong heat number. Need CMTR for M4077 RESPONSE: FW FW-16 now reflects correcr heat number /ClfIR.is now in file .

COMMENT: FW Need CMTR for M4077 RESPONSE: -FW CMTR'is now in file COMMENT: FW Need CMTR for 116 RESPONSE: FW Identified on closure review by QAIRG COMMENT: FW Need CMTR for-116

, RESPONSE: FW Identifie'd on closure review by QAIRG ITEM: LW3-AC-93 COMMENT: SW2 RW2 -: Clarify. welder symbol Need CMTR for 3ASA ,

d FCR-MP-219_not in package

. RESPONSE: SW-2 RW Welder symbol is 152 ,

3ASA is the component identification for a vendor supplied spool piece FCR-MP-219 is in file. However it is a generic FCR utilized for redlining iso's o

a W

e o

e

,y-mnmMg1 * .e ve w rer v- ryyM--I m- *- -" '-- W

I l

. __ _ _ - ._ . - _. k Mu,k. ~ .5 a

LP&L CONS RUCTION QA COMMENTS SUS 46B9 MERCURY ITEM NO: OCR 1311 COMMENT: Material ver.ification for= 198.1-1 and weld data sheet 197.3 show different heat numbers for 1/2" X 0.065" v'all stainless tubing between FW-31A (404018) and FW-32 (09011)on the high pressure itne.

RESPONSE: This item was added to the Ebasco review def.

report as an open item and subsequently closed out durirg systes reverification.

COMMENT: Material verification Form 198.1-1 shows dii-ferent heat numbers between FW-31 (09011) and FW-32 (09648) on the low pressure line.

RESPONSE: This item was added to the Ebasco review deficiency report as a.n open item and sub-sequently closed out during system verification.

COMMENT: Compr'ession fittings used on low pressure line of both instruments not identified on 198.1-1 form.

RESPONSE: This 4eem was added to the Ebasco review deficiency report as an open item and sub-sequently closed out during system reverification.

COMMENT: Many final weld inspection sign-offs on 197 forms for both instruments run off page on right side.

RESPONSE: This item was added to the Ebasco review def.

report as an open item and subsequently closed out during system reverification.

COMMENT: 262-1, 277A, 262A-1 and 277 for=s not in package.

Hangers, supports, expansion anchors, tube tracks, and instrument installation inspections not "'

listed as exceptions.

RESPONSE: All itema listed above do not need to be listed

as exceptions since all are in process of review.

This OCR package as it was reviewed contains tubing documentation only.

ITEM NO: OCR 1111 CONMENT: Compression fittings are installed at both trans-mitters (BOM 39) 276-1 form and 208-1 form show

" Compression Fitting Installation" as not applicable.

RESPONSE: This item was added to the Ebasco review def. I report as an open item and subsequently closed out during system reverification.

~

Cct t) % k-b

~' 'LP&L Construction Co==tn:s SUS 46B9 - Mercury Page 2

~

ITEM NO: 'OCR 1111 COMMENT: For DPT-HV-5067 ES cannot deter =ine velder

, on FW-17 of weld da:a shee:. ,

RESPONSE: This ites was added to the Ebasco review def, report as an open ite= and subsequently closed out during, system reverification.

COMMENT: 262-1, 277A, 277, cnd 262A-1 for=s no: in package.

Mangers, supports, expansion anchors, tube track, and instruman: installation inspections no:

listed as exceptions.

RESPONSE: All items listed above do not need to be listed as exceptions since each now is in process of review. This CCR package as i: was reviewed contains tubing docu=entation only.

ITEM NO: OCR 1194 COMMENT: 197-1 FW-10 Weld size written in pencil.

RESPONSE: This item was added to the Ebasco review def.

report as an open item and susequently closed out during system reverification.

COMMENT: 262-1, 277, 277A, and 262A-1 forms not in package.

Rangers, supports, expansion anchors, tube-track, and instrument installations not listed as excep-tions.

REPONSE: All items listed above do not need to be listed

. as exceptions since each now is in review. This OCR package as it was reviewed contains-tubing -

documentation only.

, k & k u~cs $ k - 3

.. ,m T.~0. DES TO LP5L CONSTRUCT *0tt QA CC:"k.aTS STATUS RE'/IE'4 SUS 25-C ,

STl.T"S RE'!!E'l SIP!30 (T:3)

c. I

' ITE1: HYPI-PIO-E I l

CD:r' cit: !!CR-W3-2970 !!ot in package RESP 0ttSE: liCR-W3-2970 t:CR's are not required in the traveler package.

- C0:04EllT: Traveler Erection Sheet - AtlI hold not signed RESP 0ttSE: Traveler Erection Sheet - Identified by QAIRG during closure review.,, ,

l l

CC c4E!iT: Hydro Test Sheet - ??ot in package ~

' RESPONSE: ifydro Test Sheet "ot required in the traveler package. - l CO:i4EllT: FW-1 ileed CifiR for C7908 and 88468 . .

RESP 0:lSE: R!-1 Heat numbers are part of the vendor supplies penetration assembly. !

C0%4EtiT: FM-2 No welder symbol, no pipe fitting or filler.cetal heat i, no' fit up l

signature. -

RESP 0:;SE: PI-2 tio walder symbol and material traceability identified by QAIRG. Fi t up inspection'not required.

I CCiciEtiT: - P.1-3 PWHT record iASME-3 -

0! RESPC: SE: R!-3 PWHT record iASME- is in file.

C0;"4EliT: RJ-4 PWHT record iASME-4

! RESP 0"SE: FM-4 PWHT record !ASME-4 is in f.ile.

C0!O4ENT: R!-4A PT 1375 indicates 4 in2 of weld was inspected. The weld is on a 48" dia, pipe. FW was done on 1-29-79. MT was dene on 2-22-79 and rejected.

2nd MT was done on 2-26-79 and accepted but a new FV is needed af ter 2-25-79.

. ._ Need repair record for 4A.

l RESP 0"SE: P.!-4A PT 1375 deficiency was identified by QAIRG during closure review. MT performed on 2-22-79 was for FN-4 and was accepted. Open DN-W-5589 addressess t

the repair , record for 4A.

CO:CiENT: R!-5 I eed CMTR for 117542.-

RESPONSE: R1-5 CMTR is in file .

e 6

> s r -

-Q). ,

e-

.e

\ 4- r. ;.- ; --.-.,..c- n :.- :...: y -- ,- . ~:.--

. ;,..-- m =o .- , . . . , - - - - -

v M Ac[nAd N-3

\a t.

'M:S??:tSES TO STATUS REVIEN SUS 4S-C

.. PAGE,2 *

[ ,ITE:1: HYPI-PIO-C cent.

C0K4E!!T: PJ-6 i:ced C:TiR for 0954 RESPC;iSE: P,1-6 ClGR is in file.

COP'tEriT: RI-7 tieed CT4TR for 024450 and'C9S4 RESP 0iSE: P.!-7 C fTP.s are in file.

. CCP. iEitT: PJ-10 !!eed C!UR for HB2122 and EU-S7 -

RESPCriSE: Pd-10 C:iTRs are in file. .

CC:' tEtiT: Pd-11 t!eed C:47R for HB2122 RESP 0liSE: Bl-11 Ci47 is in file CC104EtiT: PJ-12 lised Cl!TR for HB2122 ,- -- - -

RESP 0:iSE: Rl-12 C!UR is in file -

CC!*/tEIIT: R!-13 tiead CiTR for D24450 and H5320 RESPO?iSE: RI-13 C!!TR for D244SO is in file. HS320 is part of vendor supplied'.e.

penetration assembly.

. (-s CC;01EtiT: P4-9 !!eed C!ER for BU-S7 '

RESP 0;iSE: PJ-9 C:UR is in file.

C0:4:4E!iT: FW-A tieed t, eld I. D. record and. location. -

RESP 0ilSE:-R!-A Identified by QAIRG during closure review.

- CO?.'4EiiT: F'J-B ?!eed weld I. D. record and location RESPGtSE: Bl-BIdentifiedbyQAIRGduringcicsurdreview. , .

CC:'.'iEllT: R!-1-A tieed weld I. D. record and iccation .

[

RESPO!;SE: Pd-1-A Identified by QAIRG during closure review. '

CC tiEliT: R!-1-B !!eed veld I. D. record and lccatien ; .

-RESPO!iSE: Pef-1-B Identified by QAIRG during diosure r'eview[ _ j

~'

CCP.*E?iT: Sleevewelds-?ieedweldI.D.recorda61ocatfEn s RESPO!;SE: Slesve welds-Identifieg per FCP.-ti?-198.

y _

s . A

+ +

, ,f 'q

~'

, _., 4 3 ~ ~ . . g.- . . ~- ~ .~ -- : y :, -

- s .v;- :: ~ v x n ,- i3- , . u. . . p :c~,

-k -- E - -- * ~~ ~ ' ' .'hf. ~:-- -'~.--e~-

x.. . - . . ., ., . .m

I . '.. .n. .

Abdau+d A-s RESTO';EES TO STATUS R: VIEW sus ES-C T.".'it 3

, . _I TE.:': 1.'43- AC-9 5 CC.".:/.d:iT: Hydro test sheets-l'ot in pr.Ckage

. P.ESPO::SE: Hydr test sheets-Hydro test data act required in traveler packhge.

ITEit: AC-IC-1259_ .

CO:1:4EliT: Hydro test sheets-not in package RESPCliSE: Hydro tes.t.. sheets-Hydro test data not required in traveler package.

CC ':iEtiT: FCR-ti?-219 - !!ot in package RESP 0:tSE: FCP.-MP-219 is a generic FCR governing TL3 redlines. tiot required in traveiar package. -

C0t"tE*tT: FW-1 Need CMTR for M2718 RESPO!;SE: RI '.2718 is an acceptable dravo heat nu Ser.

0' 4

.-%, . s

. . . - . . - .a .v .. ,- - . ; n .- . . . -:..--..--.-

...v-m.-.

. - - ---...:-...- - ~ : ..--

1

[ h cd/ g-5

e. ..

'i.ndd.*:5ES' TO STAT J* S F.. VIE'.I SUS 45-C

.t JJ AtiE 4 !!/,LK'JC'.i.T VERIFICATIO.'t

[ ITEM: 17C-IC-1259-

~

. CC:TIlli:- AC-IC-12S9 - ilo heat i or I.D. cn 45 elbow.

RESPG::SE: ~ Heat r.::i.fber of 4S elbow hcs been verified as JLSZ in the field QA inspection. See attached wafkdown verification.

P.!-1 and PJ !!o spool I. D.

CC:'ME!iT: -

J:i:SP0llSE: P.!-1 and Pd-6 'no spool I.D. 'is required.' Spools wcre modified per FCR-MP-1686 Ris See attached tialkdcwn verification for verificatica of heat number M2718.

Heat numbers JLSZ and !42718 are from modified Dravo spools. Ref. Dravo spool sketches E2804. SKS732, and 6733. .

~

- (m. < ,

1

\

I.l" , Q 3 ,.w. -lA '

j ..O~ (l .

~ ,,, , (

~. % '

,W

.. a _

~

f..

rdSPOSESJTO LP&L CONSTRUCTION QA COMtEkTS J ~

~

[n . STATUS REVIEW SUS 53A v -

,,,t% ): PI?ING (TOMPKINS-BECKWITH) ,

' ' ~

L ITEM NO. LW3-CH-lL C ' * "

w . ?- -

, \,

COMMENT: N-lR1 - lj 9ee(, CMTPNfor 462340' ' d

2)liNeed Cdde?Daid Report for volve 3)- ' ANI hoid byrItseed p *f 5r Fit-up r X- 6, ,

". RESPONSE: IW- R1 - 1) Heat nueloe.r corredted to 462349 and thcTCMT?.,is in file.

2) Valve is shown.cn ISO as arhference Vilve~dnly. Code

C;; ' Data Reportifor the valvd should be found in LW3-CH-16.

3) There is not-2+ANI hold p'oint for' FW1 Sr WlR1 on. the i

, revisions that Abelweld was dohuecated to. .

s .

.s COMMENT: W-4RW1.A1) Ht.#A2532 is a flange heat # bt[c tC,e arawingiindicates a valve. C

, 2) No Code Data Report for valveI~7 '

3)_ ANI-hold by-passid.for Fit-up on W-4, s

' s~

s ,.

s RESPONSE: W-4RWl; 1) Meld Record is now corrected to reflect the' valve number.

'.2). Valve is sh_own on IS0;as a reference valve only. Code Data Report for thg valve should be found in B2f-IC-621.

% 3) " There 1s .not an ANI hold point for W4RW1 on' che revision

.fhe vels was'documenced to. w

_- g .

.x -

COMMENT: FW-6RW-1 Need CMTR fot 42679'" ' s _

Lx -

m f ,

RESPONSE: W-6RW-1 Heat numb' e r coryocted to ,461079, and the CMTR is in the file.

2. , t W-7R1 - Need Code Data % port for val-7e. '

t COMMENT:

7 RESPONSE: W-7Rl'- Valve' is shown on ISO as a reference valve only. Cods Data

, Report for the valve should be foiuid in' LW3-CH-16.

COMMENT: W-9 - Need heat # for lug i RESPONSE: W-9E - Code 6 umber 54 is recorded on Welh Record.

( ,

s .

COMMENT: W-10 Need heat #, for lug RESPONSE: . W-10 -CoddNumber54isrecordedonWeldlibcArd. ,

COMMENT: W Need CMTR for 462244 -

RESPONSE: FW-13 's'- CMTR is now in f*ile.

, ~

COMMENT: SWl-RWIJNopIpe. heat #and"Uti#54isnot[theHt. # for a Tee RESPONSE: SW1-RWS- i3W--l has not 'gone to a reweld status an'd does not 'we'id to a . teel , The cortect weld I.D. - is SWlRl' and it 1s ~ a pipe to albow.

^

Pipe and elbow heat numbers are documented per traveler bill of material'and cann bc verified through the walkdown ISO.

a

f thyd A -S RESPONSES TO LP&L CONSTRUCTION QA C0KdENTS - SUS 53A TOMPKINS-BECKWITH PAGE 2 ITEM NO. LW3-CH-17 (Continued)

' COMMENT: SW11RW1 - Ht. #54 is not the Ht. # for a Tee RESPONSE: SWilRW1 - Tee heat number is documented as VAE per traveler BOM.

(. There is no documented evidence in traveler to indicate that the heat number is 54.

.. COMMENT: SW18 - Flange Ht. # is not legible A_532 RESPONSE: SW18 - Flange heat number is now legible and is documented as A2532.

COMMENT: SW19 - Flange Ht. number is not legible A 2532 RESPONSE: SW19.- Flange heat number is-now legible and is documented as A2532. -

ITEM NO. CH-IC-318 -

1 COMMENT: SWlRW1 - Need Code Data Report for valve RESPONSE: SWlRW1 - Code Data Report is now in file.

COMMENT: SW2R1 - A copy of the PT _ report attached to the DN needs to be put with the weld record' sheet. ,

RESPONSE: SW2R1 - A copy of the PT report is now attached to the Weld Record Sheet.

COMMENT: SW3R1 - A copy of the PT report attached to the DN needs to be put

.with the weld record sheet.

RESPONSE: SW3R1 - A copy of the PT report is now attached to the weld record sheet.

ITEM NO. LW3-44 !

COMMENT: SW Need Code Data Peport for valve RESPONSE: SW Code Data Report is now in file.

ITEM NO. CH-IC-131 COMMENT: FW-ll-R-l' & SW-4-R PT Report needs to be corrected for pipe size.

Get copy and put with Weld Record Sheet. PT is attached to D.N.

RESPONSE: (/, & SW-4-R PT report has been corrected and a copy has

. W-ll-R-1 !

been placed with the weld record sheet, f

_ , .._.. , ~ ._._

CtNiwwk b~3 i l

RESPONSES TO LPIL CONSTRUCTION QA C01DIENTS

( EE FA)

~~

STATUS REVIEN SUS 53A EBASCO FORCE ACCOUNT ITEM NO. 1 COMMENT: Open Items Section A, C, D, E and F ,

All of the open items in this listing on Summary Sheet do not have any s documentation as to description of action required to close out item. D,

' RESPONSE: These items are open items per the MTS Report; no documentation has h-h been generated on these items, therefore, no description of closure R/ -

can be given at this time.

