ML20091N387
| ML20091N387 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 11/10/1983 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17198A223 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-BOX-10, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8406120297 | |
| Download: ML20091N387 (175) | |
Text
p s
1 PUBLIC MEETING OF
-[
2 U.S NRC-STONE & WEBSTER-CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY 3
4
'PRESENT:
STONE'&. WEBSTER:
5 MR. MAJESKI, 6
MR. LUCKS, 7
MR. BURNS, 8
MR. BARANOW,
-9 MR. AMORUSO, 10 MR. HOLSINGER, 11 MR. THOMPSON.
12
{ ,
13 NRC:
14 15 MR. RON COOK, 16 MR. W SMAN, 17 MR. HARRISON, 18 MR. GARDNER, 19 MR. BUhdESS.
t i
lI 21
..:j 22 23 24_
f[j6 97 840517
$h
. (V'r)
RICEB4-96 pyg 25
$4, Wome/&4, $.
I 6370 NORMANDY DRIVE SAGINAW MICHIGAN 48603 s
517 792 317i
l
..l 1
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY:
2 s
2 MR. MOONEY, 3
MR. QUAMME, 4
MR. WELLS, 5
MR. MEISENHEIMER, 6
MR. WHEELER, 7
MR. MURRAY.
8 9
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER:
10 11' JAYNE M. TINNEY 12 f
a
\\
14 MR. HARRISON:
Good morning.
I would like to 15 welcome all of those present to the Stone & Webster, 16 NRC, Consumers Power meeting.
17 And I have a few opening comments, and then I would 18 like for everyone to introduce themselves who are going 19 to participate.
20 We had a little mixup last month in getting the 21 meeting and its issue, and we ended up getting two sets 22 of meeting Minutes, one under a cover letter from Mr.
23 Amoruso and one under -- incorporated as part of a Stone 24
& Webster report, number 58.
l 25 In the future, I would like for the NRC to receive
___-_____-__-____________________-___-__________w
-_.~
1 just one copy of the meeting Minutes from Stone & Webster, 3 3
^
2 It can be under the signatures of both Mr. Lucks and Mr.
3 Amoruso, but to avoid any confusion, mainly to just 4
proceed with one set of meeting Minutes that we can review 5
so we get our reports issued in a timely manner.
6 Also, the second issue along that line is the timeli-7 ness of issuance of the.nleeting Minutes is extremely 8
critical.
And'I would like to ask that Stone & Webster 9
attempt to issue those meeting Minutes in one week, if 10 possible.
And I would also suggest that the format that 11 Mr. Amoruso used in his October tne 24th,7 1983 submittal
~
12 will be the the format that you will follow in the future
,O 13 I thought that was quite good.
14 I would like to turn the meeting over to Mr. Luckc 15 so he can give us his presentation on the soil areas.
16 MR. LUCKS:
Good morning.
Pete Majeski and 17 myself this morning will address the assessment team in the 18 areas of underpinning and remedial soils work.
I'll 19 start my presentation by addressing an item that was 20 discussed at the last month's public meeting, namely the 21 tracking of assessment team open items.
I:l..a, 22 Based upon the discussion of the closure'of tracking 23 of open items identified in the assessment team daily 24 meetings, we had decided to institute a revised classi-
- ~.,
iV_
fication and tracking system for items discussed at these 26 i
-+--.,.
.,n.---
,. - ~. -,. - -
m- -
w a
1 4l meetings.
2 There are now five classifications of items discussed 1
3 at the meeting.
And I would like to go down each of these l
4 classifications, one by one, to describe.
5 The first item would be an open item.
An open item 6
is an item for which an action is required by the assess-7 ment team.
And the item will remain open until the 8
required action has been taken,and for an open item, 8
tracking will be required.
10 The next classification would be a closest item, 11 and a number repeated after the closest item.
This nota-12 tion will identify an action that closes a previously 13 identified open item.
And once it's identified as a 14 closing item-XXX, tracking of the open item.will stop.
15 The next type of item is a closed item, and this is 16 an item usually brcught forward by the assessment team 17 at the daily meeting, and for which is discussed and 18 responded to adequately at the meeting.
No tracking 18 will be required for closed items.
20 An information item will be an item that is brought 21 forward to provide general background, background infornia-22 tion regarding the work, such as status of upcoming desigri 23 changes and other general information.
For an informa-24
- t. -..
tion item, no tracking will be required.
25 The last classification is an opinion item.
~
An opinion
m__.-
.. ~
s b:
1 item -- an opinion item will be an opinion or suggestion E
("
2 given by the assessment team expressing an ultimate con-3 struction or quality assurance technique.
The opinion or
)
suggestion is given as a possible alternative that may 4
5 facilitate the operation.
No responsibility or implementa-6 t' ion is required as a result of an opinion item, and no 7
tracking will be required.
8 I'd like to point out that the assessment team will 9
not close out open items until a required action is i
10 verified by the assessment team.
Previously we had closed 31 out some items on the basis of valuable commitments.
Thin 12 will no longer occur.
r',
13 This revised classification system has been in use
... Q 14 for the last four weeks, and the assessment team procedure 0 15 have currently been revised to reflect this new system.
16 In conjunction with this revision to our closure and tracks
.g j
17 of items, the assessment team is reviewing past weekly 1
18 reports for items that may not have been -- that may have gg
. been closed without verification of the requirement of 20 actions.
So far, fivg y,!
6 ach items have been identified from the 21 g
a
[
22 review of reports 30 through 57.
Only in one-of those f[
23 items had action that was required by a commitment not 24 been carried out by Consumers or the contractor.
6I,
);
25 We are presently reviewing reports 1 through 30 to
w.., ;,- -
- g..
.~
)
1 identify items for verification of closure in these 3
5 i
O 2
reports.
3 Pete Majeski is now going to address our activities 4
over the last four weeks in the assessment work.
And 5
just to refresh everybody's memory, the assessment team is 6
charged with overviewing the underpinning shown in white 7
here f or the auxiliary-building area and the remedial 8
soil work.
In the report are the results of that over-9 view to the NRC to assist in giving assurance that the 10 underpinning and remedial soil work is being conducted 11 in accordance with project design, construction quality 12 procedures.
h 13 And I would like to call on Pete Majeski to present v
14 the assessment team's activities since the last public 15 meeting.
~
16 MR. MAJESKI:
The ussessment team's activities 17 over the past month, which expands from October 9th 18
.to November 5th, has been limited because of a stop work 19 order that went into effect on October 21st.
I'd like to 20 establish the status at present which hasn't changed t
i 21 much since last year -- last month.
I'm sorry, j
22.
This is the east side -- a plan of the east side i
23 auxiliary building underpinning.
The full red squares 24 or rectangles are the piers that have been completed as O
l 25 of now.
The crosshatch rectangle, like in this instance l
MMas $b b
7 I
here, is a pier that is under construction, and in this 3
2 case, this is the completed east eight grillage.
3 Present are eight completed piers, and this one that I
4 is under construction.
And of course, the east eight 5
grillage.
6 Similar, on the west side, there are eight completed 7
piers, one tinder construction, and the grillage has been 8
installed.
Approximately 30 percent of the piers are 9
in place.
10 This is a summary of seven of the activities that 11 would have been undertaken in the past month.. The first u
five actually are sort of a selection of various activities
/
13 which_ are representative of "h t.::'hav: ::tually h: n 14 doing.
15 In the first instance, the reinforcing -- we observed 16 the installation of the reinforcing steel at the storage 17 tank.
In this case, we found that the installation was 18 done in the proper manner in the course of the required 19 procedures.
In this -- in the case of the 36 inch diameter 20 casing, we observed the removal of the casing and the l
21 subsequent reaming of the resultant hole to remove any l
l 22 loose soils around the casing.
23 We found that both of these operations were done 24 in a meticulous manner.
We did note, however, that the f,')
25 control of the slurrying that was used in this operation
-s was not -- left something to be desired, that it could 8
I
\\
/
2 be improved upon in the future operations, such as this 3
is being don ~e.at the' job site.
I 4
In addition, we found that the time required between 5
the reaming operation and the subsequent backfilling 6
with the concrete was somewhat excessive; however, in thia 7
instance, the contractor lef t the drill rig in place so 8
that he could drop the drill steel down in the hole to 9
assure that there had been no hole collapse, which is our 10 major concern in this case, that during this period it 11 would be a collapsible hole.
So he satisfied our concern a
by leaving the drill rig there and sounding immediately
'7; 13 before placing in the refills.
7 14 We feel this is the proper action in this case.
15 We have at.tendea several'of these weekly inter-16 organizational meetings which we find have been very 17 productive in providing the communications between the is various on-site organizations.
We hope to see in the 19 future that there would be improvement in the communica-20 tions that will eliminate some of the problems that have 21 developed over the past and the lathes during the con-22 struction.
23 During the installation of the struts between west
'N 12 and west 14, we observed the inspection of the welds 25 in this case.
We found that the inspections were done in
,t
i l
j s
n l
f I
1 accordance with the present. quality control instructions 9l m
M 2
The assessment team recently initiated review of the 3
concrete crack machine and data.
During this review, it s
4 was determined that the monitor of the crack from the 5
concrete was performed using an unauthorized procedure 6
with respect to the timing of the cracked mapping in the i
7 auxiliary building area.
This resulted in our issuance 8
of a non-performance identification report number 16.
8 It should be noted, however, that no deficiencies in 10 the method of mapping were identified.
We also found 11 during this review instances where data entries were 12 illegible or the ' forms were incomplete.
These were 18
{'
brought to the attention of the can**acter d id rill M 1
14 responded to in the near future.
15 As mentioned by Stan, we have reviewed weekly reporta 16 30 through 57 to verify everything was adequately closed j
17 or identified those that weren't adequately closed.
i is stan will make a presentation when I complate on our l
18 activities regarding the changed documents, stop work ordier which now is in effect.. This is the status of the three 21 non-performance identification reports which have been 22 active this past month.
l 23 NIR number 14 concerning the nut procurement has i
4 se been responded to this week by Midland plant quality
'?
26 assurance department, and we are currently reviewing this t
e 9-e e.
M *.e=* + w e e + nome
9 7
1 response.
10 7
2 NIR number 15 identified non-conformance where one 3
of MPQAD supervisors lacked the requirement of certifi-4
. cation.
The point of the NIR is the quality assurance 8
department acted responsively by issuance of a memo to e
red'irect' inspectors, certified supervisors during the 7
period during which the response was being prepared.
j 8
The resolution consists of reorganizing the super-2' s
visory personnel and providing new job descriptions con-
- j 10 sistent with thia reorganized staff.
11 NIR number 15 was discussed earlier -- 16, I'm i
12 sorry -- was discussed earlier.
This is a summary --
13 this is a sunmary of the 17 existing open items.
Is 14 there any questions on those items, or any of those 18 items?
16 Well, if there are no questions, I'll turn it back 17 to Stan.
18 MR. HARRISON:
We're going to have some questions, 19 but we'll wait until you are finished.
20 MR. LUCKS:
With. reference to the changed 2
f 21 ~
documents, stop work order, the assessment team has reviewed 22 the basis for NYAD decision to issue the stop work order.
l 23 Based on this review, the assessment team believes that i
24
,e.
an appropriate action was taken because the potential im-f -J 25 pact of the problem cannot be determined until all of the
~
=4-***-***'**w4ee
- _ eso.
^ ~ ^ ^
f 7
'S 6
1 existing changed documents are evaluated as part of the 1:J j
j
~'
8 plan to resolve the stop work order.
4 i
8 The assessment team also reviewed the plan that has i
4
'been developed for evaluating the problem and identify l
s i
8 potential problems 2 for resolution, and we found it to be 4
thorough and appropriate.
t i
7 The organizations involved in the effort realized j
8 that the plan may require changes to respond to concerns l
8 that may be encountered as the changed documents are 10 evaluated and corrective action is planned.
We feel that li 11 the plan provides trackability of the corrective action.
4 I
18 To summarize these observations, the condition rendered -
]',
18 the construction indeterminate.
MPQAD reaction was 14 appropriate.
The Bechtel response is appropriate.
All i
18 parties have cooperated with the CIO team and the assess-1 l
14 ment team in our assessment of it.
The corrective action l
17 plan is trackable.
i l
ll 18 In conducting this assessment, we brought one of our 18 engineering assurance specialists out from the Boston heaf-80 quarters to assist the teams in making thatiassessment.
I
^
6,'
i.', y 81 I'd like to point out that in the resolution of the stop i
8B work order, two concerns that have been identified by,the 88 assessment team should also be addressed.
l
{
88 First those concerns are the permissible number of g
88 changed documents attached to drawings.
In addition to I
k i
l l
........ e.y..... _... _ _.. _., _....... _ _ _ _...,, _,
t 1
this being a concern of the team, Dr. Lannman in the 12 N
2 past has also identified this concern.
And we feel that 3
this problem should be resolved by -- in the action related 4
to the stop work order.
5 The second concern that has been identified by the 6
assessment team, namely the timeliness of final project 7
engineering approval on interim,with field change require.
t a
ments that had received interim approval.
We feel that i
e the time delay between the interim approval and final 10 approval is too long, and we feel that that concern should 11 also be addressed by the organizations during the resolution Et of this existing stop work order.
(
13 And that completes our presentation.
And we would 14 be glad to address any questions that you may have.
15 MR. IIARRISON:
We are probably going to have a 16 little overlap, because..bsour preparation for the meeting 17 we basically had designed our questions and answers based 18 around a calendar month, mot argynd your report.
So we 19 may lean over a little bit in your report 59, but primari ly 20 we will be working.between report 55 and 58 and basically 21 stay within the calendar month of October.
i 22 What I would like to do is I have a series of i
23 questions and I'm sure that all my people have some ques-24 tions.
And I would like to just start out with report 26 55, if we could, and go through that first of all.
\\\\\\
es a
~.
w
.~..
=.
7 N.
I 1
Some questions will be directed to Stone & Webster and 13
^\\
2 also some to Consumers Power Company.
l 3
Report number 55, on page.1, the assessment team 4
.made an observation that there was a delay in the final i
j 8
signoff of a concrete power card just prior to initiating a
placement.
1 l
7 My question is:
was the concrete ordered prior to the j
e card being signed off?
That's what -- when I read this, i
e this is what I am understanding, I believe.
l 10 MR. LUCKS:
Can you address that for me, 11 Pete?
i
]
12 MR. MAJESKI I believe in that instance, it la was, but I'm not =100 percent sure.
14 MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
I guess I have a couple' la of questions along that line.
le Number one, I would be curious to know from Consumer s 17 Power Company why in the event of the array of items that i.
18 are constantly identified -- or not constantly, but seem j
j I
19 to continually. surface in the Stone & Webster reports 20 identifying various time lags?
In this case, you've got i
21 a concrete truck sitting, ready to make a placement, but i
22 the card has not been signed off.
1
.i II I'm curious.to know why and, secondly, I want to ask t
(
j Se Stone ti Webster why *his is identified as an observation j
l SS but it is not a report item.
I could not find it in your
l.
10 I
as a tracking item in your report.
2 MR. MAJESKI:
What we have done in that instance, i
3 we went through the past 28 weeks.
We identified a 2
4
' number of items such as that and other items that con-5 carned HVAC.
We gathered together a list, and in the end, a
we ended up with some 19 cr something like that of items 7
similar to that where we made an observation that FCR 8
processing could be improved upon with respect to ll 8
time, timelinest. of concrete powers or power cards would i
- l 10 be improved upo:., processing of NCR's could.be improved j
11 upon.
And we felt that those types of items are really l
12 assessment '. team concerns from -- in a very subjective 13 manner.
That as far as the contractor is concerned, they 14
[
can't respond by issuing a FCR or a document.
They have is to respond by improving.
And this is an ongoing -- we le are making ongoing observations along these lines.
17 For instance, back in the spring, there was consider- -
18 able time lag between the issuance of an NCR and the time 18 that it was resolved.
There was, I think -- at least l
1 20 in one report back then, we made note of this.
There was I
i 21 in late May an elongated session with the contractor and l
consumers resolved a number of these NChs, set up the 22 23 engineering and construction coordination meetings, which 24 is ongoing, a weekly meeting to resolve NCR's as i
~ p 88 expediently as possible, set Barary lists, etc.
\\.
,..._ :.:.:s
i n m.y s
l So there was a tremendous decrease in the response 15 l 1
S time immediately, like maybe an average of three or four 2
3 weeks perhaps.
Now, maybe a couple of weeks or a week an6 a half, something like that.
I guess maybe two weeks would 4
probably be more reasonable, and then it slowly, but sure:.y, 5
6 cut aWay at.that.
So we have an ongoing assessment team item that is 7
within our own internal tracking system, which is actually 8
g part of our job, to keep an eye on these types of things.
I I
And when we feel that they are at a point where they can' u 10 do much better, that's where we'll probably say that's 11 a
good enough or make some sort of observation like that, of course recognizing the f act that some NCR's _ which cou:.d 13
',s be minor deviations or deficiencies could be turned 14 15 around perhaps in a couple of hours.
But they may be j-is stopping the work for a couple of hours.
i We would like to see those things addressed immedi-17 l
j-18 ately and turned around in a short period of time.
i
~
On the other hand, there may be NCR's that definitel (,
19 l'
by their nature, might take a couple of weeks.
But on 20 l*
the other hand, do not impactithe work.
It's a relative 21 type of thing. If :they let those go for two weeks, nobody 22 23 it doesn't make very much difference.
But if the two hour -- the one that can be turned around in two hours i
24
,m 1
and they end up taking two days for some reason, that's
~
25
\\
\\\\
\\
. 2,...
r
. ~... -..
i 4
i j.
i l@
I i.
! (%;>-
not acceptable.
i 2
So you know, there is quite a bit of judgment that 8
is involved there.
4 MR. HARRISON:
Well, I'm not trying to say that 5
you should have made this an item.
My concern is that 6
evidently, through either poor planning or lack of atten-i 7
2 tion in detail, this problem surfaced.
And I'm just f
curious to know how Consumers Power Company is going to 8
l 8
address correcting an issue like this?
8 l
MR. LUCKS:
Could I add one ' comment from Stone II j
& Webster before*it goes.over to Consumers Power?
I u
MR. HARRISON:
Yes.
)
/
- - 18
(.
MR. LUCKS:
If we saw an item like this im-l pacting the quality of the work to be constructed at that I4 l
point, it would be tracked as an open item or an NIR.
15
{
At this point in our review, this was the review I"
II of reports 30 through 55.
I think at this point, this f
l would be classified as an opinion item and was not identi-18 3
l 8
fled as an open item.
MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
But I think it -- certain f
{
- items, if it isn't an opinion item should have been 21 n
l g
22 listed in your report as an open. item.
I think 55 t
i 23 was prior to your new system.-
I i
24 g;,
MR. LUCKS:
It was prior to the new system.
MR. MOONEY:
We are certainly aware of the I
.w w me e-ee
-p +
e m
e
,mo een esq, em
,m m e-em ~, my..,,. *r e a m.
,a
...s.
4-
- _.. -,,, ~. -.. -
4 w
i 1
M M
1 various concerns expressed by Stone & Webster regarding
.j(4 19
(*. 8 2
delays which have been reported out.
We have tried to
{[}f 3
address the -- and it's not just one particular problem.
- jt i
i~l 4
We tried to address several problems that have been ehh 5
identified.
1
.'}
6 I would also add that I think it's more important to i
7 insure that we 'cian conform with all of the requirements
!i 8
than it is to do something expeditiously and not conform l
9 to the requirements.
10 So I think there is somewhat of a tradeoff there.
11 But we are certainly aware of the concerns and we have 12 addressed them in a number of ways.
And one of the thing s (Q,
that we ar_eL Qing nena takiah 13 d
hre Err pri.t;d ;;t g eiisus Lh f
14 is the inter-organizational meetings that we have weekly.
15 So we are team building or improving communications.
I think tihis has shown some immediate benefit in improvin 16 g..
17 communications and trying to overcome some of these prob-18 lems.
19 We certainly will plan and will continue to strive i
20 to improve our performance relative to time.
21 MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
22 MR. WELLS:
Excuse me.
I don't know whether 4
23 you are going to come back to NCR's as a separate thing, 24 but as far as time limits, that came up last time.
I l
t l
J 25 can address that, whatever that is.
i i
i...-..._.
,-w,
-tr-
4
-\\
5 MR. HARRISON:
As f'ar as NCR's go?
18 h
1
.O j
2 MR. WELLS:
- Yes,
',/
3 MR. HARRISON:
We are going to talk about that.
The next question was also on this page under observing 4
team in operations, under number 2 on page 3, the assess-5 merit team has noted problems with U. S. Testing.
6 l
And I'm curious to know what the assessment team can 7
tell me about the U. S. Testing audit results ar far as 8
9 changing and status gone? Have you seen -- are there
~.
any improvements, what kind of action is based on the 10
.i 11 acts that have been taken?
Can you tell me anything abou< :
12 that?
'~ -
13 MR. LUCKS:
We have been following that item quitC
(
,,J*
closely and we have received status reports on the cor-14 15 rective action.
The most recent status report that we i
i
..I 16 received was yesterday in our daily meeting.
~l 17 Based on review of that.xoport, and there were
]
several, several items that.havebeen identified as requirin
)
18 19 corrective' action' by U. S. Testing.
They have made P
significant progress in correcting the items that are 2D l
21 still outstanding.
I 22 We are following that item on U. S. Testing in the.
6,,
future so that if they were not making progress on them, 28 l,'
we would take action in our weekly report.
i 24
! * - t.;
.b./~
26 MR. HARRISON:
I'm not familiar with the proble ms.
1 I
.. ~. _..
k 5
w.
.. ~
]
f r
4 3
that have been identified, but were the problems 19 !
1 T
f J'
s related to implementation?
4 s
MR. LUCKS:
Both related to -- the ones that 4
stick out in my memory, from looking at the report, is
~
i 6
at the managerial level, training of staff.
And I think s
the availability of said fine staff and several other 7
items on the U. S. Testing program.
s I couldn't give you examples beyond that.
s MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
Would you like to respond to to that?
1 11 MR. WELLS:
Yes, I can make a couple of commenta 4
~
l is on that.
We -- it was our opinion in the quality assurani:e la group that the items that directly related to -- during
(.'.m r
.I 14 the audit -- those issues that could have resulted in in-l is correct testing or incorrect results of tests were immedi le ately tested.
i 17 We have had some followup. action that has not been i
la completed yet that does address primarily the management 4
is issue.
We met -- we didn't have it today.
We met, because
.,. e were.gone the..first three days of the week and have l
w m
I si asked for again a specific corrective action plan Monday i
l n
from the contractor, and we'll look at that, and if it's i
I m
not satisfactorytwo will take additional action.
j.
se So we are still currently driving to get total cor-
/
m rective action of that issue.
It was our judgment that i t l
l u
l o
.,,...,f.-..
-n-,...
)
I was more than that, that any kind of areas that were 20 f ]e 2
mentioned in questions of the management and the. staffing 3
as opposed to anything that related to specific doubt abot t 4
the final work product.
5 Now, if that's different than Stone & Webster 6
believes, why --
7 MR. LUCKS:
No.
No.
No.
a MR. HARRISON:
I guess my comment here would be e
the first indication that the NRC had that you had problems 10 with Stone & Webster was back in June of 1983 when yott 4
11 performed an audit.
12 MR. LUCKS:
The U. S. Testing.
(
13 MR. HARRISON:
The U. S. Testing.
I'm sorry.
14 With the U. S. Testing.
I guess I'm a little perplexed 16 due to the fact that it has been some six. months, and 16 evidently it appears that the problem is still not under l
i 17 control.
18 MR. WELLS:
Not totally and it isn't that nothing le has happened.
Some corrective actions have been taken with so the management, and frankly, the management didn't work 21 out.
It isn't that nothing has been done, but some cor-l 22 rective action did come through the way it was supposed i
j 23 to and we are going to go further.
24 MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
l
~' :.
26 MR. LANSMAN:
Along the lines of the U. S.
l
=-.
t
A f
Testing, I hate to jump to 59 right now, but there is g
21 a..
3 an item 59.17 on two NCR's that were written, an 3
MPQADs': concrete for theCarlson meters.
4 Does that have anything-to do with the U. S. Testing 8
or is that just the regular QC people that are involved?
6 MR. LUCKS:
Could you give us a reference?
7 MR. LANSMAN:
59.17.
It's the item number.
s The question --
i 3
MR. LUCKS:
This is on the daily meetings?
10 MR. LANSMAN:
Right.
Has that to do with the l
11 U. S. Testing or just the general QC people?
12 MR. LUCKS:
Can you address that?
'^-
13 MR. MAJESKI:
I haven't had an opportunity to
( j' 14 really look at this particular report or the NCR's.
I' 18 MR. LUCKS:
This item came up last week on is Wayne Killtrecks, tutor assigned to Pete.
17 MR. LANSMAN:
Does Consumers have anything on 18 that?
19 MR. WELLS:
I'm not sure if we can respond or 20 not on that.
t 21 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
I do not believe that has l.,.e 22 anything to do with the U. S. Testing; right?
~~
23 Now, I'm not positive, but --
34 MR. WELLS:
I believe we can give -- I don't j
36 believe we can give you a response.
= =.
e+-
- =
e m ee+ =mu
.. p e..e ee+ m+ eee m e emp eresswo-eaus e ame.- em ++
e-e-e.-
m 3
MR. HARRISON:
How about at the next meeting?
22
- -m
- . )
2 Can you address that?
3 MR. WELLS:
Sure.
Next meeting.
4 MR. HARRISON:
The next item that I have is on 5
item 55.14.
I would ask that Stone & Webster clarify for 6
me in the middle of that paragraphs the other cor-7 respondence will be supplied to FSO, which indicates 8
changes to PQCI's are necessary.
g I read this paragraph and I don't understand what thnt to sentence means.
What other correspondence are you talkinct 11 about?
12 MR. MAJESKI:
Give me a minute to read this 13 for a minute.
(^
He 4 14 They have -- MPQAD has 4 -- I don't know if they cal:.
15 it a third level -- I can't remember the name.
There is a 16 document that they have in their control system that 17 identifies when a procedure must'be revised or training la might be' required, l.
I 19 Perhaps --
20 MR. WELLS:
You mean training to a revised 3--.-...
4 21 Procedure?
22 MR. MAJESKI:
Yeah.
There is a procedure.
l 23 There is like a construction procedure is going to be 24 revised, and then MPQAD identifies that, so then -- and k/
25 they are identifying that they realize that the PQCI L~.
\\,
.v, d..-
D
'M
)
E 1
must be changed and there may be some necessary training.
23 M'%
2 And I forget the name of that document, but that's what 3
that is referring to.
4 MR. WELLS:
Are you talking about the change 5
notice document?
6 MR. MAJESKI:
It is sort of a tracking mechanisu 7
so that they are aware that this is coming.
8 MR. WELLS:
I can't think for sure what you are 9
searching for either.
10 MR. HARRISON:
When I read this, it looks like 11 there is some kind of correspondence being -- or have 12 been generated to indicate that PQCI's need to be changed 13 That is what I didn't understand.
14 MR. WELLS:
I don't have the report in front of 16 me.
16 MR..MOONEY:
We don't have the report.
17 MR. MAJESKI:
I think when it is identified tha 18 a construction procedure is to be changed, then they
~
t 19 recognize the PQCI has to be changed at seme point.
And that's when they try to get it in a tracking system.
20 6 3 I And they provide this FSO so this FSO now realizes that 21 22 possibly in the ensuing weeks or a few days, whatever the i
23 case may be, that there may not be inspectors trained 24 to that particular work item.
~
25 MR., LUCKS:
Enough to let MPQAD know the work e.
4
.^
1 order is coming out so that they can have the inspectors 24 e. _A G
2 ready and the PQCI changed.
i y
3 MR. WELLS:
That's what this is..
Now that I see
- lj 4
the whole subject, it's more of an advanced warning that
~I 6
there is going to be a change.
It has nothing to do with 6
the content of the change.
It's not a quality --
7 MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
There were a couple of i
8 questions that came to my mind.
One was what kind of 9
correspondence are you talking about, and then it looked 10 like FSO was indicating the changed PQCI wouldn't be 11 necessary.
12 And you are saying this is a timing type thing? You 13 are sure that once the change is made, that the QC 14 inspectors would be recertified as necessary so that they 16
.would.be available?
16 _.
MR. LUCKS:
They are trained specifically that 17 if the PQCI is going to change, to' address a changed 18 construction procedure or other documents that change j
19 and retraining has to be done in time for the work that i
.l 20 is coming out, and FSO willlet MPQAD know of the schedule i
l 21 for that. work so they can be ready.
i 22 So it's a timing schedule problem to resolve the 23 situation where there may not be -- there may be delays j
, 24 in the work due to' inspectors not being available at
([
25 PQCI's revised.
h
..~.w.
.,ew, t
..,.3.....
r....
l
O
]
25-l 1
MR. HARRISON:.Okay.
Moving down to the bottom C:'
2 of that page on item 55.15, talking about a QC inspector 3
who signed off on some foxholed couplings being installed 4
and it says there, QC wrote an NCR on the non-certified 5
installer.
]
6 My question is:
was the NCR initiated prior to 7
Stone & Webster identifying this item or was it initiated s
because Stone & Webster identified this item?
8 MR. MAJESKI:
We didn't identify the item.
10 It was just made known to us that that instance occurred.
11 MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
Well, item 55.20, which 12 addresses the Standish Fabrication Shop work stntus talks
' /'
13 about:.x.esolving some problems with the welding specifica-(J 14 tions.
It says work was stopped over the weekend.
15 My question is:
what was the problem with the 16 welding specifications that caused the stop work?
[
17 MR. LUCKS:
I couldn't -- without going back
}
18 and looking at the records --
i 19 MR. HARRISON:
Can someone from Consumers answe:r 20 that?
I 21 MR. WELLS:
I'm trying to think.
I remember
-u the instance.
I'm trying to recall the specific facts.
t 23 It may come to me.
(.,
24 Do you remember, Jim, on that one?
25 j
MR. MEISENHEIMER:
I can't remember exactly,
\\
\\\\
\\
1 t
l-
,~
l 26 1
no.
'/
2 MR. HARRISON:
Well, it is a two part question.
3 One, I was curious to know what the problems with the 4
welding specifications were; secondly, you stopped work.
5 Was that a formal stop work?
6 MR. WELLS:
I think it was.
I think it was, 7
but I'll have to verify it with you next time or however 8
you want to do that.
9 MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
10 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
Gee, I'm not certain, but I 11 believe that's the one where a change had come out and 12 the change had not been received at Standish, incorporateh 13 into_their control documents that they were using up 14 there.
15 MR. WELLS:
Do you remember if it was a formal 16 stop work order?
