ML20093F674
| ML20093F674 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/11/1984 |
| From: | Watkins M BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | Bloch P, Grassman H, Grossman H, Jordan W Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#484-449 OL-2, OLA-2, NUDOCS 8410150180 | |
| Download: ML20093F674 (115) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:~ ~
~
-a
~,. 7 >.- RELATED COFRE5FONDENCff l?tCKETED L4w Orrects or Ump; CIS HOP, LIB ERM AN, COO K, PU RCELL & R EYN OLDS 1200 SEVENTEENTH STREET, N.W.
WAS HINGTON, D.C.2OO36 f} I F. YO ~t M assHop, LieERMAN & COOM (202)857-9800 , siss AvtNuc or THc aestRicAs NCW 'ORN,New YORK 10036 TELEX 440574 INTLAW Ut (212) 704-Ot OO TELCx 222787 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL (202) October 11, 1984 . Peter,B. Bloch, Esq. Dr. Walter H. Jordan Atomic Safety and Licensing 881 West Guter Drive Board Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Herbert Grossman, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Texas Utilities Electric Company, g al. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445-2, 50-446-2 Gentlemen: As requested by the Board, Applicants herewith provide copies of the following documents relating to work planned, discussed or conducted by Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc., for Texas Utilities Electric Company or its successors or their agents (Comanche Peak) during or after 1983, the purpose or planning for the "Lipinsky Memo Meeting of November 10-11, 1983", and the contractual or informal relationship between O.B. Cannon and Comanche Peak, including payments:
- 1. J.J. Norris letter to J.T. Merritt dated 7/15/83, with attached fee schedule.
- 2. Letter and attachment identified in item 1, with hand-written notations (date unknown) by Robert D. Gentry, Project Support Services Manager.
- 3. Field Requisition prepared by J.C. Youngblood, Purchas-ing Supervisor, dated 7/19/83.
8410150100 841011 PDR ADOCK 05000445 "" CDSO3
/
E
- 4. Handwritten' notes by'J.T. Merritt dated 7/28/83.
- 5. Handwritten notes by J.T. Merritt dated 8/3/83.
- 6. Memorandum re air compressors. Handwritten notation and date by J.T.-Merritt.
- 7. Memorandum re construction procedures. Handwritten notation'and date by J.T. Merritt.
- 8. J.J. Norris letter to J.T. Youngblood dated 8/10/83.
- 9. R.M. Kissinger memo to distribution dated 8/15/83, with attachments.
- 10. Memo identified in item 10, with highlights by R.M.
Kissinger.
'll. Memo identified in item 10, with notations by J.T.
4 Merritt.
- 12. O.B. Cannon invoice dated 8/29/83.
- 13. O.B. Cannon invoice dated 8/30/83.
- 14. Handwritten note from R.B. Roth to J.T. Merritt dated 10/12/83 [ enclosing J.J. Lipinsky Trip Report dated 8/8/83].
- 15. Handwritten note from R.B. - Roth to J.T. Merritt, with enclosure, dated 10/18/83.
- 16. J.T. Merritt letter to R.B. Roth dated 10/28/83, with 0 _ attached D.N. Chapman memorandum to.J.T. Merritt dated 10/27/83.
I'
- 17. J.J. Lipinsky memo.to R.B. Roth dated 10/28/83.
- 18. J.J. Norris memo to R.B. Roth dated 10/31/83.
f 19. Bandwritten notes by J.T. Merritt dated 11/3/83.
- 20. Handwritten notes by J.T. Merritt dated 11/4/83.
- 21. R.B. Roth letter to J.T. Merritt dated 11/4/83, with enclosures.
. 2:2. Handwritten notes by J.T. Merritt dated 11/8/83.
23.. Undated memo titled "JJL & MKM COMANCHE PEAK TRIP," author unknown. Belicved to have been received by Applicants from O.B. Cannon during period 11/8/83 - 11/10/83.
- -- . - - ~-
3-l2 4. Handwritten. notes by J.T._Merritt dated 11/10/83.
- 2 5.- R.B. Roth letter to N.S. Reynolds dated 11/28/83.
. 26. R.B. Roth letter to J.T. Merritt dated 11/30/83,
. enclosing R.A. Trallo memo to R.B. Roth dated 11/28/83. 4-
- 27. O.B.iCannon invoice dated 1/31/84, with some handwritten notations by R.D. Gentry dated 6/22/84.
4
' 2 8. O.B. Cannon invoice dated 4/2/84, with some handwritten notations by R.D. Gentry dated 6/22/84.
- 29. O.B.. Cannon invoice dated 4/30/84, with some handwritten notations by R.D.--Gentry dated 6/22/84.
- 30. C.R. Graves memo to J.T. Merritt dated 6/5/84.
31.- Field Requisition-prepared by~B. Thompson, undated. Prepared in June, 1984.
- 32. Debit memo dated 7/5/84 [the copy is obscured by sticker apparently used for accounting purposes. Counsel for Applicants will supply a clean copy of this document].
I '
- 33. Memorandum prepared under R.D. Gentry's supervision on 10/10/84r with attached memo.
- 34. Business cards of.M.K. Michels and J.J. Lipinsky.
t . Applicants are not submitting duplicate copies of documents that have already been supplied to the Board and the parties, such as J.J. Lipinsky's Trip Report dated 8/8/83, the transcript of meetings held at the site on 11/10/83 and 11/11/83, and the origi- - nalJand. supplemental purchese orders. Applicants are withhold'ing production of the following
- document
Handwritten notes by J.T. Merritt during a telephone conference with R.G. Tolson and N.S. 1 Reynolds dated 10/26/83. r 4 i e
..- - , , .,,--,-ry _nme.ew- --.m. g. me n ,g,-_,e m , _ _ _ _ w ,m , , m- g mv m,. g ny . . p-ww w p ,wm,-,, w w-
~
O This two-page document is subject to the privilege for communications between attorney and client. Respectfully submitted,
/
McNeill Watkins II Counsel for Applicants cc (w/ enc): All Parties l l { f l
.r. . -,. , - , . . . . . . . . . .. ,. .. , a.. .=:
*c T
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC' SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'In the Matter of )
)
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-445-2 and
- _al.
COMPANY, et- ) 50-446-2 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) (Application for Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Operating Licenses) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
.I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing " Subpoenas to Cory Allen" in the above-captioned matter were served upon the following persons by hand-delivery,* overnight delivery,** or by deposit in the United States mail,*** first class, postage prepaid,.this 12th day of October, 1984:
- Peter B. Bloch, Esq. *** Chairman, Atomic Safety and Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
*Mr. William L. Clements
**Dr. Walter H. Jordan Docketing & ~ Services Branch 881 West Outer Drive U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
- Herbert Grossman, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory *Stuart A. Treby, Esq. Commission Office of the Executive Washington, D.C. 20555 Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory
***Mr. John Collins Commission Regional Administrator Washington, D. C. 20555 Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ** Chairman, Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Panel 611 Ryan Plaza Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 1000 Commission Arlington, Texas 76011 Washington, D.C. 20555
l
.' )
*** Renea Hicks, Esq.
- Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq. -
Assistant Attorney General Executive Director Environmental Protection Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Division 2000 P. Street, N.W. P.O. Box 12548 Suite 600 Capitol Station Washington, D. C. 20036 Austin, Texas 78711
- Ellen Ginsberg, Esq.
***Lanny A. Sinkin Atomic Safety and Licensing 114 W. 7th Street Board Panel Suite 220 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Austin, Texas 78701 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
/ h McNeill Watkins II cca - Homer C. Schmidt John W. Beck Robert Wooldridge, Esq.
r8 Jm 7Zif d
~
g ; 7. . g E:OLIVER B. ANNON Q SON. INC.
\ 0 n(lN. ' rial Painting Spaialists
( ~ ,J .D
9o01 AIRPORT BLVD. SulTE Sol . HOUSTON. TEXAS 77o61
..:f.'
PHONE 713 947 967o pg1cdgOne connot & mon REPL.Y TO P.O. BOX IGG + EOUTH HOUSTON. TX 77587 n C8301:001 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. P.O. Box 1002 "
. Glen Rose, Texas 76043 d. j~.T.q' 3g. -
Attention: Mr. 3. T. Merritt, Jr., P.E. .kff E~ Engineering & Construction Manager e R_9L
Reference:
Texas Utilities Generating Company . * ) -~~~~~ - Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station a
~~~jL 1981 2300 MW Installation O ~
Gibbs & Hill Project No. 2323 jg g 05277 Protective Coatings LWA Specification No. 2323-AS-31 Gentlemen: Thank you for the time and courtesies extended to me during my visit to the _ jobsite on July 13, 1983. We are organizing our analysis of the Service Level One coating effort into the following categories: 1-Production 5-Quality Control 2-Work Procedures 6-Management of Coating Effort 3-Scheduling 7-Future Maint. Considerations 4-Training and Painter Qualification 8-Specifications Per the above breakdown, we will send you our recommendations and observations, l individually as we perceive the need, rather than wait until we complete our analysis. Please promptly indicate your acceptance, rejection or "needs further study" so that we don't waste time on recommendations that can't be implemented for reasons we might not be aware. I have reviewed the commercial terms with John Youngblood and confirm them on Exhibit A (attached). TUSI General Terms and Conditions are acceptable except for the Hold Harmless Clause. A limited Hold Harmless Clause is acceptable. We will, of course, send you a weekly report, indicating raanpower, work in process, etc. I
'# 1 s& .
2 FOUNDEC 1916
73 OblVER B. CANNON 4-ShlNC. h July 15,1983
' Texas Utilities Generating Company -
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Page 2. O ert te of Insurance was mailed to Mr. Gentry's attention on July 14, 1983. Very truly yoirs,
- 3. 3. Norris Vice Presid
/d cc: R. B. Roth A. P. Mcdonald T. F. Rogers
Attachment:
Exhibit A d
7
. .n . .
, ' C. '. :. > ; &' \ ;. :
EXHIBIT A FEE SCHEDULE A. ' Management Personnel $500/ day + reasonable expenses B. 1.ine Personnel $400/ day + reasonable expenses C. Technical Personnel
- 1. Site $350/ day + reasonable expenses
- 2. Office $250/ day D. Clerical Personnel Cost -
E. To A, B, C & D above add 16% for overhead l- F. FIXED FEE thru 9/15/83 $63,000
'(Negotiable after 9/15/83)
G. Test Equipment (if necessary) Per OBCList Xill(attached) H. Terms: Net 30 h
.gs.. ,
1 b l - OLIVER B. CANNON Q SON. INC. q- , ~ Jmfudrier/kintiar Speciatins l* l~ >
' ~
ocot AinconT stvo. . suits ooi . houston.TEXAE 77o61 ' PHONE 713 947-967o buus*(Mle cassow&a.
- 1 REPL1 TO6 P.O. DOR SGS . SOUTte 9tOUG10,4. TR T1947
~
l bh
, Cd301:001 *
- Texas Utilities Services, Inc. '
P.O. Box 1002 f[., Glen Rose, Texas 76043 , 2 Attention Mr. 3. T. Merritt, 3c, P.E.
" Engineering & Construction Manager i
Reference:
Texas Utilities Generating Company j Comanche Peak Stpam Electric Station 1981 2300 MY Installation [1 Gibbs & Hill Project No. 2323
- 03277 Protective Coatings . .
Specificatio.. No. 2323-AS-31 l ' . .e Gentlemem - Thank for the time'and courtesies extended to me during my visit to the i Jobsite on July 13, 1983. We are organizing our analysis of the Service Level One
; coafing effort into the following categories: * * ,
- f
- e vi-Production .- ,' 4-Quality Control 4-Work Procedures 4-Management of Coating Effort v3-Scheduling 7T r ;'":' -
"_ "- - ^* - - ; .
ll I A-Training and Painter Qualification 4-5pecifications/ l
' Per the above breakdown, we will send you our recommendations and observations, individually as we perceive the need, rather than wait until we complete our analysis.
Please promptly indicate your acceptance, rejection cir "needs further study" so that we don't waste time on recommendations that can't be implemented for reasons we might not be aware. I have reviewed the commercial terms with John Youngblood and confirm them on Exhibit A (attached). TU51 Cencrat Terms and Conditions are acceptable except J for the Hold Harmless Clause. A limited Hold Harmless Clause is acceptable. , We will, of course, send you a weekly report, Indicating manpower, work in process, etc. f l i
. - , - ,,---.--~-,....m-..--.,,..__ - - . , _ - - , _ . , - - , _ _ , , . . - - - - _ , , - - - --.-r_ _ _ , _ _-%-- m-.,,,_m_,_ _. , - -
,r~ .
v6 . m .e c .r .c .. .- . j, _ -
*}
> A El. CAN NO.N , C, CON. INC.'. .
. 2. ,
. . .t 4 ( a .' .
, (t e
- 5. y
~ . , . . .
i s#- ~
'3uly 15,1983 \
d . .
)< ' .
ss ( Texas Utilities Generating Compmy ,- - ' -
)
Comanche Peak steerd F.Jertric Stodon .
' .) .'
Page 2 . . 3 et te of Insurance was rrdiled to Mr. Gentry's attention on July 14. 1983. Very truly yo ers, s 3.1. Norris ,- i Vice Presidefit t
\
L h, >
.. N e i s
/d \ , \ ,, -
.i 1
\ t ,
4 s s ,. cc R. B. Roth
'- g A. P. McDcoald T p.
T. F. Rogers ,
~\ .,
1
# # 8 , k /
N
/ ( T ' ' ,
Attachment @i e rNbit A .
. .j\>
( 5 ,_ .' v ,
- * . t .
N I . . s s i
- g. .
. . . . . . . . . , . .. }.,.- . . .. . . . . .,. . . .... . . ... .
. . s, . t
, t ,
> s 1 ,
i h
; .,.e s v
t k i fg , y , I ' ,l > ;
'/ r k
(.\ -s s
,.\ .
t >
, i I t ',
ii ',' [
,'k s ,
f,4 ' > ,\ t n ; > >
\, g
\ .
f \ t 1 5
! g
\
\,
t i II I, 4 r 4 . a
? *8 9 %
>i
- ' - - - ' - - - - - -,-,.,.m_- . _ . _ . _ , _ _ , , _ , , , ,_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _
_.7, .y . . , . . - . ,.
, j f.g.
- ~
4.. v ,: .. .
~
., .g;'
VEft D. CANNEN 4 ;. N. INC. . c; i .; _f.. * . '
. .. y . , '
4 '
.. - i ..*. .: ,
+ ;
. ~ . . . .
t .. . e.,,.,,? s ,. ,1
. y .- -
. *j-
.,~ ,
g . i --
, ,4 ' ;:- * )
g . EXHIBIT A ( -
- e. ,
FEE SCHEDULE *
~
n - I
- s
- 1. -
Management Personnel Ccposatte Wau $500/ day + reasonable expenses
. A. * '
. . . / $400/ day + reasonable expenses Bt ' i ine Personnel (Laeemm Larutb C#55~t '
i
- j. . .
C. Technical Personnel' .. 3.a. ~ l f- ; ,.: f ,. -
.~ . . $3M/ day + reasonable expenses 1 ". -
L Site '{~;
- 2
- 2. Office - <
$l250/ day s
D. . Clerical Personnel . .; , ., . L .. ;. Cost .
, h- .
- m , ,
l E. - To A., B,-C & D above add .I6N for ovpttNad
. . - - t. . * ' '. .-
g I Y F. FIXED FEE thru 9/15/83 *l'- -
$63.000 - N'T #'#~# Ad'S ~~ ~
i (Negotiable after 9/15/83) . ,. I . s .; Per OBC List III (attached) l G. Test Equipment (if necessary) f-I H. Tum Net M , ,
. % ;t. , .
.. . .p ~
1 g*g # .; e p* + 'f i... '..- lf st
.["l:.ld- } {' q s a.g'f f ,>di^ g 9 f,*,
i f e ?!... - f..:. + . l + f . : 1 l lg.o .a qp># \ / Qf h h
- bb e &
q.d f /,r , , We q# Ng,Wer #e v e , s+
- s. W(/'
,. - _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ ~
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERXTING COMPANY e %. yonu, o. r.y _-- ._J N
' CPSES FIELD REQUISITION;- CONSTRUCTION No R 21928 '
JV /7
. THIS IS NOT A PURCHASE ORDER P_URCHASING
=
~ G3 tu.n bi..k f.,r.rch t., ne,..r ._
Nh-VENDOR NAMED ((p%O het/cM bg , $PARTMENT: { _ STREET h80) M[4 [/d INTENDED USE: IMw/ce/ _vjes.s DATF - !# f
/f
-19d t
l' CITY #drd/s..pgf#W/ , STATE. ZIP _@ , yb, WM JP7sg,j 3 ' r SHIP VIA: h ~ ~ i i SHIPPING DATE: A ) F.O.83hpN TERMS: [$O BUYERW DvAff !6
^
DESCRIPTION Wy E' '- l COST ITEM no. %UANTITY AxTro U/I ci.. .o gie d <,ip.io... i. . .. .io, . . e.c. Attach specificatio... If required. $p, UNer raict tot 4L l WDM Wls krtcdrirSox . J.s ud6 1'b pau e: >G !?!a$m a . Sewices 4 G])rer E C A ggen ek So w. Ivc hex-hfe,Ja,u,ssc.af.beru'y< '7b OMabe.
~
Sk Joh.s;/e. 4x2 abe/,s six_< _-_ofe ,n:oten_ e.- t.'.ox.La v s p oc a s,. i i Nsse. Z - Scey_e Olise<. 2. C4Nxow s.Koa Toc. u>;i/ ox,whe - 7 < < > % 4 8 4 4 .s h e / 1<s. ,Nefee//a & +f;w<
- - ,, sn, w ; into de. doNowim edaom'n . "
i ReoActlon i= -, ( - LUoxk Atoceefuna " w .. 8eArRe8m- ,u I... ,
$k/N/NA $N O&f) ON -1
^
8/N 6t' 0
--QJ No. Q.A. Safe O o.a.ty Related QUlSIJTIO "^ 4 ER y_p;,, ,
R.o*.o ,eas.a O,c.A cE,1Eo dye: j
- $ lo"v^ b " ^ ,A/Ad- I ^".T 8. M , AreRoVE,cNM% ,
7/[M6
.-. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ._ __1a9 e. . . ._ _ _ ._ __
u. TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY ,,,,, A,,1 f, ,,- CPSES FIELD REQUISITI3N CONTINUATION SHEET - CONSTRUCTION N3 P THIS IS NOT A PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITION 2/k
- ITEM OUANTITY DESCRIPTION sArsiv ru Ass oN COST NO. WANTED ufg Give cornpicte descriptions, ratings, catalog nos.,etc. Attoch specifications,if required. j gy,,7 ,,g, i
TOTAL T De/d,e LowL/
/4sw q w sP g d'a th ae E 4 % f Ek*C* h CMf/ DAIS _
98rel 6'. C4 axon +few bc wlIl sex 9. n
%s, o f no fn -Ms'ee- in Die; A d (6 &
Jeae/ -nasse~J sersewse/j ) Ti de 2ds;h. i a v G$/NN/ I Alt is 4 $/ lW) - A' 8 ff /OA ( d $.A. *}O Y , / f C. , , (Alt * } fD O k f t* N Y s j f A f/ 4MS ,9 A VfN694Y t' M_ & OW h*N / CM
- C dT M i 93
- Ne. Me</../c.-
l ii A. Mmsem<a hond(% cup Leud) %ooJds
$. } N'b WNtWNefQOthMbffY'Gt8$J ' VOO YMr i
I ca.fedwial Absonad t
- 1. 51 4 3ro/o4,+
! 1* h C6 N 4 i
RE ISITIO R Safety Related i No Q.A. / DATE: h VA'L g-Jg Required TUS APPROV O Q.A. Required O.A"EPTED ACC A ,// cdNTHACfR APP APPROVED -
"8D . .__ N"
- APPROVED I f I ! ! -_ _ _ _ _
.' TEXAS UTILITIES GENEltATING COMPANY ,,,a o,. = '. - ,, CPSES FIELD REQUISITIZN CONTINUATION SIIEET - CONSTRUCTION NDR
, THIS IS NOT A PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITION 2/N ITEM QUANTITY DESCRIPTION SAFETY PU A33 U'S COST NO. WANTED Give complete descriptions. ratings, catalog nos etc. Attach specifications.lf required. y UN7 PalCE TOTAL D. 6/enie+I Assesse/ *dost
- 6. 15 A J' 6 +.D ndore. 4DD /6 '/o km ovex4ea f fiteA fcs tha. 9-tr-F1 's 2,ooo.c c' r
(A, m cbyte. .dten 9-ir-rh - C TestErkOnes\-{M u i ~ Neu.uss s) h osc/;sk H. Terna Alef so
+ rlas Am-A eys<as
/)/ime. A. 69xxcx +dow Eve. uslll -[u n hb ouet<caertods nera.
b Ws us, e.s Sox -de. per.rowse/ Assl,aed to d s ef4'oef-7; t d & J c/ Le. z a s.l To ex e<R
? = c o'/ c o o s ,. D o. N .~ -
Pdse E w;// de. of 4lneQ .41 4 co>sixe.4e. esse. sLR wiK sssocidif hcms,eddibus O edsea -7%s Ff +1;s is +eguie<R s.sy/e-J a,;d k. imeR To AA2 -de +/Mioad .scue.
"@"[1g y_-gy;P o "*?i^.:t o #1'!?'a';" 2sEPTEo n om a o^TE:
Q6NTHAQ#dR Affh0 VAL # PPROV I r APPROVED A " 1 a AA 7" "" APPROVED U 4 I
- l
~ . o '. ll
( l f5AR d .+ (h /0/s z wdC# A M 6 Al v5z l 2 c/
;l
+(.a- .
- w. a - y Aya lj ll f .
- 2. & n:-n c ,df Y,
M i. boi ( e_+ $%$k .
&y d 8
l z d/ Age L ad V ' 1 %~4s a f f 1 4 l
- i. .y
~ e e - a b
g 2.
- 3. tu WA e
- \
l b h0
~
21<4 e & # M l 4
/D ll 4 t', & b V
mf - j? h' u '24'. A A
& M ;c a .
M. . M.GL & &A 4 asL $-
>- ///D (W
. M -
/ /
l
/'
~
s- x1
- p aff M n n f
\\ 2. % N ) : /z og
\\ .3. 94 6 , J:- A '
/st 4 A ce
% '43 .
i- \ N. p
. W gs
. 11 k$
--J m .
W [ . f~
'i a.
l /. w . MM l I w& a&
\\ # -
'l 2. 67 .
n 4,i 1 I
- a . h M - M h= - K& ' /_ + g 4 ~
.i k 2 _V~.
- 4. I <,uf y-1K, L & & b
\
$hl/R&
ud % q%
!1.
T/s / M. L - w- ~ KB. e b A JM A m f _ __ .. . _gMnay 4
-s sJ
. j.'
4 M. ' ll g . & J . 00 $6E2 k 6 m A/~1 ; hk h
/' e
- 2. W 40 / /.6 /-4'
.* 466. 9/A;za~y 4
.i.
I U
!]
l4
b l ll
, 1 S f ,!+ == J f b e=} y Se e c of /;L./AJ c<O.
b f
~
/t2 fn/
h .ff . % U22 l A. W J as np -
;s. L -
4
- o. C +T 7~sAL 19~
Q6 d~ O i! i - _ - - _ _ . - - - . _ _ . _ - . . _ _ . - - . . _ . . . _ - _ . - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ - .
. . _ . - ~ . . . . .. . _
~ ee .e eO 7 eome . o ee .
g .
.f-' g. *p.p , a . .. .- ,,.,,e _ , , , , ,
??.'?
[ -
- Y, . ;.;
? i:.? . b.
~
- f. I Asi: X
~
I J,a l nsk
?urieu T _L asfid;<
endi,.y d' . din Wra,sh~Jn<dspfew
,,, ,. + s.a
'l A. Sfec A dhe - hoos e$heds fto a.1 I.
fd/W Ebas~< de- tAe- M SfCC- l;; ^c;V':=bp uires<er b :
-6,r- a spear 6 s?-3
- R4re Bn J 0lewbess- r I i 2. 24wsee-fs the dyr R/w 7%hm frew dchweds
\}ik 3. Ps this b esvGUslay n
<seaf-A4/al/ id Joss m eve -F M/ ,fpA i &
sw m
$, wherSyY $W Gu, S. Yhreffqfep
-k - A5 oco av. R.
. - .. .1. Sa r OwRo . 2 z o W... .- - -. . _ .
