ML20140C312
| ML20140C312 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry, Sequoyah, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1985 |
| From: | Hough T, Thero O QUALITY TECHNOLOGY CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082340275 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8603250319 | |
| Download: ML20140C312 (34) | |
Text
.
QUALITY TECHNOLOGY COMPANY g]g {}
P.O. BOX 600 Sweetwater, TN 37874 (615)365-4414 ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT Page 1 of 29 l
CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-OOl Revised CONCERN:
- Sequoyah, Unit
- 2.
Pull tests were routinely by passed and/or incorrectly documented on hangers / anchors installed in the annulus area.
Mid 1977.
INVESTIGATION PERFORMED BY:
T.
Hough W.
Pickering M.
Shannon G.
Pohlmann DETAILS.
1 PERSONNEL CONTACTED:
(See Appendix A)
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED:
(See Appendix B)
SUMMARY
OF INVESTIGATION:
This concern could not be refuted.
- However, due to a lack of ob3ective evidence neither could the concern definitely be substantiated.
The investigation revealed:
1)
" Corrective Action",
taken as a result of failed anchor pull
- tests, was incomplete, 2)
Expansion anchor procurement documentation-is inadequate,
- 3) Expansion anchor qualification and warehousing is indeterminate, and 4) several hangers within the U-2 Annulus have anchora of questionable quality.
FINDINGS:
I.
Discussion of Investigative Plan A.
Initially, the investigation was to compare site (Unit-2, Annulus) hanger / anchor requirements to actual field conditions and verify documentation for the conditions observed.
Additionally, once determined that anchors were failing the required pull
- testa, the possibility of utilization of an inferior anchor was addressed by reviewing procurement documentation.
This approach required the following basic support items:
Access to Unit-2 Annulus for independent field verification.
8603230319 860321 PDR ADOCK 05000259 P
4 4
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT page 2 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-OO1 Revised g________________________________________________________________
Listing of all hangers w'ithin the Unit-2 Annulus.
Access to all CA/ Inspection records of the hangers within the Unit-2 Annulus.
Access to all expension anchor procurement documentation.
B.
Implementation of this plan proved to be extremely difficult.
The following listing briefly addresses the problems encountered during the investigation.
l.
Access to the Unit-2 Annulus for the purpose of field verification of anchor status was repeatedly denied by the plant manager.
The original request for access was submitted on 8/9/85, however access was not obtained until 9/2/85.
2.
A listing of all hangers within the Unit-2 Annulus was requested from many sources including:
)
a.
Document Control b.
Master Files c.
Site Civil Engineering d.
Site Hanger Engineering e.
Operations f.
Maintenance g.
Knoxville Records h.
SONp Compliance To date no listing has been received and, according to personnel contacted, would be impossible to generate.
3.
Without an accurate listing of the hangers within the Unit-2
- Annulus, it la impossible to obtain inspection records for the expansion anchora.
4.
Access to expansion anchor procurement documentation was difficult and time consuming.
At one point during the investigation, ERT Investigators were directed to file a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain copies of
, purchase contracts.
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT page 3 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-OO1 Revised
_g________________________________________________________________
~
5.
The system set up by TVA does not readily account for which purchase contracts were inaued to procure expansion anchors.
The Rolodex card file at SQNp identified 27 purchase contracts for expansion anchors.
It la indeterminate whether or not all purchase contracts are identified in the SQNp Rolodex card file.
C.
The above problems dictated that the investigation i
be directed toward existing hardware adequacy.
NCR-72D l
addressed understrength concrete in the Unit-2 shield wall and the disposition called for the replacement of concrete expansion anchors.
)
II.
Existing Hardware Adequacy /NCR-72D A.
Construction of the Unit-2 shield well began March 15, 1971 and was completed in 7 daya utilizing the used wooden slipforma from the construction of Unit-1 shield wall (it should be noted that the Unit 1 shield wall was completed in 9 days).
As a result of continual failure of anchor pull testa performed on anchora installed in the Unit-2 Annulua (interior of shield well),
Knoxville Engineering initiated NCR-72D on Dec.
16, 1977.
On Dec.
21, 1977 a
"Significant Condition Report" was initiated, subsequently determined to be
" Reportable" IAW 10CFR50.55(e) on Dec. 23, 1977, and NRC RII was notified on Dec.
23
- 1977, (original notification of
" potential Reportability" was on Dec.
16, 1977).
Subsequently, three interim reports.
one final report and one revised final report were generated.
The last being issued to Region II Office of Inapection and Enforcement on Jan. 31, 1979.
1.
The Corrective Action specified for NCR-72D was as
,i follows:
"To correct this deficiency, replacement of all self-drill anchora in Unit-2 with the equivalent capacity in 1/2,
S/8,
or 3/4-inch wedge anchora la to be implemented.
...The exception to the replacement la 1/4-and 3/8-inch self-drill anchors which support conduita through one-sided "C"
clanpa or lightweight boxes and supports which have an effective mass not more than 60 pounda for 3/8-inch anchora or 35 pounda for
, 1/4-inch anchors."
l l
l ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT Pago 4 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-OO1 Revised
______g___________________________________________________________
2.
The means taken to prevent recurrence is specified as follows:
"Self drilling anchors will not be used to support Category I equipment in future slip formed structures constructed during periods of ambient air temperature below 40 degrees F.
Reuse of formwork for slip formed concrete structures will not be permitted without complete renovation to original surface hardness and smoothness.
Both of these changes will be spelled out in any future contract specifications for structures using slip form methods."
B.
Several attempts to obtain a " closed" copy of NCR-72D were unsuccessful.
The " Final Report" presented to I
the NRC (dtd 7-21-78) indicated that the above corrective actions were "in progress".
No documentation relative to NCR-72D was found which verifies that the specified corrective actions have been completed.
Due to a lack of ob]ective evidence that the corrective actions specified in NCR-72D had been completed, a
brief walk-down of the Unit-2 Annulus was-conducted.
The walk-down resulta noted that the corrective actions specified had not been totally completed.
