ML20095B285
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. )4 4
- l M
(,,,,, (,,Jt2 R W *. ** ~ * * * - f[} s d':V" 'o ' UNITED STATES. g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION {R{ .. l
- j. '- } 5.'
o wAsmNGTON, o. C. 20655*
- ?...[.y,l
.pe af Ju agns i ? ..n 1 y w
- 54 g,g MEMORANDUM FORi' Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for' Licensing Division of Licensing 4-3.
Themis P. 5peis, f.ssistant Director for Reactor Safety FROM: Division of Systems Integration
- .u IDENTIFICATION OF PROTECTION.SYST"EM INST I
SUBJECT:
- ~ ; SENSING LINES' ~ ~ ~ % ; ' ~ ~-
- '~ '* i ' ;'***
. f:'; ' x
- '.# et :4sb-:t'.v;'q as ni.9 i-f/.N.
e i k'th.. This letter. is for the purpose of delineating the Instrumentatio,n pnd. Control W. D Systems Branchipo'sition on'the idntifical.16n '6f prdtectIdd system-instrument /!9ff' sensing lines and requesting that the position. (Enclosure 1.) be transa.itted to. Near Ters Operating License ~applicirit's
- We nuTd Uke the position to be forwarded to all applicants having plants for which the ICSB site visit has c.
not been completed'.: The Projecf Manager should contact the'ICSS reviewer.for j.. his plant if there is a. question as to whether the ICSB site, visit. has, been e g. completed.
- e G W3 Paragraph 4.22,' ident'ificatieh;'of;IEEE 279-1:971 sta'tesi - 'In'ord'er to pro
~ ~ vide assurance that the requirercents given in this document,can be applied during the design,1onstrectios,(maintenance, and operation of'the plant,for examp \\ the protection system equipment pon'ents, modules, etc.) shall be identified distinctively as being in the protection system. This. identification shall distinguish between redundant c N:.,, portions of the protection systen." IE Region III has taken the posicion that the above IEEE-279 requirement applies to sensing lines used for trans-
- .g.
m. mitters in the protection s'ysten. ' Host recently. IE Region III has asked '.M that the Callaway applicant color code the instru nent sensing.1.ines. As a V-result of the '!E Region'III' position, ICSS was asked to delineate its posi- %.M . :. ; : - i l.- of sensing. lines. tion with respect to identification (color coding):2 b ICSB belteyes'that a strict' interpretation of IEEE-279 would not include sens. /, ing lines'within its scope. The reason for this is that the IEEE has haen . M.a careful to. restrict'the scope of.its standards efforts to power, instrucenta- "I2 tion, and control wrtions of the safety systems.' However, the sensing lines are Assential to t1e reliable operation of the protec. tion system and should, thui, be designed'and installed with the same care as any other equipment in the)rotection systan' In particular, the sensing lines for redundant pro-tection channels should be appropria.tely separated and protected from externa haza'rds. 'In order to facilitate verification that sensing lines for redundan >rotection channels are appr_opriately separated and protected from external sards initially and throughout the life of the plant, ICSB considers that CONTACT: E. Rossi, x27140 8408220070 840718 ~ PDR FOIA PDR RICE 84-96
r-J k ,\\ t ~. ENCLOSURE Paragraph 4.22, IdentificationIofIEEE 279-1971 states: "In order. to provide assurance that the requirements given in this ~ document can.be applied during the design, constructions maintenancer and oper'ption of the plant, the protection system
- w. ring, c om p on e n,t s,,-
i Q equipment (for example, interconnecting modules, etc.) shall be id ent i f i ed d i st i n c t i v e l y,a s.pe)'ng ' i n.;-(.pl} ks the protection system. This i d e n t i f i c a t'i on s h a l l d i s t_i.n'g u i,s h..],f between redundant portions of the prot.ection syste." Lthough a stric't interpretation of IEEE-279 may not include sensing tines within its scope, the sensing Lines are essential to the I-l'M reliable operation of.the protection system and'should, thus, l be designed and insta'lted with the same care as any other equipment in the protection system. In particular, t,he sensing Lines for redundant protection channels should'be appropriately C '3 separated and pr,otected from external hazards. In. order to inf'. facilitate verification that sensing Lines for redundant protection {.l, fi appropriately separated and protected from external ?4 channets are jp hazards initially and throughout the life of the plant, the sensing lines for transmitters in the protec' tion systes should be appropriately identified. This identificati'on should distingukshbetweenredundant channels. You are requested to confirm that the se nsing Lines for transmitters in the protection in the prot'ection system will be identified distinctively as keing system and that the identification will distinguish between redundant channels.
4. .M l L Robert L. Tedesco ' 7 the sensing lines for transmitters kn tho protection system should be ap-propriately identified and that the identification should distinguish between
- redundant channels. The attached enclosure requests that Near Term Operating
. License applicants confim on'the docket that the sensing lines for trans- . sitters in the protection system will be identified distinctively as being in the protection system and that the identification will distinguish between redundant channels. k ~i It should be noted that ISA Standard ISA-567.02 (1930), " Nuclear-Safety-lj Related Instrument Sensing Line Piping and Tubing Standards for Use in Hu-N clear Power Plants." recomends identification and color coding of sensing 4"
- 3 lines pertaining to nuclear-safety-related-instrument channels. Although v
currently not formally endorsed by an MRC Regulatory Guide, this standard f, ', 'c does represent an industry consensus that the protection system sensino lines '/ be identified and color coded'. t 6 i Themis P. Spets. Assistant Director for Reactor Safety i, Q Division of Systems Integration 4 'g
Enclosure:
As stated cc: R. Mattson F. Rosa 7 G. Edison i '*3 C. Rossi e l1.'{ T. Dunning R. Capra ,g i \\ .p e .< y "i .g l D e O a n.- ,,-,-,,,-w-.,- ,--, n,, -, -
4 / . t;1'1.l !.V DEC 2 2 030 i h-[. 4 Docket No. 50 Docke. No. 5 - Consuiiers Power Company i ATTN: Mr. James W. Cook Vice President Midland Project 1945 West Parnall Road l Jackson, MI 49201 Gentlemen: L { Thank you for your letters dated August 25, 1980 and November 7, 1980, informing us of your position relative to an item of noncompliance ( concerning welding material control (329/80-20-01 and 330/80-21-01). I be position still stands that the purchase order and AttachmJnt ID ) could not be tied together and hence the item of noncompliance stands. h However, based on the improvements in the QA program made since the gpetitionsandassuch,nofurtherresponsetothisitemisrequired.f 1973 purchase we conclude that you have taken action to preclude W Your cooperation with us is appreciated. Sincerely, G. Florelli, Chief Reactor Construction and Engineering Support Branch ec w/ encl: Central Files Reproduction Unit NRC 20b PDR Local PDR NSIC TIC Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service Commission Myron M. Cherry R14I RIII RIII
- RIII, 2Ck 5'5 Nf/
dr Knop /j{p Sutphin y D'anielson FioM111 12/15/80 / / ' Q \\Q5% Ci\\M
,. - ~ ~ "~~ f'* 1 y' 3
- a......a g;q,;y Ja,nes W Cook m, c,,as,. u,m..<,w.o omheret of fices: 194$ We,t PosneH Road, Jach on, MictWgen 49701. (St 73 788 0640 November 7, 1980 r8, Mr J G Keppler, Regional Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 MIDLAND NUCLEAR PLANT NRC P OF NONCOMPLIANCE INSPECTION REPORT 50-329/80-AND No 50-330/80-21 FILE:
0.h.2 UFI: ' ^ SERIAL: 1005h
References:
(a) Letter, J W Cook to J G Keppler;
Subject:
" Midland Nuclear Plant - NRC Item of Noncompliance, Inspection Report No 50-329/80-20 and No 50-330/80-21;" Serial 8818; dated August 25, 1980 (b) Letter, G Fiore111 to J W Cook; IE Inspection Report No 50-329/80-28 and No 50-330/80-29; dated October 8, f
1980 Reference (a) provided the Consumere Power response to the item of noncompli r concerning velding =aterial control (329/80-20-01 and 330/80-21-01) from the inspection conducted by Mr E W K Lee on July resulting 8-10, 1980. Reference (b) reports on a further inspection by Mr Lee on September a further response to the item of noncompliance. 23-25, 1980 and requests based on finding the attachment to the Field Material Req at that time for ordering veld filler materials. Reference (b) provides in part under DETAIIS on pa6e 2 the following: a "The inspector reviewed the Field Material Request (FMR) No FM-12h and the attachment No 1. It was determined that (1) the attached sheet to FMR No FM-12h cannot be established; (2) the tie between the subject PO and the attachment No 1 cannot be established; and (3) evidence that attachment No 1 was transmitted to the vendor is unavailable." The items listed stem from the fact that the purchase order and attachment No 1 lack any unique identifiers which tie the two documents conclusively together. Evidence does exist that the purchase order was transmitted to a g O dv O /, e ~ smyh " T /"
IN 7f, A ~ 2 Serial 1005h ( 1 3 the vendor. The purchase order, Attachment No 1, and the receiving reports can be tied together by the fact they all contain identical ordering data i (ie, sizes and quantity and correlation between requirements and the quality i L verification. documents). This is a 1973 purchase order. No cases have been disc 6vered where the veld filler materials were in nonconformance to the applicable requirements. The paragraphs below describe improvements that were made in 1977 to the program for procurement of welding materials. Based on the additional information in this letter, we request that you reconsider the appropriateness of making this item an infraction. In May 1977, Bechtel's Project Special Provisions (PSP) Notice G-10.1, Revision 0, was implemented which required review and approval of field L material requisitions and purchase orders, for Q-listed and ASME III Code materials, by a Level II Quality Control Engineer. Prior to May 1977, this item vas. covered by the Field Inspection Manual (FIM) which required that the Project Field Quality Control Engineer review all Q-listed field purchase orders. Also, prior to May 1977, requisitions and purchase orders vere reviewed and approved by Bechtel's Field Weld Engineering. The May 1977 change requires that a checklist be used by Quality Control to verify that the required specifications, test requirements, and other ordering data is as required by the applicable specifications and codes. Verification is confirmed by signature and date of a Level II Quality Control Engineer. Regarding receipt of welding consu= ables, all material through the construction period, regardless of the designated classification (ie, Q-listed, ASME III, or non-Q-listed), is receipt inspected by Quality Control for acceptance to the applicable codes and specifications. A review was made of approximately 20 (post-May 1977) purchase orders or changes to purchase orders which verified that the ordering data, such as mechanical and chemical tests and the subsequent documentation is as required. An audit (M-01-26-0) was initiated by Censumers Power to cover the ordering and receipt records of veld filler material. Seventeen specific orders were included in this audit. This audit is completed now except for the audit exit and the issuance of the audit report. This review and audit provides us confidence that the filler materials purchased, along with their quality verification documents, are proper in that they meet the applicable Code and specification requirements. It is our observation that since May 1977, the purchase orders that CPCo looked at in the above review and audit had the complete ordering data incorporated into the purchase order proper and did not use an " attachment." The ordering of filler materials since May 1977 appears to be in compliance with the Quality Assurance Program elements covering this subject. To date, all veld consumables utilized meet the applicable specifications and codes as confirmed by Quality Control review and verification of certified material test reports and as furcher confirmed by CPCo review and audit. This is 4
- I r
t i p- - -,w e -, -, -r----.-,. -,, n -mg,y
v-
-v ,.c, r, n..,,-,.-. ,,-,---,,,,---,.ve .--e-
-^ ... ~...... _ ..s ~. 3 Serial 1005h ? further substantiated by the results of your inspection as given in Inspection: Report 329/80-20 and 330/80-21 where eight specific heats of material were. reviewed. The aboNe-information is intended to provide the final response needed to close out this item. WRB/lr CC: R Cook, USNRC Resident Inspector 's Midland Nuclear Plant (1) l-F i s ? t' k e k
'*/ .l / (~, s, /. m 4, $ 1-Docket No. @ @-30 r.EP r) 3. e.,.c c.a i
- f. < t. "..*J.nv a
Docket No. 50-330 i
- . Consumers Power Company.
- .L. u 3.-
j ATINt,.Mr. James W. Cook nm. ti n. .4 ;,. t .,Vice: President 's Midland Project 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, MI 49201
- .c 7 r,-
e :'ir ::r ..Genticacn!,.-r.;
- i f,:r ee.tr.t
+ 7- .i r - :.n .-Thank you for your letter dated August 25, 1980, informing us of .. the steps you have taken to correct the ite:ss of noncompliance which -'.we. brought to your attention in Inspection Reports No. 50-329/80-20 and No. 50-330/80-21 forwarded by our letter dated July 18, 1980. .;;We will exanine these matters during a subsequent inspection to determine if the additional data you located subsequent to our ?.. inspection is adequate to withdraw the item of noncompliance. We will inform you of our decision. 1. Your cooperation with us is appreciated. t..:... .= i e
- ...- ? '.
r. ' e: _ ' r. Sincerely. .< : <. '. : :.'. i s c c : :.r c ? s. 't. : f rt her it.vc ti;ct icr., c.:1 9,.r-10, ..n ; t i er., . ? st. d I.c :;. r.+r.: dsts whi. - dccs : c:.t:.ir, t he t;I: :::.t: e ele ir: ;-.ti on . i:ei for the pure...se of the ruth-cC. Fiorelli,- Chief. ' -- hsv e J.. - ie.r:Ir.e5 that the hnt tra :c: Reactor Construction' andC iri-I
- p: s is ir. cc.cyli a.ce v_th thi Engineering Support 3 ranch. ve j
I.. c '. S cur letailed respr.re r.:'d rubstecti:.1;cr. cf the there t-cc w/1tr dtd 8/25/80: Central Files:-1:c..' 1: fcr.uti.n, we teli c. e : h it t h-1: '.. _.... is Reproduction Unit NRC 20b ye'. revice year : a c.c. PDR .- ] 1 Iocal PDR } ($ } '.t y l he' USIC C...~ ) ( _ TIC Ronald Callen, Michigan .?! Public Service Co= mission Myron H. Cherry, Chicago E.:a1 :. _ r e s ' I t y. orricek RkII RIII/ ,/_ RII,I,( m,., { -e Lee /cw Dan elson _ RI_II ,,R_g I Fiorelli sua~auc)_ 9L4/a0__4 Sutphin.. Knop',- t DATE7 = _ - NXC Fmm JIS A ( A M) (5}U N RCM 02040. U. S. GoVE ANMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 89 325 dGDn G ; %(' 8 f.) r; q, \\ " ... ~ c-
= P 3 O P ~.. 3 e ( - \\, / James W Cook , 'l* Vice President, MJiand 1%;ces g = ~ c.a...i one. ; is45 w.si P.,n it ao.a. Jacksoa. u chisari de201 esi71788 os4o br. August 25, 1980 Mr J G Keppler, Regional Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 ? MIDLAND NUCLEAR PLANT - NRC ITEM OF NONC0!GLIANCE INSPECTION REPORT NO 50-329/80-20 AND No 50-330/80-21 FILE: 0.h.2 UFI: 73*60*13 SERIAL: 8818 This letter, with its ~ enclosure, is in response to your letter.of July 10, 1980 which transmitted the results of your inspection of the Midland construction site on July 8-10, 1980 and which requested our written reply to a single item of nonecmpliance concerning velding material purchase controls. Our further investigation, subsequent to your inspection, has located procurement data which does contain the applicable Code information required for the purchase of the subject velding material. We have 5 also determined that the heat treatment of the veld material qualifi-cation coupons is in ecmpliance with the applicable Code. The enclosure provides our detailed response and substantiation of the above statements. Based on the additional information, we believe that the infraction is not appropriate and request that you revise your findings. g a a g (d. e WRP/1r Enclosure hug 2 81980
_, y. ~ ~# g ~ ' }
- )
%f s'
- ?;, v
f;[. I '^ 4,.= ^ $4 i N.I .. :\\.? CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY RESPONSE a $(5' _TO THE ITEM OF NONCOMPLIANCE DESCRIBED IN NRC INSPECTION REPORT }(., NO 50-329/80 _20 AND NO 50-330/80-21 NONCONFORMANCE-WELDING MATERIAL CONTROL (329/80-20-01 & Description of Noncompliance Appendix A of Report No 50-329/80-20 and 50-330/80-21 provides in part the following: " Based on the inspection conducted on July 8-10, 1980, it appears that certain of your activities were in noncompliance with NRC requirements, as noted below. This item is an infraction." "Bechtel Corporation Welding Standard WFMC-1, Revision 8, dated January 4, 1971, ' Welding Filler Material Control Procedure Specification' paragraph 2.1, states, in part, that, ..Uelding filler raterial ordering information shall include the appropriate requirements of the job engineering specification, the applicable Code, an,d this procedure specification. " Contrary to the above, on July 10, 1980, the inspector established Bechtel Purchase Order No. 7220-F-5780, dated November 2, 1973 for 60,000 lbs. of E7018 electrodes did not specify the applicable code."
Response
Subsequent to your inspection of July 8-10, 1980, a review of procurenent docu-ments and weld filler material ordering specification was conducted. cular, procurement records for the cited purchase order No. In parti-7220-F-5780, dated November 2,1973 were further investigated. Purchase order No. 7220-F-5780 was for 30,000 lbs of.1/8 inch diameter und 30,000 lbs of 3/32 inch diameter, type E-7018, Arc Welding Electrodes. Investigation of the subject purchase order re,vealed the following additional information:
- 1) ~ The Eechtel specification for procurement of welding filler materini, ap-plicable at the time of procurement was VFMC-1, Rev 0, dated May 1973.
NOTEi The noncomplinnce cited Bechtel Specification kTMC-1, Rev 8, dated January 4, 1971. e
7 ; u2__ _ q ) ,k 2 / {'. t - 2) Field Materfal Request (FMR) No. FM-124, dated October 11, 1973, prepared f' for the subject purchase order, noted in the description, "No Subs per attached sheet." . / f ' NOTE: The attached sheet was not available for review at the time of your
- /
,., inspection during the period July 8-10, 1980. w
- 3) Subsequent to your inspection of July 8-10, 1980, attachment No. I to FMR FM-124, prepared for P.O. 7220-F-5780 was located.
- 4) Attachment No. 1, to FM-124, specifies weld filler material procurement to Specification SFA 5.1- (ASME Section II, Part C).
Attachment No. I also specifies the mechanical, chemical tests, and conditions required for veri-L_ fication of weld filler materials. Attachment No. I consists of two pages; one page for 3/32" diameter electrode, and one page for 1/8" diameter electrodc. It is noted that Attachment No. 1 is page 12 of 13 of welding filler material Specification WFMC-1, Rev 0, 'deted Fby 1973. Page 12 of 13 of Specification WFMC-1 format provides space for the addition of the re-quired ordering particulars, such as item no., quantity, and shipping destination.* ~
- 5) Review of material (certificate of analysis) receiving reports for the sub-ject purchase order, shows that they state that the material conforms to Specification AWS A 5.1-69.
Results of the required tests are reported and ^ the results meet all of the requirements of the Bechtel Specification, the a ttachment, to the field material requisition, WFMC-1, Rev 0, and ASME SFA 5.1. It is noted that AWS A 5.1-69 is identical to SFA 5.1, which is so stated in the ASME Code. Consumer Power has initiated an audit of weld filler materials procurement and receiving documentation and includes documentation related to weld filler materials procured from 1973 to the present. It is felt that the statement in the report that the stress relieving time ap-peared to be in violation of the Code is in fact incorrect and that the subject E7018 electrodes meet the applicable Code in all respects. The statement is found on page 4, from the " Details" section of the report. Item 5 from this page says in part: "It was further determined from the material certification that the 60,000 lbs of E7018 electrodes purchased under this order was stress relieved for 15 hours at 1150 F. This stress relieved t'ime appeared to be in violation of the 1971 Edition of ASME Section III; however, the inspector determined it is technically acceptable." The applicable Section of the 1971 ASME Code which covers this subject is NB-2430, " Weld Me ta l Tes t. " The conclusion of the inspection report appears to be based on the fact that per paragraph NB-2431.2b, test coupons shall be subject,to the requirement that "the time at post weld heat-treatment shall be eight hours (this qualifies post veld heat treatment of ten hours or less)." This Code section further states, "Where the post weld heat treatment of the component exceeds ten hours, the general test of NH-2431.1 shall be used." This section requires that m.
_ m .w==. ~- ~ 7 .... ~. S.4.h'i. )' i ) s-t' t .'he test coupons post veld heat tre..tment holding tinn shall be at jt the maximum time to be applied to the weld metal in the component.least 80 percent The total-i polding PbHT time is the cumulative PWitT time.that. the component will receive and includes the time during installation and any repair cycles. The purpose of this / [. ,,/. extended PhHT holding time is to qualify the welding materials for fabrication conditiosjs expected to be experienced in recognition that the mechanical properties ]/. will be, reduced with PhTT time. t. 4 s t t
- o m.
4 e e 4 4 e e 9 1 i FAP 8/22/80 i i -
- I
..r_.