ITEM NO. 2 C0FSIENT: Open items on Section G and H are not complete. Package includes five (5) open CIWA's, one (1) open service. form. Of 22 total CIWA's and Service Forms listed, only two (2) are closed without deficiencies. 4'

' RESPONSE: Open items in Section G and H are listed because they are considered 3 0'i hardware deficiencies. Not all packages are listed on this summary gt due to not being considered hardware deficiencies. cJ) ,

ITEM NO. 3 COMMENT: First QAI 9.1A in package described an inspection package of 35 sheets of WQC 7-1 sheets and termination worksheets. This package was sent back to EBFA on 9-10-82 for resolution of deficiencies. This package now in Ebasco QA contains three (3) terminations worksheets and one

- ---(l')-WQC- 7-1. Where is the remaining documentation?

RESPONSE

This package is still being tracked open; construction has not re p solved these deficiencies yet. 4 Om SO f. 'i-O f

, - - , , , . , - . , , , . , . , - - - - - - . - < a - -r --

h 0L lidst j' k"3 RESPONSES 'IO LP&L C'#C'lY ASS'MCT C:lICIS S'DRIUp SYSTEM 59 CONIRACT W3-NY-15 ACIIVITY: I&C (MERCURY CD.)

a IT!24 1: OCR-662 c m Et7r: '

Ibrm 262-1 for support 662-28 shows that support was installed by welding.

However, Fom 277A is included showing that the support was installad using expansion anchors.

Also Frat 262-1 shows that Support 662-28 is a 000-H-00BN while the 277A for Hanger 662-28 shows that it is a 000-H-017N.

RESPO!EE:

'Ihe above cx:mnent has been dorme*ad cm a Mercury Discrepancy Notifi-cation dated 10/15/82 (See attached copy) . A supplernental respcmse will -

be provided to IP&L after the IN has been satisfactorily closed.

ITEM 2:

CCM4ENT:

03 Form 110 shows 2 revisicn 4's. One dated 10/21/81 and one dated 4/16/82.

RESPONSE

Revision 5 added to 0m 662 on 5/19/82, wecuisd the problern by explaining that Rev. 4 dated 10/21/81 was never issued. Rev. 4 dated 4/16/82 was sent Eo OA'for review and to the field.

I'IEM 3:

CDNENT:

Iscznetric drawing 167-T-041A shows support 662-23 is a type 000-H-036N.

Form 262-1 for support 662-23 references 2 supgLs - OCR 691 - 4 and OCR 691-21 for fabrication of 662-23. However, OCR 691 supports are type 000-H-018N.

RESPQtEE:

'Ihe above ccmnent has been cbcunented cn a Mercury Co. 's QC Nonconformance l Rep 3rt # 1182, on 10-15-82. After the satisfactory closure of the Noncon-l formance Report, a respcnse will be given to Lp&L Cb. (See attached NCR

1182).

l I'IIM 4:

[ CQ EENT: .

Support 662-22 (Type 000-H-36N) was fabricated frcm bulk fab material

OCR 655-73 and OCR 690-14. The 690-14 shows fabrication welding of the 690 flange to the 655 plate by waldar- M-39. However, the 262-1 form for support 662-22 shows fabricaticn welding also by welder M-72.

RESpOtEE:

'Ihe IP&L cmment has been docanented in a Discrepancy Notice dated 10/15/82 (See attached copy of the IN) . A response will be given to Lp&L after satis-factory closure of the DN.

(

- , rn. . , , . - .

- e .. n. ~

P' 9

akk#Wu b ESASC3 CNETIS ITEN 5:

CCMENT: Support 662-20R was reworked. The fabrication block shows rework information dated 11/20/81. However, the irstallation signoff was not updated - shows original signoff of 9/29/81. 277A fem shows expansion anchor installation accepted 4/12/82.

RESPomE:

Support 662-20R was originally instal ed on 9/29/81. Form.262-1 installation block was verified by pat Harcourt on 4/12/82, at the time of reinstallaticn. Rework fabrication was perfomed on 11/20/81.

Fem 277A is for the hanger reirstallation after rework. Original installation mllad for 3/8" HILTI exparsion anchors. Rework was Inquired per NCR-W3-2333 and the anchor bolts were revised to 1/2" HILTI. (See attached Ibrm 211 QC Report) .

ITEM 6:

CC M e 7P:

Support 662-26R was reworked on 11/17/81. 277A Pom shows exparsion anchor insr allation was accepted 3/6/82. Fo ever, firal acceptance of support installation is dated 7/2/80.

P N ONSE: Support 662-26R was irstall-d on 7/2/80, and fabrication rework was on 11/17/81. However due to NCR-W3-2333, the hanger required 1/2" HILTE expansion anders instead of 3/8" HILTI as used originally.

Reinstallation was verified en 3/6/82. (See attached Form 211 QC Report) . '

TID 4 1: OCR-5?.3 __-

CONENT: Iscmetric drawing 163'IOl3A revision 3 dated 4/12/82 shows support 523-36 as a type 000-H-018N. 'Ihe 262-1 Form for support 523-36 shows it as a f.ype 000-H-002N. '

! RESPONSE:

Support 523-36, documentaticn Ebrm 262-1 has been updated since 5/26/82 and changed this to 000-H-018N. Field verification also shows the l suppcet to be type 000-H-018N as instal'M.

1 TID 4 2: .

CDf4ENT:

OCR 523 Form 110 shows 2 Revision 4's - one dated 10/22/81 and one dated 4/16/82. .

RESPOWE:

Form 110 Rev. 4, dated 4/16/82 has been corrected by hu"f Carpany to l Rev. 5 dated 5/19/82.

ITFM 3:

CONENT:

i

Records include a 262-1 and 277A form for Support 270-7. This support

! not on iscrretric d.W. 163-T-012A Revision 5.

i r

Y ALlU @ k k~.5

~;. . -

EEASCD C2+ errs I'IEM 3: (Continued)

RESPO!EE: Foms 262-1 & 277A for St:pport 270-7 have been re:cved fmn System 59 abd OCR 523. Suppor.t has been new included with Systen 60B (Sea attachments - I) . -

ITEM 4: '

02fGNI': - Material Verification Sheets - Form 198.1 Shcw C of C and CMIR for tube clanps as not applicable.

, m.M UNSE: Tube clanps, 'Ibbe Tcacics and unistrut used by Mercury Ca pany are non-code items and purchased by Haasco. 'Ibese materials have C of C fmn the vendors and are kept in Daasco QA vault. When Mercury Ccapany with-draws these mataM ale fmn Ebasco warehouse, RCW shcus the asasco P.O.

Num3er. 'Ihey are mntrolled after receipt by Mercury Cmpany's storage.

'Ibe issue of the material to the construction is made on an "cs required basis" by the Mercury storage. It can be safely stated that each tube clamp, tube tray or unistrut has C of C in the Ebasco QA Vault. Mercury QC has been instructed by a Mercury letter to state that C of C is with

. Ebases and not to write NA in the material verification coh:mn.

EEE: In conclusion, all above outs +=d47 EN's and NCR's will be closely followed by the QAIRG Coordinator and reviewers for speedy and satisfactory closure of these deficiencies, and status resorted on a timely basis.

4 i

r i

l l

i )hLkIMek h &

Yn -

?ERASCd' INCORPORATED [MO

- " Post Office Box 170

-K111ona, Louisiana 70066-0070' p February 8, 1984 -

if ' c3 U2q W3-QAIRG-1215 y p %\

Mr. L. L. Bass- ;h M -[\

               ' Project QA Engineer                                                        ;_ %N              ld Louisiana power & Light Company                                             Qpib          g$

Killona, Louisiana 70066-0070 4 GS d'

                                                                  -                               '2';2 9L W                           ,

LOUISIANA POWER & LIGH ANY WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION

                                                                  .1984    '1165 MW INSTALLATION - UNIT No. 3 INITIAL SAFETY-RELATED MECHANICAL
                                                                             . START-UP SYSTEM TURNOVER

References:

-Discussion between L. Bass (LP&L/QA) and L. Stinson (EBASC0/QA) on February 1, 1984.
                                                      -System 59 - LP&L QA Memo File Q-3-A35.02.30 dated May 10, 1982

. dystest-6hw LP&L QA Audit 82-38 dated May 25,'1982

                                                      -System 60B - LP&L QA Audit 82-40 dated June 4, 1982
                                                      -System 60C - LP&L QA Audit 82-39 dated June 4, 1982

Dear Mr.' Bass:

In1the referenced discussion you requested a letter which identified the corrective

               -actions taken -in response to the LP&L QA's rejection of the first major mechanical safety-related systems submitted by.Ebasco for turnover to LP&L Start-Up. These systems were: a) System 59,.Ccatainment Spray; b) System 60A, High Pressure Safety
              -Injection; c) System 60B, Low Pressure Safety Injection; and d) System 60C, Safety Injection Tanks.

The results-of LP&L QA's review by contractor is as follows:

          , ,                                             SUS No.        Mercury.-       Gulf      T&B        F&M     NISCO 59          Rej ect       Reject Reject        Accept     N/A 60A         Reject       ' Reject Reject        Accept    N/A 60B         Reject        Rejact. Rej ect       Accept    N/A 60C         Reject           N/A    Rej ect     Accept Reject LP&L QA identified to Ebasco QA that the problems identified with Mercury hardware end documentation and with-T&B hardware (hangers only) and documentation were                                       ,

l' considered major problems; Deficiencies for Gulf and NISCO were considered minor

                 " paper'only" problems.
                -As a result. T&B was directed to reinspect safety-related hangers and re-review the hanger' documentation (

Reference:

NCR W3-4010). Due to this major effort, hangers were deleted from the scope of the individual start-up systems and re-scoped into

               ~ System 19-17. -Joint' teams ccmprised of Mercury, Ebasco and LP&L personnel commenced la walkdown reinspection of Mercury safety-related instrument installations. These
                .walkdowns identified the need for major rework which was carried out in accordance with NCR's'(numerous) on a by-system basis.

I

hAC M d' d b 4

  '4 : :EBASC0 SERVICES                                                                       February 8, 1984 inconPOnATED                                                                W3-QAIRG-1215 i.
         -Ebasco provided responses to LP&L QA's problem reports as follows:
                   - -T&B Generic - W3QA-19430 dated June 18, 1982 Mercury. Generic - W3QA-19432 dated June 19, 1982 Sway Strut . Generic -- W3QA-19366 dated June 14, 1982
                   - Start-up Systems 60B (all. contractors - specific) - W3QA-19366
                       ' dated June 14,.1982 It.is.noted from the above summary that a specific response from Ebasco to LP&L QA does not exist for certain contractors / systems.         This is due to the facts that:
                  .a)   Mercury Instrumentation underwent a 100% reinspection, rework and re-record review,' making the previous defined comments obsolete.

b) T&B safety-related hangers were reinspected, re-worked and the records

                        = reviewed making the previous defined comments obsolete.

c). The System Turnover Procedure, ASP-IV-50, was revised to require a statusing of documentation at system turnover; deleting the concept held by some that the records were being certified complete and turnedover at the time of system turnover (see. Revision J, dated September 3, 1982). d) NISCO System 60C,. responded directly to LP&L QA (reference: NISCO Letter 3015-274 dated June 5, 1982) e) Gulf responded by Letter QA-3329 dated June 2,'1982,.to the comments on. . SUS's 59, 60A,.and 60B, but this was inadvertently not transmitted to LP&L QA; probably due to the shift to " documentation statusing", item c) above. Attach'd e for record purposes, are the NISCO and GULF letters discussed above. If'I can be of any further assistance, please contact me directly. Very truly yours, y

                                                                                        'f)X2Od          0 A. M. Cutrona-l-         -
                                                            ' Quality Program Site Manager AMC:LAS/jlt.

Attachments < cc: ._D.'E. Dobson C. M. Houck-T. F. Gerrets LP&L Site QA File (3) V. M. Burgard QAIRG File (2) P. L. Pitman . .LP&L QA Audit File 82-38 i: -LP&L QA Audit File 82-39 LP&L QA Audit File 82-40 i L b -. -. ---

jI[j@W p. - A&dusd A A (20 S. P RS STRE 4A Ot C ORIVC P.O. DOM 51390

NEW ORL.EANS. FA. 70159 P.O. Box 14028
HOUSTON. TEXAS 77021

(, PHONE: $12-4421 PHONC; 747 5510

   .       '::m:sn'.                              ,j LE                                   '

Memo No. QA-3329

                          . . . . . . .      . . . . . . . . ,                                                    New Or1eans, Louisiana
            .             ....... - ........... .. '                                                              June 2,1982 Sheet 1 of 4 Ebasco Services, Inc.

Post Office Box 70 Killona, Louisiana 70066 Attention: Mr. L. Stinson, Manager Site Quality Program

Subject:

LP&L Q. A. A2dit of Turnover Packages - Report Nos. W3NY-5 SUS-59, W3NY-5 SUS-60A and Mechanical Deficiencies SUS-60B l' Gentlemen: , l The following is our response to the Subject Reports as indicated: r W3NY-5 SUS-59 L PS-742 iR j [-Q Item 1 - Traveler has been changed to reflect GE D50-H15 Comp 9und C.,. instead of Dow Corning III in accordance with CIWA-82 3402, s u. f Item 2 - Machining was done by LP&L Machine Shop at the Direction i L.; of LP&L Start-up Engineer (See CIWA 823402).

           +,  '

l k.- Item 3 - Gulf Q. C. only verified the fact that machining was accomp-

        ,Q ,,.                                                 lished in accordance with LP&L Start-up Enginee'r. (See V:                                                     CIWA 823402).

O.fli w. jifj Item 4 - Traveler dates changed to 4/1/82. h$

          !.                            Item 5        -        Traveler dates changed to 4/1/82 9

4 :3 Ed NOTE: Items 1, 4, & 5 were previously reported & Q e, corrected in accordance with LP&L Audit

a ~ /' i W3S-82-35 l .~/ +

                                                                   ,              ,                          j ac.r<-pG W .

D U N'

                         "                 G ] (-            E ,j g.rJR.%*.eig J R. b M V .q)]lt4                                                                                         vo,s
                                                                                                                                                           =
             %-v1 4i e,a
                                                                                                                                          .. w.

__ "cer* _ __ _____2

P. O. Cox 513Eo N EW O2 LEANS. L.A 7o15o

                    ' Cut.F ENGIN EERING CoM PANY. INC.
           ~                                                                                                                 ANackK M A-Sheet 2 of 4 W3NY-5 SUS-60A HPSI (A) P5-645 i

Item 1 - Operation 10 has been deleted Item 2 - Rev. I added to FCR-M-143 Item 3 - Not So, CIWA 821990 is listed on Traveler - First Sheet. Item 4 - Operation SC signed on 5/21/82. Item 5 - Sam Horton reviewed Traveler on 1/8/82. HPSI (A) PS-154 Item 1 - M&TE Recorded on Traveler 6/2/82. HPSI (A) PS-401 Item 1 & 2 There is no requirement to record a Preliminary alignment check. Final Alignment readings were recorded in follow on Travelers with proper recording of M&TE. HPSI (B) PS-572 Item 1 - Sam Horton reviewed Traveler on 11/17/81. Item 2 - Operatiens 565A thru 565D Do Not exist on this Traveler. HPSI (B) P5-155 . Item 1. - M&TE was recorded on 6/2/82 HPSI (B) P5-646 Item 1 - Operation 10 has been deleted. Item 2 - Operation SC was signed on 4/30/82. Item 3 - Operation SE was signed on 3/2/82. Item 4 - Rev.1 to FCR-M-143 was added on 6/2/82. 4 Item 5 - Sam Horton reviewed on 1/8/82.

e

CULF ENGINEERING COMPANY. INC. P.O.Ecz513Co N ew O2h.EANS. LA. 7015o Sheet 3 of 4 HPSI (B) P5-572 !'