17 MR. MEISENHEIMER:. No.
The work was stopped is because they did not have the documents up there, so they i
b 19 had to stop their own work because the. documents were-
.i f
20 not correct to change.
21
.MR. WELLS:
Can you recall all the specifics?
F 22 MR. MEISENHEIMER:- I will have to get to the 23 specifics, that's why --
24 MR. HARRISON:
Do you feel that -- based upon V
25 what you can tell me now, do you feel that a stop work,
. _.-...L.
.m.._
t,,
?
9
/
f 1
formal stop work was necessary?
Q 27 2
MR. WELLS:
I guess I don't know.
3 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
I'll have to look at the 4
. question before I can make a response.
5 MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
Fine.
The next question 6
I have is item 55.22 and also if you look over at the 55.D0 7
item, 55.30 was the basis for closing 55.22.
8 However, if you look at item 55.30, the actual level e
required by the beam seats is indeterminate and could not to possibly be within the required tolerances.
11 When I read that, it sounds like the status to me 12 is indeterminate as well; however, Stone & Webster elected
?
4 I
7 13 to close the item.
()7 14 My question is:
why?
15 MR. MAJESKI:
It basically -- I can't exactly 16 remember this -- the problem there.
But it was basically 17 an installation problem.
They had to perhaps adjust the 1
16
- weighant, if -- my memory is a little weak there, but ---
le and so they elected to remove the beams, the weigher 20 seats in order to start frean e. gain and put the seats in 21 N e proper location.
i d
22 For instance -- I'm not sure if this is exactly cor-rect, but for instance, if they were only allowed to put 23 24 in so many shims or like that below the weigher to get (f
as it in the proper location, if they let the seat at that
+
, m. at.%m--
ee
a i
28 1
level and some other thing required that the weigher cy 2
be lifted or raised because as I say, a connection with 3
an existent structure, which is the case here, then they 4
would be in violation of their documents because they 5
couldn't shim up above a certain level.
So they elected 6
to start these of f, to start anew and rework the whole 7
thing.
It is an installation problem because of site 8
conditions that existed in that area.
There was a lot of 8
reinforcing steel in the structure surrounding this which 10 this weigh system has to be tied into.
11 They had to readjust the locations of the rock ancho r 12 or the anchors that were put in the concrete and the 13 plates, etc.
So they had a re-evaluation to do, and 14 that's why these things were removed because..it would 15 cause subsequent problems.
16 MR. LUCKS:
If I can backtrack, in reading 17 thase twc items, we had noted at one point that they were 18 l
installing beam seats and then they were removed and we 19 asked the question why they were removed, and they Yi replied that they realized there was a problem with the e-
- 41.. 'i tolerances on the position so that they had selected 22 to remove again and resolve that problem and reinstall 23 them properly.
24 So our question was why they had been taken out,
(
25 not -- and their explanation was satisf actory, and they were
Q
~
?
[
1 other audit and issues that have been raised.
It really 30 2
was not a formal audit from a quality standpoint at all, 3
but they're following up to see if they felt that things 4
were being both -- you know, the construction areas, which s
is that arm of the group, trying to work the construction 6
people to see if they were doing their job.
7 That's my impression.
8 MR. LUCKS:
Yes.
9 MR. HARRISON:
Can someone tell me if any -- if 10 that team identified anything different than what the 11 MPQAD audit team identified?
12 MR. WELLS:
I can't --
l 13 MR. MURRAY:
The type of things that were 14 identified were more of management getting more people to 15 work more effectively.
There was -- there were no qualit/
16 aspects that were called out in this audit.
It was i
17 more of making sure.that people have certified this more 18 than one activity so that you could utiliza your men more 1
l 19 efficiently.
It's more of a utilizing the program more 1
~
20 efficiently.
l 21 MR. HARRISON:
You are really looking at 22 improvement of the program rather than a. quality.. program?
23 MR. MOONEY:
Let me point out this is Mr.
24 Murray.
He is in the management organization in the soil i
i
.t5 remedial work.
l l
l
m
_.u 1
MR. LUCKS:
I'd like to clarify your statement m
bO 2
a little bit. You.said the team, meaning the FSO team, j
3 not the assessment team?
4 MR. HARRISON:
That's correct.
)
{
5 The only other concern I had here is if anything was t.
e identified that wasn't a quality related item that MPQAD 8b 7
would have pi,cked tha.t up with an NCR.
s MR. WELLS:
It certainly would have been our 4
e intent.
I can't swear to you that we did anything or
'?]
10 anything showed up because I haven't laid it out side 11 by side.
Our quality people did have an opportunity to f. 12 see the report.
C '"
13 MR. HARRISON:
How about the next meeting that A
14 you address that point, if you will?
15 MR. WELLS: ' Okay. -
16 MR. HARRISON:
Atem 55.32.
Again, this is an 17 item that the NRC, and what_it is for is that you don't i
1 1_e _
have a' mixing drum on a concrete truck which was re-l 19 volvin0 when it was not operating.
It was not prior to -
20 the discharge.
21 I would guess in any case this is an iten that we i
22 have identified before and Broad Weiland was the gentlemars 23 that identified the problem.
I would hope that the
}
1 24 attention detail of resolving issues like this would
,-( 's 25 prevent this from recurring in the future.
e
-g
.ww n
T
]
l 1
That's just a comment.
3:
Mk. LANSMAN: I also have a comment, since it is 2
3 one of my items.
Does the resolution which was that concrete truck drivers are going to be instructed and 4
5 taught that all -- that their drum shall be revolving on 6
idle speed when discharging concrete.
Is the State going 7
to make a formal procedure or is that just an instruction 8
an informal instruction to the drivers?
g It seems that a couple of years ago I brought this to up and there was instructions to the drivers and overything, 11 and here we are at it again.
If Mr. Weiland or whoever, 12 somebody ' thinks it's important enough to tell them to keep 13 the trucks turning, I for one think it's important enough,
14 since I have been bringing it up for the last few years, 15 are we going to make this a formal procedure now or --
16 MR. MOONEY:
I will take the action and look 17 into it and report back to you.
I 18 MR. MAJESKI:
If I could interject, this is an 19 open item on this new list.
It was on the last item that i
i 20 we had up here, and-I know that FSO is preparing a response 21 to it.
{
22 MR. LUCKS:
So we are now tracking that.
h 23 MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
I have one last question I
24 on report 55, item 55.33.
A notation on the procurement
(_,/
26 of new equipment for the breaking, removal of concrete
5 33 1
in continuina doing excavation.
I'm curious to know what (D
2 kind of equipment are you considering?
3 MR. MOONEY: We're looking at several different 4
things.
To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what the 5
trade names are, but they are basically a skid mounted 6
industrial type impact hammer which can be set to a pattern, 7
and using the impact process, it pulverizes the concrete.
8 And that's the type of thing we are looking at.
It',
9 a special tool, I understand, from Bolten Industries.
10 MR. HARRISON:
Let's proceed to report 56 then.
11 Report 56, page 2, the assessment team, I think Mr. Majeski 12 had already covered this item.
That has to do with two
(
)
13 aspects of the case:
removing the backhoe, being improved.
14 Is this identified in your report someplace, tracking, as 15 far.as you're making the item here that's going to be an 16 observation or suggestion?
I'm not sure how you are 17 identifying this, but --
18 MR. MAJESKI:
Let's see.
The one on the slurry ing 1
19 is in here.
}
20 MR. HARRISON:
Well, to me, when I read this 21 thing, there is really three things.
One is the identi-22 fiable control, the consistency of the slurry, nor was 23 there a check that the process mixed was. eff ective.
1 24 MR. MAJESKI:
That one --
25 MR. HARRISON:
And the second one was the time t
t
(
I l
1 lag between the reaming operation and the backhoe con-34
(
2 crete.
Did you identify there is an item to be tracked s
3 in the report?
4 MR. MAJESKI:.
Well, it is now 'nto our new 5
system.
What -- we have also implemented a nethod where 6
we can track items that are included in thi1, the report.
7 After this report is issued, we'll bring the report 8
to the next daily meeting that we have with the FSO, read 9
the report and identify any items and enter them into the 10 tracking system and in this instance, the item on the 11 slurry is an open item.
The item with respect to the time 12 lag again was related to this concrete pourcot (phonetic)
(
13 type thing.
And they satisfied our real concern that 14 they could have been collapsed, you know, because we recog-15 nize that the fact that the trowel rig was there to check l
the hole to make sure that there was no collapsing during 16 17 this interim period.
18 So that is a closed item.
So there is really one 19 open item on the slurry.
20 MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
On item 56.1 under your 21 new system, you have items listed A through F.
You have 22 item F identified as an information item; however, you do 23 not have a designator listed for items A through E.
Okay.
24 Yet -- but on the previous page, you laid out -- or the j
25 previous part of this report, you laid out what your new l
l
____________________-___-________________________________________.________.__.-m_N
i
'D_
1 criteria was going to be.
35 p.
I 2
MR. MAJESKI:
The intention was the information 3
supplied to all of those items in the status -- that was a 4
work status.
We used it in that instance, but then we 5
abandoned that method of utilizing it.
6 MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
No problem.
7 Itein 56.32, which is the last page of that report, 8
you talk about the use of green tags with QC hole tags.
9 Can you tell me when you use a green tag?
I'm not familiar 10 with that.
11 MR. MAJESKI:
At one point when an NCR was 12 issued, work would cease in a great area of the u'nderpin-(
13 ning operations because we didn't -- the contractor did not 14 want to work through a hole tag.
So they then had to 15 identify the area that was actually affected.
So as a 16 result of that, they attached these hole tags -- I mean 17 these greentags which would. identify the area being affec ted~
18 by the existing hole tag on some piece of hardwood.
And 19 that's how that was handled.
20 Now, it's being revised so it is going to be right 21 on -- this is going to be addressed right on the hole 22 tag.
23 MR. HARRISON:
Was that part of the non-conforming 24 procedure process, the use of these green tags?
' y 26 MR. MOONEY:
I don't understand your question.
~_
T N
-T
O N
i t
1 MR. WELLS:
The use of the green tag, Jay, it r3 2
was explanatory.
It was to explain in more detail the areas 3
of the hole tag.
That was the intent.
4 MR. MOONEY:
I think what Pete is indicating is 5
that the colored tag is being placed on some items and 6
it was our -- a very conservative approach' that once the
~
l 7
- hole tag was in the area, we didn't bother with anything s
in the area because there was a concern about what really 9
the hole tag was.
10 MR. HARRISON:
That's not my question.
I under "
11 stand that.
My question is if you are using a green. tag 12 to redefine or to define what the hole actually means, I
^
13 was that part of the procedure of applying the use of -a
{
14 hole tag or the non-conformance?
15 MR. WHEELER:
May I address that,' please?
16 That's the reason that the green tags were -- they were 17 not part of the non-conformance procedure.
And since 18 it wasn't part of that control, we felt that green tags i'
19 should not be used.
So we discontinued the use of the 20 green tags and are going to use.the hole tags - to provide 21 that same information.
22 MR. HARRISON How long was that practice in 23 effect?
24
-MR. WHEELER:
I'm not sure.
,~
f k,,
. 25 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
Just a few weeks.
d
===44 e
- +..
. p -
n
-m
/
MR. WHEELER:
A few weeks maybe.
1 I
MR. MEISENHEIMER:
The only thing the green taga 2
i 3
identified is what items were not impacted by the non-4 conformance they had.
5 MR. HARRISON:
They only identified the items 6
that were not affected?
7 MR. 21EISENHEIMER:
Yes, not affected by the a
non-conformance.
I think that explains it a little bette::
e than extending the control of the non-conformance.
10 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
Yeah.
11 MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
Report 57, on page 3, my 12 question is to Stone & Webster evaluating the action 13 being taking by Consumers Power and the documentation 14 problem that's recently caused the stop work and I think 15 you addressed that previously.
16 MR. MAJESXI:
Yes.
17 MR. HARRISON:
Ar1 you going to continue to l
18 review this until it's done?
i 19 MR. LUCKS:
Yes.
20 MR. HARRISON:
.Okay.
Can Consumers Power 21 tell me what the projected restart date for soils is?
l 22 MR. WELLS:
Yeah.
Let me address that a bit.
23 The process that we are going through, and I won't go I
24 into a lot of detail unless you want, the phase 2 that 25 we call it is the appointment of FCR and NCRs have been t
.)
reviewed and also been reviewad to determine whether 1
38
(
there arstpotential drawings that need to be looked at 2
3 again to verify whether it was or was not a problem causec 4
by this -- by the process, use of NCR.
1 5
That phase 2 is supposed to be done and scheduled a
for the 17th of November.
Af ter that point in time, there 7
will have to be some runners to the tic file to do some t
a checking to verify whether -- make any corrective action
~
i 9
or then go through the final verification.
10 That will take something in the order of a couple of 11 days to a week, depending, to do the whole process.
We'll 12 go into the soils first and some other areas to expedite.
( ';
13 We think that everything should be done by December 1st ---
v 14 soils should be done somewhere between November 17th and 15 December 1st.
16 MR. LANSMAN:
That will include the ef fect of 17 non-soil related general site specifications as they affect 18 the soils?
i 19 MR. WELLS:
It will include all fifty thousand 20 of that, correct.
l 21 MR. LANSMAN:
All right.
t' 22 MR. WELLS:
The December 1st date, Russ.
23 MR. LANSMAN:
Yes.
l 24 MR. HARRISON:
Item 57.7 relates to the l
25 inspection of the placement of the reinforcement steel ~.
l l
)
i O
T, 1
It's indicated in this report that the inspections would 39
, - ~
2 be done in a phased fashion, that it would appear, according 3
to this, four or five written inspection requests would 4
be done.
5 My question is:
will the -- and this is to Consumers 6
Power Company -- will the final inspection prior to place-7 ment or the pre-placement inspection, whatever you want 8
to call it -- how would that insure that what was done 8
on section number 1 and number 2, that the placement of 10 that steel remains in the required spacing and so forth i
11 based on the final inspection, because people will be 12 working in there as the steel placement goes on.
()
13 How are you going to assure that you've got the 14 final procedure product when you're done?
13 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
The BWST has done its section 16 as far as the steel goes.
{
17 Exactly how the IR's are interrelated for each 18 section to make sure of. the closure,I can' t answer that l
19 right now.
I can't -- there is a tie to mixture that l
l 20 all those IR's are closed oat prior to those sections 21 being placed and does conform to the requirements.
22 Now, how that interties with the IR's, I can' t l
23 explain that.
24 MR. HARRISON:
What you are indicating is that 25 the steel placement inspections are going to be done in a f
l a
t segmented pattern around the circumference?
40 m
2 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
Yes.
3 MR. HARRISON:
It's not going to be in a stackec.
4 fashion from the bottom up?
In other words, this is goinc
-o 5
you are going to divide it up into four or five quadrantst 6
MR. MEISENHEIMER:
Well, basically, it is all 7
open on the outside and then forms those in.
f 8
I can't exactly explain right now how exactly this is 2
9 tied in, but it is a phased approach.
10 MR. LUCKS:
Jay, may I -- it is done in segmenta 11 around.
12 MR. HARRISON:
Segments around?
13 MR. LUCKS:
- Yeah, Y'.T
)
14 MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
It shouldn't be a problem 15 MR. MEISCNHEIMER:
No.
16 MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
17 MR. LANSMAN:
Item 57.10, lesson learned from i
18 auxiliary building underpinning.
I seem to remember a 1
f 19 lot of work went into the mockup prctotype tester that we 20 did in the late -- before we started auxiliary building 21 underpinning, and we, the NRC, verified that all the 22 lessons learned were incorporated into the auxiliary 23 building underpinning before we allowed the. work to begin.
24 I guess I'm making a formal request that since it
'./
25 is stated here in the middle that there is no formal i
d
q 1
program that exists, I guess I am making a formal request 41 m
2 that all the lessons learned on the auxiliary building 3
underpinning be incorporated into the service order struct ure 4
before we will authorize the beginning of the underpinninc 5
work on the service order pinning construction.
~
6 Since we've learned a lot in the mockup here that 7
helped us in the auxiliary building, I think we have learried 8
a lot in the auxiliary building to help us in the service 9
order building.
10 MR. MOONEY:
We will work with you on that.
No 11 problem.
12 MR. LANSMAN:
I guess in item 57.11, was 13 Stone & Webster was just questioning the requiring for 14 welding between the lagging and soldier piles at the stone J
15 structure.
I'm not sure if that was the same time,that 16 I asked the same question.
I'm glad that it is not showing J
17 up in the Stone & Webster report.
It's just a comment that 18 I had, the same observation.
19 Item 57.13.
That's entitled additional penetrometer 20 testing.
Can someone explain to me -- I thought that Dr. Woods finished his program already.
Why are we putting 21
(
22 on some more holes?
I 23 MR. MOONEY:
That workwas stopped as a result l
24 of the stop work order which was issued relative to drill ing
-s 25 through the strong back in the auxiliary building.
l l
n
n 1
MR. LANSMAN:
Since that additional penetromete 48 es 2
testing, as it states in here, is it a continuation of th'a i
}
3 same?
4 MR. WHEELER:
Also there were a couple of
}
5 penetrometer test holes that couldn't be done because 6
there was a mud slide from the stairwell.
They didn't 7
do those and they wanted to do those.
I a
so the same program -- it's the same, everything we i
g talked to you about.
i 10 MR. LANSMAN:
- Okay, s
11 MR. COOK:
Item 57.14, which Dr. Lansman made 12 reference to closes out item 57.11 of the welding of the
/
13 lagging of the service water structure.
He indicated
^
(,
14 an FCR is in process to minimize the. extent of this 15 welding.
16 Was there also an NCR generated on that item 57.14?
I 17 MR. LUCKS:
No, not to my knowledge.
18 MR. COOK:
Should there be an NCR generated on 19 that item?
20 MR. LUCKS:
It would not be our opinion that 21 there should be.
22 MR. HARRISON:
Is this_the item where you were n
-actually reducing the amount of weld that you were --
24 MR. LUCKS:
Our concern was we felt that the 26 extent of the welding may have b,een so they could have
m I
reduced the amount.
43
/
2 MR. COOK:
You are asking for the rationale 3
to be -- requiring the lagging between the holding pile, tj 4
was that?
5 MR. LUCKS:
We were trying to.
6 MR. COOK:
Was that already in the blueprints 7
to do that?
If it was in the blueprints, why are they I
8 putting an NCR on it now, or did they violate the blue-8 print that they had?
10 MR. MAJESKI:
They performed the welding.
11 The lagging that was installed was installed in accordanco 12 with the drawings, with all the welding and then the --
( ):
13 in the interim, they issued an FCR to get relief from all 14 that welding.
15 MR. LUCKS:
I think that consent went with our 16 observation and Dr. Lansman? s observation.
II MR. HARRISON:
This is one where you have the i
18 massive welds and you just reduced it down to -- it's 19 not really a structure weld.
It's more of a seal weld, 20 holey welds.
MR. MAJESKI:
Yes.
i MR. HARRISON:
Okay..
On item 57.25, can some-23 one'from Consumers Power Company explain to me what the 24 dif ference would be between the application or the
,- m k-8 use of fly ash requiring NRC approval on a cast-by-cast
-~
q l
1 basis on one application versus the use of the service 44 (3
i
/
2 water pump structure, which you stated that requires i
3 no NRC approval?
4 MR. WHEELER:
Since I talked about it -- in 1
i 5
relationship to 36 inch castings.
That was an area that 6
required approval, let's say, on a cast-by-cast basis, 7
we have to get approval for all filling with fly ash from 8
Dr. Lansman at the service water pump structure, f'
9 Our procedures require that if there is a void behind 10 the lagging in the access shaf t, we have te -- we have 11 to grout it or use some type of grout to fill those 12 voids.
1 13 Now, in terms of getting the approval from Dr. Lansman,
{ ;
14 I guess we -- it's implicit that this was required, or it 15 could be required -- part of soil stabilization.
16 MR. HARRISON:
So you are really saying that the 17 use at the service water pump structure behind the lagging 18 really is a temporary --
19 MR. WHEELER:
It's a backpacking requirement.
l 20 MR. HARRISON:
It's a temporary fix though, t
21 It has nothing to do with the structure?
22 MR. WHEELER:
Right.
It is a backpacking 23 requirement which we have talked to Russ about quite a 24 lot.
It's backpacking rather than an aerial fill type, c(,)
25 MR. HARRISON:
Item 57.682, talking about the
O l
45 certification, 57 PQCI supervisory, 57.6, QC, further I
{
)
2 the team requesting further clarification on the availabilit; and use of a level 3 certified staff person.
The item is 3
ij 4
still open.
I 5
Has Consumers Power responded to 57.6 0 yet?
6 MR. LUCKS:
We have not received a response to 7
that item.
8 MR. HARRISON:
Do you know if any work was e
approved that required a level 3 certified individual to 10 apply his signature to anything was affected by this item, 11 as identified by this item?
12 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
No.
13 MR. HARRISON:
It was not?
14 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
We have had discussions on 15 this response.
We have issued the formal written responsa 16 to Stone & Webster.
The -- could you be a little more
+
17 specific on your question, Jay, on what you were just 18 asking about?
19 MR. HARRISON:
I'm s orry.
Well, for example, il i
20 something -- if an approval of a report or an approval of l
21 any document of a level 3 individual supervisor was 22 required to sign and you, in fact, used an uncertified 23 person that should have been so cert? fied, did such an j
24 instance occur is what I'm saying?
N
)
25 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
No.
i i
0
~
s G
N, s
l MR. HARRISON: You.will be verifying that before 46 g
i
~N i
s 2
you close that item out?
3 MR. LUCKS:
Yeah.
On this item, if I maybe can 4
explain in a little bit more detail, what we are asking 5
is we are now in response to our NIR.
The inspectors 6
are reporting to the discipline leads who set a fine 7
level 2.
The question was:
could Consumers describe 8
to us how the level 3 personnel were in the QA side, 9
are made available to give advice to the level 2s and
.- 1i 10 1s.
And it's not the case of -- where somebody has signed i,
11 off on something that should have been certified.
This 12 issue is so that we can see organizationally how that
T 13 advice comes across from QA to QC.
,/
i 14 MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
Item 57.7 Q is QC.
When 15 I read.this,'I assumed that MPQAD QC is not verifying i
t l
16 pre-heat on welds.
17 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
That is not true.
They are la verifying pre-heat on welds.
19 MR. HARRISON:
What does 57.7 Q mean then?
20 MR. MAJESKI:
Well, they are not -verifying by 21 actual in=pection the heat effect zone.
That's the weldi tg.
22 MR. HARRISON:
What are they verifying then?
23 MR. MAJESKI:
I think in this case they're --
l-24 that work is performed by FSO and it is verifying if there l
2s is a --
l 1
l r
l l
~
MR. MEISENHEIMER:
100 percent of all pre-47 1
!q.
heat is verified by the QC,whether it's a structural weld
.,)
j 2
f 3
or an attachment or a non -- even non-structural welds.
4 The temporary type welds and attachments are inspected 5
by the field welding engineering group and verified in the 6
QC group, verified that field engineering has inspected j
and approved those welds, but the pre-heat itself is a l
7 t
1 8
QC function and it is done 100 percent.
4 9
MR. WELLS:
You actually measure it?
10 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
We verify that the tempo-11 rary meets requirements.
12 MR. HARRISON:
If I understand this item, this 13 relates to temporary attachments to Q related material,
)
14 0 related material, or is it any material can attach to 15 0 based material?
16
.MR. MAJESKI:
Personally, I'm not sure on 17 that.
i 18 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
It relates to non-structural is types _of' welds attached to Q based material.
20 MR. HARRISON:
Are the Q based material that 21 these non-structural welds are being applied to, that is 22 for Q material base material, right?
23 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
Right.
24 MR. HARRISON:
So the heat effected zone or the
)
material on which the welding is occurring without proper 25 4.
I i
M Y
m 48 1
pre-heat could still develop a problem?
.}
2 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
No.
Pre-heat is done 100 1
3 percent and verified by QC.
4 MR. HARRISON:
That's not what this item says 5
though.
6 MR. LUCKS:
I think if you read it, it says the f
7 pre-heat is required to be checked by an MPQAD.
We are 8
satisfied with that aspect.
9 We are saying that it is equally important to inspect to the heat effected form on the Q based material rather than 4
11 just verifying that the field engineer inspected the heat 12 effective.
13 MR. HARRISON:
I truly don't understand what
()
14 you are saying then.
15 MR. MAJESKI:
Well, I guess the -- what we are is saying is if you have to inspect the pre-heat, then isn't t
17 it equally important to inspect the effect of the actual 18 welding on the base metal, because that causes heat in th e 19 metal also? There seems to be a conflict there.
t l
20 Ig,:one is important, the other is important.
If one 21 is unimportant, then the other is unimportant.
22 MR. HARRISON:
Are you talking about inspecting 23 the base metal during welding or af ter welding?
l 24 MR. MAJESKI:
After welding.
l 28 MR. HARRISON:
After welding.
Does MPQAD not i
i t
m.
e,4emm s %,
ag, 3,,,y n
49 not inspect the final welds?
1 MR.MEISENHEIMER:
The final welds on these
)
2 type of welds are being inspected by the field welding 1
3 engineering to verify that they have been done in accordar
,c e 4
with the requirements.
PQCI groups for these non-specific 5
welds verify that the field welding engineering has 6
performed this inspection and that it is quality involved 7
MR. LANSMAN:
How does he do that?
8
~l MR. MEISENHEIMER:
He looks at the weld and 9
to verifieJ that the field wcld and engineering has signed 11 off for that weld.
12 MR. LANSMAN:
But does he inspect the weld?
MR. MEISENHEIMER:
He does not do the actual
{ ^)
13 i
welding inspection and measure the weld such as this, 14 because it is not a non-structural weld.
15 MR. HARRISON:
Give me an example of a non-16 l
17 structural weld?
l 1
18 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
A lug attachment for liftinc is or sliding a beam.
20 MR. HARRISON:
A total temporary?
21 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
A temporary time thing.
22 MR. LANSMAN:
That's like a construction type 23 A
thing?
l 24 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
It would be construction l
l h'
25 A. type welds.
I i
i e
'l.
1 MR. COOK:
Would those be Q welds?
Would that
)
2 be covered under the Q program?
3 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
They fall under the Q 4
program in that we verify when they are welding that they 1
j 5
do proper pre-heat, because that's when the greatest amount 6
of' damage to the metal could occur.
7 The field engineering has verified if it has been 8
undercut, if it has -- if there was an arc strike, that ij that has been repaired, and he signs off for that weld.
9 10 And the QC verifies that inspection has been done and he 11 looks at -- he just looks at the general quality of the 12 weld.
~']
13 MR. COOK:
Well,then in essence, you are using 4
j
~_/
14 field engineering to perform a QC function?
15 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
For these types of welds.
4 i
16 MR. WELLS:
It is a verification function.
17 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
It's a verification function i
18 at that point.
19 MR. COOK:
But these welds are never then inspec-20 ted by QC people, right, other than the pre-heat?
21 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
The pre-he,at is inspected.
22 The QC does look at.the weld to see if it has been signed 23 off and inspected by the field welding engineer.
24 MR. HARRISON:
Suppose you have a condition tha-l
/ ~~,
(,/
25 the base material of that non-structural weld is damaged I
i
1
./ -
l 51-I by a severe arc strike?
How 134 that going to be dealt
.m \\
/
2 with?
b If thee inepector saw an arc 3
MR. MEISENHEIMER:
4 strike.
l l
5 MR. HARRISON:
You just got through saying that 6
the inspector did not look at it.
7 MF.,MEISENHEJMER:
He looks at the weld.
If I
8 he' sees something wrong, okay, he does not do the 3
detailed weld inspection he does for a structural weld, actuallymeasuringthewelds,sizo,'ofheweld,ifthey
\\
11
- are in compliance.
i 4
12 i,
That is the field welding engineering inspection 13 for the inspectidn of ;those/ welda.
He does a visual.
I 14 '
Is this;-a QC[ program where you are j
/
MR. COOK:
e 13 < )[' >scsiAg field engineers?
' O.
\\-j 3
i 3
MR. WELLS:
No.
It is not part of your program f
s j
It m).ght be,in a specific case where we might have to 1
18 look at the specific item, but wk certal'nly don't use D
i+ield engineers to.do quality, 'o'ntrol' work.
19 4
{p
/
f/'
nf-3 i
IIR. LANSMAS:
Sure sounds like it.
i o
i' i s
s gg '
'MR.LWELLS:
I say in this specific case.
t 1
i 4
+j go
'liR. HARRISON ' I reall have a problem with 23 you having the welding engineer, who isi responsible for r.
x
/
7 24
< the< welding. activities in. reality looking at an activity
.)~
(f, ' \\ e' '-
ss 1
that he's reEponsible'for..and saying:,
it's fine.
It's v
{
)s'
]
ri i
t '
L}
f
}
I*
I f'
f-4 l-
<j
- t 3
.l
- [-
1, f.
m.J:.lf.' - },f,',[A
)
b ~
7 1
acceptable.
52l t
h
/
2 MR. WELLS:
I think we b te to look -- what I hearc i
3 Jim say is for those -- they are the non-structural welds i
f 4
and the QC man does a visual, but he doesn't do a detailed i
5 inspection.
6 MR. HARRISON:
Will you respond to that in the i
7 next meeting?
l 8
MR. WELLS:
Yes.
I i
9 MR. LUCKS:
We have that as an open item for I
to a response to the assessment.
11 MR. HARRISON:
The reasons I brought it up was because of the 8222 on pre-heat.
I thought when I read 12 f().
13 this item, I thought you had f allen back into the same 14 problem of not inspecting pre-heating.
l 15 That's how it appears to me.
i 16 MR. LANSMAN:
That's our item 8222.
I I
17 MR. COOK:
The real problem is field engineerin g 18 doing QC functions.
19 MR. WELLS:
Ron, just for the record, this l
.j 20 particular case, we have, but field engineers don't do
}'
21 our QC functions.
22 MR. HARRISON:
Report number 58, on page 2, 23 the assessment team is. notified that the ef fort to date 24 has been directed towards identifying those FCN's and I
,4s 25 FCR's that are a problem.
i
!s A
.w.
l l
53I 1
My question is how do you know until you look at
)
I 2
all the FCR's and FCN's whether they are a problem?
f 3
MR. LUCKS:
There is a potential problem.
I 4
This is the phase 1 of the plan where they review all of i
i 5
the changed documents and separate out the changed docu-6 ments that need evaluation.
7 If you would like, I have an overhead, and I can 8
explain and --
8 MR. HARRISON:
What are you calling substantial 10 problems?
11 MR. LUCKS:
This is on page 2 of that second 12 paragraph.
(
13 MR. HARRISON:
Yeah, the second paragraph.