__m i y.j ( [.
- S //
,/ ' l* f/ Appendix A L .0
- e. -
/- NOTICE OF VIOLATION Consumers Power Company Docket No. 50-329 L,'/ M' Docket No. 50-330 if Based on the inspection conducted on July 8-10, 1980, it appears that certain of your activities were in noncompliance with NRC requirements, as noted below. This item is an infraction. 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion IV, states, in'part, that, " Measures shall be established to assure that applicable regulatory requirements, design bases, and other requirements which are n'ecessary to assure adequate quality are suitable included or referenced in the documents for procurement of material, equipment, and services. 1 Consumers Power Company Quality Assurance Program Policy No. 4, Revision 9, states, ir. part that, "During design and construction, and during the opera-tions phase includir 3 the Palisades SGRP and major modifications; these reviews are accomplished to assure that Consumers Power Company procurement documents contain or reference provisions such as the following: Basic technical requirements including drawings, specifications, codes, a. and standards with applicable revision data, test and inspection require-ments, and special requirements, such as for designing, fabricating, cleaning, erecting, packaging, handling, shipping, and storage. Bechtel Corporation Welding Standard kTMC-1, Revision 8, dated January 4, 1971, " Welding Filler Material Control Procedure Specification" paragraph 2.1, states, in part, that, ". . Welding filler mate. rial ordering infor-mation shall include the appropriate requirements of the job engineering specification, the applicable Code, and this procedure specification. Contrary to the above, on July 10, 1980, the inspector established Bechtel Purchase Order No. 7220-F-5780, dated November 2,1973 for 60,000 lbs. of E7018 electrodes did not specify the applicable code. f. 9 h 'f () U / / 0 V / / {
J.1 h M.f ~ 3 t / a' o c. Unit 1 Make-up Purification System Weld No. 10 of line No. ICCA-12. It was determined that (1) work was conducted in accordance with traveller; (2) proper welding materials were used; (3) welding procedure requirements were met; (4) work area was free of weld rod-stubs; and (5) physical appearance was acceptable. 3 Y No}i.tems of noncompliance or deviations were identified. 4. Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Piping - Welder Qualification .I (Units 1 and 2) The inspector established that B & WQC procedure for welder qual-a. ification has not been revised since the last review. (IE In-spection Reports No. 50-329/80-01 and No. 50-330/80-01, paragraph 4). b. The inspector reviewed the randomly selected qualification records of five welders who performed welding on welds stated in paragraph 3 of this report. b No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified. 5. Safety Related Piping - Welding Material Control (Units 1 and 2) l The inspector reviewed the following documents: Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel) Procedure No. kTMP-1, a. Revision 3, " Welding Filler Material Procurement Requirements". i b. Bechtel Procedure No. kTMC-1, Revision 6, " Welding Filler Material Control Procedure Specification". Purchase Orders, Receiving Inspection Reports and Material c. Certification for E7018 electrodes with heat No. 401W1991 and lot No. B612NIAD; heat No. 18479 and lot No. C623NIAC heat No. 05L644 and lot No. B610M1AE; heat No. 432C2502 and lot No. 02-1-H826P; heat No. 432C3491 and lot No. 02-3S807S; heat i No. 645K407 and lot No. H309HIAD; heat No. 09T480 and lot 1 No. K308HIAD; heat No. 629485 and lot No. L305J1AC. It was determined that the above met the PSAR,10 CFR 50, Appendix B, and the applicable code requirements except Purchase Order No. 7220-F-5780 which did not specify the applicable code. This ron-dition represents an item of noncompliance as identified in Appendix A (329/80-20-01 and 330/80-21-01). It was further determined from the material certification that the 60,000 lbs of E7018 electrodes purchased under this order was stress relieved for 15 hours at 1150 F. This stress relieved time appeared to be in violation of the 1971 Edition of ASME Section III; however, the inspector determined it is technically acceptable. l 4
= 3 1 - 3 t o i 1 l' CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT SALP REPORT FOR THE MIDLAND NUCLEAR PLANT
Reference:
1. NRC letter; J A Hind to J W Cook; dated April 20, 1982; with i Inclosures 1 and 2. This response is in three parts. The first part provides a general response to the SALP appraisal and SALP process as a whole. The second part provides our detailed response to Enclosure 1 of the reference, the Significant SALP Report Findings. The third part provides a detailed response to Enclosure 2 of the reference, the Pre-liminary SALP Report, dated March,1982, covering the
- assessment period of July 1, 1980 to June 30, 1981.
Part 1 - General Response ~ A. We are encouraged by the general statements to the effect that the NRC sees pro-grass in Consumers Power Company's overall quality assurance program and in its management. Undoubtedly, there has been improvement in our regulatory perf67maEce from the 79/80 assessment period to the 80/81 period and from the p 80/81 period to the present. Literally, dozens of actions have been taken in order to achieve this improvement. These actions have been communicated to the NRC. In May,1981, Mr Keppler and members of his staff performed an extensive team inspection from which they concluded that "... the scope and depth of this NRC inspection was such that the identified noncompliances do not contravene our conclusion that Consumers Power Company has established an effective organization for the management of construction and implementation of quality .i assurance at the site." B. We are, however, disappointed by the overall negative tone of the draft SALP Report. Nonetheless, we continue to be dedicated to attaining two goals: 1. First and foremost, to ultimately assure that the as-built configuration of 4 the plant is in conformance with all regulatory and design requirements; i
- and, 2.
To continue to improve our regulatory performance. C. We welcome feedback relative to our regulatory performance--the sooner the better. We have encouraged such feedback in a number of ways, and we shall continue to do so. A number of meetings with Region III management and staff have been at our initiative. On numerous occasions we have proposed the establishment of routine, periodic meetings to exchange information with Region III's home office staff. On our own initiative, we submitted our Preoperational 2. Testing Manual in order to obtain Region III review and comments at an early date. Our specific invitation'may have contributed to Mr Keppler's personal participation in the NRC team inspection conducted in May,1981. We have preposed that an NRC Inspector be on site as much of the time as possible to assess our remedial soils work. Of course, at the completion of NRC inspec-tions, exit interviews with the Inspectors are a routine feedback mechanism. oc0582-0039a167 _. _ _ _. - - - _ _ _ _ _. - - _ _... ~ _ _ _ _ -., _, _ _, _ _. _ _. -... _ _ _. _.. _ _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _.. _, -
.a 1-2 D. In reviewing how to improve the Company's overall regulatory performance, it becomes evident that the most timely regulatory feedback is that which is received before the accomplishment of the work in question. While both Consumers and-the NRC attempt to achieve this objective, we believe both our organizations have fallen short in this area. i / It is our recommendation that the NRC consider scheduling seminars for the various ongoing nuclear construction jobs as they approach each major phase. One purpose of these seminars would be to review the detailed quality programs and procedure for each major new activity at each job. This review would verify that all programmatic requirements at the detailed level were in place prior to the work or could be upgraded before the fact to meet Region III expectations. In addition, the NRC inspection specialists could review with the applicant's quality personnel typical detailed inspection plans used by the NRC in their on-site inspections. At the same time, discussions of actual experience from other earlier construction sites could make the Licensees for construction sites more aware of and responsive to potential problems in g current ( the work area about to begin. We in industry have tried to accomplish this objective with our various regional and industry groups, and by reviewing inspection reports from other jobs. However, these ef forts suffer by lack of NRC input at detailed working levels. We urge the NRC to consider this type of an approach to supplement their other inspection programs. A specific benefit to Midland's future performance has already occurred as a i result of this concept. It was mentioned at the SALP meeting that we had submitted our Test Program Manual to Region III some time ago in order to obtain feedback prior to the start.of detailed systems testing. Even though some testing has already taken place, we are delighted to report that follow-up from j the April 26 meeting has resulted in the scheduling of a detailed NRC review of the Midland test program for later this month. I E. We recognize that the SALP process is a relatively new one and that the NRC is ] attempting to develop an approach to the SALP reviews that will be timely, fair and based on the best available information. This second SALP Report is a major 4 improvement over the first, National SALP Report which was issued in the fall of 1981. Nonetheless, our review of this SALP Report discloses additional j improvements which can be achieved in meeting the objectives of the SALP 1 j i process. Tirst, there appears to be no consistent format in characterizing the areas which are being evaluated. The assessment can be made by functional engineering areas such as soils, containment, piping, etc; or it can be made on the basis of discrete engineering activities such as design, procurement, construction, etc. The current SALP Report has both categorizations which leads to an inevitable ~ double counting of deficiencies identified during a reporting period. The report itself recognizes this problem, but discounts it. We appreciate the need perceived by Region III for singling out certain specific activities, such as design control, for separate treatment in the SALP Report. However, the overlap of function and activity categories detracts substantially from the systematic f nature of the appraisal. Certainly, there are mechanisms available to oc0582-0039a167
... ~. s 1-3 Region III to express its particular concern with a designated activity other than the SALP Report. Second, the rankings do not appear to be consistent. For example, no items of noncompliance were identified with respect to the Fire Protection, ContainmentYet Fire *j and other Safety-Related Structures, and Preservice Inspection areas. Protection was rated a " Category 1" while Containment and other Safety-Related Structure and Preservice Inspection were rated a " Category 2." We believe that the major criteria in evaluating licensee performance should be.- the number and seriousness of items of noncompliance identified by NRC for a given unit of inspection time. We are not suggesting that there is no room for subjective judgment in the appraisals of each area. What seems to occur, however, is a lack of consistency from area to area in applying the factors which shape that judgment. Moreover, we note that mest of the specific items discussed were the subject of testimony before the ASI3 conducting the soils hearings. Yet no review of that testimony seems to have taken place. K Finally, the time period during which the Licensee's performance is being evaluated is unclear. Part V of the Preliminary SALP Report does indicate that - the noncompliances and deviations in the HVAC area were reported also in the first SALP report. However, one item of noncompliance listed in the Piping Systems and Support Performance Evaluation related to an apparent nonconformance that took place in November, 1973, but was identified during an NRC inspection ~' during the SALP evaluation period. In addition, all of the 50.55(e) reports cited in the Preliminary SALP Report represented design deficencies which occurred long before the SALP period. If those are the groundrules for the SALP process, they should be clearly stated. The Licensee and the public will then recognize that the evaluation rests not only on events which occurred during the evaluation process, but also on events identified during the evaluation period, regardless of when they took place. What follows is a response to specific statements in the Preliminary SALP Report. Those specific statements are either direct quotations from, or characterizations of, items which were included in various NRC inspection reports. We have responded in writing to each inspection report and refer you to those responses for the details of the Company's position regarding each item. However, some of the characterizations of the findings of the inspection reports in the Preliminary SALP Report are incomplete. For your convenience, we have summarized our responses to each of the inspection findings, as well as clarifying the content in which those findings arose, as appropriate. Part 2 - Response to Enclosure 1 Significant SALP Report Findings A. General Observations 1. We are pleased that the Preliminary SALP Report noted the " improvements in the overall quality assurance program"; that we have " established an effective organization for the management of QA/QC activities"; and that "the numbers and qualifications of personnel in the QA/QC organization (s) i oc0582-0039a167 I
i 5 + 1-4 and the overview and audit functions performed were found to be above that normally found at other construction sites." 2. Also, we are pleased that for the Support Systems (HVAC) area the Preliminary Report recognized our resolution of the problems which existed during the previous SALP period prior to July 1, 1980. This resolution was realized through considerable expenditures of resources. We believe this demonstrates our responsiveness to problems with concrete actions. a 1 3. The general observations relative to the less technical administrative areas are of concern to us. We do not view our past responses as argumentative merely because they provide additional facts or reasoning which may not have been available for presentation to the NRC Inspector at the time of the exit interview or because they provide information with which the NRC Inspector disagrees. The Staff, in at least two instances in the soils hearing, ~ testified that making legitimate appeals is entirely proper, and is part of the normal give and take between the NRC Staff and the licensee. It is disappointing that the Preliminary SALP Report does not embrace the essence of that testimony and also of our canagement conference on this subject. At that conference, we were told not to be reluctant to appeal on any legitimate issue, but to discuss our differences with Region III prior to submitting any written appeal in order to facilitate its resolution. This suggestion has been adopted. i B. Pipinz Systems and Supports 1. We agree with the Preliminary SALP Report item relating to the unavailability of Committed Preliminary Design Calculations (CPDCs) to support the drawings for small bore piping. This, in our opinion, was the major quality deficiency that occurred during this SALP period. Upon discovery of the unavailability of the CPDCs, we stopped the design work, began immediate corrective action, and did not resume the work until both we and the NRC Staff were assured that the process had been corrected. Even with the design process deficiency identified, it is heartening to report that not a single pipe segment required rework as a result of this i situation. 2. We also note with pleasure that the informal current rating in the Piping Systems and Supports area as of this time is " Category 2" based on Mr R Cook's statements made during the April 26 presentation of the Preliminary SALP Report. This improved rating is, we assume, based upon recognition of our positive and effective corrective actions in this area. C. Electrical Power Supply and Distribution 1. While we understand that any noncompliance is "less than desired" and also understand the Staff's particular interest in our ambitious cable pulling schedule, we do not understand the apparently negative observations in this area. The implication given is that were it not for the NRC's advice, we a would have had an inadequate number of QA/QC personnel available to support the cable pulling schedule. This is an erroneous implication. We believe we have always supported the cable pulling activities with the appropriate oc0582-0039a167
= i: L' ^ --^- t !l L
- l I
Attachment i 1-5 L number of QA/QC personnel. In fact, the amount of cable pulling carried out uby the Company could not have been completed without adequate QC personnel, because in process inspection is required to verify cable pulling tensions. We also believe that the seven items identified during this period were not 2. excessive and were of relatively low consequence. These items are discussed more fully in the third part of this Attachment. D. Soils and Foundations 1. We view the finding in this area especially harsh because it is predicated on some relatively minor 1.tems of noncompliance, and on misinformation in. ^ the Preliminary SALP Report, as demonstrated in the third part of this ~ Attachment. 2. Reference is made to " limited QA/QC coverage." At no time has the QA/QC staff been insufficient to cover the ongoing work. At one time the NRC-advised us of the need for additional personnel to cover future work. We were fully aware of and agreed with that need, and we have staffed and are staffing to meet it. Also, in our opinion, there has never been any inadequacy in the qualifications of the QA/QC personnel assigned to the remedial soils work. The QA Engineers so assigned are all degreed civil engineers. j - Part 3 - Response to Enclosure 2, Preliminary SALP Report A. Section I Introduction Our comments on this section are found in our general comments provided in Part 4 1, above, i B. Section II, Criteria Our. general comments relating to the manner in which evaluations are made b 1. are contained in Part 1, Paragraph E, above. C. Section III. Summary of Results f 1. Our comments on this section are found in our general comments provided in Part 1, Paragraphs A and B, above. 4 1 D. Section IV.1, Performance Analysis of Quality Assurance It is gratifying, as noted earlier, that the NRC recognizes our above normal 1. efforts with regard to the Quality Assurance organization and program, with i regard to our overinspections and audits, and with regard to our aggressiveness in assuming the primary inspection responsibility for the i NVAC installation. l 2. Seven of the eight items identified from the May,1981, inspection and referenced in this section of the Preliminary Report are duplicated ~ elsewhere in the report under the Soils, Piping and Supports, and Electrical oc0582-0039a167
l 1-6 Sections. Therefore, we will address these noncompliances specifically in the other sections. 3. The eighth item from the May, 1981 inspection dealt with the correction of adverse quality trends. Action was taken to provide a procedural change to cause the more timely closeout or verification that correction has been made in response to an adverse trend. Our trend analysis activity is among the most comprehensive anywhere, in terms of scope and sophistication. Such an activity is not specifies 11y required by NRC regulations or ANSI standards. Should not credit be given for this? 4. This section of the Preliminary Report also refers to another inspection l " indicating questionable QA managerial control (because) the licensee failed to fully evaluate the technical capability of the l principal supplier of services for soil boring activities." This.is an unf air and incorrect summary of what occurred. The i original NRC inspection Report states: "The technical capabilities of Woodward-Clyde (principal supplier of services for soil boring activities) were not evaluated prior to commencement of drilling operations on April 2, 1981." i Our original letter of response stated: "On March 31, 1981, Consumers Power Company approved Woodward-l Clyde consultants as the principal supplier of services for l the soils boring and sample program based upon meetings j (between March 3 and 11, 1981) with Woodward-Clyde consul-tants. Woodward-Clyde consultants were considered j qualified as documented by letter serial 12134, dated April 8, 1981, N Ramanujaa to Tile B.2.S.4 (Attachment 1). { Even though this letter is dated April 8, 1981, it documents steps taken prior to April 2,1981, in qualifying Woodward-Clyde. Woodward Clyde consultants were approved by Oral i Communication Report serial 11883, R C Hirzel to R C Bauman, l dated April 2, 1981, (Attachment 2). Both of these documents (Serials 12134 and 11883) were presented to Dr Ross Landsman of the Nuclear Regulatory Coemission on April 9, 1981." This is nos " questionable QA managerial control." This is not " failure to fully evaluate the technical capability of the principal supplier." The documentation was provided to the NRC Inspector. 4 The actual noncompliance was f ailure to provide our Procurement Department with the letter documenting the approval of Woodward-Clyde prior to the commencement of activities on April 2. t oc0582-003'9a167 a- -n nn v. --n,n,,, ,.,,n,- ,,,m,. ..-,-.;.-~.,,,_,-,,_,,_,e _,,,,n,_.nm,.nn.e n_,,_...,p, .n,.,.