This walk-down revealed that not all 1/2-inch self-drilling anchora had been replaced.
The walk-down was not a 100%
comprehensive inspection effort, rather it was an abbreviated visual inspection of supports / anchors that were readily accessible from the permanent plant walkways.
j C.
A review of the anchor procurement / material program revealed the following itema:
1.
Purchase Contracta vs. Vendor Documentation:
A tc tal of eleven (11) aafety-related (QA) purchase contracts were issued for the procurement of self-drilling and wedge bolt expansion anchora.
Additjonelly, a total of eighteen (18) non-safety (Non-CA) purchase contracts were issued for the procurement of self-drilling and wedge bolt expanaton anchora.
\\
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT page 5 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-OO1 Revised Of the eleven safety purchase contracta nine ex1hibited documentation deficiencies which violated the intent of inspection instruction II-30 Revlalon O through Revision 7, paragrapha 7.0 B.2 item 2 and 7.0 B.3 item 11.
paragraph 7.0 B.2 item 2
states:
"Manufacturino Documentation Verify that records are received which document that the item received was fabricated,
- tested, inspected, and accepted in accordance with the contract requirements."
paragraph 7.0 B.3 item 11 states:
"Metallurcical Properties Ensure that the chemical and physical properties conform to the specified requirementa and that the chemical and physical test
- reporta, if
- required, meet the requirementa.
The documentation deficiencies are outlined below by purchase contract number.
a.
Contract 78K74-772842:
1)
Certificate of Compliance from Universal Fastening Corporation, dated 10-9-78, does not provide evidence that the' bolting material meets the proof load testa required by the purchase contract.
2)
No documented evidence that the material, as required by the purchase contract, was zinc plated in accordance with federal specification QQ2 - 325 and then chrome plated in accordance with the manufacturer's standard for protection against corrosion.
b.
Contract 80KK5-783634:
1)
Certificate of Compliance from ITT phillips Drill Division, dated 6/26/80, and the typical mill certificates from Corey Steel Company (Heat No.
547H5387 and 628K155) do not state the mechanical properties as required by the purchase contract.
1 6
~ - --
4 -
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT Page 6 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-OO1 Revised 2)
No documented evidence exista to indicate receipt of the three (3) samples to be submitted for qualification test by TVA as required by the purchase contract.
c.
Contract 83XK3-78874:
1)
Documentation supplied by Davia Service and Supply Co.,
Inc., dated 12-15-82, and U.S.E.
- Diamond, Inc., dated 12-14-82 do not state the mechanical properties as required by the purchase contract.
d.
Contract 83KK3-788830:
1)
Certificate of Compliance from ITT phillips Drill Division, dated 5-19-83, does not state the mechanical properties 3
as required by the purchase contract.
e.
Contract '83KK6-788813:
1)
Certificate of Compliance from ITT phillips Drill Division, dated 5-10-83, does not state the mechanical properties as required by the purchase contract.
f.
Contract 84KK5-710081:
1)
Certificate of Compliance from ITT Phillips Drill Division, dated 8-1-84, does not state the mechanical properties as required by the purchase contract.
g.
Contract 83KK3-788973_:
1)
Certificate of Compliance from ITT Phillips Drill Division, dated 11-3-83, does not state the mechanical properties as required by the purchase contract.
i i
i l
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT page 7 of 29 4
CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-OO1 Revised h.
Contract 84KK3-789039,:
1)
Certificate of Compliance from ITT Phillips Drill Division, dated 2-9-84, does not state the mechanical properties as required by the purchase contract.
I
- i 1.
Transfer Reauisition 788587 1
1)
No evidence of a
Certificate of Compliance or a copy of the contract received as required by the transfer requisition.
NOTE:
Reference letter from ITT Phillips Drill Division, dated 1-16-81, which certifies material for contract No.
Attached to the letter la Pittsburgh Testing Lab Report (Bulletin No.
A-1109) which includes test data on Phillips self-drilling red head concrete' i
anchora.
These records were not found on the Sequoyah microfila j
files but in the Construction warehouse files.
i 2.
QA vs. Non-QA:
1 Eighteen non-safety related (Non-QA) purchase contracts were laaued for the procurement of self-drilling and wedge bolt expansion anchors.
2 purchase contracts were inaued as early as 6-22-72 (3 months prior to inauance of General 1
Constructon Specification G-32).
1 The requisition for purchase contract 81XK5-788301 indicates that the material is to be "... permanent j
- material,
... Quality Amaurance."
QA requirements are listed in the requisition with which the vendor would comply.
On the lower portion of the form 4
a space la given for the requisitioner to indicate if QA requirements are required.
This space la marked as QA Requirementa agt being i
required.
It la indeterminate if the purchase
, order was laaued as safety-related or non-safety.
~.___ _ _.. _ _ _ _ -, _. _ _
l ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT page 8 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-OO1 Revised g________________________________________________________________
.3, Material Qualification Documentation:
A request was made to provide a copy of the actual qualification reporta laaued for
}
self-drilling and wedge bolt expansion anchora.
1 The information received was in the form of memoranduma and lettera.
As these are not actual certified quellfication reports, nor do they refer to qualification reporta, the qualification of self-drilling and wedge bolt expansion anchora la conaldered indeterminate.
D.
Considering the information given in Section IIS &
IIC of this report, it would indicate that the existing status & qualification of hardware is indeterminate.
III. Additional Walkdown Findinga 1
A.
Several other types of support / anchor problems were identified which include, but are not limited to, loose ~
wedge bolts, excessive plate-wall gap, excesalve anchor angularity, inadequate thread engagement, and excesalve concrete spalling.
B.
The supports (all types) were unable to be identified in the field.
The two TVA Maintenance Engineers that accompanied the ERT Investigators on the walkdown were also unable to identify the supports.
Any numbers present on the steel were covered by gloss black enamel paint and were unintelligible.
The existing hanger identification ayatem is inadequate / ineffective and violates Appendix B Criterion VIII.