Wel L, i
14 it's the first paragraph, really.
It's identifying those 15 i
which are a problem.
)
16 MR. LUCKS:
Sorry, I can't find that correct 1
17 drawing.
This is on paragraph 2?
.i 18 MR. HARRISON:
Paragraph 1.
19 MR. LUCKS:
Oh, sorry.
MR. LANS!1AN:
The third sentence at the end.
21 The third sentence -- the third sentence, I guess.
22 MR. MAJESKI:
Basically --
23 MR. LUCKS:
The data sort of -- the question was 24 what are the ones that are a problem?
i 25 MR. HARRISON:
Well, when you read this, it f
m
l u
54 1
appears that the effort that Consumers has applied has
)
_/
2 been towards identifying those FCR's and FCN's that are a 3
problem.
4 My question is:
how do you know whether they are a i
}
5 problem or not until you look at all of them?
i 6
MR LUCKS:
That's what they are doing is 7
reviewing all the changed documents to identify the ones 8
that potentially are a problem and have to be evaluated.
9 There is a percentage of documents that they can look at to and if there is no inconsistency on the changed document, 11 they are clearly okay.
12 The ones that there are inconsistencies on will
( )
13 then -- there still might not be a problem resulting 14 from them, bu*. they have to be evaluated to see if there 15 is potentially a problem.
16 Would you like me to --
17 MR. HARRISON:
Are you saying that your effort 18 has -- Stone & Webster's ef fort has been directed towards 19 those that are problems?
20 MR. LUCKS:
No.
We are referring to Consumers, 21 Bechtel's efforts.
We're referring to,their program 22 for the resolution of the stop work order.
23 MR. HARRISON:
But you are in effect doing 100 24 percent.
And when I read this, it doesn' t imply that.
s/
25 That's my point.
l l
't; 1
MR. WELLS:
It may be -- just a second.
55
't j
2 Like I said earlier, I didn't want to spend a lot j
3 of time on this, but phase 1 is to look at every item.
l
{
4 The field engineering group and resident engineering 1
5 group basically put those in two piles:
those where 6
they believe there was inconsistencies in communication, 7
and those that they think may have been inconsistencies.
8 The first check that we are doing from a QA 4
t 9
standpoint is the pile that comes out that says no problems, 10 we are reviewing that 100 percent to make sure we agree.
11 The pile that there is a potential problem, then 12 the next step is to go through the phase 2 and do the
{ s')
13 detailed reviewing to the drawings, look at those processais 1
14 and we are doing that on a 100 percent basis.
15 So everything is being looked at.
16 MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
On item 58.4.
It's indi-17 cated that FSO and FRV's have been reviewed, approximately 18 500 total, 30 percent problems or 30 percent of those had 19 some type of question related to them and only 6 percent 20 required any form of corrective action, increasing the 21 distributions, or whatever.
22 ty question ist what kind of problems were detected 23 with the other 24 percent since there was some type of 24 problem identified?
s 25 MR. WELLS:
Do you want me to answer that?
t, s o m..
-q
,-e
. + -
-....a.-
~
1 MR. MAJESKI:
Well, there is actually two issuen 1
i j
2 here.
I'm trying to recollect.
3 MR. WELLS:
I can probably --
4 MR. HARRISON:
I didn' t mean 24 percent.
I meant 5
the other 94 percent of the 30 percent or whatever.
The i
e numbers just are all goofed up.
I don't understand.
7 MR. WELLS:
I can' t comment on the numbers.
8 I can comment on the process that the first time through 9
we looked at the FCR's and it's clear that what had been i
I 10 asked for approval project in engineering had approved 11 everything together.
There was no looking at the process 12 and the approval mechanism that would go in the good l ()
13 column.
s.
14 The 30 percent in a sense relates to the pile where 15 we couldn't make a direct paper tie that everything had 16 been checked.
In other words, we'd asked for approval en i
i 17 three drawings.
It was clear it was on two, not necessart-18 ly that approval had been given on the third one.
That 19 went to the 30 percent of the potential problems.
20 Then as you look into the detailsaof it, very few 21 of those turned out to be real problems.
I think we have 22 written something on the order of 6 NCR's.
That is an 23 order of magnitude.
24
~
MR. HARRISON:
So the 30 percent is potential
/%
k.~s) 25-and the 6 percent --
' N_.
i 57 1
MR. WELLS:
I don't know about 6 percent.
I 7'
'i
_/
2 MR. COOK:
That's 6 percent of the 30 percent?
3 KR. WELLS:
I don't know.
That's not my numbers.
i 4
MR. LUCKS:
These numbers here are very, very 5
approximate.
i 6
MR. HELLS:
We've written on the total process i
l 7
to it might be four or eight.
8 MR. LANSMAN:
Just in the soils area.
I t
9 MR. WELLS:
No.
No, total, the whole process.
10 I don't know in -- specifically.
11 MR. HARRISON:
How about at the next meeting, 12 let's talk about this item in general, but as related to e m,
(
)
13 soils, I want to know if you had 500 total drawings, and j
i 14 of that total of 500, 30 percent was a potential problem 15 and 6 percent was a problem, and then I'm assuming the 16 6 percent -- the 6 percent of the 30 percent, I'm assuming.
17 MR. LUCKS:
No.
18 MR. HARRISON:
6 percent of the total?
19 MR. LUCKS:
That's my understanding.
20 MR. MAJESKI:
Yeah..
I 21 MR. WELLS:
By next time --
l 22 MR. LUCKS:
We have received status sheets 23 on the program that would update the numbers given 24 in report 58.
t
,j MR. HARRISON:
On item 58.12, I noted that this i
,n
I 4
J.
itam addresses number FCR's on drawings and identifies 58l 1
2 16 FCR's totalling 55 pages attached to drawings.
And 3
in this type of situation, you look to -- leads to an f
area -- this is an item that the NRC has identified back 4
i
- l 5
to the last -- I know at least two years.
We've identi-1 6
fled it in a recent report trying to historically bring 7
it to the Consumers Power attention,that the corrective j
s action has been very slow.
This coming has not been very i
j 9
positive.
10 This item really compounds the issue.
I understand 11 that some recent corrective action has been taken or is 1
12 going to take place or has taken place to rectify the
{
(
)
13 cituation.
l 14 I just want to let you know that we are still concerned 15 that that type of a problem exists af ter all of the time i
16 that has passed.
17 MR. WELLS:
One 'of the items -- the items that is you are going through before we lift the stop work order, 19 we have identified open designed. related concerns that 30 may not relate to the FCR issues.
One of the items that 21 will be addressed will be the attachment drawings in addi -
22 tion to the earlier point that was brought up about the i
l
. 23 time limits and prior to lif ting the stop work.
We'll l.
,4 1
('
' l 24 have.a committed position in.tMe course of corrective m
25 action and that will' correct that.
i l
. i i
7
I S,
m 1
MR. LANSMAN:
Will the corrective action be 59 i
2 done?
f 3
MR. WELLS: It.may not be complete.
We know t
4 exactly that the first correctiva action will be to insuro l
5 that we are within the programmatic requirements.
The e
second step will be to identify what the ultimate correct:.ve -
i 7
action will be and the plan to accomplish that.
j 8
MR. LANSMAN:
Well, I don't know if it is the 9
next report or whatever, there are some comments in these to reports that you are going to change the procedure on a q
11 number of attachments and timeliness.
i
}
12 MR. WELLS:
That's what I am talking about.
i k
13 MR. LANSMAN: If you get that procedure changed, 1
14 you won't be able to go back to work until --
^
1 16 MR. WELLS:
If for example the corrective l
16 actions were, we have no more attachments to the drawings i
i 17 which will not be the final one, let's say five or edx, t
i 18 it's our intent to have a plan of action with a schedule l
19 as to when we would achieve that objective prior to j
1 l
20 work -- lifting the stop work.
At this point, not to 21 say that would be correct, we have to maintain within i
22 a program and then go ahead toward the route of correcting-23 any --
3 24 MR. LANSMAN:
I' hate to beat this to death, but j.
25 a year ago on these items -- on the exact items, I got 1
i.
H.
i q
the same promise, and here we are, a year later.
50 1
('T i
MR. WELLS:
You didn' t get quite the same.
'._, /
2 f
What we have done, Russ, is address the issue, but I 3
will lay the cards on the table that we have come up with 4
a way to call the attachments by so many different names 1
5 I
6 that we haven't really addressed the cause of that attach--
I think people have tried to be responsible, but 7
ment.
i s
the process was cumbersome.
We are addressing it from a 9
dif ferent perspective.
We are talking about attachments to here and what you call by -- whether it is an FCR, an 11 FCN, or a one time deviation, we are going to address 12 it as a total attachment issue and you'll see the cor-s
)
13 rective action.
s_-
14 Jay, if you like, we can add some more information is to that earlier item on the Standish welding because we L
16 might be able to clear it while we are here, if you would i
17 like?
18 MR. HARRISON:
Go ahead.
19 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
Okay.
Going back to the l
i 1
20 Standish issue, on the report it says there was a stop 21 work.
There was not a formal stop work issued on that.
PQCI inspector discovered and processed that the 22 an 23 design change notice that had been issued by product 24 engineering was not correct.
And he discovered it's.
l
\\s-26 not correct.
He notified the f abrication shop that we t
i 4
m em - m s
..e.
6
61 1
could not do inspections until we got this item.
They (3
/
2 stopped all work because we had in process work --
3 (Nhereupon the proceedings continued and f
4 conversation continued while court reporter changed i'
5 stenographic paper in machine.)
l 6
MR. MEISENHEIMER:
A non-conformance notice
(
7 was issued, an improper document being issued.
But it
}
8 was --
9 MR. HARRISON:
You don't happen to know what 10 that number was?
11 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
I do not have the number 12 here.
f~
13 MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
That's all right.
So s_/
14 3
you really couldn't proceed?
l 15 MR. MEISENHEIMER:
We told them we could not i
16 inspect because the documents were not complete and all 4
t 17 work stopped -- all work stopped on that basis.
18 MR. HARRISON:
I think in the future that if a 19 stop work -- if you say that the activity was stopped ver sus 20 a stop work, we really need to make that clear in our l
l 1
21 reports because we are very sensitive to the words stop l
22 work.
When a stop work comes in, we have to report to the E
ASLB Hearing Board.
It gives.us a lot of grief.
{
'I 24 So we need to be very clear on the use of the' word l
r.s b-25 stop work versus not being able to -- an activity to l
mnmams. s ao i.rww-
.m
.e-
~
ou--
~-
i rs i
7 I
1 to proceed because you don't have a required design docu-62 (D
(,/
2 ment or whatever.
.I 3
MR. LANSMAN:
We were not going to discuss report i
j 4
number 59, but I think there are some very important 5
things that happened last week that the NRC wants to bring 6
up.
7 It was discussed on the first page of report 59, under 8
assessmen team observations,whids was also in report --
8 in the same report, item 59.5, and it was also report 10 item 59.18.
It has to do with the auxiliary building 11 crack monitor process or procedure.
And one of the items 12 I guess is that Weiss Jenny did not report a crack that I) 13 reached the alert level in the required._me limit and v
14 it appears that it did not reach the appropriate personne L 15 for a couple of weeks yet.
16 In view of all these things on the crack mapping, 17 I think we would like before we release the hold on the 18 soils work, I would like Consumers Power Company to pleas e 19 address this so that we are sure that all the cracks i
20
}
in the building are on a map.
~
21 This raises a lot of questions that I'm not sure 22 of the status of the crack monitoring and also the service 8
pump -- or I'm sorry, both structures and also the diesel 24 f
generator.
I mean wherever there are crack monitors.
1
(-,/
26 MR. WELLS:
At the request to address the crack l
l 1
____..___.m_
--__.-._____-______--_-______.______.________-.___-_m-m__-_
_ _ _m
= -
-s, I
crack monitoring 63
)
MR. LANSMAN:
Well, address it to NRC prior to 2
3 lifting a stop work on the soil.
Your stop work that j
1 i
4 you have right now.
4 5
MR. WELLS:
Oh, our stop work?
6 MR. LANSMAN:
We don't have a stop work.
You i
7 have a stop work now because of the drawings.
8 MR. WELLS:
Yes.
On the drawings.
I l
9 MR. LANSMAN:
Before you lif t that.
i l
10 MR. HARRISON:
Before you start your activities 11 again, we want to make sure that that issue is cleared 12 up.
[}
13 MR. WELLS:
All right.
14 MR. COOK:
Let me ask this.
When you made your 15 soil presentation, you had indicated that you are going to 16 give up your past habit of closing items based on a ver-17 bal commit nant.
Did you say that you would then close la it after the action has been completed or when the action 19 has started?
20 MR. LUCKS:
Well, for example, the case that 21 was discussed at the last public meeting to change the Et drawings, we would not close out the item till the 23 drawing was changed.
24 MR. COOK:
Okay.
So you will not close it
(,)
until the action is actually completed?
Will any of yot.r 25 m.
~
.m
c.
1 procedures, will they be modified to show this?
64!
2 MR. LUCKS:
Yes.
3 MR. COOK:
Okay.
For the reviewing of the prior 4
reports through, I think it said report 30 where you're 5
closing them out on verbal, had you found any that you i
e should not have closed out, and how are you documenting j
i j
7 that?
8 MR. LUCKS:
We had come up with fi' e items that v
9 did not have complete verification of the action on our
{
10 part.
11 We also found, of those five items, that in one.
12 item we had been given a verbal commitment and the action
-_. 'l 13 had not been taken.
14 So one item, action had not been taken, a total of 15 five items we had to do -- we had to go back and verify 16 that the action had been taken.
t 17 MR. COOK:
Now, is that going to be documented 18 in your --
l 19 MR. LUCKS:
Yes.
You will notice that in this
~
20 week'.s report that we are carrying now five items out of i
21 that review 30 through 57.
22 MR. COOK:
Okay.
23 MR. LUCKS:
By the next public meeting, we'll I
24 have completed the review 1 through 29 and they'll also i
V 25 be' included.
t
..w---
<e,
+-
6 e.-
6
+e
=
a-
1 MR. COOK:
Okay.
Will you incorporate your
)
2 slides in your --
3 MR. LUCKS:
Yes.
4 MR. COOK:
Okay.
5 MR. LANSMAN:
I just have a general -- I have a e
general comment.
I received the report yesterday since 7
I have not been in the office for a couple of weeks.
It' s a
called the evaluation of change and non-conformance 9
documents independent assessment of underpinning.
I t
to Will the NRC routinely -- if you, Webster, generate 11 these additional reports, will we routinely receive 12 copies?
1 r
13 MR. LUCKS:
Not routinely.
It's part of 14 our procedure that you receive them.
15 MR. LANSMAN:
Were there any ones prior to this 4
i 16 one on special reports?
1 i
17 MR. LUCKS:
There might have been very short 18 reports that we have attached to the weekly report.
I 19 can't think of any other freestanding documents.
20 Our initial intention was this would be attached 21 to the ' weekly report, but it just became too bulky and 22 we issued it as a freestanding document.
23.
MR. LANSMAN:
I haven' t reviewed it.
I would 24 like to discuss it the next time.
(
26 MR. HARRISON:
The next monthly meeting we'd li te I
r
'/
l I
i o
,m"w,x h
1 to go into this report and talk with you about some --
2 MR. LANSMAN:
Yeah.
There are a lot of interes tin 3
things in it.
4 MR. HARRISON:
Let me -- I have a few general 5
comments, and then we will move on to the CIO area.
8 I want to just point out that Stone & Webster 7
continues to identify problems which all seem to relate s
to various delays caused by lack of planning or coordina-9 tion of activities, lack of action or taking positive 10 action in given areas.
To me, this indicates a con-11 tinuing lack of attention to detail, and in general, the 12 management of this activity still needs improvement.
13 Mr. Mooney stated a few minutes ago -- earlier in this 14 meeting that Consumers Power did not wish to act expeditious:
15 ly in resolving issues.
They wanted to make sure they do it 16 right.
17 And in regards to the statements that Consumers Powe 18 Company offered in the newspapers yesterday about the 19 NRC being the delay, I would like to simply say that i
30 we also like to act expeditiously, but we also like to do t
21 the job right the first time.
i
- 22 I would expect Consumers Power Company to act on-thi:s i
l 23 issue and to act responsibly and to stop passing the buck i
24 and placing the blame on the NRC.
v 26 That's all the comments I.have based on the soils.
l-I
.c s
~
m
- +. -
l 1
MR. LUCKS:
Could I have one clarification?
6T 2
Today we reviewed reports 55 through 58?
3 MR. HARRISON:
Yes, air.
t 4
MR. LUCKS:
We prepared 56 through 59 and next i
5 month it will be 59 through the previous weeks report.
6 MR. HARRISON:
Yes.
I would like to stay l
7 within the calendar month.
It makes it a little easier I
8 for us to manage than trying to go to a week over into
+
9 each month.
Stay within the calendar as much as practical.
10 MR. LUCKS; Okay. What. essentially will be --
11 MR. HARRIiON:
It will be 59 through --
t i
12 MR. LUCKS:
Through the report of the preceding
()
13 weeks?
.I 14 MR. HARRISON:
Yes.
15 g.1R. LUCKSr Yeah.
Okay.
16 MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
17 MR. COOK:
Provided, on the ame token, if we i
is have one of your recent reports and it is addressing the j
19 issues that is covered by the previous three reports, we 20 are not going to ignore, that we don't have this -- these
-21 notes in our protocol.
i 22 MR. LUCKS:
Yes.
23 MR. AMORUSO:
Before beginning the presenta-24 tion on the construction implementation overview, I'd like k.a 25 to identify the people from Stone & Webster who will i
}
+ - - - -
m m
g n
1 participate at the table.
On my lef t is Mr. Bob 2
Burns.
lie is the Assistant Corporate Quality Assurance
.i 3
man.
5 Next to Bob is Mr. Stan Baranow, the CIO Program 4
5 Manager.
6 My name is Paul Amoruso, and I'm the Project 7
Manager.
a During the last meeting,we reviewed activities of 9
the CIO program covering the period from April 1983 to through September.
Today the prsentation will cover 11 activities that occurred in October.
12 There are three main topics we'll cover.
We'll give
( )
13 a rundown of activities that occurred during the month.
14 We'll give a status of observations, hold points and non-15 conformances and tren we'll highlight some of the main 16 issues of the month.
17 First of f, we'll start with a rundown of activitics la during the month.
In our hold construction complete 19 program, CCP was approved.
Also five areas of the plant l
20 were released by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for th e 21 start of phase 1 statusing and verification.
Due to 22 stop work orders that were issued by the quality assuranc a 23 department for concerns about field -- to control the field i
24 changes, this effort was delayed.
Because of the delay, k
25 the CIO effort continued to focus in monitoring management.
t I
i
'N, 0$
1 meetings, checking the prerequisites to the phase 1 2
statusing and verification and evaluating construction in 3
)
3 the quality assurance training program.
1 1
1
{
A summary of activities that we covered during the 4
4 i
5 month are shown here.
There was 31 management meetings 6
t monitored.
These included meetings of the management 7
'eview committee daily and biweekly staff meetings, r
8 meetings of the team leaders for the CCP and meetings of 8
the groups 'out of the teams.
U3 What we were checking in these meetings was the 11 attention being paid by management to current problems I
12 l
.such as the control of field changes and training records,
(
)
13 as well as the effectiveness of the corrective action tha t
14 was being taken.
15 From the meetinge, management showed an openness to HI discuss problems, showed an intent to take whatever time i
17 was necessary to come up with proper solutions, and showed 18 a professional integrity by implementing necessary correc -
19 tive action.
'O The next items we spent 550 hours0.00637 days <br />0.153 hours <br />9.093915e-4 weeks <br />2.09275e-4 months <br /> of checking pre-21 requisite status and verification activities.
What we 22 were looking for here was was there any problems that had 23 gone undiscovered, and also potential weaknesses that We 24 could incorporate into our program to check when the actual 25 work commenced.
e -
+
+
- -. ~ _ _ -
j s
7h 1
What we've obtained from this association with the 2
teams and the management that's running these activities j
3 is that they project an attitude of desire to do the 4
job meticulously and correctly and that 'is an important i
5 attitude to start of f with.
6 There were three training presentations evaluated.
.I 7
These involved the crafts.
Previously we had looked at i
8 the formal training that was presented to non-manual 9
people.
The low number of presentations that were observ4nd to was due to the stop work and also due to the. fact of normel 11 dropoff in classes which occurs as a training program 12 year's completion.
j
,,3 Ij 13 What we checked here was whether the presentation i
14 was following approved lesson plan.
And in these three is cases, they were.
And also was the information being 16 conveyed effectively to the people in the class, and it i
{
i 17 was.
2 i
18 The next item.
200 -- 2,110 training records were 19 checked.
And what we were looking at here was a continua -
20 tion of what was discussed at our last meeting as to whethe0 21 the training' records were being maintained in accordance 22 with the procedures.
23 Problem areas were found here.
And I'll discuss l
24 those later.
t l
-\\/
36 776' hours were spent updating the checklint.. As I i
.. ~. -
e 71 1
discussed at the last meeting, we had 109 checklists 2
prepared to follow the activities of the CCP.
And that 3
we were going to have to maintain those current.
This i
[
4 is that ef fort.
5 Out of the 69 PQCI's that are associated with the 6
CCP, 37 of'1,000 are ready for issue now, 32.are in variouo 7
stages of revision.
1 j
8 The important point is that out of the 37 that are 9
ready for issuing today, that includes the PQCI's or 10 the checklists for the PQCI's that are needed to cover i
11 the five areas that have been released for status and 1
i 12 verification.
I) 13 As we mentioned at the last meeting, there are three J
14 areas that are within the CIO scope, but are outside the 15 CCP, and those areas were the special system interaction i
16 program, the nuclear steam sunoly system, and the.
17 heating ventilation and air control program and HVAC.
i l
18 The opportunities to monitor those activities during I
19 October were limited.
I 20 In t he SSIP, the special system interaction program, 21 the assessments that we had done in the previous months 22 showed no significant problems.
Because of that, our 23 frequency of verification was decreased.
Now, the stop i
24 work orders for the control of field changes and also i
,/
\\-
5 problems in the nuclear steam supply system with regards 9
w
1 to handle welding and bolting problems, and in the HVAC 72 2
program, fill-up and welder procedure qualification l
3 problems, our opportunity to assess these were limited.
4 Nevertheless, we did look at 36 HVAC training records.
5 We did check them with compliance procedures and they l
6 checked satisfactorily.
j 7
The next item was a witnessing of 90 specimens j
8 of welds from the HVAC system.
A little explanation is I
9 probably needed here.
10 The original procedures, welding procedures in the 11 HVAC program were developed by the Fulton Company, a sub-12 contractor.
Those procedures were necessarily restrictiva t
! I )
13 which caused problems qualifying welders.
The procedurea 14 were changed to be more feasible and at the same time 15 retain engineering soundness.
l 16 The question that came af ter that was done was:
wha t i
17 about the welds that had been done under the Fulton 18 procedures.
19 So what was done, 90 specimens were cut out of the l
20 system, the welds were taken down to Jackson and tested, l
l 21 and the results of those tests showed that the strength was 4
22 a factor of 8 to 10 times that which was required.
23 The other iten that was done that is not shown on I
24 this chart is in the nuclear steam supply system.
There l
\\
1
\\_/
26 is a training program that has been recently implemented fog I
(
=_._
~
7 s
t the suborne (sic) hanger training and we have checklists -
71 2
now in place and being used to evaluate that training a
]
3 Program.
il' 4
The next topic that I'll discuss is the statusing 5
of observations, non-conformances and hold points.
l a
The observation is as we discus' sed at the last 7
meeting and as we use it in the CIO program, covers j
s five situations.
And there are non-conformance, a e
deficiency, a request for action, a request for clarifica-10 tion, or information, and a request..
l 11 When an observation is made by the CIO team, it's i
3 i
12 reported in the CIO weekly report and it's tracked by la those weekly reports until the item is satisfactorily a
14 closed.
If the observation is a non-conformance, a non-15 conformance identification report is also prepared.
16 The abbreviation being NIR.
i 17 The summary of open observations is shown here.
18 There were two observations made in October.
- November, le 31, and 32.
31 involved four non-conformances and related 20 to training record discrepancies with quality assurance I-21 personnel.
22
- These were discussed at the last meeting.. At that 23 time, we stated that it just turned up and they had-not 1
24
- been included as an observation because the report hadn't
(
been issued that covered that period.
That'.s what 31 d
se 1
l q
+
,p.
- e-t 1
r-
~.
G 74 1
is.
2 32.
The discrepancies found were similar to 31 i
+
3 in training records, but dealing with the construction 4
people.
30 remains open, and that was discussed at the 5
last meeting.
And that is the need to review vendor 6
equipment verification program.
7 The non-conformances that have been reported from 8
those 32 observations are shown here.
The first six from 8
the 32 observations.
10 Number 1 and 5 are closed.
2, 3, 4 are the ones 11 that relate to the quality assurance training records.
12 6 is the one that relates to the construction team training
( )
13 records.
14 Number 7 was just recently issued and that will be 15 picked up at the next meeting.
We'll cover that.
16 but it's a similar problem in training records, but 17 the people involved are the field engineering, field 18 procuremen t, the general construction, general service 18 organization and subcontractor or management group.
20 The hold points that are open that have been designated i
21 by the CIO as shown here, there are four of them.
6 and 22 8 deal with the training records.
Number 5 is the vendor 23 equipment verification program, and the hold point is l
l 24 that the program should be reviewed and in place prior
,3 l
I
./
25 to the start of actual work, which is the phase 2 part l
l l
i I
+.
u w
1 of the CCP.
/
2 6 and 8, the hold points are that those training 3
records have to be corrected before the people that were i
4 involved with those records are used in the CCP.
4 f
^
5 Number 7 is the evaluation of what management reviewn 6
the results of phase 1, which is a facet of the CCP 7
program itself.
8 6 and 8 are good examples of how the CIO program 8
controls, insuring that the proper corrective action is 10 taken before the process proceeds.
11 What the CIO team does is to go out with checklists 12 and on these checklists are the conditions that are clearly 18 stated and can be easily answered as to whether it exists I4 or whether it doesn't.
15 These checklists are then turned back to supervisors I8 3
who evaluate them, determine the significance of what is 17 noted.
If it's significant, an observation is generated 18 that goes on the weekly reports and then is tracked 18 until it's closed.
If the observation affects downstream activities, i
21 and we need to be sure before we start those downstream 22 activities that the proper corrective action has been 23 taken, we institute a hold point and that's what has been done in the case of 6 and 8.
'd 26 The next topic that.I'll discuss is the highlights g
,e e
g for the month.
The first one is the stop work order.
1 76 The original plan for the CIO program to check phase 2
1 status and verification was to go out on the field and 3
4 verify that the tic. files and the documentation held 5
at the field document control center agreed with the 6
master register from the project engineering control 7
center.
g Wo still intend to do.t hat check and that check will g
show if the corrective action is now ongoing has been to effected.
11 In addition to that, we have developed checklists 12 that contain attributes from the procedures that are
(J N
13 now being used to resolve the differences between the 14 Project engineering and the field registers.
Those are is now being used to assess the effectiveness of the ongoing 16 corrective action.
17 The next item involved an anonymous phone call.
I la An anonymous phone callvas made to the CIO's office on 19
(
October 26th alleging that some welds had been.done 20 outside of authorized procedures.
The alleged problem 21 was that there were numerous carbon steel socket welds 22 in the turbo and auxiliary building and they had been 23 welded using stick welding, which is a shield and I
24 metal lock processing and then because of undersizing or s
q,)
26 other repairs, were then corrected, using tig welding.
1 1
t
f' s
1 This call.was reported to the Nuclear Regulatory 77 2
Commission and Consumers Power and the CIO conducted an 3
investigation.
A weld was selected in one of the areas 4
of concern, a socket weld which had been repaired.
It wan i
~}
5 determined that yes, a stick welding had been done and tho i
6 repair had been done with tig welding.
7.;
~ We then went into the ASME Code that addresses I
a welding as well as the Bechtel technical specifications 9
and both those authorized the use of either stick welding 10 or tig welding, either separately or together.
11 So in summary, what the phone called alleged was the j
12 sequence of welding was, in fact,true, but the procedure I
13 '
that was'used was approved and in compliance with the 14 ASME codes and the technical specifications.
. la The next item is.the training records.
The problems i
,i 16 we are finding in training records are administrative in 17
' nature.
The Consumers Power Company has issued quality 16 assurance -- quality action requests for the items that
's 19 concern the' quality. assurance people.
s s
20
-c3 The Consumers hower has also extended their corrective t
21 action to the'qua'lification and certification records of s
22 all inspectors.
The CIO concurs in that action being s
s t
b3N taken by. Constime'rs Power.
w,3 ic ;
24 f We expect to receive similar replies on the construc 3
s tion'hopl'eandalsotherecentlypromulgatednon-conform t
. k.)
26 anc
~.
f s
!,k '
A, s
k
,q y
1 s.
p
,.g ' q' 3
'.) ;...
. ![.
G f
1 1;
\\
l 1
that refers to field engineering and field procurement 7
2 and etc.
3 The staffing status:
at the last meeting, we went 4
over the plans for staffing the CIO team and I said that j
5 we'd have 21 people assigned to the team by the end of 6
October and would then add people as we needed them too, i
I 7
depending on the scheduled activities.
8 Because of the stop work order, we modified that e
plan.
There is 17 people attached to the team and we 10 will add additional people as the startup 9chedule 11 dictates.
12 There were a couple of questions during the last
[ )
13 meeting that referred to craf t training and to the adequa':y 14 of the training matrix.
As I discussed earlier, we ob-15 served three craf t training sessions and they were satis-i i
16 factory.
t l
17 The craf t training records are now being assembled 18 and when they are, we'll do a check of those records.
Is The adequacies of the training matrix, the evaluation is so still ongoing.
21 What was checked last month included -- did the 22 matrix cover all applicable procedures that were being 23 used in the CCP and also some of the job positions were sampled to evaluation if the level of training that was 24 i
26 prescribed was adequate.
l 1
l
r,
I
/
q t'
'l l
l l
Dl
/
N w/ there are some 202 procedure documents that j
l'
~
/
2
' apply to the CCP.
All but 15'of those were addressed i
' 3 cn the matiix.
The other 15 were determined to be either i
l 4
npt, applicable or were recently. promulgated and have sinco 5
been added to/ training requirements.
j s
We cook 50 boxes 'off the matrix to evaluate the
{ev6,1oftrainingdrescribed.
Of. the 50, 4 of them in ou:
7
)
8 [,
assessment should have been of a. higher level.
s
.a.,
9 What we are talking about is a O means no training 10 required.
These-four have ser'os~
But what we are trsresendno is that these go to 2,.wliich requires reading this increa:
11 se 12 in leve,1 ofntrainingjirt of an administrative nature and
+
[s/
13 i
it s not of a technical necessity nature.