s t. 1-7 .s~ / 5. Also, this same paragraph of the Preliminary SALP Report states: k/ ' "The NRC identified 15 deficiencies in the principal supplier's quality assurance program manual indicating that / J the licensee had not adequately reviewed and approved the procedures prior to preparation of drilling activities." i \\ We are concerned both about the substantive and procedural implications of y S. this comment. The 15 items referred to were generated as a result of our quality assurance programmatic requirements. The NRC Inspector participated with us in the initial and timely review of Voodward & Clyde's quality assurance manual. Ve welcomed his participation and anticipate that it will continue, at least through the conclusion of the soils remedial work. But it is simply counterproductive and unnecessarily adversarial for the NRC Inspector to "take credit" for having identified these deficiencies. Indeed, he did not do so. In any event, the important point is these itams were uncovered in a routine review, in accordance with established quality assurance practices. Had they gone undetected ast the review stage, some might have risen to the level of " deficiencies.p' Our timely handling of these matters is inappropriately characterized as a deficiency in the Preliminary SALP Report, when in fact it represents the proper functioning of the Quality Assurance Program. E. Section IV.2. Performance Analysis of Soils and Foundations 1. The second paragraph of this section of the Preliminary SALP Report, states: "Every inspection involving regional based inspectors and addressing soils settlement issues has resulted in at least one significant item of noncompliance." The correctness of this statement depends upon how the term " inspection" is defined. It has been customary to define an inspection in terms of the duration of the inspection trip. For example, if an Inspector visits the site for three days in the first week, leaves and does not return until the third week, at which time he visits the site for two days, the practice has been to view these as two separate inspections. However, the practice of j the NRC Inspector in this area has been to combine, into a single NRC Inspection Report, the results of two or core inspection trips. If an NRC inspection is defined as the inspection pe. formed during a single trip, this statement in the Preliminary SALP Report is incorrect. 2. The Preliminary SALP Report states: "There was a failure to initiate audit corrective action concerning the rereview of the TSAR and references to determine if design documents had modified the TSAR and if so that changes had been made to the TSAR." This item is duplicated in the Preliminary SALP Report in the section dealing with Design Control. Read carefully, the item reflects a failure to initiate audit corrective action, not a failure to perform an adequate oc0582 0039a167 ~ ~
r e pO- +e,, a 8 a. ?, 1-8 I rereview of the FSAR. The need for the corrective action was, in our view, of minor importance. The FSAR rereview was an extensive, as well as intensive effort spanning 18 i - months and involving three companies--Consumers Power Company, Bechtel, f Babcock & Wilcox. Bechtel, alone, spent an excess of 10,000 manhours on this effort prior to its completion in September, 1980. This effort resulted in a clarification and upgrading of the content of the FSAR. Two audits were made by the Consumers Power Company Quality Assurance Department to assess the adequacy of the FSAR rereview effort. Both audit teams - concurred that the rereview had been accomplished conscientiously and. effectively, assuring that design changes had not modified the FSAR or, if l so, that such changes had been subsequently reflected in the FSAR. l The ites given in the Preliminary SAI.P Report stems from our audit finding to the effect that all of the design documents which were rareviewed were not listed in block 8 of the rereview form as required by the rereview l procedure. The instructions for block 8 indicated that the rereviewers were to list the design documents to be rereviewed, to indicate whether or not i any conflicts existed between the design documents and the FSAR, and then to indicate the necessary resolution. The audit showed that some rereviewers had listed only the design documents which contained conflicts, and had indicated the required resolutions. In essence, therefore, these rereviewers did not understand the block 8 instructions to require a complete listing of documents--those which did not contain conflicts as well as those which did. l Nevertheless, the technical correctness of the rereview was validated, as + follows: Rereview packages which did not provide a complete list of the reviewed documents were identified, and a large sample of them was selected. l The packages selected were those which "tre most likely to contain design document conflicts. The packages were i-rareviewed. From this re-A rereview, it was ascertained that not . ingle package contained even a i single unresolved conflict. At.this point, the rareview process was i approximately 80 percent complete (recall that it was an 18 month offort). I While there appeared to be some misinterpretation of the block 8 procedural requirement, all the rareviewers appeared to understand the intent of the rereview effort and were adequately resolving any conflicts between the l design documents and the FSAR. Based on this, it was decided not to rewrite the procedure for block 8 and not to redo the block 8 document listings. It was thought that such actions only would have confused the process at this point in time. After an exchange of correspondence with the NRC on this item, however, we agreed to change the procedure and to provide additional training to the reviewers. i At the completion of the FSAR rereview effort, another sample of packages l i was to-rereviewed by the audit team with the same results, thus verifying the adequacy of the remaining 20 percent of the effort which had not been subject to the initial audit re-rereview. In essence, then, the two audit l re-rereviews confirmed the adequacy of the entire effort. 1 oc0582-0039a167 .,m._n,-,n -..,,,,n,,.,_, ,---,---,,--,-,.n,,---,,w,.en~,..,.,_,.,.m,-,,n--vv.,,
f s i ) 1-9 In testimony before the Soils Hearing Board, Dr Landsman indicated that the block 8 condition did not call into question the technical effectiveness of the rereview, which Dr Landsman specifically found adequate (TR.p-4857, 4930). 3. The Preliminary SALP Report notes: "Three examples of failure to translate applicable regulatory requirements and design criteria into design documents." This item is also duplicated in the Design Control secticn of the Preliminary SALP Report. a. The first example given is: " Failure to maintain a coordination log of Specification ^ Change Notices (SCNs)." In response, there are three separate coordination logs in the civil i discipline. These logs are maintained by three different people. The Drafting Supervisor maintains the coordination log for drawings and drawing change notices. The remaining documents, including SCNs, are covered by two other coordination logs which are maintained by Discipline Aides. During the Region III inspection, the Company could not immediately 2 document that all coordination had been included on an SCN log. The problem was made worse by the fact that the b7C Inspector was inadvertently shown the, wrong log. Also the NRC Inspector felt that applicable procedures required all revisions of specifications, whether technical or clerical in nature, including those merely incorporating 3 previously approved or coordinated SCNs, be reviewed by Geotech and so noted in the log. Although the Company disagreed with this interpretation, the procedure was modified, making it clear that clerical revisions merely incorporating previously reviewed changes need i not be re-coordinated or re-reviewed by Geotech. At the request of the i Region III Inspector, the Company also committed to review current revisions of civil, Q specifications to insure appropriate coordination of changes was carried out. i l In any event, this is hardly something which can be properly characterized as a " failure to translate applicable regulatory requirements and design criteria into design documents." b. The second example given is: 1 "Tailure to correctly translate Specification Change Notice No SCN-9004 as a requirement into Revision 20 of Specification C-208." This ites arose as a result of a slight difference in wording between an SCN and the specification, after incorporation of the SCN into the ~ oc0582-0039a167
a {I m 1-10 =* specification, relative to the Geotechnical Engineer's responsibilities i. for establishing the laboratory compaction test frequency. The SCN was issued-to describe the responsibilities of the newly assigned on-site Geotechnical Engineer. The specification after incorporation of the SCN, used terms different from and more general than the SCN to describe { the geotechnical engineer's responsibility for the establishment of the frequency for laboratory compaction testing. In our view, the intent of both the SCN and the specification was the same, although the NRC Inspector did not agree. Subsequently, any difference in wording was j-eliminated. Again, this situation appears to be very harshly characterized as a " failure to translate applicable regulatory requirements and design criteria into design documents." 1 The third example given in the Preliminary SALP Report is: c. " Failure of Engineering Department Project Instruction No EDPI 4.25.1, Revision 8 to establish adequate measures for design interface requirements." ) In response, the EDPI was revised to state that it is the responsibility of the originator of a design change to coordinate the change with all . groups which are affected by, or involved with, the revised portion of a the document, regardless of whether the change is technical or editorial. This procedural change was made to eliminate the previous option of the Group Supervisor to waive the need for the coordination or interface when, in his judgment, it was unnecessary. This coordination is now required even for editorial changes. Adequate coordination had been accomplished prior to the EDPI revision. The need for this added conservatism introduced by the EDPI revision is i a matter of opinion and Consumers Power Company has accommodated the NRC's concern in this regard. However, there was never any " failure to i translate applicable regulatory requirements and design criteria into 1 design documents" and to characterize this item in that way is erroneous and unfair. 4. The Preliminary SALP Report gives the following ites: " Failure to establish test procedures for soils work j j activities." i i The NRC Inspector found that US Testing did not previously determine the j rhoostat setting which produced the maximum density. However, US Testing did previously de'termine the rhoostat setting that produced the maximum amplitude required by ASTM D2049. Tests were reperformed to verify that the 4 l maximum rhoostat setting yields the maximum amplitude given in the relative I density table used for the project. Results were documented and supplied to the NRC. This is far different from a " failure to establish test procedures" as stated in the Preliminary SALP Report. Again, the Report's 3 comments are a gross generalization and a misrepresentation of the f actual i situation. { 't oc0582-0039a167 i -. -.. - -. - - -.. -. - - ~, - - - - - -. - -. - - - - - - - -. - -
s' i 1-11 ) In this situation, the NRC Inspector did not accept an ASTM Standard procedure called out in the specification and imposed his own personal preference as to the technical requirement. f'N dl 5.I The Preliminary SALP Report also indicates a: T F% " Failure to supply a qualified on-site Geotechnical Engineer." As part of the original response to soils issues, a Geotechnical Engineer was assigned to be on site. The resumes of the assigned engineer ("the first engineer") and of another applicant to the position ("the second engineer") were reviewed by Mr E Gallagher, then the cognizant NRC Inspector. Mr.Gallagher expressed his opinion to our Mr. Horn that the second engineer was preferable because of his many years of field experience. We cannot say whether or not Mr.Gallagher noticed that the i second engineer was not a degreed engineer (although Mr.Gallagher reviewed the man's resume). On the basis of Mr.Gallagher's opinion, the first l engineer was removed and the second engineer was assigned to the site. l Subsequently, another NRC Inspector, Dr. Landsman, became cognizant in this Dr, Landsman who was accompanied by Mr.Gallagher during this area. inspection, was advised of the original coordination with Mr.Gallagher, but i Dr. Landsman held an opinion different from Mr.Gallagher because the second engineer did not have a civil engineering degree. Dr. Landsman then cited the Company with a deviation for f ailure to provide a qualified Gectechnical engineer for the job. Immediately thereafter, the first engineer was reassigned to the on-site position. Dr Landsman concurred with this assignment. In view of these facts, the citation seems to us unfair. i 6. The Preliminary Report also states: "It was noted in NRC Inspection Reports No. 50-329/81-12; 50-i ~ 330/81-12 that a sufficient number of qualified personnel were I not available for the complex nature of the remedial soils i l work. This had previously been identified in NRC Inspection Reports No. 50-329/81-01; 50-330/81-01, referenced previously as a deviation to a commitment." 4 f. Inspection Reports No. 50-329/81-01; 50-330/81-01 deal with the deviation relative to the on-site Geotechnical Engineer. This was covered in j l Paragraph 5, immediately above. By the placement of this item in two different parts of the Preliminary Report, the appearance is given of two 4 different items when, in fact, there is only one. i NRC Inspection Reports No. 50-329/81-12; 50-330/81-12 merely indicated the i NRC's advice to the effect that additional QA/QC personnel would be needed to accommodate the forthcoming remedial soils work. We agreed with this NRC observation. We were not cited for any noncompliance on that score in these inspection reports. We now have 8 full time and 2 part time QA/QC persons employed in MPQAD and 27 QA/QC persons employed by both MPQAD and Bechtel l Quality Control to cover remedial soils work--appropriate for the current L workload, also taking into account the time necessary to assure their adequate training and certification. Five more persons are due on site by oc0582 0039a167 _.__,.____a..__._
I 6- ~ 1-12 asid May. Additional personnel are being sought to fill the 2 remaining authorized positions. The Preliminary SALP Report gives the impression of an inadequacy with regard to the quantity of personnel when, in fact, quite the opposite situation exists. 7. Finally, another item referenced in this section of the Report is duplicated in the Quality Assurance Section of the Report. Please refer to Part 3, Paragraph D.4, above. 8. In summary, while we find this section.of the Preliminary Report inaccurate and overstated, we fully recognize the special sensitivities involved in the remedials soils area, and we are especially dedicated to the implementation of the quality controls and assurances required by law and engineering prudence. F. Section IV.3, Performance Analysis of Containment and Other Safety-Related Structures 1. The cracks in the TVST foundation are also referred to in the section of the Preliminary SALP Report dealing with Design Control. I G. Section IV.4. Performance Analysis of Piping Systems and Supports 1. Item a(1) of this section of the Preliminary SALP Report' states that: "Bechtel Purchase Order did not specify applicable codes for purchase of 60,000 pounds of E-7018 electrode." The original statement cf the item, from NRC Inspection Reports No. 329/80-20-013 330/80-21-01 was as follows: "Bechtel Corporation Welding Standard WTMC-1, Revision 8, dated January 4, 1971, ' Welding Filler Material Control , Procedure Specification,' Paragraph 2.1, states, in part, that'. . welding filler material ordering information shall include the appropriate requirements of the job engineering specification, the applicable Code and this procedure specification....' ' Contrary to the above, on July 10, 1980, the (NRC) Inspector established (that) Bechtel Purchase Order No. 7220-F-5780, dated November 2, 1973, for 60,000 pounds of E-7018 electrodes did not specify the applicable Code.'" First, note that the Preliminary SALP Report statement omits any reference to the November 2, 1973, date. The Bechtel Purchase Order for the E-7018 electrode was issued on November 2, 1973. We question whether we should be cited in this assessment period for an event which occurred 7 years prior to the assessment period. ~ i N Second, at the time of the procurement, a revision of WTMC-1, dated May, ', fy 1973, was applicable, whereas the citation referenced the January 4, 1971 / ^ ~ oc0582-0039a167
i Attechmnt 1 1-13 revision of hTMC-1. The procurement was made in accordance with the May, 1973 specification. The procurement documentation reflected complete compliance with the requirements. Although these facts were not available immediately during the period of July 8-10, 1980, when the NRC Inspector was making the inspection, these facts were provided in our original response to the citation on August 25, 1980. In addition, Consumers Power Company has performed an audit of the procurement documentation for weld filler materials procured from 1973 through 1980. This, too, was reported to the NRC in the August 25, 1980 response. 2. Item a(2) in this section of the Preliminary Report indicates that an Authorized Nuclear Inspector's hold point was bypassed for the pressurizer surge piping. [ This item was detected by the NRC Inspector on September 24, 1980. By- [ September 25, corrective action had been taken and verified by the NRC Inspector. 3. Items a(3) and (4) indicate that large bore pipe restraints, supports and anchors were installed incorrectly and that QC Inspectors did noe detect the incorrect installations. It is highly unusual to cite a licensee twice for what is essentially a 3 single QA defect (one citation for the construction defect and another for g not having detected the defect). The NRC Inspector found 7 cases of apparent nonconformances to design requirements. He stated that he was using cursory inspection techniques. Upon our further inspection, we agreed that 3 of the cases were defects, but with more refined inspection techniques our investigation indicated that 2 cases were within tolerance, I case was a result of obvious post-inspection damage that would be checked for during walkdown inspection, and 1 case was for work yet to be inspected initially. The 3 real defects were of a l relatively minor nature, and none of them impaired the function of the l hangers even though they constitute a legitisate basis for the NRC's finding. On the basis of these findings, we agreed to make an extensive sampling reinspection of hanger installations which were made prior to 1981. The results of this reinspection have indicated the presence of additional minor defects and say necessitate further reinjection. The results have been made u available to the NRC and now are being analyreT by both the NRC and Consumers Power Company. 4. Item a(5) in this section of the Preliminary Report, dealing with the availability of Committed Preliminary Design Calculations for small bore pipe and piping suspension systems, is duplicated in another section of the draft SALP Report dealing with Design Control and Design Changes and is the major contributor to the Significant SALP Report Findings for Piping Systems oc0$82-0039a167 o
s 1-14 and Supports given in Enclosure 1 to the Reference. Correspondingly, our response to this item is covered in Part 2, Paragraph B of this attachment. 5. Item a(6) indicates: " Failure to adequately control documents used in site small bore piping design activities. The original item from NRC Inspection Report No 50-329/81-12 and 50-330/81-12 stated that: "An (one) outdated specification was maintained at the small bore piping design group work location and revised calculations were not marked ' superseded' in accordance with the procedural requirements (our emphasis)." After careful checking, this finding was determined to have been an isolated case. Nevertheless, the calculations were checked and were found to be correct. Training was conducted of all personnel in this group. An audit was made. A procedure was changed to require that the specific revision number of the specification on which the calculation is based be documented in the calculation package. 6. Item a(7) indicates that Consumers Power Company audits did not: " Include a detailed review of system stress analysis and (did not) follow up on previously identified hanger calculation inconsistencies." In response, the above statement refers to the f act that we did not audit for the availability and correctness of the Committed Preliminary Design Calculations as discussed in Part 2. Paragraph B, and Part 3, Paragraph G.4, above. The audits that were made previously in this area concentrated on the completed calculations, rather than the preliminary calculations. The audit checklist for this area has since been adjusted to reflect a requirement relative to the preliminary calculations. ) i 1 ~ oc0582-0039a167
{. 4: Attechment 1 1-15 .H. Section IV.S. Performance Analysis of Safetv-Related Components 1. As a result of the two original items, from which the two items in this section of the Preliminary SALP Report are drawn, Consumers Power Company issued a formal Stop Work Order to Babcock & Wilcox and a letter to the NRC stating that the work stoppage would remain in effect until the corrective actions had been completed and reviewed by the NRC.- Corrective actions were taken, as follows: The installation procedure for this activity was revised to clarify the method of installation and to specify the required dimensional checks. The indoctrination and training of the personnel' performing the installation and of the personnel inspecting the work was strengthened. The Consumers Power Company overview inspection plan for this ~ activity was revised. The NRC Resident Inspector verified these actions. 2. Again, it is encouraging that today's rating in this area, as stated by Mr R Cook during the April 26 meeting, is a strong " Category 2," or even, perhaps, a " Category 1," based on the aggressiveness of our overview offorts. We recognize the particular importance of this area, and we intend to continue our agressive overview of tnis area. I. Section IV.6. Performance Analvsis of Support Systems (HVAC) 1. W ap raciste e " Category 1" rating for the period in question and on an is for the current period, as well, as stated by Mr R Cook in rma during the April 26 meeting. It should be noted that clie civil penalty was imposed for conditions which 2. existed prior to the assessment period in question. 9 3. The 17 items referred to were all identified as a result of investigations which were completed prior to June 30, 1980, and, therefore, prior to the start of the assessment period in question. This may be observed by review of the individual items given in NRC Inspection Reports No. 50-329/80-10; 50-330/80-11. Although these Inspection Reports are dated January 12, 1981, they clearly provide findings that were available prior to June 30, 1980. During management meetings held on March 24 and 28, 1980, these investigation findings were discussed extensively. f l J. Section IV.7. Performance Analysis of Electrical Power Supply and Distribution 5 1. Item a(1) in this section of the Preliminary SALP Report indicates a failure to establish procedures for temporary support of cable. l The four damaged cables were repaired. The procedure was revised to require that coiled cables be properly supported, protected from damage and l prevented from violating the minimum bend radius. 2. Itee a(2) in this section of the Report indicates that electrical contractors did not verify conformance to Paragraph 3.1 of Project Quality Control Instruction E-5.0. oc0582-0039a167 l 1
E b 1-16 This ites was an isolated incident of two wires violating separation standards inside a control panel. The cable routing was rearranged to provide the required separation, and the separation was verified by inspection. Electrical crafts and inspection personnel were formally reinstructed with regard to the separation requirements. Installation and inspection sids were provided to these personnel. 3. Item a(3) indicates a: "Tailure to identify and control nonconforming components." Because of the general nature of this item, we are not sure to what it refers. After a thorough review of the NRC Inspection Reports for this assessment period, however, we believe that it refers to an item from NRC Inspection Reports No. 50-329/81-11; 50-330/81-11, as follows: "On April 23, 1981, the (NRC) Inspectors identified 14 instances in which cable tray in the upper and lower cable spreading areas were not installed in accordance with the separation requirements delineated in the Midland TSAR and which had not been identified and controlled to prevent inadvertent use or installation. Consumers Power Company documented the nonconforming condition for a few cases on a Nonconformance Report issued in May, 1979, long before the NRC o Inspectors' finding. Late in 1979, it was determined that the existing Marinite barriers were not the most suitable separation device for our plant configuration. This resulted, in January,1980, in the removal of the requirement for the Marinite barriers. In the spring of 1980, a study was conducted to determine which kind of barriers would be more suitable when i the required spatial separation is not possible. TVo things resulted from this study--first, that barrier installation would be accomplished best after cable pulling was complete; and second, that there was no risk in reworking cable trays after cable pulling to install the barriers, if needed. In August, 1980, a new barrier was chosen and SAR and design changes were made in April and June,1981, respectively to reflect these changes. This is a lengthy discourse, we realize, but in essence, the main points are as follows: we were well aware of the condition. At the time, we made a conscious decision not to provide any more inspection to identify additional specific cases where separation was not maintained. We were aware that the design was being changed, that the construction process was being changed, and that the final Bechtel Quality Control inspection for this condition would be carried out at the conclusion of the construction process. The Bechtel Project Qualit Control Instruction E-3.0, " Final Electrical Area i Completion Activities,y' was revised to reflect the inspection for separation and, as needed, for the installation of barriers at the completion of the l cable pulling activities. Correspondingly, we were holding open our Nonconformance Report to assure that these changes were correctly implemented. There was no inadvertent " failure to identify and control." It was a conscious and knowledgeable decision, i oc0582-0039a167 ~
i e. 1-17 i This information was provided to the NRC on July 16, 1981, in our response to the NRC Inspection Report. Considering the explanation supplied to the staff, we believe that there was no item of noncompliance and that this ites should not have been in this Preliminary gAI.P Report. 4. Ites a(4) indicates a: " Failure to translate design criteria into drawings and specifications." This inspection finding related to whether or not the color coding of instrumentation process lines was required. Based on our reading of the applicable codes and standards, it was not, and we stated this position in our original response to the NRC. At least one other licensee has the same position and is saintaining it. However, we have acceded to the NRC concern in this area by agreeing to identify the instrument process lines with a two digit alpha designator, and the specification has been changed to add this new requirement. We are also not clear whether this requirement applies generally or only in Region III, since the Draft Regulatory Guide on this-subject makes no sention of the requirement. 5. Ites a(5) indicates at "Tailure to identify during inspection that a nonconforming condition with regard to minimum installed cable bend radius existed." The condition re'ferred to was discovered by a Consumers Power Company employee who was accompanying the NRC Inspector during his inspection. A Consumers Power Company Nonconformance Report was written to document the condition for the single cable in question. In addition to physically correcting the condition, the lechtel Quality Control Inspector who originally inspected the cable was given an 4-hour training progras in all phases of cable termination. 6. Ites a(6) indicates: "Tailure to take prompt corrective action with regard to the lack of agproval of procedures for the rework of electrical raceways We agreed that this was an entirely appropriate finding and lechtel Construction and techtel Quality Control developed and issued the necessary administrative guidelines and instructions. Recently NRC Inspectors have conducted a follow-up inspection and determined that the rework controls have been properly implemented and carried out. 7. Ites a(7) indicates "Tailure to provide adequate storage conditions for (three items)." oc0582 0059a167 i I l
e-l 1-18 4 The storage conditions for each of the items was immediately corrected. The Bechtel Maintenance Engineers were given additional training in accordance with the requirements of the field maintenance procedure. Consumers Power l Company performed a comprehensive audit in this area to assure compliance with the field maintenance procedure. 8. It should be noted that each of the foregoing items is a Severity Level V or L VI, relatively low severity levels. We are gratified that our informal current rating is " Category 2," as stated L by Mr R Cook during the April 26 seating. 9. In two places in this section of the Preliminary SALP Report reference is made to the quantity of techtel Quality Control personnel being employed, with the implication that this quantity may be insufficient. To our knowledge it was not; nor is it now. In addition, in response to NRC concerns we have demonstrated both the qualifications of these personnel and ~ "~ ~ ~ the process by which they are certified. K. Section IV.8. Performance Analysis of Instrumentation and Control Systees No consent. L. Section IV.9. Performance Analysis of Licensina Activities Comments pretaining to our responsiveness to Staff requests for information regarding the " Soils" issue should certainly be qualified by noting the novelty or uniqueness of this technical review and the evolutionary nature of the Staff's positions. It is useful to note that as this review draws to its conclusion, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) subcommittee on the Midland soils questions charactertaed the Staff review as exhaustive and possibly an example of overkill. In addition, the ACRS subcommittee questioned the Staff extensively on whether portions of their review and requireeents went beyond what was necessary to protect public health and safety. We are gratified l that the Staff finds our more recent replies to be responsive and of high quality. We are striving to maintain this trend and improve communications with I the Staff. l l M. Section IV.10, Performance Analysis of Fire Protection We appreciate NRC's " Category 1" rating in this area and its recognition of our efforts. N. Section IV.11. Perforsance Analysis of Preservice insoection In view of the extensive amount of preservice inspection which was performed during the period corresponding to this 11 ALP Report and continuing into the current period, with no itees of noncompliance, we f ail to understand why this area is not rated as " Category 1" instead of " Category 2,". l oc0582 0039a167
2. .- -.l- -. - -.. i 8 6 l 1 19 l* l 0. Section IV.12. Performance Analysis of Desian Control and Desian Channes t l 1. Items a(1)(a) and (b) given in this section of the Preliminary 3AI.P Report l are duplicates of itens given in Section IV.2. As such, our specific response to these itses is given in Part 3 Paragraphs E. 2 and 3, and will not be repeated here.1 - 2. Ites a(2) in this section of the Report is a duplicate of an ites covered in Section IV.4. As such, our specific response is provided in Part 3 i l Paragraph G.4 and will not be repeated here. f 3. Ites a(3) in this section of the Report is a duplicate of an ites given in l Section IV.7 of the Report. As such,'our specific response is given in Part f 3 Paragraph J.4'and will not be ispeated here. 4. The five 10drR50 55(e) items listed in this section of the Preliminary. Report reist.e to designs which we're' completed long before the start of the e SAI.P period 10 que.stion -in f act, y2ars before. Our identification of these iteaa during'thit aisessment period indicates continuing design reviews, ~ ,ispr6ved desigr. contiol and our rigid compliance with the reporting ' requirements ofr10CTR50 55(e). 5. We also call yrar'attetition to five inspsetions of Bechte'l Power Corporation, Ann Arbor Division, engineering firm for the Midland Plant, conducted between January, 1979 and September, 1981 by the Vender Inspection tranch of Region IV. The inspe'stien covered a' wide variety of design activities. For example, the Cetoter 7 10, 1980 inspection encompassed design verification, design interface, and design inspection activities. Thi March 31 April 3,1$81/mspection covered computer progree control, technical personnel background verification, design change control and design c'orrective actiet. The tw1 specifically referenced inspections were conducted during the 5AI.P appraisal period. In all five inspections, there , were a 16tal of 6 noeconforming itses identified, all of a relatively minor , nature (nonconformances of deviations rather than violations). In two of the inspections no items of noncompliance were found. In our view, these inspe:tions are indicative of a high degree of compliance within design ~ segments of the Midland Project, and would clearly support a higher rating than the one given in this area. (The five inspection reports are documented in letters dated April 16, 1981: October 14, 19818 November 5, 1980; June 15, 1979; and January 19, 1979, to the techtel Power Corporation Ann Arbor Division, from Uldis Potapors, Chief Vendor Inspection Branch.) 6. Considering the natute of 1 tees a(1)(a) and (b).ad a(3), and the unfairness of a citation for av.ivities long before St.a period in question, we are disappointed by a "citogory 3" rating in this area. / We believe t' hit design batrol is or.e of the most difficult and important i aspects of nuclear power plant projects. Design control has been doubly difficult for the Midland Project oainly because of the duration of the project ar.d the incorporation of a multitude of new regulatory requirements i oc0582 0039a167/ i l L
1-20 into the design as it progressed. We do not dismiss for a moment our obligation to monitor and improve our own efforts in this area and we continue to institute our own internal programs to increase our confidence in the quality of the overall design effort. We raise this concern with the preliminary SALP evaluation because the only significant finding in the SALP period that indicates a design control probles was the small bore piping lack of design package cover sheet, which was concluded to be an isolated event. On the other hand, we believe that the Region IV inspection reports and the seven 30.55(e) reports referenced provide strong indications that the design control area is improving.