~
I 1
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT page 9 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-OO1 Revised OBSERVATIONS:
From the purchase contracts reviewed, the first procurement of safety-related (QA) phillips Red Head expansion anchors was under purchase contract 80KK5-783634, dated 5-14-80.
l This rendera installation of Category I
structures (utilizing shell type expansion anchora) prior to May 14, 1980 indeterminate.
During the review, questions were raised about how materials were stored in the construction warehouse.
It was stated that like materials could be stored with like materials, which raises a
question about the separation of QA and Non-QA materials.
What would prevent these like materials from being placed in the same warehouse storage bin?
General Construction Specification G-32 R/10, paragraph 2.8.1.2 and SNp II No.
30 R/7 attach.
C states in part Contracts for expansion anchors which are awarded after the effective date of the R7 Revision of this construction specification shall require the manufacturer to submit certification with each shipment that the anchor dimensions,
- details, manufacturing tolerances, and materials have not changed since the qualification tests were performed."
Contrary to this requirement, the certificates of compliance received for the below listed purchase contracta do not contain this statement nor is there evidence of any additional certification statements received.
CONTRACT NUMBER PURCHASE CONTRACT DATE 83KK3-788744 12-6-82 83KK3-788830 5-18-83 83KK6-788813 5-6-83 84KK5-710081 7-19-84 83XK3-788973 10-25-83 Revialon 7 effective date la 8-25-82.
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT Page 10 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-OO1 Revised
- =--~~=----
- - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - = = - ~ = = -
= = ~ - -
The-- invest i gat ion performed by the SONp Compliance Staff appears to be inadequate, as the first point made in the report states, "All self-drilling anchors, 1/2-inch diameter or larger, were replaced with wedge-bolt anchors."
Walkdown by ERT and SONP staff has proven otherwise.
Item
- 6 of the Compliance Investigation Report makes a
comparison between Construction Specification G-32 and the requirements of IE Bulletin 79-02 that is unacceptable, in that IE Bulletin 79-02 requires assurance of anchor capabilities on a " System Basis" and the G-32
" lot" method does not provide a 95% confidence level that less than 5%
defective anchors are installed in any one seismic Category I
{
System.
j Item
- 9 of the Compliance Investigation cover letter refers to an April 3, 1981 inspection by NRC.
The 4/3/81 inspection
- report, 50-327/81-10, included in the report as back-up documentation, discusses health physics violations and has nothing to do with concrete expansion anchors.
Item
- 10 of Compliance Investigation Report states that, by' virtue of the wedge-bolt installation process (i.e.
torqueing),
Wedge-bolt anchors are 100 percent tested."
Verification of this could not be determined.
Until 2-14-77, Construction procedure C-8
" Expansion Anchor Installation, Testing and Documentation", did not require use of calibrated torque wrenches by craft personnel performing installation of wrsdge-bolt anchors, and after that time (C-8 was deleted on 2-14-77),
installation was performed in accordance with G-32, and to date, G-32 does not address the use of a calibrated torque wrench for installation.
- This, In conjunction with the fact that the G-32 " lot" system for sample testing does not test 100 percent of the
- anchors, renders the Compliance statement incorrect.
l Item
- 10 of the Compliance Investigation Report also addresses self-drilled anchors.
As stated above (5th item observation section) the G-32 " lot" method does not meet the requirements of IE Bulletin 79-02.
j No procedure for installation of wedge-bolts existed between 2-14-77 (SNP Const.
procedure C-8) and 7-21-77 (Gen.
Const.
Spec. G-32 R-5).
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT Page 11 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-001 Revised
- _ =
_ = _ = = -
It era
- 12 of the compliance investigation is irrelavent, as the sampling / test methods specified in Construction Specification G-32 do not utili=e the sample technique stated nor does the examples of pull tests (presented as evidence of I
testing) indicate that every base plate in all Category I
systems of the plant had at least one anchor tested.
Items 4, 5,
6, 8,
9& 13 of the Compliance Investigation refer to inspection / reports dealing with IE Bulletin 79-02 and claim acceptance (of CEA's) based on the inspections / reports.
However, no objective evidence has been found that would indicate that SONP has met the requirements of IE Bulletin 79-02.
Difficulties experienced with respect to hanger identification cast some doubt upon the SONp ability to identify items under their In-Service Inspection (ISI) program.
" action taken to. prev'ent recurrence" is in part a
" temperature dependent", action, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Stat ion's report states that the concrete problems were not thermally related.
TVA " action taken to prevent recurrance" does not address the cumulativa effects of the following items:
Construction time / rate of slip-formed structures I
Concrete proportioning / mix for slip-formed structures Physical properties of aggregate used in slip-formed structures Out of fi f t y-seven (57) items of correspondence referenced in the ERT report (relative to NCR-72D) only one (1) involves the Quality Assurance Department.
(Memo to file, 12-27-77, i
NCR-72D evaluated to be reportable, P. A.
Schrandt to files).
=
w.
_._.sp
l'
~
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT page 12 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-OOl Revised l
__===
DETAILS:
(cont) t CONCLUSIDN This concern could not be refuted but due to a lack of objective evidence the stated concern could not be definitely substantiated.
Actions taken to resolve problems identified as a
result of failing concrete expansion anchor pull tests were proven to be incomplete and/or inadequate.
This conclusion is based on the followings i
Reports of failing pull tests forwarded to the Knoxville, Office of Engineering, (resulting in the initiation of NCR-72D) indicates that pull tests utte being performed.
A list of all hangers in the Unit-2 Annulus (required to identify QA documents that would verify pull tests) could not be provided.
A closed copy of NCR-72D (written to resolve failing anchor pull tests) could not be provided.
A walkdown to verify NCR-72D corrective action' implementation revealed incomplete corrective action.
Stated
" action taken to prevent recurrence" (NCR 72D) is inadequate.
Other concrete anchor deficiencies noted during the walkdown were identified.
j 9
of 11 safety-related purchase contract documentation packages were found to have documentation deficiencies.
purchase contracts for.self-drilling and wedge-bolt expansion anchors were issued as early as 6-22-72 (3 months prior to issuance of Gen. Const. Spec. G-32) purchase contracts were noted that contain quality requirements but are marked non quality, rendering actual purchase and use indeterminate.
