ML20138L683
| ML20138L683 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1984 |
| From: | Shao L NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| To: | Noonan V NRC - COMANCHE PEAK PROJECT (TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138L611 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8512200016 | |
| Download: ML20138L683 (66) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ __ _ - _ _
.s s 9 DEC 19 1W k
MDIORANDU". FOR: Vincent Noonan, Pro,iect Director u cJ607 j Comanche Peak Technical Review Team FROM: L. C. Shao, Group L'.:ader Civil / Mechanical Group Comanche Peak Technical Review Tean
SUBJECT:
"C0tEENTS ON ACTION ITEMS IDENTIFIED BY OF CASE DURING NOVEMBEP. 7, 1984 MEETING 7c
REFERENCE:
Hemorandum from Vince Noonan to Distributier., " Transmittal of Action Items as Delineated in Tran~ script.of Meeting With J. Ellis on November 7,1984," dated December 7,1984. , We have reviewed the above referenced memorandum and the transcript of the subject meeting with emphasis on the completeness of the action items listed in Enclosure 2 to the memo and clarity of issue characterization. We offer the following comments:
- 1. Enclosure ? to the referer.ced memo may not have listed all issues raised byMf CASE during the November 7.1984 meeting.
Specifica11ty, seven additional issues not included in Enclosure 2 are listed in Attachment I to this memorandum for A. Vietti's infonnation end follow up. We suggest that Attachment I be appended to Enclosure 2 for ease of our future tracking work.
- 2. We have also marked up Enclosure 2 as Attachment II with names to further clarify task assignments.
- 3. We have completed a scoping review ofMDecember 4,1984 letter and attachments (identified as item 19 of Enclosure 2 to the referenced memo). The review resulted in identification of thirteen (13) civil /strvcture related issues which are listed in Attachment III.
We intend to follow up on these issues as well as the nes shown or Attachments I and II. Issues identified in December 4, 1984 letter which are related to Mechanical and Piping area are being evaluated and will be disposed in a separate menorandum. In view of the fact that some seventeen (17) issues in the civil / structural area have been identified by CASE during the meetings (see Attachments I and II) and eight (8) additional issues have been raised in the CASE letter dated Dccecher 1,1984 (see Attachment III), the civil / structural staff needs additional support of resources to timely resolve the issues. The additional resources needed are:
- 1. A' full time NRCLstaff with civi,1/ structural backgtnunti fnr annenvimtely
., ,,o , 4 staff months. l l
. ..J. .! . .. . . . . . .
.--y es122 coo 16 est2os !
**" > r PDR FOIA *
*~ ~ '
.i...
CARDEe 5,-59 PDR .
-.. ,.. .T. ~2*-..'.L- CD.2. C.K: : - . - - - - - - - - - - *- *
-- 4
V. floonan 2 DEC19 B84
- 2. High priority implementation of a proposed Bf;L Technical Assistance Program fon;arded to C. Poslusny of your office on November 16, 1984 (see Attachment IV).
Your prompt action in providing the requested resources will be appreciated. Original Si;:ned by L C. Shao L. C. Shao Civil / Mechanical Group Leader Comanche Peak Technical Review Team
Enclosure:
.t stated cc: R. U gsnen A. Victti .
C. Poslusny D. Jeng S. Hou i i i DISTRIBtITION: L5hao , ;
\
i
)i3K - ORPIO l
TRT' TRT d
/
bVw omes)
.....P . ... ...... ... ............. .............. ............. ............. ............
l - . p . LS a ............ onry
...DJeng)/84 12/
.... . . 16[... . . .12/(/ /84 g c.oau us nosoi uncu g2.o
/ OFFICIAL. RECORD COPY l
- .....,1
v' , Attachment I 4- Action Items Transcript Pages Responsibility
- 20. Were Richmond inserts installed . 109 L. Shao/D. Jeng in 2500 psi concrete (line 9 thru 15)
- 21. I'n~ Damage Study Program was a 110 L. Shao/D. Jeng
'2 to 1 (rise to run) projectile (line23 thru 24) range considered.
- 22. Why was some concrete that was 86 L. Shao/D. Jeng committed to be retested not. (line4-9)
In particular Reactor #2 cavity
- wall.
- 23. CASE questions validity of. 101 L.Shao/D. Jeng Schmidt hammer tests (line12) .
- 24. 'Where was 2500 psi concrete used 93 L. Shao/D. Jeng (line 4 thru 8)
- 25. General cracking of concrete
- 159 L. Shao/D. Jeng (line 20 of page 159 thru line 11 of page 160)
- 26. At a doorway between the Contain- 134 L. Shao/D. Jeng ment and Safeguards building no (line 12 thru 19) gap exists, the buildings are g integrally attached, t
- i. -
l - * *
.. ~
-< w . .
.g DO NOT DISCLOSE Enclosure 2 Transcript pesponsibility Action Items , Pages
- 1. Review for information discussions 9.90,106 H. Livermore ;
on QA/QC failures in_ areas of- 3 Civil / Structural i Miscellaneous Electrical 33-35 ! Test Programs 66 :
- 2. Look at the designed and installed 25,76-77 R. Bangart r.upports for HVAC system ducts in containment. (Specifically, vertical and laterals)
- 3. Determine the temperature equipment 28 R. LaGrange -
inside containment is qualified to withstand.
- 4. Investigate CSB procedure for reviewing 59-64 A. Vietti/CSB containment integrated leak rate testing
- 5. Inves'tigate inspections and reports 78-79 A. Vietti/VIB issued by the VIB on CP vendor Bohnson Co.
i 6 NCR E-81-00088, dated 3/25/81 79 0. Calvo
.(AE-55) (document provided)
- 7. Case Exhibit 658 (AE-56) 81 A. Vietti/J. Calvo j (Locating through PDR) !
8.. Check if when CP used 2500 psi concrete. t? 91 strength six did the analysis reflect L. Shao/D. Ten [ 2500 psi or 4000 psi
- 9. Visit plant site to see what actions 114
- the applicant has in progress on L. Shao/D.h3 the control room ceiling Action /information
- 10. Check if Gibbs & Mill used a 115-119 L. Shao/D. Terao/
1.5 factor in all static load , calculations (if not w h didn't b.7*"S/P.T. h e/F. R;"d* ' Cygna notice in their review.) I I
. .I
~ '~
, , , . ., .. -e-- ---- -
_ . . . . - , . . - ,_ _ ___ . __"" ~-~
.r- '
DO NOT DISCLOSE . Transcript Responsibility Action Items Pages Action /Information +
- 11. Check if in containment allowable 119-122 stresses go beyond yield for cable L. Shao/D. TeraofhTen3/
tray supports. (TU used a generic 4 p, t %j p, g.,g., design with allowable stresses for the auxiliary building contrary to FSAR connitments.) (Cygna did not address) Action /Information
- 12. Check if when TU attached their cable 124 trays to the support and structural L. Shao/D. Terso/D.TS 3' steel, they drilled a hole through the flange of the channel which reduces the section ecdales which has not been
~
aci.ounted for in calculations. Check some of the cable tray supports in the field. (Cygna did not address)
- 13. Lin'er Plate 127 '
L. Shao/ D.Ien3
- 14. NCR on a 10 CFR 50.55(e) that 138
- TV did not report. (Information L. Shao/D. Ten 3/5.Hos transmitted from Gagliardo to at g* y.,N.'
L.Shao) 15.Crackinthebasemat(AC-44) 148-166 L. Shao/D. Ten [ (documentation duringmeeting)provided
- 16. Specific problems with concrete 167-169 5 (documentation provided during L . Shao/D. Ten 3 meeting) a g, ,
- 17. Minimum wall violation for piping 171 L. Shao/c,. yow" '
(AP-29) meeting)(documentationprovidedat
- 18. ANI Reports 174 H. Livermore/
L (documentation provided at meeting)
- L. Shao (if i .
needed)/S,L J
- 19. Package from nceived l, 12/4/84 L. Shao/D.mg f 3,g,,1 a Thew w -a - aaea by c...g/swAra <.Aon % cia.A %h ans a-As.
** P).m lea c. copy ob w. uc.g hco -e. h o 4 7 - wahh ow p6p og g 4 nov 3 lo.S 4 A u b $ %.wi d , v.t E .
- - {
..~
Attachment III Action Items in the Civil / Structural Area Identified from CASE .12-1-84 Letter The following is a list of concerns identified from the CASE 12-1-84 Letter and Attachments. The Attachments'are pages VII-16 through 23 and XXVII-42.
, through 48 of CASE's Proposed Findings and Fact and Conclusions of Law (Walsh/Doyle A11eptions) pertaining to Richmond inserts. The following NCR's were submitted as suppo-ting information by CASE.
Action Item P_a_ge Comments
- 1. Schmidt hammer test'ng 3 of letter New Item. (This item CASE wants to know: is related to AC-52 j
- 1) Under whose direction discussed in C/S tests are cnnducted Category No. 3).
1 2) Credentials and ability of individuals performing tests
- 3) Involvement of NRC in .
testing
- 2. NCR C-82-00523 Separate New Item Reinforcing Steel missing Attachment from the Unit 1 containment wall Elev. '820'-8 I
- 3. NCR C-520 XXVII-42 New Item
~ Inadequate concrete cover over rebar -
- 4. NCR C-669 XXVII-42 This NCR was previously missing reinforcing steel addressed in C/S in Unit i reactor cavity Category No. 6 No action required
- 5. NCR C-809 XXVII-43 This NCR was previously 6-#10 additional bars addressed in C/S omitted from a beam in Category No. 6 Auxiliary Building No action required. ,
- 6. NCR C-810 XXVII-43 This NCR was previously 9-#9 and 2-#4 assessed in C/S additional bars omitted Category No. 6.
around elevator shaft No action required.
- door in Unit 1.
6
.,,...,..e, .ee m - w e. e 4
- N *%e we- .w. . ... ,4.
g
- a .-s&. ..--- ..---a_ o m
2-Action Item M Comments 1
- 7. NCR C-811 .
XXVII ThisNCRwasprevious1) 46-#9 bars omitted from addressed in C/S wall in excess letdown heat Category No. 6. . exchange room. - However, additional information is provided by CASE. C/S category No. 6 may need revision i' because of the new information.
~
- 8. NCR C-1314 & DCA-5080 XXVII-44 New Item 57-#5 dowels were bent and 10-#5 dowels broken off
'at concrete.
- 9. Is there a potential tie in XXVII-44 New Item between NCR C-669 and NCR C-1314 with the base sat .
. crack in Unit 1? ,
- 10. CASE states the above. XXVII-44 New Item examples of omitted rebar are only a sampling of such .
deletions. They appear to have a general concern that no analyses were performed justifying these omissions.
- 11. CASE lists four allegations XXVII-46 These allegations have -
made which were investigated been addressed in C/S in IE Report 79-25: AC-32, categories 4, 6 and 12. AC-33, AC-38 and AC-39. 12., CASE expresses a concern VII-23 Previously addressed about unauthorized cutting in C/S Category 15. of rebar. No action required.
- 13. CASE also discusses the XXVII-45 New Item omission of shear tie -
reinforcement at the inter-section of the done and wall a in the Unit 2 containment. They cite this as another example of QA/QC failure.
- 14. In the discussion of the XXVII-47 Previously addressed in .
allegation (AC-38) about C/S Category 6. The
. missing shear tie reinforce- assessment may need ment in Unit 1, CASE does not revision because of CASE accept the conclusion that the concerns.
alleger was probably referring to the above mentioned incident in Unit 2. 9
, , ,.,,,g .,e a w *-* * %*-*-s **- * * * * * *
? q{.y % ul-- i1 I S '
E . L . ..
.. . . , ... Attachment IV o.t.
ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP
~ Nove&r 16,1984 io. (u.m.. on,ce symt,et. room number, euMong. Agency l Pest) san i. o.te
- 3. Chet Poslusny .
- 3. cc: R. Vollner
- d. Mli)HL!
, , s. - V. Noonan .
- u. Ltdr g
- 4. * '
.. .._ ... .. s,u e a 5h -
g D. Ross Acte n D* *'" ' We Note and Retum Approvat For Cnearance Per Comersation As Requested For Correction Propero Reply Drculate For Your information See Me Comment invest gete Signature Coordination Justih RtmAnns j
SUBJECT:
BNL TECilHICAL ASSISTANCE CONTRACT FOR TRT ' CIVIL / STRUCTURAL STAFF Per our phone conversation of 11/14/84 I am enclosinq the attached for jour follow up. If you have questions regarding the subject matter, please contact D. Jenq, ! or me at X37910. I i DO NOT ese this form as a RECORD of approvals. concurrences. disposals. clearances, and similar actions FRoM: (Name, org. symbot, Ager. Post) Room No -Bldg. t L. Shao, DD/DET/RE
. , ,, uu D$09 so43-102
~
OPfloNAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76) ,
. cw a sets o . n:.m 4:.+ a tYCYsN-11.206 I !
n e
- I
.- . e
,e up e
i U
,.,,.m.**- * * * " " " * " "
CONI J D[hl) AL - N01 FOR PUB 11 C D15d D50Ri ! c'3.':
~
. . l A Sumn.any of Preposcri BNI lechnical Assistance Program
- C ivil/ Structural 'Alleuet ions w.
IN1R0000110N: The Civil / Structural staf f of Cor. nche Peak Technical Review leam (1R1). , has completed its review of 57 allegations and issued seventeen (17) draf t SSERs. As a result of the review, the TUEC was requested to complete five action' items identified .in the 55tRs. In. order.to assess the adequacy of
'1UEC's response to the action items,'TRT needs independent seismic analysis capability which the present TR1 does not possess. Therefore, it is pro-posed that BNL be contracted to provide TR1 the needed seismic analysis capability as well as other general analytical support. '
' WORK SCOPE:
The tasks to be performed by BNL under the technical assistance contract are: 4 % % .a. To review the seismic analysis results pertaining to seismic air gap issue. g, b. To review the results of seismic analyses of control room ceiling y elements. .
. #.4*
7 / c. To perfom independent seismic analysis pertaining to seismic Category II
- i. and non seismic conduits.
- d. To audit the TUEC's damage interaction study program.
- e. To evaluate and dispose of issues resulting from the activities of the above items a through d.
- f. To resolve several analytical concerns raised by Juanita Ellis of CASE.
- g. To provide necessary testimony and analytical support on future ASLB related proceedings.
- h. To resolve new allegations or concerns which require analytical capability.
- i. To assist TRT in evaluating issues ntiated to (a) CYGNA #10, ll, and 12 b steam generator lateral supports, c cable tray supports and d other Comanche Peak hearing issues which may arise in the future.
EFFORT: It is expected that several BNL staff efforts would be needed during the next few months. The cost is estimated as $100,000.00. . l SCHEDULE: The contract should be processed with high priority to support the TRT effort. BNL should make its staff available within the next two weeks.
- Item "1" is added to address CASE issues.
.......-,.--.L---
-~~'-
. . . - - ~- -
~ -
7 ]
- g. . ..
~.
Attachment I l Action Items Transcript Pages Responsibility lih Were Richmond inserts installed 109 L. Shao/D. Jeng in 2500 psi concrete (line 9 thru 15) Ib* In Dama e Study Pro ram was a 110 L. Shao/D. Jeng 2 to 1 rise to run projectile (line23 thru 24) range considered. 22 iWhy was some concrete that was 86
' ;- > conmitted to be retested not. L. Shao/D. Jeng (line 4-9)
In particular Reactor #2 cavity wall. 23.3
'~
CASE questions validity of 101 L.Shao/D. Jeng Schmidt hanrner tests (line12) .
' 24. ~
Where was 2500 psi concrete used 93 L. Shao/D. Jeng (line 4 thm 8)
- 25. General cracking of concrete
- 159 L. Shao/D. Jeng (line 20 of page 159 thru line 11 of page 160) 2d.
At a doorway between the Contain- 134 L. Shao/D. Jeng ment and Safeguards building no (line 12 thm 19) gap exists, the buildings are integrally attached. - 7 C 1 G22-
p
'. I Abh.4 H DO NOT DISCLOSE I Enclosure 2 Transcript Responsibility Action Items , Pages
- 1. Review for information discussions 9.90.106 H. Livermore on QA/QC failures in areas of:
Civil / Structural Miscellaneous Electrical 33-35 Test Programs 66
- 2. Look at the designed and installed 25.76-77 R. Bangart supports for HVAC system ducts in containment. (Specifically, vertical and lateials)
- 3. Determine the temperature equipment 28 R. LaGrange -
inside contairment is qualified to withstand.
- 4. Investigate CSB procedure for reviewing 59-64 A. Vietti/CSB contairunent integrated leak rate testing
- 5. Investigate inspections and reports 78-79 issued by the VIB on CP vendor A. Vietti/VIB Sohnson Co.