- P.
Section IV.13. Performance Appraisal of Reporting Requirements and Corrective Action 1. In this section of the Report, it is stated that: "The lic'ensee failed to make a timely determination for the need to subsit a 10CTR50.55(e) Report to the NRC based on a 10CTR Part 21 Report from TransAmerica DeLaval, Inc." Consumers Power Company has always adopted a conservative attitude towards reporting under 10 CTR 50.55(e). We believe the industry, practice in this regard varies, depending upon the amount of analysis undertaken and discretion exercised in deterairing whether a deficiency could have an adverse impact on safety. In the past, Region !!! has stated that the Company does a " good job" reporting under 10 CTR 50.55(e). In this specific case, the DeLaval Part 21 Report was sent to techtel and was sisrouted, such that Consumers Power Company and the appropriate Bechtel personnel were not aware of the Part 21 Report on a timely basis. In the final analysis, the condition was determined not to be 50.55(e) reportable. Corrective actiens were taken. They included issuing letters to suppliers to advise them of the person to whom Part 21 Reports should be submitted, conducting training sessions at the site for key personnel to assure that aisdirected Part 21 Reports set correctly redirected, and issuing periodic senos reiterating the information offered in the training session. 2. This section of the Prelisinary SALP Report also states: "T.xpeditious resolution of noncompliances is often delayed by inadequate licensee re:ponses. The licensee has a tendency to spend too much time trying to justify why a finding is not a noncospitance rather than devoting the time to correcting the basic probles. Nine of 22 items of noncompliance were contested (excluding HVAC systes noncompliances). TVo of the contested noncompliances were retracted, but time and effort were lost in timely resolutions. Similar attitudes and responses have been observed regarding Coepsny audit findings. This attitude is reflective of the licensee corrective action system and becomes a detriment 'to quality." oc0582 0039a167
~. 5 Attachmtat 1 1-21 t + In response, let's deal with the statistics first. TVo of the nine appeals (excluding HVAC) were granted, or 22 percent. Five other HVAC items were appealed, and two of those appeals were granted, or 40 percent. Combined, Of those not .14 items were appealed, 4 appeals were granted, or 29 percent. granted, the merits of the appeal are well documented. While there may be some unavoidable delay because of appeals, in no instance has an appeal precluded timely corrective action. In addition, the Staff has repeatedly testified in the Soils Hearing that the Applicant should appeal when necessary or appropriate. During a meeting on October 5, 1981, NRC's Region III management made it clear that NRC's concern was with the administrative process by which appeals were made, not with the appeals themselves. They stated that appeals should be made and dispositioned informally, if possible, prior to the issuance of NRC Inspection Reports or, at the latest, prior to our written response to the NRC findings. We agreed with this suggestion and assured the NRC that such appeals, if any, would be made accordingly. It is disappointing that the substance of this management discussion was not reported in the Preliminary SALP Report. Q. Section V.A. Noncompliance Data 1. It is important to recognize that the noncompliances and deviations given in the table for Midland Unit 1 are identical to those given in the table for Midland Unit 2 in the large majority of cases. We recognize that this is so stated in the footnote to both tables in the Report. 2. At this point, it is appropriate to reiterate from our response given in Part 3, Paragraph I.3, that the 17 items associated with the HVAC were all identified as a result of investigations which were completed prior to June 30, 1980 and, therefore, prior to the start of the assessment period in question. This can be seen by review of the individual items given in NRC Inspection Reports No. 50-329/80-10; 50-330/80-11. Although these Inspection Reports are dated January 12, 1981, they clearly provide findings that were available prior to June 30, 1980. During management meetings held on March 24 and 28, 1980, these investigation findings were extensively discussed. In conversations with NRC Inspectors, we were advised that these items are included in this SALP Report because they were inadvertently excluded from the earlier Report, and that they have to be covered somewhere. We believe that the earlier SALP Report should be revised to reflect these items. The presence of thesa items in this SALP Report bears unf avorably and unf airly upon the overall impression offered by the Report for the period in question. R. Section V.B. Licensee Report Date 's 1. The twelve 50.55(e) Reports listed herein further demonstrate our cooperative approach with regard to the submittal of 50.55(e) Reports, as stated earlier in our response given in Part 3, Paragraph 0. 4 and 5. \\ 4 % oc0582-0039a167 s l l l
s,;a 3 ~ 1-22 a t .S. Section V.C. Licensee Activities No comment. ] T. Section V.D, Inspection Activities 1. The results of the May 18-22, 1981, NRC team inspection evoked the following s conclusion, as given in NRC Inspection Reports No. 50-329/81-12; 50-330/81-12: "This was an in-depth inspection to examine the implementation status and effectiveness of the current QA Program, to determine whether previously identified quality assurance problems were sufficiently precluded from occurrence in other areas, and to ascertain whether management involvement in the QA Program was sufficient and effective. u Although eight items of noncompliance were identified during i this inspection, it is our (NRC) judgment that the scope and depth of this NRC inspection was such that the identified noncompliances do not contravene our conclusion that Consumers Power Company has established an effective organization for the management of construction and implementation of quality [ assurance at the site." U. Section V.E, Investigations and Allegations Review No investigations or allegations were pursued during the assessment period corresponding to this SALP Report, including investigations and allegations for HVAC. This supports our earlier assertions that reference to the 17 HVAC items should be deleted entirely from this Report. V. Section V.T. Escalated Enforcement Actions 1. The civil penalty was imposed for conditions which existed prior to the assessment period corresponding to this SALP Report. 2. Under the heading of " Confirmatory Action Letter" are two examples of inspection findings that appear to be characterized in an overly harsh manner. We have been told in prior conversations that letters of committment by the licenses with regard to inspection findings and which commit to actions desired by the NRC do not constitute an escalated enforcement action. Obviously, we misunderstood. Not only are these letters categorized under the escalated enforcement heading, but the text directly states that these were in fact the licensee equivalent of an immediate action letter. It was our understanding that Region III agreement to a licensee letter of commitment represented a Region III management decision that the item in question was downgraded in severity and did not represent an escalated enforcement action. i e oc0582-0039a167 a "k
- y;
,..----.,,,-s y. ,,,,.,,n.,_n, ~. -..,,
__... 2 1. i Attechm:nt 1 1-23 W W. Section V.G, Management Conferences 'No of these management conf 2rences were at Consumers Power Company's 1. request. 2. We strongly support the need for more management conferences with top and intermediate level NRC management participation, especially focused on attaining mutual understanding as to the standards that will be applicable to Midland inspections. 1 ~. oc0582-0039a167
h w-b ** *% c 6,4-b r14 f h J UNITED STATES + g " 3,. r' *{ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r-REGION ill p 799 ROOSEVELT ROAD b GLEN ELLYN,ILLINots 6o137 g*.... n l .i "Allf; 1 2 1981 Doaket No. 50-329 Docket.No. 50-330 Consumers Power Company ATTN: Mr. James W. Cook Vice President Midland Project 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, MI 49201 Gentlemen: Thank you for your letter dated July 16, 1981, informing us of the steps you have taken to correct the four items of noncompliance which we brought to your attention in Inspection Reports No. 50-329/81-11; 50-330/81-11 forwarded by our letter dated June 16, 1981. With respect to Items 1 and 2, your actions will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection. With respect to Item 3, we reiterate our position that NCR M-01-4-9-048 did not specifically identify and control the numerous instances in which required separation barriers were removed from raceway drawings. To the extent that cable pulling activities continued unrestrained without this identification and control, we view this as an item of noncompliance. However, we conclude that the measures delineated in your response will be adequate in providing the necessary corrective action, thus no further response to this item is required. With respect to Item 4, we disagree with your position that the instru-ment impulse lines are not required to be identified distinctively as being in the protection system. This requirement, as stated in Appendix A of the report, is delineated in IEEE 279-1971, Section 4.22. It is our position that the impulse lines constitute part of an instrument component and thus shall be distinctively identified as indicated in the subject standard. ) - /* -o
- l' i
M I 2 I98I Consumers Power Company, ~ l Therefore, we request that you submit a second letter to this office within 30 days of the date of this letter to respond to our concerns regarding Item 4. You response shouid be submitted under oath or affirmation. Your cooperation with us is appreciated. Sincerely, ($$.))M W C. E. Norelius, Director Division of Engineering and Technical Inspection ec w/ltr dtd 7/16/81: DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS) Resident Inspector, RIII Ronald Callen, Michigan Public Service Commission Myron M. Cherry f R / III I JTII + RIII RII RIII G'rdner/so L ve E1 ams Boyd Spessard No 8/4/81 5 q, 4 6\\ 6l 1
t CORSumBTS POWCT James W cook 0 Ob Vice President.- Projects, Engsneersng and Construction General offices: 1945 West Parnell Rosd, Jackson, MI 49201 * (517) 788 0453 July 16, 1981 Mr J G Keppler, Regional Director Cffice of Inspection and Enforcement US Nuclear Regulatory Cen=issien Regien III 799 Roosevelt Read Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 MIDLAID NUCLEAR PLA'IT - INSFECTION REFCET NO 50-329/61-11 AND 50-330/81-11 FILE: 0.k.2 SERIAL: 120L6
Reference:
1. NRC Letter, C E Norelius to J W Cock, dated June 16, 1931 This letter, including all attachments, provides Censu=ers Fever Cc:pany's respense to Reference 1 which trans=itted the subject Inspsetion Repert and which requested cur written statement regarding fou~ ite=s of noncompliance described in Appendix A cf Reference 1. Censu=ers Fever Cc=pany Ey ( J .s W Ccck Svern and subscribed to before ce en this 16th day of July,1961. @M [ b, $ntity A. Avtff Notar/ Fublic, Jp5ksen County, Mic:11gan My co==ission expires Januriry 16, 1955 FJS/lr CC: RJCook, USNRC Resident Inspector Midland Nuclear Flant (1) r kl - \\ 0W g2
~ j 4 Attcchmsnt 1 I Serial 120h6 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS DESCRIBED-IN NRC INSPECTION REFCRT NC 50-329/81-11 AND 50-330/81-11
- 1) Items 1(a) and 1(b) 'from Appendix A (Item of Noncompliance 329/81-11-02; 330/81-11-02 and 329/81-11-06; 330/81-11-05) provide:
"10CFR50 Appendix 3, Criterion V, states in part: ' Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures or drawings of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures or drawings.' Consumers Power Company's Quality Assurance Program Policy No 5, Revision 9, Paragraph 1.0, states in part: ' Instructions for cen-trolling and performing activities affecting quality of equipment or operations during the design, construction and operation phases i of nuclear power plants, such as. . construction, installation .. are documented in instructions, procedures, specifications, checklists and other for=s of documents. ' Contrary to the above, as of May 1,1981, the following instances of failure to develcp appropriate procedures were identified: L I a. Appropriate procedures had not been developed for tem-I porarily supporting cable and cable coils in that Bechtel Power Corporation Procedure FFE h.000, Installation of l Electrical Cable, Revision 3, dated MSrcr 13, 1979, did not require that care be exercised to assure that the r.ethod of support of pulled or partially pulled cables vould not result in damage to the cable jacket or exceeding the =ini=u= bend radius criteria (Paragraph 6.7 of FPE h.000). As a result, four cable jackets were damaged by the single coil of rope from which they were supported, and two cables were supported such that the mini =um bend radii were exceeded. b. Appropriate procedures had not been developed for the routing of cables into the equipment to which they are terminated in that Becht el Power Corporation Procedure FPE-7.000, Cable Terminations, Revision 7, dated December 26, 1979, did not establish measures to assure that the bend radius criteria (Paragraph 6.7 of FPE-h.000) were not exceeded. As a result, cable 1BI6h0hA vas observed to be routed into Motor Control Center (MCC) 1F6h such that a minimum bend radius was exceeded." 1 9 e 9 ,n n-..
c _ _ _2 Att:chmInt 1 2 i S: rial 120k6 Consumers Power Company's Response to Item 1(a) The corrective action of Bechtel NCR 3hl8 was to repair the four damaged cable jackets with Raychem WCSF-N Shrink Tube per vendor print 7220-E-26-19-h. This was accomplished en July 6, 1981. Bechtel NCRs 3hl7 and 3hok were written as a result of the NRC inspector's identification of two cables supported such that the minimum bend radii were exceeded. Project Engineering is scheduled to provide dispositions of NCR 3kl7 and NCR 3h04 by July 17, 1981. Process corrective action was to revise FPE h.000, " Installation of Electrical Cable," to include requirements that coiled ca' oles are properly supported, protected frc= damage and do not violate the minimum bend radius. Int er-office memorandu 0-3885 vas issued on May 15, 1981, to field construction to provide interi: instructions for coiling of cable until FPE-4.000, which is presently in the review cycle, is approved. Censumers Pever Company's Response to Item 1(b) Bechtel NCR 3h05 was written on the violation of minimum bend radius of cable 1336h0hA ter=inated in MCC IB6h. Field Engineering evaluated the discrepancy and determined that the portion of these cables of indeterminat'e quality could be cut off and the re=sining cable reter=1:.ated to meet design require-ments. The Field Engineering disposition is presently in the e.pproval cycle. FPE-7 000,. " Cable Ter=1 nations," Revision 8, was implemented on May 21, 1981, to include the requirement.that " bend radius for training cable /cenductor shall be per vrndor's requirements." This vill establish measures to assure that the bend radius criteria vill not be exceeded. 2 ', Item 2 frcm Appendix A (Item of Noncompliance 329/81-11-03) provides: "10CFR50 Appeniix B, Criterion X, states in part: 'A program for inspection of activities affecting quality shall be established and executed by or for the organication performing the activity to verify confor=ance with the decu=ented instructions, procedures and drawings for acco=plishing the activity. ' Consumers Power Ccmpany's Quality Assurance Program Policy No 10, Revision 8, Paragraph 1.0, states in part: ' Inspection and surveillance are performed to assure that activities affecting quality comply with documented instructions, design documents and applicable codes and standards.' Contrary to the above, the electrical contrcetor's QC inspection of [ cable termination activities on September 25, 1980, failed to [ verify conformance to Paragraph 3.1 of Project Quality Contrcl Instructien r L l ~ ~
e u. ~ Att chment 1 3 Serial.120h6 I t. Uj. E-5.0 which states in part: ' Verify that the cables. . are routed within the equipment without violation of minimum separation requirements. ' As a result, the violation of the six-inch minimum separation requirement between class 1E cable 1AY001C and non-class 1E cables 1NB1705A and 1NA05001A was not identified." Consumers -Fever Comrany's Restense to Item 2 t Consumers Power Company's NCR M-01-9-1-Oh1 was written to address the non-conformance. As a result, the corrective action taken was to provide the required separation between the class 1E and non-class 1E cables and verify that the separation requirements of Drawing E h7 had been met. The cables were independently verified by CPCo inspecticn to be re-s.rranged to meet the require =ents en May 18, 1981. Process corrective action to prevent recurrence was: 1) provide instruction to termination crews on the need to meet the separation requirements of Draving E hi in equipment, and 2) reinstruct all termination Quality Control Engineers (QCEs) on separation requirements for class 1E cables, internal viring of control panels and equipment. The lead electrical superintendent confirmed that electrical ter=ination superintendents and craft personnel were instructed on the need to meet the separation requirements en Drawing E h7 in equipment. Instructions were documented on an inter-office me=orandum dated Mcy 28, 1981. Furthe=cre, a plastic coated criteria card with do's and don't's referencine color coding and separation distance between channels is given to each termination electrician en the jobsite. The QCE involved was reinstructed in the requirements stated in Drawing E h7 for cable separation.
- 3) It e: 3 of Appendix A (Ites of Nonecmplianca 329/81-11-05 end 330/81-11-Oh) v p:cvides:
"10CFR50 Appendix 3, Criterien XV, states in part: ' Measures shall be established to control materials, parts or components which do not conform to requirements in order to prevent their inadvertent use or installation. These ceasures shall include, as appropriate, procedures for identification, docu=entation... disposition and notifica:1cn to affected organizations. ' Consumers Power Company's Quality Assurance Prcgram Policy No 15, Revision 9, Paracral.h 3.2, states in part: 'When a ncnconferming ites or activity is discovered or cbserved during design and con-struction for the Midland Project . the responsible... Consumers Power crganization assures that the condition is docu-mented and that nonconforning items are tagged, =arked, segregated cr controlled to prevent inadvertent use or installation. Centrary to the above, en April 28, 1981, the inspectors identified 1h instanecc in which cable tray in the upper and lover cable spread-L ing areas were not installed in accordance with the separation I' L
~ - j ~ ~. Attachmint 1 h j ' C S: rial 120h6' ? k requirements delineated in the Midland FSAR and which had not been identified and controlled to prevent inadvertent use or installation. Furthermore, documentation, disposition and notification to all affected organi:ations of ~these nonconfor=ances was not in acecrdance with the established Quality Assurance Program requirements even though similar significant discrepancies had bee,n identified 16 months earlier." Consumers Power Com;any's Response to Item 3 As noted in the body of the NRC report, Consumers Fever Company documented the nonconforming condition on a Nonconformance Repcrt (NCR) in May 1979 Part corrective action on the two trays specifically covered by the NCR was initiated in July 1979 by physically moving one of the trays to provide space for barrier installation. The NCR has remained open to track ce=pletion of the part corrective action and the process corrective action. Late in 1979, the project determined that Marinite barriers were not the most suitable design approach for the present plant configuration. This resulted in removing from the drawings the barrier requirement in January 1980. In the spring of 1980, a study was initiated as to the approach that should be taken to provide barriers when the required physical separation is not possible. A Sechtel inter-office memorandum (IOM) dated March lk,1980, documents the implementation of the study and acknowledges the. hold placed on the use of the Marinite barriers. The same IOM reccEnized that the barrier installation would best be accomplished after cable pulling was cenplete. In eliminating the Marinite approach, Prcject Engineering was confident that there vas ne serious risk in having to rework cable tray in order to install the barriers under evaluation. It was known that physical conditions vere being created that vould require barriers. A SAR Change Nctice vns originated cn August 21, 1980, which reflects the results of the study and the project's decision to use Kaovool cr Cerablaftet as a barrier or to utilize ecmplet ely enclosed racevars. The lengthy time te obtain approval and incorporation of the SAR change was due to the further extensive reviews by Consurers and Bechtel Engineering. Specifically, this change affected the design approach to be used to meet new requirements on fire protection separation (twenty (20)-foot requirenent). Revision 33 of the FSAR, dated April 1981, now reflects in Section 8.3.3.3.1 the design approach to be used where the physical separation distances specified in the SAR are unattainable. On June 11, 1981, Bechtel's Project Engineering issued a Drawing Change Notice against Drawing E-6hl, Sheet 7, Revision 1, to indicate prcper barriers for cable trays 2AGC05 and 2NHL01 which are identified on Consumers Fover NCR M-01 h-9-Oh8. Engineering is presently in the process of generating a set of drawings to be issued for construction shcwing areas of the plant where separation barriers are required to be installed. It is anticipated that the subject drawings vill be issued for construction by September 1, 1981. 3 The inspection for incorporation of barriers will be incorporated in PQCI E-3.0 (Final Electrical Area Completion Activities). This is consistent with installing barriers at the completion of cable pulling activities. As stated to various members of the Region III staff on May 1h,1981, ve feel +- y --,= -- w t r - -e- +,+ ,y.<
. - ~ _ _ Attechttnt 1 5 i S: riel 120h6-there are no siCnificant constructability problems anticipated with the installation of the separation barriers. i Consumers Power Ccmpany will close out NCR M-01-h9-Oh8 when all of the part corrective action is complete on the two. specific trays covered by the NCR and when we have assured the effectiveness of the process corrective action. This will be accomplished by the drawings shoving the required barriers and oyerinspection of the PQCI E-3.0 inspection requirements. h) Item 4 of Appendix A (Item of Noncompliance 329/81-11-07 and 330/81-11-06) provides: "10CFR50 Appendix B, Criterion III, states in part: ' Measures shall be established to assure that applicable regulatory require =ents and the design basis, as defined in 50.2 and as specified in the license application. , are correctly translated into specifica- } tions, drawings, procedures and instructions. ' Consumers Power Ccepany's Quality Assurance Program Policy No 3, Revision 9, Paragraph 3.3, states in part: 'Each group or organi-zaticn performing detailed design translates the applicable regu- ~ 1 story requirements, design bases, codes, standards and des.ign criteria into design documents such as: specifications, drawings. i The FSAR in Paragraph 8.31.3 states in part: 'All class 1E equipment, with the exception of the main and local control beards, are tarked with an adhesive-backed color coded symbol.' IEEE 279-1971, Criteria for Prctection Syste=s for Nuclear Power Generating Stations, in Section k.22 states in part: 'In order to provide assurance that the require =ents given in this document can be applied during the design, censtructicn, maintenance and cperatien of the plant, the protection system equipment shall be identified distinctively i r as being in the protection syste=. This identificatica shall distinguish between redundant portions of the protection systec. ' Contrary to the above, as of May 1,1961, the above ecm=itments had not been translated into specifications, drawings, procedures and instructions pertaining to the installation of field-=ounted class 1E instrumentatien." Consumers Power Ccmpany's Fesponse to Item L Bechtel Proj ect Engineering vill revise Specification 7220-J-216(Q) to refer-ence the requirements for color coding class 1E instruments per 7220-E h7(Q) on or about July 31, 1981. These requirements are currently specified in FSAR, Volume ik, Sectica 8.3.1.3, per class 1E terminal equipment. This requirenent does not apply to instrunent process lines. In addition, Specifientien 7220-J-218(Q), Section 5.3.7, states that the instrument Installation Summary (7220-J-705(Q)) is used to identify all D
=.. . ~... ..?_.-.. Atttchernt i 6 i S: rial 120h6 j l e { redundant safety-related instruments and their impulse lines. The summary lists the "Q" status of the instrument. This specification provides the criteria for channel separation, however, it does not require any specific marking of the impulse lines. l )CS/lr 7/16/81 r I O l ^* g e e ,r -4 -+-== F ~
l b'! 6A s .%0V 2 5 for" i Docket No. 50-329 Docket No. 50-330 Consumers Power Company ATTN: Mr. James W. Cook Vice President Midland Project 1945 West Parnall Ecad Jackson, MI 49201 Gentlemen: Thank you for your letter dated November 10, 1981, informing us of the additional measures you have taken to correct the ites of noncompliance which we brought to your attention in Inspection Reports No. 50-329/81-11; 50-330/81-11 forwarded by our most recent letter dated October 23, 1981. We vill examine this matter during a subsequent inspection. Your cooperation with us is appreciated. Sincerely, f'A't C. E. Norelius, Director Division of Engineering and Technical Inspection cc w/itr dtd 11/10/81: DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS) Resident Inspector, RIII Eonald Callen, Michigan Public Service Commission Hyron M. Cherry Barbara Stamiris Mary Sinclair Wendell Marshall , i sm _ M1@ \\M " \\ \\ o Ctk. RIII..