J j
14 We intend to continue this sampling, and we will have 15 additional reports next month and also appropriate report s.
16 will b,e -made.
r 17 That concl.udes lthe formal part of the presentation.
.MR. HARRkSCN:We only have very few questions 18 19 on the CIO.,e
.. z l
20 The first question'has to do with a problem,which f
, 21 as you recall at.the last month's meeting, we had an f
"acticfn' item that required the maximum part on Webster and 22 t
"/
23 fy Stono to handle, at Consumers Power Company to look at.
y 24 the positive ways -of closing 'out items that were identifi ed 25 in the daily meeting.
1 i
?
Y
... -. 7 u....
~
\\
"3
/
1 Mr. Lucks gave us a rundown on what they've done in 2
reviewing the reports for this time period.
Report 80.
3 number 18 has identified a problem that resurfaced after 4
it was closed out in the CIO related to welding.
5 It appears that a welding criteria issue was identified 6
in CIO report number 9 dated 8-5 through the 12th.
Where 7
the item was deemed open, the item in report number,11 was 8
closed based on the promise that MPQAD was going to do 9
something.
10 In report number 18, for the period of 10-10 through 11 the 14th, the item was reopened.
Since we discussed a i
12 positive tracking system at the last meeting and we wero
(-,
13 assuming that this would also be picked up by the CIO, 14 I guess my question is is why this itemSas closed and 15 then had to be reopened?
1
}
16 MR. AMORUSO:
Yes.
The original item we classi--
17 fled as a request for clarification, that type of an ob-18 servation.
What we recomraended -- and there was nothing 19 wrong with their way of doing, putting the welding in the 20 various PQCI's except it had the potential for, if a change l
21 was made, that it wasn' t going to be af fecting the PQCI's,
s 22 And our recommendation was on eliminating it from multipl e 23 PQCI's and just leave one document where all of that is 24 obtained.
It was a potential.
They verified it and said e
/
T (s,)
25 that they were going to condense.
4 i
7
_..... ~..,.
a
4
]
m 1
I forget if it was one or two.
And that was satis-81:
i 2
factory with us.
It was the recommendation of the -- a f
3 Potential problem.
4 We asked for clarification.
They said what they were i
5 going to do was, in f act, lessen that potential and we 6
closed it and then there was a change.
And I'm not sure wha (
7 it is called.
Consumers would have to answer it, where a
they were going to do it in two instead of one.
And that 's 1,
9 why we readdressed and cla.rified and keep checking it.
to Again, it was a potential problem and not a real 11 problem.
12 MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
But since you have insti-
[ )
13 tuted.this definition, I think there are five categories, 14 that item at that time was not categorically identified 1
15 as a concern or --
l 16 MR. AMORUSO: In our system,.it was not.
17 It was classified as a request *or clarification, but we i
i 18 did not state it on the report.
That's correct.
19 MR. HARRISON:
Okay.- I just-want to make sure l
20 that whatever this -- how were the items classified, even 21 if you are suggesting something to them and based on a i
l-22 promise that 'they are going b take some type of action 23 and you close it out?
I see nothing wrong with that..
My concern is that they evidently did not do what they-24
_ l-
~
i N/
El implied they were going to do; is that correct?
i j
I e=ew4 a
e
, - =
p, s
3% % m4-n
,w a
MR. AMORUSO:
I'm not sure because the ques-88 g
tion becomes one of timing.
This was a recommendation, 2
3 they said they were going to do it, and I'm not sure --
MR. WELLS:
We did what we said, but we didn't 4
5 do a good enough job or far enough.
Right now we are 6
looking at specific PQCI's, the electrical PQCI's that i
i have welding attributes in them and we are taking them 7
a totally out and comparing them with the welding PQCI's.
g We thought we had addressed the question, but in fac-:,
10 we did not go far enough.
There is no way around it and 11 we practically issued a stop work on me for the whole 12 group until we get that cleared up, and that's accurately 13 being cleared up now.
(~ )
14 I think we're taking a broader look now.
We kind 15 of addressed the specific concern and ultimately we 16 should look more broadly at times.
j 17 MR. HARRISON:
Well, then when I look at Stone E
l Webster's report number 18, since you reidentified this 18 19 item, you mid -- I think you start out on -- you start 20 out on page 3 identifying a welding criteria as a concern I
21 relative to -- I don't see a very clear status of what 22 this item really is.
23 In other words, you've established a category that i'
would list five various categories that this item should 24
( M.
/
25 fall into.
And when I look at this report, I don't see l
l
[
6'm-+9%4 E*t'"5 P
A g
p*e 3
g.<
1 what category of the five it falls into.
83 T
2 MR. AMORUSO:
Right.
It was an observation that 3
was closed.
It was not reopened as an observation.
I
{
4 MR. HARRISON:
What was it reopened as?
5 MR. AMORUSO:
What's being stated here is 6
that it is additional information from what we reported l
l 7
back in report number 11 and we are clearing that up and 8
saying that basically we will track it and if there are 9
any additional changes, we'll keep it updated in the 10 report.
11 That was what was intended.
12 MR. HARRISON:
Do you have an item that is an
( }
13 information o: clarification type of item?
14 MR. AMORUSO:
Yes.
Yeah, it started with repor".
15 9.
16 MR. HARRISON:
What I am saying is in 9 it was 17 identified as being an open item --
18 MR. AMORUSO:
That's correct.
19 MR. HARRISON:
And in 18, you identify it as an 20 item, but you don't clarify -- you don't classify the 21 item.
22 MR. AMORUSO:
That's correct, because that 23 first paragraph, report number 11 was -- we stated was 24 closed, but the information we gave on that was that it I
x;,)
l 25 was closed.
~
i
r------.___-.---
O
^
i In other words, we requested clarification.
They 84 g
)
2 gave us clarification, but some of that information was --
3 as they went through it, they changed what they were l
4 going to do and we're trying to be sure that the record 3
is straight, that there was a change from what we said, 6
what we closed it out as.
i 7
MR HARRISON:
But don't you have a category that 8
this should have fallen into, information or clarification g
or something?
10 MR. AMORUSO:
No, because wekere not asking for 11 information at the time.
12 MR. HARRISON:
But you are providing informa-('
13 tion.
14 MR. AMORUSO:
Yes, to you.
That's correct, or 15 to the record.
But it is not a request for information ore 16 request for clarification.
17 MR. HARRISON:
You don' t have a category like 18 they do in the soils where you just provide informa-t 19 tion?
t l
20 MR. AMORUSO:
It wouldn't be an observation.
21 MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
It would not be an obser 22 vation.
l Kl MR. COOK:
Okay.
As I understand it, this par-24 ticular item -- so when there are changes of specifica-4
()
25 tions, they don't get incorporated?
There is no i
t i
O
')
I s.
1 mechanism insuring that all the PQCI's that are af f ected 85' s
)
2 by a given specification change are indeed the PQCI's 3
being altered to reflect that change; is that correct?
4 MR. WELLS:
I'm not sure.
1 5
MR. AMORUSO:
On a checklist that we use?
8 MR. WELLS:
One of us -- go ahead.
7 MR. AMORUSO:
You'd better, 8
MR. WELLS:
The issue, Ron, is that we have --
9 the way the PQCI's have been structured -- for example, 10 in electrical, there will be a section in electrical 11 PQCI's and in welding, if you happen to be looking at the 12 conduit support or a raiseway support, there is also a 13 welding PQCI.
The potential that has been raised is
( ' ')g 14 that you've got PQCI's that can cover essentially the 15 same parameter, a welding parameter.
There is a potentia l 16 to get them out of synch.
17 That in fact we found has happened, not that -- it.
4 18 hasn't necessarily boiled down to the f act that one of 19 them is wrong, but you end up with dif ferent kinds of 20 instructions to the inspector.
If you happen to have 21 one person that may be trained and two PQCI's and they are Et not just neatly matched -- _the -specific case came up here 23 as we went back and looked at PQCI's after the concern j
i 24 was raised in HVAC, in the setup inspection, and then j
s
_)
25 af ter again looking back through all the PQCI's on pre-
[
~
O heat to make sure that everything said the same thing, aniB6 1
2 we found some wording differences.
i 3
So we said:
let's just stop,. pull out the stuf f where you have a potential for saying something slightly dif-l 4
I ferent in one PQCI than the other, because you could 5
6 miss -- if you didn't watch very carefully, and someone 7
is thinking welding, he might not think electrical PQCI'sm 8
MR. COOK:
Okay.
Well, let me go back on this i
9 a little bit.
Do you have a mechanism, if you change the 10 basic specification for welding, that you would be able 11 to identify all PQCI's that would be -- that had their 12 basis on that specification, could you identify all those
( ')
13 PQCI's and reflect the change of the text specG in all J
14 the affected PQCI's?
15 MR. WELLS:
You could.
The PQCI's identify the 16 specification drawings, whatever, on which it's based.
f 17 So you can do that.
18 What happens is that you have different PQCI's i
19 and different disciplines, and so you may have kind of a
^
20 different, a different version of the changes because l
21 there are different people doing it.
It-isn't that you l
i i
j 22 wouldn't catch it.
You'd catch it because of the process 1
1 23
.that we do have them tied directly to the specs.
24 M2. COOK:
Okay.
I've got another question. ~
._,)
25 On these reports, they address electrical and instrt.-
1 mentation.
What about your other disciplines?
87 s
2 MR. WELLS:
We are looking at all those now.
3 MR. HARRISON:
Including something that would be 4
other than welding?
5 MR. WELLS:
We are looking for any kind where
'l 6
there is duplication.
I 7
MR. GARDNER:
In regards to the specifications, l
8 it was identified in report number 9 and then there was 9
some information given in report number 11, and based 10 on the.inf ormation, s tated
-- Webster closed the item.
11 Under your current practice, do you intend to handle
't 12 items of this same nature in the same manner?
I MR. AMORUSO:
Now, again, there was a request
/
,'t 13 14 for verification and there was originally more recommenda -
15 tions as a potential problem.
16 MR. GARDNER:
Let me say I don't agree with the 17 method that you used in handling this.
I think that a i
18 potential problem is by itself a problem.
19 If you identify something that can become a. potential 20 problem, it's more than just an observation or request for 21 information.
And I think as a third party or as a reviewer 22 or whatever, it's incumbent upon you not to parrot the 23 person that you are reviewing actions, not to -- in other 24 words, not to reproduce what their intent is, that you j
~
(
(_/
25 verify their actions, that you take steps to second check b
wey v
c
.t r-
O 3
J 1
and, too, on your own, independently assess the actions 88
, ~
!' {
2 that they take.
i 3
And I think it's unsatisfactory to close an item of 4
this nature in this manner.
i 5
MR. AMORUSO:
Okay.
First of all, it wasn't 6
parroted.
We had evaluated it and determined that, in 7
fact, by reducing it to a couple of procedures, that it was 8
satisfactory.
9 MR. GABDNER:
But what you are doing is you are 10 parroting what they say.
11 MR. AMORUSO:
You didn't let me finish.
And 12 the second thing is we would have tracked -- we would havo N
13 checked that,.in fact, it was in f act put in the two 14 procedures that they said they were going to do.
15 MR. GARNDER:- But you closed the item and you were 16 going to track it.
How were you going to track it then?
17 MR. AMORUSO:
Well, as an example, report 18.
18 It says -- here is a change.
This is a change.
Now, her e 19 it is, and it says that we'll track this.
E I
MR. HARRISON:
I think the purpose of us 21 identifying at the last meeting a problem with the tracki tg 22 system, where you are going to close an item based on a 1
23 good faith effort, as you're told Consumers Power Company 24 is going to do something is past not sufficient is what
-.)'
25 we are saying.
i
-**m
-+'
- s.,e#,
~s 1
MR. BURNS:
I would like to make a comment, ll9 s
2 I think you are -- I wouldn't say we are overreacting i
3 to this, but nonetheless, when we were making a suggestior, 4
and a recommendatiob to Consumers Power, if we believe f
the recommendation ls one that related to compliance, we 5
y i
{
6 are going to make that item that we will track.
We 4
7 will categorize the item in accordance with the plan that 4
8 we played out at the last meeting and we'll track the 8
item to closure.
10 In this particular instance, we were making a sug-11 gestion and a method to improve the overall process.
- Noit, 12 in -- now they are in the thross of looking at that, and 13 therefore, I think we did the appropriate thing here.
14 Every suggestion that we make should not and cannot 15 be tracked as a non-conforming item.
16 MR. HARRISON:
No.
We are not saying tracking 17 it as an non-conformance.
l 18 MR. BURNS:
It should not be tracked as an obser-18 vation beyond we seek and we give them.some advice here i
l on a matter that was not a problem at the time that~we 20 i
21 identified it.
We simply indicated that the more procedu res 22 you have that duplicate. the same information, the more 23 possibility you 'have to make a mistake.
I I
l 24 At that point in time, you have not corrected a l
~s 25 statement, we are simply indicating that when you have
(/
i Ii-
- -. -. ~..
A
.m q
t duplication, the chance for error is greater.
9 0 MR. HARRISON:
I think our main concern is
)
2 let's for a minute pretend that that operation is in phase 3
2 and actual work is going on and you come up with a 4
1 5
concern or a suggestion and Consumers Power is saying that 6
if you don't do something, this could be a major problem.
i 7
And you are into this now three months and they have i
8 nothing to be done and they are actually out there welding ti 9
criteria which could have been incorrect.
It could to cause quite a major problem.
11 MR. BURNS:
If we believed there was a potentia:
12 for a major problem in either phase 1 or phase 2, I don't 13 think the phase is critical to what our reaction would 4
14 have been and then we would have listed the item 15 to a higher category and tracked continuously.
16 Even if the item fell of f the list, which it did thi:s 17 time, the fact was the CIO personnel who were observing 18 that are continuhus to monitor what was happening in this i
19 area.
20 MR. AMORUSO:
If there is a concern on the 21 team, then everybody is fine-tuned to it because they have 22 identified it as a potential problem, they have probably 23 seen it and everybody is honed -in and looking at it pretty 9
24 closely.
f T
l
)
25 MR. GARNDER:
There is another -- it also gives
-!i a
~~~~
.sm-*+-:
r-
I
,q
}
II 1
the NRC -- if you open an item in August and you close 2
it in August and then in October or November there is a 3
stop work issued on the same item, we are relying upon 4
you to do that third party function, and yet when we 5
see something identified in August, closed in August, and 6
then a stop work issued on the same item because suf ficien 7
actions weren' t taken, we don' t get the warm feeling that 8
we like to have.
I don ' t, speaking for myself.
9 MR. BURNS:
Well, I think the open -- in respon:se 10 earlier that we are not going to close open items until we 11 see the action completed.
Now, I think earlier there 12 was -- we indicated that there was some practice where r 's 13 over based on the response,there was a closure.
14 We identified an item as open and we require some 15 corrective action.
We are going to hold that item open 16 until we believe we have the safety.
17 MR. GARDNER:
That's why I asked if this would la be handled in the same way today in beginning my remarks.
19 MR. BURNS:
In this particular observation of
?
20 this particular item of discussion, I think it would have 21 been handled the same way because there was no evidence l
l 22 that this was leading into a problem.
l 23 MR. HARRISON:
- Well, you understand what i
24 Stone and Webster is doing, but looking at it from the i
25 perception of one of the commissioners or someone in l
l
~-
. =-
i
.3
./
1 Washington trying to simply sit down and read the Stone 2
& Webster Seattle report to get a feeling for what Stone j
3
& Webster -- how they are controlling what's going on, j
i 4
they road a report as -- I am going on -- reiterating i
5 what he said.
You open an item, you close an item based 6
on something that MPQAD is supposed to do, whether action 7
was completed in part or whatever, and the item then is 8
reopened and subsequently Consumers Power Company issues 9
a stop work order, it looks like something is not working e
10 as far as the paper trail goes.
11 It just doesn' t look proper to us at all.
12 MR. WELLS:
Jay, can I comment for just a 13 minute?
')
i c
14 I'm not saying good or bad, but let me make sure the 15 processes under way is understood.
The concernvas raised 16 or at least a suggestion, and we started the process of i
17 going through PQCI's, but we are doing it on more of --
i l
on the basis of a more normal approach.
When we revised 18 18 them, we looked for these kinds of things and we were
{
20 marching down to meet their recommendation af ter the 21 HVAC inspection and the concern on setup was raised.
22 We went back to make sure that we picked up everything 23 and found that we'd better expedite the effort that we l
24 had under way, because here we had a potential area for a l
~
l 25 miss.
So that's why we issued the stop work.
1 f
--~.- - _ ~
e vv
't
l l
, m.
l 93 1
Let's freeze the use of these until we get all the n
,~
2 information in and we will continue our program in a more 3
expeditious basis.
We should have -- I'm not trying to 4
come up with an alibi, but we were moving towards the r
5 recommendation.
We didn't get there fast enough.
I don't.
e 6
know if that helps.
7 MR. HARRISON:
I guess our bottom line on this 8
is one major purpose of the third party overview is 8
a confidence-builder.
Something like this does not build 10 confidence, and we feel, as Ron said earlier, that warm 11 feeling is just not there.
We are just not comfortable 12 with it.
we ll talk about it at the next meeting.
You guys
(
13 T
e 14 analyze and discuss it at the next meeting.
15 The second part of that is the question for Consumer a 16 Power Company.
I'm a little curious that a problem was 17 identified in August, early'in August and that it was re-i la identified in report number 18 and -- in the early part of October, but you didn't take the stop work effort 18 20 until 11-3.
21 So some three weeks would have gone by.
Should you 22 have been performing the CCP, it could have got in a lot i
23 of trouble trying to start your new program.
24 MR. WELLS:
Potentially what we found when we
(_,.
25 looked was not necessarily the people or the guys were
}
"3 i
l 9d I
even wrong; they weren't consistent.
I don' t think between 2
the two they were as clear as they should have been.
3 That one -- there is nothing to say other than we 4
should have acted more expeditiously in looking across 5
the board.
6 MR. HARRISON:
Okay.
I would hope in situa-J 7
tions like this in the future that the timeliness in action 8
l by your company is going to be a little more expeditious 9
and that the management judgment used will be a little
+
more positive.
11 MR. WELLS:
Okay.
I assure you it will, Jay, i
12 Our problem was we weren't smart enough to think broadly i
enough.
We took corrective timely action where we 14 thought it applied and we didn't look far enough.
15 MR. HARRISON:
I have one question on report 16 number 20, page 3.
17 Question is directed to Consumers Power Company.
I 18 i
A statement made by Mr. Palmer that all inaccessible i
19 j
items do not have to be completed, evaluated for phase
)
20 1.
3 21 MR. WELLS:
Yeah.
That's - yeah.
I'm familia t 22 with the statement.
23 MR. HARRISON:
I guess that's not'our under-4 standing of the CCP phase 1.
You are not -- you are
'\\
25 going to do this in phase 2 or you are not going to do it
.3
}
e ae..e..
e
- dea I
at all?
95;
)
2 MR. WELLS:
No.
We are certainly going to do I
3 it.
That comment was tied to an understanding that 1
4 really is in the arca of releasing for new work.
In 5
other words, if it is an inaccessible attribute that we 6
can' t get to now, it is our understanding that we wouldn' :
I l
7 have to address that item before we could say that we're 8
done with all the accessiole attributes in this area, t
1 9
and their statuses.
10 It was more at the work release point that that 11 comment was handled.
12 We certainly know we have to justify all the accessi. ale
/ ',
13 actions.
14 MR. GARDNER:
But before you could start phase 15 2 on the particular module or area, you have to complete 16 phase 1.
Phase 1 is that you QVP for that area or that t
i i
17 module in doing the QVP.
You have to perform reinspec-18 tions on'both accessible or inaccessible items; therefore,
19 I can't understand how you can go into phase 2 without i
20 doing that and then --
i i
21 MR. WELLS:
I'll go back and look at that-again.
22 What was the reference on that?
l
.~
23 MR. HARRISON:
It's on report number 20, page l
N 3.
25 MR. WELLS:
We understand, i
i 1
.,,_..'4 I
1
i 1
4 J
4 96 1
MR. HARRISON:
The statement really-- just when m
l l
2 we read it, we were totally buffalced.
We don't understar,d 5
3 what the statement means.
l 4
MR. WELLS:
That was a report of meeting kind of 5
thing.
6 MR. HARRISON:
It was a meeting, October the 25th, 4
1 7
1983 between the CIO and Consumers Power Company.
f 8
MR. WELLS:
Yeah.
i 9
MR. HARRISON:
I have one other item that is a l
10 little aside from the CIO, but I want to bring it up in 4
i 11 this meeting.
I 12 There is an area of great concern by the NRC on n
l
~ j 13 construction deficiencies in reporting 50-55-Es.
l
(
14 I with some of my people went to Ann Arbor yesterday 15 We had a mc sting with Consumers Power Company and Bechtel.
16 We looked at the original cable evaluation problems that f
I 17 occurred in 1980 and it appears at that time that Bechtel i
18 made a judgment that reportability of the cable stop work 19 issue was not necessary.
The item was deemed not report-20 able.
21 In talking with Consumers Power Company people Et present, there is no documentation that any review was 23 done by Consumers Power Company..This same issue, speaking 24 on it in more recent terms, when substituted cable that I
(_,)
25 are installed in containment, you have eight unqualified i
q j
1 incorrectly installed cables.
It's reported on an NCR 97 2
,on 9-9-83 and on a scheme report number 100 initiated on 3
9-23-83, identified as not reportable and further eraluat:
.on is needed on 10-3-83, and it is also noted on that report 4
5 that a Bechtel response was due on 10-31-83.
6 In the meeting yesterday, Bechtel has not completed 7
their review, and the bottom line is that this is obvious:.y i
8 a reportable condition.
To us, when we look at this report,:
9 we would think that the reportability is so cbvious that 1
10 the reporting should have been immediately.
\\
11 You are now 60 days past the reporting which should 12 have at least been potentially reportable.
This was t-13 not done.
I 14 And if you look at the report and you. look at the 15 justification of the evaluation, the statements A, B and 16 C, I can't tell who signed this thing or who it's for.
17 Maybe one of you fellows can help.
18 MR. WELLS:
Okay.
The signature is Al Barrens.
19 It's for somebody on Barrens' staff.
It's Consumers MPQAD.
30 MR. HARRISON:
If you look at the justification i
21 of evaluation statement --
22 MR. WELLS:^ Excuse me, Jay.
There are two 23 blanks in there.
That's in block 9.
Down'in block 10,.
i 24 which is the justification evaluation is -- that's also l
5, 25 both Consumers people, but Pete Jacobson, who is on Mr.
1
.s
,-...,._--..-,r.,.
i
+
3 Barrens' staff, so they are all organizationally in g
98 line.
)
2 MR. HARRISON:
Still MPQAD?
3 MR. WELLS:
Yes.
4 MR. HARRISON:
Could I have that back, please?
5 I'll basically tell you what it says.
If you look at 6
I the statements A, B and C, this is not an immediate safety 7
concern, it may not be an immediate safety concern, but i s 8
is definitely a potentially reportable item that you have g
identified only eight schemss of cable that were pulled to 11 with potentially reworked cable.
l That statement just really blows my mind.
First of 12 1
all, tha second statement is to rework cable is only a l
is l
J miniscule portion, the rest of the cable is being fully l
l 14 J
15 qualified with the rest of the material, and thirdly, tha t that is qualification information that demonstrated 16 17 that rework area can tolerate for this type of cable, 18 there is no documentation.
19 Secondly, we have got a portion of cable that a repair 20 was made on, and to say it's only a miniscule portion, l
21 any portion of a cable -- it would only be as strong as i
22 its weakest link, and that statement just doesn't add.
23 And to say there is only 'eight schemes of cable pulled s ;.
24 making it very minor, I guess, versus number of feet, it I
f
)
26 does' not make sense at all, this justification on this.
3 9
m i.
,a-m
-)
/
1 When I sat and read this thing yesterday, I just 99, 1
)
2 couldn't believe what I was reading.
~
3 MR. WELLS:
Okay.
I would think that --
4 MR. HARRISON:
I would think that Consumers u
5 Power Company's threshold for reporting evidently needs 6
to be recalibrated and the reasons -- excuse me -- and i
7 that would be on the item of reporting and on the timeli-8 ness of reporting.
g 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> notification, I would think, is just not 10 being met.
11 You are caught up with identifying an item -- in 12 this case it's a cite that goes to Jackson, that goes to x
13 Bechtel and in Ann Arbor yesterday, they told us, well, 14 they are still working on the evaluation, and as far as 15 reportability goes, this is so obvious that it's reportable, 16 I just don't understand what. happened at all.
17 MR. WELLS:
All right.
Jay, we'll have to i
a 18 look particularly at that.
We'll look at our total I
19 process.
We had -- I'm being honest with you.
We had 20 made an effort on this whole report to be more timely.
21 I hope this is actually not a case, but we will look at 22 it for sure.
23 MR. HARRISON:
That's all that we have.
Any 24 comments? Do you have any T2estions or comments from any i
j 25 members of the public?
l l
l I
I i
r
-v 7
7 s
l
.00 l
1 THE PUBLIC:
I guess I have one specific ques-l
)
I i
2 tion about something that was mentioned in the meeting s/
3 by the gentleman who just presented the CIO presentation.
4 I can't remember his name -- Mr. Rusco?
5 MR. AMORUSO:
Paul Amoruso.
6 THE PUBLIC:
Okay.
You mentioned an anonymous 7
phone call and that when you checked it out, that you had 8
found that there were certain welding procedures that wer<t 9
being done the way the alleger identified and -- but when you checked the ASME Code, you found 'those to be basicall:(
1 10
)
11 all right.
Am I correct in that understanding?
I-12 MR. AMORUSO:
The sequence that was reported wa s t
(}
13 as reported, but the sequence was, in fact, in accordance 14 with the Code and specifications.
It was all right to do i
15 it.
16 THE PUBLIC:
My question is was there any change i
17 to the original procedures that were not-being followed?
18 MR. ASORUSO:
Was there any change?
19 MR. BARANOW:
I think we'd better defer that to 30 Jim Thompson.
21 Jim, could you expound on that?
E MR. THOMPSON:
Yeah.
The person who made.the 23 allegation, he was -- he said that they were performing l
24 tig welding or stick welding and that the procedures 25 weren't approved for this.
4 x
t' 3
m.
i 101 1
He was partially correct in that they were performinc-l r) tig welding over stick welding.
He was incorrect when he
~
2
,j x
3 said that the procedures weren't approved.
The proceduros 4
were, in fact, approved for the action.
5 Some companies -- it is often more typical to do I
6 work the other way around.
It's for economy reasons 7
than other activities.
-l I believe the individual was probably more familiar 8
9 with doing tig welding first and then completing in stick 10 welding because some production shops work that way.
11 But there is nothing wrong in working the other way i
12 around.
We don't know if we have resolved the individual's 13 concerns.
He hasn' t called back to find out what we've done I
14 about it.
But as I said, there is nothing wrong in what l
15 was done.
f 16 THE PUBLIC:
That's all I have.
17 MR. HARRISON:
Any other questions?
18 (No response.)
19 tiR. HARRISON:
Okay.
We thank everybody for 20 their attendance and participation.
21 (Hearing concluded.)
22
___e**___
23 l-24 26 k
-, +
4
.=~
s 1
STATEt,OF MICHIGAN.
)
1 02 i
.cs
) SS
. )
2 COUNTY OF SAGINAW
)
4
',:; (;e, 3
4 I, JAYNE M. TINNEY, Certified Shorthand Reporter, 5
do hereby certify that I reported in shorthand the proceedings 6
had at the Public Meeting of the USNRC, Stone & Webster,
.j 7
Consumers Power Company held on Thursday, the 10th of Novendser, I
8 1983, at or about 9:00 o' clock a.m.
4 9
10
.i 4
{
11 i
12 4
'. h7 cm h'f
/
13 w
' Q/
i j
14 JAYNE M. TINNEY, CSR2457 15 16 mad i
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 i
24 i
26 I
i i
k, i
- ' + + '
.,m__,..
A
.. - 1 INTEROFFICE MEMO
'4DUM
,,g.Rj.
14509 4...
SUBJECT NIRs 002, 003, 004 DATE November 7, 1983 FROM S. W. Baranow TO:
G. EWERT CC: JJHarrison, US NRC Glen Ellyn, IL.
RCook, US NRC, Midland (site)
DQuamme, CPCo, Midland (site)
RBKelly, S&W APAmoruso, S&W Please advise this office of the status of corrective action accomplished as indicated on MPQAD Quality Action Requests (QAR) f (a) RT-0005 which addresses CIO NIR 002 (b) RT-0006 which addresses CIO NIR 003 (c) RT-0007 which addresses CIO NIR 004 Please be reminded that the proposed completion date indicated on the QARs is November 4, 1983.
d -g S. W. Baranow h
i l
i s
$+
,e p.
g g
sm, A
I
]lj POWST
\\ C011Su m 8fS j
00mDED)'
u y
M4diend Project: PO Son 1963. Midaand. Mt 48640 e (517) 631-8650 1
1AB 101 Nover:ber 1,1983 Pr Stan Baranow Stone & Webster Engineer 2ng i
Mi'dland Nuclear Plant Project Trailer 186 3500 E Miller Road Midland, MI 48640 MIDIAND DERGY CENIER FRQTECT -
'IRANSMIITAL OF (3) CCNPUIER PRINIS This will ecnfim the transmittal of three emputer printouts ccxvaining infacuaticn cn NPQAD (BT) Inspectcr records. 'Ihese prints cover all craining, exams, perfonunce dem, certifica-x tions, etc.
GFEwert/IABoriwr
-c
/fg/V i
cc: JHarrison, NRC DBMi.ller, Site Mgr RAWells i
t V
C/ ',
\\
ROV &
9
y
+g_
i
'e a
1 s?f s
k ih3 f
a
~
i m yn un-g
~y
- ? N'.N#L6 ffk5-
[I FRiflCIPAL STAFF i CODSumBIS a
/~w Power
!'?