. .. L.. . . _ c. ._&rry - :7W s.f._ _ . . _. _ _ _ . . _ . L - _ _ - :. _ _ . --_ .
O I . . M$[^yh ; Ir - --
- q;..,. A._ __.~ k.e need' n$%d.' 2%o -', b u ec. :
a 94fR)e. ykseW ),p my"-4-W p 5 Need f0.- '
.-_B . Brdt --.
gs 10 .swfe:ao47: .-
- j. .- Edest af j~Behuman y.:' we % ll up . /20 .
Ay// haae.
. . ..w 4-se yua/Kad pide
. 6 L M ,i cs ..
- 2. 50 -co x~/ea,pidea
.-to 4 ge ., pG R- h, //o -tza '
- 3. Ma ae e<<f+ ornecf f5e>< ,
own war /c pe6 4 aafingap hke a a r ,a c L e. schi .whar
- 4. /urens enecessa,y w%
/ % fL,ks ,
! 7 yua/Wy . F 4 ,<r + / ire 7 y er s io'r a p ri ~e. u : 5 sa + pidigroc kJgi'n ad 4 A Z g a Gr a ls l the;< (1,.fre
. n.v .
i ,eYak l l
,,,____,_._.__=c=,.-. -
~
---'-~
w
-j 3
^
- j ~~- - ~~~ ~A ~ '
-.._.-,L,_ '
_l
O p .. h * *
..~. ._l '~.,
~
,.'}',
.J ,. ' ', : 7,": C/, J.*.~2[., y 3..; , . _ ,. . c.. y .; .,
e -m_ . .,;w. - a.n. >p :. ~ - . , . - . . . . eh v.- . . ~ . .z.,a- n.. . . .. ,. . _ .. . . . . . e
~~ * -. A -*- ... .. . . . . . . ,
J. Jhs AGicLem /
.-- fh .- Y ...
An a bad a/h $. n._.h re-
~ . . . _ --...-.....2 hY -- b .-- ?$$f $ff .Yh $y I
.--.-4 , -- e...... ..
$f _ . ._..
, , . . - . - - . - . . ~ h -- h -. - .- . _ ff$UN huff . . . - .
Yk W&f .. - _. .. g WYh
. 3. fesvid N $l{ .-h5e R E~ . ._
i . wan ymt 3 m % eqera-e
. . . . - - -. - _ . 7 .
- .. Y$ $ Y $ f f,
..{. - . . . _ ._ )
i i 1 4
. - - -l
- .~= . a . .- : :~.a. '
._.s
- * .....: 3.'
-~.:
.a . ..
.~p.,.% :3 h;.~'*:l'i'.
.~6 :
'. ~ -
w-*,v--evw'-
, b. hrfdrS ~ Yh3 The following items are manufactured by Van-Aire Systems in Lake City, PA. They do not sell direct and refuse to give discounts. 0.B. Cannon buys the product from Alexander & Company in Corry, PA. Their phone number is (814) 665-8260 and they give a 20% discount. Jack Norris is sure that there is a Texas distributor but they don't know who or where. 1200 CFM Comoressor 1" D-42 dessicant dryer $4,575 WF-27 aftercooler 2,304 WSH-45 separator 567 WCH-7 connector kit 326
$7,772 less a 20% discount You also need 1375 lbs. of dessicant at approx. 504/lb. = $687.50 2000 CFM Comoressor D-54 dessicant dryer $ 6,540 WF-42 aftercooler 3,490 WSH-6 separator 1,147 WCH-9 connector kit 861
$12,338 less a 20% discount You also need 2475 lbs. of dessicant at approx. 50d/lb. = $1,237.50
l [ Sye&. SeYity f83 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES CCP30 CCP30A Surface Preparation SSPC-SP10 SSPC-SP10 Primer Carbonzine 11 Dimetcote 6 (Carboline) (Ameron) Top Coat Phenoline 305 Phenoline 305 (Carboline) (Carboline) Specification 2323-AS-31 2323-AS-31 Primer Thickness 2-5 mil Avg. 2-5 mil Avg. 1.5 to 5.5 spotcheck 1.5 to 5.5 spot check Total System Thickness 7-11 mil Avg. '/-11 mil Avg. 11.5 max spot check 11.5 max spot check
-DBA Tested to Yes Yes ANSI N101.2 SSPC-SP10 Steel surface preparation to near white metal blast with minimum of 1 mil surface profile per manufac-turer.
Purpose Coating systems provided to facilitate the control of contamination as well as to protect surfaces from corrosion. l, 1l Odsign Criteria Per the FSAP., the coating systems used inside con-tainments which are qualified to ANSI N101.2 will not create any solid debris due to radiolytic and chemical decomposition at DBA Conditions. Coating systems must be durable to prevent the contribution of materials of significant size that would cause the clogging of the containment recirculation sumps screen (1/8 in. mesh screen on sumps). l l I l
9 P_URCHASi!b E
,f. .
,,'~,
E, OLIVER B. CANNON Q SON. INC. hufustrialPainting Specialists 9ool AIRPORT BLVD. . SUITE Bot HOUSTON. TEXAS 77o61 MM PHONE 713 947 967o connoam REPl.Y TO P.O. BOX 166 SOUTH HOUSTON. TX 77587 August 10, 1983 C8301:002 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. P.O. Box 1002 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 Attention: Mr. J. T. Youngblood Purchasing Agent
Reference:
Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 1981 2300 MW Installation Gibbs & Hill Project No. 2323 05277 Protective Coatings Specification No. 2323-AS-31 Purchase Order No. CPF-16245
~
Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, enclosed please find our signed acknow-legement of the above referenced purchase order for services performed at the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. We express our appreciation for this order and look forward to working with you on this project. If - tional information is required, kindly contact this office. Very truly fours, r J. J. Norris Vice President
/d cc: R. B. Roth A. P. Mcdonald T. F. Rogers Encl.
FOUNDED 1916
",.._*, ,, p._. . . _ . - - - - - --
...g y
- CPP-13*338 Page 1 of 4 .
.. TEXAS UTILITIES SElWICES INC. '
OFFICE MEMOR A NDUM To Distribution cien ao Tex. 'Auaust 1 .11&3__
. % iert PAINTING,. ,, ,_. _ _ _ _ . , _ _ , . , , . , . ,_ . , ,
MINUTES OF MEETING The subject of the meeting was to define design philosophy, design criteria, exchange infonnation and address problem areas at Comanche Peak. There are three basic reasons for apolying protective coat ings inside containment. /*J -3 3 9 vg A) Protect against corrosion B) Provide an easily decontaminable surface IEU " I E4 C) Minimize debris generation tion of the Emergency that may Core Cooling and cont impair.gr WwnecyENT CONTROL spray systems. . Nuclear industry practice defines coatings system ipside containment as nuclear safety related. Standards used throughout the industry. are as follows.
- 1) Regulatory Guide 1.54, Quality Assurance Require-ment for Protective Coatings applied to Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants.
- 2) ANSI N101.2 Protective Coatings (Paints) for Light e Water Nuclear Reactor Containment Facilities.
- 3) ANSI N101.4 Quality Assurance for Protective Coat-ings applied to Nuclear Facilities
- 4) ANSI NS.12, Protective Coatings (Paints) for the Nuclear Industry.
~
Per the Final Safety Analysis Report, the coatings systems at Comanche Peak used inside containment which are quailified to ANIS N101.2 will not create any solid debris due to radio-lytic and chemical decomposition at Design Base Accident (DBA) conditions. Coating systems must be durable to prevent the contribution of materials of significant size that would cause clogging of the containment recirculation sumps screen (1/8 inch mesh' screen on sumps).
~
.u . _ .1. . .. _ -- - -
1
@f vage e
@N Thru discussion it was determined that CPSES is consistant with the remainder of the nuclear industry with respect to design criteria.
The industry and the NRC realize that it is not feasible nor practical to have 100% qualified coatings inside con-tainment. As a general rule unqualified coatings are ident-ified and quantified on a case by case basis for impact on recirculation sumps. Quantified amounts of unqualified coatings .have been ident-ified by other A/E's in their Safety Analysis Report as , specific square footage and discussing debris generated as insignificant. This amount has been determined by Ebasco for Waterford #3 as approximately 14,000 square feet. The quantity.was re-quested by the site for engineering acceptance (i.e. an as
. built case). The NRC acknowledged this amount but did not
' accept or.' reject it.
. Engineering acceptance of quantities of unqualified coating has been accepted by engineering judgement or analysis.
Ebasco presented two doctsnents NUREG-0897 Containment Emer-gency Sump Performance and Regulatory Guide 1.82, Sumps for
.' Emergency Core Cooling and Containment Spray Systems. These are methods recognized by the NRC that could provide a basis for engineering analysis on quantities of unqualified coat-ings. Calculations are complex and include many assumptions.
From the general discussion it was' evident the common prac-tice .is to achieve as high e quantity of qualified coatings as possible. Acceptance of unqualified coatings is strictly on a case by case basis only. Declassification of large amounts of areas to be coated is not accepted by A/E's or utilities and if done, problems may arise with the NRC. Large quantities of unqualified coatings could possibly cause operational maintenance problems. DISCUSSIONS - ATTACHMENT B 0F AGENDA Items.
- 1) Eliminate the requirement for coating code numbers (QP#'s) for installed miscellaneous steel, supports and attach-ments.
Resolution - Item closed - Working agreement between craft and QC.
- 2) Inspections be performed or limited to no closer than
" arms length":
Resolution - ! tem closed - Criteria placed into inspection procedures.
-_ _. -- . ._ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ . . _ . _~
y -. ,~ -
. .t}
3.:.qe 3
- 3) Primer and topcoat system which can be, brushed applied.
Resolution - Procedures are to be established to allow the use of Carboline 191 primer. Oliver B. Cannon & Son Inc. is to write the touch up and repair procedure. r 4(A)' Eliminate destructive testing of all supports and mis-cellaneous steel: , Resolution: Adhesion of supports and miscellaneous steel has been suspended due to high rate of confidence level. See Resolution 4(B) for clarification on primer thickness verification by Tooke Tests. 4(B) Eliminate the requirement for primer and topcoat thick-ness limitations on supports equipment and miscellaneous steel. , Resolution - Thicknesses of primer and topcoat will re-quire verification of the inspection agency. The present specified range of primer thick-ness will be broadened to dry film thickness . from 2.0-6.0 mil average with spotchecks of ' 1.5-7.0 allowable on primer. Total system will range from 6.0-13.0 average with spot- . checks of 15.0 allowable. .
- 5) Eliminate the use of NCR's to denote unsat conditions: .
Closed - Unsatisfactory coatings are noted by unsat re-port.
- 6) Utilize only one color in containment rather than the established color schene:
3 Resolution - DCA-18,330 issued to allow the use of " white" { as an alternate color for any color specified. 4 ~
- 7) Utilize the same coating (topcoat) for concrete coatings, embeded plates and base plates:
Resolution - Topcoating primed steel with 1201 topcoat is acceptable. 0.B. Cannon Inc. is to write procedures for this activity. Due to possible difficulties arising from the use of 1201 over Phenoline/CZ11 system a committee was esta-blished consisting of Keith Falk, Tom Kelly and Mark Wells to establish the practicality of mixing systems.
- 8) Obtain air supply drier tank to supplement current systens.
Resolution: Items are procured as required.
.g '
()#
. ~' '
Page 4
~
- 9) ' Remove QC acceptance stickers from supports to complete total paint system.
- 10) Delete the requirement for 28 day cure of grout prior L
to coating: Resolution - Pr'ocedures will be revised to reflect r- acceptability of coating grouted base plates or equipment, limited to 3 square feet of ex' posed grout, may be coated after a 48 hour cure.
- 11) Relax present v'isual inspection requirement of abandoned anchor bolts.
Resolution.- OCA-13,388 Rev. 5 and DCA-17,475 Rev. I renders coatings on anchor bolts N.N.S..
- 12) Relax the. requirement of weld areas *from SSPC SP10 to SSPC-SP6. ;
Resolution: DCA will be written to allow surface pre-paration of weld areas to be performed with tools like, 3M clean-n-:; trip or flapper wheels, and obtain surface cleanliness equal to cleanliness of SSPC-SP6 surface. The are covered by this preparation will be 1
, ' inch each side of the weld.
New Items l 1
- 1) Delete 1 mil minimum profile requirement.
. Resolutionf Procedures will be revised to delete the one c mil minimum profile requirement for SSPC-SP-3 y (surface preparation. The degree of cleanli-Wness will be stated and an example for tools
% utilized wil1 be. given, however,- the tools .
.% utilized will not be limited to the example.
. Q'
- 2) CPPE and G & H is to establish exemption list of coatings and quantify unqualified coated surface.
7 Resolution of all items should be in a maximum time frame of two weeks. m
/dSJ&
R.M. Kissinger/ Project Civil Engineer RMK/ H/MW/sgr cc: Attendees J.T. Merritt - Assistant Project General Manager J. FirtelJ- EBASCO
, ~ - - - .
- . n
. . . - -. ..- 5 -..a
....a
*) . - -- ~ .u
-. . .-n . , - -
A1TENDEES
- 1. Mike McBay - Manager of Engineering (TUSI)
- 2. C.R. Hooton Civil Supervisor (TUSI)
- 3. R.M. Kissinger - Project Civil Engineer (TUSI)
- 4. David H. Wade - Licensing (TUSI) 5.. Bob Dacko - Licensing (TUSI)
- 6. 0.B.-Jones - Civil Engineer (TUSI) ,
- 7. - B.J. Murray - Construction Manager (TUSI)
- 8. Mark Wells - Civil Engineering (B & R)
- 9. Thomas Kelly - Corrision Engineer (EBASCO)
- 10. Robert C. Iotti - Applied Physics (EBASCO)
I
- 11. Tom Brandt - TUGC0 QA (EBASCO)
- 12. Jack Norris - Vice President (0.B. Cannon)
- 13. Joesph Lipinsky - QA Director (0.B. Cannon)
- 14. Robert Roth - President (0.B. Cannon)
- 15. 0.C. Purdy - Advanced Tech. (G & H)
- 16. Keith Falk - Chemical (G & H)
- 17. S.M. Marano - Project Engineer (G & H)
- 18. M.A. Vivirito - Vice President Power Engineering (G & H)
- f. . . . . - - . . . - - . - - - ~ - '- ~ - ~ ~ -
- ~ -
) '
I AGENDA 8-9-83 MEETING PROTECTIVE COATING IllSIDE REACTOR BUILDING 1). Design Philosophy Percentage declassification (Non Q) inside containment
- 2) Industry Standards Regulatory Guide 1.54 ANSI N 101.2 ANSI N 101.4 ANSI N 5.12
- 3) Coating Systems at Comanche Peak ~
(See Attachment C)
- 4) Specific Questions (See Attachment 8)
?
t
- g. _ _ . - _ . - . _ . ...
g._ .. . - .~ . . CONSTRUCil0N PROCEDURES CCP30 CCP30A Surface Preparation SSPC-SP10 SSPC-SP10 Primer Carbonzinc 11 Dimetcote 6 (Carboline) (Ameron) Top Coat Phenoline 305
- Phenoline 305 (Carboline) , (Carboline)
Specification 2323-AS-31 2323-AS-31 Primer Thickness 2-5 mil Avg. 2-5 mil Avg. 1.5 to 5.5 spatcheck 1.5 to 5.5 spot check Total System Thickness 7-11 mil Avg. 7-11 mil Avg. 11.5 max spot check 11.5 max spot check
.08A Tested to Yes Yes
. ANSI N101.2 ;
SSPC-SP10 Steel surface preparation to near white metal blast with minimum of 1 mil surface profile per manufac-I turer. , . Purpose' Coating systems provided to facilitate the control of contamination as well as to protect surfaces from corrosion. Design Criteria Per the FSAR, the coating systems used inside con-tainments which are qualified to ANSI N101.2 will not create any solid debris due to radiolytic and chemical decomposition at DBA Conditions. Coating systems must be durable to prevent the contribution of materials of significant size that would cause the clogging of the containment recirculation sumps screen (1/8 in. mesh screen on sumps). ATTAtitMi~nT A
; - ~ . - - - -- - - - '
ATTACHMIN !! o The following listed items are requested by Painting Pe~rsonnel in order to support Dec. '83 Fuel Load. (1) Eliminate the requirement for coating code ntenbers (QP #'s) for installed miscellaneous steel, supports and attachments. Resolution: QP numbers are now only required for items not
' installed in the building. Installed items will be documented by location or pemanent I.D. numbers.
(2)! Inspections be perfomed or limited to no closer than " arms
-length".
Resolution: Quality Control Procedures have been ro ised to-reflect this criteria. (3) Primer and topcoat system which can be brush applied. Resolution: Present topcoat may, at the option of craft, be brush ' applied. Various " touch up systems" are to be revtewed by engineering. Suggestions are Car-boline,. 191 Primer or Carboline 305 Primer both with the existing Carboline 305 topcoat. These systems have DBA/LOCA Testing already performed. Procedures will be revised to include an alternate touch up system. Engineering to resolve week ending 8/13/83 - Procedure following week 8/20/83. (4)(A) Eliminate destructive testing of all . supports and miscellaneous steel. Resolution: Adhesion testing for backfit purposes has been sus-pended due to high rate of acceptance. Tooke Testing is still being performed until a resolution of the requirement for primer thickness is establish-ed. (8) Eliminate the requirement for primer & topcoat thickness limita-tions on supports equipment and miscellaneous steel. Resolution: Engineering is studing the feasibility of voiding this criteria. Presently testing is underway to broaden the thickness range of primer up to 12 mil. See CPPA-31,575. c (5) Eliminate the use of NCR's to denote unsat conditions: Resolution: Conditions of coatings which are denoted as uns. itis-j factory and can be repaired per existing procettures, i are repaired per those procedures without the genera-tion of an NCR. (6) Utilize only one color in containment rather than establish color j scheme: ! Resolution: DCA-18,330 issued to allow the use of " white ** e an r alternate color for any color speci ficit.
-= .w- -,e,-r- -- , _ . -., ,- - %-__ . _,- --_%-_,...,.--,....,..,,,..w-..% --.._%--.-,.,---,-,,,-,m ._.-_.-w.~,.y--. . - ,- , - . -.
'.>- 3e
' ~
i (7) Utilize the same coating (topcoat) for cuncrete coatings, embed-ded plates and base plates: There will be Resolution: Engineering is reviewing this request. , no problem of topcoating primed steel with the top- l coat utilized for concrete; however, the question ar ises o f topcoating existing finish coated steel with s the specified concrete topcoats and later repairs. There would be a mixing of coating systems which would be very difficult to control during construction
' application and later operation maintenaace. Engineer-ing to resolve week ending 8/13/83.
(8) Obtain air supply drier tank to supplement current systems. Resolution: Items are being precured as required. (9) Remove Q.C. acceptance stickers from supports to complete total paint system. . Resolution: . This item to be completed by 8/8/83. (10) Delete the requirement of 28 day cure of grout and pour back areas.
~ Resolution: For-the most part this criteria may remain; however, engineering is presently looking at alternatives.
Presently abandoned Hilti holes, tie holes and spalled concrete patched per CEI-20 has a cure time of 48 hrs. l( Grout under base plates may become included in this criteria; however, pour backs and larger concrete areas probably will remain 28 days without the use of some product like Nutec 10 as a sealer. Engineering to re-solve week ending 8/13/83. (11) Relax the pesent, visual inspection requirement, of abandoned anchor bolts. Resolution: See DCA-13,388 R. 5 and DCA-17,475 R. I rendering anchor bolt coatings N.N.S.-
-(12) Relax requirement of surface preparation for weld areas in contain-ment from SSPC-SP10 to SSPC SP6.
Resolution: Engineering will review and resolve week ending 8/13/83. v 4 e
, c_ ,.y ---y4. ,w e-- -
,,m.. , - ._ .,, ,w,,_ , ,,,.y,, , . .,3-- _ - , , ,, m,...,,,._,,,--.,-.--...,-.--,~c.,-- ~ , , - - , , - ,-
~CPP-13'338 Page 1 of 4 j .' -
TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC. OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM To Distribution c1m ao Texa. Auoust 15. 1983 Subject PAINTING MINUTES OF MEETING The subject of the meeting was to define design philosophy, design criteria, exchange information and address problem areas at Comanche Peak. There are NW@or applying protective coat-ings inside containment. A) Protect against corrosion , B) Provide an easily decontaminable surface C) Minimize debris generation that may impair opera-tion of the Emergency Core Cooling and containment spray systems. Nuclear industry practice defines coatings system inside containment as nuclear safety related. Standards used throughout.the industry are as follows.
- 1) Regulatory Guide 1.54, Quality Assurance Require-ment for Protective Coatings applied to Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants.
l
- 2) ANSI N101.2 Protective Coatings (Paints) for Light Water Nuclear Reactor Containment Facilities.
l 3) ANSI N101.4 Quality Assurance for Protective Coat- ! ings applied to Nuclear Facilities
- 4) ANSI N5.12', Protective Coatings (Paints) for the Nuclear Industry.
Per the Final Safety Analysis Report, y _ atintr'iyg.temgat Comanche A5611 notPeak uwRide-conta:inmen) crea't'e any soRd debriswhich due Ee % i.lifist to radi6'"~g lytic and chemical decomposition at Design Base Accident (DBA) conditions. Coating systems must be durable to prevent the contribution of materials of significant size that would cause clogging of the containment recirculation sumps screen (1/8 inch mesh screen on sumps). l l
l Page Z A7 withr the a ==i - w o kof-a.=_dc remainder W =i the nuclear n thttd industry ASES witn resie & cons { ~ J l design criteria. ! Aper $untsmtrarsiiFMFGiE5FmicTEM Xiedecoatings inside con-tainment. As a general rule unqualTried coatings are ident-ified and quantified on a case by case basis for impact on recirculation sumps. c ---- :'"CZTINyJT:": T*Sv'=- '- - M%nt
.tirfredatusmuttu!verantF*e:tenthair Safety Analysis Report as specific square footage and discussing debris generated as insignificant. .
,. .__......... ., ,, nnn e J. The quantity,was re-quested by the site for engineering acceptance (i.e. an as built case). The NRC acknowledged this amount but did not accept or reject it.
Ebasco presented two documents NUREG-0897 Containment Emer-gency Sump Performance and Regulatory Guide 1.82, Sumps for Emergency Core Cooling and Containment Spray Systems. These are m'thods recognized by the NRC that could provide a basis l for engineering analysis on quantities of unqualified coat- - ings. Calculations are complex and include many assumptions. l M Acceptance of unqualified coatings is strictly on a case by case basis only. Declassification of large amounts of areas to be coated is not accepted by A/E's or utilities andif done, problems may arise with the NRC. Large quantities of unqualified coatings could possibly cause operational maintenance problems. DISCUSSIONS - ATTACHMENT B 0F AGENDA Items
- 1) Eliminate the requirement for coating code numbers (QP#'s) for installed miscellaneous steel, supports and attach-ments. ,
Resolution - TfHiiFETUsef - Working agreement between craft and QC. i
- 2) Inspections be performed or limited to no closer than
" arms length":
Resolution - ITjfr.NIMBff Criteria placed into inspection procedures.
Page 3
. 3) Primer and topcoat system which can be brushed applied, Resolution - Procedures are to be established to allow '
the use of Carboline 191 primer. Oliver B. Cannon & Son Inc. is to write the touch up and repair procedure. 4(A) Eliminate destructive testing of all supports and mis-cellaneous steel: Resolution: Adhesion of supports and miscellaneous steel has been suspended due to high rate of confidence level. See Resolution 4(B) for clarification on primer thickness verification by Tooke Tests.
'4(B) Eliminate the requirement for primer and topcoat thick-ness limitations on supports equipment and miscellaneous steel.
Resolution - Thicknesses of primer and topcoat will re-quire verification of the inspection agency. The present specified range of primer thick-ness will be broadened to dry film thickness from 2.0-6.0 mil average with spotchecks of 1.5-7.0 allowable on primer. Total system will range from 6.0-13.0 average with. spot-checks of 15.0 allowable.
- 5) Eliminate the use of NCR's to denote unsat conditions:
Closed - Unsatisfactory coatings are noted by unsat re-port.
- 6) Utilize only one color in containment rathat than the established color scheme: /
Resolution - DCA-18,330 issued to allow the use of " white" as an alternate color for any color specified.
