ML20105C869
| ML20105C869 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1984 |
| From: | Gerrets T LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Keshishian P NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20105C605 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-205 W3K84-0755, W3K84-755, NUDOCS 8502090536 | |
| Download: ML20105C869 (44) | |
Text
.
.;6 LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT P. O. Box B, Killona, La.
70066 "M sY u
April 6, 1984 W3K84-0755 Q3-A35.01 Mr. Paul Keshishian.
Nuclear Regulatory Conunission East - West Towers - South Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 20014
Dear Mr. Keshishian:
Enclosed are the following copies of items which you have requested:
1)
Information Request Log with some CIRR's attached.
- 2) Miscellaneous requested information.
Should the need for further information arise, please do not hesitate to call.
Yours very truly,
/
na. rnrom T. F. Gerrets Corporate Quality Assurance Mgr.
TFG/ PRS /ge cc: Central Records
{
850209 PDRFOff36e40807 BERNA E64-goS PDR
s 3,
ESASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED MAEs:O
.Q.S.E. NO.
995 DATE:
4-6-84 To: Ron Bennett - LP&L QA Construction Supervisor.
QQwL,K-c, From:
T. H. MacDonald - Lead Q.A. Sury. Engr.
Subject:
Engineering Evaluation Results on Caulking and Penetration Sealant Compounds in use at Waterford III-Attached herewith are copies of engineering evaluations concerning the acceptability for use on stainless steel of chemical compounds which make-up the vapor sealant caulking and' penetration sealants. All of the known compounds in use at Waterford III by AIS Joint Venture (W3-NY-20) and B&B Insulators (W3-NY-27) were evaluated and deemed acceptable.
If we can be of further assistance or if additional information is required, do not
.I hesitate to contact this office.
l TBM:cas cc:
Q.S.E. File L. Bass S. Horton
(
Surveillance File d
W[
ISA O
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED F.E55CO
~-
Q.S.E. NO.
990 DATE:
4-2-84 To:
Stan Cockrell - Materials Apglication Engineer d.Rh 0 h From:
T. H. MacDonald - Lead Q.A. Surv. Engr.
Subject:
. Evaluation of Chemical Compounds in use by B&B Insulators Please provide an engineering evaluation for the acceptability for applications y
on stainless. steel on the~tollowin's chemical compounds:
Radflex 1C - SWL Lab No. 199 1'hp
~
Radflex 2C - SWL Lab No. 200
'J7/8 Ldse IL - SWL Lab No. 205 711/ y'
~
Ldse 2L - SWL Lab No. 206 pygt l'
The chemical analysis for the above listed compounds iis attached.
~
THM:cmg cc:
Q.S.E. File l
N
& &p/tA b
,L1.
4 lc k Wb N,15 Q tP
(
Of[aJh@
t L
N/p' 4
e:
S.,(
MATERIALS APPLICATIONS RESPONSE:
^
Materials Applications considers Silastic 732 silicone _ rubber-sealant to be
~
acceptab,le for use.with austenitic stainless steel. DaIaprovidedbythe l
. manufacturer indicates a total halide content of only 20 ppm.
Leachable halides must be even lower.
The material therefore meets the criteria established for permissible level-of contaminants given in Regulatory Guides 1.37 and 1.38.
6((cL{
u a u
.4 a x, D t g
i
- t*"i E*5P'** 4
.3/a / 9y suo4bc.< A
.ct 3
(A3-tW-7a Es-7_
S e
- e D
0 4
s 6
e e
d b
~ ~.
n. :..
. ~.... +.................
e; :. ;.. +
'. s.....
i tJ/s.77..
trasco sEnvICEs =Com.cm ATED D i s t rib.,e i.as
~
. - /~
* #0#I *# Ine CA Igeniser oU ALITY ASSURANCE l.0 3-Mh NoHcoNFORMANCE REPoR1 Y'"... c,,n.,:.,o -..si.,
fyy s esee b..s. 1.,,. s.,, ; 2 c.,.
n,,
c C, on.79 c /_.- ':.''''''"'*.
- ksiMgYo.
- a., in
..a-.....,.........,.
ed S ES *3 l.e 'sdawn. iou <c 4 L.u\\M Fad cd R wl hcD,acle.1.3(.,
C D
1 s o..........,..,.. -..... e - 1. a. v.. -
i-l\\.I.S. rea h ku, w a - @ 2.o ms........,..........a.,.......-...
__ h4khr' hkQ.Wk'.
f d- ' W
- M b C5NT CC U.L i
8 DesCaiPTioK of HoHCoHFoRAANCE '" Ilreme lanind, $Pe.ifi.orien. Code sr sueru{er,t to whi.h leems ce Net Comply.
Sube.it $ker.h if Applicebte)
It? - keet. Let.6ekt T.N (0.$4(h* tem'O 044h.NN. '3kn%dtS*>'hhv \\ 15 5u.Nesi 4c %itess
_ 'Cettedw es.wdshedche-9fchrh.elDe.m. cer M A co 4a.Eww45 +b.4 cc[w ecs.. wit _- cic,c.6d.'
W.S.Me.e Ce.. t.e.kr lahckm.A *zT sh\\es he f.<fuoc.ed seidc4 S!s uv r<ce.weAd 4er use. en. e.u.hnd. sk.ide Wd d.w,_ 4e' as khee. k h or<pecCL h'ow At<ss certCsien C.Tc.ckae, 4est oe.h c4 ftIL-T 2.4 2.44.
5.<' a. h c L el 4
- 3 fe e %o\\es n.wethee.c.heks et c.nticc.kr of Ses4ckr i
Seede.w4
- h 4."I.S. Te'..d dewkre..
u A.:, r-f Dr,a[s.as e,.;
a.................................. a.....
.a,.....
JAASIh Dc%e
.k.Y 4 Db ! bbCJ"'.
2* N
l l.
nECoMMEHotD Dispos: Tion "** 15Wbmir sker.h if AppII.ebte)
'l C31-/fo1 m, sh. zin }t<
1 tY.MTi. *? e ~
a v e..
)
/
- 6
- ^3',0 ?'! }
g
)
jj I*.. g hg,
'U
'3 r ~g,. -
=_
esa.e3 ames.e s m a ru...,..s.ps....
.noems ois..sers.m stes i t T 6.,...a.a.s v
.av...ias
&c. Gem
- c. r c. w is w s.
sHw ijs av En)As o. atAson con oispos:
u t.
l G dEv t.uArios of m5ise Tion n=>
- ~4c w Wy an f
g i
tv. connECTivs 'ACrion "*'
O" aid 8 'a're a aai7d i
e
~
'f f
V,,')rhE N G,1NJ E RIN G h oUAl.lTY ASSURANCE' CONSTRUCTIOpe '
CCTHER '
M datete/
//
7 y
w a.s - a wavu..e m aes. tais m a v ss.. s m a.s.
iss em a f u..'
]
l
. P:" 8'
-sA_
area 12
.af.
Sa?.
D a T.,
((CEP' RED *# C AEJECTED
[ CCEPTED. O REJECTED C ACCEPTED C acJacito -
O acCEP,so O *<sterz=
O ACCEPTED wtTM CCWndENTS
] ACCEPTED wtTH CCwWENTS O ACCEPTED wlTM CCMMEndTS ACCEPTED WITM C OW.s E W $
i
' t.
vrair:CArios or orspos Tiew -
C atavinto
@ wo? auvinto nu
\\
~T A,-
AT-
...... c.:.....
1
~
.-.....m.
' -) s. o
-* a r 'c. :s A:.t:che.w. Y it...:L*i.. 1 1 f._Q p y/>l.-t I.;
I c,:.l 4
~
ATTAC191ENT 4 4-
- Accept as is.
The'Ebasco specification requires confor=cnce with-Regulatory Guide 1.36, which. references ASTM C692, a_ test to
. determine susceptibility to stress cbrrosion cracking,of thermal i
insulation materials.
The ven~ dor, H B Fuller, tested Elastolar.
I Sealant Type 95_-44C in accordance with MIL-I-24244,-rather than ASTM C692.
MIL-I-24244 is~a more severe test as-testing is
. performed on sensitized stainless - steel samples rather than annealed materia', as specified by ASTM C692.
Therefore, the test-results appear suspact as testing was not in conformance with Reg Guide 1.36.
Elastolar Sealant 95-44C is a buty.1 rubber formulation used es a vapor barrier in order to preclude the
~
intrusion of moisture into the' insulation.
The elements referenced l
in Reg Guide 1.36 can therefore not leach out.
The contaminants l
in the sealant, even if leachable, would fall outside the range of i
- n l
chemical compositions described in Reg Guide 1.36.
Accordingly, it appears in,appropria'te to apply Reg Guide requirements, intended primarily for-thermal insulation, to a butyl rubber sealant.- 'The low levels of chloride and fluoride present in Elastolar Sealant 95-44C would meet the criteria er,:iablished for permissible level of contaminants given in Regulatory Guides 1.37 and 1.38.
I i
t4e
=
NO i;.
re.
I i76 3 a
u
F EBASCO SERYlCES INCORPORATED N
DATE 3*D* M
'sMEET
CNKO.SY OATE OPS NO.
NO.
1 bCRWnAMA
?
L< ant-CUENT PROJECT A M FCEb Sh A s"T- "3 I
'Em.mn h ocuw ro C.A.t.
% 99 c,n_r
'r. E
- ao su eJEc7 4
. _ _ _ _ _.. ~. _
.__.._ "I'i.J.___Ron B. atuHETr / ~9owi AMD I*.ms
._Yaowt _ MAu.v..
Aust JeddtNN/..
... ~ -
_.._._.Jea. ft.Estewse..(,Tret s '* d _To _ C.. A T....Dv PPcP T.. T.E." 130. w is.
/
HANE Emmed.. TwE...BATren.s. c wAu.r e% (,3Al-S 3AZ-5 Sbl-E o
o
__.... _AuD_.3.bz,-s') Aud..Twe..t2.sN.hrouh:rioa JAsem.1.3-A- t>c -E,
. 3-B-T>C-%._ Aub.3-Ab-t>c-5) Foa. SEPen.ATicH N ictATious.
. _.THE bb,Tren.N c HAnt.=coS M ucr pt ANE._ AN'1. bEPdP.ATION
. N LCi.ArtC R'L. TME. _ CNE NcM _SAFC.TN..(,, N A cm. NB)._ cont >o T-
. _..._..__.DeuTED_.T. Q__EACH..QMA9.C=O.__ Co uYAg uS. 09L y.W A.o R. EB. C-RW.E.,S... _
...._.._ISEE,.. ram.s. BELcNV).. ECA __b-7.%. htEr. iCB, SC9CR.ATecC
~
.._ tt, sc t... u.eG osa.et>. bet.W EE N _% [X, A _CikroeTL._AND JE[ A B _.._
... ~. Ci R co iT%.
L E.
.5pER.ArtcR.NietATtous.. iM _THE.. \\2.5 N Di-srm.hv ic N
.. _... __7A He %... HME. BecM. 3.DC4 t_nTUCD. _os. 9sTEurn AL. Th_ogueM
~
R C9 ORT _.7 _Q.l._7.~6.._....._ _ _..._ _ _._
-- BArtvR.N Can,n.cicR.
Cowne.r
_. _ _ C.A h.E.._... _...
_ ~5 A, t _S. _ __ _ _ __.____.. _ _ 525(,oc -.N A 3z.% c% - xn__
a
.. _3 AZ.- 5. - _
3ts< o.H. NA 3ZS*O H-AA _ _.._...
_... _... _.. '6bt.S....... _.._ _.. __ _ _315(.,z.ch. t4 S _.. _ _. '515(e2. G-4B _.. _ _
3B7. s
._. 3 1 5c.,Z. H - N 6 3 2 6 6 Z.H - 4 6..
set /e e1
.._ =
7_
m
~. ~ _.
~
'^
j P.P.R. No.
CA 7 5
- r.
\\ '..
~*
Potential' Problem Recort S.U.S.:
N Item Descrip-N.:- *~. c is-
.c...
w. e.r w, m - x - 6. nt. 3
- - s. 3.- s ' ?. q -g...;.
Location:
E'O ' Adng
- u.b Tlevation 2.i coordinates %e.
w,.ss e-w e uew Description of Discretancy:
'L t im= s. %.
scvcrames u se.t_ur.csb A.r E E r.sct v 7c %
Tuc
/.Gvt: n ht =.mW wcws cu Lee asu, L-ze$ %r ec E Ee,
- 2..
2.2 - A 'DC.- 5 ( v AE, -i, ~ 6 c or 9 A, s iz.
N e H 3 Q C. u. e sce2cci-i-w o-cs we-u... fi-. r.2
- 2..m..-m e %
w.Tn
% c.r tee. ((G. Si-far 6% *., A, *::.2.9 S.'c A-5 A,
e t
-. T c.mc
- c.c.:.c n " MA Tr '_, t% ts- %, erc..). L.c. n me v.-
6 L
h E.. Ct.E"1"D At Nt:D 4K.BunDt CI) (MAM ALSO ' E.EQM t G.E A'DD sTicg ov bAu.a.sw.ssy es Hwi-E5?E - E i_e.cr u. scal E.v At v At e Fon. Acc.ecrAbw tw oF 5t%/'SA pas
- 5% l *J PAREL 2.) ChguiE. 9 2.92.1 %- N A. (,2.- 1/c
- y ) bcES No T* M.A1M~ rat M "T HE T4.iEct ase.co depew.unos wiTM cAbtE 3Hcw - sA. Recom seat,
~n4 AT-9'2,32.1 b-N A %E lt.ETT4 Al NED[ R.E.DUND L c t) "I*o MA5 CAI Reported by:
SEPER.Nn ot4.
Nans:
JcceoH l o c_ u r r w i
.\\
(Print)% LC: Ad Signature:-
L bate:
3 3c-E4 Det. Leyr ttis infor:ratien is st&mitted to the LP&L Start 4).v.anager for evaluation.
No response is required.
\\
l Q.A.I.-28-1 fem (10-31-83) l l
l r
i
EE 5C3 3ERVICES IECOR?GK!~50
~r Ad6 3 ATE
^
Es4 E ET
~
Or sv C E P.
OF5 NO-MC.
CHND. SY DATE cusar LW'SI A" Ec e m't, bur
- h8' Oh N*Y PftOJECT TEN"l a' h R N-E{ tN O'73 su sact 1.3 -T4 - t (, 21.E. 37i Nic
- c-e r: et A
'e, i
- c. r=, w )
o n
_ l).C.tewE. 3C CCO. : 4
- SL-\\S
";',0.3 " : ** C T-rM
.3 -TA.s 4 SC.TV w.Nr3 c_M
.. we i TH. t'O. C.AbuES (, L e 6"1.#1 A.- SL b?.5 s l A-t,E, "5? S*1'5 t. *.lE,
LITC.)..RECLvf NO Tr* AT C AbwE. 3~CC& M
- WD E ~ -'
ft.ETRMNcc / rz.sL).c 6.r_c..(, m Au:e. g.co.o i;;.c Att m o%
. OT: eat::n tiUt.5) CO H wE.
E'f' 2 - E t Ecc.ic. cat ccsAus%- E ACE _c.s-Abit W. OF St-Nbf tb P M L u.a..
z.) C Aste ett3 z.i c., - N o ( z - i/c. = 0 1% wuuduct *im
~~ 7 % E A-SS A~t. M '!:7. 6 - T 5.- N %W N'. c.m ~w.
a C. AbuES
.S vC C t. A m.: % ECL. cit. h o %. Yd.h.i etw.m ciat 'n., Ai Atr(?_4 (,:, - *.ab
.hE LETtA NcC[.t EhwOuct, Tc mm N-A s > i. e, cGE Um O *.
g
..~.
- __ 3. A W.DC. - S. (32.AB_*.7-\\.,.? J. ' E..e E_. Loe., + 5 ' _S.p.e _k._ ___...
THE._t.rvr comaNrmeT_.4_wriw N tswmica_31,_A4.br.%
Fue_b_.TWE %Ep.h cu$ dana.s._ trtE_.o.e'N _:5EP.ERArtoM.._. _ _ __ _ __.
NiotNDens_T:ocMD.p.A fME PANO s _hertA7s og 4..gS_f.aqi.____,_
muurAt N.en _w erx 5 AB..c.mr.a tn_.A.so_ctuu. cts _sp4 oca.oE_.THe__ sew-sJsF_EW. f,*,H AN N Et S *.
b.J.3.,_ N.D _ A N D.__hl M :r
__. TBE..au.sh.ra. cv N osmsews __esta.E_ rs>o.Nomera.co d. re _...
N
.h h6 g.
,g
... I M _THE. Lu _. C.Omfr' AD. r MT
- "EE REre.,At4CD/ RE%UNb Litt.
. _wum amiu -,ir m
m m s y mm..,~
.hb -
D.
/YOTE
- J.t sE. SEPT P.ATec.e4. N.t oi AT icN%. LASTED ABovd..fECP.RE..~,duT-
....Cu t_'] _ThC.8 CCE551 E54 d" _V4 c.t or.'s.o NS.. NA iT14. cDR c.>g. ov..Tu tI..
/
. -.... _7Au ELS C u tEf:t.4 4"E.ED, WE. W e'.Q.E U N ADLIE.. Tu E's Ami s c..THe.. _
._. _ _....._ _ E-e.mu.. *. =Cc
.m
_,~~L..is.
_t:>c. emu:o re c.ce&_act. me wo_xnce, u eco. Awc pc hrRg
>g%et g, ewe 2,3.w r:cv.N m tr. o e.. o.r-r,,cT-SG1/S.8%
$t""D ei.ilM CM C S b Y7==6 [9 NIbE h
- d.Y.
~
'n
'?.
' ~
CIR.
ICE DATES.
RESPONSE.
NO.
FROM:
SUBJECT:
FORWARDED TO:
TIME:
'RECVD:
WEMARES+
3/12 201 M.M.
FCR's Requested P. P.
3/13-2PH M. M.'
3/12 202 M.M.
B-P Catalog Items P.P. (McCrath) 3/13-2PM M.M.
3/12 203 M.M.
Misc. (Chan) 10 P.P.
3/13-5PM All but item 1 3/13 204 F.D.
NCR's, 7604, 72%, 9292, 7293
.P.P.
3/13-2PM FCR-AS-3768 3/13 205 R.S.
Reg. H1-CIWA M. Wise L. Stinson 3/13-2PM 14tter NCR 7634 3/13 206 R.S.
CBI Welder Records P.P.
3/13-5PM ~
R.S.
3/13 207 C.K.
NCR W3-7285 P.P.
3/13-2AM C.K.
3/13 208 R.J.
Raceway Inspection Checklists I Lubinski.
3/13-5fM Ready for review 3/13 3/13 209 D.C.
. Request for Craft - Civil Torquing
.M. Quinn 3/12-12 noon D.C.
3/13 210
-M.M.
CEIR-M33E R. Rein /McGrath 3/13-5PM i'
3/13 211 RCP Doc Pkgs. for Cabinet 27A & 37A 1.. Lubinski 3/14-12 noon 3/13 212
.M.M.
ISO's for CHRR-30 & 148 P. Pitman 3/14-12 noon 3/13 213 M.M.
IOS's for BMRR-104 & FSRR-119 M. McCrath 3/14-2PM Status of U-Bolt (CHRR-246) 3/14 214 M.M.
SIRR 312/280 = 3/8 U-Bolts M. McGrath 3/14-5PM Same BP Ho.
SIRR 281 = 1/2 U-Bolts
. ~....
?
L S
P K
L
.R A
o I
t D
.R desae l
)
e
?
R
(
E S :
N D O V P I S F E R R
n n
n n
n o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o n
n n
n n
E M
M M
M M
M M
M M
M T
P A
P P
P P
P 2
2 2
2 P
P P
2 AE 5
5 2
2 S
5 5
1 1
1 1
2 2
5 1
D M I
5 5
5 5
4 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
6 E T 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
U
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
D 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
n iu n
r o
b t
e r
D o
H
- O T
J i
l
/
n n
n S
k n
l D
n i
n i
n i
n n
n
/
s i
e E
a u
a u
a u
a a
a n
n u
r D
m r
m r
m r
m m
m s
a i
r k
R t
b t
b t
b t
t t
s m
b b
c A
i e
i e
i e
i i
i a
t u
e o
fL P
D P
D P
D P
P P
B i
L D
C R
O P.
O E
F P
J P
J P
J C
P P
P L
P L
J D
s n
g
)
R o
w r
4 C
1 i
D A
e 0
n 4
t n
2 S
4 s
g p
i 1
e n
m b
s u
i u
m g
r E
q p
P o
e e
i c
S k
N l
g P
r c
l T
(
n C
o n
e a
o C
i D
o i
t o
E d
r P
d a
n P
J e
p V
a t
l 1
W o
s V
B n
s 8
R m
s a
r m
R U
o 5
I e
v C
C d
e S
i d
n u
o P
C y
l n
t e
V i
t q
m H
b o
i r
I i
e e
f n
o s
e l
u R
R o
o r
s o
d P
e d
1 c
P T'
p i
S e
n h
2 n
6 C
e s
s A
h o
p 6
o Q
R e
P i
n w
3 c
a 7
i c
d o
t d
4 r
t f
l n
f c
s n
5 g
3 a
5 5
o l
a o
s e
a 7
o W
l a
r u
H y
i u
7 k
t a
k R
g q
R a
d R
s s
1 c
s e
c C
n e
S C
r a
C n
g P
a n
l a
N E
R C
N T
R N
I P
Q L
I C
l M
O M.
J.
J.
S.
M.
J.
L.
K.
S.
M.
M.
S.
S.
M.
S.
R F
M R
R R
M R
R C
R M
M R
R M
R 5
6 7
8 9
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
1 1
1 1
1 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
R.