4-
-m
-"---*-'~Y
" ' - " ' ' " - ^ " ' * ' ' ' '- ' ~ " ~ ~ '
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT page 13 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-001 Revised APPENDIX A PERSONNEL CONTACTED Confidential s
t
~
- +
"C l
s 1.
N 3+
I w
?
~
r+
6
f 1
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT Page 14 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-001 Revised DETAILS:
(cod)~~~~~~~~
~ ~
~~
~~~~
~
APPENDIX B A.
NCR #72-D and related correspondence The following is a
chronological listing of letters memorandums addressing NCR 72D and a brief description of their contents.
The positions of personnel issuing / receiving these letters and memorandums are identified in an alphabetical listing titled " personnel / Positions".
1.
TVA Div of Engg Design NCR #72D dated 12-16-77 Evidence exists of understrength concrete at depths of 1" to 2" at certain localities in the interior surface of the Unit #2 (Sequoyah Nuclear Plant)
Shield Bldg.
2.
TVA Div Engg Design Significant Condition Report Processing Record Sheet dated 12-21-77 Reportable
- Some of the anchors in the wall may not be able to perform their design function.
3.
Memorandum R. M.
Pierce to G. G.
Stack dated 1-4-77 Clarification of earlier memo (not provided) regarding substitution of wedge-type anchors for self-drilling type anchors.
4.
Memorandum R. M.
Pierce to G. G.
Stack dated 12-23-77 Information provided by R. W
- Gannon, Civil Engineering
- Branch, with respect to potential understrength surface concrete on interior surface of Unit-2 (SNP) shield building as requested by the Quality Engineering Branch.
j 5.
Memorandum -
P.A'.
Schrandt to files dated 12-27-77 NCR-72D Evaluated to be reportable.
Incoector Rausch, Atlanta, GA.
notified 12-23-77.
1
.d
ixx s
1
~
s t
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT page 15 of 29 CONCERN-NO:
XX-85-023-OO1 Revised DETAILS: _ _ _
(cont) i 6.
Memorandum D. R.
patterson to P. L.
Duncan, dated 12-28-77 s
Disposition of reportability on NCR-72D.
7.
Memorandum - G.E.
Stack to R.M.. Pierce dated 1-10-78
Response
to pierce memo dated 12-23-77 (4
above) outlining / test program to' investigate potential understrength surface concrete.
i 8.
Memorandum - D.R.
Patterson to L.M; Mills dated 1-13-78 First in't er i m report (NCR 72D reportable condition).
TVA is engaged in developing a testing program to identify areas of uncerstrength concre t e.' '
9.
Let ter - J. E. Gilleland to J.P.
O'Reilly dated 1-16-78 First interim report (NCR 72D reportable condition).
TVA is engaged in developing a testing program to identify areas of understrength concrete.
p 10.
Memorandum - R.M.
Pierce to G.G. Stack dated 1-24-78 EN DES is in agreement with program as outlined in Stack memo dated 1-10-78 (7 above).
11.
Memorandum - R.G.
Domer.,to D.R. Patterson dated 2-6-78 s
- Civil, Engineering Branch input for the interim NRC-DIE _ report dealing with understrength concrete.
Licensing Tr ansmittal 12.
Record Form dated 2-10-78 Handwritten / typed interim report outlining description and cause of deficiency, safety implications, description o'f.
corrective
- actions, and means taken to prevent} a' recurrence.
s e
I%
o e
e ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT Page 16 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-001 Revised
--- =
=
DETAILS:
(cont) _
13.
NRC Letter #50-327/77-30, 50-328/77-21 dated 2-8-78 Inspection conducted by NRC from 11-14-77 to 12-9-77.
Included were allegations of air pockets and fro =en areas of concrete and
" soft" concrete that would not hold anchors.
14.
NRC Letter #50-327/78-2, 50-328/78-1 dated 2-8-78 Inspection conducted by NRC from 1-4-78 to 1-6-78.
Included is open item 328/78-01-14 shield building interior surface strength which had not been identified in a previous inspection report.
15.
Memorandum - D.R.
Patterson to L.M.
Mills dated 2-15-78 Second interim report (NCR 72D reportable condition).
Areas of concern (soft concrete) identified.
Test program developed to identify understrength expansion anchors.
16.
Memorandum - G.G.
Stack to H.H.
Mull dated 2-21-78 NRC Exit (2-17-85).
NRC feels core samples will be necessary to resolve understrength concrete problem.
17.
Letter - J.E.
Gilleland to J.p.
O' Reilly dated 2-21-78 Second interim report (NCR 72D reportable condition).
Areas of concern (soft concrete) identified.
Test program developed to identify understrength expansion anchors.
18.
Letter - J.E.
Gilleland to J.P.
O' Reilly dated 2-21-78 j
Response
to J. K.
Rausch memo dated 2-8-78 (13 above).
Review of subject report reveals no proprietary information.
19.
Memorandum - G.G.
Stack to R.M. Pierce dated 3-3-78 Test results obtained by Civil Inspection Unit as per 7
above.
Test conducted from 12-9-77 to 2-28-78.
~
t ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT Page 17 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-OO1 Revised DETAILS:. _ _. _ _ _
._==-------------------------
(cont) 20.
Letter - J.E.
Gilleland to J.P.
O' Reilly dated 3-3-78
~
Includes interim response to infraction items identified by 13 above.
21.
Licensing Transmittal Record Form dated 3-24-78 Report 3
(interim) detailing results of investigation to identify potential understrength concrete and proposed corrective action.
22.
Memorandum - R.G.
Domer to R. M.
Pierce dated 3-27-78 Recommendation that self-drilled anchors be replaced with deeper seating wedge anchors.
23.
NRC Letter 50-327/78-9, 50-328/78-6 dated 3-29-78 Includes 50.55(e) open item 328/78-01-14 shield building interior surface strength.
States TVA has submitted corrective action plan in interim report date 2-21-78 (17 above).
24.
Memorandum - D.R.
