ML20094M897
| ML20094M897 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1981 |
| From: | Pirtle G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Boyd D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19258A087 | List:
|
| References | |
| CON-BX20-038, CON-BX20-38, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8408150750 | |
| Download: ML20094M897 (137) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:D ~~ n .g -}lE '# 4% utHTec trA153 U NUCLE AR CEGULATORY COssIASS$lON . 4/'$ $ 4 y a ascioes m 1 3 I 7a* noostven.7 acao I
- f ottu e tow. ettie.ois soin I d o
4 g
- v. - j Septer:ber 22, 1981 3
? MEMORA'sDUM FOR: Af' Boyd Protects Leader, Mid3snd SAf.P Repocc
- ii G. Pirt]c. SALP Coordinator, Divisjon of Engineering F. ROM:
and Technical Inspection N <3 DEIl SALP INPtlIS FOR NIDLAND N SL'B.1ECT :
- 4 The enclosed correspondence centains all of the 0011 inputs for the Midland f,
SALP report except for the MaterimJs and Processes Sectism. wwM r- .Q Durinr iv1,11. provide bis section's. input as a sepseste =P to-thim mese. ff your review proLess, changes or wdiffreations to the inputs say be necessary. Q P3 ease feci Mr. J. Belanger and I are acting as the DCTI SALP Coerdinators. [h ar1se. If the free to contact us to assist you in resc1ving any issues that "f NF issues are of a technical nature for a certain functional ares. ve can adv3ke you of the DE11 technical npresentative responsible fer the input (s). M Attachment A contains a suo.sry of Dill inspection r,anhours in csth functienal pk strachsent B contains data pertaining to total mawhours and noncerplianca M;,
- area, for Eidland, as previded by Mr. Tar.bling's section. Dell co:=-ents to clarify J
some issues are slao included in Attachment B. I hope these attachr.ents are of assistence to you in resolving eguestions that may arise, I L d A couple significant points should be noted. Two DE71 sections provided inpists Their recos=vnded rscings are for the Quality Assurance functlonal area. k*e have also recocoanded a "Below Average rating for the Siti. a 'W different. M Preparation and Foundations functional area based upon the Civii Engineering input. Finally, although the Electrical functions) area is rated everst;e. an ~ increased inspection of fort was recone, ended to confirin the ef fectiveness of + 4 corrective actions. O M eg C. Pirt e, SALP Coerdinator (E Division of T,ngineer.its tid JItchnical inspectice y f Attachments: As stated cc v/attacheents: 9 C. E. Morelius = ty S ,d. 8408150750 840718 PDR FOIA R ICESA-96 pyg .t'*lf
4 Division af Enginesri s and Tcchnicci htpection- .,l SALP Input for Midland V .M:f4 1. psality Assurance A. Analysisi (Electrical and InstrumentatJon Imput) id . Two inspection (74 hours) have been performed during this evalvassees per o. gj Three violations were identified. These violations were: ' wi f Severity Level V violation (Criterios T) for Tsfises to develar = appropriate procedures to assure that Claan IE table. aCatsen bend d (1) radius criteria was not violated (2 examp2es), f-4,, Severi,ty Level Y violation (Criterion 2n't far fs53wre to trans-l : J (2) late TSAR cosaritments inte specificacicos, dyswJngs, procedutts er I there was no requirements char Class JE ispulse ) .1 instructions in that i lines and associated process sytem instruments be identified in such Q a sanner which distfactively identifjes these items as being a part , [, of the protection systes. Severity Level V violation (Criterion XV1) for failure to assure that, conditions adverse to quality are promptly identified sn4 3 (3) corrected in that, as of May 22, 1981 corrective action had not fy been taken in response to a Quality Assurance finding dated April 3, j g 27, 1981, which identi-M.if 1980, and licensee Audit finding dated January fled the Isch of approved procedures for the rework of itees which T~ hed been inspected and accepted by quality Control. 7 ,j The first two items were identified during a routine safety inspection on April 28-30 and May 1, 1981, and the inst ites.was identified during a -p team inspection on May 18-22, 1981. 'N* B. Ratings i Average 7 I J C. Comments Ntunnend-increened-insper.t.i== ef fort in
- M=
= ras-te-confirw tw eTrec-i r.iwenese-of-correcriviFactione already initiated. , 't l ~~ A. ,Analysist (Civil Engineering Inpws) 80-26) has been performed dur3ng the evalv,- One routine inrpection (80-25: X stion period. No noncompliances were identif Led. tvo special inspections (80-32; 80-33 and'81-DD regarains Ctco 50.5 .M v ~ i.. ) L h 7:g a p .m n..
ggg,ggru vew W"} %?p2 '%Bfi ;t m,.hj9 '
- {,g-wg
+ .a Samanky and Comments (MI'dland) l' W 1 );h[f. c.s ;,I e [hf,If 1. Six of the eight. violations on the master sheets fer th 1:Jiny9. functional ares are addressed $m the DCTI lagete Que33ty Ansecance $'f,Qh i{st6 severity LeveJ' IV's for this functional. area.are Sev .@,,, g.g.g; n cate any error. N moweer shmee may he in c,r.
- .Q;i.7-$,
2. Foundations functionel ares.The mester sheet, doca met cit ^ 5h a e SJte ProperstJsso and f' dressed one Severity 1svel 17, one Severkty bron11F v5 d P deviation. h. The master sheet may be is error. e and one ~ ~' i L @hw,$,f; The mascar m'heet indicatee-sin vioistions in t6a Ele x-2 3. 4. steam s.;he violations applies to Unit 1 only& DETI Japuts add hR cal functional One of only, and the remaining violation applies to both watts, one vio3=tism s @,iad identifies which violations apply te ubimb unit + sw The DE72 Japut , ;g.v..w.jy 4. j Units 1 and 21e the Quality Aneuramee functic .y;j y g@.e-- effort for indfestes 149 hours inspection effort for each easle 2
- 7
, 1he VEn twpot t area. (112 hours Civil Engineering and 37 howrw ter ElectrJea2 r, 7 e this functional , mentation). .? <,k'. and 2patrw-y 5. .3he DE71 input for the Site Preparation and Foundacio O C indicates 33 Jaspection hours for each unit in this functi 3 total hours). n J,. ? onal area (106 1 hp{L - 6. fJactional' area are DETI bcora.Che hundred-te eet for the Electrical' , 1, ~M, M , y; 9 e N 6 <P . unio .e 5 L e
- ,r.
S a g g
l 0 ls % }; 3-
- Ann namne: er zuronenmer sten - yr.nt. on r co t e
4.- to, r==nity 8 MiDtAND moemet w.SD t 3 ou .? i ( tavestigatlee/- W;$ - T-setiemal Areas 1menteme15snees and Deviathns 14
- s. Inspection severity revels.
i Cateserser i LEE Manheurn 1 22 str; 2v ' iv i,1 No313msr.1twf. p t .i
- 1. goality Assurance QM
"J i i i 5 i [ ? ? ,,' g
- 2. site Properation and s
renne. tion. !/ t
- 3. Cont = H23t Structures j~
1 1 thV 4. Safety-Belated f 3FJ Structures l h I I, l I jg
- 5. Paping r i sangers l
g') f g ', y
- E'
- t. 5alety-helatta c e n.nt.
17 L
- 7. Electrica]
L 2 /g y"j
- 8. Instruentatron q :g g
q q f 9. Fire Protection q q g O =T* ID, Preservice 2nspection q q .d/ / Mt
- 11. Correct 2ve Action and r1 I1 DGE 2eporting f
i (. J i
- 12. Procurecer.t p
5 f,,,
- 13. Design and Desion
] } u ca ge. 1 ~
- 14. Training Q
Kor
- 35. P2 ant operataons gFJ.
Preparation g Ut!T' If, Fuel leading Prepara-8 tion 1 j l 9 0 C q
- 17. Maintenance j
l. g _L y it. security & Safeguards g W '19. Surveillance and Pro Odif.#47EFML TEST /MG-
=
b uoi 2 w,0. Emergency Planning O r$ 21. Audits. Devaews, ana Coasnittee activities O
- 22. Modules Not included in Any Functional Area g
gt f g 1 L f2A0 L P 20 dkEt3C wru.s j A~0ewq.a eA-%1mO u:n ocs n.*4 oJhod ~5*[( '- ('y [ t't _ C*,','$ i ( r.h b '
- - +---
a. W ob
7 l I ; responses were performed during the evaluation period, n.w nemcoepHances were identiffed. These were: (3) Severity Level IV violatice f or f ailure to tabe adeqete corrective action to prevent repetition of not identifying design documents for the rer.aining F5AR re-review packattes. (2) Severity Level V violation for f ailure to have adegene sr,11 izrpiv-menting procedures. A special tear inspection (81-12) was performed duth$ t.he evaluwrfon
- period. One noncorepliance ves identified: Severity Lesti IV vicistico for failure to take adequate corrective accios repret'ot 54act$i1e6 adverne trends. For exassple. 22 instances of construction byesssing QC hold points were inc3uded in the tresfing snsJys.fs. but. m adequate analysis to identify the tout cause was not performed.
Subsequent to the inspectors finding. QA issued a stop work order in this aren. A a:anagement necting between CPCe and the XP4 was held'on P. arch 23, 1983, to present the new F,$dland Project QA tear. Actions Iaken and proposed to improve the QA prograr. vete also discussed. 5. Ra_t.i ng: Below Average. Based upte all the effort put forth by CPCo. since the ~ Decev6er 1979 order, the inspector was disappointed to find that they did rot have adequate soil implementing testing procedures in place, that the major TSAR re-review effort was not being accocplished according rfetive action b' dql I to procedures, and that the re not taking uate ~ M MM/m<_4 h a j @ w - c.g k ~f**'% O s %.(s p Wt eir trendin A in pro raq., n,
- cws, C.
Coseents: C ^f, The inspection frequency for this area should be increased te verify coepliance with cossri ents discussed during'the. Marc anag C -ts.- Om 'dCfa.y%% % e 2. ,$ite PT,eparation and Foundationas A. _Analys1st (Civil Engineering Input) 1 One routine inspection (81-09) has been perforree durir,g af,e evahmt. ion One noncompliance han been identified Severity Level Y vil/3atiren period. for failure to follw procedures in the proturement of Voodward-Clyde. Consultanta. hto special inspectionn (80-32s 80-33 and 82-01) regarding Crce SC.54(f J responses were perforwed during the evaluation period. One nemtoepliance i and one deviation were identified. '!hese weret F l s _
' ~ s f M' % gen 3 1 Severity level IV violatten for failure co hasc adequate-design .+ d ++ (1) control measures with three examples cited. Deviation for failure to provide a fulltime onsite nectechnical (2) engineer. x the berated wates The licensee han issued one 50.55(e) in this area: 4. C storage taak foundations cracks, f.] No significant events smok piece in this area 4ating Om e esisat. ion p Midland soils hearing prelimine.y work (i.e., discovery, disposition, etc. 'y was proceeding. y 't B. Rating: lhe inspectors were disappointed ce find t. hat the licensee Below Average. did not have adequate soil horing procedures in place prior to ttnecente- ..(# ,g ment of works that denign interface problem.s sti'll ev.tsted in Ann Ar Bechtel of fice and that there wasn't a geotechnical engineer onsite. C. Consne,na l ) 3. The inspection frequency should be increased proportional to the amount and type of remedial soils work that CPCo begins. 3. Containment Structurey -l ( A. _A,sslys11: (Civil Engineering input) s has been performed during the evalu-One routine inspection (80-25; 80-26)No items of noncompliance we ation period. These werer l D e licensee has issued two 50.55(e)'s in this area, The meismic sodel used for the auxillacy building sprears to be in-(1) correct. Major shear reenforcement around major containment penetrations (2) appears to be insuffiefent. l?
- s. p.tias:
l Average. ll4 C. Commentst I No significant events or activities took place in this area during th is at+ut tisho evaluation period. Inspection f requency for this. scaly):7 l. 5 ' is i [* M LAwat
,py p b $.l ,, Containment work is complete. K1 (~rf,( }4 ~ 4. Safety-Related Structurer: w.. . / ~j No DETI inspections were conducted during the SALP 11 e valuerlon period for this f functional area. Therefore, the DETI input is " ace r&e.erwf,.** ?S ~ -[ 5. Pipi r and Hangers: 4 x g No DETI inspections were condverab during the SALP 11 ers1matica period fee this .f " functional area. Therefore, the DETI input is "not observed. " [ 6. Safety-Related Components: I No DETI inspections were conducted during the SALF II avaluation period Icr this functional area. Therefore, the DETI laput is *not observe 5. 7. Elmetrical: g, r [ i A. Analysis (Electrical sad 2natrumentation input) a Three inspections (110 hours) have been perfarned during this evaluation period. Three violations were identified. These violations were: r A l y (1) Severity Level V violation (Criterion X) for failure to assure that activities affecting quality cocply with doeurented instructions. procedures, design documents, and applicable codes and standards in that the Quality Control inspector failed to verify that electrical 6 cables are routed within the equipment without violating the 6 inch q q mintuun eeparation reqvf rerents between Class IE and non-Class IE , cables -(Unit 1 only). I,I 1 u (2) Severity Level V violation (Criterion 3V) for failure to estabitsh l 7 9 measures to control materials, parts, or components which do not con-l form to requirementa in order to prevent their inedrertent woe or installation in that the inspectors identified 14 instamrew in which fjl cable trays were not installed in accorden a 1ritb* separation require-ments (barriers were not shown os drawings) and had not been identified I!? l and controlled. Each of the.14 cabic trays had been tastettted by Quality Control and released for cable installation and each tray con-1i tained cable. l[ (3) Severity Level Y violation (Criterloo K) for failwe to assure that activitica affecting quality comply with doc 4ssenced inetractions, l.,, 3 procedures, design documents, and applicable codes and standards In s 3 that the Quality Control inspector f ailed to verify that electrical 7, y cables are routed within the equipment without vioJating the mini =ue s N bend criteria of electrical cables. (Unit 2 caly.) l The firnt two items were identified durfog a rowt.ine safety inspection on 1 <.':qyp... q-i X$?w www-Iam
Y' v. . h. [g .S-
- tg 7
April 28-30 and May 1, 1981, and the last item was identified during a $g-Q la team inspectice on May 18-22, 1981.
- DpfijQ
- "L' w
~.jhg*fiq Average. =. P. 1 C. Comments: ( l Recosamend an increased inspection effort in this. ores to confirm the eidec- ~ tiveness of corrective actions alvendy initiate 4. Is general, the Ifeenvee 'E has taken prompt and effective action to corzeer the wielations identified ? by tbs RIII inspectors. The overall effectiveness med attitude of licensee's Quality Assurance persommeJ in complying with 3RC repu3atory tequirements 2l%,. for the construction of nec.leac power plants is wavy good in that. they shgl2 have established an effective %esque-time" inspection of their constzmeters 4mpff4j activities. g$ % ,gfy S. Instrumentari,on: No DETI inspections were conducted during the SALP 11 eva3ustion period for 4 s J.; this functional ares. Therefore, the DE71 loput la "not c+eerved," 9. Fire Protectiont f 3Co DETI inspections were conducted during the SALP evaluation period for thim functional area. Therefore, the DET3 input le "not observed," (
- 10. Preservice 1,ggetion:
ilh No DETI inspections were creducted during the SALP 21 evaluation period for 3 this functional area. Therefore, the DE11 input is "act observed." {i
- 11. Corrective Actjan and Repot,t h I
Mo DETI inspections were conducted during the SALP H evaluation period for this l.l fonetional area. Therefore, the DETI input is Ne4 ebeeswi." l$
- 12. Procurements 4
i No Df31 inspections were conducted during the SALP II evaluat. ion period for this I factional area, Therefore, the DE11 input is "me*t s+eerved,"
- 13. Desian and, Mn Chanae.E8 g
- No DETI inspecticas were ccwdurted during the SALP 12 eme)me25:e prit4 for this
- .y
{ functional area. Therefore, the DETI input is "not observed," ~ lM -
- 14.,Trainingt
- n 4
l !!- '4 @;j
- Mt.N. R3R s.
h .,M ( k i h N k sh M i $ $i$ $ 6 % K W W M e *'* - i 6- [g; a No DET1 inspection were conducted during the SALP JJ sysJuatice period for this I M.'(f%' "'fy1'.{@{;- Therefore, the DETI lapat 2a "not obsened." functional area. t. gj 15. Plant _OErations Preparaticus: 7 n jk [ No DETI inspections were conducted during the 5Att IT evaluation period for this 'Iherefore, the DE11 input is " cat.h erved." S functional area. 16.. Fuel Loading Preparationt .g ~ No DETI inspections were conducted deciag the SALP 22 evaluation period for this l Therefore, the DETI input Js "aet ebeerved," functional area.
- 17. Maintenance:_.
y No DET) inspections were conducted during the SALP II evaluation period for this .Q y Therefore, the den input is "not observed." {, y functional area.
- 18. Security and $sfetuards:
Ro DETI inspections were conducted during the SALP 11 evaluetion period for this [ M'$ Therefore, the Dell input is "not chaerved." M functional area. +4 .x
- 19. surveillance, and Preoperationa3 Testin.g:
No DETI inspections were conducted during the $ ALP JJ evaluation period for this i Therefore, the DETI input is "not observed." functional area. f s )4
- 20. M ency Planning:
inspections were conducted during the SAIP JJ craluation period for this i No DIT) l' Therefore, the DETI input is "not observed." functional area. f
- 21. gdits. Revievs. and Concrittee Activities:
j No DETI inspections were conducted during the sal"# II evaluation period for this1 1 '?- i 1herefore, the DEIJ input is Not ubeetwd." j-functional area. 4' g e v 74 1 h e 1 .< e, ~ -.
i p g ~. "7 DETI INVESTICATION AMD INSPECTION MANNOURS FOR EACH PUNCT10EAL AREA a midland) f, '~ ?.
- 6....
7.*TM 1. Quality Assurance: Unit 1 - 149 himsw 4$3.Yg Unit 2 - 149 hours [4A y, :;, 2. Site Preparation and Foundations: Tait 1 55 b:suus unic 2 - 53 hours ? 'I 3. Containment structure: Unit 1 - 25 hours Unit 2 - 4 hours 1 mfety-Related Structures: 0 hours 4. e q. ? 5-~ 5. Piping and Hangers: 0 hpurs ~ c 6. Safety-Related Coopements: 0 hours 7. Elsetries1: Unit 3 - 55 hours Unit 2 - 55 hours y. 8. lastrimentat.fon:~~ 'O hours '.p h 9. Fire Protection: 0 hours A J
- 10. Preservice inapecticot 0 hours
- 11. Corrective Actions and Reportime: 0 hours j
- 12. Procurement 0 hours 1
- 13. Design and Design Chansees 0 hours
- 14. Trainiest 0 houra
- 15. Plant Operations Preparations: 0 hours f
16. Fuel Loading Preparation: ( hours
- 17. Maintenance: 0 hours
~
- 18. Security and Safeguards: 0 hours a
19. Surveillance and Preoperational Testing: 0 hours 20. Emergency Planning: 0 hours
- 21. Audits, Reviews, and Committee Activities: O heers
.c ? i' .A Attaciment A ~ N ... y
.%".i - .t MASTER SHEETS FOR I)fVESTJC4TJtW.adti IltSPECT100t BOURS AND IICKCCIF13ANCAS
- h.g., Ma (Hidland) y
.'f.g..n] A p,y ~ y 7f g,;. The first sheets of this attachment contata data obtained by Mr. Tambling's '$MIM The section in reference to totsi rianhcors sad noncompliances for M5dland. .(g,lMM,P?; lef t hand margin has recourended ratinge for each F-tiemmi asee is ehtch the - i{$$3 '.f>e. Division of Engineering and Technical Instection (Otttt) prorthd an impet. The remaining page ermtains unresolved items noted beoere the asaster sheets 1 [c 'e2 and DETI inputs or general comments. ~ ? i k + th*r ~ ..w .'1, QF MEs .p~g;; sa n e v.
- . d5 i
- ,- s; e
5"A
- D b'4
- 4..
5 k e'$ 4 }" ?E &+. i, s.s a \\ } Ik!4 ~I ~ 4 ,o p e 1 ,~ M..a s 1 J '4 Eer ,.A*'
- *i4
~ i. d0 n .d. t;;t. W. m Attachnnt n m.* ? Y *faia s ci' "h-dM EMM 3, 7,. ;. N N Y.f T' Y J,N $ N - = ;:....v.y
{bb 'hh { b ff ~ U.S. amirsna RICHATORY CetBS51 cut RSC10W III ocicoInc ram rutssion S m 2cz asectst [ Weber of taees". sato /#-/- 8/ te (u..e):
- Z Ccx>/<
D. C. Bc>w) trees _ DM-d /NAT Description - l TUR %T 4 DfC CSE Air Rights 314g l system 6 0;r-) l E/W towers i; i; Rapitax E Street 3P! III 7727 3c:33 3K EXT ??28 Phillips Bids FIS Silver Springs . Cecriereja3 (E111ste sidg) . l Landmr 31ds l Time Started Region I '73ne Caspleted Region II Trans. fame.
- ~
Region IV (Ac:ual.t es.) Reston Y Operator Besident at @/MND RSAC 1 :PO l Corporate Office (Identify recipient & fax number) l Other (Designete - include fax number) Dev 7/28/81 . Attachment 1 Er 0905 & 0906
? l.. ( . r. m v er comrr n=== - n nt. -a., e 32, u ] 0 rasnur n MnDLaN3 a.ause me. 48 we
- ac.
1 lawestigstles moncesell' nces and Powiat3 ens 4 e Ftmaetseman areas s.xnspeeston severier se,vas catewrses _N_ Manhours I '32 333i ! 34 i lv < 'WE < L'102 3 ' Ir.Pr.! 1:ef.I De-T. 85 m 1.Qi$alityAssurancit 3m ~7 S h< hl l . l t j, ,c i p a 9
- 2. sit. tree.r.uon.no
/ 3 u yA /% = tion. 9 g
- 3. Containment Structores 2g
.g J er . 3.rety-n.at.a 1 i q n.. structor.. g$ 3a ri
- 5. ** pine =* masers 33 3
/ y . 3.r.sy-ment.a f"f u L c e. cone.nent. 1. 1 [ i a..j i i ..h A
- 7. Electrical (g,9 7 W
l [ g
- 5. 2nstrumentauon g J[ 9. Fire Protection J $-
j j j p y.r 2o.,, er..e 2.,e.tio,. g adT 11. Corrective Action and GC Seporting f
- 12. Procurenent O
aj M
- 33. Design and Design 9
%d Changes M {,
- 14. Training g
m-
- 15. Plant. Operations
$C Preparation { MT
- 16. Fuel leadant Prepara-a s
tion C, j, J M
- 17. Meanter.ance Bf" Q
t g*)
- 10. Security a Safegueses peg
- 19. Surveillance and Fre.
Q 09 erat.Oct mgyaq y g ,20. En=reeney riennisy-O L gpr
- 21. Audats, RevAews, n e Ogg Committee activities,
O
- 22. Modulee Not included la p )
Any Functional Aree f*, l \\ 1 7 =," 'A- ': 1 ~ mus LI.feEDO L A-CLueaw BA-Edewahp ueres..w g % 4 . I *ise-p*.
- ".Q.ya, g.iQg3 a; [.Q:[^:--{.[
^}^ ^ ~ [.,}QQ:j,jljl k,,, ) NRA PE(ORWdKE EVAL.UAT10h ,e 3: T:::111ty: Midland Plant, Units ) ans'2 fra),ct Manapr: Darl Hood Appraisal Period: July 1,1980_ - June 30,196) 1. perferusace flesents _0maltts of Responses and seatttals i tesponses and subelttals during this reviso period new principall regarded the selli. settlement Issee, faciudlag seismic faces, and responses to Pest-TMI requirements (IRfREG-OFNI. 74ese mesters is velve sipificant desty cnanges, entensiw moeitional tetteletter satis exploration and laboratory analyses turteg tae earlier pas of this review pertes. replies to sta#'s regnest were not substa tive and tended to orpe the staff's need far that $nternetlen; or the menspeent appeal decision or staff positM wet tdem, the replies tended to became responsfw. mense, tar geslity of the re teeds to be acceptable esce the need is firmly established. Felle a lang appeal to um aansagement, recent responses prwrtdfag sof t beriops and laboratory, tests samply with the stali voguest and are of acceptable que11tp. Recent respasses estabifsMag new seism 6e desty criteria for the stte how been of alp quaitty esee the st positten. letter (L Tedesco, October 1, IggD) estabitsbed the noot 114e easy other plants tae responses to past.12 raystrements at this pelet la tfee larg,ely reflect plans and semettenets with dets . left for a later stage. In sonnery, utile early nspenses durlag i report period were belse average is respenstveness, the more reces 'respenses tend to be substassive and et acceptable quell 1tr. Ykis ncognizes, of caerse, that la severa) areos, desty progren does. i met yet provide for sdstantim repiles,
- b. Efforts Required to thtain as Accessaefe arspense or 5stuf ttal (1) Timeltmess It genere11y takes een snee the average sten and effort to e6tain acceptable and substanttu responses frem this app 1tca i
The propenstta of this applicant ta et1112e the hearing prece and IRC menessneut appeal process to rese1 w ofsey wearets ce i that additional time and effort be empended my the staff la s i fying the applicant that the staff's request er views are ade besee. Emmaples during tais report perled arv disenssed abov the staff regnest for sell berings and the need for setssic c resoletten, 5ech facters aske it difficult to entstata sched for this appitcattoa. (2) Effort R.:fer to ites lb (1) abeve. ~ (3) Responsiven'ess to staff requests { Aefer to item la
},1Op.., W.v'c M..},;$6h 9 '., [+T. ? ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,', ti, [p.,; 3 - ,p i B. Nurber and Nature of Defici_ency Reports Thirteen (13) Construction Deficiency Reports (CWs) reported pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(e), were received by the regional office during the period of July 1.1980 codIues 30, 1981. He nature of these reports covers a broad range of material i and construction problems as listed below: I
- 1.
High Energy Line Break Analysis (ELBA), steady state thrust forces rather than transient peak thrust forces were used in the energy bal-asce techalques for the design of HELEA pipe Maip restraints. 2. Sway Strst Rod Inds Deficiency, ITT Crinnell supplied sway struts, saubbers and shock suppressors have loose or totally disengaged rod end buabings.
- 3.
Campement Cooling Water (CCW) Design, CCW ayetas susceptibility to Loss of Coelaat Accideht (IACA) laduced failures. 4. Neelear Steam Supply System (MS$$) analysis, anomalies identified in the N555 sefwe and Loss of Coolant (!ACA) analysis of the primary systas. 5. Emergency Core Coo 11sq Actuation System (ECC&S) vender wiring la the BOC&S cabiasts IC45 and 2C45 was foeomatstent with redindest subsystem I modules in the cabinets. I 6. Lov alloy quenched and tempered bolting 1 inches and greater in support of safety related systems. 7. Underrated Terminal Strips on Limitorqua Operators.
- 8.
Seismic model of Aust11ary Buildiss has incorrect assumption that control tower and main portion of Ausiliary Building are an integral unit between elevation 614 and 659 l
, ' l. 7.?'((,$"',M.W 7 G. '.t thfT. B. Number and Nature of Deficiency Reports Thirteen (13) Constraction Deficiency Reports (COR's) reported pursuant to 10 CFR $0.55(e), were received by the regional office durias the period of July 1,1980 and June 30,19th. The nature of these reports covers a broad range of material and construction problems as listed below
- 1.
High Energy Line Break Analysis (ELBA), steady state thrust forces rather than tranalent peak thrust forces were used in the energy bal-l ance techniques for the design of HELBA pipe dip restraints. .2. Samy strut Red Ends Deficiency, Trf Grinnell supplied sway struts, sou%ers.and $hoek suppressors have loose or totally disengaged rod l end bushings. 6 l
- 3.
Camponent Cooling unter (CCW) Design, ccw system susceptibility to Iess of Coolant Accident (14CA) inheced failures. 4. Nuciaar steam Supply System (us$$) analysia, anomalies identified in the N585 selmaic and less of Coolant (14CA) analysis of the primary' system. / 5. Emergency Core Coolfg Actuation System (ECCAS) vender wiring in the i: l BCC&S cabinata 1C45 and 2C45 was incessistent with redundant embeysten modules is the cabinets. l 6. Low alloy guenched and tempered bolting 1% inches and Ernster la support of safety relatei systems. l 7. Underrated Terminal Strips on 1.fmitorque Operators. i
- 8.
Seisade model of Ausiliary Buildiris'has incorrect assta'ption that control i tower and main portion of Aux 111ary Buildits are an integral unit between elevation 614 and 659. l 7:.
s. ,.[ j;,.- 1.., ' , k'h :;~.
- gy.ap:. c U.S. WUC1. EAR REGULATORY C0tetl54105 REGION III
- ,g J \\
OUTG01NG 7RA4.5M15510M SEAv1CE ArQUIST OM! ww ber et Pasee. 4-sta EM Ootr 0 (n.->. Mb N root /Mn SSu es
- cocription i
TOR EP s D/C T!I tir Rights 31dg t/W Tevers Systec 4 (kP) Rapitax l StrCot 3Y.Lnt H2: .c;55 3M EXT P7:t Phillips tids TIS Silv r Sprir.ss (**illste Alds) Cctr.er tin 1 landov tid; Tise Started Region 1 73ce Cocpleted Regica 11 Trans. Time Region IV (Actual F..r.s. ) Region Y Resident at k, ~ 15AC 1h.10 Corporate Office (Identify recipient & fax nue.ber) Oth:r (Declgnate - include tax nur.ber)
a$ ft.' w n. p -_Wer s 4 ge m .,Gaha'..hg-., d.M6mmN. 1,-wG c t b eeh"r--, a"ep,- e 6 M5g&MN ha e" + adSM.W.%W$ 4 'h h..'5 41sMM b.iI.M#.w4D> 4 . g , 4, ' .~.. [U D d'*/5.I * ~P 4 ~ f/6/u L D u.). A4,- c s Sucgsc.r :. Mvan o 7% M., u< as c x, em.., s 4 . dm ,M.e-yat-5-e ha vi <a.s a-J.recomr.~Jahe{ 7< h. Ye 4... 7&: u iers 4, s e#/~~_/-. E }G Midk~d c/ie.re/ y,. < A ~- bu, /J a s. _.. -) z~.1 /z. AG. h w J<& g o c, ss ' /-c v.>freyffe y e E. O =,&
- $/,
= - . / r. ca / i o /a l e J er s e e.~- m Z, < h m 5M ' OV ry. a (f. Y. L h 2% 3$D, ra R. c .. y.n y .. g.F A p y n o ....)~ L //.e c . m %.a...-.Lu.C e w --.w e. -<6 s e.-.e s.... /h ... d < c s a_ [.. - a a.e?. 4.-
- Jo,//a-.