I O 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
C N 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3
SK R
AM E
R D
I O
V E
S :
N D OV P C D
S T I
Ek O
R V
B R
M l
M M
M M
1 E
A M
M M
N l
M M
M A
A A
A 9
0 P
P P
P a
P P
P 0
0 0
0 1
T A
1 5
5 S
S c
5 5
5 1
1 1
1 5
DE I
7 6
6 6
6 l
7 7
7 9
9 9
9 7
E T 1
1 1
1.
1 l
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
U
/
/
/
/
/
i
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
D 3
3 3
3 3
W 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 es iW n
M O
s o
o
/
T i
l t
l s
o l
s g
l e
n D
e n
n n
n i
r n
e t
n i
n E
g a
a a
a u
e i
r n
u a
u a
n D
r m
m m
m q
t r
k e
o m
r m
e R
u t
t t
t n
l r
c d
r t
b t
d A
o i
i i
i o
a la o
r p
i e
i r
W B
P P
P P
R W
I C
A S
P D
P A
R O
F C
P P
P P
R B
P S
B R
P J
P B
ps B
n I
ro t
o o
N M
y p
f m
i u
t n
P s
o u
t i
W J
l t
C o
a C
b c
T i
s i
C n
)
f x
e n
t E
w M
i u
h o
t J
n o
3 r
A g
c i
i B
o d
3 F
a n
t t
H U
i k
6 3
(
l i
e a
S t
l 6
5 c
d s
s k
c e
a a
2 C
7 a
e s
S i
u t
W 7
8 r
e h
i f
q n
e h
c M
t i
r e
8 R
g R
l R
n e
s l
o m
0 C
w C
e t
Q e
c t
e a
T u
2 N
D N
v l
F r
n r
T u
c a
o 2
W a
o Q
o o
f f
f f
r b
6 f
n p
T t
D o
o o
o t
o e
e p
U r
n M
u t
u e
t C
y y
y y
f a
k q
n S
d a
f A
p p
p p
l e
R c
r i
e l
a V
o o
o o
u l
C a
o a
N e
e r
H C
C C
C G
C F
L T
M D
N W
C M
O K.
M.
M.
K.
T.
J.
J.
S.
S.
P.
J.
T.
T.
T.
P.
RF C
M H
C R
R R
R R
C R
B B
B C
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
0 1
2
'3 4
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
4 4
4 4
4 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
R.
I O 5
5 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 7
7 4
7 7
CN 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 ll1!ll{'
l
T SK R
A m
R ES :
N D O V P C S E E R R
y dae D
n n
n n
r J
o o
o o
/
o o
o o
n L
n n
n n
E e
M R
M M
M M
M M
M M
T h
P 2
P P
P 2
P P
P P
P 2
2 A E w
5 y
1 5
5 5
1 S
5 5
5 S
1 1
D M f
I l
9 i
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
E T l
1 t
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
U a
/
o
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
D C
3 N
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3,
3 3
l le r
kco C
O S
T i
n i
l
/
l k
o n
n n
n k
l n
l D
s n
t o
i i
i n
n s
e o
e n
E n
o p
s u
u u
a a
n h
r s
r a
D i
t m
n r
r r
m m
i s
k n
k m
R b
r a
i b
b b
t t
b l
c i
c t
A m
o W
I l
h t
e e
e i
i u
a o
t o
i R
I C
S D
D D
P P
L W
C S
C P
O F
L S
B L
J J
J P
P M
S L
S P
I
)
c s
i m
f e
i l
l b
a o
u r
Q P
s m
s s
4 s
e 4
d s
d 4
g y
l 4,
r m
r P
T k
r b
o e
o W
C E
t o
y 1
c l
c E
s r
c e
b e
J n
i p
n s
R o
R 5
B o
m h
a g
e r
(
0 U
i e
p p
e s
r r
P 1
S t
h a
c e
R l
u o
n P
a c
r o
r a
o d
t n
r W
s l
g D
c o
u m
e a
o e
g l
6 o
s t
Q e
c r
i c
a a
6 i
n i
M o
e t
l n
T t
J o
d e
r r
n a
a o
l s
e a
i c
e d
P e
n u
C a
d n
n R
t 1
n d
e C
i Q
r i
T I
i a
1 a
l t
g m
g u
lo l
t r
W i
e s
n l
r r
n d
e y
o t
P l
W e
i e
e e
i e
I l
x h
e p
u d
s T
d d
c f
b o
s n
W m
W q
l e
l l
o l
a p
e e
E o
E e
e i
C e
e r
u C
E R
P I
C I
R W
D C
W W
P C
M O
J.
L.
J.
T.
T.
T.
T.
T.
K.
K.
T.
T.
T.
K.
PC RF R
R R
R B
B B
B B
C G
B B
B C
5 6
7 8
9 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 4
4 4
4 4
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 R
O 7
7 9
9 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
I C N 1
1 1
1 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 m
W
x A
+
a; a
M
- c' D
~
,s m
.e
. k o
'S
. p S
t M
.hl 4
t
- .y, M
E
. n E
w
. o R
r d
. i e
. tn t
e
.e r
, M a
t o
_;,.,Y i S
, n a
t
.-2 Ms
.I D
. OV P C
)
1
.S E 2
ER
/
.R 3
n n
no o
o o
o o
n n
n
. E M
M.
M M
M
. T 2
2 2
P P
P P
P
. AE 1
1 1
2 7
. DM 2
2 2
I 1
P 0
1 1
2 2
2
'2 2
C ET 2
A 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 U
/
S
/
D 3
A 3
,/
/
/
/
/
/
/
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 O
T l
n h
l D
i t
e n
n E
h u
h h
h a
r a
a D
s r
c s
s r
k m
m R
l b
u l
l G
c t
t A
a e
o a
a c
o i
i t
W W
l D
H W
W M
C P
P B
0 G
F M
J M
M M
M S
P P
R s
w d
e e
r r
0 r
i o
e 1
u v
T c
g 5
W l
e C
e r
2 i
R E
R a
0 a
J h
3 F
s B
e c
9 d
U n
c R
P r
r S
s o
n t
R W
e o
m i
a i
L p
c e
t n
1 a
S m
e l
c e
0 b
5 a
R b
e t
0 8
D o
r n
9 n
P 0
o r
i i
3 o
5 W
6 e
r P
D a
i 3
6 r
d M
t t
1 i
y n
i a
3 3
F H
t g
n u
r 1
W c
i i
d a
R 1
C L
e s
p n
p S
1 A
P
(
l e
a o
e I
V P
E D
C C
S B
W N
H
'L M
O K.
L.
J.
J.
J.
T.
T.
K.
' K.
T.
R F
C R
R R
R B
B C
C B
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
R.
I 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 C1 2
2 2
2 2
2 2,
2 2
2 1
=
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
4 4
r
[4 1!
4
'{
4 i
1 l
4
, e
i
.a ta d
a d
r e
a i
h l
s p
a S
p B
K u
R s
n A
i M
d m
E n
A R
a l
e o
e R
S r
E o
S :
K f
N D J.
O w
y e O E P D R
d i S W B.
a v e e K
K E R K
K K
R F O
O O
L R r O
O u
e E
ig S :
r N D OV e
P C 4
C J.
J.
J.
J.
B.
B.
L.
H.
J.
J.
J.
S E 1
E R
/
R R
R R
R L
2 L
R H
C R
R R
h h
s s
l l
a a
W W
O s
T t
i i
H i
M n
n t
t h
o k
/
k
/
D i
i e
t t
e s
n s
n E
u h
u n
u h
n a
g n
a n
a D
r s
r t
t s
a r
r i
m i
m k
b l
b r
r i
y G.
u b
t b
t W
D W
D I
P un r
c o
u i
u i
A e
a e
b e
B M
B L
P L
P k
J.
0 F
R J
M J
R J
M C
M C
L P
L P
g n
i h
t s
s y
l r
C' C
a e
O O
t v
e H
M n
?
e 3
c T
e C
W r
d f
f C
x m
R o
e o
d o
E a
n N
I F
t e
J n
o R
s s
t B
o r
o P
s o
e s
s s
U c
i t
s i
l u
g e
g M
a q
w u
w S
v N
P' f
e d
q d
n 5
E 5
t C
n f
r e
s k
7 u
i u
n r
n a
3 r
f B
o o
't e
C t
o m
s i
i m
t s
l s
l g
t g
t q
n e
g i
k a
k a
R u
i d
n F
1 g
p l
p l
o r
m e
i 3
n l
l s
m e
s a
g t
i e
a e
a s
e t
s e
a n
H d
l t
l t
e s
t e
B m
u E
2 l
b s
b s
r o
a r
a o
D W
a n
a n
P R
B P
I D
M N
C W'e C
I C
I M:
J.
J.
J.
J.
B.
B.
B.
L.
M.
H.
J.
J.
J.
J.
O RF R
R R
R L
L L
R M
S R
R R
R
'9 0
1 0
3 4
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
1 1
1 1
1 R.
I O 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 C k 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
3 SKR A
M ER E
S :
N D O E P D S Th E R K
K K
K K
K K
R F O
O O
O O
O O
ES :
N D OV P C S E B.
B.
T.
T.
T.
T.
M.
K.
M.
M.
J.
J.
E R R
L L
B B
B B
M C
M M
R R
)
d e
l n
o O
i H
T a
(
l r
r r
r D
e e
e e
e n
n n
n n
E d
d h
h h
h a
a a
a a
D p
l t
t t
t m
m m
m n
n m
R a
a n
n n
n t
t t
t i
i t
A h
n u
u u
u i
i i
i e
e i
W C
o C
C C
C P
P P
P R
R P
R D
W O
c F
J M
L L
L L
P P
P P
R R
P M
sre kc S
i P
d t
O l
s e
T t
w l
C r
t 3
a E
E o
u e
R C
n J
N p
c e
1 o
B p
I r
T t
6 i
g U
s u
S e
c 4
g t
n S
p S
P d
8 a
n n
a i
m H
n r
C o
i t
t u
e U
1 1
t I
i t
n l
P s
0 n
t t
e e
o 6
W o
N a
0 e
m B
s o
e F
C C
t 2
S u
l k
0 C
D n
3 c
i 5
C 0
B e
3 5
o C
o r
8 3
1 f
m P
1 3
D C
N t
T o
u C
1 8
M e
S C
e C
r I
/
k v
I v
I d
y t
H R
D c
R r
l C
l e
p s
R S
R I
e C
a a
R M
a S
e o
n C
I I
O l
W M
V A
B V
M N
C I
F S
S V
E S
t a
B.
B.
T.
T.
T.
T.
M.
K.
K.
K.
M.
M.
M.
J.
J.
RF L
L B
B B
B M
C C
C H
M M
R R
5 6
7 8
9 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
R I O 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
C N 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2
CIR.
RESPON5E:
RESPONSE
NO.
FROM:
SUBJECT:
FORWARDED TO:
HECbD:
FRWDED:
REMARKS:
2/15 30 R.J.
SWCR/MCC M.W.
R.J.
2/15 31 R.J.
Lust'l dwgs. (Batt. Rack)
M.W./P.P.
R.J.
2/15 32 B.T.
Chart Speed - PHWT Rec.
L.R.
B.T. OK 2/15 33 H.M.
SIRR-946 R. Rein M.M. OK 2/15 34 M.M.
SISH-725 R. Rein M.M. OK 2/15 35 M.M.
SIRR-833 R. Rein M. M.
2/15 36 M.M.
Line 3516-47A/B R. Rein M.M.
2/15 37 B.T.
SIRR-199 V J. Chandler 2/15 38 H.M.
MSRR-245 R. Rein B.T. OK 2/15 39 G.K.
Tray P108NA M. Walsh R.J.
2/15 40 M.Q.
Insulation Removed-W ld Inspection B. Walters M.Q.
e 2/15 41 R.J.
Conduits wrapped with fire stop H.W.
R.J. OK 2/15 42 R.J.
Bend Radius H.W.
R.J.
2/15 43 R. J.
Unidentified Cables M.W.
R.J.
2/15 44 R.J.
Crout/Insp. Record M.Walsh R.J.
Bolted, not grouted.
_-=
s SK RA M
ER E
S :
N D O E P m
~
. S i
ER K
K' K
K K
K RE O
O O
O O
O ES :
N D O V
. P C S E J.
J.
J.
K.
T.
K.
R.
T.
M.
J.
J.
T.
M.
T.
T.
E R R
R R
R C
B C
C B
M R
R B
M B
B
- OT d
s r
D r
r n
n n
e E
h a
e a
a a
h h
h D
e s
g e
t m
e m
m s
s t
n n
n R
s l
r s
l t
s t
t i
l n
i i
i A
i a
u i
a i
i i
i h
W C
R R
R a
u e
e e
W W
W B
W W
P W
P P
R O
F M
M P
M B
P M
P P
H M
L R
R R
s r
e m
B k
5 c
2 i
0 t
1 s
C
)
T s
C l
c e
s E
a t
i m.
J c
l 9
i 3
8 M
B a
3 L
8 5
(
U e
v 7
2 S
t s
o X
m 0
s 9
a d
m r
4 1
m 8
1 d
y r
e T
a 5
P e
7 4
r o
R H
l 1
1 l
e e
c S
A V
s e
b R
R u
t R
e n
C y
c o
R R
d t
I R
o 0
B y
P I
a e
r A
C a
i 3
A r
S r
i p
S C
d B
g l
t 4
C t
f 2
T p
e n
a a
B s
o r
r r
r d
i C
l i
e e
l e
e e
i l
s u
y t
n y
v l
o g
g g
p u
s C
s p
s i
o a
a p
e p
l b
o n
n n
x o
i n
o n
h h
b E
C M
I I
C I
D C
V C
S M
J.
J.
J.
K.
T.
K.
P.
T.
M.
J.
J.
T.
M.
T.
T.
(RF 2
R R
C B
C C
B M
R R
B M
B B
A 5
6 7
8 9
0 1
2 3
4 4
5 6
7 8
4 4
4 4
4 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 R.
I O 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 4
7 7
CN 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 ll
,[!
l
ll ll
'IlII l
fl1 I!l 2
SKR uu R
ES :
N D OE P D e
S W E R R F ES
]
D:
CV P C T.
T.
H.
H.
M.
M.
M.
B.
T.
T.
J.
S E E R R
B B
R R
M M
M R
B B
R OT t
l s
s t
n l
D r
r e
n i
e E
e e
n h
h a
u r
h h
D t
t t
s s
n n
n n
m n
r k
s s
R l
i r
i l
i i
i i
t i
b c
l l
a e
e e
e i
e e
o a
a A
a W
W R
R R
R P
R D
C W
W W
W W
ia l
R O
F B
B R
M M
R R
R R
P R
J S
M M
sn d
o s
s l
i m
m e
t e
e w
a a
l l
t r
b b
e a
d t
s o
o z
d e
e n
T r
r i
b n
o C
p p
s n
m e
i E
r r
e p
t J
7 t
t e
u t
a B
5 y
r r
d t
d p
n r
U s
t o
o n
e e
o o
t S
g i
p p
U r
s h
e t
a l
p p
2 4
/
s S
s n
n T
i u
u 4
0 0
e e
g e
e b
s s
2 3
9 v
c t
n p
P n
a S
a e
s i
o e
y y
e r
e l
D g
i c
a a
F l
T p
I a
t a
r r
4 8
8 n
/
u t
a r
t t
t 0
0 6
2 i
s o
t r
t r
3 9
4 2
r C
i g
t e
e o
S r
e u
n e
t l
l p
R R
R R
R e
d x
d o
n l
b b
p R
R R
H R
t l
e n
r e
o a
a u
C C
C T
S a
e l
o W
P B
C C
S C
C C
X M
W W
F C
M:
O T.
T.
L.
L.
L.
Q M.
M.
M.
P T.
T.
T.
J.
J.
R C
F B
B H
H M
M M
M M
R B
B B
R R
9 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 0
1 2
3 5
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
7 7
7 7
k.
l O 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 8
8 8
8 8
CN 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 ll l:
iil
,I
SKRA M
ER y
dna R
E ;
6 5
5 N D 1
OE 6
P D S W 3
E R 8
R F 7
ES :
N D OV P C J.
S.
J.
J.
K.
P.
l.,
C.
J.
K.
S E E R I
R R
R R
C C
R R
D R
C i
ksn i
bu O:
L T
L
/
D n
n n
E h
s a
h h
h h
a h
a D
s e
n m
s s
s s
m s
m R
l s
r t
l l
l l
t l
t A
a i
a i
'a a
a a
i a
i W
W W
C P
W W
W W
P W
P R
O S
O O
E T
E F
M M
B P
M M
M M
P C
M M
C P
de k
B ra p
s m
m a
T u
g
(
a t
C P
n l
i o
E i
b r
N J
W k
o l
e B
C a
r c
a t
B U
C e
p r
i i
a S
L 5
e r
r C"
C 8
t 7
M s
e C
s l
9 r
t e
R 9
2 r
o 1
e a
r N
0 o
s B
l v
M p
u 6
I t
s a
o e
d n
0 A
o a
l 6
u C
p S
e e
3 Q
X M
l I
3 Q
o c
p i
C t
t t
t o
O t
t f
A r
i i
S i
r i
t o
d n
t n
e u
u u
P u
li u
h e
M d
d d
e d
s d
f py o
g g
T l
n n
r n
M S
n r
i e
S e
o o
i o
T T
o t
o C
S R
A W
C C
F C
F P
M C
U C
M:
O J.
D.
S.
H D.
J.
K.
K.
P.
L.
L.
C.
J.
M.
K.
t A
H R
F R
R F
R C
C C
R R
D R
M C
4 5
6 7
8 9
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 7
7 7
7 7
7 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
R.
I O 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
C N 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2
l SKR A
iD R
E S
N D OE P D S W E R R F ESN D:
O V P C S E K.
T.
T.
T.
J.
J.
J.
K.
J.
J.
T.
T.
J.
E R R
C B
B B
R R
R C
R R
B B
R
- OT l
l l
l D
e e
E r
r n
D k
k n
i R
c c
a u
A o
o C
m r
W C
C R
t b
R W
i e
O I
W W
W P
D.
W W
D A
F M
S S
Q M
M H
J H
M P
L M
R.
W a
m e
r e
n t
l i
m b
l X
o p
r
)
i t
p c
n c
s u
s e
o i
o e
r r
d m
n u
P r
e i
T d
(
c e
s C
L C
e o
t o
C E
c m
D n
R M
W
)
J o
e 8
8
(
I F
B s
g r
l
/
g R
m 9
t n
p b
S n
/
e r
s M
d S
i P
0 4
o s
C G
5 i
S l
e p
e k
g r
m
(
s 1
b d
m n
r t
r n
P e
2 u
e r
e t
v n
r o
l a
o e
a i
l A
S P
o n
P W
S s
o m
d g
b S
C P)
M o
l n
o 2
t b
i r
D a
p c
t n
e r
m 0i r
l o
g e
e t
c W
d P
7 A
r o
u i
d d
t o
e l
1 V
A e f
d t
i l
r o
e d
5 r
c W
r 0
e
- i s
o r
B W
c s
S t n
a r
e t
n o
s o
3 v
4 r t
C a
c a
B c
n b
e D
a 2
o S
l 0 c l
a e
p B
p x
I E
T R
1 V
P B
N S
A T
I B
e m
E m
o M
O K.
T.
T.
T.
J.
J.
J.
K.
J.
J.
D.
T.
T.
J.
RF C
B B
B R
R R
G R
R F
B B
R 9
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
0 1
2 8
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
1 1
1 8
9 0
0 0
R.
I o 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 C N 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
SKRA M
FR ES :
N D O E P D S W E R R F E
o S :
k N D r
OV e
P C p
J.
L.
J.
M.
M.
J.
J.
J.
K J.
T.
S.
T.
S E E R C
R R
R R
M M
R R
R R
R B
W B
OT D
n E
a D
m n
n
,R t
i i
A i
e e
W P
R R
R W
C.
W D.
D.
W W
W D.
C.
C.
O F
M S
P M
R R
J J
M M
M J
S S
1 g
T c
n R
n C
t e
t a.
C 4
i 4
E i
l l
d i
t W
7 w
1 J
u o
E e
u t
B S
9 a
B d
r t
d S
1 r
1 U
n t
f o
n s
r 1
d S
o n
o N
o s
D o
=
8 0
c o
2 c
e I
f 3
r 1
c 0
n s
l D
1 o
P d
S o
e h
I s
P.
d W
e p
i i
t s
C g
n i
m 5
t c
i i
n P
e n
f a
6 a
1 n
w n
i 9
V o
i t
7 c
1 t
a B
i t
A 7
t S
i 2
0 p
g S
a N
3 P
s n
C f
2 3
e n
s r
1 B
t e
o i
r i
E e
8 c
d v
r R
R c
l 2
l a
3 R
e d
a i
a g
a S
R s
a 0
t n
0 R
e p
n r
w l
C C
i e
2 a
e 2
C e
m U
D D
C R
C D
D C
C N
C C
N I
H O
J.
L.
C.
J.
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
A S.
S.
S.
R
/
F R
R D
R M
M M
B B
B B
N W
U U
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
o 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
R O
8 8
8 8
8 8
3 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 IC N 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2
4 s
1 I.
8 1
+.
4
,. f 3
e t *
~
I" b
I
~
i S KR A
M "e
E 1
R
+
Y E
S D'
IIO E P
IE S
I E R RF h
y y
d d
4 a
a a '
e e
E r
r S :
/
/
N D d
d OV e
e S E l
l P C K.
J.
W l
l u
u E R R
R P
P M
R M
su
- OT n
w K.
a h
C a
a
/
C r
u c
a B.