5 I
company J.sm
,_AT~
f
.g+3 i
ses -
uwi.a e
.t:
no s, toss, uwi.no, ui 4 esso. ism ast-asso i3..
dile
- 2 Idl t7 1
October 31, 1983 Mr Stan Baranow Stone and Webster Midland Nuclear Plant Project Trailer 186 j
3500 E Miller Road Midland, MI 40640 MIDLAND ENERCY CENTER PROJECT -
TRANSMITTAL OF PQCIs FILE 24.2 SERIAL 26324 This will confirm the transmittal of controlled copies of PQCI and/or changes to Stone and Webster, as listed below:
C-8.50 Rev 13 CN #AA-00115 P-1.40 Rev 1 CN #AA-00113 E-1.60 Rev 6 CN #AA-5124 C-8.50 Rev 13 CN #AA-00114 Control Log Week Ending 10/26/83 E-1.60 Rev 7 CN #AA-5123 P-2.20 Rev 8 CN #AA-00116 Reissuance of Control Log Page 5 10/26/83
- g. a.6L-/L CFEwert/JAPucci JKeppler','NRC.RhAfo D II YmEn stratol cc:
DHQuame, SMO RAWells, MPQAD l
l l
l
.n n
,1 o
(4Q sT
,s
, r OC0983-0001A-QLOS t40V 8 1983 b
P.
7, s
,),.
I/Tw"': oM. STAFF r/
COU30M6[S M@
! Q l'
'Un Q
Y
)) 40 Ret.
hf /' 45 r
'j !
e
't.
y iu at Midt d Project: PO Som 1963. MiHmd. (*H 4K#c,* ($17) 63146%
--c pggg Op;che.r 20, 1983 s'
j s
,7 i
~
r r
,:j
,r{
s n ~.
.~;~
- 7
/
~.
r 6
r y
Y
,a-g Mr Stanley W Barapov:
f,_ /
a O",
Stone & Webster Ql * '
- [,.
': ~
~
J.
Midland Nuclear Plant f
,+
d.' I.E.
P o nox ic63
./ / i'
?
,~
r '^
t -
Mid1wd,,MI LM40
,1
/
v.
n s
t l,' s
-a, -
MIDLAN'T ENERCf CESTER
_ j J '-
+
STONE & WEBS *fER CORRESPONDENCEu u f
Filei 0655,<B1.1 7 Serialp';c W Q696 UFI:
99*08-w.
" ; ~- - /.
'w l.
7*' ~
, This zesponds to your requert (IOM to D L Quacie dated OctobeL12, 1983) for
^
information on the CCP Training 7eogram for Site; Management Office (SMO) staff.
'Ihis training program was orj$inally set up priitarily as an information program
,/
buUis,now in the process of being foymalized.' lIn 5ddition to:1.he normal construction
' 4/
detivity monitoring performed by tsejsMO Constrw.tlon staff,4beygwill be approving CWPs for Q-Work.
This should r3o.5-fore be vhysdfas an activi~ty included
,} / i
,e,e.
in the CIO scope.
i,r y -
2 s
~-
i r.
m
~,
.?
y
~
M.,*' /
'd y
',,. - s.
j E.{
e
,,e r
./
l I[
.Sfce Manitger j f
~i
/
r
.s e
< r s
' y1.0/
?
/
si
.o
~' T', r 4
7 - 4 ;.~pp' f
4'
~-
7-CC: a3CReppler,iU$NRC-
.~
^+
f#
x C;-
~
~
n
~
":s
.a, RJt'oo't, U.WRC-SLte u
.n
+
j/ FB M ly;'?J'
<T'
's, r
f ;APAmoruso, $6 K,,
+,t y
~CORie.irdnon S&W n.
r
~,.
i
{
,/ / s -JWCook[ F.26-335B
/
'C_
f.'.
v
,g
~
^
q i g e
4 f.Y> /,-
)
"s y
'{
~'?,-
.'ERLee-
'u.,
r
,~
" ' {
~
1;Etuck f i l
.%y~
,~lr
'l
\\
k v.
~
!*'s,*
N { r.
i,
,~.._
s
' v/,i ;
- '*~,
1 l
(",
'/f. } + ;
. e~
c i
. i
.e 9
,,,,.w. sg l
s -
e.
~
i J~. /
,p
~
na
- e, N.(jy ". //,S83
-,~ - C' 4e #n o.>
_ A J y' vl.
ry J V
.. %' ~,,.
e'
\\'
, **,a a
+u.
r m
~,
-~2
-.b ',
,.3.
..sr.
.,, _,..-. - w r.V.
,[.
]* ~/ '
..,/.
).
Y.AM Y p
'~'
p {*
n 7-
.i.,=
1 r
e k
0 NE},
STONE & WEBSTER MICHIGAN. INC.
- 4 L'4) '-T~ Ih' L
t
.l c._.. '
t P.O. Box 2325. Boston. M AssACHusETTs O2107 f
i.
'..['._ i
.. _ ~
...d_ k0 6 7
4
~l
_.. ~ Mbd i
Mr. J. Harrison October 27, 1983 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road J.O.No. 14358 Clan Ellyn, IL 60137 MPS-28 DOCKET NO. 50-329/330 MIDLAND PLANT - UNITS 1 AND 2 INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF UNDERPINNING AFFIDAVIT AND RESUME FOR ADDITIONAL TEAM MEMBER Stone & Webster Michigan, Inc. (Stone & Webster) has determined that it will be necessary to supplement the existing Independent Assessment Team with an additional Quality Assurance engineer. In this regard, an affidavit and resume for Mr. Robert L. Lykens are enclosed with this letter.
Stone & Webster has determined that Mr. Lykens meets the independent require-ments for this work. If you have any questions, please contact me at (617) 589-2067.
G-A.
S.' Lucks Project Manager Enclosures J
ASL/mmm i
i i
l l
1 i
007 28 1983
/!
1
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 30ARD r
In the Matter of Docket No. 50-329 OM 50-330 OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket No. 50-329 OL 50-330 OL February 14, 1983 AFFIDAVIT m/.
W My name is A /<rt / L ie u I an employed by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation as Je,'ra r c e r,.a,,, e a r I as currently assigned to the team which is conducting an independent assessment of soils work at the Midland Nuclear Plant site. Prior to being l
given this assignment, I have never worked on any job or task associated with the Midland Project, or any job or task for or on behalf of Consumers Power Company, Bechtel, or the Mergentime Company relating to soils of underpinning.
I have never been employed by Consumers Power Company, Bechteli or Mergentime Company. I do not own any sharea of Consumers Power Company, Bechtel, or Mergentime stock. Mutual funds or other funds in which I may have a beneficial interest, but over which I have no control, may own shares of Consumers Power Company, Bechtel, or Mergentime stock, of which I am unaware.
A list of such funds in which I have an interest are attached.
I have no relatives which are or have been employed by Consumers Power Company, Bechtel, or Mergentime Company.
Sworn and Subscribed Before Me This -Jtlu M d b
'AM (C(y k
fi \\lIk h h te LT%)W1
.3tary Public
(
My Commission Expires hN'kl i
+_ r - - p.sy-J fv 2-JW y </ess 6.
das,,/,; - / 77.J. a.u.u as 6,%.
_r-in s.
af caalu i
~
May 1983 LYKENS, ROBERT L.
SENIOR QUALITY CONTROL ENGINEER j
FIELD QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION EDUCATION University of Tennessee - Engineering (one year only)
U. S. Military Academy (West Point) Bachelor of Science in Military Science (Engineering) in 1954 LICENSES AND REGISTRATIONS j
Registered Professional Engineer, State of Alabama,1964 1
i EXPERIENCE
SUMMARY
Mr. Lykens joined Stone & Webster Corporation (SWEC) in April 1983 as a Senior Quality Control Engineer.
Prior to joining SWEC, Mr. Lykens was a P*oject Engineer with Arabian American Oil Company where he monitored and approved design and procurement activities of the Architect-Engineer for projects in Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Lykens was the Quality Control Manager for Exxon Nuclear Idaho company at Idaho National Engineering Laboratories for construction of a nuclear fuel storage and reprocessing facility.
Mr. Lykens' employment with Exxon was preceded by 8 years with Bechtel Power Corporation where he was assigned Project Field Quality Control Engineer, Field Engineer, and Construction Superintendent (Civil) on various nuclear power plant construction projects.
l Prior to joining Bechtel, Mr. Lykens was associated with Boeing Company as a Me-chanical Systems Test Engineer and Test Conductor on ground support equipment in the Apollo Space Program.
Before joining Boeing, Mr. Lykens assumed project engineering responsibilities with several firms in the development of the space center in Florida.
This work involved studies in logistics, transportation, market research and contract management.
Prior to entering the space program, Mr. Lykens was an officer in the U. S. Army following his commission from the U. S. Military Academy.
1 I
5 l
1 934277-P Y
r
i g
/
l DETAILED EXPERIENCE RECORD LYKENS, ROBERT L.
02559 t
STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION, OAK RIDGE. TN (Apr 1983 to Present) r Appointments:
Senior Quality Control Engineer - Apr 1983 Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Project, U.S. Department of Energv 4
(Apr 1983 to Present) t As SENIOR QUALITY CONTROL ENGINEER responsible for training and supervision of all Civil Field Quality Control (FQC) Engineers, Assistant Engineers, Inspectors, l
and Technicians for all site monitoring, testing, and acceptance inspection for earth fill placement, blasting. rock-bolting, rebar placement, concrete placement, structural steel erection, coatings, laboratory testing, and other work within the Civil Field Quality Control area of responsibility. Coordinate with Construction Supervision, Construction Engineering, the Architect-Engineer (AE) and the client to resolve problems, conflicts, and nonconformances in order to insure that the work
?
I' conforms to drawings, specifications, and codes and standards.
ARABIAN A.ERICAN OIL COMPANY, HOUSTON, TX (Nov 1980-July 1982) u Appointments:
Project Engineer - Nov 1980 As PROJECT ENGINEER responsible for monitoring, reviewing, and concurring with the design and procurement activities of the Architech-Engineer for projects t.o be constructed in Saudi Arabia (pipelines, pump stations, and seawater treatment plant).
Also assisted in contract development and negotiations; performed liaison with field operating organi:ations; and developed operating and precommissioning manuals.
EXXON NUCLEAR IDAHO COMPANY IDAHO FALLS, ID (June 1979-June 1980)
Appointments:
l Projects Quality Control Manager - June 1979 l
As PROJECTS QUALITY CONTROL MANAGER responsible for training and supervising thirty engineers and inspectors of all disciplines and developing and implementing a qual -
icy control program and procedures for modifications and expansion to the Idaho chemical processing plant for processing nuclear waste and construction of a new l
nuclear fuel processing and storage facility.
i 1
984277-P
~T BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION, SAN FRANCISCO, CA (June 1971-June 1979)
Appointments:
Quality Control Engineer - June 1971 Project FQC Engineer - Jan 1972 Field Engineer / Construction Superintendent - June 1975 Lead Civil Quality Control Engineer - June 1976 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Toledo Edison and Cleveland Electric and Illuminating Co.
(June 1971-June 1974)
As a QUALITY CONTROL ENGINEER (June 1971-Jan 1972), responsible for surveillance of quality control progra=s of all civil / structural contractors at the 900 MW Davis-Besse, Unit 1.
As PROJECT QUALITY CONTROL ENGINEER (Jan 1972-June 1974), responsible for training and supervision of quality control engineers, all disciplines and Laple=entation of the construction management quality control program at the Davis-Besse Project.
Turkey Point Nuclear Power Station, Units 3 and 4 Florida Power & Light (June 1974-June 1976)
As PROJECT QUALITY CONTROL ENGINEER (June 1974-June 1976), responsible for i=ple-menting the quality control program for construction of rad-waste f acility and modifications to two operating nuclear power plant units.
As CIVIL FIELD ENGINEER / SUPERINTENDENT (June 1975-June 1976), at Turkey Point re-sponsible for resolution of construction / design problems in the field and for planning and coordinating the work of all civil and structural craf ts in nuclear power plant modifications and expansions.
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Arizona Public Service (June 1976-June 1979)
As LEAD CIVIL QUALITY CONTROL ENGINEER was responsible for training and supervising sixteen quality control engineers and implementing the quality control program for all civil structural work in the construction of three 1300 MW units at Palo Verde.
l' THE BOEING COMPANY (BOEING ATMNTIC TEST CENTER) MERRIT ISI.AND LAUNCH AREA, FL (June 1965-June 1970)
Appointments:
t i
Systems Test Engineer - June 1965 l
Test Conductor - Sept 1967 l
As SYSTEMS TEST ENGINEER (June 1965-Sept 1967), responsible for fabrication, testing, maintenance, and operation of high pressure pneumatic and hydralic control syste=s for ground support equipment and crogenic service systems for the Apollo launch vehicle. Member of launch team for several lunar landing launches.
2 i
984277-p i
4
]
\\
As TEST CONDUCTOR (Sept 1967-June 1970), responsible for achieving and maintaining launch readiness for all ground support equipment during test and launch countdown of the Apollo launch vehicle. Monitored ground support firing room panel which sum-marized firing status of panels of approximately 25 systems engineers. Coordinated with Chief Test Conductor concerning launch configuration during mission countdown (Mechanical Engineer).
BROWN ENGINEERING COMPANY, CAPE CANAVERAL, FL (Mar 1963-June 1965) l 1.ppointments:
Engineer - Mar 1963 Project Engineer - Dec 1963 As ENGINEER (Mar 1963-Dec 1963), performed studies to assist NASA counterparts in determination of space center support requirements, i.e.,
transportation, food ser-vices, medical facilities, logistics, and maintenance.
As PROJECT ENGINEER (Dec 1963-June 1965), responsible for designing total food ser-vices system,- to include facilities and operations, for the space center in Florida.
Developed specifications for all equipment and procured equipment.
THIOKOL CHEMICAL COMPANY, REDSTONE ARSENAL, AL (Aug 1962-Mar 1963)
Appointments:
1 Facilities Engineer - Aug 1962 As FACILITIES ENGINEER performed studies to determine costs for new facilities and modifications to facilities requested by operating departments of manufacturer of solid propellant rocket motors.
MARTIN-MARIETTA CORPORATION, DENVER, CO (Apr-1961-Aug 1962)
\\
=
i Appointments:.
1 Manufacturing Engineer - Apr 1961 i
As MANUFACTURING ENGINEER developed interface control documentation to insure com-patibility between underground launch silos with to-be-installed Titan II ICBMs.
CONSOER-TOWNSEND & ASSOCIATES, NASHVILLE, TN (Aug 1960-Apr 1961)
Appointments:
Assistant Resident Engineer'- Aug 1960 J
As ASSISTANT RESIDENT ENGINEER performed soil tests, concrete tests, surveying, and maintained schedule progress in-place construction materials quantities for construction of municipal airport.
I l
i 3
i 984277 ?
l
, -+
4 n
-w r
- + -
m a
1
..x 3' YO DlHb o'Jl73 3
- CollSum0IS l/PRilCIPAL STAFF CW t ft 90VIBi
'!'?i N-l Company i
ac in w
-E+o les g'g IGA ML Midland Project: PO som 1963, Midland, MI 48640 + (517) 6314650
'EllF i
{File ! / _)/
g Getober 27, 1983 Mr Stan Baranow Program Manager CIO Stone and Webster Midland Energy Center PO Box 1963 Midland, MI 48640
SUBJECT:
MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER - REQUESTED DOCUMENTS FILE: 24.2 SERIAL: 19850 This is to confirm discuss ~.a between R D Turner of MPQAD-HVACA and J Barr of Stone and Webster on requesting the following documents:
Bechtel Letter BLC-18300, dated October 25, 1983 Bechtel Letter BLC-18061, dated September 26, 1983 Program to Evaluate Past Welding to Photon Procedures, Rev 1 A copy of each of the above is attached for your use.
Jg H P Leonard, General Superintendent ood Plant Assurance Division MPQAD sistant Superintendent MPQAD-HVACA HPL/JLW/SKC/en cc: iJHarrison, NRC (w/o att)
RAWells, MPQAD (w/o att)
DQuamme, Midland (w/o att)
I j
l Q ' l } () )()
')D i
O ')
NOV 7 583
~
& 4C OH1 D */3ol C0RSUm f PRINCIPAL STAFF VAA w DPR?
l E0WOI J/H/.
3 e
C0mpany l?"
oc u a<.:A 43 PAQ 5CS/
pr 3GA
..t l Midland Protect: PO Box 1963, Midtend, MI 46640 * (517) 631466
'F File _/,
/
October 26, 1983 Mr Stan Baranow Program Manager CIO Stone and Webster Midland Energy Center PO Box 1963 Midland, MI 48640
SUBJECT:
MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER - REQUESTED DOCUMENTS FILE: 24.2 SERIAL: 19849 This is to confirm discussions between M L Bupp and R D Turner of MPQAD-HVACA and Rick Scallon of Stone and Webster on requesting the following documents:
Zack Quality Assurance Manual Program to Evaluate Past Welding to Photon Procedures (Draft Copy)
A copy of each of the above is attached for your use.
W HPLeonard', General Su;.rintendent LWood Plant Assurance Division Assistant Superintendent Midland Project Quality Assurance Dept MPQAD-HVACA HPL/JLW/SKC/cn cc: JHarrison, NRC (w/o att)
RAWells, MPQAD (w/o att)
DQuamme, Midland (w/o att) 1 i
$A
//
3
^
c.~ % (6/
i
</
c-l i
K ' -
OCT 311983
pd*Dma/D/31/76.
\\
~T
\\
l PRINCIPAL STAFF
/RA EdDPRP l l
CORSumBIS a/ai ue power
^^^
0*SF Company JC y-ORMA pao sCS-m lTA ML D
N A-uws.no proi.et: Po e = issa, pion.no, ui 4es4o. (sits ast-seso October 25, 1983 Mr Stan Baranow Stone and Webster Midland Nuclear Plant Project Trailer 186 3500 E Miller Road Midland, MI 48640 MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER PROJECT -
TRANSMITTAL OF PQCis FILE 24.2 SERIAL 26316 This will confirm the transmittal of controlled copies of PQCI and/or changes to Stone and Webster, as listed FSlow:
CW-1.00, Rev 5 CN #AA00111 P-1.40, Rev 1 CN #AA00110 P-2.30, Rev 4 IR Replacement pages PIW-1.00, Rev 6 CN #AA00112 C-2.20, Rev 6 CN #AA00011 & AA00014 Revised Effectivity Dates PF-1.10 Rev 5 CN #AA00105 IR g, d hr, < <,E /h GFEvert/JAPucci
- gKefpTe*E[fNRC Region III Administrator cc
DHQuan:me, SMO RAWells, MPQAD l
I I
\\
i I
l l
OC0983-0001A-QLOS
(" 2a i OCT 311983 1
'y g
g
- DM6
'"/&/rgFRitCfPAL TAFF w+
+
STONE & WEBSTER MICHIGAN, INC.
we
- w na P.O. Box 2325. BOSTON. M AsSACHUSETTs 02107
%O 205
/g
- GA u
o i
N File Mr. J. J. Harrison October 24, 1983 Nuclear Regulatory Commission J.0. No. 14509 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60,137 RE: DOCKET NO. 50-329/330 MIDLAND NUCLEAR C0 GENERATION PLANT MONTHLY THIRD PARTY ASSESSMENT MEETING The protocol governing communications for the Remedial Soils and Construction Completion Programs at the Midland Plant, specifies a monthly meeting to discuss third party assessment activities and assigns preparation of the minutes of those meetings to Stone & Webster.
Enclosed are minutes of the meeting held on October 13, 1983.
[f&ur A. P. Amoruso CIO Project Manager Enclosure APA/ka cc: JWCook, CPCo DLQuame, CPCo l
l l
t l
OCT3 1 1983 c_.a
_C V M>.,
O J //O
MINUTES OF THE MEETING ON OCTOBER 13, 1983 STATUS OF INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF UNDERPINNING AND REMEDIAL SOILS WORK
' Purpose To discuss Third Party Overview activi. ties of Stone & Webster (S&W) and problems encountered regarding underpinning and remedial soils work.
?
Summary Mr. A. S. Lucks, Project Manager for the Independent Assessment of Under-pinning and Remedial Solis Work, presented a summary of the assessment pro-gram for the past year. Highlights follow:
- Assessment Team has been on site for over twelve months.
- The, scope of work for the Assessment Team includes overviewing the construction of the underpinning and all remedial soils activities, the Quality Assurance activities associated withthe underpinning and remedial soils activities, and reviewing the Work Activity Packages for completeness.
- The Assessment Team includes staff with expertise in.Geotechnical l
Engineering, structural engineering, Quality Assurance, construction, and underpinning.
' The underpinning activities are proceeding on a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> day, 7 days per week schedule and the Assessment Team' operates as'two units to provide 7 day coverage. One unit is headed up by W. E. Kilker, the second unit is headed up by P. J. Majeski.
j
- The Assessment Team submits weekly reports, Nonconformance Identification Reports (NCRs) a 1d periodic sumary reports directly to the NRC with copies to Consumers Power Company (CPCo).
Minutes of Meeting PAGE 2
- To-date 16 underpinning piers have been installed for the Auxiliary Building underpinning and the first set of grillages have been installed.
- Work at the Service Water Pump Structure '(SWPS) has included installation of the soldier piles and dewatering systems in prepar,ation for underpinning.
- Preparations are in progress for the extension of the Borated Water f
Storage Tank foundations.
- The Assessment Team has had the opportunity to see most of the operations nece'ssary for the underpinning work.
- A total of 55 weekly reports,15 NC'Rs and a 90-Day Sunrnary report have been issued.
Based on activities during the past twelve _ months, the Assessment Team has_the following observations:
- The underpinning that has been installed is of a very high quality.
I
- The Quality Assurance staff are perfoming as an effective quality l
organization.
i'
- All of the organizations involved in the underpinning have demonstrated i
j a positive attitude and concern towards quality.
' The instrumentation system installed to monitor building movements adds to the confidence in the success of the underpinning work.
- Both CPCo and Bechtel have been responsive to the requests and needs i
l of the Assessment Team.
I j
- Currently 14 of the 15 NIRs have been closed out. Seven of the NIRs
.were related to Specifications or Construction Procedures, six were related to QA Procedures, and two were hardware related.
l l
L
m i
I Minutes of Meeting i
PAGE 3 1
- From time-to-time the Assessment Team has stated that the completions of underpinning piers, from excavation to load transfer, should be accomplished in a more t'imely manner. 'This item is still,of concern to the Assessment Team, although some improvement has taken place and Quality has not been impacted.
4 Mr. W. E. Kilker presented a description of the major underpinning activities i
during the previous month. Highlights follow:
- The installation of the Pier 8 grillage beams on the east and west ends of the Auxiliary Building was the major underpinning activity during the month. They were installed in accordance with project procedures, l
and the Assessment Team was particularly impressed with the teamwork l
1 demonstrated during the load transfer to the beams.
- Progress was made in obtaining access for underpinning activities through the Utility Access Tunnels. The soll stabilization by grouting is being effectively accomplished.' Grout takes are high.
4 l
- Outstanding NCRs on the reinforcing steel for the BWST foundations have l
been resolved and installation of the reinforcing steel has begun.
I
- At the SWPS the installation of the soldier piles is almost complete and ir.itial testsof the dewatering systems suggest that it may be more effective than anticipated.
- Miscellaneous activities have included installation of cathodic protection systems, removal of two 36 inch casings, piezameter installation and soil investigation work.
- During the installation of a piezameter there was an incident of drilling into a beam that extends from the Auxiliary Building. A stop work order was issued on drilling and the occurrence was investigated.
In the future, structural drawings will be reviewed, in addition to utility
Ji-
~
Minutes of Meeting PAGE 4 drawings, before a drilling pemit is issued.
- One NCR was issued during this period. It concerned certification of QC supervisors. This NCR has been closed.
- Five Work Activi.ty Packages were reviewed and Assessment Team questions i
~
were satisfactorily resolved.
Questions and Answers 4
l
- Mr. J. J. Harrison (NRC) asked if Stone & Webster tracked commitments
{
made by CPCo in closing open items from the daily meetings, for example.
l Item 52-14. A check by the NRC had shown that some six weeks after the commitment had been made the drawing had not been changed. Mr. W. E. Kilker (S&W) replied that Stone & Webster does not track an item after closing, i
i but the item would be brought to CPCo attention if the drawing were to be used for construction without' the change being made.
R. A. Wells (CPCo) stated that if it is flagged on a formal quality document it would be tracked.
J. A. Mooney (CPCo) stated that he will check on f
the CPCo tracking process.
Mr. R.1.andsman (NRC) commented that a drawing with a detail noted as Non-Q had been identified and this also had not been corrected.
l l
- Mr. J. J. Harrison,(NRC) remarked that daily meeting notes indicated l
i i
l 1
that an item on a drawing was cnly a suggested method and not a j
requirement and asked why it was shown on the drawing, if it is only a suggestion. Mr. W. E. Kilker (S&W) stated that the procedure associated with this item points out that it is a suggested method.
Mr. J. A. Mooney (CPCo) stated that he will check on this item.
l i
- Mr. J. J. Harrison (NRC) commented that in weekly report No. 49, the Assessment Team suggested a solution to possibly avoid problems with welding. This suggestion had also been made~in weekly report No. 30.
l
d
~s Minutes of Meeting PAGE 5 He asked why had CPCo not acted sooner. J. A. Mooney (CPCo) stated f
that they had reviewed the situation and had thought that the existing procedure was adequate but that this was subsequently not the case and i
the suggested change had been implemented. Mr. W. E. Kilker (S&W) con-fir 1;.ed that the change was being made.
- Mr. R. B. Landsman (NRC) asked if the lagging spacing problems had been l
solved. He noted thatit had appeared again in recent weekly reports.
Mr. W. E. Kilker (S&W) stated that at the Auxiliary Building, the t
Contractor had opened up the lagging spacing as requested by the Assessment Team. The latest occurrence was at the SWPS and the problem has now been addressed.
- Mr. R. B. Landsman (NRC) asked what is being done to resolve the venting problems associated with the grouting of bearing plates.
I Mr. W. E. Kilker (S&W) stated that the Assessment Team was tracking this-problem. It occurs when the foundation surface is very irregular, and the Assessment Team is aware that the Contractor is expending l
considerable effort to solvethe problem. The inspection of the cured grout is being performed very carefully.
1 l.
- Mrs. Sinclair, member of public, asked Mr. J. J. Harrison (NRC), if he was satisfied with the answer to the question on tracking commitments used Mr. Harrison stated that CPCo in closing items from daily meetings f
had connitted to tracking those items; however, the subject would have i
i l-to be discussed further at the next monthly meeting.
)
f I
l
\\
i
.,.w e
m-s
<,,-- e
~
r wm',
s
m, e
j Minutes of Meeting PAGE 6 Action Items
- CPCo will review the implementation of commitments made to close out j
3 daily meeting items.
- Stone & Webster,Will refine the tracking system for open items.
If i
w t
.i I
i l
4 l
l I
e l
l
(
v i
3 j
MINUTES OF THE MEETING ON OCTOBER 13, 1983 t
j STATUS OF CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW (CIO) PROGRAM Purpose l
To discuss Third Party Overview activities of Stone & Webster (S&W) and problems encountered regarding the Construction Completion Program (CCP).
Summary Mr. A. P. Amoruso. Project Manager for the CIO Program, presented a stsimary of the Program from the beginning of CIO activities on April 28, 1983 through September 30, 1983.
Four main topics were covered:
- Staffing of the CIO Team. Fourteen people.were assigned to the team'as of October 13, 1983. Six additional people are expected to
)
join the team by the end of October. The number of people to be added
' n November will be dictated by work activities that are eventually i
i
]
scheduled, a
- Status of Developing Inspection Checklists. Inspection checklists are f
used bythe CIO team in conducting assessments. Checklists have been j
prepared for 69 Project Quality Control Instructions (PQCIs) that are j
applicable to the verification phase of the CCP and for 40 other areas that hold special interest within the scope of the CIO but are not i
covered by PQCIs. These checklists are now being maintained current l
with revisions to base documents.
' Summary of Assessment Activities. Efforts were focused during the period on areas of particular concern to starting up the CCP. Assessment activities also took place for areas outside the CCP but within the scope of the CIO. These areas were the Spacial Systems Interaction Program (SSIP);
i Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Program (HVAC); and the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS). Seven Management Review Meetings an' some j
fifty other site management meetings were monitored.
.1 l
3 l
Minutes of Meeting October 13, 1983 PAGE 2 I
Twenty training presentations were monitored and the computer training
~
printout was compared to the training matrix for thirty people. One-hundred and fifty training records and computer entires were sampled. Sixty-nine PQCIs were revie'wed. Thirty-five system interactions were evaluated.
Thirt'y-two HVAC welder qualifications were checked.
- Assessment Results. The CIO team uses the term " Observation" to cover five situations: a deficiency, a nonconformance, a request for clarification i
and information, a request for action, and a question. Observat!ons are reported in weekly reports and tracked by those reports until satisfactorily closed. Nonconformancesare also reported by Nonconfomance Identification Reports (NIRs). Twenty Observations were reported during the period regarding Management Review Meetings, four were reported regarding PQCIs, five regarding training, and one regarding the SSIP. Of the thirty Observations, one was a nonconfomance and three were deficiencies. The nonconformance and deficiencies referred to training records. Four other nonconformances regarding training records were prepared on September 27th and will be included as Observations under the October summary.
Questions and Answers
- Mr. R. J. Cook, NRC, asked how changes to PQCIs were incorporated in checklists. Mr. S. W. Baranow, Stone & Webster, replied that revision or I
change notices for the PQCIs trigger the updating process for checklists.
- Mr. R. J. Cook asked if the adequacy of the training matrix has been evaluated.
l Mr. A. P. Amoruso, Stone & Webster, replied that the matrix was under i
evaluation.
- Mr. R. 8. Landsman, NRC, asked if craft training was included in the t.aining orogram. Mr. D. B. Miller, CPCo, replied that craft training is included.
8 e
q
-~
\\
Minutes of Meeting i
October 13, 1983 PAGE 3 i
- Mr. J. J. Harrison, NRC, statedthat before NRC released Hold Points, related Hold Points established by Stone & Webster would have to be cleared.
- Mr. D. S. Atri, member of public, asked how a checklist is determined to be adequate or not. Mr. A. P. Amoruso, Stone.& Webster, replied that checklists are based on PQCIs which reference applicable specifications.
If specifications change, PQCIs and checklists are revised.
Action Items None
~
l i
6 1
l l
9
)
Consumers Power Company Midtend Protect: PO Bom 1963, Midiend. MI 48640 *(517) 631 8650 IAB 100-83 October 24, 1983 Mr Stan Baranew Secne & Webster Engineering Midland Nuclear Plant Project Trailer 186 3500 E Miller Road Midland, m 48640 MIDIAND DERGY CENIER PRQJECT -
'IRANSMTTAL T (3) CCMPUIER PRIMS
'Ihis will ecnfim the transmittal of three ccuputer printouts ccnenining informaticn cn MPQAD (BOP) Inspector records. 'Ihese prints cover all training, exams, perfomance demos, certifica-tiens, etc.
GEwert/lABotirer 19xM) cc: JHarrison,IEC DBMillir, Site Mgr i
RAWells
// L l
s
)
STONE & WEBSTER MICHIGAN, INC.