Patterson to L.M.
Mills dated 3-30-78 Interim report #3 (See 21 above) 25.
Memorand um - R. 'd.
Pierce to G.G.
Stack dated 3-30-78 Recommended procedure for implementing corrective actions (replacement of self-drilled anchors) identified in 22 above.
26.
Telephone message " memo" from " Spike" to CRM/ CAM dated 4-12-78 "D.
Ormsby informed me today by phone that RB does not intend to submit our recent interim report on NCR 72D to NRC-OIE."
27.
Letter - J.E.
Gi11 eland to J.P.
O' Reilly dated 4-17-78 Report
- 3 interim (NCR 72D
. reportable condition).
Results of program investigating
, potential understrength surface concrete.
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT page 18 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-OO1 Revised
_=- -
DETAILS:
(cont) 28.
Memorandum - R.M.
Pierce to G.G. Stack' dated 4-20-78 EN DES input into development of procedure for the removal and replacement of self-drilled anchors.
j 29.
Memorandum - R.M.
Pierce to G.G.
Stack dated 5-1-78 Basic criteria for accepting base plates which are not flush with mounting surface and setting depth of self-drilling anchors (NRC Report 327/77-30 328/77-21, infraction 77-30-01 & 77-21-01 Ref. 13 above) 30.
NRC Letter 50-327/78-12, 50328/78-8 dated 5-10-78 Inspection conducted by NRC from 4-18-78 to 4-21-78.
Included is open item 328/78-01-14
" Shield Building Interior Surface Strength" (Ref 14 above).
Item.still open.
31.
Letter J.E.
Gilleland to J.P.
O' Reilly dated 5-10-78 Rescheduled final report for NRC infractions 77-30-01 and 77-21-01 (Ref 13 above).
lo provide a basis for inspection / acceptance criteria further testing is required to obtain data on load capacity of self-drilled anchors.
32.
Memorandum - R.G.
Domer to R. M.
Pierce dated 5-12-78 Inclusion of 3/8" anchors in the exception to replacement.
33.
Memorandum - R. M.
Pierce to G.G.
Stack dated 5-31-78 Minimum installed depth in Unit 2 Shield Building for wedge anchors.
I 34.
Memorandum - R.M.
Pierce to G.G.
Stack dated 6-7-78 l
Suggested random inspection of typical surface a
plate installations for NRC infractions 77-30-01 l
and 77-21-01 (Ref 29 above).
,e
---v-+
ere---
--m w,
-+g--
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT Page 19 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-001 Revised
==-
__- =---
DETAILS:
(cont) 35.
Memorandum - G.G.
Stack to R.M.
Pierce dated 6-21-78 Results of inspections identified by 34 above.
36.
Memorandum
,R.G.
Domer to D.R.
Patterson dated 6-28-78 NCR 72D - Reportable Conditien Final Report 37.
Memorandum - D.R.
Patterson to L.M.
Mills dated 7-17-78 NCR 72D - Reportable Conditon - Report #3 (Final) 38.
Letter - J.E.
Gilleland to J.P.
O' Reilly dated 7-21-85 NCR 72D - Reportable Condition Final Report 39.
Memorandum - R. M.
Pierce to G.G.
Stack dated 8-19-78 Clarification of earlier memo (not provided).
Corrective action (NCR 72D) includes both exterior and interior walls of Unit 2 shield wall.
One-half' and three quarter diameter self-drilling anchors to be replaced.
Exceptions are 1/4" and 3/8" in one sided C-clamps.
40.
Memorandum - R. G.
Domer to D.R.
Patterson dated 8-21-78 Revised final report (NCR 72D reportable condition).
Delete the work " interior" from report as concrete was understrength on both exterior and interior walls.
41.
Memorandum - D.R.
Patterson to L.M.
Mills dated 8-31-78 See 40 above.
42.
Memorandum - R. D.
Guthrie to file dated 9-12-78 Telecon with NRC-OIE to dis =uss three NCR's.
Included was NRC-OIE request for a minimum of 6
core samples from inside surface of Unit 1
2 shield walls.
R. W.
Cannon is coordinating and directing the effort.
w-
~
~ - - - -
.e.--.
a
,u
,__,y
,.,.-r_
y
,y
, ~..
---w-.
-r.
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT Page 20 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-OO1 Revised DETAILS:
(cont) 43.
Memorandum - R. M.
Pierce to G.G. Stack' dated 9-13-78 Supplements R. M.
Pierce memo dated 8-14-78.
Reference 39 above.
44 Memorandum - R.M.
Pierce to Gene Farmer dated 9-14-78 Instructions for obtaining core samples of Unit 1 &
2 interior surface of shield wall.
Ref. 42 above.
45.
Memorandum - R.G.
Domer to D.R.
Patterson dated 9-15-78 Revised final report NCR 72D reportable condition.
Expand on the requirements of exceptions for 1/4" and 3/8" self-drilled anchors and include S/8" self-drilled anchors being replaced with wedge type anchors.
46.
Memorandum - G.G.
Stack to H.H.
Mull dated 9-27-78 Results of NRC exit meeting held in EN DES offices' in Knoxville to discuss 3 NCRs (including 72D).
NRC had reviewed hypothesis as to probable cause.
NRC stated they would like to examine the core samples taken from each unit.
47.
NRC Letter 50-327/78-29, 50-328/78-20 dated 10-2-78 Inspection conducted by NRC from 8-30-78 to 9-1-78.
Included is open item 328/78-01-14 (shield building interior strength).
In a phone conference (Ref 42 above) NRC requested 6 core samples be taken.
1 48.
Memorandum - Gene Farmer to R.M.
Pierce dated 10-11-78 CorinD (12 samples, G"
in diameter from units 1
2 shield wall) complete.
Samples logged and stored for future NRC inspection.
49.
Memorandum - R.G.
Domer to D.R.
Patterson dated 10-12-78 Summary of the basis of washer lift-off testing.
Additional information requested by NRC-OIE in conversation with TVA.
.m
_m
.,..,--.yee<-
,-~yy..