B.
D.
E.
D.
D.
L.
M.
L.
R.
D.
D..
U
-4 nF R
R J
F J
J L
J.
L R
J J
E 4
n i
o s
i r
n t
o a.
m i
l e
t o
t s
a i
y t
l V
E S
r o
g 5
o i
a i
n 5
m p
V i
i e
Q p
s r
7 T
t E
t C
e n
e 8
C e
s s
i o
t E
e o
t y
c i
i n
t r
8 J
m c
u S
t B
s r
n c
a a
C U
0 a
t
)
W i
e p
r S
3 h
s S
C a
l e
a e
m p
a E
l A
C M
E r
p n
o R.
c e
i R
8 i
h v
v s
S l
(
n t
l i
i p
- d 4
a i
E C
s D
l i
e 4
w p
2 s
s s
a c
t s
0 s
a 5
3 2
a a
g 0
c s
u, t
g 0
'I r
4 3
0 k
h k
7 i
i I
t 2
0 3
P P
. P 2
r d.
s n
e i
4 D
r 1
t r
g u
t e
R R
R c
e q
e 5
S t
S a-R c
c c
H e
t N
e e
C E
a S
l I
o o
o 6
l n
n R
M 2
N W
M S
S D
D D
1 E
I Y
n N.
o M
t B
1r n
p
/
o m
F.
S.
. C.
M M.
T.
T.
K.
K.
K.
N.
K.
K.
/J R
o F
C D
U D
E M
B B
C C
C N
R_
C C
4 5
8 9
0 1
_ 2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
3 3
, 2 2
3 4-5 6
7 8
9 0
1 3
1 1
2 2_
1 1
1
. 1 1
1 1
1
. 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 R.
'8 8
8 -
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 0 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
8 8
4 s
. 8 C1 1
1 1.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
. /
/
/
/
/
0
/
/
/
2 2
2 2
. 2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2
~
9
^
i;4a.:l.
[{1 j
tl 4
4 j
i
}
y!ji4!I J!}
- i,!
[!
i1;;
4 h
,_4
'i Y4
..+
,L ll
~~
n
- a.
b 4
_g_'#
g
^
4-5
~
.4-
- j. 4 _
. 1 A
v 4
y q~
r
^
4 1
e-T V
t 4
)
, E f
s et l
I 3
4 4
8 a
a a
- '/.
- ut h
6 2
N 1
G 1
w 2
E
~
y-R G
p 3
8
- t 3
~
M M
b.
a l"
d
. a y
J d
M
- i
- n a
1 ad US 2-2 2'
.k k
k 4
- l 1
8 e
I r
9 m_m____.___m._..___.__2_-__-
.m
TFG 01/31/84
-LOUISIANA POWER a LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD 3 SES ITEM Jos DAVIS l.ETTER - DECEMBER 9,1982 - RECOMMENDS COMPRCHENSIVE REVIEW OF : CIVIL / STRUCTURAL DOCUMENTATION
RESPONSE
JOE DAVIS FOLLOW-UP LETTER -
DECEMBER 22, 1983
' "IN
SUMMARY
, MY REVIEWS OF NONCONFORMANCE REPORTS AND RELATED CORRESPONDENCE INDICATES TH T ITEMS.
ADDRESSED IN.ME'ORANDUM DATED DECEMBER 9, 1982 M
HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED AND/ R ARE BEING CORRECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EBA.3COS PROGRAM.
a
+
l2%
+
. ~ *.
TFG 01/31/84 LOUIS!ANA POWER a LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD 3 SES
~
1T84 JULY 7, 1983 MEETING - RECOMMENDS ALL CONCRETE PL'ACEMENT PACKAGES.BE REVIEWED.
.ALSO. RECOMMENDS REV!EW OF. SOILS
- PACKAGES, CONCRETE JULY ll, ]983 - LPal' MEETS WITH EBASco - DECISION MADE F.ESPONSE T0. REVIEW ALL CONCRETE PLACEMENT RECORDS AUGUST, 1983 - REV,IEW OF CONCRETE PLACEMENT, PACKAGES BEGINS REVIEW IS 95% COMPLETE AT THIS TIME NCR'S HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BACKFILL BACKFILL RECORDS HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY EBASCO QA RacoRuS.WERE REVIEWED TO:
1.
ASSURE COMPLETENESS OF RECORDS
'2, VERIFY EXISTENCE OF REQUIRED RECORDS 3.
VERIFY RECORDS PROPERLY ORGANIZED BY:
A.
ELEVATION B.
FILL NO. (7 FILLS) 4 APPROXIMATELY 50% SAMPLE REVIEWED FOR TECHNICAL ADEQUACY A.
DENSITY' TESTS a.
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS C.
PROCTOR IESTS (MAXIMUM DENSITY DETERMI-
~
NATION)'
DUAL INSPECTION EFc0RT BY J, A, JONES AND EBASCD No NCR's WERE IUENTIFIED LPal_0A LPzL QA cuRREiTLY' REVIEWING CONCRETE AND BACKFILL :
~
RECORDS
TFG 01/31/8f4 LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
~
WATERFORD 3 SES IIEM ffARSTEAhh WAS NOT AWARE OF DEFICIENCIES - MIGHT HAVE ARRIV AT DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.
4-
' P.ESPONSE HAR5TEAD WAS GIVEN COPIES OF TCDS RELATED TO THE MAT-l FILES WERE AVAILABLE FOR RE IEW BY HARSTEAD HARSTEAD SUBSEQUENTLY HAS REVIEWED ALL BASEMAT PLACEMENTS AND RELATED DOCUMENTATION JANUARY 9, 19814 IIARSTEAD REPORT -
EARLIER CONCLUSIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED, 1
i e*
8 v
i O
g u
01
/84 LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD 3 SES ITEM DEFICIERCIES NOT REPORTED TO NRC RESPONSE.-
DEFICIENCIES WERE. IDENTIFIED ON NCR's NCR'.S WERE REVIEWED ~FOR REPORTABILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED WRITTEN PROCEDURES
~
~
LP&L CONSTRUCTION OA* REVIEWS NCR's THOSE THAT APPEAR TO BE SIGNIFICANT ARE GIVEN ADDITIONAI ATTENTION
~
LPal'RECENTLY CONDUCTED AUDIT OF APPROXIMATELY 1100 NCR's.(1976 - 1984)
~
AUDIT. IDENTIFIED A FEw NCR'S THAT NEEk) FURTHER REVIEW 0
e
- g d
6 o
b e
e
e TFG 01/31/81; LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
~
%.'ATERFORD 3 SES g
ITEM INSPECTORS NOT CERTIFIED (J.A.' JONES)
RESPONSE "-
REVIEW OF NCRS AND INSPECTOR QUALIFICATION FILES INDICATES NO SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS WITH CERTIFICATION OF I NSPF.CTORS e
l l
g e-v Q4 g
m 7
y
.~
TFG 01/31/84 LOUISIANA POWER a LIGHT COMPANY WAiERFORD 3 SES l ITEM NOTICEABLY DIFFEREN'T SIGNATURES-ON INSPECTION / TEST REPORTS ~
RESPONSE
CASE ONE INVOLVES S' INSPECTOR'S. INITI ALS ANS 13 PAGES -
OF DAILY: CADWELD INSPECTION REPORTS ~
- CASE ONE DISPOSITION:
RESULTS. -
4 PAGES SIGNATURES / INITIALS ~ ARE ' AUTHENTIC 4 PAGES SIGNATURES / INITIALS ARE POSSIBLY' AUTHENTIC 5 PAGES SIGNATURES / NITIALS APPARENTLY-NOT THOSE OF THE INSPECTORS -
~
REGENERATED DOCUMENT DUE TO DAMAGE TO ORIGINAL f
iPECTORS WORKED'AS TEAM 9 INSPECTED i
..d RECORDED BACKUP DOCUMENTATION IS AVAILABLE
~
WHERE ouESTIONABLG INITIALS EXIST, AUTHENTIC SIGNATURE OF INVOLVED'
~
~
TNSPECTOR APPEARS ON CADWELD MAP,
~
S.URVEILLANCE INSPECTIONS. BY EBASCO
~
.d.A. JONESiPREPLACGMENT INSPECTION L
EBASCO PREPLACEMENT INSPECTION
'e i
~l 3
r ;-
(,K.
^
L-
e-TFG 01/31/84 LOUISIANA POWER & l.IGHT COMPANY
.'WATERFORD 3 SES' ITEM SYSTF.MATIc PROGRAM To " DOCTOR".OR " LAUNDER" QA RECdRDS'
RESPONSE
RECORDS ARE BEING REVIEWED AND CORRECTED IN ACCORDANCE'-
WITH~ APPROVED, PROCEDURES.
4 NCR'S-ARE WR'1 fTEN TO DOCUMEAT. DEFICIENCIES O
i c.
O g
W 9
g
~,
..l
,- i y
.=
.-. :..=-
~
TFG-01/31/84 LOUIS!ANA POWER & LIGHT. COMPANY.
WATERFORD 3 SES i
ITEM RECORDS WERE CHANGED WITHOUT REINSPECTION.
DRAWINGS WERE
~
CHANGED TO REFLECT "AS 15" INSTALLATION.
T p0 A
RESPONSE
A LL DOCUMENTATION DEFICIENCIES W REautRE REINSPEC-TION' SOME. DOCUMENTATION.DSFICIENCIES Da REQUIRE REINSPECTION
.."AS Is COMMONLY CALLED Ahi ' AS-BUILT" '
AS-BUILTS ARE REVIEYlED BY ENGINEERING PERSONNEL FOR' ACCEPTAB I LITY L
, e
,f e
..g -
e
.c.
9 e
w-,
-TFG
~
01/311814 LOUISIANA POWER k.' LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD 3 SES
~
IIEM INSPFCTOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR SIX CONTRACTORS IN ouESTION, MERCURY & T-B IDENTIFIED.
MERCURY -
AS-BEEN AUDITED' BY.LP&t-AND NRC SEVERAi. ~
P5SPONSE TIMES.
NO SIGNIFI-CANT PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED
- IN THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING RECORDS FROM MERCURY
~
- COMPLICATED BY LAWSUIT T-B - No KNOWN'PROBl. EMS.
LPAL QA AUDITING OTHER CONTRACTOR'S INSPECTOR QUAL.IFICATIONS NO SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED i
~
\\
TFG 01/31/84_
4
~
LOUISIANA POWER a. LIGHT COMPANY
'WATERFORD 3 SES
~
~
SERIOUS PROBLEMS IN WELDING. AND. BOLTING OF S' TRUCTURAL STEEL ITEM REPORTED To NRC-ON TWO OCCASIONS'
RESPONSE
SCD #73 (4-11-83), "A-B RCB STRUCTURAL STEEL WELb1NG DEFICIENCIES" SCD #78-(4-28-83), "A-B STRUCTURAL STEEL DEFICIENCIES" CoRREchkVEACTION FINAL REP' ORT To NRC SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 9, '1984
TFG 01/31/84 LOUISIANA POWER h LIGHT COMPANY
- WATERFORD 3.SES i
s ITEM NONCONFORMANCE REPORTS CLOSED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATING EVIDENCE
\\
1 LPEL CONSTRUCTION QA REVIEWS NCR'S ON A REGUI.AR BASIS
RESPONSE
~
EBASCO CONDUCTING AUDIT TO RECHECK NQR'S FOR PROPER CLOSURE.
LPal QA.IS MONITORINe EsASco'S AUDIT' 1
,O 4
i
\\
D s
e 8
e g
s e.
6~ W+p N &gS y.M.W?#..M M. & W WQ:=fd5@ %k& M MG? W.MM MW n$5$M.
N.
n W
R( n$. b. h s m @- = T4R,m' W !y.krq #e v
cag 32Bjg q rip gi SEEWFei M@ t f.ggw 5 y.5Tg F M i e ng g d $f$ & e'@ W. wM W
gf gw y
i
.. N.. m =, m. c y M.,g. s. n m,w. m w. w ~..
cw-,.am+==:
c m s-w. q www
$$$ D' !&S W.h M 5 M N M Mn N=mm!I M YY^ M.g m=
p.
m NM d
N=p$m.enQw:=mp$NM. m~%qg~ pM
=u mkpwswMs ww$Wr$mmimEYNNO M
2mm$
ieD :
M SN WM
-rd$3 wG m
-n n
w..nnw m.ns w n~%emaw a n, 2
.-a mnww-=,
TFG' 01/51/84 LOUISIANA F0WER r, LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD 3 SES e-ITEM NoTICEASLY DIFFERENT SIGNATURES ON INSPECTION / TEST REPORTS e
N,
M 7* e e
M'1 g
- W
.*a% %. J s.4.v.*M:f.3,.
d".f m e
- s,es.h..w*p s*,-M a,, A +.c",
m D
eM p h.
a
.aw.$ g+.*r h *ty 9 m,;e.,..~ w=.D
.=* - 3
-.6.ab.,.s.*.n.~%r e.
- O Y-a A.-
-e,.
%.g _y
- c. 70.,,,-.m. te_
a
.-*.%* : s*.4%.x
,~e w-
.p
- **.-/ -w4 Ae - S.w - -,,,
V. aeg
.r, s.-c
,>o M U W_ p :. c. h.L.,-wj-.,
A*w+M. S.,g c.,<
.g.i,4.7.; T ' g%,'f p Q*9 :WEF.MM&G:D..:m?a-6h
.,Au..v er,s yw. i.gp
- e.-
- s..rd.
.v,. -- w
- g r 2%
-e.~
- .a -
q
..f<,.
.a.
r,-,
q,.,
4 - %.%w,
,.._ rr...
- g p :w,.
_V,ac.7r.w -
4
, r
-. -..p.r e
-e..
,;,4 u -+<-.
'* t r.,--
~+ --,,u 3 L*
%..mV,+M,r.=.
r E.-:52.g#.:~G94b%..:.S$;\\.,: ::zf.5&s.4;m.w@.ww,w.o.ee-W.c 4E w
--c. g.
r c.
q
.m-= =.b u.
r
=
w 4=x-=.
-=
.c-
. w.4 w.x.=
- w c m. r.h r%.s~.
- 3-ka.- -a.,. r-2 n. n..
c:ura %+-r:-we.t.w~%ac% : ms.g.?u...
s w
- m. _. _ _.w s. r--..n. E.;G, m,%* 'T~T1"'Go'Ab."i. ;'".,%
.m," ~- =o.w:..mr --
- ~wn.
w.,.
w s
=m~
' Qd.*.'"5.U*:'?'.' m.,T t.
%__?.'*-
- o W*M,T"E*w'J'X. re.Y...-~=f:"'<f'
.~. n.,..4. m-4
.~~
.2..
_g
.% ~~e?
uwr h
- '~~.*v"u~ :." 'm.
~S. rp.
&J.'
.V." *.Q -9.4.,. %..,*
t W51h.i.,o.i==O -f. >q:;::*:
- " ' =. s? * *
~~~
.T,.. '*1 why m' *g%.1 r.t.hM,;*.*./.,$. ss'.C:'.?:T&. ::,m -Q<?w* r:::~c-; p-Q..;&,o*e*.N
. M..es** d ~'*
7 M ' ' t ?.s '
.-Q
~-k"".--,.h.T.J.C :.::: ~ : -:: :x.i.u' Lh-:>mj*
.~
.IA 4.Qf.*.'.,4*= 'b 2..,
"Y..
M:#.
w -c.=..
% Ca
- c:. g '~.ru -==s~ x.
d::m. s,..=.n f,s. w. gr.p:.n_.m..: s rst.::'q'M,.v% N.:.y.k".d?.,m,m.,yp ~.;W,W,4 f:r ~er'
.y,cRcs.. - m.nE:57v. w
- =:<r'.r&*
.:,. m:t :.--
-,,.~.:..
'vi7.e,a-O r*'5* -r"** b.--- 'd.J.a g._, E'+N,g _ 's" r*-* ^W'
-y e*
4.-=-
,,,.,, g f
, g,.--T *M r-
. w
' - e.
% IM.'-er d ""** 8 ~---
~ :~.
c~
W..
- 1..s 44.*a 6,EN ' 4"(M' " C *~.h e*"#"*s"s p'"ars*i,,M.. *<' "'N * *'W.'** g T' 'Eb.,,.~..,,, g,.W a.'.w:4 ^_ L:."./ '.d r
-,:":'N.
s
- r. -r.
e w
2s-T Y:
e
. ~ '
?~
'<5$$Y Y $ ~.h.. ? 5 N.
<3
.F*W"%,.i.
- t.w : y?%
f--
..,,. 6 87 fs L
~g Y$'?=.4 g$IiN Y
a
~
~
- . :a.y - =-.a- -:,'ib..:,r Y
Y S N.'.?.-,!.:.N(_p?.^$. -.'W.".TN.M*-Ef*w.~e'w"&f.&,w"A'.W54$s y
$..n'.
.,,. m n w.
E?S-
=~.-m n=:..c.mn-2 -e%'r%---, cw*=4 4 ?=:r."k* '.*w.=~-h.
-- m!.- -E
- c
,.w.gr -
s 5,Y^Y^ *
??l&
~-
~
dd Y
- c. w :
O """ e? $.S C A ?. W..tz.w=>e~-w - r,=.=w:n
-e
-m e
es.-
- -x: ;: r :. re**
5:.-< m or:-.rw ~
.'r' :rrd'.rh- ::" v:? r:'wjt.r ;, w n e-,:w -N 's--so :ws.
--1=
- m-
- :==,.T,.-:=*;;;4.;,-:-r o-ra-M..Mn;.7.- e7-r.:ucren(.:rm->*:.W.7,;x y?v;e.n.W,.eg r: g.:
c
-w.a.= :..;,x. = w: n..v.:--. - r.w~ m --f ;.,qy:=r,.esm%t.cp,g,a.
_d~2.,2--
ge -~; 2.e vrrdew ve w.p,-r-p3 u-<ns-.3-
~-.~-~- ~ :.
F *)J.,.n p_- f. ~, m% % ees a...- ~ ~~~ W'-':
n>
-%-=-* = s:==
..r_.-_f+M t:
r<: rW
., ~
+-.n,s
.chza.
. m.
>.n r-.m.~~.s: a.smearm.a 7 - - A W=,. i a;
4'";,q/C.*::-::
&., c=~2 [.e-
~ 22SGGM*'W.u. eW< ?;*w-w---#7*- R W.M.9.d..i ',@-
= ~.
. e 4 %W.*;' p'rN:.;.'.=,"e?*
- T't'? W.:,2.+~Mi ::c;;'"2'.r'3'2,*T W.,
.. M. ;"s'.~:~-.~~-'A i.
mw_
C
~5=.",&~ h
- u
- 2. ~
.L. Gq'r%:..'W:::F.f7 $
.' W ;N;c5= W ?
, 5:. e.wa :m W* :.'"'.;~c~Y-%'i%Kg[WuW' e-,.e erae..pj&,e. 7.ifi;*hg:g.., v.-h..w;t :::.c._:%'rh;3%
r.,rg,=;g.5, t.. ';MG -5'%,'-Q tMc#
- %' *::_.:.:4 EE"%..%:
,. 4:4 a e'N,.4.,..:.-,;;;;.;,:::::,..::
e g-.
r 9 - e-w 7 ;.".c -
J'~ :.
=-
---e p W :g &.r-,%-:..--a 9 M
. -ra 4 -l
$K -
~s M' G*%~:u =?Ecl.CQ'M4 *.6i2%n.;=W~M-.n*M.7="^W'M"G.'.%.'..-.k~:
2=&Nr2 G ". W.
W rac
.d"C,f,D C M
':k ':
~
t.~.N.+**';h's WMK+,M..
&w w.%*G.J.p"'k%.^rt,Wh. y.Wh-p,m'.~W=D'MQ[**' 14:,..
Q=:
C.:.:
A'-]'anW'#mJ hM:%n.*?w E.<~'::~.5r;MS:L. ';%<
Q""' u?!c:%.#,=
W?
5~
- >=
M-2 *
. -#i'U:R~t% ** '"W'~n=~%'.7;&i K.
t'i' 2
- =~~
.a gp-m ~-
'. M d e
~~-n. 4 - :,
cr
$,_ h
,~,
'5~'"Y
~
f-
~
TFG 01/31:/814 LO JISIANA POWERi. LIGHT COMPANY.
WATERFORD 3 SES INITIMIDATION OF DA/0C PERSONNEL ITEM I
NOT TOLERATED
RESPONSE
CONSTRUCTION PERSON FIRED. IN ONE CASS NO EVIDENCE'O'F INTIMIDATION FROM THE RECENT INTERVIEWS
~
OF ALL ONSITE DA/QC PERSONNEL il e.*
6 e
I 4
,~
~
-.~
TFG 01/31/84 LOUISI ANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Y
WATERFORD 3 SES
~~
FOSTERS TH'OUGHOUT SITE '
ESTABLISHED HOTLINE -
~
~
R INSERTS IN ALL SITE PAYROLL CHECKS NO CALLS AS OF THIS DATE CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS OF-0VER 400 QC/QA PERSONNEL
~' '
RESULTs
- (83%) IDENTIFIED NO CONCERNS
~
(5%) 1DENTIFIED MINOR CONCERNS
- (13%) IDENTIFIED CONCERNS WHICH WILL TAKE SOME INVESTIGATION TO ADDRESS.
- (7%). CHOSE TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS
- ~
~
4 S
- p
,.Q M ^ ES"-
- V 6 '.t".'? h 6 % K ? & ?
.h
- b' em yM
[-h. m'"QM'MH*i" ~, Win'.y
?
BQ $ &2A $ % h (=-Q$
M? m M S@.