P.O. Box 2325. Boston. M AssAcHustTTs 02107 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission October 21, 1983 r
Midland Site Resident Inspection Office J.O.No. 14358 Route 7
. Midland, MI 48640 MPS-26 l
Attention:
Mr. R. Cook l
l DOCKET NO. 50-329/330 MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 l
INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF UNDERPINNING EVALUATION OF CHANGE AND NONCONFORMANCE DOCUMENTS i
Enclosed with this letter are three copies of the report entitled, " Evaluation of Change and Nonconformance Documents." Copies of the report are also being mailed to Mr. J.A. Mooney of Consumers Power Company.
If you have any questions with. respect to the report, please contact me at (617) 589-2067.
A. S. Lucks Project Manager Enclosure l
ASL/mmm
-l l
l I
l 1
i i
i
/
(
'l
/ ) \\ (D 00T 318 -
\\
n
+
e e
i e
i i
J.0.No. 14358 i
?
4 T
i 1
f r
i EVALUATION OF CHANGE AND NONCONFORMANCE DOCUMENTS INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF UNDERPINNING MIDLAND PLANT - UNITS 1 AND 2 l
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY OCTOBER 1983 i
i
,1 i
=
i i
e i
I Prepared By 1
STONE & WEBSTER MICHIGAN, INC.
3 a.
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS l
I I.I I
u
[Qb b,2 [ d' l
007 3 1 1983 g
1 BX214358.01-12
?
i J
3 I
i lI INDEX PAGE INTRODUCTION 1
EXECUTIVE SUPNARY 1
I METHODOLOGY 3
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES 3
REVIEW OF PROCEDURES 5
IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL CHANGE 6
AND NONCONFORMANCE DOCUMENTS ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS 7
EVALUATION OF FIELD CHANGE REQUESTS (FCR) 8
+
EVALUATION OF NONCONFORMANCE REPORTS (NCR) 10 APPENDIX 4
Trip Notes - August 24 Through August 26, 1983 i
Trip Notes - August 30 Through September 2, 1983 e
i I:
f I
l 8,X214358.01-12 l
j i
t.
INTRODUCTION The evaluation of the change and nonconformance documents and their impact on the progress of the underpinning work was initiated as a result of concerns discussed in the Independent Assessment of Underpinning Weekly Reports.
Report No. 40, dated June 27, 1983, indicated the Assessment Team's concern 3
l to limit the exposure time of the structures to unsupported conditions. It was demonstrated that piers could be constructed and loaded in about 25 to 30 days.
However, this target is not being regularly achieved.
Report i
l No. 43, dated July 20,1983, expressed the Assessment Team's concern that l
load transfer onto completed piers should be able to be accomplished in a much shorter time period. Report No. 46, dated August 10, 1983, indicates that the Assessment Team believes that the Engineering, Quality Control, and Construction organizations must initiate an evaluation of performance to date in an effort to identify actions that could reduce the completion time without compromising quality. The report also indicated that it was the opinion of the Assessment Team that such a goal is obtainable.
I At the request of Consumers Power Company, an independent evaluation was per-j i
formed on the influence that the various change and nonconformance documents had on accomplishing the underpinning work and to detemine if specific recom-j mendations can be made in this area to reduce the amount of time the building is exposed in an unsupported condition.
The circumstances at the Midland Plant and the type of structure involved are considerably different from the 4
i I
type of structure that has classically employed this method of remedial work j
to solve foundation problems.
The major difference is that, typically, structures which are underpinned are of much lighter construction, designed j
l for less severe conditions, and may be near impending collapse.
The structures being underpinned at the Midland Plant are not facing impending structural failure.
f The be;,ic thrust of this evaluation is directed at the critical path activi-ties associated with the underpinning work for the Auxiliary Building. The I
remedial soils work for the Diesel Generator Building has been completed. The i
,l I
corrective work associated with the Borated Water Storage Tanks is underway and should be completed by the first of the year.
The underpinning work associated with the Service Water Pump Structure is just beginning, but this structure has better access for the performance of the work and is smaller in l
size.
f Trip notes covering the periods of Augu;t 24 through August 26 and August 30 l
through September 2,1983, are attached to provide additional background information on the evaluation and subsequent recommendations.
i i
EXECUTIVE SUPNARY l
This evaluation of the change and nonconformance documents and their influence on the quality and progress of the work has identified four basic i
i l
areas where additional applied effort could result in faster completion of the 1
underpinning effort and a reduction in the risk associated with the.
![
unsupported portions of the building during construction. These recommenda-tions are listed in order of importance and a reference is given to the i
l-SX214358.01-12 1
~
..+-p.
)
t j l section of the report which provides more detailed discussion in support of the recommendation. The recomendations are as follows:
1.
The program which was recently implemented to review both existing' and new Construction Procedures, Project Quality Corttrol Instructions (PQCI), and Project Specifications should receive a
,i high priority effort in order to define the important quality attributes consistent with the intent of the specifications. This will result in a clear definition of the quality requirements and the utilization of technical resources in achieving these quality i
i
(
goals. This effort will require considerable technical support by Bechtel's Ann Arbor Power Division (AAPD) Project Engineering Group.
For additional discussion refer to the section entitled
" Attendance at Meetings."
i 2.
The completion of the design work associated with the underpinning
- i should be expedited so that the desigrt calculations and drawings i
may be transmitted to the jobsite along with necessary technical l
support. This will expand the ability of the Resident Engineer to approve the change and nonconformance documents in the shortest i
time possible.
The problems encountered in the conduct of the underpinning work and the very nature of this type of work make it preferable to have maximum engineering support at the jobsite. For additional discussion refer to the section entitled " Organizational i.
jl Structures."
3.
The Field Change Request (FCR) should receive final approval by the Project Engineer shortly af ter interim approval has been granted.
i This will require Bechtel to revise its procedures.
Updating of drawings for the changes indicated on FCRs cannot take place until final approval occurs. This will permit more rapid updating of the design drawings for FCRs and will make the application of the recent revised procedure for' updating drawings after five FCRs have been issued more meaningful.
For additional discussion refer to the j
section entitled " Evaluation of Field Change Requests (FCR),"
o 4.
The Nonconformance Reports (NCR) should have trend analysis perfomed which relates ~ the number of-NCRs to the level of construction effort. Also the NCRs should be clas:ified by subject and this distribution reviewed to assist in providing an indicator to problem areas.
For additional discussion refer to section entitled " Evaluation of Nonconfomance Reports (NCR)."
5.
It is important that Bechtel continues to strive to reduce the response time on critical NCRs that could delay the work.
For additional discussion refer to the section entitled " Evaluation of Nonconfomance Reports."
l I
The intent of the first two recomendations is currently being implemented at the jobsite or is part of current plans for the underpinning work.
,[
I l
l
,[
8X214358.01-12 2
\\
I
T-y a' \\
m
,)
METH000 LOGY t
The approach used in the Evaluation of Change and Nonconformance Documents was perfomed using a structured; methodology. The initial concern was with the influence of these documents on the progress of the underpinning work, but as the evaluation s evolved, peripheral issues developed which expanded the g
i.'-
initial scope.
The methodology used was broad enough to allow for orderly expansion of the evaluation if findings warranted such broadening.
The 4
l ir,)tial methodology used f or the ev'aluation follows:
I
' t 1.
Establish the's:cpe and complexity of the remedial soils work by review of design drawings and visits to the various work areas on the site.
i 2.
Attend all regularly held meetings related to the underpinning
.s work.
t
'3.
Establish the spectrum of engineering and quality assurance change i
and nonconfomance Ldocuments that could impact the progress of the
!i work.
4.
Evaluate the documents established by Step 3 for subject matter,
')
approvals, and response times.
l Initial subject classifications are:
s.
Tolerances i
{
b.
Materials 1
c.
Welding d.
Construction e.
Testing f.
Fabrication i
i 5.
Reviewanyexistingtrendanalysisthathasbeenperformedforthe g
l.
change and nonconformance documents.
6.
Review the existing procedures covering the various change and non-confomance documents.
j l
7.
Determine the organizational structure of the responsible I
engineering / construction organization, and determine its inf uence on change and nonconformance documents.
This programed approach proved to be adequate for the task, but the l
attendance at meetings (Item 2), review of existing trend analysis (Item 5),
and review of organizational structures (Item 7) resulted in identifying peripheral issues that form the basis of the recommendations contained in this I
I report.
1
.s.
5 x
ORGANIZATIONAL STRtlCT'JRES
(
The organization selected for evaluation was Bechtel Power Corporation since it has the basic responsibilitysfor the engineering and construction manage-l ment of the underpinning work. JTy engineering consultants and contractors
\\
\\
,r l'
,BX214358.01-12 N
\\
'3
.l V 4 yi 3
7,
for the underpinning work under Bechtel's overall direction are covered by Bechtel's Quality Assurance Plan.
Even though the engineering consultants l
and contractors may originate various types of change and nonconformance documents, it is the Bechtel organization that tracks, processes, and resolves all such documents. The purpose of this evalution is to determine if 1
these documents are being adequately processed from an organizational standpoint.
{
For purposas of additional reference, copies of the following organizational charts have been attached to the trip notes for August 24, 1983, and are as follows:
i i
Project Soils Organization Project Engineering Organization
,j Resident Engineering Soils Organization Field Soils Organization (FS0) t!!
The overall Bechtel organization, both tngineering and construction, is very large and complex and typical of organirations associated with large nuclear power plant projects.
Two key organi:,ations are the Project Engineering
- l Organization with its separate group for the remedial soils work and the Field i
Soils Organization.
Both of these grcups must interrelate to the larger Bechtel organization for proper overall coordination and integration.
l The important subgroups in this structure are the Resident Engineering Soils Organization which is on site and an extension of the Ann Arbor Power Division (AAPD) Project Engineering and the Field Engineering Group of the F50. Both of these groups are actively involved in the generation and processing of Field Change Requests (FCR) and Nonconformance Reports (NCR).
These two organizations have clearly defined written responsibilities which are well j
understood by the Resident Assistant Project Engineer (Resident Engineer),
j Mr. E. Cviki and the Assistant Project Field Engineer (Field Engineer),
j Mr. M. M. 81endy. There is a distinct separation of responsibilities between j
engineering and construction.
)I 1
3 Currently, the ability of these two groups to resolve change and non-l
.conformance documents on site is very limited.
Due to the ongoing design effort by the AAPD Project Engineering, the scope of responsibility of the Resident Engineer can only be expanded when the design calculations and i
drawings are completed and delivered to the jobsite. Currently, tne Resident Engineer can only approve changes and resolve nonconformances that do not Borated Water Storage Tank (BWST) and the Service Water Pump Structur involve design calculations.
It is expected that calculations coverin SWPS) will be transmitted to the jobsite about October 1,1983.
The relationship between the Resident Otscipline Engineer and the Resident l
Engineer was also reviewed. For example, the on-site delegation of responsi-l' bility to the Resident Structural Engineer covers the ability to approve FCRs for such items as minor changes to reinforcing steel, embedments, tack welds, l
f abrication, minor weld details, drift sets, vendor f abrication, construction i
procedures, and instrumentation drawings. Any change request which affects l
the detail design and involves review or alteration of existing calculations must be approved by AAPD. Conversely, the Resident Engineer is authorized to i'
j approve all NCRs and FCRs which the Resident Discipline Engineer has prepared dispositions for.
t i
i 8X214358.01-12 4
i l
im
- ~. -,,.,-i,-,
7
+,c.
...-r,y_
.yr
,-.,,.~.,o.-w
,w,,,-.,rg.-
-.,.-r.,
.,.-v+,
g.
g.
7,...
/
/
/
1 e
4 l
The relationship of the Underpienng Contractor Manager to both the Field i
Engineering Group and tne Resident Engineering Group was examined.
It was suggested that certain decisions could have contract cost implications and, i
therefore,'the resolution of items such as acceptability of material based on decisions to scrap or rework an item might involve contract management in the decision-making process. The Resident Enginaering Group indicated that the Field Engineering Group makes the decision on whether or not the resolution of a problem is through the scrapping, refabrication, or reworking of a given l
l item until it is acceptable. Such items could be covered, either by an FCR or l
an NCR.
While the relationship of the Resident Discipline Engineer to the Resident Engineer and their respective relationships to their counterparts in AAPD Project Engineering is complex, the organization functions effectively in the administration of the chante and nonconfonnance documents and, therefore, no recommendations are made concerning changes to the organizational structure.
1 I
l The major recomendation with regards to the organizational structure is to provide, in the shortest time possible, the design calculations and drawings to the jobsite complete with the necessary technical support so that the role i
and responsibility of the Resident Engineer can be expanded to handle more of i
the resolution of the change and nonconformance documents at the jobsite.
This step will minimize the amount of delay that can o: cur due to the processing of these documents. It is also important that adequate technical
'{
resources be assigned to the jobsite to support the ongoing technical effort.
The engineering consultants must participate in the on-site technical effort.
j Bechtal has advised that Hanson Engineering, Inc., Spencer, White & Prentis, Inc., and Mueser, Rutledge, Johnston and DeSimone will provide technical support at the jobsite.
i REVIEW OF PROCEDURES The following Bechtel procedures were reviewed as part of the determination to identify the significant change and nonconformance documents that could influence ths work and to assist in an understanding of the responsible organization structure and the various responsibilities of key participants:
1 o
FPD-2.000, Rev. 9, July 15,1983 -
Field Change Request / Field Change Notice Procedure o
7220-G-34(Q), Rev. 16, February 9, 1983 -
(
General Specifications for Field Change Notice o
MED 4.62-0, Rev. No. 21, November 3, 1982'-
,;j Field Change Request / Field Change Notice f
i, o
EDP-4.62, Rev. No. 3, December 21, 1975 -
Field Change Request / Field Change Notice o
MED 4.47-0, Rev. No. 23, April 13,1983 -
Drawing Change Notice I
o PEP No. 4.47.2, Rev. No. 2, June 20,1983 -
l Drawing Change Notices (DCNs)
, I.
s E
BX214358.01:12 5
1
--p-emy,-
y n,
y w--g--
g
-ci-
---g4--
.wm- - -
y,,T-W-WW--y---yu----
-*6 9
w v 9' W
9*e-
-'*w-
^
)
o AADP/FSP G-3.2, Rev. 7, June 1,1981 -
Control of Nonconfonning Items o
MED 4.61-0, Rev. No. 9, October 8,1982 -
Nonconformance Reports (NCRs) o PEP No. 2.14.1, Rev. No. O, October 22, 1982 -
Resident Engineer for Midland IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL CHANGE AND NONCONFORMANCE DOCUMENTS l
Based on Bechtel procedures and conversation with the Field Soils Organiza-1 tion (F50) staff, the following change and nonconformance documents were identified:
i o
FieldChangeRequest(FCR) o Field Change Notice (FCN) o DrawingChangeNotice(DCN)
SpecificationChangeNotice(SCN) o i
o NonconformanceReport(NCR)
The FCR and the NCR are the documents that can most influence the progress of the work on a day-to-day basis.
The FCR frequently identifies previously unknown existing field conditions and addresses day-to-day problems related I
to materials, welding, f abrication, and construction. The NCR often limits continued construction by placing holds on materials and completed construction until the nonconformance is corrected or technically resolved.
For these reasons, these two documents were selected for evaluation, using the most currently issued documents. The sample size was large enough to provide simple statistical validity to the evaluation for the pe.'iod covered by the documents evaluated.
The FCN is a seldom-used document and is very limited in scope and applica-r
tion. The purpose of the FCN is to document changes that Project Engineering has designated and authorized the Project Field Engineer to approve for change implementation. The application of FCNs is described in Specification 7220-G-34(Q), Revision 16, dated February 9,1983, entitled " General Specification for Field Change Notice." The categories where FCNs are approved for use are i
described in Section 3.0.
The DCN is a document which is initiated by the AAPD. A DCN is used to make I
and document changes to drawings without imediately issuing a revision to the drawings. A DCN is used to initiate or release a hold on a drawing; and it can be used by Project Engineering to supersede, void, or correct an approved FCR j
or FCN written against the drawing. The SCN is a similar document relating to specifications and is issued by AAPD.
It would be impossible to trace the influence of DCN and SCNs on the progress of the work since there is no recording procedure that would provide this type of information. The.only way that this information could be collected is through personal recollection of i
the people directly involved with the work. It is important to note that the i
design of the underpinning operation is still in progress and that the design i
{
changes, using the DCN system, are being received at the jobsite.
f.
/
BX214358.01-12 6
.I J
ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS The Independent Assessment Team meets daily with Bechtel to review the progress of the work and to discuss the Assessment ' Team's evaluation and i
I These structured meetings, including the documentation of the concerns.
daily meetings, are part of the Assessment Team's formal program for its activities.
These meetings are typically attended by representatives from f.
the following organizations:
i i
!r Consumers Power Company 1
Bechtel Power Corporation Midland Plant Quality Assurance Department (MPQAD) j Stone & Webster Michigan, Inc.
Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Michigan, Inc.
7 f
The meetings are conducted by the Bechtel Contract Manager for underpinning.
The full spectra of subjects related to this work are discussed, covering such lf topics as engineering, purchasing, scheduling, quality problems, construction I
progress, priority NCRs and FCRs, and future considerations for continued 1
j improved quality and progress. These meetings are beneficial.
During this evaluation, participation in these meetings provided insights into the Assessment Team's concerns as expressed in the weekly reports about limiting the building exposure due to unsupported conditions. As discussed in i
the Trip Notes, the probiems associated with Pier Kc10 are representative of the Assessment Team's concerns. The unexpected existing conditions that are encountered during construction, such as the concrete fill which had to be excavated for the construction of Pier Kc3, cause frequent delays.
Also another factor identified at these meetings is the imposition of Q quality standards applied to all aspects of the work, including temporary construction materials and procedures, which increases the level of inspections, and affects the progress accordingly.
f The weekly Engineering - Construction meeting provides a working basis for coordination between Bechtel's AAPD Project Engineering group and the FSO These organization, including the Resident and Field Engineering groups.
meetings also include representatives from Consumers Power Company groups I
such as MPQAD, and the Site Management Office (SMO), and the Independent 3
Assessment Team (Stone & Webster).
The subjects covered by these meetings include the review of critical FCRs and NCRs, status of critical vendor submittals, discussion of objectives of quality assurance plans, and review 3
i of the Action Item List. The Action Item List covers a broad spectrum of i
subjects, such as cutting in-place reinforcing ste(1, coordination with consultants, tolerances, Hilti bolts, and revised construction approaches to f
expedite progress. These meetings demonstrate that Bechtel is endeavoring to
?
benefit and improve quality through better definition of the procedures for
~
construction and required inspections to provide the quality needed to meet I
the intent of the specifications. The subject of construction procedures and l
inspection plans warrants high priority.
The construction of one pier has required 450 signoffs.
t I Bechtel plans to prepare an evaluation of the lessons learned on the design, t i fabrication, and installation of the grillage beams. It is planned that this t
evaluation will be presented during the week of September 5, 1983.
f f
BX214358.01,-12 7
i l
1
,<mu-
.-wwm-7
.-,_n.6y_w.,.,.,y r.,
-.,,...g a
,,e
-r w
me
l c
There has been a continuing dialogue between Bechtel's Field Engineering and Project Engineering groups to establish a method to review specifications, contract work procedures, and Project Quality Control Instruction (PQCI) to better determine what inspections are required for the work.
An earlier review, performed by two independent groeps within Bechtel, resulted in a similar conclusion concerning what were the important quality attributes of an existing work procedure. It has been agreed that the FSO will proceed to develop a plan for the implementation of this activity and submit it to 8
Consumers Power Company for consideration.
Such an effort may require revisions to the specifications and considerable technical support from the AAPD Project Engineering group.
This effort deserves the highest priority since it will result in better-defined quality requirements and consequently should expedite the completion of the work. The following are two typically similar observations made at the construction site where quality inspections l
were either inappropriate or excessive because of lack of definition concerning the important quality attributes:
I 1.
A concrete mud mat has been placed around the existing ring beam f
for the BWST. This concrete was unreinforced and its purpose was simply to provide a working surface for the construction of the forms and the placement of the additional concrete for these foundations. An NCR had been issued for the cracks in the unreinforced concrete mud mat. The cracking was perfectly normal, and there was no technical reason to reinforce this temporary con-struction work surface.
2.
Considerable effort is being expended in inspecting the structural welds which are being performed in accordance with AWS 01.1. On the metal lagging used for temporary construction of the temporary jacking piers, welds which were used to attach some structural nuts for the purposes of simply holding them in place and welds associated with cover plates, neither of which had any structural requirements, had been inspected.
Specifications and related PQC!s should have defined the necessary inspections.
s Considerable benefit can be obtained by properly defining the quality l
requirements, resulting in the conservation of technical resources, and improved productivity without any compromise to the overall quality required for the work.
l EVALUATION OF FIELD CHANGE REQUEST (FCR)
The primary purpose of the FCR is to dochment construction-generated / project I
ll engineering approved changes identified by the project as necessary prior to the start of work on the affected items (s). FCRs can also be used to disposi-tion Nonconformance Reports (NCR) and with timely application effectively l
minimize the number cf NCRs by solving problems prior to the start of. the i
work. However, FCRs may not be used in lieu of NCRs.
1
}
A group of the most recently issued FCRs were evaluated. The subject classi-fications used for this analysis follows:
l BX214358.01-12 8
~
i
--c.-
---..--er,
.-,y,r
, ~.,
M
\\
e t
Construction - Includes such items as as-built conditions, clearances, work access for assembly, and changes to improve construction.
Welding - Includs materials, size, construction problems, warping, f abricationy.and procedurcs.
Tolerances - Includes materials, fabrication, and field construction.
F__abrication - Includes both shop and field work.
Materials - Includes availability and substitution problems.
Hilti Bolts - Includes documentation, testing, and procedures.
Testina - Includes all on-site testing problems.
Percent of FCRs in each subject classification is as follows:
Construction:
34 percent Materials:
18 percent
,r Tolerances:
16 percent Welding:
15 percent Fabrication:
11 Percent I
Testing:
3 percent Hilti Bolts:
3 percent Total 1M percent Eighty-three percent of all FCRs are covered by construction, materials, tolerances, and welding problems.
The response time for an FCR is the duration from the date of initiation to the date of interim appro sal.
An FCR is released for construction when interim approval is obtained.
The overall mean response time is 2.1 days.
However, if three of the FCRs with the longest response time; are excluded, the mean response time becomes 1.5 days.
About 3 percent of all FCRs are-rejected.
All FCRs were properly approved through the interim stage, but only 17 percent had final approval by the Project Engineer or his designee. The age of an FCR does not seem to relate to whether or not it contains final approval by the
[
Project Enginecr.
The FCR is being used effectively. The subject classifications are typical for nuclear work, and problems such as tolerances and welding are always i
present and deserving of special attention. The rejection rate is very low, indicating proper application of the document. The mean response time is very low and indicates that adequate technical support is available to process the FCRs through the interim approval stage, and this portion of the activity is being well-managed.
The fact that about 83 percent of the FCRs did not include final approval by
~l l the Project Engineer is a matter of some concern. PEP No. 4.6.2.1, Rev. No. O, 1
j dated November 15, 1982, indicates in Section 4.5.1 that incorporation of
'(
FCRs cannot occur until final approval by the Project Engineer. This document i
1-BX214358.01-12 9
\\
f
--iy aw w
e
-rvi e-w m
wwwwaw-, - - - -a-
does not specify the elapsqd time from either initiation or interim approval l
to final approval by the Project Engineer.
I However, this document does state some lengthy times for incorporation of FCRs into the affected design documents (30 to 45 days). Bechtel indicates that it intends to incorporate change documents when a total of fhe have been posted against an individual drawing and that the drawing will be revised within 60 days.
1 A number of the drawings have an extensive number of change documents attached j
to them. In order to properly understand the content of the drawing, it is necessary to look at both the drawing and all of the change documents attached in order to determine the correct information necessary for construction, Timely updating is very important in terms of maintaining drawing legibility j
for construction. Since an FCR contains both provisions for interim approval s
and final approval, there is an implication of a certain degree of incomplete-ness associated with two stages of approval. It is therefore important that the Project Engineer's approval of FCRs be timely so that incorporation can take place promptly. The Bechtel procedures should be revised to establish more timely requirements for final approval of FCRs by the Project Engineer and updating of drawings.
EVALUATION OF N09CONFORMANCE REPORTS (NCR)
The primary purpose of a Nonconformance Report is to document a deficiency in characteristic, documentation, or procedure which renders the quality of an item unacceptable or indeterminate.
Examples of a nonconformance include physical defects, test f ailure, incorrect or inadequate documentation, or deviation from prescribed processing, inspection, or test procedures.
NCRs may be originated by the Bechtel organization, subcontractors, suppliers, l
client organizations, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission, and other regulatory agencies.
[
A group of the most recently issued NCRs were evaluated. The subject classi-fications used for this analysis follow:
Construction - Includes such items as work not conforming to the drawings or specifications.
Welding -
Includes both field and shop welding, including non-I conformances to the drawings, specifications, or procedures.
I Fabrication - Includes both shop and field work.
Testing - Includes all on and offsite testing related problems.
j Concrete - Includes surface preptration, grouting, concrete placement, bonding, reinforcement, and defrclition.
Procedures - Includes all noncompliances that relate to project pre-I cedures and basically concerns the administrative aspects of the
' J, procedures, l'
(
/
BX214358.01-12 10 i
v r
a,
--,m.---_
t 3
.s f,
Hilti Bolts - Includes all problems associated with expansion type anchors.
The percent of NCRs in each subject classification is as follows:
Welding 22 percent Concrete 19 percent I:;
Testing 18 percent Procedures 13 percent Fabrication 13 percent il Construction 10 percent
- ~
t Hilti Bolts 5 percent Total 100 percent
{
About 60 percent of all NCRs are covered by problems associated with welding, cor. crete, and testing; and this is reflected in the additional effort that has j
been made at the jobsite in the areas of these activities.
ii Two mean response times were calculated for the NCRs. The first response time is the duration from the data of the report to the date of disposition. If two Ij dispositions were indicated on the NCR form, the one which gave the longest duration was used. The second response time is the duration from the date of the report to closure acceptance by MPQAD. The mean response time to the date of disposition is 5.6 days, and the mean response time to the date of MPQAD
{
closure acceptance is 8.1 days.
All of the NCRs were properly approved. There is no indication en the older
}
NCR form of the priority requirements, but the new NCR form does have a place to designate a priority code.
t s
The Midland Plant Quality Assurance Department (MPQAD) prepared quality trend graphs for the remedial soils work and updates these on a monthly basis. The most recent update of the quality trend graphs revised the occurrence rate from the number of NCRs issued monthly to the number of items affected. The quality trend graphs also segregate the NCRs into a group of subject headings j) l-quite similar to those used in the above analysis.
A study was also performed by MPQA0 to evaluate the mean closure time for i;}
NCRs; and for the period from May 13 to June 13, 1983, the average number of days was 24 for reject / rework items and 30.3 days for repair /use as-is items.
For the period from June 13 to July 13,1983, the mean number of days was 8.7
'[
for reject / rework and 8.8 days for repair /use as-is.
Based on experience from other nuclear projects, the mean response times of 5.6 days from the date of the report to the date of disposition and the mean i
I response time of 8.1 days from the date of the report to the date of-closure acceptance by MPQAD are considered to be very good on an overall basis, However, this conclusion can be misleading because this-document can have a t
very direct impact on the day-to-day progress.
There have been instances where NCRs have resulted in no work for more than one shift. Observations at the jobsite indicate that a variety of techniques,have been developed by
}
8echtel to expedite the critical NCRs so as to minimize delays in the progress I
of the work. This is done through direct coordination with Bechtel's Field and Resident Engineering Groups, through the weekly Construction-Engineering l
BX214358.01-12 11 l
~
+
, - ~., -
,, n r.
,v;
3 q
meetings, and through coordination with MPQAD.
It is important that Bechtel continues to strive to reduce the response time on critical NCRs that could delay the work.
There does not seem to be any system currently in effect which attempts to f
measure, on an overall basis, trends related to the qdality of the work as reflected by NCRs which is based on the level of effort.
As the level of effort expands, so typically do the number of NCRs. However, if the number of i
NCRs issued is not some way related to the number of construction manhours being expended or some other equivalent measurement, there is no way to i
ascertain if there is a trend concerning the quality of the work. It becomes difficult to try to associate construction manhours to the subject classifi-cetion, but the distribution of the NCRs by subject classification does pro-i vide an indicator to areas that might require special attention. Observations at the jobsite have indicated that the onsite organizations have responded to i
the problems associated with welding procedures and concrete.
It is recom-mended that some method of evaluating the NCRs against the level of effort be developed so that meaningful trend analysis can be developed.
1 i '
9
\\-
t' J
5 i
4 i
I
.l t
ii I
l t
I i
,?
t I
r BX214358.01-12 12
\\
?
3 APPENDIX i
1 s
l.
t a
t i
i I
t 4
I I
' i i
t I
i
.t I
- (
i 1
I I
i 1
I
. ['
BX214358.01-12 13 r
1 4.
.--,m
,s, 4
h FY
=
l l
14350
.~
l Sept. 16, 1983 l
l l
TRIP NOTES INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT FOR UNDERPINNING MIDLAND PLANTS 1 & 2 l
CONSUMER POWER COMPANY li f'
Aunust 24. 1983
'l Arrived at the jobsite at 11:00 a.m.
and proceeded to discuss with
]
4 W. E. Kilker, Project Engineer, the proposed plan of activities associated i
with the Midland Plant.
The weekly reports, the 90-Day Report,. and the Sussnary of Soils-Related Issues concerning the underpinning work were reviewed.
It was agreed that my activities will be limited to a review of the effects of the documents associated with the underpinning operation and I
their possible influence on the progress of the work.
The following is the proposed course of action:
I' n termine the organizational structure of the Bechtel Power 1.
o r
Corporation for the underpinning operation.
2.
Identify all the documents associated with change and nonconformance activities that would influence the work.
i 3.
Review the procedures that have been established for change and nonconformance documents.
4.
Establish the organisational ralationship between the Bechtel Ann Arbor Power Division and the resident engineering group at the plant site.
5.
Review a selected number of the change and nonconformance documents t
j identified by Item 3 to determine the response time required for each type of document and to attempt to categorize the documents in terms of the following group of problems:
'i a.
Materials b.
Welding c.
Tolerances l
t d.
Construction e.
Information i
Ia
}
The objective. of the initial.part of the program is to determine if there are organisational problems that are inhibiting the orderly progress of the underpinning effort.
The second part of the program consisting of the j/
review of the documents is to provide a statistical analysis, to determine the response time, and to class.fy by problem identification.
This will 2
j assist in identifying whether or not the processing of the change and l
nonconformance documents are influencing the progress of the work.