I
~,
i f
i i
f i
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT Page 21 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-OO1 Revised
- =~~---
=-
~~~-----------
DETAILS:
(cont) g 50.
Memorandum - R.M.
Pierce to G.G.
Stack dated 10-12-78
]
Identifies 3
support drawings exempted from replacing 1/4" and 3/8" self-drilled anchors as
]
outlined in 45 above.
51.
Memorandum - R.M.
pierce to Gene Farmer dated 10-20-78 4
Identifies information to be obtained from testing of 12 core samples (Ref 44 above).
l 52.
Memorandum - Gene Farmer to R.M.
Pierce dated 11-3-78 Tests complete with the exception of stereomicroscopic exams which are to be performed by the Corps of Engineers' Waterways Experiment Station.
]
53.
NRC Letter 50-327/78-34, 50-328/78-25 dated 11-7-78 1
j Inspection conducted by NRC on 10-13-85.
Included is open item 328/78-01-14.
Inspectors examined 6
cores which showed 1"
- 2 1/2" discolored zone.
Item will remain open pending RII:IE review of testing and revised final report.
54.
Memorandum - R.G.
Domer to D.R. Patterson dated 12-13-85 j
Cover letter addressing reports on core samples requesting attachment package be forwarded to NRC-OIE.
(See a-c below) i a.
Memorandum - R.G.
Domer to R.M.
Pierce dated l
12-5-78 Review of test performed by Singleton Materials Engineering Laboratory and the i
Corps of Army Engineers' Waterways Experitment Station.
b.
Memorandum Gene Farmer to R. M.
Pierce dated 11-3-78 Copy of 52 above for reference.
j
+
r-ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT page 22 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-OO1 Revised
- - - - _ _ _. ---- _ - =-- _
DETAILS:
(cont)
F. R.
Brown to R. O.
Lane dated c.
Letter 11-20-78 Army Corps of Engineers Report "The maximum depth o*f disturbed concrete in Unit 2 is less than 2 in.,
as Judged from the two cores examined.
The conditions leading to the presence of roughened weak surface concrete do not appear to be related to the concrete materials, to exposure to freezing and thawing in a
critically saturated condition, or to alkali-carbonate reaction.
Apparently the re-use of roughened wooden slip forms, a faster construction rate in Unit 2,
failure to proportion the mixture to make it more suitable for the harshner aggregate i re Unit 2,
and
- probably, somewhat delayed hydration of the patches applied after passage of the forms, and the rough-surfaced concrete produced by the
- slipform, combined to introduce conditions that caused near-surface disturbance on a larger scale in Unit 2
than in Unit
- 1. "
55.
Memorandum - D.R.
patterson to L.M.
Mills dated 1-11-79 Cover letter addressing reports of sample core testing.
See 54a-c above.
1 56.
Letter - J.E.
Gilleland to J.p.
O' Reilly dated 1-31-79 l
Cover letter addressing reports of sample core testing.
See 54a-c above.
57.
Sequoyah response to employee concern XX-85-023-001 dated 8-5-85.
See " Observations" - ERT Report 6
m
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT Page 23 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-OO1 Revised 3----
Personnel / Positions 1.
F. R.
Brown -
Technical Director, Engineer, Department of Army Waterways Experiment
- Station, Corps of Engineers 2.
R. G.
Domer -
Chief, Civil Engineering Branch 3.
P. L.
Duncan -
(Title / Position not given on i
correspondence) 4.
Gene Farmer -
Chief, Construction Services Branch 3
5.
J. E.
Gi11 eland Assistant Manager of Power 6.
R. D.
Guthrie Senior Civil Engineer, Licensing
- Staff, Civil Engineering Branch.
7.
R. O.
Lane Head, Singleton Materials Laboratory, TVA 8.
L. M.
Mills Chief, Regulatory Branch 9.
H. H.
Mull Director of Construction 10.
J. P.
O' Reilly
- Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II 11.
D. R.
Patterson Chief, Mechanical Engineering Branch 12.
R. M.
Pierce Sequoyah and Watts Bar Design Projects Manager 13.
P. A.
Schrandt Quality Assurance Engineer 14.
G. G.
Stack Project Manager, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant W.4-
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT Page 24 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-OO1 Revised
_==- ---- __________________________
B.
PROCEDURES 1.
Civil Design Standard DS-C6.1 Original Issue 9-8-75 2.
Civil Design Standard DS-C1.7.1 R/3 (11-16-84) 3.
SNP Construction Procedure No. P-8 R/10 (8-24-76)
R/11 (2-22-77)
R/12 (6-13-77)
R/12 Addendum 1 (8-2-77)
R/13 (11-11-77)
R/13 Addendum 1 (1-10-78)
R/13 Addendum-2 (9-26-78)
R/13 Addendum 3 (10-2-78) 4 SNP Construction Procedure No. A-12 Original issue (12-12-72)
R/1 (10-31-73)
R/2 (7-16-74)
R/3 (5-16-75)
R/4 (8-1-75)
R/5 (3-23-76)
R/6 (5-4-77)
R/7 (2-6-78)
R/8 (10-4-78)
R/9 (9-13-79)
R/10 (10-29-80)
R/11 (1-25-82)
R/12 (6-1-83)
R/13 (11-19-84) 5.
SNP Construction Procedure #C-8 R/4 (11-17-76)
R/5 (11-8-79) i 6.
Inspection Instruction No. 30 R/O (5-4-77)
R/1 (5-13-77)
R/2 (2-3-78)
R/3 (4-5-78)
R/4 (10-4-78)
R/5 (10-25-79)
R/G (7-23-80)
R/7 (9-20-82) 7.
Inspection Instruction No. 35 R/O (3-15-77)
R/1 (5-4-77)
R/2 (9-14-77)
R/3 (5-26-78)
-m ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT page 25 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-001 Revised g______________;--
__________________
8.
Inspection Instruction No. 32 R/O (5-4-77)
R/1 (3-30-78)
R/2 (5-24-78)
R/3 (8-31-78)
R/4 (10-4-78)
R/5 (10-18-78)
R/6 (3-30-79)
R/7 (7-6-79)
R/8 (9-13-79)
R/9 (10-29-80)
R/10 (4-21-82) 9.