- MM'5 ?-%,.-.:w.y.W. %c&.A
' $~i~~~5-WSY5 W.'iWh.a.:- -,. E~5. 5 x 4:-
2%
1 W
W
-n ms.n..
4W b--e '"m;- d.,#6
.m:.a. ~g,h,. gn nm
- - - ~-
r-S W ',' W' N'- : k _. -
- 6a carof [" A T$ h M.5 5.,. $ c te*Vut E P'C-a-i =Nw
. 7pjg U.Gr@.w
' Y Q M &~Eq2R.G+% 2 -J b w,,T/)~5 Y,,,Y,_ N A,'s. h.<''~?% j+'i*c~m~,_ gyp. > -q.g4 f *;&B.F.,~,2. L Ws,G4 B ik~$5"E? %S_
G,'
. P'.M y
i G*
[L
~..: $.'._...-p-q EN
. - ww=a
.. x. r,.,-.. s.,-.
a
% n.
e
- m. n_.
a
=
<,2, 3
.ep l@mS$f?$@Y$na_u_[E6hs@(M1hT@$aab-Y Q'-m hhhnk 54W-1 Y
S
~ * '
wm
=
I l
TFG 01/31/84 LOUISIANA POWER a LIGHT COMPANY
'WATERFORD 3 SES t
d ITEM NONCONFORMING. CONDITIONS'IN MERCURYi T B, F8M HANGERS I
e TOMP K! NS-BEC KWITH
' RESPONSE 4
SCD #60, (7-1-82) " TURNOVER DOCUMENTATION &
INADEQUATE HANGER WELDS" FINAL REPORT-To NRC SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 16, 1984.
HANGERS ONLY-PIPING ACCEPTABLE e
d e
g d
~
TFG.
01/31/84.
LOUISIANA POWER ti LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD 3 SES t
~:
4 IIEM MATERIAL TRACEABILITY PROBLEMS.
RESPONSE
HAVE HAD SOME TRACEABILITY PROBLEM,S THESE PROBl. EMS HAVE BEEN Doci>MENTED ON NCR'S
~
'FOR ASME. code ITEMS, THE DISPOSITION MUST BE ACCEPTED
)
BY AN ASME THIRD PARTY INSPECTOR (ANI)
MT 9.rt. Aft:0 ALL MATERIA 1. ON THE JOB IS CERTIFIED MATERIAL A
IF MATERIAL IS DEFECTIVE, IT IS REMOVED r-
.T 9
g
.,e
-L*.~*
.~
.3.;.
s
.u
~
. -
- j _.)
. af G.
.-, lva -
i f
4-
~
.y.-
I
.*/
- .e n TFG 01/31/84 LOUISIANA POWER 4 LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD 3 SES F
. ITEM AT THE OUTSET LPal' WAS SINCERE, LATER WHEN PROBLEMS WERE FOUL 4D THEY WANTED TO IGNORE THEM.
RESPONSE
NOT TRUE - IF ANYTHING, LP&L DA HAS:GOTTEN TOUGHER AS TIME HAS GONE ON,
~
l I
(
o TFG 01/31/84.
Y LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY.
i.
e c.
. ATERFORD 3 SES W
MERCURY - SCD //57 PROBLEMS ITEM
RESPONSE
TUBING 1,
As-BUILT DRAWING DID NOT REFLECT THE INSTALLED FIELD CONDITIONS.-
2.
INSTALLED CONDITIONS WERE NOT PER THE SPECIFI-CATION REQUIREMENTS & NOT IDENTIFIED:
A.
}MPROPER SLOPE B.
BOUND-UP IUBING RUNS WHICH WOULD NOT ALLOW PROPER THERMAL EXPANSION C.
DAMAGED TUBING ~- KINKS, SCRATCHES, ARC STRIKES.
SUPPORTS i
1.
AS'-BUILT SUPPORT TYPES ON DRAWINGS, DOCUMENTATION,
& IN THE FIELD DID NOT MATCH.
~
2.-
WRONG SUPPORT'USED IN INSTALLATION.
3, SUPPORTS - BOLTING & EXdANSION AN'CHOR INSTAL-
~
LATIONS. -~
CORRE,cTivE ACTION F;INAL'REPORTToNRC.$CHEbULED 02/15/84.
- U*
u
~
TFG 01/31/84 1.0VISlANA POWER i LIGHT COMPANY
~
WATERFORD 3 TOMPKINS - BECKWITH J 'SCD #60 PROBLEMS' ITEM f
5 HANGER DOCUMENTATION
RESPONSE
1.
AS-BUILT HANGER DRAWINGS (RED-LINED) DID NOT I
1DENTIFY At.L WELD SYMBOLS.0N THE DRAWING.
2.
WELD INSPECTION RECORDS WERG 1NCOMPLF.TE.
3.
WELD INSPECTION SIGNATURES WERE OUT OF_DATE SEQUENCE.
(FIT-UPS SIGNED OFF AFTER FINAL VISUAL WAS PERFORMED)
HANGER WALKDOWN 1,
AS-BUILT HANGER DikAWINGS (RED-LINED) DID NOT MATCH FIELD INSTALLATION A)
WELDS DID NOT MEET AWS Dl.1 REQUIREMENTS
-1)
COLD LAP 2)
UNDERCUT
' 3)
UNDERSIZE 4)
SPATTER B)
MISSING WELDS C)
ORIENTATION OF HANGER 90* DIFFERENT. THAN AS-BUILT CORRECTIVE ACTION
- 1 F1NAL-REPORT TO NRC SCH,DULED 03/16/8f4, E
TFG 01/31/84 9
LOUISIANA POWER g LIGHT COMPANY:
WATERFORD 3 SES
?
FALSIFIED RECORDS
~
ITEM
RESPONSE
- THE ONLY DOCUMENTED CASE OF PossIBLE FALSIFIED RECORDS.
WAS IDENTIFIED ON AN EBASco NCR.
HEAT NUMBER-(MEacuRY) b g..
g D
9 4--.
J'
c, UNITED STATES iT f %.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s (,
3g
, je wAsmoToN D C.20555 s,..y#
~%
MAY 171982 FOR INFORMATION ONLY Mr. B. E. Tenzer Director Materials Engineering and Quality Assurance Ebasco Services. Inc.
Two Rector Street New York, NY 10006
Dear Mr. Tenzer:
SUBJECT:
ACCEPTANCE OF REVISION 11 TO EBASCO QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM TOPICAL REPORT 4
We have reviewed and evaluated Revision 11 to the Ebasco Topical Report, ETR-1001, submitted with your letter of February 22, 1982 and as modified in your letter of May 3,1982. Revision 11 reflects quality assurance pre-gram and editorial changes.
We find that this report describes a quality assurance program that meets the criteria in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 and is therefore acceptable.
t You may implement it upon issuance. For the Ebasco quality assurance pro-gram, you need only reference this topical report in Chapter 17 of license appli cations. We do not intend to repeat our review of this topical report i
when 1.t is referenced in an application.
Should regulatory criteria or regulations change such that our conclusions about this topical report are invalidated, we will notify you. You will be given the opportunity to revise and resubmit it should you so desire. Pro-gramatic changes by Ebasco to this topical report are to be submitted to NRC for review prior to implementation. Organizational changes are to be submitted no later than 30 days after announcement.
Please include a copy of this letter in the report, renumber the report ETR-1001, Rev.11A, and transmit 40 copies to the NRC. In your transmit,
tal letter, please indicate to which plants Revision 11A will be applicable.
Shuuld you have any questions regarding our review or if we can provide assistance, please contact Mr. John Gilray on (301) 492-4730.
Sir.cerely, 4
)
A *' -
alter P. Haass, Chief Quality Assurance Branch
)
1 Division of Engineering
$5d
.\\
- s a ts cg
]
MMa C..
D *s[/ja..
[o, UNITED STATES g[g.c g, // '/
j
" NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-- E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
.g 3,%A.
REISSUED 3/22/84
).
WITH ATTACHMENT MAR 21 1934 Docket.No.:- 50-382
~
4gU I
MEMORANDUM FOR: George W. Knighton, Chief 1
Licensing Branch No. 3 Division-of Licensing FROM:
' James.H. Wilson, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3-Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
LOUISIANA-POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY MEETING DATE & TIME:
Monday, March 26, 1984 9:00 am - 12:00 noon LOCATION:
Suite 1200 Landow Building.
Bethesda, Maryland PURPOSE:
LP&L Presentation of their. basis for adequacy of construction of basemat PARTICIPANTS:
NRC Staff APPLICANT Staff D. Crutchfield R. Leddick T. Novak K. Cook G. Knighton W. Cross J. Wilson L. Lazo J. Knight EBASCO J. Ma R. Pichumani W. Wittich S. Turk G. Lear
.M. Pera61th '?
/ '4 hb[,lb
~
Jamid H. Wilson, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing cc: See next page In2 /
qQhr v JD "
/
e-L.
m a-4' TT TV
xn a
Waterferd 3 Mr. R. S. Leddick Vice President - Nuclear Operatinns Louisiana Power & Light _ Company 142 Delaronde Street Mew Orleans, Louisiana 70174 W. Malcoln Stevenson, Esq.
Regional Administrator - Region IV Monroe & Lenan U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission 1432' Whitney Building-611 Ryan Plaza Drive New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012
~
Mr. E. Blake.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, NW Washington, DC -20036 Mr. Gary L. Groesch 2257 Bayou Road New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 Mr. F. J. Drummond Pro.iect Manager - Nuclear Louisiana Power and Light Company 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174' 1
Mr. D. B. Lester Production Engineer Louisiana Power & Light Company 14? Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 Luke Fontana, Esq.
824 Esplanade Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70116 Stephen M. Irving, Esa.
535 North 6th Street Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802 Resident Inspector /Waterford NPS P. O. Box 822 Killona, Lnuisiana 70066
-Dr. D. C. Gibbs Middle South Services, ~Inc.
P. O. Box 61000 New Orleans, Louisiana 70161 e
9 y
1 t
'V OUESTIONS ON WATERFORD 3 BASEMAT 3/26 MEETING IN BETHESDA 4
~
Allegations recently reported in a GAMBIT newspaper article and in staff investigations concerning the GAMBIT article have lead to the assignnent of additional reviewers to evaluate the base mat adequacy. This transmittal is a composite set of Ouestions from the reviewers, and is intended to faciliate LP&L's preparation for.the meeting on March 26, 1984 in Bethesda.
t >
How many 1./ How many nonconformance reports were issued on the basemat?
_/
relate to poor concrete placement practices? What were corrective actions taken? Provide justification to substantiate your position that these practives could not have lead to the development.of cracks or -localized porous zones which may be the cause of water intrusion.
2.
Where was water table when 1977 cracks were discovered?
j 3.
Is-there any evidence of convex curvature due to ring wall loading?
4.
Provide X-Section maps of nat flexure over time; period zero to present.
5.
Provide complete documentation of groundwater control and foundation heave from the start of dewatering until the present time.
Include the history of soil excavation and backfill beneath the mat.
6.
Provide the foundation loading history under each block during construction of the mat and walls. This should include the distribution of pressure under each block.
Include the location and history of loads due to backfilling adjacent to foundation blocks.
7.
Provide complete settlenent history for each block from initial pourina until the present time.
8.
Analyse and discuss the relationship of the above variables.(Os 5-7 above) on the history of all observed mat cracks and leaks.
9.
What basis is there for accepting the adequacy of construction of the first 3 blocks?
10.
If engineering judgement was involved in accepting those blocks, what was the basis for that.iudgement? Where is it documented?
o
/ 11; What corrective actir,ns were necessary for the first 3 blocks? What. corrective C-actions were taken, and provide specifics for each pcur? Where are these actions documented?
- 12. Were any cracks discovered in 1977 outside of the ringwall? Provide docunent-tation.. If none were discovered outside ringwall why not infer that these-three blocks were poorly constructed?.
l6 V j.4 e
Under whose direction?
- 1)( Did Koninsky. recopy-illegible cadweld records?
Why? What' happened to the original records?.
- 5. 3 14 Provide summary of actions.taken following Hill's presentation of OA deficiencies.. Provide detailed report on document review undertaken
' and all results.
(2 Provide LP&L's evaluation of adequacy of Harstead's third report.
15 Does LP&L assert that it represents their views-as well?
. -16 Provide specific basis for Harstead's conclusion that the doucnentation
. problems:do not affect.their prior conclusion as to basemat's strength.
What documents did Hartstead review? What did he look at? Did he see the Phearson-Brigg memo? Hill's NCR's? Other NCR's?
17.
Provide differential. settlement contours Vor 6 month periods, starting from er.rly 1977 to present.
- 18. According to the settlement contours shown in figure 2.5.118, the curvature is concave downward in both directions. This implies cracks on the top surface in both directions which would not penetrate all the way through.
In view of the above why did the wate'r seep thru? Why dosen't the crack pattern match the given differential settlement?
It is possible that there are localized convex surfaces on the mat which are not shown in the figure (the grid is quite rough)?
19.
Please provide all soil properties (re. results of soil tests, reports confinned compression test results, boring records, shear modulus etc).
- 20. Provide all concrete property data, rebar data, placement. data '(ie also
- ~
detailed as built drawings of matsi.
PL Provide any revised calculations that include settlement effects.
~ b Is the Phearson memo accurate? What kind of actions has LP&L taken to
/ 2 respond to and resolve his' allegations?
l n.
('23., Memos of inspectors Hill and Davis,~as reported in GAMB1T, stated that they found a broad range of deficiencies in virtually every record packaae l
examined and the situation demanded a complete review of all civil /.
structural records. What is your response to this allegation?
I e
l l
w
,v-y
.e y..
m.
,y.r,
., g t
- l I.Y
. +-
' 2h GAMBIT; reported that there was falsification.on cadweld splices of
- reinforcing bars. What is'LPAL's response to;this allegation?
' What were -the problems.in the' seven NCR's on QA deficiencies in concrete, as mentioned.in the last column on page 28 of GAMBIT, and how were they
- disposed of?
~
(26/ What were 'the problems' of soils, waterstops, cadweld splices, and the placement of concrete, as mentioned;in the third-column on page 22'of a
Gambit, and how were they resolved?.
/2M Do the allecations described-in Phearson's memo and the Gambit article -
reflect generally what happened during the construction of the mat?- If.
yes, how would these non-conformance of QA/0C requirements affect the i
structuralJintegrity of the mat? If not, identify-those allegation which j
are unfounded and the basis ~thereof.
28.
In light of the allegations, documented NCRs, and 0A/QC deficiencies, what has LP&L done or what does LP&L intend to do in ' order to resolve the t
allegapionsanddeficiencies?_
j
- 29. Does'ma'intain that the mat possesses adequate capability to resist the design loads and confirm to the criteria comited to in-the FSAR despite all the deficiencies and allegations listed? _ If yes, provide the supporting technical basis. ' If not, propose specific means to resolve them and thus l
render the mat acceptable to the staff.
In any case, the "as-built-mat" should be shown by the applicant, if-feasible, to maintain adequate safety margins to perforn its safety function and ~naintain its structural integrity.
A quantitative demonstration of tSe "as-built" mat capacity, including adoption of test, monitoring and strengthening programs, if needed, 1
should be provided for staff review.
g
- 30. What -is LP&L's technical rationale for explaning what has -
happened-(including, water seepage, potential through-thickness cracks, predominently one-way cracks within containment region, uneven settlements, L
etc) to the mat? 'What monitoring program (s) has been implemented is underway? What.are the results of these programs? Did the monitorinq data show that both the cracking and water seepage problems have
- stabilized and there is no sign of continued depration? What improvements, could.be applied to the.on-going programs?
- 31. -Are there any known voids of some significant size to affect the r.at i
structural integrity?
If yes,' what are the sizes (best estinatesl and -
extent of these voids? ~What is LP&L's. suggested diposition to the.issuelof L
voids.
If no disposition is needed, what is the technical basis?
9 e
e ew-
_ei--y 9
-e..
y y.
.--w,.-
..-,,.w-..~
,---,o-.,,,my
,n-.
/
. s 4_
- 32. Conservatively assuming the existence of extensive through-cracks o' the mat, assess-the impact of the presence of water on the long-term stuctural integrity of rebars and mat capacity. Also assess the same impacts due to other potential corrosive elements.
d 9
d
(
l l
4 6 -
S 9
9 n
Paga J of 2 N
e Q g g,~c G ^*
s
,., w2.
CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL CONSTRUCTION yome Concrete Records A. Inspection Scope y,
The records associated with concrete placements were reviewed for conformance to the construction specifications and regulatory requirements. the document-ation review included records of inspection and in-process testing. the records covered fifteen (15) placements from the base mat, reactor aux. b1dg., shell wall,compondentcoolingwatersystemandthedone.(SeeTablep B. Inspection Findings The following are deficiencies identified by the NRC " CAT" inspector.
p. The' testing frequency of concrete of concrete (air / slump / conc. temp./
1 unit weight) did not meet job requirements of a test every 50 cy i 10 of concrete placed on some placements.
V 2. Test cylinders were not taken at the specified interval of every 150 cy i 10 at some placements.
/ 3. Placing documents missing from some concrete placement packages.
. The following concrete placement packages which were reviewed were found that.the.. testing. frequency of the placement was not always met per job requirements.
- (1)4WSO2 6 (No Air)
VC2)4WSo1-13A (No Air / Slump / Conc. Temp./ Unit Wt.)
/(3)558-S01-1 (No Air / Slump / Conc. Temp./ Unit Wt.)
All vith the exception of No.1 were resolved during review.
2a. The following concrete placement packages which were reviewed were V
found that the frequency for taking cylinders was not always met per job requirements.
(1)511-5
//3a. The following concrete placement packages which were reviewed were found to have some documents missing from the package.
L(1)4%S02-6 (Concrete Data Record)
/(2)4%S03-13B(Batch Tickets) dc3)4%SO4-1A3 & 1A4 (No FCR vritten for unacceptable air and slump)
V(4)4%SO4-8A1(No record of extended cure per NCR #W3-236)
II. *. Material / Equipment Testing A. Inspection Scope ihese records covered twelve (12) material tests and testing of ninteen (19)
/ concrete trucks plus the central mixer (See Table II). (Sco iia)
\\
?
Page 2 cf 2
+
s
. B.- Inspection Findings' Thematerial/pquipmenttestingrecord'swerefoundtogenerallymeet-the.constudtion specification 1 regulatory requirements. The records showed evidence of the proper frequency of testing and the satisfaction of acceptance criteria.
III Cadwelding A. Inspection Scope-
'The records associated with cadwelding were reviewed for conformance to the construction specifications and regulatory requirements. Inspection of the
~ cadwelds were made to _ assure proper centering of the cadweld -aleeve, no excessive void, no slag in the tap hole and proper identification of the cadwelder and cleeve. (See Table III)
B. Inspection Findings The' fo11owing are deficiencies identified by the NRC " CAT" inspector.
e,/
- 1. A production test specimen was not shot in the first ten (10) of the h
-Horizontals -(4/r 55) for cadwelder #5W. A' sister test specimen was shot I
finstead of a production even though it seems that a production could have been shot.
- 2. A test specimen was not taken in the first ten per job requirements for the following size / position /cadweld number for cadwelder #J97.
/
(1) 11 Vertical (99-111)
,V (2) 8 Horizontal (81-98)'
(3) 6 Horizontal (156-163 & 165-177)
- 3. Cadwelder #203W did not shoot a test specimen in the first ten (10) cadwelds
/ shot for #14 Horizontals and #6 Verticals IV Backfill /Clain Shell Filter Blanket A. Strip #2 of the claim shell filter blanket was reviewed for conformances to the i
construction specifications.
B. The claim shell filter blanket records were found to generally meet the construction.
specifications. The records showed evidence of the proper frequency of testing and the satisfaction of acceptance criteria.
V.
. Concrete Chi x uts T
following observations were made re'g&rding three (3) chiM uts:
Inspected two (2) chip outs per FCR AS-2626 at "1A" & "J" _ located on
-30.00 elevation in the Reactor. Aux.. Bldg. for reinforcement of the specied size and grade, properly located, and secured in accordance with drawing
- G570SO4 & #G569S01. The inspection revealed that the reinforcement was satisfactory in accordance with the noted drawings.
l
- i. -
Paga l of ],
Inspected cna (1) chiput per NCR #W3-5146 at #P" & "20A" located on
+ 31.75 elevation at the Reactor Aux. Bldg. exterior wall for the reinforcement in the chip-out area in accordance with drawings
- G563302 & G564so6. The inspection revealed that.'the reinforcement was satisfactory in accordance with the noted drawings.
E 9
8 w
9 i
i
(
v-w w
4w y---.
Page f of 7 2.
5' TABLE I e
3 CONCRETE PLACENDIT PACKAGES'
+
Location
-Pour No.
P1.acement Date Base Hat
'499-S02-6 1 2&3/75 499-S03-13B 6
499-S01-13A 6
j Reactor Aux.' Bldg.
570-S01-1A 570-S01-J8A 6/
76 558-S01-1 9/
77 Fuel Handling Bldg.-
593-S01-6AA 1
76 588-6 7
I~
593-SO4-6A 10 77
' Shield Wall 511-5 5/7/76 Compondent Cooling Water System-499-SO4-8A1 1
5/76 499-SO4-1A3 & 1A4
.6 77 Dome 521-3A &-3B 1
17&18/79 521-9A & 9B 1
80 521-10A & 10B-1 80 L
/
5'.