- h.. RI
.RIII... .RIII. 1,b. I... g.. .RIII. sumut>!,ghD.. Love...,/....Hawkins.. ...Boyd. us .j. 9A5/c....[.....4. f....... No reAu ' .a ( "" *l.11/ 2g81.... une conu sia no.eo, sacu oua OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
n .._.L..__.._ s e g COllSUCC.~i. l P o r*",,,.. u,,,ee w em C0mp,cm v4<, ~,u, , - ~j,u,. r,i.,,,, sad Constrw<rson General Offices: 1945 West Pernell Road. Jackson. MI 49201 e (517) 78&O453 November 10, 1931 L'r J G Ee;pler, Regional Director Office of Inspection & Infercement US Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission Region III 799 Reesevelt Ecad Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 MIDLAND PROJE0"' - IiSFEC"' ION REPORT NO 50-329/61-11 AND 50-330/81-11 FILE: 0.L.2 SERIAL: lL61L
References:
1. Consumers Fever Ccepany letter, J W Cook to J 0 Ke;;1er, dated July 16, 1961 (Serial 120L6). 2. NRC letter, C E Nereitus to J W Ccck, da'.ed August 12-1951. 3 Censumers Fower Cc pany letter, J W Cock to C G Keppler, dated September 11, 1961 (Serial 13667). L. NFC ictter, C E Nerelius to J W Ccek, dated Octcher 23, 1961 Reference L requested a written statement describing our planned correctite acciens and the proposed date of cer;1etien regarding Ite L cf Appendix A of Inspecticn Repert 50-329/81-11 and 50-330/61-11. The requested res;cnse is given in Attachment 1 of this letter. Consumers Fever Ccepany 4% 3y / James W Cock Swcrn and subscribed to before me en thif10th day cf November,1981. i . &wJ <wn Notary Public, Jackson County, MP:higan My commission expires September 5, 195L WRE/lr / i r,/r d O NOV4 1219@ I m m
- mygg, e
5 a ? 2 Serial IL61L ? CC: EJCook, USIi?.C Resident Inspecter Midland Nuclear Plant (1) 1
} c .... w.: i1 si 3I ?{ Serial lh61L CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY RESPONSE TO TIEM OF NONCOMPLIANCE 50-329/81-11-07 AND 50-330/81-11-06 j DESCRIBED IN URC INSPECTION REPORT 50-329/81-11 & 50-330/81-11 Ite: L fre Appendix A states in part, "...The FSAR in Paragraph c.2.1. 3 states, in part, ' All Class lE equipment, with the exception of the main and local control boards, are marked with an adhesive-backed color coded symbol.' IEEE279-1971, ' Criteria for Protection Syste=s for Nuclear Power Generating Statiens ',, in Section b.22 states, in part, 'In order to provide assurance that the requirements given in this document can be applied during the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of the plant, the protection systen equipment... shall be identified distinctively as being in the protecticn system. ' This identification shall distinguish between redundant portions of the protection syster. ' Centrary to the above, as of May 1,1981, the above ce==ittents had not been translated into specifications, drawings, procedures and instructions pertaining to the installation of field mounted Class lE instrumentation." Fre: Page 9 of the body of the repcrt the folleving is provided: "a. In reviewing Specification J-216 and in discussions with.the licensae, it was deter =ined that there is no requirement that either the field counted Class lE impulse lines or the associ-ated process syste instruments (e.g. flov transmitters, pre-ssure transmitters, temperature detecters, etc.) be identified in such a manner vnich distinctively idantifies that it e: as being a part of the protection system. The abete condition is contrary to the requirements of Paragraph S.3.1.3 of the Midland FSAR which states, in part, ' All Class 1E equipment, with the exception of the main and local centrol boards are marked with an adhesive-backed colcr coded symbol.' Further, IEEE279-1971, ' Criteria for Protection Systems fer Nuclear Power Generating Stations', in Section h.22 statec, in part, 'In order to provide assurance that the requirements given in this document can be applied during the design, cen-struction, maintenance, and operatien of the plant, the pre-tection system equipment... shall be identified distinctively as being in the prctection system. This identificatien shall distinguish between redundant portions of the protecticn syst er. Censumers Fever Company's Response The cover letter lists four references which docu=ent the different interpretations of Consurers Power and the NRC cencerning the identifi-caticn requirements contained in IEEE-279,1971. Reference L O 9
.= a. s s .a. 3, l c - i ackncvledges Consumers Power's position to provide identification on the process lines to meet the NRC's interpretation of that st andard. Reference 1 provided our corrective action to identify the process syster -instruments. This respense addresses identification of the Class lE inpulse lines. Each safety grade impulse line vill be identified with a two-letter designator. The letter designators are provided by Bechtel Engineering Document 7220-J-705(Q), " Instrument Installatien su==ary for the Midland Plants 1 and 2." The two-letter designator provides both a syste= and safety channel designation, thus providing visual evidence of the line being part of a protection system and providing for distinguishing between redundant portions of the protective system. The marking requirement vill be to identify the process lines at the root valve at each bulkhead (both sides) where the lines pass thrcush and at the instrument. The physical means of identification requires further engineering detailing and may be different for different situations. Specification 7220-J-218Q vill be revised by Dece=ber 31, 1981 to provide generic identification requirements. This revision vill be retroactive to include all Class lE instrument installations. The 3echtel Quality Centrol Inspection Plan (PI-1.h0) vill be revised following the specification change to verify that the identification is acecmplished en each syster. The revisien to Specification 7220-J-21SQ vill eli=inate the cited ncncenfermance, thus achieving conformance to 10CFR50 Criterien III. The actual identifi-cation of each line vill cecur as the systems are installed except where retrofit is required for systems installed prier to the specification change. A schedule vill be provided by January 15, 1982 for marking the lines which were installed and inspected prior to the issuance of the identification crit eria. It is expected that there vill nct be many lines that will fall in this category due to the limited installation of instrument systens to date. WRS/1r S e
., s -
- e. ~
-o a o . h i. .i 0-.c v. r..mi...s. c ~. e Jernes W Cook / Si s..,.. f e d i.e.* le,' ~ ,1.,s** Vice President - Projects. Engsnemng med Constmetion General offices: 1945 West Parnell Road, Jacteon. MI 402o1 + (517178&o453 September 30, 1982 PRINCIPAL STAFF l l Of e O/PA SjF i,.' ff f? fA a.-l 1n0 \\V l Director of Office of. Inspection ?5'i.'O ' l in o 1 l and Enforcement 3.TTE I I Att Mr Richard C DeYoung I1L 3 US Nuclear Regulatory Cot =nission OL FILE j'- a j Washington, DC 20555 0 MIDLAND PROJECT - ALAB-106 QUARTERLY REPORT DOCKETS NOS 50-329 AND 50-330 FILE:
0.4.6 SERIAL
19047 Pursuant to the second and third conditions of the Memorandum and Order ALAP-106 dated March 26, 1973, and Amendment No 1 to the Midland Plant Construction Permits, we are submitting ten copier, of our thirt.y-ainth (39th) report covering the period October 1,1962 thecogh Dece=3er 31,1982. ~ gQ JWC/WRB/jac CC: RJCook, USNRC Resident Inspecto Midland Nuclear Plant f Y w N" h[ 4 OCT 181982 W ($4,
- w - ::::::
PDR ADCCK 05000329 hp R PDR OC0982-0020A-MP01 4 6.....
f T CONSUMERS PCWER CCMDANY-REPORT # 39 SMER 30,1982 Pursuant to Conditions 2F3 and 2FC of Construction Permits CPPR-81 and CPPR-82, the following report covers the period October 1, 1982 through Dece=ber 31, 1982. A) Construction work to be performed during this period. See Attachment A. B) Personnel with quality related duties who were assigned to the Midland Project during the period June 30, through September 30, 1982, and who are expected to be on site through September 30, 1982, and who will be trained as necessary to perform the functions required to them, are as follows:
- 1) Midland Project Quality Assurance R&2drick Fluids & Nchanical E&TV CPCo MCarlsen QC Inspector /HVAC VOLT RCarlsen QC Inspector /HVAC VOLT KClements QC Inspector /HVAC VOLT JFoley Civil Q2ality Assurance Eng.
Gi'.bert Co..-.cnwealth DGingras Fluids & &chanical IE&TV Applied B.g. JGreiner Civil Quality Assurance Eng, Bechtel Pcver WHeiberger &chanical QAE/HVAC EG & G JHeimpold Electrical IE&TV SAI LT.ebtren Soils QAE Gilbert Cc==:nwealth JKocelou::ek Fluids & Mechanical IE&TV Applied Eng. UcGinnis QC Inspector /HVA' VOLT JKMeisenneimer Civil Remedial Scils CA Ciltert Cm=ccwealth S2perintendent WUielten Civil Soils IE&TV PDS JJPetrosino Electrical IE&TV SAI FPointe Fluids & Mechanical IE&TV PTI JRobbins Associate QA Consultant CPCo JSelvidio Weldir4 NDE R2bler GTrumper Electrical IE&TV CPCo
- 2) Bechtel Q2ality Assurance /Cuality Centrol GRichardson Assist. Project 2 nager / Quality Bechtel AnnArber DCaldwell Electrical QC Bechtel RIVy Q2ality Control Bechtel LLizotte Quality Control Bechtel JPegue Q2ality Control Bechtel
- 3) B & W Construction Com any TAlcott Quality Centrol B&W PCaropino Q2ality Centrol B&W i k, ~.I.id 3/ qh )
p-,n n BCaspary 32ality Centrol B&W i, JCox Q2ality Centrol B&W %J O, KFennell Quality Centrol B&W DKarol Quality Control B&W $EP 161982 l HWerg Q2ality Centrol B&W ii Th2 rick Q2ality Control B&W gg] gg'gg l4 ~ -.,
C) Cu l tboa ity As B ve sur D) ar ance The folle i e at qu la if ta hed at c the w ic ta io Micla site:s pe to th r is ns rson r of nd nl epo JLDo t o ie t no 1cr rt. super e c vis 2 nn ll 02al aer or e s it ar and Be htel As.*ur perfo rgin e e c eer Qu la it r HChadej mir ance s s listed qu l CCross sur Civil As a ity-r lat in RHur CAE an c / ul ' e on thcGlash eC ed a FMa ta ks it s nfs iel Q:al Co t en EPulehetin ntr l d Qu l ity Cent o ivila ity Ce tr FVa Bn lar C rl B&W/ o Qu lai CC n ol CPCo eco B Qu l ty Co tr l & W Co Qualia ity Ce n n o No ) str Qu l Qu la ity Coty Centr lntr l/th Be h n uctio o c tel a nC Be htelBe htel ity Ce tr lntr l derpir o OdP mo c io an o rJr4 % ch n Ele tric l c ns Be htelBe htel o/ ad c n ?n c M/P at delitio x a c qu Be htel art n c tely rs to the Be htel c Be htel epo t. pers c r cr.elbth e qwil ity r late e d durite d r will t .*wet 'N
- T.h
': 1; 1 m
- 's R
-..-.,z. --..L -. -.... ~... ~: e QUARTERLY REPORT SEPTEMBER 1982 n!ROUGi DECEMBER 1982 1. Ccntinue installation of large and small pipe and hangers in the Auxiliary building. 2. Continue installation of mechanical and electrical instruments and tubing throughout the plant. 3. Continue to install raceway, and pull and terminate wire and cable throughout ~ the plant. 4. Continue installation of radiation monitors and associated control panels in the Auxiliary Building. 5. Receive and install balance of remaining airtight doors, wire mesh gates, and pressure relief panels, and continue installation of watertight doors in the Auxiliary and Containment Buildings. 6. Continue blockwall pours and fixes, and installation of new masonry blockwalls in the Auxiliary Building. 7. Continue installation of large and small pipe and hangers in containments 1 and 2. 8. Continue installation cf A xiliary Feedwater Header. 9. Complete installation of snubber tubing and supports for reactor coolant pun >s in be,th Centainment. Building: (with ry.ception of two snubbars in Unit 1). 10. cot:plete work on the control rod drive mechanisms in both Containment Euildings. 11. Centinue work on the reactor coolant pu ps in both Containment kildings. a 12. Continue HVAC installation in all facilitier. Subcontractor to complete insulation of equipment in Containment 2, ed 13. continue work on piping and equipment in both units. 14. Subcontractor to begin penetration sealant work. 15. Continue undexpinning activities for Axiliary Building remedial soils work. 16. Subcontractor to begin underpinning activities on the Service / Circulating Water kildings. 17. Continue to complete and turnover Start-t.) Systems to the client. 18. Continue to complete and turnover area / facility packages to the client. i
--me. -s, e+ A.Aa Rzsuut 4 au m u ra, ust Mme. Enn omms aart enttatu' no. ( l MPQAD Budrick Renald 8/27/82 499 EDUCATICM SCHCCt. NAME. CITT STATE MAJOR $"7, g"o,kE 5 Ml" AHen Park Allen Park, MI College Prep. 4 R CDU.EGE Ntallu gical l Wayne State thiversity Detroit, MI Engineering 4*5 BS 1968 l gg Westinghouse Bettis W. Mifflin, Penna Centrol of core l Atctsic Pcwer Lab. =anufacturing 1 1970 OTHER JO B M nSTORY COMPANY / ADORESS WOR T*1T1.E. DUTIE S m., m 9/78 7/82 Rolled Alloys Inc. E g: - Cuality Escablish & =aintain ccrperate =at. M 125 W. Sterns Fd. Assurance & & che: labs. Establish QA Corp. Te.:perar.ce, MI Precuct v. progra= per 10CFR50 app.B, ANSI 45.2 Eastern Pasien =11 Q 9858A, ASME Sec. III & VIII. Director of D:ployee i.ssist. Pr gra: 4/76 ;9/78 Cw.ed own C:=pany Partner /0wner Design & =anufacturing of cert.r.ic Caseville, MI holds. Also Big Erethers/31g Sister: A.ssoc. Director Agency funding,=arketing & Public 122 N. Hansel =an Relations. =ma sv. vr 9/68 10/72 Westinghouse Bettis Metallurgical Fuel Pod QA including develep=ent Atecic Pcwer I.ab Engineer W. Mifflin Penna of detailed inspection and =fg. pro-cedures. Alse liaisen CA Between design, field rep. & =fs. Also project design =fg. & QA precedures & dispc-of H-er nSn/da:- W ica er S-ac. Fj; 10/72 10/75 10dS rNaien Inc. Research & tallur-Research & develeptent fer fbsien Ann Arber, MI gical Engineer reacter fuel pellet develep=ent. Patients Issued: 4,017 " Method & apparatus for =fg cf unifer= pellets for fusien reacters." 4,021, 253 "=etnoc for =fs. glass frit" .....em.. e -amammum-9*
- 4m*=**"*
?*
f*3 4A3 RE S LIM i, omm zA:rion %37 w.a , m37 uar,e os,, .ngggg no. vto An Carlson. Marv 8-16-82 EDUC.ATION cE E SCHCC L NAME-CITY STATE M A JO R [ g M4R Milfned High Scheel Milford. MI Colleste Pree 4 O LL E E .Houghton. MI Civil Tech. ? vinh4gan Teah-l South West Oakland Architectual cert. CWER Vocational Education Walled Lake, MI Drafting 1975 2 . m. m OTHER JO B WISTORY COMPANY / ADDRESS WOR T'1T L E DVTIE S n 8/82 Prs. Consumers Power Co. Midland Nuclear Plt. QCI Inspector MPQAD h'IAC Midland, MI 4/82 8/82 Daniel Internationa] Level II Reviewed "Q" documentatien Callaway Nuclear Welding Doc. prior to hydrotesting and Plant Review Tech. turnover. Fulton, Mo. (Turnover) Tennessee Valley Organized the protective 7/78 4/82 Authority Nuclear Level II Coating Program at Eartsville Plant Inspector Inspected shop and field pro-P.O. Box 2000 (Civil) tective coatings (surface Hartsville, TN prep and final inspection) in Stride and EOP areas. Initiated QCIR'S and NCR'S and maintainhd QA documentation. Also certifie-as a cadwelding inspector, shdp fabrication inspector and a s-;u welding inspector. For 3 months lead an internal audit on Cadwell documentation per a disposition on a significant NCR.
es ' .' n.. nAa assumi
- e,
C MrAN a 2 A T cet a AST NAr*.s , sa*ST NAME
- 04. e.
cnrioTEi ac. MPQAD Carlson Randy S. 8-11-82 EDUOTION SCHoo L. NAME. C17 Y STATE MAJOR jh"[ to E marca HIGH -- ~1 L.L. Wright Ironwood. MI College Preo 4 EWL COLtF.GE Gorebie Comm. College Ironwood MI Mech. Eng. 1/2 A.A.c Michiaan Teek._ Univ. Heughten. MI Civil Enr. Tect 21 OTHER JO B H ISTORY COMPANY / ADORESS M')U R T' IT 1. F., DUTIE 5 ftoM ro Daniel Intl. Corp. 4/82 7/82'Callaway Nuclear Mech. Insp. Performed Mech. Inspection Plant Level II on pipe Hangers Fulton, Mo. Tennessee Valley i 7/78 4/62 Authority 9/81 to 4/82 Perfor=ed Meeh. & Weld P.O. Ecx 2000 Hanger QC Inspection on pipe hangers Hartsville, TN Level II 7/78 4/82 Tennessee Valley 3/80 to 9/81 Inspected and tested concrete Concrete and at concrete lab and later at Materials Q,C cooling tower Level II 7/78 4/82 Tennessee Valley 7/78 to 3/80 Established building control i Surveyor and inspected concrete form ) work
~ -~ o .w v. 04 RAM 4 2474GPt Mb7 MAME
- a437 NAME D TE EMP40YEi NC.
A MPQAD HVAC QA Clements Kevin 7/26/82 108 EDUCATION TCCO L. NAME. CITY STATE MA.AR )"Tf (UE *' D E H Gu Tech. Drawing Bangor John Glenn Bay City, Mi. Welding 4 COLLEGE N/A M ER Constr. Bay Area Skill Center Bay City, Mi. Bldg. Design 1 6/4/80 OTHER JO B HISTORY COMPANY / APORESS 'rCO R TIT L E. DUTIE S 6/81 7/82. Consumers Power Co. Quality Inspect quality of work per-2742 N. Weadock Ewy. Inspector formed by contractors.. Essexville, Mi. 9/79 '4/81 Newkirk Electr. E.C.O. Follow job to assure quality Quality Insp. and accuracy. 700 Marquette Electr. Help Assist Electricians Purchase Agt. Purchase Material Bay City, Mi. 9/79 '4/82 Northern Boiler Inc. Laborer Assist craf tsman, clean, (Field office) 2742 N. Weadock Part-time sweep floor, build scaf, fold .;E.ssexville, Mi. on constrction, site. f 6/78 10/72 Lynch Party Store Summer Help Install new cooler units i ( 1021 Wilder Road and air compressors, clean-l l Bay City Mi. up, stock-boy. e u l m,1,%=; =;7- -^--
At. A a 9.Esuu z ? ou,Am u rio s u w a4r2 un nes c4re. cr.mrie nc. MPQAD Foley Joseph P.. 8/10/82 CPCo-GC-376 EDUC.ATION SCHCC1 NAME. c1TY STATE MAJOR N g $.hk3' i.hion Catholic Boys High ScotchPlains NJ College Prep. 4 Manhattan College Brenx NY Civil &gineerir4 4 CTMER OTHER JO B H ISTO RY COMPANY / APORESS WOR T1T L E. DUTIE 5 rtova ro 12/77 Pres. Gilbert / Cec:=cnwealth Analysis, desig. & construction inspecticn of fcundatiens including 209 E. Washingten Ave. Project E.g. J h en, E 49201 H & Pipe piles, drilled piers, sprea ! footiras and screw type soil anchers.' Supervision data reduction of pile 1 Icad tests. l Cesign & inspecticn of sreet pile I bulkheads includi.g grcund =cve-cent cenitoring. Principal invest-igator for subsurface investiratiens including gecphysical testing & determinatien of dyrm-4 e erceerties of soil. Design & Preparation of constr action drawirss for grading, drainage and site i=provements for Chio Edisen Ccepany's Erie Nuclear Plant. Cceputing & Crganicing cata fer water supply developcent projects 9/75/ 12/77 North Jersey District Assistant reviewing plans & specifications for Water Sapply Cec =issien 9.gineer propcsed 100 BCD Treatment Plant. Ringwood Ave. Wanaque, NJ Assistant &.g. in the surveying and a:c:=er 1974 Edwards & Kelcey plotting of street intersections in New York Assistant ~ ** the Brenx and analysis of data per-taining to the need for traffic signals at these intersections. Involved in the prel1=inary survey Su==er 1972 E.T. Killam Assoc. Inc. 32rveycr for an intercepter sewer route. Milburn' NJ Perfor ed a survey of the terrain along the Passaic River fer a flood study. -~ ' ~ ~ ~
- g-.