.. >&.r j-ee f% l -.-.1 ink,. >ela4 4 ic > e e e g. v ,ce n,rz cr ._ e~u~, m ~ .i ..L 4/yv c /vre.i \\, n g;+ '. + .,s- ~ ...}... W e 9 .k ---. 1 - - ~ + ~ - ' ~ - -- = - - '
- '~T
. -... - -. -... _. ~... - - @~ks you A n a u_> .s e, e n t
- e. dv e, s -
w e-Fr A ee . o c c. u r e J J /L1,d/a-L .c,,te.e NG sla
- c. a. i1.s crcele v-A. /973 sWecuamT
/ .eae.L e F A., e ar c Jr .m /A ~.g ly ad.ye 4-A guJb w,M J ys. af 4 ,,Lic pr3 ~J,a,oL.44 a ssue-e a e h_. ha,
- essoc,
--, M ~( e...~._A /,<vc-nh s S.M .h ea e. c-a s.. c.u c. t ..-..e u < s e & e > ..-ft%..f. - fA..<._... ~ n ~, ineF.. r.fa v, . m s =, 6.-.._ a _ u? S, h k od.,-,, /v JA'c-c.e-t w e v a. /s d 4 d, fur %W u e e skhd,u e J k+ 4 abrAh sF At' .s% J J.-
- s. S ~hr <. _...-
.. d e s g< g y ~ G ~ c. % je.E w. Ihr in k.uJ.- & c-v . ~ 7~ s/c. . _ ns +- . ws., coy.~s - ) No u & es dicSe/. #e'n e vd2rv s o b.ut./di.v --.. se ffk a eu l-s>.xs J L..- n d..... . % t- .h J. dcre c. S . Z. v a /o 7 __ LW L -. s ~ py~h a.n +. x.s w u --._ : ps -,, =, - sGL8 . da u. /- 4ue e.wg.t' Jot W, h b f-f.es_gn2 -/- o _.. s d e ls e l.e- < @._ /A..< ._.d.e e s. L _ g % c v. /> - s a J< J e~..,- .h o,/ dy yn Wo~ r ir A ts ..-.wd. . S-JA.e frag > w &<%o.. ~ .. Je. J .4x r A - a p,a H y/e ~ ~-f r h -x et ' f>>ga m .).c..
...L ....--...~.--...:~....-.~.~...:--~- ^ lM r 3 Vt% emh. v o w ww c u h-C ~ fC. S~ ca ,e q cte < e -t.% >e % f a <es-e {' $lr a j feyav.)/tJ) Su I k.. c. ~,, we are > 1- .a.,i.. a 4;.,. w a. a,. h.' ' /gi2 .nw,A f-n n, = T T-- 1, he e nu., ,Gr e, ~~t-n- ~ c a J.s + - be r.w e < k /k e v, h a ' ( .c h > e aC-c c,. s h a -1 r a n~ & A f~/.t~, 4 auh uny v in+-h of' m ~..deorr. e e s 5' A ~ gd uc - e. O n- --n a, + 7 $,, ~L e> h./. 6 i to e i y td1J hy,oc-eJ e p c.- r/7 w ... xe+. w uL - 7 .c a c.e m, &~ di es t. d e,, c -( u.a u. ~~ l e~J a. ..)%re -, : - /cm, wia g,. m ~-;Im k,+ k u <sJea J ../ G -..s ~. ~ s<'~ bvt' Le e. - #st e* t 2./ e. . k/ly. c % v. 3 2. e... _ _._cra v s e / e e __.o b.. / / w. .. _ - ae, y. K pt.JAa aa9 a ~ e. au.., m d /, .o-O /C 84 %/ e c A c .Jv4,..h..k A-w3 ff i ..An. &... n.-.. a . <Mm u < b... . - _b a s,'s W =- O e WWPe8 e. ..-.a.4N-g . ee.e e ee que. g 8"M" M ---WM g $e.W Mmm ge@ e. o 6 e.e 8.- 9 -+ et-- w -e .w r -e ,e
e e g-
---wc.,--- ,v---,--,r...,-..-e-+*m,-.w-e-- r=
. =. _.. -. =.. _.... -. /71 e S7st* f as e erS Afar e U l- ~ A M -h e ~ i ~ < fr &d (.AkLud is e, w t-l.:. Qei sAsis sF w c. n be cewn d ) 7A.e 4sf
- 4nz, w h. ex.
de r is w-7/-sL geu e -, v <> b ki to. G/ n~ ba acc y J'r 0 J &y 76. r.: M e m,d 9A Jiux i~, o h-e. J ,n A ~.,< a >4, 6. uM ka. xee t-.iu & < ~ _. A-e. /. s. .] fat-.. k-- -, y l.la y ae Y lU<- rp 7%e. }nld' Q/4 r- = inyed A f ~. < dm b ju be . %.y. --..._ d e. 9s.e.i n r,+.s _. er o a ea/ts. en n/e,. 6 6 -e c/ en c>v v ._,n , s. A zhcw A-r% 6 es. r 3 a e n k ~. .,/& m l f>e @n.-.Ju e. /s <> p/~ 4 6 r%c-r/m /ta e o. e.~ cs.. _ w d... i.n.y - J.... ). m.
- n.....
. y e>f __ejh ....w4.. deEl yG y 7 -.r.a ..<m._.f%__._oyea J p >~ >-o m. A > ,, e f ~. h k.J ..rce.~.h c an c ~. ~ "';/'l--3:fua fru,. d-- aaLly L6 w>u->trF % e k 1J!.s L a.e e. . _. -...... d -.. < 4 m J.- _ c y )n&c s. g a m , p.. .~..:<.-. r ~ a. .e -k.. to a ef kw M 44 u {T . n.C r N e N... C k w tt.. O fe, / YG~~ h $c?[ [>v Ah ~.c. .r.ela/r:c...k. -.
- = > m._.-
^ ... : & W._p:~ . r e a.b en. 4d--. .. R fa elvie = f... s.--,a ce. .Jr..
6 /0 < e loe ..aAsa p/as k de/efe,fcw fr e., $- - ft% ..ki J G) A f> roc.nh.<ra yyv.~=u& _.a A -e 4 7%.o g y. y, w e.,J, 4 A 7 c ~ u eef> & w;f<. ow w < s fr uh.~ b/J - Q K.e dies r ?~ma-L-i q gd% -+ nA oW 2 m ~/sa r. )% ~ .sp a, :. ( a,< y 4u 4ra 4-
- ist o A-
/a /c /f4~- e e=esa i O4. / 9'7 9 .. fc cnJrf 7 W nriJ 09 A-4 . + ,. 5% h e / r &- Jh d4 (4 -- - s Lld 4
- r~<
ry y.... r <- ~. 4 -y f c.k r l i p F ~7.7. -... l kL .A2.. Ge o k - -.. cu ~ c.-. /D A f f < s<s --. _ -..-... -..f G. Vede.( l . Da.v.ats~. Sp // e,s w._L-t t N -.5..e.Ne6ep 9 - -.wma .m ensum.emi
- e.. - ew e..em.
-e.
- ee.4
+ .... *.. eBue ek.* w _ -. e .m. . e e. -e e4..ee.. MG.'. ......mwmm .M-.. -.a
n.. -~ -.4 m .+- ..~+..u. u.c..-
.--.*-~.~-~-r-
~- d SEcgrwa.n oep 2TCm s... r0 is e /eswswu e ~ 'REWH7 vie.7b 77/G.. SETTz.iwek eF 17t2 Oisse c.- 6 avcR47 cix M. p G - /. ~ i. Did dee k 9h/9e f)~ 3 a - l % sL a ~ w ; V c.,. % 1 . L. decy.. u.,.A cea fic. h. a far /4.c a. gvb .re ; /s ? a~-d_ y c~ L a}r4. S. Mc clery b. D wj. Genuak bo, /ek & p,c s i n %d hur cl1 b$ Al -. & fr y r fund.e. Ju a e y arm,~/,.19c..A<. & 5%r c..de,.5s me .. a < g n p. p.c. 9.a Su e. l. ..t 3 a.~y .c o%. E6h i.:a .L ou<.hr ? l .... d. m s b H J o *. o F s-a s s o < 11 ?. ._.. y e.prya~.&A..c&- /=L+fE ?........... .. % ka 2.. j u A c ~.. w u.c..L des g. y J . C / 4 <. S u 6.. s a', / s ..sg y .. k d. ._._ ma? _ 1o4 d_ c A y.:. w~. wJe.2 te la b. w1 /L eiS'. rrsva. c h 4 =. O e a. a y a v.,s.'n ? toLt i . c~ ~} -, c.o o rc yacewa J.1,n .be.w.c yea-aas? ho.,.s. <.v Y.e << ee e r J ] As ,m + lx % e. c m <~Jr yes.e/, J ? h.)51& h Y C /t Sto vl W)....Lu aJ Fw -..chsc $" ..-. W. I5.cfaff.th.p. k ...- ----. 4 f _. N w. h 5 c. ~.
u_.-..-.........-.-..-..=----- o .o ~ i h,. 2. a 4-s e. ..e + c. p l- - 3... Sa - e as /L. des,. - a c Oca[& s [~ P /f.a. QhQ ss st L a.~ fx- ~ D'~ fr-. ded<< bu, W a c, 2 M > /2 % p, i Se-Y. %e as ~7 ahou-f- de, y c., L % scu.f& Sr 5 d -,. y. _.. y. y.u '2'z;% /o aue-s ,/th-cleeser..e< ~ va/w. bui/Jc.s N 1-/ee/v,af . b o.c cluch s:., e. c n u (g t s.>;/ ) K. /D.h.n.. was.._.//.a. L /.!.. n1_+/cvu'(4 w4 / (5~'
- _ M,'t...b
/K c6 <s e /j~<vA /wi// ? ^^ J. . 56..-...ab < 4 & ee. sd Sac kur.< s ? .. G, bO /fus..>p ee.,.6-i.c.a.f a.f.Llowa J l ._ m Xu.Ju.st'!.La 1 & _. C-Jfu. .<uL 4 ; [.r._.1._._...... e v %,.,.c e/. ?. s.. W L L 1 fesi%.. w -... g. 42 a.7 Q hs & ns <s f u f c.a.ri}L t i {- sfedu~l?a .b l.s n.L-- s {- J~&d. ud 5 k -. l qe G.. .A At& W L<.53 e /$eek h [.r r /k yo/w.~, *- t . / a.. .. th $b. //a W. a e d..-.fis/ ? Lc, -....d..w L+ w.,. -.@ pr/t? c <.v -6. .t - .s ~ ... AC< i --.Sbu(la h A.-...4-.N Ye % 0.wh. l
o lU &.c. [ Q /$l-Cf C.- ,a ya s ,ra.<. 5, ehs ; Sw AG a k k,. M i a / be< /. iDbeve /kcocc. ? i
- <c se ff/-~ <- t- 0 a h yM.c.e,ean, a ges e i N.)a s.
ph{c. / f c a u s, e ge rt ev W b e.di /cb a. Wu e-plo e
- u. -
Inade hC '$ & c. e / c g f?h p ? W.L ? b. I e a de "->b f9 C-fr -r-C-. -$5 b cr e.... h.....h//o uJ. - ? 'lcca. hes().'~ ..S u. +.Ll-
- r.,
a d.<re.r d. /4.1d.c. ~ k .. - h s fi - y,> ? m s e. 9-e A 't .c a<>,.., . $.$ Ccn,._12 /.k r.}>.se=~-_ 0 A bes.cc. e VS+ o F 7ni> ea h W~/~ fnQ < o- >v ~ L ( n, y e t-e 4 ce u -by -- E f % 4.k fe. c 1 c . e ct 9..<8 ,/O A e ~. w.as -/Ac. d.de < < s < 'a...... A c M/c .a-t- . L + &.. = _. .u a ey.e che..L.- a Les r < > c n h r.._..b a u s _. s ic - M ?. 7 O ... J A. _ _... ). (s[.l.V b .%s4 dW an, x< eswa a .- -..... J n e n << # 6.a-. t,..nc G E'.. Y p f- .~ ..Tef/e m d
- - W Af1 l m 2 1 f e 3-
~ . _. _... _....ck ac h.m u _?. ada.. /&s.,,. . r 5 - =-T-4 --...... r>t e f.?. LUh.a~ . w*.rs -... /~fm.. rss l 1 r <PsN le' -..& Au -._ b is c __. _ _. _ -. ia -_ ~ rf %- &.. ry-Q ? . R ~ -- s n /vab m.,_ ...---..___-_-...=:..
---,G i .e ~..-...a.........--.=~.,..-- -.a+.i e lCr /b > e4eeSSfue .e ^ r...un.e.s.f.e.}<l Schne -f' occ a e e d . ch v' ..- cy-- - f c h w.s ]$ So Lu k.a ~ ivaj ~ d &s c -d J. itua u f>cn to as fahen Y b he L} a ( ? y 7 W" d 'e lhvy yl cLu e e c. -.......h., w N A' /c' I S $.. N e + w l %.1 pm.- ci ..S'i 'l }l.2 s Lh } .t x /- o Yeh Me E'le.-n-hu '., bc /.<.r - e - ^7ks cJ - J c :. T -c - g m..L... a, k. l - e d { --.. ^ m e( 1%e. --.. -.. (), n.-- ( 9 e m u fw ). o /,/, 'V r- ) ( M $ b 7--- r
-JMis c Jn. -..a . /e //-< n.. da h d..A ~. b e /z ni s' h j Y &Y I t. C f.*' S 2 t' f b u. N, m .ri k, $ a Jeoa a bc :s c f, p.> /- w-rk~>' ri u a. T-fe,ss,6/e. k //e~<- De husm% i wa 1 bdpis }l e~ v S )N h- ~ e.~ 'f', N ..a.. ../o LFB tc.S~te) .m f +.7.yerI..h> A%.. Durai 4~. nA~ Lu,N.- set // % t ? o = _. ~ w e ..e -em. m d1o<1g.g '*.~..~ s ~ Ju < ^! ~ w.e oAc-h M ' .de k,f ,M ._.o. c e vm Hy s n. t yW<. T . a /o x e
- . ca., c.
,in- ..e. ...m.e ---a.a.. ..e=.*- e e-..e .. am i w-a . ee e e e e ..e .en e e e er ....e - e .e.e. e .e- .. * =. ..=e*. e e e.e W. e... .of.mo me- ,a.. ..an 'me. r ep.e ' f f-. i a .=e .me... . e 6 n U
--.- ~ - -- { ) . f / Ch>' ~2,0 6 l/ flQ f.i=l$/ l G ;; o *? -es f/' r lh$/. - ld-t t.f _ CL - v. * % ; A- /a2 .% s . M ? e. fd, 4,os// faw b.a opk./u of : e fs7! /J4&w Y~ / f W:'.,cfmc/..f/2krC&Va=f..... -... /2'~ f*hr ' f J g (2).. d.df Of:, / %f.kA.l9/.d)/&! >Ah-c. P cG&- $fllll.5~dh .. /N [M d.( Q /r, .kYhN $. :-. l /?/ V . -.......,h.) h// t %YM.o gg 30 Y 0$$ ~' ~~~~~~ ~ T ....-----.--------------**T~.. ~ ~ ~. _ The module inspection.yrogram for the B program is M r Q r*- M y 50% complete for both units. The summary status is as follows: 1 i Modules to Unit Modulec Complete Modules Open be Opened p 1 24' 2 33 n/ . 36
C. 2- /
== .me..a gm e Y M 0aa n??. coon W .c f oby,sedcra.. ... -pcg,endA nyM oMks,,ssi a/ = ae# >& Rec Auf. <Z~n~.pacc6 r....... Diy %,-,)g g g.. y 4 1 due .-.~.da 6-s,arr;.as #%
- a. Ac.o;&nkJ>aam~
-..._. g.. Wte...A cuu.4c, q a h<2cg & %,0+<,fa y .... a J y4G. i%usc~.- 9 in a>,f.a' u a._.. / -.....jVese r-... / ads.77//b-d...- -.-_.. \\xcar...-. A. i?pah.._ A 66ep4<2u 24m-, r _ _. _ /r e.e w..ee.-p a ,m..e p.p,we s =e hee...e4.e-e.. ..a LR 2 L V - -. .-. - z o.. _.._.. .-Inzuk J ct )92.W ...IL 9 /ny' / /_ .I l.92E.? 7-. O 1 02.P..V 9... /'l S~ N 7? P_ /s- ~ n.78 8 n -. E-.?8 W. .. 20 -QTYS 3 '.ll. ~ - ~ ~. ~. M .n. .e dummum .en me meh.M 1 . /Gr4 J cd&yed duss-/ yak ? L~ N
a.ip._. .-My-e- -pM-N ee ..eW%4.* -+.e 4. m-. p.e 4.W t W -....Em, a u.. u s M 6 ,s.<2" 78 m,~ 42/ cz fed., ,dsf/& n/M77 c . nyam us nt o .......~W~-........ ya w Ac 4G_ /Ss 'dsu/ &s0ea$l 7 7 a.S n c.) w/' / Nfn $y. ge..p.e A&d& .rb.. drawkkn achi,Y e s _,)u a 4aJ i ,ma <ca c n n - _.. _... /taa. Men-n f a44< &a.cArr,o& & F 4 -:"-y^w=/ ca'.9 w Q nay%&a._.16Sl ,$ddr [W -- l ... C o w Y.._ v.... n d / k n...... _.... _... _ _... ~ ^ 2 2 0// S ofAbit O yo : & //* 6 "/>....-- pi Z zAin -- pa,e 34,,a-I l-.... 1 I N 7 f...... l. ._ M r.-..._ 1 O ? k._ _ l D7_... ._._. c _ ( .m
.wh m see.W eye. s.hase e-. .Aue=4--a.** me. 4.er-.. -.. .h-g O ~ w a E/ cZw&ae ce&Gn Iel-k< fv;J 1%9 & ks. \\ 0 I f IckLs Ck.4 %, % didJ m)e s>- ..)/... A ah aF k WC d h '.sA CI<^l) ( Di ID S ' Op-m ]bM.7 o-l 9 . --_ _ _.An nf-na n s anacss amaA6,c . - -.-..ce4>< fe eibd ev3 A4 Cc.<6Arn c./ch &b- _...... d / u &.. c < r x-ddeci~u7.e/ 4~Aswc...... s u b.i S n h m'd, ce # =. % W J . A n /oe d - 7Xe-i,4mr s w ...... -. s / ~ 9 m :. Idsms d..iikn comf2&ance.._. f0 '[ ~ oF___uaLLi3uMWT. d.??L w C#f ,e e me.y .ema .*e. p Wuen nun J bc-en. Aa Aknee ~ ._._ / w..fe ks, sec A m 4 /Gcs h >% /Amr - l / 6 J An swt comioWc/ A acAm ...shg.. e a -i i i
W pae _- -e. 4 We6.M.m. e. .-m p>e ..p.umeeA.e r-=. ..3 . b e~ f. L : rz o;f. C o a g d.. $ G c h ;,. ..sh .g. .p.e. g w h.e..m m. elyg...e.gmw. om e, w e. e, .e em
- g. gugs p,,ggg,og.e.,,
gigg .s be m.g e e m.u.w,e egege . g.. .... __..3..~~._.. _ _.. oflcd-b Dr [.1 c./en C/55 C_ F-M fC. 5 S~(e_. )..... [k&tS.
- v +;( N y"g.1,,yb;. ),N., D,)%., m..3f[
-~ .m.-- /~-.. v ff " ~~ 4.. ...../' ..)44.e ,Akmsee....cw- .- _ s <-y. so.Sre.... > >/em.. s.. 7a_ e g .W--- 66 NN * . t.~_ -. N -A %&F x AMo yAz 'sy.:. X c - _ 4.ci n.!. 4 a. ~ y.. r & dp (4A%p.. S,arcfcL.m s.- cl.er D'_!#<.Acsy/ Es sc c.~/~a~ r~ d9 <.- -. / d e-aAj0 r. ~' bd>y Ansh6W.. d A~.6 .i-- u h..-. N --.egN.$e p .ee e. w ane ep e- .--.e..e.Wh..b-.M..*. h_Ilfh e O d h..M._ MG. .-..MN-MM*.. M
_a _ _._ u :.-
== - -- - - ---- " ~~ ~' Reactor vessel surveillanca capsule hold' er tube *. This item is a generic item regarding B&W designed specimen holders located inside of the RPV. This item is considered closed with the understanding % nformeh^.~of hhe~e that the licensee / c. experiences of'Favis-Bessai. _ _c - :- A --f fr possible future problems. O f4 [3. Contah-ant building personnel airlocks weld _ cracking
- A final report had been received by RIII regarding the repairs to the cracked welds.
Followup by RIII disclosed that the welding perfomed ailed to foll g4 f the rescribed instructions of the nron
- t.ve.?2-controlli gr This.. t inspection rep &. s-1,'dentified as a noncompliance ite II I
b h recent or The li;:n-- -i..dic.i ? '-t supolad-- &l-::p % wila Meu:hmEed-in-add"-- - te ---Se. -- ' ttyMspinsa: fan =the=noncomplianc. ii..w. 4 Unit 2 containment liner bulgel. Thedesignreport,intendedto$,d,Yh be ghe final n.- > report, was issued at a meeting held in Ann ArborXthss._ .w 1---$fJune1977,atter.d.dby".."." h-- This report is c::;21 under reviewq hai.f%n 2nd "..
- r. S
c..yo.. ~ h:; ;.;d '-e te the licen ;; ;;k..;rled;ing sh. fiu.1 i.ewu..
==a* l I-The repair work was e ' May 1978, how r //$A.M laced *"M5 t D .sttf review has[e by RIII pen ing response from.Mi
- r _
een f (5 Seismic cable tray supports welding A final report has been received",'[EnalreviewbyRIII a; i.t: i; d:::. [d Mdf b C= (6 - Undersized fillet welds on ITT-Grinnell safety related pipe hangers: Josej.. u.gfacha final-repo_Lt;_.has,_been done.;by-thu ass 1-re ed 1 d.L-Taginees, tag-insFe'ecorfowever,% gnu 11% morere71ewis l A.t -[-//1 M A / 8 pt4_ct' [ d %p 3... >'% ch.-.e Q & t;o M <A:.ujeu Q /2t2 5 SM C.l72. - (7 Other reportpble deficiencies in various stages of corrective action status by the licensee are as follows: l-
- - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \\i,\\ (a Reactor coolant, pump motor flanges' \\ifih-
- T /'
I- \\ L. (b) Reactor building spray piping supports \\ I,. :. ";\\\\ \\ (c)' Design deficiency of the NI/RPS gcounding h j [. *g \\ '\\ (d) Piping, small break analysis not conservative > j',.. '. \\ \\., I \\ N (e) ~ Class lE station battery racks {.'. \\.i {f) Settlement of diesel generator building ,f.... k (& . I 1,. ', g) Components lack of \\
- b. Dftn.'(2/h9, of '. qualification l2c.///5G.) D0tN b ' '//l 5' wh.&
6 t(reated-Proot.- T '~=:._- .e. ~.- :.- . - 4..d Y -l-s a h !^ h & b.e 4 Y~E f-Cwcd'bU 55! Q, nsk.ered-inqViries-add eypd to-IE:HQ3egarding compo,r)epts i ffa'12yve-'t'oP a-fa@tatus *Yisbk,irTlEis : .a Failure to identify certain class 1E system components to be covered by Consu=ars Power's QA manual letter Spessard to Reinmuth April 28, 1978. Classification of spent fuel pool liner plate presently t classed as nonsafety related by Bechtel. Letter Danielson to Reinmuth June 1, 1978. ,,, {, ,,,.,,f.f{.. N $ 6s. ( g-y.::,.i :.h a h) A satidhtgicomg11ancawith-50755 : de/,j P O/ Meseton of components (color coding of electrical ~' equipment and cables). Letter Spessard to Reinmuth f dated May 3,1978. / ?n[. > r I :[..'.s am/[ ' i /- N& h: / a l.. x [.a.., enj~. e A..... UI v'y-.; 4.y ")
- ei
(,' li.Yt. ..-p;\\ a., (,I /... ~ ~.- ~ v ..~. i N (,.A.) ff L / Wy a r.?h M kdu.c L & =
i_i ii -.1-- I 1Mi -i i - N-- - 1 / of suppor s \\ Unit 2 containment liner bulge design report and completion of repair.,.(e'$fqua'rg.r,s. -pepshavd-hhe'nw g.-4h ej M[v Wep o
- .'/'
9 AWS D1.1 question regarding voltage / current requirements / N \\ /41 W $v T<eEs / l -a 3ac 5.NG Ci EO Eveu.A mal03lb" WW \\ g Significant Events />tk h Installation of thef NSSS components for both units' was completed. -m j r A
- ~ \\
g run off water froml c ling pond s filled from i t ver . t -- l Both units passed the 50% completion mark during the year, C.7d3IFin-tUeW.-<d%tML _.u. -QuTP > C N=~~amseeevu=amd [ a fuel load dates b d to be obtainable. j. Co sJasadded3 y to hei.s-QA/QC-sea'ff for and pro dt? This-as__al;1oped..tYe'm-appreci o wn-Tfeas of c'overagepp/ ~f review. expan .~ is o RIII d &f)& //?Sf)-C & Y MhA p-inn,s:oJgsage was = mwd d ti - ? assignment of = essiden s s M nv si // 7 g' i- ? O e b _-.m.s-,. ,,__y-___m,. _.,,.,m..w-- ,-,-%m.,ww,%..,,--,.n.,y,,y,--y,,,m. w-- -_.,,-----,,,--_.,ey---_m
a tax A veO <, fo 3..su = = g A n e p A. A'cceptability ot equipment qualification tests and/or N. f discrepan,cies in qualification test data review tou es N different kinds of equipment (mechanical & ele ical) '\\ supplied by differen vendo rs. This has en addressed by Electrical Support Inspectors and t licensee's recent 50.55(e) \\ MeToYt?.151'e-tt em. -The-electri nspec.ca~ k=14eva 4* -kauld rightfully cover all sp i'fication e uirements. The involvement of 1 censee expanding on s issue may have a limiting e feet on the effectiveness of th 1 inspection sch e for January,1979. This is considered the . g gent problem at Midland to date. $ l. There is (and has been) a continued reliance --
- k-
---feilit L.4 h Q W fo; j]Mh[h, UsmW2 e f in f ~-=at-lon-on-a-Bechtel G321-form, h e* t:: th - - N '/. b + - O _ f'_ Y. M W * M C d kl".f'W marmeer. This reducey the depth of re :eip inspection at the However, there e <.<. -e bo~~~. ~ it l site. a ee questionsewh pertain to,the l adequacy of the i,nspections performed at the vendor shops which j result in materials beine received at the site which do not SW AcQw. necessarily meet all the requ,'irements.. O.i. 1, , i. -ded F [ r t~ ite-1 5-fc.. "if,c' Warehousing: Items = : -- 4afi; 11, icing released from the warehouse 6 ^ 1 %.y and are stored in place without a
- h' P bein ;',X[*"h'#Z'./ "O..#"j".y"*e'"d 'S*R*"*>" ***jj P '#8/#'
tr,ggeced ) % w hfw4=" WL4 n L; r.wLl. i..,,h; w N..L m.in .. m l l .and ee^-4 4^r O f 52teri;1r .'.IT-a disq u = 6, miu-QA amaycwion \\ A las a ' se Ms.n th ** M1.f.yw{eaknes e<W--i -th' W... C 4 b' Y sA sA
- 3*f.+&,. t.-.,Qm.'/f't Vr-e"L [/
^QJ-tJh.W.f C aad > s t m m-i^ h%R .~ 7.m 3,- i.pler-a* _ tin kesa pr.ogreme.c Y H s'tl, $W hN NWf s <h. iew enseGA inspe.cLar.-f-inditrEs72 i., ' mana e e y., epth as.de' sired. Particularly on those s not N may have a-se'dato,py or-lon~g T ad tim'e# ~ affect on t. l . integrit l xy'r '4 " * ;, l,* 4 '.IF. A:1 h. '
- iN..
-y s 3; ,e
- ' ~
e-j Settlement of the diesel generator building, and ^ 'e --ramitTestfdiEtassociated-wit _neneur-ieg--qabne-1 h nc 2 Amalva which w14A ensure an adequate ~strtrcture. 7 f X C4'l<^. s ',sdepeated failure to inspect -adp ely, up Bech timely maiEIr regufts-in7f yun n pYomptly identify (1 at all) unacceptable greas. B then design 3yndrome---Occassionally's.tructures cannot
- e..w e fi oc~elisting structure e structure being placed
/ is then alt ed from thej rigrnal_ blue-print-with-a nge to the blu rint made-la'ter. Rather__tha the necessary / yses'being performgdrth'e blue / en neer prints changed a g then the ructure beingdnstalled Without assurance of a timely e gineering//,iew, p_ roper _g,(gement (from a loading star -v r point) stru ure' ~ and/or snubbers cannot e u unC e e e t 9 i I e-9 6 e e k e 4 e e e -,
~= =. ~- Ry .pp So " g v.~ n 1 NUREG-0834 Final Report ~*. '..',. NRC Licensee Assessments
- 4..e t
4 r .= e.r ~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~ Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance l . Review Group (SALP) + - ~ ~ :- w-a ,a. a .. a .-y'
- A !,
,,,,l*.hsl* &Qs l~ y,? ~ r
- c..
.,c.. ' 5 ft.~,, n' . f' 1. ,, y,.. = .,z.,,..,,. ,,... <., ; ;,,. ~ ; f 7 ,,..-re - - rj }.a .js..,.,. /... ... ~. - - -.., .~ ru ,. q,... l,. 1; p.,(. ,r.',?.** :.,; f.;f.,' *a ,), s: J t .g . e f-L
- 2 r,
ef- ,j a.,.y.n...m .. J.,. jf.;;p,
- .-.. n
-r 3 - c. .c e.e ......,,.,',..,.. };., y :.} r I y. 'q,:<.,p')l.k,. .,_.S'~..,..,. ' y, '. - 6' T g;[,a.Jip'h
- y#
,,f.-...
- g...
l.8%J..., w ) }~~3 y;M.W ;:g'i.,6:j:..:;{SklN.pl,9-
- .n i.
.. x. ****.,. 6pp 4';,n - , :' W, a y,.. e i. - ~. . w;il&;& r 4 ~:.. :. e. i r? 4 *lWi r .n. 's . p r. .w.-.s: ~s .q. 'j, 4. g e w. - q e2.'. C. $-+ i?.t.. .,g. a.' s COMMISSION STATEMENT M A., .,. w ce. n.. ; w.W . Q,p
- . 1, % p;na m %' g i g:~:
l --n:y::W,.,%iX&:v
- +6:
P:. s ;.. w The Commission endorses the staff's factual findings ir' this report n. .~.$.,N p i,. conceming individual licensee operations. The Commission also i {..lM.p.j... p.@J % x. . 3.f. - l encourages licensees to make improvements in the araas of weakness Y O,,' G.' l e~ J.,.., . - 4 ' T ','Q.f.. { '. 7: identified by the staff. However, in view of the long time span "je l . J.$ "" i. / during which individual plant evaluations were made, the Commission ~ ?' does not believe that the relative rankings necessarily represent..*., ...J W '*. e M *? * - ^ current conditions. The Commission has prepared guidance for thsMi. '"'"$$f N h;6it h:.J. ...O...~*- ..? ~ staff to govern the conduct of future assessments. .,.[ ^ .);.7., '* ~
- u
. _[ - l;c q. i 4 ~~
- ry al-
~,t, -l, _., W.',; .. L ].y', } 7, .ZW. - . n r'. . ~ ~ 3-y;. 7,:. 's ,j. y,,, _ ;._. ,. y y, (;7 f_ ( l .n ,~ .?+ s- .._o._,
- mm%e w w- -w o s-I t, a- '
- Available from GPO Sales Program
_ Division of Technical Information and Document Control U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 .4 Printed copy price: $4.00 i,. nv < and National Technical Information Service Springfield, VA 22161 m-g d5
- 5).
a ; w,s- +i c -,y l,;1 ';.. i 2 ....m .r.