- 6. NCR E-81-00088, dated 3/25/81 79 J. Calvo (AE-55) (document provided)
- 7. CaseExhibit658(AE-56) 81 (Locating through PDR) A. Vietti/J. Calvo
- 8. ; Check if when CP used 2500 psi concrete 87.91
~ strength mix did the analysis reflect L. Shao/D. Ten [ '
2500 psi or 4000 psi
.m j 9.\ Visit plant site to see what actions 114
, I
" the applicant has in progress on L. Shao/D. Ten 3 i the control room ceiling '
Action /Information
- 10. Check if Gibbs & Hill used a 115-119 L. Shao/D. Terao/
1.5 factor in all static load
- calculations (if not why didn't b.7em/P. T M o/ F. h.
Cygna notice in their review.) )
, )
1
s
......- l n -
G NSGt0$1 2 Transcript Responsibility h Action items Pages
- 11. Check if in containment allowable Action /Infomation a 119-122 stresses go beyond yield for cable L. Shao/D. Teraof hTe,,3/
tray supports. (TU used a generic 4 p,1 y,,j p, gg., design with allowable stresses for the auxiliary building contrary to FSAR comitments.) (Cygna did not ; address)
'. 1 Action /Information
- 12. Check if when TU attached their cable 124 L. Shao/D. Terao/o.Tg 3' trays to the support and structural ,
steel, they drilled a hole through the ' flange of the channel which reduces the section modules which has not been accounted for in calculations. Check some of the cable tray supports in the field. (Cygna did not address) 13.,ListPlate 127 L. Shao/ D.5=n[
- 14. NCR on a 10 CFR 50.55(e) that 138 TU did not report. (Information L. Shao/b.TeS/5. 9.2 transmitted from Gagliardo to ** A' y;,g.*
L.Shao)
- 5. Crack in the basemat (AC-44) 148-166 L. Shao/C.Teq*
._.(documentationprovided duringmeeting)
- 16. Specific problems with concrete 167-169 s (documentation provided during L. Shao/D. Ten 3 meeting) g g , ( ., ,
- 17. Minimum wall violation for piping 171 L. Shao/c,. go/
(AP-29) (docuroentation provided at meeting)
- 18. ANI Reports 174 H. Livermore/
(doc e ntation provided at meeting)
- L. Shao (if needed)/S. S J
- 19. Pa ag from ceived L. Shao/t).nng f 3,gg
. Thew no-w auch by O,..g/5+. bm Gan it do< b +osh any-46.
w* Pim lod 's Ory o4 h. b des'7)D.S4
, Aetk 3 ~T~n. u d h. o M 3co.pt , gg,g 3.
e.4 h Wahh ow 96sp 08 d
Attachment III Action Items in the Civil / Structural Area Identified from CASE 12-1-84 Letter-The following is a list of concerns identified from the CASE 12-1-84 Letter and Attachments. The Attachments are pages VII-16 through 23 and XXVII-42 through 48 of CASE's Proposed Findings and Fact and Conclusions of Law (Walsh/Doyle Allegations) pertaining to Richmond inserts. The following NCR's were submitted as supporting information by CASE. Action Item Page Comments
']1. Schmidt hammer testing 3 of letter New Item. (This item CASE wants to know: is related to AC-52
- 1) Under whose direction discussed in C/S tests are conducted Category No. 3).
- 2) Credentials and ability of individuals performing tests
- 3) Involvement of NRC in .
testing Separate New Item
>2)NCRC-82-00523 Reinforcing Steel missing Attachment from the Unit 1 containment wall Elev. 820'-8
,' 3)\,NCRC-520 XXVII-42 New Item
' Inadequate concrete cover over rebar
'4. NCR C-669 XXVII-42 This NCR was previously missing reinforcing steel addressed in C/S in Unit I reactor cavity Category No. 6 No action required
- 5. NCR C-809 XXVII-43 This NCR was previously 6-#10 additional bars addressed in C/S omitted from a beam in Category No. 6 Auxiliary Building No action required.
- 6. NCR C-810 XXVII-43 This NCR was previously 9-#9 and 2-#4 assessed in C/S additional bars omitted Category No. 6.
around elevator shaft No action required. door in Unit 1. l l
~
- ..s.... . .. , _.
' r ',.
Action Item Page Comments
- 7. NCR C-811 XXVII-43 This NCR was previously
\. s 46-#9 bars omitted from addressed in C/S wall in excess letdown heat Category No. 6.
exchange room. However, additional information is provided by CASE. C/S category No. 6 may need revision because of the new information. (* s8.j)NCRC-1314&DCA-5080 s XXVII-44 New Iten 57-#5 dowels were bent and 10-#5 dowels broken off at concrete.
.- -'s
\ 9 XXVII-44 D .) Isbetween there NCR a potential tie in C-669 and NCR New Item C-1314 with the base mat -
crack in Unit I?
\
N10)CASEstatestheabove XXVII-44 New Item examples of omitted rebar are only a sampling of such deletions. They appear to have a general concern that no analyses were performed justifying these omissions.
- 11. CASE lists four allegations XXVII-46 These allegations have made which were investigated been addressed in C/S in IE Repor.t 79-25: AC-32, categories 4, 6 and 12.
AC-33, AC-38' and AC-39:
- 12. CASE expresses a concern VII-23 Previously addressed about unauthorized cutting in C/S Category 15.
of rebar. No action required.
- 13. CASE also discusses the XXVII-45 New Item omission of shear tie reinforcement at the inter-section of the dome and wall in the Unit 2 containment.
They cite this as another example of QA/QC failure.
- 14. In the discussion of the XXVII-47 Previously addressed in allegation (AC-38) about C/S Category 6. The missing shear tie reinforce- assessment may need ment in Unit 1, CASE does not revision because of CASE accept the conclusion that the concerns.
alleger was probably referring to the above mentioned incident in Unit 2. A k $_.LLg_-m-- - - .
-_m,,. .
- m. _ _ .. . .%.
--aee, m. mm.a a e a
y ^.::y 7 3p.:g, _. x .: M y QW ; g.. ;;y .:. g._3 m z. y y..;._;..w . p*;}. ; qty h s
;; ; ;yb sr 6.
p . c r.n.; dlV/ ;.e
.: , .. r % m..n-.ygff.;.&. 'm:g._. ~ % m [: .Q ;; 4 y,,
m, : y ;:: . , y+y ;. :, . . .. . - A Q: :.; .: . . . s:: _ w4. ; . - .:; . c.y ~ . , ~ g . ;. '- L.; [,
+
- .: . .: ,c.._. . ~.:
a m ; . c. .. , u : .s ,. . . . - x ,. . ~:y;,a . , n: ; c ;.. *e.~..... e s.... : ~..- 1: ; a,. ...- c v.u O L La .e _ :.: .c, ] Q *: fe . . .:. ;,
- - i.
- -:; - ->..._ j.o .'4 L c .:.' - '
W-
'TF w .-
Q..
.g.',-'
~
i .. . . ~. L'.. ).O:.
.. . . , . . .n' ._ .: ' ' :\
t-
-_., m ;.\':. %::.': n F ' .i. .+ " . ;.+ * .: ..
< .yv 3w
=
..c ~ , 3,
;...,..',.. ,; 9 _4p *?_, :z . ,l^ .; ':. ; - - :
- i,: Y *'<.Q.
y.f, .^v,: 7 ',,.. *. (y Q y4. p- wn * - v.
.tv .', ' . . ,' e
,.(.'-
*... - ..* .- .. '.- ./ ;- c s. , ..,.4 /;c. ,
- r. '.....
. . .. ;s u
,,3
. ., e
.; I
.; :. : : . N J A
..-f,,
oL v e L .M.,.
.t . ., , , , 1 J .. , , . c. :.; , : ,,.~. . ...-: 9. . 7 . . . ,n.. .T: . . . .? 4 ' ' . 4. , . .W .
* -+ s. -.,s .f. . - . ., j : , ,i,... .. . - n L +> m
,/. : ' ? . . . , . .- . , . . .,.;...m.eL.c"
.l .,. ..
, s + .' O . , _ .. , h . , 4,. , ; . ' 1, . .
. h, [,
. .. ... --# ,'% [' . . , . c-i
-r- O & e,. s .?. .' . : q,_,.
D C "..,5- g,. .
*1 * ..v. . ;., '.
3- :- . * * '<; , Wf-ru
.., ,'.;,4, f' e W .,%. . . .....a . if . * -
Cr w L x u. y~' # r.. . ' .: : ' . . :.,. W. . - .
+. . y . ,- :. ;- '. ; . .'y..' . n. .. . - . , . . . :. . _ . : .. . f;'. s.- v L . . J. :- 3 a OP 4,7:). .
- ~ .
.n '-
+..-l -
*:..,;. .m. .
c c R,;f.f:.:{.-h;:::.Q.?~i.l*. , I;?Qf.: W l:%.Ql ct i 3 O _ h.R_ ?? ::::: ".K ':: .; ' .: s ,... s , M. . Y . ' .a . . h ' . ' . , :. . M. N l o w c W. /; L.L. . .: ?.y. : - a.m- ;.y.". :#'.. .
>. ", - ; . . . ' .. :n. . - , :>. _y.,'.~."; i .., . 4_J ,' " '? Q~ c .+Q;
~u.non O u.c.. ..e. .y.:. : u.... . . . ' .-.,a. . :.. , . .-. . .,.F.
\
.Jf.:'. .._ .
x.... ., l u wu o py.. :, : ~. uw.. g,r . . . . . .; :
. v.
^. '.':. .. -'
. y~.
. : a
. , ,e g ... .'.
%' . . 'y,p;-'-;7-uJ
;, er to
+So~.y. : . .
'a s -::. ; . .. .
~
- b-Ls. .: . . .1 .; . -;' .:
..a. ' ;._.s l
- . p- 1. . . . . '.'.% 9 :'- -
.~ ~...'t..
ap.,,iQ W n R? l e . . _ , . . W.. , . .; .? . . el t a ; . .. : : .. ;.. . .n. : :y ,,p .. '. . .. .__ . . , ;' .. .' D-f.'..T, ,y . -J .. ...,..
. 1
\,. Y Q, E' ' '- -;. T &-
*4- : '. : ,h r '.,'.li y ..$ O:
i
,Y. ?. : ,Y
..).~ - ?E. - :
c g, ,mr4 ; :.:+
- n .n..,: . y.- . .
- a] , a , , ,r; 2 . < . . :. : 7. . : , ~ :. . - . .
i l
,. ...n.: . .a . :
. . 7 . .- ..v.. .. : . ,
? hh.' . ' Er '.Y-fl ...
- b. h;E
. . - w. .*-' '.* h -
f 'w'.ha?. e." '.l..,51.Q &n:l sic.Y . - _. . .: .. ' . . .~- '.: - ,., .n, . ::. .. v . ~< . . . .? _ :C - 4 o a - - .. . c L
<o ;:'q a , - ::' , . '.c.:.rv3t. y7 d. . . .
.- -g
.,, , ' . :.. y . . , ;. . ?.%: ..-
.e l l 4..j-r: %.:dq .;
+ ., ,: %%.7. Y: .n :.~.,
o wl -
. , .-- r&i r
. ..:. -.;- _ . . - - l n s--* : -
- cp . . - /: -
- s. .
.- i.-
m L. c
.,i ,
> 's, g ,'
. -:;.c.. ;...' ;: y,.>$a. f. q m.t. ' , .: . ..
.)
,t. #
~
- n. . a. : .: , . .--
+
l ;
.k.,nmc * . .
,,. i s. . . .- , n.e . . . . - ..
u -
.c e :c m v ' . )~.
o w c m v v. . . . . . t . .- :.0 : , r . r. ^ : ~ e. c , r. su m v .h;4 ge,(-L:- L O m* .a N: '. '
.; *.- ..' r .--. . . .
A i ; ": -
..... ~ 4r '.c : < .-7 . ,. . , .
.i , , n. : .
Mit-(y-M. .
.%- a.>
g' .- ,.; a v w a p j:; * .; q - v ,;%... '. f 's .l g - :. ". '.; -
.c _ , .
f q. h '. K . . ~ ..
. '; g-Q., e*. , . - ,(3 '
},.[ .g ' . ;, . , ' .; g, ,. . .
;g. . \ :-;j'}[f:
N w, C - *
' ,. l - . .. ; g 2,' .,'.P." -. - <a n w >. : . +...,...o,.n.-
r- > , %;, %. xy. . . - . . . ' -
.. e ..g 4 c , ; } 4 t ..' ?
> *J-p.,4i..~-
5 pW*%,.:, , "$.
> Q r--
L. 4' v. y'si
. '. 3.s* i j; f - ni 7 o' -! o; * * :' :e* . .. .".,,'. ' .? :- './ 1 -*ia s;. g ,.o s,
b f( , . '. , h 5
,W, smyggg%gghh.k2 % W[ 8te'i. - . ..: p hd ggyM].(
&, g E
. & W Q$ . . ~
k=. L:
'3 L co +-
C , C' 3 O L .- P o ;> u - c 2 i-
- c . . , - - c ;,,
'.O
.k +> C ~. E ~
m; -e-. v L T- C +-- C 6> :a 6 - U L ;. t v _C C: CD c- + ~ m Ca l l
; .- c. v -
U t U .5 E- C C i C" : : ~ L
'- 1 s v v
< C U
- T L -C C'T N a C --* c ,^
! .e-- k
.---- L . r- Q +> - 0; ro C : +' & e m G r- g + - C '>
W +' .c ~g Ls _ C L Cj 3 C L L - 1; i i c ; c w, 3 c.. . _C . + Oi 1 '? t C. ; ei ll
, ,w w
at I i
;I . +
[ Y, t
+ C ji n L
+' h. ( h t -
- y. C- E.
.. < + .
N i d' l L i
. l GfI C -C +
, q y ~
c w l v - c w m . 1 s 5 * ' ' g I I l W >, l p L l m c o
- l lo tr z l ~ l l
I , 4
< 4 U
j i c ' e . n gC - onE . niU _ . _ rT s _ fi i uf _ _ qo _
;e - , _
_ d rt - e r , _ rt a . _ i op - _ un _ q e - - erh - _ R ot , f _ n n Y _ oso , _ i i : ' t sn cao
/s bi t
, f d e i
_ C ec ;- _ Eh a - # _ Ut T E n -
^
A' o i t a # l 7 o - A i V f _ o . _ n . o n_ i t ' a - _. z i r ' e t c a r ,
^
a . i _
- h ^
2 C .
- p t l ,) r
. , }, L-
_ I. _ n d w e e e n . _ d e . v e i g k b t f a h a n a o o f h t g i e o n o g _ r t l y e y a _ _ B s o n a r l s a r o m o r h C a w t i n s e f e p g u 0 w t
/ C o a e b o o
_ A 't Q c d t r r Q a i a d p h h y e l l e t l t b t o . p d d a a s e a a h i e d u n t d o h t g
. t t e q o e e l n e t e c r t t n e r s d c u n u r- _
_ t c e a e n o e o r _ o n t n h o r e r t P o e I t c G b g s C r g _ n i
/ l _
e s b _ l d r' s _ t i u u i o r o T v c e
/ n
_ y e g a e _ r t n l t _ o e i l e _ g r k e r e c c t c _ t n a s n a o r i o _ C C c l f C _ ey _ t r . 4 _. aoo i
+ 5 _
C gt _ _ lil lI!;ilf i.I! ;I 11
L
, .;. h .
,.l' - , .
-{ '.' h.,5 ' -
y@.. $ %.'.Q. f' . '. , [Q C'y. i . t i - .Qy . .C :* t *,fp ;' , *-l.. 6% . ' . .' ;, ,h;..;.,~'<.,.
.i Q. ;
. r- .
i, - ..n_--[ . p - 3, _ ,f 4; _ , y(....7; .n, <*..'. J. .
.,. .. , f- 4 . , / ,
g.. t
^
, , , ; N.
[':. ;g-.}
". ' . , $ ..: - lx- c. .: ~ .,- <..
. Ou '-' - ,.. - ;
'J " . v '. . I J -w : - , z.* - ..
cw '.^ . . .
. , +. f ,,l
$..::. .v. ..+F..,;.,'.
e, . .; w. e..
.,..', . r s- %,w.y-. d.- ..V.
6' - L r l:'.~ ., .-
~ ;- ~ . ,
..- ' ' , .. '-.. , ' . ,,- . ~ , .m . -
- n
..ri.i . . . .:. , r,e
~.-
L F".; '. _ _ .
-t-- 1.. f .
,..., s , e
*.% "-.s y'
-$ ..g- .a
.# r
,' .,: t...
c I." ...",i ,
'.l='..
' s. .. , . l:
s* . .,R -
- i. .. .. y}
},g 3 : g " .: .%.',,_.,.,,+- e.
, 3u ,
e.-
> ! . ; r , , cue -
, , . . l .1. . s ~. . .. ~ ., , *~7 .t -
e c, c- ,,' , . ,.; -a w .. - - >s...: <- . .