Item 1 - Operation 70. revised to reinstall original shim and delete requirement to record shim thickness. i Item 2 - Sam Horton Reviewed on 11/17/81. Item 3 - Nisco 4X Multiplier added to Traveler on 6/2/82 Item 4 & 5 There is no requirement to record a preliminary alignment check. Final alignment readings were recorded in follow-on Travelers with proper recording of M&TE. r HPSI A/B Part I . Item 1 - Emery LeBlanc reviewed Traveler on 2/14/77. Item 2 - DR-065 was closed on 5/18/82, NCR-378 is on Charging Pump "A" not HPSI Pump A/B. HPSI (afb) PS-571 Item 1 - Operation 70 has been revised to reinstall original shims and dele::e requirement to record shim thickness. Item 2 & 3 There is no requirement to record a preliminary alignment check. Final alignment readings were recorded in follow-on Travelers with proper recording of M&TE. [ HPSI (A/B) P5-647 l i l Item 1 - Sam Horton reviewed Traveler on 1/8/82.. l I . Item 2 ' - Rev. I to FCR-M-143 was added on 6/2/82 l l Item 3 - Operation SC was signed on 5/4/82. Item 4 - Operations SE & 5F were signed on 3/2/82. HPSI (A/B) PS-156 Item 1 - M&TE added on 6/2/82. l Additional Comments - Copies of incomplete Travelers PS-715, P5-716, and j PS-717 are being transmitted to Ebasco Q. A. today. l l

F , . C%Ubb> NWDM cG M r'A N Y. INc. P.O.OszCICCo New 0 LEANJ,LA.70100

         '                                                                           hk Y }LN b~%

e. -

Sheet 4 of 4 Mcchanical Deficiency on SUS 60B Item 2 - All Travelers are now complete on SUS 60B. If you have any further questions regarding this, please advise. Very truly yours, GULF ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. l R. M. Ronquillo Quality Assurance Manager RMR/ma I t l

n /$ / 0 V b0 C . :)/;yg;&7;29 m jy{adwiJ A4 1 NUCLEAR !NSTALLATION SERVIOcS COMPANY b '

                           ? cst Cifica Box 109
                 ~

KILLON A. LOUISlANA 70066 ( i504) 443-2941 June 5, 1982 QA 3015- %7/f TO: Louisiana Power & Light Company Quality Assurance

       -     FROM:     Mary E. Felsom NISCO Field QA/QC Manager

SUBJECT:

SUS #60C Records Deficiency Report RIR 3015-678: The NISCO Inspector placed an erroneous Month date. This can be corrected at your convenience. M 4 d-/ d44 RIR 3015-607: This was an oversite by NISCO.and can be corrected at your concenience. g M / 4 5-92 g4df Att. #1 to 3016-129: Attachment #1 is a general document review check-list and applies to all Process Control Sheets. The reviewer checks all attributes listed and signs. same. Changes to PCS: All changes to this PCS are in compliance with ES-147 Rev. D and ES3016-70 Rev.A. I hope you find the above adequate and complete. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, fgg fL./ h77U Mar E. Folsom Field QA/QC Manager cc: C. Reid QA File

        ..          ..          .        . . . _ - __      _   _                k.    -

LP&L QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT REPORT #SA-W3-QA-82-05(2A) AUDIT OF SYSTEM 2A (LC SYSTEM) Finding #1 The finding states that the System In-Service form (Attachment 5.1) was not completed for System 2A, as required per SAP-40, 4.1.1.

1. Corrective Action:

Attachment 5.1 was required only if a system was transferred per SAP-40 Rev. O Paragraph 4.1.1 as "In Service". System 2A was trans-ferred per SAP-40 Rev. O Paragraph 4.4.1 as " Complete and operable with acceptable deficiencies," which re 7ed the Attachment, (5.2), that was used. Note: The system was transferred October 20, 1982 when Rev. O of SAP-40 was in effect. SAP-40 has since been revised with the attachments rewritten. Systems are now transferred per SAP-40 Rev. 1 (affective November 16, 1982) Paragraph 4.1, 4.2 and Attachment 5.2.

2. Action Taken To Preclude Repetition: .

None raquired.

3. Date When Full Corrective Action Will Be Achieved:

None required. e e .e.s .-. -

  ~1.L_u Awdw f A-s QA AUDIT NO. SA-W3-QA-82-05 (2A)

SUS #2A - 125 VDC: SAFETY l FINDING #2

1. Requirement:

UNT-1-008, 5.3.6 ... " Ensure that evcry Department Head has reviewed and added .to the " Responsibility" colunns of the MTS and the Plant Staff System Deficiency List the initials of their department...."

2. Finding:

The MTS corresponding.to the Plant Staff System Deficiency List does not list responsible departments.

3. -Action Plan:

Not applicable.

4. Corrective Action:

The MTS report.was corrected to show the responsible department initials as shown on the Plant' Staff System Deficiency List.

5. Action to Prevent Reoccurrence:

The personnel responsible for input to the LP&L MTS report have been educated to enter the initials from the Plant Staff System Deficiency List into the MTS report. The original intent of section 5.3.6 of'UNT-1-008 was to instruct the Staff Engineer to have the Department Heads review the Ebasco MTS report and the Plant Staff System Deficiency List and agree with the responsi-bility and due dates assignments before the final auditor interpreted

               'that section to say that the LP&L MTS report will have department           '

initials in the responsibility column. Section 5.3.6 has been revised to clearly state the original intent. This revision should be approved

               .by 3/19/83.

6. Date When Full Corrective Action Will Be Achieved:

l The. corrective acticn is complete. b

      *                       ~       ~                     '-

Z[fkt [-$ LP&L QUALITY ASSLE NCE AUDIT REPORT #SA-W3-QA-82-05(2A) AUDIT OF SYSTEM 2A (DC SYSTEM) Finding #3' The finding states that it is not possible to determine with any degree of confidence which bolts, nuts, and washers (if any) were used in some battery post lugs, contrary to 10CFR50 App. B.

1. Corrective Action:

The following is presented to clarify the confusion which led to the subject finding: A. CIWA 812904 was issued August 27, 1981 to replace a bad cell (#34) in Safety Battery 3AB-S on October 3,1981. The CIWA addendum page, Sheet 3 of 5, shows temporary bolts were in-stalled undcr a. temporary modification tag. B. CIWA 813518 issued on September 30, 1981 (Battery 3AB-S) was written to show the misplaced bolts and to order new ones. This CIWA was closed by CIWAs 825550 and 826999. (Note: A

                " duplicate" CIWA 813518 was issued to replace the lost original.)

C. CIWA 825550 was issued on May 18, 1982 (Battery 3AB-S) to remove and clean all the intercell connecting bars, grease, replace, and torque per the requirements. During this works the temporary bolts were replaced by permanent parts listed on ROS #10758. 8 Afterwards, a completed intercell resistance test was performed with the results being satisfactory. D. CIWA 826999 was issued June 18,1982 (Battery 3AB-S) for Engineering evaluation of "316" stainless steel commercial grade bolts used

on Cell #34. As stated on this CIWA, the bolt change out was performed under CIWAs 825550 and 813518 (closed by 825550).

l Purchase Request #51125 developed Purchase Order #L-09650-H which "316" stainless steel bolts, size 3k" long, were received from Gulf States Screw Products. This material was removed from the LP&L Ware-house on ROS #10136. The bolts, however, were too long and were returned j to the LP&L Warehouse on RTS #11007. Purchase Request #58610 developed Purchase Order #L-15147-B which "316" stainless steel bolts, size 2-3/4" long, were received from Gulf States Screw Products. This material was removed from the LP&L Warehouse on ROS #10758 and installed in Safety Battery 3AB-S on CIWA 825550. l l

Agf. p. [ g LP&L QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIf REPORT #SA-W3-QA-82-05(2A) AUDIT OF SYSTEM 2A (DC SYSTEM) g('. hv Finding #3 h/ ' ' (0, 7 7J Page 2 g gy g fv;,,g g Note: All bolts were visually inspectedad found to be "316" as docu:nented. , gg p (,c g c. u ,cu.: r; 7 pe w o :::D 2/S . During the investigation of this finding, a 'telecon letter dated October 29, 1981, showing the Gould Inc. requirements for use of stainless steel type "316" bolts. was discovered. Gould, Inc. is the vendor that supplied the original cquipment. The sequence of events described above shows that no corrective action is necessary.

2. Action Taken To Preclude Repetition:

None required.

3. Date When Full Corrective Action Will Be Achieved: ,

None required. O e

                           #--       -      --   e-              - . , , , .         ,

LP&L QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT REFORT #SA-W3-QA-82-05(2A) AUDIT OF SYSTEM 2A (DC SYSTEM) Finding #4 Finding states that the limit of a conditional release (81-116RI) for battery switch cabinets was exceeded.

1. g rrective Action:

Ebasco Q.C. Condicional Release 81-116R1 was revised December 2, 1982 to Rer. 2 (Q.C. approved December 17, 1982) to include release through Hot Functional including energizing. 2.- Action Taken To Preclude Repetition: None required.

3. Date When Full Corrective Action Will Be Achieved:

None required. l I l l l . t i l i

                                  . -                  . _ .                             _                                              _                              ..    .dh(,b                                    .[.5 saases scavicza ,=consomarzo                                                               mass                    or WATE170RD S.E.S.-CICT NO. 3

OUAI.ITY C0h*"ROL

                                 ,                                                            REOUEST FOR CONDI IONAL ?"MSE I Log.No.(QC) CR8/-/Ib E 2 INSTRUCTIONS: (                                             h.ctet:=w 2 tog,po,(g;;g,3 6- f% F,2 1   po yo 80%$7                                                                    lyezidor S M E M 4 C OL/f2 O L                                     .3 STS No                      $bl I'

SubP0(CET Ald 8 'if g . 54WE 'DN No. Al/d 11 HRR No._/O S SO O 33Contr.W3'dY- /2 [#[M) 5 NCR No. M/d 12 MRIR No. N /~ O I N / I' Install. Loc. 2 2 8 Y fl 'DEF.No. b l 37 I' Item

Description:

3M- M~I 3 O DdS 34808S EA TTE2V bisOnddEe r Swntd PA8it/ET< I' ASME III-C1. lor 2 I fYes @ No ,

         'I JustL!ication for Relense: ITTIMS                                                                   AEE UN W(JGLu                                    (D EAlf/f/Eb Mb                      T2f 72JEv'A BLE. DES El 3 3 trEm<; I-4 Wi&L SC EssetVEO Upoa domPLEnod er -rEsr/x/C,. CO22EC T7UC AGTiod APPLIES CAILY *To                                                                                 becom & JTATios).                                          .

38 Allos.ableWorkActivity-InstallyionToBePer=anen:Er To #9AfD I Ak'L//b/ A14 Te=corarvL##1" h T fJvithin ox>f;/ followinglimits(Specify)(:/>I

                                 ~
                                                                                             /Ublu DEC Eh)Et?G I21dC )PRiomiY Cou.:27
                                                ^            12}2llZ A                                                                  / $W                                               mb                     /f1 I) Requester                        Sirn./Da'te' A.' rte (1' cent En+<5ien / Dat;e Co'nst.Sur// sien. / Date Y-                                            ,,

Emm -l C,r u.0 & /r//7fs H Approved Not Approvedi I ggg 3g 3

                                                                                                                             #                                                                                                  '~           '

Reason: L

',,sf &*:/h4L 21 Conditional Accept Tags Attached To Material //[A 2 /oc QC Inspector Sign./Date U All DET's, DN's & NCR's shown have been clcsed-Material is in ACCEPT status I I Tags Retrieved l IAll Tags Not Retrieved gg 3 Distribution: Original retained by QC until closed. Copies (Open & Closed) to; Ebasco Materials Supervisor (2); Contractor QC (1); Contractor Const. Supvr . (1) ;

Ebasco ANI (Code Ite=s Only - 1); Originator (1); Master Tracking (1). FORM : 0. WQC-1-6 (6- 00) - -

                                                              .,.,e-ww---we----s,-wa,-                                                     .-w--yw-y,,gm.y-w-g-       ww s -  wt - g vg    s-wws       rgr-*.w-Ny       *-wae----gre-w-y
         --vv       v- * -   emm    w---r--,.w,----v-                                                   .+-    -w- ww 4+w-w w-m-rw-m'sw

A&ded A-s LP&L QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT REPORT #SA-W3-QA-82-05(2A) AUDIT OF SYSTDi 2A (DC SYSTEM) Finding #5 Tiu finding states that data sheets for Preoperational Test Procedures SPO-02-002 and SPO-02-001 are missing.

1. Corrective Action:

The data sheets for the subject test procedures have been obtained from the maintenance record files and included in the official test procedures.

                    .The tests were not adversely affected by the missit.g data sheets.

2. Action Taken To Preclude Repetition:

All test procedures are being reviewed during the apprcval cycle to assure that the required data sh ets are included.

3. Date When Full Corrective Action Will Be Achieved:

Full corrective action has been achieved. 4 6 o l l l l r

                                                                       . --- ...                               h g) _l_$

LP&L QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT REPORT #SA-W3-QA-82-05(2A) AUDIT OF SYSTEM 2A (DC SYSTEM) Finding #6 The finding states that the battery charger rate has been tested and accepted to a value different than stated by the source used as a basis for acceptance criteria, contrary to ANSI N45.2.11.

1. Corrective Action:

The data included in the specification is provided to the vendor to assure proper battery charger sizing. The test was conducted to assure the equipment performed as required by plant procedures / technical specifications. Using the data of the specification for the charger, the vendor furnished a 150 amp charger for the NCK 1200 batteries and a 200 amp charger for the NCX 2400 batteries. Using the vendor linear equation for battery charger sizing, the requirements for a 150 amp for the NCX 1200 batteries and a 200 amp charger for the NCX 2400 batteries are not changed by the response to NRC Question 40.79. The preoperational test which is complete does not require revision ~ for reference of NRC Question 40.79 Incorporation of NRC Question 40.79 into the FSAR should be addressed by the Licensing Group. Based upon the above discussion, the battery charger specification does not require revision.

2. Action Taken To Preclude Repetition:

The LP&L Licensing Group will investigate incorporating the response to Part 2 of NRC Question 40.79 into Chapter 8 of the FSAR.

3. Date When Full Corrective Action Will Be Achieved:

Full corrective action will be achieved upon the Licensing Group's evaluation to revise Chapter 8 of the FSAR.

                                                           . - - - -.. y     +.y _,.g.-yi   -,.     -q..-m   -..-y.-._ -

4 -.e.ma-y .,

          '\ecuircment:
                                                  ~

_ he $thsh k - 5 UNT-A?-015,- 4. 3. 3, "If a t.,IWA is received by QC and is cacermined te warrant a NCR the QC Eng4.neer/Inspec~ tor shall initiate a NCR by ec=pleting Part 1 of

   ,           of the NCR' form and forwarding the CIWA to CSM.                                                            -

o.:- . .

    .-         Finding No. 7 A nu=ber of CIWA's were dispositioned "Use-As-Is" but NCR's were not generated.

Rnenonse to Finding No. 7 ' UNT-A?-015, paragraph 5.1.3, definie.fon for Acceet-As-Is states: '"This dis-position ray be recom= ended when it can be established that the discrepancy vill result in no adverse conditions and that the ites will continue to meet

            ' cIl engineering functional requira=ents including perfor:ance, =ai:itainability, and safety.

This is an accurate ~ statement for the dispositioning of a nonconfor=ance report.~

            ~SA?-08 definition of "Use-As-Is" is a's follows:

Usa-As-Is - A disposition reco== ended when it can be established that the

discrepancy vill result in no adverse conditions and that the ite= will con'tinue to meet all engineering, design, and functional requirements including perfor=ance,

              =aintenance, and safety.
           ' Tha SA?-08 definition is stated in the same =anner as SGA-07 and L?&L's QF 15.1.

i Note the difference in - th'e definitions of "Use-As-Is" and " Accept-As-Is" above.

g, . As used in the CIWA disposition and the time the CIWA vas written, "Use-As-Is" sf dispositioned CIWA's met all eneineerine, desien, and functional requirenents.

Tha above described uses of the ter=s "Use-As-Is" and " Accept-As-Is" is the~ basis' for our determination that a nonconfor=ance report (s) was :.ot-u;: warranted. A M 6 /- ?.8

i s e

A $#

4 em

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

Mcf .Y y0ff 84~ NA -M na.4 es fbd<pedA-s-LP&L QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT REPORT #SA-W3-QA-8A AUDIT OF SYSTEM 8A (208/120 VAC) Finding #1 The finding states that the System in-Service form (Attachment 5.1) was not completed for System 8A, as required per SAP-40, 4.1.1. .