9
$Y s
t 4
Y.
d m
,,.-Me
-%----,,,,w-
-m
- - - 4
{I1 i
5" 1'
5 4
4
_ 6 4
4 4
5 4
3 1 2 12 3
12
,* 5
[3 3
23 2
1 1
0 i
2 3 1
01 2i 0H a2 1
i 012 012 1
. 1 0 2 u
l/
111 111 1
/
i 2i t 21 t
t 9
789 789 9
9 8
7g 7
9' 6
456 456 5
456 4
3 3
3
'5 12 12 123 123 2
l2 1g 1
1 01 2 0 12 0 12 11 1 1
0 2 1 11 1 11 1
1 9
9 9
9 789 789 789 8
8 7
5 7
2 9
6 Mg 1
5 g6 8
456 456 4
4 4
M/
/
5 5
1 g
18 3
2
/
123
/
123 12 3 3
3 1
0 1
012 012 0
1 1
0 2 g2 111 111 1
1 1 1 gn 9
78 9 7S 9 78 9 9
i 8
t 7
7 I
s 7
I a
9 5
T 1
6 456 4>6 A56 5
{
E l
4 L
a B
i 3
A r
2 1
12'i 1 2
't 1
12 3 33 123 123 3
3 3
T e
1 te 1
2 2"
H 1
- 5 1
1 0 2 0
012 012 0
0320 012 0 1 2, 1
111 111 1
131 1 1 111 1 1 1
1 9
9 9
8 39 8'g
}9 89 89 A 7 qg -
6 5
6 (6
4 3
y3
- 1 3
1 1h 0[
h 5
og 1 2" t
113 g
nl g 0 2 1
11 3/
o s
1 1
L A
A A
m S
S S
D g'
n e
D y
H D
g
}
l
'r i
S D
t Y
E n
E T
T e
L RE C
EV I
S S
N A
s
&I NE V
D r
O G
I N
e a
T II AN I
S O
t R
7S RO O
tf o
i u
A LS S
M' N
E PP
'S0 T
G G
R EE S
n O
I M
L0 CP T
I A
B L
E R
e U
D I
E A
&C t
T i
n T
II LL I#
FO E
WS I
I A
NR B
R IS C
TE TT N
S r
A.
AR V
I T
D AU YA EN CB R
HC t
LA O
L FP m
M S
GE /o L
AH P
P II CR E
R RM s
y LP
/
JiT S&
s T
G OI L
[
V
/g
/
Y b
D l
3
}1l lli
(
1
/
79 X
X X
/27 4
/
99 X
X
/27 3
/8 X
X x
X
/17 9
/7
/57 X
X X
X 22 EKTCm AUn DRu T
+
4 4
6 5
1 4
89 3
1 2
1 3
1 3
1 1
1 0
1 1
1 1
1 02 1 1 9
7 7
8 0
7 i
8 9
6 4
4 1
5 4
3 3
2 3
3 g
1 li n
1lii i
l-i 1
0 2
t 1
1 1
e 1
2 s
0 1
J_
a T
I 9
9 9
9 9
8 9
7 I
y 9
8 t
7 7
i 9
E m
1 6
4 6
6 6
L r
5 B
o 4
f A
f T
i 3
2 3
1 n
2 U
1 r
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 c
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 x
6 21 i
1 M
9 9
8 9
9 8
8 8
7 7
9 1
6 4
4 4
4 4
4 L
5 4
3 2
2 2
2 1
1 0
0 12 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
9 8
9 9
7 7
79 1
6 4
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5
5 5 5 5
5 5
4 3
3 2
3 1
I1 6
1 2
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 7
0 2 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 i
ET A
lr D
ae 1
rx 7
0 2
3 4
9 0
6 7
8 9
0 3
4 5 3
ti 0
1 1
1 1
1 2
2 2
2 2
K 0
n, 0
0 0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 nM C
1 U
e R
C 3
T i
l Il i N y
- e2
E Paga 7 of 7 TABLE III CADWELDING Test Specimens Qusdification Cadwelder ID.#
l Size / Position / h Production / Sister Date 3W 18 H
324 7
(18H) 10/7/75
~
11 V
82-5 (18V)1/30/76 18/11
.H 65 5
5W 18 H
43 3
(18H) 1 7/75 1 23/75 18 V
88 5
(18V) 5
/75 6
76 76 11
/76 18/11 V
21 1
11 V
16 11 H
12 1
9 Y
50 2
8 V
5 J97 18' H
622 12 (18H) 1
/75 3
76 1
78 18/11 H
100
'2 (18) 1/26/78
/
203W 11 H
288 3
10 (14H) 3/28/78 14 H
48 1
6 V
31 1
6 H
1 11 V
2 (11V) 7/11/78 255W 11 V
133 3
(11V) 1 79 11 H
64 3
(11H) 1 79 79-
/79 E14*
(11H) 11,13,15,17,19,21, (11H) 3/10/84 77 22,23,24,25,26 & 27
/T E15*
(11H) 4,5,8,21,22,24,27, (11H) 1/25/84 31,32,34,37,38,39,40 &41
- The noted cadwelds were inspected by the NRC CAT Inspector and vore found to meet the constmiction specifications and other commitments.
l l
wwni
)
l 1
e J,
30 L O U ISI A N A
.c a. m.n r ~ -
POWE A & LIGHT / 0 0, er. c as. v.. ". : v.
- .2 4
- 4 :4-n:
v : a s :.. -
Nu m av July 9, 1U 1
- m e.
1.PI. 11305 Q-3-A20.03.13 3-A1.01.01
-Mr. Earl V. Seyfrit. Director Regien IV
. U. S.16uclear Regulatory Ce==ission Office of Inspection and Enfor:enen 611 Ryan Plaza Drive. Sui:e 1000 Arlington, Texas 76012 St'5 JECT: Waterford 3 SES Docket No. 50-392 i
I.E.Bulletin 79-02
Dear Mr. Seyfrit:
r E
In response to the subject bulletin, the design and installatice cf base plate,
using concrete expansion anchor bolts to suppert Seismic Category I piping hai.
been revier i and items 1 through 4 of the same bulletin are addressed as follows:
1.
The base plate flexibility is accounted for in the calculation of anchor bolt leads. The bolt leads are calculated using plate on elastic foundation theory utili: int A':SYS finite elenen:
I coe.puter program.
U.e base plate design has acceuntet f:r the requirements of r.ini::n ancher spacing and edge distance :s assure 1000 ef fective ancher performan:e. Total a*.levatie 1:ad of the base plate under axial, shear a.4 bendin; far:es is de:er-zined using the follevin; interactien f:::ula:
Actual !
Actusi V Actual M < l.C t
t Allowable !
Allowable V Allevable M traere T axial f:::e
=
V chear f:r:e
=
t M
bendiny for:e
=
S.e all: able axic1, tMr s-! 5 enfin; forces are establis e:
separately based en t'. e raxime: bol: alh v2b'.e tensi:n r :
shear loads.
F r
i
~
- N.
L
?$ W
.g&%)
Y
.3W
. c,,,
('Q Mr. Kcr1 v. scyfrit July 9,1979
.o The base plates, which have already been installed, were designed originally assuming rigid place action in calculating bolt loads ['- Rowever, all of thesir base places arc being re-viewed and"thetr; bolt loads recateulated to include the effects
, of place. flamibilityg)as. discussed.above.WQit:Qb fye;1;g&dy n
'From}4 reviewofithese'basejplateswhichhavealready i
n
' beeQnste, lp'85f,) have aufficientudesign conservativeness. fit'ussjfound'th (appretteste and will'itet ' require any desirgmodification. ' However, the
~ balanee of'the plates,.apprertmetely 80 of them may require t
i a destga.nodification.
The*Aodificatiou is to add stiffener plates to"the base plate so.that-plate. prying action on the bolts will be minimized. Tae' detailed design (or the modi-
~
^
ficaties is. scheduled to be completed by October 1, 1979.
2.
This project has used only wedge type concrete expansion an hor bolts. The minimum factor of safety between the bolt design load and the bolt ultimate capacity is four (4) the boir ultimate capacity is based on static load test on concrete wit h 4000 psi 28 -day compression strength.
3.
The L'Its are designed to withstand seisaic loads. All the bolts at the time of installation.are torqued to develop a y
bolt tension equal to 115* of the maximum design load.
The
-torque is: applied using a calibrated torque vrench as speci-fied by the bolt manufacturer. Wrench calibration is based t.
p-en results of'en-site tests which have been reviewed and accept.d by the design engineer.
4.
The th* documentation for each base piste has included the p
g.
number of anchor bolts, bolt size, embedment length, and r
verification that the correct torque was applied. The results of audits performed of records cade since October IU7 to April 1979 indicate the installations of the work f
to be acceptable and in accordance with design require:eits.
a if you have any questions, please advise.
Yours very truly.
D.
!.. Aswell DIA:JEM sed
).
ec:
U. S. Suelear Regulatory commtssion
- l Office of Inspection and Enforcement Division of Reactor Construction Inspection Washington D. C. 20555 f
A
5 a
1 LounssAnn
.c,.
.a POWEA & LtGHTc c ;,:. w.
e.. >. -
.e.
- 4. es e g
? ihNA-e.
November 21, 107' 3,7 Lpt 12477 0-3-A20.03.I3 Mr. Karl V. Sevfrit, Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comissien Region TV 611 Ryan #1a:a Drive Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011
SUBJECT:
Waterford 3 SES Docket No. 50-382 IE Bulletin 79-02 Revision 1 REFERr;CES:
f1)
Telecon of November 20, 1979 between Mr. Stewart, Region TV, NRC, and Mr. A. Jones, LP&L (2) Letter LPL 11505 dated July 9, 1979
%sr w Seyfrit:
r In response to the referenced telecen we have found that reference (2) adeoustely discussed the subject revision with the exceotion of item 4-b, for eftich this amplification is orovided.
We would like to further address the OA documentation recuirmnents for proper bolt installation. As we have addressed before, the CC documentation for each base plate has included the number of anchor bolts, bolt size, omtedment imagth, and torgue magnitude applied.
In addition, olate bolt hole size, bolt spacing and edge distance to the side of a concrete m eber are specified.on a design drawine. Any deviations from the drawines which are found at the tim of installation are fully doc eented. All deviations are reviewed and eva.uate-by the desien engineer.
As it was mentioned in the previous response, this project has used only veder type concrete expansion anchor bolts.
Thereford, the bolt pararneters - thread engagement, and full expansion of the shall are not discussed.
We trust this has clarified the further concems of the revised bulletin.
If you have any cuestions, elesse advise.
ne7 0;hl01 1
i-- i i-Y f )h) qg fv l
f t
- .bf, y$Nh%#ai
- w
~~a:2. e.../ s E.l%,,
...'e, v
2 "r e. raill
- c-r t.: :.
ra c e.
2 u
Yours-verv.truly.
D. L. Aswell DIA/JFK/dde cc:
U.' S. Nuclear Perulatorv Cormission office of Insoection'and Enforcettent Divisfon of Reactor Construction Inspection L'ashington. D.
C..
20555 l
3 y - m,xy: 7m--
p q-p g y_ y =- W ;4; ? *
-- - - y -
S
, S i,ih ?f s l$ k b [?I;E Y h a$ih}?
$j[
&b'{h
- E' W,'
,,_s
~
P O W E A f. L i G H T -
o, m = m.. : e an r w a..
n:
..-. ~.
e :.t 3:. -
muTo ss s o.-
.ianuary E, 1980
,-,.w.~.
i LPL 12F.D o-3-A2r.M.!'
l Mr. Karl V. Seyfrit,-Directov. Recion TV U. S. Nuclear, Regulatory Cot n' esion 1
Office of Inspection and Er.forcement 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, suite 1000 i
l Arlineton, Texas 76011 l
SUBJTCT: Waterford SES Unit No. 3 Docket No. 50-382 L
IT Bulletin No. 79-02 (Devision No. 2)
RETTRENCES :
(1) latter L*L 11505 dated July 9, 1979 (2) Letter LPL 12l.77 dated November 21. 1979 l
I
Dear ).r. Seyfrit:
l In response to the subject bulletin, we would like to further confir ce:
responses to the original bulletin as well as Revision No. I concerning the design and installation of base plates, using concrete expansion anchor belt
- l to suppc.s Seismic Category I piping systems.
As previously addressed, the following has been further verifsed:
1.
The base plate flexibility is accounted for in the calculatiot, of anchor bolt loads.
2.
This project has useu onlv vedge type concrete ernantic.
anchor bolts.
3.
The bolts are designed to withstand seismic loade.
4.
The DC documentation for each base plate has includ(d the number of anchor bolts, bolt size, embedment length and torcue marnitude applied.
In addition, plate bolt hele sire, belt spacine and tolt edy distance in a conertit n mber are specified or a desfer. drawing.
n 1 giv_,1,,n L W
T"Y "t 4
", *, T' <
. T.
. g,,y(
{
^
o "Mr. Karl V.'Seyfrit-P6ge 2 l
I.PL 12F13=
'Also as adcressed in the response to IE_ Bulletin 79-14. the as-built piping support _ locations will be Ldocumented by the piping contractor (Toepkins-BeckvitL and a functional verification'of supports will be perf onned by the desirn engince :
(Ebasco)'. - Prior to system turnover. a final check of the supporting structural elements will also be performed by the design engineer (Ebasco ), to ensure the adequacy of structural strength to. sustain the required support reactions att nott?
in IF Infors:1. ion Notice No. 79-28.
As requested of holders of construction permits, Items 5 and 6 of the subject bulletin are also addressed below:
5.
This project used and vill use expansion anchor bolts only in reinforced concrete walls to attach piping supports in seismic Categorv I systems.
Therefore, no further discussion will be pursued.
6.
This project has used and will use expansion anchor bolts only to attach base plates to reinforced concrete structure for piping supports in Seismic Category I systems.
This project has not used and will not use expansion anchor bolts to connect structural steel shapes directly to the supporting structure.
Therefore, no f urther-discussion will be purs.ued.
If you have any guestions, please advise.
Yours verv truly, WF D. L. Aswell DLA/JFK/dde cc:
U. S. M.iclear Regulatorv Commission Office of Inspection and Enforcement Division of Reactor Construction Inspection Washington, D. C.
20555
-.--- e VC
=
=
~.
3
==
. a *:
- ,., p:e c, _
S k.
y t,.s g
,k,
2 7.-
=
E l #p.
ngfmfy D.
.c x
e m
d.e - -
n p ~ g.y.
- m.,
i.+
s,,. t..;.g.
9 i,4pp.R{?
1 C
M wy3pt3-32Si em s
.2L, V
4 cgi 9 3=A20,03.13 -
y F
M 4 ' y' f/L
- Etg..
.'g %.93$y3-41.01.04-
.g,4 4 E
5j 3
%[er.h.
.;,.. 'T.
m 3
C m:
%{ - "
. '. h. <
f gi.,
.i
- />
t t
_. 9 ml ;,_
- . h..
sr
.e t'
'y.
Y i$
" ~
V 3
':X;% -
/
g y *;**
- n. n,
wrh. :. +g.
.n
=
- 2. My _
,w g
r
- w
.,a E
j(3E, TL.%
- kea.W. be 'IN..: c..
N 3%
.c s
., i supplaneet 1 and nav. 2
=
- e..
..h, e.r. 9 avans.ceanen. g Lfdyh h, 'R.% B
'L w
.@)en 6. L.T..v, 2td:E. Y. Seyfrit. dated 7/9/79 c
Aswe11 D.44.Aswe11.te:E. T. Seyfrit dated 11/21/79 r
N, D. T Sowelb tf E. TU 8eyfett.'4ated 1/8/80
{
f"
~ f q, h' 21 4 9 5 9 aN h'?
f.h 0
';f,l:'i.
a f_
E-
,ke.
If$$$ h f '
I E
e hr j-M.-. -
lto (1) e..ttwetegel, failures.4f piping supports for
$.teimprop(F17tightemadp,eeborf'oltsand(2)the 2
.h,;enseemsamaherpeltai s.
ties fret rigid plate
- ef W M1a m
m s.,
.y
'.: g., p.,,
w:
g
- m. w.,1.-. wr
.e a
h.
.I.,
f E
?"
t <
MId.]MMM d'entchinve. 41re4#7 been 1
'6tM Tf y
"Wienopteis
=
M._ M lV,f the pla~tes (approximately 85%)
I
,,i.
7flahwill
- n.
G. 3 f thnlylatesl met requir's any design
'.the M e
'approximately 80 of them.
floation!" b9' MT l' '... i
- n. 5 7 ta Y,
w g;,s,.
4
'.-w
=-
Ao espple.nment. sur > earlier. toepease by documenting the
.~.
%e.
s above seestamenti m
^
L g
" g'; p.f,7 w e i
-t jf9Bs1 series of installed bene plates revested that 77 anchor E-ji
'1 tes eldt seigetre modification. Out of the 77 anchor plates in question,
@$B35298atap g{ esp' teen ' modified and testa 11ed r
17 plates were finally p l.. *1 W : me modifisetion required) due to changes made in the piping
=
[
,LC 9 ~ hee 9 Bee *****a48'end R$ plates became acceptable after a field verification C
noe eepheget, f
- a w t..,h,,9W
=
n.
g j
h Y
m 7,.x
.d a_
m w
s
- ~ -
c.
1
(
,'C g
I:
s.
i.,
r..c p t; J.2 W G a H 4 as'. h r W -
- ( f - W '
b Z h Y bi.- ;-
- f:
Nd i ~%269,y, is.sx,
- 2ky'" k *Q.y -
gy;g.. g:p
., y x.
,y _
g t
ed M
.sospeaans to the M C. em;
. $m11st$aL havebeamadequatelyaddree. sed].
> u,?
- : A;t'PH'+p;y.Q;. g*L*x..'Lyf t '.% *!. Qg,,' e~n.;
y:c c.
NTPs.r.
y.
.+
e,
>J. s's' :&.;y w
wM m<:a t-qfy Wy M,', A,Lv C7,,;mme4$r.c,. t:?, FM
%:M%
gc 4O i.,
.n x
.g@l%g, ' wQ. ~r :t. %,
- M y
~
n eh * %'.5Mr< w
.s.
b
++
b p
tl '
4 d
". ?.; kirian,$,mn#
~v
- ye
\\
i y4g
.-e NN",E+{:dy, ' J s,y.
- 4 N-
.w
_ & y5 n.
r s
.94W Q M,t F. -
?
3
.'lby.. if ukl. ' * ' ~
&"a p444msehe
.'.s. L. :stahs. W. M. Stevenson
% %u, Q*3.u.hl,W
'. L...:.t
?W 3a #.-..
- m.
'.;s t.
M.-
4&,#g', ' j ' ' ' ' : g te T
- 4 g.
f g..
Y V
!. r^$. ?.Q9%%s.,%?.:M.%.n
., f -
~
- z. a...
.m.
.s r-V g)r V ',',Q 7 f., g r....y
+.
yy i
.'.ssu.?
e 9
,ns.,
f,,y ',.4c, ~\\y s v - n e '.
4i' n.k.,
s
.e N
h.
y..
i
.M,.,.@S,h~% 7 '
. n*%,a
&gh+id"h,..
4..
E :
c
- 1.fC t
ff U
f,@t
- v. w.it?y
- g.,
,,.I
-"f s
.Y p[
t 7.d'.
a,,f.
,.>**'.y
.., M 4,.y,.
.N.
- ,.<7 '
4 9
,4 -
..C f y. g
'6
.5: y
- ,Y* l p it we h g.'
At z
.f; Ekw s'.p$.L%. c ;' :r,:
s.
- e.,%:, /s : ;
~
A i.f.,.r. '.
c
~ y[Yd ' h:'4 h: f.
.r
, s.$..
,0. r$. $k '
N h,v,i
..:t y,.'.,, -
a p ~. '.n. y n
.k
,.h
-.', A q, -W Me ' -
k h.~.j 't,z[:,7 f
a
, /,(ly,,.:5. b :?Kp ~it. ! '
~
~
w a
a.
, +k,. [ N.
+ }., - (I*.
O, 9:.
.u$g:%. e%.y]%T. -
5 L,.. : r..
?
34..
u.;..,.
4
%, w *-
%.. %c.~(.t :%$w. q' ~
T. 3 :
2-9 t
r %,, C;.. !
it. v:.
?
c
.e, r' 9 k
",., p #
g
..t -
- pT
7,
~,..e
- f e, -
hDdy,:
w
,n gs4%...w:~'
f jg T.
(Dj:QC.
j' V; b.
1,+
r i
,k'..,
- I e
[>A ',7
- ,r, e s 4
e e.
s 24
,~
TA 3
~
P O W E R & L i G H T! w,4e o,-m~a.meer sox.co.
e w e s eAN si.o us u a vos v4-soes e iso 4pse-eses l,9f~ds f / gCc/)
f-. / ;
g April 13, 1984 ROTH S. LEDDICK Senior Vice President Nuclear Operations W3K84-0842 Q-3-A35.01
/
Mr. Richard C. DeYoung
[ 1 //
Director of Inspection & Enforcement 6[ A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
SUBJECT:
Waterford 3 SES Corrective Action Plan
REFERENCE:
Docket No. 50-382 Construction Appraisal Inspectioti Inspection Report 84-07
Dear Mr. DeYoung:
The attached plan provides LP&L's comments and, where felt appropriate, the Corrective Action Program to address our perception of the concerns indicated during and after the Construction Appraisal Team inspection conducted during February and March of this year.
It should be noted that, in view of our objective to load fuel in mid-to-late May 1984, the efforts outlined herein are proceeding at an accelerated pace with necessary actions scheduled for completion in April and May.
We hope that any modifications to our efforts required as a result of the NRC finalization of its report will have minimal impact.
Comments, however, are solicited as early as possible.
Y q very truly, J
S. Leddick RSL/RGB/cb
^
cc:
Mr. J. T. Collins
~
Regional Administrator Skh USNRC Region'IV l
Mr. E. Blake, Mr. W. M. Stevenson
/ } '/
e d',
.t 0
e 4
4
- e WATERFORD 3 SES CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN REPORT 84-07 4
e e
O 1
~*
TABLE Ol' CONTENTS 1.-
Program outline for evaluation of field routed attachments to Cable Tray /h7AC Seismic Supports.