- m,
-a Q.qq., - g., ..s .. - :.i.- w,.; ,1 % e n. ^*[*..6 l-n. e ftf <..,.v:..l y c ~ m ,m... ~
- 7g.
g:. ~.. I.Y$..}:bll@yq' W , 3. ;. , f Q..h*, '~ , %.. ~- ;,iG,._. ,. a -,Q. O$,w$i %m .,.,2.$..m'" r . a.. <..- ..r - v. e..... .. a. 7,. . ['g; g. j.[. (. M, [,, E.' , b,. v.'<<,: 'OIi['.' r y')[; * '.*6, , {.e.,DA., fj *:.; [.m<k.
- i
[e v. r.. *f.,' h 's t,*y';,,. a. '..-.. ~ .. e a $.*b' # '. f. * *,'8. ~,.5, '*'*7 y N.,7 ,1
- Y.(/s.'.* ' '(,,,,,
- , s 3. s4. e", f. *i. ' - ~' 4.2
- ' 1 a,
-*.t v. .= ... $.., ' n ',i .s*- y g,*. j ',,., I t ? ', ' [*g.', 3 /,,h e g;g,is..I' .,9,y,..q^;.g. ; $c;,;; g:g;f,yy,,y-ve. v c., '.-?", L V;t : 0
- ;,,. r.,n.p ;. y
, _ _,$.'. :1 *h_ - ~,, z, .n v s. - ~1, +;. e ~,. .7 ~ .g ',5-y c.,y '#* ,, ' /.' %,,.ze - .L, f',I'h;. *.Lj a-.jd.lf.: '.z, 'T,t l',-..j,.,, 5.4,.^*. ':.- 'Of **f*f-k, ~ .u. . i 0,. 9 u 9 .g e- -4 4, 9 - 6 e. ee e y. ,O, a g ,,4* D g _g g -90 g, O *%.# [ # a s. -"g '.* j.* I q g + ^ 4 .-_, 4.,,%.,w.
- t
.l s. =: ,.,,.Y.,.c,
- 1
- f g
g
- s. G'.
e.; * .%,-~. , al
- e,j i t r
e..-- ->,. r 4 n ,g-e f E,. .j"- ~ .~.. i )
- h
_ -_ m -- =w-_%.y my.m g neo o UNITED STATES ! j ~ s-,( g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g. E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 ,1 %,.qy / September 2, 1981 ERRATA.. SHEET YOR' NUREG-0834 NRC LICENSEE ASSESSMENT Published: August 1981 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission In Table 2, " Ratings for Power Reactor Facilities Under Construction" under " Average Facilities" between " River Bend 1 & 2" and " San Onofre 2 & 3" insert the following: "St Lucie 2 Florida Power and 9/1/79-8/31/80" Light Company e e e b DIVISION OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION ( AND DOCUMENT CONTROL I e-y -we-m <wwerw-w y y -,--(ve w ww-.y- --my q-+*-e-9y g--e&-+ye y e- + - - - -
my-
--co-
..e man- - ,-, e - ~- ~~ m -_ un- --. _,. - n -, _n 4 -4 /$p neroq(o, UNITED STATES g ', ) 4-. (gy,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g.;.., ~^{ g, tt WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- r -
m ;d,l Decemmer 7, 1981 TO: RECIPIENTS OF NUREG-0834 Our pubiication distribution centractor has advised us that due to an error in the automated label seneration process for NRC document "NUREG-0834" some individuals did not receive the document. In light of the importance of the material we have directed the contractor to redistribute copies of the document. We resret any inconveniences this error may have caused. e e s 4 .+ y --w,-
~--~ _ ww-, maa_ [9 usyIo UNITED STATES g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o { ,i wAsHWGTON, D. C. 20665 \\+..../ The following was provided as guidance by the Commission in a memorandum, dated October 20, 1981, for W. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations, from S. Chilk, Secretary. C00 MISSION GUIDANCE FOR FUTURE CONOUCT OF THE LICENSEE ASSESSMENT PROCESS On September 22, 1981, the Commission was briefed on the results of the staff's evaluation of licensee performance conducted under the program entitled . Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP). The Commissic,n also was briefed on the objectives underlying the program. The Commission believes that those elements of the program directed toward fulfilling the objectives--especially the objective of improving allocation of inspection resources--should continue in the future. However, other aspects of the progras; should be changed along the lines of modifications suggested below: While it is understandable that the first assessment of licensee performance reached back to two years ago, the j timeliness must improve. The staff should set as a target that assessments for each operating and construction facility will be completed annually. The individual facility assessments should take place at a uniform rate throughout the year. The assessments should be made at a regional level. Involvement of MRC offices other than the office of Inspection and Enforcement should continue as part of the assessments. The headquarters activity should be redirected to evaluating the policy, criteria, and methodology for these assessments. Assessment criteria should be established that do not depend on looking at all plants to determine relative performance (e.g., an average and levels around that average). The. staff should be sure that the new assessment criteria are widely published and well understood.- We and the licensees must know what it takes to fall + under the criteria and rise out from under them. Also, those doing the assessments should have recognized expertise in applying the criteria. 4 l t <e-- ,-,.,,-,-,.---..-w.,-,-..-.-,,,m c...---r--,-,-_.-w,%,.,e-,,,,,-,w.,_, -wm-w.,,,--,--,.. __.__,,,.,r-,,. w
2-The staff should ensure the existence of a process for taking licensee responses into account. Specifically, a licensee must have the opportunity to comment on assessment results before they are made final and the licensee is characterized, e.g., as needing to improve performance. The adverse implications of ranking utilities can be avoided by adopting three categories for the assessment. The first category should identify those facilities for which more licensee and hence more NRC attention is needed. The second category should identify those facilities for which proper balance of licensee and NRC attention has been achieved. The last category should identify those facilities for which more than adequate attention by the licensee is apparent and hence a reduction in NRC resources for those facilities can be realized. Actions identified as needed are expected to be initiated immediately following completion of the appraisal for a particular licensee. Where these actions include changes in the amount of NRC inspection -i resources devoted to a facility, criteria should be established .[ to govern such changes (e.g., how many and what type of inspections should be added or subtracted). The Commission understands that a draft Manual Chapter is currently in use for the program. This Manual Chapter should be rewritten to reflect this Commision guidance. Within the next month the revised Manual Chapter should be issued by the EDO. In the meantime, the licensee assessments that are underway should continue with the old guidance until the new Manual Chapter is issued. j New assessments should be started under the new guidance as soon as possible, i Witho'ut holding up issuance of the new Manual Chapter, but within the near i future, the public should be given an opportunity to evaluate and comment on l the assessment process that will ultimately be used. In addition, as future NRC assessment techniques are developed, the staff should devise ways to work j' with the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO). By doing so, NRC could gain confidence in our own techniques and perhaps make use of NRC resources more efficiently. I t Concerning the current summary report prepared by the staff, the Commission authorizes release of the report subject to the following conditions: i this Commission guidance is displayed prominently on top of p the report. f the statement below is printed boldly on the cover of the report. 1 i i ] 1
,,,g ., _ w m aua w m,n,g. swag 3-COMMISSION STATEMENT The Commission endorses the staff's factual findings in this report concerning individual licensee operations. The Commission also encourages licensees to make improvements in the areas of weakness identified by the staff. However, in view of the long time span during which individual plant evaluations were made, the Commission does not believe that the relative rankings necessarily represent current conditions. The Commission has prepared guidance for the staff to govern the conduct of future assessments. i s a G
NUREG-0834 Final Report NRC Licensee Assessments ' Manuscript Completed: August 1981 Dete Published: August 1981 Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance Review Group (SALP) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20655 [
- eee COMMIS810N STATEMENT The Commission endorses the etsfra factual findings in this report concoming indhndual licensee operadone. The Cwmesion eleo encourages Econeses to make improvemente in the areas of weeknees identified by the eastf. However, in view of the long time open during which indvueuel plant evolustions were mode, de Commission does not beslowe tf se the reiedve rentungs.--
0, represent current condNions. The Commiseson hos propered guidance for the stoff to govem the conduct of future esossemente.
y -g _ .n. ~ , n, w.- m.. ;=_ _ u _ _ _ -. -_ 2,%- 1 a-a w p q .it 4 A y. g . 4s ~ ,,n o s .= = ,\\ 4 FOREWORO 9 .This reportSprovides. facility ratings for operating power reactor licensees 'and construItion permit-holders as determined by the Systematic Assessment of Cicensee PeYformance (SALP) Review Group; Facilities have been rated as above e taverage, average,~ oribelo% average. s a w .. -- Because the SALP process involves co11,ecti5n of data over an appraisal period 1 s o[ atileast onel year,; followed by an', evaluation interval' much of the perform- -ance informitioM from which,.this review was:made is from one to one and a half .a years.oTd. Neaknesses found'durin!; the appraisal period are in various stages ~ of correction by2he licensees. ihis' report does not reflect such corrective actions since they are dynam'ic and do not lend themselves to inclusion as a specificInterimaphr$1 sal' update. The effect of corrective actions will be reflected in t$e 'next SALP. revi~ew._ This appraisal delay is an inherent feature of SALP.G Details concernihg }1 ice ~nsee corrective actions are available in inspection reports and correspondence in individual facility docket files. ( Anyrating3rocessthatuse.sjudgment,alelementsis.susceptibletochallenge. s. The facility ratings in this repo,rt are no exception. m It is expected that some N111 feel that certain e14ments of performance'were not given adequate emphasisVandthatotherswereJoveremphasized. Nevertheless, the facility ~ ratings represent the best collective judgment of senior NRC managers viewing licensee nuclear safety perforpance from~a national perspective. A rating of ( - below average does not mean that a facility was unsafe or that its operation l .'or canstruction'should be stoppe'd.- The expected performance level for nuclear .N4i3f L. ? facilities is high, as it should be.i' A ratirig of below average means that the l . facility?p.was not meeting the full, measure of these high expectations and that, a. l-i - 9 elative to the population of nu'elear facilities, lhe. facility's performance t g l wasujudged to be less desirable than most other facilities. A8 TNe'overrlding goal'of SALP.is improved performance of the industry as a whole a i and greater assurance to the public that nOclear power reactors are built and 4 operatedsAfe.ly. Areas of weakness were identified at various facilities
- .y s
s j,q ' l ,y j 1 Mh...
during'the SALP. These weaknesses were discussed with the respective licensee 4 management organizations and improvements in these areas are expected from licensee corrective actions already taken or initiated. The regulatory process has not ~ historically made an effort to highlight good performance. Imperfec-tions or perceived weaknesses are emphasized and reported more than positive attributes. The NRC has focused, and continues to focus, its attention on licensees-warranting increased regulatory effort to ensure that their per-formance is adequate. The appraisal of licensee performance is a task from the "NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 Accident"_(NUREG-0660). The intent of the _ appraisal and rating process is not to " label" licensees, developing a sense .of complacency for those rated above average or a sense of condemnation for those rated below average. The intent is for the findings of the Review Group be used for attaining a high level of performance by all licensees. 'i P REVIEW GROUP i rthu, vision of Licensing, NRR'
- l. h YL -
1p e Michvison, Director, AE00 7 1 b +tt04, J es H. Sniezek, Director D sion of Resident and l legional Reactor Inspection, IE NA -Norman C. Moseley, Director, Division of Program j Development and Appraisal, IE, Review Group Chairman I i-f'! l l ll. SALP Review Group by R. H. Wessman, IE Report on Licensee Assessigents prepared for the ['ll- } 11 1.
I f f I-ABSTRACT This is the first report concerning NRC's program entitled Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP). It provides facility ratings for operating power reactor licensees and construction permit holders as determined by the NRC's SALP Review Group. Facilities are rated as above average, average or below average. iii
CONTENTS Page F0RWARD............................................................... i ABSTRACT.............................................................. iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 2.0 THE SALP EVALUATION PR0 CESS...................................... 3 3.0 SALP REVIEW GROUP FUNCTIONS...................................... 5 4.0 SALP REVIEW GROUP FACILITY RATINGS............................... 6 4.1 Ratings for Operating Power Reactor Facilities............'.. 7 -4.2 Ratings for Power Reactor Facilities Under Construction..... 7 APPENDIX A - PERFORMANCE ELEMENT SilMMARIES FOR OPERATING POWER........ A-1 REACTOR FACILITIES RATED AB0VE AVERAGE OR BELOW AVERAGE Part 1 - Above Average Operating Power Reactor Facilities........ A-1 Part 2 - Below Average Operating Power Reactor Facilities......... A-5 APPENDIX B - PERFORMANCE ELEMENT SUMARIES FOR POWER REACTOR.......... B-1 FACILITIES UNDER CONSTRUCTION RATED BELOW AVERAGE ATTACHMENT 1 - COM ISSION INFORMATION PAPER ON " SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE," SECY-80-83, DATED FEBRUARY 12, 1980. ATTACHMENT 2 - SALP. REVIEW GROUP CHARTER 1 V
m l NRC LICENSEE ASSESSMENTS
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION A licensee appraisal program has been implemented in accordance with Task I.B.2 of NUREG-0660, Volume 1, "NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 Accident." The program itself is described in SECY 80-83 dated February 12, 1980 and the SALP Review Group Charter approved by the Executive Director for Operations on August 25, 1980.
Copies of these documents are attached. This first report presents the findings of the SALP Review Group based on a review of the licensee performance records. Among the records reviewed were the licensee evaluations made by NRC Regional Offices for operating power reactor facilities and power reactor facilities under construction. In this ~ report, an operating power reactor facility or a power reactor facility under construction is referred to interchangeably as the " facility," the " licensee facility," or the " licensee." The evaluation period for an individual facility varied from twelve to eighteen months and generally fell between January 1, 1979 and December 31, 1980. The regional licensee performance evaluations, in conjunction with other information, provide the SALP Review Group with a systematic basis for deter-mining the relative performance of licensees. The objectives of the SALP crogram are to: Improve licensee performance. Improve the NRC regulatory program. Identify other-than-average licensee performance. Provide a basis for management allocation of NRC resources. Facility ratings of above average, average, or below average were assigned by
- the SALP Review Group using the guidance provided below.
Not all the indicated attributes were necessarily present for a particular rating to apply. The ratings used and their characteristics are as follows: s
_m 'Above Average--A combination of characteristics having positive or desir-1. able qualities; displaying unusually good performance. A facility is characterized as being above average if there is little evidence of administrative, managerial, or material problems; if there are a relatively low number of substantive construction or operational events or items of noncompliance (when compared to others); and if there are few (or no) substantial regulatory issues involving the facility. There are few (if any) significant items of noncompliance, no significant breakdown in management controls, and a substantial fraction of the significant activity areas reviewed are characterized as above average. 2. Averace--A combination of characteristics having typical or represent-ative qualities;. displaying usual performance. An average facility may or may not display evidence of administrative, managerial or material problems, substantive construction or operational events, significant items of noncompliance, or regulatory issues. If such evidence does exist, the problem areas are such that they detract s little from the licensee's ability to meet nuclear safety requirements i and they exist in only a few of the activity areas. The facility's performance is similar to the performance of a majority of facilities, i and a substantial fraction of the significant activity areas reviewed are [ characterized as average. l 3. Below Averace--A combination of characteristics having negative or undesir-able qualities; displaying 1ess than desirable performance. A facility is characterized as being below average if there exists evidence of significant administrative, managerial, or material problems in several activity areas; substantive construction or operational events (when compared to others); significant items of noncompliance (when compared to others); evidence of repeated items of noncompliance; or several regulatory i issues and management contacts involving the licensee's performance. The ~ [ licensee may have had difficulty in its ability to meet requirements important to nuclear safety. A substantial fraction of the significant l activity areas reviewed may be characterized as below average. W
j " A finding of'below average does-not imply that a facility must be shut down or that construction of a facility must be interrupted. These ratings are on'y relative. Simply stated, a below average facility displays negative char. acteristics or undesirable qualities that are not typical of a majority of facilities. The SALP program is an evolving program and this is the first report providing facility performance ratings. The Review Group found that, as with any new program, changes are necessary to correct programmatic weaknesses. Regional SALP Board evaluations were not all conducted in an identical fashion. Regional SALP Board reports varied in scope and depth. Also, the evaluation process itself involved elements of subjectivity. Steps have been taken to clarify definitions and revise instructions governing the SALP process to provide a more consistent approach in the future. 2.0 I!!E SALP EVALUATION PROCESS This section describes the basic structure and methodology used by the NRC to systematically assess facility performance. This assessment program was applied to power reactor facilities with an operating license and power reactor facilities under construction. Because the SALP process is a licensee management assessment process, plants with multiple units were evaluated as a single facility (unless the individual units at the same location were under. different management organizations). Construction and operating plant eval-uations were separated. A licensee with several facilities received a separate rating for each facility. An evaluation of each licensee's performance was made by a Regional SALP Board consisting of individuals who were involved in the inspection and licensing activities of the licensee such as inspectors, regional managers, and NRR project managers. The Regional SALP Board reviewed licensee technical and management performance and the quality of licensee safety actions. The Regional SALP Board discussed areas of licensee activity judged as war- -i ranting additional or reduced actions. Additional action included meetings l l 1 d 1
4 with licensee management, inspection program increases, recommendations to the licensee, or recommendations for NRC action. Reduced actions were generally a reduction in the prescribed inspection program. .Since the Regional SALP Board review was based on historical perspective, there was evidence of NRC action already taken to improve the licensee's performance in an activity area where the finding was below average. A finding of less acceptable performance than below average (i.e., issues were of such a significant nature that they warranted concern over the safety of continued operation or construction prior to their correction) dia not occur during the SALP evaluation. Any time that significant issues requiring licensee corrective action were _ identified, the NRC acted promptly to ensure such action was taken. Licensee or NRC actions may not have been completed at the time of a Regional SALP Board meeting, but the commitments or plans of action were established. Following the Regional SALP Board evaluation, NRC management met with the corporate management of each facility that had been evaluated. This meeting l provided a forum for discussion of issues relating to the facility's per-formance. These meetings were chaired by senior regional management. The meeting discussion topics included the following items: i 1. Performance evaluation--Summary of the performance evaluttions in each functional area considered; indications of significant performance trends; and capability and responsiveness of licensee personnel. 2. Enforcement history--Number, severity, and repetitive nature of items of noncompliance; adequacy and timeliness of responses to items of noncom-pliance; adequacy of corrective action and generic reviews; and indica-tions of significant trends. i .{ 3. Reportable events--Significance and repetitive nature of reportable operational events or construction deficiencies; nature of causally i I linked events; adequacy and timeliness of the reports; adequacy of l corrective action and generic reviews; adequacy of the ifcensee's event l response system; and indications of significant trends and patterns. e-D ~..
m, _ -y.w m-- - - - - _ _ _. o. - - _. _ _d 4. Communications with NRC--Adequacy of bulletin responses and technical correspondence with NRR and other NRC offices. 5. Inspection findings--Status of significant unresolved and open items, and indications of significant trends.
- 6..
Overall performance conclusion--Conclusion on facility performance. At the meeting, the regional manager also identified those aspects of the licensee's performance.that needed improvements based on the NRC assessment. Other matters were also discussed at the discretion of the regional manager. A report documenting the NRC. meeting with the licensee was sent to the licensee and to the NRC Public Document Room. The final step in the SALP process was the national overview and rating provided by the SALP Review Group. The Regional SALP Board evaluation results were forwarded to the SALP Review Group. Four senior NRC managers from NRR, AE00, and IE-reviewed the Regional SALP Board evaluations and other records and rated the licensee facilities as above average, average, or below average. 3.0 SALP REVIEW GROUP FUNCTIONS 4 The objectives of the SALP Review Group are to (1). identify unacceptable elements of licensee performance by reviewing regional licensee 3ppraisals; (2) improve licensee performance by recommending corrective action to the . Director, IE and/or the Director, NRR; and (3) overview the consistent ~appli-I' cation of the SALP program. The Review Group's goal is to rate on a yearly basis the performance of each operating power reactor facility or power reactor l .'acility under construction. The responsibility for the final national ratings of facilities as.either-above average, average, or below average is vested in the SALP Review Group. The ratings for this first evaluation represent the best collective judgment of the group and was based on review of the following information: L
, - 1. 'The evaluation of licensee performance for each facility as prepared by the NRC Regiorial SALP Board, which included the NRR Project Manager for the facility evaluated. 2. Information gathered by the SALP Review Group staff. 3. Results of inspections performed by the IE Performance Appraisal Branch and the Health Physics Appraisal Teams. 4. Consideration of the extent and nature of Construction Deficiency or Licensee Event Reports, number and seriousness of items of noncompliance, and number and severity of enforcement actions. 4.0 SALP REVIEW GROUP FACILITY RATINGS T'his section provides the facility ratings made by the SALP Review Group. It is presented in two parts. The first part provides rittings for operating power reactor facilities, and the second part provides ratings for power reactor facilities actively under construction. I For those licensee facilities rated as above average or below average, facility performance elements leading to that rating are summarizac. No summary of j performance elements is provided for licensee facilities rated as average. j The performance of an average facility was similar to the performance of a majority of the facilities rated and lacked distinguishing characteristics ' that warranted inclusion of a summary in this report. Additional information gc regarding licensee assessments may be found in the public document room as ? part of the IE report documenting the regional management meeting with the licensee. There are several reasons why summaries of licensee performance elements differ for different facilities. First, the SALP Review Group received significant input from the Regional SALP Board evaluation. The regional e .l reports varied in format, style, and characterizations applied to licensees, l since the agency directives were general in their requirements. For example, one region used'the term " unsatisfactory" to describe below average per-formance. The terms " acceptable" and " adequate" were used interchangeably.