I*
It was agreed that Mr.
k.
E. K11ker would introduce as to the various organizations associated with the underpinning effort.
J t
i 1
eva-r?
- - + -
4
-e.
-*-1
14358
's Sept. 16, 1983 2.
I took the short 10 minute course required for a temporary ac:ess to I
confined spaces.
Mr. P. Barry provided an orientation tour of the plant site after which we attended the daily meeting which was held at 3:00 pm.
The following personnel vers in attendance at the meeting:
J. Fischer Sechtel J. Gaydos E. Cviki I
f Stone & Webster -
W. E. Kilker I'
A. Scott J. Springer P. Barry f
W. C. Craig Parsons Brinckerhoff I
2 I
F. Balsamo Consumer Power Corporation -
t D. Puhalla 1
The basic purpose of the meeting is to inform ' the assessment team of current activities and to answer team questions about the underpinning effort.
None of the outstanding activities on the list were resolved.
A copy of the Independent Assessment Meeting dated August 23, 1983 is attached to these notes.
i After the meeting, Mr.
J.
Fisher introduced me to P.
Vanderveer who is j
- responsible for the Nonconformance Reports (NCR),
J.
Kelleher who is responsible for the Field Change Request (FCR) and M.
Blendy who will assist with information regarding procedures. I was also introduced to R.
Sevo of Midland Plant Quality Assurance Department (MPQAD) and was advised that D. Horn of MPQAD had performed some trend analysis of NCRs.
Af ter the meeting, P. Barry conducted a tour into the east and west shafts I
along the interface be tween-the turbine building and the auxiliary building.
I was able to observe the underpinning operation in terms of the j
number of piers that have been completed to date, the setting of large j
grillage beams and excavation of Pier Kc-10.
The-work is proceeding in a I
perfectly syneetrical fashion from both the east and west ends of the
{
9 auxiliary building.
The effort is largely being performed by manual labor i
and is currently operating on a 2-shift basis.
l We also toured the area of the tank farm containing the Borated Water Storage Tanks (BWST) where the addition of a reinforced concrete to the g
t t existing ring beams is in progress.
A ud ast had been placed and the sajority of the. Hilti bolts had been grouted into the existing ring beam.
I B11-1435801-18/63 l
f 1
I w- - - - -
m e
-w y--~w-w
+e-w
-p-
-n-pw-p 4
,--g-
-,r
., - - 9 wq
i 14358'
[
r; l
Sept. 16, 1983 i
3.
~
l
)
l MPQAD had issued an NCR for the cracks in the unreinforced mud sat and for saril Hilti bolts that were used to attach supports for holding the larger bolts in place while they were being grouted.
l l
L l
Aurust 25. 1983 l
Reviewed a number of Bechtel drawings relating to the design of the underpinning for the auxiliary building.
Attached to a number of these
,l.
drawings were two documents, Field ' Change Request (FCR) and Drawing Change Notice (DCN).
The DCN originates out of the Ann Arbor Power Division (AAPD) while the FCRs originate at the jobsite in the Field Soils Organization (FSO) office; The final design of the permanent well systen j
to support the auxiliary building and control tower is still in progress i
j and this is typified by the recent issue of drawings and the large number j
of DCNs.
Several drawings had so many DCNs and FCRs attached to the back l!
that it made it extremely difficult to effectively interpret the drawings.
I, Obtained perranent photo badge from the Security Operations Building.
Attended the daily 9:30 aseting and again reviewed the same list of items that had been previously reviewed on August 24.
During the second and third shifts, the bell for Pier Ec-10 had been completed and it was expected that during either the second or third shif t on August 25, that concrete placement would begin since the hold on concrete mixer would be resolved.
Mr. A. Scott of Stone & Webster requested that the notes reflect 9,
that a vent must be added to the shear key above the grillage / beams as was suggested on August 24.
No significant progress was made concerning the other items on the agenda.
?
l1 Visited the underpinning contractors welding shop and examined the cause j
for rejection of a number of structural velds performed in accordance with
+
AWS Dl.l.
The practice is to inspect a lot of material and if any portion
}l}
of the material has a hold tag placed on it, the entire lot is held until the NCR is resolved.
2he welding viewed was the highest quality structural welding that I have ever seen and the cause for rejection was such things as the weld length being 1/16 of an inch too short, slightly undersized I
fillet welds, a crater in the surface of the fillet weld that was barely 1/64 of an inch in diameter and weld cracking at the root.
These 8
inspections were performed by MPQAD. These materials, which were inspected and rejected, were part of the temporary construction materials used to case the excavations for the construction of the temporary jacking piers i
that are used to support the turbine building and auxiliary building during l
3l the construction of the underpinning permanent walls.
I i,
I toured the site area looking at the work being performed in associstion
-j with the Service Water Pumphouse noting the posttensioning devices that This operation,is have been installed at each corner of the' building..
perhaps the most straightforward of the underpinning being performed at the s 4e.
I also visited the tank farm and again looked at the concrete cracking in the mud mat, the installation of the shear connectors, and the sandblasting of the existing concrete ring beam that supports the BWST.
I BX1-1435801-18/63 f
- I i
L L
l 3
14358 s
Sept. 16, 1983 4.
I I again e'itered the excavation area, both from the east and west side of the underpinning operation for the auxiliary building and examined in more detail the work associated with the first set of grillage beams that will the turbine and auxiliary building by bearing on piers placed just i
support l
below the edge of the turbine building and which also rests on the edge of the containment mat.
I also entered the utilities access tunnel that is to l-be used to start the construction of the drift for the underpinning of the i
control tower. This work space is very confined and very limited. The in-P ace steel pipe that forms,the shaft has been reinforced with ring l
l
(
stiffeners in preparation of cutting away the plate.
There is some reason to believe that the area behind this circular steel pipe may contain fill concrete making the excavation extremely slow and costly.
t The NRC is on site to review the allegations cf structural ' defects associated with the Diesel Generator Building.
lI!'
Visited the FSO and collected organization charts and written procedures which define the responsibilities for the processing of FCRs and NCRs and 3
define the responsibility of various organizational groups.
Bechtel provided the following organization charts, copies of which are attached; Project Engineering Organization Basident Engineering Soils Organization Project Soils Organization Field Soils Organization i
Copies of the following written procedures were provided:
Field Change Request / Field FPD-2.0 - Rev. 9, July 15, 1983 Change Notice Procedure
,i',
7220-G Rev. 16, February 9, 1983 - General Specification for Firld Change Notice i!
l AADP/ PSP G-3.2 - Rev. 7, June 1, 1981 - Project Special Provision to Supersed.e G-3 of the Thermal j
Power Organization Field
,i Inspection Manual for the Midland' Plant entitled
" Control of Nonconforming Items" MED-4.62 Rev. 21, November 3, 1983 - Field Change Notice / Field
.l Change Request I
Nonconformance Reports (NCRa)
MED-4.61 Rev. 9, October 8,1982 i
Bechtel provided copies of the last 100 NCRa and FCRs.
Mr. Kelleher agreed with my assessment that the Field Change Notice (FCN) is not a significant
}
change docusent.
.I I also met with the Assistant Resident Project Engineer, Mr. E. Cviki and requested copies of written procedures that define his responsibilites and f~
BX1-1435801-18/63 t
~
,.,,n
---~,-
7 m
14358 Sept. 16, 1983 5.
t relationship to the AAPD.
Mr. Cviki indicated that he did not believe the Specification Change Notice (SCN), a document which is issued by the AAPD and the Drawing Change Notice (DCN) were change documents that had influenced progress.
He did indicate that procedural changes have been made that now require Bechtel to update each drawing after five DCNs or FCRs have been issued against a drawing.
A meeting was scheduled for August 26 to discuss the relationship between the Resident Project Engineer and AAPD and to discuss a number of related items with Mr. J. Darby who is i j the Resident Structural Engineer. l At the end of the day, it was determined that Bechtel would be unable to i place concrete for Pier Ec-10 due to unresolved quality problems. i An initial observation, based on a day and a half at the jobsite is that the operating organization and the number of change documents associated with Bechtel's work, is extremely complex. This work appears to be about behind schedule even though the current Bechtel network indicates 4 l 6 months that the project is on schedule. The work of underpinning the auxiliary building is very time-consuming and labor intensive. There appears to be a constant array of quality problems that impede the orderly progress of the work. The schedule and sequencing of the performance of the work is such that Step C cannot be started until Step B is completed, if this is the way i in which the work was sequenced. The imposition of Q Category to all temporary construction work and sequencing further complicates this problem. It is very easy to be overly judgmental of the underpinning work j being performed at Midland without totally appreciating the enormous importance of quality
- control, schedule commitments, and capital investments that are involved with the execution of this work.
.I Aueust 26. 1983 i !f Met with E. Cviki of Bechtel to discuss the DCN system and to obtain copies of written procedures that define the relationship of the FSO Resident Engineer to Project Engineering at AAPD. Mr. Cviki provided copies of the following documents: PEP 2.14.9, Rev.1 Resident Structural Engineer for Remedial Soils I Activity i h PEP 2.14.1 - Resident Engineer for Midland Discussed with Mr. Cviki the significance of the DCN to the progress of the r l work. As indicated on August 25, this document is originated by AAPD and It would to date has had very little impact on the progress of the work. be impossible to trace such an influence since there is no recording that would provide this type of information. The only way that procedure this information could be collected is through personal recollection of the people directly involved with the work. It is important to note that the design of the underpinning operation is still in progress and that the } design changes, using the DCN system, is being received at the jobsite. The organization chart for project engineering was reviewed and Mr Cviki i f provided some clarification of.the various reporting responsibilities. B11-1435801-18/63 t I P +. "jh_
14358 y Sept. 16, 1983 6. Mr. J. Derby reports technically to Mr. B. Dhar and administratively to Mr.,Cvikl. Mr. Cviki reports directly to Mr. N. Swanberg. Mr. Swanberg is .t e Project Engineer for the Project Soils Organization and, reports to the .h 6verall project engineer for the plant. i! i Mr. Cviki also indicated that the FSO aust interface with the Resident i Engineering Organization, which is across the site, and handles all of the balance of plant work. It can, therefore, be concluded that the l engineering operation is extremely complex involving the AAPD, the total plant
- project, the Project Soils Organization, the Field Soils i
Organisation, two resident engineering organizations, and two field i engineering organizations. This does not include the other engineering i subcontractors. Mr. Cviki also indicated that the FSO is influenced by the actions of the i general construction organisation at the jobsite and depends on this organization for such things as inspection, testing, detection of rebar, support with regard to welding inspection and other unique support services. In effect, they must be scheduled and/or compete with other project construction needs. My schedule for the continuation of this work with the independent i assessment team is as follows: 1. Return to the Midland Plant site on August 30, 1983 and remain through to September 2. t 2. Meet with MPQAD to collect information concerning the NCR trending studies that may have been performed., 3. Evaluate, classify, and determine response times for 100 of the most . I recent FCRs and NCRs. 4.. Prepare a preliminary assessment for review by the Project Manager. e 5. During the week of September 11, determine if additional evaluation and further site visits are required prior to preparing the final report.
- c W. C. Craig l
l Senior Struc ral Engineer I I 1 I i I s ( 3X1-1435801-18/63 I' ~ l ~- I e D
l Notes of Daily Meetin-- Independent Assessmen. of Underpinning Midland Plant Units 1 & 2 ] Consumers Power Company 1 l Held at Midland Site Location l Midland, Michigan Augus t 23, 1983 Present For: Consumers Power Bechtel MPQAD Stone.& Webster i G. Murray J. Fisher R. Sevo A. Scott W. Kilker J. Schaub J. Gaydos E. Cviki S. Holsinger J. Springer 5 Parsons i F. Balsamo f Purpose This meeting is held each day to discuss items regarding the Independent f -7 Soils Assessment at the Midland Plant Units 1 & 2. Discussion Item 49 8 - Impact of. Welding Nonconformance on E/W8 Grillage Installatien. Fisher reported that on the drop pit column cap beam a non-qualified weld J.had been installed. The Contractor is coordinating the issuance of a Conditional Release with CPCo to allow the work to proceed while the welding I issue is resolved. G. Murray said CPCo will approve the use of the Conditional Release only in situations where no, procedural changes are anticipated. J. Fisher replied that this case will not invoke procedural i changes. J. Schaub recommended FSO evaluate if similiar situations exist for other weld sizes. ( OPEN ITEM ) -I. Ites 49 Crillage Stabilizer Plate Hole Tolerances. l A. Scott questioned if the stabilizer plates were unique from the other J. Fishca will respond. grillage levelin6 plates in terms of hole tolerances. i ( OPEN ITEM ) Item 49 QC Coverage of Proposed Grouting Activity. I Scott questioned if QC would be able to support the grouting acLivity i, A. lI proposed for the west access shaft waler pit. R. Savo explained that the inspection of this grouting could be covered under the existing PCCI bot l inspection of CT pier grouting requirad retraining, to a revised POCI. (CLOSED ITEM ) E/W8 Crillage Lower Bearing Plates / Cap Beam Fit-up. Item 49-11 I Scott noted that the bearing plates resting on the cap beams do not bear A. uniformly. E. Cviki will review the requirement. ( OPEN ITEM ) 1 I{ !i i ,f i { 1 o 'O -
1 El L I I' 6u I si g gE( h_ g o 1 1 E( 2 p 11 5 0 !l 'rl-h,-!)j!]ji 3 -n 7 Li -h.aT-l 5 + g;: li,L. ) e. l 1 g. ~ i !+ e y x >.a.. = -- d C - b k b b 'ill d $ - ! I b b d !- b b t l O. ~ J-------------------3--***---------d 6 r \\ f1 2 _1 iT Il -g [ { 4. g L. W e AfliaBBBBDE ~ .d 3 Yb ~ t.II(a$ a r ~ il g_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ d_! - n ! - (I v i Qu_ ![, _T[.1 j ETJ1 a!! ': t 15. a.i.1::.: c. ts_ eg I: 1.i...b 3 v---___ [l o u m a. t s u u gi. a 2 ru La uu t c. -k-IddEkk- [ i ilPn=l1 v{.nr,1 _i ,,e ar_i_ g d l ~1-i ( 4 1
_a e 3 h ~ l I. lii II: L i pli.!isii!j jLi t j ! I a-15 H!-ilih!pilhjl I4 lI . jil ii, idj i lj ! i 2 - ll I
- , s U!
{ !! i 1,k, h! i!! lI! it!-- it l lij! i' 111 lj! ___ __J.i, j h]q i 1,_____ _ _. i+ i i r-i fl, Ui' i i ~ ~ [j I lj L 11 1 i 'i,J ul ]{ 3 l lI tl! jas d-ii - t r !I II} {i I ui 11 li 'l l IL l-! )! .l -):. i,=. I )! .!) i g,vi,1.isi.i.{. - T .______________wi. ii i ) it. 1 j !.___ 111 il I Il lji Pll! p!
- I
( = l: 9 j'1 'i [ 1 i. ~ 11..1i1 1 I liijji i, s
a M. -w A Oh II h i I ~
- i. h Sl.L:
j. u d5394 ll1 M _] r.-(jil!.1 11 15. ] } 1 til ji r. e l 5 l L. I ll liII 3 J l! i. 1-ig; 'l -: d' ll1 ~ i I {, 1 [l]' j j L I i, ! i ij O.o i y Is i j~' It': l l1 I Il'i.1 j 1 1 i f.! i ,1 j j 11 i i ll] h11!j!! I i i; v
- g r
,}] -g r n i r i i 4 j 'i !__, llj j i ov.. Al irl :. ) il, li i 13., il ii l t-i l i al I lil I { p .i l ilE h! l i o y:, a. l! ]1l r ij o
- i. _ _ _ _.
7 g 1 ua i 1, l i! i - .I[I -pj _._! [
- .. a
Is. I g? l r as ce ..I I 1 jI . s. I 'l I-Ee !!
- ll d
r e se as se e g i 'l I gr IlI I g -t sa 44 I ir g g j h =l I I E e l l 8!g li I -e II n 45 es Ei l. l Il 5 i l lil n. ali 84 r -p I IE n i v ~ hi"*ifkl!d 51k E !~h N5 d!I c A H! I Es ~ j g8 g-1 na usen;egua i si I lI ! 5[ I 8 an a, i i I g L il I c x
- gllIg-l a
g ___-,o 9el g su s-8l 155 :: s! g51 i E i 1 glg g
- .
- 4 4 4 4 e 4.: 4
- l ggg 1 is
~ i I y g an Il ns ! I i g 't l !I 8 si e 1, i i 5!sI i!- [ 8 i l1l,l ~ i _ -e i an 4 g.I l h! jb l -e ~ l .l I .:1 11 ~ ~-..-..--.----. -.:J.
i ~ TRI? NOTES J.O. No.14358 INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT FOR UNDERPINNING Septembe r 25, 1983 j MIDI.AND PLANT - UNITS 1 AND 2 CONSIMERS POWER COMPANY i Auzust 30. 1983 l Attended the daily meeting on the underpinning ef fort. The concrete for pier Kc10 had not been placed. The bell had been excavated and shored. The mud sat had been placed and reinforcing steel installation was complete. i ~ Af ter the daily meeting we reviewed the design of the grillage beams and discussed the problem of a scratch on the spherical bearings. This probism was being reviewed with the bearing vendor and the final resolution was to accept the bearings as satis factory. Continued discussion with Messrs. E. Cviki and J. Darby concerning the Resi- ,'l dent Engineering organization and its relationship to Ann Arbor Power Divi-sica (AAPD). Bechtel indicated that the resident discipline engineering group which is an onsite extension of the AAPD Project Engineering Group can I only approve items that do not affect design calculations. After the design for the underpinning has been finalized, the calculations will be transmitted to the jobsite and additional onsite resident engineering personnel will be added to provide support to the ongoing construction eff ore.. It is expected that the first of these calculations covering the Borated L'ater S torage Tank g (BWST) and the Service Water Pump S tructure (SWPS) will be transmitted to the jobsite about October 1, 1983. i We also discussed the relationship of the underplaning Conerset Manager to both the Field Engineering group and the Resident Lngineering group.- It was suggested that certain decisions could have contract cost implications and i the ref ore the resolutions of items such as scceptability of materials or decisions to scrap or rework an ites might involve contract management in the i i decision ' making process. The Resident Engineerit2g group indicated that the l Field Engineering askes the decision on whether or not the resolution of a problem is through the scraping and refabrication of an ites or reworking _a given iten until it is acceptable. Such items could be covered both by a Field Change Request (FCR) or a Nonconformance Report (NCR). Completed the review and editing of the trip notes for August 24, through August 27, 1983. 'I l Auaust 31, 1983_ i Began the review of the package of the latest FCRs obtained from the Field Soils Organization. The response time for an FCR is defined as the duration from tha date of initiation to the date of interia approval since this is the, j point at which the FCR is released for implementation. The classification g-system will be developed as the FCRs are tr;I-ved, but in general the initial concept is to consider the following broad ca s;gories: I' 1. Construction-which will include a broad. spectrum of problems lk relating to existing site conditions and their influence on the work. l BX214358.06-11 1 l . 1
7 ], 2. Weldina-as it pertains both to fabrication and construction activities. 3. Tolerances-as it pertains both to fabrication and construction activities. 4. Materials-as it relates to substitutions, availability, or other l conditions. 4 i 5. Hilti Bolts-as it relates to size, location, and installation. 6. Testina-as it relates to both shop and field work. 7. Fabrication-as it relates to shop work. The evaluation will determine the percentage of FCRs in each of the above j categories and the mean response time will be computed. I i Attended the Engineering-Construction meeting at 10:00 a.m. This meeting is attend ed by AAPD Project Engineering, Resident Engineering, Field [ Engineering, MPQAD, and the Site Management Of fice. This meeting consists of a review of a list of action items, review of critical FCRs, review of critical NCRs, a review of the status of vendor submittals and a review of QAP Task Force items. A discussion was held concerning the holds on the Hanson Engineering drawings t for piers C -3 and Cc-10. These drawings were submitted as part of a work C package to Consumer Power for review and had to be withdrawn when the holds were discovered. Many of the jackstands still have holds on them and Field Engineering requested that every effort be made to release these holds. 4 It was indicated that an evaluation of the lessons learned on the installation of the grillage beams and their design for future work is in progress. This c evaluation will be presented during the week of September 5,1983. I
- i. i' (
There was a discussion between Field Engineering and Project Engineering to establish a method to review specifications and/or associated work procedures I to better determine what must be ins pec ted. An earlier review which was i performed by two independent groups within Bechtel basically resulted in the same conclusions concerning the preparation of work procedures. It was agreed that the FSO would proceed to develop a plan for the implementation of this j activity and submit it to Consumer Power for consideration. It was pointed out that this review would require the participation of Project Engineering. t ' r The following firms are also providing designs and drawings for the underpinn-(
- j ing effort
Hanson Engineering, Inc. 9 Spencer White & Prentis, Inc. i I Mueser, Rutledge, Johnston and des isone l l Discussed with both the Field Engineering and Resident Engineering why so many l 3 j; of the FCRs which I had obtained for review purposes did not contain final l approval signature of the Project Engineer. I was assured that I had the .f BX214358.06-11 2 a m q
l ~ 7 ] i current and valid copies of the FCRs. I continued my evaluation of the FCRs and completed about 50 percent of the review of these documents. Toured the site looking at the progress of the underpinning effort for the ,i SWPS, the repairs to the. ring beams on the BWST and the complaced concrete work on pier Kc10 under the turbine building. I also looked at the work 'j: associated with replacing. the grillage beams between the containment mat and pier E8. ' i I September 1. 1983 g Complaced the review of 62 FCRs. The overall mean response time is 2.1 days. However, if three of the FCRs with the longest response times, mainly.16, 13, and 12 days are not included in the calculated mean, the mean response time then becomes 1.5 days. This indicates that the document is being processed efficiently and the review indicates also that the document is being used in a i f meaningful manner. Out of the 62 FCRs reviewed only two were not accepted. I Only 8 of the 62 FCRs contained final approval of the Project Engineer. Attended the daily meeting and was advised that pier Kc10 had been poured and an NCR had been filed against the last portion of the pour around the i that anchor bolts because the slump of the concrete prior to the addition of the plasticizer was less than 3 inches plus or minus 1 inch. This pour continued because of the criticality of not having a cold joint close to the bottom of the anchor bolt embedment. Requested copies of the documenta' tion from AAPD which defines the responsi-bilities of the FSO Resident Project Engineer and the Resident Structural Engineer. I was advised that this information is contained on Bechtel inter-office memorandums and it is company policy not to release information in this form. However, I was permitted to review the documents. For the Resident Structural Engineer authority to approve to FCRs covers such items as minor changes to reinforcing steel, embedments, tackwelds, fabrication, sinor weld
- details, driftsets, vendor fabrication, construction procedures and instrumentation drawings.
Any change requests which affect the detailed design and involve reGew or alteration of existing calculations or the prepa-i, i ration of new calculations aunt be approved by AAPD. The Resident Project Engineer is authorized to approve all NCRs and FCRs which the resident discipline engineering group has prepared dispositions for. I again requested an explanation as to why so many of the FCRs were not signed in the final approval block by the Project Engineer or his designee. I was advised that the signature had not been included in the FCRs because they had
- j not been submitted for signature.
ll I was also advised that in confirming my previous understanding, FCRs would be II incorporated onto the design drawings when more than five had accumulated against an indi'*idual drawing. However, no written procedure has been issued to confirm this action. g I While I was assured that the Project Engineer's signature was not important since the work could proceed on an interia approval basis, I consider it Bx214358.06-11 3 l ) l l af
1 ) quality sta ndpoint that the FCRs contain the Project important from a Engineers signature and that this review be completed as promptly as possible following the interim review. I consider it important that the following events occur: i 1. All FCRs promptly receive the review and approval by the Project Engineer or his onsite designee. i !1 2. T1.at the design drawings be updated for the criteria of five or more FCRs against a single drawing. The matter of drawing legibility is I an leportant quality issue. Reviewed a Consisser Power Company letter dated July -19, 1983, concerning a i j quality assurance trend analysis for NCRs and a doctament undated entitled "S ta tus Remedial Soils Inspection" which provided an assessment of the j, closure time for NCRs. These doctssents may assist in the review of the
- i response cine for the most recently issued NCR.
As a result of my two visits to the Midland Plant site, there are two major 1 activities that should be implemented and will improve the overall quality of ( the work by reducing the time it takes to complete the construction of the j piers and apply the jacking loads. These conclusions are as follows: 1. To the extent possible maxista engineering support should be provided at the jobsite. The design calculations, including those prepared by the consultants, should be transferred to the jobsite l with appropria te engineering and design s upport as soon as j possible. 2. Existing construction procedures and all future procedures which will be developed should define the necessary levels of inspection consistent with the requirement s of the specifications. Unnecessary levels of inspection do not improve the quality of the work but do impede progress. An example of such an unnecessary inspection is the inspection performed on the tack welding which attaches nuts to the inside of the steel tube valers used for lagging of pier shaft excavations. Welds which are important to strength should be ins pec ted. Those which have no principal strength requirements should not be inspected. This effort will have to include the participation of AAPD Project Engineering and say, for consistency purposes, require revis ions to the existing I s pecifications. i September 2.1983 I Attended the daily meeting at 8:00 an. Pier Kc3 had been excavated and it is I i expected the conc re te will be placed on September 3. MPQAD and the ! g independent assessment team were advised that the super plasticizer concrete g mix would not be used. The probles regarding this six has to do with the minimum sitsp limit both at the truck and at the poit.t of ulivery. Until l l these technical issues with the six are resolved, a regular concrete six vill i i be used and 3 days will be re quired be fore the pier obtains sufficient strength for the application of the jacking loads. l l-BX214358.06-11 4 l i --y wa-1 ,.m. n., y
V ) l t Two NCRs were issued on the concrete placement for Kc10. The first NCR was for a faulty thermometer to measure concrete temperatures being used by US Testing. The second NCR was written against the concrete concerning the minimum slump at the point of delivery to the concrete pump. Both of these j' NCRs are expected to be successfully resolved. 'I Met with Mr. S. DiPillo of MPQAD to discuss what information is cgrrently available relative to trend and analysis of NCRs. I was given by MPQAD the Phase III Quality Trend Graph for Remsdial Soils Charts R, R1 through R8 .'l updated through June 1983. MPQAD advised that they have no permanent tracking [ system that either relates NCRs to manhour of work or some other equally acceptable yard stick and that no analysis on a regular basis is made concerning the response time for NCRs. They indicated that they are act aware of any formal priority system, but are advised by Bechtel on a case-by-case f MPQAD basis which NCRs are critical in terms of the review of the responses. indicated that a one time analysis for response times to NCRs had been j prepared, and I acknowledged that I had a copy of this particular study,along with the Phase III Quality Trend Graphs for Charts R through R7 updated through May 1983. Mr. DiPillo advised that the occurrence rates that show on the quality trend graphs are not the number of NCRs issued but the number of g parts, pieces or items that are affected by the NCRs issued. The quality trend graph provides both information concerning the total number of deficiencies, as well as individual graphs for the following classifica-l t tions: i R - Total Number of Deficiencies R1 - Incomplete R2 - Tolerances Exceeded R3 - Not per Drawing / Specification i R4 - Workmanship R5 - Procedpral Problems i t I. R7 - Purchased Equipment I R8 - Miscellaneous Il This is the The grillage beams are being placed into their final location. first set of grillage beams which run from pier E8 to the containment mat and j l will support both a portion of the turbine building and two support points under the Auxiliary Building. i lI After the daily meeting I met with Mr. E. Cviki and requested that he confirm ( my understanding during the Engineering-Construction meeting that the t i.f t 5 Bx214358.06,-11
- P
i m r various subcontracting engineering firms performing design work on the [' underpinning will deliver their computations to the jobsite and provide the necessary engineering support during the construction phase. t W. C. Craig I Senior Structurai Engineer 'i l tf a: !t I t Ii a f 1 1 l'<l i i l I l t t I' t f i t i l 6 8 Bx214358.06-11 l l i + s me.m,
^#d k l>H3 'E)'g,jf x j ' _ PRINCIPAL STAFF Consumers Ll"m+ Power va, Esg C0mpany 70
- ma Ph0
~ sc3/ g I'3A ,,.1 L M6diend Project: PO Som 1963. Mediend. MI 4864o * (517) 6318650 .-3 lFI l0 /G J; October 21, 1983 ~ Mr Stan Baranow Stone and Webster Midland Nuclear Plant Project Trailer 186 3500 E Miller Road Midland, MI 48640 MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER PROJECT - TRANSMITTAL OF PQCIs FILE 24.2 SERIAL 26313 This will confirm the transmittal of controlled copies of PQCI and/or changes to Stone and Webster, as listed below: C-2.10 Rev 12 CN#AA00108 g C-1.50 Rev 13 Rescinded until Further Notice E-5.0 Rev 13 Replacement IR page 1. Control Log Week Ended 10-14-83 CW-1.00 Rev 5 CN#AA00111 GFEwert/JAPuc a u /ay T d [plE NRC R'egiE III AdminisErEoN ~ ~~ ~ cc: " ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ " ~ ' g DHQuamme, SMO RAWells, MPQAD I i 4 OC0983-0001A-QLOS g Mll o c, 7 ~ v vR i, v
m m ) -[- l, PRINCIPAL STAFF ,'o*ysm g ', I d.Jw's.wwle s,w:~Q,n (,A ,j a > U- - l a l /RA (;?,jpg ,,5 b-s') I 5 $ 6 ', wk;y %:55j N' +c k mu, 3AO SCS,/ 13 5GA ML uws ne profest: to seu toes, uwiene, ui des 40. (stn sat 4eso ggp pige go., ' o October 19, 1983 Mr Stan Baranov Stone and Webster Midland Nuclear Plant Project Trailer 186 3500 E Miller Road Midland, MI 48640 MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER PROJECT - TRANSMITTAL OF QA PROGRAM MANUALS FILE 24.2 SERIAL 26303 This will confirm the transmittal of controlled copies of Quality Assurance Program Manual for the Midland Nuclear Plant to Stone and Webster as listed below: Volume I - Policies Volume II - Procedures for Design & Construction 1 Cary F Evert Division Head Quality Services Midland Project QA Department l l GFE/kw l CC JKeppler, NRC Region III Administrator DHQuamme, SMO RAWells, MPQAD J l t C O1, ~ n i, q 1 ,l G' ') { V - l ) OCT 2 61983 l l l i I i e
~. Consumers Power company Midland Protest: PO Sea 1963. Midland, MI 48640 e (51718384050 October 17, 1983 1AB 97-83 Mr Stan Baranow Stone & Webster FnginMng }Hdland Nuclear Plant Project Trailer 186 3 BOG E Mi.ller Road }Hd1=nd, MI 48640 MIDIAND ENEET CENIER PROECI - EANSMEITAL OF (3) COFUIER PRINIS This will cmfirm the t - Mttal of three carputer printoucs conenining infernatim m ifQAD (BT) Inspector records. 'Ibese prints cover all craining, exams, perfnn=nce damm, cere4%a-tions, etc. GEWert/IABotimer -c W cc: JHarrism, NRC DBMiller, Site 1%r RAWells \\ I l e i I f e %? YY ll ,a' f- }Q,/ /" f,,- c v t
3 CDRSl"f1 BIS POWr ColM ';1y Midland Project: PO Som 1963. Midland. MI desde * (51716314860 IAB 82-83 September 26, 1983 Pr Stan Barsnow Stme & Webster Engineering Ifidland Nuclear Plant Project Trailer 186 3500 F. Miller Road Midland, MI 48640 MIDIAND DERGY CENIER PPGECT - 'IRANSMITIAL OF (1) CWPUIER PRINI 'Ihis will confim the trat mittal of a cmputer printout containing informatim en MPQAD (BOP) Inspector records. 'Ibe print covers all training exams, perforosce demos, certifications, etc. M GEwert/laBotimer I I cc: A rrison, HRC Daitlier, Site Ngr l RAWells l i i O O D,Nl { o
9526 TJLit d k T)mf5%lk O CORSum8IS l lPRINCIPAL STAFF MA f,,M Power wr
- s P3" Company RC vM4A Mg3 PAO 5CS/
MWiend Prc, lect: PO Bou 1963, MWiend, MI 48640. (517) 631 8650 $Qr\\ L'l ENF rite Ek./ October 17, 1983 I Mr Stan Baranow Stone and Webster Midland Nuclear Plant Project Trailer 186 3500 E. Miller Road e Midland, MI 48640 MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER PROJECT - TRANSMITTAL OF PQCIs FILE 24.2 SERIAL 26295 This will confirm the transmittal of controlled copies of PQCI and/or changes to Stone and Webster, as listed below: Control Log Week Ending 10/7/83 E-6.6.1 Rev 4 CNfAA5120 P-2.30 Rev 4 CNfAA00100 E-6.0 Rev 16 CNfAA5121 PF-1.10 Rev 5 Memo SM-1.70 Rev 1 Revised Eff P-1.00 Rev 7 CNfAA00101 Date P-1.40 Rev 1 New Rev P-2.20 Rev 8 CN#AA00109 C-8.51 Rev 4 New Rev P-2.30 Rav 4 CNfAA00107 C-6.00 Rev 8 CNEAA00104 PF-1.10 Rev 5 CNfAA00105 C-2.11 Rev 3 New Rev E-1.0 Rev 15 CNfAA5119 E-5.0 Rev 13 CNfAA5122 CFEvert/JAPucci &1idI[.DCl3,eiW5WE4' { nit'[ijor cc: l DBMiller, SMO l RAWells, MPQAD l l 1 l I I l a* u o 1 c .) J DC0983-0001A-QLO5 l OCT 24 W
- ><>- A h6
'97/ry P > s hJz[o '. C0l!S!!mBTS h[ Roy A Wells Q& f Fnt,rtsee Managn Midland Project Office Midland Project: PO Box 1963, Midland.MI 48640.(517)631-8650 /#RINC.lPAL STAFF October 13, 1983 V.A ,&/PRP J/RA DE ./RA
- USF lC 3PAA PA0 SCS V
3 y S W Baranow, Program Manager SGA ML _ f Stone and Webster Michigan Inc ENF File 4V PO Box 1963 Midland, MI 48640 MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER PROJECT - STONE AND WE3 STER NIRs 002 through 005 PILE 24.2 SERIAL 26289 The purpose of this letter is to provide an initial response to NIR 002 through 005 which were received from you by C F Ewert on October 7, 1983. In order to track these items to closure on our computerized QUAIL system, it is necessary for us to prepare a Quality Action Request (QAR) on each one. The QARs on NIRs 002 through 005 are enclosed herewith. They describe the actions we are taking to resolve each deficiency identified. The deficiencies which were identified in a sample of 6 in a population of 45 have convinced us that a review of broader scope is warranted. To track this extended review we have issued QAR No. RT 00010, which will apply to the qualification and certification records of all MPQAD certified inspection personnel. This review is expected to be completed by December 16th. Al-though we do plan to do a thorough review of the records, we are confident that the existing certification process is a valid process. / foe /A WellS l RAW /kw 1 l Enclosures l CC Administrator NRC Region III ) RJCook, Resident NRC Inspector l DBMiller i t 1 4. s yfC f ~ c __? h)f
l ~ 6. Q4R NO: MIDLAND PROJECT RT 00005 Q M LITY ASSU M NCE DEPAR MENT Qd ALITY ACTION REQUES. 7. DATE ISSUED: 8 REV: ~ 10/12/83 0 WlR 007. 1. REQUIREENT: 9* PAGE 1 0F 2 Vision Exam Records 10 ASE RELATED Forms shown in l Performance Demonstration Records l B-3M-1 to Personnel Certifications O vEs x NO have been used Qualification Questionnaires e 2. DEFICIENCY: i
- 1) Forms shown in B-3M were used.in some cases.