2.- Program outline for. evaluation of Electrical Racevay Installation regarding separation requi,rements.
3.
Program outline for Tracking and Review of NRC commitments.
4.
Program outline for evaluation of Support / Restraint question asked during the~ CAT Inspection.
5.
Program outline for evaluation of the As-Built condition of Seismically Supported Block Walls.
6.
Program outline for resolution of the full penetration veld radiography discrepancy on Associated Piping (APE) supplied Main Steam Penetration No. 1.
7.
Evaluation of consistency between Isometries & Mechanical Piping Orthographic drawings.
8.
Program outline for evaluation of Limitorque Operator orientations.
9.
Design Control (Document Control) CAT Corrective Action.
. 10. Program outline for Material Traceability.
11.
Sur:: nary of Peden Steel Shop Welds; findings and program.
12.
Program outline for Electrical Maintenance concerns addressed during CAT j
Inspection.
13.
Program outline for Fire Damper' malfunctions - during CAT Inspection.
i
+
f e
i e
9 4
1
9 -
+ ~
TABLE OF CONTENTS 14.
.A.
Area'Walkdown B.
IEW Postweld Heat Trace Charts C.
Hold Tags D.
DN's/EDN's upgrading E.
NCR's improperly filled-out F.
Deletion of Form 6009 from ASP-III.
[
'G.
Borrow material acceptability testing,
i H.
Hanger / Restraint concerns noted during CAT I.
Separation Problems; battery chargers J.
Misplaced pump summary sheets K.
Lab reports exceeded Spec. tolerances L.
Visual rejects on mechanical splices M.
Generic co=ments on 9.2 forms N.
Hydro letter of clarification (T-B)
O e
t 6
f I
e v
a n.
e n
,.7
?
Y l'. - - PROGRAM OUTLINE FOR EVALUATION OF FIELD ROUTED ATTACHMENTS TO CABLE TRAY /HVAC SEISMIC SUPPORTS ~
L.
OBJECTIVE:
Establish a level of confidence with regard to structural
- adequacy of Cable Tray /HVAC Seismic Supports when evaluated for the. additional loads imposed by field routed conduit, piping,
~
tube track and HVAC vertical supports.
PROBLDi DESCRIPTION:
Procedure ASP-IV-58 was established to control the amount of
-additional loads imposed.on engineered cable tray /HVAC seismic supports by the installation-of field routed conduit, tube track,; small bore nonsafety piping, and HVAC vertical supports.
Due to the' inconsistent application of the procedural requirements, various seismic supports have additional:
undocumented loads. This problem has been documented by Ebasco QA Surveillance No. EC-MECH-TK-1, which covered _25 supports-all of which when evaluated were found to be acceptable.
DISCUSSION:
The Cable Tray /HVAC seismic supports were conse:vatively
}
designed based on a response frequency criteria. As;a result, the load carrying capability of these supports is substantial.
The approach to be used in resolving this concern will take advantage of the conservative Waterford design. The program is i
designed to ensure that support loading configurations are j
examined and evaluated for acceptability.
f PROGRAM:
The program description is as follows:
1 j
The program involves implementation af the comprehensive review described below.
Cable tray /HVAC seismic. supports will be j
subject to a field surveillance in order to find isolated ca.ses of heavily loaded supports which should be evaluated.
The
[
program is as follows:
(1)
NY Engineering will develop the maximum loading capacity I
for various support configurations which would envelope most of the installed supports.
The maximum capacity data will be translated into-typical hardware configurations, i.e., number and size of conduits which can be attached to a given support.
i (2)
Based on the above data, walkdown guidelines will be developed that will allow experienced Civil Structural Engineers to field survey actua1' installations on a case by case basis.
The guidelines will be explicit in that unique variables, such as-pipe support attachments, cantilevered conduit supports or cable tray attachments can be appropriately evaluated.
a p
e i
- 2...
[ ~. ~
~
1.
(Continued)
(3)l The objective of the surveillance vill be 'to identify cases which do not. conform to the walkdown criteria,.and thus require further evaluation or possible detailed as-building, and subsequent engineering analysis.
(4)-. Appropriate documentation will be generated to ensure that supports are field surveyed. Documentation vill consist of a marked up copy of the seismic support drawings for cable. trays (G-377 series) or HVAC ducts (G-922. series). -
Supports.which are found to be in conformance with the acceptance criteria.by inspection vill be checked off.
Seismic supports which cannot be accepted by. inspection, will be documented on a standard calculation form for
.on-the-spot evaluation'against.the guidelines...Those supports which do not' conform to the guidelines will be as-built in detail and an engineering analysis performed for r.cceptance.
The program vill be administered by.Ebasco Civil Engineering in accordance with approved procedures.
Ebasco and LP&L QA surveillance vill be conducted on a regular-basis to ensure compliance with criteria and procedures. Staffing vill consist of structural engineers and designers for the walkdown as well for 'as engineering analysis.
ASP-IV-58 is currently under revision so that all future attachments to cable tray /HVAC seismic supports will not compound the present concerns. The procedure revision requires that all future attachment requests initiates the complete review of the given seismic support to ensure that all additional loads are properly documented.
IMPLEMENTATION:
Estimated date of completion for the above program is.May 15, 1984.
(
I GENERIC IMPLICATIONS:
ASP-IV-58 delineates the mechanism to be used by various disciplines and 4
contractors to integrate data into one system which provides status of
. installations on Seismic Supports.
In basic terms, ASP-IV-58 is.a cross-discipline procedure, rather than'alconvential one-contractor, single discipline procedure normally used.
Quality Assurance vill analyze procedures to ascertain applicable cross-discipline, procedures requiring assessment.
Assesssment will be provided by auditing applicable procedures to assure compliance.,
1 l
I
. ~., _, - _ -,
- R 1.
(Continued) 1 Item 3 of this CAT report references corrective actions to be implemented
-to assure continued corrective actions on identified items on non-compliance comittui to the NRC by LP&L. As ASP-IV-58 is in this category and the corrective action plan detailsd should provide added-assurance.
O 9
O 4
I o
e 9
e e
i e
e 0
4 S
e-4 4
e
.w w
,-----s--
s-w.-
y c,
-~.
41
-2.
- PROGRAM' OUTLINE FOR' EVALUATION OF ELECTRICAL' RACEWAY
' INSTALLATION REGARDING SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS-i To establish a high level of confidence that'the design
.0BJECTIVE:
installation and verification procedures at-Waterford 3 ensure
- that_ physical independence of electrical systems will be-achieved in' accordance with the FSAR commitment to the requirements of.IEEE-383-1974 as. endorsed by Regulatory Guide 2
- 1.75.
l.
- PROBLEM'
, DESCRIPTION:
~ The'B-288 series drawings' detail requirements for physical separation between redundant safety related raceway and between.
F safety related and'non-safety related_ raceway.
Installations
' exist for whichithis separation'has not been provided and no l
documentation of acceptability has been generated.- It should be noted:that for installations involving conduit to tray i
separation, those tray runs requiring installation of tray.
covers are to be identified as part of. installation 'via a t
walkdown of tray.-- The bulk of the deficiencies noted were identified because cable tray covers had not'yet been installed and because procedures did not require inspection of non-safety.
i
[
related conduit for separation from safety related installations.
[
DISCUSSION:
- Criteria has been establish'ed by Ebasco NY Engineering for acceptability of installations by type of situation.
This criteria,.in conjunction with existing details. for barrier installation, forms the basis for acceptance or corrective i
action assignment for identified discrepancies.
PROGRAM:
Per existing design, separation may be achieved via the F
installation of tray covers, in lieu of separation of the items j
by spatial distance alone. For the 31,379 feet of tray to be installed in nuclear plant areas, 13,026 feet of' tray cover and p
fittings were purchased in 1977.- This material has been stored i
on site pending the completion of cable-installation.
As of April 12, 1984, approximately 11,000 feet of cable tray cover
[
has been installed.
A walkdown is being performed on electricalLraceway in' nuclear plant areas to identify discrepancies in installations with respect to existing separation design requirements.
j Identification of tray cover requirements, which is a part of j
the installation program, will also take place as part of this i
valkdown.
i
.I i
[.
f
,e
(
s 4
xw
..+-
4 2.
(Continued)
IThis program is an engineering walkdown and is performed in PROGRAM:1
- accordance with ASP-IV-141 and under the surveillance of LP&L Quality Assurance.
Identified problems v111 be resolved via
-rework of the raceway, installation of barriers or evaluation and acceptance by ESSE.
l In areas of high raceway concentration,* specific walkdowns have been performed to identify and resolve discrepancies and identify tray cover installation requirements.-
t 4
- +21 Elev. Swgr Area / Pen Area,.+35 Elev. Spread Room / Pen Area Ebasco Procedure CP-764 will-be revised to require a QC
- Inspection of non-safety'related conduit installation to' identify discrepancies in separation requirements.
Engineering
. and Quality Control personnel have been trained in separation l
requirements.
Construction supervision will be retrained in l
these requirements.
IMPLEMENTATION:
The engineering walkdown program for identification of separation concerns is being administered by Ebasco.
Containment activities including required barrier. installation will be completed by April 15, 1984.. RA3 activities including barrier installation will be completed by April 30, 1984.
GENERIC IMPLICATIONS:
Concerns addressed in the program outline are specific in nature and the j.
corrective action plan addresses the concern.
O a
S l
l I
O 4
~. -,.
,,m.
.,.--v.
e,.
.M,..,.
e.
y
,3-.
-,,.- ~, -
. ~ -
- 3. ' PROGRAM OUTLINE FOR TRACKING AND REVIEW OF NRC COMMITMENTS ~
O3JECTIVE:.
To establish a high: level of' confidence that commitments made to NRC with regard to items of non-compliance are reviewed for generic applicability and to-assure. continued compliance with these commitments.
~
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION:
There is no definitive mechanism detailing methods for tracking and. verifying construction corrective action commitments for frems of non-compliance.- There.must also be a mechanism,to ensure' continuing compliance.
DISCUSSION:
LP&L QA is in the process of. reviewing items to which LP&L has responded to the NRC, but'which have not been closed by the NRC.
This program will be performed eithin the jurisdiction of the Operations QA organization.
This includes construction and operations items of non-compliance.
PROGRAM:
The LP&L Operations QA Program _ requires that an audit be performed at least once per six months in the area of Corrective Action.
The Nuclear Operations QA Section Procedures controlling the audit function to implement the Technical-Specifications requirements will be revised to accomplish the following:
(1)
LP&L QA will verify that corrective action for NRC Items
~
are in fact adequate prior to issuing a response to the NRC.
This verification process includes a review to determine that items of noncompliance have been reviewed for generic implications.
(2)
LP&L QA will track and verify that corrective action has been accomplished by dates committed to in-the response to the NRC or that the commitment date changed.
~
(3)
The Corrective Action Audit checklistivill include those' items of noncompliance for which LP&L has previously responded to the NRC.
The items included will be those identified between the two (2) preceding Corrective Action audits. These items will also be included within the audit checklist of the Corrective Action Audit conducted one year later to insure the corrective action for those items remain in compliance with commitments.
IMPLEKENTATION:
Procedureirevision and audit of current open items of non-compliance will be completed by April 30, 1984,.
~
o a
ii - i a ii.. i i is.
3._
(Continued).
~
1 GENERIC IMPLICATIONS:
O Fone - This deals with a specific shortcoming.
O O
G e
4 e
Y e
S 6
l e
e
?'
i
-4.
PROGRAM OUTLINE FOR EVALUATION OF SUPPORT / RESTRAINT QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE " CAT" INSPECTION 03JECTIVE:
Establish a 1evel-of : confidence regarding - support / restraint -
items raised during the " CAT" Inspection such that no generic problems exist in these areas.
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION:
' The following items were addressed during the " CAT" Inspection.-
(1)
Gaps on box type restraints.
(2).
Weld ~ symbols for same size and/or flush joints.
(3)
-Nonconforming thicknesses of tube steel were installed (3/8" actual vs 1/2" design).
(4)' ! Differences,in. actual valve weights as compared to those used in the stress analysis.
(5)
Two restraints had a 3/8" diameter u-bolt and one restraint had a 1/2" diameter u-bolt but all had the same-Bergen Paterson part number 283.
DISCUSSION:
The above items were addressed during the " CAT Inspection.
(1)
Gaps that were identified by the " CAT" teen member were reviewed and verified as being recorded and evaluated in NCR-W3-2644. No further action is required in this area.
(2)
. eld requirement symbols (for CCRR-1379 & 1381) questioned W
by the CAT Team were defined.
(3)
The nonconforming tube steel thicknesses (3/8" actual vs 1/2" design) identified during'the " CAT" Inspection were evaluated by ESSE and found to be acceptable.
(4)
Two valve weights appeared to be different in the design calculations as opposed to the actual weight.
Documentation was provided to show that* the difference in the weights had been evaluated by ESSE Stress Analysis and provided to ESSE Supports / Restraints for evaluation of the Supports / Restraints.
(5)
In 1975, when these restraints were originally fabricated, part 283 had a 3/8" diameter shank.
The shank diameter was subsequently changed to 1/2" in 1976 but Bergen Paterson kept the same part number.
All shanks were correctly used in the design. No further action is required.
PROGRAM: ~
None of the above items are considered significant problems.
4 i
,-.n
,~-
.wr,.....-,
.---,n,-
~,,,.---,
,.- ~
4.(Continued)
.A sanple review of recent new revisions and designs show correct
-symbols for the flush members.
In addition, ESSE Engineers have been instructed to check for correct symbol application su described in the existing design guidelines.
For tube steel thicknesses, a random sample of 100 members will be checked to verify _that the design thicknesses agree with the actual thicknesses installed.
To date 51 members have been checked and all agree with the design drawings.-
With regard to the valve weights, all safety related stress analysis calculations have been reviewed to verify for correct valve weights. Differences will be evaluated for stresses in the pipe and changes in support loads. No physical
. modifications have been required to dat;e and none are upacted.
IMPLEMENTATION:
The above programs are.omplete.
GENERIC IMPLICATIONS:
None: The items noted are not considered sign.dficant enough to indicate that existing programs will not suffice to control each deficiency.
0 e
S 4
o 4
O b
a O
_________._a
.t:
_5., PROGRAM OUTLINE FOR EVALUATION OF AS-BUILT CONDITION OF SEISMICALLY SUPPORTED BLOCK WALLS
~I OBJECTIVE:
Provide a field survey and test program to ascertain the conformance'of masonry construction to design drawings and 1
. specifications regarding internal reinforcement and grouting.
PROBLEM:
' DESCRIPTION:
Rocumented evidence of inspection of the seismically supported masonry block walls 'is insufficient to establish compliance with design requirements during-installation. This was found by the inspector questioning one particular wall.
In order to function as ' designed, the steel reinforcement and mortar fill must have been installed.
About 10% of tha' walls (19 of 195) have-completed engineering inspection reports traceable to them covering the installation of reinforcement and ' mortar.
The remainder have only partially completed inspection reports or general are in-process inspection reports without details.
DISCUSSION:
In the event QA/QC_information is not available,'a field survey-and test program reviewed and approved by the staff should be.
l implemented ~to ascertain the conformance of masonry construction to design drawings and specifications (e.g. reb'ar and grouting). -
The program proposed for Waterford 3 will be based cna nondestructive examination of a representative sampling of.the walls and visual survey of all valls.
PROGRAM:
The program consists of the following steps:
(1)
In the case of the specific' wall in question, the block was chipped away revealing the: steel angles in place as designed.
(2)
Survey a representative sample of 100 of the 195 installed block walls, 50 hollow block and 50 solid block, to ascertain the conformance of masonry construction to design drawings with respect to internal reinforcement and grouting.
(3)
Hollow block walls shall be surveyed by_ radiography to reveal the presence of vertic'al rebar, horizontal Dur-o-wall, and mortar core fill.
(4)
Solid block wall shall be surveyed by rebar detector _ to reveal presence of Dur-o-vall horizontal reinforcement.
(5)
Survey all masonry walls visually, and verify dimensional and configurational conformity to design.
(6)
Documentation of all instrument tests and surveys will be maintained.
12 5.-1(Continued)
IF3LDENTATION:
Estimated date of completion is May 1,'1984.
' GENERIC IMPLICATIONS:
Documenta. tion has been or will be reviewed on safety-related installation.
i Missing or incomplete. documentation requires reconstruction of missing -
records, if available, or reinspection to assure compliance to-requirements, sample destructive testing or, in some cases, reconsa.ruction.
0 g
h 4
i c
f i
4 4
l i
1 3
.5 O
4 e
' {
j i
7:
,9 [
e
+
. h[ $
l
=
I., $' -
'6.
IPROGRAM OUTLINE FOR RESOLUTION OF FULL PENETRATION WELD RADIOGRAPHY DISCREPANCY ON ASSOCIATED PIPING SUPPLIED MAIN STEAM PENETRATION NO. 1 OBJECTIVE:
Establish the acceptability of the primary bellows to fluid head j
full penetration veld no. 3 on Main Steam Penetration No. -1.
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION:
In the -interpretation of the NRC reviewer, weld no. 3 was not
~
properly prepared fo,r radiography in accordance with ASME r,equirements. As a results, the' veld quality was-considered questionable for's small, portion of the total length of the veld.
~
DISCUSSION:-
Due to inaccessibility of the weld,1Lt is not feasible to visually inspect the veld surfac,e and re-radiograph. Therefore, an engineering evaluation is underway to establish the-
- acceptability of the: questionable areas.
An approximate total of 37 associated piping full penetration welds were reviewed during the recent NRC CAT Inspection. The above described weld was the only questionable item resulting from the review. Therefore, it is considered an isolated case.
Further review of APE radiographs is not considered appropriate.
PROGRAM:
The resolution is as follows:
(1)
EbascoMaterialsApplicationand. Mechanical-Engineering are presently reviewing the-finite element stress analysis performed by Associated Piping to establish the stress levels and direction of loading at the points in question.
(2)
Having established the physical nature of.the questionable areas (i.e. root convexities) a review of the stress levels will determine the acceptability *of the questionable areas.
(3)
If in the' opinion of the design engineer the stress levels are sufficiently high, a fracture analysis will be performed to verify the acceptability of the weld.
(4)
Appropriate documentation vill be prepared to justify the outcome of the engineering' evaluation.
IMPLEMENTATION:
Estimated completion date is May 1, 1984.
GENERIC IMPLICATIONS:
The piping penetrations'are th'a only items supplied by APE. basedonthe 37 velds reviewed and the one "somewhat" questionable weld identified.this is considered an isolated case having no generic implications.
- t.
E.
E"
+,i}
d*
M
- 7. -EVALUATION OF CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE IS0 METRICS & MECHANICAL PIPING T
ORTHOGRAPHIC DRAWINGS OBJECTIVE:
To ensure that FCR's.and DCN's are incorporated on Ebasco piping-3 -
drawings and isometrics in a consistent manner.
PROBLEM r
DESCRIPTION:
During the NRC " CAT" inspection, several minor discrepancies between isometr,ics and piping design drawings were found.
DISCUSSION:
Questions were raised that the piping isometrics and not the piping.orthographics, which 'gave the approved design documents, are used.for field verification of the piping installation. - The piping isometrics must accurately reflect the design
-orthographics in' order to assure,that the field' installation'is in accordance with the ' approved design.
PROGRAM:
(1)
To determine if there is a consistency problem between
~
isometrics and piping drawings, a sample will be reviewed l
for consistency.
i IMPLEMENTATION:
The program will be administered by ESSE Mechanical Engineering.
Sample review for consistency will be completed by May 7,1984.
c GENERIC IMPLICATIONS:
.y
['
The sample review being implemented within the corrective action program' P
will determine _if generic implications existiand further action as
^
required.
5
.-l
[
s e
e 9
4 4
e e
- -<-+
u,-
-wc--.-
w ee---m e tP
--m,
.o r
8.
PROGRAM OUTLINE FOR EVALUATION OF LIMITORQUE OPERATOR ORIENTATIONS j
OBJECTIVE:
Establish a level of confidence to ensure that safety class valves with Limitorque operators have been correctly installed.
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION:
During the ' NRC." CAT" Inspection, it.was' found that.one Limitorque operator had not been inst'alled in accordance with
~ design. Although this discrepancy was considered insignificant, t,he appropriate documentation was generated to resolve the issue.
- DISCUSSION:
The concern arising from the identified discrepancy involved gear lubricant leakage into the notor winding.
If the
{
orientation is such that leakage. can occur, an operator saal must be installed.
PROGRAM:
In order to review the concern, the following program will be implemented:
(1)
ESSE Mechanical will provide Ebasco QA with a list of safety class valves with Limitorque operators and acceptance criteria for orientation of Limitorque 1
operators.
(2)
Ebasco QA vill field survey the operator to identify deviations in orientation of Limitorque operators.
(3)
ESSE Mechanical will evaluate identified deviations for acceptability.
i (4)
ESSE Mechanical is to issue DCN(s), if necessary, to revise drawinga for as-built conditions.
IMPLEMENTATION:
This program will be administered by Ebasco QA.
Estimated completion date is April 30, 1984.
GENERIC IMPLICATIONS:
Ebasco Engineering reviewed installation requirements of valving.
components to assure orientation requirements are established and met.
h e
t e
..,m_
,e,..
m g
c._ _ _
y.
%y....
4 ^.
. l 1
l.