~.
, ". .. . . " . p-,. .* : v.
9..'.*.,.a, a
'.- ..,.c e m ~..* . .
q_ p. y' ,. , u. y~ '-% -' ' n.,, " .. = - 1 v ' . . .,s n ,.rs - U L L ss L J ',' ',f . e5.. ,.,9, ;. : r
=.'.h..'. e.,
'w g.
/. ..
4* ,...;.,'
. - % -". ' g . f . e.
I
, . . . * .', '_f .?*
['^/'-"-
], '
-l[ $. s-g s, m 3"u...g ,. - .: .,$ .
,b, i,
e. o, g e *., , , . > .:, ~ ,j. y 4 -
,4. , . , "- .
- w/ . ,
- ....: . .s .
..u._
. , ~
- 3 ,
; o. ,~.,.,-
- - ., ' u. . . . . . .
~$ q, 'f. ; ; . M .; ', I , . ;l ' ., Y . .' . + _ .
,'* ~ 1 . ..- ...' ; *, ll lll ~ ~- l - - N :-' .y v':. [.* m- .
r . -s . C L 1 4 . :.,.-
. ~ , .' ; . u ' :. s ..'n.' :< . - ' .:' . ,-
r ..,'
.-M
- -. 4 a <> s> *Q V,. 4 '.' ' .,;;'7 4, f,.P ; ?' , ; J. . , -+ ,
.- <,. .q w-: w5 s . ; -
. ;-. t , . .,, 1; y-1, ., ,.y.-, 7,: , .g +- ., L _e ; ' ,.
-.-M. .
3....
' * .-1 .. ' ~
. 1; . -- - ," . :9',: , ,,-q,, ,,'+" .gj . . ,. ,,,.
< y .:.
'%. , ., . .~g,c..-
L c ,t .., f 4
.s.-
- s h. >,, ' f ,.
,3
. i - e.
- ,-, .N . , ,-y
/.gg . . . .
y m O
, , > , c .,.. ~ ;, - -<- e ., y c. ,r J . ,,, , y rl - ,,.
< 4 , y n , . (.. 4 pg .'. y' .. b f. ;L >,. Q3 ,p..c3' ' ;.G,. ,r^ t . ' .s..; y. . . ., y. s,. , L '
v w c e * .: ;s... +
..r t.' .
' _.: N,u m. ';; ' '. -mt.,, , -a ,
m o ; . -
. _ , , --e.; . - t. \ yn . , " . - .; . . .
.u r ,
p' y___e N.4 gw .g . 4 4 =l-. . . .,, . -p z . . g .< f(.
, , , , ~ $ < - ;y- t, ,.
.y.. 'j%vg...,.} "- ,. , .
v -
,t hc
,. ;,, .* ' ,; p ;;;, , ; -
. 5 ..
,_ g,,'.;.,,s...<
.._ 4.,.;,. f 3; ,. , ' g j. r.
y g;:,.f.jv, % Cs u
.f L ,,_ y j , !.,
%,. ; y ,, ; ' .,. .;
wr m g. w. p' z ,
- ,. : , : : . .s. : . . . . *': . . .. 7 n~ e
-- +' L,,f g <..,';.= i : @ ^-:. ,' e - '. Di . . -
. / s.- -.~ .- i *r ?..
' . Q ?. . . .,,- ? .,_k..:-y' ' ' Q- .&*S( - . ? ..,. "' j.,-l ';_. . .
J .Ny , ; ' .. ,** * :,1 ,. .
- < , Y b' ~.
s9
- s. . x- ' ., g.l.' Y , , O ','" . ? . y ...;
.e.
S Rgye, y -
. , .';", '~. .,- - ;; ' . . . * ,^. '.*.,, ,a.- g . w c. c.y s- ... ,w *^. . . c.'\ *n. . . .. .**,-
s x .c -
,_ s ,
' . . ' , - . . . w_ , , , ..:,, . -a ,[ : J J ..' -, : . , *
. .v a
;r.w...; G.W4 d ., ? . y. .., , , . , .x s .. r . , .t ',c. '> ,, -
..' uf
.m > u < *..,,. .,x - . - " . ' . . ,......p; . .'. '.( .4- n ", r -: .
- y. ,- - . .. , , _*>w.
y - ; :.
..n. .
L l
. ,f.WJ .. ..-e....-.....tv<. ; i. ..
e . ,.. 3 .. ,. .- < -r a ..
.. , ,P.- ~.,:
,.1.%
- x .. - me n. ,,
{. . < .si.$ l
~ v, . ..e.. ..x...-...7,a.
>l . c d ~ * ,p ., n ~ . % ., . . , . . .
s.
....,s.,. ..44
.-._M:
rr ,
~..,e,. , .
. . ,:.. .u.
. t..
a- . -t .-. ,.- . . ; , r . ,. - 4 .3 i
,, 2*r p
. ~..
-x ,
m .-
.,.e.
z l s.
,r ,.- - .. e
~s n. . . ...~
- y. g -
,.m
. ,a y t , . - ). g.r
-4 . . -
.. * * . , . * ~ -....(
3 % ,#
;%. . ' !p' ~ . . . .t ,. i.7, ~ - .zy . - q. : ".*:..,'q'_Jr c:
- w. s.' >
3 7e . 1--- . , , ... y . ; ; . t.:.- . 7.- y _;j. 3: a ; , . av . ; .u . . . .. : . 4 . ,;. . - .w 3, y. -% . .: - pg , . ;. + . , . , .; .. - :
..9,-
n ...,4 . .:. , s.,, , 3- .. -g. d.. e.- e - ,g, . ,. ,' .y . .- ,. f c 9:_ ,, g 3, ' .f ,
. .. +v . .,r. .
w.
. &.,. . . :. n, s.#. s. . , a., . . u. . .
... . . ~
[w ;-
- 7. . '#...i
? ,,.,d. a . '. .
* ,e ap.
I f. :: f.v.f,g . > .x f' * ,, .,{-.< -., ' . ,.' ' - j g y
. _, ,,. e . - { #*
,4..
,Yll* +5 m' . .: f ' .'.. x a
r,, , . :.r z .- -s -1 ..- : C 9*,<
. ) y'
%,,?. ..
t s % . .y . . - , , ., %.r .y n,,,.-
' . , * > f WSj,_... ...
1 .. ,
- i. .t 'V.- -
.e.." ,
-g. ->,
-v ,M
.4e., e,.s ,,..p,.,..
;, , - . R sF. , . ,, *:. ;O.f_ ..%
-^ .
g .4, , .m
, t . -. ' . .
r v, p'
/
g i.- ii 5t4# O"
.y s.t3 ..,
'.sv .r.- e a 3 4 . .. ,e.
r J 4,.,.;,.+
.. s, j .. .,1 .
.y r - h'f ,& A e . , *.
[ . g , f. ; ' 9 ' . . _ ** s { .l . ? ; , h ? { ' _ ' ' * '
'g y n' ['
k ?$ N b-[?.lt,$ F, h ', ).N? & Y+9 ' V,fD.^ '
- 0 ;- 2cp.' < . -Cd tf p & Y[. &. , , f:e/. -i1 y.
i%,4' s. :: i n ; .' - - r-- -
< 2 .- <.
i A'
,.1%.a . " r.e.4#k' M4m.sK. s. j .:- - > . . ,
s f r , ,,
.w. . . -4. u
,~..
%~f'. &
- s-) ': - & n- V f. N '^.r . . .<.-....uj,~Q.. ~
~
- s. . -
_.~ ,
.f.
c &:l :,3 ._; L .f>. 3 UF ' , ~ ,,
- m
.z o a_
.2.% ,s a he m.%; - ->.~ s .> m. -e:~ m,. n:
- r d_ A .: ~ '-. : : . ..
,'. w.s v*. . ~.:3m m m t-
.v - +
.N\ i YS '
7 y' A pN'. ~^l
- p@a p mks-)g',.a,.a -Y .'i.d4 Ug.k.4..Yh. .u.z. ;,d Y ;,j: .
3+i, 3 NpN.p,yI;f"f m .
/. h ". .; e.g -
w ,, e g g g g g_ g -ggg,' .P,g. g z. g '; fd q q;[ ..v 7 39 9 l l l ! L C .
. +
x . m j e I r l l k I i i I i I
. m .
( l . - l t l
> ~
1 4
- 1 i
5
.' 1 I l l
I e e 4 L .
..A, _
,- . : s,
; w< ,
r r y, m 9 5, s s cr r* ro w , r rg 3 .,m... - . . , , : , c . ,, , c h a. r a c +e e r ', .y. f i, n e of . ' < > , 3. + , w ar+,m er 'bc c v> r *. - 3 U. _ m . - - -- --
, . c
,. . .' e 9 .- . -= ,* _
0 o .
- g. W . &.. . W'5.?N ?' /', W @hs - , . . , l,, ,.f-[f.Q^h.p.
.,. . . s , . . .
i Q .,Q M .&', .w
. . h 1 a . g. ip ,.. - w .
E Y' _~
. ::'.-. ~4.&,
' .f- Y _ lf>? .
~J N. Y' ' , - .1,: . <# ~' fg
;<l;,L.h ~#-
- . p *. . - .-
- 5
%#WQ.,
L. N .Q : ' L j '. ;;.'
%* '%@ V qry g,,;.g[. . . .l ;,-4,,' 7.] .:
y;., f .. .. , g ... ,.
; . . . . , :l,3 > ..
f
.t
, ; . _3.$ ,9 0 y3 3w 4~ . . ~y# fs. .? . g,~.,". ,( y@
( ; ';
; c. : 2. ,4. g .:.M. . <.M p :.., ,. : ..r. .,. . r sc.e-. r .. . ,,,
m, ~s - , g . . . . . , , . , . a c.
, . .e .
. . - v- ; . .. ....s, . ..
. e:: .. s..
.,..q. s ..g
.,,u, ., . g -. eE.;.-. -~y. -...:.. ...: -c.x,.. w. .a ,-.
..c . . c. .. .
.s 3, m_ . : yn-.4 .pe . . .
. .- A tm, ' - e ..s ,
.w
- pkt 4. E F M. ' ."fg ..,' e'@,k : , G.is ,i 4. _4'.gg,g%1 . .- .'. .$. [ ' ~' '. ' > #- ' -",..'.y-C ' ' l ' ,'. , ,. I. .~h. .,N.
.4, A. e -
~ "- 3.I ,
4^ 9 : ' . . j'. #.' ::"< . Vc . . ..%.
, ?.. . s.a 1-ya,. T .,9' :.*.. . >. . 3 m.t .e... ; s, . . . . . .
'%.-%.m. .c. .
. d.' . g v. ., . .
y* e v" 2,. 3
, . .e, u , . . - . . > ..:, . .
v.,,x....- *.,, " ' _ &*. .. ; q*.,.% ,,....n'.., %. y%. 4. c.
' s.n.el. n n. r. , . .-
+ -s .. ' . s
, i...: - ,
.' s .'.
Q :,y 3.s.%. .,. .~. ~;". i -wt
. . v. .n& . . A ,.7.: . ;:. .g ".a.%. M M .7~
,'g y, .;. ,
= . . u, ' *.., ... .g. ..M
.. .- ,.' - ./,
,a..'.
' .a:
y. L,.',. - l- ,, ?
.a. e .
c Q.3
%r
-1
%g..s *'.:L.r n e2 ;>. - - .< ..
. .g
.. Jd?
,_.4/ . . , ". .' ' ' wd . '4,yq.. M . . D . ' . '.b'E.- ~C:"f M ',.1' s%. .hy: r.. n, . g.,w lM. . . . ,
v i 4 w-
- 5. s . .: .. : . .s-sy
- .; y.;a .y. - s ,, .,tr : '
- n. w.y n -
4_, , " ." e..pY.3. .p: .t.- yf. ye ,,. g. . .. , , r . , 9 ,y a....;.".
. p --
- - :, .i c. ,
y
..ey.,t.p l, . . . . - .s.
- q. ..,-#c . i . . , ." .
.4 ; -.c. g f .. 4
; q,r , .. f.1l4,os.A _ g y.s7.- .
s
.-y
, ,. . . ,9, .
c.,
. .,. e -
~ , r. . , . . , .. 3. - ' , 9
~ .
- s. , . %, 7 a
. . 3,
, , .. .n.
..> .4 ,
- ..n..,
t-c,,
..u s@m')7 - . ,. -
j.'$- -) ' P,,
.] * ' .,J., ;L .P . -
.J mf.M,- . .,.",-g.s ' N. t..,., . *." - T.* ].r.d.' '. .'4.*. y: ,
.. . ,. ']. ,
- w. . ,.-
.3
* , .; .u
.3.f.,~.,:
. s-rg,.n -. .
. . q R. ; g.v . 'i . ,-
., p..,,.s .,
9,. .y - .
.s , '.
'-{..'..
_,g-
, , q..,.,.
- ~ .. ,. \
.r .p. , y ;*:". 3 ., . : ' *;
. " . _f*. n ...% L.:'.y.d) ,s r
A ' v..'~- ,.m *a.: . i . na.k. .-
.y# .
&. . . ':. /.s *
/,, q . ;c.O .. ,",: v. . ,- .
.,T.a.'" : - y .,
42.u -
- $.-.... y.,.. . . . . ~ _ - i- m s ,..i .,,/q;;g p -4 . e - ,.., '. .-~ -.
.5<;.y . . . .
. . . ++@: p ~;. .:- ..,. g .- J
.o
<t.
+ ...n-/ . ^4 .-l4.n.. d. ,. . .,
A9 4 . -% . c, ";,2. , , ..y;..e . ..: . n -. - ..N.., 4
~
15 m. . .. ..; y. ..
' W.e{. . g .4,/r n., 4,, ; .
#, , . , . . . , . S, .
} (<_; v .9.
' ; j .j./, .j.-. g-[. g'f{g.:ws: -%;: .; , . . ' ~. ,., . , .x 7, . l .; -. ,
,y,
.. a.-
.. ...m,,-s,.
,y-x .....s.. ~ . , . < - . ... +.- w . y. .
- i. ...
.t ,, u.:.&: . . ,* .& .* n ,p . ,g ., ,4 > *a. . <..-
. ,, . ~
.,s
. .x. g ;,
+w , t- ,. .t. . , ., 3
, .4 ' - { -
. *\ . ',
,l< ?
* ~ '; ,' '
x: s'5 'l,;'cr. .,[.n . . -. %:s. %5' . ~ ~. ..?', a ~ - .-;. < -.yr
?: :5. .. ..a.L_ m. , -
- s. . .p.,e.
.g
*
- s _t g. 3 ..
'. a , .,," $k ~., , ,. [
. 'h-i. ', - A,$ , ff, , .' l, - N. s W y ., '.yJ'O
~s'
,U ._ .
.m 'e,f. Q.* --) . , . t --1 . ' I *1h.Q, '.a's.
. w-,. . y
~ -
t.
< + . n >c>. .,Qq,g.* ,' g4 my. .i.
L
+< v
" r.,e> 9 %, .;;g.; , L:+ .' .... . ., ". g., . -,;f
,mr .g: u. p ,,. .-m% -g'.p; g ..;," :?s,
>{ '-:.y , _r
- .W.. v ;
..m^..:n.; . , . < - ^:
4~s
.. dAI. .,. y ..- m%,
- n. : Qi w J 3- A 4
'y-~
. ~,.o$ re pg., ' ip>p: n , & .Q.p g(.,y'$.4,q,y. ,, cp 9;- 4.%. , c%.v.y G) _9.: ,a g, ,
- ffs8 . . . .' m
- a r
%, 4>q* 5.&.-L.
.6 .v;. .*.
.%ny,1c&,%m.4.. , 4 '> g~ ~+; .;Lp . 4.e qgr 4.x.;.: y: L :
. % % .. .. 4 .. ,, .J.3 ; _; .
- k.
- yW. ...
y
. y .l-
- f?. % I.
.*3 ?,, .,t, 42"
$.$} .*' ', Q4 .
k'.l h f f' . '_ )e., , ' [;* , fY n..'[N w y , , . . '- - ' , . *
. n. ,. 4. ,+A._g,,.*.>,- , .-
,*3 j - l -..< 4._ ,l, ,l+.4. 'l- %' ,,
. - Q,:. ,i. , r ,5
'*^c. . '
Y;-h. s. g[-
.. - _ 'd'E '., . k . / 5vQ ~?~,s' .d,. 4, c, .*
f
. (7_.
. T, . ,' V. k, ".t% . .3 4 e, Q. .
pun . i t. w- s v .h*$ ..? v < v-
.8.<> ~
."f~* . .%"(. 2-/e II V. ,.
I-($ c ..
- I
. , . h,- a A&,p *. . F. ..s" . m, f. .,. .
h.s-i #m W' ca, ;-.- @0 CI'.I'>W;-[: 7 - '" - .
- -*-- .X
..?