- 7) Utilize the same coating (topcoat) for concrete coatings, embeded plates and base plates:
l-Resolution - Topcoating primed steel with 1201 topcoat is acceptable. 0.B. Cannon Inc. is to write procedures for this activity. Due to possible difficulties arising from the use of 1201 over Phenoline/CZ11 system a committee was esta-blished consisting of Keith Falk, Tom Kelly and Mark Wells to establish the practicality of mixing systems.
- 8) Obtain air supply drier tank to supplement current systems.
l Resolution: Items are procured as required. l L
- )
. . r s '
, . ,Page 4 . , ,
.~.,.
- , . r,
,s h 12
- 9) Remove QC acc,eptanct stSters from supports to complete
, total paint system.' g\
- 10) Delete the requiremen't r 28' day cure of grout prior
,{g "e ,
to coating:
- w. .
y Resoiution OProcedures will be ' revised to rehlect
/ a'cceptacility of coating grouted base plates
\' s orj ek;t.ipment, limited to 3 square' feet of iN*' exposed grout, may be coated after a 48 hour h \, f . '!
Relax presen,t visual inspection , requirement of abandoned 11) anchor ,. bolts. ' \ (,. r
\ q g
x: r ' Resolutiop - DCA-13,388 Rev; 5 ano.DkA-17,475 Rev.1 Q renders coatings on anchor bolts N.N.S.. e ..
'12) R41ax the, requirement of weld areas from SSPC SP10 to SSPC-SP6. ' ' '
',?
(
*. 4, . . .
Resolution: DCA jM1 be 'wr'itten to allow surface pre-
't*h.1' q paratt'on of weld'eraas te be performed with tools 'Ti'ky, 3M cleen-n gstrip or' flapper
.4, ,i
.s' wheels, and obtain\;urface clean 1iness equal s to cleanlisess of SSFC-SP6 surface. The
[. are covered' by this }ra7aration will be 1 inch each side'pf the weld.
~
; f s
->3
's New Items (
4' 5 Delete 1 mil'ininimum prof.ile requiremsd 1) y y 6, 1 Resolution: , Procedureswill be'revned to delete the one ini.T minicw. profile requirement for SSPC-SP-3
- S surfac.e' preparation.s\ .The degree of cleanli-
> - ,4 nessai',1 be r,tated and an example for tools utilized will be given, however, the tools utilized wjl) mt'be limited to the example.
- 2) CPPE and G & H is to estaoTish exemption list of coatings and quantify unqualified coated . surface.
Resolution of all items should be in a maximum time frame of t two weeks. '
; ;4 ' 's,,
r, '
\s ,
N b
'" , \ ,
R. A. Ki'ssinger/ c, 7fj Pro' ject Civil Engineer 7 1 .- . ,
, . RMK/ H(MW/sgr ,'
.cc: Attendees ,,
J.T. Merritt kssistant Project General Manager
,3 1 F?rtelt 'g
'EBfSCO ,
- s. A. l,' ) . w . .. . .L __
_ _ _ _ , a . .i _ _ __ _ _ . _ _ _ _.
_ ATTENDEES
- 1. Mike McBay - Manager of Engineering (TUSI)
- 2. C.R. Hooton - Civil Supervisor (TUSI) 3.
~
R.M. Kissinger - Project Civil Engineer (TUSI)
- 4. David H. Wade - Licensing (TUSI)
- 5. Bob Dacko - Licensing (TUSI) *
- 6. 0.B. Jones - Civil Engineer (TUSI) .
- 7. B.J. Murray - Construction Manager (TUSI)
- 8. Mark Wells - Civil Engineering (B & R)
- 9. Thomas Kelly - Corrision Engineer (EBASCO)
- 10. Robert C. Iotti - Applied Physics (EBASCO)
- 11. - Tom Brandt - TUGC0 QA (EBASCO) 12.
Jack Norris - Vice President (0.8. Cannon)
- 13. Joesph Lipinsky - QA Director (0.B. Cannon)
- 14. Robert Roth - President (0.8. Cannon) 15.
D.C. Purdy - Advanced Tech. (G & H)
- 16. Keith Falk - Chemical (G & H) i
[ 17. S.M. Marano - Project Engineer (G & H)
- 18. M.A. Vivirito - Vice President: Power Engineering (G & H) t I
f . - - - _ - . - - . . . . ,,
- - s ,
- 2 .. ,
c o , r .t . .g. m y, ' $
< e sj,
//
~
6 .\
? ,
r v
.;p
.c
. AGENDA 8-9-83 MEETING
.g PROTECTIVE C0ATING'INSIDE REACTOR BUILDING
( ~, . . 1) Design Philosophy
, : ia s'5," Percentage declassification (Non Q) inside containment
> ns
- 2) Industry Standards. .
(!. - 7,
,, . Regulatory Guide 1.54 ANSI N!101.2 ANSI N 101.4
'! ? "
ANSI N 5.12 -
,a m ,
j, i ! .. 3)- Coating Systems at Comanche Peak . ., (See Attachment C) Specific Questions (See Attachment B) v L4) dB ',\ r
~.. ./l
',g
- a
)
4 9
; ,t,
}? s
+ rt <
c L-G' .
+
? A f
.. - _ _ _ , - . . , _ . ~ . - - - ,, , .- , _., . -
i
- \
i
; .n .
, CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES CCP30 CCP30A Surface Preparation SSPC:SP10 SSPC-SP10 Primer Carbonzinc 11- Dimetcote 6 (Carboline) ,
(Ameron)-
-Top Coat: Phenoline 305 Phenoline 305 (Carboline) (Carboline)
~
' Specification 2323-AS-31 2323-AS-31 s
- Primer . Thickness .2 mil. Avg. . 2-5 mil Avg.
1.5 t .5 spotcheck 1.5 to 5.5 spot check Total System Thickness 7-11 mil Avg. 7-11 mil Avg. 11.5 max spot check 11.5 max spot check
~
DBA Tested to Yes Yes
-ANSI N101.2 SSPC-SP10 Steel surface preparation to near white' metal blast
_ , _ ._, ., with minimum of 1 mil surface profile per manufac-turer. Purpose Coating systems provided to facilitate the control of contamination as well as to protset surfaces from corrosion. l l Design Criteria Per the FSAR, the coating systems used inside con-tainments which are qualified to ANSI N101.2 will l' not create any solid debris due to radiolytic and chemical decomposition at 08A Conditions. Coating systems must be durable to prevent the contribution of materials of significant~ size that would cause y , the clogging of the' containment recirculation sumps l screen (1/8 in mesh screen on sumps). l l l l-
, . - _ _ - _ . . ~ . . , . . -
ATTACHMENT B
- The following listed items are requested by Painting Personnel in order l
to support Dec. '83 Fuel Load. l (1) Eliminate the requirement for coating code numbers (QP #'s) for installed miscellaneous steel, supports and attachments. . Resolution: QP numbers are now only required for items not installed in the buil' ding. Installed items will be documented by location or permanent I.D. numbers. (2) Inspections be performed or-limited to no closer than " arms length". # Resolution: Quality Control P'roce'dures have been revised to reflect this criteria'. (3) Primer and topcoat system which can be brush applied. Resolution: Present topcoat may, .at the option of craft, be brush applied. Various " touch up systems" are to, be reviewed by engineering. Suggestions are Car-boline 191 Primer or Carboline 305 Primer both with the existing Carboline 305 topcoat. These systems have DBA/LOCA Testing already performed. Procedures will be revised to include an alternate touch up system. Engineering to resolve week ending 8/13/83 - Procedure following week 8/20/83. (4) (A) Eliminate destructive testing of all supports and miscellaneous _ steel. Resolution: Adhesion testing for backfit purposes has Tooke been sus-pended due to high rate of acceptance. Testing is still being performed until a resolution of the requirement' for primer thickness is establish- . ed. . (B) Eliminate the requirement for primer & topcoat thickness limita-l tions on supports equipment and miscellaneous steel. I Resolution: Engineering is studing the feasibility of voiding this criteria. Pres ~ently testing is underway to broaden the thickness range of primer up to 12 mil. - See CPPA-31,575. (5) Eliminate the use of NCR's to denote unsat conditions: Resolution: Conditions of coatings which are denoted as unsatis-factory and can be repaired per existing procedures, are repaired per those procedures without the genera-i tion of an NCR. (6) Utilize only one color in containnent rather than establish color scheme: Resolution: 0CA-18,330 issued to allow the use of " white" as an alternate color for any color specified.
;i . .
1 Utilize the same coating (topcoat) for concrete coatings, embed-
.: (7) ded plates and base plates:
There will be 1
' Resolution: Engineering is reviewing this request.
no problem of topcoating primed steel with the top- ' coat utilized for concrete; however, the' question arises of topcoating existing finish coated steel with the' specified concrete topcoats and later repairs. - There would be a mixing of coating systems which would be very difficult to control during construction Engineer-application and later operation maintenance. ing to resolve week ending 8/13/83. (8). Obtain air supply drier tank to supplement current systems. Resolution: Items are being procured as required. Remove Q.C. acceptance stickers from supports to complete total
-(9) paint system. .
This item to be completed by 8/8/83. Resolution: Delete the requirement of 28 day cure of grout and pour back areas. (10) For the most part this criteria may remain; however, Resolution: engineering is presently looking at alternatives. Presently abandoned Hilti holes, tie holes and spalled concreta patched per CEI-20 has a cure time of 48 hrs. Grout under base plates may become included in this-criteria; however, pour backs and larger concrete areas probably will remain 28 days without the use of some Engineering to re-product like Nutec 10 as a sealer. solve week ending 8/13/83. (11)- Relax the pesent, visual inspection requirement, of abandoned anchor bolts. Resolution: rendering anchor bolt coatings N.N.S. Relax requirement of. surface preparation for weld areas in contain-(12) , ment from SSPC-SP10 to SSPC SP6. Resolution: Engineering will review and resolve week ending 8/13/83.
..-. . w u.s. . a . g .>.. .a.~
. : _g. . x. :n~_ . ... . f. . . . a. . .,
. -, wx. :,. .,.. 3.
* '~
CPP-13,338 . TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES int. h Paga 1 of 4 OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM
- r. Distribution clen Rose. Teu. August 15. 1983 Subject PAINTING MINUTES OF MEETING' The subject of the meeting was to define design philosophy, I design criteria, exchange information and address problem .
areas at Comanche Peak. There are three basic reasons for applying protective coat-ings inside containment. A) ~ Protect against corrosion B) ~ Provide an eas'ily decontaminable surface C) . Minimize ~ debris ' generation that may impair opera-tion of the Emergency Core Cooling and containment spray' systems. ,, Nucleai industry practice defines coa' tings system inside containment' as nuclear safety related. Standards used
~
throughout the industry are as follows. ,
.1') ' Rigulatory Guide 1.54, Quality Assurance Require-ment for Protective Coatings applied to Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants. ,
~2) ANSI N101.2 Protective Coatings (Paints) for Light
, ' Water Nuclear Reactor Containment Facilities.
- 3) ANSI N101.4 Ouality Assurance for Protective Coat-ings applied to Nuclear Facilities
- 4) ANSI N5.12, Protective Coatings (Paints) for the Nuclear Industry.
Per the Final Safety Analysis Report, the coatings systems at Comanche Peak used inside containment which are quailified to t ANIS N101.2 will not create any solid debris due to radio-lytic and chemical decomposition at Design Base Accident (DBA) conditions. Coating systems must be durable to prevent the contribution of materials of significant size that would l cause clogging of the containment recirculation sumps screen l (1/8 inch mesh screen on sumps). l l l 1
z.a w : n. nw y%m=4mw: Arm yt?x ;u w w .s;r p 3 w a . ..,.. . .gn.gw y.;eg.y [, Pags z l 1 Thru discussion it was detennined that CPSES is consistant with the remainder of the nuclear industry with respect to design criteria. The industry and the NRC realize that it is not feasible nor practical to have 100% qualified coatings inside con-tainment. As a general rule unqualified costings are ident-ified and quantified on a case by case basis for impact on recirculation sumps. - Quantified amounts of unqualified coatings have been ident-ified by other A/E's in their Safety Analysis Report as specific square footage and discussing debris generated as insignificant. This amount has been detennined by Ebasco for Waterford #3 as approximately 14,000 square feet. The quantity.was re-quested by the site for engineering acceptance (i.e. an as . built case).- The NRC acknowledged this amount but did not -
~ accept or reject it. .
Engineering acceptance of quantities of unqualified coating . has been accepted by engineering judgement or analysis. Ebasco presented two documents NUREG-0897 Containment Emer-gency Sump Performance and Regulatory Guide 1.82, Sumps for Emergency Core Cooling and Containment Spray Systems. These are methods recognized by the NRC that could provide a basis for engineering analysis on quantities of unqualified coat- . ings. Calculations are complex and include many assumptions. From the general discussion it was evident the common prac-tice is to achieve as high.a quantity of qualified coatings ij-as possible. Acceptance of unqualified coatings is strictly i on a case by case basis only. Declassification of large - l amounts of areas to be coated is not accepted by A/E's or l utilities andif done, problems may arise with the NRC. l Large quantities of unqualified coatings could possibly l cause operational mr.intenance problems. 1 DISCUSSIONS - ATTACHMENT B 0F AGENDA Items i y SJH/,Jr, jf,lJ) Eliminate the requirement for coating code numbers (QPf's) l / for installed miscell?neous steel, supports and attach-l ments. Resolution - Item closed - Working agreement between craft l and QC.
/ $ 6f T r. M/ Inspections be performed or limit d to no closer than "anns length":
Resolution - Item closed - Criteria placed into inspection i procedures.
. .: mg.m. m m.am i =..; 9s.; o,ay .gc,g::F= ',9J,7 h Page.3
- 3) Primer and topcoat system which can be brushed applied. .
R H -h7A he.. /%c Resolution - Procedures are to be established to allow g ff the use of Carboline 191 primer. Oliver B. g g-Cannon & Son Inc. is to write the touch up gy/ and repair procedure. Procadr.c
/heerd 4(A) Eliminate destructive testing of all supports and mis- E7s , gefe/ q,4 g4f;f cellaneous steel: gg7gsor Resolution: Adhesion of supports and miscellaneous 6,il f steel has been suspended due to high rate ETA s[IG. . of confidence level.
See Resolution 4(B) for clarification on - primer thickness verification by Tooke Tests. , 4 k(B) Eliminate the requirement
. ness limitations on supports forequipment primer and andtopcoat thick-miscellaneous gh. .-
steel. _
, cyg.glfg ,
Resolution - T'hicknesses of primer and topcoat will re-quire verification of the inspection agency. - The present specified range of primer thick-ness will be broadened to dry film thickness . _from 2.0-6.0 mil average with spotchecks of
' 1.5-7.0 allowable on primer. Total syste:n
'will range from 6.0-13.0 average with spot-checks of 15.0 allowable. - . - - - - - - -
g4-- . 5) Eliminate the use of NCR's to denote unsat conditions: g Co d - Unsatisfactory coatings are noted by unsat re- ,
- 6) Utilize only one color in containment rather than the
- Nk established celor scheme:
ct s.J ep/* Resolution - DCA-18,330 issued to allow the use of " white" as an alternate color for any color specified. I
- 7) Utilize the same coating (topcoat) for concrete coatings,.
l [// embeded plates and base plates: l 2footel ffl5. Resolution - Topcoating primed steel with 1201 topcoat is Mc 4 acceptable. 0.B. Cannon Inc. is to write procedures for this activity. Due to possible
/4c g :r/W :, #5 /5- difficulties arising from the use of 1201 ovor Phenoline/C211 system a committee was esta-i _ blished consisting of Keith Falk. Tom Kelly l
and Mark Wells to establish the practicality l of mixing systems.
- 8) Obtain air supply drier tank to supplement current systems.
Resolution: Items are procured as required. l i I l
4_m~.mm ay emam m.x v.w u.a - ~. . , , . - , .
-.:a.~ m._~.y h Pag 2 4 th O
g gg 9) Remove QC acceptance stickers from supports to complete total paint system. R# 1) Delete the requirement for 28 day cure of grout prior g7A 8[l6!43 to coating: Resolution - Procedures'will be revised to reflect acceptability of coating grouted base plates or equipment, limited to 3 square feet of exposed grout, may be coated after a 48 hour cure. diog 11) Relax present visual inspection requirement of abandoned (f/ anchor bolts. s/9/sf Resolt. tion - DCA-13,388 Ray. 5 and DCA-17,475 Rev. 1
.. renders coatings on anchor bolts N.N.S..
- 12) ' Relax the requirement of weld areas from SSPC SP10 to R$ 0lnd sSPC-SPs. .
plIGl& 3 -
- Resolution: DCA will be written to allow surface pre-paration of weld areas to be performed with '.
. tools like, 3M clean-n-strip or flapper '
wheels, and obtain surface cleanliness equal to cleanliness of SSPC-SP6 surface. The are covered by this preparation will be 1 ,'-
. inch each side of the weld.
New Itams 1)' Delete 1 mil minimum profile requirement.
.ii .
Resolution: Procedures will be revised to delete the one mil minimum profile requirement for SSPC-SP-3 surface preparation. The degree of cleanli-ness wi'l be stated and an example for tools utilized will be given, however, the tools utilized will not be limited to the example.
- 2) CPPE and G & H is to establish exemption list of coatings and quantify unqualified coated surface.
Resolution of all items should be in a maximum time frame of two weeks.
/IM
~R.M. Kissinger/
Project Civil Engineer
~
RMK/CRH/MW/sgr cc: Attendees J.T. Merritt - Assistant Project General Manager J. Firtel - EBASCO - l
...._ - .e, ,.a....;.. ,
..,,...-..7. .c. ...-- ,
- 3. . . , .
- . . .V ,,
ATTENDEES
- 1. MikeMcBay-ManagerofEngineeiing(TUSI)
- 2. C.R. Hooton - Civil Supervisor (TUSI) , ,
- 3. R.M. Kissinger - Project Civil Engineer (TUSI) .
- 4. David H. Wade . Licensing '(TUSI) ,
- 5. Bob Dacko - t.icensing ('TUSI) . .
- 6. 0.B. Jones - Civil Engineer (TUSI) -
- 7. B.J. Murray Co'nstruction Manager (TUSI)
- 8. Mark Wells - Civil ngineering (B & R) -
- 9. Thomas Kelly - Corrision Engincer (EBASCO) '
- 10. Robert C. Ictti , Appl'ied Physics (EBASCO) ,
c
~
~
- 11. TomBrandt'-TUGC0QA(EBASCO) .
- 12. Jack Norris - Vice kresident (O' B. Cannon) .
- 13. Joesph Lipinsky - QA Director (0.B.. Cannon) -
- 14. Robert Roth - President (0.B. Cannon)
- 15. .D.C. Purdy - Advanced Tech. (G & H)
- 16. Keith Falk - Cherr.ical (G & H)
- 17. S.M. M'arano - Project Engineer (G & H) ,
- 18. M.A. Vivirito - Vice President' Power Engineering (G & H) l l
l i l i i I .. I i l
- - . , . . r... . .. - . . . . ~ . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . , - . . .;.
- ...........
- 3. , , .;n... _ . . . , .
h h i AGENDA 8-9-83 MEETING . PROTECTIVE C0ATING INSIDE REACTOR BUILDING
- 1) Design Philosophy .
, Percentage declassification (Non Q) inside containment
- 2) ' Industry Staridar,ds .
Regulatory Guide 1.54 . ANSI N.101.2 ' ANSI N 101.4 ' ANSI N 5.12
- 3) Coating Systems at Comanche Peak .
(See Attachment C) .
- 4) Specific Questions (See Attachment B) :
l ( l m.
, . , - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - - . -----a - - - - - - , - - - --, , , - - - - , -
aw= - =: a neu on,~c. .
., ,, ... m.=..a .- . m. 4 ..:...a
.. + w g ..e + . ..
_~.m. , :4,./. ~:.g.- ~ . ., p. . ~ y
.~
.. g e' _ _
'~
CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES CCP30 CCP30A Surface Preparation SSPC-SP10 SSPC-SP10 Primer Carbonzine 11 Dimetcote 6 (Carboline) (Ameron) Top Coat Phenoline 305 Phenoline 305 * (Carboline) (Carboline)
'. Specification 2323-AS-31 2323-AS-31 Primer Thickness 2-5 mil Avg. 2-5 mil Avg.
1.5 to 5.5 spotcheck 1.5 to 5.5 spot check Total System Thickness 7-11 mil Avg. .. 7-11 mil Avg. 11.5 max spot check 11.5 max spot check DBA Tested to Yes Yes - ANSI N101.2 ,, . l . . SSPC-SP10 Steel surface preparation to near white metal blast
. with minimum of 1 mil surface profile per manufac-turer. ,
Purpose . . Coating systams provided to facilitate the control of contamination as well as to protect surfaces from corrosiori. Design Criteria Per the FSAR, the coating systems used inside con-tainments which are qualified to ANSI N101.2 will not create any solid debris due to radiolytic and chemical decomposition at DBA Conditions. Coating
' systems must be durable to prevent the contribution of materials of significant size that would cause the clogging of the containment recirculation sumps screen (1/8 in.inesh screen on sumps).
ATTACHMENT A
2a m w.n w w y .w::a w.v.~ .c=v= rep := m .
. ; +.<...;.a: w w w
- ATTACHMENT B, h I The following listed items are requested by Painting Personnel in order to support Dec. '83 Fuel Load.
(1) Eliminate the requirement for coating code numbers (QP #'s) for installed miscellaneous steel, supports and attachments. Resolution: 'QP numbers are now only required for items not installed in the building. Installed items will be documented by location or permanent 1.D. numbers. (2) Inspections be perfonned or limited to no closer than " arms length". . Resolution: Quality Control Procedures have been revised to reflect this criteria. , (3) Primer and topcoat siystem which can be brush applied. Resolution: Present topcoat may, at the option of craft, be . brush applied. Various " touch up systems" are to, .
- .be reviewed by engineering. Suggestions are Car -,
boline 191 Primer or Carboline 305 Primer both with the existing Carboline 305 topcoat. These systems nave.DBA/LOCA Testing already perfont.ed.
. Procedures will be revised to include an alternate ..
touch up system. Engineering to resolve week -
. en' ding 8/13/83 ~- Procedure following w6ek 8/20/83. , ,.
---(4) ( A) Eliminat'e destructive' testing of all supports and miscellaneous . .
steel. Resolution: Adhesion testing for backfit purposes has been sus-pended due to high rate of acceptance. Tooke Testing is still being performed until a resolution of the requirement.for primer thickness is establish-ed. , I (B) Eliminate 'the requirement for primer & topcoat thickness limita-tions on supports equipment and miscellaneous steel. Resolution: Engineering is studing the feasibility of voiding this criteria. Presently testing is underway to ' broaden the thickness range of crimer up to 12 mil. l See CPFA-31,575. (5) Eliminate.the use of NCR's to denote unsat conditions: l Resolution: Conditions of coatings which are denoted as unsatis-factory and can be repaired per existing procedures, are repaired per those procedures without the genera-
.t. ion of an NCR.
(6) Utilize only one color in containment rather than establish color scheme: Resolution: DCA-18,330 issued to allow the use of " white" as an alternate color for any color specified. l i
. . - - - . _ _ . . - , , . , . - . ,. .. ,. 1 , :..., , , a . . . -- . . r. -
;;. e.2 ;+
.I (7)
Utilize the same coating (topcoat) for concrete coatings, embed-ded plates and base plates: There will be Resolution: Engineering is reviewing this request. no problem of topcoating primed steel with the top-coat utilized for concrete; however, the question
- arises of topcoating existing finish coated steel with the specified concrete topcoats and later repairs.
There would be a mixing of coating systems which would be very difficult to control during construction application and later operation maintenance. Engineer-ing to resolve week ending 8/13/83. (8) Obtain air supply drier tank to supplement current systems. Resolution: Items are being procured as required. (9) Ramove Q.C. acceptance stickers from supports to complete total ., pa' int system.
' Resolution: This it'em to be completed by 8/8/83.
',10) ' Delete the requirement of 28 day cure of grout and pour back ~ areas.