9.=
DESIGN CONTROL (DOCUMENT CONTROL)- CAT CORRECTIVE ACTION OEJECTIVE:
- The prcgram objective outlined belov is aimed at eliminating discrepancies.in posting FCR's and DCN's on controlled drawings and eliminating the inconsistencies between the Docu.sent Control files and the Ebasco Drawing Closecut Schedule.
PK0ELEM i
DESCRIPTION:
The areas of concern relative to Document Control interface with l
the Design Control program have been identified as follows:
(1)
. FCR/DCN posting discrepancies on cont. rolled drawing for which_ individual control number holders had
' responsibility.
[
(2)
Controlled drawing stick files, for which individual control number holder had responsibility, that did not
- contain the latest revision of drawings.
(3)
Discrepancies between the Document Centrol drawing control cards and the ESSE Drawing Closeout Schedule relative to drawing revisions and unincorporated FCR/DCN's.
[
DISCUSSION:
A joint Ebasco and LP&L program to reduce the total number of active control numbers receiving controlled drawings has been
' ongoing fe some time. To date, this p,rogram has reduced the total number of control number's receiving controlled drawings.
A comparison between the Document _ Control drawing control cards and the ESSE Drawing Closeout Schedule are presently being addressed under a program initiated between Document Control',
ESSE, and Ebasco N.Y.
This program involves the review of the Document Control control cards and the Drawing Closeout Schedule at the time of drawing revision to assure conformity.-
PROGRAM:
In respons4 to the CAT audit findings, the two corrective action
[.
programs currently.in effect will be consolidated and modified l
to expedite the completion of corrective action. The program modification and implementation einetables are as follows:
(1)
Ebasco will continue to reduce the number of controlled.
drawings. This reduction s-ill be accomplished on or before April 15, 1984.
(2)
On April 16, 1984, Document Control vill assume total' responsibility for-those' control numbers who are still j
receiving controlled drawings. This includes the drawing
- stick files.
i l
L 9-c--v.s--
,r.
m..e.,-
---,-rw=,,,
, - ---.-.-i.-
4
.ge--
1-
.9. - (Continued)
(3)
Beginning immediately, Document Control vill take over the updating of the ESSE Drawing Closeout Schedule.
On or
- before' April 16,:1984, a complete review of the Closecut Schedule and the. Document Control drawing control cards will be completed and the two documents rr.conciled.
Document Control will be the only' organization to add or to delete from the Drawin's Closeout Schedule. Additions and/or. deletions will simultaneously be'made to both documents by the same clerk thus eliminating any chance of document discrepancy.
These actions will be taken by Ebasco with appropriate overview and interfaces with the LP&L' Records & Adminstration.
IMPLEMENTATION:
Estimated date of completion - April 16 1984 GENERIC IMPLICATIONS:
The action themselves are generic; the program is being changed, 1
f e
i 1
+
4 5
e 9
9 e
4 g
~-
e
-~
10.
PROGRAM OUTLINE FOR EVALUATION OF CONCERNS ADDRESSING MATERIAL TRACEABILITY OBJECTIVE:
To ensure that appropriate material traceability exists in compliance with ASME Code and Quality Program requirements.
PROBLIM DESCRIPTION:
During the NRC CAT Inspection, several discrepancies were identified regarding material traceability.
Some items were of different material than that specified on the design drastings, some items were identified as having inconsistent markings, some items were not' marked, and some items were not traceable to documentation.
i 1
DISCUSSION:
(1)
Per ASME and QA program requirements, bolting greater than 1" is to be purchased with CMIR's and, traceable through installation.. Of the items noted in the CAT inspection
+.
only the hold down bolting on the Safety Injection Tank and ring girder is greater than 1".
All other bolting-traceability items noted in the inspection applied-to bolting less than 1".
ASHZ Section III and the_QA program require only l
" Certificates of Compliance" for bolting 1" and less.
l Traceability through installation for this bolting is not required.
Contractors performing installation or work on 4
y safety related components within Quality Assurance -
programs and procedures which controlled the purchasing and installation of safety related material for bolting requiring or.ly a "C of C".
No corrective action is required for traceability.
(2)
The majority of the items noted with inconsistent markings l
related to manufacturer's markings, which are not required to be consistent.
One set of nuts was identified as being l
inconsistent, but further field insepetion has shown them to be marked identically.
l (3)
Four items were identified to be of different acterial chan that specified on design drawings. These differences have been identified as either existing on the. original equipment as furnis,hed by the vendor, or as resulting from rework during start-up operations.
I ~
PROGRAM:
(1)
The paint was removed from the Safety Injection Tank 4
bolts and studs to determine the traceability. markings.
I Ebasco Engineering has evaluated the markings and determined this.to'be no problem. No further action is required.
l (2)
The markings identified as inconsistent have been resolved as being either manufacturer marking differences or
- markings incorrectly recorded at the time of the CAT Audit. No corrective. action is required.
l
e
- 10.
(Continued)
(3)
Three of these four items are documented and resolved en DN-SQ-2349 and NCR-W3-7643.
The remaining item is to be referred to the_ start-up maintenance organization for corrective' action,'via a potential problem report..
IMPLDENTATION:
Estimated completion date - April 30. 1984.
GENERIC IMPLICATIONS:-
Based on a Quality Deficiency Report issued by LP&L Nuclear Operations QA, a program was instituted to assure that flanges, valve bonnets, manways, etc., which were disassembled during testing, will be'ih compliance with requirement. Material (fasteners) will be verified, torqued and documented.
No further action warranted.
i e
8 k
k l-I l
9 c
.+
4 11.
SUMMARY
OF PEDEN STEEL SHOP WELDS i
, FINDINGS AND PROGRAM OBJECTIVE:
Evaluate the need for further investigation or corrective action regarding shop welds made by Peden Steel.
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION:
During the CAT Inspection the following actions were taken:
(1)
The NRC. Inspector examined 40 shop welded structural steel connections made by P, eden. Two were identified for engineering evaluation.
Bo*.h were found acceptable.
(2)
Ebasco examined 240 connections and 13 required engineering evaluation. All were acceptable.
DISCUSSION:
With respect to welding, no problem requiring repair was identified in connections examined during the CAT Audit Peden shop welding was performed under.their shop QA/QC Program.
Ebasco Vendor QA representatives inspected activities in the.
. shop, and receiving inspections and QA records review at the site have established that complete, satisfactory quality documentation exists for Peden work.
Sixty-five pieces of small-bore pipe whip restraints were returned to Peden for repair in 1982, after certain veld defects were found.
The welds called for by the design were difficult to make and not typical of the large, accessible welds found in structural work generally.'
It is concluded, based on the record to date including the CAT Audit findings, that sufficient investigation into Peden Shop welding has been performed. ' The Peden Shop.QA/QC program as carried out is' sufficient as'surance of the acceptability of the
.vork.
Nevertheless, a sample of shop welded-connection will.be.
examined to provide further confirmation.
I An additional sample of 500 welded connections made by Peden PROGRAM:
Steel will be examined.
The sample will be divided equally among structural steel framing for buildings, Electrical cable tray seismic supports and HVAC seismic supports.
The examination will be performed under ASP-IV-142 by Ebesco Materials Application Engineers.
IMPLEMENTATION:
-Estimated completion date is May 1, 1984.
~
GENERIC IMFLICATIONS:
The program outlined is a result of reviewing for. generic implications.
Sample selected will ensure that Peden velds are adequate notwithstanding various contractors installing Peden supplied components.
S b
. -. -, ~.... - -,..
,-,u.n..
s--... -, 4
,s
12.
PROGRAM OUTLINE'POR ELECTRICAL MAINTENANCE CONCERNS - ADDRESSED DURING THE CAT INSPECTION OBJECTIVE:
Establish the acceptability of the Electrical Maintenance PM Procedures to provide good practices for care of MOTORS.
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION:
See ettached summary and history of referenced audit findings.
DISCUSSION:
E,lectrical Maintenance Procedure ME-4-703 provides for performing PMs on motors
. Included as a part of the FM Program is a megger test if the motor has not been run within the last 30 days. During the period of 10/83 to -1/84 a conscious decision was made to not megger the motors, but this decision was not documented.
This decision is not detrimental to the -
motors,.and monthly meggering sh'ould not be advocated unless conditions warrant it.
Subsequent megger readings have been taken on these seven motors with satisfactory results.
The readings give no indication of degradation of motor operability or dependability.
4 PROGRAM:
The resolution is as follows:
(1)
' ME-4-702 will be deleted and be replaced in full by ME-4-703.
~
(2)
ME-40703 vill be revised-to clarify the procedure with respect to the frequency for meggering and conditions for which meggering should not be performed.
t (3)
Maintenance personnel in the Electrical Department.will be 2
counseled and trained on the appropriate methods for documenting the results of preventative taintenance to j
include these cases where maintenance is not l
performed / rescheduled.
IMPLEMENTATION:
The program outlined above is currently in progress.
l GENERIC IMPLICATIONS:
E A review of electrical maintenance procedures bas.been accomplished and
~
revisions made within the program to gain added confidence.
The.
maintenance program is being evaluated on an ongoing basis due to operating configurations histories being developed; e -
-, - -. _ - ~. ~
y v
s:-__
uw
-~%
w
+
u..
,,r y
w s-
-.y
+
l l13.
PROGRAM OUTLINE' FOR FIRE DAMPER MALFUNCTIONS DURING' CAT AUDIT-OBJECTIVE:
Evaluate the need for investigation and/or corrective action regarding the malfunctions of fire dumpers.
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION:
During the CAT inspection 8 fire dampers were tested to verify proper operation.
2 of 'the 8 dampers tested failed to close
. properly.
i
~
The LP&L Startup Engineer reinspected the "Airbalance" spring DISCUSSION:
type' failed damper and found that the gravity assist actuating spring had twisted from torque and the spring and caused binding. This torquing was apparently caused by improper and excessive manual releasing.
Following realignment of the damper spring, it was tested and found to operate properly.
Subsequently the damper has been returned to service. During the performance of the preoperational test, the startup engineer noted operating difficulties with the failed damper and a
. limited number of other dampers of this type prior to successfully passing the test.
At that time, the problem was attributed to incorrect manual release of the dampers.
i.
f' PROGRAM:
The preoperational test results will be reviewed to identify all "Airbalance spring type dampers. that experienced operating difficulties.
(Dampers not operating preparly the first time during preop.) These dampers will be inspected, ensuring proper spring alignment, and retested to preoperation test require-ments. -Additionally, a letter is being issued to LP&L Operations, detailing the proper method of manually releasing the fire dampers.
This letter will include a recommendation
+
that the damper springs on all "Airbalance"' spring. type dampers I
be inspected as part of the preventative, maintenance requirements every 18 months.
IMPLEMENTATION:
j Estimated completion date' - May 15, 1984 GENERIC IMPLICATIONS:
The ' Joint -Test Group (JTC) reviews test procedures f'or abnormal operating characteristics exhibited by components during the testing program.. The JIG has additionally directed.the Startup Engineers to identify to the Operations staff any ; abnormal operating characteries detected during~ the test program.
Additional reviews of Phase II testing are accomplished in the JTG Comprehensive Review Program.
4
- i
.1 i
.g w
y
1 14.-
A.
ITEM The question was -raised by the ' CAT Inspector relative to QA involvement in the Area Walkdown Program.
t
RESPONSE
c Currently.in; addition-to Ebasco Quality Assurance involvement there are eight LP&L-Quality-Assurance Representatives involved with the area, walkdown.. Their duties consist of ' surveillance of the on-going walkdown and performing audits of _ areas upon acceptable completion of Ebasco's area valkdown per LP&L Procedure.
B.
ITEM IEW PWHT charts.on the "A" Stops (Piece 1-A2A-P1-E7-E-1) a)
PWHT chart did not indicate the chart speed.
c*
b)
Temp. on PWHT chart was 1050*F but the drawing required 1100*F.
k.
I-RISPONSE:
a)
Ebasco has reviewed PWHT chart of Piece 1-A2A-PI-E&E-1 and have determined the time and temperature satisfies code requirements for material type.
b)
Applicable code requirements were met.
Ebasco_specified that the TWHT should remain 50*F below the material. tempering temperature. -The production veld was therefore PWHT at 1050*F and held at that temperature for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> per inch of weld thickness. The W.P.S. to make this veld was qualified with the 1050*F PWHT for the required
. hold time.
l The above statement complies with IEW original P.O. which required-them to PWHT at.50*F below the tempering. temperature which is 1100*F.
This is why IEW also qualified with the 1050*F'PWHT for-the required hold time.
I 1
I 3
e
,y
-r-m:
+
m
.--+,.,-,m
~
.14.
(Continued)'
. C.
. ITEM Hold Tags - The requirement for a' hold tag to be placed on material.when an i
FCR vas written was removed from theNCR Procedure (ASP-III-7) in 1983.
RESPONSE
i There are a total of 65 NCR's that were written witnout th$ initiatiion of a
-D.N. or E.D.N._ Ebasco is in the process of reviewing these NCR's to deterr.ine the need to place hold tags on the nonconforming conditions.
ASP-III-7 was revised (issue K) on 3/7/84.
Paragraph 5.7 requires that hold tags be placed and removed by Q.C.
^ -
Ebasco providing training on ASP-III-7, Issue K on 3/27-28/84.
It is-common practice. that all affected personnel receive training on procedures as they are revised.
D.
ITEM DN's and EDN's-are not upgraded to NCR's; ASP-III-7, Para. 6.2.1, requires an NCR be issued when Corrective Action requires an engin'eering change to drawings, specs, or procedures.
(i.e.,- FCR of DCN) (6 examples)
RESPONSE
W3QA-27995 nemo dated 3/26/84 was issued to all QAE's.and Q.C. Supervisors.'
directing them to be more observant on the' review of.the contents of the Discrepancy Notices as well as the corrective action.
E.
ITEM NCR's not filled out' correctly; ASP-III-7 attachment 7.1, pg..3, #9 requires that the description state the requirement.being violated.
Several cases were found where this was not done.
~
RESPONSE
I This concern was discussed 'and emphasized in the training sessions 3/27-28/84 to ASP-III-7.
L f-i 9
e m
,m c
-,r,
.,-y a
r
.o 5-
' 14.'
(ContiSued)
RESPONSE (Continued)
LP&L Operations QA has recently reiiewed Ebasco nonconformance reports.
In their review, very few problems were noted concerning the, lack of stating
-the requirement being violated.
Based on their review, no farther sampling is anticipated..
F.
ITEM ASP-III-7, Issue J, deleted from the body of the proce' dure the requirement for'the QAE to complete Form #6009'(correct.ive action).
Issue "K" put the requirement back in.
I 1
RESPONSE
Training of ASP-III-7 Issue K will address the need for QA to require corrective action to preclude recurrence as necessary.
This is noted in.1, page 6 of 7 of ASP-III-7.. Also form 7.3 to ASP-III-7 requires corrective action take to preclude recurrence, if the QA Engineer -
deems this action necessary.
Issue "G" thru "I" contained the Corrective Action Report Form No.
6009-11/2-82B.
Issue "J" (dated 12-9-83) did not utilize' this Corrective l
Action Report.
Issue "K" - re-established the use of the Corrective Action l
Report (dated 3-7-84).
This is not considered to be significant as the corrective action program was in effect during this period.
l G.
ITEH Test for borrow material acceptability should have been performed prior to the placement and compaction.
-RESPONSE This commitment did not exist in the PSAR which was in effect'between 1974 p
~
Borrow material was approved l
and 1978 when most of the work was performed.
at the source (pit) by Mr. Tenchin, the Site Soils Engineer, a highly qualified individual who represented design engineering.
It was pump-dredged Batture Sand, very clean ~and uniform.
The specification did not-required the form be filled out prior to placement and only routine.
~
check tests were= performed off the fill' Deficiency Notice SQ-2862 has-been initiated to document the foregoing.'
. Continued)
(
14.
E.
-ITEM The following type of problems were noted during the CAT inspection.
A)
Spacing on struts and snubbers t
. B) -
Angularity on struts and snubbers C)-
Caps on sliding fit U-bolts D)
Interdisciplinary clearances E)
- Area walkdown scope / accountability with regard to pipe supports.
F)
Gaps on box guides G)
Incorrect 4010 redlining for welding of end attachment.
P2SPONSES-All personnel involved with pipe supports in the area walkdown have been
-indoctrinated with special. emphasis put on items A thru D.
As for scope and accountability, (Item E) all supports checked will be individually documented and tracked.
Item F and G vere evaluated by ESSE engineering in the cases identified by the CAT and were determined to be acceptable as is, also due to various other hanger walkdown programs which have been implemented in the past (LP&L walkdown, 7400 valkdown, Ebasco 208 hanger walkdown, FCR-MP-1553, and NCR-W3-2644) it is felt these cases noted are isolated.
No, additional-action required.
I.-
ITEM Cable to Cable Separation Problems in battery chargers.
RESPONSES This item appears to be an isolated problem. Ebasco.has written PPR 123 to identify this problem.
ESSE recommends cables be reworked to meet proper separation criteria.
Rework to be completed and QC inspected.
e 9
c.
-w
,a r
.s.
- 14. -(Continued) 1 J.
~ ITEM Placements - 499-S02-6' and 499-S02 -13B have (2) misplaced pump summary
~
- sheets, b
RESPONSE
The (2) discrep-nt pump summary sheets have been reconstructed utilizing.
various existing documents in the subject placement packages. Out of the' H
700 test documents reviewed we_ feel.that these-(2) two documents that were missing are isolated case.
Since it has been shown that the missing
.docunents can be reconstructed we_ feel that, no further corrective action is required.- The reconstruction of pump summaries are documented and can be found in placement-packages.
K.
ITEM i
Two (2) GEO Lab Test Reports, document slump and air percentage used for placements 499-SO4-1A3 and 1A4 which exceeded Specification tolerances; reference'3atch Ticket Nos. 14631 and 14616.
RESPONSE
The (2) batch tickets identified did indeed exceed specification limits.
The reasons GEO Test Lab' identified these reports being' acceptable was because they were instructed by Ebasco Engineering in writing that for the
~
mix design used (AA-29) the increase in percentage of sltimp and air was acceptable.
The actual discrepancy. is that an FCR should have been.
generated by a asco Engineering'in lieu of a letter: directing the test lab to deviate from specification limits..
As of 3/29/84 this deviation has been properly identified by means of a'-
Discrepancy Notice SA-2858 'and corrective action ' initiated.. It should be
- noted that the (2) discrepant entries represented a sampling of approximately 700 evaluated and we feel this was an isolated occurrence.
I.
l t
I e
e
'A
.-l
.y
- 14. - (Cent'.nued)
L.
ITDi ECR W3-6234 (Attachment V) did not have a revised test schedule for nechanical splices that took into consideration visual rejects.
RESPONSE
ECR W3-6234 (Attachment V) has been 100% re-evaluated to accurately include visual rejects in the selection of destructive test sampling. This review vill be documented on a supplement NCR for Attachment V which will be cocpleted and re-evaluated by Quality Assurance and Ebasco Engineering prior to April 6, 1984.
M.
- ITEM QAIRG #1191 (Letter f) was generated to close all generic com:nents on 9.2 for=s on hydro records.
This letter did not reference all the refernneed letter Kos. used 1:y QAIRG to generate QAIRG (1191.
RESPONSE
QAIRG is writing a supplement to QAIRG #1191 (letter f) dated 2/1/84.
QAIRG is. reviewing 100% of the 9.2 comments in the hydro packages to assure that all the generic 9.2 comments are identified in the QAIRG-1191 supplemental letter.
QAIRG will complete their 100% review by April 6, 1984.
N.
ITEM Torpkins Beckwith needed to write a letter of clarification on why hydro-valkdown sheets on retest are not in hydro packages.
RESPONSE
To=pkins Beckwith generated a letter of clarification on March 22, 1984 that explains the list of the hydro walkdown sheets.. See attached letter on s'ubject procedura. TBP-36 " Hydrostatic /Pneu=atic Testing."
e v - ---
T w+
-r
f 3r
"' ~ y
^[,'
- }
s s
A3paM 3 ibm g.
U'I"$'fQlo' LOUISIANA
/
242 oeuRosos smer P O W C R S. L ! G H T P. O. BOX 6008 + NEW ORLEANS. LOUISIANA 70174 * (504) 386-2345
=g y,g 6*dvA !
October 15, 1980 m%dC
)
O O
LPL 15274 g,%
Q-3-A35.07.18 OCT1980 O
Q-3-A35...
Q lk.Ot.
B,t 2
L M L SI IAENL Act.
f,.
Mr. K. V. Seyfrit, Director, Region 0S Ll3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
%'!EC262pp Office of Inspection & Enforcement ao3 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 AGP Arlington, Texas 76012 h.'T!
Sqn I
SUBJECI: Waterford SES Unit No. 3 Docket No. 50-382
/
e*
Final Report for Significant Construction Deficiency No. 18
'8mrks:
" Flexible Liquid Tight Wiring Conduit Covering Failure (Anaconda)"
REFERENCE:
Telecon - L. L. Bass (LP&L) to B. Hubacek (NRC) on August 1, 1980
Dear Mr. Seyfrit:
In accordance with requirements of 10CFR50.55(e), we are hereby providing two copies of the Final Report of Significant Construction Deficiency No. 18,
" Flexible Liquid Tight Wiring Conduit Covering Failure (Anaconda)."
It is our understanding that Anaconda has reported this problem to the NRC under the requirements of 10CFR21.
If you have any questions, please advise.
Very truly yours, h
g 2' D. L. Aswell DLA/LLB/grf f'
cc: 1) Director Office of Inspection & Enforcement l
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission x
j.
Washington, D. C. 20555 l
(with 15 copies of report) l
- 2) Director Office of Management Information and Program Control U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission Washingten, D. C. 20555 (with I copy of report)
,..c
-.~;....
,Q D
.)