SNA Inspection Instruction No. 93 R/0 (2-22-77)
R/1 (3-22-77)
R/16 (8-1-84)
- 10. Administrative Instruction AI-11 R/33 (8-6-85)
- 11. General Construction Spec. G-32 Original Issue (9/72)
R/4 (4-21-76)
R/5 (7-21-77)
R/6 (2-17-81)
R/10 (4-1-85)
Including SRN-G-32-5 (7-2-84)
SRN-G-32-7 (3-13-85)
SRN-G-32-8 (5-9-85)
SRN-G-32-9 (6-19-85)
SRN-G-32-10 (7-15-85)
SRN-G-32-12 (8-29-85)
C.
MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS 1.
Federal Specification FF-S-325 (9-10-57) 2.
Federal Specification FF-S-325 Interim Admendment 3
(7-16-65) m.
~
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT Page 26 of 29 4
CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-OO1 Revised i
DETAILSs (cont) i D.
QUALIF-ICATION REPO,RTS AND MEMOS 1.
Letter from T.L.
Garmon to Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Civil Files dated 6-2-76.
s 2.
Letter from Gene Farmer to Charles Chandler dated 7-6-76.
3.
Report from R.O.
Lane to Charles Chandler dated 11-18-76.
i 1
{
4 Memorandum from R.G.
Domer to R.M.
Pierce dated 7-25-78.
5.
Report from R.D.
Lane to Charles Chandler dated 10-4-79.
j 6.
Report from Rex D.
Rowell dated 12-80.
7.
Memorandum John A.
Raulston to R.O.
Barnett dated 11-6-84.
8.
Memorandum J.C.
Killian to G.H.
Provost dated 11-15-76.
4 9.
Memorandom R.M.
Pierce to J.C.
Killian and G.G.
Stack dated 8-4-76.
f i
E.
PURCHASE CONTRACTS, VENDOR DOCUMENTATION, AND ASSOCIATED RECORDS:
i REQ #
MICROFILM FRAME #
ROLL #
1.
767548(OA) 12238 0770-0779 2.
772842(OA) 12246 1982-2045 22589 570 3.
783634(DA) 1512 984-985 1587 276 1607 576 1591 1514-1516 1591 751-752
{
1613 2140 1574 651 1505 1781 I
1489 181-186 1435 992-993
~
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT Page 27 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-OO1 Revised 7-3 --- - ----- - __ _ =------------------ -- __--------------
4.
789062(QA) 4291 871'-872 4306 952-954 4343 1597 4357 1897-1900 4352 411-413 4352 533 5.
788830 (O A) 3592 1932 3620 695 3620 1820-1821 3665 1970 3685 1875 6.
788813(CA) 3558 1773-1774 3576 1958-1960 3620 623 3585 1912 7.
710081(QA) 4703 1144-1145 4717 2092-2094 4775 1632-1634 4750 1385 4736 757 8.
788973(OA) 4012 857-858 4026 978 4067 168-169 9.
789039(QA) 4214 155-156 4360 1664 4316 763 4291 947 4291 943 4257 809-811 4313 2321-2326 10.
75267(NON-QA) 12065 1889 11.
767591 (NON-DA) 12238 1193 12.
772960(NON-GA) 12247 1777 13.
783498(NON-0A) 12263 1008 14.
783581 (NQN-OA) 12263 1733
a ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT Page 28 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-001 Revised
=_ __==----------------------------------
15.
783626(NON-GA) 12264 210 16.
788301(NON-QA) 12265 535 17.
771812(NON-QA) 12241 1165 18.
771910(NON-GA) 12242 507 19.
772068(NON-GA) 12242 1927 20.
772248(NON-QA) 12243 1905-1909 21.
772632(NON-GA) 12245 1827-1853 22.
772383(NON-GA) 12244 1267 23.
772880(NON-GA) 12247 0424-0545 24.
767743(NON-QA) 12239 603-608 25.
767783(NON-GA) 12239 945-991 26.
767815(NON-QA) 12239 1240-1252 27.
767554(NON-CA) 12238 809-812 F.
PURCHASE CONTRACTS, VENDOR DOCUMENTATION AND ASSOCIATED RECORDS (NOT FOUND ON TVA MICROFILM):
1.
- a. Purchase contract 83KK3-788744 (QA) b.
Purchase requisition 788744 c.
Receiving Report Number SNP 83-0320 d.
Letter from U.S.
E.
- Diamond, Inc.
to Davis Service Supply Co. dated 12-14-82 e.
Receiving Report Number SNP83-0309
- f. Certificate of Compliance from Davis Service & Supply Co.,
Inc. to TVA Ssequoyah Nuclear Plant dated 12-15-82.
k
p i
ERT INVESTIGATION REPORT Page 29 of 29 CONCERN NO:
XX-85-023-OO1 Revised 2.
a.
Transfer requisition 788587 (QA) b.
Memorandum from L.S.
Cash /J.
Blackburn to C.R.
Quinley dated 12-10-81.
c.
Shipping Ticket No. G192697 d.
Letter from ITT Phillips Drill Division to TVA Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant dated 1-16-81.
e.
ITT Phillips Red Head Test Report - Bulletin No. A-1109.
Prepared By ___
g,
_ _ _ _y_-It-f 5_
Date
.&/Date>>/f'J Reviewed By - l, l
x2,n~
.s..
Y
/'
6 s_
Ahd>
4 i
e
~
cgp.d "q b
REQUEST FOR REPORTABILITY EVALUATION 3 g a
5 1.
Request No. vv_m_n'>'t_nm wuTet n (ID No., if reported) lERT Concem No.)
CONCIElt EXPANSION ANCHORS 2.
Identification of Itcm Involved:
j (Nomenclature, system, manuf., SN, Model, etc.)
Description of Problem (Attach related documents, photos, sketches, etc.)
3.