Resolution: For the most part this criteria may remain; however, engineering is presently looking at alternatives. Presently ab adoned Hilti holes, tie holes and spalled - concrete patched per CEI-20 has a cure time of 48 hrs. Grout under base plates may become included in this - criteria; however, pour backs and larger concrete areas probably will remain 28 days without the use of some product like Nutec 10 as a sealer. Engineering to re- - solve week ending 8/13/83. Relax the pesent, visual inspection requirement, of abandoned (11) anchor bolts. Resolution: See DCA-13.388 R. 5 and DCA-17,475 R. I rendering anchor bolt coatings N.N.S. - (12) Relax requirement of surface preparation for weld areas in contain-i ment from SSPC-SP10 to SSPC SP6. l Resolution: Engineering will review and resolve week ending 8/13/83. i
mp ..! AB H R B. CANNON & SON INC. OF FLORtOA 5600 WOODLAND AVENUE
~ -
enENO PAINT No COMPANY DIVISION OF x m pt m PHILADELPHIA. PA.19143 OttvER s. CANNON & SON. INC. Souin Nouston. Ts. 77ss7
%. 81M1406 7 21 9 729-4600 Phone 713-047 9670 OLIVER 8. CANNON & SON OF LOUISIANA. INC.
Saton Rouge. La. 70003 PAINTING SPECIAUSTS Phone: so4 3er-se01 INVOICE Texas Utilities Generating DATE 08-29-83 Post Office Bax 1002 Rpenh;,Y[,,.,), Glen Rose, Texas 76043 vous onDie NO. CPF 16245 SEPM 1983. c[E.'7E$ 93E[S Co INVOICE 8003 General Survey Ctmpleted 4tr8 ate
~
,8.C. JOB NO. H-8301 RE: pLggnEMIT To: N Unit 1 Oliver B. Cannon & son Inc. \ Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station p.o. eo, 7777.w7s4o , Glen Rose. Texas PHILADELPHIA. PA 19175 / j y- qp~bd' ff M M - A Ticket Ntrnber Amount 1 $ 755.10 / 2 3 290.00 f 1,106.09 4 1,447.48 5 901.41 6 2,710.64 !/ 7 823.73
% 8 1,424.36!j '
$'- N , N 9 1,534.61 //
N '10 2,188.56 / s 1r. 753 J7 N..'N \ $~12,935.15 N V
\\
.s x.
.$ 12,935.15
'g Q~ munT
. . . ,. . . - Bis'TETSEINV0 ICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
/ja f' \ ~
l TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY
-~ """ ?M'*isp3fts
~
- 9. 0 [/6.2V.6 otsc _
** cN#'/s?, 935 ($
oistaisurioN i gaea
, .. ACC7. aur l Eda /D. 935.15 E* f
t Q).'in Bef. .,,,g f. t,';.or9* Cra n..=_ N Vli , _ :
, pyg ,
yestDueAg C RIGlH AL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
OLIVER L.) '& ON INC. N m 8. CANNON & SON, INC. OF FLORIDA 5600 WOODLAND AVENUE BaENO PAiNTiwo COMPANY DIVISION OF Ft ases: PHILADELPHIA PA.19143 Ouvan 8. CANNON & SON. INC. simim7 215- 729-4600 south Houston. Tm 77ss7 l Phon. 713 047 9670 ' OLIVER B. CANNON & SON OF LOUISIANA,INC.
"~ "
, PURCHASING ~ SEP i r,1:03 PAINiiNo speciAusTs %' " . g*"'* 7
~ '
W . p .* ' IN[Qi[Eh i[f[- 4] OATE 8 0 83 ' Texas. Utilities Generating COmpi 3EP061983 vous otDE CPF 16255 Post Office 80x # 1002 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 g 3gygpg , . , , , , , j CPSES ConST. O!TICE INVOICE NO. f B-08001 / CAB.C. JO8 NO.
- i. . i .- N8301- RE: General Survey Completed to Date
- Unit 1
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station __ _. .
Clen Rose. Texas "3 C.HECKED BY PROCUREMENT y ggg
' MA GEMENT GROUP
~H
= Q}[,
f 100% Fixed Fee Due $63,000.00
/,? 923/ W M /~//2 -
t TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY - un ?*?"d'ym & ^ vof A2ys onsc vo- EE"*h u n l ","[cf " I ,[ y ' 27 ,
/;7sd 4GYMM '
', < AMOUNT DUE'THIS INVOICE.............. $63,000.00 l
fs ~'g ~, l
. . (hf ~
u vm v1 NOT
.. . ... o-o i :
, f ...
v>/ 'dgl /) d 1%e[. Servi 6e Ch rq%s win Be M R
\
-NN l
Past Dud AC489' bMyx ._ , u .-- 3 ' - e - - _ . _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . - _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ , _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
- - ._ .9,.
R
-V@ "%sy*AW H M). i.i@r;t er.4W!fW W. T* Q*M or',, v . y.-. :~ p r. "' ; yr .;
$f& f N.f h ! f%
- . m.au. m:.. y;g. w.~v m.,. gy.j.n y;n %n.p;,.:.w,;q
.>n
. m .;;ex. w m ..n.~..
~p7 :. 9. . ::. . ~ c.
. ,. , . - * .... .< , . .;-...w,
- . p. . ;
g x :v- . w (. s,..., .. e
.g,. o..e . .,.,y .
g -:.,3.,gg -
. . c . tw ..r .,.~*(;,. p ..n, 4.
.o
.g.:
.. ,.,..qc. ,e.r w c;
.s, .
.7 ; y g . g %. y y%
, y. g. f y. g,. .. . L y .yy y.> . .
v s ., ,,
, h - y4.qy m..
...%.,.e 2 :. M_. .:-;. 3.;&.*,$'+y 'y'e.. M, .
. . ,. F_ t, , . . . . . - -
m .:.
. ~ ., . ,. .. . .e. y,, y , - . g ac7 : ..i s .s...;,j y ,w.:..y- w..,3, 4 p,. g.r.,f,. . .q . p ,r.,,,. .3 z, . . .gs.:
. %..g.
m.,p~ . . ,gt.
. v ,,s.t . . c..g.l' .
- t. .. <,.., .. .c . .
~ypp.. ,,. < . . . .
.. : ,, .. .a.<,. .* . , w , *.- ;. n
. 4. ',.*$.g*, d:. ' e .nm . D> w.h..[r*7 9.
'.C .,. m. .. .L. %r. .. .u. .
^
. s. ~ y, .- .**... .,t. ,% %.: .' .- ai~. -?.s'.'. : -
. P. : * % ~. t
_4
*.. . . . w.:
.M?.s^y',, y*q g. ~v M5?r.%n . . ' ~., ' Q)w":s .u'.,,,e.,,
%. * :. ' ,. . . .. s <; .M . t . .D. c. ..
L..- 1. , .. :., s -
. .a.. ;' '.c..Q'q, V._. &.,. . u.2.,'
tk*.a yc4f.; . ~,::*~1 . s:* y-'rgf vc : .-
%. - - ^ *; - . *3 .
.g.b'j9 % ] (.$. .::. ,QTyfQ
- u. ; ,- a. 5.,.a.J., f .m~ 4 , ,v ..m.a . ,. M. .x,gyy n.m as . ., , -
_. r.. .
.- .m.. t , -
m- .m.. . v.g. , m,e. . .e.<,. .;w , s .
- t . .~ c o
.: , .v. . :7, (its . W). .,
. q e -. .
.,.,;.~ -. a.s . - - ".- : . w . ;. ~ yx. _. g . q..~q ,:.; ~ q;a. , ,., y m s,.:L.v.a,, . % %n. ..: .. :. .; :.r.7:
..r. .
..g
_ nn.,. ;.p..~.:n+ :w~ w. , s; 4 a,p. -
,. e~.?.
..a'......
. -: : . . . . r,s,,t .%..,
..s s
,9 ..
v .-s .. .c . , c .
; ,..:. u ,, ,s,. @.
y.1-- . .-- c, . ..,.;.. pmd,' n: 7 . g pr,g -
.. .~,;..
...A
.q.. 7; -~ eow ' .1 .s,. . . - .
t, ..n a
, j ;. .
a v..y* y?.k, :L$.( .m,w,3 E. ;;5 ?.Q.&. ' ',fl.. ,W.'
' ' Y ]0 *:.Q.&' hh [:'
L .m ; . ', ' - lw. .g . '..', .,'r..s,. .. ,*. a:. -*{ .i, yrf. fe .?y l * . , FROM THE DESK OF *t i . .
,.4._. . ,f, . . .-..e,,
,o r 3.ls, f, - r .cI._ ) w. .n:o;14.'.' ; ,.
. - r;. c . * '
ROBERT B. ROTH *:M'&.v?: m .
, . . i. :! ~.- . -- ~;.*..; p ?,w.,.. 4.q.- p., g,.q.b ?2 -
a.m .;: 3
.s >t ;.-%r.w.y/. t. '. .
. e-y,a;x*,u .g. . .
.~. :.,c. . ,. c.o c.. . y-1.f. .g.g.q
. e,
> . ... r
- .;3, , g,; 9,.<~.v. . . ,;.g,,.;
,.y. .
- p. 7.
.. . s. s . . ,
5 ..
.c .
.. ; . ..p.:.s , .. . ; w ..:..... ,,< . . -
- m. I L;e:. .- . ,v. ,. 4a . ,-. .. -
.>s s s. . ,.. ;. ,,:; .
~ ..
A,,,v,
. , - y 9 .y .. .
,c.-
. . , . .c . . . ; r.. %.
<......,....r.... ,.r.,
..e. .w.. . .. w . . ..
.- ~ ~, s ,M. .,y.:- 5, .
&'Q
*- .e.
=',.: W..,- : :
~ b: m, %% .::,. ,n.].h .. .
Qi 0 a^'
.m,.g.-
. ',?
,. W ;
..y.~'y.a.m:.,;.:y:?:.'.3.^y. . .
. : . . . , . . . . . a- y . . ~ , . *; y ~ ,<.. . y.s . ..
;,* '.; - 4,1 J','. . *. .p:J'6.;G?, ,. n . */ y .' p
. s p t,.h, !", , ..,.p") ' K.4 ,y g5
, :? : r 7, ,. , g; F .%,3 qi. g4 auv ". .
o ? M.#. : 1.?y.y 3.%-][t./.]'73%,{fld.z.lsy[
.- V Muv$eed// N Y N iSl'i-[ -
. . am.A, Tw y . ::w
..:,, y; ,mx.:. D:.. ..s. ..n ..wwc.~ q %;?;. w s . t;* *'"** k <m,e .
.s.- . ..c. aa u,w r.,. .. ..
. .c. =
+.: u . ::. , u .: . . s. . : .
);.'::y. sca u~ed, l ' ." :e,
. ,. : :- - i .
.-., . ; a, . j: . . n . ., o -
r- y,n.p - - .
. n. :. *-.;! :. . : . ~ ,
" - . , ..u . . ,.
. .t p-
. 1- .
. . ' . ?;f ,"
g ,n,ca.J. , h ~ y, A" j [ ' ?f
. . c. , - ,
.- v ,.. a w. .. .: ., . .
.t ..
v.~, ,
,t/ . lC - - , n , -
eg - . ',:f. W. o , .. O, . ,.
- ); ,.:, ;.. kh b* "
~ '.
lawi + g% .
**'d d
' ~-
...m.
"3
- j. ;:. . . r: . ,. * .:\MO ' s 7n ys, dt awML yQ
'** *"~ .-
.h w%
..<..... . .,;w. _. A .; ,; ..
.s...~e..
C' . M, ww,,e- . . ... .~ .
< .:. .e. . . -
co y: . ,Q: l.,'g. 15
,s<
,c e, . . .s /. e;.,.,
._i.
'"P - -
c.p .f.9
,1
. n.
, , , . - . ,.,t-
- . . ,. .., - ... ; * ;t ,. .
9
. . .. I
,..k.'.'., fi . : . .,v. . < . , . .
~
.. .. .. .. .. ., . , _
- o,,,
...,.,..--v3;--r,--.:-r...j..,..-.----.---- .,.w..
, ..,-...v.
.. .. r. .. . .i ? */ . ,. . * *.
..,.. -;. . .~
.. .~- .. . -
,p. _,., ' . ; .:
; n o ~ , ..,; .,;y . -f .., . .
. ,;... g .3z . g . ,;..j g '.::j.s ..,. ,c.:.'.1,1 .
S.
.- .- " f. . y . d .g, . j.
. . s :, ..- - u, . u. c. ,.,. , :. 7. .. 5
- r. . ~e .
m..,.... .u.c. ..:.
~:.,
....9,.. u .. w .o ....., u -,.,..
.m.a. c..v ,v.
. . . u
....>. . m. . - .....,.'t.,t,,.,..,yn e - . . ....,
.. .i . ., ,t-
.. s .. . . .
. ,. . ,, -, - c' . .* [ , . : '. . . ( . ) .. .
..' . ~ . - e .a
,.,. . 7. . ,,
f
,,,r., .e' .. . .,. & .. . .t c4. . f; .. , %)- ,. 3 .- %, * .i +
y ,*;,g g ,i s, c,,. .9,* .
, 2 i .. 'l
; , '; e .. ,,.
, . ,- .. . .: . .Tc*....3% ., ,
. ~ . .. .. .., - + , .
M.:n %.'. . . W, Q ;.*l.*.,,.. ' * , . , . ..i ..'.., ; Y;'
- y '. , l.a*; f.'.,.
^ , ,;r '
. j.',' ,' ' ' Y . .::].' ;~ .' - .
. e
- C ':
.i:
. ,/. o ;,. e. ,.e..m. . a., ..,,'%.
s s'
- *i
- o e ' . ,. e.t
. . * , g .. e,
~
*., ~
..*x;, ,*'?
+
,.t. ).~ .s . s' - 4 ,e ,. .- ,4 og y ..,<d ., * * '- ".,.'g.'."-
. -. ,.. , . ,-..s,
'...p..,
if
,:*.n;,....'.*.... - .,,gb.,*.,.
.o
.. , *3 ...i;. . ", e. .,, M,s e*. s... . .s z. . <
,y.
- e. . '- . . .- .c.. . , .s *-.a. *. -
. . . s
's. 4! ..
. *l , 4*
. - 1 ", ~*
b.Y ,e
; j :* M'. . . . . .-
. ._ } . . .' * ~, , ,, . ;
. ,
- s.
,' .,. !. . . . - . i i, t.,
/,
1.q . ,, ., .g
. . ,+ . W. .
.?
.s o. ~ *.f **. -,
s s . . e t. . e a
% S -
, .' - g
. . .e
* .g
. e
... e 8 1 . . 8 i e g. 9 .
* . ,
- r .
- 9 . .I 9 .*.,g
'f. , '. ' y . .,,
g
. . .\. .
. :h o.o,* -.. *'
s 9 ., , , ' . e 8
...N(,y,p.. ,,. ., - *g g
. . , . .g ': :
,H e
* ~: . . .s . ;"f ; .
6,~.s...., m?. ." "~ ns.mt m +.mer as. en ,-w.mm ' . . .a a.- e s a _. .
. u. . t+ a
.w
_~ .. ,..;., . ,. .s .. o . -
.- <. 4 ; . ~_ a.u.. .i a _
2 7..__.,,,7. c..-
.v. we + *,.M,m.ng. -. 3~c c g. . . , .
y -. . . _ og
. %9., g.'9, 9, *c. y%.... m e;+. :.e.
g.% ,m. P...-,.f>.u,o,.j....,,,m, .....#~...,V.,.. - . 4. ,s. s g g, h?!bh?i% (hh %+ Nb%glh. -l~* i .'.1T Qg,E-
. .7
. , , r. ..sy- .. . . . . .
k' y. . .,n.'.,y.Q, a:...t:<fAr%>.,, m.
;N *Q ' :' .
sf,,'Ws f Mve s .eysy.jg?u
. 6 4
Y .a
.Q... , '. .. '.'~' b, aL.&. .s. .
yyn: %... g.[n .O s .lG;*? i . *:0,3 +- - u 6 g
- 7 A;R: g t,a ,.. M.
aw.l.
.W. [. .R.;. .K8 a? ; ;* ,;' s t. .w
. s a ; . . ,'a:..f. . < ....s..,. ,
. *. . @ *n ,,c J. M.: Q - 96. ;y . e et. n.; ,. Q, p.~ *.,.Q
.* e.T. d f; .a
. .. :.y Lug- ..w* -:.S.'A
.p W-.~ - . ' fc,"l gp,,*.(,j
~~. , t,%
.iP. e- m. e. w. e
.N'.' ',*. .Q-
. s, :;* ".+.o.. ... s. _qc ?;. . .*-
'3 ' >,h ' .
t.
; *4 .c ' fp,(
u .e c # , ,4 . - a-;'. ~, s% .q' s..* : g g., 4 y.ng&.- e* .*T~G. ., .f,,5. ~;,*' w. , .h ..*T'c. eQ,s
- 1. * ,
- c. s.. r
.. m
*.s.t.*"
n,. .
*e ~
' h . ': T y .-3. . ~. ;. =
....;...',.,f.*.,,,. s >.:;.;, .,.. c. 'g., . u
. a ,. ', . .s y ;3.e. q* . '. q:q .*s.
- c. ,.
s
- c . -,.,_.c ,
_.s o . . ,. s e .
, . .a-b...:. .m * ..., .-
.n. . ,.17 7 s . ,, . y .
*f ,
;~* .' .. g L./ . , . ,
e>,.# > ..q .
. . - .. s
~ns :,
- f. ,
,..m" s*n--.u,. 4 g g. . . . . . .J,.' *,.j. ?.g-auQ;. . ;, . 1 ..e.J
. ,n.,.m.
v v .a .,.w . . .
...,..,,.m..,..
..~w . .... n. .
,~...
l
...t. . . 4 ,,:.
- q. ..:
.. ...n.~. .. u.. g c. ,
. w
.. . _ m. .
e
. c. . . : r, . . . . ;>,~.,..>.- . .
2 .' , .
% n or h:.<w,4e.
..y.,..:.,..m.i. 9 e j J. c., .4.% ,
p -g g g $
- f. ,, v . p
,,. .:.e.g i; . .~ . ;--;. - Rossa7 g. GOTH I o Oa . ;yn
' %. g
~.cs y .. .
. (
.< ,MM. %.-2 2, . '
h'$ggf?f,, 1 3, t.q..>...
.I. .. g .; > p . . g. r.' ... '
- s. y 4.
2,'. q ' *.
.3 . , m
. .- 2, 4 . . . . , .
.. ; ~ *
' :5
- 4. .
* . e ,t i.,e' -..Q t . p . .*
* =y,1 * ,., v. $ d .. 'l , &. .*. ;#
}
e .' p. e' , I?b 'fh'
..l~ , , &,. . A*. - ,h.. W. R.., %,,vS .e...?a,,.{~.,
- .s ,. ,<:.s .4: ~c /v.. . .Y.$.h,*f / .N Y. '
*l
.*V y #.,f N;#-IL- . **
0
. & Nkm/
h~h..,5 ....
'.*., % , % .N* .
;[.h$$l*l
.& )NMW Y
,a.:.
Y 'lhs'.' ' k.. , . M j f',ene M. n ;.. . . . .m e dW. 4a
~ t
-y
.2.3, 2 a?K
, ' ~
) .y e
' gis am s, m.
(~.;. c.;. ~m .. 9.w
. -e .* .
Mlh.{ m..c,3 ., n,, m ..: a,
. 3..
* . i c .;r- .
L r- . ,. , . . b ./ Y
- r' e
'k ,
.h. ,,l M
. . . e V h !
44 a= ~ A w d. a.
,.g.
- w. ' Eyp. . 7 n
g z.I.
. , g4 d b ,
l .
-. .. . . . :. . O"'Z k" b .- . ,. ..
".- ).
. . . e aga,, ^
w.] **
- a. . a .
-.. ~
h$
. . . ., + ?#
i
* " * { "
'dY l* 1. t v.x. .. .
1
*$ '1 *:
w$ '
. .. m.'.
*.,..,.T** . ". ' ...p
. o..,
.5 + .Y. .h
, .% *. f *.%
, % *N et * *, s,. L sLu a
's,. , /.
. .m.
m,., r ;1 k .. + t. /** a.
- d.,/
v*
,s, f
?
sr- ., -* s* ., J *
~,.'e..
.z.. /, ll.
.A
?. e}r a
e
*g g
5 . ?4 . . . .*4 +.y? * "V, r,,.* *c,t.' ;7 3..5 4.8.~. .* .- .
,*
- r. , e .
...s.. r .*-u.
q* ,e . .t. .. t.!e.
~w. M4:~+ -
.3. *3f
.,. .* . ' W
,,..,.,.q..
i
. , * * ' s.
., w...e*..,.
..x/***:[*.D,.-,d.8: .;t .
- ., g- . . . . rs .."
. r ., n,
. : y,* y .' . . y, ,. ' . , , . .. g. . . .," ..
A. . , . e- j**e .s.f
. v. . '., : .; - s.s: . .,,' .*. ,* .*.S. . y ., f
.a
*- . . ,. - , f o
* , .e. . .,.w :,
6,-n
.c
'% ';- f5; A '
~
. . . ,. ... . v, ,. 3,",' ,
- r. N.. ,7t A ,,t.d. 4. .,.
.1
- e.*f.
M. .,:p> .,'. * ... a ,m ~. .y
. .r. . **
1,,A ...-...'a..f..h
- n . *a r,e%, , % *P*:'
- ev .h * . , e. ' V .** *: L . . Z . *.~ . * * ,
e , s.,,
,*m m* ; ,.
q . *-!j
,- g.* , i 3, t7.f.* .;.i. ...
.
- s*
q* . 6 E . ,8 '+,. . 3 ,f .
...4*
'% I.,' ,o .y
,,.,9
,- '.g..-
')g' ,*s, , :..
. . . . . .., . cw. u.*..,
+t*9.
; , . %. . . . :.. * .. 5 a. -.
..*
- a .:* *.l- * *
.s.-
e,
&f_
f.,. E
,, . . .,,f*
.;'e.-.8.( .s .* .j .... gs
-s.
,.,j.-(,
i
.s<,e * -
,.s.
==7
,a,
~
7 - -
. ,r
-. W
. ; * ~.r.,%.
e g o w
, ,. .' .. r- ,,.-
A . . - * .
.,...., s-8* , . ,, i
..'.v. ..,'
G
, e , T.
,s .
.* ; s .
. . ,e .' ... a. *
.s
..s, p; .- , . , . . . r. .s
, , . v, . , , ' * ; . ,' .,;. .'~.;..,., * .,. .., - . ,,. ,,,
i - t-
. s
-c ;* .
i
,. .e * ; e. * ,
s *
. . t
. * ~ . ,' w . . ; ., -
a 1 ,. s- . .. ..- e .
*e..3,~ . 'y . . .
n . ,..s.. g.t.9 .... .. ' 7, y',-. ..,,.:<. p' .*.wi- .
*e**.*
./. n.e~.
.r.'*O q 1
. . e . . . . n *
,.,v.',*
.,.. ...(. ., . ,?.:v. ;o
., T,e ,
,e. er
.* .'t .*
. . .. .p . t s . .. *,. :
-.4 . . . . , , " . *. . ., .. . , , .u...%j. ...p. I, , 4,;; J 73c,
%a .. ' =- :tw* a%, (. .' ".,3* i
'.t':.. . y.- ' t.r,N ;Q.). Q.-p's. , .y. o1 / {* ,ci% . -e
, c-- s ..$...
.r,* ' .,.~}. . ~
.,w' .. .
. - . . . - . . . . . - .. ... - . . . .. - . - - -. . .n.
$. n.$. .M 7 :.;g,,. m.. .a,>.,m.; .M
.DN -
NN.5 ;.N}. N:pgg, A yc;e.g'.N.4.M@pD'O3@$.MbNd. N . W :; d7'. N kegw /: 1 hk.MN#N@.N: q .,:
.v-M.,. _c.S r o e6. 4wir.m u..m : . .6 a ,
m.. c. r. .e ,wy a f ,.;;l' W : p. . -V. 34 :.+ , ,:'.s 4 d ...-_ . = W :: . 7 . .w.a . . . ;r 3 is .;.4';pr?:::.~,":: .,.e. .g:.:s.J. rr,: : . -p 3,7;.y. . t.- . . . l.".- *. ?%. y . s .:. ;,K. W.Wy? .,.' :.;.? : Qi. pg.&. 5. _~ .::" ., . :.5.
,v .,s :'.a%y,c, . .r m.q. .y
. * * , . .a, .v..,,
,. . .. . . a v gs .
j.. w,. ....,_,, -. .e., . p , . . 3 :. . .... . . .n.v., .;w.~ ,..j,.~,u.,
=
. ... . . ?, .u,,f. T*; .Qb.t% .".':: ? . %.i.; ' .Q,. u.3./
, .u. . ..;
.<g.. ,. s, c.%.s.
.2 : ..
m
. a
. . ' . , , . . . . -. ...-. ;.fg 7, , . . .- ..