- 2) On some certification forms, the revision number of the PQCI to i
which the individual was certified was noe shown. These deficiencies were identified on Stone and Webster NIR 002. TES 20 X 3. QAR ORIGIM TED BY: 4. DISCIPLINE / DIVISION /SECTION 5. RESPONSE DUE DATE*
- 12.. REPORTED TO NPQA MANAGER:
D M Turnbull A&T N/A DATE N/A
- 13. ACTION ITEM NO:
- 15. ITEM PRIORITY:
- 17. S/U CODE:
- 19. ACTION ORGANIZATION 20 REVIEWED BY-S03485 3
PGM00 Qual. & Cert. j^ ^ Records Group
- 14. DISCIPLINE:
- 16. TREND CODE:
- 18. RESB CODE:
, DAN: Plant Assurance A&T I-5 A&T Engineering Branch /o //3 83
- 22. CAUSE:
Z3 PROPOSED CCRRECTIVE ACTLON: The old forms were not recalled when the
- 1) The correct forms will be distributed to new forms came into effect.
all Level III personnel, with instructions to destroy stocks of forms now on hand by 10/17/83. (L A Botimer) ,,,,s.
- 2) Comparison of the old with the new forms (cantinued on page 2 of 2) 24 RESPONSIBLE ONGANIZATION/ PERSON:
- 25. PROPOSED COWLETION DATE L A Botimer, Qual. & Cert Records November 4, 1983 G_E Parker, Plant Assurance Eng. Branch
- 76. DISPOSITION m enos m ;
~ C i.m/sz as, xx /,/n/ss 1lAR REVIEkE~R DATE PQAE (ASE ONLf) DATE
- 27. DISPOSTION ACTION TAEEN:
- 28. METHOD OF DISPOSITION VERIFICATION
- 29. QAR CLOSED BY i
I WW MR t PFQCE (ASME ONLY) DATE l ACCEPTA8LE UNACCEPTABLE SUPERCEDING QAR I p-4/1A (Rev 1) 7 y ,,,-y.
QAR NO: RT 00005 ng g quAun As5URANCE DEPARDENT QUALITY ACTION REOUEs.* nATE: nEv: 1 12/83 0 CONTINUATI.ON SHE'ET PAGE 2 0F 2 l indicates that with one exception the use of the incorrect form cannot have resulted in any lack of information or incorrect approvals. Therefore the incorrect forms will be allowed to retmain in the files. I i
- 3) The one e'xception, which does not apply to the electrical inspectors included in this Q11, is the Personnel Certification Form, where QA-37-0 does not require the approval of the PQAE for ASME-related PQCIs, while QA-37-1 does reqEire it.
This problemi will be addressed in QAR RT 00010.
- 4) All currently va' lid certifications in the population of'45 will also be reviewed to identify those on which the revision level of the PQ::I was osiitted. The revision level will be added an; the forms will be reapproved by a Level III person. d.ABotimerand C E Parker) 1 i
g s l 4 i B i l n-vla (new o) .l -e-- n-r- -,
l i NIDLAND PROJECT RT 00006 quat m ASSURANCE DEPAkTMENT LJALITY ACTION REQUES 7. DATE ISSUED: 8 REV: 10/12/83 0 NIR 003 REQUIREMENT: 9* PAGE 1 0F 2 Procedure 3-3M-1. Section 5.10.1 requires that each certified 10 ASE RELATED l individual pass an annual vision examination. 1 O TES 00 NO 2. DEFICIENCY: i One individual was found to have had his vision examination conducted nine days after the expiration of his previous annual examination. POTENTIAO f.55(eg This deficiency was identified on Stone and Webster NIR 003. 11. YES ,,,,,,, 30 LX 3. QAR ORIGINATED BY: 4. DISCIPLINE / DIVISION /SECTION 5. RESPONSE DUE DATE'
- 12. REPORTED TO MPQA MANAGER:
D M Turnbull A&T. N/A DATE N/A '13. ACTION ITEM NO:
- 15. ITEM PRIORITY:
- 17. 5/U CODE:
- 19. ACTION ORGANIZATION 20 REVIEWED BY:
S03486 I PGM00 Q&C Records Group jg
- 14. DISCIPLINE:
- 16. TREND CWlE:
- 18. RESS CODE:
Program Development 2f. 'DATil Group Special Pro 1ects /d [/1 83 A&T I-5 A&T 1 21 CAUSE: Z3 PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTLON:
- 1) This individual's supervisor has wrii: ten a meno to be put in the training folder, Unknown.
saying the 3/18/83 examination is satis-factory. evidence that the individual's visual acuity was acceptable during the .4 day period by which the examination was overdue. Completed 10/11/83. (Continued on page 2 of 2) z4 RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION / PERSON:
- 25. PROPOSED CofE'LETION DATE L A Botimer D M Turnbull,Q&C RecordsSpecial Projects November 4, 1983 R J Oberle. Program Develonnent
~26. DISPOSITION C "C'J"" "CE: /c -/3-M N/A
- f. -j f-f.3 4.
QAR REVIEMER DATE PQAE (ASECR,Y) DATE )
- 27. DISP 05 TION ACTION TA EN:
x j I N Nr
- 28. METHOD OF DISPOSITION VERIFICATION
- 29. QAR CLOSED BT k
i ACCEPTABLE UNACCEPTABLE SUPERCEDING QAR p-4/1A (Rev 1) i r ~ -. -
ca ms gm gg RT 00006 quat.m ASSURANCE DEPAmDIT QUALITY ACTlON REOUES. nATE: nEv: 1 CONTINUATION SHEET 10/12/83 0 PA0 2 0F 2
- 2) All qualification folders in the population of 45 will be reviewed to identify similar lapses. Each case identified will be dispositioned by the appropriate supervisor and documentation to this effect will be put in the files.
(L A Botimer) i
- 3) Corrective action to prevent recurrence will be taken in accordance with QAR RT 00010.
9 e 0
- f
+ t i e I i s l l n-4/1s (ne,c)
- =**e Y
., _ - + ,,_-l_. ,.--n ,w n ---.c., ,w. -.+,,
6. QAR NO: RIDUWW PROECT T QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTE NT (.,, ALITY ACTION REQUES - RT 00007 7. DATE ISSUED: 8 REY: NIR 004 10/12/83 0 1. REQUIREENT: 9 pag 1 0F 1 10 ASE REATED B-3M-1 DR 141, Section 5.6.3 rer,uires that OJT be documented. 0 ns CD No 2. DEFICIENCY: In a sample of 6 training folders, two l' cked documentation on OJT or the lack of nepd for it< a Two lacked a revision number on the PQCI on which OJT was given. One lacked a title for the PQCI on which OJT was given. These deficiencies were identified on Stone and Webster NIR 004.
- 11. POTENTIAL D.55(e YES.
N0 3. QAR ORIGINATED BY: 4. DISCIPLIE/ DIVISION /SECTION 5. RESPONSE DUE DATE*
- 12. REPORTED TO NPQA MANAGER:
D M Turnbull A&T N/A DATE N/A 5.ACTIONITEMNO: A ITEM PRIORITY:
- 17. S/U CODE:
19 ACTION ORGANIZATION 20 QAR REVI BY: 503487 3 PCM00 W QAD QC f_ i 2f. / R : DA
- 14. DISCIPLINE:
- 16. TREND CODE:
- 18. RESB CODE:
Q&C Records A&T I-5 A&T Program Development., g g [gg I
- 22. CAUSE:
Z3 PROPOSEO CORRECTIVE ACTIOh.
- 1) It has been established that the two persons
~ l Personnel failed to follow the steps .whose folders lacked documentation on OJT necessary to ensure that records reached had.xeceived such training and that docu-the files. mentation existed at one time. However, itI was evidently not turned in to Q&C Records. If the search for this documentation proves fruitless, a memorandum will be prepared by the certifying agency (Contihued on asee 2) Z4 RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION / PERSON:
- 25. PROPOSED COWLETItus DATE MP AD QC - E L Jones d
NoaIE5eeichdoltiPI Os.ri. November 4, 1983 ~}6 DISP 05IIIGN 9"W: d fgyfffff3 N/A /f/gp//JfQ l ' QAR'REVIEMER DATE PQAE (ASE OIR,Y) ' DATE
- 27. DISPOSTION ACTION TAKEN:
4 i t
- 25. NETHOD OF DISPOSITION VERIFICATION
- 29. QAR CLOSED BY l
j ..QAD .Aw PFQCC (ASE (35.7) RATE ACCEPTAsLE uRACCEPTAsLE SUPERCEDING Q4R l una taev 1) ..,9 -.a, ,,-,,--.-..m-.--.w~ -,v,-3-.
i l l l gna mo: MIDLAND PROJECT RT 00007 guatm ASSUnEE DEPAnDENT udALITY ACTION REQUES DATE: nEv: CONTINUATION SHEET 10/12/83 o PAGE 1 0F l savina that the lack of an OJT record does not invalidate the individual's certification because the presence of a Performance Demoritration record confirms the' fact that the individual has the required ability. (ELJones)
- 2) Q&C Record folders ir the population of 45 will be reviewed to identify any other cases of. missing OJT records, or missing titles or revision numbers. Such omissions will be rectified by the certifying agency.
(LABotimer)
- 3) MPQAD Procedures will be revised to require documentation of any decision that OJT is not required. (RJ0berie) f
- 4) Checklists are being developed for Q&C Records personnel which will remind them to i
return, for correction, any records which do not show revision numbers or titles l for PQCIs. (LABotiner) we I i e i I 1 m n-ens (ne, c) W e e w-mc.---- w -. -+---r-w-g.- r .-w.--, ,-ey %-y-,-e.,, -,. r- -,w,rw--- a w w -ww*
==----w -=w
== MIDLAND 00 JECT ~ RT 00010 QUALITY ASSURrACE DEPARTMENT QdALITY ACTION REQUES 7. DATE ISSUED: 8 REV: 10/12/83 0 1. REQUIRLENT: 9* PAGE 1 0F 2 MPQAD Procedure B-3M-1 requires inspec::or qualification 10 ASE RELATED records to reflect certain information. B-3M-1 also requires certain actions to be completed within specified O vES x No time frames. DEFICIENCY: jt. his QAR is issued to track the broad scope review of Qualification and Certification iolders which was determined to be necessary as a result of Stone and Webster NIRs 002, t 003 and 004. These NIRs document conditions where information was not reenedad an records or actions were'not completed within specified time frames. 11. POTENTIAO LSS(eg YE5 . NoL.I 3. QAR ORIGINATED BT: 4. DISCIPLINE / DIVISION /SECTION. 5. RESPON5E OUE DATE'
- 12. REPORTED TO NPQA MANAGER:
D M Turnbull A&T. N/A DATE N/A
- 13. ACTION ITEN N0:
- 15. ITEM PRIORITY:
- 17. 5/U CODE:
19 ACTION ORGANIZATION 20 QAR REVIEMED BY: S03509 3 PGM00 Q&C Records Group
- 14. DISCIPLIE:
- 15. TREND CODE:
- 18. RE58 CODE:
Program Development 21'. ' M Tf-Special Projecta A&T I-5 A&T y-i
- 22. CAUSE:
Z3 PROPOSED CCRRECTIVE ACT)ON: See QAK RT00005, 00006 and 00007
- 1) Develop checklists to be used by reviewers covering what documents should be in each inspector's Q&C' folder, and what character-istics'must be checked on each document.
(L A Botimer - 10/17/83) (Continued on page 2 of 2) Z4 ibruss51SLE ORGANIZATIontrumun: 25.. PROPOSED COW LETION DATE d Q&C Records Group - L A Botiner l j Program Development - R J Oberle December 16, 1983 Special Protects - D M Tiirnhiell ~26 DISPOSITION if-===-= * : ( ) 1 Aa /o // ? 81 N/A fo //4lA$ 'QAR REVIEkER DATE PQAE (ASEONLT) DATE l
- 27. DISPOSTION ACTION TAREN:
I j i i { x l l
- 28. ETH00 0F DISPOSITION VERIFICATION
- 29. QAR CLO5ED BY j
4 .MPQAD DATE PFQCE (ASME ONLT) DATE ACCEPTABLE UNACCEPTABLE O SUPERCEDiNs QAR N-4/1A (Rev 1) g g 69
- p e4
- G w
vm-&.- e- ,y--y v---. w w--- g..r- .-~,,,-w- -m-+--r
ww
- e ..-r,
- ,w-e
- - - + - - - 3 -N v =m =e--eer
i l Q4R IW: m RT 00010 quAun MN DEPANMDK QUALITY ACTlON REQUES DATE: REY: 10/12/83 o CONTINUATION SHEET PAE 2 0F 1
- 2) Review each Q&C folder to the approved checklists to identify all discrepancies, including but not limited to the following:
a) Certifications to ASME-related PQCIs which have not been approved by the PQAE. b) Omission of PQCI revision numbers or titles from OJT records, PD records or t Personnel Certifications. I c) Overdue vision examination which are not annotated with a reason'and an evaluation of inspections done in the interim. (L A Botimer)
- 3) Have all discrepancies resolved by the appropriate certifying agency. (L A Botimer)
)
- 4) ' Revise MPQAD procedures to require the documentation of a decision that OJT is not J
required. (R J obetle) i'
- 5) Review the need to modify the existing system of notifying certified individuals of the.
I impending expiration of their vision examinations or annual performance evaluations t i l based on the results of the review conducted in 2 above. (D M Turnbull) i i l i l [ R-4/18 (Rev0) l l l _
' NIDUulo PROKCT ~ 6 QAR N0: x RT 00011 QUALM ASSURANCE DEPARTENT QU ALITY ACTION REOU.iS. 7. DATE ISSUED: 8 REV: ?l 10/13/83 0 1. REQUIREENT: 9 PAGT 1 0F 1 10 ASE RELATED B-3N.t, Section 5.9, requires the supervisor to complete the appropriate Personnel Certification Form Attachment D. g j i 2. DEFICIENCT: Stone and Webster NIR 005 identified, as a nonconformance, the lack of Form QA-116w1 in the foldern of six Level II inspectors.
- 11. POTENTIAO)~55(
YES NO 3. QAR ORIGINATED BY: 4. DISCIPLINE / DIVISION /SECTION 5. RESPONSE DUE DATE'
- 12.. REPORTED TO NPQA MANAGER:
D M Turnbull A&T N/A DATE N/A 13, ACTION ITEM NO:
- 15. ITEM PRIORITY:
- 17. S/U CODE:
19 ACTION ORGANIZATION 20 QAR REVIEED ST: S03536 N/A N/A N/A I4. DISCIPLINE:
- 16. TREND CODE:
- 18. RES8 CODE:
2f."DATE: A&T N/A N/A /o // 2 !8I'
- 22. CAUSE:
Z3 PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACT;.ON: None. This form is to be used for Level III certifications only. It was verified N/A that the appropriate form for Level II personnel was in each folder. 29 RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION / PERSON:
- 25. PROPOSED ColeLETIC DATE N/A N/A
- 76. DISPOSITION "'"NF:
/Of/]f$$ N/A /a /3 ff 3 'QAR flETIEkER DATE PQAE (ASE ORI.7) DATE
- 27. DISPOSTION AC110N TAEN:
4 (
- 28. NETHOD OF DISPOSITI0li VERIFICATI0ll
- 29. QAR CLOSED BY
( i PFQCE (ASME ONLY) DATE ACCEPTABLE ' UNACCEPTABLE OSUPERCtDINs QAR l N-4/1A (Rev 1) .h
STONE AND WEBSTER MICHIGAN. INC. P.O. SOX
- 13. MiDt.AND, MICHIGAN 4864o i "^"
10-05-A3 l' * "* 14509 l' * "* N / 4 i'" "*- 83-0001 f" " N/A l f l DEAR SIRS: { 5.rru... O - - a = r O R. WELLS, MPQAD 2,. ,,s _, o.u., us _, ";*.",m','s" sa - o. O o --ee O s.e rio~s L. E oo u...-. O = o co-===~ status I r_ sass NOTE I sENT FOR YCUR O .a. E.o= 0 a=vis o. s O :- -- = 0 - O co--. l 0 =u- = 0 - = v==I,'*;,.,,o., O.o.mo O co =cri e Q un 0 -~,. O, o co--.- O eks I,,,, O co..=. O O n'us O io eu es .vou -... ~,o n repoennneo r l YCUR ATTENTION IS DIRECTED TO THE POLLOWING: msLsAsso som: O **. catio G u==>
== -.es ar= =. . O ssus moviss a~o sue-r, -es me ooucastas -eeno sus a =wrums cases. -rs
== we>=6ss ..c== >u = =ru== c os o-Doocu..~rs C==.--es G.~.
==r. O 6s es su. -r O ss se serva o~e co, sacs. o re=s asarusmaa. osa - roue. --ova 6 on co s sees. O u== e-o-uoa==ca> r o m.s rsa =
==rva. v
==.cuina e-o v>.'s ao - ! O -= nust ri e=== =. = -.cco=== a -. voua u
===ra or. uus via us l The attached NIRs are sent for your action and response. In addition to the specific items described on the NIRs it is suggested that MPQAD review the records of all persons listed on printout dated September 19, 1983. If you have any questions on the NIRs, please contact Walter Sienkiewicz at extension 487. S.W. Baranow Program Manager i ENC:\\NIRs,0002, 0003, 0004, 0005 LETTER:'NRC-B'-10-05 l cc: G. A. RZER, BPCo (ATTENTION M. DIETRICH) l 1 4.s, e d n irp~ fn6 e ,a,;,,4 , f 5 y alae /,'sh/ NZAY # g~ 0 /w 7-83 y y
= ~ q STONE AND, WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION QCI 15.01 fttac n 4.1 NONCONFORMANCE IDENTIFICATION REPORT PAM 10F 3 DATE OF NONCONFORMANCE: SEPTEMBER 27, 1983 NIR NUMBER 002 1 IDENTIFICATION / LOCATION OF ITEMS: i MPOAD RECORDS FILE SECTION s DESCRIPTION OF NONCONFORMANCE: i During a sample inspection of 6 of 45 MP,QAD Personnel Training Records, discrepancies were observed in the use of forms to document training activities. It was observed that forms from both B-3M and B3M-1 Procedures were utilized. Forms as found in B-3M-1 are the appropriate ones. See attached list of i discrepant items: U i bd M. b PROGRAM MGR =2ed i INITIATOR G DATE Se. Flor 3e.se.17 / 9 R9 DATE M M #5 7 CORRECTIVE ACTION BY: ~ MPOAD IDENTIFY ORGANIZATION TAKING CORRECTIVE ACTION i i i 1. l VERIFICATION SAT UNSAT NEW NIR# CONCURRENCE f INITIATOR PROGRAM MGR ' f DATE DATE DATE ' REMARKS 4 + I e m ,---,,y-, c- -m y .y
? ) PAGE 2 of 3 i NIR NUMBER 002 f PERSONNEL
- 1) B. E. FREIMARK - 365-64-4818
- 1) Vision Examination Record - Form QA-14-2 used in lieu of QA-115-0 l
- 2) Performatice Demonstration Record Form QA-10-2 used in lieu of QA-114-0
- 2. T. G. NELSON - 276-56-6857
- 1) Vision Examination Record - Form QA-14-2 used in lieu of QA-115-0
- 2) Personnel Certification - Form QA-37-0 used in lieu of QA-37-1
- 3) Perfomance Demonstration Recor.d Form QA-10-2 used in lieu of QA-114-0
- 3. S. REVICH - 379-84-0876
- 1) Inspection Test Personnel Qualification Questionnaire Form QA-12-2 used in lieu of QA-117-0 and QA-118-0
- 2) Vision Examination Record - Form QA-14-2 used in lieu of QA-115-0
- 3) Personnel Certification - Form QA-37-0 used in lieu of QA-37-1, Also a revision was not listed on the form. (itsv 4 g M 10 w W ms
- 4) Performance Demonstration Re:ord Form QA-10-2 used in lieu of QA-114-0
- 4) D. W. GASKILL - 278-54-0575
- 1) Vision Examination Record Form QA-14-2 used in lieu of QA-115-0
,i
- 2) Performance Camonstration Record Form QA-10-2 used in lieu of QA-114-0
- 5) 8. D. HINES - 365-52-6895
- 1) Inspection Test Personnel Qualification Questionnaire Form QA-12-2 used in lieu of QA-117-0 and QA-118-0
- 2) Vision Examination Record Fonn QA-14-2 used in lieu of QA-115-0
- 3) Personnel Certification Form QA-37-0 used in lieu of QA-37-1 1
8 l l
- 4) Performance Demonstration Record Form QA-10-2 used in lieu of QA-114-0
1 -s PAGE 3 of 3 NIR Number 002 C I 6) J. R. A00M0WSKI - 368-46-9164'
- 1) Visio'n Examination Record Fom QA-14-3 used in lipu of QA-115-0 1
- 2) Performance Demonstration Record Form QA-10-2 used in lieu of QA-114-0 ti 1
1 J s j l 1 1 I I I i
- M '%d i
i 1 l i t ) l L' i k_
i 3 l l STONE AND WEBSTER EhGINEERING CORPORATION OCI 15.01 httac.mn 4.1 NONCONFORMANCE IDENTIFICATION REPORT j PAGE 1 CF 1 DATE OF NONCONFORMANCE: SEPTEMBER 27, 1983 NIR NUMBER co3 i l IDENTIFICATION / LOCATION OF ITEMS: i MP0AD - RECORDS FILE SECTION DESCRIPTION OF NONCONFORMANCE: i A check of MPQAD Personnel Training Records indicated that the yearly Vision Examination of B. D. Hines was exceeded. The due date for the Examination was March 9, 1983. The date of the Examination was March 18, 1983. l bMJ' k 6Iu.w PROGRAM MGR, ng ~ INITIATOR g SapZ J u 27,t9e3 DATe &&/ g.9s_3 DATE CORRECIJIXE ACTION BY: MPOAD ~ IDENTIFY ORGANIZATION TAXING CORRECTIVE ACTION t i VERIFICATION SAT UNSAT NEW NIR# CONCURRE';CE INITIATOR PROGRAM MGR DATE DATE DATE__.- REMARXS H i
p c STONE AND WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION QCI 15.01 fttacMan 4.1 NONCONFORMANCE IDENTIFICATION REPORT Pt.GE 1 0F 2 DATE OF NONCONFORMANCE: SEPTEMBER 27, 1983 NIR HUMBER 004 IDENTIFICATION / LOCATION OF ITEMS: MP0AD - RECORDS FILE SECTION DESCRIPTION OF NONCONFORMANCE: During a sample inspection of 6 of 45 MPQAD Personnel Training Records, the following discrepancies were observed in the use of the on-the-job training records as required in Deviation #99 to Procedure B-3M-1. ,i d i i l.Lafbh,k h, PROGRAM MGR [^M I j INITIATOR G DATE $^nk~lwc .2 7 I?eA DATE W J /fdf3 CORRECTIVE ACTION BY: i MPOAD l IDENTIFY ORGANIZATION TAKING CORRECTIVE ACTION i 4 VERIFICATI0'N SAT UNSAT NEW NIR# CONCURRENCE I ! INITIATOR PROGRAM MGR I DATE DATE .DATE 4 REMARKS G e . \\ '~ ,t. n_ .,o. 's e e,e. ..w-e n ,.o
i -~ l i PAGE 2 0F 2 NIR NUMBER 004 PERSONNEL 1)
- 8. E. FREIMARK - 365-64-4818 i
{
- 1) There was no revision number listed on the OJT training record
] 2) T. G. NELSON - 276-56-6857
- 1) The on-the-job training record was.not available f a the records t
j file, but the above individual was certified to PQCI-E-6.0 Rev.15 l 3) S. REVICH - 379-84-0876
- 1) The on-the-job training record was not available in the records file, but the above individual was certified to PQCI-E-6.0 with no revision i
listed 4) D. W. GASKILL - 278-54-0575
- 1) No revision numbar was listed on the on-the-jcb training record
. 5)
- 8. D. HINES LM5-52-189,5,
- 1) The title of the PQCI was not listed on the on 5 -j'ob training record i
/ I i l .N. i s. m ~ .e* i e g
7 p STONEANDWEBSTERENGINEERINGCORPORATIOk QCI 15.01 NONCONFORMANCE IDENTIFICATION REPORT.1 8 Revision 2 3 PAGE 1 0F 1 DATE OF NONCONFORMANCE: SEPTEMBER 27, 1983 NIR NUMBER 005 IDENTIFICATION / LOCATION OF ITEMS: .i MPOAD - RECORDS FILE SECTION l DESCRIPTION OF NONCONFORMANCE: 4 A sample inspection of 6 of 45 MPQAD Personnel Training Records revealed that the Personnel Certification Form QA-116-1, Attachment D is not available in I the record file as required by' Procedure B-3M-1. PERSONNEL
- 1) 8. E. FREIMARK - 365-64-4818
- 4) D. W.,ASKILL
- 278-54-057E G
- 2) T. G. NELSON
- 276-56-6857.a
- 5) 8. D. HINES
- 365-52-6895
- 3) S. REVICH
- 373 84-0876 =
- 6) J. R. ADOM0WSKI - 368-46-9164 i
b)dr //, Ou h_. PROGRAM MGR [tV INITIAT0it q) DATE Sef ~ L e y /9 R3 DATE M -4 # # 4 i CORRECTIVE ACTION BY: 4 ) l MPOAD I IDENTIFY ORGANIZATION TAKING CORRECTIVE ACTION i I t 4 VERIFICATION SAT UNSAT NEW NIR# CONCURRENCE I INITIATOR PROGRAM MGR DATE g DATE DATE l REMARKS h n .. 4 . +. -, --}}