'. ; y .i. %' .g4 2
- -. . ,' '>w. . . ,yy f.w,h.n. '
jy.g. . .< sQ 3,. ?%, e. , ,, ,..
.; ,'s ;.
. :. 4 2, .
s .. e~. v . . . c. z ~ p. c. ..g .- c w. e. .~tw.
. y , s. <,
g . .
.[ [ ., ,, ,p- .
' ;: , ? , ,.1l'
, ;f
;1 i4 l3 '
4 ,. l i I
)
,l ,<
I
' j
. f
- e-n gC
- i onE .
._ niU ,
rT - fi , i uf . qo .
- , e .
d rt _ e r y rt a i op ,
- 1 un q
erh R ot n f e n
, s
-. oso ii
._ t sn cao Abi -
t
- C ec -
Eh a -
- Ut & [
T ,
- , j n m
- o i t ~ . a - _ l t - o - i , - V - _ f , o ,
" A
._ n
=
- o ; .
- i - ,
t - a ' z . i ] ' . r e - t c a r
" , ~ , e s' '
a
- h m)
S C -
%g .
' r h . .
t > ,i' " > . > l n e - w n t l - - o e a o i p c r f _ d k o i t i a s " d n t e t n o r r s n i c e B e e c t v d C C i l Q r Q n g u o .
/ o o e t m A i n w v c a -
0 t e i e r - a e h t p g - l c b c c s o - a i i e n r . i f e h f i p - t i v w f - e e n n t a - e r h " n h o - t e k i t i . o c y o t - P e a o n f a - R m b a o c , e n - o l - t i i t T a c - y i - r f - o i g. - g 't n - e r i -. t e t ,
. a c s .
C e e -
) R t
- t
_ ey n - t r . o 9 aoo C gf i 8 C ( i ;I !iI i lii11 l';
I i 1 r Cate- TUEC Action Required; if ncne, gory the basis for not requiring fio . Ca tegory -Title Potential 0A/0C Breakdown Characterization of Violation action on the part of TUEC l
- *10 Improper testing Concrete compression tests I
i may have been run at a ! rate faster than allowed. l l l l i l I Extra cylinders from acceptable placements may have been switched to other placements.
. 4 I
i I
-h' +i-'
O .
^
, . .; '-." ' ' . * . ., ,% [ , J ' , c.".A - .l e. ' "- .. 4p , ,_' s.. . ,, . . , . ..
- y ,,s.i-_....5 ( ,' (('.,% ' s'
- Je( - .' . ',
' , ;I ,
j' ..W*-[7 ,. . - # S ,, Y.s.6 ',
; *t ,.E ~ *,[ .' , -' ,y
'~ - . j , .f . . ~ . w :'
r U *) f. ; [ ] ' n4 - .-
*- ?. q .. ~ ~.
q-
- u.%? .v. .
$ .- ,'e . )~n.- ll _ . l i
+ y
- i i
w t.n u ..p* ... sJ : . -
-r .: V. ~ , , . .
n.- w
' n . -x - - 1
. ,i. . .- ' ,
'.'d-c c u; , t, y ; . . . . -- 5 , .. -. , > . .. ' ,1 .,T . ;< 4 ,
"-*T 4 .. 4 , - 2/
b$h .r- [ ., 'b, .,.: .,
,'>3 .
.~c,'i[.
{.., -h y , , . M 7- ,, -
'--) .' -f -
,' /s - , ., _$
.h. g. - . '-* ,T. 7. if.'*I , e oc .-
W.'- - t '.r )- : ? Q
.t r ~,.: ._- - . - .: '_ v .;
+ : w a ..- ,
. n., ,
*5 - & ,
s' - ; .< ;4 ,
- eo .
- q. ,,i. -
s,f
..,'.,-- c.s y ;- -).
c r.- -
+
t S ,, g; %.y - ; * ". ~ u L ;".-
.. L v ,, l L.-
* 'g. - ..
9 g .N; . - . . a .,
- L..' . ; -
eo m ' . 4,.* . n , -, , . /'- , ':
, '3 . 'u 3 ' a 3,5-
. . ... .s ,. " ,,. : . . .A .
- k. C CA ,, , [ . u o
'w-s- ,
o.. - 5.( , . ' .,..'.,'- :e,, '",..- q , I'
,. - , ' .. ' , g' 6 <,
s * '- , -
, g ( i.,.,.,,
..,M.
6 ,
- - . . s.._-'.
-w, 5 t
+
n w .&. .
* ; . ,- s
*[^ ' . u . ~ .- -" ?_ .. , . - ^ . . . >
. , . , , o aL r .( .yu. - ' .n. . ./ . %. ' ,
v .t O Ca :
.. ? . ..-'- n S . ~ j
- .n - : , , .-*,-.ip' y ._
ct w g i. :J,')' n. , ,;* ; ;- -
.n,.~,, . , . . * ' ' ..
.-'%, . - - L . ,. ;
~,
l . . , z.;
,?, . .. . . .w ' Ks7 ... .,
R'- -tr 2 ' .'w-',- <- ' .-... : .L-: 1 c . . , .t -
,..!,'_, =
L w a s1 y ,- :. -
=. , x+ ' ,
.r. - > . ; y~ .f; y '. .. Q. g, . ? y ,- \ [ , ' . .):; -,, b. Q . ,, *; l .:' Y,,.1 ce - - -[ '.. ^ . . .';4?,t...t.f; ..s . ,y ,jf r m c l4. ' l ' -
-*. ' ~. .. . . . . , - (';,'.-.> . ' s ..w..-
. . t. ,
- . .- '.. ..... k -.9.,~. . h,.,.'!' ';
u m o -
. i.s >~
- 1.%s' - #
l ps ' 7 !,l'," 2,., - > y
.u: n e a te.,~ - ,', .'%. : ",.s .- . . ,[bg m , . , -
- . ,-' . .-. .. : ,...w n l. . . .i wu ..
.,. c , . '. .'..y 1,i u.-.
~. . .
. _- .5 _ .&9,;l&- v uz m , -
L,._,. . . 7 - , . . .- . ,g .
.. : . . .. ,... ..~>--Q. s . .,, -. ,.. ...-, n.. ,,.-. .7..,..o.
9.. ;g i+.
..g- . . . . . .,
u,l ss ,. %. ,a.; r ,, - .
--r 4 $..... r- w s p,-. . .
,t,
,- , . , . .e ,
- , sv.
p . . . _ ,, g.,,, 3y ., ; /. g . r. - 2
..s: , !-
- 6. e
. .. , ..- :. . o.;
- ~ . , ~
.n .n g < - ., t n . .
. . . . - - , s.;
y,.s.. ... 1
.'q ,. *- - .. .- . .'
,< .' . - ' - "3...*s " ' , ...- N . '.-. ."
._.,,,,.a ..,e e..
l .
, . f ., . . .-
M , , .I ' , . - - ' ig.- 4-4 * . 4 ,[
- 1 I
p , k ( -
.'h g ,. .* .
5 el .h ; .'[ i . ,7.. '. ;, a y. . te .. s, ,,*
;, , '* *#e L
N. ..',..,.-
- t, F - '
4,, t . f.5 .J .'...C . . , .. . , - [ .n. f. E,1 v ,! ' '
- e' - ,i C
%.>r..
3 A . ', 4 a
.,(
.,T..
"u N, P' ' .N . "_- + .- Q ' .g.. . ..g
,.-y, ', y) N, !:.-' . c' - . W
- g. , ,-g.'
,n' '- ',,n .
,' . f, . '.
e ,...' "
,..'.y- - i, .:.%,* .' *.-
g y y_r. t f . ' .
,3
.r.. e*
,- {
m << + 3
- y" i.- ;.,. .-
,t' = *- .
4,-
=
e.
'. q--
.e t
. , . - O.., l
.-e
' p,1 '*.*V. . as 7i ;. k s m
's.=.s + , .
.,,>..8..i'.g..=.4. l C
r-
...J
's Ql .*5' ,i',;n.j /'
S,* , . . , . ,- p 5 U ; ,. d b t a... , J , w-4
. *-' . a$.s
- f '. '-* . i. ,+ w.
- '.a
- - f %%.
';g'- . = -
N . 1 y.a,*\
++
l l
\
- '- _ l '. ' [ ' },' .
{: I, (. '-,' . , < ' ,' .Y.[. . ' . ' ' n%y . _ .;. ~ ( - (( iJ
% ,..p. a.%. ..x 3-A+,.,.'.
i.- , t,f .m",.', g y;W .'..q4<. 7 (-- , , -* . - ,>
<'-* . *. j., , ,
,.s
,g 4..-,y, l(-' .
,P, ' . . ,,. -, -'. L (T,
^
o 4x ' <*< . . .,
,fe' : - ' - E- ' ' . 'Ys p . , ' 7,. % e ,s , ., - -
t..,, . ,4. , -.,*g
, ,g j., i*
- b. , ,, .- ,
C -e, $' , ,- a a . . gK. ; .
.e. J 4p +, , .
, .H..g.. , -,.. _.- ,.
4 s..
+. ,
q*'o..
,.,i.,.,'..
O
% ~ . ,- .
xy 7[ ,[*,1. (., ,. . .. . .. y,3. .g .
"u ,i.4- Q '..
, 3. ,. , ,,
- o; g ' . .,
- 7. .
.9 / , , .- .
.,.:,n.
.,. <s
.L,g j +
,. . 3..- w m ,. , v. .. . i, ,,, .;m' ,_ ..,,r...
f,-. . .. , .
. . t s.
e r.a, a. m : ;, ..M .- .+ 'y . u. a . ., : ; . , . C.,- .! -< r %p_s ~ e- g .;+.
- t. 6. 3 c., ,- ,
'. s. , e ys..
v.s 2 ?..,'i.,1...,,. , y '.: g .9Q.,1-.
+ '
, . ~ . . '.- a.
7.j.s.p..y. .-
",-M,n r u
- g. . qq.,j v. ; ;'. .ig . . .S :' , , 4; ,3, "
- a. M .
. e ,N,%... s*.
L , ,%,- . .t c. .. ,,
- . s . 4..y O 1.9,&.#.
. ,. 3 .
, . ]; ,-
P. .. ,
.r
.y . . _ .- ./_; ._- 9; ;*, *6',
4 ,,, ).-. s U d;w:;M.~ ; ,.g -u ,,/,..q},4 .. J<g'4, y :ty., ' .p&.w9.y,
, a. '. +y%
_s M+' ..,!-:. ,,,-1. " ' . . ., ,a ,.
.. . ./. % .
L7,. , c, .
- c. ..
m n ' W, 7^ M u : .c .. q]p" 3 %q. r' g? ,, % . n%, .2:-? ' &~ f?g. 's,m4 w* F 'q.i 4.V" . 4. , . 8 g m + 3.. ,P.:W.g.3 w
- 7. y c 4
. . jA B ". .
i 7-fi Q j,% ,f L-3 O A i X) t*- s..
.g w r +>
m C L ' O O W > L . . - , CD 4' C L' J 1. () Q, +' +' ( ~.7 LL w T.' 4
=1; E C. C Oj -r-
[ L .-- e D c w m O %
-r-- Q L U 3 C C C C ,.
D & > C t. ' C . L <T- . c c
- L' L 1 i
{ + % G L f Qt 7 n .1,_
+> @ L e L A.
>- T + ,
L N h .. L L L + O () e t
/ Q J T' +
) @ L .
~ t m s m () L7
' L) L %
(h 6 (. , i C' h
+ ' L m C O s O C7 e
!] , ~ . > - > j , , ,
! jl 1> ,1" ,.ly t t !
1
] j , ' ,
, q; < < . _
4 l e gC ' nnE oiU - nrT - . i f uf m i co - e %
;rt - _
d r n s et a rop i n u qrh e ,. Rf eot - '
.+' .
n ,* nso A oi i sn - ,' tao ' cbi A t - ec Ch a . Et U - 4 T g s n - o _ i " t - a - l o = i V - s f o - _- , n . , o - m n?~~ i t ..
~ \
a , z . E i . r ' e -
~
t c a r
,9 _
a *
- h . ,
8 C - A, >g 4 N
- - }q'
> A i > I n
w o f d o k t a a s 9 e h n 2 r t o B i 1 e s C r i e Q u v d .
/ s o i t A n rp Gu m e 0 e l t e y y a o l r l i n b o l t a t u n d c a f e i i l t d l u e o p g r P C p e e Q a R w a
e e r l a t i m s T o e o i y r c r n o l e g o i e r c t t i
. a n f C o e C d ey
. . t r .
aoo C gN 4 1 j
il ;ll< ijl ,
!i)t ,!!l!ii! !l i l
- '[ I l';! l l 4 ,
l1 y i l 1 7 _ e gC nnE _ _ oiU > _ nrT , i _ f uf _ _ i qo ' <
,e i
rt -^ ,. _ r j d
- et a , , ,
rop - . , i n u e - qrh eot
~
Rf - n nso
- g oi i sn -
4 ; . #3 t ao - cbi A t O *
- ec Ch a Et -
_ U ' . T 4 O n _ o -
- i t _ '
r a w l _ , s 2 o - a i % ' V ' - g f' - o . n % o _
~ :
i t - a , z - t _ i . s r _ e , ", t , . c : _ a y . ,
- r s a W-9 h
C v)! , , , [ ij [II> g: l
.q
_ n - _ w l _ o d l
._ d o n i
_ k a o t a r e n d r m e n a c e B e rg na or
- C e
b o u c %
- Q r s *
/ e p s d A v i n 0 o a C h Q e m l h a a y e t i i a v d t mi e n
e e c s o t e f t o r e r s P e f e e t _. h f v s i T e o u b
- g - n i
a t
- a t e r u l a s c t e - i T
m i o c o n d e z
- y r r e i . i r r o l c o a g o i h b e r f t e t
a t e u r n d a C o n f C U o
- )
- t
; ey n t r . c 5
_ aoo C gN 4 C 1 1 ( - (1llifii!l,!
_ _ _ _ . - _ ______ _ ____ _______ ~_-_ . - - ._. _ _. - . - - . . ._ - _ _ . = _ . - . . . - _ . _ . . -
.. d Cate- ,
TUEC Action Required; if none, gory the basis for not requiring fio . Category Title Potential QA/QC Breakdown Characterization of Violation action on the part of TUEC
= *17 Concrete sampling If the scales at the 9
batch plant were tampered , with as alleged, TUEC may . , not have had adequate QC , control at the batch plant. I I , N i l i n > i - j l ' ____ i I i
- Copies of these SSERs were provided on January 14, 1985 to Cliff Hale of the QA/Qg ' Group TRT, for evaluation from the ,
t l QA/QC perspective. t i i l l l \ r 1
- l. .
( l l j . t
e , C t"n U O C uJ T w C*D
-as h~
,\
.gc r
Y't uae O -
-Oa GJ
- &"e
<t -J-I ab5 -
= = 3: a-e y1 U i 4'.23 [ r. Q CJ u M L@u 2 s5* i C r O = ; 1 m O 1, s ~ O C O t
- m i -
- u i
2 b . M ,
. u ,
- m
.C
_. v e 3W - C,
- u - a f,
.M 3e:
& Q O 588 .
.C "
h u 4 a CJ u C O a u 3 c)
=
u 8"* O- e o 2 e J ' CY 03 Cr a e C C2
- N "O "O O 'r= C ,
- ect a t u M V C CY N m D m L O
' 5 & O - e L .8 Cs e e N
.m O CJ W & "r" C a
.C & .e=
E 4 CJ C > C 4s my 3 u 3 O O r_ gj m x u u Cr
& C 4 *c-C C) h O O .C a%
= ca. m O E U # m o m F u O e, - s- Q) & CJ
*. U E u L
- 35 k b 5C O CT C
*c= 23 5 &
Di W **" ^ G) 'O D k D a m c) " O C 5 L t- .
.. Sb.
_ m -
" \
M
" ' ' ^ ' ' "
%. m . . . . ,, _ _
o =- 0 = C . D4 U , 0 Cw E Ce D L t--
%e "
= v. D4 - CT O b, = .. g L-1 " V L 4.J L' D g L e LM m e F e O C1 Y 3 C :- CT 0 - - q) Lr ?- i Er O 4.> W C C O w O g e- - W mC U mO
< 4e
= W b V O U = wee ^ D +J E. F-w K w C O E " M C b - e o b L O e W C C mt = CC N e & L k 0 . O m C k s_ to P 1 .C N y t r, d C 5 N o 0 0 C y . _ y w > 0 e DS m o y @ E m C q) o E W @ *e _ L r G b U Lh- C O C C m g a U p .- E C L .C cy % 0 CT c a # D C D N C m q y y 0 4 O O g , C L L g y 'C t CL .C
" & C .