..s ..p.. s s
<r.,;.' ,. .
. , . t,...
. . .w . . v . . ..
. .. .m. . , s. ...n
. .- .n.
. . ; n q s. ,. . .,. % .r.:.e, a n.c- c . u rw. .: . . . . .
. , n
~ :.v.:,x..c r.c..a..
~ .r;;r
- f. .s .h. :hs :, . . e. .+; ;.,e
~ '
a., *
.. '. . '- ; , m %.l.s ..-a . :. .:
.:. .:;. .q, -~.x: m. ,. ... . .a,, w , .. * ; *v ,. . -A..,.t. .ss .h;%; . ~ . '., 'Q ; . q. J. . , . a .,u. . .. Xp .
.~;.~.a.e.- . ... .w? .g........n..v..
. : ...n... .. n.n.,.. 'b .. . . ...
.n
..- ..-+#9...
5Q. s r' .n.d Q. . , *.-i..,' -j._ ,tw' . c ' ....a4u ...2..., .a . }
.. . g ;. . .
' f, .:e_W *
. g .., . ~ ,.i ,; m.. . ,y .
e.+5. y ...Q'. ..Q.- - .....; ...,.'>:%.s *%y.;"i';..
. . ..f,.g: %.Q.y'g:;a..-ig G,. ,,. @ v Qe..TQ;;;g..._- .,YR,
.. 4 ..
,y.j, . . . . . , . . . , .
s }.f 9
._.3.....
i W. ^ .h,,. . . .,. C. 7 ,; [ d .h*# ,* S '.N """Y m? (
=*."d. -@ p. - T. ; .; M ..% $ ; W,.%,,Q*:! MtW, -
' * *f .[f .w", ,.'; !-yd {. 7- '.f Erff *Kitc>
/ . ^ .
. . ..d " 8' .'
. $REDAYibAli. 0f05h%f*l Ad/&f}/ff. *
* 'D'odOlTo M:1.acMo n. so:u*u n soon.; w,,emi xdmg,; ' ,,,y ,, ,, _.Q ,,, .
keta Mr nik aw- wa mn tu'r soJiiri our x .m;,- asa;. com a. , ,,m i; M mcNe toco+ da si snr /do am enicut mm m,, -, w iden st ,n naimonum kkrlNdn,u tmo. : mtv ofpmon an..on nyny w og g. wu. .g ., 7 @Md elDou M.tswis.n take_ - en rk,o rio4 A puo) m.ma ,., .m,,,,,, gm .,,. , m .g a nl A jueur nunce re we.W rm, .a tw.s h u s,. sci ,, a sin ' :,, u, m .,a w a w WEKf * '1*L 04 '3% l'Nostr Annorm.xa neu.a im) co&& gar aer 4, y enge, asg,s ,,, N 2 AIL h at'f* E **t~ Ptv. '>. LE'4J4 osurk.pss .np47 >Mg}gis.s jg 3gy ypg ,yygg ,,,,
,,.a, .y. g W.iMu nt: siffra nob 2rmr -n cou,w .ru,,r me rua um, ya a ,,,g ,,,,,
Moo os m ok ;re- sosaeu'rimlonic/bssew,ar . m.%miu. Jia,nn w rw w.i-ts an Asp, n:r nufIssess av Armnunosc l'abr a an %.u,n w&nk.m m ,xn'.sua'cranx n arp m w g
.T ves.2 2,sr.4 s. hossriursm) au. istaient rwr spur '
e,w m it aI m.acn- w n m ~ a / u w, s n =1 s o r m or. u a> . . -
~ ,
. ,s. - .
.r........
.g. . . , . *
. . - .+ .
.s
.~.-c .
_. _ . _ , . _t _ . . . - s. , - . .!
- ' , . .:- , - . ~rs
.: . . . . *i...,. : . . t. ,
-- M - . y .s.- 4 s., 7 g- .
.*
- j... ,,
.cc -
,; n ,. , .
- ,. , . . - ,;.'. ,v. . . , . . > :p - ,
. +
5- *
, ~....~.. .
. m- . *. .
. = . . . . -
..e., = .t n -~ .4
.s.
. ~ . . .
.~ ; ' .--; . . ..' *.- . ..... %a
- '.en ; .q .,
. *;.*.,3.* 9 : 1.%' 7, *, .~ *' ..~..s * . ./ .';
. . ,, -. .; . 5 . ; ' .-- ,,5,.-. ,. 4 .
- . . r .
. . ,j., : - *p...s .,;.*
, . . ,e
.g,. . e.,:
,, f p, .
, t. 4 - - <- , .. . *3 . ,;. . , .
. . , . ;w.
*s.., .. ~ "
*.,7,.,...,... o*,<, :.6 , , . va , -
......;..y.
.. , s. .
.o ,
- u. e .,
. . p;;.',f...s- ..: ..-
, y.- . , . . . . .
. s .,.- .
y . " v . .sm , . ? c - . ,, ,s * .+ ' - - .. .*
.. * , , . .' *. .:s
~ , * ..r,.,
,' . . ~ :.
. .' ,,.gg,..s...,.(;.-
.w :
s ;r gL*,, .
.. e** , , ~ ,
~
w* *.. , n;e J. . _. . ;.' ;; .y.;. ;, y;j .l y:; .: q, ;g. ,. .g.,'; .,;.< ,",(m
... ;. M:
'y ;..g - c a,c' .. lc ,,,. ; .,..,* .. , ,* . '. .'. .[. L.
- l,?: . .
;. . ,_ e., ..%.,
m . :. ~ 5 -: y . ; .. .
- .:y. v. . ; .. . , . _. . L. . : . .~; . : . ' <._. _ . , ,. ,. . ' <*;, y . -
r . , .. .g ..,a,. ;. 7. r : ; *. ~
. ... , . ,., e . _ . ......,.:... 3. . ;.;.3. . j, ; { y. 6.g
._ , . .. .a r
. . . .. s e . . .. s - . ,./ .
..... ...s.. . . - ...m.,.-. .. .. .
,".,'. h . ' . . '. a ' L.Q.. lys%'.,'$,
. , s..t . , V: ;: M
'.l h'n,~O. c.,',.. is;'; *::': . ' *y.:.p:y
, .v .Ti ?. ; .'.- l..p;*:. 2.;;'.'. ...n<. . ' . . .,:.. >..Q.l'.- . '.'.,' : ,:..:
l . p,...?' . ns 3 4.
. u. . ..~.G l
..u.
, s. .t,,. .,. . ' -
. .. < 1 -.
r..
.o L...',.,..j,~p.. u., ,' ~.;i H. .. ; f~ ; .*,s: . : * ~
f'w..n ?..,...,. ~., . . . :in y. ..y l . . ;;.:.: n. . . .s.,,, . . . : . '. u,.j. ,. . r. .:n.
. r -
sv - ,
..p
.n. .,.-..; i 'c:,. ..w.. y .
' , '.. H.*. ..*
- t. T e.1.s" .- ,'.' .s
. . . , . co z.! .
.s <. *i,.P:s?,g.n..
.s. .( * . . . .r;*gl
* - 3. .; .*;;.; . . ', J .v., ; . ,. * ,; * *;.t,.a ; : <*.,,y ].W: . , c,,= . . .s.y *. ;; i .:' r .- *:.*
, . ;; .,,<.,;,~...,*".
.s .r
. u6.q.s. e .s<.r'. ..*. ,5 .'<.. ; . ,.. : . s .g ..*: ;; * , ,
..:.* .r- ..,
.x:
- a. .;>. . . ~ . - -w' .v: . .. .
. %. . ..: v. .> .
- s . :,
'.; ,e .,: ,. . -? :
.r
. , , . ,.. ,. , ~ . . . ' .M;
. 2 r;
;% !.i ='$.;?.. c
. .{,L::f; .:....,.,,.; b .. . . . . . - . .
~r :: : . ...: ,.,,,r.
,iy. *.: W
.. i.. T. '.',.'.:
., ?;.'j,*.: ",. . <. :.m,;.)
;... ,. ?.e . ' V ,- ~ . .,
.s . ~
-l?*i
. . . ., f, <. ,. .-r g
.... .- t ..,x..am*
. ,,,.-s.
O:.
. . cp l y, ,,. . .
- .. .* . *r .%
- n. ,, ...
a'9.
. , u ..eq , n . :, .r., O.
, , , , t.w. ..* : . t. . .. , s, ..,g . . ,.
e v . %.., cr,
- .w n ...3,.,.,.y. .W..m.n : ... ,,., ,.;
< ,,. .. ,..e..,..*
- e. ..*..s. ..,...a..
, . . 2
* . . . . t... , .
..,.,.,.t.. ..". . . . . . C . .r. .*. . . . ',
.y. .. . . s. .
.....v
.,.'*...q..,...... s.
.n+ r u.,1;. . . .. .. . * . . . . .-1.....:.
1
. ,9. . ..-..c,. i ;.-r~.J m,s .,ueh. s.,?u.r ,. . v z, . .s..~ . t. . *; y. ...g~+t ..
. ..~ ;, r., ..s
.c n ... ..v. ..- ..... . . ,.. . ,. . . q. :;., .., ..;'. *,. >; ) 6 s . 'q ...v.,,a.v....
. ?
.% t : ~1..e,.
..,.e. .. .r e.nt;.. .
. > . . . . .r
.,. *> . t.,,J, .,..-: .
, . - = . . , , . * - r, :
$l .,! .O..
I ,r -:.T - Y, .
;;.h Is .**J' .e * M a-<.*,,..'.;.~,3,
,;4y .[: }V , 4,r j .. .
- 8.
- I *
. g pf .l,. .*;...
M, N.. .QN' ,r.!,5.*.y.,.b.M. p):h; .'.! .y $,.I* 1.. 4l. y. ' . b. .~.^. *. . .[? Y, ;-[,* p 3 .. ,.* ; ;-:s,%.,'.;*'.4.lo .. . , ns r . , htl,7l.y..*. .: :
- 2 + '.. .s. n .. ' "'. . ., i :.: *,...*.:. ' i ,.,1:;;y .. . .Y Q. .~. *T~
,K' ;
%cy,- .... .;r! O
- M .... : :. >
W..r<,.:,2 .Rp,L'..H v'0 2 9,g:n,: n,,,.{ Q.u . S s< :.. .s
* '}b: ,'f+ .;N. .;@. .:::% g:p;:i;;;g.W: .c.~
W l.l?,
, :T'M :. .h<p. ;P,+]q.s . u. v .u. ay%. . ~ .. :, . , . . .: :-) :*: *',;y .. v . &. 3.
,.'.,,.%.Y ;
.,. . +s. .. ?.r. ..w~n. r,..,. W. v<:<. * '..,. .. .". '.e
... .><s. .
. . .w.
. . . .: >: .:.,r. .- *. :.:.. < > > . . . ;'. .:. ~_..-'.'.*'y....,.,
. 'a.n~,s'. '.4.: t.; .. '
u.* . ..
,.,v...
- . <. ;2': '> s .:/:s. . e"e. .y^ .- ';":n.
. .,.. ..a .
. .t . . . ,o.
. , ..,, :. , . .,.v .. ... ;.. ... G. ;<..,w .r.. p.:.u.,.
.. .. .. .....m...
- n. n. - ,
. s *~ ' .
,l c ..:j. ..:s.g . , . *k. . ..,;.!. v? &.m . ,.u.ll,
';9'. ..,:. ... ..;, .; *:*
. .. .:H. . ., .w. s .: . . . o . .. s !. f.' ;,%
H.,. .,.. ;r-,c~.. r*;,. vm:*; ; i .:,:'g,.
?
% . ,.l., .ev :.. . . . . . . A,.j,. G.,. r* ,, * . . .
. %.n'. s
. t y. y raa... q... . . o,, . . . ;o f :. ,.g ' y :, . . . . * . c u, $ c. .t.*?.:--
..?..
;:~:; g. -~ . .;.. ;.v. ... rT .;;, ~. . sc..,. . - . .
. . . , .r: . . .
a .,.t: g,. , . f.ec,. .
.,,. L.., * 'e G .
':9 ' .. ;.k*:l'Q . h.,..
- l
'i.1, *.5 , T.':' .'G:s.. - . .
- .3 .:,.. ..- ',r.Q., . 5 C, .d?:.
, ~..
- e. .M. . ;.',.;<.'r:sC.
. : .... . - T. ;. . , .
.a 4. 7*. ,.**w, :./. '. t . .
.. . . . .'.i .'.. .;:.i
- +* k O
. .,.. . :. s - .-
~
.?*+ y .
r .,.
- ..~.e.....
{ .. .,,s: te;.;y, r.6 . .;_ s, ..
. m , 1l, .
. ;:.x ,
~....'.r.y
- u. .s. ,
.w ,
y . . . u
..i_ - -
. . . . .s ..n ,
.nt_-
.s
~ ... .. . . .
-9 ' '.
,? . ,. . , ,. *;.. ;n...
h.-.t,. .... ". ...
- 4 . .
. *" , , , . . ~,
* . r...
;g. , . g
.Vr..
. . . . . ..v. ,. ,
~
' pj '
a- s
* -. p *e
, * :. ' , /.
',...*,..e
, 4 - ** . **.,,...,.3, ~,, , . . . ...,. .y*,..'
. . . . ; w.
.*. e . .s b. ; . * . . . .
'. . , .. . ,f: n .p,
; , . ' ~ ~ m. , (* "$ I rf ' . ,* = ,'*S
*'4..
. . . .'. O.:.*t *
#*.r A s . * . .:
. *,. .! . g
. ; 't' ' .' M .3. "? ['.e 4* . . p;. r.t.....;; *; '
,***f, , . @
c...'
. *. ,.e . \ v.s W. i. p.. .1.
['%. .. . . d. *:, M,. m - .." e
.o..
- s. 4.. g+ .- /
,: a. :.~ . .: .. : o .
. - i. * . . .
. s -.e. ~,t'.,, s
- 3. . p:s.@,.:: ' n ; ,,. ..- ' . . . . .*. i ;; ,. . ,. c..::
.' is,; ~;.,. . ls: .,*:;4.: ' . . . .:n . ,,g .i ..,.:., p g..~.
..,. .;c..1.,m;._.;y.x '*
;,:.c.:. x ..y, 2s . .. ._ 1..;# .
.;A. .
.*., ., z. , ;.
~. . . .
- : s..
.w,%. p. ..
. . .. ..y; gy: .
3.s w. - . u e m :, u _ , m . u u , - .. wa.w..= w .a m .w w w _ w a a n.n
,I' *
[' ' PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL . - . -
, p. , H TEXAS UTILrrIES SERVICES INC.
P. O. BOX 1002
- CLEN ROSE. TEXA5 'le043 October 28, 1983 Mr. Robert B. Roth -
President Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc. 5600 Woodland Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19143
Dear Bob:
As you and I discussed Friday, attached is a list of detailed questions to clarify the J. J. Lipinsky report. We need to get Joe to sit down and answer these questions in as Jnuch detail as possible so we understand the basis for Joe's statements in his report. I need Joe's answers telecopied as well as a hard copy by overnight Express Mail sent on Monday afternoon. , I will call you Monday morning. Your help in.this is certainly appreciated. . ncerel , j l q H0 T. Me itt, J' l st. Pr ject Ga eral Manager l l l 1 l l I JTM: pew Attachment cc: D. N. Chapman S I */
.. _ l - $l ['
a w.uu.m.-x w
- x = a'::m m m= a-w ~ "M " ' = ~=""" y
- +
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMORANDUM
~
J. T. Merritt ,r- October 27, 1983 T. O. B. Cannon Trip Report OBC Job Nr. H8301 g, After reviewing the subject report, I have detailed below a list of questions which must be answered by O. B. Cannon. It is imperative that we evaluate fully all of the issues raised in the report. In order to do so we must have all of the facts upon which these serious
- charges were based. Please provide me with answers to the following questions by 5
- 00 p.m. C.D.T. October 28, 1983. Please feel free to i transmit your response to us by telecopy.
The questions we have are as follows (the references in parentheses 4 following each question are to Trip Report OBC Job No. H8301): (1) Did Mr. Lipinsky meet with any individuals other than those listed in the Trip Report? If so, provide their names and the sua and substance of the discussions with them. (Page 1.) (2) Provide a detailed explanation and the specific technical bases for the, preliminary assessment by Mr. Lipinsky that Comanche Peak may have problems in the areas of: (a) material storage, , (b) workmanship (quality of work and painter qualifiation and indoctrination), (c) compliance with ANSI requirementsr (d) "possibly" coating integrity.
- (e) possible document deficiencies, (f) morale problems. (Page 1; Page 2, paragraph B.)
(3) Did Mr. Lipinsky take Mr. Tolson's reply quoted on page one of the Trip Report as indicating that he (Tolson) was not , > concerned with quality, or not concerned with production? (Page 1.). (4) How does the discussion relating to the employment by OBC of T. L. Miller relate to the subject and purpose of the site visit? (Page 1.) (5) With regard to Mr. Lipinsky's view that there are areas of concern " based on observations and specification / ANSI commitments," specifically, what is the issue being raised l f and what is the technical basis for that issue? (Page 2, paragraph B.) (6) Provide the basis for Mr. Lipinsky's understanding of the statement that "only 34 out of 452 individuals are of any i value as painters," and relate the response to the number of - individuals on site actually working as painters. (Page 2, paragraph C.) , (7) Explain the statement that there is currently a "No Win" situation on site between the craft and QC inspectors.
~
l
~
(Page 2,. paragraph C.)
_ - - ~ ~ . . . . _ - . _ . _ = _ _ . . _ _ --. _ _ _ _ . _ t.
, , y ,_
(8) Explain the technical aspects of the air supply quality - matter. (Page 3, paragraph E.) NOTE: We understand the issue here, but would appreciate a description of it by Mr. i Lipinsky to confim that we are in agreement on it. ! (9) Provide a thorough explanation and the detailed bases for i the statement that "(t)o some extent a parallel can be drawn , with Comanche Peak and Ziinner." (Page 3, paragraph A.) (10) Explain the meaning and impli3ations, and provide the detailed bases, for the statement that " Comanche Peak is doing inspections to the degree that they (Comanche Peak) are i comfortable with or will tolerate." (Page 3, paragraph A.) (11) Provide a detailed explanation and the specific bases for the statement that " Comanche Peak falls short in adequately satisfying" requirements regarding material storage, painter qualification / indoctrination, documentation and traceability. (Page 3, paragraph A.) (12) Provide the specific bases and implications for Mr. Lipinsky's opinion that management at Comanche Peak "has deluded all come outitself intowash." in the thinking Page (everything 3, paragraphis alright A.) or it will (13) Provide the detailed explanation and bases for the statement that Comanche Peak management has attempted "to s 1 efforts to point out quality problems (No NCR;s sic),QC(quash any 4 reporting to production, etc.)." (Page 3, paragraph A.) NOTE: His item is of paramount impo'rtance to Texas Utilities, and we must be provided with a detailed L *- explanation of every aspect, including the specific bases for the statement, specific examples of such attempts and ~all other specific infomation known to Mr. Lipinsky regarding this most serious charge.) (14) How is Mr. Lipinsky able to state that "(a)1most everyone in the inspection staff is looking to get out of Comanche Peak?" (Page 4, paragraph B.) Provide the names and statements of the inspectors with whom Mr. L1pinsky spoke and upon whose statements he bases this view. , (15) Provide a complete list of "the insgectors contacted by the writer (other disciplines included) and a recitation of the and the opinions expressed by them regarding basis for Mr. Lipinsky's statement that they are work quality" keeping quiet until they can find another job." (Page 4, paragraph . B.) (16) Explain the statement regarding Mr. Lipinsky's dissatisfaction "with the way JJN (J. J. Norris) presented 4 the ANSI requirements." (Page 4, paragraph C.) Is this .; simply an internal disagreement among OBC employees? < l t ag- ! 3 . ..f \c . , . . * ;
-~ _ . _ _ _ _. __._____.__. - -_ _
a
.g -
(17) Provide the specific bases for the statement that Brown & Root is hostile to the idea of an audit by OBC. Provide the specific bases for Mr. Lipinsky's conclusion that "no action would be taken by BAR on problems / concerns detected during the audit." Provide the names and sunnarize the statements of Brown & Root employees who stated or implied that they would be hostile to an audit and/or take no action in resiponse to an audit. (Page 4, paragraph D.) (18) Provide the specific engineeri$g bases for the observation on the power grinding of high DFT of CZ#11 and the possible
- result of poor adhesion of the top coat. (Page 5, paragraph i E.)
(19) Provide the specific engineering bases for the observation on the top coating of old Phenoline 305 "with new Phenoline 305 with little or no surface preparation (solvent wipe)." (Page 4, paragraph F.) (20) Explain and prnvide the detailed bases for Mr. Lipinsky's view that "B&R wanted to buy the 'right' answer." What l expertise and/or experience" of Mr. Lipinsky was not utilized 1 by Brown & Root? Also, provide specific details regarding his conclusion that the " attitude of BAR management (especially Quality Assurance)" substantiated his conclusion 3-
' regarding Brown & Root's attitude. (Page 4, paragraph 1.)
i (21) Describe exactly what Mr. Lipinsky means by the terie " rework contract" in his suggestion that any site work to be . (Page 4, performed paragraph 2. by) OBC should be through that method. l (22) Provide a detailed explanation and the complete technical bases for Mr. Lipinsky's view that "it appears improbable that the work currently in place is salvagable (sic) to any meaningful extent." In this regard, provide a detailed
- l. description of any tests performed by OBC that led to Mr.
l Lipinsky's conclusion, and provide the results of those tests ; 1 and the names and affiliations of any witnesses to those tests. (Page 4, paragraph 2.) , [
-(23) Provide a complete listing of all persons to whom copies of
- Trip Report OBC Job No. H8301 were sent or otherwise distributed together with the dates on which such copies were o transmitted.
f ,. (24) Provide a complete listing of all persons with whom Mr. Lipinsky or arty other OBC employee communicated by telephone ' or otherwise regarding the sua and substance of Trip Report OBC Job No. H8301, together with the dates on which such communications took place. We also need to ascertain whether Jack Norris agrees or disagrees with l the charges in Mr. Lipinsky's trip report, and whether Mr. Norris' l
g_ _, a u.=_ .=__ .w &&.m. . .~ :.2m e,.m m= m _ ..mu.zm,2.u-em.mset- .
,. .s
- y- .
t perceptions of any facts underlying those charges differ from the perceptions of Mr. Lipinsky. You should emphasize to 0.B. Cannon how seriou' sly we regard many of the statements made by Mr. Lipinsky in his trip report. Please express to them our need for OBC to respond promptly and completely to all inquiries set forth above. It is particularly imperative that Mr. Lipinsky provide a detailed explanation of the technical bases for his views, including whether those bases .are founded on first-hand
, infomation and personal knowledge, or on infomation provided to Mr.
Lipinsky by others. In the latter case, we must receive an item-by-item report of the individuals involved. Sincerely,
!.N.Chapmn S 8 O
- 9 t
e l l , , 4 1
* , l m
..,.~n .~ ~.. m -. .. . _ . . . .:-.~._ s.- .w -
. . . . .c.. . c. u, .m ---
J 's ' DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE DATE October 28. 1983 AJECT Texa t. Utilit ic_s Services - Letter dated Octob'er 27, 1953 i R. B. Roth
;OM - J. Lininakv i
- 1. In addition to the individuals identified in the subject trip report, the writer met with a number of the coating quality control inspectors. -
These individuals werc: 1soette Adams Dave Ambrose Gary Corrigan
. Joe Deshanbo-(sp?) -
Margaret Lucke - Evert Houser Casandra Owen Note: The writer met other inspectors but cannot recall the . - individual names. The writer discussed job status, project conditions, work activitics and other tr.iscellaneous items 'with the above individuals. The writer has either employed or worked with the above listed individuals
- on one or more nuclear projects.
- 2. As stated repeatedly by the writer, a thorough review /aud it would be required to provide specifics on the'six items listed by 3. N. Chapman.
However, the following explanation is provided for each item as listed
- by D. N. Chapman.
A. Material Storage - the writer observed that the coating material is mixcd, and set on pick up pallets outside Containment. None of the material had tags attached (status or six information), and there is no apparent control on how long mixed material sits on the pallets., I B. Workmanship - at the time of the writer's visit the applicator qualification program was being administered by production personnci i with no inspection or monitoring of the* qualification process (befor during or af ter) by quality control. This information was provided to the writer by Mark Wells of site engineering and quality control. Vith regard to the quality of the work, the writer observed numerous areas of in place work which by appearance was less than the quality of work put in place by Cannon on nuclear and non-nucicar projects. ~ OK 3 U - - . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ ~ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
_ . _ ~ _ _ _ _ __
.. ... ... .E To:
Re: R. B. Roth .