- l
. Second, inspecticn and licensirg activities were not the same for all licensees. For example, not all facilities received the health physics appraisal or Per-formance Appraisal Branch inspection during the evaluation period, and the . findings of these comprehensive team inspections may influence a facility SALP evaluation. In addition,- the evaluation periods were different for different facilities. 4 4.1 Ratings for Operating Power Reactor Facilities Table 1 provides the ratings for operating power reactor facilities. The facilities in'each rating category are listed alphabetically. Performance elements for facilities rated as above average or below average are summarized in Appendix A. Two power reactor facilities with operating licenses were not evaluated. Three Mile Island 2 was not evaluated because it was shut down for accident recovery pursuant to.an NRC Order. Humboldt Bay was not evaluated because it has been shut down pursuant to an NRC Order since 1976. 4.2 Ratings for Power Reactor Facilities Under Construction . f Table 2 provides the ratings for power reactor facilities under construc-tion. The facilities in each rating category are listed alphabetically. Performance elements for facilities rated as below average are summarized g in Appendix.8. The SALP Review Group found it difficult to rate power reactor facilities j under construction. These facilities were at varying stages of activity and completion. The licensing and inspection activities varied with the I level of licensee activity. In a number of instances very little infor-nation was available. The SALP Review Group did not find facilities under construction with distinguishing characteristics that would permit categorizing them as above average. The SALP Review Group evaluated three facilities (Marble Hill, South Texas i Project, and WNP-2) where construction was not actively in progress during the full extent of the evaluation period. Two of these facilities received
6 ~ 8-a Regional SALP Board evaluation. The preponderance of information available concerning these three facilities permitted the Review Group to make its rating. ~ ! t 9 ( s q' i I
TABLE 1 RATINGS FOR OPERATING POWER REACTOP FACILITIES Operating Period of Regional Facility utility SALP Board Evaluation Above Averaae Facilities Cooper Nebraska Pub 11c Power 1/1/79 - 8/6/80 District Farley Unit 1 Alabama Power Company 5/1/79 - 4/30/80 Unit 2 4/1/79 - 3/30/80 Fort Calhoun Omaha Public Power District 1/1/79 - 6/30/80 Millstone 1 & 2 Northeast Nuclear Energy 7/1/79 - 7/1/80 Company Oconee 1, 2 & 3 Duke Power Company 5/1/79 - 4/30/80 Point Beach 1 & 2 Wisconsin Electric Power 11/1/79 - 10/31/80 Company Prairie Island 1 & 2 Northern States Power 9/1/79 - 8/31/80 Company Vermont Yankee Vermont Yankee Nuclear 5/1/79 - 5/1/80 Power Corporation Yankee Rowe Yankee Atomic Electric 5/1/79 - 5/1/80 Company Averaae Facilities Big Rock Point Consumers Power Company 9/1/79 - 9/30/80 Ca1 vert Cliffs 1 & 2 Saltimore Gas & Electric 10/1/79 - 9/30/80 Company O. C. Cook 1 & 2 American Electric Power 10/1/79 - 9/30/80 Service Corporation Dresden 1, 2 & 3 Commonwealth Edison Company 7/1/79 - 6/30/80 Duane Arnold Iowa Electric Light and 9/1/79 - 8/31/80 Power Ft. St. Vrain Public Service Company 10/1/79 - 10/1/80 of Co1erado Ginna Rochester Gas and Electric 1/1/79 - 5/2/80 Corporation Haddam Neck Connecticut Yankee Atomic 6/1/79 - 6/1/80 Power Company Hatch 1 & 2 Georgia Power Company 4/1/79 - 9/30/80 Indian Point 3 Power Authority of the 2/1/80 - 1/31/81 State of New York Kewaunee Wisconsin Public Service 11/1/79 - 10/31/80 Corporation La Crosse Dairyland Power Cooperative 8/1/79 - 7/31/80 Maine Yankee Maine Yankee Atomic Power 9/1/79 - 8/31/80 Company McGuire 1 Ouke Power Company 5/1/79 - 4/30/80 Monticello Northern States Power 10/1/79 - 9/30/80 Company North Anna 1 & 2 Virginia Electric and 5/1/79 - 4/30/80 Power Company i l
TABLE 1 (continued) Operating Period of Regional Facility Utility SALP Board Evaluation Average Facilities (continued) Peach Bottom 2 & 3 Philadelphia Electric 5/1/79 - 5/1/80 Company Quad Cities 1 & 2 Commonwealth Edison 7/1/79 - 6/30/80 Company H. B. Robinson 2 Carolina Power and 4/1/79 - 5/30/80 Light Company San Onofre 1 Southern California 5/15/79 - 5/15/80 Edison Company Sequoyah 1 Tennessee Valley 8/1/79 - 3/29/80 Authority St. Lucie 1 Florida Power and 5/1/79 - 4/30/80 Light Company Three Mile Island 1 Metropolitan Edison 4/1/80 - 3/31/81 Company Trojan Portland General 9/1/79 - 8/31/80 Electric Company Turkey Point 3 & 4 Florida Power and 5/1/79 - 6/30/80 Light Company Zion 1 & 2 Commonwealth Edison 7/1/79 - 6/30/80 Company Below Average Facilities Arkansas 1 & 2 Arkansas Power and 1/1/79 - 8/19/80 Light Company Beaver Valley 1 Duquesne Light Company 9/1/79 - 8/31/80 Browns Ferry 1, 2 & 3 Tennessee Valley 4/1/79 - 3/31/80 Authority Brunswick 1 & 2 Carolina Power and Light 4/1/79 - 3/31/80 Company Cyrstal River 3 Florida Power Corporation S/1/79 - 4/30/80 Davis-Besse Toledo Edison Company 11/1/79 - 10/31/80 FitzPatrick Power Authority of the State 12/1/79 - 11/30/80 of New York Indian Point 2 Consolidated Edison Company 1/1/80 - 12/31/80 Nine Mile Point 1 Niagara Mohawk Power 2/1/80 - 1/31/81 Corporation Oyster Creek Jersey Central Power and 8/1/79 - 7/31/80 Light Company Palisades Consume,r Power Company 9/1/79 - 9/1/80 Pilgrim Boston Edison Company 1/1/80 - 12/31/80 Rancho Seco Sacramento Municipal 4/15/79 - 4/15/80 Utility District Sales 1 & 2 Public Service Electric 9/1/79 - 8/31/80 and Gas Company l Surry 1 & 2 Virginia Electric and 5/1/79 - 4/30/80 Power Company i i i
.m- - .-.m.., . -m m _ . y TA8LE 2 RATINGS FOR POWER REACTOR FACILITIES UNDER CONSTRUCTION Operating Period of Regional Facility Utility SALP Board Evaluation Averaue Facilities Beaver Valley 2 Duquesne Light Company 3/1/80 - 2/28/81 Bellefonte 1 & 2 Tennessee Valley 4/1/79 - 6/30/80 Authority Braidwood l'& 2 Commonwealth Edison Company 7/1/79 - 6/30/80 Syron 1 & 2 Commonwealth Edison company 7/1/79 - 6/30/80 Callaway 1 & 2 Union Electric Company 7/1/79 - 6/30/80 Cherokee 1, 2 & 3 Duke Power Company 9/1/79 - 8/31/80 Clinton 1 & 2 Illinois Power Company 7/1/79 - 6/30/80 Commanche Peak 1 & 2 Texas Utilities Generating 8/1/79 - 7/31/80 Company Diablo Canyon 1 & 2 Pacific Gas and Electric 7/1/79 - 12/31/80 Company . Fermi 2 Detroit Edison Company 7/1/79 - 6/30/80 Grand Gulf Mississippi Power and 9/1/79 - 8/31/80 Light Company Hartsville A1, A2, 81 Tennessee Valley 4/1/79 - 6/30/80 & 82 Authority Hope Creek 1 & 2 Public Service Electric 11/1/79 - 10/31/80 and Gas Company LaSalle 1 & 2 Commonwealth Edison Company 7/1/79 - 6/30/80 Limerick 1 & 2 Philadelphia Electric 10/1/79 - 9/30/80 Company McGuire 2 Duke Power Company 9/1/79 - 8/31/80 Millstone 3 Northeast Nuclear Energy 3/1/80 - 2/28/81 Company Nine Mile Point 2 Niagara Mohawk Power 2/1/80 - 1/31/81 Corporati,on i Palo Verde 1, 2 & 3 Arizona Public Service 5/1/79 - 5/31/80 Company Perry.1 & 2, Cleveland Electric 7/1/79 - 6/30/80 Illuminating Company Phipps Send 1 & 2 Tennessee Valley 4/1/79 - 6/30/80 Authority River Bend 1 & 2 Gulf States Utilities 9/1/79 - 8/31/80 t a, t/s/?? - '/st/f o .$r. Luets A 14 San Onofre 2 & 3 Sou alifIr'nia 6/1/79 - 6/30/80 Edison Company Seabrook 1 & 2 Public Service Company 1/1/80 - 12/31/80 of New Hampshire Sequoyah 2 Tennessee Valley 8/1/79 - 7/31/80 Authority Shearon Harris 1,2,3 & 4 Carolina Power and Light 9/1/79 - 8/31/80 Company Shoreham Long Island Lighting 3/1/80 - 2/28/81 Company St. Lucie 2 Florida Power and Light 9/1/79 - 8/31/80 Company 1
= TA8LE 2 (continued) Operating Period of Regional Facility utility SALP Board Evaluation Average Facilities (continued) Summer South Carolina Electric 9/1/79 - 8/31/80 and Gas Susquehanna 1 & 2 Pennsylvania Power and 1/1/80 - 12/31/80 Light Company Vogtle 1 & 2 Georgia Power Company 5/1/79 - 8/31/80 Waterford 3 Louisiana Power and Light 8/1/79 - 7/31/80 Company Washington Nuclear Washington Public Power 5/29/79 - 7/18/80 Projects 1/4 Supply System - Washington Nuclear Washington Public Power 8/1/79 - 8/31/80 Projects 3/5 Supply System Wolf Creek Kansas Gas and Electric 8/1/79 - 7/31/80 Company Yellow Creek 1 & 2 Tennessee Valley 4/1/79 - 6/30/80 Authority Below Average Facilities Catawba 1 & 2 Duke Power Company 9/1/79 - 8/31/80 Marble Hill 1 & 2 Public Service of 7/1/79 - 6/30/80 Indiana Midland 1 & 2 Consumers Power 7/1/79 - 6/30/80 Company South Texas Project 1 & 2 Houston Lighting and Power 8/1/79 - 7/31/80 Company Washington Nuclear Washington Public Power 4/1/79 - 4/1/80 Project 2 Supply System Watts Bar 1 & 2 Tennessee Valley 8/1/79 - 7/31/80 Authority Zimmer Cincinnati Gas and 10/1/79 - 9/30/80 El -tric Company t t l t l i
APPENDIX A PERFORMANCE ELEMENT SumARIES FOR OPERATING POWER REACTOR FACILITIES RATED A80VE AVERAGE OR BELOW AVERAGE INTRODUCTION This appendix contains performance element summaries for operating power reactor facilities rated above average (Part 1) or below average (Part 2) by the SALP Review Group. The summaries are provided alphabetically by facility. The evaluation periods are those used by the Regional SALP Board. Areas of weakness were identified at various facilities during the SALP. These weaknesses were discussed with the respective licensee management organizations and improvements in these areas are expected from licensee corrective actions already taken or initiated. PART 1 - A80VE AVERAGE OPERATING POWER REACTOR FACILITIES ggggr Evaluation Period: 1/1/79 - 8/6/30 Cooper was assessed to be a well-managed facility. The licensee demonstrated an excellent record of refueling outage management. The total number of items of noncompliance identified at Cooper was relatively low when compared with other operating reactor facilities. Due to the low incidence of items of noncompliance, IE reduced the frequency of inspection effort in three areas (surveillance, training, and design changes). The licensee's management was characterized as normally taking action that assured long-term resolution to problems. Farley 1 & 2 Evaluation Periodh: Unit 1 - 5/1/79 - 4/30/80 Unit 2 - 4/1/79 - 3/30/80 The Farley facility was assessed as having well-mannged site and corporate organizations and a positive approach toward nuclear safety. The total number of itema of noncompliance identified at Farley was relatively low when compared O
i l with other operating reactor facilities. The health physics appraisal inspec-l tion revealed that Farley had an above average radiation protection program. The licensee was particularly thorough and responsive to the requirements for hanger and snubber inspections pursuant to IE Bulletin 79-14. Although the i licensee displayed weaknesses in the implementation of certain quality assurance program requirements, it was responsive in taking effective corrective action during the evaluation period. Fort Calhoun Evaluation Period: 1/1/79 - 6/30/80 Fort Calhoun was assessed to be a well-managed facility with the senior licensee management and corporate engineering staff actively involved in the plant activities. The licensee was responsive to NRC requests and displayed a parti-a cularly positive attitude tnward safety requirements. The total number of items of noncompliance identified at Fort Calhoun was relatively low when compared with other operating reactor facilities. Due to the low incidence of items of noncompl_iar,ce, IE reduced the frequency of inspection effort in four areas of licensee activity (maintenance, surveillance, design changes, and committee activities). The licensee maintained good communications with the NRC and between the various plant and corporate staff organizations. Licensee manage-ment stressed the need for high performance, timely identification and resolution of problems, and the retention of a technically competent staff and operating organization. Millstone 1 & 2 Evaluation Period: 7/1/79 - 7/1/80 t The Millstone facility was assessed to be well run with particularly competent l and responsive management. The health physics appraisal inspection revealed that the utility had a strong commitment to radiation protection. The quality f assurance program was better than the quality assurance program at most other I operating reactors. The licensee was very responsive in upgrading its security program to meet NRC requirements. The total number of it<rms of noncompliance L A-2 C
. =- If.- I r identified at Millstone was relatively low when compared with other operating reactor facilities. The Ifcensee displayed weakness only in the area of personnel adherence to procedures. However, the licensee was responsive to NRC concerns in this area. Oconee 1. 2 & 3 Evaluation Period: 5/1/79 - 4/30/80 ~ Oconee was assessed to have particularly competent site and corporate organ-izations.. The licensee maintained good communications with the NRC. The total number of items of noncompliance identified at Oconee was relatively low when compared with other operating reactor facilities. The health physics appraisal inspection revealed that the licensee's radiation protection program was better than most licensees. Facility management was unusually responsive to NRC requirements, findings of noncompliance, and information requests. Although the licensee displayed weaknesses.in personnel adherence to operating and administrative procedures, the licensee was responsive to NRC concerns in this area. 9 Point Beach 1 & 2 Evaluation Period: 11/1/79 - 10/31/80 Point Beach was assessed to be well managed and to be backed by an unusually competent corporate organization. Areas of above average performance included operations, radiation protection, and emergency planning. The total number of items of noncompliance at Point Beach was relatively low when compared with other operating reactor facilities. The licensee was particularly responsive in taking corrective action to issues involving personnel error. The health physics appraisal inspection found the licensee's radiation protection program to be better than most licensees inspected. The licensee's management posi-tively and vigorously addressed the need for high performance and resolution of problems. A-3 ' i -
n. _ _ __ _ _ Prairie Island 1 & 2 Evaluation Period: 9/1/79 - 8/31/80 Prairie Island management was assessed as having a high level of competence and experience. Areas of above average performance included operations, radiation protection, and environmental protection. The facility management positively and vigorously addressed the need for high performance and resol- .ution of problems. Licenses technical responses to NRR requests were above average and indicated a highly competent licensing and plant staff. The health physics appraisal inspection found the licensee's radiation protection program to bc'better than most licensees inspected. The total number of items of noncompliance identified at Prairie Island was relatively low when compared with other operating reactor facilities. The ifcensee had more items of noncompliance in the security area than some licensees considercd to be above average, but.the licensee's corrective actions and improved performance trend during the evaluation period demonstrated strong management attention to this area. Vermont Yankee Evaluation Period: 5/1/79 - 5/1/80 } Vermont Yankee was assessed to have technically competent and responsive site j and corporate management organizations. The licensee was responsive te regu-latory. issues and was attentive to anticipating problems..The total number of items of noncompliance identified at Versont Yankee was relatively low when l' compared with other operating reactor facilities. -The licensee received one noncompliance of the " violation" category, but it involved an isolated incident and did not reveal an overall breakdown in management controls. This incident concerned a package of low specific-activity material released to the carrier with a radiation level that exceeded the allowable limit. l I A-4
Yankee Rowe Evaluation Period: 5/1/79 - 5/1/80 Yankee Rowe was assessed to be a well-managed facility. The experience level 3 of the licensee staff, combined with strong administrative controls, resulted in a low number of personnel errors. The total number of items of noncompliance identified at Yankee Rowe was relatively low when compared with other operating reactor facilities. Yankee Rowe displayed no evidence of any programmatic weaknesses. The licensee has demonstrated a high degree of responsiveness to NRC safety concerns. PART 2 - BELOW AVERAGE OPERATING POWER REACTOR FACILITIES Arkansas Nuclear One Units 1 & 2 Evaluation Period: 1/1/79 - 8/19/80 The Arkansas Nuclear One facility displayed evidence of weaknesses in the areas of training, security, reporting, and quality control. Portions of the licensee's training plan were not implemented and portions of the requalification training program were not accomplished. Several items of noncompliance were identified, a civil penalty was subsequently levied, and licensee management meetings were held to correct training weaknesses. Numerous noncompliances were identified in the security area. There were weaknesses in the training of security personnel and other members of the plant staff regarding security requirements. Instances were identified in which licensee audits of security programs were not sufficient to identify discrepancies. The licensee hired a new security contractor in mid-1980. The reporting area was characterized by several licensee event reports that were late or incomplete. Quality control weaknesses precluded the licensee from identifying and correcting some discrepancies that were subsequently identified by the NRC. Arkansas Nuclear One received a relatively large number of items of noncom-pliance when compared with other facilities. A performance appraisal team inspection identified several areas of licensee activity needing improved A-5 \\
L management controls. The licensee had weaknesses in the staff support of. licensing activities. Since early 1980, changes in the utility's 1 . licensing organization resulted in significant improvements in this area. 1 8eaver Valley 1 Evaluation Period: 9/1/79 - 8/31/80 The Beaver Valley 1 facility displayed evidence of weaknesses in nine functional areas. These areas were plant operations, maintenance, surveillance, quality assurance, committee activities, fire protection, design changes and modifica-tions, security, and management controls. A low corporate engineering staff manning level led to a lack of design control over some contractor activities. The onsite safety review committee was over-burde,ned and some reviews were inadequate. Management control problems involved control of routine activities, resolution of technical and regulatory concerns, correction of deficient areas, implementation of security plan requirements, and scheduling of required surveillance activities. Beaver Valley Unit I received a relatively large number of items of noncom- .pliance,-including escalated enforcement action, when compared with other i facilities..There were frequent meetings and contacts with this licensee regarding the conduct of safety-related activities. Many items of noncom-1 pliance concerned personnel errors, indicated instances of insufficient training, and revealed instances of poor supervision cf personnel. The ) licensee experienced difficulties in meeting some technical commitments to NRR ..,j and lacked an adequate technical support staff. l.' Browns Ferry 1. 2, & 3 Evaluation Period: 4/1/79 - 3/31/80 l l j The Browns Ferry facility displayed evidence of weaknesses in the areas of radiation protection, reporting, and management control. 1
1 ( Radiation protection weaknesses were characterized by numerous noncompliances, weaknesses in exposure controls, and instances when licensee personnel failed to follow procedures. Reporting weaknesses were characterized by instances of licensee event reports that were incomplete and failed to consider implications in other areas. Management control weaknesses contributed to a loss of Unit 3 primary containment integrity on December 6-9, 1979, while the reactor was at power. This violation of technical specifications resulted in escalated enforcement action. Management control weaknesses also included instances of missed surveillances, procedure adherence errors, and misoriented fuel assemblies that were not discovered during post-refueling core load verifications. Browns Ferry received an average number of items of noncompliance when compared with other facilities. However, the Itcensee's below average performance in areas where the facility received many items of noncompliance was considered to be an important contributor to the overall below average performance rating. 4 I
- L Brunswick 1 & 2 Evaluation Period
4/1/79 - 3/31/80 t i The Brunswick facility displayed evidence of weaknesses in the areas of radia-tion control, contamination control, and environmental protection. j t' The inadequate management control over radiation exposure and contamination resulted in unmonitored and uncontrolled release of airborne radioactive material. Management control weaknesses also resulted in the improper release of ifcensed material to a sanitary landfill and local salvage dealer. Brunswick management control weaknesses were characterized by numerous noncompliances e concerning the quality assurance program (some of which were repetitive), problems in supervisory overview and the conduct of committee activities, and instances of activities conducted without procedures. The IE performance i i aporaisal team found significant weaknesses in areas involving management
- j overview, training, and corrective actions.
s A-7 + .1 'e
-w ..=.n- .. ~ ~ ~ ~ - 1. - - ~. _..... ~ C ~ Brunswick received an average number of items of noncompliance. However, an Immediate Action Letter was issued concerning inadvertent release of radio- . activity to unrestricted areas. - t Crystal River 3 Evaluation Period: 5/1/79 - 4/30/80 The Crystal River 3 facility displayed evidence of weaknesses'in four functional areas. -These areas were emergency planning, plant operations, training, and i radiation protection. The licensee had problems meeting the requirements of its emergency plan. These problems.have been resolved by the implementation of the new emergency' plan. The plant operations area was characterized by numerous items of non-compliance and instances where operators failed to adhere to plant procedures, t conducted activities without procedures, or changed procedures without con-ducting the required reviews. Training program weaknesses contributed to personnel errors and items of noncompliance. Required training activities were not completed on several occasions. The radiation protection area was ll characterized by numerous items of noncompliance, weaknesses in the exposure I and contamination control programs, and inadequate control over liquid and F solid radioactive waste. ] Crystal River 3 received a relatively_large number of items of noncompliance, including escalated enforcement action, when compared with other facilities. j During'the evaluation period, the licensee initiated organizational and staffing = l changes to provide a higher level of management attention and a greater resource i allocation to deal with identified problem areas. I \\ Davis-Besse Evaluation Period: 11/1/79 - 10/31/80 t The Davis-Besse facility displayed evidence of weaknesses in the areas of security and plant operations. 1 l A-8 [.. i
The security area was characterized by numerous items of noncompliance resulting in several enforcement conferences between the NRC and licensee management. Weaknesses in both corporate and site security management control contributed to difficulties in the maintenance of secur,ity-related equipment. Performance in the area of plant operations was variable with some evidence of improvement near the end of the evaluation period. Plant ~ operations during the evaluation period were characterized by instances of personnel errors and failure to follow procedures, staffing problems, repetitive equipment problems, and problems in managing facility changes and modifications. This resulted in a series of management level meetings I between the NRC and the licensee. Some of the problem areas identified prior to the evaluation period were still in the process of being corrected by the licensee. Instances were identified where nonlicensed members of the plant staff had insufficient training. The ifcensee's program to upgrade the experience level of nonlicensed members of the shift operating crews was confirmed by an NRC Order. 4 f Although responsive to most NRC concerns, the licensee responses to IE Bulletin 80-06 (Engineered Safety Feature Reset Controls) and to Three Mile Island - Lessons Learned - Category A items indicated a problem in management coord-l ination and attention. The responses were either incomplete or not compre-hensive; therefore requiring revisions or submittal of additional information. [ Davis-Besse received a relatively large number of noncompliances when compared l to other facilities. The majority of the noncompliances were in the security area. The licensee also received a civil penalty as a result of an individual overexposure that occurred in April 1980. A performance appraisal team inspection, completed in November 1980 but covering the evaluation period, revealed average and above average performance in sev-I eral areas, especially training. The inspection revealed a significant weak-1' ness only in the area of procurement of safet/-related components. J A-9 )
FitzPatrick Evaluation Period: 12/1/79 - 11/30/80 i The FitzPatrick facility displayed evidence of weaknesses in eight functional areas. These areas were fire protection, design changes and modifications, radiation protection, emergency preparedness, radioactive waste management, 7 transportation, security and safeguards,. and management controls. The fire protection area was characterized by several items of noncompliance and a failure to meet housekeeping commitments. There were instances where the licensee had not made program revisions to the design change and modiff-cation area in accordance with commitments to the NRC. Weaknesses in radiation protection, emergency preparedness, and radioactive waste management were identified during routine NRC inspection efforts and during the health physics appraisal inspection. In these areas there were instances of weaknesses in procedures, inadequate training, and personnel errors. The NRC issued an Immediate Action Letter to confirm the licensee's commitments to resolve weaknesses identified during the health physics appraisal. ' Weaknesses in security and safeguards identified during NRC inspections precipitated esca-lated enforcement action by the NRC, including a civil penalty and an Immediate Action Letter. FitzPatrick received a relatively large number of items of noncompliance, including escalated enforcement action, when compared with other facilities. During the evaluation period, the licensee's corporate management organization was strengthened by a management reorganization and by the addition of personnel to the corporate staff. 9 Indian Point 2 Evaluation Period: 1/1/80 - 12/31/80 The Indian Point 2 facility displayed evidence of weaknesses in five functional 1 areas. These areas were plant operations, maintenance, reporting, committee activities, and management controls. A-10
.y.l*' s ,/ ,E ,./ + n 2 *3 m s, S;- i i .Hostof'the'kndianPoint2'weaknesseswerelinkedtothecontainmentflooding 'l / incident tisat. occurred October 17, 1980. The NRC investigation of this event revealed eleven.it. ems df noncompliance and resulted in escalated enforcement aciion./Thep'isr&, opera'tionsst/vawascharacterizedbyinstanceswherethe licensee made ig,roppe assignmen,ts ior supervisory personnel and failed to fol.,lowprocedur#'.'deviewofthemal'ntenancearearevealedinstanceswhere es t'he licensee fai'Jd to determine f.h4 causes of repeated equipment malfunctions ,s and instances of incomplete maintenance actions. The licensee failed to submit several required reports to the hitC. The licensee's Station Nuclear Safety Cosajttee[ failed'tobkereviemofseveralsafety-relatedeventsandactivities j@ th 4 involved the potential distence of an unreviewed safety question, as de- '[14 din 10CFR50.59(e). Fur'fwr indica (lons of weaknesses in the management t b-co$trolsIsreawereidentifledas>'1c'esulfofthehealthphysicsappraisaland s. s ?. ,4 the licesee's spproval of a pro':edure which disabled the automatic start fe'ature of,the containment spre;y system. J t
- jt
,~
- )
y,; ,, ; j g b, ;. w-i j y s. .i Indian Point, (received a ret.r,t,1vely 1/rge' number of items of noncompliance, including escahated enforcement action, when' compared with other facilities. ,ny i d' # 17 NineNils9eihtj ivnyationPeriod: 2/1/80 - 1/31/81 i w / bff The Nine M114, Point,1 facility displayed evidence of weaknesses in four functional t l '7 ' areas.. These, areas unis: radiation protection, emergency preparedness, radio- 'activbweste management, and management controls. . eTht'r'adiationirotecti$nariawascharacterizedbyitemsofnoncomplianceand l 'Inadequaciesin's$jor/areasoftheitceesee'shealthphysicsprogram. Escalated enforcement action was taken to assure licensee corrective actions. The Itcensee had significan't weaknesses in the areas of emergency preparedness and radioactive waste management. Aq< inadequate installation prevented full com- [. pliance w'iti the, requirements for in incieased range radiation monitor pursuant te the short term iequirements of the TMt Lessons Learned. Licensee manage-mentfailedtoproperlyidentify,joivectandreportthisinadequateinstallation i ,? i, ~, L / s A-11 ~
which resulted in escalated enforcement action by the NRC. Subsequently, the licensee made significant changes in the managsment controls concerning radiation protection, emergency preparedness, and radioactive waste management. Nine Mile Point 1 received a relatively large number of items of noncompliance, including escalated enforcement action, when compared with other facilities. Oyster Creek Evaluation Period: 8/1/79 - 7/31/80 The Oyster Creek facility displayed evidence of weaknesses in the areas of radiation protection and radioactive waste management. ., Problems with implementation of radiation protection and radioactive waste programs resulted in identification of numerous items of noncompliance, including escalated enforcement action. The licensee's use of health physics , technicians not fully meeting the requirements of ANSI N14.1-1971 resulted , in the issuance of an NRC Order modifying the facility license to correct this inadequacy. The plant review committee failed to require audits of the health physics area and portions of the plant staff training program. There were instances where the ifcensee failed to meet commitments made to the NRC. There were instances where Ilconsee personnel failed to a,dhere to procedures, resulting j in several items of noncompliance. i l Early in the assessment period, the IE Performance Appraisal Team rated seven l of fifteen de'signated areas as below average (then defined as poor). These areas were fire protection, training, inservice inspection and testing, main-l tenance, QA audits, radiation protection, and radioactive waste management. j Sleiler inadequacies, with improvement noted, were identified later during the i assessment period by the health physics appraisal team inspection and during l routine Regional inspections. A-12 6-
1 l y s _J 1,2 1 Oyster Creek ireceived a relatively large number of items of noncompliance, iridiuding escalatedjnforcement action, when compared with other facilities. The licensee initiat'ed, organizational changes to provide direct management attention and resource allocation to identified problem areas. - V. Palisades, Evaluation Period: 9/1/79 - 9/1/80 z The Palisades facility displayed evidence of weaknesses in the areas of plant operations, surveillance, and radiation protection.' 4 Performance in the area of plant operations was characterized by personnel errors and failure to follow procedures. Repetitive instances of system misalignments impaired ECCS equipment operability and containment integrity. The' licensee had numerous problems with defective plant operating procedures. There were instances wh'ere tha 11cens2e. had difficulty in completing adequate corrective action for3 identified discrepancies.- Weaknesses in the surveillance area were characterized Cy instances'of" defective procedures and personnel errors. i i~ In the radiation protecti.on area, there were items of noncompliance regarding 4 personne1 overexposure and inadequate' controls over release of radioactive j materials. In addition, the health physics appraisal _ team inspection found ] Palisades radiation protection-programs to be below average. There were weaki) esses in training and _ staffing, exposure control,' procedure and QA program implementation, an'd instirumentation availability. I-f Palisades received a relatively large number of items of noncompliance when compared with other facilities. Escalated enforcement action was taken on l j seve'ral occasions. The licensee initiated corrective action prior to and l during the evaluation period to impreve performance. 7-p , 1; l s + s l 1 s 4 13 [ .--. m -. w... -. -. - - -
~,. Pilarim Evaluation Period: 1/1/80 - 12/31/80 The Pilgrim facility. displayed evidence of-weaknesses in five functional areas. These' areas were: refueling, reporting, radiation protection, emergency preparedness, and management controls. Weaknesses in refueling activities were characterized by several items of noncompliance, including escalated enforcement, concerning movement of fuel .without secondary containment integrity and inadequate corrective actions for ' identified procedure discrepancies. The licensee had cases of inadequate and incomplete Licensee Event Reports and responses to IE bulletins. The radiation protection program was characterized by numerous items of noncompliance and program weaknesses, many of which were identified during the health physics appraisal team inspection. Escalated enforcement was taken to correct iden-tified weaknesses.and inadequacies in several emergency response procedures. Licensee management control weaknesses were indicated by inadequate evaluation of several. events to prevent recurrence, instances of inadequate corrective actions, and instances of inadequate implementation of commitments made to the NRC. i Although Pilgrim received an average number of items of noncompliance',. there [ were instances in which escalated enforcement action was taken to assure g corrective action by the licensee. In September 1980 the licensee imple-mented major organization and personnel changes as a response to NRC concerns. N Rancho Seco Evaluation Period: 4/15/79 - 4/15/80 The Rancho Seco facility displayed evidence'of weaknesses in the functional } . areas of quality assurance audits, quality control inspections, training, and 'i operations. h I ti A-14 u. .-,.,..._..--,---,..-nn,--- -+,--~~ = s- ' ' ~ ~~ ~~ ^
~,. .u_-a Weaknesses in the area of quality assurance audits were indicated by instances .of audits not performed, inadequate response to audit findings, and audits lacking sufficient depth and scope. Quality control inspections were insuf-ficient to assure control over some safety-related maintenance activities. Training requirements were not fully implemented for nonlicensed personnel. Operations area weaknesses were characterized by instances of failure to align systems or components properly, and personnel errors. Escalated enforcement action was taken to assure licensee corrective action following the discovery of an emergency core cooling system misalignment following maintenance. Although Rancho Seco received an average number of items of noncompliance, management control weaknesses were identified in several areas of licensed activity. The Performance Appraisal Branch inspection identified seven, out of eleven, areas of management activity that had significant weaknesses. These areas were committee activities, quality assurance audits, design changes and modifications, maintenance, corrsctive action system, nonlicensed personnel training, and fire prevention. Sales 1 & 2 Evaluation Period: 9/1/79 - 8/31/80 The Sales facility displayed evidence of weaknesses in four functional areas. These areas were p'lant operations, reporting, security and safeguards, and management controls. Weaknesses in plant operations were characterized by instances of failure to operate in accordance with plant procedures and instances of violation of Technical Specification limitations. There were repeated cases where the licensee failed to complete required surveillance tests. Licensee reports l were late, inaccurate, or incomplete on several occasions. There were problems in maintaining security controls between Unit 1, which was operating, and Unit 2, which was still under construction and subject to different security i I l A-15
requirements than an operating facility. Although the station staff demon-strated an ability to identify problems and propose solutions, there were instances where corporate management did not provide a timely response. Sales received a relatively large number of items of noncompliance, including escalated enforcement action, when compared with other facilities. The licensee has.taken or initiated corrective action for identified items of noncompliance. Surry 1 & 2 Evaluation Period: 5/1/79 - 4/30/80 The Surry facility displayed evidence of weaknesses in the areas of plant operations, radiation protection, and quality assurance. Weaknesses in the operations area were characterized by repetitive instances of failure to follow procedures, improper system lineups or tagging errors, and unapproved use of temporary hoses or jumpers. The licensee experienced difficulty in responding to unplanned maintenance problems,. failed to take corrective actions in response to several recurring problems, and did not j adequately test equipment following maintenance on several occasions. Weak-j nesses in the radiation protection area were indicated by numerous radiation protection items of noncompliance and escalated enforcement action concerning inadequate radiological surveillance on a radioactive waste shipment. Quality assurance weaknesses were characterized by instances of longstanding and un-corrected design problems in plant systems, instances where the licensee used unqualified parts in safety-related maintenance, and several procedures that were not properly revised following technical specification revisions. Although the facility received an average number of items of noncompliance, there was one instance where escalated enforcement action was taken to assure corrective action by the licensee. l f -4 j A-16
APPENDIX B PERFORMANCE ELEMENT SUPT 4 ARIES FOR POWER REACTOR FACILITIES UNDER CONSTRUCTION RATED BELOW AVERAGE INTRODUCTION This appendix contains performance element summaries for power reactor facili-ties under construction rated below average by the SALP Review Group. No reactors under construction were rated above average. The summaries are provided alphabetically by facility. The evaluation periods are those used by the Regional SALP Board. Areas of weakness were identified at various facilities during the SALP. These weaknesses were discussed with the respective licensee management organizations and improvements in these areas are expected from licensee corrective actions already taken or initiated. Catawba 1 & 2 Evaluation Period: 9/1/79 - 8/31/80 The Catawba facility displayed evidence of weaknesses in the area of quality 'assura1ce, including management and training. , I l Quality assurance weaknesses were characterized by instances of inadequate LT design reviews, procedures not issued, specifications and commitments not translated into procedures, and audit programs not established. There were numerous items of noncompliance involving failure to follow procedures for- [ activities involving welding, concrete placement, design, quality control inspections, records control, and electrical equipment installation l-Catawba received a relatively large number of items of noncompliance when li. compared with other power reactor facilities under construction. Most of these items of.noncomp1'ance were attributed to weakness in the licensee's l quality assurance and management overview process. l-l l
_= =_ ~ _, Marble Hil1~1 & 2 Evaluation Period: 7/1/79 - 6/30/80 Although construction at the Marble Hill facility was shut down by the NRC for most of the evaluation period, the licensee's activities prior to and during the early part of the evaluation period displayed evidence of project engineering, quality assurance, and construction management weaknesses. The licensee had not sufficiently implemented quality assurance and management controls. -There were ineffective controls over civil and mechanical construc-tion as well as stored equipment and components. Quality control inspections by contractor personnel were not perfo.med effectively. Conditions adverse to quality were not corrected prior to concrete placement. Corrective actions were not taken for discrepancies. Marble Hill received a relatively large number of items of noncompliance when compared with other power reactor facilities under construction. There were instances where the licensee required escalated NRC enforcement action, fre-quent management contacts, and stop vork orders to assure compliance with NRC l requirements. An Order suspending all safety related work was issued in August 1979, because of NRC concerns over the adequacy of the licensee's I quality assurance program and controls over construction activities. Licensee ] actions were taken during the evaluation period to obtain NRC approval of the resumption of safety-related work. These included staffing and organizational changes, quality assurance program development, and the identification and .y l resolution of problems. Incremental resumption of safety-related construction, j subject to the approval of the NRC, commenced subsequent to the evaluation ] period. 1 Midland 1 & 2 Evaluation Period: 7/1/79 - 6/30/80 The Midland facility displayed evidence of weaknesses in three functional areas. These areas were quality assurance (including management and training), substructures and foundations, and safety-related components. g.g
. ~.. 4 In the area of quality assurance there were numerous items of noncompliance, instances of unqualified QC inspectors, and instances of inadequate control of contractor' activities. Earlier quality assurance problems associated with materials and placement of soils and backfills were identified during the evaluation period. The licensee was slow in responding to NRC concerns regarding soil placement. An NRC Order modifying the construction permit .was issued to assure corrective action to the soil problems. Major defi-ciencies were identified in quality assurance controls over the installation of safety-related heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning components. These deficiencies resulted in the issuance of an NRC stop work order and the imposi-tion of civil penalties to assure corrective action. Technical responses to NRR were occasionally inadequate but have showr. improvement during the evaluation period. Midland received a relatively large number of items of noncompliance when l compared with other power reactor facilities under construction. During the evaluation the licensee initiated action that allowed a reorganization to be implemented in August 1980. i South Texas Project 1 & 2 Evaluation Period: 8/1/79 - 7/31/80 i i The South Texas Project facility displayed evidence of management weaknesses f in the areas of quality assurance and overall construction management. A Regional SALP Board review and licensee meeting was not held as part of the South Texas Project evaluation. The Review Group examined investigation and inspection reports, and other data relevant to the evaluation period, in rating the South Texas Project facility. b The licensee had not sufficiently implemented quality assurance and management controls. Personnel training regarding quality assurance was inadcquate. Con-struction pressures thwarted quality control functions. There were threats, harassment, and intimidation of quality control inspectors, and the licensee (who was knowledgeable of these problems) failed to take effective corrective B-3 e a - eee e. ..~.y ..&,, ~,.,,.,., - - .,,..n. .,..,,v.