" U #
@ tC w q) N
" D C W *
- E W Cr o g t C 4 W
_ C 0 y L 0 " O
+- 4.> C e o y 3 C D 0 u e g g 0 C r o C C C L C L W C p y uh .c o, r O
C m
\ r*=
K 0 V 4 i M t E w fi *" D U 5 - O L H > U s f ( X e & C L p c C C A C 4 e b Di L A
"~ C E- C' U U L '
~
& C U U m tC
'C C L
"' C V
E_ L) U [ C' N 5 +.> L
e 9 n gC onE niU rT fi iuf qo
;e drt e r rt a iop un
_ q_ e erh R ot f n n oso ii tsn cao Abi t Cec Eh a Ut T. n o i t a l i o V f o n o i t a z i r e t c a r a
- h 3 C
{ n e w v r . l o o a ep no e t d h e k a o i t r e y r t a p c s o i r m e g r . B o p n p t l t s i n ' C e n c d e Q e r i r e me .
/
A t o o t ! s i f f c c Q g p r o i t n e a l l n t e e p . a i d p r d i c e i e t n r s e d t t . e o u c e o e f e t n r t n n r t c o i e i s n P e e C m a o R b O O w c d e t t yi e l m l t r o e i p r T o o r y p d r m e o i l g l t e r a a t a b s C e n R i ey t s r, 1 6 ll l
K 0 C 01U O CW Ce D - L t.-
% .e-
=r= 3%
CC se q) TL4 O L kG m = *- Ok 3C O CJ CJ L .c CE OM C C OmO g ac- er-GmC UeO _ ET. .O e 9 V QJ U W .C eg D& P-5 C E O
.e-E &
#U m
O e
? >
w ..- O C O i ts * = 4 to 7 N L 0 p U
#C L
m I .C T U I
~~'
I ^ C 3 O l 9 , c y e g D D L y C' #C C e - M U o y k U L %
'O O g .,. O e G e CJ T gj % m 3 T C 4 L C g , W g o L
- g. CD D g vi c , y g b U E "
C V * .c y C
*C M
- h e C Cn 3
- C L O e e
< L p g C O C w E O "O
- c3
- C 3 > U re Cl C m, q y G GJ .e- q) L 8U P"" Q- p g f0 U
CJ .C 4 Q, c) QJ .Q U U sn O
*" "O L q) c *
- W k M b y y % CJ .c % e,C- c, C 4 t Wm *** > 3
- O C c) g g a se c; gy g
- O u y L .C z ,c 0 U C C a .C. p .,o-
' b C O g g U o ,e h O M - D E y g c; se O C % to a E .c ac O U
.e.
ID CL G3 GJ m L O C M g O
**= t -
H W 0 ,C w w & y tC h L w G)
- U O L U
- e-O L U ** %
OJ M C V *e CT, W c; C O U O _ m C T & L e C m U
- U g a U C% U m D C g O C l
a ~ fu h . wL ro O o n U
.. - - - .W
t i ate- TUEC Action Required; if nohe, nry the basis for not requiring
- 3. Category Title Potential QA/QC Breakdown Characterization of Violation action on the part of TUEC Improper testing Concrete compression test 3
i
' !'# %U.
/ "L O.v' ' *-
m.-jC T6:.,O. g'he.
~
6-v^A* . +- e- + .w few
". -- .JsM6 . 'f.M. c*:iY.55.1'@
may have been run at a M..M . .'$f .yW. 5 klS~ .:g _-_; /
%.p..['W.-'",
_%. . - r .% - . ". < -; Nm . l~
"4'
; ; . , , . .A.
s
' N .NN,
%,.*-~ w .3
; s': % - *4 .
. 9s rate faster than allowed.
. , g.f ,,; . ,.
W. g' N.b Y
- ,s.-..de. y$ g .j .. S a_ '
s -
;..J.: . . ,.i ,
- - .e. , %e g-fk,..&. ,.. >f..?t . ,6, . ~ . - 1 :< . ',g".
. . .b;% . 7 :<;;...(' ,. V 9
** .3
*, t: ,
-c..r. .e ..
.w .. :.. ,, - .; . % : . ~ ' ,. .~
w 5 ;- % .ie .. .- 3, e.w -
. w ,, . .: . ; c .', .v, -. . .z. ,;' . . ' .s ' .A, p:.L A .:, i w.a ?: r : . . .: .
. ,e.r:s s <
.. wl -9
- sty,[ ,, . <*. _
_t.- .'. , . . #7 ' : ;' *, # . f > . -. .
> 4 . ..v., +
, i,1., ' , , t. 3f.
i
% N [; y ~'
, e.f, . . 8,,e 5v g-:i. my= ... : ~
-?
. w ,lv: ...q..;._.w;,a. [:.?-. . l.' .c . -'. -;w [ . JG. [' c._- .s. . .: .a r.[ , ~_- l-l:
;_ s wm-;, A+, .$y;,_ .s.- ..:.
..s. p . ,un - , 7 .t m - g. ._ _ _ ^ w..
.<3
' m . f- W - . . r; . , . -. . * , . )
- p J. , -
+ v.
w..,n..
.; . zj :
't ; . ' ' , ., s . ';' - l .'.Q'..,;
[ d:l,,s.L _ .* - pg
,_T,
. _ ; (. , . ; ,,QE ; 1.
Extra cylinders from ;-'i.'S'. 6.. a < % x Wl{ W x ..;'".
~. ag N!. A..};.;~9.0 .'--:.;S..TV ' f,;gc#3 g- g. n
. g. .. . , :: ;.
. ,. . . ,. .. . y .;n.y, acceptable placements may '
- N;h,-?.%, [O lm%. h: .,k. . . ?? + - :n ..-
;-. ?-I.y (fjf SM':..l,T- [ .}. '
i
, c. .
have been switched to %g4q j ... t - V%g$*. s3_ V$ ~2% 'J.A,,. W.,.".A, u.- A + ' %' d, .. ~f .y, >}_. '. ,. ' ..i
.es ,5 e W., . ,.:- ";^ V, .R.
. . . e-5
. -y j . -.*e g e_ ~
' -o. ._',n other placements. ,ws e 9..; g:n.-
%; IMyc; . M,, 44:%w. F.2.:
vmw.. ww.,p.r~-61-R e, . m :,0,, .;H, .x e.m. i %Q4 am : /; .' *i ..< 3. ,fl_
.w ..~.e}.;
p . , ,. x 4 n.~. .g -y e ..w~...- k b ,l - , . Y.' ,, .
. f. _, l. ? .<,.,
' ,Q y.
.%r > p,? '4 .h 7:n - &:;-. V: ~ :*.%.-; , % -
- f. ;wg'<f,i:,.*
w= s.-,z I ~ -nV~ y. ,.g n y ,, ~ - - . 2 t.,", ; . . : .'-:'y s
. , : .y .-
.+ G 2 6 .y.. ; . *
.,.[ ,. :". - +%.y .' " .- ;'~
, . .L Tkk' .Gh h_ . ,
f.'. h.f a.x; p.s > .. ' 4.s a, e L v.. if. w.. m... x, ; .:,.. m,. . y...
-. , r% ;...,.. .,s-
.. .. , . . -,,. Af ..
c : F .? ,7 i _ v:.e .- v.. &. .a ,,--nn , .
.. w
' :=-.;' '
> sh.r?pf - ::..:..
9 : 4.;._ . , ' [f ~ .?] _.'l- f. A,.~$}-h.:. ?.1.Q
&r s t.h T..p_f_h'-lml . s.e._ : #e.-:> - ~ . n
. w.. s, .
3
- m. ,. m,.n:. a u .*. ., v.. ~. ' ' =.' 4.a .. , = :n. ;- .
'. 4.' ,.%W b +' .. ,.. . , .. ' , .. 4 i)# . Le . :k -
. t '.'.: 16
- _w . .,
.V:. ;.., .;- hst,di:4 M.2 pa,,gg .f gA.$..t,
%. , . y+,;. _ .i% < -' n': ;u,-
s. T .ga e. ed.?- .
% ... , *k ,'f-a., . - e -
q 14. , %..... g.'~- s. . -:"- 3.,_, ._$ .,
- h. \ '.$" A
- f. ~' . ~~I x . Y,' ~
faM Q.k . R.k W '[$?l'? % !...:i.. .%;% & ::..r u..: %: ^ T ,:t . f. .. l .;t *; f.h . :. i: b
. dc
'T- bWt-k &. :Q Y.t ;. ..'ffh. f,jt.:h. _ ;~r xy.3.<
o - - -
. l:5': %,:,:*;.i. , "r ,
&.g p &,,,. f f.3 _'N ..
e ( s namnmwasmwwm
- -, _ aW ,-. '~
, I
[I . ' l E EM l I812 n.
)
- Cr, c o l *5 5 E 8't i a +* "
c8 2
- '<, o e \ Y G l: g EM E
8 m O 8 I 2U s' b
-8 8e
% EIt E 2 *'
g tO i g-- . 2
- EIt
~
E-
- 22*
L 2t8 5 g"E . t
' iEo 5 2 %52 e
o -$ : 3 5. E 55e b 8,
$F$
s;E B u %e 0
$t
$b.
-.c- -
. . . _ ~ . . . ., .... ... ., . .e. . ;. _.- < qt f .g h, l._ .;'2 " ' '.f. h ' R%, l[* < .L,.5 Y
.'t y. t .? f.Q :: ?' l -.jW
_; y , . w wU C Cw ( %[; . & g-.f : "lA M - ,'L
.. e
~
~'
, . %. l :'j: . ;* %;,lfy
. ~ - -
f - l
'j}V - . -- .y U
;n
;.i o *- :D r '.vc (g, e e rV .- .s V f - .~ ..
'Q L 44'.4.N _ ff.; ..3 ,'. l 3 ?., Z. g'.1.
C ,' & ,. :;p .% ~.~;p .. , * .: . ,3 W[,:\;., . ;.[.;y, c.c s , s, y 4 ::, y' .y ; ,.. .,:* . . ; : } ':t,..
^ ' ~
u - : .. -
+ cr o ....,
,. t j t - g ',,,;_- .
.- .. . pr, -
^ . .; ' 7.
@e
^-a e
.[uL :*.W '. ;: ~;g
- l. .w., .W,.. g ; ;' '-) f_' J. s y,j. _ p.gl?s .
. . .% ' p; ...q, ,. + .: b(.,Ay'-c
,\.. .
t wem h}A '. .
,y s.v .s . e.; 4 ...
.+ :
uoa qL.:.u .,_:-
~..4. e. .
c.i
..e -
.. , .'. . . > 4. (; ,,3 :
d.'3. .;.--
; z .em. , .s. . y _.
m _u, . F.
. - ;..s '. :
L,.;' Y
-C
. .._ .,..+ > fy .) . . *i -. ;. .~. : .'":.
7,
. . . +;
p;.%:4 ' :
. :> w . ~ . . . , : + .; . . - -
~. .s v.
$o{ L
. yh. f..c. . y,&, i "..;.
- . . m ..: f., ,.+c.;.-
,.; i,-k:...' ? .N< ~ b.x-.. .D . : k, ,e^'. [ ,. $ l ege.,? .N 1....qJg i , n -w.g,.y.p-a+ -
C 3. y . . ,. V',q.,; .- . , . . . n. , .c.. ..a.. "
.. p .: %< , .a ~. .(O z ' , .s .v . n w.m.r .ew
.a ,
C mO .. .s . w- - 4 - ' ' ws ; f .1, '. ::. > ,:[ . - ' '. -r g, .s - - .~..,,m. ::$:g' ..Q \. , .. ,.. .*..:-4 ; ! . ...q.' .., :j ~:.A:V? L . . + p;k;, , .4\ 'j. ;. . .y e : Ow ; ~ . . . - - ; mC - w p.m. s : -
,. n' ,x. . .
...~,n.._, 4 ; . . p ' s,9, '
v ,. , a.3
- ~
u$Sa yA% .. .. .l.f. -} } -w> D .?
. .~l 'g3 w- L: .c . - . ' :j jgf :[f,'Sh lWY l:
'qh,. ::g: .an.t f.. ;l<,7:. l4'.' , .
i: &g..l ~ . .c. v. v.=,
< ,. c.c. .g, V (.:.j, ,:,':&lf f l":l..: h-l.,,u, wu _. ty e pqg. . .,.x, .a. ..: !
UN* W %' N : .h .' Y Y , f, )Q Q".A 1 ..4:' O U.;I b.tf: llWl & '
?.y
~ ', P. q . p .J.' '. ?,
3 . h+:: y q,[ ' J.? . .; [y . , - '
- x. ; ^
.[. .. . ' ,:
.- . ..g :.~
[. . .[ '; " a .. ..? ... ; , ..g s. . x' " .".t hy,' [ .,' 4 .'; k; lj' .c:;** -"
- b k . . y .n}.yM,,, i (-Yh.b.:T' y: "
,o;,. . y.w. ;,Q; y > _8.. :
. w. ~.
;. . : .? i w:.-,e.:e<._'v.:u q u . ; . y'. ws. :. . ,p. g i y )" p.' '; ~ PM p.1-(% ,
C y', .;4 ',
.- u ' . . - -
~...s '- < . ,
.o%.
S.
. *. ' ' ' ' .:. . . 1,. ', ,Nu: . 2F .h J : C, ...g D ' t-
,e l 1
.,o &p> .%,,, ,:s : -; ,y .4. .
..e,, ~' * :-)
- 'v ,. f, ' , . . .
.'., , .3.'
i ' g#. ," f4, ',f . ; ; .'Ye 4,.:
, d. g S et '( , .
w . . . .,, d. p D... y .- . .e - (4 .,:. . ,+ ..4p.,!u ' s
. ,. . ^g t a . ..+....... - .--< ',. .o r ,
m [...'..3'.L.-
.~
.3
. .c; . ..
- _. - <
- b... >}. .. < .. g g
- n q, n g
- L. . i. . . . - .
n . ' . *', .'! -
- 4. i ' * .
~
Tr. S g i b
'e- :
.. ? f. . .
i*l - il W A.s, L . ' ? : [
. Y .0 $ . ,. *:'.'n I:*s'.a&
I
.h,' .
Qi*f
$f$ f' .
~
'Uh' y ,1, ' ' I .\.'.0'; JX, i5 so
.. , , *:.s.,,: . .*,.
O ' '
- s'. ;; ,.s s ' ,, . ; c (' . ' , .:
Q }r , " ' _ '
- r
', f' :'- " %g j' O., 4! .%s '
k -F k - '"'h " ,
'#' H "a"" O ~~(
C $' A' - 2.St E
\
~
',t' W I' N P b
' ? - +
* 'M '
*W i' h' Y O -
- f 5 p C.i:I 'le .. , ? . ' ' ? '-?' i . % . .' .h .' ::b
' .e8,. . i , ' n. e' . .9 .:. lh[b.*
+ 1
'N i ?(" apf ..):$iN..AY
.y . ; t. . . '; \,y". L
,G." % j .
u ly&' .a '? ..c .%n;',.% ' ;. : . ' ;, u
.' . W. . pje" .*m. e s -'.Q ;i.
a ,e yd m <v..- t L e fi
- ~
',y g.e y .;
w$m % ,;3f. ::,. , M .: Y , .yQ
'v,Q Y f '% 's h &p *'.
m s _n .va : . , . ,h. ,.,\ . ,
.: . >:'yf
.u ,m. .
- . g.. .. .x n .4.g t.
s .< y ,.
.N 'Q. : .-[j .--'s $,$
1 L b ! [k , . ' . ' . . . , .'# 4 _.f.~h . . 'h . V'[ . xs w . . g ; ,. r. : 4' n c . - .u s u .m.f*a 3 n4lp v. . p,
- ..,v .m .,w.m. .
4 4.p g. .
- s. .
- f. p y. ..,
,y.
3
. ~ q :. .
U *
+-; V; ' ;f . v. . s . D. d',7 ; y A... ^ . iL' 5 _ ..( ,y g : ;g. y. g~4, y ;.
m
. - ',?.,'.
1. 1; g'm ,/qt ,e 6 a w.w ; f. y; . ., y ..s g y n j, q.! y , . v
- 4. g; , . , , ,
- 4 g g ,l . j
, . < .j h y ; ,
' .?
@ f } . . L I f C k'. i 3 A O %
*O o @.
M w ;) m eu e & W. G .c C m c. .? r L W o . . b E * *( , - @ *"m U L , e 7 CT 3 > t . . .M'
% m o e u ;
^
< C L D >
CY w aw 'd
*
- W
- - e o - h L -
X ,.
- L ,,0
- Q - -
C m u 3 Y)- t- u ,o % , O w- - - Y
- T - 3 e $.
O a e g t i A U a @ e '9 CY to & R ii
'(. .d E
h v M , @ s.'...; h h 6 - - m ; G y E e a e W D Q
~
= O e
-.+
h L U ; L C O e-.- o (p
@ C e '
O L U p' C W e j ^ m C 4 - U O O V V e QI h .3
. u L. . %
e ..
'M
eo m .. . .- p ~* ..._. , '**',.[-.