. ' e Texas Letter Dated Utilitles Services 10/27/83 October 28, 1983
. Page 2 6 Additionally, the writer was inf t by enginecring and/or production individuals thormed on mor any good as p(ainters.34 out ofat452 ~ a low individuals) percentage eenpl of the C. oyed as paintets were noi the reportCompliance with ANSI s Requirement '
all of the required data was the notformat writer only utilized briefly examined on site. Also, ANSI has requirements ra fo included on,the inspectioh manuf acturers' instructionsthere are forms ports. e , to be
, D. , to name a few.eterial storage, tagging, "Possibly" coating integrit .
E. Possible document deficienciesy sce item E and F on pa I' . see Item C above Morale probicos - based on conve f the writer concluded thatpersonnel, including those ind were not satisfied with their thejob inspection
- s. personnel e project on th (u To the writer's knowledge J j H. Williams arc no longer,on. Deshanbo, E. Nouser i 3.
As indicated in the subject that the project site as o,f October 31C. , 1983 Owen
'prelirtinary asacssment b s problems in areas of material tripreport,whenthewriteradik st v ed R. Tolso painter qualification y J. iJ.1,ipinsky, that Comanche peak h ments and possibic co and indoct r nation), not satisforage,. workmansh as and not my job or concern"ating integrity', he (R. Tolson)ying ANSt require-
- of coating integrity (and the thet itemsisindicated, db with the preplied i,"That 's-opinior., with quality related amatt j "That e atabic) deal, at ossibige exception is not his job or conern" ers and R. Tolsor., least id, the writer
{ . to believe cerned with that quality. k. Tolson wa s indicating that he (R. Tolson)Ther 1 I 4. nclined was not con-advised them (C. Brand:C. Tolsonned T.Brandt and when R. Tolso
'Cannot and R. Miller specifically th
\ ( 5 employees (inspectors) were or)athat approximately nine former e writer The writer was referring to is re employed on the project. { 6. t
'See item 2B abr.ve. sues raised in item 2 above .
[ 7 i In the wri er's opinion and ap t ! at result the meeting of July 28, 1983 ( i of this a get parently in the opinion of those i di i j luspectors and foremen to together was see page 2)tothis planned was bring ththe situation n v dual based on follow-up convers&cther. . As e Quality Control ations with the sittHowever, this was personnel cancelled, later l i
- To: R.'B. Rtth .
. ke: Texas-Utilitics Servicca -
October 28, 1983 1.etter dated 10/27/83 Page 3
- 8. Apparently, the air compressors or air supply lines were not providing clean (water and oil free) air, and up to half the shif t, approxiinstely five hours, was utilized to make the air quality acceptabic.
- 9. Zimmer has probicas related to coatings as a result of placing more cephasis on production than they (Zimmer) did on quality. It is the writer's opinion that this appears to be a hang-up at Comanche Peak.
' 10. The writer based this statessent on conversations with inspection staff ,
in what. appeared to be poor instructions in the procedures (though the writer cannot recall specifics), coupled with the number of changes to the specifications (most of which catered toward relieving requirements on areas or items where requirements could not be satisfied. The implications of the writer's statement is that somewhere down the road, another' set of eyes may or may not concur with my assessment.
- 11. See item 2 above.
- 12. As a result of the Deetings attended by the writer, the site management peopic (R. Tolson) declined the offer of Cannon to perform an in-depth audit that would have either confirmed or satisfied the concerns I raised.
< 13. The writer based this on conversations with site inspection personnel and the apparently disinterested attitude of R. Tolson, when advised of potential coating quality probleins.
- 14. Sec Item 2F above. .
- 15. The writer is unable to recall the names of inspection personnci encoun while in the field. Ilowever, two of the topics frequently discussed we f
the quality of work and where employment possibilities may currently ex
- 16. There is an honest internal disagreement in the manner in which ANSI rc quirements impact the cost of a project and the quality of the work.
- 17. Sec Item 12 above.
! 18. The writer based this observation on previous work experience, and suggests that the coating manufacturer be contacted to confirm same. Notes power grinding on isolated areas of one square foot or less should not be a problem. g
- 19. Again, the writer based this observation on previous work experience
- and suggests that the coating manufacturer be contacted. However, old
. l'henolinc #305 (one year or more, with weld fume accumulation) may not l
. . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . , . ~ . . . . . . ...... . . . . . .
........~.u....<...~s.:r.,...<. .
3 . . . .... . .
.- 4
= N
( % .
~~
%, 6, .
y,
- i
~
' ' ~ ,- ,To: R. B. Roth '
s
'Re: Texas Utilities Services ,
October 28, 1983 g Lettpr dated 10/27(63 Page 4 5 - 4.' Q \ tg, .; N" i
- 19. - continued ,
n ' 'i g
- 1. be adequately c)eaned and provide sufficient intercoat adhesion by
'4; solvent wiping l.>
g 20. The writer's spceiality is Quality Assurance / Quality control, as.these
- terms deal with costir.s:s and the writer's offer of an in-depth audie
'% (in order to confirm allay quality concerns) was repeatedly rejected.
~
Also see Items \'l and 12. *
) 1
, 21. Based on the writess observations on site.and u.y past Nuclear site experience, the work observed in place appears' questionable with regard (Again, an in-depth audit / review may resolve this issue.)
~
to quality.
=, .
Also, any attempt by, Cannon or any qualified professional applicator to gsalvage "in place work?, may not be practice 1. or realistic, certainly, e isolated arcab mey prove acceptable and pert /ps complete rooms may be okay. However, realist.ically and from a cost /cffective viewpoint,
" rework" is more logicd1 considering production effort and the attendent
. documentation.' ,
i 22. 4ec Item 21 above.
\ \
e ' 1, Additionally, the retrofit program kney well resolve the writer's concern but I have not reviewed the adequacy or results of the retrofit program. Realir.ing that the writer is not. familiar with the results of the retrof program. I cannot comroetit one way or the other on the acceptability of t retrofit program. + ' '; 3
- 23. The writer distributed the trip report to R. B. koth and J. J.,Norris, o or arcand August 8, 1983.
- 24. .The writer did discuss the subject matter in my trip report with r.. Nous Field Costinge Quality Control Supervisor, o'n subsequent trips to the project site.
. 7
},
i s j
\
I . 5 MK (b i'Datedt .')d '
/
Jokehhipit\eky
, f 1 l J
% ,. T s
"lf.<.*.**..Y***** .,7mgge h w fes')Od,,'.hg% ne " ,*
- g'.Mg*,* dma# ef.***0#.t' Y $' '*
- t * * .( *T h,*, m t '."*er'e 's 2 ', h*%pdd,*fb,9 *4j,s ,*.4 k*.,"*,y,*,% aerj8[eQ4* p dQM!,Q
', I t )
k I _--l-. - _L,
f ___ _ e-= - m -- . x - OLIO B. CANNON & SONbNC. 4 ,.,....,,,., w ., g DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPCTFACE October 31, 1983 DATE
,, 7 TUSI IOM 10/27/83 and J. T. Merritt Letter of 10/28/83 R. B. Roth 7
,, g, J. J. Norris Bob, confirming our telecon of 10/31/83 I have a qwipped copy of Mr. Chapman's 10/27 memo to John Merritt regarding Joe Lipinsky's trip reporc of 8/28/83.
I never dreamt that Joe's report would be communicated to anyone outside of our organization or I would have taken issue with it. Reasonable people differ in their perceptions of problems. I saw the problems at Comanche Peak differently than Joe did. As you know, over the years we have had problems from time to time with the objectivity of FQCI's. The ones involved in documenting the coating effort at nuclear installations tend to get involve'd in engineering decisions as a group and in my opinion, therein lies, the lion's share of the problem. Using Mr. Chapman's numbering system the following are my observationc at Comanche Peaks
- 1. I believe Joe met with some line type FQCI's and garnered his impressions from those inspectors. Joe, of course, did not audit so his . comments are at best second hand information. I'm not saying the allegations are true or false, but it is my impression subject to an audit. that there is alot of " sour grapes" conversations taking place among the line inspection personnel. I sensed a way of thinking amongst the inspection l personnel that indicated, at least to me, that they'had no loyalty to their supervicors. For example; in the QA/QC machinery to document problems and provide a means for rectifying samo l there exists at Comanche Peak an NCR and another document that l does not stop work, but allows remedial work on an on going item of work. It .was my understanding that Mr. Tolson simply asked the inspector or inspectors to quit issuing NCR's and issue the other document instead. That was a reasonable request in my opinion and in no way compromised quality or integrity.
l 2a. I interviewed the foreman in charge of the material storage warehouse in the company of Jr. Haley, Brown & Root Paint Superintendent. The "Q" portion of the warehouse was, if i anything, a model for proper storage of material. There are i temperature records, limited access, expiration dates on all j containers, neat and orderly and with a reasonable inventory. I did not formally audit but I would be very surprised if they got many gigs. nmx - om: 115
-* w . ,-
= - m
.- Octobari31','1983 Pag & 2 of '4 h' D h
3 l 2b. As I recommended to T!7SI I felt like the ratio of helpers to ! journeyman fwas .too high. However, they.were doing a tremendous amount 'of masking of unistrut and other items not requiring paint and previously painted surfaces that were not compatible with the current system. 2c. The coating program seems to be in compliance with ANSI requirements, but again I'd have.to audit to be sure. 2d. I mad (' a casual inspection of the Unit I and Unit II containments 'and the AUX Building. I saw evidence.of destructive ' testing of the coating systems.that far exceeds anything I have ever experienced. Seemingly every fax square feet of the-concrete' coating system had evidence of, destructive. testing and t film thicknesses recorded in Magic Marker. Additionally, the same - D statement. can. be made of a significant amount of structural steel. The' coating on practically every stair stringer had been , destroyed with a Tooke Gauge. If there were any concerns in this area it was that the obvious over-inspection could lead to failure by substrate or intercoat contamination ~from sweat, body oil,-dirty hands, etc. . 2e. . I have no knowledge of any document deficiencies. -
; 2f. ' In my opinion, a good part of the problem at Comanche Peak. -
i is- 'the fact that inspectors are working long hours on a-continuing basis. . It's, been my experience every time that wnen
'" I you get. yourself into scheduling continuing overtime-people get - '
tired. and . irritable, le; " A morale problem". You and I both know how. difficult it is to secure trained inspectors as they are - simply not available at this time. -
- 3. I think ~t hat Joe took- Mr. Tolson out of centext on the
, statement "That's not my concern". Perhaps Mr. Tolson was
, referring to ~t he . fact that the licensing of Unit I was not his .
, area of responsiblity.
O 4. I have no knowledge of'>the T.L. Miller subject.
- 5. Many have concerns for .what' we ' feel are good reasons,then so
. Jti. let the individual- voice. these concerns and address it
- l. objectively. .
i 6. Regarding -"only 34 out of 4S'2 individuals are of any value as painters", ac I' stated previously, there was a large number of
- helper types on the payroll because of the intensive masking operation. It was my impression that a number cf otherwise qualified painters had slowed down considerably because of real
/,A or imagined quality control restraints.
- 7. See paragraph 2f..above.
b ' y s
, -, ,,-...,v.-,.%, ,-..,,...,-,,,p+.-, .
e,,,-,,,y,,e,.e,,-..- .,,,mcm. emw.,we,-..-.ewr.---
p % w.~awung~wrmn%1xww:: ..
- 74. , :pqu.:..w: - . , Q. . a .= :.:~..
.. Oct:bar 31, 19 P;g3 3 of 4
(])
- 8. Brown & Root was having trouble with moisture in the compressed air during QC checks of the air supply early in one or two of the shifts. It was a simple matter of upgrading the air drying components which I believe was taken care immediately.
- 9. I see no parallel between Comanche Peak and Zimmer. As I understand the Zimmer situation from Nucleonics Week and The Wall Street Journal there was a complete and total breakdown of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B requirements because local management was treating the project as most people would treat a fossil plant. That certainly is not the caso at Comanche Peak.
- 10. I disagree entirely with the state ant that " Comanche is doing inspections to ~ the degree that t? (Comanche Peak) are comfortable with or will tolerate". The coating effort, if anything, is over inspected. See paragraph 2d above.
- 11. I disagree wi.th this statement.
- 12. My impression of Comanche Peak management differs from that of Joe Lipinsky's.
- 13. I have no knowledge of Comanche Peak management attempting to " squash" QC problems. My impression is that they want to do things correctly but they are becoming tired of having to reinvent the wheel every day on the coating effort.
- 14. I have no knowledge of the inspection staff's trying tc leave the site "en masse"
- 15. Ditto.
'9 l 16. The internal disagreement is self-explanatory per the
! responses above and below..
- 17. I did not perceive this hostility. I heard that TUSI/B&R has l recently undergone an audit and has received a passing grade l according to Tolson.
- 18. That's for Carboline to provide guidelines as CZ-11 is their product.
l
- 19. Ditto.
- 20. I don't agree here. TUSI was of course alarmed that
. painting might end up on the project's critical path, indeed, o become the critical path. They wanted advice on how best to get the painting effort on the right track, but certainly within the spirit and letter of the law.
. 21. I can't clarify the " rework contract" statement.
' V Octtb0r 31, 1983
.' - . ' .e P;go 4 of 4 h ,; -
"~
- 22. I would disagree because of the purported results of the testing effort. Additionally, I had not reviewed the adequacy or results of the r,etrofit program.
- 23. I only know that I received a copy of Joe's report, which I have not released.from my office.
24'. I,did not. communicate with anyone about the trip report, nor did I send a copy of the trip report. to. 2nyone. Ny secretary is the only other person 'in Houston that could possibly have seen the-report.and she says that she did not. During my visits, consultations, sit.e interfaces, etc. I would not . describe the site activities, conversations and meetings as anything but a vor:t.aday; ,attempe by -TUSI to resolve perceived proolems in. the coating. effort. . To imply anything else is 1rresponsible. With fuel' load approaching and the attendant pressures there is bound to be a nervous, somewhat cautious atmosphere ~. , , , e *
= - - = =.- =-..- -. -
e L . I l l 1 'q --. n_ _ n. - ~--- -
ysreif nyaff l He i? 4 C'b . Adk Ver' , sme ,p li Kelie - e ag e. te ddeva ay l %&f 2.l 3-sk t J o ba fh "
- u. %
$)h4 for ret /idiu' .
0
^
lu, . J a= 4M. B.. @ XL4 va. persus .. e ,i
. W- e :;~ .
le
h.
. I 2
i i 6700- 523 - 1sts j . . I l
~
. . ,w. . , . ,. .,, w M
ath y+ 4.-
. a. G. -
O. S 0abno4 N' II 0saf.4a t h W Y ? kl/of V
$4l"w.,. / :
fY4 -
.m
$fW .
s
'I .
G
- g l
f4 ' f 8 , M [4de e- --
. g .
O i . i .. g. l . I . i f i
.~ '
t g . , . , - , , - < cw ., .---,,,e,. -- , . - . - - . - - -ry.--,-, , . - ,,m- - - w--,-._.,--.----,..--r.. ,,v,,.e..w..,,.%+- , , -
3 . ~.-
._,..,., .;_ .. s .-- + % , _ _ v ,. -
m . ,m. _ - 4 9 9
% A g.i
. g ,. , OLIVER B. CANNON Q SON. INC.
, IndustrialPainHng Specialists 5600 V/OOOLAND AVENUE PHILADELPHIA. PA 191#3 AREA CODE (2tS) 729 4600 TWX 710-670-0482 anawam November 4, 1983 Mr. John T. Merritt, Jr.
Assistant Project General Manager Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Post Office Box 1002 Glen Rose, Texas 76043
~
Re ference: Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc.
, Nuclear Coatings Overview Task Group Site Assignment - Starting November 9, 1983
Dear John,
. Confirming our telephone conversation this date, I have set up a Cannon Task. Group, to visit the site starting Wednesday, November 9th, and to continue for as long as needed to complete an evaluation of the matters we discussed with you and your Management people at your Dallas Office on November 3, 1983. I would guess that three to five days, perhaps a week, would be our site stay.
A courtesy copy of my departmental memorandum, dated Ncvember 4,1983, which. formalizes this Task Group and their instructions; is attached. l
.Please review, and you may want to add or delete to the specifics of my assignment. Let Ralph Trallo or Jack Norris know what else you may want.
Our Task Group shall include: i Task Leader - Ralph A. Trallo - Vice President, Nuclear Cervices l John J. Norris - Vice President, Houston Operations Joseph J. Lipinsky - Corporate QA/QC Director Keith M. Michels - Corporate Auditor - Nuclear I am enclosing copies of the Resumes on our people. I believe you already have one for Jack Norris, on file. I will be on vacation thru November 13th, returning to my office on Monday, November 14th, and can monitor our progress at that time. FOUNDED 1916
l
- , OLIVER B. CANNON Q SON,Q. Q To: Texas Utilities Services, Inc. November 4,1983 Re: Cannon Task Group Page 2 May I express my appreciation, at this time, for the hospitality and courtesies extended to Jack Norris and me, by you, your Management people sud associates in our recent meeting. I feel our getting together was well worth the effort.
Sincerely,
-s
. Robert B. Roth President
/1 enc 1.
cc: J. J. Norris R. A. Trallo Account File t y ,
= k 1
I
~
IN C. i ouvg B. CANNON QSO DEPARTMINTAL CORRISPONDDICE gMTE m hve'ber 4. 1993 SUSJECT Job 589301 roncines overiev Trisk (*rouo. Cannon o T"97_ t'e-,nche Po,k T3 R. A. Tr$11o. J. J. Morris. J. J. Lininsky. it. *Hehels ce? APate . Aeer rtin FROM R. B. Roth
- 1. As a follow-up to our Consulting Services Contract over the past summer, far this client, I am assigning this Cannon Task Force ~to 4 perform a Nuclear Coatings overview cc the Comanche Peak Nuc1, ear Plant, being constructed by Texas Utilities Services, Inc. at
- Glen Rose, Texas '
- 2. Task Force to ba: . .. -
- Vice Presidenr - Nuclear Services *
*R. A. Trallo ,
-J. J. Norris - Vice President Houston Operations * *'
J. J. Lipinsky - Corporate QA/QC .' K. Michels - Lead Corporate Audifor ,
. - 3. Site ~ effort to commence, Wednesday morning,' November 9, 1983. Jack, -
Joe and Keith to report on Wednesday. Ralph may not be able to schedule till later in the week. .Thers is no established time _ limit, I suspect. _n from three to five days may be necessary, but the best judgment of our g senior managers involved will so ascertain. Ralph is designated se . Task Force Leader.
- 4. Principal purpose is to evaluat'e the Nuclear Coatings Retrofit Program that has been in effect over the last 3 to 4 months. Key areas would include: ,
MalerialStorageandControl Painter mechanic qualification / documentation , Working. relationship between Production / Inspection Status and adequacy of documentation / traceability , Impicmentation of coatings retrofit effort, sec "Paintir.g Minutes of Meeting", pages 1 to 4, dated 8/15/83, as prepared
+
by R. M. Kissinger, Project Civil Engincer Compliance of Nuclear ccatings to Project Specificaticus re - quirements. . Overview as to adequacy of current safety-related coatings in place, as per proper Industry practice, etc.
3 LIVER D. CANNON 4 SON. IQ . Nove'mber 4, 1983
~
To: R. A. Trallo, J. J. Norris, J. J. L1pinsky, K. Michels Es: Job M8301 - Task Group Page 2
- 5. separate individual and objective reports are due to Task Leader and his
. composite report shall be submitted to my office within five working days 1 after site assijnment. , ,
Ralph is further charged with the security of the reports / observations given to him and his composite report shall be directed to me, and no other copies issued or distributed. .
- 6. I shall then communicate the results of our effort to TUSI.
'7. All costs and expenses involved shall be submitted ~in separate expense envelopes, with appropriate receipts and clearly marked with Job #H8301.
.8. Any questions or clarifications to the above shall lie addressed to my attention. -
e
* .R. B. Roth .
/1 N. -
N . e
, e
/, '
/ -
G e
~.
~% ,
, . 9 . , , . _ , - . - -- ,. - - - - - . , _ , - -
, OLI)CR B. CANNON 4 SON, INC. .
C
@ g, RESUME .
for RALPH A. TRALLO i EDUCATION' - Newark College of Engineering . Bachelor of Engineering.- Civil 1967 ,
./
Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pa. Corrosion Engineering Credits Continuing education courses in Labor Relations , and claims Management - Pepperdine Uaiversity
~Rutgers University ~ -
EMPLOYMENT y Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc., Philadciphia,'Pa. 1974 to Prasent, -
~
1980 to .
~ '
Present - Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc. \.
^~
Vice President Nuclear Services - Primary responsibility 'fer all corporate Nuclear projects. . . , , See attachment'I for, current projects - 1978 to
--~ - ~ ~
1980 - 01ivor B. Cannon & Son, Inc. Appointed Vice Presiden't, Production Services Primary responsibility for corporate field and production services, equipment assignment, OSHA compliance and Safety Program. 1974 *o . 1978 - Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc. Project Management Responsible manager on all phases of projects assigned. K47 projects included: Unic 2 - Three Mile Island Units 1, 2, 4 - WPSS Units 1, 2 - GGNS Five (5) Fossil Generating Units n-1971 to 1974 - Babcock & Wilcox, Inc. Field Construction Manager for boiler construction and erection
- Champion Paper Co., Canton, NC City of Lakeland Power Authority, Lakelan4, FL u -- ,. -
_ __. ~ .-
,' OLIVER D. CANNON C, SON, .
Re: Resume for Ralph A. Trallo 1970 to 1971 - United Engineers & Constructors, Inc. Lead Engineer - Civil Group - Three Mile Island Nuclear Construction - General Public Utilities Corp. 1969 to 1970 . - Active Duty - U. S. Navy - Fleet Submarine Service
'1967 to 1969 - United Engineers & Constructors, Inc.
Field Engineer - Fossil and Nuclear construction projects
~
~
Professional Affiliations: '
. . - American Nuclear Society .
,, ,_ i - National Ass 5diitibn- of Corrosibn Engineers , , ,
- t.STM - Conmittee D-33 -
, - UNCWC
- Liberty Bell Corrosion Conference - NACE - Lecturer i .
I I i . s - l e 9
' ___ - . . _ . _ _ . _ _ - - _ . _ _ _ - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ~
s . .' Oh!'VER D. CANNON 4 SON, . 8 " ' ' 'M 3 ATTACHMENT I Units #1 & 2 - GGNS, Port Gibson,.MS - New Construction Unit il - Jersey Central Power & Light, Oyster Creek, IU - Retrofit , Unit #1 - General Public Utilities, Three Mile Island - Maintenance Unit #1 - Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., Zinsner Station - Coatings Retrofit Unit #2 - WPPSS, Richland, WA - New Constructio'n. -- Unit #1 - Public Service Electric & Gas, Hope Creek, NJ - New Construction-
.dnits#152 -
Public Service Electric & Gas, Salem Station, NJ - Maintenance e
~g .4---.-
g . 4 S
. S
/
a O 4
yg.n:n;wm w. w _ z. ~
- 3. _+ - - m- .
.= D. . u. . _._u .m z.muj. _ ,, Q-l.a ad O O RESUME for MARTIN K. MICHELS EDUCATION Pennsylvania State University Bachelor of Science - Biology,1978 EMPLOYMENT Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc. - 1980-Present Philadelphia, PA. 19143 1982-Present CORPORATE QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDITOR -
Responsible for the performance and ccordination of internal and vender quality assurance audits for all nuclear contracts. Also included is the coordination of activities required to assure the resolution of deficiencies noted by outside auditing organizations. Currently certified as a Lead Quality Assurance Auditor in accordance with ANSI N45 2 12 and ANSI N45 2.23 1981-1982 QUALITY !.SSURANCE AUDITOR - Responsible for field sudits and evaluation of quality
, assurance . programs for all nuclear contracts.