-. = action. -There were numerous instances of failure to follow procedures in the i areas of document control, material storage, concrete placement, and welding. i Audit and surveillance programs were improperly implemented. i .The licensee had a breakdown in the implementation of the quality assurance program and management controls for safety-related concrete pours and safety-related welding. Extensive NRC. investigation of licensee activities resulted in numerous items of noncompliance, escalated enforcement, frequent management contacts, and an NRC Show Causa Order to assure compliance with NRC require-ments. Ir.cremental resumption of safety-related concrete placement and welding has been subject to the approval of the NRC. Washington Nuclear Project No. 2 Evaluation Period: 4/1/79 - 4/1/80 The Washington Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2) facility displayed evidence of weaknesses in six functional areas. These areas were quality assurance (in-cluding management and training), safety-related structures, piping and hangers, electrical equipment, electrical (tray and wire), and instrumentation. l The area of quality ~ assurance was characterized by ineffective program imple-- mentation and inadequate control of contractor activities. There were numerous items of noncompliance involving procedure and drawing adherence, control of j special processes, and maintenance of quality assurance records. The licensee
- (_
.i had extensive difficulties in the installation of safety-related pipe whip } restraints, and in the erection and welding of the sacrificial shield wall. I The NRC required the licensee to stop work related to these two areas of j_ construction and took escalated enforcement action. WNP-2 received a large number of items of noncompliance when compared with [ other power reactor facilites under construction. Licensee submittals to NRR ] displayed technical weaknesses and the licensee was not responsive to NRC j' technical requests on various occasions. The ifcensee received extensive NRC l action (including escalated enforcement, frequent management contacts, and c stop-work orders) to assure compliance with NRC requirements. 4 .p i 8-4 c: - e-
~ Watts Bar 1 & 2 Evaluation Period: 8/1/79 - 7/31/80 The Watts Bar-facility displayed evidence of weaknesses in two areas. These areas were quality assurance (including management and training), and piping and hangers. Quality assurance, management, and training weaknesses were characterized by numerous items of noncompliance and significant weaknesses in quality assurance program implementation. There were many instances where licensee personnel failed to adhere to procedures. There were instances where the licensee was unsuccessful in achieving adequate corrective action to identified discrepancies. The quality assurance organization and application of quality assurance was fragmented. Difficulties in the installation of pipe hangers were characterized by instances of hangers in the wrong location, use of the wrong types of hangers, anchor bolt problems, and the use of incorrect materials. Additionally, there were weaknesses in communications between various organizations within l, the Tennessee Valley Authority. i Watts Bar received a relatively large number of items of noncompliance when compared with other power reactor facilities under construction. There were several management contacts between the NRC and licensee management to assure [ problems were corrected. ' Organizational changes were made in the quality l assurance area subso vent to the Regional SALP review period. O l Zimmer Evaluation Period: 10/1/79 - 9/30/80 The Zimmer facility displayed evidence of weaknesses in the areas of quality assurance management, piping and hanger supports, and training. ,I l The licensee had not adequately implemented quality assurance and management controls. There were numerous items of noncompliance involving quality assur-t i l; ance criteria. There were instances where identification of problems and l . corrective actions were inadequate. The quality assurance organization lacked aggressive and effective management. There were numerous instances of rejected B-5 o
( work and continuing problems with the quality assurance aspects of piping and hanger supports installation. There were items of noncompliance involving pro-cedure adherence and welding. The training area was characterized by inadequate staff, procedures that were not fully implemented, and lack of BWR operational experience in the training group. Zimmer received a relatively large number of items of noncompliance, when compared with other power reactor facilities under construction. i l1 i ! i ~ !' iLi l $ -i !1 1 l, !~ l I i ~ <r 8-6 L
February 12, 1980 SECY-80-83 mTro STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN WAsHINGTCN, D. c. 20555 INFORMATION REPORT Fy: The Commissioners From: Victor Stallo, Jr., Director ~ ~ Office of Inspection and Enforcement p M: Executive Director for Operations T' ' ' Subiect: SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE Purcose: The purpose of this paper is to inform the Commission regarding l the status of efforts by the Office of Inspection and Enforce-ment in the evaluation of licensee performance. Discussion: In October 1978, IE submitted SECY 78-554 " Licensee Regulatory Performance Evaluation," which requested, and subsequently obtained, Commission approval for a two year trial program for evaluating licensee regulatory perfcrmance. " Regulatory performance" was defined as the licensee's ability.to meet l regulatory requirements and to avoid reportable events. SECY 78-554 indicated that an " integrated methodology" would be developed that incorporated selected aspects of the three l previously considered methods (Statistical, Trend Analysis, and l Regional Survey) that were described in the paper. The objec - tives of this methocology were defined as: Identification of factors that lead to different levels of regulatory performance; Effective and efficient use of NRC inspection resources; ud Evaluation of various aspects of the NRC inspection program. The trial program was develooed, but was never imolemented cacause of tne Three Mile Island (TMI) Accicent. A program for the comorehensive overview of licensee cerformance nas been included as Task I.S.2 in the " Action Plans for Imolementing Recommencations of tne Presicent's Commission anc i
Contact:
j H. D. Thornburg 49-28484
~- ~a ~ -g. Other Studies of TMI-2 Accident" (NUREG-0660). This program is described in the enclosed paper and is entitled " Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance" (SALP). The objectives of j SALP are: Idantification of unacceptable licensee performance; Improvement of licensee performance; Improvement of IE Inspection Program; Providing a basis for NRC management's allocation of resourcas; and Achieving regional consistency by appraising licensee performance from a national perspective. The SALP Program has been developed for power reactor licensees, but may, with modifications, be applicable to major saterials licensees. As was the case with the Licensee Regulatory Performance Evaluation, the SALP Program is designed to identify licensees whose regulatory performance warrants increased emphasis in licensing and inspection activities. If such licensees are identified, appropriate action will be initiated to upgrade the licenses. performance; a major thrust of the SALP. The method-ology 'has five (5) basic features: l L Evaluation of licensee performance by a board of regional inspectors, regional supervisors, and the NRR Project j Manager (255 Project Manager for Materials licensees); f-i Determination by regional management of the action necessary to upgrade performance; t Holding annual see, tings with licensee management to i i discuss the regional evaluations and planned actions; i Review of the evaluations of licensee performance and 1 planned corrective action by a SALP Review Group, composed i. of senior NRC sanagement personnel, with inputs from the 1l. regional evaluations, NRR appraisals, and the appraisals j of other NRC offices (i.e., AE00, PAB, etc.); and a l Recommendations by the SALP Revie.w Group to the appropriate NRC office director for major enforcement sanctions, license modifications, or increased (or decreased) inspec-l tion emphasis (frequency or scope) as warranted by the l licensee evaluations. l .} I I
l 3-Selected portions of the three previously considered methods of performance appraisal have been incorporated into the regional l evaluations of licensee performance. An IE Manual Chapter (MC) defining the program for the regional evaluation of licensee performance is currently being reviewed by the regions. This MC will be issued in March 1980. Regional evaluations will begin in April 1980 and will be completed in June 1980. The composition of the SALP Review Group, the procedures for Review Group operation, and details of the evaluations by the offices providing input to the Review Group, will be finalized by June 1980. The initial evaluations 4 of the SALP Review Group will be completed in December 1980. Coordination: The Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Management and Program Analysis, Analysis and Evaluation of Operat onal Data, i and Standards Development concur. The Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards has no objection to the proposed program for reactor licensees. The Executive Legal Director has no legal objections. ). / 4 Victor Stallo, Jr. Director l Office of Inspection and Enforcement i l i
Enclosure:
j "Systenatic Assessment of Licensee Perforuance" ] This paper is scheduled for consideration at an open meeting on February 14 j 1980. i I t l' i l[l l l: l i I l i i I e- ,,-..-,__...w-y,,,,_
cm SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE l'. INTRODUCTION This. paper describes the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) which is a refinement of a program previously referred to as the " Integrated Approach" to Licensee Regulatory Performance Evaluation (LRPE). SALP, like LAPE, is defined as an evaluation of the ability of a licensee to meet regulatoiy requirements and to avoid significant events that appear to be directly under the control of the licensee. The SALP Program was developed for power reactor facilities in operation and construction, and is based on cartain aspects of previously conducted NRC studies, with the mitthods substantially accified. The SALP Program, with modifications, may be applicable to major fuel facilities and major by product licensed facilities. The requirements for licensee performance appraisal were first established in MUREG-0397, " Revised Inspection Program for Nuclear Power Plants", which includes a national performance appraisal capability that provides the following elements: Evaluation of the performance of HRC licensees from a national per-spective; Evaluation of the effectiveness of the NRC inspection program; and Confirmation of the objectivity of NRC inspectors. During October 1978, IE submitted SECY 78-554, " Licensee Regulatorj-Performance Evaluation", to the Commission. As described in SECY 78-554, 'lj the objectives of LRPE were as follows: i 'l Identification of factors that lead to different levels of regulatory q perfomance; ,i Effective and efficient use 'of MRC resources; and l : I Evaluation of various aspects of the NRC inspection program. l i SECY 78-554 described three methods (Statistical Method, Trend Analysis Method, and Regional Survey Method) of licensee performance appraisal j which had been studied by NRC. It also proposed the implementation of a trial prograe which was referred to as the " integrated approach" method-1 ology to Licensee Regulatory Performance Evaluation (LRPE). This method-ology was to be used to evaluate operating reactor licensees using 1978-l: 1979 data. The trial program was developed, but its implementation was L: interrupted by the Three Mile Island Accident.
- j As a result of the investigative studies of the Three Mile Island Accident, i
a program for the comprehensive evaluation of licenses performance has 1 ,,-w..,...----_-___,__.,,o_,.,__-,_____.__,_.,,_._..-,.,m,
~ . been included as Task I.B.2 in the " Action Plan for Implementing Recommendations of the President's Consission and Other Studies of TMI-2 Accident" (NUREG-0660). The program outlined by Task I.B.2 is a refine-ment of the LRPE methodology. This program which is the subject of this paper has been entitled the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) to coincide with the recommendations of the Kemeny Report. The ob,fectives of SALP have been defined as: Identification of unacceptable licensee performance; Improvement of licensee performance; Improvement of IE Inspection Program; Providing a basis for NRC management's allocation of resources; and Achieving regional consistency by appraising ifcensee performance from a national perspective. These objectives will be accomplished through the performance of periodic evaluations cf ifcensees by IE and NRR. The evaluations will be reviewed i by a SALP Review Group of senior management personnel from NRC offices. The results of the evaluations, the reviews by the SALP Review Group, and the plans for appropriate action by NRC will be documented and distributed to the appropriate offica director, to the ifcensees, and to the Public Document Rooms. In addition, the regional offices will hold annual management meetings with each of the evaluated ifcensees to discuss the results of the evaluations. The appropriate action to upgrade licenses performance will be initiated by the regional offices as a result of the evaluations and may include enforestment action, or increased inspection frequency and scope. ( 2. INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE Ij a. Procram Inouts ) Several groups within the NRC will provide inputs to SALP as follows: (1) The IE regional office will perform an evaluation of the performance of each licensee semiannually. This evaluation 1 will be used to determine the need for an increase or decrease in the' frequency and scope of regulatory activities. The region will document the results of the evaluation and their plans for action, and forward this documentation to the SALP Review Group. f (2) NRR Project Managers will participate in the regional i l evaluations discussed in (1) above. The NRR Project Managers and technical support program personnel will also provide input e. J
= , to the SALP Review Group. In addition, NRR will perform an independent study of the management capabilities and overall training of licensen employees. The results of this study will be submitted to the SALP Review Group for consideration during their initial evaluations. (3) The IE Performance Appraisal Branch will perform Management Appraisal (MA) and Program Appraisal (PA) inspections at licenses facilities. The reports of their inspections will contain an appraisal of licensee management which will be forwarded to the SALP Review Group. All licensees will not receive these inspec-tions during the first two years of this program. However, it is expected that the number of licensees inspected will be sufficient to verify regional consistency. (4) Other NRC Offices (such as AE00, etc) may provide input to the SALP Review Group as appraisal methodologies are developed with proven correlation to the safety of operations. The regional. evaluation discussed in (1) above will utilize appropriate portions of the three previously developed methods of performance evaluation. The details of the above evaluation / appraisal techniques will be discussed in Section 3 of this paper. b. Review of Evaluation Results Review of NRC evaluation results and the appropriate plans for upgrading performance will be conducted by the SALP Review Group consisting of senior managers from the NRC offices appointed by the Executive Director for Operations. The Review Group will provide an overview function of the evaluations and render an assessment of the safety adequacy of each facility and the adequacy of upgrading plans. Based on the findings, the Review Group is specifically a charged to reconsend major enforcement sanctions or license modifi-cations to appropriate office directors. The Review Group will also confine the consistency of regional evaluations and the regional { implementation of NRC inspec' tion programs. l The SALP Review Group, in addition to receiving inputs from regional evaluations, will receive iaputs from NRR, IE Headquarters, and from .i other NRC offices as appropriate. The Review Group will convene at { least once every six (6) sonths and revfew the evaluations of the licensees that are classified as needing " increased inspection i scope / frequency." The remaining licensee evaluations will be eval-uated once every twelve (12) months. c. Feedback of Evaluation Results l l The primary cbjectives of SALP are to identify unacceptable elements of licensee performance and to subsequently improve (upgrade) licensee performance. The former objective is achieved by the regional 4
J L-- ._W-.... .mw -% c.--. .Q M. ^w. ~ w'_ =._%.. ~ 1 -4* evaluations and the reviews by the SALP Review Group, but to improve perfomance the results of these evaluations must be communicated to NRC management. The results of the regional evaluations and the recommended plan for the appropriata corrective action is forwarded to the Regional Director for review and approval. The results of the SALP Review Group are forwarded to the appropriate office director indicating a concurrence.with the proposed regional action or ncon- ~ sending additional or alternata action. NRC offices pmvfding evaluation information will document the results of their evaluations with distribution to the licensee, POR, and to the SALP Review Group. In addition, the region will submit an interoffice memorandum detailing the future plans for action by the region to cornet the deficiencies identified during the evaluation. Tne Review Group will issue a report at the conclusion of their periodic reviews to document the extent of their concurrence with the regional evaluations and proposed actions, or their recommenda-tions for additional or alternate action. Annual seatings will be conducted by regional management with the managements of the licensees evaluated by this program. These meetings will be utilized to discuss the results of the ifcensee performance evaluations and the NRC's general plan of action for correcting det'iciencies. 3. METH0COLCGIES a. Reafonal Evaluation Each region will perform a detailed evaluation of their power reactor licensees semiannually. The evaluations will be performed by a board of the inspectors (including the nsident inspector) and supervisors involved in the inspection program for that licensee. The board will also include the NRR Project Manager for the facility, i The board will consider the' enforcement actions, deficiency / event reports, technical and management performance, and safety attitudes of the ifcensee. The evaluations will also be based on the observa-tions of the board members and their judgments of the licensee's performance. The evaluation will be the board's consensus of ifcensee perform 4nce; however, dissenting opinions with substantive comments will be included and transmitted to the SALP Review Group for concurr'ent evaluathn. A number of functional areas will be evaluated by the board and a classification of "ine nase," " decrease," or "no-change" in the frequency and scope of inspection effort will 4 be assigned for each functional area. The board will also provide an overall evaluation of the licensee and a detailed plan of the appropriate actions to upgrade performance.
s 3 , The evaluation of each functional area will include the following considerations: Adequacy of administrative controls; Adequacy of supervisory reviw in the functional area; Adequacy of training and qualification of personnel; Adequacy of d-ritation and records control systems; Overall effectiveness in complying with NRC requirements; Attitude in assuring safe operations; and Significant performance deviations or trends noted from previous evaluations. The board's evaluation of the licensee's enforcement history in each functional area will include identifled items of noncompliance and ,.i escalated enforcement actions. A statistical analysis will not be perfomed on noncompliance data; but an indepth analysis of. indicated trends and sanction points will be determined and will be considered in the evaluation. The board's review of deficiency / event reports will consider the number, significance and repetitive nature of the non-routine events or construction deficiencies in each functional area. The board will provide an indepth analysis of these reports to identify adverse trends (causally-linked events) which indicata insufficient attention e to the correction of the events or insufficient capabilities of licensee management in the functional areas. This analysis is similar to that developed in the Trend Analysis Method described in SECY 78-554. i The NRR Project Manager will provide input on the licensee's performance in those functidnal areas in which he is knowledgeable. l A manual cha;:ter is being developed that specifies the functional areas to be evaluated and the methodology for performing the evalua- ' i tions. This evaluation differs from the Regional Survey Method performed by i the Hays As'sociates (referenced in SECY 78-554) in that it is a l structured evaluation which represents the consensus of regional personnel and is supportable by inspection results and event reports as opposed to the Hays. questionnaire which contained anonymous lf unsupported opinions. og e -.n.
b. Evaluations b'y NRR NRR profect managers and NRR technical support prograr persor..41 will perform an evaluation of each power reactor licar se semiannually and will submit the evaluation to the SALP Review Grot for inclusion in their review. The details of this evaluation are 3 t to be j, developed. In addition, the NRR QA Branch and selected contractor are developing acceptance criteria to describe the capabilities (nuet e of people, kinds of people, background, experience, training, etc ) required of licenses management. This program is Task I.8.1 in NL EG-0660. They will subsequently evaluate all licensees against hese criteria. Deficiencies identified in this study will be discusse with each licensee and will be documented in a report. NRR plar. to complete this effor+ in the spring of 1980. The results of thi one-time study will be provided to the SALP Review Group for th ir initial I evaluations. c. Performance Aporaisal Branch (PAB) Inspections Management Appraisal (MA) Inspections will be performe by the PA8 on selected licensees in each Region. The objectives f these inspections are to provide a national perspective of 1 :ensee l performance; to identify performance traits that lican aos may have in common; and to confirs inspector objectivity. The NA fr.spections are conducted at the licensee's cor 3 rate offices and at the reactor site with emphasis on evaluating th effectiveness of the licensee's managemen'; in controlling licensed a tivities and in providing technical support to ensure compliance wi 1 regulatory requirements and safety of operations. Results of the a inspections will be furnished to the the SALP Review Group. The technique for appraising licensee management perfo sance is discussed in detail in the PA8 annual report for FY 79 Basically, the MA inspection involves an appraisal of the licenses in a number of functional areas. The appraisals in these function 1 areas are based on a mangement control system which should conta 1 the following features: l. Written policies and procedures Adequai:y of the program to cover current requireau its and guidance t Qualification and training of personnel implement ig the Frogram Awareness by the personnel implementing the progri i of their i responsibilities i t
~ o Implementation of the program IE Program Appraisal (PA) Inspections will also be conducted. These inspections are primarily designed to detennine IE progras effective-ness; however, infomation from these inspections will be provided to the SALP Review Group when the inspection results indicate a licensee performance problem or a significant program weakness. Manual chapters are being developed specifying the methodologies of the MA and PA inspections and appraisals. 1 I l. l e i i \\ l ! l
s SALP REVIEW GROUP CHARTER 1. Objectives The program for the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) will evaluate the ability of power reactor licensees to meet their regula-tory requirements and to avoid rignificant events. The SALP Program with modifications, may be applicable to major fuel facilities and major by product licensed facilities. The primary objectives of the SALP Review Group are to identify unacceptable elements of licensee" performance by reviewing licensee appraisals; to improve licenses performance by recommending corrective action to the Director, IE and/or the Director, NRR; and to overview the consistent j application of the SALP program throughout the regional offices. 2. Responsibilities and Authorities The Review Group receives the evaluations and appraisals submitted by the Regional offices, NRR, PA8, and any other related evaluations. The Review Group staff will do a preliminary assessment of the evaluations / appraisals to assure that the documents are complete and that evaluations / appraisals which identify significant problems are immediately distributed to each of the Review Group members. If any of the members' feel that the identified issues require immediate corrective action, they will recommend to the Review Group Chairman that the Group meet immediately to review the issue. For-those licensees that do not have issues requiring immediate action, the Review Group ctaff will assemble a package containing all appraisals and evaluations for that licensee in preparation for the Review Group's periodic review. The review Group will generally review the appraisals / evaluations for all
- j of the licensees in a given region as a unit.
The Review Group may visit l a given site or Region or may request the presence of the appropriate Regional Director or staff to clarify any questions regarding the j licensee's performance and the region's plans for corrective action. i j ~ j The appraisal / evaluation packades will be distributed to the Review Group members prior to their meeting to enable a timely review by the members before the packages are discussed in a meeting. The Review Group will also evaluate the consistency of the appraisals from region to region. The PA8 inspection results will assist the review Group in calibrating or nomalizing the regional appraisals. 1 T l i
- Applicants in the case of power reactor under construction.
l'
w.; 2. __ a __m c-3. Composition The Review Group shall consist of four members of senior NRC management appointed by the EDO. The Chairman of the Review Group shall be a senior manager from OIE. The three remaining positions shall be filled by a senior manager from the Office of NRR, IE, and AE00. A. Use of Alternates Alternates will be appointed in writing to perform the duties of a regular member in his absence; however, the alternate shall be a member of senior management and shall be given appropriate notifica-tion of this assignment. B. Consultants i The Review Group may require the attendance of regional and headquarters personnel to provide clarification of issues under '~ discussion. These personnel shall not be included in the final decision making process of the Review Group. C. Secretary A full time technical secretary will report to the Review Group Chairman and have the following responsibilities: Maintain the Review Group records Arrange-for Review Group meetings and sita and region ' visits, as necessary. 1 Take and distribute meeting minutes. Assist assigned technical staff in their activities Route SALP correspondence to Review Group members Prepare and distribute correspondence and other information, i including review schedules, as directed by the Review Group i Chairman. The secretary shall not take part in the decision making process of the Review Group. This is intended to be a training rather than a permanent assignment; it is intended to provide needed assistance to the SALP Review Group and an opportunity to the assigned individual ! 1-to receive on-the-job training in an important MRC program and to boraden his or her perspective of the Commission's overall mission. Since it is more an NRC than an individual Office program; individual I Offices, on rotating bases, will be asked by the EDO to detail an appropriate GG-9 to 12 level individual to the Review Group Chairman for a period of about one year. D. Review Group Staff I ' l The Review Group shall have an assigned staff of two experienced professionals, one from IE and the other detailed from NRR to IE. Both will report to the Review Group Chairman and will provide assistance to the ReEview Group including the preliminary screening t l O wi
of the appraisals / evaluations to determine if immediate review / action is required by the Review Group. It is intended that these full-time postions not be permanent assignments but that competent individuals be rotated into them for about an eighteen month period. 4. Meetino Frequency The Review Group shall convene periodically as necessary to review regional appraisals. Meeting frequency will be no less than every two months. 5. Quorum A quorum.shall consir.t of three (3) members including the Chairman. No more than one alternate may be used to constitute a quorum. Each member of the Review Group, including _the Chairman, shall have equal responsi-bility and authority with regard to decisions of the Review Group. A tie l decision by the Review Group shall be reported as such to the appropriate Office Directors. A dissenting member is free to express his position with regard to a Review Group decision or recommendation. The dissenting opinion should be provided in writing as a supplement to the meeting minutes and should specify the reason for the member's dissent. 6. Meetina Records Meeting minutes shall be taken and shall include the extent of the Review Group's concurrence with the ap'.'aisals and evaluations and the regional action plans. The Review Group's recommendations for additional or alternate action will also be discussed when appropriate. The meeting minutes will be distributed to the Director, IE; Director, NRR; and the applicable Regional Director. i e I i 4 l 4 i I i
d
- "'^"'#" *
f,Y,'**"* u.s. NUCLEAR REcutAroRY cOMM1 salon BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-0834 i
- 4. TITLE AND SUSTITLE (Aed ven,me Na.,7 eprennent
- 2. (Leere e/mes NRC Licensee Assessments
- 2. PEciPiENT S ACCESSION NO.
5- ^" " "'C"" ' ^um RiS' D.G. Eisenhut, C. Michel son J. H. Sniezek, N.C. Moseley (SALP Review Group) "Rugust I *1 981
- 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO MAILING ADORESS (factum I,a ComJ OATE REPORT ISSUEO US Nuclear Regulatory Commission uo r lvaan Office of Inspection and Enforcement Annuet 10A1 Washington, DC 20555
- s. <te Mens S. (Leere ment
- 12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAluNG ADDRESS (lactuar les Coal US Nuclear Regulatory Conunission it. CONTRACT NO.
Office of Inspection and Enforcement Washington, DC 20555
- 13. TYPE OF REPORT ee nsoo cove meo tincAss,,e aeost Regulatory 1979-1980
- 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
- 14. (Lean o'**J
- 16. ASSTRACT 200 weres or seest This is the first report concerning NRC's program entitled Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP). It provides facility ratings for operating power reactor licensees and construction permit holders as determined by the NRC's SALP Review Group. Facilities are rated as above average, average, or below average.
l
- 17. KEY WOROS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSl3 17a OEScRIPTORS i
i 170. IDENTIF'ERSsOPEN-ENDE D TERMS 21 NO OF PAGES 15 AVAILAStuTY STATEMENT g $Um g f g A[ (74,sroeoret 20 SECumeTV CLASS /Th.s asert 22 PRICE l Unlimited 5
- emCFomu 335 47 771 I
i. ( .-n--n,-,--,,-,,--.,.--n~--,,,n .,,,-,.--,-..,---..,--.,,--,-,,--,a,,
g
- 7.. a; ca.. -
=. 1 \\; f .x ~:,e g -.' g,[, L... g-p. ,Q?"X..iQ ~.. 3'., -- ~ i a -R.pj;, %.:- R: - @+FQk::.. '.C. 'N..~
- .. R: ?', j $
y 9 p.+:.? M.'i..a r.: e. W@. i fi. %. n +2pa.?:n : - ";eu r-iEe
- 3
- i @9' <
1 ,i.g:Mb. #w s 2i i M:-d.W '_ m :{G M z T M M a; { + R ? - . y 4 1 g-. u. n ..m %n%w.MM: ' W 4-l.'.?. E '! L: C E l.'; i n V'T r.
- k$r."..~
~ m en '.W-4 W* W4mA-
- W. -
l =i5
- T:..idrbili:
4 swnw%w: ;.n. 1 y y; l <t _j,- m \\\\MT'i@ ~ W& =a:_.d3lq' ?....}? 3) eusen.w:r n:. ins ~w.w.w.e:s - %;.S gg ; j m WW 1% i ?+n * \\ :q e. t sQ Q m:. ~ m. w w .c ,W 4%.. --%y , V.' A y
- .~ g. -
g . b. u\\ 'bff.@s l.; I T'P;2s 2 w ? \\ n.~M.. . ? g r \\ i ~ b'I [,,, Je rr.. l ~ E[ .g 9,rf _1h \\fi l.:., --i.y >> G ~{ \\ l l,Y? f, f ,.m 4, ,(( " , * % (' D .. p n. .,i gi p y M C el ~ :.; ; y,i. 54 y 'A*% s.%- s I ,, c s s N.Nk-db-b) . { l s v .1~..
- t lg l l l~
:DDN?-ll'."B'C%'. r 1 w... - y . ;g .. ~:;... i
- 7 yi l
m .;.: o,..',... s co r ... j.'.." " ;.
- .weiMMP a
'j , v. r.-}<.M - ',,. r - a- :- -..+. 7 ,.g, = = a t; G a~g g %y t -.. j. 4 yy' y yg y u w. y 3.J. ": u-4 -,Q 4 i _r _, ; y;.:. n -~ ~ ".M.~."-7;i..:...". ga m a" s .. i b Qg . ' 'i : 'I !~I ^ - .~ I.2 s . vs..r. y (f'.,... ..L... n. l s '. s.'s f g y. r. g,bI,'$d=' .e. l.r.e. h 1*d h / ';;;, : p,s
- j w'<d,{Gl '
'.,w w, #*~~"~'W. k ff t <.V a e:
- .I.1" * ' h.,
gj* $ .f g x g ag? L1' $gg - gT'
== = a
a - u r, . u
- 4..'
.,. e- ,, ?.?.... s.-,.? ;., . a...,. : v. A p-i v. - . ~. ~ .,, a - < s .? < ;c 'f.,.,.. ' c >.l$..j.'...,.. s.J. o. '.,,,a. . 4... s. :s. -?. - i y 3 . s. ,b , - y:,., t 1 4 ,. y :.. s g. .e ... t.. - e +.. -- c. +*=,y;v. .1 ...-.<,.,cy.,.. - 4 e . n..y,, ,.s G. - 1.': u - -. e ....s..K - I. 5, a o s (hl;.;s.*',- {.,'#. h t. h.' q*' 'b r
- ' *E
%.l.
- ..' l gay- ;;;.; b, ~
A.<. c; e,. bi;.,.? '.h,.%;...,..nd.'. *; \\1 * <$$ ~> \\, C'k t P 4; - Ll- '., /W cc ' p.:;*)'[5{. /.y..* ..s,.,' "qff @_ -Y'$...e - s '7 -].f T c. 4. ~.., _l ^h f ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ m.,, s.., -, wG. v:.,.y.,u. +e. c '. :. .i:$ ~ " ' ~ ~~ m:... e ..c 'JE$N. = DT8/M%M,sddMl?.> .. ~. - - ACf Y G LL ES Yb .,..s m - rp, 2. L r;.y. -?.,,,...,.,. '= W,, C: 1 N,,' [.,. _ s y,.., o- ._(Y k..S.(ku. C.MS- .l & f
- g bSb
/g,*,)ts. .V1- . ~ *: 5., ~ * ~ ~ ~ Y ~ pi .% % M.nyw.2 W; g-- Q.;m..g,M3 s1 er - L n t 6-mmo c-4.nowmtam//A 3 -s 1.g g, 4 ...s. .q,.- WW '* *:." 'i *..,C. W. :% 7...W& .., s.. b? ;] %.,.J.,?$.Nk. u.,,. ".No - hh?$ [-- MT C - C (4 -.u,,, Af[ __ (d Y [ .5 .b,y r - w.s.o. A s...m..- ~ ? ci{_h,){sn,_ _,w,,& fy.hdyk ** n s- ~ u,nYv._f_/wo.g4/.6_adm% n L , e.,..?... h. tin..<.. __ga,s k ?:.di'!.a.Y-lf. 9.. ,4.. 4.w.. ;,n., (.g'f.. y g /})1-hYo s
- E
.. ~.
- 7'
...y t -..,, m - 4. s ' 'e, .)
- ..',. ~~ j.;
- 4.,,f fV
- l -
- y D C l. %.'G ; 4 h k,) # $ ~ -
T -~ '*f- $?d:k'h,g+M=.c.-[nf.tz.,%'s.d,h, v.-. -- h+2.-h WS- $.Vorb Mw .-_uuhr. Ywb'.! n*,,.:, . r.... a m s. 'in. JM." (.W. f. p .;...n.u. v.o.. ...~r<,...%,.. .v, p..,,w ~. w v. c w,. a . ~ ~ - - s..... fa 4: o' nW$ " {f
- [O} lS$$
. 5/$a/ws/sys4.ns.O Ad.Aw WG L / 6 8sp "4 e J_. em. em m V. - -e eym a y-... Qup . e _me.4..m e O.e me e. tw n
- sec, g
-.......- -... m-._.. -. - -.. / g \\;,z. y k ;,y Q. & c,'.h, ph, l4f O f g ,,,,,,g,,,, . r r, u ; { *
- e&*,,
k m%C. '.7. ;,*Ws. h. -. >E.:^.~.@s. gr'ft+.. .N,.. f,. .* **- s:
- W$ - ----
~~~- - - - - - - - - - - - - A ,.g v,., .-e S
- 'h.;, w#ik.e pr.s.,,.v.
,,.-6.. -.. '. ._m_ - f,'.f .w
_h u.+ g,,, -=
- ^"" ~
y l f / f, P JV,f. a y i ./ l / Gue6y wsrl4rfe.d inh % s-Lpx c.
- 7. ZQ,4 h..% ccwid en <xrechudh-a/4 cy44
- 3. 4//,x>j5seda>u c.0M de ' cane </suld cey4h>r.
Y b o 1 6 m ! m w; J3i>r # & d ds y w p.su d da A.-.. -.A sf zgA&. . w.~. ----... Cf.6M.Lgre/&A Ae.e e%dd/c J7m&d.
- 4. _ At4N -krw-~l cle<yes. n.325v jacedu. o,..-X<%W
. 4x 4Esa(s,4h/ daa+y ..sp/e<~ /uxwwe.e..
- 7.. Ar6n,'y-/Q//Q&/puji(Qh.ycecbns..u{cc,xph/e.