1. Corrective Action:

Attachment 5.1 was required only if a system vas transferred per SAP 40 Rev. O Paragraph 4.1.1 as "In Service". System 8A was trans-ferred per SAP-40 Rev. O Paragraph 4.4.1 as " Complete and operable with acceptable deficiencies", which required the Attachment 5.2 that was used. Note: The system was transferred December 17, 1982 when Rev. O of SAP-40 was in effect. SAP-40 has since been revised with the attachments rewritten. Systems are now transferred per SAP-40 r Rev. 1 (effective November 16, 1982) Paragraph 4.1, 4.2, and Attachment 5.2. 2 ., Action Taken To Preclude Repetition: None required.

3. Date When Full Corrective Action Will Be Achieved:

None required. , t

phdn<ack A4 Axci.+ 90< F SA w 3 4A-FA Ewhy, M t m

        *hs       LOUISIANA P O W E R & Li G H T/ INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONOENCE "entas v

February 4, 1983 - W3E83-0035 TO: J. Woods FROM: M.P. Flasch

SUBJECT:

System 8A, 208/120V Safety

REFERENCE:

Audit No. SA-W3-QA-8A Audit Finding No. 2 The referenced audit finding (attached) implies that QR-15.0, Rev. O, paragraph 15.2 requires all nonconforming conditions to be documented with a "Nonconformance Report",(NCR). However, the actual requirement is to identify the nonconforming item and clearly describe the nonconformance. We have deter =ined that CIWA 829889 properly identified and described the nonconforming conditions as required by QR-15.0, Rev.0. Furthermore, INT-1-007 Rev. 1 (which was in effect when the CIWA was initiated) states that only CIWA's dispositioned "Use as is" or " Repair" are candidates for NCR's. CIWA 829889 did not have either of these dispositions. Therefore, the handling of this problem did satisfy the requirements of QR-15.0, Rev. O and UNT-1-007 Rev. I and did not require the generation of an NCR. It should also be noted that as part of the corrective action, another CIWA (82E867A) was initiated to inspect other power panels for similar problems. This response should close the referenced Audit Finding. Please contact me if you have any further concerns. f U M.P. Flasch MPF/WJP:sj cc: R. Rowley, D. Weir, W. Prudhomme W.A. Lowrance, J.R. McGaha l

[--M /t I i AUDIT NO.: RA-M AA-AA ' 1 FINDING NO.: 2 LOUISIANA SHEET 1 0F 1 P O W E R 66 LIGHT MM AtJDIT FINDING

1. AUDITED ORGANIZATION: Plant Staff and Startup CONTACTS:

AUDIT LOCATION: Waeerfard 3

2. REQUIREMENT:

QR-15.0, Rev. O, paragraph 15.2 states in part: activities when . . . systems do not conform . . ".LP&L performs a) identify the following the nonconforming item and clearly describe the nonconformance."

3. FINDING:

A failed aluminum lug landed on a copper bus in PDP 388A was discovered. .No NCE

   . was generaccd from CIWA 829889.

4. AUDITOR'S REColefENDED CORRECTIVE ACTION:

Provide NCE. AUDITOR'S SIGNATURE L C/; [ Ia a 2 .13" DATE: ///*//R1

5. ACINOWLEDGEMElff: This finding was identified during t:1e conduct of an ardit.

As s member of the audited organization's management, your signature signifies acknowledgement of this finding, not necessarily agreement. SIGNATURE: TITLE: DATE: PLEASE COMPLETE ITEM 6 BELOW llTD RETURN TO THE ADDITING ORGANIZATION WITHIN 30 DAYS OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

6. CORRECIIVE ACTION TAKEN: In the event that corrective action cannot be completed within 30 days, your response shall include a scheduled date for the corrective action.

9

             - . - . . -                 --             -.,-.---n.-.,.      . - . , , . - - - ,

 ,                                   h tY          0k Y~YYY                        kHac.hIMe n-f            A-s Fih.J 9

I swn,s,

     -a.c g f      S ~t 4-
                                                                                                         ~g
                                                                                               ; - o,
      -i       -

L n ; q

EE

      '.g .,g[UUISIAMA e

o '*n g., cc ' S P O W E R & LIG H T / INTER-OFFICE CORRESP i C j OENCE 6 EEON[Ys f Eld lDC f September 23, 1983 W3ES3-0422' TO: W.M. Morgan . FROM: R.P. Barkhurst

SUBJECT:

Audit Report SA-W3-QA System 69

REFERENCE:

UNT-TEM-003 Rev. O, Change 3 Approved 8/1/83 This is our response to Finding no.1 of subject report, stating that "the assigned responsibilities are not' performed by the staff engineer.

   ,       These duties are presently performed by the system transfer coordinstor."

The stated requirement of the finding was:

           "B.       UNT-TEM-003, Rev. O, 6-14-83 Paragraph 5.4, The assigned staff engineer receives the system trans-fer package from the APM-PS (or designee) and:

1. Paragraph 5.4.1, completes attach: ant 6.5, syste= transfer package centent checklist.

II. Paragraph 5.4.3, transmits a copy of the following... . , A. 5.4.3.1 "All Open Items" MIS /ATS reports for the system B. 5.4.3.~ Applicable drawings C. 5.4.o.3 Attachment 6.7, Department checklist for system transfer-D. 5.4.3.4 The current plant staff system deficiency list." The auditor's recommendation was:

         " Comply with requirements of procedure or revise existing procedure to address the current mode of cperation by the system transfer coordinator's group."
                                                                                                                .~

                                                                    ~                                      '

W.M. Morgan. f#f

Pagt 2

                                 .                  W3E83-0422 s

3' .- The following ' actions have been taken:

                                                 -.UNT-1-008 Rev. 1, dated 3-3-8'3 was superseded by UNT-TEM-003, Rev. O, cchange.3 . Review and Approval-of System Transfer and has been-in effect
                                                   .since August:1,'i983.'   <

l

                            +-                                              ..
,        i
                                         #.' . I'.                       Paragraph 5.4.1 of" reference procedure: no change is necessary.
                                                                              - - 6                                                                    .

II. . The referenced' procedure, paragraph 5.4.3, was =odified. to read:

                                                                                                         -s m
                           '# . m.

eg W #

                                                                         "5.4.3 Ensuiei that e'ach r,esponsible Group / Department Head completes

~

  - - ~

and returris a Departmestal. check list (attachment 6.7)." y2 -,a _ f,

                                          ,         The actions,noteeclose_ Finding no.,1 of subject audit report.
                                                                                              }.                     .

3v. , _ _g - t . , - x .s *- "- 9 :4 1 ( ,) 17 , N ~ '..1.

            "S                   'A PRPc                                                                     *             '                        ' '                                     '
                                               ~ ,. .. . Berkhu.rstm ,".            ..

3 ef .~ ., j r .f ' +-' RPBIGQ:r$"- ,-

                                      ,y              u                  ;, , +                                 ,            #y                                   >

3.-

                      . '*                                                                  .s                n                                                                  ,,
                                         ..         cc:                 J.P.r McGaha,,.5. A. All,                                   e nan, J. k'oodi,.. . F'. . Inglebracht , A. Pastor, J.B. Perez,
                                    # '%~                                   .

et.tDamas, Sy. stem'Filbf69-

s* . ' ' .

b.y f . ' , ,

                            # -                                 a      F.                   ,,
                         ' % -                                                  h y

(

w. . . <

g >D' G- 4 , # g ,[ 'b. 'Fw T- i S

                                                          .\                                                                     ~7                        >           >           e NPE.

qE

                         ' [ %, [ , % ,t-    -

I g 'I.,

                                                                                                                                  ,                 s.

i

                                                                                                                                                  %'                                  e
                                                             /                                                                                          s g               %"#
                                                            .a. r   s S       $                                                                                            &
                                                           .*-                                                                                   s3 l

t

                                                                                                                                                   %F
                                                                          # .%g '
                                                                      *.%/                                                               ..<w g.
          'gh=               A                 -
                                                   .t

f- I g

_q g .g 2 _ _, - _. _

Afk<d n r+ A- s' Md thprf e!!> SA-w34A ~ 67 kdmg & R "Y b LOUISIANA P O W E R S LIG H T/ INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE E $ SYS September 14, 1983 W3P83-3133 Q-3-A35.02.29 No Response Required gCMMR.

          . TO:                W. M. Morgan                                     g       f 43 co     ?

Sp53 FROM: M. I. Meyer 5 . 0 bl

SUBJECT:

LOUISlANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY h@ QM) y QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDIT REPORT SA-W3-QA-69 (Letter No.W3K83-1133, dated August 4, 1983) %G'C?s?d'Dp/

REFERENCE:

Audit Finding No. 2 "NFSG is not updating drawing: for transferred or non transferred systems. This function is presently being performed by the SU-Engineer and the Ilant Staff Engineer during walkdown and by the Ebasco Engineer upon request." This letter is in respcase to the subject Aadit Reports Finding No. 2 referenced above. Contrary to the aforementioned Finding, the NPSG is Updating drawings for Non-transferred Systems per NAP-305 " Control and Processing of Plc.nt Staff System Deficiency List Items" and Transferred Systems per NAP-304

             " Station Modification Package Document Update" as follows:

Non-Tranferred Systems - As stated in Plant Procedure UNT-TEM-003 Rev. O, Section 5.2 and even more definitive in the recently approved Rev. 1 version, Section 5.3.3, deficiencies are identified during walkdowns, and added to the PPSDL. These deficiencies are then assigned to the apprcpriate responsible group by Plant Staff for resolution. All j deficiencies assigned to the NPSG, including those dealing with Plant Configuration are processed per NPSG procedure NAP-305. Transferred Systems - Updating is procedurally defined in NPSG procedure NAP-304. In both cases the Ebasco Drafting Organization is requested by NPSG to accomplish the actual update en the applicable drawings. The verbage i defining this process is found in the previously mentioned procedures. It should be noted that due to the recent extensive re-organization of Nuclear Operations, some revision to UNT-TEM-003, NAP-304 and NAP-305 will be necessary. These revisions will effect only titles and respon-sibilities not procedural intent.

k h&klN i st

    -W. M. Morgan                          -

W3P83-3133 . q Page 2-

                                          . a-.

s r If you have questions or require further.informarion please contact J. E. Carson.at' extension 263.

    ;%. [.        %

M. I. Meyer; , sMIM/JEC/bs , ., cc: . R. P. Barkhurst, J. E. Carson, C. J. Decareaux, F. J. Drumond, J. Woods, M. Wise, Nuclear Records (2), Central Recordt:.

                           . E<

9 v 4 , f s

                                                                               ,              c'         s W
                                                 - '                                      4 8

q r p

s-

                                                                                                                                          .9 F'

s

                                                                                                                        .a
                                                                                                                      *                  ~%

d *.

                                                                                                  ,,    m-c    --rw--   ww v ,eb,m--vt-----w-w.m+-,     *-----~.r,-,......              moi %,.,,-w-,---w.-*     .-. ---

ATTACHMENT B-1

SUMMARY

OF EBASCO QUALITY COMPLIANCE REPORTS (EQCR) CLOSED IN 1980 A. EQCR SRN-76-10-1

1. No visible identification of temporary stored equipment.

a. CAUSE: Auditor error, since the auditor was able to identify the equipment.

b. DISPOSITION: None.

2. No material receiving status tags.

a. CAUSE: Auditor error, since once this equipment was-issued from Ebasco's storage control area to temporary storage the tag was unnecessary,

b. DISPOSITION: None.

3. Nitrogen Purge Tanks Empty

a. -CAUSE: Tank emptied before periodic surveillance by inctalling contractor.

b. DISPOSITION: Purge re-established after Ebasco discovery.

4. Lack of gauges on the tanks to measure purge pressure.

a. CAUSE: Unknown

b. DISPOSITION: Gauges installed on tanks after Ebasco discovery. ,

B. EQCR SRMAT-76-12-3

1. Unidentified seismic material not tagged as to disposition in tempora ry - location.

a. CAUSE: Improper . tagging.

b. DISPOSITION: Due to installing contractor obligations the' material would have been cleaned and represerved at the time of installation.

Attachment B-1 (Continued) l l C. EQCR SRMAT-76-12-3

1. Duplicate numbering on embedded plates.

a.. CAUSE: Manufacturer numbering error.

                       'b. DISPOSITION: Suffix "A"                                        added on one set of plates.

D. 1. Unable to trace a particular heat number to a particular placement of rebar. , a. CAUSE: Auditor error, since all rebar is purchased as safety-related.

b. DISPOSITION: None.

E. EQCR SRMAT-76-12-1

1. Rusty pipe stamped QC " ACCEPT".

a. CAUSE: Auditor error, since the material was not safety-related.

b. DISPOSITION: Due to installing contractor obligations the material would have been cleaned and represerved at the time of installation.

F. EQCR SRC-76-12-1

1. Eurface corrosion on refueling water pool stiffener angles and beams.

I. L a. CAUSE: Auditor error, since the installation task had not been completed,

b. DISPOSITION: Due to installing contractor obligations, the matertal would have been cleaned i prior to grouting and liner installation.

i l M y ,yr -

                     =,           vy - r,-=,,-,.,-,-,-,-.+r,                  ------7w,,-w,,,mer.-,c._.,,        m   - r--,, * - . - , - - - . , - . ,, . , , ,,- , , - - + - . , - - - - , - - - ,

ATTACHMENT B-1

SUMMARY

OF EBASCO QUALITY COMPLIANCE REPORTS (EQCR) CLOSED IN 1980 A. EQCR SRM-76-10-1

1. No visible identification of temporary stored equipment.

a. CAUSE: Auditor error, since the auditor was able to identify the equipment.

b. DISPOSITION: None.

2. No material receiving status tags,

a. CAUSE: Auditor error, since once this equipment was issued from Ebasco's storage control area to temporary storage the tag was unnecessary,

b. DISPOSITION: None.

3. Nitrogen Purge Tanks Empty

a. CAUSE: Tank emptied before periodic surveillance by installing contractor.

b. DISPOSITION: Purge re-established after Ebasco discovery.

4. Lack of gauges on the tanks to measure purge pressure.

a. CAUSE: Unknown

b. DISPOSITION: Gauges installed on tanks after Ebasco discove ry.

B. EQCR SRMAT-76-12-3

1. Unidentified seismic material not tagged as to disposition in temporary location.

a. CAUSE: Improper tagging.

b. DISPOSITION: Due to installing contractor obligations the material would have been cleaned and represerved at the time of installation.

Attachment B-1 (Continued)

                                 -C. EQCR SRMAT-76-12-3

1. Duplicate numbering o. embedded plates,

a. CAUSE: Manufacturer numbering error.

b. DISPOSITION: Suffix "A" added on one set af plates.

D. 1. Unable to trace a particular heat number to a particular placement of rebar.

a. CAUSE: Auditor error, since all rebar is purchased as safety-related.

b. DISPOSITION: None.

E. EQCR SRMAT-76-12-1

1. Rusty pipe stamped QC " ACCEPT".

a. CAUSE: Auditor error, since the material was not safety-related.

b. DISPOSITION! Due to installing contractor obligations the material would have been cleaned and represerved at the time.of installation.

F. EQCR SRC-76-12-1

1. Surface corrosion on refueling water pool stiffener angles and beams.

a. CAUSE: Auditor error, since the installation task had not been completed.

b. DISPOSITION: Due to installing contractor obligations, the material would have been cleaned prior to grouting and liner installation.

ATTACIBiENT C-1 LP&L STAFFING E70LUTION TOTAL

s. ' '

675-600 *

P E 525~ SLOTS APPR .... l R. ON BOARD -- , l S 450 - O N /**' 375~ N .' E 300 ~ L 225- . 150_ , 75- .'

                                                                ..r
                                ~

l i I I I I I L 4 I l l l l 71 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 YEAR G7v kdf DATE AUTHORIZED , ON BOARD 1/71 3 5 7/71 4 5 1/76 5 5 7/76 23 16 i 1/77 37 16 7/77 70 45 1/78 112 64 7/78 112 80 1/79 112 95 7/79 177 105 1/80 177 120 ! 7/80 177 140 I 1/81 296 153 7/81 408 245 1/82 411 280 7/82 489 320 1/83 453 387 10/83 621 482 FIGURE PROVIDED BY LP&L N.