Experience included regular audit functions combined with filing and maintenance of quality assurance records, review of records and interface with management persennel as __ _ _ _ _ necessary to achieve qaality goals. Aforementioned duties require familiarity with ANSI N45 2 and applicable daughter standards, Appendix B of 10CFR50 and Regulatory Guides pertaining to the construction and saintenance of nuclear power plants. . 1980-1981 QUALITY ASSURANCE TECHNICIAN - Responsible for
. quality assurance testing of paints and coatings along with calibration, repair and certification of measuring and test. equipment
, used for the field inspection of coatings. 1 Valley Forge Laboratories, Inc. Devon, PA. 19333 - 9/79-12/79 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTOR - Responsible for the inspection of various concrete products. Duties involved specific testing procedures in both the field and laboratory to determine the suitability of different types of concrete in construction projects. Familiarity , with ASTM testing procedures was necessary to accomplish all work assignments. - l PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Nuclear Society - Member since 7/83
. _ ,j .
- j. . g ,
, .j ,
9 RESUME 9 for J0JEPR J. LIPINSKY EDUCATION Pennsylvania State University A.-eerista Legree - Liberal Arts,1974 Bachelor of Science - Biology,1977 ' 34PLOYhENT Oliver E. Cannon e Son, Inc. - 1978-Present Philadelphia, PA. 19143
~
198'l-Prasent CORPORATE QUALITY ASGURANCE DIRECTOR - Re=ponsible for developing, imp'.ementing and ccordinating all aspects of the Quality Assurance Progran and Quality Work Procedures as ralated to ANSI N101.4, Class I and II Service Levels. Also responsible for non-nuclear work with regard to Quality Work Procedure developcent and implementation. In addition, responsibilities include inspector
' training and qualification, providing technical diruction as needed for nuclear and ccnventional work, providing continuity and a point af interface between manufacturers, clients and technical 'reprusentatives.
Currently certified as a Level III Coatings Inspector in accordcnce with ANSI N45 2.6.
; ..__ ___ . 1980-198'l CORPORITE QUALITY ASSURANCE AUDITOR - -- - - - - - -
Responsible far satisfying the internal and external audit requirements relating to all nuclear contracts. Certified as a Lead Auditor in. accordance eith ANSI N45 2.12 and ANSI N45 2.23 1979-1980 .QA/QC $4ANAGER - Responsible for all quality activities and the supervision and direction of field personnel on the VNP-1/4'and WNP-2 nuclear projects, Richland, Washington. In addition, functioned as the 03C quality assurance representative on these sites. 1978-1979 LEAD FIELD QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTOR (Level II)
- Responsible for the implementation of the OBC Quality Assurance Program and Quality Work Procedures on the Three Mile Island and Perry
. Nuclear Power Plant projects. Responsible for the quality assurance testing of surface preparation and coating application of Class I nuclear coatings applied on these sites.
PROFSSSIONAL. AFFILIATIONS American Nuclear Society - Member since 6/82 National Association of Corrosion Engineers - Member since 4/81 . American Society for Quality Control - Member since 4/81'
0- 8. C<nd l affl1 Trow /er // 8 ,i
- l. $re Chuf -
%i3 GoaH:cv' s aqe fto'ss/y 4
_ -. m 4 ceA r,oy v< *r _ 3 / // i w ya e r f yay .b le f /-ud sG 4 44aas eF yrad'odAt 1 for - -<v uf k, f s F a e< 4.
~r.
fe?Mr G. G.B. Orae infa6a c-a&&
. o e o Page 1 of 4 JJL & MKM COMANCHE PEAK TRIP ,
NEED: Organizational chart with names and titles of individuals and positions filled Copy of current revision of the QA Program Complete cooperation with varloes on site departments, organizations and individuals List of names of all inspection personnel and level of certificatinn List of names and positions of prcduction personnel (foremen and above) List of certified painters and systems for which the paintars are qualified . Require liason or interface person for quality assurance, quality control, production, and other departments in order to expedite and aid in the performance of this review OAY #1- Review QA Program in general - Review QC Procedures and how those procedures related to the QA Progran s Go over QC Procedure numbering sequence Review site organization and responsibilities (both individual and company) Review Retrofit program (why implemented, still on-going-why? why not?, what has been accomplished to date) Tour-Site (containment, paint shop, warehouse, calibration lab, etc.) NOTE: Badge t401 as time allows 3 : .
~ '
~h Pag 3 2 of 4 h DAY #2 Non-Confirming Conditions Review existing NCR's Review procedure for unsatisfactory reports to determine adequacy Review procedur'e fo'r NCR to determine adequacy Revier logs for NCR and unsatisfactory report
~
Review status tag procedure and logs Review NCR and/or unsatisfactory coordinator status Procedure and Specification Revision Control Revi2w system and procedure for changes to specification and procedures 4 , Review controls - assure that only most current . , revisions of specification and procedures are utilized a Examine on site situation to determine sequerce of work activities , _,. _ _
' DAY # 3&4 Material. Storage
~
Review procurement documents' Review receiving procedures and records Review personnel qualifications for. receiving personrel Review product certification i Examine reject and hold areas (review tagging procedures and logs) , Examine facilities (take representative batches and . L determine if procedure followed) Review warehousing records Examine facilities and check calibration of recording thermographs (examina certificates of compliance for instruments, calibration records for instruments,
. personnel for individuals performing calibrations) ~
Determine traceability of material from receiving to in i place work from warehousing records and daily reports (also going backwards from in place work) L-
- - . . . - - . . .g. a x . .: ,., .a . r. a . m w.a.u.m w a2 w v t 7 . ., ,., . w. ,. ~~.
r . G DAY #5 Personnel Qualifications r- Painter Qualifications Review indoctrination and training program Observe (if possib).e) class room session and field qualifications Review documentati n on personnel qualifications Inspector 0.ualifications Raview indoctrination and training program Review personnel qualification with regard t'o level of certification Review documentation on personnel qualifications
. Auditor Qualifications J. . Review personnel qualifications for auditors
, 'Revi w docuacntation on personnel ' qualifications Audits Review audits of the coating operation s- .
CAY 46 Calibration _ Review calibraticn logs Review certificates of compliance for test instrunents Review traceability of instruments to NBS Review treining and qualification of calibration personnel Review documentation of personnel qualifications l
^
-- - -- _, = ; -
o % o Page 4 of 4 ' DAY #7 & 8 Daily Inspection Reports Review adequacy of daily inspection reports (compared to information required by ANSI) Determine traceability of records for representative areas and/or items DAY #9 & 10 Wrs.p up and tie together items that were examined earlier. NOTE: The above schedule is tentative in nature and is not meant to be all inclusive. Areas or questions raised during the review will be pursued until a response is provided. J
, , , _ s 6 .
4 en e e O e e
--+ " * -
~
^^L~'
~
O B c.
^ ~~
- "/s/4 B. P4 if d b revas -
nf a On cea . 1
~
we pa/ ;4 w, yad i
,. I. sp&<p, X. Wh 4 wo xy h a ryd f ti 6 4W's.by:,.euiw y !' d ',
the d le w/- s , we - 4
~
a) ' b .
~~
1: 3:Ar L ~ I, % G / in 6e.sga c:,r a - U .n w.a c. 4 c , .
,.. r g,,f
$4 9 lO Q?0W .
- c. zwee .
-3 .
O 6 __ . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ ~ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ - _ . _ _ . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
*~
k lr(6=9. . ., MN7 OLIVER B. CANNON Q SON. INC. 1, ., huht.v/nal /frin/iug .9wr n/i.</x
- 5600 WOOOL AND AVf'NUE 8) Hit. ADELPHI A P A 1914 3 ARC A COUE. ..= t %e ?;'s .asa. g . fW e ' tr e .. . . s i.a n ,-
0>tinf&ieirn November 28, 1983 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire Debevoise & Liberman , 1200 Seventeenth St., N.W. . Washington, D. C. 20036
Dear Nick,
This will confirm our telephone conversation on Wednesday, November 23rd, relative to the position of Cannon to the matters reviewed in your office on Tuesday, November 22nd, with our Messrs. Norri's and Lipinsky, in con-nection with ths' Lipinsky trip report dated August 8,1983, concerning his visit to the Comanche Peak Nuclear construction site. The referenced trip report is a Cannon in-house document, transmitting information to me, as President and Chief Executive Officer of Cannon, expressing Lipinsky's observations, concerns, etc. It is not an official
- ' document in connection with TUGO's Purchase Order CPF-15245, to Cannon, nor does it represent the Cannon corporate position relative to our con-s tractual commitment with TUG 0/TUSI.
I assure you Joe does not have a ' prejudicial attitude, nor 'an axe to grind', in this whole matter. I would, both corporately and personally, be dis-Suffice to say, appointed, should you or your client harbor such a concern. it has been most embarrasing to this office, that Lipinsky's memorandum was surreptitiously removed from his personal papers to effect a breach of our corporate security. Cannon's posture is to support TUG 0/TUSI with whatever objective and honest i effort we can render. l l Further, as a matter of re-emphasis, Cannon, at the time we accepted the consulting assignment from TUG 0/TUSI, had no interest in site work or con-j tracting, and we continue in this position 7 The conflict is obvious. We are fully committed in Nuclear coatings contract work thru spring of 1984., L Staff availability thercafter is questionable. Cooperative efforts, as the term implics, requires mutuality, particularly in' communicating, and you assured me of your concurrence therein. l I . FOUNDED 1910
~ " ' ' ' ' * * ' ' ' - - - , , - < . , , , . _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ , __ ___ _ _
t 4
'l
. 1, e
I have - forwarded by mail on Wednesday, November 23, 1983, the memorandum and all copies thereto, as we had discussed. You s ve
<p trp 4 .
Robert B. Roth President-
.l1' e
e 45 k e e
+ 4-e 4
/
0 0
- - . - - , - - . . ,-e----- --m- ----,7 -r -rw. -- --- r r e-- a,w.- ..n--.
_h. , OOVER B. CANNON Q SON. INC. IndustrialPainting Specialists "5
- 5600 WOODLAND AVENUE PHILACELPHIA. PA 19143 AREA CODE (215) 729-4600 TWX 710-670-0482 ConnotJan ~
November 30, 1983 Mr. John T. Merritt, Jr. Assistant Project General Manager Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Post Office Box 1002 Glen Rose, Texas 76043
Reference:
Cannon Nuclear Coatings Overview Task Group Summary Report of November 28, 1983
Dear John,
Please refer to my letter to you of November 4, 1983, regarding the assignment.of our above subject Task Group, to visit your Comanche Peak construction aite. This assignment was implemented on Novem-ber 9, 10 and 11, 1983. Our comment copy of the transcribed meetings that took place thereon, has been forwarded to your office, under separate cover, on November 28, 1983 Our Task Group leader, Ralph Trallo, in accordance with my November 4th directive, has submitted to me his composite report which embodies the comments, remarks, etc. of all our Task Group members. In turn, I.have studied Ralph's composite report, and concur with the conclusions set forth. Hence, I am transmitting a copy to you as being properly representative of our corporate position on the assigned matter. Yours very truly, PA Ro ert B. Roth President
/1 encl.
cc: J. J. Norris R.,A. Trallo N. S. Reynolds FOUNDED 1916
--- ~ -- . - , --- - , - , , - - , ,,- _.-- r,,..
m.
'." OLIVER B. CANNON Q SON, INC.
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
<' November 28, 1983 DATE
- - n6s Overview Task Group Report SUBJECT R bert B. Roth T'O Ralph A. Trallo FROM I.
Background:
Cannon Personnel Concerned: Robert B. Roth - President and Chief Executive Officer Ralph A. Trallo - Vice President Nuclear Services John J. Norris - Vice President and Project Account Manager John J. Lipinsky - Corporate Quality Assurance Director M. Keith Michels - Corporate Quality Assurance Lead Auditor On November 4,1983 a Cannon Task Group consisting of the writer, J. J. Norris, J. J. Lipinsky,' and M. Keith Michels was established to' perform follow-up evaluation of items previously a'ddressed within the scope 1 provided under our Consulting Services Contract ' with this client. This follow-up was to be in accordance with guidelines set forth in departmental correspondence from Robert B. Roth to the writer
- and the principle purpose detailed was to evaluate the nuclear coatings retrofit program at Comanche Peak. Key areas included:
Material Storage and Control . I Painter mechanic qualification / documentation i.
- Working relationship between Production / Inspection f .
Status and adequacy of documentation / traceability Implementation of coatings retrofit effort, see " Painting
- Minutes of Meeting", pages 1 to 4, dated 8/15/83, as prepared
-/ by R. M. Kissinger, Project Civil Engineer
. Compliance of Nuclear coatings to Project Specifications requirements
. Overview as to adequacy of current safety-related coatings in placs, as per proper Industry practice, etc.
- 1. - TUGO Purchase Order No. CPF-15245 2* - Departmental correspondence R. B. Roth to R. A. Trallo, 11-4-83
- - + , - - - - , - , - - - ----aw--- ,,.r,.n,a-- , . , , , ,.,,-.,-,,,,,,,,,g,--,,..,-,,-w-,-,g--
-- . .an,-.-.n-,
' '~
OLIVER LI. CANNON 4 SON INC. H-8301 - Coatings Ovarvicw Task Group Report TO: Robert B. doth November 23, 1983 Page Two
.~..
II. Preliminary Preparation: The writer discussed the operation and purpose of the Cannon Task Group with the other participants. A point of departure schedule was established in accordance with Robert B. Roth's memo guidelines, and preliminary checklists were prepared to facilitate orderly progression and review.3* The intent was to have OBC QA Services (Lipinsky and
.Michels) and J. J. Norris (Account Manager) onsite for whatever time'was required to complete the necessary reviews. R. A. Trallo was to visit the site to perform an overall evaluation as to.the effectiveness of the Cannon Task Group activities. Commenc,ement dates for site activities were: November 9, 1983, J. J. Norris, J. J. Lipinsky and M. Keith Michels onsite to begin preliminary reviews; November 10, 1983, the writer onsite to insure effective implementation of the Cannon Task Group activities.
III. Task Group Activities: On, November 8, 1983 I called John Merritt to advise him that Oliver B. Cannon personnel would be onsite November 9, 1983, and requested that he have availab'le the folllowing information for review: . Organizational chart with names and titles of - individuals and positions filled Copy of current revision of the QA Program Complete cooperation with various onsite departments, organizations and individuals
/
List of names of all inspection personnel and level of certification List of names and positions of production personnel (foremen and above) ,- Lis't of certified painters and systems for which the painters are qualified 3 "JJL and MKM comanche Peak Trip Plan" (4 Pages)
gn - -
' l .,
~
.0 LIV,E R. U. C AN NON ' r, S ON.' INC.
H-8301 - Coatings 0vsevisw Task Group Rep::rt
,= TO: . Robert B. Roth November 28. 1983 Page.Three, III. Task Group Activities: (continued)
Liason or interface person for quality assurance, quality control, production, and other departments in order to expedite and aid in the performance of this review Mr. Merritt requested that any reviews conducted by OBC were to be - performed on a joint basis (ie. QA and Accout Management). Cannon personnel were onsite the morning of November 9, 1983 At that time J. J. Lipinsky gave a copy of the preliminary review checklist3 . to~JohtiHerritt. J. J. Norris and John Merritt discussed the checklist
' and Mr. Merritt requested a " kick off" meeting prior to any formal
. reviews or implementation of Cannon Task Group activities.
It became evident that the scope of the Cannon Task Group activities ' which had been previously outlined
- were not coincident with that y perceived by TUGO. _.Mr. Merritt requested a review meeting to discuss the concerns of the "Lipinsky. Memo"
- and based on the outcome of that meeting TUGO would re-define the scope of the Cannon Task Group activities. The review meeting was held commencing Thursday, AM, November 10, 1983, with John Merrit' chairing.
Mr. Ron Tolson, Constructio'n QA Supervisor, started the discussion. In essence the "Lipinsky Memo"
- was used as an agenda, and each memo paragraph, or statement, was discussed and clarified. The meeting was
- recorded and the transcript has been distributed for comment.0* It .
' '/ .~
became evident that certain statements in the trip. memo
- were
. incorrectly stated or misinterpreted. This was principally due to the organizational structure at Comanche Peak. (ie. A management team consisting of individual's employed by different organizations.)
2* - Departmental correspondence R. B. Roth to R. A. Trallo, 11-4-83 3* "JJL and MKM Comanche Peak Trip Plan" (4 Pages)
- 4. . Trip Report (JJL to RBR) 8-8-83
- 5. "Lipinsky Memo Meeting on November 10 and November 11, 1983"
y - . - -- - , . . OLIVER ,0. C.\NNON T SON. INC. Iy
. - 'H-8301 - Coatin6s Ovarrisw Task Gecup Report 4 TO: Robert B.'Roth y" q
^
November 28, 1983 A Page Four s . Mr. Tolson explainad the operational roles of the individuals involved g g ' on the Comar,che Pet.tk Team, along with their proper titles, responsibilitiie ,/ arid lines of reporting.
,q Concerns raised,in the "Lipinsky Mamo"
- were for the most part, based
.pn observations and discussions between Joe Lipinsky and site
- personnel. -At face value this "information," would be the cause for ,
raising cencerns regarding the site coating activity. Throughout the courseof\h'eNovember10 meeting,itwasevident'thatSiteQA Management"at.' Comanche Peak was not interested in further audits, or program reviews, since they have been subject to numerous outside and internal reviews and audits in the past several years. These constant
- and sometimes redundant reviews, compounded by the apparent personnel matters,resulted in short or clipped responses, which could readily be misinterpreted. ,
Regarding areas of coatings material handling, personnel qualifications, I non-conformances, and quality r'espcasib'ility, Mr. Tolson discussed the g.
~ currentproceduresandcontroSs,in'ehfectatComanchePeak. This
.{
detailed information not readily'available to Joe Lipinsky during his site visit of July 26',' 27, 28th,1983', and on which, visit he based his 3 4 1 August'8, 1983 trip report to Robert"B. Roth. N . Comanche Peak Management stated that they do not feel they have a
-pr bl in the areas of ' concern, as raised in the "Lipinsky Memo." *
' AdstaiNdindepthauditwas'notagreedto. However, a review of s ,
specifio itecs could be scheduled, or, program " paper" be made available +
- . s
~
l forrevke1, at Cannon's requ3st. After consideration the Cannon Task
- t. .
Group decided that a limited review was unwarranted, since it would not provido sufficient support to a statistical extrapolation as to the
. entire ccatings programs' effectiveness.
A Def iled discussion and information is provided in the notes of the
;N5vember 10 and Novem'ber 11 meetings. (Reference footnote 5.)
u a _ _ A . _ _._. _ , . - . _ . -
-s},_
.~ .
OL.lVER D. C.\NNON r, SONO I N C. H-8301 - Coatings Overview Task Group Report ' TO: Robert E. Roth~ November 28, 1983 Page Five
IV. Conclusion:
The Cannon Task Group did not perform the total overview function as originally scoped by Robert B. Roth. This was due to the request of our client to explore and review the "Lipinsky Memo"
- in further detail, paragraph by paragraph. .
The-site meetings of November 10 and 11,1983 resulted in the following: The concerns raised in the "Lipinsky Memo"
- were based on limited information and observatio,ns which were'neither investigated nor discussed in sufficient detail, during his ,
site visit, to either allay or to confirm.. 4 Comanche Peak Site Management adequately detailed the programs and controls in place, which would relieve or allay the concerns raised in the "Lipinsky Memo."
- Cannon has no g ,
basis to confirm that these programs and controls are in place and are being effectively implemented. Confirmation could only be provided by a detailed audit. Such an audit could be . redundant and certainly time consuming. purther, TUGO has c 4 neither requested same, nor is it. required by the referenced t l Purchase of Services-Agreement. Based on the information provided by the Comanche Peak Site Organization we,can assume that our concerns are unfounded, however, affirmation j could only be finalized by further effort. s Ralph A. Trallo l , RAT:jr N: .N" tT *2 EM 9 :.f._N bE.J' _ _ __.._._.._, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ ._. - _ ._._.
,- .; ' L a . , ,._ .
j & 90N
. . . ) LIVER INC.
' otrmn a. CANNON a SON. INC. OF FLORIDA 5600 WOODLAND AVENUE' BRENO PAINTING COMPANY DIVISION oF tan ne,pi sinos PHILADELPHIA, PA.19143 ouvEn B. CANNON 6 SON. INC. 1 8'N'*7 r 215 - 729-4600 south Houston. Ts. T7587 l g .' Phone. F13-o47 967o
)
' +~-
1,
~
g g pj,'ag ouvEn s. cANNcN a son or Louis ANA. iNc. l f PAINTING $PEOAU575 "[
,n 7h7 )ERAL EMPLOYER ID #231268674 ~
INVOICE
,,L' .
- n DATE ~l/31/84 c/ ,} Texas Utilities Generating C p [b[n .
' 1[ % '[-
Post' Office 71ox 1002' - V - - YOUR ORDER NO. CPF 16245 Glen Rose,-Texas 76043 -
~
FEB li1984
;_ TEXM Uf::, 5 SNTU G INVOICE NO. m-0IQO y
"- > w w . i. mi,c 1.5 C. JOB NO. .
11-8301.2 <' PE: General Survey Completed to Date PLEASE REMIT TO: , Unit i . Oliver B. Cannon & Son Inc.
. < Comanche Peak Steam Electric Statior "-P.jDBgx pg pH 7 j'A 9175 Glen Rose, Texas J
,/
~*
- d
"- ~
Ticket - Number Amount 12 $3,554.92 y f
!I 13 1,475.37/
i , / af 2,674.56 %l'
~~ '
14 7 1.5 . 1,563.10 bpt,1 g
'16 2 . .
g0 0
,~ .17 2,808.10 Mg6 dN 14,302.46 gp 5
(,A' . l - TtXAS tmuRES GENERAUNG COMPANY f ,f.
~ ,eg_.qy; p g
.. d f4 Ms W.f -
. T 'A U A L d'd -- . .
?-
g: ]' iICE . . '.I...........................$14,302.46
~
ms L3'ss n A n/ s001 /<s,. G.2 #4 $iO . x c' mii , n , n swi 3%% Serv, ice Charge mi ! ., n , n soci - Will Be Made on
"' " 5 '
mnux"nnn m ww Past Due Accountq l
~,co 9 I m E n E 7o
~
n2 0000
~
\l .) ,
///? ka
* \* *J **
%,\, ., ,, %
,y \ -, s , .
5"- , s ,
/ a,.* * # '
[ ,, 8 6e , l l a
~
}y ~'
# OLIVER B. -" ) -
& SON INC.
f . .
,1 ,
!i) erCAIiNON & SON, tMC. OF FLOMe0A 5600 WOODLAND AVENUE s[iENO PAINTING COMPANY DivtSION OF Ft. mea ,
PHILADELPHIA. PA.19143 OuvER B. CANNON & SON. INC. 814446 140s-7 215- 729-4600 South Houeson. Ts. 77ser Phone 713-047-9670 OUVER B. CANNON & SON OF LOutSIANA. INC.
$6 - oo, m. 70 gg $131 PAINTING SPECIALISTS rnene: 504 3s7-ee01 INVOICE 4/2/84 6Dggpbgg?L Texas Utilities Generating Company OATE Post Office box 1002 vous ospes NO. CPF 16245 Glen Rose, Texas, 76043 ,
INWOICE NO. B-04002 LB.C.JOSNO. H-8301 RE: COmmanche Peak Steam Electric Station WNMIT TO: Oliver 8. Cannon & Son Inc.
- . . . Glen Rose. Texas P.O. Box 7777-W7640 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19175
--.~ ..,
S/ { ~- APROJ234
~~
I GENERATING CO. Ticket Number - Amount 4
\
nasg. rara
.. ....-.L.-.-- - - -
$604.31 .. 4 90g oIpy HKAS UmmES GENERAMG COWANY
= w.s 8- / j$) t1 4
OM'- /k d'f 6 #
. a.
- n.a.gn =- w g ' >g/ gc q uct.
2161,_fp/ 73 '34 71/ 5001 MM an. f 'v 2141 , 73 , 71 5001 _ y -
.001 216, . . 73 73
. 7, 71 5001 j /
2161 , gi W 9900 2'16 12 E 70 711 0000 9900 236 12 E 70 712 0000 F
! 11 .
~~
A MOUNT DUE THIS' INVOICE's-
....,[... ..E.I.k../.....O
......................$604.31 G' Y.3 ..
l/ o
,f Y (I'! % /l x
- e
.i M n , ;-
/dh s iev, .
- f. iU 1W% Service Charge
\\ l \\ d y;til cat ^cde on
%'D \.'.h *_, ,= , P3st Gee Accounts ss .g l' .
'x ORIGINAL
1
.. C ..>
OLIVER B. & SON INC.
. . J. .. .. ..