. . . . .- g ;, -
,.2 l} ;'
h,n
@ CFi U ., .s &' W -Q Q t & ?, UN.l W f' S &,, l,:l", $or...k,.c.,Q :;.u
- s - ' ' % -Ihl l.f &.y; _QW* X
~ k ' ' .' . ~(-~.
C CW O-w
-V O O ., ' - e 8,.;- ; ' '. )
....'".'s*.'..l' i J'
. . :.::s<. '"'y._.
- - J' ' M[ "% i,.
7 .; .
' A C,L& . .. L. . . 3.l."&~e,j 71.'... .' \. ' g; e* ' .
y y' , ~. :&;.y. C'....
.p, , , , +. +.g.'- .. ,; ,v -
-*..1 .. . ;..
%~ 3%
- g. . -
y; 4. g(J.?
. .. . . .#p. .
- y. - , . , ,.-.. , ~ . , ' ..' '
+, .
.,.y. . .
t
- .. '. e.
). ,.,;i . . ;,y U G .~.;t h
~ . . ..,. <
% ' :;}'ery *. ' .-
- a; s <
...;g,
.i g
,p.,-
'.\.:
w- .,.;. ' s ;* - C7 O M L}.%.; : , ..&... -
,be. ,
. ...? ;T l .- .** ' - -: ' :. . ~., '
,.i
.s..' ,
y .
<,...,....c
. , , . . s- '
. c "e, . 'Q(;..
c.
.uo y w. n;-
r ...,. :. . . .1 e. 1
.::.': ~-
y g -
%.: ..7.2.- g. :
. . . . . ' , ,. Q . . - y: -. v 's ; < . * ~: . * / ' ' ;a t.
.i ...?-.. ' -. :- '.~ ::,
.'vp p+W.' s. %~.r: , '. ,.,?.q.? ,h 0~m
. y.[. v . f: ' ;+..g, . . .n;
k O CL, - .,
..- ~s ?
O ' :' Y'. el
*C ,
L'.. -.' "-'
~- - . - ' -;'s: Y- a 's F
* ~ ' - ' -"'A < '- '
bu2 W- - VY. ;r,. f'.g:v Q S - {:.'!,.'. ? : l. .> I .. ' T ? ) b D'T; gj & o ? W OM ex s cmo c
&'L,.sy' i
>m w ,..Y:y..s.. 4,...
. A .:
e - W~ .y-, - - ' f.,p?-. f'e ,p',wg . y , . .
.y ..-
- A - -.% . y+-'..nv.
e x 4, p ,:.;.: g _.}}r > 4-
, . W4 U 2. s4* * , . c'.".. .-. .1; 3p .,G.' pc
'.. 1 p. z. w/ m
.y.
- 3. , . ^4 Oe
.e- mc g ;, , .,
. g, . . . ; ., , ; .
, g,. a
,' ,: f r g .r a , *
,r,. . . . ,,,. ..f...+
y .,
,][>c l;. 4
,,6 .
., .g. j :'
- qQ4 '.g .,.y.
, ?
*4- . . ,
. .g4,. . , * %. f,
.g W.- p;3 v y e
Wp n ' k . I w y' ; r .eT.f. . , .c.. ;.,,*...+ W , s. .- '. 9 .
' %. ..***,..d..
' c( , *. ';
s- yQ+Q:.~'
. e- $; . '
%Y.f>
m yL ?:'i,;.mq. ... L y; . .'.& :. ;-g,.; i ' W.- , *
, 93 ; .>; .
. .'~ .. ? : - - - '
..c .
- i; p,]\t . ,? y; ji. y k
,.? Q
- f. O(. , [ ..
y_, p 24y* . . :
,l j.(, .; , ?,&4
,6 4Nt , ; . .* ~
~'% .V. m,. M . .,.
- p. . . . .
. {'.'.'.a . . . . . f.., .~
.i
$ . . .'.' . . % .%. . ... . .h . g. ,
- 4. 4. .%
C
.>s. .
O '4 'rE. ' ' )- ' f ; '. ' ' ' *.
- W: , L l4l l .: .' 'T".' l ..s'
, y ..
e j $1.1 ,J - : p - ;9
-b
.'f ., f .- 7 , ' f, ; , , "
'> > b ' ?.'
- f*~ ' % W'.i ,* i.
r u,n
- w. : . r-,
..,'7 '. -t/ ;* , t +; -
n > b . . . q: ';.. . #,. . . . y . . r . ;, . ; ; - . . , , K. ; c ...+ <- , ,. . -
.y .;
'x..%- .- )
n, . . < . . (qt,fWgSm - . 7%'; .g_ y- 71
..86y<
. a.f 6 ', .. t- (-Q pg. ' , ly ,t. ' .m & ]' g- '4 } g ,4 g O ' u . 6,,- l
- il g ::f,$; .~ .., L, , , . '4sp h I '. 1.(. O .,. .Q .
<. ' 7,n
--m \.f'.,,..) ' % [.[ ,,,.
.I ..
p'. f1-. m. l ' . 9, . ' . : ' +-f..- .yt . . :Ni. .. U QTN,Wl r' . 1C ' ^ ' .+~. .' nN / h,, " t
< * - : . <n..
%. tg%-f. N ' ; 'A. o
.1.- p, L ; .. * - .i .. . .. ' .. - %. '; ' xc.. 4..: =
O ...'-
& r a.~l A . . . . :.. l. ,l .
h -' ' J*
?w.
C
. . l; C. ;w x ,+F
,s&a ..
?p .- .
..l -}+ ^
4: j.
. i. l .. ;..lc'N.. . n . .tf WW
- 2 . .
.' ;':~ 'a: .j O --* "
k ;Q'.'3 '..Lg'i , , ka cf ;te,* : f W ;*~ ,
- ?, w a V&' Q }.l l.s. 2.
'\ \
g' , .' .4
- .e N
\. s -f,. Q LlJ: , i : f y>
' I $. . I,. ! l * ' '
. : l lh :M
._...v JV:' p s .u . .. 4... . . .-f. ..L.;.- ;- ) k -r
- M
_, w' e. ,G l . -...,_. v.kLl., .. . '.. <- . . ..' '.' ; .: ,
'.. ; ', ' -.f;},7 -
- 6 .c'*.. .
L ,
- c. y :. . . , . >. .. , _.3
,%.g s *,
hu Y 4.t Q '. :- - - se . , . . .. ", . . t ' .c - + . n..u ('.'..
? .,-
i['. b ' 7.j c c .k h, ,t l,. .. .. . f m
- 4. :. w ) { ~
ea h g., y'~.O w n. .n ; . . '. . .I $ v4 5; [.'[ ' +., ' . ,, .. f. .U - )g
.,~
b$ v.. ,).,w_ ); a. . > -.se.* p. 4-( ;. .:
- n$. .. .. t . .
L
+ ? Q.
e, n n_t
..&. , v.
.' u
.> 4 ,4. -
4 m ., . .- .; . ,-
,,h f f W i.*g:.' 7 ' ' , ' ' M '...
, , . , ' . fy' ' ?
p,' 7. 4 m y@fgp
.dy-7'
^
i
. . .M ..'
Ot 4 . C .be 3: . O - ' t o - 9' M O C - M m C w #c L W C t i'
' E o s CD C fc v 0 =.*
g L c L . U 0 CT Q Cn rc O O 3 U }@'g N L e *
< O CL m t *vv O > .,
c 44 s. de U O "m
.c o o.,CE (
" h 0 p .,-
og Ly ?2
- ec > o kj C E - 0 -
w 0 Q U 4 L mO e Q$.1 O L c I-o> em a m L C1- o w l'n#
.C % e ./.
q \ >- 0 0 3 .c - n .. ET N CB t-e IU O W h ' 0 L . m mm 3 %e-F W W u
- E -
& O U o s i.
C C w g i. h L Q H L e .-
- 9. . ;
O & v L g 01 O - o rg W k % .c a
.c
& W 4 c;
.y 80 C "O O L U C re LJ t w
>=~~ .; O 't 1 N
O h C e- % e O .. O 99 E *' 4,.;
.f};_i-_';;.
^
l $ f,._X'[ 5 5 % k w j': G n: ~ , 'l_' L I; ~I ;; ' ;-l + :.6-yd%f;-Lkqfk'3f,,_'f; .;ll7 ll;.g jR? __. l : '_ _; .' _ l _g. Cr.te- TUEC Action Required; if none, gory the basis for not requiring No. Category Title Potential QA/QC Breakdown Characterization of Violation action on the part of TUEC ' i 1 l17 Concrete sampling If the scales at the batch plant were tampered with as alleged, TUEC may not have had adequate QC control at the batch plant. a f
i Allegation Summary
- 1. _Ca tegory No. : 1 TRT Members: J. Devers/R. Philleo
- 2.
Subject:
Inadequate Materials Used In Concrete
- 3. Summaay of Allegations:
AC-16: basemat Rejected aggregate was incorporated in the t e Unit I reactor. AC-19: (Unknown) Truck drivers added unauthorized quantities of water to concrete used in the basemat. 3 ~ AC-20: Rejected concrete was placed in the Turbine Generat Building. AC-21: (Unknown) Concrete with excessive slump was placed. AC-27: (Unknown) Contained no new allegations; it merely reiterated those already made. AC-47: oncrete was placed in the Circulating Water Intake Structure a'fter the concrete was rejected for being over specification limit on time.
- 4. _ Region IV's
Conclusions:
AC-16: ii6Flie substantiated.The NRC Region IV investigation concluded the allegatio AC-19: As a result of the corrective action initiated because of adding water without approved supervision and signature in response to the IE citation (Report No. 75-10) and in consideration of the requirement for zeroing of the water meter and the provision for additional water temper, the allegation cannot be substantiated. AC-20: The NRC Region IV staff detemined that although the falsification of test records may have occurred, no impact on the safety of the structures could be identified. This detemination is based on the miniscule amount of concrete involved and on the following facts: the strength of the concrete was detemined by concrete cylinder compression strength testing to meet specifications; the field tests for slump and air content met specifications; the unifomity of batching assures similarity of properties. AC-21: Considering the fact that the alleged discrepancy involved only a quarter of an inch, and the fact that a review of the records indicated that this small amount did not influence the running average. Since the concrete in question was being pumped, a reduction of slump would be expected to occur through the pipeline. This factor alone would reduce the reported slump to a value under 4 inches.
~
c 636
Category 1 AC-47: Not investigated by the NRC Region IV staff.
- 5. What TRT Had Done:
AC-16: Examination of the concrete basemat placement record packages. AC-19: Examination of all 258 batch tickets in concrete placement TUTl781-001. AC-20: Examined a random selection of 65 concrete placement packages. AC-21: Review Gibbs & Hill (G8H) Specification 2323-SS-9, Rev. 4, TectTon 5.2. AC-27: Contained no new allegations. AC-47: Examined 51 Circulating Water Intake Structure concrete placement pac kages.
- 6. TRT's
Conclusions:
AC-16: Not Valid - If nonconforming aggregate was used in the basemat of the Unit i reactor, it did not adversely affect its concrete properties. AC-19: Not Valid - TUEC violated procedure CCP 10, paragraph 4.10.5.6, but any water which was added to the concrete was within the specified limits. AC-20: Not Valid - In their examination of the random samples of concrete placements in the Turbine Building, which is a non-safety related structure, the TRT found no evidence of irregularities. AC-21: ' Not Valid - Batch placements were within tolerances specified b'y CTH, and the TRT found no documentation that these slump requirements had been violated. . AC-4 7: Not Valid - Since the batch tickets state that none of the rejected concrete batches were placed in the Circulating Water Intake and that the Circulating Water Intake Structure is classified as nonsafety-related, in accordances with the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) (Volume IV, Section 3.2), the TRT concludes that the allegation is without foundation. , 7. Action Required: None.
'N.
- ...mm_ _
,M
Allegation Summary
- 1. Category No.: 2
_TRT Members: J. Devers/R. Philleo
- 2.
Subject:
" Concrete Placements
- 3. Summary of Allegations:
AC-22/( " Bad concrete work" and " sloppy" placement of AC-23: concrete. AC-50: E'uTTding. u " Soupy" concrete in a slab in the Auxiliary
- 4. Region IV's
Conclusion:
No investigation by Region IV.
. 5. What TRT ilad Done:
AC-22 & AC-23: Reviewed 22 concrete placement packages from random. AC-50: 2790-003;Reviewed concrete placement packages: 022-2785-001; 002-002-2790-004.
- 6. TRT:s
Conclusions:
AC-22 & AC-23: Not Valid: In its records review the TRT found some discrepancies in concrete placements that were identified and resolved have merit. by established QC procedures; for those cases, the allegations However, the discrepancies found are not uncommon in concrete work. The TRT walkdown showed that the discrepancies were resolved and that the concrete shows no degradation. AC-50: The TRT investigated the specific allegation concern
" soupy concrete" by reviewing all the relevant concrete placement packages and found the allegation to be unfounded. The alleger may have beenportion for a small unaware that of the mortar had been authorized in lieu of conc structure.
7 Action Required: None.
Allegation Summary
- 1. Ca tegory No. : 3 TRT Members: J. Devers/R. Ph111eo 2.
Subject:
Poor Weather Conditions for Placement of Concrete
- 3. Summary of Allegations:
AC-24: (Unknown) the approval of QC. Concrete was placed during a rainstonn without AC-35: before freezing weather. Concrete was placed during or immediately AC-52: Field-curr.d and laboratory-cured cylinders TaTled speci cation requirements.
- 4. _ Region IV's
Conclusion:
AC-24: The allegation relative to concrete placement on the dome of Ur.it 1 is essentially correct and fs evidence of a breakdown in the licensee's quality assurance program. AC-35: There are no regulatory or industry prohibitions on placing concrete in' cold weather conditions. The NRC Region IV Staff vf sually inspected each of the placements in question for evidence of damaged concrete end found none. AC-52: Not investigated by NRC Region IV.
- 5. What TRT Had Done:
AC-24: Examined concrete placement 101-8805-013. AC-35: Examined concrete placements 101-2808-001 and 105-2773-001. AC-52: Examined cylir' der compressive strength data.
- 6. TRT's
Conclusions:
AC-24: Valid - But the Unit 1 dome was proved sound both by ultrasonic testing and structural integrity testing. - AC-35: Valid - But the sections of concrete alleged to have been exposed to freezing temperature at an early age were shown by in-
- place strength tests to have substantially the same strength as concrete whose protection was not in doubt.
- AC-52:
Valid - But the field-cured test cylinders demonstrated adequate protection for the type of concrete placed, with the exception of one slab in the Safeguards Building, Mich was shown
Category No. 3 by Schmidt Hanner Testing to be adequate. The allegation relating to laboratory-cured cylinders was found to be a misunderstanding of the design strength of the concrete in question. The required design strength was 2500 psi. The laboratory-cured cylinders in question in all cases exceeded the 2500 psi requirement.
- 7. Action Reauf red: None.
O e t'
. ) ws
.' l DCP7 cat 4 allegation _ Allegation Sumary
- 1. Category No.: 4
_TRT Members: J. Devers/R. Philleo
- 2. _
Subject:
Concrete Voids / Cracked / Crumbled
- 3. Sumary of Alfegations:
AC-25: Hollow places existed in concrete behind the stainless steel liner in Unit 1 Containment Building. AC-28: during the construction of the spillway. Fresh concrete was placed on to _AC-32: (Unknown) The repair of a 20-foot x 20-foot honeycomb area located in Unit 1 Auxiliary Building was inadequate. AC-33: (Unknown) TuTiding. Cracking existed on floor slab concrete in the Plant AC-34: (Individual "A") Voids found in the walls by tapping with a haniner and listening for a hollow sound. DC-008: Compartment (N/A) Void identified in Unit 1 Reactor Building Steam Generator wall. _DC-009: 002-7810-002,(N/A) Embedded foreign material was located with a flex drill in
- 4. Region IV's
Conclusions:
AC-25: but with the exception that it was Unit 2, instead The on Unit 1.The deficiency had been detected and documented within the context of the licensee's quality assurance system. AC-28: Not investigated by the NRC Region IV. AC-32: The NRC Region IV Staff determined that the allegation was based on factual events that had been detected and documented within the cont of the CFR 50.licensee's quality assurance system as required by Appendix B to 10 AC-33: merit. The NRC Region IV Staff determined that this allegation had no effect on structural integrity. Hairline surface cracks in concrete are. not
Category No. 4 . j- 'AC-34: The NRC Region IV Staff detemined that the allegation was based on an inference that a hollow sound indicates a hollow wall which was t shown to be an incorrect inference. The allegation is thus without merit.. DC-008 &'DC-009: Not investigated by the NRC Region IV Staff.
- 5. What TRT Had Done:
- AC-25:. The existence of the voids and the required repair procedures are documented in design change authorization No. 6663.
- AC-28: Reviewed concrete placement packages of the Squaw Creek Dam siiTTTway.