.... ca'/?de d:sAl/ m. -Avaense,c!*bry<. e . e.auns 9 4.*.M"NUM*.*hw .9NNe h* 9
- h 7 Qgyr-
/ 2 KofAms &M 4meJaued,madamsmle6/, dhan 4a;Mny Ass crn$7&A:n A coy 4Aa/4.by........_._.
- v. kaa-a 62id.V&/sfpm,L/ / Any'..._
Y }64cbJ ha /-{mI' 'o%xy em-of 6kie & bod 6sA/4J L/. u&.... i [ Gepays-sccep/sje c4c6c/ c.n/ c<ra$ w.c od' u-d n 6y ik. rap.c e. c ae<;~c. b - {0.%ysk'/A <h skrt' r1k<b k<x'$w C lhb2071, nI h.R%29 N -40Yh hri d AG ym<c. ?. C& (L,pwk 9 e d>y daJr.m 6:;a, nn, w W/ee ks em) edue.uccJ be %ey s n
? cy kytn r M b 4 m pre f, s o, z &,,p! Weaks As s.spsA sypa d fem fxep d ch>r., O .244 = 4M-eae p em4 m 4 w w e s@ 4 4 ee m@ @
- 8
-e 4 e a em .ee e 9 W .m y e a O e ee e +me -=. ew+me m-d e = em 4 me m. eiAd. e 4 m m. K
_ :-1 myw g ymmx. ' h-JN.ma.a.o.a.wmeNPsliBE"2Ef8f3r&M f.:.Qr4rc.{m.f' #v w e.&:Q +..;;.=,*lc?. 3..Y.l% Gk.:.. x,x ~ J *$. L. v 3 ~r M h ,n=~:e...,n.m. ; $:+y - i: :.;.r. ~~ .a : ;,:w.:: @i.:-L .. ? & f Q Nf C :.5*g.i.SL*"O.'.%..N O.:pG ~ ~~ &.N ' ; h;c. k t - v. x, ' ' ; ' -7 m& G' 3 e.D += 'V ~~ *I* ~:bQ ~ -*xr. ~ .e
- W(ii.
.M..i; .'.,.-4'. . '. OG '- .. M 't , ;.w + 6 1
- 'm
,. s ._e. .t.s
- s.,..t._i,.
T4., M u4 tW/i s h,.,' f.c4,2.. c f_ SS/ M Q.I - /f h 3... g . sum
- wt
.e se ma.[ e h eme .e.g.eee.%e+ .-e.e.s.e. ma g.epe m.e m Ts?5$ r kO ' M A I. I Fl 4. y C ;._ N'C- - 4*crut C' _p M ?.n,m.., pme,.%..(,40sec. b maIw. a../n. (r2 4.,d_a2 ps,,s ,5 w m ,j 4.*, q ) .sy<,. Y / J Y/2.' _ &. n ~ l.(; l.., h., f e g.,g l.. _. -... b. f 2 f.. a..Y. U0 lOV S s's,5u e. ).,. s lc l p...n. o.5 I - - - _..S 4 r jaa./,>r suus a y g' __ f' *,C U. -( f o l. _ u Jg>tJ .Os**t / L.b.y..aish ._,53_.0..x_. _fo o.p... p,d... ops +, _ -@'t. I' _..iRooe k 4ea o pgu a S. f.. w*,. ~ g'!':'h,,,*! o'".
- 3. -.
-?.$$# =..... h. x._ ..Y ~ iqf._; USTh _ c P_C.o'S._ IneAs_ __ on(astwefwskfgj_c;,9Jac_spyug aM Mw;sb.. (etw>i vc.). ^ A g. - %..y%....-.Y.... AslL..c<rrm ostl$...N h b._t1ee. 0 b.S N. Sk.& _ war _{c__q., l t.,,djm/_sa,gf.__ E 4: (no we.1 .:.mL. Jo c a u.. wwc/sms/wsss (ew) c,,wcame - 2._ -... NW c < 1 S c.s<es.o & r+1.y oI $ f..p&A*m m <l.vp b-.cled*r*'s$ a h !... %w.,._ 1.._ s A,s. % A A t,, - A.. . - e.s.i.g n s ' :4:~ cPc d . g: T[6 [ 4To Coc k W M M Uke fa Naut hme 1h resalve hiOoy ef M l f[ ,y pu,, uni prog w lc bahn ved-6yf o ln uds4 wiMa f
- J D
N I 8Ff e - a ?y. .. w 7.h o
- [.N,[
.. u- -M.4 . )".W
-m, 4 .a ~ ,,,'d,u:,u.o,wh #3" e,, ' Q ~. ,/)% r., 'M,., f g,,,, y, a cn 0 \\ woe y,,, s,s,J, s,, w 7),n L 4, ee,s a ,g,,_, f C*#"'"'""", ,,2 h Docket No. 50-329 Dccket No. 50-330 l_ ',,,a.e
- <v s.,, * '
L'k" ', ' ^ ' ' ' ' " <M
- 2. GiunM + AWW
,,,n,,, e., Consumers Power Company g,, gy/,,f'g_,, /3 ) ATTN: Mr. James W. Cook Vice President Midland Project 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, MI 49201 Gentlemen: During our inspection of December 20-22, 1982, our inspector was requested to review and authorize 46 prioritized separate work activities in accordance with the NRC/CPCo Work Authorization Procedure of August 12, 1982. During this review of the initial ten items, our inspector concluded that he was being asked: (a) to review drawings - and procedures which personnel had not previously looked at before giving to him, let alonkreviewed for adequacy; (b) to review revisions of. drawings that personnel knew were being revised; (c) to review A drawings which apparently were not ready for construction to begin gV 4 h ; ?* because all the details were not worked out yeh and (d) to approve hf\\ : activities on the premise that the inspector's concerns will be N' incorporated during the construction of the activity. ? i These conclusions were based upon reviewing the following activities: SWPS deep-seated benchmaks - Ddring C-2004, Revision 1 a. (1) The strap spacing for holding the benchmark riser pipes rigid during underpinning was not' on the drawing. Subsequently, Bechtel Field Engineering indicated that revision 2 of the drawing was enmise bethy t'55ue p'3 ouA whichypicked this up.
,-m --- c m, - ~ % u % z_ __ y-.-yr (2) Four out of the six benchmarks appeared to be loacted in the permanent underpinning wall. Personnel were asked if any thought went into protecting the riser pipes either during installation or while actually digging the underpinning walls. The cognizant field engineer stated, "I have no idea." (3) The top locations (elevations) of the benchmarks were not kearly delineated on the drawing. (4) There was no provision on the drawing to ensure that - L. during coring of the bottom SWPS. slabs the hole would not blow in, i.e., remove underlying soil from the structure. Personnel indicated that they were planning to install a standpipe before coring all the way through the floor, but no actual details had been worked out to date. (5) Four of the benchmarks were to be read off the floor of the pumphouse. The inspector was informed that the next revision of the drawing would illustrate all readings est WM d be it,22 the walls of the pump structure. e b. SWPS construction dewatering - Drr. wing C-1320. Revision 1, C-1320-1, Revision 1 and C-1321, Revision 0;
- -~~mm.pey p w n_.-+ :=+-
axam: www m m.ww, - o. ~ (1)~ The drawings illustrated two gradations of filter sand to be used-in the dewatering well construction. However, they'did'not indicate which filter sand gradation went 'into which well. (2) There was no method specified to install the filter sand in the smaller interior dewatering wells. (3) Notesonthedrawingsindicatebtoinstallastandpipe before coring all the way through the bottom slab to balance the hydraulic pressure. However, the notes d6, 4
- q notindicatethattobalancethhydraulicpressure,a column of water inside the standpipe greater than the 4
j water level outside the structure must be maintained. c. SWPS to CWIS hydraulic seal - Drawing C-2038, Revision 0 (1) Thedrawingindicatedthatinstallationis"Q". However, there a handwritten nota on the drawing I contrary to this indicating that only the inspection I of the work be "Q". The inspector requested to see. an official FCN, DCN, FCR, etc. that changes the drawing, not an informal note. ll. l l l' ll'
l ~ d. FIVP four point jacking - Drawing C-1494, Revision 2 (1) Notes'on the drawing indicatednot to. exceed 1820 kips ~ for each unit, theyalsoindicatdthatifshimsatany location become loose, further jacking shall stop and the - the RSE n'otified. They go on to say that shim tightness shall be checked to determine whether shims come loose or not during jacking. The notes fail to document the main purpose of the proof load test; to determine if the as-built temporary supports can support the entire weight of the FIVP. If liftoff of all four corners does.not
- 4. -
occur, we have no assurance that we are supporting the ~ entire weight of the FIVP. ,(,. ~ In summary, the NRC will not continue to serve as a consultant to CPCo management. Remaining work activities will be reviewed and approved by CPCo management prior to issuance to the NRC for authorization. It is your responsibility to ensure that in the future all information provided to the NRC is complete and reviewed. i \\ R. F. Warnick, Acting Director Of fice of *;pecial Cases Landsman /ls Gardner Shafer Warnick
3_ .4 e . rM. ::m.... a - P' y; ;:.t :r :! (.gd.e.S.e.w+.. <. ;, :e w: .c , s.r ; w 3 ,.3 ~.a, ..D.. .N ,~*1 2..'" = ,c .~.n :. ~ t d .v-,~. .v ~. . ~.
- *A; a;*27.) :i.dhMk...r^.
"i ~ 4 - ~.. 4 3. 3,.4 rff,, M. y,. ~ ' N = . M.;.;...;%.;;3: 6 ' a.... ~v.. - n a.
- . ' +. *.
- g.
g.* ,'I. -.1 " e, d +. .~.. ..v-....-_-----.._ hik-$ A ecksie'eJ? _._. -..__...... - -... - - _.. -.. hk --l *#91 a _& 'L1I caad'r d'< c-l m&2Lnk2 VE_2-i A A%;i.:.a_a'd*, h5pa-/.oq. h4O y.s' u.M< c. bus.d_ h _. I'r/nl$-/ 1$.N.' Aa-ace.e r_m !w $2y_b 46 mc.s- ' r ?f I. b.s u&2s..c q EL, u b v$ w /zow n._ c is A xecw 1' Sn-t.i.2t'c/'G d!r/ec.S '^ -,..l ' ? (. U S.c a c c A w h. A ne- .v.,.....--- . v
- 3..>. '. _
T h - _ ?. ?._c_,./, s' 2 - c. 7,_ n s' 2-9 ~ _b. .s u l ,I.O,.-. ___ - - ',.. m. .",< _r. a / p d J_ / /l l_c d_.c/_;._,.,5_..__ h o - _ e. . l$'._....-..f6g, a / + & 7 e s w ':1 A cc. o ScbCdL-iestekrMcc . L4sisccNned da/2hp$baaper?bt.s,Pec$br7 p,,m.,r.g . ~ f bLMp,.m. rC.b.. /h s.,2cc.b:?-. J'al.D2g ~ l * .:l14k .. i;c %,.ce e SA'e wu.c . e<.,, eun <1 >:,:.:.c2Sian.sd.-...-.. desawd.;Mo?.ca b>< f.... . ba e q-eses u.cse., w/ &g,.yw 61ac..a..jeje c dcu.n fC 2Q -._ . &t.rpeca:io a,...
- . 4. _.
/ 1 :. /,eca,.r.re . l ./.?.,qu:....'u.i.:<.,,;;,;.,f'ef)ge.a.. /da Q. p ; ?,r;er..i..V..*b...
- ~
.<5 * /l Y t' 5.J d & s.. / h ? / :.
- W / /l (.h f$j.dA.t&_.d.
~ 'At,,e,.e,/s-6//.-l,,r-}% .i.:.u.fe_- s..v.; n...... a* i. i ,v s. m ~,c #1 ' D,o ;,., : a. (. _./,; c,e 2.c',. -:- ~ ..a.,....,......,.: p g 7 A
- g
, p.? ( n* *- /,
- A. '.
.,09 i i m .~. ~. $. !!.o l ^
- c/
r.' ' ' ' " ' fa'.. l h.'a'L/."/'*/. /p .n. r- .~... e' r s f\\ Q -%,ccsn m.Ac4s'.6,.m 4.w & d.
+-== y-u_ ' ' I'
- ~. '..
4 ..- k ' me v u'a * ' ' +. = ' a(;.,.m.,. 4,. +...:
- c. a -3 :.,
~ ...;.., j. '- [ r_.3 ^ ,a s i
- s i
$ Y Y.* { 8k
- l
-frd bhsn r /c/+!cc/ /b f/o i}13lp//s h>, f ' 1^ y ..and m.xc4r., o/ Aa,,,e,cz ;,, -& s 44} 10'Y.Se/-.b&JM. :'lese.. at /chy,7, /ke h ccm.. ikye)lVcs. he<,rs 9.c/r. dAo l a/ < -.t 1o;// A swsm;c cs4 yo<ey c.no she/wed, ba/ a,e cw :. A oc/ "sem -A Ac, s 9/ cle,, d o.c p A a n.. Om.nn~s 6sc. & Acn wo,o4m .+ .: fog 67uih /r ?9 b'!b) S/*s& C .$n orig >..chss;&edn,"wArc6. ed Anea./e.: G% iq urn-e 4 4e om o scirk w he4 -$h: ... lcu id. rn,pcL ss24ly s.eJnkd sy.ck-z. dwmy e sws.,,;c e ucJ. A le.4e 4~ 4/EC n yr @ 4 e % g J A ive e O pshs mo(Jon. '.L {gf .b. " ; ,s. .,'" :) 2 . :~ r O . ; i ' '. -@fet 4'sW. iym:
.m ..awy%ty m e Qwo #, w e' I g e-e V.p,,' w l a 6 k ob% b& s///y /s(se,z/ a uy;4%J ^ ccriieust!a f Snu//aerc//d/pc $ cec pspshp b M b./4 o &, 40Se/ s-li bec-? 4G /92d%/ G4. 7d-w .1M cnn,.i, wo Afk'i% %.cr cm / hsdeev,,J-.,n,pu be &n.e_ shr,. 45+4 rn. 4 L hen ce/ea>,s4e4n,c4 L ir er4v -4 c / &> L s,p p,c,a n>..,S-L,_ y, em A
- [_.;..
6A1f?
- aa
~g< d 4 e 4 .c s k $A dd
WW < 2%M M(f='--, =LWf L'.';';.'MMwu':. iZkw :'= M2"e@tMLif.Ef ~ ..,..,f.,.. -. ' ; ip-...
- ;7:
n t ~ h ,, a $2,,' f -X*' . _w ( *c, I
- [ J
,s ri #., [e l ( '*'w,.e p gy OY l';yh. __. .*Y ..e. m_ c h a...I.. S N S. G A N N ?.L..... g ....w <<k_M.......... %l.- C... e. J lNe w..._+-ks O-. c. l c 19t t.. <> vdve. e_. a. ,g, .a .i.*... / i' l S.fh1'tIb'.;nf... $.W. & 0{ 1 Y..! C,l_.W_. $. H ..l:', _. .p_ j x. {- -_. $11\\l ( $ f,Y*_. .f .. -y ~. l l . ~... _............ -ri t w.n,l. . es - m w a . ipi') ,,.g: b L4' nW J. %. ^. .3.-__. ....
- Dh _.
.no
- /=M h..
- D$3 y
e T.- ',*y 6 ,r ( jfA.Y!lk!s%....,. d.u. t.
- t. h >
- :;bM _e..... -.). /I-7d- <,...c . '. _2.u.N(ch v. b..u t.[.. l }y. Ora'.f. 'n.e 7 ,3 p a WS g .w f ,3 .s L ~i
- P) o(
y,, G t' T.'q ' 'n \\ \\, tic ( ~ cT QVN !E l - e k.. nit-t=n P .>,y:i .r'i. f, ~ .jf Nd 7 p a cpr '.'?; ' ":, ^ $,.oy h e 1,%.t
- o
'w
- [
h .o a g '. ***.=v. / J tn.
7_-., -c% --w.- n _._ - - ,, s v- . e r. '_ 'j'Q....,,., c e ~~ x, ... 1...?)<_ i'. ..o !.A ~. J.> c. i, e s;;, s
- s
~, . ~
- ':f f ;q
,,-y-:,,.:.g';3e<,~.;g;' -. '.,., ~*~-.l.c.'- V v r ,, _.: ?: ;?, - 1 ., a : ;... - j~ ~; ' s;j ', ~y a, .:~::~" ^ ' c. -x'.~.;;?[ ?_,,'. (j..'.' l_ t 9 i
- s..... L -
c. '~ g O ~ * '-P p r 9b,-6 -F r e .3 j"] ,, '.. % q. '4'. p '.+ 9 "~' ' -l y (c.' ee E b e. ,,. G 9 4 I ,j
- '.k%
9 9 ["**'
- g
'.], 'd'.+,. g 9 4 ,o , t,. , f * ?* . y,. ' ' '. r c kk. ?4';. )$f ',
- s -.. g. <,,'
s_., ~. .t i'-d-h.' .Y ~ ',L. ;; *. l, _; ':*,;{&.' -.,l,.., v n ;g;1'h;;g;:m. a ~, v...O;., N a s. g. w* .- -u " ' ' " _Q q:C_. j :~ 'a,'
- Y., *l.l-..,,, g-[
}..'-. ;..
- : _Ll, ; ;
~,*.. 2 *'c. ;~. W; : : 2' y,~,s,' '.'~ :?.W !@l4[+ >, f ~. ( 1 te q:. - n-,, _ . W s !g / h l' d" O eld V,&^ n +- i f s ( l i t l Wx G4%2. )Y r $b An c~ - Pe nw c s R 4 b2 ,j)/ p v 4. i e l / c lVf r
,.n
- " '* um y gjg
'd ' W *!*%Q: MkMWAJ4.y-,,_..
- 4
,a ( - w_ #m, bA; MR ci Q w a M da "AM f [4 %%aL a&7 W a 4 pe& hd as~~dh aa wM xan*&~L 9d i in%4 g& w&(L wk m 4 La a ecujaud y ' jn~ A As ~ eL a H
- +dn % d-gg h,%
~ l 59 d4 /^h /AA @d 4A ( A % Ak ytt<J 2d A d nd ya m j b w l a y k L S i L' al a //x.tyk~4 tJu wfat& m l le <a a w z p - v C (L~< t g u & w /,v d a M A Ws w e ~
,3 MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR 0003135 14A.I.29-GASEcCS WASTE MANAL mm" STSm 1. Pu= pose To demonstrata:the. operability of'the gaseous wasta management systeur. 2. P. 6 tes 2.h construccion activitaes completa on items to be 9 tasted 2.1 App wyriata system inst =umentation calibra-4 and opera h a 2'.3 App w4ta power sour =es available 2.4 sou=ce of cooling water available for required components 2.5 cont =ol logic and alaz:n. circuit =y functional checks m ista 1. Test Method. 1.1 Demonstrata gaseous wasta management.flowpaths. 3'. Z Demonst=ata proper operation
- and capacitT of the air compressors and the gaseous wasta syntest 3.3 Test the isciation valves between the nitrogen gas supply-header and the radvaste gas -h as follows:
a. The two isolation valves in the flowpath to tha radwaste gas surge tank v2.11 he demonst=ated to respond to the proper j actuating logic and to close as designed. b. Demonstrate that the manual valves in the flowpaths to the radwaste gas decay tanks and the radwaste gas c=mpressors are i capab1's of isciating this flowpath. 21 3.4 Demonstrata the proper operation of the radwaste gas c:nnpressor interlock. 3.5 Demonstra.a the proper operation of the combus ihle gas analysis system. 4. Ac=sptanca critaria s 7O - C OO J.O
- -.2000020 Ch011
.007 7.h0br dOOb7-- y O.,0;i q. Revision 21 14A.1-30 5/79
~..
- ... - f (.
,f ~ 0003195 -MIDLAND 1&2-FSAR 14L L.2&' CONTADDE2r2 CChawasbsLE GAS CONTROL SYSM25 1. Purpose To demonstrate prope= operation of the hydrogen monitoring system, the hydrogen recombiner system, and the hydrogen purge syntaa. i 1. Prerequisitas 1.1 construction activities completN on items to be testad
- 1. 2.
Appropriate.systaa inst =n==ntation calibrated and operational 2.3 Appropriate power sources available 2.4 control logic and. alarm circuit =y functional <-%=eh complete 3. Test Method 3.1 r n =
--t
proper operation of the hydrogen purge f 3.2' Demonstrate hydrogen purge flowpath. 3. 3. Demonstrata proper operation of the hyar., gen s recombiner. 3.4 Demonstrate proper operation of the hydrogen monitoring systan. 3.5 Demonst= ate rednnd=nes and elec
- W independane=.
I8 4. " Acceptance C=itaria wi./ The cone =4n==nt combustible gas control system operatas as specified.in subsection 6.2.5. ?1. 6 / Ire
- ppt /C M4e-Cs
/* h r m m M-r &sser' FoCw/J) 2lptriW
- l Lysm demW o,,a*
Ss'n vt,4m E*LG-ts SsfM'o+ 4.- S - s. 57 ~'DG'**n'r m rk "AmaAct c~ Par d ew.oA 7;rt** com'3*ws-rw~A*t.s* a+s 2 cones synn~~ 1 Q* ~~ ' ~ 5 0 n ' ~.l.c e d m, p,,k ~"2y' eks 4*~P've 3 % NSY 7-a"5<.sc.7~s ,,.or~ t m ~ 2 r 1 w 7 '~ CMo r-wi ~; :1 ~ 9e* r-4-c c s & ep'evca.:, w Revisien 20 14A.1-29 4/79
g ..#4 wam w, ___m, ggy _ - ,,g O b ut i Qd 9+/LM-r / D
1..j M h{;jl)g y: g '- 6;INlO "
- f. g. - 2 4 j
d*N. i.' JR.b.fd. m s. q. ^ - -T S* /*llSLdll% % 1
- )
I~ b k.'&,medlv<,4efikc,9Spctio./%e, ~ D JLh,, / 9 72. A e d'epan.a./ Adn,vlhnf,, Cc d4e., oRL c5SpeokI'bae sp(cs ~d' amfv] tYe it. tcEa.su ~k O,1 k Ac,frig Diu, cede <. 71is c5% /s<rog,$i4gg d for tu.s(xcbiow a.c}iushu shits PNd/sd cu~ci XiA~ie r acelaa.r LLlibi s.
- u ~L % d.ukchio~.- c f fin d'c}n9 aic.fce D
o s c. p a g g u g-a ;, a.t - a d u ac.4 % c Sa %c.M.,C.L,ep,+ w & y.nl ^ i%v4 reyc.c}cm, a Sc~<c - Re= lA dD'yab' h u,a. : i < =pa c. o-am a w. ~t( b,.. 'M I /&6/c. I 6ec,r 4 ry. h t W f 4 h c.e,:,(u<,/::.l !n I.lv ! ~!k..d h !N ~ w es e< h b I-l - 1!.+. = cil' rtw,edo ( v :rF. C :,9.,vJ // ip?&,.ti! seh re-msdu: /
sp y.r;,.:x nm.../ w w 4en g3 _ F =me -e. 65,em ,hg e g#0 g( l I, > Q 4. $ (
- d 64
[h i ?*#$.*/'D( l1 (f, f ()JJ 1 (
- f* f 49 t
to w 6, /.:'c-y ~ c w. u d. L,. / 4 & ~ w c v ?. i-u n. w hu A d'. T h : L.c hh~ u w, dcc.o .~hc! G d w Iv,7, A 6 ~ t.e n s a:h a' <~ ce Av.; wd /;. Hh e ~ d cea.5Hy, u.crk crk-FSGJ-M. T4 c. Shp Lch el< Cn/ss euu, >^< k=d tm
- .. A.s.. /i. Lvietut'6
d L .c.L, ~it, o f..mdu. ./ US lL/C.'/> 0. ) 3)W2(f 0.>LsG /s*7j) ^s.ss, a h o T!:,-a.Acukg.s.z.ckekbefI:$<e.v5.. I s6,i,c..-ad::e( a =rk u.m &Ad wdour y u (
- j. 9 q
s' / e e",. ".' C ^ .? ' 1.. M M ?G?h'AWO a,, ,e f[f, [ f & $r( '[* gk k l l
- L u,nt J p ununsa %
L. ndio Jsecl<W dder
- .d na' Ma
~ Vr & w < 3 cdweh :, hc.c( /c b6 imh)b' wwAcl p>um-k n'c =lar/e f c.~y v.ajos, solly ns.. d k/a,orn.' 1 i
r [1. All QC personnel be qualified and certified to Consumers Power Company standards. '2. All personnel involved in the remedial soils work shall have participat ed in W upgraded t raining act ivities, d r "--- > by-item-(4)-.in the.eg,bjest lette1l,. I 3. A comp'ete -aster list of all.cor.,itments made regarding rem + dial soils wonk shall be in place prior to starting work. Te-eeduc e. e an w - : - g -4]ela r J wid -impact. on the project, we -will F as.g.gpt a p.trilai list 1 hat weeld-4dentify all conhents n:ade. on specit.ir._sork. act.ixities-plermed - fur the-fir st 90 tlays of work uilh_A-f a'1 emp mastes list-for--et-lweining-remedial %rk-to be 3 t. l, "[ inued.within--90 days -from-the-start.of-work 4. The third party independent arsenment t earr. sitall be in p'.. e pr ier to start of werk on' pier 12, and functioning prior t o fl.e ujer unicrpinning work. cr& M dLJ sec}d,- iwkud 4 liumm ~ elTo d ecgca dig d6gunle4 &,h4 (LediAdJce-cu. dde/em; dL. ef&n /- Ic he wvueepNb. /1R yc,,dr(gc,;6 M erwslexem. draa> Mid ud w p Sfcp Wcd u.rs.s pla.ce/o~ ct Ii soi% reun. d a l <uc A. /? C o. $ i,~ b Ac A L Y J a k e-a La./k,.4g wees nowd e ~%~ssep4.,w 21,1972 sr i M s N $G.u 6 fc f Wic Osw.C Sub$6 y cr6 ngua/Jsoda.u pq n- ~ w au < A L L i n v c w ie n d try 44d/J SadiL. ( .,,..~.,,w,,. l -QF)255,.UL : '_ '.Q?Q b;.: * >C. t
l y ifted 16:. sp ark as cc~d%,Jt l c,~ Chbe 19,1982. The-u L f4 i% co~ /~v, g h clun.s /be cqC.rajru /if Ed,,, cadiukss. C 96 6 l' a e a i ~ ' ' 7."".b '. ~ :JP ( ' ' ~~.A . ,@;:;ef. .e q si
d .5 Jh. Csvniv> u sv/Cl3. I t' v s ia.e L and r%A4 x ica J wk. me,.u..cui< me.~f /ved.y Ag,vd$19t* nu.}iey wilh ePdo isy repe rd,g so#s re.n /A/ wa,rh /~ui.m ptsev wunJ ' oeTu-sheFVa.u & m a.f;-.. 'Cc,.icle.wd c _putenta/ victs.js-. c f s. Sceu-d 6 der CP6c /k u & A % I99 a. 1 %.4} q b c.lwss. o %~ici> g q ct.-c( O Mc_.v<>.pov ~d D. syk.,ba t, mz e.6.M, caa cc,. weppb> s d;oun:. ivA t> aw - eoiK nldlc d cu~d j? erd 4(+ vm me.JJsolu/5~s. siph-wn, t9u riecdiu, wi14 ch su~e~+, tv42,s ~d /YqtL~~ Ar k ddeun ec~n-er ', dcrel'F p>>wpc,sw/Pcrc 4,d p u t i J,oc.v M <a.s w m Q y uo cc,-c to,io~u rwGd. /.C# v'3 % WM (Adutr.e b 9 vhmi f llske jDPcf' 0Co.l (er-~.ss//y. h'n b+$-l5,I9SL. /%c /i be.hi w /{ y i k p k Ct% M>ym .it c.~ +c c.ch stisi wi,c..a iu n ) v u esky'etdic;- o S & 19 P A//mt&d~ mmM b eu4 rkl. f ,,.. a,, 3* } h- ,p 1'.,_,,,,t* g
= a S~.yn,n l,,, : 5, UT 2- ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 c I C X t 2 0, / 9 3 L f i c.e i (~ /]n.c krhcis r ?ic.ll p b J a s c,,, .'T,ld-Ry}c~ K,/Tc.gfu~2 w~d B<ak/me ~~n~a - k dascus= ivAL ec~ca+, w llL B ddE /;JcdermarcA, a.J rw-s~hd n/uhn.. O t t 4 I b h
- f. '}
o b 0 >>^ J1 , ; _ 'p x - j,"*.;,u J.. f _,
O S. i M iic. e w L y 9 adt , p,x 5; lUA, MLGh kl U ,h u%C-W Sy i at c 5 C./ % nawaye 2 +c a:sevn d..n Aagans c9wdiq sp .,~izL ~ h p -~..~M iice.m ps,4hr,-w csnan rycr.+ CL~d C}Obo I N Mj /7, /922 - re.yo~,. +c./4is ee,ourf. r1e-e.lin 5 Me2L~d' Sp/sr.e9, t97 t, ri ui <.. g sJ wc.c.~ ag_- e 6N 5 /mc.,my e,me ~ J'~ rsysu nereyaabfus n eu,A c seh$ies.hb~ e $oJ/ eul,4 / Gc / can;dt~ J,xeso~- Iw kS>l~, l'?l Cdclx eas,193L, Mc.dng / AR, Reg ~ 12T ~ bt}wxa V i C Pac m~~up uca, ar ~d 4e d&co.n h1rd,2 enc # >/ LF00 c.odrad
- ndapa.,4.Aa, s=pwly a.==med.
' O S + 4 9 +. g , j
c.; - - - -. = - _ - _ _ _ _. ,g; , = 5 L y. -%.;f .e ~ ' t-4.. .. t s ,3. ;46., a Ja m * ;.- /1 f-A + 3.gf., r q fi.p&,o,.4rM Q?_, k if. ~., g G...;. %?,,., '] = t +
- ' nn.
' h.,r4 b.s
- C.e.,
.A. O .2,,- 4, , : g ' c.. ? s ' r =, ( ?..:, " .s m, +9, v.y* V e >, n= { - ;y ( 4..{.,; 4 7 *^..,. v,Q J,.. ". *.'.., W */ r.s. $lAy,s'. x, r of 3 f.
- w. _.
77%.V 1. *.c, %, g., a
- q ** s -p ',*,.*
4 fwd. 4 p,4 g.,/,. . 4 i .g., j w,.,e 3 = T.9-4',.=s4,.' N..y w..wK*. 4#d.y* O.E E A 4r ( ,M s J.4 A. s >4. 2.. e./. J,. 9 m e aM d y.,1Ti t J?$ ;g.13.,. 's. o*M(9 'r - * %.3
- 4V
\\. .. M-r- a e di '. A g. V e ++ 9 V = > " 4 d,., ? C w 3 "* i. .t.
- /JG.=;.VWO",-!: {-y,7v.**',qr,'**G*M.M tW' W"W.,.
.N... <. .e ..'f - G' '.u, 5 .t
- e
~ e %. ;4 Ap 9 g g fr,- -v, ,a %,., 9,s. cb. m hs D*M.',.* e 4..M. 'p i' ' '. ? e u M JMQ'.**=s,.g Z's.g eq *~^"." e"$, ' #%*$m* (a"q., e" m 'K',1y,e r-r ^ .+ P** g% '% tp.t M.Q"G # @
- W... ' h.