ATTACIDIFNT C-2 LP&L STAFFING EVOLUTION GENERAL OFFICE NUCLEAR 200_ . SLOTS APPR ... .' '. 180- *

ON BOARD
160 . .

P 140 ~ E

R 120~
S ' '

0 100~ N : N 80-

E
L 60 .

40, j

                            ............... ********'**~

O Wi ' i i i e i i i i i i i i e i i 71 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 YEAR h) DATE AUTHORIZED ON BOAPl) 1/71 3 5 7/71 5 5 1/76 13 9 7/76 16 9 1/77 16 9 7/77 16 9 1/78 16 9 7/78 16 14 1/79- 22 14 7/79 22 14 1/80 24 14 7/80 24 14 - 1/81 24 14 7/81 110 73 1/82 154 73 7/82 200 131 1/83 200 131 153 93 e 10/83 FIGURE PROVIDED BY LP&L

ATTACHMENT C-3 LP&L STAFFING EVOLUTION PLANT STAFF 450, 8 400 SLOTS APPR .... , ON BOARD l 350_ . l I P 300_ - E R 250 ~ e*. ',**...s' l S 1 O 200 ~ l N

N 150- .

E L 100- ,....., 50 . 0 i 1 i [ i e i i i i i i i i i i i. i 71 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 YEAR 1;N; ON BOARD (Qj9 DATE AUTHORIZED 0 0

          '1/71                                                                                0 7/71                                       0 0                                        0 1/76                                                                                7 7/76                                     11 11                                         7 1/77                                                                               44 7/77                                     44 86                                        44 1/78                                                                              54 7/78                                     86
                                                 ,,86                                         64 1/79                                                                              74 7/79                                  145 145                                        105 1/80                                                                             145 7/80                                  145 262                                        197 1/81                                                                             207 7/81                                  277 236                                        217       ,

1/82 227 7/82 259 266 237 1/83 343 10/83 422 FIGURE PROVIDED BY LP&L L

a 15 _ _ , ATTACHMENT C-4 LP&L STAFFING EVOLUTION QUALITY ASSURANCE [" 50_ 45, j P 40 ~ SLOTS APPR e e e e . E ON BOARD I R 35~

S .

O l 30-N N 25-E L 20 .se.ee 15_

                                                                                                      /
                                 -           %eebeebee&ee&ee&eeboe&ae&ee&eef
                                         -   r 5
                                ;    l i       I     i   4      i    i   i   4   i  i        i      I      4          4           6       4          1 71      76          77          78      79     80              81               82                   83
 /.I ..,. ,

YEAR DATE AUTHORIZED ON BOARD 1/71 0 0 7/71 0 0 1/76 10 7 7/76 10 7 1/77 10 , 7 7/77 10 7 1/78 10 7 7/78 10 7 1/79 10 7 7/79- 10 7 1/80 10 7 7/80 10 7 1/81 10 7 7/81 21 8 1/82 21 13 7/82 21 21 1/83 30 29 10 /83 46 26 (

FIGURE PROVIDED BY LP&L

ATTACIDENt C-5 - QUALITY ASSURANCE CONTRACT EMPLOYEES 30 , P 27 - E R 24 , 21 N 18 N E 15 L 12 ,

9. .

6. 3. 0 " 71 76 77 78 7: 80 81 82 83 84 YEAR DATE ON BOARD 1/71 0 7/71 0 1/76 0 7/76 0 1/77 0 7/77 0 1/78 0 7/78 0 1/79 0 7/79 0 1/80 0 7/80 0 1/81 0 7/81 0 - 1/.82 1 7/82 1 1/83 24 7/83 20

ATTACHMENT C-6 QUALITY CONTROL PLANT STAFF AND CONTRACT EMPLOYEES 20 18 . 16 14 . P E 12 R 10 S 0 8 N 6. N E 4-L 2. 0 , i;, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 71 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 YEAR DATE LP&L STAFF CONTRACT EMPLOYEES 1/71 0 0 7/71 0 0 1/76 0 0 7/76 0 0 1/77 0 0 7/77 0 0 1/78 0 0 7/78 0 0 1/79 0 0 7/79 0 0 1/80 2 4 7/80 3 3 1/81 4 2 7/81 5 5 1/82 5 9 7/82 5 10 1/83 6 10 7/83 6 10 2/84 7 10

ATTACHMENT C-7

SUMMARY

OF QA/QC P5RSONNEL LP&L AND CONTRACT EMPLOYEES 66 . 60 . 54 - P 48 . 42 . S. 36 0 30 N 24 E 18 o.

0 , ;;, , , , , , , , , , , , , , . . 71 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 YEAR DATE ON BOARD 1/71

0 7/71 0 1/76 7 7/76 7 1/77 7 7/77 7 1/78 7.

7/78 7 1/79 7 7/79 7 1/80 13 l 7/80 13 1/81 13 7/81 18

1/82 28

! 7/82 37 l 1/83 69 l 10/83 62 , 1 N' -e_. . . - - . - - - - - - - - . _ . . . . _ , -

ATTACHMENT C-8 APPENDIX W RECAPITULATION OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Appendix W recapitulates conclusions and recommendations contained in chapters E, F, H, J, K, L, N, P, Q, R, S, T and U. Conclusions and recommendations regarding various subjects and issues addressed in this study are restated herein in order to facilitate their comparison. E STRATEGIC PLANNING 1.0 Gystem Planning 1.1 LP&L Load Forecasting Method

a. The company's load forecasting techniques used at the outset of the Waterford 3 project were virtually identical with the common industry practice.

b. LP&L monitored the need for enhancement of its forecasting techniques and revised them as necessary to include tecimological enhancements and

( to address changes in econcmic conditions.

c. LP&L's senior management was actively involved in determining the need for new gsneration construction, and in directing evolution of the load forecasting methodology.

Based upon the above considerations, DMC, Inc. concludes that LP&L's forecasting methodology was reasonable throughout the project duration. 1.2 Waterford 3 / Grand Gulf Load Forecasts

a. Louisiana Power & Light Company's decisions to build Waterford 3 and to enter into the Grand Gulf contract were based on reasonable forecasts of future power needs.

b. These forecasts clearly indicated the need for additional generating capacity and justified LP&L's decision to build three nuclear units (Waterford 3 and St. Rosalie 1 and 2) and to enter into the Grand Gulf agreement.

Based upon the above considerations, DMC, Inc, concludes that LP&L's decisions to construct Waterford 3 and enter into the Grand Gulf Agreement were reasonable, prudent and made in the best interest of its consumers. x-Page W-1

2.0 .Waterford 3 Initiation 7' ' 2.1 Sites Study

a. Techniques used to evaluate available sites and select the Waterford e Plantation were adequate in light of project needs and virtually identical to the common industry practice.; b. LP&L senior management was actively involved in the site selection process (site acquisition was ratified by the Board of Directors).; c. The Waterford 3 site was reviewed by the AEC/NRC; found acceptable in
light of the Atomic Energy Act, the NEP A and other applicable regulations; and accepted for construction of a nuclear power plant.

Based upon the above considerations, DMC, Inc. concludes that LP&L's site . selection methods and decisions were adequate and prudent. The evolution of LP&L's plant siting methods is not within the scope of this i study. We recommend, however, that all future LP&L plant siting activities / decisions include a cost / benefit analysis as outlined in this subsection. 2J Feasibnity Study and Waterford 3 Deefsfon a.- Techniques employed by Ebasco Services in developing the Nuclear-Fessil Plant Comparison were virtually identical with the common industry , practice. b.- The study did not consider oil fired generation; in light of the subsequent 1973 oil embargo and the resulting high degree of instability in the price and availability of oil, omission of this alternative was not detrimental to LP&L consumers.

c. The study did not provide clear proof that a nuclear plant would be more economical than a coal fired plant. Instead, it presented a range of values within which the nuclear plant would result in lower electricity costs.; d. Orders for nuclear reactors were growing at an unprecedented pace; there was a general concensus in the industry and the government that nuclear plants would be supplying a continuously increasing share of U.S.
power needs - i.e., that they would most orebab1v be more economical than coal fired plants.: e. LP&L load forecasts clearly indicated the need for new generating capacity. ,

 -    ,                                      m . ..

ATTACHFENf C-8 Based upon the above considerations, DMC concludes that Louisiana Power & Light Company's decision to build Waterford 3 was appropriate, prudent, and made in the best interest of LP&L's consumers. 2.3 Other Stratgic Planning Activities

a. The strategic planning techniques used on Waterford 3 were ~fdentical to the common industry practice. From today's viewpoint, these techniques were inadequate in light of project needs. We believe, however, that this deficiency could not have been predicted in the early 1970s.

Consequently we find that LP&L's management exercised reasonable judgment and acted prudently.

b. Louisiana Power & Light Company's involvement in strategic planning and project mobilization was commensurate with the common industry practice.

While LP&L's project team was unusually small, its size did not reflect negatively on the quality of the key strategic decisions.

c. Involvement of LP&L's Board of Directors in strategic planning was commensurate with the common incustry practice. The Board was kept -

informed of the key management decisions, but its role in the decision making process was, generally, passive. There is no reason to believe that the Board's more active participation in the strategic planning would 7 i have changed any of the key decisions.

~.

Based upon the above considerations DMC, Inc. concludes that LP&L's methods, involvement and decisions regarding Waterford 3 strategy development, organizational design and project organization were appropriate and prudent. These methods and levels of involvement would not be appropriate in today's conditions and environment, and should be revised accordingly. DMC, Inc. recom. mends that LP&L consider and implement the following enhancements: o Develop and document a formal Strategic Planning System; an outline of functions that should be included in this system (as a minimum) is presented in Subsection D-2. o Develop a clear definition of responsibilities, authority and accountability of and interfaces among the MSU, MSE and LP &L's Board of Directors / senior management, project management and prime contractors. The ateve recommendations should be implemented as soon as practicable, and in no event later than the initiation of Waterford 3 retrofit program. 2.4 Grand Gulf Decision .

a. LP&L had every reason to believe that Grand Gulf power would be C required to meet the needs of its customers.

Page W-3 -__

b. LP&L considered all avsilable options to meeting the power demand of the early eighties. Grand Gulf power purchase agreement was the only

                                                                                                                                   ] e feasible option available to the company.                                                                             <

c. The Availability Agreement rild not f avor any of the MSU operating companies.

d. The cost allocation method contained in the 1974 Availability Agreement was inadequata. Since this agreement is no longer in effect, this .

determination is moot. , Based. upon the above considerations, DMC, Inc. concludes that LP&L acted prudently and in the best interest of its customers with respect to the 1974 decision to purchase power from the Grand Gulf station. F POIJCY CONTROL 1.0 Senior Management Involvement in Waterford 3 Control

a. The involvement of LP&L's Board of Directors in Waterford 3 was commensurate with the utility. industry norm. !

b. Project status information received by the Board of Directors was adequate in light of its role on Waterford 3. -

2.0 -Evolution of the Grand Gulf Agreements j a. LP&L management properly identified the need for revision of the System Agreement and Grand Gulf capacity allocation, and took prompt actions i to implement improvements.

b. LP&L accomplished its goal of permanently fixing the shares of ownership of the Grand Gulf units. 'Ihis is beneficial to LP&L and its consumers.

c. LP&L management defended the company's interests and, where appropriate, voted against decisions detrimental to it.

d. Some decisions made in conjunction with Grand Gulf did not favor LP&L's

! . positions. Within the circumstances which existed during the past decade, [ and within a system setting, it would be unrealistic to expect all decisions to favor a single company. j Based upon the above considerations, DMC, Inc. concludes that Louisiana Power & Light management acted prudently and competently with regard to all facets of the Grand Gulf agreements.

3 l -

ATTACHFENT C-fi H PROJECT CANAGEMENT 3.0 Organi== tion and Responsibilities 3.1 Evolution of Ebaseo Organization and Responsibility Based on the above discussion, DMC finds Ebasco's organizational structure and the competence of the individuals placed in key positions to be significantly above industry averages and in relation to other projects of the same vintage. The ability of Ebasco's project and corporate management to respond to change has been clearly demonstrated; we find it to be above industry norms. Further evidence in support of this conclusion can be found in other parts of this report and, also, later on in this chapter. 3.2 Project Procedures The lack of a project procedure document, throughout the project duration, was not consistent with ' general industry practice. However, no evidence was found that the lack of this document had any adverse impact on the overall project. 3.3 Evolution of LP&L Organization and Responsibilities, 3.3.1 Engineering Phase - 1971 Through 1974 DMC believes that LP&L's involvement and direction during the engineering V[ 1 phase of the project was highly competent and adequate in light of project needs. 3.3J Construction Phase - 1975 'Ihrough 1978 During this pericd, a significant number of LP&L personnel were added to the project. The project work was still under the prime direction and influence of Ebasco, as it should have been. LP&L's use of the diagnostic report as a tool to extract better project performance from Ebasco is considered above average. The timeliness of LP&L's response to report recommendations was relatively slow, but is mitigated by other external influences. The criticism of LP&L in this report would also have been similar for many other utilities at the time. 3.3.3 Start-up Phase - 1979 'through 1981 In light of the circumstances and conditions just described, DMC considers LP&L management actions during this period as prudent. There are more details that went into this conclusion than can be included in the description and discussion sections due to time constraints. Extensive and intensive efforts were made by LP&L to submit required data, and intensive evaluation [ was made by DMC to arrive at the conclusion of this section (Reference DMC Q - L290). Page W-5

l 3.3.4 Pre-operational Phase 1982 to Present LP&L's executive management during this period exhibited exceptional

                                                                                        .) /

involvement and skill in light of surrounding circumstances. We find their performance da-ing this project phase as ecmmendable and prudent. 4.0 Project Milestones 4.1 Signifleant Project Developments and Achievements The conclusion of this section is that Waterford 3 project performance in many important areas was outstanding. 4J Comperative Profeet Performance The Waterford 3 project cost, schedule and overall construction performance are consistently better than-industry norms. 5.0 Overall Cooelusions The overall conclusion presented in this section summarize DMC's findings regarding the overall performance of LP&L and Ebasco. Conclusions stated

     . here are based not only, on materials in this Chapter, but also on evaluation of        ,

the component parts of The Waterford 3 project covered in other chapters. 3

 ~    These data sources are integrated to establish the overall impressions of              I management's performance on Waterford 3.

5.1 Ebaseo Project Management Ebasco's project management of the Waterford 3 project was found to be competent, responsive and effective relative to industry norms. This does not imply that there were not certain areas where improvements were warranted; our overall assessment, however, is as stated above. The following paragraphs summarize our evaluation of Ebasco's performance in relation to the specific evaluation criteria given in Section 2.0. f l 1 Did Ebasco, in light of the circumstances which existed at the time, ! respond to internal and external stimuli in a timely and effective manner? Evaluation: Ebasco's performance is rated very highly in this category as its corporate and project management demonstrated the ability to perceive the necessity to redirect its efforts to accomplish objectives effectively.

2. Did Ebasco commit adequate resources to the Waterford project in terms of number, quality and stmeture of its organization?

Page W-4

ATTACHMENT C-8 Evaluation: Ebasco's overall performance with respect to this criterion is rated above industry norms. This is demonstrated in part by the fact

,f'                    that Ebasco's Construction Management organizational structure

.> continually changed in response to the needs of the various construction i

phases. All the Ebasco personnel interviewed were found to be talented and experienced individuals.

3. Did Ebasco establisii a working relationship and open communication ,

channel with LP&L in a manner which created an environment of cooperation, as opposed to confrontation? Evahiation: A relationship characterized by cooperation and candor was in effect throughout the history of a number of projects Ebasco completed for LP&L. DMC believes that this relationship was continued on the Waterford 3 project. i

4. Did Ebasco advise LP&L of problem areas in a timely fashion, even at the expense of identifying problems it may have been responsible for?