-l o ALAS 9.EsuM L / o, o%AniaATion i.Aa7 a4Ms msT nova osirs. ef;crgi m MPQAD Gingras . Dean 7-19-82 L - EDUC.ATIO N SCHco t. NAME. / CITY STATE MAJOR E f$,7,.[. g$g = - _-EEj Killingly Hish School X1111caly. Ct 4 CDLLET,E Manchester Comm College / Manchester, Ct Business Mgst. 2 CTWER / C*THER r/ l .~ / / 1 JO S u tSTORY COMPAN4 / APORESS WOR TnTLE CUTIE S Mona m 7 4-81 7-82 Wismer & becker Field Supervisor Included: field training of e= ploy-Centract Engineers of instrumentatier ees, delegation of job assignments. Enrico Fir:1 II and centrols, review of docu=entation and NCRs. Monroe, MI Hydro and flush coordinate cetween field inspee*ces and management. Perform surve.1-group. lances on inspections. 3-80 4-31 'Pittsburgh Testing Lab-Lead Inspector Included: Supervising and assistins Surry Nuclear Pcwer Planta Civil, Mechani-in the inspections of the steam I & II cal, welding generator replacement progra=d,seis-Surry., Virginia inspectars. mic support program and plan operations and =ainienance program. 9-79 11-80 Catalytic, Inc. Meenanical Level Inspections of installatien and Salem Wuclear Power II inspector repairs of seis=ic I hanger progra=. Plants I & II Mechanical Equipment and Hydro Insp. Salem, N.J Documentation of inspectiens, Q. A. task force tess member. -i 5-79 9-79 United States. Testing Co Asst Radiographer Assisting in U.T. and R.T. inspec. Turkey Point' Power tiens of main steam generator feed-Plants III water pipes. Set up and care of Hemestead, Florida equipment and cassetts, assisting in documentation of all inspections. 4-79 4-79 United States Testing Co Civil & Mechanical Resconsib111 ties as inspector in Turkey Point Power Anchor Bolt Program included, identi.. fication wal pggg,g-system lines,kdown and tagging of testing, inspection of Homestead, Florida / repair work and all related docu=en-tation. 5-78 4 79 cnited States Testing Co civil Inspeeede Responsibilities include inspections Saint.Lucie Nuclear in all phases of concrete, soils, Power Plant #2 structural welding, pretsetive coat. Saint t..tcie, Floriua ings, and all applicable documenta-tien. ....,.. ~ ~....
m ^. A G R suut onAns unc% w, ums nw ns,ess os. engorg; r,c. MPCAD GREINEP. JOHN E. 7/13/S2 651955 l EDUC.ATION SCHCCt. NAME. CITY STATE MAJOR ". UT_E ATT c...,, _- _' Jiyr '_^Qq 4 HIU St. John's High School Ypsilanti, MI Eastern Mich. Univ. Ypsilanti, MI Pre-Engineering 2 CTHER Ann Arbor, M! Civil kgineerina 3 ESCE Univ. of Michigan 39,3 CTHER George Washington Univ. Washington, D.C. Egin. Ad:in. 4 1 JO B W lSTO RY COMPAN'f / APORESS YOUR T* lT 1. E. DOTIE S ttom In j p,, CA kg:neer reviewing su :lttec instruction', procedures and drawings 7/82 s Sechtel, Ann Arbor Senior CA Eng. for ce=pliance with Quality Plans. 'r (MFCAD) l t Will perfore Quality Audits, prepare inspection plans, coordinate prob-lems etc. en cuality. 6 p Office D.gineer respons:mie for tne 2/S1 6/62 Bechtel Senice Construc-field office administration fer 600 5th St. N.W. tien three below grade subway finish j Washington, D.C. Engineer centracts. The functions for wnien i 20001 (en WMA?A Sub-was responsible include schecule l W{YfjCtiegs,ns nenitorir.g. claim and changes =:r.- e .torang an: asso:: ate: a::acns, cc-l ordinatir.g survey work, jos receres =aintenance, centracter pay =ent and ccorespondence preparatien. Adcition. j al duties include coordinatien of l elect. =ech.,struct.& ar:h. pretle=L Cffice hgineer respensible fer fiell 1/91 2/61 Se:htel Sr. Constructier. office a::ir.. of two rapid rail Washington, D.C. Engineer contracts. These duties included pay (CM WMATA Subway requisitist., claim analysis, change Socion A15F) issuing a.d finali:ing and status l reecrts. As an o ice engineer in tne Centra ; S/80 12/80 Sechtel Construction Washington, D.C. Egineer Support wroup, I was responsible for (Centract Support draftit:g contract modifications Group en WMATA paperwork for several contract settle:er. s. ] Sutway Project 1 { 1/79 8/80 Sechtel Field Egineer Centract Cocedicater responsible to the Resident Egineer for all Wa shington, D.C. (Cicse-out Group en WMATA Subway aspects cf ::ntract close-cut. Project ) I .~._
ca. L o JO B M:57 W Yoca 7 tT L =, - l d CF.PAM[/ ADDELESS DCTIE $
- ssem
. ro : 10ffice Engineer involved w tn pay-I i 6/77 12/78 5echte' s Field -ngineer , (On WMA.. c.ubway =ent requisitions, centracter draw-1 l Washington D.C. 6a g ' Section Ae,3) . CPM progress =enitoring & updatir.g, l j tchange order issuing, neget. & final- '1:stien. sed reeert e-eee-st'e-e-
- 70 =illion dollar centract. This Icontract included soil and rock Itexcavatice & support and utility junderpinning.
l1/75 6/77 Bechtel field Engineer ' Field Engineer in inspecticn (CC) cr. Washingten D.C. (@. WMATA Subway rock tur.neling (both conventional Sections A6 A, and tur.nel boring =achine ) fr0= A63) ex:avatien througn eenereting, support of excavation, utility relo- ...a..-<- < g, a. r... I was Field Engineer in charge of CC on Re=edial Underpinning for 20 foot dia:eter brick and concrete sewer across excavation. 11/74 1/75 Bechtel Field Engineer Field Engineer in inspecti:n (CC) Washingten, O.C. (On WMATA Subway cn substructure of rail bridge acres: Section L2A) Fote=ac River, involved with coffer-da=s, piling, all concrete and
- safety, 2
5/74 Ti/74 Bechtel Field Engineer Field Engineer in inspectier. (CC) '*ashington, D.C. (On WMATA Subway en reck tunnels teneath the Pete=a: Sectica C4) River, involved with gecuting. concrete operatiens and safety. 6/73 B/74 Secht el - Field Engineer Field Engineer ir. inspecticn (CO) Washincten, D.C. (On WMATA Sutway en cut & cover eenstructice includ- ~ Section L25) ing suppert of excavatien & utilitie: excavatien, backfill, concrete structures including e= bed =ents, 3 < 4..... tee,.<... ,.e .,c... 9/72 12/72 g,S, Ar=y 2nd Lieutenant Cc=pleted Engineer Cfficer Basic Ft. Belvoir, VA course, and worked a sncrt troop assign =ent. 10/71 5/72 Nor=an L. Dietrich, Oeveicpcent Develop =ent Engineer designing Associates Engineer st er=, sanitary and wa ter main 4 670 Church St. syste=s. Also prepared cost esti-Ply =outh, Mich. =ates and did survey werx. . L _._... _.. - -8
I sJ q. ~a mm oM,AM 2 A T ION M ST MAe*.E Fs457 NArtE DATE F.negorgg no. MPQAD HVAC QA Heiberger William 6/17/82 EDUCATION SCHOOL NAME. CITY. STATE MAJOR ]*(( (Ec TE ,2 HIGR Bridgewater High Bridgewater, S.D. Science 4 COL!.EGE S. D. State Univ. 3rookings, S.D. Mech. Engr. 4 BS OTHER OTHER JO B HISTORY COMPANY / APORESS YOUR T IT L E. DUTIE 5 ftoM Tu EG&G~ 1977 Edaho Falls, ID Proiect Encineer Proiect Encineerinc 1974 1977 Self Employed President A. Research Industriti 1973 1974 Los Angeles, CA Field Engr. Field Engineering Martin Marietta Corp 1970 1973 Denver, CO Engineer Design Engineer I l l l 1969 1970 Traveling g l l ~. -,m,. -y----
,e--.
-w .yy-, .g y
o. o e pg. 2. l'.% e, f s e e JO S W tsTO RY Mo/vst COMP 4mv / ApetESS Youn T* m. E. DUTIE 5 raem l ro I 1967 1969 U.S. Army-Germany 1st Lt. 'S-2 conbat Ener. En. %0 g a b e h I l [ ---e. .m. m.m, e e .-e + =**e F' p a,,.,,._,.
.. i e ALAC 'tE5 u MI. c u.rsru u rto n au nsns ses Mme OA. c. cr:Pgorii no. MPCAD Heimeold Jeann EDUC.ATION SCHCC L NAME. CITY STATE MAJOR $7, WIGM W'elding Tecnnique Col.LEGE U S Grant VocationalSchool Bethel, Chio' E Visual Exa=ina. 1 N/A tion g gg University of Cincinnati 10 Liberal Arts Cincinnati, Ohio =os. OTHER JO B W ISTORY M~a /vo COMPANY / ADORESS WOR TITL F DUTIE S rtom to Henry J Kaiser Co. Quality Control Perfor=ed quality inspections of 12/79 pres-W= H Zi==er Nuclear Inspector electrical / instrumentation syste=s & ent Power Plant ec=ponents. Certified Level II in-Moscow, Ohio spector in electrical & instru=enta-tion. Level I in visual welding. 8/79 12/79 Foothill Electrical Corp Electrician Assisting journeyman electricians W= H Zi==er Nuclear Apprentice with installations of electrical Power Plant Moscow, Ohio equip =ent & components. 2/79 6/79 Bio-Resources, Inc. phlebot=ist Extraction of plas=a fec= donors. Cincinnati, Chio General office duties & coordinatien with doctors. Activities. 7/76 12/78 Dr E A Kindel, Jr Der =stologist Assist in =inor surgery. Cincinnati, Ohio Assistant Ge.eral office duties. 11/75 o/76 Davolos Medical Assistant Preparation of examinations and { Geiss Mediservice, Inc. assisting =edical procedures. Cincinnati, Ohio General office duties. 6/75 10/75 Pet Center, Inc. Sales clerk. Retail sales duties. Cincinnati, Ohio l e ~. -- ~~
pg. 2. e JO S W tsTORY { f' COMPAMY / 490RF.55 WOR T"iT L7 - IXJTIE 5 pasm i to l 10/74 8/75 Tool Steel. Gear and Accounts Payable - Maintain accounts. Knowledge of i Pinion Co., Inc. clerk adding machines & calculators. i Elmwood Place, OH l l I i Retailsalescler[Cneyear,retailsales,oneyear 7/72 10/74 Sears, Ro3 tuck & Co. Northgage Mall Credit Dept. Clerk investigation of credit accounts. Cincinnati, OH General office duties. + b 4 e 1 e 3 9 l l n.-.,s-n- ,-r,
.-,_--,-----.--,----------r
..--.--+,.em-,wy
e es ma.w w 5 M. ram 2ATion LAgr #AME FR37 #AMf. CdTE E/1Pm ar._ MPQAD Kettren Iercy P. Jr. 8/10/82
- PCc-GC-375 EDUCATION GR5 DEW E ;
Stu. CO L NAME. CnTY STATE M AJO R ATT. ( D A. _. i HIGM Dennent HS Der =cnt PA 4 U"E Kent State thiversity Kent, OH Geolcgy 4 BS 1968 CTMER Virginia Polytechnic Inst. Placksburg, VA Geolcgy 4 MS 1970 i OTHER JO B W ISTORY COMPANY / ApORESS WOR T'1T L E. DUTIE $ eram r3 1/81 PRES. Cec =enwealth Associates Senior Engineering Supervise Gectechnical Projects inclu-Jacksen, MI Geolegist ding; train technician for inspection at drilled piers. &w'-ize existing geotech data, prepare prelin. reports, prepare prelnin. specs for two shallda soils tunnels. 10/73 1/e1 Ennes & pre Staff Gec1cgist Perfer=ec gestecnnical invescigaciens Park Ridge, IL Project Geolegist including site investiagatiens for Senior Geolegist/ nuclear plants at laSalle County, 80 Project Clinton & Dresden, IL and Callaway MLnager County, MS. Proj. M.gr at Geotech. Study for c:ine shaft const, Spring-fiels, w c.d tw secz.a; us a--.ea at underground coal nines in IL and Chio. Principal investigator of safety study at shaft construction practicec ~ 2/71 10/73 GAI Consultants, Inc. Geologist Prefor:ed ge0 technical studies, earth-M:neceville, PA work, & foundation const. centrol. including inspection of drilled pier foundations, subsurface study for pro <- pcsed subway tunnel in Pittsburgn, PA 10/70 1/71 US Ar=y Engineer School Student Officer Engineer Cffice Sasic Course. Ft. Belvice, VA 2nd LT. Corps of Engineers
e ALAS REsuMi. QMrAns zATiers LAM nAME MM nAnE osu r,. ent; orig r,c. MPQAD, Kozeicuzek James 6/15/82 EDUCATION SCHOO L NAME. CITY STATE MAJOR $"[ t]-- N '" lakeland High Moheganlake NY Business 4 _ 43, CDLLEf,E Slippery Rock Slippery Rock, PA Parks & Recreatien 2 BS 1977 CTHER i OTHER f 1 JO B W ISTORY COP 1PANY / ADORESS WOR T* lT ). E. DOTIE 5 resea re Courter & Co. Inc. QA S2perviser pen se QA/QC pe.asc.".".el pe.afe%-4 1-78 6/82 317 W. 13th St. QC S2perviser miw w rk en ASE related syste=s N.Y. NY 10014 QA kgineer Inspected 1st line field work. QC Inspector perfer=ed final review cf ASE ccepleted werk. Thccas O'Cenner Cc. INC 9/77 12/77 45 Industrial Dr. QC Inspecter e,..spections of class 1,2,3 Piping Canten, Mass. 02021 E "'1diUE' 8/75 8/77 Greve City Recreational Assistant Direc-Supervise personnel, =cr. iter rec. Dept. ter progra=s, budget preparation. Box 328 Greve City, PA 16127 i 9/72 8/75 2 ranch Radiographic Labs QC Inspecter Inspections cf Class 1,2,3 Piping 28 S. Ave. W. welding, hangers. Cranford, NJ i i l l l L l l-
- m.
-~ mum o m,. w.o mu um mu ma act w.ncm no. MPQAD HVAC QA MCGINN!S' LE SLIE 7/2 8/ 82 EDUCATION SDiCCL NAME. CITY STATE MAJOR g Hi5u PHOENIX HIGH SCm0L PmEN!x, OREGON SCIENCE 4 sur R M i OREGON STATE UNIVERS!T"CORVALLI S, OR. HORTICULTURE 3h bh0 "*E S. OREGON STATE COLL. ASn.AND OREGCN SCI EN CE lh OTHER JO S HISTORY N COMPANY / ADDRESS WOR 71TLE DUTIE S 10/81 5/82 0.B. CANNON Q.C. INSPECTOR (ALIB. OF 'IN STRUMENTS DAILY /WKl. r! ELD IN P. OF STEEL / CONCRETE l!( P.O. Box 519 CLEANLINES S OR COATING. ASSI STE3 ~" RI C H.AND, WA. '!N RECORD ~REV. f FI LED, REPORT S 3/81 10/8: ARLENES FLOWERS GREENmUSE QRDER MAT./ PLANTS FROM DI STR. I uENERAL CARE OF PLANTS, CARE FERTLI !.! 117760 BLVD. MANAGER P RAY MAINTENANCE PRQG., RI CH.AND, WA. COMMER!CI AL/PRIYATE MOMES' PLANT! 6/80 7/81 WI LBOR-ELLI S WARE WUSER CmMICAL DELIVERY, OVER-COUNTE t SALE S,C FEMI CAL ORDERING,MONTM. f/ 419 N OREGON AVE. DAI LY INVENTORY,FI LINQ/ POSTING C ~ INVolCES. SECURED MY 5 TATE-WID E PASCO, WA. CON SULTAN T L! CEN SE. 6/79 9/79 BEAR CREEK CORP. FIELD SCOUT MONITORJ OF PEAR P SYLLA/ SP ! DER n,N G P OP.!TE S. IN TECI S i 2518 S. PACIFIC HWY
- 0R HALL /C H.ORI A S.
FRE S SURE TE S1 I 3EAR S POR RIPENE SS, ANALZ D WEE 3 NEDFORD, OREGON DEN SITY OF WEEDS IN NON-{DE 3 1/78 6/78 DR. MAXINE IHOMP SON LAB IECH. PREP SLIDE S, ASS! STED IN FILBE M NUT Y! ELD STUDIES, GENERAL LAB OREGON STATE UNIV. WORK. CORVALLI'S, OREGON 4/77 9/77 BLACx BIRD CA SHIER WORKED THE FRONT CASH REGI STER RESTOCKED SELVE S, ASS! STED IN W. MAIN STREET PLANT CARE. MEDFORD, OREGON
a =. H. JC S W 15 TORY c:MPAMY / 4904E.55 Wum T rT L Tr. DU TIE 5 7/78 9/78 GEORGI A PACIFIC LINEWORKER - DROVE HYSTER, RAN TE WRAPPING i WHITE CITY, OREGON ' MACHINE FOR P ALLETS OF CMRCOAp STACKED FIFTY POUND SACKS OF CmRCQAL BRIQUET S. 4/75 10/75 DR. PETHE STIGUARD LAB IECH. FIELD SANPLING AND DATA COLLECT-ING OF VARIOUS IN SECT SPRAY E)e. SOUTERN 0REGON EXP. PICXINC,' ANALZING OF THE FRUIT IN VARIOUS PLOTS. 5/74 9/74 DR. PORTER LOMBARD FIELD WORKER ASSI STED IN GENERAL ORCHARD DUTIES:! RRIGATION, PE ST CONTRO L. S. OREGON EXP. STATI ON THINNING, FRUIT SET COUN TS, YIELD DETERMIN ATING, RIPNE S S CENTRAL POINT, OR. TE STING 4 l i I ' ~ ~T - - ~ ~ 1T '~.T TJ 1~i~ 'Z2 l -. ~ i-- i - - -.- - ~ - --
AL A E REs uM E. o urAne u ;ups wsr =ms ms: NAna ocE Enegru rec. CPCo MPQAD Meisenheirce James K 9/9/82 387 EDUCATION 0*$.*..[ SCHoot. NAME. CITY STATE MAJOR 3 MacArthur High School Decatur H11nois General 4
- OmE, University of Missouri Rolla Missouri Civil Engineering BS 1967 OWER University of Misscuri Rolla Missouri Geological Eng MS 1969 DTHER JOB ]lsTORY COMPANY / ADDRESS WOR T IT L E.
DUTIE S Clo n* To July Pre-Gilbert Cec =enwealth Superintendent 1982 sent Jackson, Michigan of Soils MPCAD Jan July Gilbert Ccc=enwealth Geotechnical His werk activities have been 1982 1982 Jacksen, Michigan Consultant & .iirected toward the re=edial soils Coordinator issues at Midland and werking with the NRC staff for resolution. 1977 Jan Gilbert Cc::=enwealth Superviser - Respcnsibility for a soils lab & Jackson, Michigan Geotechnical gectech and geolegical work per-Serv Section of fer ::ed by his staff. Work respctsi-Env System Div bilities included: censultatien, M}cg{gn,ya}ys{sp p,ec &,pg g-- s j inspection and testing for 2 nuclear plants, fossil, industrial & =1r. ire projects. i' l 1971 1977 ta=es & tore Project Er.gineer/ Geotechnical werk at Wolf Creek l. Park Ridge, niinois Project Manger / Nuc Gen Station and served as the l Principal Invest-CLners Resident Cectech Er.g. In l igator this position, he was directly re-l spensible for the quality centrol l accivities for geoteen werx. he aisc 1
- cordinated quality centrol for other soils related field & lab test < -
ing, as well as interfaced with pro-ject quality assurance crsani::atien, for 5 other nuclear plants. ,,. e s .,e e - wewM O
.= -.... -f
- n. 1.