',,Q* .g ~ s k t- .? c;Lis 1M + >=, . ~ * -
- f**1 4,= &' C v,p'.e.Ap hc.s.Q.
k*J 'n, A .e ^0 P 4-f -; n.e.%, ~ *; -
- %y c F, *I :,. *(;* % < es <.,iT d'4 *%,jej M '?
- lc
- s
+. 3. *, p. .?, Lp~w.g, y.
- m. 5^b,.. ',; fn y tg GW::n:p%v:y;;a. Q.,f.:?2..r;m,.,2,4@," -lmn ',:p%.,,. ms.g.r.,3 f
W ., n p ,w.;g~..-
- p...a.
q, - d +f. w ~ ;.
- q..!
w> .c :a. - u :, s. . ~,./,;i ..h.., nb v Ghs'b '. i g !& .,*i
- t
- e
, t :.i.d.e. ' _ w. ib o'D.' $ W %, ' 3,.,* .'.e-(" .40. f..,. f O.,. 'a. t; y. $..g: W, Wet ** w. p V.,M eA' e...i ~d. ~ .x.**.W W. f) - y.C.;.e f.; %w.tN.,* <f j, b..,,ypa..*.h.n,p$"f hf-Q,;hy N w hsf y v a ~;+cic, Q.. t., , nv; .O; ..t2 s +.* tre *.v e
- e.. ~ c ?s.... T..; + a.
,f,K.,.. s. L. w*. ,. *.*W'I, " C p j a, s *,.. ,[ 1 ~ g-s, g.. .,t ./6 e M. p*I.T % h.. M [**.[. *WQ,.p;,yL.s : rs.:. f' + ,,',f Ar, x y /,, y } 7 . !Q,
- 4 ',
r.*..,.s. 7,...- s ..~. * -e 4 I e .e ~y. cw,.m,.v;? s$i2Nh 4,y*j, g.,., g* c A "J-Ng %v - m a .. ~ - m.,:... n - ap %.4 x.....:n +m* %p4,. r y:myr,7;~ w.,o.: w%,..a:,q p,':..+;.:mpk.-Q... y;4. q: ,t. .w m n,n. v.. WW, 43p ~ v :ay. g4.JQs. " gg e,y a u~. 4 '.7.,, v. q p 3.r.p q;y %. w N g;,.y> J m. ',. .3 g,. s q. . ~ v o Z. g;o 9. *. ~,
- 3. s g-W. **
p. 2 %.;.. :p .q., m g y g
- '
- M.~_,?Q.C.RNen;&o.W, o
- *t
. i n ;..
- e. Q c. T. } q.,..,.g.
- - g n.a. % ' ;? i *. t s. e by n m.,p Mg 6>.,.s am. v.c:%q(1'L%2.$w$4.s.es;.Q, '*,QnM;4h *W *f"%}A ;d;&q.yf.V,* lt-
- f N..
- %y Xf
..w*- ;% )4l;G.?g .'.m s a,. M.t & L:' ..f-;n,. WQz.C;W';%'.p,. a .A.. 3 i.,_,' * (Q*;'" V *. %..e -e o. ..m y % ww.,- 4.y* *f. 4 pA *, si.y. a n 'a.,p v.. .s. oe A. (, y p 4 j;)
- ;"h. y.y,,y f,',QQ. 4
'.x..... ~ s '"! i,M**. j ' y,; Ql}dg . 3.,q. ' pfy. {.* b ~ , q g. g..{ se pM*,,....'. ..l,. f.*.,/ ' .Q< f.,, 4. %p.,5., 3 2 c' ,. =.. g / ,e. I s ' Y;,,.Y.[h, dh, A ',7h, fA.b.k. d.'khh.Mk: k,.... a., g',h.,.;. C.h N' 4 1, ;.. -, ,,.. 6 4 -) h. ..p '... M.
- .3 C3. N 7.,.,.9 31 'd_.
C, th~.',.. ;, +[y ',. O..._,, gh. c w,.;*...z,. h G. s.. '. ". ~. $. c e .kh -e>.,.. a w.+.;,;g.. *.,. s .e yIf e..... . Y '. a. -'J" .. ' E'... % k 9s ..,e j .. e .s 8 -. ~f..** .. #, y, ;, m' ',. a..,.
- a y.A '.. * * " ; $.1 (f y*** %,'. ",,.,.y Q..p. %.
4. '.h.*.. m 'v.,t r ' ' .. ~ er 4.".([ " f... ~1 ' if._ N. h..e',V,.f'*,j; O.b e . -J'..[4 e 6*t * ', "
- y %j'y@*m)..Y* ; p_lt G ;;;;,
- i '.,,, ' t y3 ~l'a' lf,. y' 'y
' j ' f..,.. .y. .x. se ' Q* ~.. ; l ~, s m p .% *, a s \\
- f. ;,..=,.
%
- v a
us. r's' t > y evy a %%. w .s ir ...c r .*A.,.- 7' ^* 3,.A. 4...Q.Qc, J r +; e %.. -.o .uc ?.4 e A*
- ,e
- i. y ? a,g; A.s>..,. c.#..s '. s ? .,,*5 ., : 'n.-.tt 7 .'S s,. J.'. " a %..a,. 9.*a p. g e '...y e,. = <A.- , f.,-.'..u ; ,e s-w . m*, v b.h. y,;*ffv,'., Do*j ."w,*= g .y .*.t 4g[ <e.* . f.. .-r ...,3,*. ..e. ,1,..,...,,.*+*.. w t w r,. e..*. 1..?,e.. &' .u + s. . 9... < > j 4. , w. q.'1 m w.y G... +,s. y .v n..,,..s .,.fm p,,, . %y e s, 5..g ;, t. > ..s y s .n. f e ~;#
- h.s yv A.e..
v*i,... .' t.s.. 2 .; w. m,. g' a. C,6 e.. g u*.., e m,.. ; %.p. M e :.-~';* s.,1 s..n..,,,...,~a. v t 4..+
- ", 7
.=. A.f, * . - ~ y- '* ~_. m, 'l 4 . - f,. %,,,4 ., a,4
- e - * *. :
, a. t p .3a ~.a..,, - e- ,s, J , c s. .a,% 1,;. 4, m*,C. >.n. s .p m u,.n.> , **< w y i, G ^ wl.,_ r[J mw.;W* W ,. D +... s w, f , ; r-s ..<
- v. s.-
. v....,. g, =.;
- m. g *
,r ,,t. c u-f > e. Q v,, w 'h .w .. ; -4, ..m.. ,.. g,. .. r s. . m. g . w%_g.,. 4,. .o.. .. r o.., n.... c. m. .~. ...,.m. ., s.y w< a,. y. m .. _., v.
- a..
. v
- . s.
- m. m,g w..,
.s u p,... ~ w 2. ,.w. ;.
- 4....
- m.,.. x.
c. ~ .c L:4.2..,,, ?.. e,. m.~. .-.m @.,. 1
- W.a.+.~ 7 :., +
_e.. t.. m r. .~ h....,. a.,r. %. m.<,t ,M....sg:.S m. m y :m....M.,4*f s*.. p..,.%/ p eg, 4.y ~ w ('4 . " m'..,y * *. ..nw ~e 6..-
- s s g-3*7
,w,.,~ .y. . e m... s.,,., p.u. m.'.. y'. g.~..c.- 4 m.m.m. o.k.v,.Qw. 3W.J.f. s p P.g.*.. b v r. . - m. e s. o
- e
.e ..a. .c.. e 4 %w.k,..n. 3 4.. J..J /.p,.'b, f...,.i,y (*,. m %...j. : og 4 t, ,.a.. p 0 96 s. ~... '. O V , w : L. N ;,
- m
. f f 5 7
- M*/,',,,
"' %. 7'a *. g a g .,((*' j p ed w'* s 4,' W, v, *.*n./".'.y., _a ' e.c,y a ? . it,, /,. e. e g. '-e . a.. T.k,(,g c..,. ',a.' y,, a 4 p 4 h.**. ' p e g , j[ " * * *. o j;.[ [k s'h $e o,* t 4 [*.. .,. O.'. %f f..*[."I. k,.g* ' g4
- h.'d8S _.h,N.f', '. 8 '. *k - [ A, ' al "Q-g y.~ b ',[ k. *f., ' <
-4 r 5 ^ f,%. s.. g .fa - r 7 i 6 gf 6- . h.,8 .,j e.
- m
.? ,. ;;;.; s. r o. s.-l.W 'm.W Q,'!?,,(V..$ d, /. ' ,a. .4 +.... -9 u,,u+-',y j -a ...,. g. '
- l/...,J*?;
4 e+y,j W r h. e 8- .s. .g 3 .. b.e,2 (, '*", n., * * /. 7 *i * ' S. deps.e
- v - *. *
,a '., to. *. v
- g. D. ) -
. )/. t f.y$; ;*A i*7"5.? ?. h.p*7* *s ,j*.*.%<* ..,..,.m.',, J* c. i p-y [ k WM jg gp ,C.,j- ^ . 1 v. - J .r,y,,, *,. m . + y, g..,-syo.,..!.t 1, + 4s,i,y,, g, e r,
- g o
- 4.. s A,.ap,u, -
.4+ ,1.,. s .,* * -e = n,J.A(o' e' [' vg I. ,,t t, cp II.lj .g , h,,' w,', h ) d,. at ) lh.,,'.*,' ; t. y + w +.%. d c. (
- x. e.,,,..,
(, ..; g s.. . u..
- 3,.q.< %,g..,, f DA*l*
f ' F* l t i ,k, - ,.. <.:. mw ~. m.. ', .. ~.. ,#'v ,v. '9 9 .-f- \\ 3 , 5 e 6 ,r .8 o , r. w. s a a . s, l,,
- [.
,(.., u.._ ~ y t3 ,T u.s, ~ ~ s x. 6 4 8*t 3'M. 8 9 P g s J*( .. s ..
- q,
\\, '. f * ,.e.,% = e e 1 .f. a
- ,. f e sg y -
'd se p
- E
'p g .e 3 g ' - O O 9,. 6,.*4- ) / 9. f, y, mRp n# DI I I'E ' O ./'7/*( b* c,,* L[hj[h Il'!/ ' h **", t .A g q y,.Idk. NN. ?.h'.N,, D E,U.@wMM$,k,T8'.fh. f./e.
- h. y n v..,",. h,.
- t # /,' U s... m,
f.5 6,4 ash ..m. [+ b .....1 ,.. j..- Y h d.# m. *fA.h[p 41
- ~*
N s se i. - C*A *** j. vM 'R.* .Id ibt jrp b.[*$ M..
, c. - hh ~ casas Powei commm D[h G!T W I I n Bechtel Power Corporation I-MAR 191979 b@' Post orrice sox 2187 . LED QUAUIY ASSU.MNC Me. =wasa M1DLAND, MICHtGAN March 14, 1979 Consumers Power Company P.O. Box 1963 Midland MI 48640 Attention: J.L. Corley Job 7220 Midland Project CPCo NCRs M-01-4-9-009 M-01 9 -018 M-01 9-026 LAD: 743 Action Item: 580/596/613
Dear Mr. Corley:
The subject NCRs concern cable installed over the sharp edges of tray sections and wire ways. To resolve these concerns the following actions were taken:
- 1) The four sections of cable tray referenced in the subject NCR M-01-4-9-009 where tray edge guards were not, installed have been corrected. These guards that were installed when cable was pulled, however, were apparently removed subsequent to cable pulling.
Cable tray sections identified in CPCo NCRs M-01-4-9-018 and M-01-4-9-026 will be corrected by 3/16/79. ~
- 2) Field supervision has been directed to caution personnel as to the requirements for the guards and that prior authorization is required for their removel.
- 3) All Electrical Quality Control Engineers have received additional train-ing (documented in QCFM-5777, dated 2/26/79) in cable installation, emphasizing the use of edge protectors in tray or over other sharp edges The QCEs were instructed whenever it is being(pulled out of the raceway.7) as inspection criteria for a to add E-42 sheet 2 is incorporated into Rev. 4 of PQCI E-4.0.
~ This letter is considered to be a complete response to the scbject NCR. If further assistance and/or clarification is necessary, please contact the writer. ~ ] Very truly yours, ] SL M k cx"#r Project Quality Assurance Engineer L. A. Dreisbach } LAD /RCH/bjc ( C3 ~ t t L
v .....--....,3 -.-.. - . Q... R.: ~. . a,,,.,... a.. Ff 1W NUNCONFORMANCE REPORT """""""= """ n. m .= C: ;n.cf i~ .s = w r 3. <.r. 7. ^' 4 .:=::wu . ww:, ?.c.: :n 2.
- w::uw.::.=: r n ae.,;,
-~
- . x, nr.
Cable IAU23 MC and - 4 0.L T. u.-4-004 u t,t i.,yv v r, ? 1AB4309C Multi Conductor cab.ics * .f."i. 7 n
- s. e v. :rx.u
- n. ex. es.s.. s::
- .:. use:q:. u x,
- 3. AG mi IU evntwn 6.t4 '- 0" J'A,.
NA NA Auxillaey Hui.1dbip, ' f[(#', . :2. u u :aun.wa c=a=.a..;;z u.n;w :=a. x,.a ac,, f 3 g 3 _ f., P r: graph 7, E-42 Sheet 't, Rev 7 requires protection be provjded 'Ac...s ee m ,,. m ;.;,,,,.y whera a et. ole presses against sharp edges. LADreisbach -Ccntrary to the above, eleven cables including 1AB2311C crous over c tha top of tray section1AKA07 going to IAKAOS and over'1AKA03 ^ E. 32ing;to 1AJM09 and eleven cables including 1A34309C cross over . '. 5. IH tha top of tray section-1AJB07 going to 1AJB08 and over lAJB07 g;ing to IAJC01 without being protected from sharp edges of the [7fnWl: lay DBMLOSr'- tray noctic'n. Witnird
- 1. Hor-J nn TCCooke JFNewgest JLCor.l.cy
. RASirmnck RHermcoton DATaggart u,,a c.: -er.:s.=.s m m : u, S!!!!owell Pravide protection between cables and tray sections in four areas DRJohnson nsted above. GSKeelo BWMarguglio t* i mm/i-s.m me. mrs==r maram C== me==s @ PAMartinez. JMilandin % m.:s.m e.==, zoarm. ~.- > $ mi er== x. ur==, ml i at yl NA
- u. = me=2 u====,
m,,,, =, , = m,===..s =:s=u z=o., ts, :res x u.m.t.=: :=.,- a g,_] = t l l tr. a x am:.t tr.: m :o.5x.3, m( lwIxj
- u. = =.t,. - i=,im = =, i i=ixj l s,. :r m, u= $ =e e,.m = x, NA
=, = =.2, m.a.: =nn g ne, gg g re = r.,.ws c.r as m=u:.g.x., n:w:= NA =. 7.f.c.g=' n, - y#
- u. o -
c = =,=== n. 2-16-79 as. r-- r. -- :. f u=, M "ft** n a -, en =-==n u.= 4y, ,,, 9-?-7'l
- p. m ex :=m==,,.-==u=u, an.==, u=.
s L. ,, w w,r =, u. a. w s., A:. n m. . > = >..
- u. v
- m. w. - <.. ....- n.. w....... .g3 g4 ,. w,=m..u. a.:e.:=>., n. g.-n n.w x,.
- u.,r.g,y...:. :.n.
- u. ja. m.,,;._,,,.,
NA NA .=.a., ~: u.u w..w. !J. :7 :73. ?i*?. f: 3*.470 '.*=4 *W.*.= *:,3 IW *.* 6
- 13. 10..u,, t.., pa; ;f 4 3 g;-g ;g p,
- ,c4.;,,;,,g g..a g, 0
s ZDC,A,:. ;A = t? W & 7?CC:23 u ::s? Z-l:.
3 PisOJd w e 3. k.*tfJ3N E Ei46.%._ f t.g cO%7UUC7&Ost. II0.E01UCRhiANCE REPORI Lem Cza;s ] PROC SS CORRSCTIVE ACTION m acw:. r.vx2, c
- v. a oru;m_c.:mi r.es 2
- ~ C To be determined.
- 23. d47JA;. 4.T.
'" Tis),.r ; sm. s'.t.se Aasys 4;a sa M:::3 4 Cr. 7M- "' 7.c P-e ? o ja C 4 F 3 11: M T3Cns c==: U -[ nmmm ] { r* - - w-m .; w. -ca2:::, ;.2 r -., u, It is recommended that electricians involved in cable installation be made 'auare of requirement to protect cables where contac't.is made or cou*1d be made with sharp ede,es. It* is further recommended that Bech* el QC revise PQCI E-4.'0, Activity 2.5 to include as an inspection criteria E-42, sheet.2 (7). 5 *" .. e 4. 133:=3 f.A 3 :: *AZ:t W Cr.(3) C2==3 31;;c3 I.L 4 M=. 7 CDC" =:rs S.., O O e. I 13, J 7% CA C A 3-l ae 4;;. :: 24. ? *,P":'3 *.*..: 7".1." ? 3 4:4.1TG ;P" *.1 JJ8 DJG.4& M 4 w.2 n;s i;;;;:.J Jf4 M;;.a /
~ qq6yg7 NONCDNF0RMANCE REPORT Pito.JEC:3. E;sbenerashG Aho Cits;T0JC:s!M = ' " ' " " ' " " " * ' " " ^ = " ' rc 1 er 2 5. "*- :l== ' 7.
- czan:xes ire x
- a. :.-.x:.mac::: wr.ws
- .g g g g Midland 1 & 2 Cable Tray 2 AFB 09 Cable Tray
! ' j^.$o_79 7. 2~_'_* A:MI.Gs
- 10. CM. C:.M==33 sta
' LL. AAI.A/144. c7 :Cs
- 3.== ct %ll"It Elev 646'-0" Lowce-
"A NA NA Cable Spreading Room fI*Y'.4. 16.3.6 tz. as s- - _ man =n cm2==.:., u ma e :m= r.s 2=3,
- s. ass:or=a
, Paragraph 7, E-42 Sheet 2, Rev 7 re* quires prot'cction bo
- 8"
provided where a cable presses against sharp edges. LADreisbach ~ Contrary to the above, multiple cables cross' over the top .b of cable tray section 2 AFB 09 going into 2AWO21 without being protected from sharp edges of the tray section.. WLUarclay,DBMiller WRBird UGMoring-TCCooke .JFNeugen JLCorley RASitnanck Riformenton DATaggart
- u. a u :.v ~ - a su e a a.
Silltowoll Provide protection between cables and tray sections as DRJohnson noted above. GSKeeley LUMarguglio ests/m. =: =s.' 3=r:s==r e-- n C m -e R PAMareincz m w,,
- =. ma e.: o..=2.
.=2,~. .==c,m ,,,_.=, =s t I a t xl na
- u. = r=== a r.m o.
a g=, , u m, u=>.w;u=a::.,:::a, ts. :ca m ur=: 2..=: :=.. m Lv l :s 1_ { l tr. u m ren_o= =>sa.n4 9 m t_ l :o [ x I u, n =.amm m ra: n.. =s I i=1xl l u. ===, um a =e er :=m n ne NA
- u. = =,,, rn m : m, ga
- w a =,, -.,-.m.n y. p.,=,, ua aa. x ;;
- = a=s zr
/
- u. n==:: a::n.: 2mc.i=a zri 3-6-/9 r*. ~;7r r-' ' sp
-/*=> Anh ,~M. '? 7 9, r n==== a -:=n u= n, m a awes =:x,==na :.1 a cw.:=a a=. / R e
- a. suew l's.:.:: sa. A.=s. s:o..
- u. to aa. a.~ am..
- u. e ' w:
. u..ar.. 4,. a..a.<.. NA NA NA 133 JA3/C=l:. J:. AJ2. llf. 3=7.s
- 21. 813. it ""l3: 544,7 AGL"De, p.
t:a n.:.a rc. ;;,:. 4:.;y:. n, g u,q, g g, ; ;g:;pr ; 3;3p,e CSS O"." 88 813. af.~1. 3=P.e NA NA 2., r m :r m: a.u.;r:amai 12, 8*3. 17 MJ. 7 *.JP. f* A FA.* #A le. 411. '.*:1.ll""" a N: 54 4 h a;a W. al..* I 4! m;J J!ia.= a 3: ._a ::c.:=u. acusw a=> uu: a ::cca a :w.2=
~ i y v- ~ snoncis. e asuss:.unc.An2 consrauc s:n- /M*;..s - " C: m. !:: y, r-L i Mmt h, a, Cl' tl ouAury Assu Auct ena:TuaNT M-OL-4 9-m:2 s: mix.xnon.013 c:~pq PRCCESS CORpt<T!VE ACTION re 2 e-2 I
- u. u - a: a m u =ws y
Te be determined. t '/
- a. ex w amm,ea~ - m uw.m ae-x ::n n m. hv.n=. a m ur.m as, e.I
/ .l / j 1 . c.,.
- s
- .~;..
f
- N
~,
- w..,.- o
,r- - O =,m,- O, -E _O _.x ems a a u:::.+c.cu m e-. a. It is recommended that the Electrical Super.intenuent diregt the Foremen to install ccble tray sof tener as the cables are being routed to prov.ide protection s.hile the ccble is being installe*d as.vell as af ter installation. 1It is further recommended that Ilechtel QC conduc(a training class for all inspectors cnd that sheet 2(7) of E-42 be immediately inc1'lted in Activity 2.5 of PQCI E-4.0., u / g , / r Me i'*2"13 4 73 7C *.A.Cf 7? CJt:(S t C:::.CJ "I 1:.:c2 %L b us :? c:::v.*[...3, O g ,e - r, ?. . ~. ~;. / M j M. Mt te e rec J c4 '.'Etm=ce j I l [ l h l s
- j. s:3. :r :sa. :nr sa:.: m r.v::n u zw:;::s nn:.he
.s. nxw u.w.:.a.22:.:. str u:1, + / ) + ! i.
fr-.L 3;r ~ n'atwg:3. dt..;.n a saush Aho Cut.:6. rudn. e,m u..r.2:3 N0ih^.0 h Mr GRm.%Ct ht,DOui 3 A M r* m-D cuauer assvaAucs cuAa:mur a w Q C.;:.;nt rc 1 er 2 6. msn:.wsi
- r. xx rcac:s w: a
- 4.. =em.w== ru: sm;,
y a3 Midland 1 t, 2 Cable Trav 2AFD05 Cable Tray 3 %., n g* 3. r soma, to. c2a. cw - ac.
- u. uu/u.:. a wI' Lower
, 3. 7 u mi j Elev 646'-G f NA NA Cable Spreading Room #~f Y i, 3 r, .t r, 3 a. u a a_m.aa=s c=a==r.=ms u 2::u._ c:m==: n : 2=3. 3. a =:. =u..a C1 CCMt Paragraph 7, E-42 Sheet 2, Rev 7 requires protection be pro-vided where a cable presses against sharp edges. LADreisbach Contrary to the above, multiple cabla.s cross over the top of ~ cable tray section 2AFD05 going into wireway 2AWO37 without r.w c:rra being protected from sharp edges of the tray section.. WLBarclay _ JMilnndin WRBird DEMillor TCCooke WGMoring JLCorley JFNewgen j RHermeston RASimanch! u. e.;.=.w.c.c.u=u ia u.: a. SHHowell DATaggart' Provide protection between. cables and tray section ac noted DRJohnson above. CSKeeley BWMarguglio =s:=r/r c.== re. s=n=:s x=:r=m n mm al Xl PAMartinez L' 3=s tw o'=se
==ec. :mA=a 6== cr =:.a.u:a Air =2. ml i nl x l m u = 1.- -.a -.
- ago, i a a,.1=2.u m - m.
l tb z=s x er=: 4 t.=: :ms us ( X i 20 1 } l17. = x 2:':stc= ::s :o.ss(els =s [ ] ao i.s i i
- .h = = rm:a.uu ns m: r.4 rs l lalXl l u. :: =s, a= 6 :=c cr m::::s is.
NA
- u. = ra,.ua ?>:.s r. ca: :sgo y l u. a rs, aan et ac crr=ut :ag wa=2s yg
- u. g: -=N a=s ::
as n==r 4:;r: 2:x;.;=s rri 3-13-/9 as... ..a - 4-r :/u=. W b /s ~s c.As=1 en c:m. =s un / / ,A,AA. 2-27-?F a m:(2 :sr. =a,.:;y.a== a c=e==u a=. c, :uus.m.:.:: su. a.i=i. w.s sr. r.a su. a u. ai.a.,
- a. c m:.=.
.a. s .o. a . w. i'.... NA NA N\\
- a. inic:a:. s:s. + u. :e. 2=r..
- n. ns. :r 3: r.cr >cca.
- a. r:n mu m. r.:. sa:.
- u. + su. su. a ur.aa: : aur.s c=c==s.
s:s. a.7=. 2s>. NA NA ,.. u:.a u sa: a rw:: nus
- u. au. :r :':. nu. m iu: :24 2..
42.
- cr:. m: ua 6 ei.e w
- a. m :: -u n. 2 2.
- .1: :=4 ::.:.:=.n.
taem, a=, au: 3 sm=a a :ar==:
,.. ~..t. = a;' [ W.T.. .. { -...lg ' -s # r s *.f. f l.,.'.4 - :..Ny ' ' 43:. (. t .f,-.:fe.: ' % (..' ? :' - l.- Sf. .. i J '.. ^ y, v. ' a." . A. ..i t, f i sj j.,c PROJ?.CT:* ENGINEERING Ahg ggg373yg7gg3 A c h. 2 3 C*** g CUAUTY ASSURANC' g ONCONr0Ru3 lady Cr* EP, OR*I a-e"*p A Ane!.N r-9-m o J c sex = u a.w 2a,' c'".. j PROCESS CCP.R2CTIVE ACTION m 2 er 2
- 3. a =-- c: u.a: a ::::ts,.
To be determined. .,s.. = *
== e
- 37. EG GT A3). 7 mi 4_
g 42;;M Ahy,7. ( :2 23 CD74=3 3r c;r;..U2p::c3 4' 2 n3 m cA; .,'.:,? '...
- x *.....
~.v.., j s 4*wl,. Q - s ,.......-..,y>'.2'. ~t - 3
==7e .~~'"*A 2 w 4 t:yet
===r U nee::xmr ] ___J X l X rux===r ~~ .m. m .: a==.~.~a:a.-.3 r.2. -- us It is recommended that immediate. action be taken to have c.able tray sof tenir installed 4 on all areas of cable trays that now have c' ables crossing sharp edges. Action should be taken to have sof tener' installed as the cables are being routed. It is further recommended that Bechtel QC, reinspect all
- cable' installations to be certain no cables are exposed to possible dhmage from sharp edges.
.i. -._.
- u. w a n = x:r n==m e==s = r.x:.:, 5 :A= 2 a. :,,
.g, e e esa
- } :-
- g f, a. 4 l 'd. > ::a cr rir. t u c==..t=3r t I i i l l .... m. m. m.m==.m.._ _, u,._. _. _. m..=m .,..,,_ m. _ = _ =,. =, I t h ( .N'
l --, _ p =.. e 8 f.t ABTC84 C'C IN31EUCTSCN N9. 8-a 4 - {.k, !,2 . G7?AMTT COUTitOF, IN5iiTT,UCY!9N 1 g_4,g 2
- 2. P.o,CCT oC.NsTnuCTioN No.
JOB NO.' 7 220 - 7220/E-4.0 ^ ' ACTIVITY DCSCF8BPTION IN5PCCTION INSP gy pp t g g.g N . CRITCrus A _ ACT.copC se cc 2 '. 5.: Ve'rify that the cable is protected from. physical damage whenever E-42 I(V) d it is pulled out of the raceway ~ and thc3t the area of cable Sh.12 (5). contact with conduit ends:is. adequately protected by padding,- Sh.10 (15) insulated bushing, end bells or similiar devices. 2.6 Verify that.the cable is installed in the correct vias as cable card. I(v) opecified on the scheme cable card (i.e. hishlight each pulled via 6n front of card) e n O e 3 n k O 9 9 9 ,e O e 9 e S 't e
8. M ASTJf t OC INjTitUCTION NO ' 8e g Ti/II iflVAMYT CC15TitOF, III5iiRUCdGN s_4.o a T. Pat J.'"CT OC I NsT RUCi shti NW. si j fj l I. JOB NO* 7220 7220/E-4.0 s. ~- 1 IF'iPC CTI O N INSP $U ppt.C 3.t f* N T A n ACT ACTlVITY DCSCRIPTION CRITCrtI A ACT. COD E rCCono ge n, 2.5 Verify that the cable is protected from physical damage whenever E-42 I (V) d it is pulled out of the raceway and. that the area of cable Sh.12 (5) contact with conduit ends is adequately protected by padding, Sh. lO (15) insulated bushing, end bells or similiar devices. Sli. 2-(7) 2.6 Verify that~the. cable is installed ~in the correct vias as cable Card I (V) specified'on the scheme cable card (i.e. highlight each pulled via 6n front of card)' I! 6,. rw (g / i ~: t K t-
- 'q t,
t, [ ;,,t (q! .c /~ 3 i ao one e f D 4 9 ~ t 3 9 p e t g e e o g..* 's i 's. g onen.== emmen e ** e
.i ~* J .[ ) .A.
- Mouncing heights or elevations of racevsys as indicated 8
. on the plans pertain to the bottom unless otherwise noted. .t j.s. 5. All hardware for hangers and supports for raceways shall g.[ be galvanized or cadmium placed. e eg 3 .7. 6. .In general, for conduits and tray bolted type supports g shall be used. When. welding is necessary the finished . weld and uncovered metal.shall be painted with zine rich ~ I5 . paint as protection against corrosion. 'Teuch up materials _gh No. 69 Amarant.E-Z' W EqiE&co. shall be Amaron's Dimecote used inside remeter buildins lor ~ gray;.' 45 g.E j]3[ 7.. 'At any' point where'a cable presses against sharp edges of i ly an opening, protection to the cable shall be provided ~1 between the cable and the' edge. e og t].E 8,., Wall and floor penetrations for conduit and cable tray E. - are not indicated on the drawings. t h. ' Installation of the conduit system for the nuclear instru-J,,{I ~ mentation. system vf.ll be as follows: a pull box sized per-j ]I! . Drawing E46 shall be installed in the conduit system at p $[gy T ach interval where A + B v 100 where "A" is 1/3 of the. total number of degrees of the conduit bends and "B" is the x a total length of running-feet since the last pull 1;cx. ~ ~ . p-j 9A The touch up coating repair of welded areas may be done y "7h. 'by the same individual doing the welding operation except
- im E in the containment building, which must be done per 44.5-j Specificat' ion A-41(4).
Alam. MOUNTING HEIGHT FOR WALL MTG DISTRISUTION PANELS if.i 99. I}l.s t'U" WILL GE W-O Mhh TO Tor' OF I"ANEL ndI N ., \\- d\\ ,bg 1 .d. ' -,1 ji * .. i. 'H$2 i v.= 5 3 ~ - . y, r .h ty. 7;l3.y - 2 "-
- ...,.... =
- gy
.4 TH81W.MOTL G, ADDED NOTE. M. . BPM;qt) -diI g;;r' A/M ~ f,.