OuvER 8. CANNON & SON. INC. OF F(ORIDA 5600 WOODLAND AVENUE BAENO PANmBW3 COndPANY OtVISION OF
, g 33,aa ,
PHILADELPHIA. PA.19143 OuvER 8. P- A SON. WC. 215--729-4600 South Houmen."h.TP5ET yw: stu4o.140s-7 Phone. 713447-9570 OuvER 8. P- & SON OF LOUISIANA. INC.
- e. ion wa. mss.
$23-12686'l4 PAINTING SPECIAUSTS pn . -
geeo* \D - 5o Texas Utilites Generating Company
':t- l
_ E D vt 4=^'= . .w -4/30/84
" " ' " ' CPF 16245 Post office Box #1002 MAY 141084 .
i Glen Rose, Texas 76043 - 2. -- 1
.. . .. . . . . TEXAS Ullurlas GEIERATMl @
m y, y LB.C. JOB NO. B-8301' RE: C[nmanche Peak Steam Electiic P[ EASE REMIT TO: Station . , . .
. .: Oliverk Cannon & Son Inc.
- -- P"" ""
! . CGlen Rose, Texas PHILADELPHIA. PA 19175
.'.":^ *i. -
i Ticket Number *[. 19 $693.88 M g d-
~
TEXA5 UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY mu c ,a c
.o $ N lnf d V D
- s e". a . g.e l "::r" ^~'
I 2161 , 73 , 71 Sool 4 /8. /[ 2161 , 73 . 71 Sool 2161 , 73 , 71 Sool ' S " '- 2161 73 . 71 Sool
' ~ ' <~ ' ' .'
9900 E 236 E i2 E 7o 7ti cooo , ,
,,oo n 236 s is s 7o ri2 oooo i , c,. .: ~
f.- ~ ~ ~
\~ ,.
ehr , u . ll i-..j!. ;, - sj.,, . -l- - n . I AMOUNT DUE THIS INVO ICE . .\ '.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 6 9 3 . 8 8
- v. r ., .
u . . .
/db 1%% 5ervice Charge ' O.
Villi Be Mede On . . ;.- 1 -Past Due Accounts
.Ts.J 3 UTILITIES GENERATING Ct.,.7._ ANY .
OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM To Mr. J. T. Merritt Date June 5, 1984 Subject CPF-16245, Oliver B. Cannon & Son, Inc. ] You requested my resolution to the question of the propriety of O. B. Cannon's Invoices No. B-04002 dated 4-2-84 for $604.31, ; No. B-04002 dated 4-30-84 for $693.88 and No. B-01001 dated l l-31-84 for $14,302. 46. After discussion with yourself, R. D. Gentry and J. J. Norris of O. B. Cannon, Norris and I mutually agreed that we will pay 50% of the above invoices. It.is suggested that a supplement be issued to CPF-16245 to incorporate provisions for payment of $7,800.33 for the additional travel expenses. It should be noted in the supplement that "this amount reflects 50% ,of actual expenses, based on C. R. Graves and J. J. Norris agreement of 5-31-84. The actual charges for the subject invoice is split 50/50 since O. B. Cannon did not obtain prior agreement from TUGCO for reimbursement of the costs." Since I understand we will quite likely be requiring some additional services from O. B. Cannon, some provision should also be included in the supplement for such fu 're charges. h * . ~^ C. R. Graves CRG:th cc: '
. R. D. Gentry (w/ attached invoices)
Purchase Order File W
-, ,# , y.- , --,.-.,-,,,,..-,.-.,em.-se,-.
, , - - , ,,----.---y- ,y-,- ---+y- ,, .g+ -.- , , . -- -e--_.----,,.-p,.w. .-- e--y--
-e
FORM NO. P 217 ; TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY Pact _L_w b CPSES FIELD REQUISITION - CONSTRUCTION 'M R 31414 p, , j. (leave blank for Purchasing Dept.) THIS IS NOT A PURCHASE ORDER PURCHASING Ji?.~r 9 '81 VENDOR NAME:. , M b ., ENT:
' STREET o(j[ ._ [O/ INTENDED USE:Mf6f WTE ' 19 T TE. ZIP ,. = . Q. "J/) /
- ' ^ ~
-~ "d DATE REQUIRED SHIP VIA: O o) _k _ - .
~ "
SHIPPING DATE: , F.O.B. TERMS: BUYER T A+
- t. EAVE Bt.ANK, FOR
'^'
ITEM QUANTITY U/I DESCRIPTION dj FtJRCilASING DEPT. COST CODES N O. WANTED Give complete descriptions, ratings, catalog nos., etc. Attach specifications, if required. c ,, g,,,,,,,,:, 7orag, c 72n L ~z
). k & C/Y~lf,.1 W 2~t%s and LJ f p. u l $' 9 l-2 9130-94ooeo /ck o.g. L o_L ~J PM 9 4 1h . R- n y:eep Odrf) 4--2 -M, 7 72 . B-64taa 0st0 4-3o-N st.0 273,. R-o/dn/ D;&;0 l-31-M IMi$d . nW&' $noIA$~ "
so uu o d -) .X -
./x r ~
~
.'"s p l S-2/ N 0. $ <
.771a.Co r V, 0g % 0. Y)N . /), $ fw--
e
.LL r
' Y~? o ='
..,=
T yo
/ , ,, ..
.. . O
. ;3 .: y l r W ,, C 1/h f ==- . . . ', . $. s@
]'",'Q pf jg I#!Lu A 0 S'i".*,"*,0 2c^ctP1,o oA f j, f ICONTRACTOli APPROVAL d
/
/ TUSI APPROV LS /
l' APPROVED: O APPROVED: & . A. -h"f APPROVED A ( *
*I f . - 1 AI , ' ll
r e= = ' "'
* ' ~
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY ,,o Ao,E s CPSES FIELD CEQUISITI!N CONTINUATIZN SIIEET - CONSTRUCTI N ' N3 R THIS IS NOT A PURCHASE ORDER REQUISITION DESCRIFTION SAr m rYuAs N. COST nra! NO. QUANTTTY WANTED U/I Give complete descript s, ra los nos.,etc. Attech specifications lf required. E m, CODES 00DREx%D Oru, Ao La %f a e r- A_D
- 0.- 0 A1 = ,
n n t ro sb nexP ~ L ab A)l 2 AO M l G 0 w D J f DA - W) U Q ,+
/
/
/
/
/
l (
%J 1 7' A J RE ISI IONE j go 0.A. Safety Related O.A* DATE-.
4 LMI Required O Q.A. Ppuired ACCEPTED ,
' CON T R ACYOR' APP'ROWL T S PROV L [
APPROVED A W*
- APPROVED
TEXAS UTILITIES G5NERATING CO. (' P.O. Box 1002 Glen Rose, Texas 76043 TEXAS UTumES GENERATING COMPANY j j DE[I t!PA-/6dO _ =(ressa l(VI
~\ -
~
TO / [/ D.M. NO _ 2161 2; O 2161 . . 73 '6f. 73 . 71 / 71 S00 ( 5001
*/ M 5 --
-[h 2161 . . 73 i 71 5001 h - "7 g 2161 . , 73 , 71 5001 9900 236 12 70 711 0000 ,
9900 236 12 70 712 0000 / h/8/[ - 8 7// A. E M ///.82 M
, 1
' ~
REMITTANCE TO BE AMOUNT lT hkl// l d //lGb {/ WO bau she c%bia 4.
'Am/' sm na. a bd4&/A dd44 5/
,A drAn?-A 4628 TorsL 15 Ass.43~
lisss 56 % (Z ffs'. ff) TOTAt _
^
EfW C1est , l e G l 1 l
(~'
.A
-I OLIVER B. CANNON & SON CPF 16245 I
HISTORICAL Mr. J. J. Norris, Vice President of 0. B. Cannon & Son, Inc., was requested to come to the jobsite July 13, 1983 to consult with Mr. J. T. Merritt on CPSES paint coating problems. Ron Tolson, F. G. Peyton, Dick Kissinger to discuss are coatings and NRC. concerns with coatings. Mr. Norris was asked if he had
.any suggestions as to how to proceed with evaluating the coatings at CPSES.
After a tour of the plant areas to view actual coating applications and discussing NRC concerns pertaining to paint, Mr. Norris was asked to
-prepare ' a proposal for review by site management.
'On July 15, 1983 we received Mr. Norris' initial proposal for Service Level I coating effort and analysis by 0. B. CAnnan & Son.
August 1,1983 a purchase order was issued for Phase I - consisting of a General Survey of CPSES protective coating program (2 - 3 people for 3 weeks) a) Production b) Work Procedures c) Scheduling d) Training and Qualification Quality Control e) f) Management of Coating Effort g) Specification (2323-AS-31) Phase II - Comprehensive study of protective coating program L including recommendations and observations (to be added by formal supplement if required). Purchase Order Requirements: (CPF16245) i Fixed Fee (over and above daily rate structure) $ 63,000.00 Total Phase I - not to exceed 100,000.00
- l. Personnel Qualifications --Qualification data and resumes to be furnished to CPSES for CPSES Management' review and approval.
h l' r
{ i PAGE 2 Fee Schedule i
. Management Personnel $500.00/ Day .
Line Personnel 400.00/ Day f Tech. Personnel 350.00/ Day : 250.00/ Day : Clerical Actual Cost , Overhead for above Add 16% j On August 15,.1983 a second meeting with 0. B. Cannon personnel was . held at CPSES as outlined in CPP-13338 (Minutes of Meeting) attached. SUPPLEMENT 1 TO PURCHASE ORDER. Supplement 1 to Purchase Order CPF 16245 was issued on 6/25/84 to ?
- incorporate negotiated agreement between C. R. Graves and J. J. Norris per C. R. Graves memo dated June 5,1984. This allowed payment of 50%
of unauthorized travel expenses since 0. B. Cannon did not obtain prior < agreement from .TUGC0 for travel other than to and from jobsite, j u
. This supplement also allowed for future payment of expenses for O. B. Cannon personnel requested to attend hearings and give testimony !
as directed by-TUGC0 management. ! 4 Invoicing: k l To date we have received five (5) invoices as follows; ; 8/19/83 #B-08003- - $12,935.15 ! 8/30/83 #B-08001 63,000.00 1/30/84 #B-01001 *14 302 46
- 604.31 i 4/2/84 #B-04002
#B-4002
- 693.88 4/30/84 TOTAL $91,535.80
*LESSDEBITMEMO(50%) H,800.32) i ~
l TOTAL PAID TO DATE $83,735.48 s I i
,, . , , , ,, , ,,,-,.-s .,n, .-.-,.-,e ,,e--,+.,., .n.a,, - , . , , , , - - - . . - , . -..-,v.e--, r,,. , ,, , , , , , - . , . ,,e .c,--nn.,, .-w,---,
CPP-13,338 Page 1 of a .
, p. (..g. g .g,3 OFFICE MEMOR A NDUM rni Distribution . . <;i,... Ham r. uu. . August 15, 1983 w hint .._. _._ . _ . . . _ _ _1AIHLING MINUTES OF MEETING
- The subject of the meeting was to define design philosophy, design criteria, exchange infonnation and address problem areas at Comanche Peak.
There are three basic reasons fcr apolying protective coat _ - ings inside containment. S 11 b U A) Protect against corrosion
- 8) Provide an easily decontaminable surface I E U U # E"
C) Minimize debris' generation that may impair MT tion of the Emergency Core Cooling and cont MefAENT CONTROL spray systems. Nuclear industry practice defines coatings system inside containment as nuclear safety related. Standards used throughout the industry are as follows.
- 1) Regulatory Guide 1.54, Quality Assurance Require-ment for Protective Coatings applied to Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants.
- 2) ANSI N101.2 Protective Coatings (Paints) for Light Water Nuclear Reactor Containment Facilities.
- 3) ANSI N101.4 Quality Assurance for Protective Coat-ings applied to Nuclear Facilities
- 4) ANSI N5.12, Protective Coatings (Paints) for the Nuclear Industry.
Per the Final Safety Analysis Report, the coatings systems at Comanche Peak used inside containment which are quailified to ANIS N101.2 will not create any solid debris due to radio-lytic and chemical decomposition at Design Base Accident (OBA) conditions. Coating systems must be durable to prevent the contribution of materials of significant size that would cause clogging of the containment recirculation sumps screen (1/8 inch mesh screen on sumps).
, . vage t Thru discussion it was detennined that CPSES is consistant with the remainder of the nuclear industry with respect to design criteria.
The industry and the NRC realize that it is not feasible
-nor practical to have 100% qualified coatings inside con-tainment. As a general rule unqualified coatings are ident-ified and quantified on a case by case basis for impact on.
recirculation sumps. Quantified amounts of unqualified coatings have been ident-ified by other A/E's in.their Safety Analysis Report as specific square footage and discussing debris generated as insignificant. This amount has been detennined by Ebasco for Waterford #3 as approximately 14,000 square feet. The quantity was re-quested by the site for engineering acceptance (i.e. an as built case). The NRC acknowledged this amount but did not
- accept or reject it.
Engineering acceptance of quantities of unqualified coating has been accepted by engineering judgement or analysis. Ebasco presented two documents NUREG-0897 Containment Emer-gency Sump Performance and Regulatory Guide 1.82, Sumps for j Emergency Core Cooling and Containment Spray Systems. These are methods recognized by the NRC that could provide a basis for engineering analysis on quantities of unqualified coat-ings. Calculations are complex and include many assumptions. From the general discussion it was' evident the common prac-tice is to achieve as high a quantity of qualified coatings as possible. Acceptance of unqualified coatings is strictly on a case by case basis only. Declassification of large amounts of areas to be coated is not accepted by A/E's or utilities and if done, problems may arise with the NRC. Large quantities of unqualified coatings could possibly cause operational maintenance problems. DISCUSSIONS - ATTACHMENT B 0F AGENDA I Items
- 1) Eliminate the requirement for coating code numbers (QP#'s) for installed miscellaneous steel, supports and attach-ments.
Resolutior. - Item closed - Working agreement between craft and-QC.
- 2) Inspections be performed or limited to no closer than "anns length":
Resolution - Item closed - Criteria placed into inspection procedures.
Page'3
- 3) Primer and topcoat system which can be brushed applied.
Resolution - Procedures are to be established to allow the use of Carboline 191 primer. Oliver B. Cannon & Son Inc. is to write the touch up and repair procedure. 4(A) Eliminate destructive testing of all supports and mis-cellaneous steel: Resolution: Adhesion of. supports and miscellaneous steel has been suspended due to high rate of confidence level.
.See Resolution 4(B) for clarification on primer thickness verification by Tooke Tests.
4(B) Eliminate the requirement for primer and topcoat thick-ness limitations on supports equipment and miscellaneous steel. Resolution - Thicknesses of primer and topcoat will re-quire verification of the inspection agency. The present specified range of primer thick-ness will be broadened to dry film thickness from 2.0-6.0 mil average with spctchecks of 1.5-7.0 allowable on primer. Total system will range from 6.0-13.0 average with_ spot-checks of 15.0 allowable.
- 5) Eliminate the use of NCR's to denote unsat conditions:
Closed - Unsatisfactory coatings are noted by unsat re-port.
- 6) Utilize only one color in containment rather than the established color scheme:
firgolution - DCA-18,330 issued to allow the use of " white" as an alternate color for any color specified.
- 7) Utilize the same coating (topcoat) for concrete coatings, embeded plates and base plates:
Resolution - Topcoating primed steel with 1201 topcoat is acceptable. 0.B. Cannon Inc. is to write procedures for this activity. Due to possible difficulties arising from the use of 1201 over Phenoline/CZ11 system a committee was esta- > blished consisting of Keith Falk, Tom Kelly and Mark Wells to establish the practicality
- of mixing systems.
- 8) Obtain air supply drier tank to supplement current systems.
Resolution: Items are procured as required.
~
. (;4 , ,-~ 'page 4 e
- 9) Remove 'QC accept'ance stickers from supports .to complete total paint system.
, 10) . Delete the. requirement _for 28 day cure of grout prior , to coating: Resolution - Procedures will be revised to reflect
-acceptability of coating grouted base plates or equipment, limited to 3 square feet of ex' posed; grout, may be coated after a 48 hour cure.
11)! Relax present v'isual inspection requirement of abandoned anchor bolts. Resolution - DCA-13,388 Rev. 5 and DCA-17,475 Rev. I renders coatings on anchor bolts N.N.S..
- 12) Relax the requirement of weld areas'from SSPC SP10 to SSPC-SP6. ,
Resolution: DCA will be written to allow surface pre-paration of weld areas to be performed with tools like, 3M clean-n-strip or flapper wheels, and obtain surface cleanliness equal to cleanliness of SSPC-SP6 surface. The t are covered by this preparation will be 1 inch each side of the weld. New Items
- 1) Delete 1 mil minimum profile requirement.
Resolution: Procedures will be revised to delete the one mil minimum profile requirement for SSPC-SP-3 surface preparation. The degree of cleanli-ness will be stated and an example for tools utilized will be given, however, the tools utilized will not be limited to the example.
- 2) CPPE and G & H is to establish exemption list of coatings and quantify unqualified. coated surface.
Resolution of all items should be in a maximum time frame of two weeks. 6
/85/ 4
- R.M. Kissingerf
/ . Project Civil Engineer RMK/ H/MW/sgr-cc: Attendees J.T. Merritt - Assistant Project General Manager J. Firtel - EBASCO
d ' ATTENDEES
- 1. Mike McBay - Manager- of Engineering (TUSI) .
I
- 2. C.R.'Hooton - Civ11 Supervisor (TUSI) '
- 3. R.M. Ki.ssinger - Project Civil . Engineer (TUSI)
- 4. David H. Wade - Licensing (TUSI)
.5.- Bob Dacko - Licensing (TUSI)
- 6. 0.B. Jones - Civil Engineer (TUSI)
- 7. B.J. Murray - Construction Manager (TUSI)
- 8. Mark Wells - Civil Engineering (B & R)
- 9. Thomas Kelly - Corrision Engineer (EBASCO)
- 10. Robert C. Iotti - Applied Physics (EBASCO)
- 11. ' Tom Brandt - TUGC0 QA (EBASCO)
- 12. Jack Norris - Vice President (0.B. Cannon)
- 13. Joesph Lipinsky - QA Director (0.B. Cannon)
- 14. Robert Roth - President (0.B. Cannon)
- 15. D.C. Purdy - Advanced Tech. (G & H)
- 16. Keith Falk-- Chemical (G & H) 17.- S.M. Marano - Project Engineer (G & H)
- 18. M.A. Vivirito - Vice President Power Engineering (G & H)
O
a ,*
. AGENDA 8-9-83 MEETING PROTECTIVE C0ATING INSIDE REACTOR BUILDING
' 1) Design Philosophy Percentage declassification (Non Q) inside containment
- 2) Industry Standards Regulatory Guide 1.S4 ANSI N 101.2 i-ANSI N 101.4
-ANSI N S.12'
- 3) Coating Systens at Comanche Peak (See AttacNuent C)
- 4) Specific Questions (See Attachnent B)
- l i
l 1 i CONSlRUCIl0N PROCEDURES CCP30 CCP30A Surface Preparation SSPC-SP10 SSPC-SP10 l Primer Carbanzinc 11 Dimetcote 6 (Carboline) (Ameron) Top Coat Phenoline 305
- Phenoline 305 (Carboline) (Carboline)
Specification 2323-AS-31 2323-AS-31 Primer Thickness L mil Avg. 2-5 mil Avg. 1.5 to 5.5 spotcheck 1.5 to 5.5 spot check Total Systen Thickness 7-11 mil Avg. 7-11 mil Avg. 11.5 max spot check 11.5 mox spot check DBA Tested to Yes Yes ANSI N101.2 , SSPC-SP10 Steel surface preparation to near white metal blast with minimum of 1 mil surface profile per manufac-
.( turer.
- s :
Purpose Coating systems provided to facilitate the control of contamination as well as to protect surfaces from corrosion. Design Criteria Per the FSAR, the coating systems used inside con-tainments which are qualified to ANSI N101.2 will not create any solid debris due to radiolytic and chemical decomposition at DBA Conditions. Coating systems must be durable to prevent the contribution of materials of significant size that would cause + the clogging of the containment recirculation sumps screen (1/8 in. mesh screen on sumps).
/.1 ! ? ' iltif NT A .-
h~,. - . . sy 'AIIACHM1N; gg The following li'ted s items are requested by Painting Personnel in order to support Dec. '83 Fuel Load.
-(1) Eliminate the requirement for coating code numbers (QP #'s) for installed miscellaneous. steel, supports and attachments.
, Resolution: QP numbers are now only required for items not installed in the building. Installed items will be documented by location or permanent I.D. numbers.
'(2) ' Inspections be perfomed or limited to no closer than " arms length".
Resolution: Quality Control Procedures have been revised to reflect this criteria. 4 (3) Primer and . topcoat system which can be brush applied.
' Resolution: Present topcoat may, at the option of craft, be brush ' applied. Various " touch up systems" are to be rev,iewed by engineering. Suggestions are Car-boline 191 Primer or Carboline 305 Primer both with the existing Carboline 305 topcoat. These systems have DBA/LOCA Testing already performed.
Procedures will be revised to include an alternate touch up system. Engineering to resolve week ending'8/13/83 - Procedure following week 8/20/83. (4) (A) . Eliminate destructive testing of all supports and miscellaneous steel. Resolution: Adhesion testing for backfit purposes has been sus-pended due to high rate of acceptance. Tooke Testing is still being perfomed until a resolution of the requirement for primer thickness is establish-ed. (B) Eliminate the requirement for primer & topcoat thickness limita-tions on supports equipment and miscellaneous steel, Resolation: Engineering is studing the feasibility of voiding this criteria. Presently testing is underway to broaden the thickness range of primer up to 12 mil. See CPPA-31,575. (5) Eliminate the use of NCR's to denote unsat conditions: Resolution: Conditions of coatings which are denoted as unsatis-factory and can be repaired per existing procedures, are repaired per those procedures without the genera-tion of an NCR. (6) Utilize only one color in containment rather than establish color scheme:
.1 Resolution: DCA-18,330 issued to allow the use of " white" as an alternate color ~ for any color ',pecified.
s
.. . . . e ,
(7) Utilize the some coating (t.cpcoat) f or concrete coatings, embed-
.1ed plates and base plates:
There will be Resolution: Engineering is reviewing this request. no problem of topcoating primed steel with the top-coat utilized for concrete; however, the question arises of topcoating existing finish coated steel with the specified concrete topcoats and later repairs. There would be a mixing of coating systems which would be very difficult to control during construction
' application and later operation maintenance. Engineer-ing to resolve week ending 8/13/83.
(8) Obtain air supply drier tank to supplement current systems. Resolution: Items are being procured as required. (9) Remove Q.C. acceptance stickers from supports to complete total paint system. Resolution: This item to be completed by 8/8/83. (10) Delete the requirement of 28 day cure of grout and pour back areas. Resolution: For the most part this criteria may remain; however, engineering is presently looking at alternatives. Presently abandoned Hilti holes, tie holes and spalled concrete patched per CEI-20 has a cure time of 48 hrs. (
~
Grout under base plates may become included in this criteria; however, pour backs and larger concrete areas probably will remain 28 days without the use of some product like Nutec 10 as a sealer. Engineering to re-solve week ending 8/13/83. Relax the pesent, visual inspection requirement, of abandoned (11) anchor bolts. Resolution: See DCA-13,388 R. 5 and DCA-17,475 R. I rendering anchor bolt coatings N.N.S. (12) Relax requirement of surface preparation for weld areas in contain-ment from SSPC-SP10 to SSPC SP6. Resolution: Engineering will review and resolve week ending 8/13/83.
- * -- -- - . - , . ,, . _j . ., _
y..
.q7 3. , y . ,
,. J' p
I 6 J Ed
..r- -- - . - -
~ ;
t
^
, , OLIVER B. CANNON 4 SON. INC.
G.J osI 9.;.u., f a 5000 WOODLAND AVENUE MARTIN K. MICHEl.S PHitADELPHIA, PA.19143 CORPORATE CA. AUDf70g PHONE: 215 729-4400 I 1 A member af the eerswee summy as 1 I 1 OLIVER B. CANNON 4 SON. INC. 8.l a.esl Me u.e G[pe i.h 9000 WOOOLAND AVENUf PHILADELPHIA, PA 19143 a JOSEPH J. UPtNSKY PHCNE. 215 T29-4400 CORPORATE QA OtRECTOR
- ._. , . ... __ , . _ _ . _ _ . -- . _ . _ - -_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . , _ _ _ , _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . - - _ - - . _ . . _ - - _ . _ - - _ _ , _ . . - . . -}}