Evaluation: DMC is not aware of any issues or areas where Ebasco's internal performance or problems were not discussed with LP&L in an open 'and candid manner. As discussed in Chapter Q, Procurement, we find Ebasco's candor above the industry norm. m 5. How did Ebasco's performance on Waterford 3 compare with industry norms at the time? Evaluation: The previous statistics demonstrate that Ebasco's performance was at least average and, in many cases, significantly above industry norms. l~ 5J LP&L Project Managessent ! LP&L's overall project management of Waterford 3 is generally considered to

                ~be adequate. In some areas, LP&L's performance was significantly above the average; in other areas, certain improvements could have been made. Based

! on information we compiled during this study, we believe that our findings ! regarding areas where improvements could have been made, were based on

                 " hindsight". The dotted line on Figure H-42 depicts a generalized measure of LP&L management effectiveness against a non-dimensionalized, ideelized base during various phases of the project. The following paragraphs summarize
                - LP&L's specific performance with respect to the evaluation criteria of Section l"                2.0.

1. Did LP&L provide,~ (a) the appropriate level of involvement, (b) have appropriate organizational structure, and (c) have capable key project personnel to monitor and control Ebasco's efforts?

I i Page W-7

                          ._   _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _          . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ ..~ -.___ _ ...- _ . _    __

Evaluation: m

(a) The effectiveness of LP&L management involvement throughout > the duration of the project is characterized in Figure H-42. In hindsight, earlier involvement of additional LP&L employees would have been beneficial. (b) LP&L's organizational structure was weaker in numb'ers than the industry average in the early project stages, but the competence of key individuals compensated completely for this deficiency. (c) All LP&L employees with whom we were in contact or

     -                interviewed personally, exhibited extreme loyalty and dedication to completing the Waterford 3 project. The compatence of LP&L employees is also rated high.

2. Considering the past inertia of the utility industry, did LP&L management respond in a reasonable and timely fashion to internal and external stimuli that necessitated changes as the project evolved?

Evaluation: As discussed in detail in Section 3.3.3, there is some evidence of a lack of timely response by LP&L management during the

            " start-up phase". In light of circumstances which existed at the time, especially the magnitude of the changes LP&L was expected to absorb           -

(see Figure H-43), we find the company's response as reasonable. This - deficiency is further compensated by the strong actions of LP&L executive management that took place between 1983 and the present.

3. Could Waterford 3 have been completed sooner, and at a lesser cost, if LP&L had assumed a more aggressive project control role during the latter stages of the project?

i Evaluation: Based upon DMC's evaluation of LP&L performance in light l of Criterion No. 2, we believe that either a positive or negative answer l must be regarded as moot because the answer would necessarily be based l on hindsight. 1 i ( J BUDGETING, ESTIMATING & COST l l 3.0 Estimating and Bu%eting 3.1 Ebaseo Estimating & Cost Control Process The Ebasco estimating process was consistent with project needs and evolved l in an orderly fashion in light of changir.g requirements. Many aspects of the l integrated cost and schedule system are considered better than the industry norm. - Page W-8

ATTACHMENT C-8 , The variance analysis process and the reporting level are considered adequate throughout the project duration. Also, the competency of the Ebasco personnel with whom we had discussions and the general experience level of the cost / schedule group are considered above industry norms. i 3J LP&L's Monitoring and Control of Ebaseo's Costs LP&L's cost monitoring / control system was adequate, but had some weaknesses before the current organization and personnel were in place. The current organization is performing effectively, and we can attribute no cost impact to i the potential deficiencies which existed earlier. 3.3 LP&L's Foraa==*i=r and Budgeting Process , The current posture of LP&L's cost forecasting and control group is sufficient and consistent with the Waterford 3 project.needs. f 4.0 Cost Evolution and Variance Analysis I 4.1 Overview, Variance Analysis, and Cost Evolution to Date The variance analysis and cost evolution to date are reasonable and generally j

consistent with industry norms.

       \   ~.

l 4J Cost Growth Causes The causes of cost growth of the Waterford 3 project are in line with industry l [ experience. 4J Estimate to Completion and Variance Analysis i The September,1983 estimate to complete the Waterford 3 project may contain levels of effort in excess of those needed to successfully complete the project, but this is considered prudent in light of the cost impact of not meeting the current schedule. LP&L's involvement in this latest budget development, and its ability to track the budget performance, are considered adequate and prudent. t The variance analysis for the latest cost growth is considered reasonable, but !- some activities may have been allocated subjectively. l lC Page W-9

5.0 Cost ,

The estimated total cost of Waterford 3 is reasonable; it is equivalent to, if .' not lower than, the cost of comparable plants. K SCHEDULING . 2.0 Waterford 3 Scheduling Process

a. The methods and procedures used in Waterford 3 scheduling were adequate in light of the utility industry practice. These methods, however, are not completely appropriate for the management of projects engineered, procured, and constmeted in an unstable environment.

b. Waterford 3 schedules were based, in general, upon realistic assumptions.

Where this realism was lacking, unrealistic goals were established for the purpose of enhancing project performance. LP&L was aware of the assumptions underlying the Waterford 3 schedules.

c. Waterford 3 schedules were developed by experienced and knowledgeable personnel.

d. The evolution of the Waterford 3 scheduling methods and tools (network s processor systems) was reasonable in light of industry practice. ,

Based upon the above considerations, Decision Management Company concludes that LP&L and Ebasco acted reasonably and prudently with regard to the scheduling function. 3.0 Evaluation of Waterford 3 Schedules

      - a.       Waterford 3 scheduling assumptions were reasonable when compared with the industry norm.

b. Louisiana Power & Light Company acted prudently in controlling events and conditions causing schedule delays which were within the company'::

control.

c. Waterford 3 schedule performance is at least 12 and perhaps over 20 percent better than the industry norm.

d. The current Waterford schedule is reasonable and achievable barring the occurrence of major events on the project or in the industry as a whole.

Based upon the above considerations Decision Management Company concludes that Louisiana Power & Light acted prudently with regard to scheduling of the - Waterford 3 project. Our analysis indicates that the plant can be completed - Page W-10

ATTACHMENT C-8

as scheduled. It should be noted however that the current schedule is 3 sensitive, and its attainment subject to many factors including, but not limited

        ^)        to causes of the latest delay.        It is therefore mandatory that status of remaining activities be monitored closely and precisely. A mechanism which could provide LP&L with early warning of potential difficulties is described in Chapter U.

L PROJECT MONITORING AND REPORTING 2.0 Evolution of Waterford 3 Monitoring and Reporting

a. Techniques used at the outset of the project and throughout its duration were appropriate in light of the comn.on industry practice.

b. Methods used to compile internal and external data were reasonable.

With the exception of deficiencies we discussed earlier, data reported to LP&L appear to have been valid.

c. In combination, progress reports and status review meetings did provide the management with information necessary to direct project work.

d. LP&L and Ebasco made adequate uge of project status data and, as demonstrated in other sections of this report, took corrective actions to j

[~ resolve problems and enhance performance. p -

e. The system used to control design and construction changes was well developed and adequately implemented.

f. The evolution of the Waterford 3 monitoring and reporting methodology compares favorably to the industry norm.

Based upon the above considerations, DMC, Inc. concludes that LP&L has acted prudently with regard to the above subject. We recommend, however, that all of t';e

                      ; company's future projects be monitored by means of a fully integrated cost / schedule control system.

l , N LICENSING 2.0 Waterford 3 Licensing Organization

a. The Waterford 3 licensing organization (including LP&L, Ebasco and i Combustion Engineering personnel) was adequately staffed throughout the i duration of the project.

(( b. Ebasco's licensing personnel acted professionally, efficiently, and in the )( best interest of LP&L throughout the project duration. Page W-11

c. Combustion Engineering, to a minor extent, may have used the nuclear licensing process to obtain certain contractual gains. However, project j contract administration practices adequately protected LP&L Interests, d. The evolution of LP&L's licensing organization was rather slow and below the industry norm. Because of the strength of the overall Waterford 3 licensing team, we do not believe that LP&L's tardiness was the cause of any schedule delays or cost overruns. e. DMC, Inc. agrees with the ACRS recommendation and the NRC conclusion that the present staff and organization are able to successfully license and safely operate the Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station. 4 3.0 Condmet of Waterford 3 Licensing Methods 3.1 Constrmrtion Permit Phase a.

 '                  The time it took to obtain Waterford 3 Construction Permit of 46-1/2 months is slightly over the industry's average of 43 months. We believe that this variance is insignificant.

b. .

The fact that the Waterford 3 licensing critical path went through the

                , anti-trust review is unusual                                                   .s '

Should the critical path have gone through i the safety review, Waterford 3 would have been IIcens'ed approximately 3 ./ A to 4 months earlier. c. Louisiana Power & Light's defense of its corporate interests during the anti-trust hearings must be regarded as reasonable. I Based upon the above considerations, DMC concludes that LP&L's conduct of licensing activities during the Construction Permit phase of Waterford 3, was reasonable and prudent. 3.2 Operating License Phase a. The schedule from CP to OL ranks Waterford 3 better than average, compared to same period for other similar nuclear power plants, b. SALP reports rate Waterford 3 licensing performance as adequate and at the industry norr. c. Assuming timely review by the NRC and the absence of industry-wide accidents concerning safety, there is a reasonable assurance that the LP&L organization is capable of: o Closing out all open licensing items, Page W-12

ATTACHMENT C-8 o Receiving the Operating License on schedule, and

 /'         \'

_..- o operating the plant successfully. P ENGINEERING 3.0 Description of Waterford 3

1. The site layout provides for convenient and easy accessibility, and is above the industry standard.

2. The plant layout is very spacious; the size of Waterford 3 buildings provided for easier construction and will facilitate plant operations and maintenance. We believe that if Waterford 3 was designed more tightly, its cost would have been much greater.

3. Engineered systems and components were designed within industry standards.

4. Design innovations implemented by LP&L and Ebasco will enhance plant operability and safety.

    .m.        4.0 Waterford 3 Ergi..; fag Organization

(' ') a. The Waterford 3 Engineering organization, consisting of LP&L and Ebasco personnel, was adequately staffed throughout the duration of the project. i

b. Ebasco and LP&L had adequate technical procedures throughout the project duration. The same conclusion was also reached by Torrey Pines Technologies (TPI) during their independent review.

l 1

c. LP&L's management was actively involved in managing the Ebasco l Engineering Organization.

d. LP&L management has developed and implemented an effective method of controlling chringes and completing engineering activities required to obtain the Operating License.

Based upon the above considerations we conclude that LP&L acted prudently with regard to the above subjects. 5.0 Condinet of Waterford 3 Engineering Process 5.1 General Arrangement Drawings Regulatory Required Revisions have caused the engineering cost of (v a. Waterford 3 to escalate significantly. Page W-13

b. Regulatory requirements were the cause of at least 54 percent of design and engineering changes; a detailed analysis would most likely support a

)./

much higher percentage.

c. The results reported in LP&L's Root Cause Variance Analysis appear reasonable. -

5.2 Review of Main Steam Line Pipe Design

a. The engineering of the Main Steam line was performed in accordance with e criteria specified in FSAR and NRC requirements.

b. Throughout the project, Ebasco had detailed procedures which served as a basis for preparation of technical documentation.

c. The Main Steam Line system as well as a large majority of other piping systems were severely affected by regulatory changes.

        'd. Rerouting, changes and rework have caused the cost of piping on Waterford 3 to escalate. LP&L's estimate of piping cost variance appears to be reasonable.

Q PROCUREMENT

Procurement of the Waterford 3, NSSS and TG was accomplished by LP&L exercising options initially negotiated by Middle South Services. LP&L's input to the initial procurement of these options was relatively minor. Both the NSSS and TG were obtained at favorable prices; contracts with CE and Westinghouse had well defined. scopes of work and terms and conditions l favorable to LP&L. These contracts were comparable with or better than the l industry standard. I j LP&L's procurement of an AE/CM was done on the basis of its past experience l with Ebaseo and competitive bids were not taken. The AE/CM contract is quite thorough and has survived the trials of a lengthy and difficult project. In the area of compensation, LP&L negotiated much better terms than the industry norm. LP&L also negotiated better terms for errors and omissions than is common in the industry. In a summary, LP&L's approach to procurement of the AE/CM services was not unusual for the industry at that time. Its contract with Ebasco was substantially better than the industry norm. LP&L followed a fixed procurement procedure for the balance of the project. This essentially consisted of ELasco's preparation of bidders lists, bid documents, bid analyses and recommendations, and the final contract. LP&L reviewed the bidders IIst and bid documents and authorized, with changes - i Page W-14

         <     ,!,                   n
           .                        ';                ATr/CICENT C-8 where necessary, the bid documents;for use. It also reviewed the bid analyses

{1, q ~ and recommendations and approvedithe contract award. All authorizations were made by-a-LP&L Vice President ~'or the Waterford 3 Project Manager. JIndeed, LP&L':was actively inv'olved in procurement at the executive level. LP&L showed flex!bility when it was called for and at all times exercised care in insuring its control over contractors. It may be argued that because LP&L's project staff was unusually small, company's involvement in the procurement process could not amount to more than a " rubber stamp". On the contrary, our analysis of sample contracts suggests that LP&L achieved a reasonable degree of control over the procurement procesa. ~ Based upon the above considerations, DMC, Inc. concludes that Waterford 3 procurement w'as above the industry norm, and that LP&L management actions were reasonable and prudent. R CONTRACT ADMINISTRNI1 ION

a. LP&L's management of Ebasco's activities was above the industry norm.

b. Ebasco's contract management methods and organization were similar to those used by the industry; as a whole. LP&L's involvement in the contract management process was above the industry's norm.

c. LP&L's and Ebasco's management of defaults, backcharges and claims was reasonable and effective. .

d. LP&L maintained control over its interests in all contracts throughout the duration of the prefect.

Based upon the above considerations, Decision Management Company concludes i that LP&L has had sufficien't managerial expertise to properly monitor Waterford 3 contracts. We find that LPdL has exercised extreme care and control over contract administration. We believe that through these efforts LP&L has limited schedule delays and construction cost overruns. This [ 'eggressive attitude' of LP&L should be commended and could actually be used as a model by other utilities in their contreet administration efforts. S CONSTRUCTION

a. LP&L's decision to manage Waterford 3 construction through an agent is j consistent with the standard utility industry practice.

l

b. The Waterford 3 construction management organization was reasonably well developed throughout proje

duration.

     ,            c.      The evolution of the cor.struction me gement organization was above the Page W-15

[ - ,

construction industry norm.

d. The construction management team was staffed with an adequate number ,,

of experienced management personnel. Based upon the above considerations, Decision Management Company concludes that Ebasco and LP&L have paid adequate care to staffing and organizing the Waterford 3 construction management team and, therefore, have acted prudently. 3.0 Construction Management Process

a. The Waterford 3 labor agreement was extremely beneficial to the overall project results.

b. Labor supervision and contractor's control methods were reasonably well developed in light of industry practice and adequate in light of project needs.

c. Ebasco and LP&L assured that materials and equipment were delivered in accordance with the constmetion schedule.

Based upon the above considerations, Decision Management Company concludes that the Waterford 3 construction management process was implemented

         ' properly and adequately.
                                                                                                                                         .]
                                                                                                                                         ,/

4s0 Construction Support Punetions

a. Waterford 3 construction support functions were similar in scope and the quality of implementation to the industry norm.

b. Waterford 3 site procedures were similar to common industry practice and adequate in light of project needs.

l Based upon the above considerations, DMC concludes that LP&L and Ebasco acted prudently with regard to the above matters. l T QUALITY ASSURANCE 210 LP&L QA Program

a. Prior to 1982, LP&L's QA staff was small as compared to the industry l

norm, but highly capable and dedicated. We find that they have fulfilled the objective of assuring the quality of Waterford 3.

b. LP&L actions related to the Civil Penalty prevented serious consequences which are presently jeopardizing the completion of some other nuclear ,

i l Page W-18

                                                                           ~_                .

ATTACH}ENT C-8 s power plants. We find thrd LP&L has acted in a responsible and prudent f p manner. s.~; A partial breakdown of the Waterford 3 Quality ' Assurance Program c. contributed to the escalation of the project cost. The magnitude of the cost increase attributable to these events cannat be determined prior to i completion of the corrective action program. i

d. Costs associated with the above matter, to the extent to which they are a result of imprudence or gross mismanagement should not be borne by LP&L or its customers. Following completion of the corrective action program, the costs should be analyzed to determine the amount properly assessable to contractors. '

Based upon the above considerations DMC, Inc. concludes that LP&L has acted We recommend that costs

prudently with regard to the above matters. associated with 'the, partial breakdown of _ the QA program be included in the rate base, but. that LP&L seek to recover,.these costs in accordance with provisions of paragraph (d), above. These actions should be initiated by the company followinsr the completion of Waterford 3; an attempt.to gain. their resolution earlier-would most likely have a negative impact on the completion of Waterford 3. - ..