AC-32 & AC-33: 1-The 20-foot x 20-foot honeycomb area in the Auxiliary Building and the cracks in the concrete basemat were documented and repaired in accordance with approved procedures. AC-34:' Reviewed EiTTaing walls. NRC Resident Inspector's report concerning voids'in DC-008 reports and &'DC-009: correctiveThese action deficiencies taken. were documented on nonconformance
.6. TRT's
Conclusions:
AC-25: The allegation of hollow places behind the stainless steel liner liTTEe undergoing Unitrepairs. 2 reactor cavity is true and the hollow places are currently AC-28: In the absence of a specific allegation, the TRT reviewed documentation for several placements done in cold weather and concludes - that the protection was adequate.' In addition, the allegation has no safety significance, since the spillway is not safety-related. AC-32: The allegation of honeycoming in the Unit 1 Auxiliary Building is true and the repairs made were in accordance with approved procedures. Therefore, the allegation has no safety significance. AC-33: While the allegation of cracking in the concrete basemat is accurate, it is not correct to assume that detrimental structural consequences will result from the cracks. The structures are designed to tolerate cracks of the magnitude and location of those found. 4 f ,- 3 , %wr ')'F 1y -t '. .
Category No. 4
-2_
AC-34: The allegation of numerous concrete voids was not substantiated. DC-008: The allegation of a void in the generator compartment wall of the Unit 1 Reactor Building is true. The void was filled even thou not require filling from the standpoint of adequacy of design. gh The itTRT did
. agreed after its review of the G&H evaluation of the condition.
DC-009: Although the allegation.was correct in identifying foreign material in the concrete', the area was adequately repaired so that this condition will have no impact on safety.
- 7. Action Required:
The re.nairs and the repair. documentation to the honeycoming discussed in Item AC-25 must be inspected / reviewed and approved by the NRC Resident Inspector before the TRT can determine that this issue has no safety significance. W _m - - _ _ .
~
Allegation Summary
- 1. Ca tegory No. : 5 TRT Members: J. Devers/R. Philleo
- 2.
Subject:
Miscellaneous Concrete '
- 3. Summary of Allegations:
AC-26: (Unknown) Equipment set on grout before the grout properly gained strength through aging. AC Hanger inserts were installed at improper AC-36: Concrete.(Unknown) Trash in the bottom of a fann was covered with AC-43: (Unknown) Did not include any new allegations; it merely reiterated those made in AC-26, 31 and 36.~
- 4. Region IV's
Conclusion:
AC-26: Not investigated by the NRC Region IV Staff. AC-31: The NRC Region IV Staff concluded that this specific allegation appears to be more of a design concern by the alleger, than an improper installation construction practice having been implemented by him. AC-36: The NRC Region IV investigators interviewed the individual identified by the alleger as the source of the story, who promptly denied that th'e incident took place as alleged. It was established that the source of the allegation, although employed at CPSES, was, in fact, not at work that day.
- 5. What TRT Had Done:
AC-26: Inspected all the grouted plates and the 860' and 862' elevations. AC-31: Inspected 150 anchors between 860' and 905' elevations. AC-36: Reviewed concrete placement package 101-8805-002 and Inspection Report 79-20. AC-43: See above.
- 6. TRT's
Conclusions:
AC-26: Not Valid - The grout survived the initial load application without failure. AC-31: Not Valid - No infraction of installation procedures for anchor inserts was found by the TRT.
Category No. 5 AC-36: It is extremely unlikely that a Christmas party was held at the top of a containment 200-feet above the ground in the winter, . and even if true, the containment structure concrete, including the deme, was proven adequate and acceptable in the in-situ structural integrity test. AC-43: See above.
- 7. Acting Required: None.
O e L w 1
Allegation Summary
- 1. Category No.: 6 TRT Member: Terry Langowski
- 2.
Subject:
Reinforcing Steel Was Improperly Installed or Omitted
- 3. Summary of Allegations:
Alleger: AC-30 AQC-12 and AC-37 AC-38 Unknown AC-39 Unknown-DC-003, DC-004, DC-005 No Alle ers AC-49 AC-30 No reinforcing steel was installed in a 6' x 6' section of concrete in the Safeguards Building. AC-37 and AQC-12 Reinforcing steel was installed that was not properly inspected upon receipt. AC-38 Horizontal tie reinforcement was omitted from the Unit 1 containment wall. AC-39 Reinforcement was omitted from four column faces in the EA wall of the Auxiliary Building. DC-003 (1) Reinforcing steel was omitted in a reactor cavity placement between elev. 812'-0 and 819'-0 in Unit 1. (2) B&R construction requested to change the configuration of 2 x 9 - #9 reinforcing bars from a bent to a true circular arrangement. (3) Due to interferences within the triangular columns surrounding the reactor cavity, reinforcing bar details were modified to clear. DC-004 (1) '6 - #10 additional horizontal rebars were omitted from a beam over a construction opening in the Auxiliary Building. (2) 9 - #9 and 2 - #4 additional rebars were omitted around an elevator shaft door in Reactor Building 1. DC-005 (1) 46 - #9 rebars were omitted on the face of a wall in the excess letdown heat exchanger roon in Unit 1.
Category NO. 6
. DC-005 (2) 10 - #8 additional rebars were omitted from a beam over a construction opening in Safeguards
' Building No. 1.
(3) B&R construction requested to Substitute #5 vertical wall rebars in lieu of the #8 rebars required in the Auxiliary Building. AC-49 Reinforcement was installed upside down in a building near the Unit 2 containment.
'4. Region IV's
Conclusion:
AC-30 Not investigated by Region IV. AC-37 and AQC-12. Not investigated by Region IV. AC-38 Region IV concluded the alleger was referring to an actual occurrence in Unit 2. Where it was shown that the structure was safe in the as-built condition. AC-39 The Region IV staff reviewed an analysis made by Gibbs and Hill showing the structure capable of carrying the
. loads and concluded the issue to have no safety significance.
DC-003, DC-004 and DC-005 Not investigated by Region IV since these are not allegations. AC-49 Not investigated by Region IV.
- 5. What TRT Had Done:
L AC-30 p . During an interview with the alleger, the TRT learned i that the allegation actually referred to the return pump station at Squaw Creek Dam. See Category No.12 AC-29. AC-37 & AQC-12 The TRT reviewed all the receipt inspection records for #18 reinforcing bars received in 1976 and l- detennined that three shipments of weldable reinforcing steel were received. These were all properly signed off by QC. The TRT also reviewed testimony given by the alleger wherein he stated that the reinforcing steel was subsequently inspected and signed off. w l I g ._ .
- Category No. 6 AC-38 The TRT reviewed all-the concrete placements for the Unit 1 Containment wall and determined that all the reinforcing steel was placed as required. The TRT also reviewed Inspection Report 79-25 and the calculations-made pertaining to the actual occurrence in Unit 2.
AC-39 The TRT reviewed an analysis made by Gibbs and Hill engineering investigating the load carrying capability of the columns without the missing reinforcing bars. AC-49 The TRT reviewed the transcript of a Region IV interview with the alleger wherein he stated the problem had been corrected prior to concrete placement.
'* ~
DC-003, DC-004 and DC-005' ~ The TRT reviewed documentation pertinent to the issues such as drawings, calculations, nonconfomance reports, design change / design deviation authorizations, and concrete pour packages.
- 6. TRT's
Conclusions:
AC-30 The allegation referred to the return pump station at Squaw Creek Dam. AC-37 & AQC-12 Based on the fact that the reinforcing steel used was accepted by QC, this issue has no safety significance or generic implications. AC-38 The TRT concluded that the horizontal shear bar reinforcement was placed in the Unit 1 containment wall as required and further agrees with the conclusion drawn in the Region IV inspection report 79-25 that the allegation refers to the-Unit 2 containment structure where it was shown that the structure would be capable'of carrying the design loading with the reinforcing steel in its as-built location. The TRT concludes this issue to have no safety significance. AC-39 - Thu TRT reviewed the computations made in the Gibbs and Hill analysis and agrees with their conclusion that the structure would be capable of carrying the design loads in the as-built condition. This issue has no safety significance. DC-003 (1) The TRT cannot determine the safety significance of this issue until an analysis is performed by TUEC verifying that the reinforcing steel in the as-built condition is acceptable.
Category No. 6 (2)and(3) Changes made to the reinforcing bar details are acceptable and do not effect the safety of the structures. DC-004 (1) Shoring was left in place within the construction opening until the concrete had cured makin additional reinforcing steel unnecessary. gThis the issue has no safety significance. (2) The reinforcing steel was subsequently placed by drilling and grouting. Therefore, this issue has no safety significance. DC-005 (1) The reinforcing _ steel was subsequently placed by
- drilling and grouting. Therefore, this issue has no safety significance.
(2,) The size of the construction opening was decreased allowing the reinforcing steel to be placed. Therefore, this issue has no safety significance. (3) The reinforcing steel was installed as per drawing requirements. Therefore, this issue has no safety significance.
' AC-49 The reinforcing steel installation was corrected prio.-
to concrete placement; therefore, this issue has no - safety significance.
- 7. Action Required:
With regard to DC-003(1), TUEC shall provide an analysis of the as-i built condition of the Unit 1 reactor cavity that verifies the adequacy of the reinforcing steel between the 812'-0 and 819-01s elevations. The analysis shall consider all required load combinations.
- 8. Hearings:
None of the above allegations was the subject of hearings.
Allegation Summary
- 1. Ca tegory No. : 7 TRT Member: J. I. Tapia
- 2.
Subject:
Uncontrolled Repair of Concrete Hole
- 3. Summary of Allegations:
Allegation pertains to the removal of a hilti bolt from the floor (at 852' elev.) in the Safeguards Building which resulted in a hole through the floor ich wa later repaired in an uncontrolled manner. Alleger:
- 4. Region IV's
Conclusion:
Region IV conducted an investigation (Report 81-12) and concluded, based on observations on either side of the slab, that the repair did not go all the way through the floor.
- 5. What TRT Had 'Done:
TRT agrees with Region IV's conclusion. This is based on the TRT's own observations. For purposes of conservatism, the TRT calculated the strength capacity of the slab assuming a 14" section of slab and two reinforcing bars removed.
- 6. TRT's
Conclusions:
TRT concludes that the allegation is not valid, and that repair was good. There is no safety significance based on a conservative slab , capacity analysis.
- 7. Action Required:
No actions required of utility.
- 8. Hearings:
This allegation has not been covered in the hearing.
, Allegation Summary
- 1. _Ca tegory No. : 8 TRT Member: Terry Langowski
- 2.
Subject:
Falsification of Records
- 3. Summary of Allegations:
_ Allegation Alleger AQC-1 Unknown AQC-2 Unknown AQC-3 and AQC-7 AQC-46 know AQC-51 AQC-1: Concrete 1976. air entrainment records falsified on Jan. 20, AQC-2: 1) Slump records falsified Apr1 11-13, 1978
- 2) -prior Lab tests to 1978 for concrete 10 yd} or less were not perfonned
- 3) Lab tests were signed by a Level II inspector not present at .the time the tests were perfomed
- 4) Alleger signed a pressure gauge certification he was not qualified to certify.
AQC-3: Aggregate tests were falsified (January 1976) AQC-7: Compression strength test results falsified AQC-46: Midpour test results were falsified during the placement of the Unit 1 containment base mat on Feb. 21, 1976 AQC-Sl: Cadweld tensile test' results were reported by an inspector without actually perfoming the tests during the Spring and Summ2r of 1976
- 4. Region IV's
Conclusion:
AQC-1 Region IV concluded that although falsification occurred, it had no effect on the safety of the structure since compressive strength test results were within the specification. AQC-2 (1) Region IV reviewed the alleged falsified reports, which failed to provide any meaningful information. (2) Region IV reviewed the personnel log books of a number of laboratory personnel and could not substantiate the allegation. (3) Region IV reviewed daily payroll records and could not substantiate the allegation. _J
Category No. 8
' (4 )
Region IV could not refute the allegation but concluded that since the alleger did not perform the test
. himself the issue had no safety significance.
AQC-3 The Region IV staff concluded that any falsification of
' test records on the part of the alleger would not have had a significant adverse impact on the quality of the concrete.
AQC-7 The' Region IV staff concluded that because of the uniformit
- of the concrete produced and the concurrent testing by other laboratory personnel, the allegation could not be substantiated.
AQC-46 The Region IV staff reviewed batch tickets and compressive strength test results which showed the concrete to be unifonn and adequate strength. The Region IV staff concluded and properly thebatched. concrete placement was adequately tested The allagation was refuted. AQC-51 Not investigated by Region IV.
- 5. What TRT Had Done:
AQC-1
.The TRT examined the reports that allegedly had been falsified indeed and detennined that the falsification had occurred. The TRT also examined the compressive strength test results of the concrete placed which showed the strength to be within specification.
AQC-2 (1) The TRT examined the test records and could not detennine if the results were falsified. Therefore, the TRT reviewed the results of compressive strength tests perfomed on the concrete and found the . results to be acceptable. (2) The TRT revjewed concrete placement packages for pours 10 yd or less and could not determine if the field tests were actually performed. However, compressive strength test results showed the concrete strength to be within specification. The TRT also interviewed four fomer R. W. Hunt employees who did not substantiate the allegation. (3)
& The TRT reviewed the Region IV inspection report
'(4) 78-07 and agreed with the method of investigation and concluded that the report accurately reported the results of the investigation.
W . - - - - - . - . - + , - - . - - - - , -v -- - - - _ -_-
Category No. 8 AQC-3 In addition to reviewing the Region IV inspection report
. 79-09, the TRT examined the results of slump and conpressive strength test. for the period in which the falsification ;
was alleged to have occurred. I The TRT found the results ' to beperiod. this consistent with concrete produced before and after AQC-7 In addition to reviewing the Region IV inspection report 79-09 the TRT reviewed slump and air entrainment test results of concrete placed during the period in which the
, falsification was to have occurred and did not find any apparent variation in the quality of the concrete placed.
AQC-46 The TRT reviewed the concrete pour package for the placement of the base mat and could not determine if the midpour field tests were indeed falsified. A review of compressive strength test results showed the concrete strength to be within specifications. AQC-51 The TRT reviewed the entire 440 cadweld tensile test results for 1976 and identified 30 tests that were perfomed by the inspector in question. The TRT reviewed the results of tensile tests on cadwelds perfonned by the inspectors who performed the 30 cadwelds in question and
, found them to be acceptable.
- 6. TRT's
Conclusions:
AQC-1 The allegation that a concrete air entrainment record was falsified is true. of the concrete in question was acceptable.Even so, the com AQC-2 The allegation that slump tests on April 11 and 13,1978 were performed incorrectly and that the results were falsified cannot be refuted. The TRT examined the compressive strength were within testthe results of the concrete and found that they specification. The allegation that laboratory tests for small placements were not perfonned was found to have no safety significance since in addition to the recorded laboratory tests, cylinder strength tests were also perfonned to demonstrate adequate strength. In addition, interviews with former R. W. Hunt employees G ' ' ~
[ Category ~No. 8 denied the validity of the allegation. The allegation that an inspector signed test results for which he could have had no knowledge was found not to be valid because no reports the could be found validated by the inspector for days alleged. The allegation that the alleger signed a pressure gauge test which he was not qualified to certify was found to have no safety significance since
~
the alleger did not actually perform the calibration.
- AQC-3 The TRT cannot refute the allegation that concrete
- aggregate tests were falsified. Howevero concrete placed during the period cited in the allegation was consistent with concrete placed before and after. ' AQC-46 The allegation that midpour tests were falsified during the placement of the Unit I containment mat cannot be refuted. However, compressive strength test results indicate that the concrete placed was of high quality. AQC-51 The allegation that cadweld tensile tests were falsified cannot be refuted. If this falsification did occur, the structural integrity of the exterior wall .of the Unit 1 containment well was not violated because (1) the tensile test results of other cadweld test specimens, performed by the 21 cadwelders, were found to be satisfactory, (2) the cadwela rejection rate for each cadwelder is at an acceptable lwel, and (3) the containment structure met all crit? cia for displacement and cracking control when subject to 115% of design pressure. Accontingly, all of the above allegations have neither safety significance nor generic implications. AQC-7 The allegation that compressive strength test results were falsified cannot be closed at this time. The issues regarding air content and slump as well as other allegations discussed strength test above results. were resolved on the basis of the concrete Due to the importance of the , concrete strength test results, the-TRT concludes that L auditional action by TUEC is necessary to provide confirmatory evidence that the reported concrete strength test results are placed.indeed representative of the strength of the concrete
, ,- ,,- n , ,,-,,,.,.----n -r----,-- ,- - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - -
-e ,,
e ., : .._ - .. .. ... . . Category No. 8 l
- 7. Action Required:
TUEC shall detemine areas where safety-related concrete was placed between January 1976 and February 1977 and provide a program to assure acceptable concrete strength. The program shall include tests such as the use of random Schmidt Hammer tests. The. program shall include a caparison of the results with the results of tests perfomed on concrete of the same design strength in areas where the strength significant of the concrete variance is not in strength questionned to detemine if any occurs.