' Y Mr. K. V. Seyfrit Page 2
-October 15, 1980 bc:
G. :',. McLendon, Les Constable, Ebasco (2), J. M. Brooks, J. Crnic (2),
L. V. Maurin, D. B. Lester, F. J. Drummond, T. F. Gerrets, L. L Bass, C. J. Decareaux, P. V. Prasankumar, T. K. Armington, D. C. Gibbs, Richard Hymes, R. Hartnett, L. Stinson, M. I. Meyer, Central Records.
i l
1 2
a G
S r
4 l
=
l
.._, : < *. 2,, t. * *..
l^
(l i '. '
O.,_
- ^ -
\\
.)
' L LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY WATERFORD SES UNIT NO. 3 Revised' Final, Report of Significant Construction Deficiency No. 18 Flexible Liquid Tight Wiring Conduit
. Covering Failure- (Anaconda) 7(
d Reviewed by Aue J.
ch M ite Manager
'/ Dat'e Reviewed by 3
.fo R. J. Milhfman Project Superintendent
' Date 4
T bht 0 fa.La%
-bl%
9 /2No Reviewed by S
w J. Hart - Project Licensing Engineer Date f
>g
/
/
e s.
q/
DN Reviewed by V
mm
/
s R. Af Hartnett - Q. A. Site Supervisor Date i
\\
September 29, 1980-l+
G S
e e
r
. ;. c. :,. ;..u;.
a.
2 U
2.
. - - ~ _. -... -....... - -.... -
,i
~-
p 7
G.,*
- t FINAL REPORT 4
SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION DEFICIENCY NO. 18
- FLEXIPLE LIQUID TIGHT WIRING CONDUIT COVERING FAILURE (ANACONDA)
Introduction This report is submitted pursuant to 10CFR50.55(e).- It describes a deficiency in the liquid tight covering of flexible metal conduit as manufactured by The Anaconda Company as Anaconda Metal Rose.
Description Anaconda flexible liquid tight metal conduit was purchased to Sp'ecification LOU 1564.249B.
This specification imposed minimum bending radius for the various size conduits.
In May of 1979, Anaconda revised their technical in-formation and increased the minimum bending radius.
Ebasco having purchased the flexible conduit prior to this date, and.having la Certificate of Compliance from Anaconda to the specification, did not foresee a problem.
Fischbach.& Pkore Quality Control personnel discovered four flexible liquid right metal conduits in the Water Treatment Building where the jacket was failing and separating from the metal. A deficiency report was written re-garding the situation and was identified by Report No. FM-DR-206, dated July 1, ll, 1980.
These four conduits were identified as 31310-NB 3/4", 31343A-NA lh",
p 31344A-NB 1 ", and 31351A-NB 14".
The Water Treatment Building is not a safety-related area.
t Anaconda was contacted about the conduit f ailure..In the following conversa-tions and meetings, Anaconda brought out the fact.that all flexible conduit should be installed to the new (5/11/79) bend ' radius, or the conduit jacket would possibly fail. At this time, it was pointed out to Anaconda that all 2" and under conduit was shipped to Ebasco in violation of the bend radius.
W On July 8,.1980, Nonconformance Report F&M W3-339 (W3-2175) identified a fail-
[
ure of the jacketing material for safety-related conduit 32336C-SA.
Deficiency Report FM-DR-206* (non-safety-related) was : dispositioned on August - 5, 1980. Nonconformance Report W3-2175 (safety-related) was evaluated and dispo-sitioned on August 8,1980.
L At the present time, the Contractor is avaiting material to be issued by Ebasco Services, Inc.
Anaconda has agreed to replace all 2" and under flexible con.
duit which was shipped prior to May of 1980 with new flexible conduit which is l
to be shipped in a manner that is in compliance with Anaconda Report 3727 dated 5/11/79.
IEEE 323 prototype test reports have been' reviewed by Ebasco Engineer-ing,' and the acceptance of this' report is now on file.
h 1
.m m
- < =,., ;
.a
~
....... _.. - ~. _. ~
t
. ~.
',D]
2
-3
- 7.. e.
v 3
Safety Implications If the' plant design was such that Class lE equipment must be' enclosed in a sealed liquid-tight enclosure to provide protection against harsh e.nvironment or LOCAfconditions, degradation of the jacket covering on flexible conduit would provide a pathway for. liquid to enter the-enclosure and create a safety hazard.
However, in the case'of Waterford 3, Class 1E equipment compo'nents within the RCB are qualified.to full LOCA Conditions.. As a result, no dependence is placed on' the liquid-tight conduit to ; prevent antry of. liquid into the component. Thus, for Waterford 3, degradation of the Anaconda conduit jacket presents no' safety hazard.
Due to the design of' the SIS Sump, as outlined in WSES-3 FSAR' Sections 6.2.2.2.2.1 and 6.'2.2.3.2.1, the breaking off of the conduit -jacket material is not consid-9 ered a safety hazard.
Corrective Action Although the evaluation of the problem concludes the problem does not present
~
a safety hazard, corrective action on the nonconforming condition is still re-quired and described as follows:
Anaconda ' -inch and under flexible metal conduit which has not been in-
~~
1) 2 f:
stalled is being returned to Anaconda for replacement.
- 2) In the Reactor Containment Building, all Anaconda flexible metal conduit
~
presently installed will be taped with two (2) half-lapped layers of Okonite T-35 tape. In certain cases, the conduit will be replaced where it is more practicable or economically advantageous.
- 3) Anaconda flexible conduit in all other buildings, except the RCB, will be accepted as is.
LP&L has reserved the 'right to have-the flexible conduit in these buildings taped, stripped or replaced.
- 4) Anaconda flexible conduit presently installed in the outside area will be taped as necessary.or replaced if. economically practicable.
p 5)
The installation drawings are being revised to reflect.the runi bending radius i:
requirements.
l l'
e e
...<,: S ;;;,.A.. : p ; ;. ;
._ t
-........ - ~. -. - - - - - - - - -. - - -. - - - - - - - - -
c.:.
m-f..
'** g
.,.A' '* %
UNITED STATES _
J,.
NOCLEAR P.EGULATORY COMMISSION dj
- ~*t,.. (,..;
,g/.
j REGION IV
. k',[, f
$11 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. suite 1000 ARLINGTON. TEXAS 76011 o,
In Reply ' Refer To:
December 11, 1981
}
Docket: 50-382/81-29 921314 n '.
4 f%,O l'
Louisiana Power and Light Company 0
0 ATTN:
D. L. Aswell, s
I 142 Delaronde Street
-d@$
Vice President Power Production S
l New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 9'
j Gentlemen:
i This refers to thE inspection conducted by L. E. ' Martin, C. E. Johnson, and K. A.-Whittlesey of our staff during 'the period November 2-6, 1981, of activ-ities authorized by NRC Construction Permit CPPR-103 for Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit No. 3, and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. T. E.
Gerrets and other cembers of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
Areas examined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective examination of procedures and representative records, interviews
~
with personnel, and observations by the inspectors.
During this inspection it was found that certain of your activities were not conducted in full compliance with NRC requirements.
Consequently, you are required to respond to this matter, in writing, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.201 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations. Your response should be based on the specifics contained' in the Notice of Violation attached to this letter.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosures l
will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you notify this office, by telephone, within 10 days of the date of this letter and submit written.
application to withhold information contained therein within 30 days of the
[
date of this letter. Such application must be consistent with the require-
?.
ments of 2.790(b)(1).
The responses directed by this letter and the accompanying Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as
~
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.
s.
y, I
..a
.s...o
- -..................... = -. -
- i Louisiana Power and Light Company December 11,1981 c.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, we will'be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely.
?k G. L. Madsen, Chief Reactor Projects Branch Encleusures:
1.
Appendix A - Notice of Violation
- 2. -Appendix B - NRC Inspection Report 50-382/81-29 cc:
Louisiana Power and Light Company ATTN:
L. V. Maurin, Assistant Vice President Nuclear Operations 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 Louisiana Power and Light Company Waterford-3 ATTN:
D. B. Lester, Plant Manager P. O. Box B i.
Killona, Louisiana 70066 t
N l
L e
I a
...c......<
.;;a,.-
...;.v.:,
..,_. a.
,e
~.
Le APPENDIX A NOTICE OF VIOLATION Louisiana Power and Light Company Docket:
50-382 Waterford, Unit 3
.As a result of the inspection conducted November 2-6, 1981, and in accordance with Interim Enforcement Policy 45 FR 6:3754 (October 7, 1980), the following.
violation was identified:
Failure to Follow Procedures for the Protection of Electrical Penetration Assemblies e
Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, requires.that activities. affect-ing quality be-prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or draw-ings of a type appropriate to the circumstances, and that they shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings.
Ebasco CMI 28, Rev~ision 8 " Care and Maintenance Instructions for Electrical Penetration Assemblies,"' requires that, during in place storage, penetration assemblies be provided with adequate protection from damage and deterioration as a result of conditions or' activities in the vicinity.
Contrary to the above, during a plant tour. on November 2,1981, the NRC inspector discovered protective barriers absent from Class 1E electrical
~
penetrations 1075B and 101SA.
Penetrations in such an unprotected condition are subject to damage due to adjacent construction activities.
This is a Severity Level V violation.
(Supplement II.E)
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, the Louisiana Power and Light Company-is hereby required to submit to this office ~within 30 days of the date of this Notice, a written statement or explanation in reply, including:
(1) the corrective steps which have been taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective steps which will be taken to avoid further items of noncompliance; and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved. Under the ' authority of Section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act of-1954, as amended, this response'shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.
Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown.
Date December 11,1981 7
D A
G. L. Madsen, Chief Reactor Projects Branch gb sY&
T G
.c.......
.c. 6. ;,....
w._._..__
3,
,y
~
APPENDIX B U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION'IV Report No. 50-382/81-29 Do:ket: 382 Category A2 Li:ensee:
Louisiana Power and Light Company 142 Delaronde Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70174 Facility Name: Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 Inspection At:
Waterford Site, Taft, Louisiana Inspection Conducted:
November 2-6, 1981
/2/9/8/
Inspectors:
= - -
& L. E. Martin, Reactor Inspector, Projects Section 3 Date
/
(Paragraphs 1, 2 & 6)
/
/
C
//
. E. Johnson, Reactor Inspector, Engineering &
Dhte Materials Section (Paragraphs 2 & 5) f
~
/yfYaff/
fK.A.Whittlesey,ReactorInspectorTrainee, Date' Engineering & Materials'Section (Paragraphs 2, 3 & 4) 4
'l Accompanying Personnel:
R. E. Hall, Chief, Engineering & Materials Section
/kf[8/-
Approved:
r W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section 3 Date
/
/0 17 R. E. Hall, Chief, Engineering & Materials Section Date '
i
~
... <..,: i:..
. ~.
.g.
l Insoection Summary:
Insoection on November 2-6. 1981 (Recort 50-382/81-29)
Areas Insoected:
Routine, unannounceo inspection of. safety-related construction activities, including follow up on licensee identified Construction Deficiencies (50.55(e)); site tour; electrical penetration assembly installation; and safety-related pipe support and restraint installation.
The inspection involved 99 inspector-hours by three NRC inspectors.
Results:
Of the four areas inspected, one. violation was identified during_the site our (violation - failure to follow proc.edures for the protection of electrical-penetration assemblies, paragraph 3).
1 t
+
I s
{
4 1-
)
,....... c.7. : w..v
.t....i...
m.
_ _ -._.- _.. _ -. ~...._. _
?'
~
s...
DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Principal Licensee Personnel Louisiana Power & Licht Company T. F. Gerrets, QA Manager D. B. Lester, Plant Manager, Nuclear
.W. M. Morgan, QA Supervisor J. Woods, QC Engineer
- 8. P. Brown, QA Engineer R. G. Bennet, QA Engineer R. G. Pittman, QA Engineer B. M. Toups, QA Engineering Technician C. J. Decareaux, Project Coordinator Other Persennel 1
J. Gutierre:, QA Site Supervisor, Ebasco Services, Inc. (Ebasco)
L. A. Stins:n, Manager, Site Quality Program, Ebasco R. J. Milhiser, Site Manager, Ebasco W. Yaeger, Senior Resident Engineer, Ebasco J. DeBreaux, Site Support Project Engineer, Ebasco J. D. Kenney, Project. Manager, Tompkins-Beckwith, Inc. (T-B)
L. Richardson, QA Supervisor,. T-B R. L. Hadley, Chief Engineer, Fischbach & Moore, Inc. (F&M) i E. J. Ritzmann, Project QC Manager, F&M R. M. Ronquillo, QA Manager, Gulf Engineering-(Gulf)
J. Abbott, QA Supervisor, Mercury Company (Mercury).
The NRC inspectors aTso interviewed other licensee and contractor personnel i
during the course of the inspection.
All of the above listed personnel attended the exit interview held on November 6, 1981.
1 j
2.
Review of Items Reoorted Under 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) 1 During this inspection, a review was conducted of. quality: assurance documen-i
.tation relative to the following items reported under 10 CFR-Part 50.55(e).
L (Closed) ~Significant Construction Deficiency:
" Containment Electrical Penetration Bolting Failure," reported-in licensee letter LPL 9865, September 27, 1978.
Subsequent to the final report of December 29, 1978,-for the subject signi-ficant construction deficiency, problems encountered while implementing corrective action necessitated additional repair.
On November'5, 1981, the NRC inspector reviewed the licensee's supplemental final report, dated JulyE14, 1981, and the F&M documentation of the rework. We'id repairs were performed w
,+.
.y
,n.wmy
+4-u.
v m-~,-
4 y
.;...;..w.;,.....:.,
.. w..
b H '.... ~*'e d
A>
{
i J
2 1
/
s
'T
-4 t
/
l r
t
.in accordance with.FCR-E-911, and sandblasting and priming of the flanges conform to Ebasco, Specification LOU 1564.734.
F&M Inspection Report 306-46-337 -
shows work complete (flanges installed and mounting bolts torqued in/ accord-ance with Conax Procedure IPS-374, ' and IPS-151, Rev.1,' respectively).
Basedonthereview'conductedduringthilinspection,thi.sitem'isconsid-
- c
.ered closed.
l (Closed) Significant Construction Deficiency:- Eight Reactor Coolant Loop "D". Stops, manufactured by Industrial Engineering Works, were received on
. site with obvious weld deficiencies. These were reported to the NRC under the provisions of l' CFR Part 50.55(e) as Serious Construction Deficiency (SCD) 15, after tb anditions had been noted by an NRC ins'pector and,docu-mented as-an item noncompliance in NRC Report 50-382/80-07.
Follow-up e
inspections were pt. formed and this infraction was closed in NRC Report i
50-382/81-07.
Further follow-up actions were performed and documented;in
+
NRC Report 50-382/81-12, after, access was gained to,the area of the eight <
t "D" stops.
7 f
Based on the actions documented in the abhve reports, SCO 15 is cohsidered closed.
g
[I (Closed)' Inadequate Clearance Between Process Pipe System and Box-Type Supports / Restraints.
(
,1.
t s
4 The NRCLinspector reviewed the corrective action plan:for this deficiency, and, discussed corrective action steps with Ebasco Engineering and T-B.
Correc-i tive action is being implemented and is in pro'cass. #Ebasco Engineering has performed stress analyses on the supports in question,1 andthas submitted results to T-B.
Ebasco has indicated to T-B which supports are to be accepted as-is, and which ones need to be reworked.
-} :
1
(
t.
s i.
Supplemental work order 103 to contract W3-NY-11, changes the contract require-ments on restraint gap clearances to prevent this,deficiencyifrom recurring.
q
^
i s
This item is considered closed.
sn t
e e
ys v
c, y
(Closed) Significant Construction Deficiency 3 3 Flexible Liquid Tight'Wir-j ing Conduit Covering Failure-(Anaconda), reported in licensee letter LPL 15027
?
+
F on September 2,.1980.
t The NRC inspector inspected the replacament and repair of conduit insideT s
containment and reviewed NRC-W3-2175 hniMework assignments 2460 and 2086, t The repair materials and the procedure were approved by Anaconda and, met'
'q' the regt.irements of IEEE 384. '
Thisiiteim,k considered closed.
x 1
k.
l i.
(5 s
4
's. g
. V
(
(
-(I
{
y i
.i,..
..a....
....~
= - -
O t
- 3. ' Site Tour On November 2,1981, the NRC inspectors walked through the Reactor and Auxiliary Buildings to observe the progress of construction and con-struction practices involved.
During the site tour, the NRC inspector observed that clamshell covers were missing or dangling loose from numerous electrical penetrations on both the primary and secondary sides.
Penetrations 1075B and 10lSA were observed in such an unprotected condition, with no ongoing construction related activities.
A gauge for monitoring pressure was also observed missing from
/..
penetration 120SMD. ~ Closer inspection revealed tools and trash in pull boxes, junction boxes, and electrical cabinets.
Discussion with licensee QA repre-sentatives confirmed that these conditions.had been observed and were addressed in memoranda referencing CHI deficiencies.
Despite acknowledgement of the conditions, penetrations throughout the plant remained unprotected.
Paragraph 8.l.4.e of the LP&L Final Safety Analysis Report requires that electrical penetration assemblies be maintained to meet the requirements of IEEE Standard 336-1971, paragraph 5.1.2, whi.ch requires adequate barriers and protective covers to assure items will not be damaged as a result of adjacent construction activity.
Ebasco CHI 28, Revision 8, " Care and Maintenance Instruction for Electrical Penetration Assemblies," paragraph D.2, requires adequaterprotection during in place storage from damage and deter-ioration as a result of activities and conditions in the~ vicinity.
The conditions observed at the time of this inspection were contrary to the above.
This is considered a violation'of Criterion V of Appendix B to 10 CFR 50.
In response to the inspector's' concerns, on November 4, 1981, F&M generated Surveillance Inspection Report IR 122-52-698, identi fying s
unprotected electrical penetra' ions and initiated replacement of protective barriers.
4.
Electrical Penetration Assemblies t
The NRC inspector reviewed the following procedures, drawings, and instructions relative to electrical penetrations:
r CP 314, Rev. 5 Installation of Electrical Penet'ratians CP 406, Rev. 4 Testing and Maintaining Electrical Penetration
~
Assemblies QCP 314, Rev.'O Installation of Electrical Penetrations IPS 151 Installation and' Maintenance of Electrical Penetration Assemblies
\\,
t e
N.
r
/
i
...a.
-s
- v.,..
... :.1..
's.
i Conax Dwg. 73320-10002-01
~ Assembly Drawing LOU 1564.258
. Containment Electrical Equipment; Class 1E Equipment CMI 28, Rev. 8 Care and Maintenance Instructions for Electrical y
Penetration Assemblies i
Initial review of records relative to quality aspects of penetrations will be continued on subsequent inspections.
No violations or deviations were identified.
5.
Safety-Related Pipe Sucoort and Restraint Systems A.
Review of Work Procedures The NRC inspector reviewed work procedures prepared by T-B.
All procedures reviewed pertaining to safety-related pipe support and restraint systems were approved by authorized licensee personnel.
Procedures reviewed appear to assure the' technical adequacy of activities pertaining to safety-related pipe supports and restraint systems, and they appear to comply with NRC-requirements and licensee commitments.
Procedures reviewed included:
1 TBP-24, Rev. J Hanger and Support Installation Procedure a
TBP-44, Rev. D Installation and Inspection of Pipe Rupture and/or Whip Restraints and Seismic I Structural Steel TBP-23, Rev. B Inspection of High Strength Bolts and Calibration of Inspection Hand. Torque Wrench l
TBP-33, Rev. D Procedure for Inspecting Drilled - In Expansion Type Anchors for Seismic Class I Structures All procedur es contained appropriate inspection checklist forms for l;
complete inspection sign-off.
~
t l
B.
Records Review The NRC' inspector reviewed. records of completed pipe supports and restraints in the T-B records ~ vault.
The completed supports contained all required documents such as-the weld control record, and field inspection checklist.
All documents were signed, initialed and dated in the appropriate spaces as required by procedure.
Some-of the records reviewed also contained inspection records for high strength bolts and expansion type anchors for the structural plate attachment to the wall'.
The NRC' inspector reviesed the test 9
_q,
.3
.... e, u >.
.e.
.s..,
i
- =.. --....-.-..
.^
A l
-7.
and inspection data of both expansion type anchors and high strength bolts.
All test and inspection data appeared to comply with the
~
acceptance criteria'as required by procedure.
~
The NRC inspector checked the calibration records of torque wrenches used in the tests and inspections performed.
This was done by tracing the control tool number from the inspection data forms from the pipe supports records.
All torque wrenches appeared to be.in calibration during the period of their use.
Records reviewed are listed below by support number.
CSRR-329 Containment Spray System CCRR-995 Component Cooling System CCRR-241 Component Cooling System
~
CDRR-244 -Condensate System CSRR-316 Containment Spray Lystem CCRR-525 Component Cooling System 4-The NRC inspector reviewed the welders qualification records on work perfor:::ed on the above supports.
All welders appeared to be qualified for.the work performed to the specified weld procedures.
j
~
C.
Observation of Work j
The NRC inspector accompanied a T-B Quality Control inspector on a routine inspection of completed pipe supports and restraints in safety-related areas.
The NRC inspector discussed procedural requirements and acceptance-criteria for the supports under inspection.
The Quality Control inspector appeared to have adequate knowledge of both procedural requirements and inspection criteria.
No violations or deviations were identified.
6.
Exit Interview The NRC inspectors met with licensee representatives at the conclusion of the inspection on November 6, 1981.
The NRC inspectors summarized the purpose, scope, and findings.of the inspection.
The licensee representatives acknowl-i edged the statements.with regard to the violation.
l l 1
I l-1
.