      \
 ~
        'U   FFART-UP EFFORT AND OPERATIONAL PREPAREDNESS w              .

2J Evolution of Waterford 3 Start-Up Effort from.1977 to mid-1982

a. The planning and preparation for start-up activities between 1977 and 1980 was consistent with the common industry prEctice at the time. l

b. The Wuterfctd 3 start-up effort experienced significant setbacks during

< 1981 and early 1932. There are many complicated and interrelated Within the scope of this study, DMC reasons for these shortfalls. believes that 'these shortfalls are consist'ent' with conditions that existed

during that periodi; 2.3 Start-up Effort from Mid- 1962 to Present

             'Ihe start-up effort experienced shortfalls between mid-1982 and mid- 1983 despite intensive and, positive efforts' by LP&L executive management. These efforts came'to fruition in the-third quarter of this year. DMC believes that the problems that caused the shortfalls in the past have, by and Isrge, been resolved.' "            "

Some of the circumstances that caused the schedule shortfalls may be subject to litigation once the' Waterford 3 Project is complete.

3p.

iQ ,

_ l

t Paga W-17

                        .-        ..       -.- -       ? . -       -          .. .      --       -     -    - .- _.

It must be noted, however, that many of the past difficulties were not within LP&L's control, and that the problems may reoccur. It is, therefore, 3 mandatory that LP&L monitor developments, both within Waterford 3 and in ./ the industry very closely, and take timely and aggressive corrective actions. To enhance LP&L's ability to achieve these objectives, DMC, Inc. recommends that start-up status reports be supplemented by the format shown in Figure U-13. This format contains the following information:

a. Field PP - Planned Progress: This field contains planned progress data expressed in either dollars or percentage of planned completion.

b. Graph A G r. ') A is the same as planned progress graphs shown in Figure U-12. a presents a graphical depiction of data shown in field PP.

DMC recommends that graph A be drawn using a scale which accentuates progress increments between consecutive reporting periods (steeper slope).

e. Field AP - Actual Progress: This field contains actual progress data expressed in the same units as the planned progress.

d. Graph B Graph B is the same as actual progress graphs shown in Figure U-12. It presents a graphical depiction of data shown in field AP.

e. - - Field AC - Actual Cost: This field documents actual cost of work accomplished. Cost data should be expressed in the same units of

_s measurement as the planned and actual progress. . This information is not required for schedule control. Its usefulness is in that it will enable / LP&L's senior management to assess the overall status of Waterford 3 from a single report.

f. Graph C: This curve presents a graphical depiction of data shown in field A C.

g. SPF - Schedule Performance Factor: Data contained in this field provide information as to whether the actual project performance is higher or lower than planned performance. Value of Schedule Performance Factor is computed in accordance with the following expression:

SPF = (PP)/(AP) x 100 - 100 The negative' sign indicates lower than planned performance; positive values of SPF indicate better than planned performance.

h. Graph D: This curve presents a graphical depiction of Schedule Performance Factors. As shown in Figure U-13, the SPF values may be plotted against the actual percent or against the time scale. The usefulness of this graph is in that it forms a trend line indicating the likely time of completion (months ahead or behind schedule).

Page W-18

ATTACHMENT C-8

1. Field SV - Schedule Variance: Data contained in this field define

( ) variances between planned and actual progress. Value of variances is

   'n ,                  computed in accordance with the following formula:

SV = PP - AP The negative sign indicates a behind schedule condition. Values of schedule variance may be plotted in the same manner as the values of SPF.

j. Field CV - Cost Variance Data contained in this field define variances between budgeted cost and actual cost. Values of cost variance are computed in accordance with the following expression: ,

CV = PP - AC The negative sign indicates a budget overrun condition. Values of variances may be plotted in the same manner as the values of SPF. The reporting format shown above is an extremely effective management control tool. 'ihe report can be generated from the existing Waterford 3 status data at negligible cost. The report should be prepared at the lowest level of planning detail and at all summary levels up to and

        .               including the entire project.        At each reporting level, the cognizant executive, or manager, should establish threshold levels for schedule and

(~-- , cost variances and schedule performance factor. These reports should be reviewed closely and prompt corrective action taken whenever a threshold is breached or when graphs begin showing negative trends. If possible, reports should be issued on a weekly basis. 3.1 Waterford 3 Operation Organization Decision Management Company, Inc. concludes that LP&L is well prepared to load fuel, test and operate Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station. The company should continue with positive efforts which brought about the current high state of readiness. l

/

Page W-19

m . . _ _ . Attachment E-1

                ,  ITEM.                                                   1

DATE' 10/24/73

                  .TO                                                      Ebasco-Project Manager FROM                                                    LP&L-Senior Vice President SUBJECT                                                 Telephone Communication, AEC Compliance PURPOSE                                                 Forwards to Ebasco LP&L memorandum on

'- telephone call with AEC regarding five unresolved items in the area of QA in-AEC report. e f f u 6 d

   - r I ,

W310102Y-

1 Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 2 DATE 11/6/73 TO Ebasco-Project Manager FROM LP&L-Senior Vice President SUBJECT AEC Audit-October 11-12, 1973 PURPOSE Forwards copy cf QA audit to Ebasco W310102Y

L Attachment E-1 (continued) -

             ': ITEM '                3

_ . DATE '11/29/73 i TO. Ebasco-Project Manager LP&L-Senior Vice President s -- FROM-

              ' SUBJECT-              AEC Audit-October 11-12, 1973
              ' PURPOSE               Notification-that LP&L has: committed to ANSI N45.2.9 and for Ebasco to notify CE of such and that both are to comply.

t. W310102Y-

J

'.'i j Att,.chment E-1 (continued)

ITEM 4

                  - DATE                    11/29/73
                  ~ TO                      Ebasco-Project Manager

t. .

                  . FROM                    LP&L-Senior Vice President
       -u lSUBJECT                 AEC Audit - October 11-12, 1973 PURPOSE                 Notification that LP&L has committed to ANSI N45'.2.12 and for Ebasco to notify CE of such and that both are to comply.

4

         .W310102Y__

Attachment E-1 (continued) ! ITEM ~ 5 DATE- 11/30/73 TO' CE-Project Manager FROM Ebasco-Project Manager SUBJECT AEC-Audit of LP&L - October 11-12, 1973 PURPOSE Forwards copies of LP&L letters to CE, that LP&L has committed to ANSI N45.2.9 and N45.2.12. (Reference Items 3 & 4) W310102Y

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM- 6 DATE. 12/19/73 TO LP&L-Senior Vice President 1FROM Ebasco-Project Manager

            - SUBJECT                            CE-Equipment - Site Storage Requirements i.

PURPOSE Confirmation letter of telephone meeting between LP&L, Ebasco and CE regarding CE actions concerning storage requirements.

1 r W310102Y

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 7 r DATE 1/74 SUBJECT' PSAR Amendment 44 Question 8, QA Program (Gambit Letter of April 4, 1983, item 18.e.) W310102Y

 =                    +

g Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 8 DATE 2/13/74 TO' CE-Project Manager tFROM Ebasco-Project Manager

. SUBJECT Site Storage Requirements PURPOSE Transmittal of site stcrage conditions for use by CE in purchase specifications.

t i i i: i l I' , W310102Y I

1 Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM- 9 DATE~. 4/9/74.

                      -TO-                    Ebasco-Project-Manager-I FROM'                   CE-Project Manager
                     ' SUBJECT.                Long Term Site Storage Specification u

1 PURPOSE Forwards CE specification to Ebasco for review. t j' i .

                )                                                                                               L
             'W310102Y -

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM. 10 DATE 5/17/74 TO Ebasco-Project Manager FROM CE-Project Manager SUBJECT Delay of NSSS Contract Completion Storage of NSSS Equipment

           ' PURPOSE                                  Notification of forthcoming pricing for delay in the contract completion and for storage alternatives for NSSS components. Recommended alternatives are given, r -

d W310102Y' L

h. ,

w 9 Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 11 DATE- 5/22/74 TO' LP&L-Station Superintendent fFROM .CE-Louisiana District Manager SUBJECT. Delay and Storage Charges

               = PURPOSE                                                 Detailed list of delay charges and storage charges at various locations.

i. a i ~ w.. t W310102Y

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 12 DATE 5/23/74 TO CE-Project Manager FROM Ebasco-Project Manager SUBJECT Long Term Site Storage Specification PURPOSE Comments on CE specification W310102Y

v i 4' N

                                                                     - Attachment E-1 (continued) a l--                   ' ITEM.                                                                            13
                     . DATE~                                                                            5/31/74-i
                      .TO                                                                             .Ebasco-Project Manager

_FROM CE-Project Manager' SUBJECT Long Term Storage Requirements f-. j PURPOSE CE reply to Ebasco comments on CE specification

4 5 f a r i . l [- - p i i L I ' i i W310102Y , i. t

4 y p -

                            -Attachment E-1 (continued)

ITEN' 14

                ' DATE'                   7/2/74
;-                TO                      CE-Project Manager
                 .FROM                    Ebasco-Project Manager SUBJECT                 Requirements of ANSI N45.2.9 and
                                         -N45.2.12                                 ,

PURPOSE ~ Request for CE to confirm compliance with LP&L directives and commitments. t. 1 1 P j

   /
       'W310102Y:

                                                                                                                                  -                                . = _ _ _
,4 Attachment E-1 (continued)-

ITEM .. 15'

             . DATE                                                                7/19/74
              -TO                                                                  Ebasco-Project Manager
          " FROM                                                                   LP&L-Senior Vice President 7-.

SUBJECT . Audit of CE - Chattanooga, Tennessee.

            -- PURPOSF-                                                            Forwards subject audit to Ebasco to forward to CE.

F

   -W310102Y

Attachment E-1 (continued)

         .ITEMI                16
        .DATE.                 7/22/74 TO                   Ebasco-Project Manager-FROM                LCE-Project Manager SUBJECT              CE Equipment - Site Storage Requirements PURPOSE              Response to LP&L July 11-12, 1974 t.udit of Windsor regarding increase in QA requirements. . Notes that no contract change has been received for increase in costs.

LW310102Y

4 Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM-- 17 DATE 7/29/74 TO LP&L-Senior Vice President FROM Ebacco-Project Manager

           . SUBJECT             Minutes of Meeting with LP&L and CE on July 25-26, 1974 PURPOSE              Procedure to follow to ensure that ANSI N45.2.2 is followed by all parties.

LP&L agreed in principle that any additional justified expense to meet ANSI N45.2.2 would be reimbursed by LP&L. W310102Y

e" Attachment E-1 (continued) J

                    ' ITEM-                                               18
            ~

DATE- 7/29/74 TO .Ebasco-Project Manager FROM- LP&L-Senior Vice. President SUBJECT Audit of CE-Windsor, Connecticut July 11-12, 1974' i

PURPOSE Forwards audit to Ebasco to forward to CE. Subject of audit was Windsor QA. 4 1 e d i il . v. JW310102Y l-

.;, z t c Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM' -19 DATE 7/30/74

                   -TO:                                            Ebasco-Project Manager FROM                                           CE-Project Manager SUBJECT.                                       CE Subvendor Packaging, Shipping and Storage Procedures PURPOSE                                        Forwards procedures for review and Comment.

k W310102Y.

      .-                  .- . . - . - -..        . - . - . . ~ .           _

Attachment E-1 (continued)- - ITEM' 20 DATE -8/2/74

                        ,TO                                                                                           CE-Project Manager FROM                                                                                         Ebasco-Project Manager SUBJECT                                                                                      LP&L Audit of CE-Windsor, Connecticut
                                                                                                                   . July 11-12, 1974 t

4

                        ~ PURPOSE                                                                                     Forwards LP&L Audit to CE.

4 5 A ? i-

W3101d2Y ;

1 Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 21 DATE 8/6/74

            -TO                   Ebasco-Project Manager FROM                 CE-Project Manager SUBJECT-              Ingersoll-Rand Packaging Procedure

PURPOSE- Forwards procedure to Ebasco for review and conunent.

v l w W310102Y

47 . y- ~

               -h-                                                                   1 Attachment E-1 (continued)
                                                                                   -i ITEM'                   22
                     - DATE.                   8/8/74 TO                     CE-Project Manager FROM                   Ebasco-Project Manager SUBJECT'               Review of Packaging, Shipping and Storage Procedure for Gavlin and Ingersoll-Rand Pumps PURPOSE                Forwards comments on procedure to CE c

t N3'10102Y- -

Attachment E-1 (continued)

            -ITEM-                 23 DATE.                 8/8/74 TO                    CE-Project Manager
           ~FROM:                  Ebasco-Project. Manager SUBJECT               Site Storage Requirements PURPOSE.             Telephone conversation confirmatory letter. CE_ expressed concern to Ebasco about being property reimbursed for additional expenses in connection with     ~

ANSI N45.2.2. Ebasco makes reference to meeting of 7/25-26/74. (Reference Item 17) s __ ( _W310102Y-L

                                                   .x         ..a     ,                                                                         ._

_> 3; w s- .W

n- -

e r w s

                                                                                                                                     Attachment E-1 (continued)
                                               ' ITEM                                                                                                               24
                                               .DATEz                                                                                                               9/13/74 TO                                                                                                                 Ebasco-Project Manager
                                              - FROM~

CE-Project Manager

                                              . SUBJECT-                                                                                                           . LP&L Audit of CE-Windsor, Connecticut July-11-12, 1974
                                                                                              . ~.

PURPOSE Reply to LP&L Audit findings. a 4

                                                                                                                   .i
    .~.

1 d e 3 -w

J #%

~~

O j I s

                                                                                            - g '.

f* e w.*

                                                                                                                            =
    ,_ ve;r 3
                                                          *_,sr               ,

[ ]

                       .a s -; .               -

k310162Y < i t ei,* - '- - 5.z _' 3

f; I

      ,                                                   -..s-,,-,                                             ,,,,-.r--            , . . , -            - + - ,,   ..ww.... . . , - , , , - ,,-mn, ,- -- - - . . -.w.n,- . - , ,-,~--- - , , , , - , . , - ~ , - - '

l Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 25

          'DATE-                 9/20/74 rTO                    Ebasco-Project Manager
         -FROM                  ' CE-Project Manager SUBJECT.              Additional Licensing Requirements
         -PURPOSE                Informs Ebasco that CE is proceeding to meet ANSI N45.2.9 and N45.2.12. Costs for these and other QA changes will be forthcoming.

iW310102Y',

                                     , -                         e                                               r
        ?-                    .

m I I 6 Attachment E-1 (continued) ._

                     ' ITEM                                                                                            26-DATE                                                                                             9/23/74 TO                                                   .                                           LP&L-Nuclear Project Manager                                                                                               '

FROM LP&L-QA Manager , SUBJECT' Site Storage - CE Components

                                                        . . ..                                    s.

Regulatory Guide 1.38 ANSI N45.2.2 l I F e PURPOSE' Recon.rnendation to include ANSI N45.2.2 in contract with CE. 4 e W 8 7 4 + { . e

r

_ je s f s

                                                                              ,af 1

v.

4 t_ i , r A i 4 b, e-l 1 'l , s l e N

                                                                             ' 6
        -W310102Y'
                                                                                ~

s

                                . _ , ,- .,.            A f. _                    ._     -.         , _ _ .      .J... _,L'____...,.,...,,.                       . _ _ , , , . , _ _ , - . - - . _ - - . . . . . _ - , . , . - . . . , -

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 27 DATE 10/23/74 TO Ebasco-Prcject Manager FROM LP&L-Senior Vice President SUBJECT CE Components - ANSI N45.2.2 PURPOSE Revision to procedure set forth at 7/25-26/74 meeting. (Reference Item 17) I l

l l W310102Y

Attachment E-1 (continued) l l l ITEM 28 i DATE 11/7/74 TO CE-Project Manager FROM Ebasco-Project Manager SUBJECT Meeting Minutes of 10/29-30/74 PURPOSE Forward minutes of meeting on licensing shared costs and storage of CE equipment. W310102Y

t i 1

1 l l Attachment E-1 (continued) i l l l ITEM 29 DATE 7/9/75 TO Ebasco-Project Manager FROM CE-Project Manager SUBJECT GE Motor Generator Sets - ANSI N45.2.2 PURPOSE Additional costs associated with meeting ANSI N45.2.2 1 W310102Y

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 30 DATE. 12/10/75 TO Ebasco-Project Manager FROM LP&L-VP Engineering & Production SUBJECT Audit Open Items at CE-Windsor

           = PURPOSE             Closure of open audit items at CE-Windsor by LP&L
    -W310102Y

l l Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 31 i

DATE 5/17/76 ; i i TO CE-Project Manager. FROM Ebasco-Project Manager SUBJECT FSAR Preparation r 4

   'm PURPOSE                                              Forwards division of responsibility for FSAR preparation and request for comments. FSAR to be written to RG 1.70 Rev 2.