JC B u tSTO RY I CCMP4MY / 490t E55 won ; iT L r. DU TIE S 4 saem i ro i 1969 1970 US Ar=y &41neering. l Involved in develo; cent, design l Fort Belvoir, Virginia Ccnst Officer !& analysis of military constructicri of 75 miles of S Vietnam hignway. 'l year as Instructor in soil analy-l sis & construction engineering i at the US Army School in Ft Selvoir Virginia.- 1969]nths) US Ar=y Corps of &.g's Civil Egineer Project en $1 =1111cn troep (3 m~ Kansas City, itssouri consultant housing and facilities. 1967 sumef Hlinois Dept of Asst Pesident Ch two miles of state hignway & 1965 su=ep Transportatien E.gineer stor= sewers: quality centrol 1964 su=c Paris, n,linois and constrdetion inspection of concrete and asphalt mix for hig".- repair work. 1963 1962 niincis Dept of Asst.tinten-Involved in design, management Transportation ance Field Es and maintenance of 600 tiles of Paris, H11ncis state highway. I I 4 I
j US RESUMC oursm unon us7 Mms inst ms anTL enrunne no. MPQAD CIVIL Melten Walter L 5/14/82 CPCo-PDS-25 EDUCATION SCHCC L. NAME. CITY STATE MAJOR $"[ (([ HIM Douglas Fream n Rich =cnd, VA 3 Campbell College Buies Creek, NC History 4 BS-1968 CWER thiv. of N. Icwa Cedar Falls, IA iyr. 72-73 OTHER VA PolyTechnique Inst.SV Blacksburg, VA 1 75-76 JO B WisTORY COMPANY / ADDRESS YCOR T'lT L E D UTIE 5 ROM . TO 2/82 4/82 Daniel Ccnst. Co. lQualityInspector Inspecticn of Civil Cctstruction R.titen, E) Level II activities relating to cencrete Callaway Nuclear Plant place =ent & pest place =ent en Nuclear Power Plant. Concrete preplace=ent, place =ent, , niel Const. Co. QC Inspector pcstplace=ent, cadweld, and soils 12/81 2/82 Di f rb=estead, FL Level II backfill inspecticns en Stea= Gen- 'Atrkey Point Nuclear Pl. erator backfit for a Nuclear Pcwer Plant. Cecrdinated activities of Civil CC 10/81 11/81 Brown & Root, Inc. Lead Civil QC batching & placing inspecters during Eay City, TX Inspector cencrete place =ent & pest place =ent Scuth Texas Nuclear Pint, activities. Respcnsible for =ar.pewer allocation & QC support of Construc- ~.~.,m., Inspection of civil censt:vetien 12/79 10/81 Brown & Root, Inc. Civil QC Insp. activities including concrete pre-Eay City, TX Level II place =ent, place =ent, & pestplace-South Texas Nuclear Plnt =ent. Also prefor=ed surveillance of site GeoTechnical & Non-safety ralated activities. Inspecti n of cencrete preplace=ent, l 8/79 11/79 Stene & Webster Civil QC Insp. i Engineering Corp. Level II placement, postplace=ent, cadwelding l St. Francisville, LA and GeoTechnical activities. River Eend Nuclear Pint. ^**""' #0"E i* *
- EE" *
- 12/78 8/79 Brown & Boot' Inc.
Civil QC InsP* Bay City, TX t.evel I & II codes, regulatiens & job specifica-South Texas Nuclear Pint tiens & procedures during civil construction activities. - _ _ ~. _. -. ____.-.7 7
pg. 2. e . m., JO S H ISTORY Mo/vg l COMPAM / Apo4E55-Wum T ri L.. ccTIE 5 saem i m I 7/78 9/78 Sayre & Associates Performed soils test in field and Richnend, VA Soil Technician laboratory acccrding to ASDi and AASHTO Standards. 1 11/77 6/78 Pittsburgh Testing Lab. Perfor=ed.cencrete test in field Ric!mond VA Concrete and lab accceding to ASTM, ACI, and Bay City, TX Technician ANSI Codes. Werk was en high-rise bldg. and !belear Power Plant. fcmed wious ccnstructienduties 4/76 8/77 Snyder-Ibnt Corp. en pipe &.e and Residendal Catme-Blacksburg, VA Laborer tien Projects. 1 Perfer=ed soils & asphalt inspec - ~ 2/73 11/74 Fruehling & Peberts,Inc, tien & testing b the field and Rich =end, VA Soil Technician laberatory. ftnitered asphalt batch plant activities. 12/68 12/71 U.S. Ar=y Rifle =an Served in the U.S.and in Vietnam, and Panama. t 9 i + 9 6 e s e. ene e a m .--%cy, ,,,,,,,~.,.__.m_-,m _9,,, _.m. ,,-re,._7_ ___,._-__-w.,
ALAS A254J M C CMrAns zAT:On LAsT Mans EnbT NM19. G4TL E P 0. MPQAD Petresino Joseph J. 6/22/82 301 EDUCATION $"[ g "o",*7 g SCHCC L. NAME. CITY STATE M AJo R H3U W.H. Lynch High School Amsterdam, NY Vocaticnal 3 -u USN Schools Electrical / Great Lakes, IL Electrical / Elect-4cos. Grad 1966 ER Ele'etricer.ie AEC Art #107 West !t.lten, NY pnics Rad-Cecent. 1mo. 1974 AEC NNSY Reactor I&C schoo Windsor Locks Cenn. N'uclear Reacter I&C 2=cs. 1974 OTHER ICS Electrical Hcce Study Electrical Review 1979 JO B WISTORY COMPANY / ADORESS WuR T iT).E. DUTIE 5 EleM 1"O 6/82 Yesen ; Censu=ers Power Co. CAE QA surveillance /inspecticn/overlock. Midland Nuclear Project (SAI Centract) 2/82 6/82 Toledo Edison Co. CA/QC Eng. QA/CC surveillance /Inspecticns Davis Ecsse Station Refueling cutage & TMI M:dificatiens 200 Ndiscn Ave. Toledo, CH 4/78 2/82 Eechtel Power Co. Craft Electrician Electrical Ccnstruction - 3500 E. Miller Rd. QC Engineer lavel II Area Lead for Aux. 634' up Midland, MI Field Elect. Eng. to roof. Res;cnsibilities: Spreader roces, centrol room, 659' elect.roces CREM reem & assec. wing walls. 5/77 12/77 General Dynamics Craft E ectrician Nuclear Navy Pretetype " Trident" (Electric B:at Div) West Milten, NY N.I. cabinet & device Installatien, West Milten NY wiring, ter=inatiens, etc. Groten, Cenn. 2/77 5/77 Colonie nectric Craft Electrician General construction wiring for shop. ~ Latham, NY ping call - ecepletten of job. 9/76 12/76 General Dynamics craft Electrician Nuclear lhvy Prototype " Trident" West hilten, NY West Milten, NY N.I. Cabinet & device installati:n, Groten, Conn. wiring, terJ. nations, and Marine cable installation, N.I. wiring.
j JO S utsToRY N7Y ccMPAMY / ApORf 55 YouR T171.Tr. DUTIE S smen I ro I 7/76 9/76 M Gcid & Sen Electrical Craft Electrician General supportive electrical Centracters at West Milten, NY, construction for Nuclear Prctetypes 8 Schenectady, NY S7G & S8G (Navy). 6/74 7/76 M:rrisen-Kgrsen Inc. Nuclear Electrician Electrical refurbishir4 cf Navy Boise, Idano Ebelir4 Shift Fere-Nuclear Prototypes D1G/53G/S1C - New Core Inst. cn D1G/S7G. man for S7G at West Milten, NY & Windser Locks,Cl. t b i o 6 I I e e. I 1 e + 8 M M e GW,eer emmeessue p agemme e e M *e 84 e e g me e.-- e, .--g- < -w n e,
,,---,m,~~-
r--w----
A.As RusaMC oscr+m unon Lur Mans imT we. Can wrwrxe so-C Peo - P7 T. MPQAD Peinte Frank 8/4/82 % Cl EDUCATION 50400 L NAME. CITY STATE M AJo R )"[ g "g\\*.*g U E Ml" Fh=tra=ack lia=tra=ack, MI General 4 CDu S E LaSalle Q11cago, IL Eusiness,MLnage. 4 BA 1970 lhtional Tech ks Angeles, CA Electronics 2 1958 .0THER Q110ago Trade Q11cago, IL Drafting 1 1957 JO B M tSTORY Co>iPANY / APOR ES S WOR T* lT 1. E. D UTIE 5 rcom ro 2/82 8/82 Toledo Edisen Lead Auditor Perfomed audits relative to ec=pany Envis-Bessie procedures in =aint., QC, fire & safe-ty and stcrage areas and rewerk of stea= generator auxiliary feed water syste=. 10/79 1/82 Bechtel Pcwer Corp. S.Q.R Audited quality verificatien decu=en-4 Midland, MI tation furnished by suppliers. Per-for:ed site audits en diesel generatcr. 6/77 10/79 Pointe Fced D acter President Ferd Tracter & !=ple=ent Basiness. Mt. Pleasant, MI 12/75 7/77 /cerican lioist & rerrick QC mnager Perfor:ed =anage=ent audits relative Bay City, MI to the ec=pany quality pregra= in addition to =anage=ent duties. 1/65 12/75 Nssey Ferguscn 011ef Inspecter Chief Inspecter of two plants. Detroit, MI Supervised inspection dept, perfcmec scheduled audits: as QA rep perfeme: auditing vender surveillance. 10/63 12/64 hirrougns Ccep. Inspection Supervised inspection dept. in Detroit, MI S2perviser receiving. Perfer=ed Audits.
e pg. 2. ~.. JO S WISTO RY "* N " I COMPANY / ADORESS WOR 7tT L E DUTIE $ j saem i ro i 4/56 10/60 orysler Missile Instrumentatign
- Ferrer=ed seis=ic test en =1ssles & i Sterling, MI Tech.
.c m penent parts research and Ldevelopment. j l i l I i e e i 1 e 6 l l l l 5 I __-_.________.._m.
n' AL AG RESUM i .i&. a=_c+m uren 6AST =ar.a MST adME DEE EnfiorEi No- } CPCo Robbins Jill Marie 8-11-82 366762865 ^ i EDUCATION SCHOOL NAME. CITY STATE MAJOR )"7, I[
- ge mm H16u H.H. Dow High School Midland, MI College Prep.
4 EE5&W "E6 E University of MI Ann Arbor, MI Social Sciences 4 B.A. Ed. N/A OTHER ~ JO B WlSTORY ccMPANY / APORESS WOR T'lT1.Tr. DOTIE S ream ro PRESENTLY CPCo., Midlar.d AssocLate QA Verification / Inspection Nuclear Site, Consu~ tant Activities Midland, MI Quality record filing /retrievint i/81 7/82 CPCo, MIoland QA Clerk Training records and schedule, Nuclear Site Updating action item lists, Midland, MI ' anchor bolt intaller list, welder Qualsm input to monthl y uw n.,, w v, s. 1978 1981 Girl Friday, Inc. Secretary / Secretarial Midland, MI Receotionist 1978 1978 The Plumed Serpent Clerk Sales Assisted with minor surgeries, 1975 1978 MLdland Derm. Lab. Ass./ skin culture tests and basic C
- inic, Receptionist lab duties, room supplies./
Midland, MI Secretarial e m _ ,wweeeee ensee +was-en as _ e
AL A G qssuu t owasmunon au y1 sats uns oca. Enegori; r,c. 2-MPQAD NDE/ WELDING SELVIDIO JEFFREY 7/19/82 EDUC.ATIO N { SCHOO L NAME. C.tT Y STATE MAJOR Y ). Wif,H M-St Bernards Uncasv111e. CT College Pree 4 mm CDGE Thames Valley State Che=ical Technical College Norwich. CT Technology 1 N/A CTHER N/A OTHER N/A JO S H ISTO RY COMPANY / a,3OR T.55 v00R 7"lTLE. DUTIE S etora m Visual inspections to AWS D1.1-75 5/82 7/82 Space Science Services Visual Welding of monorail system at the Dade Orlando, FL Inspector County Zoo, Miami, FL. Required to maintain extensive documentation $N fk@.gygghg,,gekggg,y p f 1/82 3-82 Nuclear Energy Services Mechanical / Visual Visual welding inspections to AWS Shelter Rock Read Welding Inspector Dl.1-72 and documentation of re-Danbury, CT 06810 Level II sults as part of a structural steel inspection pecgra=. Re-inspection of hangers, piping & 9/81 1/82 National Inspection and Mechanical / Visual equipment installations to verify Consultants Welding Inspector compliance with drawings, preceduren 315 W. 1st Ave Level II and specs. Weld record and work Kennewick, WA 99336 package review. Building surveil- $ 3--.. w--4t-- u.te -r --ee,du-e variables. 2/81 9/81 United States Testing Co NDE/ Mechanical MT, PT, RT and visual inspection 1415 Park Ave Inspector of piping, hangers & structural Hoboken, NJ 07030 Level II steel. Issue and review process P!hN! FI 5'NI N ).A b f MT, PT, RT and visual inspe. ions. 7/79 2/81 Advanced Testing NDE/ Visual Welder and procedure qualifxcations Services Welding Inspector to AWS Dl.1-79. Control & distri-11216 Satellite Blvd Level II bution of inspection recores. Lo-Orlando, FL 32809 cation: Kennedy Space Center Launc i Comolex 393. 12/78 5/79 Boothe & Twining Inc Level II Radiography of refinery piping 2621 Saddle Lane Radiographer synge=3, Oxnard, CA 93030 r---
e s- ~ s'* * .g. ~ JO S W ISTO RY "* / *
- I comramy / Apos t.55 wum r T t z.
saem Im 1 ocris s 4 1 1 g gRadiography of Navy Surface ,1/78 12/78 Peabody Testing & Level II lxsselsutilizingisotopesand
- Ve Magnarlux Radiographer ray machines.
, East Washington Blvd l l l Los Angeles, CA 90040 l 12/77 GeneralDhamics Level I Perform radiographic operations Electric Beat Divisien Radiographer on various areas of nuclear Eastern. Point Rd submarines. Groton, CT 06340 e e 6 4 e j W e
4^3 MsuMi-oncrar. unon w,r a4ms un aes ce,m e.wong no. MPQAD Trumeer Gerry B/25/82 171 44-5495 EDUC.ATION SCHCC L. NAME. CITY STATE MAJOR f.(, 1 Hillsdale High School Hillsdal.e, MI General 4 Associates Degree OLLME Jacksen Cere.:. College Jackson, MI in Aiplie.d Arts 2.5 1978 t v.. - m ER Spartan School of Aerenauti.:s hlsa CK NDT 4 =cs. 2/81 1 Maintenance en CTHER 1 UH-13-D-C-AHIG 3 ces US Ar=y ke. Jo S W ISTORY COMPANY / APORESS 'CU R T'IT1.E DOTlE S 4 ttom es 6/s2 8/82 L.K. Constock Ccepany Level II Electrical inspection of cenduit and Enrico Fer=1 II Nuclear Hectrical Insp. supports of all class I and class II Statien in Conduit syste.'s along with swing buss, check New Port, MI ed all bend radieus, pull points, j cheejedgen blue prints to as built i 2/82 5/82 Nuclear Energy Services Level II Hectric Hectrical inspection cf ter.inaticna Viag11 C. Su==er Nuclear al Inspector in heat shrink tod, rebuilding of Asco Statien Parr. CF. QC/QA/18C to Pressure Valves with I&C, worked with South Carolina N45-2.6 Inryeo en pcst tensien syste= to Spe-:, lift off scee, and insp. of Ancher 5,s w.-v...,4 ..,-v. 4. and rust en wires, f i 4 6/61 2/c2 Universal Testing Labs Level II Cect. Cectrical Insp., over insp. of Susqueharr.a Steam & Elec Inspector /QA in Sechtel CC on ter::inations, =eggerira i tric Statien the C.S.G. to code cable pulling and hypotting cf cable s Mio'p%'%3tiCQ,y,f y,3 Berwick PA standard N45-2.6
- *
- a turnedoverequipcentenspec$dl[g t
e a was perfer=ed at this Nuclear cea.ici).. d ) 2/c1 6/c1 Universal Testing Labs Electrical, Mech. Perfer=ed insp. on s=cke det. syste:7 Niagara Mohawk 9-Mile QA/QC also terr.inatic$.s,pul!Ing,rTab$cntin ma eri ~ i Point Cert. in MT/PT/V uing checks cab e e trav Oswego,Statien Invel II Insp. inst. condult supports for class I Nuclear dY & class II systems. Replacement of 1 Station Battery Backs & !stte.aies. l 10/c0 2/c1 Seiscograph Service Cor;. Electrical Tech. op.!ESf I" f[jM1.Cft@8$NE3t Wisa Cklaheca a respqnsib er cr-I~.'e8,and
- ng i
testirs c c e uY. 7 = ting macnine. er utI6s it.scect en-i blue print ra laak tes*ing hardness test, adits. Q. etic particas, tem t. acid penitrant testing. --,,y ,,..,,,..%-_mm y,.,,,,, _ - -, -. -,., -.,... -, ~. - r-
e ps. L .e JC S W ISTORY f CDMPAMY/A9047,$5 Wut T*rf t.g, DOTig S saem i ro i 75 79 Seit anployed Retail Sales & Valuableexposuretofundamentalandj at hcme Service for advances aspects of small business management, hasing.bcekkeepins,=arke; i Consumers Eect- - centrol,purc ronic Parts. ing & advertising. Testing & the eval, uation of electrcnic devices with the idiagenostic test equi: cent was per-t Iormec in cep;n wica trcucie snoccu.s ; 4/6o 4/69 United States e=y Aviation Mecn Assigment as mec:ber of =aint. crew I (Rank - SE) with the respcnsiblity fer test fli-l guts, airfra=e inspectiens, general ' maintenance and service of the Sell Helicopter, 8.HI-B,C,D and idiIG. 11/65 4/66 Jcnesville Products Inc. Assistant Ferecan Progressed from General Productien 4/69 10/72 Jonesville, MI Repaiman, Insp. Laberer to Assist. Ferman with the Stock Centrc11er respensibility of stock centro 11er, repai=an of the autocatic punch pren machines and power tubing bending machines. 1/65 11/65 City Wide Delivery Snail truck, Pick-up and delivery of busir.ess Ws Angeles, CA Delivery Driver fcms and supplies with responsibilis of delivery on time with spec. doce. for business use. 7/63 1/65 niay Rubber Co. Inc. mehine operator Progressed from General Laterer to LA, Cal. Inspecter Nchine operater with the direct re-spensibility for huality of product Stock Centro 11er to a= cunt and con. cf eachceder,werkingwit.b.rint,to c10se toll in vinal upholstry for auto and i hece use. 1963 04d Jcbs, Fan Work worked en fa m doing all types of Auto Mechanic odd jobs, werked en cars as auto + Michigan machanic with no real special duties. t e
- ee e se o e
ee. es- .e + e e
0 M AL A G CWs u m L CMsAM6 M T ION LA*ai NAME. M SI NMa CAIc. i n flOTEf NC. Bechtel Power Caldwell David 8/82 E.DUc.ATION SCHOOL NAt1EL CITT STATE M A Jo R, $"7, g e(7_[ 5 E pign Moss Power High School Charleston Naval Electrical I. GED Base Averentice -a coLLEG E. l cwen .OTHER JO B TsTO RY M* M ccM*ANY / Ap0RESS vouR T IT L E, CUTIE S fle M 70 6/ 6/ US Navy Electrician Repair & overhaul of j 45 49 Charleston Naval Apprentice electrical system. shipyard I 6/49 6/30 South Carolina Sgt 1/c Student Radio & Lines =an School 6/5C 8/52 Lu=ber Mill & Electrician Operation of Company owned Village power plant. Maintenance of electrical & telep_ hone syste= in plant and Co. Village 3/52 3/56 Civil Service Electrician Test & Repair of power plant Charleston Shipyard system (Marine) 3/56 2/57 Civil Service Aircraft Inspection & Repair of air Charleston AF Base craft. 4 5 6
Ps.1 Caldwell, David Rge 2 JO S W 1570 R Y COMP 4MY / ADDaES S Youa 7:7 L E Durig 5 2/57 5/57 Charleston Shipyards Electrician Overhaul & Repair of Elec. Systems (Marine) I t 5/5' 7/51 Norfolk Shipyard Electrician Overhaul & Repair of Elec. I Systems. (Marine) s 7/57 9/57 Jacksonville Ship-Electrician Overhaul & Repair of Elec. yard, Inc. Systems (Marine) 1/58 6/58 Ingalls Ship-Electrician New Construction, Coc=unida-butiding Corp. tion and fire control systems Oyarine) 6/58 5/67 Ingalls Ship-Q.C. Inspector' Inspection of installation building Corp. Nuclear of nuclear aqui witness of pre pment and cast of systems in reactor plant. 5/67 11/ Ingalls Ship-Electrical Installation and checkout 67 building Corp. Specialist (cest) of fire control systems. 1/68 10/ Lovis Draffus Corp. Electrician Maintenance of telephone, 69 Power & Lighting systa=s. of grain elevator 10/69 5 / 7.' Ingalls Ship-Electrical Craft inspector and checkout building Corp. Specialist of nuclear electrical systems. 5/72 6/74 Ingalls Ship-Electrical Team member - Reactor building Corp. Specialist Refueling 6
73 2 g Caldwell,. David Tage 3 JO S W ISTO R v "* M COMPAMT / ADDELESS Yous T lT L,1, DO7;g $ ra.n i m 6/74 10/ Ingalls Shipbuilding Electricar Construction & Testing of-74 Corp. Supervisor j of Fire Control and Ele-a vator system. I 8/77 7/ Ingall $ttipbuilding Electrical Raactor Plant Test Suprv. 79 Corp. s 7/79 '6/82 Bechtel Power Corp. QC Engineer "Q"pection and Monitoring of Ins Grand Gult 9645 installation, modifica-tions and re7 air of equip-ment, cable hangers, raceways and teminations - Documen-tation review and audits. e I E o 9 D 4 l 6 f 8 e e es e one. en m e : e eo e se es... e as ea, e
6 ^^ I I':s AL A G REs u M G. oN,Ani zAT:ch user naMA has7 nAna oAIc. infioru rio. Q.C. Ivey, Robert E. 6-24-82 871717 EDUC.ATION '5CHOO t. NAnE. CITY STATE MAJOR $"7f (([*[
- WIGH Academy er Richmond Co.