- j.y A
/f,-2-77 REVISED NOTE-ci co Eto 14 g; r-- eS/ nE' A 7-24 % eaviwo wem ci e.u Tf~/ vr A r-. 4~./'T~ ~ -hE /h 9-#0-74 L'ENi6-ED 44 IkJDCA:rEO EP L%F EM: Ar/ P. 1 e 7-D M ADDED NOTE 98 No rcc)AwA5 iO PPP J td E t.9. $p /J.f/%4
- f? 76 PcVKeo W re 6 Si^
Ru4 rF vW bW f
- ,'y n..
mars - nevn ons ey i cwn y,5;ca area gne, l ona,n gy scatt J * " * - 7220 2 MID1AND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2
- i; hE CONS 1'MERS POWER COMPMef omaweac a..
a rv. a-4 E - 'h N0fES. SD3@K4 MB) DETAns E-42.(G) Sh 2 v. CCUDUIT AND TRAY - a N
h,,) U W L I lj ? A L!(c" b dlf AUa ) ~,i .Cc;:sumer$ AND CONSTRUCTION-PROJECTS. Et:GINEtRING i FDW2f OUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT comm ORAL COMMUNICATIONS RECORD c*mor.rne so 0.4.2 QA5-0 g i e7 3 fj., d,U/5Y 8/28 6 8/29/79 AA-me nee:::u. mn:Imca PRKvner A A51 A A mu or co::nici.:m
- nscrcc::nen.
4 t '0 PM A R nn AM ossa enn(s) GFMaxwell USNRC num:n er 11 /Jstd.A n:uz=n ao/cn striexTs mscussra Midland Proiect Inspection of 8/21-8/23/79 Re: Color Coding of Electrical Cable SNY r ecurstm Mr Mawell uns called 8/28/79 to provide him further information regarding a con'ition he found while on an insnection tour August 21-23. 1979 at the Midland Nuclear Site. A green safety related cable that had been inspected and accepted for proper termination was found with red marker tags ati cach end. These termination inspections had occurred a month apart and been performed by the same inspector. An investigation was initiated to answer the following questions: 1. Whv or how did the mismarking occur? 2. How many of the same tvoe problems exist? 3. Are the instructions clear enough so that people who are responsible for terminations are aware of the requirements? 4. Does the inspector have a vision problem? l 5. What are the inspector's qualifications and experience? 6. What about other inspections performed by this inspector? 7. Was this an isolated condit.'on? The investination produced the following: 1. The cable number is composed of a coded scheme. Each character has a sienificant meaning (described in Drawing 7220 E-28). The first character in the code is the unit number, ie. Unit 1 or Unit' 2 or common "0". The second character designates the safety 1 channel, ie, A, B, C, D, E, N. The third character is the voltage rating of the cable, ie, l A = 600 - 18000 volt system; B = 200 - 600 volt system; C = Communication; D = DC, etc. 1 i j
L W LC C 01 0) l p 1. IC:ntd) It is possible thqt the clerk making up the marker tag interposed the second and third character and instead of using.the second character to make up the colored tag from, the clerk used the third. I Y For example, if the cable #2BA0610A was mkstaken for 2AB0610A then.a green cable would ene up with a red niarking on both ends. 2. Prior to the NRC inspection,104 CPCo QA overinspections were performed and no similar problems were found. Af ter the NRC inspection, Bechtel QC performed the following reinspections: Twenty-five (25) reinspections of terminations that had been inspected (by the' a. inspector making the error) during the same time period that the first error was ' made. No similar errors found. b. Twenty-five (25) reinspections of terminations that had been inspected (by the inspector making the error) during the same time period that the second error was made. No similar errors found. Tuenty-five (25) reinspections of terminations that had been inspected (by the c. inspector making the error) recently. No similar errors found. ~ ~d. One hundred (100) random reinspections of terminations made by other inspectors. No similar errors found. CPCo QA inspected 400 terminations for the color problem. Bechtel Field Engineering checked all tags (approximately 7000 cable ends) that have been made up and not yet installed. No. color problem was found. Six hundred seventy five (675) cable terminations out of 'a total of 20,000 (1200 Q) terminations were reinspected and no similar problem was detected. " Also, of approximately 27,000 individual cable tags (either installed or to be installed) ' 7,675 were checkcd which constitutes approximately 25% and no color errors were detected. 3. A review of the Quality Control Instruction, Field : Instruction and the engineering require-m:nts was dade and it was decided to change each of these to make the color coding more cl 4. The inspector passed his vision test prior to the missed inspection and, af ter -the discovel cf' the error by the NRC inspector, vision was not contributory to the problem. .5. The inspector had worked for Daniels prior to coming to work for Bechtel. He worked as an casistant field engineer for Dzniels where he was involved in safety related cable color coding of a slightly different style. He was trained by Bechtel and certified as a Level I inspector to ANSI.45.2.6. He had worked two weeks after certification prior to making tha first error. 6. Twenty (20) complete reinspections were performed of previously inspected installations tht had been inspected by the inspector making the error and no further problems were found. 7. Investigation of the physical conditions of the cable installations revealed that the - - correct ~ cable was routed to the correct terminals as required by Engineering Drawings and, thtrefore, no problem existed relative to plant safety.
PAGE 3 OF 3 CPCs has determined that this is an isolated problem relating to the mismarking of one cable involving one inspector making two identical inspection misses on an item that has no adverse safoty impact.
- In d cubsequent Telecon 8/29/79'between Gnfaxwell and PRKyner,Ar Maxwell stated that he would
- ccrry this item as an unresolved item instead of an infraction, provided that a 100% reinspec-ticn will be performed for correct color coding for,.evEry termination that this inspector ccesperd. - This was agreed to by CPCo.
,/ s' / ( O l CC WRBird g TCCooke ' JLCorley. LGreisbach GSKeeley EMiarguglic DBMiller o W s i b l I %%=4 + ,,-4 -.--w g
B.
- A Atif [?3 Q C a lw S i n U C T8 t N N 5.
O QUA!.lTY COMU!CL IMSi'RUCilOM E-5.0 Q{ s now., ac sur.r nucuan uo. nEv .308 NO. 7]2D-7.!20-E-5.0 3 = ' arv "' 5,f,',Ml,*," ,cl,"c 73 o, "oTe o"Jg " c guv,v ocw..u s ion ees FINAL INSPECTION ACTIVITIES '3.9 ?crify the correct ~ussembly of c.pecial terninations. (12.c., multi-pin connect-FPE-7.000 I(V) are triax and cour. plugs, stresu cones). Alco, verify that the application of 7.0 i.n calati. g e;aterials over bare lugs or splice olaeves is in accordance with the angir.eering require: tents. 3.10 Jerify that permanent cable markers of tha approved type,. carrying the correct E-47(5.1.2) I(V)
- ablo ID, and correct color strip for that redundant channel has been properly FPE-7.000 installed on the cabic close to the end of outer jacket with the cable identity 5.1
- asily discernible.
3.11.'arjfy that the cabic or jumper is supported using approved cable ties and the FPE-7.000 6.c I(V) ainimu.i installed cable band radius is not violated. FPE-4.000 6.7 E-42 Sh.7 (4h) 3.12 teview all Lic.crepancy Reports to assure th:st the required correctlons have bec a NONE
- cmpleted by rework eithout violatina any of the original design documents in accordance UILh SF/P3P G-6.1.
Racord the tc,tal number of Discrepancy Report sages on the IR. 3.13 tevicw u.c lirted "Open NCR's" in Act/ Task 1.3, and assure that they no longer NONE R = affect tho scoped vorh as shown in Block 6 of the IR. g 91st*% q 1N .._ _ L. _. .-..-c.,
MP ~ MUAI.lTY CcNTRG;1. INSTRUCTION E-5.0 Tg
- z. enency ec insi:;ucrirn ua.
~ JOB No. 7220 7220/E-5.0 'O c7 "g,';c c/,',," ,,,"c o o, S u "'o ic,",'o^ ' t e acvivity ocsenirvion FINAL INSPECTION ACTIVITIES 9 Verify the correct assembly of speci.al terminations. (i.e., multi-pin connectorn FPE-7.000 I(V) i triaxandcoaxplugs,stresscones)' Also, verify that the application of 7.0 insulating materials over bare lugs or splice sleeves is in accordance with the engineering requirements. 10 Verify that permanent cable markers of the approved type, carrying the c'orrect FPE-7iOOO 'I(V) h cable ID have been properly installed on the cable close to the end of outer jacket with the cable identity easily discernible. 5.1 11 Verify that the cable or jumper is supported using approved. cable tics and the-FPE-7.000 6.6 I(V). b minimum installed cable bend radius is not violated. FPE-4.000 6.7 E-42Sh.7(4h) 12 Review all Discrepancy Reports to assure that the required corrections have been b completed by rework without violating any of the original design documents in NONE-accordance with SF/ PSP G-6.1. Record the total number of Discrepancy Report pages on the IR. 13 Review the listed "Open NCR's" in Act/ Task 1.3, and assure that they no longer NONE R h affect the scoped work as shown in Block 6 of the IR. dl / ggj[ ~
Rt.v. 5-Pegs 1 ?cof'S' 1.0 PURPOSE gpgf This document provides the techniques and requirements for the termination of all scheduled electrical cables. 2.0 SCOPE The contents of this procedure will discuss personnel responsi-h-- - i bilities, types of tools to be used, techniques for various types b_g of connections. It applies to all schedule power, control, and g instrument cables installed at the Midland Power Plant, Units 1 & 2. p.g g C.Q 3.0 REFERENCE b* FIE-1.300 Electrical Field Construction personnel and Q.C. E.7 ~ 3 Coordination. hN FIG-6.121 Calibration-Electrical termination tool. pg FPE-1.0,00 Raceway, cable and termination documentation control (:J. 4 procedure. %4 W.J., :9 e.u m 4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES bg E::em 4.1 The electrical superintendent is responsible for insuring that dEci? the procedure is implemented. fA $ IN ~* 4.2 The electrical superintendent is responsible for providing tooling described in this procedure. The electrical superintendent shall further coordinate the calibration of crimping tools as necessary. 4.3 The electrical termination engineer shall be responsible for insuring b that sufficient termination material is available for continuity of work and shall verify the terminations during or after completion to [ insure compliance with this procedure. 5.0 TERMINATION CARDS AND CALIBRATION TOOLS C
====: =c-* 5.1 Termination ccrds will be issued to a termination foreman as r;3 required. g ~ r_. At the time of connection, the -temporary cable marker shall be re-moved and the permanent color-coded ' cable marker, for color-coded
- =8 cables, shall be attached to the cable -at the point of the outer - _. :
jacket removal. Only one color. band.on the marker is -required to be visible. The marker shall be placed in a position to be clearly ~,f, [ visible. Non-Q cable markers. do not require color c~oding2. v....- Upon completion of the termination and prior to returning the termi-nation card control the craftsman shall sign his name to--the card-and'vrite down the number of the calibrated tool used 'if applicable. '"' L J'. .. ~ -.
- e G e A
w-g y,,.-,-.,.--,,,-v-,-, ---u-g -g- -r-e-y,- e? -r.- g
gp.mgr "" 7; etf ' _, dd-Psg2 1 gq.yy. - k J.g PURPOSE ~ ~. t gg ' This document provides the techniques and requirements for - the terw4 e inn of all scheduled electrical cables.
- 5 2.0 SCOPE
's.ct_L-Ab?I - bO.' The contents of this precedure vill discuss pe-sonnel respon-sibilities, t, pes of tools to be used, techniques for various b4/5 7jt T types of connections. It applies to all scheduled power, con-J ;g T,.y c,7g,, ir ~ trol, and instrument cables installed at the Midland Power ()?cv 4 lu vo de Plant, Units 1 and 2. 3.0 REFERENCE 9 - f.- .C p. t... rz err FIE-1.300 Electrical Field Construction personnel "py!:J g and Q.C. Coordination f~~; g FIG-6.121 Calibration-Electrical termination tool. L~ -~3 FPE-1.000 Raceway, Cable and termination Documentation p,f'j control procedure. ' f,j;, g;3 (.s j r-: ya 4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES p{ ;;3, pf3
- t.. us 4.1 The electrical superintendent is responsible for Ip..!
Q insuring that the procedure is implemented. 'lf,.., g-p g-::^: p.' 4.2 The electrical superintendent is responsible for pro-([e 2.d, c, d, 'rd4 h viding tooling described in this procedure. The F electrical superintendent shall further coordinate {. 3g.7]*.7 the calibration of cri= ing tools as necessary. s. . L. ~ 4.3 The electrical ter=ination engineer shall be responsible y,Q,,'h for insuring that sufficient ter=ination material is ry available for ccntinuity of work and shall verify the terminations during or after ccepletion to insure compliance with this precedure. 5.0 TERMINATION CARDS AND CALI3 RATION TOOLS 5.1 Termination cards will oe issued to a termination l foreman as required. At the time of connection, the temporary cable marker shall be removed and the per anent cable marker attached to t'te cable at the point of the outer jacket removal, and in a position where it is clearly visible. Upon completion of the termination and prior to returning the termination card to card control the craf tsman shall sign his name to the card and write down the number of the calibrated tool used if applicable. bs h
' ) ) PaoJEcis.nncnn:cusnc ': 'lM*- ' (r ' y d-4 r.:J:::*, Ano consTau:Tsou - . Q 3 'dN cDAUTY ASSunANCE DEPT RT!AENT w c:am ORAL COMMUNICATIONS R,_C0RD Crcs.rnt. se "a* *
- 1 11oM QA5-0
,,., 1, 2 d.-.e ces:r=i.=:s u.ra.c ru--- ru=::s=ic j(Bird. Dehorn, RCHir:el. NRananu.1am >r :r ex. ---= c:sza ra:rts) CCVilliams. X'Bovd. RCKnoe. RLandsman. RLSuessard 'o on V" Iran n WPRird of NRC i l nouve l CONSUMER 3 power COMPAN'f gg afa i s v;/, h.-({lN(f B ^ ' ' & ^' SOIL BORINGS g 91 APR 0 61981 -rT v'oM FIELD Q'jAtlTY ASSURANCE o.~ .un vA n.um O. C/, 2._ P r u.si I returned Mr Willians 12:00 phone call in which he stated it was urgent that I call hi= back within the next 15 minutes. I placed a conference call such that Site QA could participate and I also asked N Ra=2.nujam to join us. i ' l. Mr Willia =s painted a picture wherein if the KRC had not ecne to the site Wednesday i ve vould have been deficient in having identified all the actions necessary to be put in place prior to the sta-t of the borings. It is their perception that CPCo was ready to go Wednesday if they (NRC) hadn't been there and there vould have been proble=s. 2. I resnonded that such a scenario was absolutely incorrect. Consumers Power recog-nizes the need to start the borings as soon as possible in order to support both Consumers and NRC's interests in havine the results available for the soils hearins; S n* +wat va' cully ecor nire the necessity to accontlish the borines under an
4+.
c A r*n-*n-. vv mnar ement is fully surtortive of the conservative
w +' hat _ OA hns been takine to assure that all elements are in place, and they r -, - i-vith nnt etnnin-any horin-s until ve (OA) say ve are ready.
We had just i ---+f vad t he detail e d vror edures ( for which most of the comments vere cenerated) at .w. ... -. - +:.-, nw w a +wo -on .,a4+v +n 1nnk at them, and there uns no vnv vork l_ Q d.?- O
Q. A ,did hava started until thogo procedurcs vare tsviewed and approved by QA. I 4tated that I felt the characterisation that vork would hava started prior to otr being completely ready was an inaccurate perception on NRC's part. 3 Mr Spessard then stated that his feelings echo Mr Williams. They don't share the view that all the technical requirements vould have been. identified by CPCo. They hoped that whatever verk ve perform vill be done in confornance with procedures and vill be under control. It is their belief that if we had started work withcut Mr Landscan's input, we vould have been found in noncompliance. A discussion was then held. concerning when ve vould be starting verk and how ve could giva the NRC 12-2h hours notification. The final conclusion' vas that we vould only hava..to notify (by telephone) Mr Williams when we did start. the borings. WRS/1r CC: JVCook BCBav~" MADietrich h GSKeeley 3WMcrguglio DEMiller NRa 99ujam DMrurnbull File: 0.h.9 20 e s e e 4 1r e O
- me O
e
~ TO: ROY WELLS FROM: ED JO ' DATE: JUNE 22, 19 3 RE: FINAL REPORT ON CABLE REINSPECTION Distributicr. : WRBird, P-14-418A Bruce Burgess -USNRC Ron Cook - USNRC NLCurland - Midland MADietrich - Bechtel-Midland BTFoote - Bechte,1-Midland WJFriedrich - Midland R:n Gardner - USNRC RCHollar - Bechtel-AA John Milandin - Midland DBM111er - Midland John Rutgers - Midland DATaggart - Midland 9 e I
yo4emd nos) Bcchtel Associates ProfessionalCorporation int:;r-office Memorandum 043842 To J.A. Rutgers one September 30, 1081 Subject Midland Plant Units 1 and 2. From L.H. Curtis Bechtel Job 7220 MPQAD Technical Reviews Of Engineering copies to D. Anderson N. Eidsmoa At Ann Arbor K. Bailey E. Hughes P. Corcoran E. Rumbaugh M. Dietrich During._the_ September _28.1981 wee _kly_ Croup Supervisor meeting, tTe Croup _ Supervisors again re.qu_ested that somethinTh~e doiie] ~ to limit the amount of technical and administrative reviews (i.e., non-QA program)) einb er5crmed by Midland Project Qu_ality Kiisurance Department OfPQAD)_yersonnel. ~ Trequently,_specificagons_and.other._ engineering. documents _are. Klayed unnecessarily, and considerable engineering manhours and senior _ people's time _are, spent. resolving _ nit-pickinggot=nents from. MPQAD, on_what...we_believe are _other _than_QBality_ Assurance. j 'Vrogram elements. There aeems_to_.be'.;.3W f,% --- e==-w-:-----
==1 ~ rather than whether or not we are following tura. ~ = -==- I agreed with the Group Supervisors that I would take the matter up with you, as we have been unsuccessful at the working level in getting this problem under control. I believe that a project policy statement must be made on this matter. Please advise me on this subject. I n L.. Curtis l LEC/db l l l l l I~ l Written Response Requested: No com Use: N/A l -,w-,--- r n.-,,.-.-,-,.,,--w,, my,-,. - - - -,. - - - -, -,,.. - ,w-
f V FINAL REPORT ON CABLE REINSPECTION As of October 1982, approxima'tely 1524 Class IE electrical cables had been cverinspected-by MPQAD for all activities on PQCI/PIPRs except those requiring In-Process Inspection. In-October 1982, the company decided to reinspect all remaining Class II Cables for all inspection activities on PQCI/PIPRs except .those that require In-Process Inspection. An anonymous allegation, as expressed in-a TV interview viewed by MPQAD personnel, was also taken into account in the planned reinspection. Additional inspection criteria relating to cable coding were added. 'All personnel assigned to participate in the reinspection received 7 f.t documented. training on the additional' reinspection criteria relating to cable: / coding (Enclosure 1). Also, a special team reinspected the 153'4 cables, pre-viously'overinspected, for cable coding problems. This reinspection and the'reU~/!' inspection of the balance of the cables on the coding question went beyond the
- b
/ f cope of the allegation (Improper Substitution). e in M There are 9,092 Class IE cables installed including 405 cables that are deleted-i but-installed'. Of this total, 1,534 were overinspected prior to 10/20/82 and J 1ater reinspected for coding problems, 7,558 were fully reinspected after '10/20/82. 1 Drawing E-37(Q). Revision 63 indicates there are 893 Class IE cables remaining [j r ', i to be installed. This report will consist of three parts. Part I will address all cables in-apected after 10/20/82 as a fu'11 scope reinspection and will contain all non-conforming conditions found, except those pertaining to cable code or deficiencies in the temporary or permanent installed tags. Part II will address only the i.fl cable code nonconformances and deficiencies found in all 9,092 Class IE cables ,[ installed. Part III contains Project Engineering's planned disposition of all nonconforming conditions concerned with cable routing and cable code deficiencies. 'PART I During the Ter1Vd-tof20/82 - 5/19/83, a team, under the direction of Danny Cochran, performed full scope reinspections of 7,558 Class IE cables that had not been everinspected prior-to 10/20/82. This reinspection resulted in Nonconformance Reports summarized below (excluding cable code and permanent or temporary cable marker nonconformances repoc.ted under P' art II):
2 NCR NUMBER NO. OF CABLES NONCONFORMING CONDITION .M01-9-2-162 19 Cables not routed in accordance with Design Drawing E-37(Q). M01-9-2-193 479 Cables not. routed in accordance with Design Drawing E-37(Q). M01-9-2-147 12 Cables not routed in accordance with Design Drawing E-37(Q). M01-9-2-148 3 Cables not routed in accordance with Design Drawing E-37(Q). i 26 -Cables not routed in accordance with Design { j M01-9-2-153 t i0 ~ Drawing E-37(Q). ~ i M01-9-2-170 36 Cables not routed in accordance with Design ~ Drawing E-37(Q). 5 Cables exceed maximum airlined distance allowed by Drawing E-42(Q). M01-9-3-134 1 FCR E-3148 incorporated into Design Drawing E-37(Q) and shows 1 via numbered incorrectly. M01-9-3-021 129 Raceway sections not identified and marked as N quired'by Drawing E-42(Q). M01-9-3-093 121 Cab 1'es exceed maximum airlined distance allowed by Drawing E-42(Q). M01-9-3-107' 26 Cables not protected by conduit bushings as ' required by Drawing E-42(Q) ~ M01-9-3-081 26 Cables.do not meet separation requirements of -- - - Drawing E-47(Q). M01-9-3-096 1 Cable does not meet separation requirements i of Drawing E-47(Q). M01-9-3-148 1 Cable identified with two Safety Channel Colors pontrary to the requirements of FIE-3.500. M01-9-3-120 8 condition of flexible conduits does not meet the requirements of Drawing'E-42(Q). M01-9-3-109 11 Cables are not protected as required by -FIE-4.100 and Drawing E-42(Q). ~ 9 l M01-9-3-142 1 Cable is not protected as required by Drawing E-42(Q). M01-9-3-155 12 Cables are not supported properly by Kellems Grips as required by Drawing E-42(Q).
3 \\ NCR NUMBER NO. OF CABLZS NONCONFORMING CONDITION M01-9-3-118 1 Cable violates minimum bend r'dius requirements a of FPE-4.000. M01-9-3-119' 1 Cable violates minimum bend radius requirements of FPE-4.000. M01-9-2-157 1 Cable violates requirements of Drawing E-28. There are two cables with the same scheme number. M01-9-3-039 1 Cable violates requirements _of Drawing E-28. There are two cables with the same scheme number. PART II During the period 10/20/82 - 5/19/83, all 9,092 Class IE cables, including 405-cables that are delted-but-installed, were checked for correct cable code per Design Deaving E-37(Q). This inspection resulted in the Nonconformance Reports summarized-below: NCR NUMBER NO. OF CABLES NONCONFORMING CONDITION ~M01-9-2-145 4 Cables installed are Code 301 (No. 14 'WG/3 A Conductor). Drawing E-37(Q) requires Code.B03 (No. 10AW/3 Conductor). M01-9-3-039 1 Cable installed is Code B21 (No. 14 AWG/2 Conductor). Drawing E-37(Q). requires Code B24 (No. 14 AWG/5 Conductor). ~~ M01-9-3-133____ 1 Cable installed is Code B25 (No. 14 AWG/7 Conductor). Drawing E 37(Q) requires Code B26 (No. 14 AWG/9 Conductor). M01-9-2-l84 1 Cable installed is Code B21 (No. 14 AWG/2 Conductor). Drawing E-37(Q) requires Code B31 (No. 10 AWG/2 Conductor). M01-9-2-190 1 Cable installed is Code IO7 (No. 16 w/Twst Shld Pr). Drawing E-37(Q) requires Code IO1 (No. 14 w/Twst Shld Pr). M01-9-3-149 1 Cable installed is Code B28/IO4 (No. 14 AWG w/Shld/6 Conductor). Drawing E-37(Q) requires Code B25 (No. 14 AWG/7 Conductor). M01-9-3-022-154 Installed cables are not permanently marked at each e'ad with correct information req'uired by i Drawing E-47(Q). d \\' . =
4 NCR NUMBER NO. OF CABLES NONCONFORMING CONDITION M01-9-2-156 1 Cable has a permanent color-coded cable marker wi'th a green banu on it. FPE-7.000 states that for this identified cable, the band should be red. M01-9-2-159 2 Cables are installed properly, but the permanent cable markers were switched. This indicates ~~ wrong' cable codes and termination violations. PART III Enclosure #2 addresses all NCRs generated that involve cable routing or cable code nonconforming conditions and indicates the expected disposition that will be provided in detail, with justification, for each NCR. Enclosure #3 addresses all NCRs and provides information on how Project Engineering will justify each nonconforming condition. Enclosure #4 addresses only those NCRs that are shown on Enclosure #3 as " Unique Case" with no potential generic concern. ELJones 6/22/83 b
P, INSTA.j_L AT TIME OF TERMINATION TEMPORARY / N . PERMANENT PRIOR TO PULL INSTALL to z Q } 'm of A anou f. -gfjff .10 -),B g3 nou f KBBTOS 11REkWll Il$00VYfl0llW&' y l scita nc cni c no. coot j n For all cabic reliibpect. ions accomplished ~ Fcr all cable ins)ections and over-art,er 10/20/02 and with 4 special team in:p;ctions accomplished prior to checking cabic code only for all cables 10/20/02 the PQCI requirements were overinspected prior to 10/20/02. The estinfied by checking the temporary cable Jacket informat.lon was compared Lega installed' prior to the cable to cable information in Drawing E-30) pull for: as well as the temporary tags installedy was used to determine: From and to locations t' I Cable Scheme Humber From and to locations Cable Code Cable Scheme ilumber Cable Code i II CODE CONT C - CABLE DESCRIPTIOf4 033 1 6ObV CONIRUL CAtiLE. 4/C #loAWG ~ 033 2 CAN DE USLD lla CLASS 1E APPLICATIONS n NW EXTRACTED FROM-DWG. E-38 [ ~ .O
r a g >. y-f +f 9 7 / / 6 l 9 3 2 4 / / / 8 7+ A 1 2 1 3 f / ELBA TP l$ ECC A. $ i TL h luB 4 S o 1 7 5 t 1 1 A 4 i j lY 2 I r / 2 2 E_ 1 A 3z 2 9 1 B 4 B A T P E C b A / N $ U B 9 i ei !h Z 2 T L I b ~l UB o A 8 8 S S 6 A j A KR gW9 4 I i I 9 i r O l l W U ER I 0 2 3 I I 0 L./ I 1 E R g. id T i l ; 6n3 ln 2 2 2 3 3 3 d3 8 B 8 6 8 s/ a / /a / / 1 -t / 8 / / / / R V 8 8 I t 4 / / A e/ I U / / M n u/ 6 6 / / Nf l 1 / / / / G 6 S 5 1 1 / f 1 1 i E L 2 oooOoo oo2 l I D f h L / 3 o1 o2 3 B 7 S 0 9 3 9 v8 i b 5 A A i 3 A 3 S I~ 1 t 1 l 1 ( I l L 0 l 1 l 2 2 2 2 12 3 3 a A 2 2 2-T 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 o T l l 1 l l t l t t l l oo0 ooool oo oo o .hhhNkhhNhkhhLf1l ll1lI1ll
m_.. Enclocura iP3 E c J c J 3 j J I ~ i~ 3 T _J O r 2 h t .A g y g ea N w eq .e ~ U 1g. . %i s __..g g I s _T _N .lg _A g c ,,,9 CO = PJ y __ea ~~. ,w .e r~ 7 c ...Q g.... g ..J .N N c e m. ~ y .f
- g e
- D
',s V) g N 1 y g e-l2 v c ,y = v / __..a a .ao . __. N c 4 1 ~ I /r / O Ef') = m g 4 Q v
- P r(
t-y4 9q e o g. gj-l 3 v ...p T ~ i t x g C N M C D D M C mE E.. g N 4 m v v T N Y M c y -K 5 W 5 h 5 5 5 N M m h x m 6 4 6 ? ? 6 6 H U s ? 4 z c C E c c o C C C C c E E E E E E E E E E E
O e raclecura f4 O O
- e 9
d q f E /> ll '&c ~ + 1.: \\+*& I O N N O t 709 e l LM C' 1 I ? A tG t'= O' N c ( C 7 7 Y s a s. A, s, 2 T I C C O O E E E E l c a< 2'" idc.n =C. U im W D G_ t C l 3
9 y
- 9 A
., + -r. e s.
- ' * - 7
.p.s.- a.
== s s js q ' ' ' -e..,
- g.
s' '.s'...r. t . =,/, 3 ^
- n. f. -
( .~
- ,3 Y. V [ J.;"
- +
4 . k..g. ;*.i.'..g..' # ~ "*"".E..,
- *.' 9 '.
...a. r ;..'..'...,._'.t o * -s. s.%,* e 4; _,...p. .-s.,* a: .. c,. e.., ",.' -8" v., ; g. y "..,,as s 3.,.., , 4 (' ,,1 t..s..,., ,...i. r.* 4
- 1.., e,,.
'.[.-- .i
- Q
.4 s ,y=
- . o,..'
b'.'* =^ _, 6 ,s,.,s.* e---.. .j n,. a t. 4.,, a. o.. ,.e.., ,.,.,., ) ' 3 s..Q,.., e -(,* =.. *; + e. eg ,,a.,-a.. g-p,,,.,* I s n g4 s. .-r- ',., d p
- d s
..s- ....r.,,, s . i e ,.. J r. t a ,e.. ,~f.
- -..,., e,*
..4'.w..,, 2 s. .A., +,. -. . =., t .' (6 .'se / ** 7. i <~,,.9, ~ g- - 9
- Ts,
. r.. (' g s.a - +r e.a . = * * " .y s e r o e t..:.: - a * .,.. - -. ', [.;;.,. ".s \\* . ~. ,.J'". ~. ' '. t.' E. *... ....s.?*... ~<,y,.: g?.) _. L * '., ; a ~ '.NfJt. g.'", ';'.'f.C ' e-s- gw a c /.
- 4., I.
,jC .f_. e- ? . 'IN f0fh 'i -** ~ ? 'N ON b p,-k; s :.' '. ,c,. , - a r ~. s .~ a 'r, .,m. r ,.,y .1 --. =i .?. , p . g y. - .s 1 e. .e d u s a..,7..-s: w. -m, L. : .r . <.. -:u s. -.. - .e +.. ,.,7,~., ;.+, ~.,.. ~ c,. -. ~. f*. t s ,s
- m. ~...-
m -a,, -. .c x,,, y,,., . :.c f. ~ e.s,.,.... .p., o e ".y r.. s 4 2 &h w..'s.* +'W. * '. ~',; $h - 2 ,.,. +
- l 15 1
., -,,r- ,A; s. .f ( .._.:.+. Y.i ..c : \\ j \\ v e [ o M e er N,,,, i l wp A' em r.AA A ,. ;,. ~.s..,. ..w-m s y.,.. -,~ p.-..- s ...',...,,..-- Ps.'.K. "11.Y. .G... r,M... > g = isY [c. ,...,...s. _s .}}