I e i 1 W310102Y

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 32 DATE 6/1/76 TO Ebasco-Project Manager FROM CE-Project Manager SUBJECT FSAR Preparation PURPOSE Comments on Ebasco letter of responsiblity for FSAR preparation. RG 1.70 Rev 2 is considered a new requirement with an increase in costs. W310102Y

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 33 DATE 6/15/76 TO CE-Project Manager FROM Ebasco-Project Manager

                 ' SUBJECT                FSAR Preparation Schedule PURPOSE                Adds new items to schedule. Also suggests meeting to discuss RG 1.70 Rev 2.

i I V i l'

j. ~ W310102Y L 1- __ _.

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 34 DATE 9/10/76 TO LP&L-Nuclear Plant Manager FROM CE-Louisiana District Manager SUBJECT Outstanding Charges PURPOSE Includes charges for additional QA requirements imposed on CE during the course of the contract. l l W310102Y

              .                        . .                        . . _  . _ . = - - - -                 - . . .       . - - - _ .          --
      #r Attachment E-1 (continued)
                  -ITEM                                                   35 DATE                                                   9/13/76 TO                                                     Ebasco-Project Manager i
'                                                                                                                                                i FROM                                                   CE-New York District Manager SUBJECT                                                Outstanding Charges PURPOSE                                                Includes charges for additional QA                                   -!

, . requirements imposed on CE during the-course of the contract. I

          .+                                                                                                                                     i Y

l i e 1 ? 4 e 4 F y -W310102Y.

4 Attachment E-1 (continued) 4 ] ITEM 36 , :DATE 9/16/76 TO Distribution

~7.-           FROM"                  Ebasco-Project Manager SUBJECT                CE Claims (Confidential)

. PURPOSE Minutes and visual aids of 9/14/76 meeting between LP&L, Ebasco, and CE. Telecon the next day between LP&L and Ebasco and followup actions. Among items is CE claim for QA costs. 1 lW310102Y?

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 37 DATE- 9/29/76 TO - Ebasco-Froject Manager FROM CE-New York District Manager SUBJECT Outstanding Charges PURPOSE Provides. detailed information requested at 9/14/76 meeting including CE additional costs for QA requirements. W310102Y

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM- 38 DATE 10/8/76 TO. CE-Project Manager FROM Ebasco-Project Manager SUBJECT. Outstanding Claims

               . PURPOSE              Reply to CE detailed response letter of 9/14/76 meeting. Request for very detailed information on QA additional cost.

v

         )
           ~
  /W310102Y p

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 39 DATE 10/14/76 , TO Ebasco-Project Manager FROM CE-Project Manager SUBJECT Ebasco FSAR Input PURPOSE Request for input from Ebasco W310102Y

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 40 DATE 11/2/76 TO CE-Project Manager FROM Ebasco-Project Manager SUBJECT FSAR Preparation Schedule PURPOSE Forwards final version of FSAR preparation responsibility. W310102Y

                              .. . .. .        -                               _.          = -.            _.- - . .... ..                __-..._ - .

4 u. Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 41 DATE 11/10/76-TO Ebasco-Project Manager FROM CE-Project Manager l SUBJECT Outstanding Charges

              - PURPOSE                                            Response to " position in principle" to                                            l CE claims, including additional QA Costs.

i 1 J A \ a W310102Y

                                                                     ,-,m,_,_,    __ ,. ..      ,_ ,, , _ ,, ,., ,,        __, .,, . ,, ,
         --~w         r<,,i,g           ,,-~.,     .r,. ,_ , ,w.,,

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 42

                    .DATE                                                               11/11/76
                   'TO                                                                 Ebasco-Project Manager FROM                                                              LP&L-Manager Power Production SUBJECT                                                           Audits of Combustion Engineering PURPOSE                                                           Confirming letter for audits and dates of Windsor and Chattanooga.

Requests.Ebasco to confirm with CE. e F 9 e 4 d ,t

           - W310102Y

i Attachment E-1 (continued) 4

                     . ITEM                                                                                                43 l,

DATE 11/19/76 , .TO CE-Project Manager

           ,        .FROM                                                                                                  Ebasco-Project Manager T

SUBJECT- 'LP&L Audits of CE 1 PURPOSE Forwards LP&L schedule audits and dates to CE. (Referenen Item 42)

          ..N
                                                                                                                                                                                                 ?

1 f t a r t ,

,                                                                                                                                                                                                t t

4 i I 1 W3'10102Y--

        --                  ...,.,_,....-,..--......-,.-_,~,,..,..-._.-,._,_,__...,.,__v.-,_,m--_,,,,-..._-cm,,--+,_,,---                                                  . , . . , _ , . . - ,

I Attachment E-1 (continued) es ITEM 44 DATE 12/7/76 TO Ebasco-Project Manager FROM CE-Project Manager SUBJECT FSAR Section 17.1, " Quality Assurance" PURPOSE Trasmittal of CE draft of FSAR Section 17.1, " Quality Assurance". Notes that LP&L has not expressed intention of amending contract to take credit for CE effort in implementing 10 CFR 50 Appendix B and WASH-1283. (Gambit letter of April 4, 1983, item 18.i.) W310102Y

e Attachment E-1 (continued) 1 TEM 45 DATE 12/13/76 TO CE-Project Manager FROM Ebasco-Project Manager SUBJECT Outstanding Claims PURPOSE Response to CE position on claims including additional QA costs. W310102Y

Attachment E-1 (continued) E ITEM 46 , DATE 12/17/76 TO Ebasco-Project Manager FROM Ebasco-QA Engineer

SUBJECT. Increased QA Requirements Direction to CE i

i PURPOSE Brief historical background of the increased QA requirements as related to CE. 4 i i _) 4 3': W310102Y

r Attachment E-1 (continued) f

              ' ITEM                            '47 DATE-                               1/3/77 TO                                 Ebasco-Project Manager FROM                               CE-Project Manager SUBJECT                             12/17/76 Meeting Minutes PURPOSE                            Meeting between LP&L, Ebasco and CE.

Purpose to discuss outstanding claims by CE. Agreed to resolve QA claims by contract supplement. I-W310102Y-u.- . . ~ _ _ _ -_ . _ . . - - , _ _ - . , _ . _ _ , _ _ . . - - _ . _ _ . . , . _ - _ , - - - _ - - - . - _ _ -

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 48 DATE 2/7/77 TO LP&L-Manager Power Production FROM Ebasco-Project Manager SUBJECT CE QA Claim PURPOSE Forwards notes on 1/25/77 meeting in Windsor between LP&L, Ebasco and CE. W310102Y

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 49 DATE 2/8/77 TO Ebasco-Project Manager FROM CE-Project Manager SUBJECT QA Cost Increases PURPOSE Forwards costs for increased QA requirements. W310102Y

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 50 DATE 3/3/77 TO CE-Project Manager FROM Ebasco-Project Manager SUBJECT QA Audit of CE-Chattanooga PURPOSE Forwards audit of 12/15-19/76 by LP&L and Ebasco to CE. W310102Y-

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM' 51 DATE 3/17/77

                     -TO                                      Ebasco-Project Manager FROM                                   CE-Project Manager SUBJECT                                Review of Outstanding Charges Negotiation PURPOSE                                Forwards status of claims negotiations and costs. Progress is being made in settlement of QA costs.

s O

       < W310102Y.

Attachnent E-1 (continued) ITEM 52 DATE.. . 3/17/77 TO Ebasco-Project Manager FROM LP&L-Manager Power Production SUBJECT Audit of CE-Windsor, Connecticut March 7-9, 1977 PURPOSE ., . Forwards audit to Ebasco to forward to CL. e h h m-4m e M s s 4 s e w A

                                ~ " ~

W310102Y ~ 0' s +n. . ,. -e,,- , . _ , . - - . . . - .

Attachment E-1 (continued). ITEM 53 '

          .DATE                                                    4/12/77

TO' Ebasco-Project Manager FROM CE-Project Manager SUBJECT QA Audit of CE-Chattanooga PURPOSE Response to audit of 12/15-17/76.

(Reference Item 50) > h 4 . W310102Y.

                                                                                                                              .~ _ - - -                    _. .                               ,
                                                       ?%                                                                                                                                           s Attach:nent E-1 (continued')

2 ITEM- -- i 54 DATE 4/21/77

                                                  '~                   ~ '

TO ,- LP&L.-Manager Power Production e kbasco-Project Manager

FROM

            ' SUBJECT.                                                                                                  4/19/77 Ebasco/CE Meeting' Minutes a.
                                                                                                               '~          ,                     s PURPOSE-                  ', .
                                                            .                                                           Meeting between CE and Ebasco. CE is to ' identify the various components of s                        the QA. claim silich were not required under the base-contract but imposed
                                                ,                                                                      ~'as result of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B                                        ,

ANSI N45.2 and_Hev 0 and Rev I of WASH-1283.

9 2 s i, g.

y, s y-3-

1

                                                                                  .'l W310102Y'                                                                                                          3
                                                                 , ---                    -                               .*n,        - -,---.-r   . - - - + - , . -
                                                                                                                                                                       --.,------.e-r.,-,-r-.-+,-     -r.- ,- --m-,-

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 55 DATE- 4/22/77

                    . T0 -                                      CE-Project Manager FROM'                                     Ebasco-Project Manager SUBJECT                                   Meeting Minutes 4/19/77                        l NSSS Delay claims PURPOSE                                   Forwards meeting minutes to-CE.

Discussions included QA. CE is to provide details. l i ..

      .W310102Y-

f Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM ~ 56 DATE- 4/26/77 . -TO Ebasco-Project Manager FROM .CE-Project Manager SUBJECT' Code Changes r PURPOSE Provides list of code changes beyond those provided for under base contract. 't f 1

  ~4l 1
          - W310102Y~
     ~         _         ,. _ , - . - . . . - . .-           . . . , , _ _
                                                     , _ -                        , . . . . . . . - . _ _ . . . _ . _ . . , _ . . _ . _ - _ . _ - . _ . _ _ _ . , ~-._ ,.._ _

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 57

               .DATE                                                                                                                5/31/77 TO -                                                                                                               Ebasco-Project Manager FROM                                                                                                               CE-Project Manager
                . SUBJECT-                                                                                                          CE Quality Assurance Claim PURPOSE                                                                                                            Detailed letter discussing the history of the project, the QA requirements involved, and cost impact.

(Reference Item 55)

        'W310102Y'

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 58 DATE 6/29/77 TO File FROM Ebasco-Project Manager SUBJECT CE Delay Claim PURPOSE Meeting with LP&L, Ebasco, and CE has been arranged for 8/4/77 at Windscr LP&L and Ebasco will meet before ht d on 8/3/77 in New York. W310102Y

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 59 DATE 6/30/77

             -TO                                                                             Ebasco-Project Manager FROM                                                                            CE-Project Manager SUBJECT                                                                        CE's Delay Claims PURPOSE                                                                        Discussion of increased costs due to project delays not under the control of CE.

f l W310102Y

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 60 DATE 7/25/77 TO LP&L-VP Power Production FROM Ebasco-Project Manager SUBJECT NSSS Delay Claims PURPOSE Recommendation to close QA costs increase claim. Proposed draft contract supplement enclosed for review. W310102Y

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 61 DATE 9/1/77 TO CE-Project Manager FROM Ebasco-Chief Mechanical / Nuclear Engineer SUBJECT FSAR Input Request PURPOSE Request for CE to expedite input to FSAR including Chapter 17, Quality Assurance. W310102Y

e Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 62 DATE 9/16/77 TO Ebasco-Project Manager FROM CE-Project Manager SUBJECT FSAR Inpu*. Request PURPOSE Response to Ebasco request to expedite FSAR input. CE states that Chapter 17 input has been sent based on existing contract requirements as the contract has not been amended for CE to provide description of QA which meets new requirements. l' W310102Y

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 63 DATE 9/28/77 TO Ebasco-Project Manager FROM CE-Project Manager SUBJECT Quality Assurance Claim PURPOSE Forwards comparison between QA requirements of contract and LP&L PSAR commitments t W310102Y

Attachment E-1 (continued) 1 TEM 64 DATE 10/31/77 TO LP&L-VP Power Production FROM Ebasco-Project Manager SUBJECT NSSS Delay Claims PURPOSE Provides evaluation of CE QA claims. Recommends forwarding to CE draf t contract supplement and authorization to negotiate settlement with CE. (Reference Item 60) W310102Y l

Attachment E-1 (ccntinued) ITEM 65 DATE 11/9/77 TO Ebasco-Project Manager FROM LP&L-VP Power Production SUBJECT Audit of CE-Windsor PURPOSE Request for Ebasco to arrange LP&L audit of CE on 12/13-15/77 W310102Y

Attachment E-1~(continued) ITEM 66 DATE- 11/17/77 1 70 CE-Project Manager FROM Ebasco-Project Manager SUBJECT Outstanding Claims , PURPOSE- Reviews status of outstanding claims. Proposes. settlement price for QA costs. 4 i

f. j' W310102Y=

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 67 DATE 11/30/77 TO CE-Project Manager FROM Ebasco-Project Manager SUBJECT Outstanding Claims PURPOSE Errata to previous letter. (Reference Item 66) W310102Y

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 68 DATE 12/22/77 TO LP&L-VP Power Production FROM Ebasco-Project Manager SUBJECT NSSS Delay Claim PURPOSE Meeting minutes of 12/15/77 between CE and Ebasco. Ebasco explained position and basis for proposed QA settlement. Ebasco will evaluate any additicnal material from CE that may support CE's claim. I W310102Y

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 69 DATE 1/24/78 TO LP&L-Plant Manager FROM Ebasco-Project Manager SUBJECT CE Delay Claim (Confidential) PURPOSE Discussion of remar. CE concerning Outstanding 4 settlement amounts inclo_ QA. W310102Y

Attachment E-1 (continued) ITEM 70 DATE 12/1/78

                 . SUBJECT                                                                                Contract NY-403402 Supplement 80 PURPOSE                                                                                 Item 2. Quality Assurance States QA requirements required and makes requirements retroactive back to the time the requirements were adopted by LP&L.

1 2 S i i-

        . W310102Y.                                                                                                                                            .
  , ,..    .  .        . __    , . _ . _ . _ _ _ . , _ - - - . _ . _ _ - . _ _ _ - - , . . . . _ _ . _ - . , . - _ _ ~ _ _ . _ . . _ _ , _ . . . . . _ . -

n-Attachment E-1 (continued)

          -ITEM                 71-DATE                 6/10/81
           'DD                  CE-Proj ect. Manager LP&L-VP Power Production
        ^
        --FROM SUBJECT             'QA Audit of CE Activities
                               -April 20-23, 1981
                               ~ Audit No. CE 81-1 PURPOSE              Forwards audit to CE.

l W310102Y

I Attachment E-1-(continued) ITEM 72 DATE 9/22/83 T0- Ebasco-Chief QA Engineer i FROM LP&L-QA Manager-

                   ' SUBJECT'               QA Audit of CE - Chattanooga December 1976 PURPOSE.               Ebasco to provide documentation of closure of audit findings.

I I i k

 -r l-          -W310102Y L .-}}

ML20086P771

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

Dear Mr. Bass:

Subject:

SUBJECT:

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

References:

Dear Mr.' Bass:

Reference:

Subject:

SUBJECT:

Description:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

ML20086P771

Text

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

Dear Mr. Bass:

Subject:

SUBJECT:

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

References:

Dear Mr.' Bass:

Reference:

Subject:

SUBJECT:

Description:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

SUBJECT:

REFERENCE:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search