Augusta, GA 4 M COL 1.Et,E. g gg, Jacksonvillo Tech. Sheet Metal High School Jax Fla. App. Program 4 9-20-67 .OTHER JO S TSTORY CortPANY / Ap0RE55 YOU R T 1T L E. OtJ7IE 5 ftoM PO July April I. add Sheet Metal Foreman Sheet metal foreman over 20 story 1973 1974 Titusville, Fla. highrise motel & resturant. l June Dec. Robert Insay Foreman Foreman in containment St. Luey i 1974 1975 thit I. Jan. May Atlanta & West Palm Sheet Metal General sheet metal werk. 1976 1978 Beach Sheet Metal Mechanic ti~en t e Checking, measuring and designing May Sept. McCroskey Sheet Metaf Draftsman duct; ordering duct, measuring & 1978 1979 Grand Q21f designing hangers, making drawing changes (DCN & DCR). i Oct. Dec. Bechtel Tereman Sheet metal foreman over sheet 1979 1979 Grand Q21f metal in Auxiliary B2ilding, Lhit II. Jan. Sept. M:Croskey Sheet Metal General Toreman General foreman over testing crew 1980 1980 Grand Gulf & Mechanic and other mechanic duties. ~ ,-_,.,----.,,.-----.--._m.
c. fg. $, Jo S 111570 R Y "* N ' I COMPAMT / 49041$$ Woe T O L 3. DOTig S seem i,, I Feb. May Fred Swaine Sheet Metal Shop work & installing duct work. 1981 1981 Sheet Metal Mechanical West Palm Beach, Fla. I May Aug. Bechtel Power Corp. ' Mechanical Q.C. Q.C. inspection of mechanical 1981 1981 Q.C. Engineer piping and H.V.A.C. Grand klf 'Aug. June techtel Power Corp. Electrical Q.C. Q.C. inspection of electrical 1981 1982 Q.C. mqineer hangers. Grand Gulf e. e 9 5 I s r / . _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.. =. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_.. = I l*3 t .E ALAS Rts uu G. emansuiten m nw saen n u a own. snesom r,o. 1982 i AAPD. Midland. MI Lizotte I.ao August 495756 EDUC.ATION t g ((yg" I ~$CHOO L NAME., CITY STA7E M A JO R 7, A. M. Sormmy Edmundston. N.B. 73 cou,gr,g Universite of Moncton. New Brunswick N.B. Canada Civil Eng. 78 OWER i .0THER JOS TSTORY COMPANY / ADDRESS WOR TITLE. DOTIE S reem co 8/78 12/78 Bechtel Quebec Dykes & Dams Study of plans and specifica-SE3J/ Dykes & Dams tion. Inspection of the works to assure execution quality. 1/79 10/8C Bechtel Quebec Dykes & Dams Inspection of work regarding embankment (d kas & dams), general found tion grouting i and spillway. Redaction of weekly, monthly and annual i 4 *V'H6 * * p ro gr e s s. f 5 supuswa Maintain communication between Inspection Division, special-ists, laboratories and Contrac<: Administration to assure work conformity. Estimation, preparation and redaction of~ recommendation following changes to plans and technical l specifications. Verification of the landscaping done by the contractor for the post job clean up and enviornmental services. l
i pg. 2. Lizotte, Leo Page 2-JO C, W STO R Y COMP 4xy / ApoRE55 Yoon T i r t, c Dur E 5 raem i ro I i 11/80 5/81 Bechtel O.2ebec Limited Study of plans and specifications. i SEB.7/Centrale et Inspection of the werk regard 4% Structures LG 4 concrete (intake and spillway), Superior: Gilles excavation of penstocks and Gauthier coa.m1 *~ t~'a
- 4 m ~~ t+4 9 Inspection of the work to assure
' execution quality. Study and vgrification of inspectier reports done during construction work mentioned in preceeding para, graph. Maintain communication te ween inspection divisien, engineering department a.-4 labcra-tories, contract adninistratien to assure work conformity. Classify and verify the decuments (plans, plans revision, modifications, l etc.) Keep up to date a file of photos ori every construction phase. Similar tasks described in preceeding paragraph. Coordinate the work of the inspectors and keep an effective comunication with the cen-tractor's foremen and sty rvisers. Examine the daily reports and are-ove the e i 9 Aj.
f*3 A t. A Q Qgs g,j u l s s.caa n s z.Ai no n s rsi nw.E M bT Ma r'E o4TE. Enetoru no. Bechtel QC Pogue Joseph EDUC.ATION 'SCHCC L NA2iE. c1TY SMTE M A Jo R. 3"[ (((( Quachita High School Monroe, Louisiana Northeast La. University Monroe, Louisiana Construction 12/77 B.S./ gggg 12/7,, CTMER .OTHER JOi3 TSTORY COMPANY / ApDRESS vouR TITL E DUTIE 5 ff.o M 1"O 8/75 11/76 Twin City Glass Drafcsman Designed storefront systems for buildings. 12/76 12/77 Madden & Assoc. C.E. Draftsman Layouts for subdivisions, development of large scale maps, and construction drawings for sewage treatment facility. 1/73 9/79 Ford, Bacon, & Davis, Inc. Cost Analyst, Development of bid packages; infiel Estt:tator, material expediter, work documenta-Scheduler tion, job supervision, Subcontracts. Development of construction drawingn 10/79 7/80 Heuer, Johns, Neel, for malls and major dept. stores; Rivers, & Webb, Arch. Draftsman reviewed architect's lease space drawings. Being trained as project director. Monitoring instsllation of s=all ll/8C 6/82 Bechtel Power G.G.N.S. Construction pipe supports. Duties: pre-Engineer inspecting designs, issuing vo-k l to suprv., interfacing with i af t, inspecting and accepting instal-la tions. s e e E
F__ M.A8 REssJMC o w m;ATCn LAsT Nwf. En>T WL M Et1PLCni MC-Eechtel Arm Arbor QA Richardsen, Gary L.' 7/15/82 565-776 EDUCATION SCHCCt NAME. CITY STATE MAJOR $"7, g "g,.g 5 O '*
- E HIGM Lincoln Fish Lincoln CA 4
Sierra College. Rockland, CA Ergineerire 2 AA 1958 CTHER OTHER JO B H ISTORY
- N" COMPANY / APORESS WOR T*1T L E.
DUTIE 5 FloM fo PRESEfT Eechtel Power Cerp. Assistant to PLEASE SEE AUACHED TESI.r. Ann Arbor, MI Project Manager Q.tality. l
GARY L. RICHARDSON 077042 POSITION Quality Assurance Supervisor EDUCATION AA, Engineering Technology, Sierra College PROFESSIONAL Licensed Professional Engineer, State of i DATA California Member, American Nuclear Society j Member, American Society for Quality Control j i
SUMMARY
l year: Quality assurance supervisor 1 year: Quality assurance staff engineer. 5 years: Lead quality assurance engineer 5-1/2 years: Construction supervisor for testing and inspection of major construction 9-1/2 years: Inspection, testing, and surveying for heavy construction EXPERIENCE Mr. Richardson is currently assigned as quality assurance supervisor for operating plent projects. In this capacity he reports directly to the division manager of quality assurance and is responsible for. supervision of quality personnel assigned to projects involving operating plants. Mr. Richardson is also the assigned project quality assurance engineer for the Palisades modifications proj ec t. In this capacity he is responsible for implementation of the quality assurance Program for engineering, procurement, and construction, and client interface for quality-related matters. Duties include audits, monitoring corrective ' action, program -develop-ment, approval of all program documents, approval of procedures, specifications, purchase orders, vendor QA programs, and measurement of the effectiveness.of the QA i programs. Previously, Mr. Richardson was a staff l quality assurance angineer in the Ann Arbor Power Division, responsible.for program control, the generic corrective action program, and training. He was a member of the San Francisco Power Division management audit team and performed special assignments. i e i ... ~.. -
) GARY L. RICHARDSON (Cont'd) 077042 Mr. Richardson's field assignments include lead site quality assurance engineer at the Midland nuclear power plant construction site, responsible for supervision of quality assurance engineers at the site and for implementation of the quality assurance program. This program included auditing systems and construction processes, client interface, development of effective corrective action, training, identifying trends, measuring. effectiveness of program implementation, and related activities. e d W* e [ t l f l I I I
O 8 .g ' ALAS RE$dMC l op.c,A m zA 7 :o N tasr Nams rats 7 uAria aug oircars no. B & W CC Alcott Tem 6/30/82 1172 EDUCATION SCMCC1-NAME. CITY STATE MAJo R $"7, g"g,7g 5 U "*" E ' HIGM Washington St. Paul MN 4 Cou.EGE crTHER St. Paul' Technical St. Paul MN Data Processira 2 Cert. Vocational Institute 1970 OTHER Alan Hanecek Jr. College Santa Maria, CA Welddra 1 Sem. I JO B W1STO RY COMPANY / ADORESS YCUR T'1T L E. DOTlE S =.., m 6/80 PreseU Arrecony Associates NDE Consultant NDE Services: 240 Rio Del &r Talcott & Assoc. UT, PT, MI VT Level II, CA/QC Rio Del &r-Aptes, CA 1/78 6/80 La=bert &cGill & Ihocas NDE Technician Level II, UT & ET. 771 E. Erikaw Rd. San Jose, CA ) 4 .,,e ..w,
ALAa RasuuC C M. rat <6 2 AT LQ et L.AbT #AME TM37 MAelf. 447E frW(ar2E AC. B & W Const. Co. QC 'Caropine Paul 8/16/82 1179 EDUC.ATION SC100L NAME. CITY STATE M AJo R $"[ g"o",*.*g* W Alha= bra Alha= bra, CA General 4 Cou.EGE Lewis Clark State Lewisten ID General 2 M ER 40 hrs Rockwell International L.A. CA U.T. UT OTHER JO B HIS~i"o R Y COMPANY / ADORE 55 YouR T*1TL E DUTIE 5 rtom to 9/81 5/82 L.M.T. Inc. NDT &chanical Paspensible fer the =aintenance and 771 E. Brokaw Ed. Tech. San Jose, CA cperatien of various recordire and =echanical equi; cent. 4/81 9/81 WHS - Scecen-Geri certified Level II Inspection of werk perfer:ed by pipe-General Energy Pascurses Visual Weldire fitters and irenwerkers to ANSI-P.O. Box 10t0 Inspector N45.2.6, ASME/ ANSI-B31.1 Richland, WA ASME Section III & IX. 1/81 4/81 Pull =an Power Products level II Inspecticn of Class I Nuclear Pipi 4 P.O. Box 367 Visual Weldirs Pipe supperts, includirs anchers, Avila Beach CA Inspecter restraints, seis=ic li=iters, and pipe hargers. 5/79 10/80 Feinhart & Associates Level II VT NDT Exa=ination of nuclear and fossil P.O. Scx 982 Suite 173 LevelII MI NDT Power Plant eccpenents. Austin, TX Level I Tech UT Level I Tech PT 6/78 5/79 L.M.T. Inc. NDT Tech Manual and =echanized exa=ination 771 E. Brckaw Rd. Level I ITI San Jose, CA of nuclear power plants PSI & ISI. e .y-_. ~
AAa nasamt ~omm24rion usr#es run m e aus wwne no. B&W Const. Co. Caspary Bert 6/23/82 1168 EDUCATION SCHCCL NAME. city STATE MAJOR "[ Windscr F .ity HS Windsor, kL 4 Ccu.EGE OTHER OTHER JO B H ISTORY Mo/vR COMPANY / ADDRESS voog T lT L E. DOT 1E 5 CtoM l 70 9/77 ITesen ; B&W Ccnst. Co &pt. Over see different types of boiler, 29 S. tamile St. Censt. repaLa & assoc. equipeent. Chicago, E 60603 6/72 9/77 Caspary Electric Owner Esti=ating, =anager & superviser Sullivan, E Manager, Esti=- ator i 12/69 6/71 krris Tri-County Esti=ater & Esti=ating & Supervisien Electric Superviser Pana, E 1/69 12/69 Burris Hubbard nect. Esti=ater Esti=ating, Supervisien & Manager Shelbyville, 1 Supt.& Manager 6/63 1/69 City of Sullivan mpt. & Manager Supt. & Manager of nectric Genera- ~ Electric Dept. tien & distributien syste= Sullivan, E 7/54 6/63 Young & Foote J. nectrician J. nectrician, Esti=ater, Supe. & l nectric Co. Esti=ater Marayser. Mattocn, E t & pt. & Manager ~
PS 2-JO 6 4 ISTO RY l Me/vt l CDMPAMY / A00tE55 'stum int L 7, cor:g s j saem i m i I armed & custec2 rad.g, facteries i 5/50 7/54 F Iservice station & far: har.d. 8 e G e 1 0 i 9 9 9 1 e --.m-,m-. e-
ALAB RESUME C A(rAN 6 2 ATIO N M&T #AME fBt3T MAM& 'G47E fl1f(atZE AO. B & W Const. Co. CC Cox Ja=es 8/11/82 1528 EDUC.ATION SDDCL NAME CITY STATE MAJoM %,5 j"g'h*gE HIGM Berkley High Berkley, MI 1 COLLEGE Mr & PT 10/ 6 CTMER RT 4/ 0 Magnaflux Corp. Chicago IL UT 8/ 0 ~OTHER Hartford, Cenn. Ur Basic 9/79 MLnn, Mirm. 'Ibrbine Insp. 6/81 JO S M tSTO RY COMPANY / 400RES S YCOR T'1T L E, DUTIE S stom to PRESINT B&W Ccnst. Co 3333 Copley M. NDE Tech. MT/PT of Wel's & basic caterial. d Ccpley, CH 2/76 8/82 W.aflux Cuality Serv. NDT Inspector MT,PT.UT,RT, and visual inspectier.s/ 32063 Tc'.cley Ave. Examinations. tdisen, Hts. MI i ( m. -e e * .,s =
~ ALA8 REsJMC oMrAm 2A T D tt LAsT NsenL FMT NArth GCE. etW Wr u N o-B&W Const. Cc. QC Fennell Keith 8/16/82 1159 EDUC.ATION .t SCHCOL. NAME. CITY STA7E MAJOR YEARS. DEGRE E. i ATT. t CATE j HIGM Wetter = ark F.12h Ebyce LA 14 1' J CDL1.EG E. OTHER .0THER JO B W ISTORY Mo/vg COMPANY / ADDRESS YOUR T*1T L E. DUTIE S mm to 5/82 cresenn B&W Const. Co. Asst. Padic5ra-Mf.scellaneous Padiegaphic operatiers Midland, MI pher & radiega-pher Level I 11/79 5/81 B&W Const. Cc Ti=ekeeper Misc. effice werk in charge of New Pcads, LA Welding Tech stress relieving en job and blue print centrel. 6/79 11/79 8 & W Const. Cc Ti=ekeeper Misc. repair jobs, =ise. office ibusten, TX h terial Pan work & =aterial & purche. sir.g. 2/79 6/79 luhr Brcs. Const. Co. Deck hand Deck hand en tus beat, Boyce, LA Srveycr surveycr for =isc. dirt work. I \\ m
n.A *> RssaMC ouram;non s.or Mans. TwsT mvsn act wwm no. B&W Const. Co. QC Karol, Dennis 8/16/82 1178 EDUC.ATION SCW"O L. NAME. CITY STATE MAJOR O" dO E %w Taunten High School Taunton, MA College Prep 4 k 6 Cou.Er,E Scuthwestern Miss. Chiv. N. Dart =cuth, MA Mechanical g, m ?w:- 7 u m3 [ CTHER oTutR ) JO B W ISTO RY COMPANY / ADORESS YOUR 7-)T L F DUTIE 5 rtom to 5/82 8/82 =arclay Int's Ltd. M:chanical Insp. Aux. Feedwater =cdification. Inspectira 3405 E. Wackerly Rd. layout for new no::les, di=ensional a Midland, MI 48640 Davis-Besse I surface finish verificatien & visual Chk Harber, CH exa= cf welds. Alse inspected inst. cf new header & risers. 10/81 2/82 Butler Service Group Construction Concrete block wall =odification. 150 Wood Ed. Ergineer Braintree, MA Coordinated effort between installati on Pilgra: I super. & ces.izant erg. Resolved Field Ply =cuth, MA proble=s to =eet design & installatien require =ents. Duties included cat'l inso., fit-uo & weld inscections. 7/81 10/81 Ian Martin Inc. Field Ergineer S::all bere pipe supports, redesigned 96 River Oaks Center supports to accccodate field install Calu=et City, IL Inspected Ccnst. proble=s with fore-Lasslie Ccunty 1&2 =an to deter =ine possible resolutions g7713, 7L Duties included providing calculatiers & doct: entatien of cha-ses. 10/80 6/81 Stene & Webster Frg.Cerp lead Senior Respcnsible for all phases of design 245 Su:rer St. Designer work of pipe supports. Duties include d B: sten, MA reviewing all drawires for issuing, providing tech. assist. cocedinating design effort with ccnst. effort & schedulira of =anecuer. o/76 9/c0 Stone & Webster Erg.Cer; 245 Su:rer St. Senior Des'**~*e', Responsible for cceplete design of Ecston, MA varicus pipe support systees fer Ig.& s=. bore pipira. D. ties included supervision of other designers, issu-r.g drawirgs, answerir4 technical questions 6/74 7/78 Stone & Webster Erg.Cer; Designer Responsible fer laycut, design, & 245 Succer St. calibrations of pipe supperts fer lg Boston' MA bore pipirg. S;pe in structural des 14; rvised other design-ers. Knowledgab. n & pipe stress attach =ent prog a s.
ALAS RzsuuE r
- onc,Am zanon 64sr Names im7 uArte c47s erincm ao.
B&W CC QC Wong Harold 6/24/82 1171 EDUC.ATION SCHCCL. NAME. CITY STATE MAJOR $"[ "[f.*g* h HIGM Besten Technical H.S. Scsten MA College Prep. 3 Cou.EGE Franklin Institute of Civil Engineerina e 69 Besten Besten MA Technolcev 2 CTHER Northeastern thiversity Besten MA BSCE OTHER JO B HISTORY COMPANY / APORESS VCOR TIT 1.E. DUTIE $ mm to 6/1/82 6/11/E2 Barclay International QC Assigned to.B&W at Ihvis-Besse, Oak 3405 E. Wackerly Harbor, Chio. Inspection of Aux Midland, MI Feed water =cdificatien to stea= generators. 6/81 3/82 Additienal Technical L4ad Construc-Ccnstruction.%nage=ent fer the Services tien i=ple=entation of IIB 80-11 Bulletin Mdn St. &.gineer relating to Bleck Walls at Ecsten Waltha=, Mtss. Edison's Pilgri= Station. 9/79 6/81 Lehign Design Design &.g. Assigned to Duke Power's.touire Park M. W.its 1&2. Design suppert of Pipe Curlott, NC support erecticn crew. Assigned to Vepco's Ncrth Anna W.its 8/77 8/79 Stone & Webster Structural 1&2. Design of Platter =s seis=ic 245 Su=cer St. Designer cable tray suppert, struct. =eds. Boston, Mass. and design support to electricians. 1/72 8/77 Stone & Webster Structural Design / draft various nuclear projecta. 245 Su=cer St. Des *g.er/ Boston, Mass Drafts =an Senior 3/71 1/72 Sasari Assoc. Civil Drafts =an Laycut & calc. of readways Pleasant St. l Watertown, Mtss. l
~ Ps. 2. i JO B u tsToRY Mo /vst l COMP 4MY / ADORESS WuR T nTLE. DUTIE S saem i re 1 6/69 1/71 cas. T. Main Drafting and cales. 5 Boston,1%ss. t i 8/79 9/79 Stone & Wetster Struct. Designer Assigned to Brayton Ft. 011 to 2145 Sumer St. Coal recenversien Project. Esten, Mass. i i l I 1 2 4 1 I ( l i f
s M.A3 RssamC 9' 'o Ac,4 m 2.A no n a.or #ms ists7 uArte arts wu:nu ac. B&W QC Yurick Thecas 6/23/82 1170 EDUC.ATION SUCCL NAME. CITY STATE MAJCR $".) [o\\*[g' ) WIM WKeespert Senice High W Keespert, PA General Ed. 3 CDU.EG E Assoc. Newbury Junior College Ecsten, MA &nage=ent li 6/74 CTHER American Society for Metals Park, CH Quality control 1 N/A htals - EI j i OTHER i JO B H ISTORY CDP 1PANY / ApoRE5 *> YOUR TIT LE. D UTIE 5 from ra 6/79 4/82 Arre=eny Associates Quality Assur. Docu=entation, Procedure Developtent 240 Rio Del Nr Quality Control CC S2perviser. Aptes, CA 95003 4/78 3/79 m terials Assurance Quality Centrol NEE Level I and Level II Saratega Ave. San Jcse, CA f d + (
W f 2-!&-e' %h Byrd fk c,H 1 _> h i Q b N < b 1 Gvc sh 2 2era ~ lBeh@~a)GAE oder 9 g fake owr hkl Gc %06P-L y. [ b%h - hef M104c6 y f
' M e 7 8 L Cm Ortme G / / g e /; F% 1 / o.,l c p c l' .? llhju rsc:. n m $17-766'-O 7 74-! i l p in.... ~ $0 )Yg ] lil h*?.) I' l', ' t, ' f~
- ~ - -
m .0I O t l' W.: 'y q,- \\ ? d \\ 'j M \\h - o fp,so\\ 1 - 3 x ,Id.i L. J ~ ) l l l t .}}