1 ACTIONS TAKEN 'IU RESOLVE PRCBIEMS IDENnFu u AS A RESULT OF mNmh EVPANSION ANGOR Pt31 TESTS WERE INCOMPLETE AND/OR INA (cFF nki ATTS ONTATMFD UrmTM tM TNVFSPTGATTm REPORT XX-85 07'4 RFtTTCFm 4.
Reason for Reportability:
(Use supplemental sheets if necessary)
This design or construction deficiency, were it to have remained A.
uncorrected, could have af fected adversely the safety of operations of the nuclear power plant at any time throughout the expected lifetime of the plant.
INCOMPIfrE/UMDEOUAIE ACTION TAKEN NO YES X if Yes, Explain:
ON AN nel THAT WAS EVALUATED 'IO BE REPORTABLE TNITIALLY. (SEE NCR-72D)
AND_
This deficiency represents a significant breakdown in any portion of B.
the quality assurance program conducted in accordance with the requirements I
1 of Appendix B.
No Yes X
If Yes, Explain:
'IEE FnUf7 JING CRITERIA HAVE BEEN 5
- VIDIATED, V, VII, VIII. X. XVI (SEE ATTACHED SHEET) 9.R l
C. This deficiency represents a significant_ deficiency in final design as approved and released for construction such that the design does not l
confom to the criteria bases stated in the safety analysis report or l
construction permit.
No 1 Yes If Yes, Explain:
b i
OR ERT Form M
.m
I Page of REQUEST FOR REPORTABILITY EVALUATION D.
This deficiency represents a significant deficiency in construction of or significant damage to a structure, system or component which will require extensive evaluation, extensive redesign, or extensive repair to meet the criteria and bases stated in the safety analysis report or construction pemit or to otherwise establish the adequacy of the structure, system, or component to perform its intended safety function.
No X Yes If Yes, Explain:
9.R, E.
This deficiency represents a significant deviation from perfomance specifications which will require extensive evaluation, extensive redesign, or extensive repair to establish the adequacy of the structure, system, or component to perfom its intended safety function.
No X Yes If Yes, Explain; IF ITEM 4A, AND 4B OR 4C OR 4D OR 4E ARE MARKED "YES", IMMEDIATELY HAND-CARRY THIS REQUEST AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION TO NSRS.
This Condition was Identified by:
3 4 9 // 9 f ([
ERI Group Manager Phone Ext.
l Af SbSWY ERT Project Manage @
Phone Ext.
Acknowl/dtp of receipt by NSRS
'h Date Time O C&
Sirjd"
~
l l
ERT Fom H
i
- n o
.--e
, q' !,.3
\\
XX-85-023-001 REVISED
,f.
i
\\
ERT FORM "M" 0027FINUATION CRITERIGT DETAILS V - INSTRUCTIONS, PROCEDURES NO PRO DURE EUR INSTALL \\ TION OF AND DRAWE;GS.
WEDGE BOLTS EXISTED BEIWEEN 2-14-77 and 7-21-77.
VII - C0tTIROL OF PURGASED DOCDETTATION REGIVED WITH MATERIAL, EQUIIEENT AND PURWASES OF EXPANSION ANGORS SERVICES.
DID NOT CONFORM 10 TIE PROCURDETr DOCD ETTS.
l l
VIII - IDEtTTIFICATION &
DE EXISTEiG HANGER IDETTIFICATION CONTROL OF PATERIAL, SYSIDI DOES NOT ALIIM "...IDENTI-l PARTS, AND CG TONENTS.
FICATION OF TIE ITDL...IHROUGIOUT l
....USE OF TIE IID1."
X - INSPECTION INSPECTION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION ASSOCIATED WITH NCR-72D FAILED 10 IDETTIFY INCQflEIE/HICEQUATE INSPECTION ATIRIBUIES.
XVI - GEECTIVE ACTION ACTIONS TAKEN TO RESOLVE PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED AS A RESULT OF FAILH;G CONCREIE EXPANSION ANGOR PUIL l
TESTS WERE H;CQfIIIE AND/OR l
INADEQUATE. (BOIH CORRECTIVE l
ACTION AND ACTION TAKEN 10 PREVETr
)
RECURRENG.)
l l
[
t
.J tva es cos+6u coe wp+en L'NITED STATES GOVERNMENT Memorandum TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY TO: H. L. Abercrombie, Site Director, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant FROM: K. W. Whitt, Director of Nuclear Safety Review Staff, E3A8 C-K DATE:
MAR 101986
SUBJECT:
NUCLEAR SAFETY REVIEW STAFF INVESTIGATION REPORT TRANSMITTAL Transmitted herein is Report No.
XX-85-023-001 Subject ANCHOR PULL TESTING Concern No.
XX-85-023-001 and associated prioritized recommendations for your action / disposition.
This report contains one Priority 1 (P1) recommendation which must be addressed before startup. Should you have any questions, please contact W. D. Stevens at telephone 6231-K Recommend Reportability Determination: Yes X
No M ector,*armswDesis; nee d
%r.ma stu,r we wercer vree WDS GDM Attachment i., 4, ; gg cc (Attachment):
W. C. Bibb, BFN W. Tu spitiq,_WBN N.
g g James P. Darling, BLN J
] 3 g e
R. P. Denise, LP6N40A-C
.a w C. D. Kirk, SQN E'/7 D. R. Nichols, E10A14 C-K y! '"
QTC/ERT, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
'?--
Eric Sliger, LP6N48A-C 51.
U (3 %
3 J. H. Sullivan, SQN y
y +,
70589U n.... I ' e e..:... n
,s. o n,..ra..r..
o I.
p,,..,nII c,,,.;,,,,, pl,,,,
_. _ ~
i
.i 1
i i
~
l
}
j i
NSRS Recommendation l
Q-85-023-001-01: " Anchor Pull Testing" i
l Address the nine items listed in the conclusion section of report j
i IX-85-023-001 in the form of NCR's or provide the justifying documentation
}
to resolve the identified concerns.
(P1) 1 i
i Principally prepared by P. R. Washer.
I i
9 i
i i
i i
i d
i 0588U j
l l
f i
b