. 8. Hearings:
None of the above allegations were the subject of hearings. A t
Allegation Summary
- 1. Category No. 9 TRT Member: Terry Langowski 2.
Subject:
QC Inspector Training and Qualification
- 3. Sumary of Allerations Allegation ,Alle er
- AQC-9 g Recertification were ofthe given during inspectors tests. was by "open book" examinations and answers
- 4. Region IV Conclusion
. inspection report 79-09
' No specific investigative effort was pursued. The matter of qualifications and1977.
detail during March certification of R. W. Hunt personnel was reviewed in The details regarding the resulting noncompliance citation and subsequent licensee corrective action is contained in inspection report 77-02. The Region IV staff could not verify the validity of the stated allegation beyond the oral statements given.
- 5. What TRT Did The.TRT reviewed Region IV inspection reports (77-02 and 79-09) and personnel records of former R. W. Hunt employees.
The TRT also examined and found the concrete to be of uniform quality. concrete data
- 6. TRT's Conclusion The alleger's work prior to the recertification tests was found to be This would indicate that the alleger possessed suffic conduct the laboratory tests properly. Also a review of concrete data management records which showed the concrete to be of uniform quality was contributed to by a number of inspectors whose qualifications are not questioned.
significance. Therefore, the TRT concludes this issue to have no safety
- 7. Action Reg: None.
- 8. Hearings The above was not the subject of hearings.
Allegation Summary
- 1. Category No.: 10 TRT Members: J. Devers/R. Philleo
- 2. _
Subject:
Improper Testing
- 3. Summary of Allegations:
AQC-4: Re unused on lab shelves. quired aggregate testing equipment was sitting Aqc-5,: aggregath. Shortcuts taken on tests involving grading of AQC-6 Untested concrete placed in 6600cy basemat for
.AQC-8: Cylinder compressive tests were run at a "
faster ading rate. AQC-ll: Concrete cylinders with adequate strength were used to r present other placements. AOC-48: Concrete cylinders in the Hunt Lab Moist Room were all ed to d .
- 4. Region IV's
Conclusions:
AQC-4: Based on the investigation conducted by the NRC Region IV Staff and on the fact that the test for potential reactivity was conducted in the Chicago office of R.W. Hunt prior to July 1976, which is one month after the alleger was dismissed, the allegation with respect to the potential reactivity test cannot be substantiated. LAC-5: The NRC Region IV Staff could not refute the allegation. The tests in question were of a monitoring nature and not material acceptance tests. The matter is deemed not to have an impact on the quality of the concrete. AQC-6: A review was conducted of batch tickets and test records for the subject 6600 cy placement by the NRC Region IV Staff. Sixty-seven QC test records were identified and, in all cases, the rasults were found to satisfy the specification requirements. The Region IV Staff concluded that the base mat concrete placement was adequately tested and properly batched. The allegation was refuted. AQC-8: The tests were conducted by more than seven different inspectors on a rotating job assignment basis. Since there was no wide variance in test data, the consistent batching records, and the high concrete strengths achieved, the NRC Region IV Staff concluded that the fast loading would not have an adverse impact on the safety of the structures.
Category No.10 AQC-ll: Not investigated by the NRC Region IV Staff. AQC-48: Not investigated by the NRC Region IV Staff.
- 5. What TRT Had Done:
AQC-4: Reviewed " Folder 1-Potential Reactivity, 4000 Ton Test." AQC-5: Reviewed test method for drying aggregates. A C-6: Reviewed cy basemat all the batch tickets and test records for the placement. _AQC-8 :
. Reviewed cylinder compressive strength test reports.
AQC-ll: Same as AQC-8. AQC-48: the periodInterviewed in question. a Level II Inspector, who was present throughout
- 6. TRT's
Conclusions:
AQC-4: Not Valid - Because documentation showed that all required tests for ASTM C-289 were perfonned. AQC-5: Not Valid - Because the alleged shortcut of using a hot plate is pennitted per the provisions of the specified test method in ASTM C-136. _AOC-6: required tests Not were Validperfonned.
- Because documentation indicated that all the AQC-8:
The allegation may be true, but. the fastest possible loading of test cylinders would have increased the indicated strengths by nothe of more than 6.5 percent and would have no affect on the acceptability concrete. (Violated ASDI C-39) AQC-ll: The alleged substitution of test cylinders would have affected so few cylinders that even if true, it could have no material effect on the overall test results. AQC-48: Valid - But any drying that might occur would have only a minor effect and would' produce a conservative result in that measured strengths would be lower than actual results.
- 7. Action Required: None.
e.. ,--,.. - - - _ _,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A11eaation Summary
- 1. Category No.: 11
_TRT Member: C. Hofmayer
- 2. Sub.f ect:
. Maintenance of Air Gap Between Concrete Structures 3.- Summary of Allegation:
It is alleged that there was poor workmanship regarding the use of.
~
elastic joint filler material ("rotofoam") as a temporary spacer during construction to maintain the required air space between seismic Category I concrete structures. anonymously in a telephone call on NovemberTUEC received this allegation 22, 1977.
- 4. Region IV's
Conclusion:
Region IV reports by R. Stewart.(IR 77-13 and IR 78-01). investigated rotofoam removal and concluded that inspection and documentation program initiated- by B&R was acceptable. It is noted that the program on reviewed July 18, 1978. by the Region IV inspector was subsequently deleted
- 5. What TRT Had Done: .
Reviewed available inspection reports and related documents. Discussed the subject three times with TUEC (Moehlman, Hooten, Kissinger, and Scott), including a telephone conference call with Gibbs and Hill. Conducted field investigation to the extent practical.
- 6. .TRT's
Conclusions:
(a) TRT cannot detemine whether an adequate air gap has been provided between concrete structures. Inspection records indicate unsatisfactor debris in the air gap,y conditions due to the presence of-such as woodwedges, rocks, clumps of concrete and rotofoam. The NCR issued (4 years later) to dispose of this matter is very sketchy as to what was done. It also was not apparent that the pemanent installation of rotofoam between the Safeguards Building and the Reactor Building, and below grade for the other concrete structures, is consistent with the original seismic analysis. (b) : Potential violations include FSAR Sections 3. 8.1.1.1, 3. 8. 4. 5.1 and 3.7.B.2.8; 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI Corrective Action; and, B&R Procedure QI-CP-QCI-2.4-9. 4
~ 1
-. '.~'.
Category No. 11 (c) Inadequate separation between concrete structures could alter ' the dynamic response of seismic Category I structures and in turn the systems housed within them. Thus the original seismic safety analysis of all seismic Category I structures, systems and components could be questioned. ,
- 7. Action Required:
TUEC has been required to perform inspections and provide the results of analyses.to demonstrate that seismic Category I structures,
. systems, and. components are safe in the as-built condition.
- 8. Hearings:
This-item was' briefly mentioned by R. Stewart in his general hearing board. testimony, but apparently never pursued by the hearing e e l
\
I
Allegation Summary
- 1. Category No : 12 TRT Members: J. Devers/R. Philleo
- 2.
Subject:
Concrete Constructional Deficiencies / Tolerances
- 3. Summary of Allegations:
AC-29: A spillway pillar, span or column was erected 6' to 80 of fse t. AC-30:_ No reinforcement was placed in a 6' x 6' area of concrete wall around a 24" pipe.
, 4. _ Region IV's
Conclusions:
No investigation conducted by Region IV.
- 5. What TRT Had Done:
AC-29: Reviewed concrete placement packages and examined drawings and the structure in question. AC-30: Same as AC-29.
- 6. TRT's
Conclusions:
AC-29: The TRT concludes that the allegation is not valid because a structure that was constructed at 75' to 80' offset from the intended geometry could not be accepted by inspection personnel without detection of such a significant deviation. AC-30: The TRT concludes that the allegation is not valid because the area surrounding the pipes in question could hardly be accepted by inspection personnel without confirming that all the required reinforcement surrounding the 24-inch pipe was placed. In addition, the placed. concrete placement card indicates that the reinforcement was
- 7. Action Required: None.
Allegation Summary
- 1. Category No.: 13 TRT Members: J. Devers/R. Philleo
- 2.
Subject:
Cracks in Concrete Pad Beneath the Reactor Vessel
- 3. Summary of Allegations:
o AC-44: Detrimental cracks exist in the concrete pad at the ttom of the reactor vessel.
- 4. Region IV's
Conclusion:
AC-4 4: The allegation was based on factual events that had been
- detected and documented within the context of the Licensee's Quality Assurance'Systen. The NRC Region IV Staff concluded this issue to have no safety significance.
- 5. What TRT Had Done:
AC-44: Reviewed concrete placement package 101-2812-001, NCR C650 and examined the cracks in question.
- 6. TRT's
Conclusions:
Although the allegation is correct in citing the existence of cracks, it is not correct in imputing detrimental structural consequences to them. The safety of the structure is not adversely affected by the cracks.
- 7. Action Required: None.
W e
DCP7 - Allegation Sum /14
. l Allegation Sumary
- 1. Category No.: 14 TRT Member: J. I. Tapia
- 2.
Subject:
Control Room Ceiling Elements
- 3. Sumary of Allegations:
Allegation states that field-run conduit, drywall and lighting installed in the control room ceiling are classified as nonseismic, supported only by wires,is and that the e items may fall as a result of a seismic event. Alleger 4 Region IV's
Conclusion:
Region IV addressed this allegation in Inspection Report 83-24. Their conclusion was that the items in question were not supported only by wires, but rather that the wires were a redundant high strength support system installed to satisfy the requirements of R.G.1.29. They further concluded that all three items were classified as seismic Category II (the drywall is a modified nonseismic element).
- 5. What TRT Had Done:
TRT reviewed available calculations for all seismic Category II and nonseismic the ceilin items located in the control room ceiling. An inspection of engineers.g was conducted. Discussions were held with responsible design
- 6. TRT's
Conclusions:
The allegation is considered invalid. However, in the course of the TRT's review, it was elements wasnot detemined originallythat the failure of the suspended ceiling considered. Subse modified by installing stainless steel cables.quently, the drywall was The other two suspended ceiling elements were not modified. There were no supporting calculations available showing seismic design considerations for any of the suspended ceilings. The TRT also concluded that, in the design of lighting fixtures, the rotational interaction with the suspended ceiling elements was not considered. The TRT also found that the fundamental frequencies of the supported masses were not determined to assess the influence of the !
, seismic response spectra at that elevation. i
- 7. Hearings:
This allegation was presented in an affidavit to ASLB. Board did not enter it into evidence and, therefore, was never litigated.
- 8. Actions Required:
TUEC shall provide the NRC with the following~1nformation: 1. The results of seismic analysis which demonstrates that the nonseismic items in the control room (other than the sloping suspended drywall ceiling) satisfy Guide 1.29 and FSAR Section 3.78.2.8.the provisions of Regulatory 2. An evaluation of seismic design adequacy of support systems for the lighting fixtures (seismic Category II and the suspended drywall
, ceiling (nonseismic items with modification) which accounts for pertinent floor response characteristics of the systems.
3. Verification that those items in the control room ceiling not installed in accordance with the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.29 satisfy applicable design requirements. 4. The results of an analysis.that justify the adequacy of the nonsafety-related conduit support system in the control room for conduit whose diameter is 2 inches or less. 5. The results of an analysis which demonstrate that the foregoing problems are not applicable to other Category II and nonseismic structures, systems, and components elsewhere in the plant.
Allegation Summary
- 1. Category No. 15 TRT Member - C. Hofmayer
- 2.
Subject:
Unauthorized Cutting of Rebar
- 3. Summary of Allegation undocumented and lleged that nauthorized ho es were dril ed through reinforcing steel (rebar). Neither could provide specific locations here the un thorized drilling took place.
lleged that rilled unauthorized holes through r bar during t nsta ation of th trolle process aisle rails in the Fuel Handling Building. stated that such holes may have been drilled without authorization.
- 4. Region IV's
Conclusion:
IR 83-27 (9/28/83) dressed these concerns and found th m to be unsubstantiated. allegations lacked specificity, allega-tcutting on wasofco idered unsubstantiated No. 18 rebar. since DCA 7041 a thorized TRT could agree with this if alleger
- had not claimed that holes were drilled 9 in. deep. This aspect IV.
Region of the allegation apparently was not addressed by Office of Investigation (OI) interviewed nine individuals alleged to have knowledge of unauthorized cutting of rebar and all provided sworn statements denying any knowledge of such activities (OI Report A-4-83-005, May 20, 1983).
- 5. What TRT had done: Reviewed relevant IR and OI r rts and supporting documents. Reviewed , log and had interv w with with and br4ef discussion to d Revie ed 10 CMC' and traced back gn authoriz& tion and rebar cutting drawings. Regarding allegation, reviewed DCA-7841, relevant reinforcement rawi gs and G&H design calculations and inspected the trolley process aisle rails and its anchoring system.
- 6. TRT's
Conclusion:
- a. I allegations were more specific as to who ma e un rized cuts of r r or where the cuts
'took place. names l as i
having knowledge of unauthori d cutting. Both were inter-viewed by 01 and provided sworn statements d ying the allegation. Based on interview with it was concluded that the number of alleged, if true, would have an u onsunauthorized reb r cuts on the safety of the structures, ntial effect allegation could not be closed out since if holes were actually drilled 9 in. deep, rebar would have been cut in the Fuel Building without authorization.
- b. If it can be shown that first and third layers of rebar in Fuel Handling Building were cut, then TUEC will have violated Procedure QI-QP-ll.2-1 which requires engineering approval for all rebar drilling.
C. Unauthorized cutting of rebar in the Fuel Building at the 810 foot, 6 inch floor level could affect the structural integrity of the floor slab. However, the extent of alleged cutting is not expected to have a significant effect on the overall safety of the structure.
. 7. Action Required:
Regarding Fuel Handling Building, TUEC was required to demonstrate that only the first layer of No.18 bars were cut or provide design calculations that demonstrate structural integrity if two layers of rebar were cut.
- 8. Hearings: The allegation to the hearing.
garding the uel Building is not related who is the principal alleger concerning unau orized rebar cutting, did file an affidavit with the hearing board through CASE. i 4
Allegation Summary *
- 1. Category No.: 16 TRT Member: J. I. Tapia
- 2. .
Subject:
Overexcavation and Improper Fill Under Unit 1 Containment Building
; 3. _ Summary of Allegations:
l Allegation relates to invalidation of the expected seismic response ! of the foundation due to a change in properties resulting from the k removal of in-situ mate ial and eplacement with lean concrete. Alleger: 84-006 3/7 84 f 4. Renton IV's
Conclusion:
Region 07, IV 76-05). 75-09, addressed this cor.cern in five reports (75-05, 75-06, 75-Their conclusion was that repair procedures were correctly perfonned. NRR was also involved in submitting an affidavit (0 wen Thompson) addressing the effect on seismic response. ASLB agreed with staff and issued summary disposition closing the concern.
- 5. What TRT Had Done:
TRT calculated the change in fourdation stiffness due to replacement of a limited amount of original rock with dental concrete. TRT also reviewed affidavits filed by NRC staff supporting the motion for summary disposition before the ASLB. TRT also reviewed grcuting and dental concrete procedures and interviewed the NRC inspector present during the excavation.
- 6. TRT's
Conclusions:
i TRT concludes that allegation is not valid. Dental concrete and ) grout did not affect either the static or dynamic properties of the foundation. No safety significance or generic implications.
- 7. Hearings:
- ASLB disposed of this concern (intervanor contention no. 7) by granting a summary disposition t,n March 5,1982.
- 8. Action Required:
No actions required of utility.
%mm
l l DCP7 cat 17 allegation
\,
Allegation Summary t l l [ 1. Category No.: 17 TRT Members: J. Devers/R. Philleo
- 2.
Subject:
Concrete Sampling
- 3. .Sumary of Allegation:
AQC-45: concrete atch plant sca e Personnel produced incorrect readings on weighing hoppers to the scales.y leaning on the wires connecting the
- 4. Region IV's Conclusigg:
AOC-45: The NRC Region IV Staff was aware of the allegation but did not investigata.
- 5. What TRT Had Dong:
AQC-45: The ThT entered the scale room when all hoppers were loaded and deflected each scalc hire as far as could be conveniently done by one person. Interview of tntch plant operator was also conducted.
- 6. .TRT's
Conclusion:
i The TRT intervieud relevant personnel, observed the layout of the scale l rooin, conducted c demonstration of the alleged tampering, reviewed test data on freshlytnis in evaluating placed concrete, and examined two NRC inspection reports allegation. that the allegation cannot be verified. Based on its finding, the TRT concludes
- 7. Action Required: None.
'p s, k) l
$'I l L .. . .
l}}